Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Per Car

[phideaux]

Media Fail: Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Per Car

By Seton Motley | July 17, 2012 | 09:54



The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50 billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling for President Barack Obama - allowing him to frame the bailout exactly as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election.

The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion loss, uber-failed “success.” And the Press is acting as his stenographers. An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt. The Press is at every turn covering up - rather than covering - the serial failures of President Obama’s signature vehicle.

The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for attention.

The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains unsolved. Is it the battery? Is it the charging station? Is it the charging cable? All of the above?

GM and the Administration don’t know. And the Press ain’t breaking their necks trying to find out.
In more recent news, the Press has almost as one hailed the June Volt sales increase.

GM's Volt Sales Up in June
Surprising June Sales for Volt
Chevy Volt Leads US Plug-In Car Sales
Chevy Volt Sales Increases
Volt Records Second-Best Sales Month

The Press has for the most part failed to mention how pathetic this “second-best sales month” actually is. And even when one Dinosaur does, the unwarranted enthusiasm is palpable.

GM sells 1760 Volts in June, double from 2011

Wow. Huge number.

The Press also fails to put this pathetic tally in perspective.

The Chevy Cruze is basically a Volt without the dead-weight, flammable 400-lb. electric battery. Which makes it $17,000, rather than the Volt’s $41,000.

Chevy in June sold 18,983 Cruzes - more than ten times the number of Volts. And that’s down 1/3 from last June’s 24,648.

But that feeble Volt tally has the Press all revved up.

And speaking of the Volt’s ridiculous $41,000 sticker price:

According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000. Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car has to be recouped.

Get that? GM makes “little or no profit” on the Volt.

So it makes perfect sense that GM would spend millions of dollars advertising it, does it not? No ideological or campaign intent there, eh President Obama?

Look, I get it, it’s fun. I just spent $1 million - of your money - advertising free air. On which my profit margin is just as good as GM’s is on the Volt.

Only my ads didn’t have a song, or a dance. We just aren’t as cool as the Volt.

I mean, it’s so cool - it can travel back in time to inspire the production of cars before it even existed.
I mean, it’s so cool - it can travel back in time to offer the exact same technology as a car from 1991. And the exact same electric battery range as a car from 1897.

We’re talking retro-grade cool.

But wait - there’s so much more.

(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives” - as of November of last year that tally all by itself was $250,000 per Volt sold.

And that excruciating pain is ongoing. Again, a Volt sold makes GM no money - but costs We the Taxpayers a $7,500 bribe - I mean “incentive.” Oh - and President Obama wants to jack that bribe to $10,000 per.

I guess it’s good news after all that Volt sales remain so anemic.

And with GM’s new 60-day return policy, it looks like you can buy a Volt and cash the $7,500 bribe check. Then return the Volt - and keep the $7,500 bribe cash. How’s that for Taxpayer coin stewardship?

Keep all of this outrageousness in mind when next the Jurassic Press joins with the Obama Administration in celebrating the Chevy Volt.

But it (allegedly) helps President Obama get reelected. And nothing would make the Press happier - and for that there’s (almost?) nothing they won’t do.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...#ixzz20yZFGtej

[Irons]

And with GM’s new 60-day return policy, it looks like you can buy a Volt and cash the $7,500 bribe check. Then return the Volt - and keep the $7,500 bribe cash. How’s that for Taxpayer coin stewardship?

Buy a volt, return it and keep the $7500 bribe? I'll look into that.

My wife and I may both need one for a couple weeks right away! I may need 2 myself.

[Mr Paradise]

Big Auto is in a partnership with Big Oil years ago to make sure an electric form of transportation never becomes mainstream.

[phideaux]

Big Auto is in a partnership with Big Oil years ago to make sure an electric form of transportation never becomes mainstream.

True, but that has nothing to do with the fraud and failure of the Chevy Volt.

[curmudgeonista]

Keep all of this outrageousness in mind when next the Jurassic Press joins with the Obama Administration in celebrating the Chevy Volt.

But it (allegedly) helps President Obama get reelected. And nothing would make the Press happier - and for that there’s (almost?) nothing they won’t do.

This part doesn't seem to jibe with the assertion made by many here that Obama and Romney are both controlled by the same puppet-masters. That is, if one believes the MSM to be complicit in carrying out their agenda.

I find it undeniably obvious that the MSM is overwhelmingly biased toward the liberal agenda and actively assisting Obama's bid for re-election. Therefore, if they are squarely behind Obama, and consistently against Romney, it would seem they do not agree that Romney is just more of the same. The more so if one believes they are directed by said PTB.

I really think we need to get Obama out of there, no matter the cost. Far too much of what he does appears to be feeling out the possibility of pulling a Hugo Chavez on the US, setting up the chessboard, and waiting for the opportune moment to do so.

If you want to halt the USA's slide into full-blown socialism, now is the time to act while we still have some semblance of a republic/democracy. As my current sig says, voting your conscience is not the same as voting conscientiously.

[NotTheOne]

And.....

How much profit does Toyota makes on a Prius?

Excerpted from Washington Post, “The Car of the Future — but at What Cost?”, Steven Mufson, November 25, 2008

* * * * *

Hybrid Vehicles Are Popular, but Making Them Profitable Is a Challenge

Sen. Charles E. Schumer said last week. “We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car.

“But the car company Schumer and other lawmakers envision for the future could turn out to be a money-losing operation, not part of a “sustainable U.S. auto industry.

“That’s because car manufacturers still haven’t figured out how to produce hybrid and plug-in vehicles cheaply enough to make money on them.

After a decade of relative success with its hybrid Prius, Toyota has sold about a million of the cars and is still widely believed by analysts to be losing money on each one sold.

U.S. lawmakers want the companies to produce automobiles of the future, using advanced technologies and featuring hybrid or plug-in vehicles.But there’s no guarantee that the new business model would be any more viable than the current one.

Automobile experts estimate that the battery in a plug-in vehicle could add at least $8,000 to the cost of a car, maybe considerably more.

Most Americans will be unwilling to pay the extra price, especially if gasoline prices languish around $2 a gallon.

One of the mysteries about GM’s plans to introduce the Volt in 2010 is how much it will cost to buy one.

“What’s the Volt going to cost? I would be happy to answer that if you can tell me the price of oil in 2010,” said Robert A. Kruse, GM’s executive director of global vehicle engineering for hybrids, electric vehicles and batteries.

“I can tell you to the penny what it will cost GM, but pricing is much more related to market conditions.”

“In 10 years are they [at GM] going to solve the technological problems with respect to the Volt? Sure,”

“But are they going to be able to stake their survival on it? I’d say they can’t. They have to stake their future on Malibus, the Chevy Cruze, and much more conventional technologies.”

“Do you bet on lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient but ultimately less profitable cars or do you hold back a little on technology development and look at new versions of existing cars.”

Many experts say that gas guzzlers will not fade away as long as Congress fails to impose higher taxes on gasoline to steer people toward fuel-efficient cars.

“I can easily imagine three years from now when public is focused on a new set of priorities . . . that this whole hybrid thing would go poof.”

Obama proposed a $7,500-a-vehicle tax credit for plug-in vehicles during his presidential campaign.

Roughly half of Americans don’t earn enough to take advantage of such a big tax credit.

Many others don’t have the cash to purchase an expensive vehicle then wait for a federal refund.

So, GM and other car companies, while preparing plug-in vehicles, are more likely to live or die based on the sales of conventional cars that get better fuel efficiency through improved transmissions, reduced weight or hybrid technology.

GM says it will offer nine hybrids for sale by the middle of next year.

Reinert says that Toyota will eventually offer hybrid versions of all its car models.Auto industry experts say that the basic problem is that the U.S. industry geared up to make 18 million cars and light trucks a year and that it will be lucky to sell 11 million this year.

“There’s fluff and there’s reality,” Keller said.

”The fluff is the Chevy Volt . . . That’s not going to save GM in the next five years. What will save GM is more small sedans and more crossovers. That’s what people are going to be buying.

http://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2008/11...es-on-a-prius/

[phideaux]

Hybrid Vehicles Are Popular, but Making Them Profitable Is a Challenge

Umm, that is what the "free market" is supposed to be all about.

Never mind, silly me.

[Oldmansmith]

Umm, that is what the "free market" is supposed to be all about.

Never mind, silly me.

But as has been posted here the biggest energy subsidies go to the gas and oil companies.

I'm no Volt fan, but it is disingenuous to slag the Volt as being uncompetetive when they are competing against cars that run on heavily subsidized fuel.

[Fanakapan]

Big Auto is in a partnership with Big Oil years ago to make sure an electric form of transportation never becomes mainstream.

Had an Efficient, and Cost Effective way of Storing Electricity been discovered, your assertion would carry more weight

The whole 'Electric Car' thing is nothing more than a Public Relations exercise for the car makers, and whilst the Profitable Japanese Industry makes the damn things at a loss to itself, for GM to make them at a time when it Cannot Survive without Public Support is unforgivable?

From memory, the percentage of total oil production that is used by motor transportation runs at something like 20% of the whole ? so in focusing innovation towards lowering fossil fuel usage, it would make sense to concentrate on the BIG consumption items such as national power grids. At such time as a Viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation can be found, motor transport and its usage will become barely significant

[Ragnarok]

I'd rather drive a Tesla anyway.

R.

[GOLDZILLA]

This inspires me ! I'm gonna build a machine that plants poison ivy 10 times faster than it plants itself ! maybe I'll get a big fat check from the gov !

[curmudgeonista]

Had an Efficient, and Cost Effective way of Storing Electricity been discovered, your assertion would carry more weight

The whole 'Electric Car' thing is nothing more than a Public Relations exercise for the car makers, and whilst the Profitable Japanese Industry makes the damn things at a loss to itself, for GM to make them at a time when it Cannot Survive without Public Support is unforgivable?

From memory, the percentage of total oil production that is used by motor transportation runs at something like 20% of the whole ? so in focusing innovation towards lowering fossil fuel usage, it would make sense to concentrate on the BIG consumption items such as national power grids. At such time as a Viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation can be found, motor transport and its usage will become barely significant

You make some very interesting points.

A quick & dirty Google search indicates that 60% of the world's electricity is produced burning fossil fuels, of which 10% is from oil, or 6% of the total. Nevertheless, the coal & gas that account for the other 54% are likewise non-renewable resources and tend to emit pollutants when converted to electricity. If you're correct about the percentage of oil production going towards this (and I'm not doubting you), then yes, we're putting the cart before the horse.

Additionally, most of the rabidly pro-EV articles (including .gov) like to quote EV's energy efficiency at 80% and internal combustion engines at 20%. They fail, however, to take into consideration inefficiencies in the production of the electricity EV's use when powered from the grid (which is most). This is a pretty good indication in itself that they don't want you to look behind the curtain... and supports your assertion that it's a big PR play at this point.

The term I ran into from the more pragmatic view is "the long tail pipe", primarily meaning EV's are polluting by extension, but obviously also implying that they're still powered with fossil fuels, however indirectly.

I am not against EV's, but I agree that the first focus should be on power generation rather than selling the public on the idea that EV's will cure all our ills.

[phideaux]

But as has been posted here the biggest energy subsidies go to the gas and oil companies.

I'm no Volt fan, but it is disingenuous to slag the Volt as being uncompetetive when they are competing against cars that run on heavily subsidized fuel.

The Volt gets a direct $7,500 tax credit subsidy courtesy of you and me and every other taxpayer. That goes a long way toward equalizing the subsidies to the oil & gas industry.

I worked in oil & gas accounting for 7 years albeit 25 years ago, so I know a bit about it.

The subsidies are overblown. They are very small relative to the overall size of the entire oil & gas industry.

And the oil & gas companies pay taxes up the Royal Wazoo, It's not just taxes, its royalties, permitting fees, drilling taxes, transportation fees, pipeline tolls, all kinds of environmental fees and costs, and on and on.

Exxon and the rest of them make about 10x the profit per dollar on a 44oz fountain soft drink than they do on a gallon of gasoline, so whatever the federal subsidies are, they don't do anything to the bottom line profit and loss.

But I certainly agree, all subsidies should be repealed ASAP.