Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Chevy Dealers Pull Plug on Volt – 2012 Sales Well Below Goals
National Legal & Policy Center ^ | January 7, 2013 | Mark Modica

Posted on 01/07/2013 9:17:53 AM PST by jazusamo

Volt and Akerson

The final tally is in for 2012 Chevy Volt sales. The good news (which is what most headlines will trumpet) is that sales for General Motors' flagship green vehicle tripled from 2011's paltry 7,671 to a slightly less paltry 23,461 in 2012. The bad news is that the number is almost half of GM's sales goal of 45,000 in 2012 for the Volt. The further bad news is that the Volt has so little demand in most regions that some dealerships are refusing to pay for required tools to repair the vehicles and are choosing to cease selling the vehicles instead.

To put the sales figures in perspective, Toyota's hybrid Prius family achieved sales of 236,659 in 2012; over ten times that of the Volt! You wouldn't know that from the amount of hype the Volt has gotten compared to the Prius. Furthermore, taxpayers had to foot the bill for over $150 million in federal subsidies ($7,500 per vehicle) for the Volt for it to reach its unimpressive sales figure while the Prius needed no support to smoke the Volt's performance. On a monthly basis, the Prius sold over 20,000 units in December while the Volt still could not even break the 3,000 mark. Approximately a third of Volt sales are in California, where the vehicle receives favorable HOV lane treatment and most of the sales have been driven by subsidized leases.

The Volt is offered by about 2,300 Chevy dealerships, making the average amount of cars sold per dealership about one a month. While GM's Obama-appointed management chooses to maintain an illogical focus on the money-losing Volt, some individually-owned dealerships are deciding that selling the vehicle just isn't worth the investment. A gas2.org article points out that some dealerships will not spend the required approximate $5,000 for specialized tools (which lower the risk of electrocution and fires) for the Volt and would rather just not sell the car.

The $5,000 required investment comes on top of an initial amount of about $5,000 that was spent on tools for the Volt. Many dealerships have sold only a few Volts in the two years they have offered the vehicle, barely even recouping the original tool investment, if at all. The decision to not spend another $5,000 for a vehicle that sells in such small numbers seems to be a logical one based on economics rather than politics, something GM should take a lesson from.

It is harder to figure out why auto manufacturers like GM would focus on plug-in electric vehicles rather than conventional hybrid technology as they try to reach higher EPA fuel economy requirements than it is to figure out why Chevy Dealerships would choose not to sell Volts. Consumer Reports recently reported that hybrid technology offers the better value. Despite the clear evidence that consumers prefer standard hybrids over plug-in vehicles, GM has chosen not to compete directly in the sector that includes the Prius (which sells 20,000 vehicles a month) and instead will focus on competing against cars like the Nissan Leaf (which sells less than 1,000 a month) as admitted by product chief Mary Barra in an autonews.com article .

Let's look at why the Prius is so much more popular than the Volt and why Consumer Reports says that conventional hybrids offer the better value. The new hybrid Toyota Prius C starts at under $20,000 and gets about 50 miles per gallon. Compare that to the Volt which starts at about $40,000 and gets approximately 30 miles per gallon after traveling about 35 miles on an electric charge. You pay double for a car that needs to be plugged in all night to save a maximum of less than a gallon of gas a day! Factor in the cost for electricity and you can save a bit over a dollar a day in gas (neglecting the fact that the Volt requires premium fuel) for the mere investment of an additional $20,000 compared to the Prius. Of course you will only be required to pay $12,500 of that premium as taxpayers are on the hook for the other $7,500 so you can break even in about 25 years if you choose the Volt.

The only reason (other than political influence) I can see for car manufacturers to offer money-losing vehicles like the Volt, which do not have wide consumer appeal, is that it is increasingly difficult to reach rising fuel economy requirements without having vehicles offered that are rated in the 90 mpg range and above. The problem with the rising EPA requirements seems to be that manufacturers don't have to sell a lot of the high mileage vehicles to the public; they only have to offer them.

The formula for calculating Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is complex, but in general, manufacturers get more credit for offering vehicles with high MPG ratings than actually having them sell in large numbers. Extra credit is given for offering plug-in electric vehicles, adding to the incentive to offer these types of vehicles over choices that might make more sense. A cynical person might suspect that some lobbyists from firms that stand to profit (like those that build charging stations) from a new plug-in segment might be influencing the illogical focus.

As manufacturers continue to develop vehicles that get high mpg ratings but do not sell, the public's price tag goes up. Not only is taxpayer money wasted in tax subsidies, the cost of all vehicles goes up as automakers must make up for the losses. Worst of all, the nation's dependence on oil is not being greatly reduced if the high mileage vehicles that manufacturers are forced to offer don't actually sell.

It would be a lot more logical if CAFE standards were based more on how many vehicles were sold rather than how many vehicles were offered and if extra credit wasn't given for building politically-favored plug-ins. The MPG requirements could be reduced and automakers could focus on building vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that the public will actually buy. Based on the political circus and illogical focus that we have had thus far from government's green agenda (like the Chevy Volt), it does not seem likely that our government has the sense to see just how ludicrous it is to force auto manufacturers to build cars that will not sell and then have taxpayers foot the bill. But one can still hope.

Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: chevyvolt; gm; governmentmotors; prius; taxcredit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: V_TWIN

“It’s a green vehicle because it moves the pollution from the vehicle to some other place out of sight out of mind!”
*snicker*

welcome.
Have an eco-hippy here who has a black Volt.
She “drives” down teh middle of the road with a cellphone plastered over her left eye using her right arm.

Amazing nobody is dead yet because of her.


21 posted on 01/07/2013 11:11:49 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

22 posted on 01/07/2013 12:34:38 PM PST by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: windcliff
I actually saw my first one yesterday. What a ugly car.

It will be replaced by a Trabant filled with AAA bateries:

23 posted on 01/07/2013 1:38:59 PM PST by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Let me be the first FR member to tell you something shocking--this week I'm taking delivery of a 2013 Volt.

I've been a member here since '98 and take a backseat to no one on conservative issues, so why am I going against the overwhelmingly negative response from my fellow conservatives and buying this car?

First, the Volt is an amazing piece of engineering. It's the first true practical electric vehicle designed for the way most people drive. The clincher for me was the fact that its all-electric range of 40 miles is adequate for most of my daily driving needs. I can charge up every night and then I'm good to go all day in all electric mode. In doing my early research, I found that 80% of drivers in the U.S. have a commute of 40 miles or less, so that's a big market for this car. This means that, theoretically, you'd never have to buy gas for most daily driving.

Second, the performance of the Volt is outstanding. Electric drive generates tremendous torque off the line, which makes this a very fast and sporty car to drive. No, it's not a Corvette, but 0-60 is a respectable 8.5 seconds, about the same as most gas-powered sedans, and good enough for me. I also really like the fact that it's quiet too--perfectly silent at idle, and extremely quiet overall due to electric drive and optimized aerodynamics which virtually eliminates wind noise at higher speeds.

Third, I think we as conservatives have been grossly unfair to this car, and to GM. I take a backseat to no one in my negative response to the way Obama stiffed bondholders and gave preferential treatment to the UAW in the GM bankruptcy, but the fact is that whoever was president was not going to let GM and one million auto industry jobs go down the drain. Hopefully after decades of mismanagement GM will turn itself around, and after driving imports for 30 years I'm giving them another chance because of my interest in this car and its technology.

Fourth, the Volt development program, including the $7500 tax credit, was started during the Bush administration, so the implication that this was some kind of Obamamobile is false.

I'm looking forward to a long and happy experience with this car and think the technology behind it holds great promise for the future. I think that many people, including those here on FR, after doing extensive research on the Volt, would reach the same conclusion I reached.

Flame suit on, so let the fun begin ;)

24 posted on 01/07/2013 2:52:53 PM PST by NetLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetLiberty
The Volt is UAW build....they could give me the car for free...

I won't take it...

25 posted on 01/07/2013 4:46:34 PM PST by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NetLiberty

Congratulations. The Volt is a really nice car. People who say it is a overpriced Chevy Cruse don’t know what their talking about. I’d hate to see liberals take over the EV. I don’t want to see those stupid Coexist bumper stickers on them too. I don’t want the libs getting all our tax rebates either. I recommend Freepers go test drive a Leaf or a Volt and then pass judgment. I think you will be surprised.


26 posted on 01/07/2013 4:47:39 PM PST by willk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Coal fired cars. /laugh


27 posted on 01/07/2013 5:19:44 PM PST by MaxMax (Gun free zones was the invitation to gun bans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetLiberty; willk
I've been a member here since '98 and take a backseat to no one on conservative issues

So what does that have to do with an overpriced car that R&D has been subsidized by taxpayers and the sales are subsidized by same?

It's the first true practical electric vehicle designed for the way most people drive.

Most people?

If that was the case the sales would be in the hundreds of thousands per year instead of the low tens of thousands.

Second, the performance of the Volt is outstanding.

No argument there but there are many cars with outstanding performance.

Hopefully after decades of mismanagement GM will turn itself around,

I don't disagree with that but the government should have let a normal bankruptcy take place instead of bailing out the UAW and screwing the bondholders. Just because GM is a large company doesn't mean the government should have treated them any differently than any other company in bankruptcy.

Fourth, the Volt development program, including the $7500 tax credit, was started during the Bush administration, so the implication that this was some kind of Obamamobile is false.

It may have started in the Bush administration but does it really make a difference to the taxpayers who are supporting this? Obama made a campaign out of bailing out GM and got reelected on our taxpayer money and you say you're a conservative?

I'm looking forward to a long and happy experience with this car and think the technology behind it holds great promise for the future

I wish you luck on a long and happy experience. I only wish the entire program, especially the subsidies and tax credits would not have been payed for by taxpayers. Let companies produce a product that the public wants and buys with their own money...That's capitalism, not socialism.

28 posted on 01/07/2013 5:52:19 PM PST by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I’ll miss the Volt commercials with all of those useful idiots talking about how little gas they use. Not!


29 posted on 01/07/2013 7:41:55 PM PST by GoldwaterCountry (Viva Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Well said, Jaz. I have seen a lot of these so-called conservatives come out in support of the Volt. They sound like GM/Obama Admin. shills to me.

Some of the ridiculous claims they make include ending terrorism by driving Volts, since the miniscule reduction in oil consumed by this country will supposedly stop funding of terrorists. Fox (Fox and Friends in March) went as far as putting up a graph showing how much oil would be saved by selling 30 million Volts. Only 29 million, 970 thousand to go! Amazing what kind of coverage GM can buy with its multi-billion dollar marketing budget.

A message to the shills, be satisfied with fooling the majority of Americans, don’t bother trying to convince those who know better. The boycott of GM products by many of us who know the truth will not be stopped just because people like Bob Lutz say they are Republicans. In fact, being Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with knowing that taking money from taxpayers and GM bondholders and giving it to the UAW (who then helped Obama win reelection) was wrong.


30 posted on 01/08/2013 6:44:14 AM PST by Mark Modica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: willk

Thanks for your support! I agree with you that wanting to free ourselves of dependence on foreign oil should be something that we conservatives should be practicing and not only preaching. I wish more conservatives would try to take a closer look at the Volt without throwing politics over it, and glad I’m not the only one here with an open mind on this.


31 posted on 01/08/2013 8:14:09 AM PST by NetLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson