Looks like Consumer Reports got their hands on a Chevy Volt and they basically said the car doesn't make economic sense.

Isn't GM basically betting the farm and our tax money on it to help somewhat revive themselves?

http://detnews.com/article/...228/AUTO01/102280401

That really sucks. GM sunk tons of money into development of the Volt. I think it is sad that some of the EV Fieros I have read about get better range than the Volt.

What the hell is wrong with GM? What's wrong with this country? Why can't we design a car like this that *doesn't* suck?

quote That really sucks. The US Taxpayer sunk tons of money into development of the Volt. I think it is sad that some of the EV Fieros I have read about get better range than the Volt.

Fixed it for ya.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Fixed it for ya.

LOL! Thanks! Shame on me for not being politically correct.

Death Nail? Didn't they just report their first yearly profit since 2004 at $4.7 billion.

Consumer Reports. Hmmmm....

I haven't read the article, but all of the enthusiast mags gave it rave reviews.
It occurs to me that the early adopters might be those same enthusiasts. Gearheads and "tinkerers".
There may be some quirks that the enthusiasts are more willing to put up with.

quote Originally posted by newf: Death Nail? Didn't they just report their first yearly profit since 2004 at $4.7 billion.

I'm not disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, but the numbers are very optimistic, and it's taking into consideration the sale of certain one-time assets, and doesn't include any of the debt they owed.

Unlike Ford who paid off debt, and then reported their earnings, which was still higher than GM's profit, prior to making loan payments.

I'll be totally honest about my bias... I'm very angry with the way things went. Not becasue Pontiac was cancelled, but because I'm very unhappy about the government involvement in GM. Much of what happened was unnecessary. In any normal situation, GM would have gone bankrupt, the bond-holders (the investors) would have regained some of their money (even if pennies on the dollar) and the UAW would have essentially crapped itself.

The only reason why Obama got involved in Chrysler and General Motors was not because he cared about the companies, but because he wanted to protect the UAW since they donate heavily to Democrat campaigns. I know this kind of stuff happens on the Republican side too with corporations, but that still doesn't make it right in any way.

The UAW was essentially protected from the downfall of GM, where-as they should have shared equal fate.


If the government had not gotten involved, the UAW would still exist, although under much more reasonable guidelines, GM would still exist, and some of the divisions (like Saturn) might have existed under a different corporation (like Penske). Things would have been different, and I'd even speculate that potentially there would even be more jobs at this point.


Do I want GM to fail? Maybe...

I want one of two things to happen:


1 - GM does really well and finally frees itself from US and Canadian government ownership.

2 - GM fails so badly that (like British with Leyland) they go bankrupt again, and other investors move in and revive the company, the old fashioned way.


I'm not surprised at all by the outcome of the Volt. The one thing the non-military portion of the government does is... overpromise, and under-deliver. That's why we're in this financial mess we're in already. Every government program overpromises, and under-delivers. Should we expect anything else from the Volt?

The only reason the Corvette is still as good as it is, is because those in the corporation who hold it dear to them, BEGGED, PLEADED with the new board of directors to "leave it alone."
------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-01-2011).]

The Volt is meant to be a short travel distance "city" car as that is where performs best. As an all around car it is just average at best. If the price of ga continues to go up, and it will, this kind of car will start to make more sense. I don't see this happening until gas is in the $8 to $10 a gallon range.

...and its going to be a niche vehicle at best. 90% of people either cant afford it or it will never be practical for them.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Consumer Reports. Hmmmm.... I haven't read the article, but all of the enthusiast mags gave it rave reviews. It occurs to me that the early adopters might be those same enthusiasts. Gearheads and "tinkerers". There may be some quirks that the enthusiasts are more willing to put up with.

FWIW...

1971 Chevy Vega - Motor Trend Car of the Year



1983 Renault Alliance - Motor Trend Car of the Year

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm not disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, but the numbers are very optimistic, and it's taking into consideration the sale of certain one-time assets, and doesn't include any of the debt they owed. Unlike Ford who paid off debt, and then reported their earnings, which was still higher than GM's profit, prior to making loan payments. I'll be totally honest about my bias... I'm very angry with the way things went. Not becasue Pontiac was cancelled, but because I'm very unhappy about the government involvement in GM. Much of what happened was unnecessary. In any normal situation, GM would have gone bankrupt, the bond-holders (the investors) would have regained some of their money (even if pennies on the dollar) and the UAW would have essentially crapped itself. The only reason why Obama got involved in Chrysler and General Motors was not because he cared about the companies, but because he wanted to protect the UAW since they donate heavily to Democrat campaigns. I know this kind of stuff happens on the Republican side too with corporations, but that still doesn't make it right in any way. The UAW was essentially protected from the downfall of GM, where-as they should have shared equal fate. If the government had not gotten involved, the UAW would still exist, although under much more reasonable guidelines, GM would still exist, and some of the divisions (like Saturn) might have existed under a different corporation (like Penske). Things would have been different, and I'd even speculate that potentially there would even be more jobs at this point. Do I want GM to fail? Maybe... I want one of two things to happen: 1 - GM does really well and finally frees itself from US and Canadian government ownership. 2 - GM fails so badly that (like British with Leyland) they go bankrupt again, and other investors move in and revive the company, the old fashioned way. I'm not surprised at all by the outcome of the Volt. The one thing the non-military portion of the government does is... overpromise, and under-deliver. That's why we're in this financial mess we're in already. Every government program overpromises, and under-delivers. Should we expect anything else from the Volt? The only reason the Corvette is still as good as it is, is because those in the corporation who hold it dear to them, BEGGED, PLEADED with the new board of directors to "leave it alone."

Disagree all you like but their not my numbers they are what was reported.

I also notice how many people that seem to rail against GM somehow let the banking system off without a second thought. Who would you say had more employees that would suffer if they were allowed to go bankrupt? How many vendors and suppliers would have been lost as well in a time of massive uneployment? How would the car industry in America do with only one manufacturer? If GM does well who benefits? If the banks and Wall Streeters do good who does?

But hey hate GM they are the evil ones and ignore the banking system and Wall Street, they got bailed out AND were allowed to go back to normal without the checks and balances needed setting up basically exactly the same system as before. I keep hearing how wall Street are back to levels that they would have projected to be before the Financial Crisis yet where are the jobs they provide? Same with the tax cuts for the rich, weren't there supposed to be an influx of jobs when that went through? Still waiting....

At $40-50 thousand dollars for a car that will run on the electric engine for 30-50 miles if you are living in a temperate climate with no hills is not realistic for the middle class worker who is earning $40-60 thousand a year. Anytime the government gets involved with business ventures, they manage to screw things up. The goverment involvment with the auto industry was to support the UAW as previously stated.

Now GM is like government workers, kept busy building things that no one really wants. Buying stuff from vendors who are building parts for cars that no one wants, but it comes down to busy work with limited value.

[This message has been edited by Old Lar (edited 03-01-2011).]

I don't understand why GM didn't just update the EV-1. It was a proven platform. Now, they have something that only travels half as far on battery power (if that), and still has to be plugged in to recharge the batteries. Plus, on top of that, you have to feed it gasoline. IMO, that's a step backward from the EV-1.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: I don't understand why GM didn't just update the EV-1. It was a proven platform. Now, they have something that only travels half as far on battery power (if that), and still has to be plugged in to recharge the batteries. Plus, on top of that, you have to feed it gasoline. IMO, that's a step backward from the EV-1.

Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car"

I gotta point out that the Volt was well along before the government got involved. As usual GM was designing stuff to be 'all things to all people', and the VOLT is a good example of what sounds great in the boardroom, and what is near impossible to do in the Lab or on the assembly line. Government intervention had next to nothing to do with the way this car went.... GM could have done it all by themselves .....as all us Fiero owners should know.

quote Originally posted by Gall757: I gotta point out that the Volt was well along before the government got involved. As usual GM was designing stuff to be 'all things to all people', and the VOLT is a good example of what sounds great in the boardroom, and what is near impossible to do in the Lab or on the assembly line. Government intervention had next to nothing to do with the way this car went.... GM could have done it all by themselves .....as all us Fiero owners should know.

There ya go injecting sense and facts into the discussion. There's little tolerance for that here

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Disagree all you like but their not my numbers they are what was reported. I also notice how many people that seem to rail against GM somehow let the banking system off without a second thought. Who would you say had more employees that would suffer if they were allowed to go bankrupt? How many vendors and suppliers would have been lost as well in a time of massive uneployment? How would the car industry in America do with only one manufacturer? If GM does well who benefits? If the banks and Wall Streeters do good who does? But hey hate GM they are the evil ones and ignore the banking system and Wall Street, they got bailed out AND were allowed to go back to normal without the checks and balances needed setting up basically exactly the same system as before. I keep hearing how wall Street are back to levels that they would have projected to be before the Financial Crisis yet where are the jobs they provide? Same with the tax cuts for the rich, weren't there supposed to be an influx of jobs when that went through? Still waiting....

And, that changes what went on with GM/Chysler how?
still waiting....

No electric or hybrid car makes sense when compared to what they could get in a comparable conventional powered cars for less money.
It hasn't been about saving money, it's been about saving gas and oil. Hybrid and electric car owners are willing to pay extra for the vehicle if it means they don't use as much gas/oil.

Flex fuel vehicles are similar. It costs more to run on E85 than gasoline, but using E85 uses far less oil.

We'll have to wait and see how the Volt sells before we can find out if it was really a death nail, or death knell, even.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: We'll have to wait and see how the Volt sells before we can find out if it was really a death nail, or death knell, even.

Bong......Bong......Bong......I kind of like Death Nail though...

[This message has been edited by Gall757 (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: And, that changes what went on with GM/Chysler how? still waiting....

Doesn't change anything but there sure seems to be a double standard in peoples ire towards Gm and Chrysler for some reason.

IMO the loss of GM and Chrysler may have sent shockwaves enough to sink the economy into a true depression with the amount of job losses and financial echos it would have casued but that is certainly just conjecture.

However to hate the fact that the Gov't bailed them out yet give the banking system and wall street a free pass seems like a double standard to me.

quote Originally posted by newf: Disagree all you like but their not my numbers they are what was reported. I also notice how many people that seem to rail against GM somehow let the banking system off without a second thought. Who would you say had more employees that would suffer if they were allowed to go bankrupt? How many vendors and suppliers would have been lost as well in a time of massive uneployment? How would the car industry in America do with only one manufacturer? If GM does well who benefits? If the banks and Wall Streeters do good who does? But hey hate GM they are the evil ones and ignore the banking system and Wall Street, they got bailed out AND were allowed to go back to normal without the checks and balances needed setting up basically exactly the same system as before. I keep hearing how wall Street are back to levels that they would have projected to be before the Financial Crisis yet where are the jobs they provide? Same with the tax cuts for the rich, weren't there supposed to be an influx of jobs when that went through? Still waiting....

Here Here! Very well said. I am STILL waiting for the outrage over TARP... still waiting...

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Here Here! Very well said. I am STILL waiting for the outrage over TARP... still waiting...

I think that the banking subject deserves a separate thread.....but it appears the public has not forgotten...and is still looking for their 'pound of flesh' from Wall Street. I am just amazed that the Democrats did so much to protect the system, and so little to punish it.

quote Originally posted by newf: Doesn't change anything but there sure seems to be a double standard in peoples ire towards Gm and Chrysler for some reason. IMO the loss of GM and Chrysler may have sent shockwaves enough to sink the economy into a true depression with the amount of job losses and financial echos it would have casued but that is certainly just conjecture. However to hate the fact that the Gov't bailed them out yet give the banking system and wall street a free pass seems like a double standard to me.

Might be because so many stockholders lost everything and the pukes who should have lost (the union and management) got to keep everything and even gain some.

[This message has been edited by Fiero STS (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Disagree all you like but their not my numbers they are what was reported. I also notice how many people that seem to rail against GM somehow let the banking system off without a second thought. Who would you say had more employees that would suffer if they were allowed to go bankrupt? How many vendors and suppliers would have been lost as well in a time of massive uneployment? How would the car industry in America do with only one manufacturer? If GM does well who benefits? If the banks and Wall Streeters do good who does? But hey hate GM they are the evil ones and ignore the banking system and Wall Street, they got bailed out AND were allowed to go back to normal without the checks and balances needed setting up basically exactly the same system as before. I keep hearing how wall Street are back to levels that they would have projected to be before the Financial Crisis yet where are the jobs they provide? Same with the tax cuts for the rich, weren't there supposed to be an influx of jobs when that went through? Still waiting....

Well, I don't know who these people are that say that, but I'm not one of them.

As I understand, the TART program was supposed to be nothing more than an undisclosed loan program to banks, should there become a RUN on any particular bank, the bank would be able to properly distribute the money. TARP was never supposed to be a purchasing program.

What this argument is about, is not whether it was right for the government to LOAN money, but whether it was right for the government to BUY corporations (nationalization). I may not agree here and there with the government loaning money, but I certainly don't agree with the government BUYING corporations. As you know... GM is still 51% owned by the US government, and 12.5% owned by the Canadian govnment.

Do I think the government should have bought bank (of which there were and still are many)? No... absolutely not. What always happens in "capitalism" is other companies, other investors, will come in (often after bankruptcy) and buy these floundering companies.

The example you bring up with parts suppliers... in particular Delphi, American Axle, Irvin Meritor... these are companies that essentially do not have any competitors. So what would have happened is that their manufacturing base would have been bought up by other companies. The likely outcome would be that several executives and administration positions would have lost their jobs, but the workers, and front-office staff would almsot assuridly survived, just under a different company name.

In this case, many of these parts suppliers are now actually OWNED by the US government... many of which are not turning a profit, and being subsidized (as we speak) by the US government.


Honestly, I don't know anyone who is "OK" with the financial bailout of these lending institutions... I'm equally as upset.

For what it's worth, the stock market is by no means back to what it was pre-recession.

The stock market (as it sits today, is at ~12,150 on the Dow Jones Industrial (average). The highest point of the Dow Jones was ~14,200 back in October of 2007.

Since 2007, we have seen roughly 35% inflation of the US dollar (as per the FAS.org and MarketWatch analysts)

That means that our max Dow Jones (when compared to what it should be) would actually be more like ~19,100. So that means we're still heavily into the recession. I DO believe that the worst is over, and I do think we're going UP... but based on dollar values, we wouldn't be back to where we were unless we were at 19,000.

quote Originally posted by newf: Doesn't change anything but there sure seems to be a double standard in peoples ire towards Gm and Chrysler for some reason. IMO the loss of GM and Chrysler may have sent shockwaves enough to sink the economy into a true depression with the amount of job losses and financial echos it would have casued but that is certainly just conjecture. However to hate the fact that the Gov't bailed them out yet give the banking system and wall street a free pass seems like a double standard to me.

Being totally serious here, I don't know anyone who feels that way. I watch Fox News on some rare occasions, but mostly just look at news on the internet... and it's pretty unanimous (from my viewpoint) that everyone is pissed about everything... basically, everyone who shouldn't have gotten bailed out, did get bailed out... including:

1 - Wall Street big money investors (while the little investors got screwed)
2 - The big banks, their top executives, etc. (while the smaller privately owned banks got screwed)
3 - The people who bought several homes for investment purposes, people who took out ridiculous loans who couldn't afford them, and the people who gave those loans... they ALL got bailed out, while the people who actually DO pay their bills haven't.
4 - Union management, GM / Chrysler Execs... they all got bailed out.

Essentially, all those people above got bailed out, and the middle class in America paid for it.


------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Doesn't change anything but there sure seems to be a double standard in peoples ire towards Gm and Chrysler for some reason. IMO the loss of GM and Chrysler may have sent shockwaves enough to sink the economy into a true depression with the amount of job losses and financial echos it would have casued but that is certainly just conjecture. However to hate the fact that the Gov't bailed them out yet give the banking system and wall street a free pass seems like a double standard to me.

Before citing job loses in reference to the importance of bailing out GM/Chrysler, you need to look at the losses of jobs the failure of banking or Wal Street would have caused. I'm not talking about jobs directly associated with those but the millions of jobs dependant upon the free flow of currency, especially in the commerial short term lending arena. Virtually every company over 100 employees makes use of short term borrowing afforded thru the fed's "overnight window".
You know how many retirement, 401s, coomercial borrowers (those who hire and create jobs), and even savings funds would have disappeared had the banking and wall street gone under? Not to mention the Federal Reserve. It would make the auto industry look like a penny in comparison. The insurance industry would have gone with them, and even letting AIG completely fail would have drug the banking system down the tubes as well which is why AIG was the first really big bailout. Investment thru ins entities is by far, the single largest investment in the financial world, and is where most CDs, savings, 401s etc are invested. Fidelity, The Hartford, etc have many 100s of billions invested by every Tom Dick and Hairy, including most everyday citizens with a few dollars saved or invested somewhere. That exposure is unbelievably large in scope and quantity--it touches virtually everyone except the very poor. It would have been the end of the USD as a globally accepted currency, out creit rating would have dropped like a lead balloon, and our cost to federal debt would have skyrocketed beyond imagination. And of course, both Geithner and Emanuel have past ties to banking and Wall Street, which partially explains the double standard.

Screw the Volt. Buy Chinese.

Same range, half the price, looks good.

If it's good enough for Warren Buffet........

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Being totally serious here, I don't know anyone who feels that way. I watch Fox News on some rare occasions, but mostly just look at news on the internet... and it's pretty unanimous (from my viewpoint) that everyone is pissed about everything... basically, everyone who shouldn't have gotten bailed out, did get bailed out... including: 1 - Wall Street big money investors (while the little investors got screwed) 2 - The big banks, their top executives, etc. (while the smaller privately owned banks got screwed) 3 - The people who bought several homes for investment purposes, people who took out ridiculous loans who couldn't afford them, and the people who gave those loans... they ALL got bailed out, while the people who actually DO pay their bills haven't. 4 - Union management, GM / Chrysler Execs... they all got bailed out. Essentially, all those people above got bailed out, and the middle class in America paid for it.

You may be right but you'd never say it on here. How many threads have there been against GM compared to against the banking industry?

As for the banks....

quote Wall Street’s biggest banks, rebounding after a government bailout, are set to complete their best two years in investment banking and trading, buoyed by 2010 results likely to be the second-highest ever.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/wall-street-sees-record-revenue-in-09-10-recovery-from-government-bailout.html

quote Originally posted by newf: No no I agree but if people are going to criticize GM and say they should have never been saved they should also feel that way about the banking institutions IMO. You are probably one of the few that would make that statement (though forgive me if I'm putting word in your mouth) while many tend to ignore the double standard.

I guess I'm one of the "few and the proud", too. Because I don't think any of them should have ben bailed out. IMO, all the bailouts do is prolong the inevitable, and put the financial burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers. The companies who floudered due to mismanagement need to suffer the consequences of their mistakes. Otherwise, they will not learn, and will continue the mismanagement.

Edit to add: I should probably also mention that I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and a Darwinist. Can you tell?

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: You may be right but you'd never say it on here. How many threads have there been against GM compared to against the banking industry? As for the banks.... [QUOTE]Wall Street’s biggest banks, rebounding after a government bailout, are set to complete their best two years in investment banking and trading, buoyed by 2010 results likely to be the second-highest ever.

http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...bailout.html[/QUOTE]


Honestly, this is a car forum, so people know a lot more about GM and Chrysler than finances. In particular, I know that the government did some shady stuff when it concerned banks in the automotive industry.

The old company formerly known as GMAC is also owned by the US Government. It has a different name now.

After the bankruptcy, GM had to look for a financing arm for it's products. Being that GM was owned by the government, as was GMAC... it makes sense that the perfect match would be to rejoin GMAC and GM. But the government had other plans. Instead, they decided to go purchase yet another bank (one that wasn't floudering, and was in the black). The name escapes me, I knew it at one time, but a little bit of research would uncover this. So they basically used it as an excuse to go buy another bank for automobile financial lending, instead of just using the one that was originally created for that purpose which they ALREADY owned anyway.

They did this a number of times, under a variety of different industries.

Personally, I think the government needed / wanted to get heavily into the banking industry so as to provide liquidity for itself (to be able to pay for debts) in a time of recession and high interest.

I would be very scared to look at the asset balance sheet of many of these banks. Since they are privately owned now (by the government) they're not under any kind of requirement, or compulsion to state this information because there are no common shares. Privately owned, publicly held... zero transparency.


I reluctantly say that I'm OK with the government loaning money... IF, and ONLY IF the house agrees with it (which is how it always was in the past), but I disagree with the government buying corporations...


As for the bank profits... those are profit margins that it's being based on. When you go from massive negative capital, to solvency, you're going to have the best revenue return in a long time. I'd be willing to bet the previous time in history was either right after 9/11, or the great depression, or just after the war.

Again, not that I'm just trying to say that everything the Democrats are doing is bad... since Bush started the TARP anyway... but I am distrustful of the intentions of purchasing banks, corporations, etc...

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by newf: Death Nail? Didn't they just report their first yearly profit since 2004 at $4.7 billion.

I wouldn't trust anything coming from the mouth of Obama motors. The public will never know the true state of the company, and Obama will just keeping pumping US tax dollars into his pet car company and fudging the books until he is removed from power. GM died along time ago, what you have today is not your Dad's auto company, but rather a Democrat adminstered welfare program for their union supporters.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Flex fuel vehicles are similar. It costs more to run on E85 than gasoline, but using E85 uses far less oil. .

E85 is horrible in many other ways, not the least of which is raising the cost of food to the point that the average person has to strain to afford it, or making a product that was once plentiful on the verge of being imported. All brought to us by Government subsidies proving it's not a viable solution to our fuel problem.

Brad

[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: E85 is horrible in many other ways, not the least of which is raising the cost of food to the point that the average person has to strain to afford it, or making a product that was once plentiful on the verge of being imported. All brought to us by Government subsidies proving it's not a viable solution to our fuel problem. Brad

I think E85 COULD be a great thing, so long as there are more alternatives than just E85 and regular fuel.

I'd like to see CNG, as well as more diesel vehicles.

If we had a good balance of CNG, Diesel, E85, and gasoline stations, I think that would all work to help lower the cost of fuel to us.

For what it's worth, based on the investment seminars I went to, it doesn't look like it's even going to matter. China and India both use predominantly all gasoline, and they're expected to double and triple their number of drivers, which will simply drastically increase the demand.


One thing is for sure though... there will always be SOME kind of liquid or gas that we can burn, and with capitalism... there will always be a company out there to help us retrofit our old cars.


I don't like the subsidy going to E85 either though.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I don't like the subsidy going to E85 either though.

Nor the farm subsidies themselves I'll assume.

quote Originally posted by newf: And what happened to those responsible for the financial meltdown?

Bondholders did not loose all of there holdings. The government didn't take all of the companies assets (bonds and dirivitives) and give them to someone else. Sure values dropped some disappeared but for the most part the people with them still had them after the bailout. Granted they may not have been worth as much.

This non-political thread is about the Volt, right?

Regarding price, etc, the first cars cost many year's income for the average family. Years. By comparison, the Volt is incredibly affordable. Personally I don't know why someone would gripe over the cost of the Volt but turn around and drop 80 large on a leather-lined SUV. Now I do wonder why GM didn't leverage the EV-1. If they'd put that into production they'd own the market for "green" cars like the Prius. The new (at the time) NiMH battery gave it over 100 mile range, and modern LiFo battery technology would have bumped that up maybe another 50-100%. The projected sales price back then was mid-20's, probably a little less than the Volt sells for now, and by now it would be very mature technology.

Hindsight is 20-20, I just wish we'd quit looking backwards and start looking forward more.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: This non-political thread is about the Volt, right? Regarding price, etc, the first cars cost many year's income for the average family. Years. By comparison, the Volt is incredibly affordable. Personally I don't know why someone would gripe over the cost of the Volt but turn around and drop 80 large on a leather-lined SUV. Now I do wonder why GM didn't leverage the EV-1. If they'd put that into production they'd own the market for "green" cars like the Prius. The new (at the time) NiMH battery gave it over 100 mile range, and modern LiFo battery technology would have bumped that up maybe another 50-100%. The projected sales price back then was mid-20's, probably a little less than the Volt sells for now, and by now it would be very mature technology. Hindsight is 20-20, I just wish we'd quit looking backwards and start looking forward more.

I don't know the circles of friends that you hang out with, but I do not know many INTELLEGENT middle income earners dropping $80K for an SUV or any car. During my earning years the most expensive car I purchased was about 30% of my annual income. That was probably my 87 GT.