What Is GM Thinking?

[Chuckiechan]

Business World - WSJ.com

With each hectic advance in the development process, the expected sticker price to consumers has gone up. Reportedly, off-the-shelf electrical fixtures, such as headlights and taillights, won't suffice because they draw too much power. At last leakage, GM is saying now the Volt may need a sticker price of $45,000.

They are either really smart, or really dumb. I guess we'll have to let the market decide.

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

Business World - WSJ.com



They are either really smart, or really dumb. I guess we'll have to let the market decide.

Chevrolet | New Electric Car - Concept Chevy Volt


When it comes to plugging in, the Volt will be designed to use a common 110–volt household plug. For someone who drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions.(2) For longer trips, Chevy Volt's range-extending power source kicks in to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack as required.

$45,000 + tax + tag + electric bill + insurance = 40 miles a day.


Wonder why they're on the verge of BANKRUPTCY Idiots And they want a government bailout.

No with MY money Idiots

[cyphen]

That's almost twice what my dad paid for his house in 1970. I think the government bailouts they've benefited from in the past have enabled these bad decisions, and bad products. a $45,000 electric vehicle is going to do absolutely zero to reduce gas consumption... nobody can afford it.

[The Real Bingo]

This is obviously not the answer - at least at that price point.

The domestics need a fuel efficient car with style. Why can Honda and Toyota make decent-looking cars that get good mileage, but the when the domestics make a fuel-saver, it screams "ECONOMY!"?

GM needs something like the Geo Metro but with style.

[M_Six]

GM also has a 72-month, no interest loan on some vehicles. Simple present/future value calculations will show that is a losing proposition. For instance, When GM finally gets their full $36,000 at the end of 6 years, it will really only be worth $33,600. So they lose $2400 on the deal. Multiply that times a few hundred thousand vehicles and you're talking real money.

There is a reason banks charge interest.

Although I wonder if you settled on $36k over 6 years and then offered them, say, $34k cash, if they'd take it?

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by M_Six

GM also has a 72-month, no interest loan on some vehicles. Simple present/future value calculations will show that is a losing proposition. For instance, When GM finally gets their full $36,000 at the end of 6 years, it will really only be worth $33,600. So they lose $2400 on the deal. Multiply that times a few hundred thousand vehicles and you're talking real money.

There is a reason banks charge interest.

Although I wonder if you settled on $36k over 6 years and then offered them, say, $34k cash, if they'd take it?

No-interest loans are fine as long as the seller compensates for it by charging a premium at the time of purchase. Of course the dealers can't do that because no one would buy a car at a premium.

Maybe the theory is the owner will "trade up" before the 72 months, which will benefit the dealership and manufacturer.

[Chuckiechan]

I heard Obama is going to give everyone a new car. All you have to do to get it is promise to vote for him.

Actually, I think Obama is up for a tarriff on imported autos. Level the playing field - keep jobs in the USA.

Add Cap in Trade to GM for another 8% operating costs...

Unemployment will start going up just in time for the elections.

[Gomer]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

This is obviously not the answer - at least at that price point.

The domestics need a fuel efficient car with style. Why can Honda and Toyota make decent-looking cars that get good mileage, but the when the domestics make a fuel-saver, it screams "ECONOMY!"?

GM needs something like the Geo Metro but with style.

If we take vainglorius expectations out of the equation, the solution is a lot simpler.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Why does it take one DooG to tell ten Humanids that an all-electric car that you just plug consumes electricity.

How much Oil is used to produce that electricity?

Taking that into account, what is the Oil-consuption total and Carbon footprint of an all plug in car?

I can see where in locations like Los Angelos and Mexico City, where noxious smog and ground-level ozone is a problem, that an all-electric car like that might shift the pollution from there to another place --where the electricity is produced.
But that's about it.

I wonder how much of this is just tweaking the public panic to get more devestation from off-shore drilling. Also, the law that was to provide for a second Alaska pipeline for ANWR actually PROhibited even the consideration or research into just joining up with the Canadian pipeline. Is Canada an enemy???

Other than that, it sounds like another boondoggle (not boon doogle) like the corn-ethenol scam.

Notice how Brazilian sugar ethonol is still heavily taxed and cars are not tweaked for it as far as I know.

I'll bet you the Oil Trust has its hands in the Corn-ethanol pot --to maintain its energy monopoly.

Who was the dumb ass that let Exxon and Mobil merge ? Ah! The Justice Dept.
Some justce !

MegalosSkylaki

[Gomer]

Originally Posted by MegalosSkylaki

Why does it take one DooG to tell ten Humanids that an all-electric car that you just plug consumes electricity.

How much Oil is used to produce that electricity?

Taking that into account, what is the Oil-consuption total and Carbon footprint of an all plug in car?

I can see where in locations like Los Angelos and Mexico City, where noxious smog and ground-level ozone is a problem, that an all-electric car like that might shift the pollution from there to another place --where the electricity is produced.
But that's about it.

We've been down this road before =)

Originally Posted by Gomer

The electricity s generated via internet forum debates.

I know what you are driving at. (HA!)

But there are benefits to concentrating that pollution in one place and EV's in general. You only have one tail pipe to implement pollution controls on instead of 1-million.

EV's are more efficient. The thermodynamic cycles utilized in power plants are much more efficient than the Otto Cycle utilized by one of the least efficient power plant, the gasoline internal combustion engine. Thermodynamic cycles notwithstanding... having a single massive powerplant in one place versus a million miniature ones means that the efficiency of that single plant can be better and easier optimized.

EV's utilize regenerative braking. Something that is impossible with the IC engine (save for hybrids). Go 0-80 in a IC vehicle and hit the brakes to come to a stop. Does that put gas back in the tank? Do the same thing in an EV and coming to a stop recharges the batteries.

$2 worth of electrical energy will drive me back and forth to work 10 times. $2 of gas would leave me stranded at work the second day.

Ultimately, we need to crack the electric generation nut anyway. Either through the use of nuke or solar or tidal or some combination thereof. But even if we aren't able to do that... we hemorrhage enough electrical waste as a nation that if we nipped that in the bud... we could power many EV's with no gross increase in output.

Two bad puns for the price of one, DoOg. I won't charge you a cent for either one.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HHAHAHA

HA




heh