backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Jan 4 at 2:02 PM

Dealerships don't want to spend more on tools needed to service the Volts since sales for most are down

Select Chevrolet dealerships around the U.S. are ditching the Volt after General Motors (GM) hiked up the price of tools to service the vehicle.

Last year, dealerships spent $1,800 to $2,800 on tools that are required to service each Volt plug-in hybrid. However, GM has raised the price of these tools to $5,100. The reason? A battery-repowering tool that removes and ships sections of the Volt's huge 435-pound battery for repair instead of shipping the whole thing costs dealerships about $4,735. This makes up the bulk of the tool costs while a few others are needed as well.

Due to this price hike, some dealerships have decided to stop selling the Volt altogether. Some say their overall Volt sales just don't justify the additional cost.

Allyn Barnard, owner of Jim Barnard Chevrolet in Churchville, New York, is among those who feel that way. He has only sold five Volts since the vehicle's launch in late 2010/early 2011, and doesn't see the point in paying over $5,000 for the tools needed to service them.

"Going forward, the profitability would be really hard for us to justify the expense of the repair tools," said Barnard.

The Volt may have had a bumpy start with a few production shutdowns and issues with lithium ion battery fires during National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) testing, but sales of the Volt have been very impressive over the last year. During the first seven months of 2012, GM sold 10,666 Volt extended range electric vehicles for an increase of 270% compared to the first seven months of 2011.

However, Chevrolet then had a low November sales month due to low inventory. Chevrolet sold 1,519 Volts in November 2012, which represented a 33 percent increase over November 2011. But the number of cars sold in November was roughly half the number sold in October and September when the company sold 2,961 and 2,851 Volts respectively.

Chevrolet said this is a good thing, though, because it means demand is higher than expected

As of December 2012, General Motors had sold 20,828 Volts for the year. 

Despite these excellent numbers (Nissan was hoping to sell 20,000 Leafs in 2012, but fell way short), about 70 percent of Volt sales are generated by the 300 top-selling dealerships. There are about 2,614 dealerships certified to sell the Volt.

Source: Automotive News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For Pete's sake
By mrwassman on 1/2/2013 5:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't Chevrolet figure anything out? What a depressing company.




RE: For Pete's sake
By Motoman on 1/2/2013 5:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't the *industry* figure anything out? No one wants these things.


RE: For Pete's sake
By FITCamaro on 1/2/2013 6:15:47 PM , Rating: 1
If by the "industry" you mean the government, because they don't give a damn what other people think. Their opinion is the only one that matters.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/2013 6:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
Or the fact that, you know, the Volt is the most successful EV ever created, and the GM bailout actually was very successful. The amount of ignorance on these forums is astounding.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Chaser on 1/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/2013 7:08:59 PM , Rating: 3
That's terribly inaccurate.

The only reason why it looks like GM still owes the government that much money is because they are still holding onto the majority of stock, set to be offloaded shortly. Taxpayers will lose some money, but the end result of GM going bankrupt would have probably been far more devastating. Please do some homework.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.pri...


RE: For Pete's sake
By Chaser on 1/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/2013 7:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
It's new technology, so there is always going to be a risk of additional costs and risk of initial ownership. But at the height of what was to be a second depression, I fell the right move was made to bail out GM. Unemployment was in the double digits, and banks weren't handing out any loans. Saving a few million jobs was very important.

Plus, I'm perfectly fine with Government spending going towards cleaner vehicles such as the Volt. It has sparked consumer interest, and now there are almost two dozen different EV's in development. Getting consumers into a cleaner, greener focus and less dependency on foreign oil is a win win.


RE: For Pete's sake
By laviathan05 on 1/2/2013 8:53:25 PM , Rating: 1
You think the government saved millions of jobs with the bailout? Are you serious? You think if GM declared bankruptcy that the next day all GM factory workers, dealerships, and repair shops would have closed for business?

GM received $49 billion to avoid bankruptcy, yet all stock-holders had there shares declared worthless, so that the US Government could decide who should own the company. In order to receive the entirety of their loan back without accounting for any interest, GM stock would need to be valued at over $50 per share, and not decrease when the government starts to sell their shares and flood the market. GM closed today at less than $30. In other words, it appears as though the US government will have given away $20 billion free and clear so that GM could avoid bankruptcy. How was this a success?


RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/2013 9:02:52 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I do think the saved millions of dollars with the bailout. GM has had 11 profitable quarters, with many, many more on the way in the future. It isn't just about losing a few billion dollars to bail out GM, it's about the future growth and potential of a now fully-revamped business. They will sell millions of cars, that will be fabricated by Americans, with parts being manufactured mostly in the US.

The bailout's mandatory restructuring of the company was very successful. Much more so than the trillions spent on the "war on terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/2013 9:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
I meant jobs, not dollars.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Ringold on 1/3/2013 2:37:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The bailout's mandatory restructuring of the company was very successful. Much more so than the trillions spent on the "war on terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Liberals just can't help themselves, can you? Debate can be about anything, and Iraq and Afghanistan will have to come up, if Bush isn't invoked by name directly.

The DoD could have its budget cut to zero, and we'd still be running a hefty budget deficit. Get over it.

quote:
GM has had 11 profitable quarters, with many, many more on the way in the future.


If it were in such great shape, the worlds multi-billionaire individuals and conglomerates would've been standing with open arms to embrace the sale of such an apparently incredibly profitable enterprise, and the bailout wouldn't of been necessary, and they'd of done it despite the economic situation of the day. Warren Buffet himself was on the prowl, and almost single handed saved Goldman Sachs with just a small portion of his resources. What your saying fails logic simply because if you were right, then the looming failure of GM wouldn't of been an issue because a "bankruptcy" (which occurred anyway) would've been a technical bit of paperwork as ownership changed hands, with no impact on the ground.

Fact is, you're completely wrong, which is why there was a need to bail them out in the first place.

Anyway, I and plenty of other people think liquidation sales would've found some buyers, or GM could've shucked off debt and union contracts and continued on after a restructuring. Unfortunately, we'll never know now.

quote:
The bailout's mandatory restructuring of the company was very successful.


For GM UAW members, it was glorious. Ask what non-union members at people like Delphi thought of the restructuring, who saw their pensions obliterated in order to protect the UAW's.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Pneumothorax on 1/3/2013 2:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
GM's 'bailout' will still lead to it's inevitable decline. It's like an ex-Hollywood hottie on her last facelift. Look at the billions of pounds the Brits invested in their auto industry. How many of them today are independent and owned by Brits instead of foreigners?


RE: For Pete's sake
By Ringold on 1/3/2013 2:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM's 'bailout' will still lead to it's inevitable decline. It's like an ex-Hollywood hottie on her last facelift. Look at the billions of pounds the Brits invested in their auto industry. How many of them today are independent and owned by Brits instead of foreigners?


Exactly. Rewarding failure virtually always leads to more failure. Clinging to the mid-1900s obsession with manufacturing just shows liberals aren't as forward-thinking and adaptive as they'd like you to believe. (Marx lived before any such boom in services and intellectual capital could be imagined, so that they can't advance beyond manufacturing only betrays their ideological moorings)

Relevant fact: This isn't the first time Chrysler was bailed out, either.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Howard on 1/3/2013 2:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
For the sake of you not contradicting yourself, I hope you are opposed to any type of investment in alternative energy.


RE: For Pete's sake
By ebakke on 1/3/2013 11:03:09 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong. He'd need to be opposed to any type of investment in alternative energy made by the government. The entire opposition is in that distinction.


RE: For Pete's sake
By 91TTZ on 1/3/2013 5:37:27 PM , Rating: 3
Did you really just post as evidence a carefully worded press release on GM's own website?

Let's get this straight-

1. GM sold stock to shareholders over a period of years. People gave GM money in exchange for owning a part of the company.
2. GM declares bankruptcy, removing the burden of honoring the stock people bought from them. Your GM stock that you bought 5 years ago is now worth nothing, it's not even the same company from a legal standpoint. They kept the money you gave them, but the stock they gave you in exchange for that money is now worthless.
3. The government took money from the unwilling public to bail out GM so they wouldn't face the same end that every other unprofitable company does.
4. Instead of paying the public back, GM uses the remaining money to buy back stock from the government and plans on re-selling it back to the public for a profit.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Integral9 on 1/3/2013 9:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
You need to update your sources. Your source is severely out-dated.

At the bottom of the tables it says:

quote:
Sources: Federal Reserve, Treasury, FDIC, CBO, White House Note: Figures as of November 16, 2009

-http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/...


RE: For Pete's sake
By theapparition on 1/3/2013 3:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a little more accurate reporting, even if it's from GM's website.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/04/gm-bailout-num...

So almost half has been repaid, with the US Treasury owning 500,000,000 shares. To break even, that would require stock price to be about $50 per share. Currently running $30, so at most, if sold today, that would cost the taxpayers 10 billion.

Seriously? I wasn't happy how the bailout happened either.....but are we're really quibbling over 10 billion. To save the American industry.

Let's not forget that GM could have borrowed the money to stave off this restructuring........but no they couldn't. That's because the financial markets collapsed and they couldn't lend money anymore. Where are all the outrage from the hundreds of billions given to the financial sector?

And for the Ford apologists, I saw them in Washington with their hand out as well. That is until it became unpopular. Ford was very lucky in that they financed everything before the collapse. Kudos to them for that, no doubt, but stop making them as some magnanimous entity trying to fight the noble battle. If possible, they would have snatched up any extra cash laying around.

And lastly, every expert pretty much agreed that GM going through liquidation would wipe out many parts suppliers. Ford stood before Congress and noted that they would be severely impacted by the loss of GM. That's right. Trying to protect their prime competitor. To put this in perspective, imagine Apple standing before Congress arguing that they need Samsung to stay in business.

But instead it's more fun to argue what's already done on message boards, especially when done by people who have no idea on economics.

Arguing about 10 billion when other companies are getting those same billions in subsidies is disturbing.


RE: For Pete's sake
By 91TTZ on 1/3/2013 5:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously? I wasn't happy how the bailout happened either.....but are we're really quibbling over 10 billion. To save the American industry.


For one, the cost was far more than that. That was only taking into account new money that was borrowed from American taxpayers to bail them out. It ignores all the outstanding shares of GM that people owned that became worthless overnight when they declared bankruptcy.

Also, your post seems to imply that this $10 billion has saved the American industry. However, it's still possible that GM can go out of business again in the future. It has only propped them up after they've fallen.


RE: For Pete's sake
By BillyBatson on 1/2/2013 8:40:24 PM , Rating: 3
the GM bailout was successsful? For who GM only?! It as supposed to benefit the US as a whole not just GM who is still struggling compared to other US automakers. GM should never been given any money and allowed to either survive and thrive on it's own or shut down and make room for new automakers to take its place or let existing automakers take GMs market share.
Moat successful EV ever created? How many EV's are actually on the market? And how long have they been on the market? There is almost no competition and being crowned "the most successful EV" when there are 2? in the US doesn't exactly give it any credibility.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: For Pete's sake
By JediJeb on 1/2/2013 10:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tides are shifting, and gone is the retarded rhetoric of "bigger is better," where soccer mom's are driving gigantic SUVs that get 12MPG, instead of sensible smaller vehicles that get double or triple that.


But the savings are less when it takes two or three vehicles to carry the same amount of kids and equipment as the one larger one can carry.

When one vehicle can carry 7 people and their sports gear, why use several to do the same? Of course I don't believe that everyone who owns an SUV really needs one, or that they should be using them just to run to the grocery but there are uses for them sometimes.

While I wouldn't mind having a more fuel efficient vehicle I can't justify owning two, especially something as expensive as a Volt. I also need to tow or haul large loads at times, how much can the Volt tow?

The Volt has only proven that a small set of consumers want that type of vehicle. While it is good for some, it isn't good for everyone. Honestly once they can make EVs down in the $20k price range while giving them at least a 200 mile range or have them range extended like the Volt then they will have a better chance of becoming main stream.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Dr of crap on 1/3/2013 8:21:08 AM , Rating: 4
20,000 in a year and the tides are shifting???

Do you write for a living?

IT'S NOT selling, and they keep trying to shove it in our faces yet no one wants it. When the industry sells, and I don't have the exact number, millions of cars a year and this one sold 20,000 - you call that GOOD!??!

Diesel, CNG, fuel cell, bio-diesel - ALL of these would be better than the Volt. It's only available because of the govt handing out cash for this kind of car, both to auto makers and the buying public.


RE: For Pete's sake
By ebakke on 1/3/2013 11:06:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The tides are shifting, and gone is the retarded rhetoric of "bigger is better," where soccer mom's are driving gigantic SUVs that get 12MPG, instead of sensible smaller vehicles that get double or triple that
Ugh. Why are humans so interested in telling others how to live? You don't get to decide what someone else needs, wants, or can purchase.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Dr of crap on 1/3/2013 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
BRAVO !


RE: For Pete's sake
By 91TTZ on 1/3/2013 5:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US DOES benefit, because the Volt has proven consumers want a vehicle that is clean, and promotes less dependency on foreign oil.


Chevy Silverados sold - 319,539
Volts sold: 9,674

I'd have to say that the Volt has NOT proven that consumers want that vehicle that uses less oil. It's just not a priority to them.


RE: For Pete's sake
By maugrimtr on 1/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: For Pete's sake
By Dr of crap on 1/3/2013 8:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
Over 13 million cars sold in 2012,
over 2 million by GM and yet only 20,000 Volts -
YEP a success!

Kind of hard to justify to keep selling it at those numbers!

source -
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...


RE: For Pete's sake
By Motoman on 1/3/2013 10:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The moron you replied to has not the slightest clue what he's talking about.

20k units sold is an abysmal failure.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Spuke on 1/3/2013 1:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ford sells more than double that amount of pickup trucks in a single month. 20k units per year is about typical for niche cars like sports cars and the like.


RE: For Pete's sake
By DockScience on 1/3/2013 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
In 1910 Detroit Electric sold 2000 ev's.
The TOTAL for the companies that would become GM was 40,000.

The Volt is no where near this high water mark of EV's.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: For Pete's sake
By Shig on 1/2/2013 5:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
Please stop Motoman, come back and troll when the sales of the car actually go down year over year.


RE: For Pete's sake
By bobsmith1492 on 1/2/2013 5:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
How amazing it must be to have $40K to blow on a car.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Acupuncture84 on 1/2/2013 6:07:01 PM , Rating: 1
It was actually 45k, but that $7500 tax credit will come in handy this year. Not to mention all of that money I'm saving on gas. = )


RE: For Pete's sake
By Chaser on 1/2/2013 6:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Glad the taxpayers, many people that work hard every day, who have to ride public transit to work to thankless jobs, could fund your overpriced eco snob machine.


RE: For Pete's sake
By chromal on 1/2/2013 8:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't throw a rock in a glass house. Folks who don't drive or own cars could just as easily protest how much public money and resources go to supporting and subsidizing individual car owners by virtual of the road network itself, urban and suburban space given over to vast seas of parking spaces, etc.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Ringold on 1/3/2013 2:42:32 AM , Rating: 4
No, in fact, they couldn't complain, since taxes are levied against fuel and car ownership in a myriad way that supports highway spending. Local and, to an extent, the federal governments general funds top up that spending, but folks who don't drive cars absolutely still use them indirectly. That milk didn't come from a cow hidden behind the grocery store, after all. It traveled, probably hundreds of miles.

No such public benefit of equal scale is derived from helping that guy be an eco-smug tool.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Chernobyl68 on 1/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: For Pete's sake
By ebakke on 1/3/2013 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And for everyone who says the should not have helped GM, go find out how many times the airlines have been bailed out by congress.
So if I'm against the GM bailout, I have to be for the airline bailouts? Try again.


RE: For Pete's sake
By DockScience on 1/3/2013 3:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
How about this.

You live without anything delivered by truck for a year, I will live without a government subsidized electric car.

After all, both have equal value, right?


RE: For Pete's sake
By Nutzo on 1/3/2013 11:10:47 AM , Rating: 4
So you not only made the taxpayers pay $7,500 toward your car, but now you are not paying gas taxes to help maintain the roads.
You're a bigger leach on the taxpayer than the welfare queens.


RE: For Pete's sake
By ebakke on 1/3/2013 1:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
But the "rich" people owe him!! And it's for the "greater good"!!


RE: For Pete's sake
By ianweck on 1/3/2013 3:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oregon is in the process of introducing legislature to tax EV drivers, for that very reason.


RE: For Pete's sake
By rudolphna on 1/2/2013 6:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you don't say that to the people that drive BMWs, Mercedes, Mustang GT500s, etc etc. Or the people that drive pickups, or SUVs. Stop being an ass.


RE: For Pete's sake
By chekk4 on 1/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: For Pete's sake
By rudolphna on 1/2/2013 7:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take your comment as that you haven't actually driven a Volt. Both are engineered, but they are engineered to do different things.Have fun with your BMW, getting 20mpg in everyday driving.


RE: For Pete's sake
By chekk4 on 1/2/2013 11:51:00 PM , Rating: 1
I'll explain in greater detail. My 330i has power, handling, comfort, looks, sophistication and fuel economy all to a high degree (slightly less so with respect to the fuel economy). This means the engineering employed to develop it was first rate because usually something has to be sacrificed.
The Volt has fuel economy and .... oh, that's it (maybe comfort also). That's pretty feeble. All North American cars (and many Asian ones) seem to be like this: lots of compromise.

Yes, I know I'm paying some for the BMW brand and yes, it is expensive to maintain. If you're OK with driving something mediocre, by all means take advantage of those cost savings. If you're not OK with crap, vote with your cash and buy something that's true automotive engineering (BMW or whoever else you prefer).

Now, if the Volt and its ilk were appropriately priced, that would be different again. Coming back to the beginning, 40000 is a lot of money to spend on mediocrity.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Pneumothorax on 1/3/2013 2:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
Getting 36-38MPG everyday on my 335d ;)


RE: For Pete's sake
By Spuke on 1/3/2013 1:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not exaggerate. Unless you're driving an M3 daily, you're not getting anywhere near 20 mpg. BMW's aren't gas hogs. Most of the ones that people buy are pretty fuel efficient.


RE: For Pete's sake
By chekk4 on 1/2/2013 6:51:32 PM , Rating: 3
After being allowed to offload all their debt to taxpayers, I certainly hope GM is profitable. Their current balance sheet is in the black only because all the red was simply erased. Pretty sweet racket.


RE: For Pete's sake
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/3/2013 8:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
Over what period of time did you accrue 4000 miles? I hope you're using fuel stabilizer...


RE: For Pete's sake
By KCjoker on 1/2/2013 6:31:41 PM , Rating: 3
Because just like the housing bubble the Government created they're doing the same with the volt and that stupid cash for clunkers project a while back. This is why I support as little government intervention as possible they screw up more than they help.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/3/2013 9:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
Volyndra! That's what its all about.


RE: For Pete's sake
By 91TTZ on 1/3/2013 5:18:20 PM , Rating: 3
It's not that they can't figure anything out, it's that they're being pressured to make things they know people don't want to buy.

For instance, you have all these college kids and hippies complaining that the automakers make large, gas guzzling trucks and boring midsize sedans. They said that if only the automakers made electric cars and more exciting cars then people would buy them.

The problem is that college kids generally don't have much money so they're not as likely to buy cars as people with money. Hippies also don't like spending money on cars. What you're left with is people who have money who don't share the views of the vocal people who don't spend money.

The big sellers are work trucks, mid-sized sedans, and SUVs.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/top-10-b...

Ford F-150 - 390,661
Chevy Silverado - 319,539
Toyota Camry - 308,510

To put that into perspective:
Toyota Prius - 128,100
Chevy Volts - 7,671 Volt
Nissan Leaf - 9,674

For Chevy, it took a lot of R&D to make a car that nobody wants. If I was in charge there, I would have entered a partnership with Toyota and offered a Chevy-branded Prius just like they did with the Corolla (Nova in the 80's and Prizm in the 90's). Then they could have paraded it around and showed everyone that they offer an eco-friendly car without spending all those R&D dollars.


RE: For Pete's sake
By Nutzo on 1/3/2013 5:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the real point.

The market for $40,000 midsize sedans is way to small to support the R&D spent on the volt. If it wasn't for the government & GE buying Volts, then number would be less than 1/2 that number.

The Toyota sells 40x as many Camrys, and 16x as many Prius. Even the Nissan Leaf outsold the Volt.

It's been estimated, that even if they hit thier sales projections over the next few years, the actual cost to build each Volt, including R&D will still be over $100,000.

They are losing money on each sale, and they are not even making up for it with volume.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki