Slashdot Mirror
Chevrolet Volt In a Gasoline-Only Scenario
s122604 sends in a performance review of the Chevy Volt, paying particular attention to what happens after the initial plug-in capacity has been depleted. This reader adds, "The review indicates that the performance is adequate, and perhaps better than anticipated. If the Volt can deliver technically, especially with the possibility that it could retail for less than expected (WSJ subscription may be required), does GM have a potential hit on its hands?" "How well will General Motors' Chevrolet Volt drive once it gets past its 40 mile all-electric driving range and starts to rely on power generated by its gasoline engine? That's been a question for both critics and fans of the Volt, and with just 11 months to go before this car hits the market, I got the answer."
Or gave the money to the car manufacturer
*DrugCheese rants*
I dunno.
When the Model T was introduced, it cost the equivalent of around 20K$, about half what this car is going to go for. But competing cars were more in the $50K to $70K range, so $40K is not too bad, and somewhat less than that (as the article says might happen) would be quite practical for many working people *given that there are operational savings*. It could well be a modest success at a price like $35K.
The cost of the Model T drop from $20,000 in current dollars to $12000 and then to under $10000, making it practical for the workers who assembled it to buy one. That's economies of manufacturing scale. The Volt has potentials for such economies of scale as the purchase expensive new parts like large batteries attracts investment and initial development costs are recouped. A modest hit with new technology is hard to achieve, but it will drive down cost and drive up profits more quickly than throwing a new skin on the same old platform would, where economies of scale have already been accounted for.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The classic problem with selling new cars is that the people who can afford to buy them don't care about efficiency. They want a car that will dust whoever's next to them when they take off from a stoplight, and looks/drives sporty and/or like a Cadillac.
Car reporters take this a step farther and don't even care how much the car costs to buy or operate, just how it feels to be behind the wheel. So in the end, cheap cars never get positive press, and efficient cars only get it if they play to the luxury-class tastes of Car and Driver.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
Do you honestly think people are going to pay US$30-40k for a compact car that (feature-wise) compares to a US$16k Toyota Corolla?
Other than the deep pocketed early adopters and people who want to flaunt their "greenness", I think the sales of the Volt are going to be bleak.
And even if they sold every one of their stated 8000 unit capacity (in the first year), they're losing money on each one AND reliant on a government subsidy to close the sale.
This has epic failure written all over it even though it seems to a casual observer to be a "nice product."
I'll type this really slowly to make it easy for you to understand:
The government is not trying to help me get into a Volt. They're taking money from me in order to help someone else get into a Volt.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Irrelevant. Working class doesn't pay cash for cars so $40k is barely relevant... To them the bottom line is how much it costs per month - and since this can be compared to fuel costs per month, the conversation with the salesman is going to be "yes it costs this much more per month for the car, but this much less for fuel"
It's a question of whether one can offset the other. Can it?
Dude, every car for sale in the first world should last for ~100k miles without any major issues. If a car has problems before then it's probably has some manufacturing fault specific to that vehicle, not a design fault. Most cars can make it to 200k miles without too many costly repairs. It's the *consumers* of new cars that are on a 3 year lease cycle, and I thank them for that because it means they have payed for the majority of the depreciation without using up a corresponding percentage of the vehicles useful life.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I have to admit, that's got to be the best use of YMMV I've seen yet.
My pockets have been picked since I started working to fight useless wars and fund an enormous, expensive and increasingly ineffective military. Not to mention the soaring spending rates on police agencies from local to Federal which reduce my freedoms.
The money being spent on Volt subsidies is nothing compared to handouts to corn farmers. It's a pittance compared to money we just hand over to other nations.
Blar.
The top 1% pays less than 42% of the taxes.
You know, you could reword that as "The top 1% pays over 40% of the taxes!" Do those top 1% use 40% of the roads, military, medicaid, social security and welfare? I'm not saying they aren't getting the full benefit of access to our society, but clearly they aren't exactly freeloading on the goodwill of the 99% of the people who are paying the other 59% of the taxes.
They also only earn about 22% of the country's income, despite paying 40% of the taxes.