Are the Chevy Volt’s sales being inflated by “giveaway” leases?

posted at 10:41 am on September 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Chevy Volt, which the Obama administration has hailed as the vanguard of its green-energy subsidy efforts, has had a bad month in the news.  While GM announced a sales record for the plug-in hybrid for August, Reuters pointed out that the company was losing around $49,000 per vehicle in those sales, pouring red ink into an automaker that can’t deal with the money it already owes taxpayers.  Fox News then reported that the sales record came in part because the Department of Defense began ramping up purchases of the Volt, making it look like another bailout was in process.

Earlier this week, Forbes discovered how GM was able to claim a record in the first place.  The company has been practically giving away Volts in its lease program:

GM is giving away rent-a-Volts. While the claim of 2800+ sales in August is certainly enough to still the Volt’s critics, at least until Election Day (which is all that really matters to the current management), that number is an automotive Potemkin Village, concealing enough rot to make any czar, car or otherwise, proud.

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me), Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as little as $250 down and $199/month.  Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold.  Prior to the giveaway leases, GM says that 40% of 2012 sales were also leases.  The number remains the same—an average of about 925 cars really sold each month for this year.

Automotive News recently reported that the feds have purchased 182 Volts so far in 2012.  Now we’re down to 900 real sales per month..  Corporate (fleet) sales are conservatively estimated at 5% of the total, putting the consumer number closer to 850.

Two years at $199 a month and $250 down amounts to $5,026.  What happens at the end of two years?  Either the lessee buys the vehicle, or the dealer takes it back to sell as a used car.  The car becomes a write-off for GM, while the dealer pockets most of the proceeds, according to Forbes. The big loser? Taxpayers, who both own GM stock and pay the bill for all the subsidies, as well as the write-off losses in deductions from taxable corporate income.

The truth is that there isn’t much of a market for the Volt, and there probably wouldn’t be any without the massive subsidies provided by taxpayers.  It’s not difficult to determine why.

  • Sustained value — There isn’t any in the Volt. For the sticker price — even with the subsidies — it’s underpowered and undersized compared to the rest of the market.  Thanks to a massive battery replacement cost at somewhere around the 8-year mark, there won’t be any trade-in or resale value for the car, either, which is why lessees are highly unlikely to buy the car from GM at the end of the two-year lease.  Without that battery replacement, the Volt becomes an underpowered, undersized, and overly expensive internal-combustion vehicle.
  • Energy — Much is made of the cleanliness of the plug-in chargeability, especially in ads for the Volt and the Nissan Leaf.  But about half the energy to recharge the battery comes from coal, which is the main contributor to American electrical production.  The internal-combustion engines in most cars are more efficient at using gasoline, with the ability to control emissions better, too.  Thanks to a raft of new EPA regulations on coal, electricity production will be declining since other technologies aren’t ready to take its place in terms of mass-production capability, which means that the lengthy recharge will end up costing consumers more than a trip to the gas station — and that gets more pronounced the more vehicles we move away from gasoline and onto an already-limited electrical grid.
  • Environment — Apart from the concerns above, the manufacture of these batteries — and especially their disposal — will create massive environmental problems.  Rare-earth elements necessary to their production are rare indeed in the US, which means we will have to increase our dependence on Asia for those commodities.  The manufacture of battery arrays is notoriously bad for the environment, and we’re now talking about multiplying the need per car.  Disposal is even worse; it will make the environment more toxic rather than less, and the long-term prospects for manufacturing aren’t good unless we find greater reserves of these elements.

The concept of the electric vehicle has been around a long time, but has never been suitable for mass production, except as golf carts with limited use.  We shouldn’t close our eyes to the possibilities of these kinds of vehicles, but neither should we subsidize inefficiency and counter-productive technologies in the vain hope that we can make up massive losses by selling in large volume, which is the kind of thinking that put GM in need of a bailout in the first place.  We should be looking at other fuel options, such as hydrogen or natural gas (a vehicle technology that’s also been around for decades) rather than continue to throw money away on a failure.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama’s Edsel: the Chevy Volt.

Except taxpayers weren’t stuck with paying for the Edsel . . .

natasha333 on September 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

If GM could get Treasury to sell its GM holdings GM would stop producing Volts. They’re only made under orders from Obama. It’s contributing to their “Government Motors” woes.

Charlemagne on September 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The Chevy Volt Scam…

PatriotRider on September 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Sad. If you read the car mags’ reviews, it’s a good car, but it’s become a political lightning rod. And oh, BTW, it’s been under development since 2007, so it predates Obama.

Ward Cleaver on September 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Can we get some recent polling threads going?

This is a crucially important issue, the car thing. But I am having a really hard time understanding why they just keep sampling Democrats over and over. It’s confusing. PLease break it down for me.

tommyhawk on September 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

If GM could get Treasury to sell its GM holdings GM would stop producing Volts. They’re only made under orders from Obama. It’s contributing to their “Government Motors” woes.

Charlemagne on September 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

No, they would still build them. The Voltec platform is also going to provide the underpinnings for upcoming Cadillac ELR.

Ward Cleaver on September 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It’s probably the case also that these leases are being done through GMAC (now known as Ally Bank) which is still 75% owned by the government, so the rates are indirectly being subsidized by the taxpayer. GMAC was given a federal bank charter in late December of 2008, in violation of federal law as it did not qualify, in order for it to receive TARP money and Fed loans.

rockmom on September 21, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Perverted.

Bmore on September 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM

But, I don’t think the Volt deserves tax credits, since it’s not an electric car – it’s a gasoline-electric hybrid, just like a Prius, which doesn’t get the $7,500 credit. Originally, it was was going to be an electric car with a gasoline-fueled range extender (no mechanical connection between the gas engine and the wheels), like the Fisker Karma. Then, GM backtracked and told everyone it was a hybrid.

Ward Cleaver on September 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Who cares if the car is an environmental disaster and an expensive flop, it creates happiness to have them on the road.

Now rich liberals can drive a Volt from their mansion in Malibu to the airport where their Gulfstream V awaits to jet them off to Europe, and feel good knowing they are saving the environment.

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Are the Chevy Volt’s sales being inflated by “giveaway” leases?

Hmmm, let em see, tough question, did Obama lie about who killed Ambassador Stevens and why? Oh yea, that right he did, so in that case, I’m going to have to go with…. Well Duh…

SWalker on September 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

From the article:

Now there’s a low-mileage used Volt out there that they can probably sell for $34,000 …

I wouldn’t bet on that.

Typhoon on September 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I wonder if all those super fine Business Schools across the country have ever weighed in on the Volt and its business model.
Certainly all those well educated and super smart folks have something to say. I’d like to hear it.

Jabberwock on September 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I’ve never understood the preference of hybrids over natural gas cars. You could convert your car tomorrow to run on CNG AND gasoline if it weren’t for the EPA. The actual parts and labor to do it would run you about $1500, but the final price is closer to $10K because of all the EPA standards and licensing crap they tack on.

Meric1837 on September 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The International Business Times pointed out, the $49,000 figure does not take into account future Volt sales or the application of its technology to other products, which will lower per-vehicle costs.

However, at best the volt will beak even. GM even admits this.

Chevy volt=The new Trabant.

nazo311 on September 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me), Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as little as $250 down and $199/month. Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases

…wonder how the car companies got in money trouble in the first place?…
A few years ago I was driving a Ram Hemi truck for $139.00 a month…my wife a Jeep Commander for $214.00 a month…both with no money out of pocket and 15,000 miles a year. My daughter had a Jeep Liberty for $114.00 a month with 10,500 miles. Chrysler quit that…GM seems to be going down the same path as before…oh wait!…WHO CARES?

KOOLAID2 on September 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I wonder if all those super fine Business Schools across the country have ever weighed in on the Volt and its business model.
Certainly all those well educated and super smart folks have something to say. I’d like to hear it.

Jabberwock on September 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

yeah…”Did you want de-caf or regular?”

Laura in Maryland on September 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Not to mention the fleets of them being bought BY THE GOVERNMENT.

UnderstandingisPower on September 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

We should be looking at other fuel options, such as hydrogen or natural gas (a vehicle technology that’s also been around for decades) rather than continue to throw money away on a failure.

I have an even better idea Ed, why don’t we just start looking at Unicorn farts as the alternative fuel of the future.

SWalker on September 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Sad. If you read the car mags’ reviews, it’s a good car, but it’s become a political lightning rod. And oh, BTW, it’s been under development since 2007, so it predates Obama.

Ward Cleaver on September 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

It’s a basically decent car. That’s the best that can be said for it. Car and Driver found it inferior in just about every respect to Chevy’s own Cruze, with which it’s arguably competing:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2011-chevrolet-volt-vs-2011-chevrolet-cruze-eco-comparison-test

Take away the “allure of the new” whiz-bang technology and you’re left with an underpowered, overpriced four-seat econobox.

Spannerhead on September 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Obama’s Edsel: the Chevy Volt.

Except taxpayers weren’t stuck with paying for the Edsel . . .

Ah, the Edsel — named for one of Henry Ford’s sons.

One, bad choice in a car name.

Second, its ugly grill, described as “an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon!”

It didn’t have chance before the first model hit the showroom floor.

Carmakers, and unions, should be responsible for their bad decisions, not the taxpayers.

hawkeye54 on September 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Acceptable
Creative
Accounting

Another FAILED Ocommie legacy.

FlaMurph on September 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

One, bad choice in a car name.
Second, its ugly grill, described as “an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon!”
It didn’t have chance before the first model hit the showroom floor.

Additionally , it was poorly placed in the market,overlapping the market of Mercury buyers and during a recession as well.
.
That being said , the Edsel actually was an excellent car with a lot of advanced features and engineering.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on September 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM

How many of these vehicles are being bought by the government now and I bet it is over 50% and that is the real cause of the inflated sales numbers.

JeffinSac on September 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Let’s dump our stock in GM now. We’ll take a haircut but there is NO REASON ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH for the government to be involved in making consumer durables.

Oh sorry, I forgot the Commies are in charge. No habla.

CorporatePiggy on September 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The Volt concept is actually a pretty good idea on how to develop a vehicle that is less dependent on gas. The idea is not really new. In the 30s the USN and Electric Boat developed diesel electric drive for US Subs. The diesels never actually drove the boat on the surface. They simply provided power to the electric battery motors while charging the battery for submerged operation. This is how the Volt works. the gas 3cyl engine never powers the car. It simply powers the battery once it’s emptied its charge. If the batteries can be produced at lower cost, longer service and longer duration the concept is doable. And the Volt aint Obama’s idea. it’s been in the works at least a decade at GM.

xkaydet65 on September 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM

That being said , the Edsel actually was an excellent car with a lot of advanced features and engineering.

yeah, I recall hearing that. Too bad the name and market timing were chosen poorly.

hawkeye54 on September 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Accounting reporting like that used to get you put into prison.

MNHawk on September 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

yeah…”Did you want de-caf or regular?”

Laura in Maryland on September 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Sorry about that. I have been on a tear on Ivy League schools since that professor went on about them being an entrance into “Elite” society.
But, I am serious about their input or evaluation regarding the marketing and sales of the Volt.
Not only is this vehichle targeted as the new model of our atomobile future, but we as taxpayers are heavily invested in the company that is to provide the technology. Our money is on the hook.
For an extra 10 million dollars, not all that much considering, we should of had our best and brightest telling the world and us WHY this is the car to have.
Clearly, GM did not have the skill set to do this. The proof is in the pudding.
My bet is that no nobody was willing to risk their reputation to pitch this car.

Jabberwock on September 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

hitler had his volkswagon….

…..Obama has his voltswagon

tom daschle concerned on September 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Highest energy output per unit volume is GASOLINE!
All other fuel choices are less efficient.
Nitro is more efficient, but BOOM!
Nobody pays any attention to the loss of engine efficiency due to the crap ethanol that we get screwed for twice….subsidies to produce it, higher food prices, and we’re taxed on it at the pump, both fed and state. Really DUMB idea.
And best of all, it cost you about 3mpg in fuel efficiency.
Corn Ethanol is a Political payoff….period.
Prepare for the end of the Republic.
Buy food, guns, ammo.
III%

dirtengineer on September 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The gas 3cyl engine never powers the car. It simply powers the battery once it’s emptied its charge.

Incorrect. It’s a 4-cyl, and it assists the electric motor under certain conditions.

If the batteries can be produced at lower cost, longer service and longer duration the concept is doable.

True, but how much incentive does GM have to reduce production cost if the cost of the car is being subsidized by you and me?

And the Volt aint Obama’s idea. it’s been in the works at least a decade at GM.

xkaydet65 on September 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM

It’s Obama’s poster child, a metaphor for his economic and environmental philosophy.

Spannerhead on September 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM

The ignorance about the auto industry here is astounding. Auto companies often use low production cars to develop technologies that are then applied to other higher volume vehicles. The “cost” is applied to the Volt, but future cars get the technology for “free”. They also use the cars to get people into the showrooms or for image reasons. The Corvette is not a cash cow for GM. It has been on the chopping block many times as it is not very profitable to GM. But they keep it for image reasons. They also use the Corvette to try out new technologies before it is applied to more mainstream vehicles.

ZippyZ on September 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Battery technology is the bugaboo.
They’ve been trying to get a higher energy pack for decades, but the teck and materials don’t exist….yet.

dirtengineer on September 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

So let’s say you don’t deplete the batteries and you run this plug-in electric car at “max range speed”, the equivalent of the highway rating for a gas car. What is the cost per mile, vis-a-vis, the impact on your electric bill? No one ever talks about that.

For a Honda Accord that gets 33 mpg and is filled with $4 gas, it’s 12.12 cents per mile.

And Zippy, if your statement was accurate, Honda would still be producing the Prelude and the S2000.

M240H on September 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Besides electricity will soon be so expensive you won’t be able to afford to use it on your car.

petefrt on September 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM

$200 bucks a month for a $40,000 car is a pretty good deal. For the leasee. The dealership is getting screwed in that transaction.

lorien1973 on September 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Hey Zippy…
NO corp can exist posting the losses they are on the Volt.
Only the taxper paying the bill keeps this piece of crap on the production line.
You do R & D on your own dime if the tech is promising, but the electric car era came and went generations ago. You cant carry enough energy to make it work….unless you get rid of 99% of the US land mass.
Just a Greenie idea with no future without huge Tax subsidy.
Use your brain…think volumetric efficiency.

dirtengineer on September 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

ZippyZ on September 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I would agree.
But,

Volt has a long, long way to go to match Corvette’s influence in GM cars. Don’t think too many kids have Volt posters in their rooms at home.

Jabberwock on September 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

It’s hard to find a better example of redistribution of wealth to the rich than the huge subsidies showered on those purchasing the $ 41,000 Volt. I hope Romney starts pointing that out.

DaMav on September 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Who cares if the car is an environmental disaster and an expensive flop, it creates happiness to have them on the road.

Now rich liberals can drive a Volt from their mansion in Malibu to the airport where their Gulfstream V awaits to jet them off to Europe, and feel good knowing they are saving the environment.

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Aye, but it makes the proggies feel so good about themselves. In my neighborhood most every car or truck is parked in the garage. The Volt (or Toyota Pious) is the exception, they are always outside in the driveway. It’s a liberal medallion, advertising the owner’s moral superiority.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Lorien,
It’s the taxpayer getting screwed.

dirtengineer on September 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

This newsflash just in: “Water is Wet”….

Back to you and the left-wing propaganda machine….

redguy on September 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Heck. I would drive one for two years at that price.

It’s still a boondoggle.

stvnscott on September 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM

If they get that deal a little lower and offer it in my area… I’ll have to take it and screw the rest of you taxpayers just so I can say I did it./evil me ~
-

RalphyBoy on September 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Obama’s Edsel: the Chevy Volt.

Except taxpayers weren’t stuck with paying for the Edsel . . .

natasha333 on September 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

-
You’re right… But Dear Learder was hoping to make this his ”
‘Voltsvagon’

RalphyBoy on September 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM

It’s fun to bash Obama on the Volt, but we will be driving electric cars one day soon.

Battery prices will continue to fall.

So, fellow conservatives, it would be nice to stop buying oil/gas from the ME.

faraway on September 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Back in the USSR with the government influencing manufacturing data…

albill on September 21, 2012 at 12:12 PM

It’s fun to bash Obama on the Volt, but we will be driving electric cars one day soon.

Battery prices will continue to fall.

So, fellow conservatives, it would be nice to stop buying oil/gas from the ME.

faraway on September 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Those batteries that are made in CHINA? That require rare earth elements that come from unstable places like Africa?

And where does the electricity come from to recharge all these batteries, after we kill off coal and nuclear power, and stop the fracking so we can’t get to the natural gas?

rockmom on September 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Rare-earth elements necessary to their production are rare indeed in the US, which means we will have to increase our dependence on Asia for those commodities.

I guess what Ed really meant to say was the Peoples Republic of China but somehow was unable to get his fingers to type that. China has bought up the rights to over 98% of all rare earth minerals in the world. It has bought nearly every operating mine worldwide for these elements that are absolutely necessary for creating virtually any electronic consumer product as well as batteries. China has caused the prices of rare earths to skyrocket, imposed a moratorium on their export for a period last year to demonstrate its power, and retains a stranglehold on worldwide production of innumerable products.

No story there, just move along…

in_awe on September 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Try buying an Edsel at sticker price and see what you come up with.

BruceB on September 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Try buying an Edsel at sticker price and see what you come up with.

BruceB on September 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM

So Chevy Volts belong in museums? Maybe.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2012 at 1:14 PM

GM is comong with a new hybrid, the Ampere. It has more than twice the sticker shock as the volt.

Bevan on September 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

GM is comong with a new hybrid, the Ampere. It has more than twice the sticker shock as the volt.

Bevan on September 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Your resistance to the Volt is troubling.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Your resistance to the Volt is troubling.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Ohm!

Bevan on September 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM

The article understated the trade-in resale issue. Volt has neither.

No on in their right mind would buy a used Volt like car with the prospect of having to pay for a new battery pack in a couple of years.

The article correctly points out that electricity costs will be rapidly rising on an ever steeper curve as the EPA shuts down coal and Obama prevents oil exploration.

And we are not just reliant on Lithium for the batters provided by foreign countries, we are 100% dependent on those foreign sources. That means we are giving up access to plentiful fossil fuels here to become ever more dependent on foreign suppliers of Lithium (hint: China is one of the largest producers of Lithium).

Finally, the impact that electric cars have on the environment needs to be restated in more understandable terms. Given the entire life cycle of conventional and electric cars from production to disposal, conventional cars are cheaper, more environmentally friendly, less toxic, more energy independent, and in most cases safer than electric cars.

Like Ethanol, the electric car has no tangible benefits to environment or energy independence. And without the taxpayers giving private companies and individuals billions of dollard to produce and buy these government mandated products, they would never exist–saving the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

BMF on September 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Obama’s Edsel: the Chevy Volt.

Except taxpayers weren’t stuck with paying for the Edsel . . .

natasha333 on September 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

…AND the Edsel could actually be used as useful transportation!!! Also, its range on a tank of gas was as good as other makes, it could be re-fuelled anywhere, and it didn’t set its owner’s garage on fire.

landlines on September 21, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You don’t need Forbes to tell you this.

http://www.truecar.com/prices-new/chevrolet/volt-pricing/2012/

I tried two places where Volt’s sale is likely to be higher – LA area and greater Detroit area (where GM employees will buy).

The LA area sales seem to pay more than the invoice typically while the Detroit area sales is skewed to be under the invoice. Combine this with Forbes piece, I will not be surprised if major Volt sales is employee, friends and family buys. This is not uncommon in Detroit, but Volt seems to have a greater share of inhouse buys.

sram on September 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Finally, the impact that electric cars have on the environment needs to be restated in more understandable terms. Given the entire life cycle of conventional and electric cars from production to disposal, conventional cars are cheaper, more environmentally friendly, less toxic, more energy independent, and in most cases safer than electric cars.

BMF on September 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM

It seems that just about everything done lately to “save the environment” has the opposite effect, because the “environmentalists” put politics (or personal gain) (or both, so convenient) before science in every case.

Hazmat light bulbs, for instance.
Wind turbines for another.
Ethanol.

AesopFan on September 21, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Ed,

Somewhere in there are the GE purchases. They promised to buy 12,000 Volts over a 3 year period. They sent an email to the employees for whom they cars were being purcased outlining that they must be charged overnight and not used as a normal gasoline only vehicle. That would bring taht number down even further.

CB

Corky Boyd on September 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Sad. If you read the car mags’ reviews, it’s a good car, but it’s become a political lightning rod. And oh, BTW, it’s been under development since 2007, so it predates Obama.

Ward Cleaver on September 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

True, but Obama bought (stole) the company and showcased the car as his baby. He owns it lock, stock, and battery.

Think of a ball club paying gazillions for the “greatest pitcher of all time”, only to find he can’t throw 40 ft, with a MLB ERA of 12.0. That’s the “O” Volt which ought to sell for about $199 total about battery replacement time.Why $199? Well the rednecks can turn one of those babies into a rollin smokehouse inside of an hour.

Don L on September 21, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Re: Volt not Obama’s:
 

“They’re not getting my input, but they are very, very good about keeping me up to date about what’s happening. If it’s small, they tell me after, but we’re very much aware of what GM is doing, because as a shareholder, we need to be. I like to understand [Whitacre's] thinking, so I can convey it to the people who sort of are more directly, ultimately the decision-makers here” — Geithner and chief White House economic advisor Larry Summers.”

 
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_1005_ron_bloom_interview/gm_administration.html#ixzz1Fd5frFd8

“Ultimately the decision-makers here.” Meaning the Volt was/is theirs…

rogerb on March 4, 2011 at 6:40 AM

rogerb on September 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

GM is comong with a new hybrid, the Ampere. It has more than twice the sticker shock as the volt.

Bevan on September 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Your resistance to the Volt is troubling.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Your resistance to the Volt is troubling.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Ohm!

Bevan on September 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Youse guys seems to have a high capacitor for dis kind uh stuff!

Don L on September 21, 2012 at 5:35 PM