Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chevy Volt To Resume Production One Week Early Following Record Sales

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the back-to-work dept.

Transportation 443

surewouldoutlaw writes "On the heels of the news that the Chevy Volt had a record month, selling 2,289 units in March, the Detroit-Hamtramck plant where the car is made will be resuming production of the car one week early, reducing a five-week shutdown to just four weeks, the United Auto Workers union said Tuesday. The shutdown had been put in place to re-align supply with demand. Volt workers have also begun to lash out at Republican presidential candidates' criticisms of the car: 'They're attacking our car to get at the President...But our car is going to change the way America does business. It's a breath of fresh air.'"

cancel ×

443 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

sure it is (0, Troll)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577363)

I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world. It's going to send GM back into bankruptcy. That will change the world for sure.

Re:sure it is (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577417)

I am agape at people bragging that they only go to the gas station once a month or so.

Yeah, you buy less gas than me, but you paid nearly $50,000 for a glorified Cavalier.

Re:sure it is (4, Insightful)

rsclient (112577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577643)

MSRP: $31,645
Source: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/ [chevrolet.com]

Re:sure it is (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577665)

That's after a "possible" $7500 tax credit. Actual MSRP is $39,145... and that's a starting price.

Re:sure it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577857)

You know, several of these previous tax credit gimmicks (Cash for Clunkers, etc) have been imputed as income by the IRS. Baahahahahaah. "Savings" FAIL.

Re:sure it is (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577889)

Include sales tax, and you'll need to have the charging station installed in your house if you don't want to have to wait 10 hours between charges. Most dealers were charging markup over and above MRSP for them as well. (though after much lower than anticipated sales, maybe that is no longer true.)

Re:sure it is (3, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578049)

Include sales tax

Yes, because other vehicles are exempt from sales tax. /rolls eyes

--Jeremy

Re:sure it is (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577729)

"Price after tax savings. Net price shown includes the full $7,500 tax credit. $39,145 MSRP with federal tax savings from $0 up to $7,500."

Always read the fine print.

Re:sure it is (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577941)

And don't forget the +$5000 "adjusted market value" fee. I just bought a Prius last weekend, and this is exactly what the dealer had on their window sticker. I didn't pay it, but only because they received a new car while I was on the lot, and I got to it before they had a chance to put their window sticker on it and I told them they had to sell it to me for what it said on the factory window sticker.

Re:sure it is (4, Insightful)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578043)

If you're paying sticker price for a car, you're getting ripped off regardless.

Re:sure it is (4, Insightful)

fwarren (579763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577661)

Exactly.

My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.

So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.

I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".

Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.

All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.

Re:sure it is (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577795)

Why a payment? Buy the thing in cash. Cars are not so expensive a nurse should be getting a loan for them.

A coal plant is far cleaner than ICE cars, and far easier to change out one power plant than a million. More environmental damage is done building yet another SUV.

Also any new reasonable car can get 40mpg, lots of normal cheap ICE ones too.

Re:sure it is (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577991)

So sell her car that's "in great shape" and use the money to buy another one with better mileage (diesel if she can get it). Why get a car payment?

You can easily get a car in *great* condition (only a couple of years old) for very reasonable money here in the UK that will do 50-60mpg (40-50 US mpg) - we do have better and more mature diesels though. Still, I'd be surprised if she couldn't find a really good second hand car that she could buy outright that does better than 20 mpg.

Re:sure it is (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577673)

It's a nice car. It's quite, rides smooth, and roomy. It appeals to me nerd as well. It's like driving the future.

Have you driven one? I'm guessing not since your price is about 20K over the price of the car.

Re:sure it is (2)

supremebob (574732) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577767)

The car really isn't all that "high tech" once you get past the electric drive train, though. Most of the features that it comes with can be had on a Chevy Cruze that costs roughly half the price if you leave out the tax rebates.

Re:sure it is (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577861)

It's quite what?

Re:sure it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577681)

Its as simular to a cavalier as a corvette is. My friend bought one because its high tech, green, but also much better performance than a prius. Its basically a $10,000 preimuim over a prius. Its not bad if that's what you want. If what you want is a super cheap car that's gret on gas, it isn't for you. If you want a luxuy car that's green, this it's not for you.

Re:sure it is (1)

Kahlandad (1999936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577735)

Overpriced? Yeah, I'll agree that it is overpriced, but arbitrarily throwing out numbers that you pulled out of your ass sure doesn't help your credibility.

Re:sure it is (1)

Kagato (116051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577985)

It's based on the Opel Delta II platform. I personally think the Opel Ampera is a much nicer design. The volt is too conventional looking by todays standards. It's also far better equipped than the old Cavalier. The problem with the car is the interior was designed by GM. Lot's of features and buttons, but kind'a cheap feeling in my opinion. And I share that opinion on all GMs, from Chevy to Cadillac.

Re:sure it is (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578003)

I only go to the gas station about once a month, with a cheap '98 car. It's called not driving much.

Re:sure it is (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577441)

How does it cost more, other than the fact you get a charging station installed? This reminds me of all the naysaying about Priuses and how quickly their battery banks were supposed to fail. They are not failing.

The problem is that it isn't the Volt, it is that having an American car maker on the label makes it not good enough. Had the same car had a "H" logo on it, or perhaps a three pointed star, people would be buying this vehicle left and right. However because it is from a US automaker, it is perceived as crap.

Re:sure it is (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577501)

It's not perceived as crap, it's perceived as a poor value because it takes longer than the life of a normal car to gain back the premium price you paid.

Gas mileage != economy. Total cost of ownership = economy.

Re:sure it is (5, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577555)

it's perceived as a poor value because it takes longer than the life of a normal car to gain back the premium price you paid.

Well, as long as gas prices stay static during that same period...which I sure as shit wouldn't put any money on.

Re:sure it is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577989)

The rise in the price of gas is almost all due to dollar depreciation. Over the normal life of a car (7 to 10 years) the real price of oil probably won't go up very much.

That doesn't mean the Volt is a good buy. I'm just sayin'. With the money you save buying something cheaper, you could buy stock in the oil company and/or gold. Pay your gas expense out of a pool of appreciating assets instead of depreciating an asset up front.

Re:sure it is (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578009)

Even at $6/gal or $8/gal, how many miles do you have to drive to break even having spent $10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle? Don't forget to include the cost of the electricity for charging the vehicle. Let's assume $0.12/kWh and that the price of electricity magically remains constant for the entire time.

Re:sure it is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39578073)

Well, when obama took office gas was below $2 a gallon...and nobody ever said that would happen again only 12 months before that when it was over $3.

You have to keep the car and drive it a long ways and for alot of years before you come close to breaking even for the premium paid.

GM ought to be producing alot of CNG cars vs electric. The range of the electrics suck and the infrastructure is just not there to operate them outside home area which makes it impractical for alot of people.

Re:sure it is (1)

Kagato (116051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577769)

In the end that was offset significantly by the retention of value. In particular the second gen model that ran from 2003-2009. Toyota being able to keep up with demand is a more recent phenomenon, as such the secondary market was very kind fo Prius owners in the 2000s. People who got the tax credit and got out about 3-4 year in did quite well.

Re:sure it is (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577993)

longer than the life of a normal car

The average age of a car in the US is now 10.8 years [usatoday.com] , which means that the life of a normal car is even longer than that.

Re:sure it is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577843)

Hey I hate the Volt and the Prius equally as much and it would not mater which large stupid car company built it. I do find it patently absurd however that what Americans need are fuel efficient cheap cars, which Chevy used to sell like the Geo Metro, but what GM has provided is a bundle of new technology wrapped up in new technology for reason. For instance, instead of build a brand new vehicle around the brand new hybrid power plant, the power plant could have gone into an existing vehicle. If the vehicle was already very high efficiency, like a Geo Metro, it would not be insanely highly efficient.

The fact is that GM expected the Volt to be far more profitable at it's insane price than a cheap efficient car built on existing technology upgraded with the modern drive train. GM took bundles of tax payer money, invested it poorly, generated a product very few people want, and glosses over designing and building the ones that people do.

We are being fucked and that is what makes me angry.

TTAC disagrees (0)

Narmi (161370) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577377)

This story contradicts the story posted over at TTAC where they claim the shutdown has been extended from two weeks to three weeks [thetruthaboutcars.com] .

Re:TTAC disagrees (0)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577445)

This story contradicts the story posted over at TTAC where they claim the shutdown has been extended from two weeks to three weeks.

Or maybe they were going to shut down for three weeks, then decided to only shut down for two, so they could claim they were resuming "early".

Re:TTAC disagrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577513)

This is like our government decreasing the rate of increases by 5%, instead of making authentic cuts.

This year, I plan on losing 20lbs. I will do that by gaining only 50lbs, and not 70lbs.

Re:TTAC disagrees (1)

CaptainLugnuts (2594663) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578109)

The scheduled summer shutdown that has been extended from two weeks to three weeks. The current five week shutdown was not originally scheduled and was shortened by one week to four weeks. So the Volt production will have been shutdown for five weeks 'extra' by the end of the summer.

Electric Cars are a bad idea (0)

nickberry (1226494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577397)

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (4, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577481)

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually) than a million tailpipes.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577707)

One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually)

The process is already underway. Coal plant construction is ceasing [npr.org] in favor of cleaner natural gas for both economic and regulatory reasons.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (1)

Balial (39889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577811)

You don't even need to replace it. It's already vastly more efficient.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39578119)

It also means that we have another avenue of innovation. A new problem to solve and we love to do that don't we? :)

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (5, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577519)

Still much more efficient than all of those cars burning gasoline. The central plant is more efficient, and has the benefit of being able to transition away to alternative generation means (nuclear/wind/tidal/solar/solar thermal/....(gap).... fusion) as they become more viable. This also cuts down on refuelling infrastructure - fewer gasoline tankers on the roads etc.

Baby steps, for a culture that is firmly entrenched in gasoline and other fossil fuels.

Alternatively, those Volts may be charged off the grid entirely (or with minimal grid load) - I have seen house installations where the car is charged up from solar PV installed on the house (running to battery banks to provide overnight charging capability).

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577805)

???

Are you including the ~25% of electricity lost in transmission from central plant?
What about the industrial costs of the batteries, and the fact that they lose range/ need to be replaced after a few years?

Oh and dont forget, the ELECTRICAL infrastructure in most of the country is in poor shape, if we were to get a large surge in people recharging vehicles
would have brown/blackouts and have to invest in upgrading there (probably a number of additional power plants as well)

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578013)

???

Are you including the ~25% of electricity lost in transmission from central plant?
What about the industrial costs of the batteries, and the fact that they lose range/ need to be replaced after a few years?

Oh and dont forget, the ELECTRICAL infrastructure in most of the country is in poor shape, if we were to get a large surge in people recharging vehicles
would have brown/blackouts and have to invest in upgrading there (probably a number of additional power plants as well)

Yes, I am including that. I should have specified.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39578123)

Let me guess, recharged from a panel made by Solyndra et al.?

Yet another nonviable ultra expensive "solution".

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (1)

fwarren (579763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577689)

Now that IS an inconvenient truth.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea (1)

Christian Smith (3497) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577761)

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

Unless it's charged at night when there is a surplus of generation capacity.

Volt is a game changer. (5, Insightful)

GT66 (2574287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577411)

If GM can get the price of these things down below $30K, they will put ALL gas models out to pasture. Imagine, you can do up to 40 miles of your short hop driving on all electric but still have the range of gasoline (unlike cars like the Nissan Leaf).

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

GT66 (2574287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577447)

I know bad form. Anyway, by "ALL gas" I meant "gas ONLY" models.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577633)

If it's effective range were roughly an order of magnitude more than it is, while the recharging times not being substantially altered, they probably *COULD* put all gas models out to pasture.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

GT66 (2574287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578041)

Baby steps. It goes as far as it goes on current battery tech. The foundation design is sound and like regular gas cars, each subsequent model should bring improvements to efficiency and range. In my town, forty miles would mean that I could drive to work and back and do all my running around to the shops and such places every day with miles to spare when I got home.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1, Flamebait)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577855)

I wish Americans would stop using "gas" when they mean gasoline. Over here we have cars running on actual gas, as in, vapor hydrocarbon.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577593)

I'd love to have one of these things if it a) was a bit cheaper, and b) were available in a model that wasn't a hatchback. I don't really understand why pretty much all electric cars are hatchbacks. I hate them and I want a real trunk dammit!

Re:Volt is a game changer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577641)

Because hatchbacks are better?
Fold down the seats and you have tons of room. Trunks suck. Also aerodynamics.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577759)

Air flow. It's easier to shape the rear to get close to minimum drag with a hatch back.Thus better gas mileage.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578087)

Hatchbacks don't always have better airflow. Consider the VW MK4 Golf, Jetta, and Beetle. All are basically the same car, except the Jetta is a sedan, the Golf is a square hatchback and the Beetle is a round hatchback. Which one has the lowest Cd and therefore the best fuel economy? The Jetta!

(The Beetle, counter-intuitively, has the worst aerodynamics because the air stays attached all the way down to the rear bumper and sucks the car backward.)

Re:Volt is a game changer. (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577623)

Too bad my electric is coal. According to greenercars.org a coal-powered EV is worse than my gasoline-powered Insight. (Or a diesel-powered Lupo 3L.) (Or a natural gas Civic.)

Re:Volt is a game changer. (0)

rsclient (112577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577697)

Good news, then -- the MSRP is $31,645
Source: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/ [chevrolet.com]

Re:Volt is a game changer. (0)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577959)

Er that's after the $7500 tax rebate, which the GOP will kill if schmucks elect them.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578079)

Why should middle class people pay for you to buy a Volt?

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

nickberry (1226494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578091)

damn straight they'll kill it, kicking back money to GM is dumb, all tax incentives need to be shut down. If the market can't support it why should those of us who actually pay taxes pay for it.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577727)

Yes, that is their goal. Unfortunatly, the batterys cost a ton. They can't sell them at voulme while taking a 10k hit on each one sold.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577887)

The volt is NOT an electric car, it is a serial hybrid that can be plugged in to charge. But with a range of only 30 miles most people are going to power the thing with gasoline for most of their travel. If the volt could get something like 100 miles range and still have the gas engine for back up that would be different. Where I live most jobs would require an average of 20-40 mile commute ONE WAY. The Leaf could do this, but it would be too close for comfort unless I could sneak an extension cord our the window to the parking lot at work. A hybrid electric with a range on battery of at least 60 miles would be ideal. The volt is half way there.

Re:Volt is a game changer. (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578155)

I hope a hybrid plugin car will be my next vehicle I buy. I'm low on fundages so I'm waiting a few generations for them to lower the price and get some of the engineering quirks hammered out. My dream is to have a plugin car with a home solar array, so I don't pay the power company for energy anymore, and I can take casual drives for free.

Who Bought Them? (1, Troll)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577425)

My guess is government car fleets are being stuffed with these shit-cans for blatantly political reasons.

Re:Who Bought Them? (1, Interesting)

GT66 (2574287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577473)

And that guess would make you wrong. Thanks for playing.

Google says he's right: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39578037)

Google is still your friend:

The plan....
http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/24/gm-voltcom-viability-plan-suggestion-massive-government-fleet-sales-of-battery-warranty-free-chevy-volts/

The downpayment....
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/04/01/u-s-government-to-purchase-first-100-chevy-volts-and-thousands/

The followup...
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/01/04/chevy-volt-fleet-sales-rise-retail-demand-remains-weak

Re:Who Bought Them? (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577515)

My guess is government car fleets are being stuffed with these shit-cans for blatantly political reasons.

Fascinating. Your guess is noted.

Re:Who Bought Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577655)

Zero-taxes paid GE is receiving their production allocation of fleet Volts, which will be accelerated as November approaches; Obama must have a fully functional prop factory to campaign in front of during the election. Afterward? It will persist for a while as a subsidized zombie plant finishing up the remaining fleet orders and then be shut down.

Re:Who Bought Them? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577973)

Why would you guess and not look it up?

Anyways, for a lot of cities, there driving is in short runs, so it would be a good purchase for them.
Our organization is trying out electric cars, because some many trips are less then 20 miles.

Re:Who Bought Them? (-1, Flamebait)

DCFusor (1763438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578147)

I did. I have nice, not quite fully loaded 2012 Volt, which I charge from my off-grid solar system. Yes, it's an expensive car as cars this size go, unless you compare it to cars of similar quality, quietness, handling, quickness, then it's actually kinda cheaper than the Audi or BMW alternatives - by a good bit.

I did have to upgrade my solar system a bit to be able to charge the car up more than once a day on good days. This has significant side benefits as when I don't need the excess for the car, I have it for the homestead/campus, and it's allowed me to not need backup generators during long periods of "dark" any more, as the larger array now makes enough even on cloudy days to run the computers, machines, welders and so on.

So, other than using my truck to take trash to the dumpster weekly, which uses about 4-5 gallons a year - I am now almost totally free of any use for gasoline at all.

And, I already didn't have a power bill, except for backup generation, which I no longer need either.

What the flying fuck is that worth? You can't say because you've never been there, and will whine and complain about it instead of doing what I did to get there - as in spending less than I made till I could afford to build my house, make it solar off grid, and buy this car - all with cash.

That's who buys them. Rich people who want to stay that way, or not have to be a wage slave to live. I get way over the usual 80% of my driving all electric - more like 95%, and am showing 165 mpg over the car's life so far (since oct 2011). The only reason it's not infinite is trips to the out of range dealer, and the deliberate burning of some gas (you have some control over this) when it's super cold outside, as you get both the shaft power and the heat that way - for once, almost 100% energy utilisation of the gas.

I traded in a 2010 Camaro SS for this car, and don't miss it. It's actually more agile, pulls almost the same gees in the corners, and is more fun to drive, with better transient response and flatter cornering.

I didn't make enough to get the full tax credit last year. Oh, crap - I'm not rich enough yet. So I wound up paying almost the same as I did for the Camaro for what is a far better car in almost every way. Yeah, it limits out a 101 mph, unlike the Camaro, but it's larger inside, you can see out better, it's tons quieter and better riding, and more agile in traffic by a lot. Everyone who gets a ride loves it, and everyone who I let drive it then wants to buy one.

Talk your trash AFTER you know your shit - drive one first. This car has fanboys that would make the apple crowd blush, and there's a very good reason for it. You can whine that they got government help all you want - all the car companies did. So, where's any other car at anything like this price and anywhere near this good? Leafs suck - and sell far fewer, even though they cost less. Whatcha gonna do when you run one down? Order up a tow truck with a generator and wait hours to charge it? Prius owners who drive Volts trade them in - the Prius is a cheap, noisy econo box by comparison - and ain't that much cheaper.

It still sucks. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577453)

I get an average of 50mpg in my 2007 Civic Coupe. This is with very mild driving changes like driving 65 and not being a retard and drag racing light to light. The Price difference for a car that is the exact same size as my Civic but costs 5X more and supposedly has 20X the technology only get's marginally better gas mileage.

Who is buying the Chevy Volt? It's over priced and under delivers.

Re:It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577647)

What moron rated him overrated? It's a fact, there are a lot of other cars that have NO hybrid in them and have a standard gas engine that get hybrid gas mileage. Suzuki, toyota, Honda, and other all carry cars that get hybrid gas mileage without being a hybrid or being out of reach in price.

Paying for a hybrid makes no economic sense to anyone until the price get's down to where it is affordable. The Volt is a $25,000 car, Not the $40K they are asking for it.

Re:It still sucks. (1)

GT66 (2574287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577705)

Your 2007 is priced on 100+ years of refinements and economies of scale on a design that has changed little and certainly doesn't include much by way of cutting edge technology (and no, your stereo doesn't count). The Volt is a completely different paradigm even beyond current run-of-the-mill hybrids like the Prius. If ever there was a mass market consumer grade car that could be considered the absolute cutting edge of technology, the Volt is it. It currently has no economy of scale as nothing like it is rolling of assembly lines anywhere else. And if you think that driving up to 40 miles using all electric is an under delivery, then I'd like to see what your designs are.

Re:It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577819)

I'm always amused by people who don't realize that our distant ancestors were driving electric cars in the 19th century. And they dumped them as soon as the ICE came along because electric cars sucked ass back then and still suck ass for the same reasons today.

Electric cars are nothing new, nor is connecting a generator to the battery so it doesn't suck quite as much particularly innovative.

Re:It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577903)

So if you put a bigger battery, motor, and engine in the Prius it still wouldn't be a Volt because?

Yes, you're making his argument for him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39578133)

You aren't going to get any economies of scale moving the pathetic amounts they've been moving off the showroom floor, ever. Something about a $40K Civic sized car made by General Misery that occasionally catches fire, but not with consumers.

Re:It still sucks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577731)

No way you get 50mpg in a non-hybrid civic coupe
  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2007_honda_civic.shtml
May if you drafted semis all day.

Re:It still sucks. (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578019)

I read of a guy who transplanted a VW turbo-diesel engine into a Saturn compact with some aerodynamic mods. He is now getting MPG in the low 70's. NOT a hybrid!

Re:It still sucks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577841)

Nice try.

  • The 2007 civic hybrid had a MSRP of around $22k. The Volt has a MSRP of around $39k. Thats less than twice as much; a far cry from 5x as much.
  • The 2007 civic hybrid gets 45mpg. The Volt, for the majority of Americans, uses no gas. That's much better; a far cry from marginally better.

As with most everything in life, the Volt costs a bit more and you get a bit more. You may prefer the lower fixed cost / higher variable cost the Civic affords. Others may feel differently.

Re:It still sucks. (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577873)

Your Civic was $6,300 new? Also the MPG on electricity is infinite so you can't compare the two vehicles based on MPG alone. Oh and I call shenanigans on 50MPG for a 07 Civic, best reported numbers at fueleconomy.gov is 40 and that's for someone with 90% highway use (fueleconomy.gov is full of hypermilers so achieving 25% better fuel economy than the best reported number is highly, highly suspicious)

Re:It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577949)

"Also the MPG on electricity is infinite"

Sounds great, let's do a 400 mile race and see what the numbers end up.

The Volt ends up at 38mpg when driven in the real world.

Re:It still sucks. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578125)

Which real world? 90+% of American driving is around town or in a commute less than 20 miles, for most of the rest of the world it's probably 95+%.

You aren't thinking it through. (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577913)

Since this car will burn exactly ZERO gas for 80% of vehical use, it gtes FAR better gas mileage then your car.

SUre, if you tkae a trip to the full extent of 375 miles and average out the MPG for JUST THAT TRIP, it gets the same as your alleged 50MPG civic.

But if you extend it to all the trips you will make, its a different number.

If my wife had one of these, it would almost never burn gas because she generally doesn't go further the 12 miles during her dauily routine.

The question is: How much gas will you burn in a year?
Last year I drove about 5000 miles in 25 mile chucks(just over 12 miles each way to work). For those drives, I wouldn't have burned any gas.

I drove 8000 total.
So if I had a volt, I would have used gas for 3000 miles* Which would have been 85 gallons of gas at 35MPG**
So I drove 8000 miles, and bought 85 gallons of gas.

just under 100MPG by the end of the year.
Obviously if you are driving 100 miles a day to work, your use would be different, but I am a pretty average driver as far as vehicle use.

*actually less, because of a lot of other short trips besides work.
** Volt is 35/40 I really should use the 40 because all the extended driving would be highway.

The Volt is still a flop (0)

Transist (997529) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577469)

It's understandable that emerging markets like electric vehicles will experience growing pains, but the Japanese offerings still make the Volt look pitiful, as far as the electric powertrain side goes. Even if you concede that the fire issues were mostly journalistic hyperbole, it still didn't meet any of the expected sales figures. If anything, I think it's evidence of stagnation of development from 'Detroit'. Not that foreign competition is anything new, but I'm afraid that GM is going to get shut out of this market in the future before it even has a real chance.

Something stinks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577505)

It just seems "too good to be true" that they go from dismal sales to record sales.

I wonder how many of the volts they sold during their "record" month were purchased by the Obama administration.

I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577523)

An electric car that, if you drive long distance, becomes a gasser. Seems okay to me. Just two problems:

- pricetag. I'd probably choose a pluggable Prius or Insight or Civic instead (~$20,000 each).

- government funding. I don't like paying for stuff I'm not using. Hopefully it's just a temporary subsidy to jumpstart GM's hybrid production, not a permanen form of corporate welfare.

Good for an electric, but that's relative (4, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577531)

selling 2,289 units in March

Before everyone starts celebrating, keep in mind that some of the more popular [chicagotribune.com] gas car models out there average 40,000-60,000 units a month in sales. And the Prius hybrid sold about 30,000 units last month.

Apparently more popular in Europe (5, Interesting)

Meatbucket (2039104) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577603)

The volt and it's twin the Opel Ampera began sales in February and has become a big seller there, which is not surprising given how much denser and closer European cities are to each other (taking advantage of the volt's optimum range), not to mention the higher gas prices which make it more affordable.

record sales? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577615)

Slashtard - you're definitely in the pocket of a Socialist President - what maroons you are!

Bad press... (5, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577677)

I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt. It's a very novel approach to the hybrid, offering significantly more electric-only range than other hybrids without the range anxiety of something like a Nissan Leaf. As for pricing; yes, it's expensive, but it's also fledgling technology. Electric-only automakers like Fisker and Tesla talk big but have little to show for all the boasting. The practical issues facing electric-only vehicles are still quite daunting.

I also don't understand the conservative backlash against this car. Here we have an American corporation trying to respond to market demand and a changing world by actually innovating. They didn't just slap together a half-assed Prius knockoff. They actually went for something new, but still practical.

The nonsense I hear repeated time and again is that the US government somehow forced this on GM. Automakers don't just pull cars out of their asses. Years of planning go into a car before the public even knows they're in development. The Volt concept was unveiled in 2007, well before they turned to the government for a bailout.

Interestingly enough, in my part of the country I've already seen a number of Volts, less than 10 but still more than the lone Nissan Leaf I encountered recently. I find it interesting given that I live in a region I'd say easily favors foreign automakers. So I found it surprising to hear that the Volt wasn't doing well. Of course it doesn't help you've got people on both sides of the aisle dumping on this car.

Re:Bad press... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577789)

cuz gm is a badly run company that makes shitty cars.

the volt is a crappy overpriced car that nobody wants

Re:Bad press... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577999)

"I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt."

Because a Geo Metro gets better gas mileage than the Volt. Because a Geo Metro costs less than a Volt. Because the Volt power plant could still go in an efficient car, like a Geo Metro, and make it even more efficient. Because GM designed and built the Volt to make more money instead of bringing to market a small, cheap, efficient car that people want, but does not make as much money. Though GM blew it because the Volt will make none, since demand is so low, and the low profit piece of crap would have at least made some.

That is why.

Re:Bad press... (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578159)

Conservatives attack the car because it is expensive, and only reasonably within reach of the middle class due to subsidies that every working American has to pay for. If GM had not taken a bailout AND stimulus dollars, then used the stimulus dollars to "pay off" the loan, perhaps at least that would not be a point of contention.

Fleet sales? (1)

CrAlt (3208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577757)

How much of this record number (2,289) is from big taxi or government fleet orders? Lets see if it holds these sales month after month. This "record" may be all from a few one time fleet sales.

Even with $4/gal gas they still moved 9,292's camaro's in the same month.
Total GM US sales for the month where 231,052.

Very Few (2)

Kagato (116051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39578085)

Accord to forbes:

"Only 160 of the March sales total of 2,289 were fleet orders."

The game sure has changed.. (1)

boley1 (2001576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577797)

So now in 2012, 2289 units per month of a model is now considered a banner month. In the 80's I worked for GM in a component plant. One configuration we made was for a Chevy model, not necessarily the most popular, that I remember as being produced at 2200 units per day ( 2 shifts, 5 days per week). I remember because there were times due to problems, we could barely keep up with the assembly plant. Our LEAST popular configuration was for a top of the line Cadillac, only about 300 per day (6000 avg per month) required for it if I remember correctly.

Economic Sense != Best For Society (3, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39577915)

I don't understand all these arguments against the Volt saying that standard gas cars are more economical.

That may very well be true, but since when do we measure benefit to society by only looking at what's cheapest?

Not educating our children would be cheaper too, should we close all schools to balance our budgets? Should we close all fire departments to save a few bucks in the short term?

Why do intelligent people make the argument that trusting the market, and the "invisible hand" will always have the best outcome? It's as if people have replaced (or augmented) their trust in God with this idea of "the market is always right". Surely this is as far from a scientific argument as one could get?

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39578027)

You're totally right. It's much better to trust the government to pick winners, because they've done such a good job of it in the past.

Cost is becoming more competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39577995)

Wait till the summer kiddies. The price of gasoline is set to spike (again). The gloating, SUV driving bastards yelping about how bad a deal the Volt is, will secretly be bitching every time the pump goes "DING!". That's what's happening to your wallet "DING!, DING!, DING!" Where I live, wind turbines are starting to become more common. One of these on an acerage could split between powering the house, and charging the car (you can run off stored power for a while), and then you wouldn't give a crap about how much gasoline costs. If you have to go on a long trip, suck it up and put that expensive gasoline into the car. Otherwise, even a 300km range would be plenty, and you could let other people pay world prices, and laugh yourself silly every time you pass a gas station, every time you see someone on TV complaining about the price of gasoline, every time you hear that OPEC is meeting once again.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?