It'llrun

http://www.freep.com/article/2014080...chevrolet-volt

This car honestly hasn't been the hit many thought it would. Perhaps the next will be a better seller, whether or not it's a better car.

In other GM news, 4 others will be redesigned for 2016 and according to this article, Tim Mahoney declined to ID the others... of course, we already know the Camaro is one and it's not exactly a surprise that the writer couldn't put that together.

Cole Train

iTrader: (30)

The sucky part for GM is that like 85-90% of people that bought the Volt said they would buy another and absolutely love them.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

I've said it before, but if I either (a) had a 3-car garage or (b) lived in a warmer climate where I didn't need something to go through snow, I would absolutely own a Volt. I love them. With my current commute, I could pretty much drive one all week without even charging it, let alone use a drop of gas.

Tainted

iTrader: (9)

The volt is just terrible looking inside and out its no wonder everyone didn't jump on it especially with the price.

It'llrun

Well that kinda sums it up... of course, looks are totally subjective, but let's face it. Sales do all the talking in the end. I didn't find it appealing and it seemed rather boring overall. I actually REALLY like the idea of electric w/ gas, but a diesel powered generator which constantly charged the batteries(2 distinct sets) as needed, while running a specific rpm(about 800) should keep any of these going for days on end. It would also burn through a very small amount of fuel, about 1gal every 8hrs.

SlowFRC

iTrader: (2)

As has been said in many Volt threads before, the purpose of the car isn't to satisfy the public, it's to satisfy the regulators. GM probably expected dismal sales from the beginning but just couldn't say it.

jimmy169

Go ahead and run that by Bob Lutz and see what his reaction is. I'll save you the trouble.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/...rtner=yahootix

Irunelevens

I suddenly like Bub Lutz.

It'llrun

That was a weird story(it seems we already covered)... I personally have no problem with VOLT itself and it's widely known I have no interest in such a car(like 99% of Americans), but Bob made it 100% political and talked largely about HIMSELF, typical of a narcissist.

What Bob failed to say is, the NHTSA is who said batteries caught fire and that was repeated by the Huffington Post... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1114193.html in November of 2011, and Frank Fortunato(CATEX TV) had things to say on Dec 7th of 2011(sating the liquid solution used to cool the batteries is what caused fires, claiming a GM employee shared that), MONTHS prior to O'reilly and Dobbs and he didn't utter a word about those "liars" while crying over others... that leads people to question his credibility, regardless what he did in training.

That said, he did own up to being the reason that car was started in 2006 and said it wasn't the government... BALDERDASH, but that's his story!

For the record, I don't think that "fire hazard" was a big deal, but that's just me realizing that anything we can drive... we can burn. KUDOS to GM for their improvements on it, because they were likely completely unnecessary.

jimmy169

I could care less about Bob Lutz, he was in charge when GM was absolute **** and no one would trust their cars and their shitty quality. Everything changed now after 2008 thankfully, but they are still having to prove themselves thanks to the likes of him. I believe his excuse was how cheap labor was oversea's yet here they are building some of the best quality cars today and still in business, better than ever. Who'd a thought.

The reason I referenced his very own article and his own words is because it's pathetic that people are blaming the government for forcing anything and everything that is remotely more efficient or "green" down our throats when this was Bob Lutz personal idea, and he personally pushed it through. It was basically his baby, but because it's a hybrid, must have been government mandated as if Bob Lutz of all people believes in man made climate change.

And you're right, this was covered years ago, that's why I find it pathetic that people repeat the same old tired lie years later about the volt being forced by the government.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I think the Volt is most technologically advanced and smartly designed car the general public can buy right now. Unlike the parallel hybrids, series hybrids are a superior design. If I drove more miles, I might pay the $10,000 premium over the equivalent midsized sedan. I looked at them long and hard, but my office is only 5 minutes from my house.

SlowFRC

iTrader: (2)

This proves nothing. Of course Lutz isn't going to say "I folded to the regulators who had more control of my products than I did." Also, Lutz is smart enough not to make enemies with the greens who are here to stay. It's also amusing that he uses the eco-obsessed Europeans to make his point for him.

Bottom line, "his" car isn't selling even with the very favorable tax intensives that the government uses to sweeten the pie. Even if we Lutz at his word, this commercial failure was largely his responsibility and not the regulators. Is that really anything to be proud of?

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

The ONLY reason that car is not selling is the price. The cars ideal target market just cannot write that check.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Ever see a prius???? And people buy those ugly *** cars. The volt is a super model next to one of those.

SparkyJJO

iTrader: (11)

And every newer version of the prius gets uglier it seems.

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

When the government basically pushed the auto manufactures, especially one/s that borrowed a lot of money from the government into producing a product that consumers really don't want onto the market it usually fails. Also keep in mind, the USA electrical grid is severely outdated and has a tough time handling the demands put on it now. Could you imagine if you were to suddenly swap a large percentage of automobiles on the road today for full electric cars, year round rolling power blackout would become the norm. Even if that wasn't the case, the power companies would raise electricity rates as high and as fast as the could, do to the larger demand. When the battery technology advances far enough to substantial increase the driving range, and lower the cost more people will want them, For now if I wanted a high mpg car with excellent driving range for a good price I'd get a Chevy Cruze Diesel, or a VW Gold or Jetta with a Diesel engine.

Irunelevens

I'd get a hydrogen fuel-cell Honda, as I see that as the best energy-saving solution of the immediate future.

hrcslam

Think about the date GM cars got better according to you, then think about when Bob Lutz became in charge of product. Think 2008 Malibu, Gen 5 Camaro, CTS, Equinox, GMT900's, the Kappa twins, importing the G8, etc. etc. etc....

Now remember product development usually takes 3 to 6 years from idea to dealerships......

He is the reason the cars got better in 2008. Not the other way around. He's actually got a long list of successful vehicles from before GM, like Chrysler (Viper) and BMW to name a couple..... Just remember nobody bats 1.000

There was little more to the VOLT than just Bob trying to shove it down every ones throat. One of them was the government regulations. You think the VOLT is the only car? What about all the hybrids and plug in hybrids coming from ALL manufacturers? And all the EV's too?

There's a reason EVERY manufacturer is trying to go electric in one way or another. And it certainly wasn't Bob Lutz. The VOLT is the best idea out there, but I think over priced. VOLTEC 2.0 should be lighter and cost less. And hopefully look better too.

hrcslam

The only issue with this is the rare earth materials needed to efficiently convert hydrogen to electricity fast enough to propel a vehicle; platinum.

It's some already expensive stuff (7.7% more than gold) and the most efficient and best packaged systems still need at least an ounce per car (which is damn impressive).

Trying to replace even 10% of the cars on the road today with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would require at least 25.4 million ounces of platinum (794 tons, about 6 times the annual supply). The annual supply of platinum is only about 130 tons - which is equivalent to only 6% (by weight) of the total Western World's annual mine production of gold - and less than one percent of silver's yearly mine production. Good luck with keeping the prices of platinum only 7% higher than gold with all currently mined platinum going straight to cars and still not having enough, yup price boom. And that's ignoring everything else platinum is currently used for.

Of course the simple answer is well then make less as to not disturb the supply costs of platinum. In that case each car will cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the manufacturer will still take a loss on each unit sold. What business would do that?

Now burning hydrogen, that's a different conversation.

SlowFRC

iTrader: (2)

Right because the relatively unproven tech and lack of infrastructure (aka charging stations which is no small problem) doesn't play into it at all.