"The Volt" May BE SCRAPPED!- NEVER BUILT!!

[lusth]

The original post quotes an article that quotes a regulatory filing. Do y'all know what a regulatory filing is? Ever read one? It's the document that says, if you invest in us, here is a list of things that could go wrong. To take that as a basis for saying the volt won't be built is ludicrous.

Get your grundies out of the bunches they are in - sheesh!

[gone-ot]

...a Regulatory Filing is analagous to a home owners disclosure of defects (termites, water heater leaking, etc.) at time of home sale (actually BEFORE the sale).

[lusth]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...a Regulatory Filing is analagous to a home owners disclosure of defects (termites, water heater leaking, etc.) at time of home sale (actually BEFORE the sale).

No, it's a forward looking document.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Christ

I say screw 'em all, do your own thing.

...

It would cost you some money, but it may be worth it to you, if you really want a VOLT, because it's probably the only way you'll get one.

From this thread: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ible-5436.html

Two DIY examples of the same basic architecture:

1997 Chevy Cavalier EV with onboard range extending generator:
Alain St-Yves' 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier

2000 Mazda Miata EV / onboard biodiesel generator
Pat Beirne's 2000 Mazda Miata

The Miata's EV Album page is outdated. The EV systems were somewhat rebuilt and the genset added to the trunk about a year ago. More info on this car: Building the "Zero-Carbon Car" out of a Miata, incl. biodiesel hybrid drivetrain - AutoblogGreen

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by lusth

The original post quotes an article that quotes a regulatory filing. Do y'all know what a regulatory filing is? Ever read one? It's the document that says, if you invest in us, here is a list of things that could go wrong. To take that as a basis for saying the volt won't be built is ludicrous.

Get your grundies out of the bunches they are in - sheesh!

lusth: Wow you sure put me on the spot with that one. Personally I like you and I feel you have a good head on you shoulders, but on this topic we bump heads. I do not mean to offend you personally, just you interpretations, alright?

So you say it's a report about what could go wrong. So what? For an analogy, lets take the big friendly Drug Companies that must tell us all of the worse side-effects of taking said drug. If a drug is advertised on TV and they have to report all of the negative disclaimers and I hear that one of them is that the drug may not be "commercially viable" to produce, then I take that to mean they may not ever make the drug from the get-go. After all, we are speaking of Businesses not Charity. How else would anyone take it? I admit it could be an empty threat, a method of trying a ploy to milk more $$ for the R&D Department and a more cash for a new "Battery Man" replacement, but really now.

I suppose GM could build the car and take a loss, but given the fact they are now controlled by the American Government, I think a little thing like saying the car may not be "commercially viable" will be interpreted as meaning GM fears they could NEVER make a profit on said car. And they happen to have some very serious bills coming up to repay the taxpayer. So why on earth would they take such a high risk gamble given the dire straights they are now in? It's NOT LIKE THEY GOT buhoos of A+ Credit right now! They can not afford to build more and more cars and claim they sell them for less than it cost to build, but it's ok, because they make up for it in volume. Please, please.

To answer you rather emotional response about our "bunches" and our "GRUNDIES" (And I am HOLDING BACK BIG TIME HERE!) All I need to read is this from the same report you sited:

"GM has marketed the Volt as the model to turn the company around, but the report claimed it “has not yet proven to be commercially viable" Gosh, do they need another 5 or ten years now to wait for somebody else to beat them so they can just take their money and go back to the drawing board for another 5 years?? Shesh. How much more direct do they need to be. They sure were not quoted saying anything remotely like that in the years past, as we continue to wait on production cars to make it to the street.

Please please do not tell us our "grundies" need adjusting. I started this thread about something that has been strongly hinted by CAR-NEWS reporters, it was not like I was the only one to interrupt GM's words for what they ARE saying. I do NOT believe it is anywhere near overreacting, just like many Car-New's Reporters have interpreted the exact same meaning as I and others on this site have. I can read as good as the next person. GM has been quoted as saying, again: "has not yet proven to be commercially viable" Even the various article's original writers (there are others) were smart enough to understand what those words are saying. I do not think anyone neither in this thread, nor on many other sites discussing this stuff are wrong in this interpretation.

Many of us take that as maybe some kind of threat to try and milk more money out of the Government, but I am sure they would just assume they could take $$ from others as well. But they ARE saying that, just maybe the car will not make it- how does one define "viable"?

Please enlighten me on just WHY it matters that this information came from a "regulatory filing"? GM has clearly stated the car may NOT BE VIABLE! I do not care what paper or form they said this though, what matters is that GM said it.

If a car is not Viable, does that not sound the same as saying "We wont be able to sell it at a profit, even if we go ahead with current plans?

Nothing personal, but with all due respect I am old enough to know what words mean.

[lusth]

OK, the "grundies" comment was uncalled for and I apologize.

As to the Volt not being viable, it very likely won't be viable. On the other hand, Prius Gen I and Gen II were also not economically viable in that Toyota sold them at a loss (at least that is my understanding).
But GM needs this car in the worst way and the tob brass have said so over and over. The only way the Volt doesn't go into production is GM goes out of business.

Finally, the original article is two months old and quotes an older document. There has been plenty of news since then to lead one to believe the Volt is not going to be scrapped.

Again, my apologies.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by lusth

OK, the "grundies" comment was uncalled for and I apologize.

As to the Volt not being viable, it very likely won't be viable. On the other hand, Prius Gen I and Gen II were also not economically viable in that Toyota sold them at a loss (at least that is my understanding).
But GM needs this car in the worst way and the tob brass have said so over and over. The only way the Volt doesn't go into production is GM goes out of business.

Finally, the original article is two months old and quotes an older document. There has been plenty of news since then to lead one to believe the Volt is not going to be scrapped.

Again, my apologies.

Cool, and thanks.

I guess where we take different sides on this is how much the government is involved. The way I see it, as I understand it anyway, GM pretty much has to get the Blessing of the American Government to do much of anything. So that begs the question of will the Government allow GM to sell a car at a loss during this political climate? I just do not see it happening. Otherwise I could, that is if GM did not have The Government looking over their shoulders upon every move. I just feel that the Government wont sit still for GM to go further into the red very far without stopping them. In other words, it's my opinion that the Government will have some deep concerns about the notion of selling any car from GM at a loss for a long length of time. If the car is not viable from Day #1 of production, they might be seen as taken on more risk than the government is comfortable with. And I admit that is speculation, however the Car-News people were the ones to first jump on this story, most of us just happen to not caught wind of it yet, and I happen to agree with their logic, even if they do not come out and explain their own speculation that I assume lead to their conclusions.

I hope The Volt makes it to production myself. My own father told me that he got word through the grapevine that, indeed, GM is in the early processes of getting things ready to re-tool next year. So, I will say there is a chance you may be right. But if GM does come out and sell that car at a loss, then I have to question The Government's thinking even more than I do now.

I agree the articles are a few weeks old, but I can not find any news since then to de-bunk them. Maybe it will happen. I guess my issue is The Government allowing GM to take on even more debt- although I agree more cash flow in is better than lower cash flow in. Maybe I just do not think like a car-guy. To me if what GM says about it not being viable is true, in this political climate, then I will be happily Surprised at the Government if they give them a year or two to make it into the black with The Volt. Meanwhile everyday we wait the competition is gearing up to compete- that's one reason it bothers me to see GM advertise this car all over the net and TV, gosh I really do wish they would wait until the car was on the car lots before pushing it so hard.

Peace.

[user removed]

50 billion dollars:

Lets put that in perspective, take 50,000 people whose net worth is exactly 1 million dollars each.

Confiscate 100% of their net worth.

Give it to GM. Yes we gave them the money if they do not pay it back.

How long and how many cars does GM have to sell at $1000 profit per car to pay the bill, not including any interest.

That's 50 million cars if my math is still good.

Now lets add interest and consider how many cars they will sell per year.

Current US sales total about 13 million a year.

Not sure of GM's share but lets guess at 25% or 3.33 million a year.

That's 15 years to pay back only the principle.

Add interest at 5% per year.

Assume they pay it off on time, roughly 15 years at 2.5% of 50 billion.

That's 37.5% of the original 50 billion or about another 3/8 ths of the 50 million cars in addition to the first 50 million cars. Works out to another close to 20 million additional cars.

That's another 1.33 million cars a year, on top of the 3.33 million for a total of 4.66 million a year.

So GM needs to sell something like 70 million cars in the next 15 years to pay off their debt.

We the people are holding the note, not the govt.

300,000,000 million people spend 50,000,000,000 dollars.

That's $165 per person out of our pockets, $230 with the interest. I had no choice but to give that money to GM.

But only 1/3 of the citizens actually file a tax return and less than 40% of those actually pay taxes.

Now the $165 is 3 times that much or $550. Divide that by .4 and you have $1375 per actual taxpayer.

I sure hope they do pay it back, since I am a taxpayer I really do not like the idea of my hard earned money being given to GM.

Where was GM to help me when I worked my arse off for a year for less than $2000 dollars in 1988, when I was living in an unheated building that did not even have hot water or a place to take a shower.

regards
Mech

[Jammer]

Interesting math Mech. Wow.

50,000,000 cars with a profit of $1,000 each.... MAN!

And yet they talk as if their dream car will have to be sold at a LOST for awhile at least. Shesh.

Like I said, I continue to enjoy my Chevy..... But I am seeing less and less hope for this company to be able to ever repay such a large amount of money. No wonder so many call it a bailout instead of a loan.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Interesting math Mech. Wow.

50,000,000 cars with a profit of $1,000 each.... MAN!

And yet they talk as if their dream car will have to be sold at a LOST for awhile at least. Shesh.

Like I said, I continue to enjoy my Chevy..... But I am seeing less and less hope for this company to be able to ever repay such a large amount of money. No wonder so many call it a bailout instead of a loan.

50,000,000 at 1000 each just pays off the principle Jammer.
Another 20,000,000 to pay the interest.

Anyone want to loan me 50 billion for 15 years without any interest?

I would build a car that would really change the game forever.

Chrysler was bailed out in the mid 80s to the tune of 1.5 billion.

They paid the load off with interest in a few years.

Lee Iacocca ran the company and they came out with the K car and the Mini
Van.

About a decade later Mercedes paid 38 billion for Chrysler and loss their butts when they sold a large part of their stock.

If you think the retirees lost a lot of money in GM's bankruptcy Jammer, you should look at what the shareholders lost.

Much of that stock was held by retirement funds.

What did they get?

Squat.

You must remember the song that went;

Tax the rich, feed the poor, until there are no rich no more.

We like to hate the rich, but in doing so we also hurt those who did all the right things only to see their financial security vanish.

Many retirement funds lost 70% of their assets in the market tumble from a high of 14k to the low of just over 6300.

We like to trash the oil companies, but you should really look at who owns the oil companies.

For every dollar the oil companies earned (ie worked for) the govt got 4 dollars out of gasoline and corporate taxes, and they didn't even pay the oil companies to collect that tax.

The Boston Tea Party was fought over a tax of 3%. When I was working at my shop, if I made more than $25k a year I paid 49.5% Federal, State and Social Security.

That doesn't include property taxes, local sales taxes, car registration taxes, or the meals tax at restaurants here that is over 10%, or any other of the numerous taxes that I can't even remember, like taxes on your utility bills, cable tv, and even the tax you pay on your internet connection.

Even at that exorbitant rate the govt still couldn't balance their checkbook., so they spent the taxes they had not collected.

If you or I did that we would be in jail.

regards
Mech

PS:

That same 50 billion invested in making cars more efficient would have solved the efficiency problem altogether. People would be lining up at the dealerships to buy cars that got at least twice your 45 MPG, and the American auto industry would be opening factories and hiring hundreds of thousands of people to keep up with demand.

We would stop bleeding between 200 and 600 billion dollars to the oil cartel and that same money would be in this country promoting economic growth and creating millions of real jobs.

My first attempt to contact a manufacturer was with GM. They chose to ignore any input. In doing so they dug their own grave.