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

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.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














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