Chevy Volt Pricing

[nelsonlu]

What is even sillier is the notion of a fuel efficient C car for $33,500.

 

All of the examples you quoted are high series luxury versions but when the primary function of the vehicle is fuel economy, the last thing you should be doing is pumping up the costs with extras and making the vehicle even more expensive.

 

 

IMO, Volt could have been so much more appealing if it had been built as a Mid Sized car. GM could have picked any platform they wanted to showcase this technology, why they chose to market it as a compact with such cost restrictions is beyond comprehension...Imagine the appeal in a Crossover or even Mid sized sedan.

 

Except that GM (and Ford, and any other car company) is in the business of making profits. This is a similar situation to the this thread over in the Ford discussions about how Ford's current upswing is in no small part due to Ford's new pricing strategy, which involves pushing all of its cars upmarket. It is my belief that by including navigation, satellite radio, and five years of OnStar, among other things, GM would be increasing the car's desirability, not decreasing it. While people here may criticize Ford for packaging moonroof and upgraded stereo, for example, the reality is that doing so helps Ford's bottom line. (I know I would have never ordered a moonroof myself if I had not been forced into doing it since one cannot order navigation and BLIS without one -- and while I would have appreciated the possibility of not getting the moonroof without those things, I certainly had the choice of buying or walking away from the Fusion Hybrid.) There is nothing different here about what GM's doing -- simplifying build packages for the Volt. Certainly I don't see you making the same criticism about the fully loaded versions of the Civic and the Mazda3 (or the Jetta, or the Regal), all of which, in terms of cost of ownership, are going to be very close to the Volt and, depending on driving pattern, may surpass the Volt's cost of ownership substantially. And all of them (except the Regal, which is not yet market-tested) sell pretty well. I would imagine that the next Focus will be pretty much in the same category as well as a premium C car (at least offering the possibilities of being loaded up in the same way). That's what will help the company's bottom line and what will, at the same time, enhance, not hurt, the perception about the company's build quality.

 

As far as whether Volt could have been much more appealing as a mid-size sedan -- that depends. If a C-segment Volt costs $41K, a hypothetical mid-size Volt probably would have cost about $48K or so (bigger car requires bigger batteries, plus right now, the Volt sacrifices the fifth seat for the battery space; if a fifth seat is required, that battery space has to go elsewhere somehow), which, I'm sure, you would have criticized as making it even less appealing when compare to the Malibu. I feel that, by fully packaging the Volt the way it is doing, GM is in fact learning its mistakes from the way that it really made the Malibu Hybrid undesirable by decontenting it compared to the regular Malibu, in order to try to make it price competitive, while in reality, the only way that the Malibu Hybrid could have succeeded was by being made to be better than the regular Malibu. They made Malibu Hybrid a hybrid that was inferior to the regular gas version, which was never going to work. Ford made the Fusion Hybrid a nice car, and that's why it is succeeding. The Volt is not going to succeed as a car that is only as good or worse (or even just slightly nicer) than the Cruze; it has to be a much nicer car for it to have any chance of succeeding.

Edited August 1, 2010 by nelsonlu

[jpd80]

Except that GM (and Ford, and any other car company) is in the business of making profits. This is a similar situation to the this thread over in the Ford discussions about how Ford's current upswing is in no small part due to Ford's new pricing strategy, which involves pushing all of its cars upmarket. It is my belief that by including navigation, satellite radio, and five years of OnStar, among other things, GM would be increasing the car's desirability, not decreasing it. While people here may criticize Ford for packaging moonroof and upgraded stereo, for example, the reality is that doing so helps Ford's bottom line. (I know I would have never ordered a moonroof myself if I had not been forced into doing it since one cannot order navigation and BLIS without one -- and while I would have appreciated the possibility of not getting the moonroof without those things, I certainly had the choice of buying or walking away from the Fusion Hybrid.) There is nothing different here about what GM's doing -- simplifying build packages for the Volt. Certainly I don't see you making the same criticism about the fully loaded versions of the Civic and the Mazda3 (or the Jetta, or the Regal), all of which, in terms of cost of ownership, are going to be very close to the Volt and, depending on driving pattern, may surpass the Volt's cost of ownership substantially. And all of them (except the Regal, which is not yet market-tested) sell pretty well. I would imagine that the next Focus will be pretty much in the same category as well as a premium C car (at least offering the possibilities of being loaded up in the same way). That's what will help the company's bottom line and what will, at the same time, enhance, not hurt, the perception about the company's build quality.

 

As far as whether Volt could have been much more appealing as a mid-size sedan -- that depends. If a C-segment Volt costs $41K, a hypothetical mid-size Volt probably would have cost about $48K or so (bigger car requires bigger batteries, plus right now, the Volt sacrifices the fifth seat for the battery space; if a fifth seat is required, that battery space has to go elsewhere somehow), which, I'm sure, you would have criticized as making it even less appealing when compare to the Malibu. I feel that, by fully packaging the Volt the way it is doing, GM is in fact learning its mistakes from the way that it really made the Malibu Hybrid undesirable by decontenting it compared to the regular Malibu, in order to try to make it price competitive, while in reality, the only way that the Malibu Hybrid could have succeeded was by being made to be better than the regular Malibu. They made Malibu Hybrid a hybrid that was inferior to the regular gas version, which was never going to work. Ford made the Fusion Hybrid a nice car, and that's why it is succeeding. The Volt is not going to succeed as a car that is only as good or worse (or even just slightly nicer) than the Cruze; it has to be a much nicer car for it to have any chance of succeeding.

Good post.

 

My problem is that I'm looking at the Volt from a Ford product perspective, not what GM has or is using.

I know that Ford is working on a "Volt" of their own, still a couple of years away but much better car in

terms of space utilization. Time will tell with GM's Volt and I wish it every success, I just feel that GM

could have delivered the technology much better in another slightly larger vehicle vehicle like their CUVs or as a Buick.

Edited August 1, 2010 by jpd80

[nelsonlu]

Good post.

 

My problem is that I'm looking at the Volt from a Ford product perspective, not what GM has or is using.

I know that Ford is working on a "Volt" of their own, still a couple of years away but much better car in

terms of space utilization. Time will tell with GM's Volt and I wish it every success, I just feel that GM

could have delivered the technology much better in another slightly larger vehicle vehicle like their CUVs or as a Buick.

 

Perhaps -- and they were initially going to release a plug-in hybrid Saturn Vue until Saturn was eliminated. And then it was supposed to come as a Buick (and was known by its detractors as the "Vuick") until they decided that that was a bad idea, too. We'll see if/when that vehicle shows up, and as what.

 

One thing I did just notice, though, that the Volt, like the Malibu Hybrid, will have no spare tire -- but only a "tire inflator kit." In my opinion, that is a really, really bad idea. But of course, they don't work for me, and as I said, I was not going to get a Volt myself anyway, but that will make my recommendation of a Volt to anyone who may ask me for recommendations much more muted.

[Anthony]

Certain 2011 Mustangs don't come with a spare either. I believe it is the larger diameter wheel options.

[nelsonlu]

The Michigan Public Service Commission has apparently approved of two separate charging plans for EVs:

Edmunds Article

 

1. Special charging rates for charging between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. or

2. $40 flat fee for charging an EV per month.

 

Given that Edmunds claimed that it cost them about $35 to charge a MiniE for 7,500 miles, I can't see option 2 as making sense for those who don't drive a lot. But assuming that it does make sense (due to residential rates being generally higher), this does give a gauge as to the maximum amount of money an EV driver will pay for "fuel," thus making it easier to directly compare with conventional vehicles' fuel costs.

[BrewfanGRB]

Yep, I'm thinking the same thing. All we are doing is shifting our energy use from one dirty source to another. There are over 600 coal burning power plants operating in America. And they supply like 90% of our electrical needs. Wind and solar supply less than .5%.

 

Oh goody! More hyperbole, inaccuracies and nonsense in an otherwise fact-based and reasoned thread. Oh wait, it's FordBuyer.

 

I think the Volt is ridiculous (and the Prius and the Leaf and anything else). But, again, accuracy matters, otherwise arguments just can't be taken seriously.

 

Coal represents 45% (rounded) of all electricity generation in the US (hmm, not even a rounding error gets you to 90%--so like 90% of what you post, it seems, you just completely made that up). Coal IS the largest source of generation, though. Natural gas is 2nd at 23.4%, petroleum is 1%. So ALL fossil fuel sources provide 69.4% of all generation (still not 90%...but getting closer!!)

 

Nuclear in place provides 20.3% and renewables provide 3.6% (gee, you were only off by 600%...ooopsie!). The remainder comes from hydro.

 

Sure, if you live in an area that is largely generates its electricity via coal (like I do), you are shifting it from one "dirty" source to another. But the problem is the electricity used to charge the batteries is nowhere near on the scale of the amount of gasoline you'd need to go the same distance. The baseline power is already there. But every gallon of gas you don't use is CO, NOx, O3, etc not put in the air. It's hard to imagine that using the electricity necessary to charge the batteries puts equal amounts of extra mercury, CO2, particulate in the air, since the boilers are already blazing away anyway.

 

Link to data re: generation: (User created pie chart on Wiki using EIA data---which I went to the referenced link and check the data. The "title" says 2008, but it is 2009 data). Link

[fordmantpw]

The baseline power is already there. But every gallon of gas you don't use is CO, NOx, O3, etc not put in the air. It's hard to imagine that using the electricity necessary to charge the batteries puts equal amounts of extra mercury, CO2, particulate in the air, since the boilers are already blazing away anyway.

 

For the most part, your argument is sound (I didn't check your figures) outside of what I quoted. The plants are only producing the amount of electricity that is used. If a plant produces 1000 MW of power, that power is used. If you plug a car in now, they will have to generate 1000 MW plus the few kW that car uses. So they have to feed in more coal (or natural gas or fuel rods, etc.) to make that extra power. It isn't free just because the "boilers are already blazing". They don't currently just dump spare electricity into space...if it isn't used, it isn't produced.

 

Another note...it is much easier to control the polution of 600 power plants than it is millions of cars. That is the good thing about shifting the "dirty" from cars to power plants.

[BrewfanGRB]

For the most part, your argument is sound (I didn't check your figures) outside of what I quoted.

FWIW, I was picking on FordBuyer, not you. He's the one using made up figures of 90% for coal and 0.5% for renewables.

 

The plants are only producing the amount of electricity that is used. If a plant produces 1000 MW of power, that power is used. If you plug a car in now, they will have to generate 1000 MW plus the few kW that car uses. So they have to feed in more coal (or natural gas or fuel rods, etc.) to make that extra power. It isn't free just because the "boilers are already blazing". They don't currently just dump spare electricity into space...if it isn't used, it isn't produced.

 

You're right. Faulty logic on my part and your points are totally valid. Whatever gasoline isn't used is offset by SOME amount of extra coal or natural gas or uranium. (And no matter what your source of generation is, if the utility needs "extra" electricity, it's likely getting it by throwing more coal on the fire or turning up the gas, not taking the cover off a solar panel. Haha)

 

Another note...it is much easier to control the polution of 600 power plants than it is millions of cars. That is the good thing about shifting the "dirty" from cars to power plants.

 

Fair enough. In reading my post above, I can see I'm conflcted over the position I'm trying to take. Hmm. I think I was just so revved up over using ridiculous figures in FordBuyer's post, I couldn't write straight. I think the position I have is that fewer cars on the road, no matter how you get there, is still better in the long run. Because even though cars are getting cleaner and cleaner, so is electricity generation (more so because generation is shifting to cleaner sources generally moreso than dirty sources are getting less dirty).