backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 150 comment(s) - last by TimberJon.. on Aug 19 at 5:23 PM

Production Volt  (Source: Autoblog)

  (Source: Autoblog)

Volt Concept
GM offers a glimpse at its production Volt

If previous reports are any indication, General Motors is likely a month away from fully revealing the production version of its Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle. The Volt has generated a lot of buzz for the company and the vehicle's success is critical in showcasing GM as a major player in eco-friendly, high-technology vehicles.

GM, however, is whetting the appetite of car enthusiasts around the U.S. with a few teaser shots of the production Volt. The sole picture of the front of the vehicle shows off the halos around the headlights (similar to those seen on BMWs and the new Camaro) and LED driving lights in the lower fascia. The picture of the rear is less revealing and just shows a large Chevrolet badge under the deck lid spoiler.

Despite the lack of full body shots, the pictures are likely sure to excite the 33,411 people that have already expressed their intent to purchase the vehicle even though a price has not yet been set for the vehicle according to GM-Volt.com.

Not surprisingly, buyers most willing to snap up a Volt are located in California which was followed closely by Texas, Florida, and Michigan.

Of the potential buyers surveyed, the most people were willing to pay for the car was $31,261. This figure is quite a bit less than the $40,000 that GM is projecting for the vehicle, but roughly in line with what the Volt would cost if federal tax breaks are taken into consideration.

The Chevrolet Volt features a lithium-ion battery pack which allows the vehicle to travel 40 miles on battery power alone. The vehicle can also have its battery pack replenished via a household outlet with its plug-in charger.

In addition, the Volt can also recharge its battery pack on the go with its 1.4-liter naturally-aspirated gasoline engine once the Volt travels past its 40 mile all-electric range.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Bankruptcy
By foxtrot9 on 8/14/2008 12:31:51 PM , Rating: 5
I actually have a feeling that this vehicle might save GM from bankruptcy - regardless of whether you like it or think it's a good idea, it's a good first step and a surprisingly innovative product from GM. If this fails, I think you can say bye bye to GM.




RE: Bankruptcy
By mdogs444 on 8/14/2008 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 5
It wouldn't mean bye-bye to GM, just means that they would start selling and producing only in countries where they are profiting. They already make profits in many foreign markets with smaller cars. But the US is quite different - even though we have cut back because of high oil prices, and high prices on everything - were not buying as many trucks or SUV's, but were also not buying nearly as many cars at all. Its not like were replacing trucks with small cars. People are just cutting back and conserving, not spending the money elsewhere.


RE: Bankruptcy
By spwrozek on 8/14/2008 1:09:59 PM , Rating: 4
Very true. Plus they have the Saturn brand which has been good for a while now. The MPG is pretty great for conventional cars. The Astra is cool looking and drives well too. Also 32 MPG highway. Some quality cars they got there.


RE: Bankruptcy
By Souka on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bankruptcy
By therealnickdanger on 8/14/2008 2:51:30 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're confusing "quality" with "luxury" or perhaps even "refinement". Saturn cars generally suck when it comes to aesthetic appeal... however, they are typically very long-lasting and reliable - and cheap to fix if there is a problem. I never even considered them as a viable vehicle until the Aura and Skyy (I like the Soltice more) came out. Even the Vue isn't too bad IMO.

It's hard for me to rag on them too hard because I have several friends and family members that have owned Saturns for well over 200K miles with few to no problems... just not my cup o' tea.


RE: Bankruptcy
By DragonMaster0 on 8/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bankruptcy
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 3
Some people, believe it or not, see vehicles as nothing more than necessary transportation. Thoughts about handling, performance, and appearance don't factor in. I wish I didn't care that much, I would be a weathly man.


RE: Bankruptcy
By Spuke on 8/15/2008 12:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish I didn't care that much, I would be a weathly man.
Same here although my cars have always been cheap. My views on life have changed somewhat in the last 5 years or so and I now think it's important to get more enjoyment from life. So, now I'm living outside of my box a bit.

I've always been a car nut but never wanted to spend the money on it. Now I have a sports car and have started modding it somewhat. Different place for me and I'm actually enjoying it.


RE: Bankruptcy
By TimberJon on 8/19/2008 5:23:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
DragonMaster0 - "A Suzuki beats them by a factor of ten."


Yea your chance of dying in a Suzuki is 10x better.

Mitsubishi is on the lowest rung of the ladder, yet their budget cars like the Mirage run surprisingly well for years. It's the simplicity. SOHC and one O2 sensor kind of engineering. Very reliable. The pinch-point is then the Quality of the transmission...

I'm a Nissan fan. 3rd Gen maxima is the cheapest sports car to buy and repair IMO. My wife and I both drive the same car. Problem with one? Double-check it on the other, correlate, compare & eliminate. Parts CAN be cheap, really cheap.


RE: Bankruptcy
By Tamale on 8/15/2008 9:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
heh.. the astra isn't made by north america GM.. it's a european GM car (opel) 100%..

that's why it doesn't suck ;)


RE: Bankruptcy
By Davelo on 8/15/2008 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not impressed. A small hatchback that only gets 32 mpg hiway? That's supposed to be good? My old Grand Prix got almost as much and was a much more substantial and comfortable ride. I am disappointed at how little ICE technology has improved over the last 40 years. BTW, weren't we all supposed to be flying around in Jetson vehicles by now? Here we are almost 2010 and we are still burning fossils like there is no end to them. Sad.


RE: Bankruptcy
By CBone on 8/16/2008 5:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ain't that the truth!

The airwaves and television are being bombarded with ads touting how a dinky new car is getting "31 miles per gallon... HIGHWAY"! What is that crap? That's all they've got? No better than my sedan from 10+ years ago? It's pathetic. Like the makers think that by saying it enough times people will forget that they haven't advanced at all.


RE: Bankruptcy
By foxtrot9 on 8/14/2008 2:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
That may be true, problem is that they have a huge amount of debt that can't be covered by the operations from international sales...


RE: Bankruptcy
By mdogs444 on 8/14/2008 2:39:30 PM , Rating: 5
Sure it can - if they get rid of US manufacturing and union jobs/health care costs.


RE: Bankruptcy
By therealnickdanger on 8/14/2008 3:01:00 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, the hidden costs of vehicles prices...

I have *heard* before that health care and/or pensions for retired UAW members is responsible for approximately 50% of the price of vehicles in the U.S. Does anyone have any hard evidence of this? How do the Japanese companies handle their autoworkers?


RE: Bankruptcy
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 3:17:56 PM , Rating: 4
In the US, the domestic automakers do carry thousands of dollars of "legacy" benefits cost per vehicle. Compare this to non-union foreign transplants which pay a much lower wage and have fewer benefits. And compare this to Japanese and European manufacturers where there is national healthcare and government-funded retirement.

There is no question that domestic automakers are at a strong disadvantage because of their requirement to pay for healthcare and retirement benefits.

I'm not generally defending the domestic auto industry - many of its current and past problems are self-inflicted in my opinion.


RE: Bankruptcy
By Entropy42 on 8/14/2008 5:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And compare this to Japanese and European manufacturers where there is national healthcare and government-funded retirement.


Wouldn't those companies then be paying higher taxes though, to pay for the gov't sponsored healthcare?


RE: Bankruptcy
By Oregonian2 on 8/14/2008 7:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Would depend upon how taxes are calculated. There was an AP article in our local newspaper yesterday, for instance. Something like two thirds of corporations in the USA have been avoiding paying any taxes at all. They've been using sneaky underhanded techniques like losing money to avoid paying their fair share. So it would depend upon the tax structure in those other countries as to whether companies going down the bankruptcy path would still be required to speed their trip by forking over money to the government (as our U.S. government was being softly criticized of not doing in the article).


RE: Bankruptcy
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 8:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Companies generally pay taxes based on their profit. So you can immediately see the first way to not pay taxes - if there is no profit.

And one way to have no profit is if the money that would have been profit is paid to owners, shareholders, and maybe employees. This basically means that instead of paying a corporate tax, the owners pay taxes based on the same amount of money at their personal tax rate.

Finally, the entire purpose for many people in creating a company is to minimize their tax exposure. There are tons of CPAs out there who spend considerable time working for their clients towards tax minimization. So it is not surprising that a large number of companies are successful.

I don't think there is anything "sneaky" and "underhanded" about it. Why pay more taxes if the law allows methods to pay less? As long as you are obeying the tax laws as they are written, I don't think there is anything deceptive or immoral about it. And frankly, paying more taxes than you should - well, that's just stupid.