Chevy Volt's for sale in all 50 states?

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by cbaber

Not only that, taxpayers paid $2.4 BILLION dollars to develop this car. Thats a cost of $260,000 per Volt that has been sold. So what we really have here is a $300,000 car that will catch on fire if you wreck it.

Both of those statements have already been proven false, even the guy who did the figures that claimed a cost of $260,000 withdrew his figures when he was asked deeper questions, admitting that most of that amount is set to be paid back, some of it already is and his figures covered money loaned to battery research and manufacturing that is being used for more then just the Volt and more then just vehicle batteries too!
As for the "getting hit and catching fire" there are other threads on the topic but it boils down to that yes, before they added an extra plate to protect the seat rail from hitting the battery pack, if the car was T-boned hard enough to crush the seat into the center tunnel, flip the car over, then the battery was left fully connected and the coolant was drained, then you waited two months to see if the car catchs fire... compare that to gasoline cars that sometimes catch fire before you can get out of the drivers seat, no Volt, or other electric car for that matter, has been shown to catch fire while it was on the road, statistically 11 electric cars should have cough fire in 2011 if they were to keep up with the number of gasoline cars that catch fire and 3 cars per year every year before that for the last 10 years or more should have caught fire as well, but that hasn't happened.

[Frank Lee]

GM had record earnings; should be able to pay back the loans in short order.

[user removed]

But not the 20 billion in bonds that got tossed in the garbage.

regards
Mech

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by cbaber

I don't see the 2012 Civic as a failure and no one should.

Honda did. That's why they discontinued production while they revamp the car (i.e., so that they can be competitive in their market segment again). On one hand, I was criticizing the fact that you often make "fanboi-esque" posts stating, in a nutshell, everything non-Honda is bad. On the other, it is a very good comparison, since the Volt (albiet a "failure") is still on the market with little to no revamping.

Originally Posted by cbaber

Why? If gas hits that price everyone will try to drive less and save money. No one would buy a $40k car to save about half on gas compared to a car like a Civic. I will point you to my previous example. It would take you 24 years to come out ahead on savings if you buy a Volt over a Civic assuming you drive 26000 miles a year (Like I do) and gas costs $3.50 a gallon. You don't save money overall by buying a car with higher MPG if it costs you more money up front.

People aren't going to drive less. This has been proven over and over again. The emphasis now is finding cars that don't need gas to run. That is why so many people have been moving toward diesel, hybrids, and electrics. And when a car allows an average driver to hit > 1,000 miles on a single, small tank of gas, that's saying something.

I'm also curious about your "24 years" calculations. Does that take into account the $7,500 tax credit? Does it take into account that, depending on the driving, 26,000 miles a year might add up to only a few gallons of gasoline? Also, I'm not sure that $3.50 is a good base to calculate from, since I, currently, can only find a few gas stations selling 87 octane for < $4.00/gal.

[cbaber]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

On one hand, I was criticizing the fact that you often make "fanboi-esque" posts stating, in a nutshell, everything non-Honda is bad.

Really? I have made 24 posts and I don't see any of them besides this thread that calls out any other car brand. I don't believe that everything non-Honda is bad, I just think the Volt and other particular cars are. The Chevy Cruze is a great car. $20k for a car that gets 42 MPG. This is a much better value than the Volt. And its better than the 2012 Civic.

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

The emphasis now is finding cars that don't need gas to run. That is why so many people have been moving toward diesel, hybrids, and electrics. And when a car allows an average driver to hit > 1,000 miles on a single, small tank of gas, that's saying something.

Really? Thats the logic that car companies "want" you to think. They want you to believe that its much better to get rid of your old car and buy a new car to save money on gas. But you are not saving any money at all. People will do this, but they are idiots if they are trying to save money but buy new cars to do so.

Electrics are not ready for the market yet. The government is trying to force it but using tax incentives and loans to Nissan and GM for the Volt and Leaf. You cannot force a market to pick up by pumping money into it. If its a superior product, it will sell. If its not, in the case of the Volt, it will not sell well. Its the value factor. You do not get a good value in the Volt. If the price was about half, at around $20-$25k, I think we would not be having this discussion.

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

I'm also curious about your "24 years" calculations. Does that take into account the $7,500 tax credit? Does it take into account that, depending on the driving, 26,000 miles a year might add up to only a few gallons of gasoline? Also, I'm not sure that $3.50 is a good base to calculate from, since I, currently, can only find a few gas stations selling 87 octane for < $4.00/gal.

Thats even worse! Why I am paying people to buy these cars? You need to remember the Volt only has a range of 35 miles on electric only. After that the gasoline engine kicks in to charge the batteries and drive the car until the batteries are at a decent level again. During that time you are getting 37 MPG. So combined, according to the EPA, you get 60 MPG. Sure, if you drive less than 35 miles a day you will not need gas, but even at that rate you get an equivalent 94 MPG according to the EPA. It still costs money to charge the car everyday.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cbaber

JNo one would buy a $40k car to save about half on gas compared to a car like a Civic.

Yet plenty of people do buy $40K cars, and $50K, $60K, and higher ones. As for the argument that no one will buy a pricier car to save gas, a quick search finds these figures:

2012 Civic: MSRP from $16K, combined mpg 32 (varies slightly depending on model)

2012 Prius: MSRP from $26K, combined mpg 50.

So by your logic, no one should ever buy a Prius, right? But have you checked Prius sales figures lately?

[Ryland]

People make a big deal about "paying for other people to buy these cars" because of the $7,500 tax credit, the Volt I rode in was bought by someone who doesn't make enough money per year to owe $7,500 in taxes... to get credited... so he ended up paying full price and knew that before buying the car and I suspect that his 11 gallon or whatever it is, tank of gas will only be filled up a few times a year, if even that often, so it will cost 2.5 cents a mile to fuel instead of 10 cents a mile, but if it was really all about fuel costs and vehicle costs we'd all be driving Geo Metro's and yet people still see a need to spend $80,000 or more on a gasoline vehicle but someone spends $40,000 on a plug in hybrid and they get asked what the pay back is! the pay back is that it's extremely quite, it's comfortable it has good performance and they don't have to go out of their way to fill it up with gasoline much more then twice a year, what's the pay back on your big screen TV, home stereo, mowed lawn, or any of the vast numbers of things that people spend extra money on just because they like them.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by cbaber

Really? I have made 24 posts and I don't see any of them besides this thread that calls out any other car brand. I don't believe that everything non-Honda is bad, I just think the Volt and other particular cars are.

Then I apologize. I had the wrong impression.

Originally Posted by cbaber

Why I am paying people to buy these cars?

Why am I paying to keep so many gasoline powered cars on the road? The U.S. Government routes far more funding into fossil fuels than any other energy initiatives. The Government makes it a point to subsidize gas so much so that average people can afford to buy and waste it.

So I ask, which is the bigger travesty?

Originally Posted by cbaber

You need to remember the Volt only has a range of 35 miles on electric only.

So I would never have to use gas on my daily work commute? Great! About 25% of my coworkers have a similar commute too. Also, you probably don't want to argue the price of gas versus electricity.

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by cbaber

Thats even worse! Why I am paying people to buy these cars? You need to remember the Volt only has a range of 35 miles on electric only.

Average person drives 27 miles per day giving them an 8 mile buffer before they would have to start burning gasoline and that assuming that they can't charge at work like I can or a lot of EV drivers currently can.
Last study that I read suggested that if we didn't give oil companies tax breaks and didn't subsidize gasoline at all that the price would be closer to $7 per gallon, so why do I have to pay for your gasoline and will keep paying for your gasoline, I don't think that's fair.

[CigaR007]

I believe it is safe to say that the cost of electric vehicles will decrease over time. Companies need to recoup research and development costs. Once the ROI is achieved, you can be sure the price tag will go down. Every new product needs early adopters.