Detroit News
Chevy Volt sales fall in January to just 603
GM sold just 603 Volts – above its sales in January 2011, but far below GM’s best-ever sales month in December, when GM sold 1,529 Volts.
Last week, GM North America President Mark Reuss said sales of the Volt have been hurt by bad publicity.
Reuss said bad publicity from the government’s investigation into fire risks of post-crash Volts is “definitely a component” of the decline in sales.
GM sold about 7,700 in 2011, below GM’s target of 10,000. GM abandoned its sales target of 45,000 for 2012 last month, saying it would match “supply to demand.”
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
Only 700 people left in the country with an average income of $170,000 or higher?
Hope n change.
lorien1973 on February 2, 2012 at 12:02 AM
603 suckas
ted c on February 2, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Schadenfreude! You’re needed over here.
cynccook on February 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM
698 were sold to the Virgin Islands
faraway on February 2, 2012 at 12:06 AM
er, 598
faraway on February 2, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Is it hot in here……or is our Volt on fire
burrata on February 2, 2012 at 12:09 AM
sellin’ like hotcakes…..er, wait, pun not intended.
ted c on February 2, 2012 at 12:09 AM
The Volt is Obama’s Edsel. Actually, the Edsel sold much better.
flyfisher on February 2, 2012 at 12:15 AM
That’s electrifying.
faraway on February 2, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Volta face for Chevy?
profitsbeard on February 2, 2012 at 12:18 AM
So can we have new figures on taxpayer investment per vehicle, now that actual sales are available?
TexasDan on February 2, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Yeah. You should definitely work on making cars that don’t blow up. That way people might want to buy your cars.
SoulGlo on February 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM
How do you insure a car with a history of burning down and taking your house with it?
Blake on February 2, 2012 at 1:01 AM
The Edsel was a better car.
CurtZHP on February 2, 2012 at 1:37 AM
I assume that means December of 2011 — last month.
Well over half of this car’s sales are from the tax kickback.
logis on February 2, 2012 at 2:56 AM
Perhaps waygu beef is best seared over a burning Volt.
BHO Jonestown on February 2, 2012 at 3:37 AM
The Dolt, a fusion of Detroit’s success and Chicago’s love and peace.
ray on February 2, 2012 at 6:20 AM
It was dandy when you and your bosses were doing it to Toyota over a driver-error problem, though.
rogerb on February 2, 2012 at 6:32 AM
Don’t forget:
rogerb on February 2, 2012 at 6:38 AM
They sold that many?
roy_batty on February 2, 2012 at 6:44 AM
which explains why GM dropped the program in the 90′s – but that was a business decision – its reintroduction was a political decision.
ArthurMachado on February 2, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Perhaps Leonardo DiCaprio lost a bet with Al Gore?
radjah shelduck on February 2, 2012 at 7:22 AM
You just know they were all bought by the EPA.
These cars represent a huge financial albatross for GM but hey who cares – it’s a government ‘company’.
CorporatePiggy on February 2, 2012 at 7:41 AM
The Volt sales droppe, [not because the product is way over priced for the value, but because of 'bad rep', mind you] after Obama Motors spent $$$$ money on those laughable commercials during the last couple months on Volt.
Can we have those geniuses including Reuss advertise the wonderfulness of Obama gubmint, say EPA, Holder, Dep of transportation, education, and whatnot?
Sir Napsalot on February 2, 2012 at 7:41 AM
Maybe Holder can sell some to some Mexican cartels…
Buy a Volt,they are Fast and Furious
or
Por Volt (Voltio), son Rápidos y Furiosos
right2bright on February 2, 2012 at 7:54 AM
More like:
We bought that many?
right2bright on February 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM
Obama is pushing the Volt.
If you buy one, you will be too?
How were the sales in Connecticut, where the Oct. snow storm knocked out the power for a week to ten days??
(ya know, the state where GE has HQ?)
Wander on February 2, 2012 at 7:59 AM
Who buys these things and why?
Oldnuke on February 2, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Liberal guilt. That can be the only reason.
Darksean on February 2, 2012 at 8:21 AM
The really embarrassing thing is the way automotive journalists—who should have at least a cursory knowledge of automotive history, and thus better able to put the whole fiasco in context—jumped on the Volt bandwagon (Car and Driver named it one of their 10 Best cars of the year, etc).
I mean, anybody with a basic knowledge of economics, the mood of the buying public and a dab of history would have seen this coming a mile away.
The whole drama actually played itself out a few years earlier with the Very Light Jet (VLJ) disaster. I’m no industry consultant, but even I saw the similarities and would have advised anyone to hold off on investing in any Volt-related technology.
Spannerhead on February 2, 2012 at 8:24 AM
I actually saw one driving around Fort Worth this past Sunday. It had a big “VOLT” painted on the side…and dealer plates.
txhsmom on February 2, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Let’s first subtract fleet sales to the DOE, EPA and other hack agencies.
roy_batty on February 2, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Motor Trend Car of the Year Award = Bad Publicity. Got it.
If I were filthy, stinking rich (instead of just filthy and stinking) I’d buy a Volt, drive it straight to an auto wrecking yard, film it being crushed then post the video on YouTube.
Left Coast Right Mind on February 2, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Will junk yards takes these POS with battery? EPA and DEM take notice.
Wade on February 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM
And out of the 603, 596 caught on fire.
ToddPA on February 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM
Doesn’t building the Volts and then immediately recycling them for their component parts actually work even better by reducing emissions entirely while also supporting jobs not only at GM but also in the recycling business? Obama should pour money into “accelerated life cycle” economics immediately.
JeremiahJohnson on February 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM