Post User Polls

GM Volt: Would you pay $41,000?

General Motors announced today that its new electric car, the Volt, will go on sale in November. The cost? $41,000, which makes it $8,000 more than its competitor the Nissan Leaf. However, GM also announced that it will offer a monthly lease at $350, more comparable to its competitor. Read the full article.

By Jodi Westrick  |  July 27, 2010; 1:27 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: 'The View': Should President Obama appear on the show? | Next: Terrell Owens joins the Bengals: Dream team?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



If the price was $25K-$35K, they would clean up, but at $41K (nearly $50K after taxes and additional stuff you would probably want), GM is peeing in the pool with the Volt.

Posted by: BurgundyNGold | July 27, 2010 1:56 PM

Agreed. I can buy a $15,000 car and use $26,000 to buy A LOT of gas!

This proves so many environmental answers are more "trendy" than anything else.

Posted by: Revcain777 | July 27, 2010 2:02 PM

I only buy used reliable cars with mid range or better gas mileage, anything else is pissing away money.

That said if I wanted green I would rather go all electric than hybrid. I just looked at a Zap car the other day, it is a 3 wheel car that counts as a motorcycle. Only problem what the time it took to get to speed, I don't want to get rear ended on a 45mph road taking 30 seconds to get up to speed.

The zap only goes 25 miles between charges so it is city only driving but at $2000 it would have paid for itself in saved gas in less than two years.

Posted by: flonzy1 | July 27, 2010 2:04 PM

New technology is always pricey. As early adopters and the well heeled buy in it will become more affordable for the rest of us.

Posted by: Chip_M | July 27, 2010 2:05 PM

They never learn. If they priced it competitively they would clean up. They could charge more for gas cars and use the extra profits to subsidize the electric business until the volume took off. Kinda like At&T used to do with long distance charges. The reason it was relatively inexpensive to call cross country was because the local tariffs had little to do with the actual cost of providing the service. The extra cash was put into building the toll facilities to encourage long distance calling. When that took off, so did the profits from long distance.

Car makers are idiots.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | July 27, 2010 2:05 PM

Those complaining about $41k, remember that you'll get a $7500 tax credit when you file your taxes the following year. And don't forget the $350/mo, 360 month lease with $2500 down, which matches the Nissan Leaf's lease.

That said, $41k makes the $50k Tesla Model S that much more attractive. If only the Model S actually existed...

Posted by: Duodenum | July 27, 2010 2:10 PM

Perhaps the Volt will be $8000 better. Lot's of people pay $8000 more for a car that doesn't have $8000 more in features or inherent value. If the Volt really is premium, maybe it's worth it. It sure is better looking than the leaf, which looks like an extruded Renault. I personally would love a car that uses no gas daily, but could still be used for a road trip. Whether GM can accomplish this feat though, I do not know.

Posted by: stswork | July 27, 2010 2:12 PM

The headline said the pole asked if it was too pricey - not if I'd buy an electric car at $41k. Tricky...

I WOULD buy an -electric- car for $41k if there wasn't one already available for $32!

Go LEAF!!!

Posted by: mas92102 | July 27, 2010 2:30 PM

Isn't electricity generated by coal-fired power plants? So this electric car might have a bigger carbon footprint than a hybrid or natural gas vehicle. It's new technology, the price will fall. Remember $1200 VCRs?

Posted by: greyK | July 27, 2010 2:30 PM

Don't worry. This adminstration will buy and/or lease 50,000+ Volts in the next two years. GM will call it a success and the government can then justify giving GM more tax payer money.

$41,000? I hope it can fit the wife, two car seats, and a set of grandparents or out perform my 6 year old Mercedes. The irony, the car is way too expensive for me to consider it as just a commuter car. Unless it can replace the functionality or usability of my E or R class cars, it's way to expensive.

Posted by: Windknot1 | July 27, 2010 2:33 PM

The US Car companies just don't get it. Crapier cars for more money. And don't go off posting JD Power BS or Car of the Year crud. JD Power is an American org owned by Procter and Gamble another American Co. Also, American hybrids are more expensive than the comp. A Fusion Hybrid is around 3-5k more expensive than a Honda Civic Hybrid. WTF? How can that be? In over 20 years the US has been making inferior products. In over 1 year they magically have solved their problems?! Get real!! To be fair Ford and Dodge make great trucks. At least in my experience.

Posted by: dorklord | July 27, 2010 2:33 PM

$41,000 for a Chevy? I guess they're counting on Obama to force everyone to drive GM cars.

The Prius starts at $22,000. The freakin' Tesla S, which is gorgeous, will be $50,000. Who would be dumb enough to pay $41,000 for the Volt? Seriously?

This is what happens when the government takes over private industry. Stupid happens.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | July 27, 2010 2:35 PM

comparing a Civic to a Fusion is not really a fair comparison. The Fusion is larger than a Civic so it should cost more. A more direct comparison would be an Accord Hybrid (do they still make those?) or a Camry Hybrid.

$41K is a lot for a Volt. Especially given the lack of charging infrastructure. I live in a condo so there's no way I could ever charge one up.

Not all electricity is coal-generated. More and more alternative sources are being built including wind.

Posted by: fedssocr | July 27, 2010 2:40 PM


Wasted money...wasted time.

Posted by: wcmillionairre | July 27, 2010 2:48 PM

I'd pay $50+k for a Tesla sedan, but I'd never buy a Volt at any price. GM has a lousy history for initial and long-term reliability. Has the Volt been able to make it through a complete demonstration for auto reviewers/critic? Last I heard the Volt died trying to climb a hill.

Posted by: ccs53 | July 27, 2010 3:38 PM

I'd pay $50+k for a Tesla sedan, but I'd never buy a Volt at any price. GM has a lousy history for initial and long-term reliability. Has the Volt been able to make it through a complete demonstration for auto reviewers/critic? Last I heard the Volt died trying to climb a hill.

Posted by: ccs53 | July 27, 2010 3:40 PM

In THIS economy?

Bwwhahahaha!

Posted by: veerle1 | July 27, 2010 4:00 PM

@greyK wrote:
"Isn't electricity generated by coal-fired power plants? So this electric car might have a bigger carbon footprint than a hybrid or natural gas vehicle"
.
The key difference is that electric vehicles can be switched to green power sources; gas vehicles simply can't. So once we get enough electric vehicles and switch the power plants, no more emissions. With gas you could still switch the power plants but you're still dependent on gas for transportation.

Posted by: rpixley220 | July 27, 2010 4:02 PM

Here are a few questions to ask yourself:
1) how quickly will I make up the extra costs in gas cost savings?
2) how expensive are repairs and where are qualified technicians to repair the car.
3) how common are electrical issues going to be down the road as I know electrical work on my Camry was EXTREMELY expensive to fix (power windows stopped working - cost an arm and a leg to fix!)
4) how long is the battery going to last before I have to replace it with what another $8000 battery????!!!
For the price of one electric vehicle I'd rather buy 5 older Camry's, Carrola's or Accords that get good to great gas mileage without being electrical!

Posted by: RealityBitesBQ | July 27, 2010 4:48 PM

As much as I like the idea of buying an electric car, the experience with Plasma TVs will have me wait 3 - 4 years until I will consider buying one... My current car will also be 10 years old then and it will be time to shop for something new...

Posted by: mburix | July 27, 2010 5:09 PM

$41ooo isn't a lot for a Volt, its a lot for a CHEVY. Don't be fooled. GM already had a successful electric car on the market, they've had the technology; now they want to charge more for a Volt than for an Acura TL.
Decisions like this are why we had to bail them out. Braindead.

Posted by: oo7 | July 27, 2010 5:11 PM

I see there are a lot of ignorant posters here.

1. GM can't arbitrarily set the price at $22K - they would go out of business. The reason the original GM battery cars were taken back and crushed is because they cost as much as a house. The battery pack in the new volt is probably 1/2 the price of the car. They have billions in R&D to recover.

2. Gas engines are more polluting than coal fired electric plants. Look it up. The electricity driving a Volt (or other) will be more eco friendly than any combustion engine.

3. GM has the right design, an electric car powered by either a battery pack or a generator set. In the future, they can swap out any kind of generator, such as a hydrogen generator, or a diesel generator, etc, or any new battery that comes along.

4. $41,000 will sell only to the 2 or 3% early adopters who want a show thing. I hope it makes it through the birth pains to where volume will bring the price down, or cheaper batteries will.

Posted by: Cosmic1 | July 27, 2010 5:38 PM

US car reliability is average at best. Now if GM prices the Volt at under 30K, offers a lifetime warranty, and at least one free replacement battery, then this car might sell.
A basic Lexus ES is around 35K and that is a lot of car that averages 30 MPG/highway (conservatively rated 26 MPG). SO that leaves around 5K gas money.

Posted by: bgreston | July 27, 2010 5:56 PM

Hopefully GM has done its market research. It sounds like they're targeting the "lower" end of the luxury car sales market.

Fuel economy probably isn't going to be the biggest selling point, but the vehicle may have some bells and whistles that make it attractive to gadget-heads, and environmentally minded buyers with above average levels of discretionary income.

The business model here, I suspect, is that in another 10-20 years features from the Volt will start filtering down towards high volume selling models.

Ford with the Fusion hybrid has probably done this the smartest way from a business perspective (e.g. create a car that hits the biggest part of the consumer market -- develop a car that competes on price, fuel economy, reliability, and handling).

Cosmic1 is on the mark here too. The early adopters are less risk averse -- in part because they can absorb more losses. They aren't going to need the hedge of a lifetime warranty, one free replacement battery(!), and a $30K and under price! That's kind of like saying: "Dear Mr. GM, I will buy your car if you give me $20K+ in value above the price that I'm paying you." Higher end buyers will place different kinds of demands on "Mr. GM." A car that breaks down in the first year will draw their wrath, but within 3 to 6 years, they're probably moving on to the next car.

Posted by: JPRS | July 27, 2010 6:54 PM

Translation: it's a lease vehicle.

Makes sense as a testing process. Too bad the aholes at GM had to use every drop of PR they could to suggest they were actually building a practical electric car. They are addicted to fibbing at GM. Marketing, not technology, is their forte'.

There will always be foreign made electric cars that are better values than anything from GM.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | July 27, 2010 9:20 PM

It would make more sense to price it under cost at first (as Toyota did with the Prius), at

Posted by: hail2victor | July 27, 2010 10:22 PM

Nissan Leaf all the way. I have reserved my car. The Leaf looks better and is $9,000 cheaper.

Plus the Volt or EV-1, was scraped by GM in lieu of mass producing the Denali, Yukon & Suburban. In 2007 GM scraped the all-electric car because ot their greed and continued to produce those metal land masses.

NISSAN LEAF, a much better car.

Posted by: smtpgirl08 | July 27, 2010 10:26 PM

I'll buy and $8K or less used car and drive it until it falls apart

Posted by: Impeachbush99 | July 27, 2010 11:44 PM

The GOOD news for GM? If this fails, We the People will foot the bill so what do they care really!

Posted by: Impeachbush99 | July 27, 2010 11:46 PM

It's all about return on investment (roi). If the cost of this car -including maintenance and fueling (electric and other) over the span of it's use is less than the cost of a comparable "traditional" car then, yes, it would be worth it.

I don't very much if the deciding factor will be the "is it green enough" question. Not in this economy.

Otherwise, it's simply a business attempting to make as much money as they can.

Posted by: topwriter | July 28, 2010 12:02 AM

In order to spur the economy, every American should vote with the wallet. Do not ever buy anything that is not made in America. That way we bring all those lost jobs back where they belong, in our own country. Be American, buy American. Go Volt!

Posted by: Smileyhari | July 28, 2010 12:03 AM

I wouldn't pay $41,000 for a Chevy if it ran on air!

Posted by: mike85 | July 28, 2010 12:06 AM

Generally speaking an all-electric vehicle just won't cut it. The range is just too limited.

A better approach would be to build a hybrid that is also flex fuel. The reason is that if you can seamlessly move from gasoline to alcohol to natural gas, you can pick the cheapest fuel available and go with that. It provides competition. What a concept!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | July 28, 2010 12:10 AM

As a partial owner of Government motors Corporation, that was some of my money that GM took, I am appalled that our company does not give a owners discount to all the share holders (US Tax Payers)

Posted by: nosuchluck | July 28, 2010 12:15 AM

Todays Arizona Republic posted a letter stating American workers receive $55.00 an hour plus benefits to produce our cars, however, the average worker in Mexico receives $4.00 an hour plus benefits to build them down there. So is it any wonder why so many plants in our country have been closed?

I'm an ignorant old women. Do you think we can go to Mexico and purchase the car for a much cheaper price?

Posted by: sue60 | July 28, 2010 12:15 AM


You can buy a nicely equipped Hyundai Elantra that is a comfortable mid sized car not a compact like the Chevy Volt, gets 35 MPG and comes with a 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty.

Or you can pay roughly three times the price for a Chevy that gets what for MPG? General Motors is not even saying. That should be the tipoff right there.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 12:18 AM

$41,000 for a Chevy? I guess they're counting on Obama to force everyone to drive GM cars.
The Prius starts at $22,000. The freakin' Tesla S, which is gorgeous, will be $50,000. Who would be dumb enough to pay $41,000 for the Volt? Seriously?
This is what happens when the government takes over private industry. Stupid happens.
*****************

Deisel, I think you are Stupid Happens. The government did not take over private industry which you constantly claim. They lent them money, which many have already paid back or are paying it back. GM got money allowing them to reorganize, just like the government did for Lee Iacocca to keep his company viable.
When you claim Obama will force everyone to buy Chevys, you expose your ignorance and immaturity. Obama has done not done any of the asinine things you and fools like you claim. Nutcases like you are still screaming he is taking away your guns, an utter lie except to someone of your mentality. Why don't you try educating yourself and getting out of the barroom once in a while and talk to people in the know, not screaming hyenas who believe in death panels and one world governments.
Grow up little man!! fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | July 28, 2010 12:38 AM

I am still waiting for 3 1/2 cars to arrive in my driveway from the last theft from the taxpayers....so is everyone else.

No thank you.

Posted by: dottydo | July 28, 2010 12:57 AM

"GM is now majority owned by the United States Treasury and, to a smaller extent, the Canada Development Investment Corporation and the government of Ontario with the U.S. government investing a tota Ontario, with the U.S. government investing a tota of US$57.6 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program."

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 1:28 AM

I'd rather pay my mortgage than pay 40K for a car.

Posted by: jato11 | July 28, 2010 1:30 AM

So on fresh batteries a person might go 50 miles before they need to plug in and recharge. If these take off, we better build a lot more coal fired power plants to make the electricity. Oops. Doesn’t that kind of screw up the whole concept?

That doesn’t matter as long as liberals feel good about themselves and believe they are somehow saving the planet.

Plug it into a windmill and in a week or so, you can go another 50 miles.

Wake Up America. And it’s subsidized with $7500 tax credit and bailouts for the Unions. Only in Obamaland does this make sense.

Posted by: kansasbruce | July 28, 2010 1:45 AM

AND in other news in today's WaPo, a local storm has left 122,000 customers without electricity, ergo no way to charge up a Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf automobile.


Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 1:52 AM

"Or you can pay roughly three times the price for a Chevy that gets what for MPG? General Motors is not even saying. That should be the tipoff right there."

It's expected to get around 200+ mpg. Just a bit more than you're currently getting LOL

As a lease vehicle, the Volt has a good chance of succeeding. The price is too expensive to expect sales to be good though. As more and more people get electrics the price will become more reasonable.

Electrics make too much sense to ignore. Sure range is limited now, batteries and technologies will improve though. There was a time when a computer was the size of a building and now my iphone is probably a million times more powerful than those early computers. The same thing will happen to electric car batteries. As more buy electrics, the price to manufacturer the batteries will go down and R&D will continue to improve the range.

It would be great if electrics had half of the market in 25 years - that's an ambition goal, but probably more realistic than most would believe right now.

Posted by: lightgrw | July 28, 2010 2:05 AM

The price is reasonable for a new technology and considering the benefits of a tax rebates and fuel savings, it is appealing. However, I would not invest that kind of money in a GM product. Generally their products are not reliable and I don't expect much more in a totally new concept. Perhaps in a few years when other manufactures jump on the wagon of sole electric vehicles.

At the present I rather invest a little more and purchase a Tesla.

Posted by: al-gioia | July 28, 2010 2:12 AM

200+ MPG myass. GM claims: "When the generator starts the car will get an equivalent of up to 50 mpg thereafter. " and that uses marketing weasel words like equivalent and up to.

Q: What is the cost of operation of the car
A: With current average U.S. electric rates of ~10 cents/kwh it should cost 80 cents to drive for the first 40 miles, and then get 50 mpg thereafter using gasoline (market rate)

They are lowballing the cost of electricity too, 15 cents per kwh is more like it which means the first 40 miles costs $ 1.20 at current prices. So for about the price of half a gallon of gas you go 40 miles, and that is like 80 mpg for the first 40 miles. That also assumes you can leave the car plugged in for six hours before you need to drive anywhere.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 2:56 AM

Until the introduction of a revolutionary, small, cheap, long life, lightweight, fast charging, environmentally safe battery the electric car will be an expensive novelty.

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 28, 2010 3:39 AM

If the last 40 years have taught us anything, it's to never buy a GM car. I refuse to spend my money and risk my family's safety on a substandard product. Also, subsidizing non-competitive producers is fundamentally un-American.

Posted by: bpai_99 | July 28, 2010 3:39 AM

The $8,000 extra is for UAW workers to sit on their duffs at bars in Michigan for the past four years at 80% pay instead of going for retraining. I have three friends right now taking Obama's three years of unemployment handouts instead of going to work. Why? Why not they say Obama is paying $1600 per month for single guys and gals to sit around even though they could find jobs. My three friends have been offered several jobs BTW but hey would rather have the free cash and goof off every day.

Give a man a fish and he will return every day to ask for another teach a man to fish and he will feed himself and family from then on. Obama is a socialist fool.

Posted by: msmithnv | July 28, 2010 3:41 AM


Aint gonna buy no Government Motors car.

Posted by: g0tcha | July 28, 2010 4:35 AM

@g0tcha,

It's more like "Ain't gonna buy no car".

Every major automaker gets subsidies from national governments -- some are direct (protectionist measures, direct payments from national governments, purchase of vehicle fleets from manufacturers), others are indirect in the forms of tax treatment, or in the case of Japan, South Korea, and Germany in the form of support for health care and social services.

As far as the anti-bailout crowd goes too, at least in the case of autos there was some real attempt at burden-sharing for all stakeholders on the basis of what was effectively a structured bankruptcy.

No tears from this tax-payer for the bondholders who purchased the deeply discounted bonds when it looked like the company might go under -- and then had to "settle" for 40 cents on the dollar (which in many cases STILL netted them a profit). If we had treated the banks with the same conditionality, the taxpayers would have gotten a much better ROI, and the Big Banks would have less tax-payer money to fund the GOP's hopes in the 2010 election cycle.

Posted by: JPRS | July 28, 2010 4:58 AM

GM killed my Saturn brand. I will never buy from them again. Ever! Hello Audi eTron!

Posted by: veloboldie | July 28, 2010 5:50 AM

Why would somebody want to pay $41k to get stuck with that "green" label. How embarrassing.

Posted by: nubeldorf1 | July 28, 2010 6:06 AM

I wouldn't pay 10 cents for that impractical piece of cr@p.

Posted by: JohnMD1022 | July 28, 2010 6:15 AM

Not only would I not pay $41K for it, I'd be embarassed to be seen it it. It may be one of the ugliest cars ever designed.

Posted by: Lilycat11 | July 28, 2010 6:37 AM

Pump the taxes into war with the people who have the oil, and then pump our paychecks into the gas pump.

Does gas have to hit 6-8 dollars an hour before we stop complaining about the price of a car?

In America, it's still defacto denial of the truth. Live like there's no tomorrow, and no end to the oil.

Posted by: expat2MEX | July 28, 2010 7:03 AM

Americans: get out of your bloody cars and start walking. Get a life.

Posted by: expat2MEX | July 28, 2010 7:09 AM

The reporting on this has been so bad. The Volt is so much more car than the Leaf; it is a larger car built to drive not only around town but across the country, and do it comfortably. The Leaf is absolutely nothing but an urban vehicle, and it is always in the last paragraph of a story that its price of $33000 is mentioned, and that it has the same lease price as the larger Chevy. The Leaf is only good for what, 100 miles on a charge, and it takes twice as long to charge, with no backup generator like the Volt. From articles I've read, the Volt would have a range of 400 miles, with the generator/engine for the battery capable of 230 mpg. Remember, the generator/engine rechrges the battery after the initial 40 mile charge. It is not what powers the car. The difference in the Leaf and the Volt is the difference between basically a Malibu and a Cube; it is the difference between driving across town and driving across country, and for $350 a month, and about $6 to drive 400 miles, a heck of a deal. Tell Brian Williams on The NBC NIghtly News that he completely under-reported this story last night. The shame of it is, he's a car guy and should have known better.

Posted by: rtinindiana | July 28, 2010 7:34 AM

GM strickes (out) again!

Posted by: Tom81 | July 28, 2010 7:39 AM

Reliability and quality. If this car has those two things, then I'd pay $40K. If not.. forget it. Chevy has a way to go before it begins to win me over. I'm curious to read the road tests and see how this car performs over the next year or two.

I'm pulling for Chevy, though. We need them to turn a corner.

Posted by: krisandtodd | July 28, 2010 7:41 AM

PULEEEZE! What GM has done here is simply amazing. To say that it is too much money is ridiculous. Audi's car (if ever it comes), will be easily $50 or $60k. The only question is will the volt be of the same quality as other $40k offerings? I believe it will. The company is redefining itself as the engineering powerhouse it really always has been. my 1970 Cadillac DeVille convertible just keeps running, and had more innovative tech than anything mercedes even fantasized about at the time. As to their bankruptcy - what was their real "crime"? that they overspent to provide health and retirement benefits to fellow americans? wow, how awful. I sure prefer that to what the SOB's on wall street did.

Posted by: jurrasic | July 28, 2010 7:44 AM

Typical liberal ready, shoot, aim.

Ok, you buy one of these vehicles. Obama tells you you can drive it anywhere. Really? Where do you charge it. Where do you get it repaired? Where do you get batteries when the factory batteries die. Who is going to repair it when its wrecked? What energy source is going to be used to recharge the millions the bed wetters imagine will be in service? Coal? Atomic? Obama voters on tread mills?

And the 64,000 rigged vote question - what happens to the used batteries? Do they go into the same toxic waste site as the mercury filled light bulbs being foisted upon us by morons?

I am all for a solution to internal combustion - but a responsible approach is not what we are seeing.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | July 28, 2010 7:47 AM

No Way will I spend a penny for a Electric car voluntarily! The government has to steal my money to subsidize a stupid idea like electric cars.

It's a small death trap that sissy men drive and let their families ride in!

The Electric car still emits so called dangerous "greenhouse gases" however since liberals don't see it exit the tail pipe they think that they are saving the world. Since you left-wing lunatics hate nuclear power, where do you idiots think that the electricity comes from to fuel the small death trap?

How come the rich leftist like Al Gore don't rely on green cars exclusively, when they can easily afford them? They should not ride in anything else! That tells you something.

Politicians only drive them for photo-ops, while stupid brainwashed liberals ride in them risking their families lives as well as their own.

Do you think a rich, lying, liberal, who may be speeding away from his hotel after sexually assaulting a female masseuse, in his huge SUV can take a chance to only have a half charge? He cannot get away from the crime scene, plus all the real men who saw him get away would be able to describe the sissy. We notice the sissy men who drive small electric cars, because they are SISSIES!

Posted by: JeffreyM23 | July 28, 2010 7:58 AM

350/mo is a reasonable price for the Volt. Especially when you consider that a full charge costs $1-2 in electricity.

I commute 35 miles each way to work each day (reverse commute). That's $10-15 of gas with the most economical car.

A Leaf cannot be compared with a Volt. it has only a battery. A volt has a gasoline engine to charge the battery, so it can drive endlessly. The Leaf stops running at 75-100 miles, game over. And cannot hold a charge in the winter.

For reliability, GM has made great strides - remember Buick is with Lincoln, Porsche, and Lexus as the JD Power top-rated brands this year, ahead of Toyota, Honda, and far ahead of failure-prone Nissan.

At 350/mo, with $1-2/day to charge, and a 100k mile battery warranty, the Volt is much less expensive TCO than any other alternative. Having a gasoline engine to recharge the battery makes it a viable vehicle, and not some eco-pipe dream, like the Leaf or the (2-year delayed) Tesla S.

The Volt's major drawback? Its just ugly. It looks like all generic parts-bin American cars.

Posted by: bgist | July 28, 2010 7:58 AM

The Volt's extended range with its small gas engine is the most appealing part of the vehicle. On most days, many drivers will never engage the gasoline engine and will be running on electricity. There will be times when the extended range becomes critical and it will be VERY inconvenient if you have to stop for three to six hours to "fill up".

They had a bad PR experience with the EV-1 but at least they learned one thing - people don't want to get stranded in the middle of nowhere with a Leaf that, after a few years, won't even deliver the advertised range.

GM will have no trouble finding 10,000 people who will shell out $41,000 for the latest gizmo from guvament motors, There are a lot of Al Gore types who will be more than happy to show off their climate change creds.

Posted by: magellan1 | July 28, 2010 8:01 AM

quick reaction

this car will be snapped up by those who are immune from the effects ofa $41,000 price tag- their deep pockets will prevent any loss of basic foods, not to mention wine and desserts from their tables- AND they will be credited bya $7,5000 tax deduction courtesy of the rest of us-

target profile- Hollywood progressives who can't wait to tool around town preening in their new earned glory as real people who care about the environment...

Posted by: 27anon72 | July 28, 2010 8:09 AM

Scerwjob you really are what you claim to be. There is no waiting around for the car to charge. It is powered by electricity yes, but there is also a 75 HP gasoline engine that will charge the battery while driving (you know, the generator set that you referred to?). That is the source of the 50 mpg after the first 40 miles.

And by the way, I'm paying about 8.5 cents per KW.

Posted by: bp54 | July 28, 2010 8:23 AM

You need to plug the car in.

What if you live in an apartment or townhouse?

Run an extension cord out your 5th story window to the street?

How about a wind mill car?

Or let's just ride unicorns to work.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | July 28, 2010 8:29 AM

Understand that this is now OBAMA MOTORS!! One will pay inflated prices to support a union work force, under the guise of 'protecting the environment'. Let's see how some real tests turn out before buying a pig in a poke -- as we did in November 2008!

Posted by: wheeljc | July 28, 2010 8:32 AM

How about calling it the Obumacar....
It's expensive, high maintenance and runs on hot air....

Posted by: senatorgoofy | July 28, 2010 8:36 AM

I wouldn't pay $41K for any car. I stay in the $28K or less range. Expensive cars have never been my cup of tea. I just need something comfortable, reliable and moderately inexpensive to maintain. I do look forward to the day when we have decent electric cars in this price range. I would even sacrifice driving distance. Honestly, I'd prefer a decent train system. The real answer is getting most of us out of cars.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | July 28, 2010 8:47 AM

Sorry for that price I will go buy a BMW 328xi, the prices are very close, and the BMW will most likely give you a much nicer ride.

It needs to be priced around $25K-30K. $41K for a Chevy is too much!!!!

Posted by: mwesty11 | July 28, 2010 8:51 AM

You know you couldn't drive from Raleigh to Charlotte in a Leaf without an 8 hour recharge right? DC to Philly is out too. Sorry.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 8:59 AM

In an attempt to stick to GM, the WP again buries the most information on page 2 of the story. Comparing the Volt to the Leaf is not apples to apples. The Leaf has an only-electric drive. The Volt has an electric drive AND a gasoline engine. So when the Leaf dies because you drove too far on the weekend, the Volt simply switches over to the gasoline engine. I think that's the difference in value that GM is betting on.

Also, GM has agreed to provide a 8-year/100,000 mile warranty on the battery.

Posted by: wapolurker | July 28, 2010 9:00 AM

Nissan's Leaf may be priced ok after govt rebate, but to pay $25K for a car that will only go 100 miles before needing a recharge is silly. Go buy any sub- comapct car for allot less. The money you save on gas with the Leaf over a sub-compact is small potato's, certainly not enough to justify spending that amount for what amounts to a "stay local" car. Can't take the leaf on any long vacations.

Posted by: mwesty11 | July 28, 2010 9:02 AM

You can buy a nicely equipped Hyundai Elantra that is a comfortable mid sized car not a compact like the Chevy Volt, gets 35 MPG and comes with a 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty.
Or you can pay roughly three times the price for a Chevy that gets what for MPG? General Motors is not even saying. That should be the tipoff right there.
Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010

@screwjob17:

I agree with you that the price of the Volt is too high...and it is likely to face the same issue as hybrids did when they were first introduces (and which in most cases unfortunately remains so):

Too much money for too little car with too little range and too little performance is not a viable solution for most American drivers. Hence rendering the product in question nothing more than an expensive toy for the well-heeled and environmentally correct trendsters who want to feel good about themselves by displaying their "green chic".

That having been said, I must point out to you that the Volt is a second-generation hybrid design (the gas engine drives a generator to create additional electricity when the battery runs down, rather than using said engine to deliver power directly to the drivetrain as do first-generation hybrids like the Prius. This introduces an additional set of variables into an already complex equation, making the calculation of an exact MPG figure problematic. Of course with an all-electric car like the Tesla or the late, lamented EV-1, no MPG figure is possible. Think about it: MPG stands for Miles-Per-Gallon. An all-electric car uses ZERO gallons of gas....AND YOU CAN'T DIVIDE BY ZERO!!!!


Taking all this into consideration let's look at the larger picture: Automobiles are probably the single largest source of pollutants and greenhouse gases in America. If a significant fraction of this is reduced or even eliminated, huge strides WILL be made toward a cleaner air AND energy independence.

But cars like the Volt are not the only solution--as another poster pointed out, greater demands on the electrical grid may result in more pollution from coal-fired electric plants than is taken away by driving low- or zero-emission vehicles.

All but the most fearful greens now recognize that nuclear power plants CAN be clean and safe...PROVIDED that the contractors who build those plants don't cut corners in the construction, and PROVIDED that the power plants are responsibly operated.

Returning to the core question:

Would I pay $41,000 for a Volt? Probably not.

Would I pay $40,000-50,000 for a hybrid or all-electric Silverado® or Malibu® with good reliability and performance? IN A HEARTBEAT!

Posted by: Rhino40 | July 28, 2010 9:03 AM

You forgot to mention that the lease is only $350 a month. Obviously, GM isn't real keen on selling them (perhaps due to long-term liability issues with the batteries, but who knows).

At $350k a month for a lease, that's not too shabby.

Posted by: steve1231 | July 28, 2010 9:05 AM

I believe in Washington, DC a city with one of the worst traffic congestion problems in America people don't understand what the Volt is designed to do. IT IS FOR COMMUTERS! Charge the car overnight and then drive to work and come home. I don't understand why people can't figure out the utility of the Volt.

Posted by: Aerowaz | July 28, 2010 9:10 AM

VirginiaConservative, we've been recycling car batteries for many, many years. The Volt's battery is no different. While the EV was discontinued for a variety of reasons, one of them was that GM was unwilling to support replacement parts and train technicians. They have invested in and committed to parts and training for the Volt. With regard to charging, yes, many people have made it very clear that you cannot charge it if you live in an apartment. No car can or ever does satisfy 100% of the market. Apartment dwellers are better off purchasing high-mileage, IC engine-powered, small, urban vehicles. Finally, everyone in the electric utility and auto industries and in the state and federal governments understands very well that additional power plants (coal, NG, wind, nuke) will need to be built as the electric vehicle market grows. You make it sound as if it's impossible to actually change our infrastructure.

Posted by: wapolurker | July 28, 2010 9:10 AM

not only is it overpriced, but it come with GM reliability. And that is not a good thing. Let's take a quick look at other GM attempts at high mileage. First the Vega. Engines melted after leaving the lot. Next up is the famous 1980 Oldsmobile diesel V8, which seized immediately after leaving the lot, if it made it that far. Then of course let's not forget the early eighties Cadillac 4-6-8 engine which ran on 3 cylinders, if you were lucky. No thanks

Posted by: djrhood | July 28, 2010 9:11 AM

So the lease is 3 years, 36000 miles. Much more reasonable and may put a fair number of these on the road. But then what happens at the end of the lease term? Will GM try to keep the residual value high? That will dissuade people from purchasing the vehicle, which will mean a lot of these Volts will get dumped on the market via auto auctions, with about 2/3 of the battery life left. Three years from now you'll be able to snap up a used Volt for a song.

Posted by: allknowingguy | July 28, 2010 9:15 AM

The taxpayers save GM and their Union for this???? If they keep this up they'll be back soon asking for another bailout.

Posted by: Jimbo77 | July 28, 2010 9:16 AM

GM should have learned something from Apple here. Apple chose not to charge $1000 per device for an iPad and yet they are making huge profits.

Posted by: reston75 | July 28, 2010 9:20 AM

And exactly what did we expect from GovtMotors? You think those feather-bed union jobs don't cost? I'm surprised the price isn't higher.

Posted by: TheEmpiricist | July 28, 2010 9:23 AM

At that price !! Heck, yes.. I'll take 3, no, make that 4. I know a deal when I see one..

Posted by: james_m_reilly1 | July 28, 2010 9:31 AM

"2. Gas engines are more polluting than coal fired electric plants. Look it up. The electricity driving a Volt (or other) will be more eco friendly than any combustion engine."
_______________________

Uh, sort of. Not all coal plants are cleaner, many of the old plants that were "grandfathered" have avoided being upgraded to the cleaner emissions standards (check out the coal plant near the Harry Nice Bridge in Charles County, MD when they switch or fire off a second furnace, heavy black soot spews out for 10 to 15 minutes before turning white). Plus the coal plants release mercury and they release more radioactive material than a nuke plant (coal is carbon, there are radioactive isotopes of carbon trapped within coal).

Newer coal plants ARE better than car emissions overall. However, there are a LOT of smaller generating stations that use diesel generators, especially at peak times of the day, i.e. this would be when people would be charging their cars at work to get home in the evening. Those diesel generators may only be slightly better than car emissions, but I doubt it as at my place of employment we installed the "latest and greatest" in reduced emissions from a reputable manufacturer of diesel generators and they are clearly NOT cleaner than gasoline vehicle exhausts. It is amazing how clean gasoline exhausts in cars are these days. The last I read was that cars reduced 90% of their emissions from before polution controls were instituted in the late '70's.

To the person who said that gasoline cars will never be able to eliminate their carbon footprint or some such thing, while that is absolutely true, in order for electric vehicles to do so, there needs to be a major breakthrough in alternative energy, such as a dramatic improvement in solar cell technology. I believe the current amount of renewable electricity generation is about 5% or less of the total electricity generated, the BEST that can be done with current and emergent technologies that are currently known is about 15%. That's it. The other 85%+ (note: energy useage is NOT going down, but actually *increasing*, which is why I put the "+" on the 85%, because by the time we reach what would currently be 15%, it will likely only be 10% in reality.) has to come from something else.

Now, if you didn't mind giving up Yellowstone, we could power the entire country for centuries at much higher electrical usages than we have today via. geothermal from the supervolcano underneath it. But that would mean destroying Yellowstone in order to produce electricity.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | July 28, 2010 9:33 AM

This proves so many environmental answers are more "trendy" than anything else.
Posted by: Revcain777
----

It does no such thing. Recall the catalytic converter? Now imaging air quality without it.

I'm disappointed the price tag is so high although 41K is the sticker price. With tax savings it is a much lower $33.5K The overall configuration needs improvement, but it's a start.

Posted by: tfspa | July 28, 2010 9:38 AM

The Volt is a significant leap in technology that I will buy as soon as possible. Comparing it to the Leaf is disingeuous as many posters have pointed out - it is way more car and much more useful. To the posters who say they won't buy because GM got a govt loan I have to laugh. Mercedes, BMW and VW get FREE healthcare from their gov't. Toyota gets to compete in a market completely blocked from foreign competition with a government that encourages theft of technology and numerous gov't subsidies (yes they got bailed out too). Hyundai gets tax free treatment from the states they built their plants in. These states also recieve huge subsidies from the US gov't as they are revenue negative in terms of tax collections. What that amounts to is a transfer of funds from the US to a foriegn company. These are easily knowable facts which you all should take in to account in your buying decisions.

Posted by: bob29 | July 28, 2010 9:38 AM

So if you lease the Volt, you pay only $1 more than if you lease the Leaf, AFTER you get a $7500 tax break on it. Does it not seem fishy that GM overcharges exactly what the government will cover? How is that anything other than unethical to do to your fellow citizens?

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | July 28, 2010 9:40 AM

So, in an urban environment, how exactly will people who live in apartments/condos charge their electric car? What about those people who park on the street?

Posted by: WildBill1 | July 28, 2010 9:47 AM

41K for a car that can only go 40 MILES on a charge!

What's the cost to replace the BATTERY?

5-10K!

Posted by: theaz | July 28, 2010 9:47 AM

The best idea I saw for an all electric vehicle was tested in California in the early '90's. Pop Mech or Pop Sci featured an article on it. The car had a 50 mile range with conventional batteries. However, the idea was that the car would only run on batteries on secondary streets. Main streets, interstates, etc. would have electrical cables buried under the roadway and the car would run and re-charge its batteries via induction from the buried cables to the car. The car worked on the test range, but it would take a MAJOR re-working of our interstate and roadway system to lay buried cables under the road. Not to mention that if we were to take just 10% of the gasoline powered cars off the road and replace them with all electric equivalents, the current electrical grid would be at its limit. There just is not enough generating or delivery capacity for our electrical grid to support such a new transportation system. Therefore, while this would provide the greenies with the "all electric car" they crave, it would also require major infrastructure upgrades/changes to make it happen. Again, without a major breakthrough in battery technology (which scientists have been working on for decades) battery powered cars will never really be able to match the range of engine powered cars.

What I don't understand is why VW or Mercedes, both companies with well tested, highly thought of diesel engines have not come up with a diesel hybrid car. A diesel hybrid would get so much better fuel economy than the gas based hybrids that the Prius and others would be embarrassed by such a car.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | July 28, 2010 9:48 AM

The key difference is that electric vehicles can be switched to green power sources; gas vehicles simply can't. So once we get enough electric vehicles and switch the power plants, no more emissions. With gas you could still switch the power plants but you're still dependent on gas for transportation.
Posted by: rpixley220 | July 27, 2010 4:02 PM
___________________
Switch the power plants to what? Nuclear? It'll be twenty plus years before that even becomes a reality....coal and oil are here to stay for the 21st century, and then nuclear....

Posted by: WildBill1 | July 28, 2010 9:50 AM

"So if you lease the Volt, you pay only $1 more than if you lease the Leaf, AFTER you get a $7500 tax break on it. "

You understand that the Volt is range extended right? That means you can continue to drive it after the initial charge is depleted. The Leaf is dead on the side of the road in that scenario. So, the Volt has a huge feature missing in the Leaf. More features, more money right? How is that hard to understand?

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 9:51 AM

@DJRHOOD:

OTOH, Consider the 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Coupe which gave me yeoman service for over 200,000 miles before...


...I turned it over to my sister.

Got to agree with you on the Caddy 4-6-8: One of the worst automotive ideas ever.

http://www.yotatech.com/f5/10-worst-automotive-ideas-all-time-86223/

Posted by: Rhino40 | July 28, 2010 9:53 AM

Just to be on the safe side-do not buy GM again. You'll only get an inferior product for more money, a crazy formula.

Posted by: lionelroger | July 28, 2010 9:53 AM

"What's the cost to replace the BATTERY?"

It has an 8-year 100,000 mile warranty on all battery components.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 9:53 AM

"Or you can pay roughly three times the price for a Chevy that gets what for MPG?"

It rated out at 200 MPG when the initial tests were done. That was with a fully charged battery to start.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 9:56 AM

Recently I had listened to an interview, with the past CEO of Shell Oil. The interview was a result of his book, why people hate oil companies. Among a range of his observations, of BP etc., he mentioned Oil companies have a handle, on the upper threshold limit, people will pay for a gallon of Gas. Believe it was 3.63 a gallon. Why would anyone buy an electric car, and pay 41K, until we reach these per gallon levels. Conclusion, big Oil will keep gasoline affordable. Enter SUV's and Pick ups, part of our culture.

Posted by: dangreen3 | July 28, 2010 9:56 AM

All you toyota lemmings ,,when you come down the road in your out of control prious remmember its "driver error' you volt fruits get out the way.

Posted by: gonville1 | July 28, 2010 10:03 AM

"So, in an urban environment, how exactly will people who live in apartments/condos charge their electric car?"

Here is what will happen: some parking spaces will have outlets that allow you to swipe a credit card for a charge. I imagine apartment buildings and big companies (for commuting) doing this. Until then, you are out of luck with a Volt or a Leaf.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 10:05 AM

GM simply put 'does not get it'.

This is a hopeless company with very poor management that is living in the past lane.

Dump your GM stock now folks.

Posted by: hfaulk01 | July 28, 2010 10:09 AM

Sounds like an Odumbo mobile to me.

I wouldn't buy a GM as long as Odumbo and the UAW goons control it.

Posted by: LarryG62 | July 28, 2010 10:09 AM

The survey doesn't reveal another piece of critical information. You could lease this vehicle and the lease price is $350/month. And this car will save you about $80/month in a very conservative scenario, i.e., compared with a fuel efficient sedan driving about 1,000 miles per month. Wouldn't that sound much more affordable than this fear mongering $41K story before tax credit ?

P.S. : Another important benefit. By driving this car you will be able to cut down the majority of your monthly donations to the enemies of this country.

Posted by: johnnypkr | July 28, 2010 10:11 AM

The survey doesn't reveal another piece of critical information. You could lease this vehicle and the lease price is $350/month. And this car will save you about $80/month in a very conservative scenario, i.e., compared with a fuel efficient sedan driving about 1,000 miles per month. Wouldn't that sound much more affordable than this fear mongering $41K story before tax credit ?

P.S. : Another important benefit. By driving this car you will be able to cut down the majority of your monthly donations to the enemies of this country.

Posted by: johnnypkr | July 28, 2010 10:11 AM

You Morons that what to push alternative energy transportation, you simply need to do:

REDUCE THE COST, AND IMPROVE IT USE!

Otherwise, you are nothing more then MORONS, morons!

Posted by: theaz | July 28, 2010 10:12 AM

I would love to buy the Volt but I have questions about the country's electrical infrastructure, especially driving long distances. Also, after the $8,000 tax credit the car would cost $33,000.00. Why not pay more for than the Nissan Leaf? The Volt is a bigger car (midsize) and it looks upscale on the inside than the Leaf. The Leaf is a small or a compact car.

Posted by: twindog4@yahoo.com | July 28, 2010 10:14 AM

The funny thing is that if they had stuck a Saab badge on it they would have sold tons of them. Unfortunately they ran Saab into the ground and then gave it away.

Posted by: tcochin | July 28, 2010 10:15 AM

I don't understand what all the whining is about on here.

A quick check of the Chevy website indicates that most of their popular vehicles sell in this price range. But this one is the only one that comes with a $7500 tax credit.

Posted by: HillmanDC | July 28, 2010 10:20 AM

"Why not pay more for than the Nissan Leaf?"

The Volt is range extended. A gasoline engine will charge the battery after the initial charge diminishes. That is a huge feature that is absent from the Leaf.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 10:21 AM

-rant-

Would I pay 41k for an electric car? Perhaps, if it was made by a reputable company. But I would not pay 41k for anything that rolls out of Detroit. American car manufactures have been struggling with their own ineptitude for decades, here's further proof. Profit at any and all cost, even if it means total failure and bankruptcy.

Just like the Pharmaceutical industry they cry, "We've invested in R&D, and you gotta pay for that. Or Else.". Ummm, nope. You have to pay for that, it is the future of your company. It's economic terrorism, pure and simple, holding America & the world hostage just so they can turn a profit.

Our children will suffer for your arrogance.

-end rant-

Posted by: pete1013 | July 28, 2010 10:27 AM

"Tell Brian Williams on The NBC NIghtly News that he completely under-reported this story last night. The shame of it is, he's a car guy and should have known better."

Oh, but the corporate media has been on the big-business, anti-union bandwagon for a long time. GM (and the UAW) can't catch a break. Leasing this vehicle, which gets 40 mpg on battery power along,and will not strand you like a pure electric car with no means of further travel until you plug in-- leasing this car for $350 a month is a pretty good deal. Obviously they will lease more than they will sell.

Further, there is a lot of misunderstanding, willfull and not, about the car. As for the comments on this board, there are (as there always are on car comment boards) a lot of ringers, industrial propaganda etc. Toyota is a master of propaganda, if nothing else. I suspect some folks get paid to post on boards like this, else why would one see the same comments , word for word,over and over, article after article. It appears to be a job for some folks, and it probably is.

Posted by: underhill | July 28, 2010 10:39 AM

For those decrying GM as being unable to build a reliable car, I just have to point out my 1997 Saturn SL is still going strong, and I am averaging 30mpg in city driving. Of course, GM in there wisdom decided that Saturn was not profitable for them. I suppose because they do last so long.

Posted by: Flicking_Gamer | July 28, 2010 10:46 AM

BO (Before Obummer), GM was working on a hydrogen-powered vehicle. That vechile could go for 300 miles at a cost of $8. Shell Oil partnered with GM and would have installed the hydrogen fuel, nation-wide. These were really sweet vehicles, with get-up and go.

Now that the new Uber-CEO of GM, Obummer has delivered a car that costs twice as much to buy and own and three times the cost for fuel. What happens to the batteries during a freeze or when they need to be disposed of? Only the Obummer knows.

Once again, watch GM bite the big one, due to non-demand by consumers and government interference in the free markets.

My next car? BMW!!!

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | July 28, 2010 10:49 AM

Need electricity just run an extension cord to your neighbors outdoor plug when he goes to sleep.

Posted by: think11 | July 28, 2010 10:50 AM

It will probably give those who can afford it moral license to justify larger amounts of consumption.

Posted by: mj2007 | July 28, 2010 10:51 AM

There are lot of really sad uninformed posters here. I know making fun of Obama and technology you don't understand makes your feel less insecure, but at least TRY to understand what it is your talking about.

This is a car aimed at being leased to city commuters. Like the Leaf, it may not make much sense if you have lots of long open road trips to make, but in bumper to bumper traffic it will be quieter and as much as 10x more efficient than an idling gas powered car, and perhaps 25x cheaper to operate. The Gas engine is to extend its driving range and fill up time so someone who uses it primarily to commute does not have to worry about getting stranded on longer trips.

The idea the Obama "took over" GM is just idiocy. And current GM quality is comparable to any other car makers, all of whom are much better then they were even 10 years ago. I would be willing to bet that some of the posters on here screaming about "40K for a chevy?" and "guberment motors!" have spent more than that on HD pickups - paid for directly or indirectly by farm subsidies.

Posted by: rapchat1 | July 28, 2010 10:52 AM

TO: Sue60 who writes:

Todays Arizona Republic posted a letter stating American workers receive $55.00 an hour plus benefits to produce our cars, however, the average worker in Mexico receives $4.00 an hour plus benefits to build them down there. So is it any wonder why so many plants in our country have been closed?
I'm an ignorant old women. Do you think we can go to Mexico and purchase the car for a much cheaper price?
Posted by: sue60 | July 28, 2010 12:15 AM

__

Yes I agree with you that you ARE IGNORANT! You are INGNORANT when youuu believe any drivel written by some unknown person busy perpetuating myths and lies.

GM and Ford workers make - max $28 an hour with wages starting as low as $14 an hour. Look it up from RELIABLE sources - not some letter in some back-of-beyond newspaper.

Do the math - that is, at most, an income of $58,240 a year which is right about the median household income in the US.


Posted by: eabpmn | July 28, 2010 10:53 AM

"It's new technology, the price will fall. Remember $1200 VCRs?"

Remember the dinky little Toyota hybrid for $25K+?? Ohhh wait, it's still $25k+ and economically unjustified compared to similar $15K gasoline vehicle. Sorry, try again!

Posted by: joebob2nd | July 28, 2010 10:56 AM

Gm has a pretty poor record with introductory models. Does anybody remember the 1980 Front wheel drive cars? Now with the Obama administration running GM I wouldn't buy one at half the price!

Posted by: garys_opinion | July 28, 2010 10:56 AM

And to all those well-off environmentalists, the electricity you will use in your new Volt still comes from burning coal and uranium. Unless you operate your own wind/solar plants, your carbon footprint with just as bad or worse then those driving gasoline engines.

Posted by: joebob2nd | July 28, 2010 10:58 AM

GM is in the pocket of big oil and this is just a half hearted effort to product a green car. Bush and Obama should have let this company die. But big oil owns both aisles of congress. Big oil couldn't stand to let this beastly company die. $41,000..gimme a break. No GM car is worth 41k.

Posted by: mordrud | July 28, 2010 11:01 AM

O (Before Obummer), GM was working on a hydrogen-powered vehicle. That vechile could go for 300 miles at a cost of $8. Shell Oil partnered with GM and would have installed the hydrogen fuel, nation-wide. These were really sweet vehicles, with get-up and go.Now that the new Uber-CEO of GM, Obummer has delivered a car that costs twice as much to buy and own and three times the cost for fuel. What happens to the batteries during a freeze or when they need to be disposed of? Only the Obummer knows.Once again, watch GM bite the big one, due to non-demand by consumers and government interference in the free markets.My next car? BMW!!!Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | July 28, 2010 10:49 AM
---------------------------------
So your going to buy a car made by German union labor in a country with a socialist health care system to punish American workers who want similar benefits? Nothing sadder than a traitor pretending to be a patriot.

And despite your lies (or is sincere stupidity?) the Volt project long predates Obama taking office, and the hydrogen fuel project was shelved when it became evident that developing and installing the required fueling infrastructure was beyond what any private company could afford on its own, even Shell.

Posted by: rapchat1 | July 28, 2010 11:02 AM

"Does anybody remember the 1980 Front wheel drive cars?"

Still hammering the domestic auto-makers about the 80's? Move on people. All cars sucked in the 80's. Japanese cars were just slightly better.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 11:04 AM

New, cutting-edge technology? Billions spent in R&D? Let's see, in the late 1800s cars were built, produced and demonstrated to carry up to 12 passengers and go 50 miles before recharging. The Volt (although I must say it has good power and a lot of electrical goodies) will travel 40 miles* on a charge. The 40 miles of course is dependent on many other factors.

I don't want to waste too much time writing on this, but I would like to say that after all this time, these vehicles still are not practical for most people. If I lived close enough for a 40 mile (maybe) trip, I would just ride my bike! How's that for reducing the “footprint?”

The hybrid is the best technology that has been improved upon in recent history for consumers. I love my Prius and will drive it until the wheels fall off - unless they actually build a practical alternative energy vehicle in the meantime. Otherwise, this is just another decades old fad with a brand new ribbon. In a nutshell, car companies are developing half-a**ed electric crap and we are supposed to believe they are doing their best in finding a way to reduce oil dependency.

Posted by: rcwest | July 28, 2010 11:05 AM


Attention Dims and other nitwits:

If you drive the Chevy Volt without charging the battery first (a six hour process) then you are driving on gasoline and according to the EPA testing, the Chevy Volt then gets 48 MPG. FORTY-EIGHT miles per gallon. Looks like you got screwed.

Dims, neglect to fully charge that Chevy Volt battery overnight and sure you can still drive -- you are now driving a $41K compact car that gets 48 MPG. Now it is just a hybrid at twice the price.

And another thing Dims, you want to compute your cost of running on electric power, include the $8,000 battery replacement for a part that is warranted for 80,000 miles. A battery 4 times the size of a Prius that costs $3k to replace. An $8K part that is amortized over 80,000 miles, that costs you another 10 cents a mile. So to drive your Chevy Volt 40 miles on electricity really costs $1 for the electricity plus another $4 for wear and tear on the battery.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:06 AM

"Toyota is a master of propaganda, if nothing else. I suspect some folks get paid to post on boards like this, else why would one see the same comments , word for word,over and over, article after article. It appears to be a job for some folks, and it probably is."
_______________________
Perhaps you are correct about some folks getting paid by the car companies to post to different forums. I know from my own experience that the facts don't change, therefore, why shouldn't I repeat word for word what I say about something? My last 'Merican car was a Ford Taurus and I will only buy Toyotas, Hondas or Subarus from now on, after so much trouble with that car. When I buy a full size truck it will be different story, but it will still not be a Ford, but I will consider a GM based product, unfortunately, Toyta and Honda don't make a full size "2500" equivalent truck, but it won't be a daily driver so, I can get by with a truck that may spend a bit more time in the shop than with a car that is a daily driver that I have to rely on. Sorry, but GM, Ford and Chrysler have been building crap for 30+ years, don't blame magazines, or loyal Japanese car owners for saying so and proving time and again. Place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the people who are brand loyal instead of quality loyal. It is those folks that have allowed GM, Chrysler and Ford to build crap for all this time.

I work hard for my money, I will buy the most reliable because that is the best bang for my buck. If more people did this, 'Merican cars would have been on par with Japanese cars a LONG time ago.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | July 28, 2010 11:08 AM

New technology is always pricey. As early adopters and the well heeled buy in it will become more affordable for the rest of us.
******

the problem with the Volt is that new technology usually offers something to the consumer. this offers nothing, except a higher price tag, and the possibility of conking out in city traffic because you cant find a suburban garage with an electrical outlet soon enough. this will be bought by a few people whose lives are preoccupied with asuaging their guilt over various fantasized sins, and have the money to be so wasteful. in 10 years people who buy this will be nothing more than a punchline and a testament to people's eternal susceptibility to being hoodwinked by slick talkers with an interesting theory.

Posted by: dummypants | July 28, 2010 11:11 AM

There are a lot of unbelievably ignorant people posting in this thread. I weep for this country. (I'm looking at people like virginiaconservative, by the way).

Posted by: Duodenum | July 28, 2010 11:11 AM

Todays Arizona Republic posted a letter stating American workers receive $55.00 an hour plus benefits to produce our cars, however, the average worker in Mexico receives $4.00 an hour plus benefits to build them down there. So is it any wonder why so many plants in our country have been closed?
I'm an ignorant old women. Do you think we can go to Mexico and purchase the car for a much cheaper price?
Posted by: sue60 | July 28, 2010 12:15 AM
------------------------------------------
Even if those numbers are correct, why do we begrudge the auto worker for making money, but the CEO of a company can make obscene amounts of money and NOBODY bats an eye?

Posted by: Angryman | July 28, 2010 11:14 AM

"Sorry, but GM, Ford and Chrysler have been building crap for 30+ years"

Come on. Just drive a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion and tell me they are junk. Boomers got fixated on Japanese cars and can no longer distinguish reality.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 11:14 AM

"It's new technology, the price will fall. Remember $1200 VCRs?" Remember the dinky little Toyota hybrid for $25K+?? Ohhh wait, it's still $25k+ and economically unjustified compared to similar $15K gasoline vehicle. Sorry, try again!Posted by: joebob2nd | July 28, 2010 10:56 AM
------------------------------------
What 15K cars are you talking about? The average cost for a new car is 28K. The Prius is a best seller so obviously the market is larger than just the stereotypes and strawmen you picture, and keeping roughly the same price through 10 years and 3 platform generations IS the cost of the technology coming down.

Now - take a deep breath, relax and repeat after me: "Hybrids make lots of sense if you commute in city traffic."... now one more time: "Hybrids make lots of sense if you commute in city traffic." See, learning something isn't so hard.

Posted by: rapchat1 | July 28, 2010 11:14 AM

Correction the Volt battery has 100K mile warranty, so its amortized cost is 8 cents a mile. So to drive 40 miles on electricity it is $1 for gas + $3.20 worth of battery life used up = $4.20 cents. That is assuming the battery charging capacity remains stable over the entire 100,000 miles which is unlikely.

40 miles worth of gasoline to power a fuel efficient 35 MPG gas-engine car costs under $3.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:16 AM

"Correction the Volt battery has 100K mile warranty, so its amortized cost is 8 cents a mile. So to drive 40 miles on electricity it is $1 for gas + $3.20 worth of battery life used up = $4.20 cents."

These numbers assume the battery cost is $41K.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 11:20 AM

Assumption: Battery replacement costs $8K

"While GM has not announced the replacement cost of the 2011 Volt’s 16-kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack, the 300-pound, T-shaped pack is widely expected to cost GM several thousand dollars to build.

Replacement parts costs are usually twice the manufacturer’s cost, or more."

An $8,000 battery replacement job at 100,000 miles. What is your cost per mile for that batter? Eight cents per mile.

40 miles x 8 cents/mile = $3.20, plus $1 worth of electricity = $4.20 to go 40 miles.

QED

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:28 AM

Looks like Government Motors hasn't learned a single thing. We'll all be bailing it out again soon.

Posted by: srpinpgh | July 28, 2010 11:29 AM

I am buying a LEAF and not a Volt. The price differential simply is over the top. Would rather have a hybrid, but all electric 100 mile/charge LEAF will be good for now.

Posted by: johng1 | July 28, 2010 11:31 AM

Attention Dims and other nitwits:If you drive the Chevy Volt without charging the battery first (a six hour process) then you are driving on gasoline and according to the EPA testing, the Chevy Volt then gets 48 MPG. FORTY-EIGHT miles per gallon. Looks like you got screwed.Dims, neglect to fully charge that Chevy Volt battery overnight and sure you can still drive -- you are now driving a $41K compact car that gets 48 MPG. Now it is just a hybrid at twice the price.And another thing Dims, you want to compute your cost of running on electric power, include the $8,000 battery replacement for a part that is warranted for 80,000 miles. A battery 4 times the size of a Prius that costs $3k to replace. An $8K part that is amortized over 80,000 miles, that costs you another 10 cents a mile. So to drive your Chevy Volt 40 miles on electricity really costs $1 for the electricity plus another $4 for wear and tear on the battery.Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:06 AM
--------------------------------------
Poor delusional screwjob. If you don't plug in your Volt you only get 48mpg? Heck, if you don't put fuel in your car you will be stranded on the side of the road! What point if any are you trying to make?

I do think there are potential issues regarding the long term costs of battery materials, durability, and storage, but your cost numbers are completely arbitrary and totally irrelevant if the car is leased. As an automotive engineer, I would guess that if GM is warrenting it for 80K, most cars will see 120K or more without issue. Perhaps even 200K might be in within reach in moderate climates. So far, the Prius has had considerably fewer battery issues than expected. And when you do your fuzzy math comparisons, don't forget that an electric drive line has roughly 1/4 the maintenance cost of an IC drive train.

Posted by: rapchat1 | July 28, 2010 11:34 AM

I have a patent pending on an electric car that would not only be cheaper but could also recharge the batteries.
Read further at www.jrushtechnologies.com

Posted by: jimarush | July 28, 2010 11:37 AM

"Come on. Just drive a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion and tell me they are junk. Boomers got fixated on Japanese cars and can no longer distinguish reality."
_________________________

Ah, no. I was into my last Ford as much in repairs as I owed on it. Transmission went at 80,000 miles, AC went at 110,000 miles, power steering went at 112,000 miles, shocks and springs went at 90,000 miles, radiator went at about 95,000 miles. All in all, it was well over $1K each time and ended up with over $6K in repairs. Also ate up brakes every 20,000 miles. Call me gun shy, but never again. That was not 10, 20 or 30 years ago, either, that was 5 years ago when we traded it in for a Toyota, and we had it for 2-1/2 years up to that point. The Ford we had previous to that had an AC that went out at 75,000 miles, replaced clutches every 30,000 miles, new brakes every 20,000 miles, new timing belt at 60,000 miles (per the schedule, HAD to do it, it was one of those engines that would have been damaged had the timing belt broke while the engine was running). Since then, between our two Toyotas we have replaced the timing belt on one at 120,000 miles, replaced the brakes every 50,000 miles and those are the limit of the major expenses. Both cars have well over 150,000 miles on them, both are automatics. As a comparison, my first 3 cars were sticks the first two were Toyotas the third was a Ford branded Mazda, I got 120,000 miles on the first before a new clutch, never replaced the clutch on the second (only put on about 75,000 miles before I sold it) and the third, I got about 150,000 miles before the clutch went. Same kind of driving for all vehicles. The Ford that broke the camel's back was rated "Average" in reliability by CR. Pretty sad state for American car makers when that is considered "Average" and most of Ford, GM and Chryslers were considered worse than average.

So, go ahead and buy that Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion and in 10 years, tell me how reliable they are. I'll probably still be driving my current Toyota. THAT's more important to me than how they feel today.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | July 28, 2010 11:41 AM

I seriously want an electric car. If I can even just slightly help reduce the income, and subsequently the power and influence, of the self-serving, earth-destroying oil industry, not to mention the terrorist-supporting, Bush-cozy Saudi royal family, I'm on board.

But c'mon GM, you gotta make it so people can afford it. I'd love to support an American company, but I also have financial limitations. Unless GM gets their act together, I guess someday I'll be the proud new owner of a Nissan Leaf, I guess.

Posted by: tomguy1 | July 28, 2010 11:41 AM

Examples of fuel efficient, comfortable, reliable car under $15,000?

You can drive off in a new 2010 Hyundai Elantra GLS, a mid-sized car not a compact like the Chevy Volt, for $14,000 after rebates and incentives. Elantra is EPA rated at 35 MPG highway.

The Hyundai comes with a 10 year, 100,000 mile powertrain warranty, unlike the Chevy.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:42 AM

"So, go ahead and buy that Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion and in 10 years, tell me how reliable they are. I'll probably still be driving my current Toyota. THAT's more important to me than how they feel today."

You know I got 180K out of my last Dodge Neon before I traded it in so I feel confident. You know there are not too many "ATrueChristians" building cars in Japan ... Just saying. I will be watching out for your Toyota accelerating rapidly towards me and will make sure I get out of the way.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 11:47 AM


"Maybe I am an automotive engineer, and then again, maybe I ain't."

- Dazed Confused Dim

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:48 AM

LEASE NOW The government wants YOU!!

Posted by: peterroach | July 28, 2010 11:54 AM

screwjob, you seem like a cheap chap. I wam buying electric because I know most electricity is coal or nuclear produced, and will help diminish US demand for oil. We should not be dealing with any ME country, at all, much less fighting wars over there!

Posted by: johng1 | July 28, 2010 11:54 AM

Most consumers are concerned about the availability of charging stations...but there are people who will purchase a vehicle because they want to be the first ones...dumb move...let others buy it and iron out the kinks at their expense...

Wait a year and you can get that same model for much much less with little mileage and warranty left on it...

Posted by: pentagon40 | July 28, 2010 11:57 AM


General Motors made a farcical claim of "230 MPG" for the Chevy Volt, a bald faced lie they have quickly and embarrassingly retracted. The EPA tested the Volt on gasoline-only operation and found it only gets 48 MPG. Then they tested it starting from a full battery charge until it ran out of gas, and the Volt only got 68 MPG. Those are EPA numbers.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 12:00 PM


The key difference is that electric vehicles can be switched to green power sources; gas vehicles simply can't. So once we get enough electric vehicles and switch the power plants, no more emissions. With gas you could still switch the power plants but you're still dependent on gas for transportation.
Posted by: rpixley220 | July 27, 2010 4:02 PM
___________________
Switch the power plants to what? Nuclear? It'll be twenty plus years before that even becomes a reality....coal and oil are here to stay for the 21st century, and then nuclear....

Posted by: WildBill1 | July 28, 2010 9:50 AM

You seem to want an all inclusive solution 'right now'. That won't happen and never has before either. The world didn't switch to using gas and oil overnight. By making your cars run on electricity you can switch where that electricity comes from. Never said the plants would be switched 'fast', but in the meantime, solar/hydro/wind can supplement the charging too.

You simply can't switch gas cars to run on electricity. So you still have those emissions/costs after you switch the power plants.

Your other comment about street parking is valid and shows that not every solution fits every situation. However, swappable batteries would solve this problem. Get low on juice? go swap for a new battery pack and you're back in business.

Think a little bigger picture rather than just shoot down any idea upfront...

Posted by: rpixley220 | July 28, 2010 12:00 PM

Same old GM story making something very few want and only a few can afford.Nissan Leaf is just one of the Nissan cars that out perform GM they all do.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | July 28, 2010 12:05 PM

"Then they tested it starting from a full battery charge until it ran out of gas, and the Volt only got 68 MPG. Those are EPA numbers."

Screwjob has jumped the shark. No other car gets tested like like he describes. The 230 is what you will get for an average weekly commute with some highway driving mixed in and it includes nightly recharges. Even the 68 MPG is better than any other car on the market. But lets be real, you will never run a Volt on gas only ever so your fuel mielage will be way higher.

Posted by: hdimig | July 28, 2010 12:14 PM

I would have to believe the liar Al Gore, and that his theory of man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic problems for the earth and future generations for me to drive an electric car.

I don't believe the lie!

There is no man-made Global warming, so I will continue to drive my gas guzzling SUV until you liberals learn that real Americans don't believe in your stupid green polices that want to destroy American prosperity.

You leftist tree-hugging liberals will not beat us

Posted by: JeffreyM23 | July 28, 2010 12:15 PM


If any of you want to spend $41,000 on a car the size and trim level of a Ford Focus to feel good about yourselves or make a political statement fine; in that case the value proposition has nothing to do with it, hmm? People have all sorts of reasons to buy a car. Peer approval is one of them.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 12:17 PM

KansasBruce: You only show your ignorance when you spout off about what Liberals do.You have no idea what a Liberal is.You should listen to someone other than Rush,Shaun or Glenn then you wouldn't be so brain washed.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | July 28, 2010 12:23 PM

I wonder how much fossil fuel you need to burn to produce the electricity to charge that electric car with ? Would it be more or less than what it would take to run the car on gas? Thermodynamic energy calculations tell me it would be more efficient to run it on gas. No waste in converting fossil fuel to electricity, no transmission loss, etc.

Posted by: mmartinezjr | July 28, 2010 12:25 PM


General Motors marketing shills were forced to retract their inane claim of "230 MPG". It has been stricken from their literature on the Volt. GM's problem is that they do not get to control how EPA tests vehicle, regardless of how much they would like to game the process; nor should they. Now GM shills are reduced to attacking the EPA testing process itself. Pathetic.

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 12:26 PM

"Maybe I am an automotive engineer, and then again, maybe I ain't."- Dazed Confused Dim
Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 11:48 AM
-------------------------------
Well screwjob, its quite evident you aren't or you would have a better understanding of the car industry and this cars market and purpose. BTW - while the 2010 Hyundai Elantra GLS is a fine car, it is smaller, less luxurious and aimed at a totally different buyer. But I give you credit, you did find a car for less than 15K on the US market, (I thought they were more like 18K) and a pretty good car at that. But that doesn't mean there are not compelling reasons for someone to prefer a Prius or Volt instead. The heart of the mainstream car market is 25-35K, and the Volt with rebates or a lease is well inside this window.

Posted by: rapchat1 | July 28, 2010 12:26 PM

My next car? BMW!!!
_________________________

Your next brake job: $2500

Posted by: bob29 | July 28, 2010 12:27 PM

At this car's pricepoint, it is clearly a car for well off middle class Americans. This is the kind of "feel good" car, Obama motors is pushing, and at the same time, will be hammering the middle class with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and all the other massive government growth and pending regulations that will increase costs of services and products for ALL Americans.

The way of Obama is the way of massively higher taxes, much less freedom, and the fast track erosion of the independence of the American people from government, all in order to meet the lefts "idealogy of utopia".

Just look at the failure and misery in California as a microcosm of what is in store for all of Americans under Obama. Yippee !!!

Posted by: SirLoinofBeef | July 28, 2010 12:31 PM

"Americans: get out of your bloody cars and start walking. Get a life.
Posted by: expat2MEX | July 28, 2010 7:09 AM"

Okay, I'll walk to my job that is 28 miles away, via a highway, where no bus travels to. Jerk.

Posted by: foster729 | July 28, 2010 12:33 PM

Will those idiots never learn...
Too much money for this car up front
even if you buy and drive the wheels off it.

If the Koreans figure out how to be us on this and price it right..

You'll be buying this from Hyundai/Kia...
Watch and see...

Money grubbing Aa$tards

Posted by: Tobor58 | July 28, 2010 12:36 PM

I think people are too caught up in the question of price. It's not always about the financial ROI for the consumer. Why do people buy a $4.00 cup of coffee, shop at whole foods or have tankless water heaters in their homes? The answer is not because their rich, it's because it's a better choice in their mind. Personally I like the convenience of plugging a car into my home. Whether you disagree with other peoples choices is your issue. The market is there for the taking, and as prices come down the market will become bigger for those that are focused on price.

Class dismissed.

Posted by: johnmckee219 | July 28, 2010 12:43 PM

So looking at the pole results, 10% would buy this car at $41K. 10% of the car market are interested in this car at this price; GM should sell quite a few.

Posted by: dcm93446 | July 28, 2010 12:49 PM

Focusing on the MSRP for the purchase price is irrelevant. What matters are the lease deals that will be available. According to GM & Nissan websites, both the Leaf and the Volt will start with a $350/month, 36 month lease, with $2000 due at signing.

With brand new technology like this, very few consumers are going to buy and risk not being able to re-sell down the road.

I imagine almost 100% of buyers will lease. Which means The Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt are effectively going to be priced dead-even with each other.

Posted by: cale1 | July 28, 2010 12:51 PM

Not only are the GM shills here masquerading as automotive engineers, they are wrong on the basic facts. The Hyundai Elantra is a mid-size automobile; Chevy Volt is a compact.

The Hyundai Elantra is larger in every dimension than the Chevy Volt.


Interior Dimensions 2011 CHEVY VOLT
EPA vehicle class compact car

Seating capacity (front / rear): 2 / 2

Headroom
front: 37.3
rear: 35.9

Legroom: 31.5

Shoulder room: 50.6

Hip room: 53.1

Interior Dimensions 2010 HYUNDAI ELANTRA
EPA vehicle class midsize car

Seating (Maximum) 5

Headroom (Front) 40.0
Headroom (Row 2) 37.6

Legroom (Front) 43.5
Legroom (Row 2) 35.0

Shoulder Room (Front) 55.6
Shoulder Room (Row 2) 55.1

Hiproom (Front) 54.2
Hiproom (Row 2) 54.0

Posted by: screwjob17 | July 28, 2010 12:56 PM

The interior quality and general build quality would have to be on-par with Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc. to justify that price.

Posted by: maus92 | July 28, 2010 1:02 PM

FOR A GM PRODUCT?
40K?
You have GOT to be kidding!
LOL LOL LOL

Posted by: kase | July 28, 2010 1:07 PM

Your other comment about street parking is valid and shows that not every solution fits every situation. However, swappable batteries would solve this problem. Get low on juice? go swap for a new battery pack and you're back in business.
Think a little bigger picture rather than just shoot down any idea upfront...
Posted by: rpixley220 | July 28, 2010 12:00 PM
____________
Ha! I'd like to see you and the other folks in DC lug around a couple hundred pounds of "swappable" batteries when you're out of juice....classic....

Posted by: WildBill1 | July 28, 2010 1:15 PM

compare it to cheaper fuel efficient cars (some are as low as 12K like Nissan Versa). I can never recover the extra money paid for saving gas. Even if Volt compares with luxury cars like Lexus, the saving is minimal over 5 to 10 years period. Do the math. And someone rightfully pointed out the most electricity is generated by polluting methods like coal burning. But I still support green cars if the cost is modestly higher.

Posted by: swamialok | July 28, 2010 1:36 PM

Hope & Fail

Posted by: HughJassPhD | July 28, 2010 3:14 PM

I voted no way on the poll, but truth be known, I wouldn't pay $41,000 for ANY car!!!

Posted by: vjpurplequeen | July 28, 2010 3:50 PM

Wow Screwjob, are you sure your not a shill for Hyundia? Even if the Elantra is bigger it competes downmarket of the Volt, and EPA interior room ratings do not necessarily correspond to how buyers perceive size.

The Volt won't make or break GM anyway. China is now the biggest and most profitable car market. How the latest Buick does there is more important than how the Volt does here. Perhaps a better question is: How long before one of GM's Chinese partners try to buy the whole company? - and how will Americans react to that?

BTW - I haven't worked for any car company in over 2 years. I have my own small business in another field. I also think GM was the most poorly managed US company for decades - and Rick Wagoner should have been fired years before the fall. But that has little to do with the fact that recently introduced GM cars have had decent quality, and the Volt does have a potential market and is not grossly overpriced.

Posted by: rapchat1 | July 28, 2010 4:25 PM

How would you like to pay $41,000 to test drive an as yet road untested GM model car, and then pay for all the repairs it needs?

Sounds like a great deal..... for GM!

Posted by: captn_ahab | July 28, 2010 4:29 PM

Man! Did any of you whiners and complainers bother to read the article? It answers most of your rants about gas mileage, warranty, cost of ownership, etc.

If all you do is condemn everything new then guess what? Nothing ever changes.

If we're going to dig out of every deep hole we're in (energy, global warming, deficits, wars, and on) we're going to have to CHANGE. If what we try doesn't work, try something else. When you are against everything and willing to try nothing YOU are the problem.

And don't forget to blame Obama, after all, everything is his fault, right?

Posted by: CCCinNaptown | July 28, 2010 6:05 PM

Sounds like SIRLOINOFBEEF has hamburger for brains.

The Volt has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with the Obama administration. The standard timeline for a model coming into production means that this car would have been on the drawing boards during the MIDDLE of the Bush/Cheney debacle.

And if Obama raises taxes, it only will be on those making more than $250,000/year. So don't worry, sirloin, I think your burger-flipping gig will keep you from getting bitten by taxes. Actually, you'll probably get a tax cut.

Posted by: leftcoastblue | July 28, 2010 6:22 PM

Im not a millionaire I can afford such a car! Make these cheaper and Ill consider it.

Posted by: jennifer0000 | July 28, 2010 8:42 PM

No problem. Just throw in some cash (tax credits) that is extracted from the rest of us to help pay for them.

Posted by: brewstercounty | July 28, 2010 9:35 PM

GM does not plan on making a lot of these cars the first year. Those few that are made will sell even at this price as a novelty.
That is not a problem. The problem is ramping up production and bringing down the price to sell a lot more in future years.

Posted by: Jihm | July 28, 2010 9:54 PM

$41,000 for a car that goes, at best, 40 miles on a charge? You can buy a Nissan Leaf for $25,000 and it goes over 100 miles on a charge and Toyota's new electric car is reported to be under $30,000 and goes 250 miles! After you cut through all of the hoopla, this is a poorly conceived car, too late on the market, that is doomed. We would have been better off taking all of the tax dollars we gave this outfit and building a big bon fire and had Obama host a national weenie roast.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 28, 2010 9:58 PM

I'd pay the price if the car was 100% electric--like a Tesla--but not for a hybrid. I'd pay the price for a relatively high-mileage full electric because I want to move into a wholly "new" technology and get away from the internal combustion engine and into something that's really low maintenance, clean, and quiet--and the torque of an electric is nothing to sniff at.

Posted by: BCE753 | July 28, 2010 11:34 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company