Actually, the Volt exists because Bob Lutz wanted to retire with a bang.

Lutz wanted to create something that would revolutionize the automobile. Also (and this was very well know to the press and Lutz watchers) there was fewer ways to get him so...shall we say... "animated"... as to bring up how Toyota had a "green" reputation because they made the Prius. He felt that Toyota was getting a free pass and that he wanted to create something that would simply smack down the Prius' unfair (he felt) reputation it gave Toyota.

Luts's "moonshot" (that's what he equated the project with) was the source of friction between him, Rick Wagoner, and some in GM that felt the whole thing was a waste of money.

The Volt is a very easy vehicle to form (wrong and simply ridiculous) opinions about.

The Feds didn't make GM produce the Volt. In fact, the the Feds correctly labeled it a money loser and would have been happy if GM dumped the project.

Fallout from the "Who Killed The Electric Car" so called "nut jobs" didn't force GM to produce the Volt. In fact, the internal resistance to it was arguably higher than anything else GM has created in memory (keep in mind...GM was flat broke!).

If you need to blame anyone or any group for GM producing the Volt, it's the same person who was key conspirator in bringing back the Camaro, the same person who guided 556 horsepower Cadillacs to public streets, and the same person who is the reason that GM's car interiors are no longer cheap and/or crappy. Mr Bob Lutz.

Say what you want about Volt's business case (I also have a long history of criticizing the logic of it or lack thereof). The real logic of it as explained to me by a certain person made perfect sense:

Instead of thinking of it as losing money per car, look at it as both advertizing cost and a platform for future development.

1. Volt has been extraordinary in getting GM positive attention... far more than twice the cost of any marketing campaign could ever do.

2. The Volt certainly blazes a new trail that not only puts Prius to shame, but also as technology catches up, the car will become more affordable... and GM was the 1st to go this route.

Finally, you'll have to admit..... The Volt actually was the biggest legacy he left GM.

 

In an earlier post I mentioned both GM and Toyota RAV-EV1 rightfully abandoned the electric car based on circumstances at that time.


Whats ridiculous is your ANNOYING habit of trying to counter things people did not say by interjecting your self righteously "correct" political opinions completely unrelated to what you are responding to. What was actually said be damned. Please show me where in this thread the Fed was even mentioned in this thread other than YOUR previous post in this thread. If you are going to call someone's opinion ridiculous have the common courtesy to read the opinion you are referring to...

I look forward to your unrelated response...

Advertizing toward who? The nut jobs...

which is what I said basically. Marketing toward who?

It shut the nut jobs up to some extent because GM revived the electric car which had no business case. It has been said I believe by Wagoner that he would have green lighted moving the EV1 to production. Though it would not have made a profit it would not have gathered the negative publicity. What was the negative publicity?

Some of it was that GM had for a while no hybrid but the biggest was the "Who killed the electric car" crowd. People who posted on just about all of GM's updates since the Volt concept about how the Volt likely wouldnt be allowed to be released by GM either.


Who cares? Tell me how many people would actually buy if they had to pay full price with no tax credit subsidies ?

That's entirely subjective. Time will tell

 

I pointed out that Lutz gets pretty annoyed at the fact that Toyota gets a "green" reputation due to the Prius. I said nothing about the Rav or EV1 because it has nothing to do with this point.

As you point out, I post information to counter "opinions". If the fact based information I post counters someone's opinions, then so be it. If you are annoyed at corrections to misinformation and wrong opinions, again so be it.

I brought up that the Volt seems to be a magnet for wrong opinions. One of 2 examples I used was that some "opinioned" that the Feds wanted GM to make the Volt.

Hardly.

Toyota got a lot of mileage from the Prius from the general public. The Prius put Toyota as an innovator that made high fuel mileage and advanced vehicles. Meanwhile, GM (which with traditional gasoline powered vehicles got far better fuel economy in most every catagory) got a bad rap because it was seen as still pushing large trucks & SUVs. Remember how people used to think the 4th gen LS1 drank gas? In reality they got the same or better fuel economy than most import V6s. Bob Lutz feels the perception Toyota got from the Prius is unfair (which looking at their other models, he's 100% right).

Nutjobs have nothing to do with that buddy.



Not sure where you get your notions from. The so called nut jobs you refer to look down at the Volt because it actually uses a gasoline engine (never mind the Prius does as well).

Wagnoer never said he'd greenlight the EV1. In fact, it was the EV1 that GM made to prove it could produce an enviromentally friendly car. Wagoner was all but hostile to the Volt. Lutz actually wore him and the board down by getting incremental approval, one program part at a time. There's a great Edsall (sp) 5th gen Camaro-like book on the Volt's development if you don't get a chance to ask Mr Lutz yourself or hear him talk about the subject to others. He also talks about it in his book, in case you actually want to know the story behind tha car.

I know it's hard to let go of that idea that some wild group of so-called nut jobs who would never buy an American car period, let alone a GM car somehow whined and whined, cried, and cried, and protested outside GM's hedquarters, called the CEO everyday, bugged the board of directors constantly, and "made" GM produce the Volt simply to shut them up. That view fits far more easily than the idea that it was a project pushed by a group inside GM itself, spearheaded by Bob Lutz.

However, the truth is that's exactly what happened.

Sorry if it conflicts with an....... "opinion".

 

That's not what I said or pointed out at all which makes my point. I am annoyed because you do not read what you THINK you are countering and therefore your post is totally unrelated to what is said. Very much like this one where you had no concept of what I said and the last one where I said nothing of the Feds or blaming anyone...

 

If you'd like to know who the Volt is successfully marketing to, it's me.

I am not a "nut-job", nor am I an extreme environmentalist. The motivation behind my interest in the Volt has multiple components, the main being:

• Gas prices continue to soar, directly affecting my quality of life and effective income
• I personally believe that throwing pollutants in the air constantly can have no positive effect on our environment

Between those two, I'd assess my motive as resting on about an 80/20 split.

And please don't bother throwing out the fuzzy logic argument of,"Well if you buy a 30k car you'll spend less than the difference on gas and..."

Long story short. I feel like I'm being screwed. I don't like feeling like I'm being screwed. And I am well within a position to do something about it.

I doubt that I am alone in my point of view.

 

I unintentionally overstated my marketing to nut job point in a way. Yes I do realize the car gets phenomenal mileage and people benefit from that. No fuzzy logic intended and no I do not feel people need to justify the vehicles they are interested in. I like the Volt and like a lot about it. Its essentially like a diesel electric train technology in a sense, which I think is really cool.

Yes I understand it is marketed to you and people like you and heck me if that was what I was after.

However;

• if someone markets a major purchase to you and breaks even which most people only buy one car at a time until its replaced. Where is the profits for say 6 years? Even though you may buy the car, and I certainly get your choice to get good gas mileage and being green, it is probably at breaking or even worse at a profit with a substantial $7500 where other people have to pay for part of your car. This may paint GM in a good light but the purpose of marketing is profit. You may feel you get a good deal, but GM is either not making a profit or doing so at the expense of $7500 tax credits.
• The who killed the electric car "nut jobs" as I call them have berated GM in their blogs for years every time the Volt was mentioned with every kind of conspiracy and nasty comment possible.
• If the company is not just breaking even, why the heck is there substantial a tax credit for it? The starting $31,645 price tag is only after the up to $7500 tax credit subtracted from the starting price. That means other people are partly paying for a car they do not own and get no benefit from.
• Basically if anyone wanted to pay the close to 40k starting price, or whatever negotiated price regardless of why where other people are not forced to pay 1/4 of the selling price it would be a non issue as far as I am concerned.

Of course you are not alone in your view. I did not intent to imply that. Nor did I intend to mention there was anything wrong with you choosing a vehicle. My brother mentioned briefly considering one. A lot of people I know say it in passing when they complain about gas prices. Like I said my two gripes were 1/4 of the price being paid by other people and if this thing is breaking even there is no profits which means the jerks who berated GM for years got GM to produce a profit neural car at tax payer expense because they threw a fit. If GM is making a profit, then to me that's unconscionable to do so at tax payer expense. Especially when a car I may choose might have a Gas Guzzler tax.


lol like the office space quote BTW...

 

Umm what site?!? I retired. I made my point. I may come back again when GMI decides to unveil their ultimate fail of a web-site. But......I have no site to drive traffic to.

Check again.

 

So lets me get this right......Lutz gets credit for pushing the Volt through......but he can't get Pontiac done?!

I like you Guy, ALOT............but....lets see what happens.

By the way, what you said about Bob not making things through or whatever you said. The dude is around for a reason. He's going no where soon.








JUST SAYING!

 

A counterpoint, and this is just my personal opinion, is that in many markets you have to take some lumps during the earlier stages of R&D in order to position yourself for future success.

The writing is on the wall with conventional petroleum. It's a finite resource controlled by a largely unstable region of the world that suffers from dramatic price increases to the consumer. This is not a winning formula, so auto manufacturers are getting their ducks in a row to succeed as oil recedes in the energy race.

You might remember that the Prius started off as a platform that lost money, too. Look at it now.

I'm not sure how a "tax credit" works on these green vehicles, but I'd always assumed that you just got to deduct that 7500 from your reported income at tax-time. If so, taxpayers aren't shouldering an additional expense for each vehicle. Buyers are just being rewarded by paying less taxes from their personal income when they buy such a vehicle.

If the tax credit literally puts a 7500 check in the pipeline to any Volt buyer come April 15th, then my only response is that it is an incentive for something our government has deemed a healthy measure for the country -- reducing dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the environment. I support both of those goals, especially the first one. I'd love for oil to become absolutely worthless just so extremist whack-jobs have absolutely no means to carry out violent attacks on our populace.

 

That would be a tax deduction. A tax credit knocks the $7500 off your actual tax liability for that year, in effect creating your second scenario:

 

So Bob Lutz is going to push for Pontiac to come back? Is that what is supposed to happen?

 

GM should just kill GMC, and swap it out with Pontiac. At least Pontiac had unique product. All GMC stuff is rebadged Chevys.

 

Not a bad idea.

 

One, Pontiac wasn't as unique as one might think and two, if you saw GMC's profit margin, you would retract that statement.

The only way I see Pontiac coming back is as an in house performance brand that fixes up already established products but, to me, that's pointless in GM's structure. I really don't see the niche for them anywhere right now. I mean for me personally, I'd love for them to come back but, if the money is not there...there's no need for it.

 

The only reason GMC is/was profitable, was because they had no overhead. They didn't make anything. Instead of slapping a chevy logo, they put a GMC logo on the assembly line.

I'm not implying I want Pontiac to return. While all the Pontiacs I have owned, I have enjoyed, but they went the way of the dodo for a reason. For enthusiasts, this is what people think when they hear Pontiac:




But here is what the rest of the public thinks when they hear Pontiac:

[img][/img]