Actually I'm surprised considering all the advertising expense that's all they've managed to sell. Obviously the public isn't ready for this type of transportation yet. At this point GM's r&d cost works out at $125,000 per vehicle sold. On top of that is the fact that they sell the vehicle for $1000 under their cost to build it.

They only made 8000 this year, hence they only sold 8000. Every Volt was spoken for before it left the factory.

I'm just surprised that they actually sold 8000!

Mostly to the government, or to itself in the case of GM.

At this point GM's r&d cost works out at $125,000 per vehicle sold. On top of that is the fact that they sell the vehicle for $1000 under their cost to build it.

Actually it's worse than that, it's $250,000 per Volt.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/21/govt-subsidies-for-chevy-volt-up-to-250000-per-car/

And Americans wonder why we are behind in everything. We can't make anything worth a damn anymore.

Voter-in-LA

The public was ready a long time ago, but this car like the Leaf is being introduced state by state, so they can train those who will need to sell and service it.

Hydrogen is way too dangerous and its just replacing fuel with fuel.

We need decent electric cars, not these sell outs. They killed the EV1, and they want to kill this too. They seem dead set on making a bad product to prove this type of product can't work.

Fordman97, that is something I knew but it highlights the failure as they had planned on selling between 10,000 and 11,000.

Really?-1739510, I purposely omitted tax incentives from the cost. My figure was erring on the low side as it seems pretty hard to discover the true cost of the r&d for the vehicle so have used the lowball figure of $1B which seems to be the lowest I could find from a reputable source.

edward-2830446, the public likes to think it is ready but how many really take into account the total expense? To charge the vehicle in a realistic timely fashion requires a dedicated 220V (240V?) outlet. Have you checked out electrician's fees lately? Also, not sure about where you reside, but here the cost per Kwh of electricity seems to increase almost quarterly. The current lowball estimates of an increase of $1.50 per day to charge the vehicle may not even be applicable by the time electrically powered vehicles become more popular. Also, there's the logistics involved trying to deal with people residing in apartment complexes. Suburbanites aren't going to be that interested in a vehicles with such a limited range. So the market becomes those living in or close to a city who most often will live in multi-dwelling complexes. I know here several of the universities have installed "charging stations" for the Leaf (not even sold here yet) but unless that becomes a way of life, these types of vehicles aren't going to be cost-effective for the manufacturer.

The market IS ready for electric cars WHEN THEY ARE AFFORDABLE!!! The Volt would be great at $25K, NOT at $40K.

The EV-1 was never viable, it was forced on GM by CA. Think about it, we still don't have a viable/affordable battery today, how could we possibly have had one two decades ago? Stop believing the propaganda and use a little common sense.

It think the Leaf will be a winner as well as the Ford Focus electric. These are much more viable. Technology will continue to improve and prices will eventually come down but it won't be tomorrow.

Innovation takes time. It took half a century for solar modules to become viable, it took half a century for TV's to go from a little 9" black and white circle to the 87" full color HD web connected flat screen behemoths we have today. Li Ion technology hasn't been around all that long and ultra capacitors are still in the early development stage. It just takes time.

Hydrogen is not dangerous, it is far safer than gas because it is lighter than air. However, it is not a viable fuel because there is no infrastructure to support it and it is very inefficient to make.

Voter-in-LA......

Quote.....the public likes to think it is ready but how many really take into account the total expense?......EndQuote

As you in LA surely ought to know, the "total expense" of fossil fuel internal combustion technology is also not fully accounted for. This is particularly true as pertains to environmental degradation and military/political considerations.

What is the current tab for (only) BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Has that been fully factored into the cost per gallon of gasoline? What about emphysema and other ailments related to internal combustion emissions? Do we amortize the expense of our military protection of oil producing nations and transportation channels into the cost of conventional fossil fuels?

The oil industry has been foisting expenses (fairly theirs) off upon others for decades. Why don't you discuss (complain about) that for a while?

(Hybrid) electric vehicle technology is relatively new. It is normal for even evolutionary technologies to require refinements (such as happened as we migrated to front wheel drive). A case can be made that vehicular electric propulsion is more than evolutionary and possibly even revolutionary. Do you really expect there to be no problems at all?

Japan, China, Europe and many of our international competitors are moving briskly ahead with electric vehicles. Apparently, you are content to allow our automotive industry to fall behind yet again.

The fact is that no one wants these tin cans. Most are bought by the government because the government is making them and the administration has put the heat on agencies to buy them. Heck, the government has even thrown taxpayer money towards the sales price and still no one is buying. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a car that can only go a maximum of 100 miles before in conks out isn't of much use.

As pointed out, they are already being sold for under cost. Ordinarily that would get the government in a tizzy when a company does that. But, we all know the government isn't going to regulate itself, which is what it would have to do here.

The Fixes - FAIL. Fixes make it better, not right. The battery type was a known design issue from the start. Getting the car on the market was the priority of the Government.

GM has built about 12,400 of the battery-powered Volts and sold about 8,000 of those.

I feel it getting colder already!

Hydrogen would address the worlds next media frenzy scare, water shortage. Given hydro engines emit water. The funny thing is no one see's enough of them ever being a positive to the enviroment and the worlds water problem. Yet they can absolutely say gas emmissons have a negative effect. Humm seems the math is one way for the enviroment or something odd is going on here.

Well don't worry, I hear congress has put out the word to all their oil money friends and as soon as they finish buying up all of Iowa and the rest of the corn land. We will suddenly have an ethynol infrastructure just waiting for them. And everyone will be so surprised the change over was quick and painless...LOL

A "call back" to "fortify" the car... gotta love the GM/government owned media's effort to avoid calling it what it actually is... a recall to fix a problem.

Journalists with integrity actually reported it like it is:

GM recalls Volts to fix fire risk

"GM, itself, is not calling this a "recall" but a "customer satisfaction campaign."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/05/autos/volt_fire_fix/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

If you go back and read GM history, what really stands out is how their roll-outs are ALWAYS full of recalls, product delays and missed steps. So confidence from the public wanes very quickly. Seriously, this is a huge PR problem because it turns off the public to their product and the company. In order for the taxpayer to get back the billions we lent them, their stock would need to be about 55/sh. That looks highly unlikely.

I would not buy a thing from GM. Sorry, same misguided company.

Hugin and Munin Hydrogen is way too dangerous and its just replacing fuel with fuel

Fuel for fuel...granted. But hydrogen has an abundant source (seawater) to which it would return after consumption (water is the "exhaust" of burning hydrogen). One reason why so many survived the Hindenburg disaster is due to the properties hydrogen has as it burns... Hydrogen has a lot going for it.

The problem is getting it in sufficient supplies cheaply. If solar or nuclear could ever be used efficiently enough to separate hydrogen from oxygen electrically on a scale large enough to power our machinery currently using fossil fuels, that would be a win-win.

There is a car manufacture in either Japan or Okinawa, they have designed a small car that runs off of water! They tryied to import it here, guess what ? Our federal government will not allow this invention onto the american market! Some one made a comment that hydrogen cars are dangerious, the car design does not store hydrogen! The only danger would be if the car had to store hydrogen. Americans need to make our government officials to stop representing the U.S. car industries, and represent American citizens!

Actually it's worse than that, it's $250,000 per Volt.

That "study" you quoted is highly flawed - it assumed that all of the "bailout" and subsidies were going solely to the Volt, and assumed only 6,000 Volts would ever be sold. Both assumptions are completely wrong. 7,671 Volts were sold in 2011 and sales are continuing. GM makes many different models, so any subsidies should be applied to them, too. The Volt development costs are going to be spread over several years of sales and also applies to several new models that will be using the "Voltec" drive train and batteries.

Oh, but don't let mere facts get in the way of hating an American Company and wanting to see it fail.

Amazing how wildly uninformed people are.

Dem in Texas: We aren't behind anybody. NOBODY in the world builds commercial quantities of plug-in series hybrids. Fiskar builds a handful of $100,000 Karma and next year Toyota will offer a plug-in version of the Prius. GM leads the world in the effort to develop an electrical car that gets reasonable range while still being able to function as a person's only vehicle. The Leaf can't do that.

alwaysanother & maddy indabuff: Hydrogen isn't a fuel in the traditional sense, it is an energy transfer device and a poor one at that. Hydrogen is generated by using electricity to split water or by steam reforming natural gas. If electricity is used to generate hydrogen, the process to generate electricity, assuming a chemical fuel, is at best 60% efficient (natural gas dual cycle systems), but only 30-35% for most coal plants. The electrolysis process is about 70% efficient in turning electrical energy into chemical energy in the hydrogen gas. Liquification of hydrogen gas is about 80% efficient. If all you do is then burn the hydrogen in an IC engine then about 20% of the chemical energy of the hydrogen winds up in the drive-shaft. The rest is wasted. So the total efficiency of the system starting with natural gas would be 0.6*0.7*0.8*0.2 = 0.067 or 6.7%. In other words if you start with 100 BTU of natural gas, 6.7 BTUs of energy ends up driving the car and 93.3 BTUs are simply thrown away. But what about fuel cells, they are a lot more efficient. True, they are about 50% efficient in automotive application. But replacing the 0.2 with 0.5 increases overall efficiency to only 16.8%. And this is for the most efficient electrical generation system. If the energy comes from a coal plant the overall efficiency is only 3.9% to 9.8%. You can use other non-chemical sources of electrical generation (wind, solar, nuclear), but still you waste most of the electrical energy you start with.

Much better to use that electricity to charge batteries (about 90% charge/discharge efficiency) and then use a efficient electric motor (90+% efficient electricity to shaft power). For a natural gas powered generating station, the overall energy efficiency is 0.6*0.9*0.9 = 48.6%. Note that this is more than twice as efficient compared to using the natural gas directly in an IC engine (again about 20%)

DB Akron: The NHTSA folks didn't follow the GM guidelines for how the Volt should be handled after a crash. They just towed it out back and even turned it up on it's side. They never drained the battery coolant as GM instructions say they should. What idiots. When they crash gas or diesel cars they drain the fuel tank after the crash, and why, so they won't catch fire! Why wouldn't they do the same type of safeing procedure on the Volt? But who gets the bad press, NHTSA? Hell no! Folks like you just naturally jump all over GM for their "bad" design. You really need to take off the little tin foil hat sometimes.

VoterInLA: A 240V dedicated line plus the charger is $2k - $3k. Not cheap. But assume you drive the standard 12,000 miles a year and 90% of those are on battery only. Further assume that electricity is the national average of 12.5 cents/kWh and gas is the current $3.32/gal regular & $3.59/gal premium. On electrical power the Volt gets about 250 Wh/mile (32 miles on 8 kWh of energy) and about 35 mpg on premium gas. On electrical energy costs are 0.125 $/kWh * 0.25 kW/mile = 0.031 $/mile or 3.1 cents/mile. On gas power costs are 3.59 $/gallon / 35 miles/gallon= 0.103$/mile or 10.3 cents/mile. Total costs for 12,000 miles is then 12,000*0.9*0.031 + 12,000*0.1*0.103 = $335 + $123 = $458. Assuming that you drove the pure IC equivelent, the Chevy Cruze with rated mileage of 28/42 for the Eco or about the same 35 mpg for mixed driving, those same 12,000 miles would cost you $1138 on regular gas. The fuel/energy cost savings of $680 would at least pay back the 240V charger costs in 3-4 years.

But really none of that matters. You are never going to save enough money to pay back the extra price of the Volt. But If you are buying a Volt now it is because it does something for you beyond a pure economic consideration. This is why some people choose to spend $50k on a Mercedes. An it is why not everybody is driving around in the absolutely cheapest stripped down subcompact. We all buy cars for a mix of economic and non-economic reasons. The Volt is the same. But everybody gets all exercised over the fact that it will never save enough money in gas/energy to recoup the extra price.

GM should have put the money in Hydrogen Fuel technology. They know that hydrogen burns clean in existing internal combustion engines, a simple modification.

While it is possible to run an internal combustion engine on Hydrogen, it's a really bad idea. The bulky nature of hydrogen, combined with the inefficiency of internal combustion assures short driving ranges. Examples: Quantum converted a Prius to run on highly compressed hydrogen gas at a cost of $81K, the range was just 80 miles even with hybrid efficiency and an added turbocharger. The BMW "Hydrogen 7" used a 35 gallon tank for ultra-cold liquid hydrogen, the tank filled up the trunk, yet yielded a mere 135 miles of range before it had to switch back to gasoline. Power and performance was reduced, too. Worse, the price of hydrogen fuel comes to $8 to $13 per "Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent".

Hydrogen fuel cells are more efficient, resulting in more reasonable driving ranges and per mile fuel prices closer to the current cost of petroleum fuels, but the cost of fuel cells and hydrogen storage is extremely high, and there is a severe lack of hydrogen refueling facilities. Plug-in cars, on the other hand, have extremely low "electric fuel" costs, and an abundance of charging outlets both public and private.

There is a car manufacture in either Japan or Okinawa, they have designed a small car that runs off of water!

There are ways of using water and certain metals to produce electricity or hydrogen, but the metals are corroded away in the process and eventually have to be replaced, at a high cost. The energy actually comes from oxidizing the metals, not the water.

But having seen the demonstration video, I suspect that car was really powered by hidden batteries, and was part of a simple straightforward scam. It doesn't run on water, it runs on gullibility.

Here's an idea. Instead of volunteering to fix them, how about you make a car that doesn't, you know............... catch on fire. I'm thinking this might be important to some consumers.

I'm surprised those dummies at GM even have battery-powered cars. Remember they yanked them away from willing customers last decade?

Do NOT support the dumb crooks at GM. Buy your battery-powered car from Tesla instead.

James, you ARE the sharpest tool (and I mean that in a good way) in this shed!

James, I also think you probably lost the attention of over 80% of the readers here my introducing arithmetic to the discussion. I personally enjoyed reading material from a thinking rational human being, I just think it is a shame so many people wont understand most of what you have written..............

James, are you aware that Today, Now, this very Moment, we can have an all electric Car, that can drive all day and night?

GM, itself, is not calling this a "recall" but a "customer satisfaction campaign."

Every car maker has them they use it to cut recalls down.

hahahaha...

Do NOT support the dumb crooks at GM. Buy your battery-powered car from Tesla instead.

Rick, they went on sale in December 2010, they planned to sell 10,000 only in first year. Please go back to the forest they are missing a tree stump.

Moron.

Which one is a moron? Or is GM thinking they could sell hybrid-electric for $38K?

I'll say this for it, it looks pretty.

I was thinking it's more like the Yugo.

My Yugo got over 50 miles per gallon...........................wouldnt go over 80 miles an hour with the air on though..............................but I did not care........................

Oh, I bet it's a record alright. Kinda like Clemson's loss last night in the Orange Bowl.

Don't forget the ones still sitting at GM dealerships as "used" cars because the dealers "bought" them to collect the $7,000 taxpeyer subsidy.

Obamie's big screwup, or, one of them at least. Government Motors sucking up and producing another lemon. Have you priced a Chevy lately? You'd think they were selling Lexus vehicles instead of Chevys. Their balls are almost as big as Obamie's.

Over Half were purchased by the government.

GM sold 7,671 in 2011, and they'd planned to sell 10,000, so they sold 76% of what they'd planned. Not a smashing success, but that's far from a failure, too. It lies somewhere between, just like most products on the market.

Those trying to portray the Volt as an abject failure are usually doing it for misguided political motives, trying to imply that it is somehow the Presidents fault, when in fact the Volt project started in 2006, long before the current President came into office. I suspect that had McCain won in 2008, the very same people now jeering would instead be cheering, and giving McCain the credit.

BTW, the auto company bailout was supported by Republicans and signed into law by President Bush Jr. before he left office. The tax rebate "subsidy" and the "Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing" loan program was also signed by President Bush Jr., then turned over to his successor to carry out.

CM, I believe Bush just provided the small window of assistance to help carry GM and Chrysler to a point where Obama could figure out what he wanted to do once in Office. Bush was leaving office and did the right thing as far as letting Obama make the decision. The problem is that was when Obama should have fixed our auto industry here for the long term and assure taxpayers where be paid in full plus interest which was not done. Instead Obama saw to it his Union buds were rewarded for their support of him. Now all we have are 2 companies that continue to focus on expanding overseas, in Canada and Mexico while filling a few thousand jobs back here.

Thanks for your ignorant comment.

Thanks for your oh so enlightening response. Really pointed out the shortfalls of my statement.

The Volt has been on sale since Dec 2010

GM wanted to sell 10,000 in the first year.

The added production was for dealership that GM required to have for sales and education.

GM is ramping up Volt production to 60,000 units per year and reducing the price

The Volt should now be available nationwide

Oh boy, all you liberal tree hugging idiots run out and buy two.

GM began taking orders for the Volt Nation wide starting June 10, 2011.

I cannot believe the idiocy in the postings here.

Can you people not do research?

Have you no reasoning or critical thinking skills?

It's almost not worth responding to the mass stupidity which runs rampant on this site.

Can't imagine why we thought it was a bad idea for the gov. to take over the car companies

Then blame Republican President Bush, Jr.

Bush was the one that signed the auto bailout law, and the plug-in vehicle "tax rebate subsidy", and the "Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing" loan program law, then turned all of those over to his successor to carry out.

Oh, but you'd rather blame Obama for obeying the laws his Republican predecessor signed!

I cannot believe the idiocy in the postings here. Can you people not do research? Have you no reasoning or critical thinking skills?

The Teapublicans don't do the "thinking" thing, they just regurgitate whatever talking points Fox tells them to say. Logic and reality have never been their strong suit.

CM, I believe Bush just provided the small window of assistance to help carry GM and Chrysler to a point where Obama could figure out what he wanted to do once in Office. Bush was leaving office and did the right thing as far as letting Obama make the decision. The problem is that Obama should have fixed our auto industry here for the long term and assure taxpayers would be paid in full plus interest which was not done. Instead Obama saw to it his Union buds were rewarded for their support of him, while bondholders and taxpayers where given the shaft. Now all we have are 2 companies that continue to focus on expanding overseas, in Canada and Mexico while filling a few thousand jobs back here. As far as the tax rebate, just because it was available does not mean GM has to put the burden of $7500 for each Volt sold onto real taxpayers backs. Its like the US not having a law limiting the number of children a family may have. Just because there is no law does not make it morally right to pop out x number of kids when the family is unable to afford it and their burdens fall into others laps to provide from a taxation prespective ie.. increased property taxes to cover the educational costs and such.

Totally agree on your point about technology in general...but the point here is that the government completely backed this venture before the tech was financially sensible. Electric cars may be the wave of the future, but forcing one into mass production, using tax breaks to get companies involved and using taxes to help pay for vehicles coming off the lot is not a smart way to get the technology moving.

Yea, but CD players and flat screens were useful FROM THE BEGINNING!

"using tax breaks to get companies involved and using taxes to help pay for vehicles coming off the lot is not a smart way to get the technology moving."

Then WHY are we still giving BILLIONS in tax breaks to OIL COMPANIES that have known how to drill for oil for well over a hundred years? Your argument doesn't make sense on it's face, based on that fact.

"CD players and flat screens were useful FROM THE BEGINNING!"

Really? I remember people complaining that only CLASSICAL music was available on the first sets of CD's made, and people complained that the were too expensive, people wouldn't use them, and that CD's weren't what people liked.

Hmmm... sounds familiar.....

willowbrook - I hate the volt, and GM is just trying to kill electric cars, but are you saying the cars don't run? Because I'mm 100% sure a person without a car would appreciate a volt...

Then WHY are we still giving BILLIONS in tax breaks to OIL COMPANIES that have known how to drill for oil for well over a hundred years? Your argument doesn't make sense on it's face, based on that fact.

I guess i didn't mean that the tax breaks in principal were bad...more that giving these huge tax breaks to companies for a car that isn't all-electric, can't go that far on it's battery, is entirely over-priced for the car you are getting, and is effectively owned by the government was a bad idea. If you are going to pump tons of federal money into a product, I think we should wait until the product is financially practical, the technology is more ironed out, and the public (or public infrastructure) is more ready for their arrival. I'm all for electric cars...in fact, give a subsidy to a small car company to develop the tech on a smaller scale...what I'm not in favor of is rolling out a mass-production car that simply isn't what consumers want (it still uses a gas engine) and the majority of us can't afford.

And I never said I was OK with oil company tax breaks and subsidies just so ya know...being against subsidies for this doesn't mean you are for the oil companies....

The Volt was in development for years before the government bailout of the auto industry.

Wizard - Thanks for pointing it out... this is why failures should be allowed to meet to their self-imposed fate.

I find it amusing people don't see the obvious. Other companies have been working on electric cars too. ALL of them are head and shoulders above the Volt. No one at GM can figure out what the other companies have already achieved??? We are supposed to hail being last place as an accomplishment?

Jose, you comments aren't saying the CDs and Flat Sceens don't work, they're saying they don't like something new. The items did work.

Wow Wiz, you really are a wizard in everywhere but intellect. You liberals are so smart. Just ask one. Not.

Hey Marine - you're proving that the stereotypical low-IQ marine is indeed a true paradigm!

Semper-find your way to an education, pal. You're not doing yourself or the marines any favors posting here.

Wizard is correct. The Volt program started in the summer of 2006, which was more than 2 years before the bailout of GM in December 2008, during the last month of the Bush Jr. Presidency.

So, Marine, you've just proven yourself to be a fact-challenged fool.

willowbrook

I find it amusing people don't see the obvious. Other companies have been working on electric cars too. ALL of them are head and shoulders above the Volt. No one at GM can figure out what the other companies have already achieved??? We are supposed to hail being last place as an accomplishment?

Please show me one car that has a technological advantage over the Volt and its Voltec propulsion system.

The fact of the matter is that Voltec is radically different than any other propulsion system currently on the road. Most do not even know that Voltec was designed from the beginning to use any of 3 methods to generate its electricity, gasoline powered generator, diesel powered generator, or a hydrogen fuel cell. As another post stated, the Volt works more like a diesel locomotive getting its motive force strictly from electricity, the only time that the engine can power the wheels directly is when your speeds exceed 75mph or you are in mountain/sustain mode.

I am sure that you also do not know that Opel (Europe) and Holden (Austrailia) are both getting their nown versions of the Volt that will be produced locally for local markets. Or that GM is ramping up production here in the States to 60,000 per year and they have stated that they try to reduce the price by $7-10,000 dollars by the end of 2012.

Marine-3604043

Wow Wiz, you really are a wizard in everywhere but intellect. You liberals are so smart. Just ask one. Not

You do not know me in the least.

I am not a Democrat/liberal

I am not a Republican/conservative

The closest thing that defines me would be a Libertarian, but that is not a perfect fit either.

rightbehind> I wish you well but, let's face it, the Chevy Volt isn't a Tesla roadster. Some day you'll be able to "bronze" your Volt and put it in a museum - right next to a 1958 Edsel.

Agreed, but right now it is just a toy for rich people.

Hold your horses and wait for the combined effort from Tesla and Toyota. Tesla is number 1 in my book for performance and the ability to drive normally for nearly 200 miles before a charge. They still have yet to put out the sedan, but it looks sweet for sure. The new RaV4 they are working on should be a hit.

Nice try Rick, but it's the gasoline powered car that relies on internal combustion engines as it's primary source of power that are going the way of the dodo bird. It'll take some time, but we're not driving Model T's today. Give it a couple decades, and I'd bet more new cars being sold will be hybrids or electrics than straight gasoline.

Cheaper in the long run, gets petro dollars out of terrorists hands, and can be done cleaner with the right energy sources. It's happening now, and will accelerate in the future - you can either deny it or hop on board. Your choice.

A cheaper, easier conversion is to power cars with natural gas. Proven technology, natural gas is cleaner then gas and is abundant here in the States. NG puts US workers back to work.

Henry Limpet

The original RAV4 EV was a hit, and the only EV that was sold to the public at the time, Honda and GM only leased. Many of them on still runng today.

rightbehind- thanks for being one of the smarter commentors on here. tired of people bashing just to be bashing. How many people on here bashing GM know they shut the factory down in July for upgrades? How many people on here realize that once they got up to full production the Volt was killing Nissan in sales? I'm just waiting for the Prius bubba's to chime in, they do realize they have one of the ugliest cars on the road right? I'll give it to GM for building an electric car that doesn't look like a card board box. Buy American or just leave please...

The Volt had a one month spike that surpassed the Leaf, every other month the Leaf trounced the Volt and didn't need GE being in bed with Obama to do it. Stop with the propaganda already.

If people are saying to stop the development of electric cars, then that's wrong, and I agree with you there. But that's not what many, and especially me, are voicing displeasure about. For me it's the fact that the government decided to force feed these cars before they were financially feasible, wasting tons of tax money in the process. Each car costs around 250K through tax subsidies and incentives for the many companies used to produce the parts and the people who buy the,. That may be a start, but you shouldn't be mass producing sedans that cost as much as a ferrari, and then sell them for 40,000$ and act like it's a positive step forward.

You point out the Tesla Roadster as proof that the idea works...and I guess it is, except that the Roadster is a high performance sports car that costs 109K to buy and is not a mass-production vehicle. It took four years before they worked out enough kinks to vastly upgrade the car, have only one available model at a time and have sold a TOTAL of about 2000 cars since 2008. It may show that the idea works...it is a bad comparison to show that a mass-production model would work or should have been attempted. If anything, the Tesla shows me that they have not yet found a good enough market to support a car like the Volt and have not found technology cheap enough to make the car practical.

I agree, you don't abandon an idea if it doesn't succeed at first. But I also believe that you don't force feed an idea that isn't practical. The Model T is a good example. It revolutionized the auto industry not because it was some fantastically new invention, it revolutionized the industry because it could be made quickly, it was made well enough, and it was entirely affordable...Electric cars may be the wave of the future, but that doesn't mean you start manufacturing them by the thousands already.

Jose, I hate to burst your bubble, but the kinks were worked out years ago. Try reading about Stanford Ovshinsky and his battery development. The Old GM was bankrupted so the patent could be shelved. Carl Tilley and Stanley Meyer were also silenced with their technology. Lithium ion is not the panacea we are led to believe, but one of the richest sources of lithium on the planet is Afghanistan, and people wonder why we are there. For years, the biggest problem with lithium ion batteries in cars is that they explode, so you have to keep them cool. If a Volt can spontaneously explode, the new GM had better get their lawyers prepared, but frankly, I don't know who would want one. They get around 37 mpg and a Prius gets 50 plus and costs less. The initial Volt design would have given you 150-200mpg. We could produce a viable electric car in this country, but big oil and government won't permit it. We are no longer a country advocating energy independence but one advocating energy dependence. The technology to become independent has been supressed and stymied for years, and with hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of oil still in the ground to be pumped out, no technological innovations that oppose oil will be forthcoming anytime soon, unless we undergo some dramatic, catastophic event. You might even try researching Bloom Energy. Two of those cells will supposedly power a house and are about $3,000 each, but neither you nor I have access to such innovations. Wonder why?

Agree, we won't touch our oil supply no matter the cost of others. We'll save it until the rest of the worlds is used up. Then we'll pump our's for us and then introduce alternative sources just before our last drop is dripped!

Marionc is apparently not bright enough to understand that the subsidized research cost will be spread out over every related vehicle developed in the future.

D'oh!

The Old GM was bankrupted so the patent could be shelved.

Nope, as GM had sold the patent rights long before their bankruptcy. The GM bankruptcy was caused mainly by an over-reliance on sales and leases of gas guzzlers and a sudden spike in gas prices.

Carl Tilley and Stanley Meyer were also silenced with their technology.

No they weren't, there are plenty of hucksters that will eagerly sell you their "technology". Stanley Meyer was selling his "water car" devices and dealerships, then never shipped any merchandise, so he was convicted of sales fraud. BTW, his supposed "water car" actually ran on a hidden fuel tank.

one of the richest sources of lithium on the planet is Afghanistan, and people wonder why we are there

The richest source of lithium is in Bolivia, a long ways from Afghanistan. There are a lot of places rich with lithium ores, including Australia and the state of Nevada, and it can even be extracted from seawater. The real reason we're in Afghanistan is that is where the terrorist organization Al Qaida was located.

If a Volt can spontaneously explode, the new GM had better get their lawyers prepared

The only way that could happen is if the gas tank sprang a leak. Gasoline vapors can explode, lithium ion batteries cannot.

You might even try researching Bloom Energy. Two of those cells will supposedly power a house and are about $3,000 each, but neither you nor I have access to such innovations. Wonder why?

Simple - right now, Bloom is too busy filling orders for major companies, and have not yet started retail sales for homeowners. Just give them time. BTW, the Bloom fuel cells can run on a variety of hydrocarbon fuels, so if they can improve durability and reduce costs, we could see them being used in automobiles as high efficiency electric "range extenders" running on gasoline or diesel or kerosene or biodiesel or natural gas.

1) Ending unpopular, expensive, and unpaid for GOP-started war.

2) Providing health care coverage to 30 million MORE Americans, something the "greed market" has failed to do for the last 40 years.

3) Provided the leadership and authority to get Osama bin Laden - accomplished in 2 years; a job his predecessor failed to do in 7.

4) Changed jobs trajectory from losing 750,000 the day he took office to +100,000 - +200,000 presently, a NET CHANGE of +850,000 to +950,000 ACTUAL JOBS.

What "failures" again?

JVH is delusional. This article is about a car.

1. A joint resolution of congress authorized the war. BO skirted that to get us involved in Libya.

2. Obama Care is being challenged as unconstitutional in the courts and the BO administration has granted waivers to hundreds of his crony corp buddies because they don't want it. Estimates are that 12-15 million of those uninsured Americans are illegal aliens. Why should my tax dollars fund healthcare for people here illegally when I have to pay for mine.

3. The military and intelligence communities found Bin Laden through policies put in place under Bush. Why did BO take so long to pull the trigger when they found him?

4. The fact is there are an estimated 2.5 million less jobs in the job pool than there was when BO took office 3 years ago. Of course the unemployment numbers will decrease as a percentage. Estimates are that the real unemployment rate is around 14-17%, without fudging the numbers.

BO is leading in one area that no other president has, he has shot 90 rounds of golf as of the end of December 2011. What leadership.

Nobody is talking about all of the people who lost bundles of invested money, pension funds included, when the government took over GM.

Please be more objective and don't sound like a Leftist shill.

1) Ending the war on Bush's time table

2) Bankrupting the country to buy votes by forcing a bill down our throats that to this day two thirds want completely repealed

3) Providing absolutely ZERO to getting Bin Laden. Bush's Gitmo provided the intel and the CIA and Seals did the rest. Grow up.

4) Caused unemployment to go from 4.6% when as a senator he took over congress, to 9% average for over three years. This entire disaster started on his watch as senator then really accelerated when he was elected president. It was his crony's in Fanny and Freddy that cause the collapse in the first place.

What failures? How about what successes!!

The Volt was in development before Obama even declared. Put the keyboard down, and go back to reading "The Overton Window" again.

You right Cane... the Volt was in development when it's developer failed and went bankrupt... it took another failure (Obama) and billions of taxpayer dollars to resurrect it to be peddled to the American public.

What is with all the myopic, miseducated losers here turning every story into an anti-Obama tirade?

What is with all the myopic, miseducated losers here turning every story into an anti-Obama tirade?

They hate the President so much that facts and reality go out the window. Fact is, the Volt project started in 2006, long before Obama started his run for President. Fact is, it was President Bush that signed the "auto bailout bill", and the "plug-in car" tax rebate subsidy bill, and the "Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing" loan program bill, then turned them all over to his successor to carry out the terms of those laws. Obama had to follow those laws as written, and he's done a very good job, considering the conditions.

Ironically, if McCain had won in 2008, these same Teapublicans would be singing the praises of the "McCain Car" as a sign of American technological superiority, and praising the "Republican restoration of our Great American auto industry"!

Again CM it may be important to know who implemented the rebate however at the same time that does not mean that GM has to build a product that takes advantage of the rebate and the taxpayers. Again its like people popping out kids left and right and increasing the burdens on the already overburdened taxpayers. Just because we have no laws limiting the number of kids per household income and savings prior to having them does not make it morally right to overburden others.

According to your article - WHICH CAME OUT IN MARCH OF 2011!! - they were reporting FEBRUARY 2011 NUMBERS.

I guess your comprehension of facts needs a recall.

Lynn,

Are you Mr. Ron's child? I have met your older brother on here a number of time, please say hi to Moe for me.

Whether I chose the wrong link or not, it's still a piece crap car that did not sell as anticipated, by Government Motors! The government bought most of them, anyway...

What do you think would happen if everyone had a Volt and plugged them in at the same time? The electrical infrastructure would fail, just like the Volt!

And Jon and Edward - GFY!

That's why Ford has intelligent charging which interacts with the utility. The Leaf was done right and the forthcoming Focus will be even better. The Volt is a Prius with a bigger battery at twice the price, not viable.

Lynn,

There are lots of reasons to promote new electrical grid and smart grid technology. The fact that electric cars are coming is just one of them.

Do you have any idea how many subsidies are provided to ALL car makers from their home countries?? Or to Ford and Chrysler?? I didn't think so. Look it up. But I'm sure you don't want to confuse the argument with any of those pesky FACTS!

BTW, if everyone had a VOLT, how could it then be a failure?? Your logic is exceptional...... how old are you??

p111

That's why Ford has intelligent charging which interacts with the utility.

And the Volt does it from the car's interface, no need for a "smart" charger.

The Leaf was done right and the forthcoming Focus will be even better.

They are better exactly how? They will both have less range than a Volt, and with the lack of recharging infrastructure they will never be as versitile as a Volt.

The Volt is a Prius with a bigger battery at twice the price, not viable

The Volt is nothing like a Prius. The Prius gets an assist from an electric motor to the gas engine for propulsion. The Volt is full electric drive at all speeds below 75mph, the Prius is still a gas powered car.

@P1111

Regarding your statement: "The Volt is a Prius with a bigger battery at twice the price, not viable."

The Volt is a radically different design than the Prius.

The Volt is more akin to a diesel electric (train) engine. The motive power source is an electric motor. The Voltec gasoline engine component of the Volt acts as an electric generator that supplies power to the electric motor when the battery is depleted. The generator in the Volt is a relatively simple constant velocity engine. That is to say it runs at only one speed - the optimal speed to generate electricity. The Voltec generator platform is standardized is such a way that it could be replaced with a natural gas, fuel cell, biodiesel etc. as the electric generator set.

This compares with a Prius which is more akin to a conventional gasoline powered vehicle with all the added weight and mechanics of a conventional transmission system and the complexity of a variable speed engine. The electric power component of a Prius is actually an inline electric motor to the main gasoline engine to provided added power boost. As an in-line electric motor it is subject to all the mechanical overhead of the gasoline engine and the mechanical transmission to provide motive power to the wheels.

To my mind, the Volt is a much superior design to Prius-like hybrids or all-electric vehicles like the Leaf. The Volt provides a very reasonable transition from a gasoline powered fleet to an electric fleet of cars.

See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

Ya Wiz, I hear the range on a Volt is about 200 miles, give or take a stranding. Great for trips to and from the unemployment office. Do they recharge your EBT card by mail, or do you have to go in? You probably walk, huh?

Marine-3604043

Ya Wiz, I hear the range on a Volt is about 200 miles, give or take a stranding. Great for trips to and from the unemployment office. Do they recharge your EBT card by mail, or do you have to go in? You probably walk, huh?

For the record:

The Volt's range is over 300 miles and when you run out of gas you go to the same place that everyone else goes to get gas and then keep driving. The only way you would be stranded in a Volt would be if you ran out of gas, not because the batteries were out of charge.

Second, if you had read any other posts that I have made over the years you would know that I own my own business, so please, get over yourself.

What do you think would happen if everyone had a Volt and plugged them in at the same time? The electrical infrastructure would fail, just like the Volt!

What would happen if everyone plugged in an electric frypan at the same time, or turned on an electric oven at the same time? The electric frypan takes the same amount of power at 120 volts, and the electric oven takes MORE power at 240 volts. The answer of course is: Nothing. The power grid could handle it, and such widescale simultaneous plug-ins and turn-ons simply don't happen in the real world.

Regarding your statement: "The Volt is a Prius with a bigger battery at twice the price, not viable." The Volt is a radically different design than the Prius.

They're not the same, but they're really not "radically different" either. Both the Volt and the Prius have 2 motor/generators, a gasoline engine, and a planetary gearset, with no conventional transmission, but the Volt has 3 electric clutches the Prius doesn't use, and a different arrangement of components. Both the Volt and the Prius combines elements of series and parallel hybrids, but the Volt can go much further and faster than the Prius on electricity only.

Please re-read that Wikipedia article, especially the part on "Operating and driving modes".

This is one of the most intelligent comments on here so far. Well said.

It's another P.O.S. from Chevy. No surprises.

According to the AP, GM made 12,000 volts in 2011 (the goal was to sell 10,000) but only sold about 7600. Nissan sold about 9700 of their Leaf in 2011.

Please provide a link to the AP story that indicated the number of VOLTS produced was 12000. I can't find it, probably because it doesn't exist.

Nice try.

Toyota has the most recalled vehicles in the United States. three years running. As ROB would say "no surprises." When you pay ignorant rednecks the same rate as they would make as a shift manager at Taco Bell to assemble a precision piece of machinery, you will eventually get what you pay for.

Which is why I'm glad that my Scion xA (a rebadged Toyota iST from the Japanese domestic market) was made in Japan and not in the hillbilly scab factories that Toyota runs here. No recalls, ever, on this model.

Thanks for starting my day with a smile! Good one!

What?

There was nothing wrong with the vehicle or the crash testing. Even an imbecile such as yourself would never remain in a vehicle for three weeks after a crash, and the agency ADMITTED they did not safe the battery correctly. instead of taking the blame and letting GM off the hook, they are now willing to let GM assume the expense (and the customers the inconvenience) of doing a TSB. So much for "Government Motors;" the government seems to be trying to kill the most important new car of the last 10 years...

So GM is recalling all of them for fun? Before you call names, think something through. You won't seem as stupid next time. And what about the vote of no confidence by GM moving production and technology to China?

GM did lots of crash testing. It isn't that they failed to discover this "fire issue" in their testing, because there isn't one. The GM technical manuals say that after a crash the first thing that needs to be done is that the coolant needs to be drained from the battery pack and the battery discharged to avoid the type of electrical short that caused the fire at NHTSA. This is done for exactly the same reason that the gasoline tank is drained and the battery removed after a gasoline powered car is in a crash.

So GM is having to recall all the Volts and make an unnecessary fix because the idiots at NTSHA can't read the technical manuals that came with the car. They crashed it and then failed to drain the battery coolant tank or discharge the battery as required. They even tipped the car on it's side (they do that so that they take less space). And even with this gross level of incompetence the Volt didn't catch fire for more than a week! If the NTSHA techs had done what they were supposed to do, and what they do with every gasoline powered car they crash, the Volt would never have caught on fire.

Who would you blame if NTSHA crashed a gasoline car and stored it without following manufactures safety instructions to drain the gas tank and remove the battery and because of that the car caught fire?

GM is reinforcing the battery compartment in an effort to diffuse this negative publicity that has nothing to do with the quality of their design or the adequacy of their testing.

Oh, and um Obama Lies, you, ah, you missed a bit of drool on your chin. Do you need to borrow a handkerchief?

Obama Motors rushed this thing to market without proper crash testing. Now, GM is moving its electric vehicle production to China. This tells me GM has no confidence electric Obamamobiles will ever catch on here.

Lets see how many factual errors are there.

1. There is no "Obama Motors", the auto company bailout law was signed by President Bush Jr. in December 2008 before he left office.

2. There was a complete series of crash tests which the Volt passed very nicely. Only one of the crashed vehicles caught fire - weeks after the crash, and only because the battery wasn't discharged and the coolant leaked. Subsequent crash testing indicated that a severe crash might trigger a fire weeks later, which only indicates that one should get out after a crash and have the car repaired or scrapped - just like other cars.

3. GM does have vehicle production in China, but only for the Chinese market. Shipping costs are too high to make EVs in China and sell them in the US at a good profit.

4. GM has confidence in the Volt, as they plan to increase production and sales in the US, and start sales in several overseas markets this year. GM also plans to use the Voltec power train in several new models as well.

Valiant try, but you haven't quite hit the record for most errors in a single paragraph, Mr. O Lies.

There are so many things wrong in this little comment its not really worth correcting.

I have an idea! Everyone do some research on your own and see if you can find the misinformation/lies/myths! We'll have a contest and see who finds the most!

And when the Volt's charge runs out, it still keeps going. When the Leaf's charge runs out, you call AAA. Factor in the Leaf's distinctive Nissan repulsive ugliness, and at the end of the day, there's no reason for anyone outside of Manhattan to buy a Leaf. And since there's no reason for anyone inside Manhattan to own any sort of passenger car...well, you figure it out.

The fact remains the Leaf is a much better vehicle for a much lower price and they are far outselling the Volt despite the fact that GE and other politically connected companies are buying the Volt for political reasons.

How is a vehicle the can only be driven for 40 miles a "better vehicle" than any other vehicle? As far as the sticker price, you pay less, you get less. By your logic, a Leaf is also a "better vehicle" than a Mercedes.

From the Nissan price estimator website (#/leaf-electric-car/estimator/index) the Leaf is priced between $35,200 and $37,500.

For the Volt (from ) the retail price is $39, 145.

Price difference $1645 to $3945. Kinda a little different than $20,000 difference isn't it. And you know what, it took Google less than a second to give me these links. Amazing this internet thing. Actually lets you gets your facts straight before publicly humiliating yourself.

I for one think that this is an acceptable price difference for a car that I can use as my only vehicle for around town as well as cross country.

Let me think, it plugs into the grid, it has storage batteries and is driven entirely by an electric motor. Yep sounds like an electric car to me. It just also happens to carry its own on-board electrical generator to step in for those trips that run longer than 35 miles. But that doesn't mean that it isn't an electrical car John.

Would I like that it had more than 35 mile range, you bet. But I have a 25 mile round trip commute, so even with a 35 mile range I estimate that the gasoline engine would only have to step in once or twice times a week and then probably for not more than 10-15 miles. I know Volt owners that only use less than a gallon a week on average.

They're just as good at lying to the public too, and attempting market their failures as "wins"

Journalists with integrity actually reported it like it is:

GM recalls Volts to fix fire risk

"GM, itself, is not calling this a "recall" but a "customer satisfaction campaign."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/05/autos/volt_fire_fix/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

Very well said - Just like in my comment, it's hillarious to watch so many so called "patriots" bash a new American product simply because they feel it'll help whatever anti Obama agenda they have.

Then Explain WHY Henry Ford NEVER needed to be subsidized by the GOVERNMENT?

These cars are dangerous, expensive, and useless........the batteries catch fire.....just like the new "mandatory" light bulbs!

AND you don't save money on gas because the MPG estimates are a LIE !

One Lady was told 50 MPG and is now getting 28 MPG. She has filed suit and I HOPE she wins!

Hope your house doesn't burn down!

@Patty, you are absolutely right about the MPG being bogus. Honda is being sued because they over guesstimated MPG on their hybrid vehicles. These cars need to be out for about 10 years before I would ever consider putting out that kind of dough.

Patty I saw that report that was a HONDA. DA!

You are right! ANYTHING TO BASH obama! obama is the worst president in American history and must be sent packing in November. Maybe he can move back to chicago where he can use his alleged intelligence and talent to organize a community. He's good at that, right? ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!

@Patty - OK, I'll engage - Henry Ford didn't need a subsidy because his company was a fraction of the size it is now, he paid his workers considerably less money (so low in fact he later raised their salaries across the board so they could afford the product they were building), he was a much better businessman than the Corporate Executives who've been running the US auto industry lately, his company wasn't a critical cornerstone of the American manufacturing sector and economy at that point ... and on and on..

Just because someone sues Honda over gas mileage claims it doesn't mean that they're correct. You're taking the announcement of a law suit as proof of a failed product. If I sue you claiming you're a moron does it instantly now prove that you're a moron?

All cars are inherently dangerous and capable of catching fire when in a collision; read the article, GM is fixing a potential problem that was identified by crash tests. None of these cars has caught fire while out on the road and in a collision.

To: AmIOpinionated, You have to be kidding

"The Volt cannot possibly be a failure. It hasn't been around long enough."

WRONG, They (all) rushed into the electric car production on the pushing of the eco freaks and the Obama Adm., wait until they have to start buying the Li Po batteries at 5 to 7 thousand dollars from china after 5 years. All we have done is just diverted the polution of the manufacturing and profit from these so called ECO friendly batteries to China, now how are we going to dispose of the used batteries.

The extra cost of these cars will NEVER off set the savings in gas. They should have looked into natural gas or other options instead batteries..

You are right! ANYTHING TO BASH obama!

Including spreading easily disproved lies! Don't you Teapublicans ever realize that spreading such absurd lies doesn't help your cause at all? Did you ever stop to consider how silly and out of touch with reality it makes you look? Apparently not.

They (all) rushed into the electric car production on the pushing of the eco freaks and the Obama Adm.,

Wrong. The Volt development followed a 4 1/2 year development cycle, similar to other car models. The decision was made long before Obama even started his run for office, and was pushed by Mr. Lutz who called global warming "a crock of sh**" - hardly the words of an "eco freak".

wait until they have to start buying the Li Po batteries at 5 to 7 thousand dollars from china after 5 years

The batteries are from LG Chem, a Korean company, so unless China plans to invade Korea that ain't happening. BTW, LG Chem is building a battery plant in the US to reduce shipping costs, and GM plans to buy some batteries from A123, a US company. The only way GM would even consider Chinese batteries is if they both significantly undercut US prices and improved quality, neither of which seems likely.

The extra cost of these cars will NEVER off set the savings in gas. They should have looked into natural gas or other options instead batteries.

Actually, it does. The per mile cost of "driving electric" is considerably less than for gasoline, and is still less than the per mile cost of natural gas. The fuel savings inevitably adds up over time, along with the reduced maintenance costs from less brake wear and less engine operation.

Also, there are many more public charging outlets than there are public natural gas refueling places. Compressed natural gas vehicles work well for commercial fleets that have their own refueling facilities, but not so well for the general public.

We take no joy in GM being stolen from it's investors and handed to Obama and his UAW crony's, only to have them put out a defective overpriced product. As far as I know the Leaf is built here as well as a number of other "foreign" hybrids, and the Ford Focus looks to be a winner.

It is just as bad to falsly prop up a defictive over priced product because Obama is involved as it is to bash a successful one. The problem is this is not a successful one.

"It cannot possibly be a failure" Really?? That's just as bad as saying it can't possibly be a success.

Please explain how GM was "stolen" from its investors and handed to Obama? Didn't GM come to the government asking for a bridge loan and investment to save the company from collapse in exchange for shares? I guess if you consider the government helping keep a company afloat for its investors versus turning its back and letting the company fail "theft" then yes you have a valid point - in crazy land. I doubt the UAW is forcing the government to manufacture the Volt (if that's what you're implying) - think of the logic here, the UAW wants more members, which requires more jobs. Volts only account for a small fraction of GM's sales; if anything the UAW would push for more production of popular vehicles in order to increase its membership roles. Sure the UAW would be behind the government rescuing GM, why would a labor oranization support the collapse of its base?!

Every Hybrid, foreign and domestic qualifies for tax credits here; it's not just GM and the Volt that are getting those benifits. Whether you think the product is overpriced is your opinion and you have every right not to buy one. I do agree that calling the product a sure fire success is just as bad as condeming it as a failure over 1 recall; it's far to soon to see how this will turn out.

Anyway, my point wasn't that you're taking joy in the supposed "theft" you claim; my point was that you're taking joy in the failure of a US made product and using it as a condemnation of the president (who wasn't in office when the product was created and didn't force GM to manufacture it).

azzBrew - " I guess if you consider the government helping keep a company afloat for its investors versus turning its back and letting the company fail "theft" then yes you have a valid point - in crazy land."

You do realize that the old GMC (GM Corporation) died and became a "new" entity (GM Company) don't you? The only investors who got paid where the "prefered" millionares, everyone else was left with worthless paper.

"who wasn't in office when the product was created and didn't force GM to manufacture it"

You're right, Obama ALLOWED it to be created by FORCING taxpayers to bail out it's failed creator.

PJAM09 "You're right, Obama ALLOWED it to be created by FORCING taxpayers to bail out it's failed creator."

wrong, that was Bush. The wall street bailouts? Bush again. Were you asleep?

They must send production to China.......OUR GM (bailed out Union) Employees spend their lunch hour drinking booze and smoking pot!!!

4,000 vehicles recently are going to be recalled because they have NO Brake pads!

Six Pack Patty has her mouth open again I see.

The last Toyota recall was for over 2 million vehicles.

Is this why GM is shipping electric vehicle production to China?

They aren't. GM is setting up manufacturing in China for the Chinese market only, shipping costs are too high to manufacture there and ship here at a profit. Most of the GM China manufacturing is for non-electric Buick models.