GM losing as much as $49,000 per Volt sold

NBC News ^ | September 10, 2012

[presidio9]

General Motors sold a record number of Chevrolet Volt sedans in August — but that probably isn't a good thing for the automaker's bottom line.

Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.

[Kickass Conservative]

>”Can you get that Tax Credit for a LEASED Volt?”<

No, the Leasing Company gets the Tax Credit because they own the Car. Earlier this year GM had a ZERO DOWN 36 Month Lease on the Volt for $275 a Month.

No way the numbers work for a $42,000 Car at that Payment. The $7500 Tax Credit is the only thing that made it possible.

Everyone who owns / leases a Volt should put a big THANK YOU TAXPAYERS sticker in the rear window,

[Kickass Conservative]

In Southern California you see Volts every day. What you never see is Snow. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

[newzjunkey]

“The Beast,” as Obama’s limo is called, officially gets 8 mpg.

[newzjunkey]

Actually they didn't. The current limo debuted at Obama's inauguration.

Presumably Romney may get a new one as well in January.

[aruanan]

You people crack me up they are making it up by volume

Al, baby, aren't you embarrassed over saying something this stupid?

If there is a net loss per unit , you can never make it up by volume. For instance, if something costs $10,000 and it's sold for $10,001, the dollar over isn't going to be "making it up by volume" after 10,000 units are sold. If the unit costs $10,000 and it sells for $10,001 dollars, the costs are made up immediately by the first $10,000 of the selling price. The $1, being a receipt in excess of cost, is profit. Costs are never made up on volume. They are only made up only by the individual sale. If the company can sell it for less than the cost per unit and still make a profit, it's because the company is giving up profit on something else that it sells.

[Kickass Conservative]

Aren't we all getting just a little wound up over an off the cuff humorous comment? I got a chuckle out of it, geez.

What's the standard term here, Lighten Up Francis?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Then I wasn’t far off, was I? And since it probably runs on $40/gal. biodisel, that adds up.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I can run my 1984 on used fryer grease after straining and reformulation for about eighty cents a gallon and never go near a gas station or electric plug.

[Hotlanta Mike]

...and look at how great the economy was then, Bill Clinton just bragged about it the other night!

---

You mean the dot.com bust that lead to the recession that GWB “inherited” when he entered office in 2001?

[Hotlanta Mike]

This is a huge “success” for Obama, who defines that word based on how much money the government spends.

---

It’s not “spending”, it’s “investing” according to Obama.

[Windflier]

It shames me that that thing has a Texas license plate on it.

[2ndDivisionVet]

President Lincoln was assassinated by a circle of Confederate agents and sympathizers before we had any real security for the chief executive. That was a long time ago. Now we've gone too far the other way. You obviously think that the person of the leader of the USA is so valuable that we should spend billions of our scarce resources to keep him and his family from any harm. I think he should get the same protection as a Fortune 100 CEO, but no more than that. No one is irreplaceable, not you, me or him.

[Bobloblaw2012]

NBC isn’t the smartest. GM is losing $49k on each Volt sold due to high development costs and fixed costs. Does NBC think if they sold ZERO Volts they’d lose $0???? The volume is too low given the fixed production costs and development costs. GM needs to sell more, much more. But the market doesn’t exist. So expect obamugabe to force sales to drive down unit costs and reduce losses. It is very unlikely GM is losing $49k per car due to variable production costs.

[aruanan]

Aren't we all getting just a little wound up over an off the cuff humorous comment? I got a chuckle out of it, geez.

What's the standard term here, Lighten Up Francis?

No, given the near brain stem level of economic illiteracy that pervades the nation (and is manifested in Congress, the national debt, and economic politards like Obama), it's not getting just a little wound up and every opportunity, even those some, mysteriously, think are humorous, has to be capitalized on.

[al baby]

Not embarrassed at all i wanted to get a nibble and i caught my limit. I was being sarcastic

[Kickass Conservative]

I believe we are among FRiends here who would see such a comment as a sarcastic take on the thought processes of the Liberal mind.

Sometimes we take things just a little bit too literally around here. Just my opinion.

But whatever you say...

[presidio9]

President Lincoln was assassinated by a circle of Confederate agents and sympathizers before we had any real security for the chief executive. That was a long time ago. Now we've gone too far the other way. You obviously think that the person of the leader of the USA is so valuable that we should spend billions of our scarce resources to keep him and his family from any harm. I think he should get the same protection as a Fortune 100 CEO, but no more than that. No one is irreplaceable, not you, me or him.

I can't believe I allowed myself to get drawn into your bizarre little world again, but here I am. Yours is apparently a diseased mind that finds happiness in arguing. I realize that I am never going to fix that.

I will however point out that YOU introduced Lincoln into this conversation on the cost of presidential safety. Now you are describing extenuating circumstances that still end up with a dead president. Next you are strangely suggesting the entire example (which, again, you brought up in the first place) is irrelevant because it happened a long time ago. Current events: There have been twelve credible threats against President Obama since he took office THAT THE SECRET SERVICE IS TELLING US ABOUT. They investigate thousands of other threats they end up deeming less credible annually. So the idea that the president "should get the same protection as a Fortune 100 CEO, but no more than that," is not just irresponsible. It is demonstrably ignorant. AS far as I'm concerned, the majority of Corporate CEOs generally do important work. But not the entire 100 of them combined faces the same level of existential threats as one US President. And you would know that if you really did work on a security detail as you claimed. You would also know that we do not spend "billions of our scarce resources to keep him and his family from any harm." The entire Secret Service budget is roughly $1.5 billion. In addition to protecting the president and his family, the secret services is the law enforcement body responsible for counterfeiting of currency and Treasury Securities, bank fraud, and other major fraud. The secret service also protects foreign embassies, ambassadors, high ranking government officials, presidential candidates, and former presidents. Again you would probably know that if you actually had worked there. My best guess is that you own the DVD to "In the Line od Fire," and you've "seen it, like, a million times!"

Perhaps we need to trim some fat from the Secret Service? Fine, I can agree with that. But any Fortune 100 CEO worth his paycheck will tell you that you don't start restructuring by cutting assets where they are needed most. And that would be between the president and his family and the very real people who want to kill him.

[presidio9]

I can run my 1984 on used fryer grease after straining and reformulation for about eighty cents a gallon and never go near a gas station or electric plug.

Um, the picture you posted is of an '85 300D.

I'm just saying.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Stock photo of the interwebs. What are the differences?

[NorseViking]

“” “” They lose a little on every sale but make it up on volume.”” “”

Is it an excuse? Other customers overcharged for their vehicles.