General Motors' Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid car topped Consumer Reports' annual owner-satisfaction survey for the second straight year.
Ninety-two percent of Volt owners surveyed by the influential consumer magazine said they would definitely buy the Volt again, earning the electric car the top ranking. Last year, 93 percent of respondents said they would buy the car again.
"The Volt's two-year reign at the top of our satisfaction survey points to the continuing trend of owners' enthusiasm for cars that are fuel-efficient, especially as we see more and more hybrid and electric models hitting the market," Consumer Reports' auto editor, Rik Paul, said in a statement.
The Volt, introduced in late 2010, has struggled with early soft sales, criticism from opponents of federal green-car tax credits, and a 2011 government probe of Volt battery fires that found no major problems.
Nevertheless, the Volt, which sells for just under $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, has a devoted following among those who brag about avoiding gas stations. The car can travel about 40 miles on an electric charge before the gasoline-powered engine kicks in for additional driving range.
In addition to the Volt, other fuel-efficient models that scored well in the Consumer Reports survey included the Toyota Camry Hybrid, Prius and Prius C, and the Nissan Leaf all-electric car.
On the other end of the spectrum, the redesigned Nissan Versa small car had the lowest score, with fewer than half of its owners saying they would definitely buy it again. Other low scorers included the V6-engine versions of GM's Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks, and the Nissan Armada, Suzuki SX4 and Mitsubishi Outlander SUVs.
Consumer Reports said its survey received responses from owners of almost 350,000 vehicles spanning the 2010-2013 model years.
That's kinda like the folks that spend big bucks on anything and have it sitting in the drive for all to see. You very rarely talk to anyone who spent that much $$$$$ on anything and will admit they aren't happy with it--even if it's a total turd.
IP: Logged
10:40 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
That's kinda like the folks that spend big bucks on anything and have it sitting in the drive for all to see. You very rarely talk to anyone who spent that much $$$$$ on anything and will admit they aren't happy with it--even if it's a total turd.
Yup.
quote
The Volt’s 92 score edged out the Chevrolet Corvette and Porsche 911 sports cars by 1 point.
IP: Logged
11:37 PM
Nov 30th, 2012
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9115 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
What's not to love? It's not every day you can buy a $250,000 automobile for $35,000.
You're still hung up on the $250k number? That number was calculated using all fixed startup and infrastructure costs and dividing that by the number of Volts made at the time - obviously a stupid way to calculate it.
By that metric, the first few vehicles of any new model year would have catastrophic losses (total retooling costs divided by 2 or 3 vehicles would be "millions lost" on every vehicle).
Or in the words of Lutz:
The statement that GM “loses” over $40K per Volt is preposterous. What the “analyst” in whom poor Ben Klayman placed his faith has done is to divide the total development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced thus far. That’s like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is “losing” 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.
IIRC the variable costs of the Volt almost exactly cover it's purchase price.
IP: Logged
09:58 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Honestly I'm not sure, probably the full $40,000. At least when the car was first released.
But to claim each car costs $250,000 is ridiculous.
GM still has to pay those R&D costs. Economies of scale that make mass production work only work if you have large amounts of production to lower the per unit cost. Until GM is routinely selling LARGE numbers of Volts every year, those R&D costs do add a substantial amount to how much GM spent to build each car.
If GM sells 1 million Volts a year, those R&D costs become pretty insignificant. If they only sell 10k-15k, it's a much bigger chunk. You might not want to count it, but GM had to spend that money up front. Now it remains to be seen if they'll make that money back, and if as you point out they make very little over the cost to build each unit on each car sold, those R&D costs may never be recouped. It has to come from somewhere - like tanking taxpayer held GM stock.
IP: Logged
11:05 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
from what driving I do, and what the car can do - I'd be filling up bi-monthly. how can ya not love that?
Only if it was essentially unbearable to drive. Apparently like the Nissan Versa is to a lot of people.
You still love it. But an interesting analysis would be cost to drive per mile. A car that doesn't get as many mpg (or mpg equivalents), but has a lower purchase price, might still come out ahead.
So maybe you could find a nicer or more fun car to drive that costs less per mile total cost.
But most people can't do those calculations. And those calculations don't figure in how much you just enjoy the car, the driving experience, etc.
And then, finally, there is NO way to objectively measure how good someone can feel about themselves for driving a green car. But, hey, there is no way to objectively measure how good someone feels about themselves for driving a Corvette, either.
IP: Logged
11:23 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
GM still has to pay those R&D costs. Economies of scale that make mass production work only work if you have large amounts of production to lower the per unit cost.
Including fixed costs in the cost of the vehicle is incredibly misleading since the vehicle is still in production, and volume has been increasing. Sure those R&D costs have to be paid for. A much more meaningful metric would be taking all fixed costs and dividing them by the total number of projected sales and then add this to each vehicle.
IP: Logged
11:29 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
If I had a Volt, I wouldn't have to fill up but maybe once every other month. BUT the cost of the vehicle outweighs the fuel savings when compared to the Cruze (similar chassis). So, the Volt does work but there are no real savings. It should have been released as a luxury vehicle, or the price lowered to be in line with other vehicles. The volume increase probably would have made up for the lower revenue. Of course, there is the home charging station, which also adds to the cost of the vehicle. Sure you can plug it in overnight to a 110 outlet, but if you spent the money on the car, you might as well have the charging station installed. In my case I would have to have an electrican come out add a box to my current one (or put a new box in). Then add in the cost of the wire, etc... more money.
IP: Logged
11:35 AM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13798 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Only if it was essentially unbearable to drive. Apparently like the Nissan Versa is to a lot of people.
You still love it. But an interesting analysis would be cost to drive per mile. A car that doesn't get as many mpg (or mpg equivalents), but has a lower purchase price, might still come out ahead.
So maybe you could find a nicer or more fun car to drive that costs less per mile total cost.
But most people can't do those calculations. And those calculations don't figure in how much you just enjoy the car, the driving experience, etc.
And then, finally, there is NO way to objectively measure how good someone can feel about themselves for driving a green car. But, hey, there is no way to objectively measure how good someone feels about themselves for driving a Corvette, either.
yup. after all - My Fiero gets 17 MPG - and I drive it - and love it.
obviously the costs mean different things to different people. and, of course, the Obama influence. parallel this thread with any political thread, and you see the same folk lined up. which, fits, of course. probably didnt like unleaded gas, or front wheel drive either. or the fuel injection stuff.
a Volt would fit into my fleet quite nicely. Its charge fits within range of most of my clients.
but, I also know tech has not improved enough for electric vehicles to be anything but a novelty at the moment. but, thats where it all starts. make a gallon of gasoline. it aint cheap. it aint easy. it aint safe. but, it is because the process has been refined for around 100 years now. anyone poo-poo'ing it is in the same camp of "we cant fly", "cant go to the moon", etc. But, they are right in that it currently is not economical vs the established refined system. if gas vs electric were to start now, with zero development & infrastructure, gas would LOSE BADLY.
IP: Logged
11:50 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
a Volt would fit into my fleet quite nicely. Its charge fits within range of most of my clients.
but, I also know tech has not improved enough for electric vehicles to be anything but a novelty at the moment.
A Volt would fit nicely for me, too. I have a 4 mile drive to work, and 4 mile drive home. So I would rarely need gas. The irony is that the potential savings is greater the more miles I drive with a lower energy cost, and I don't need to drive that many miles.
For me, I was able to score a Mazda3 with skyactiv (hate the name. Oh well) for $15,000 new. So now I have $15000 depreciating in the drive way instead of the $30,000 the Volts are selling for.
I don't get nearly the mpg equivalents, but don't have nearly the initial purchase cost. Funny that if I drove more, it would be more of an advantage to have the Volt. But as long as I could mostly stay within the charge range. Regarding the Obama component, I don't say this to criticize him. I just philosophically disagree. I have experienced new technology over my lifetime. The intial, early adopters paid a hefty premium for it, which helped fund the companies. As the cost then came down, it reached a price point that the masses could attain.
Microwaves, calculators, computers, cell phones, flat screen televisions, etc., etc.
But with the Volt, the early adopters aren't paying for the technology, and so some of that cost is being shifted to taxpayers who will never have the car. "Oh, but it is STILL benefitting me to pay for the development, even though you don't have the car. Because of..."
That is the Obama way. I liked it the other way. But I accept what is going on, like it or not. And don't want that to be the main focus of the conversation.
I could actually see driving a Volt, especially with the leases they had going on. And the value to me would be the low fuel cost, not the driving experience or the warm feeling I would have about feeling green. And the Obama factor wouldn't dissuade me from doing it.
IP: Logged
12:24 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by frontal lobe: ....... But with the Volt, the early adopters aren't paying for the technology, and so some of that cost is being shifted to taxpayers who will never have the car. "Oh, but it is STILL benefitting me to pay for the development, even though you don't have the car. Because of..." ......
that is for ALL electrics, isnt it? not just the Volt? and, we are still subsidizing oil as well. and, there is "overall benefit" to that, is there?
IP: Logged
12:42 PM
V8 Vega Member
Posts: 508 From: Sylmar Calif a part of LA Registered: Jun 2007
Originally posted by fierobear: What businesses receive money from the government? Not oil companies. Tax credits or deductions are NOT money from the government by the way.
so, the tax credits for electric vehicles are not money from the g'ment.....
IP: Logged
03:41 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
That's kinda like the folks that spend big bucks on anything and have it sitting in the drive for all to see. You very rarely talk to anyone who spent that much $$$$$ on anything and will admit they aren't happy with it--even if it's a total turd.
I'll be sure to tell that to everyone who hates their BMW.
IP: Logged
04:13 PM
PFF
System Bot
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
so, the tax credits for electric vehicles are not money from the g'ment.....
It is a credit not a deduction.
(edit: The tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction in your income tax. A $1000 tax credit means you will pay $1000 less tax that year, no matter your tax bracket. It also means that to get a $7,500 tax credit, you must owe at least that much in taxes.)
Uncle will even give you a credit for converting your Fiero to electric, 10% of the cost up to $2,500. expired
You may also be eligible for State and local incentives, depending upon where you live.
Can't the naysayers get your heads around even the possibility that:
1] People who bought Volts knew what they were getting?
2] Wanted it badly enough to pay extra for it? Just because they thought it was cool? Or maybe:
3] It fits their needs and budget?
Full Disclosure: Ain't no Volt in my driveway, nor will there ever be.
And if you're claiming that the total development cost will never be amortized over the number of Volts built, EVER. Don't forget, what GM was paying for was developing the technology. Which can be applied across multiple car lines in the future. So, no, they may never make enough Volts to pay the development costs. But, over the next, what, twenty years? They may build enough hybrids based off what they learned building Volts to make it worthwhile.
IP: Logged
06:27 PM
Celthora87GT Member
Posts: 1485 From: New Berlin, WI Registered: Dec 2010
Can't the naysayers get your heads around even the possibility that:
1] People who bought Volts knew what they were getting?
2] Wanted it badly enough to pay extra for it? Just because they thought it was cool? Or maybe:
3] It fits their needs and budget?
And if you're claiming that the total development cost will never be amortized over the number of Volts built, EVER. Don't forget, what GM was paying for was developing the technology. Which can be applied across multiple car lines in the future. So, no, they may never make enough Volts to pay the development costs. But, over the next, what, twenty years? They may build enough hybrids based off what they learned building Volts to make it worthwhile.
This!
IP: Logged
07:24 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Parallel this thread with any political thread, and you see the same folk lined up. which, fits, of course. probably didnt like unleaded gas, or front wheel drive either. or the fuel injection stuff.
Funny, ain't it.
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:
but, I also know tech has not improved enough for electric vehicles to be anything but a novelty at the moment. but, thats where it all starts. make a gallon of gasoline. it aint cheap. it aint easy. it aint safe. but, it is because the process has been refined for around 100 years now. anyone poo-poo'ing it is in the same camp of "we cant fly", "cant go to the moon", etc. But, they are right in that it currently is not economical vs the established refined system. if gas vs electric were to start now, with zero development & infrastructure, gas would LOSE BADLY.
I don't know why others don't see you as one of the great no-bullsh!tters, like I do. :shrug:
IP: Logged
08:40 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, the tax credits for electric vehicles are not money from the g'ment.....
Correct. However, if something must be subsidized, like electric cars, that means, by definition, they aren't financially viable (can't stand on their own). That is still different than other types of tax credits or business deductions, and still different than government *giving* away money.
IP: Logged
09:54 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
(edit: The tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction in your income tax. A $1000 tax credit means you will pay $1000 less tax that year, no matter your tax bracket. It also means that to get a $7,500 tax credit, you must owe at least that much in taxes.)
Uncle will even give you a credit for converting your Fiero to electric, 10% of the cost up to $2,500. expired
You may also be eligible for State and local incentives, depending upon where you live.
Correct. It's a "non-refundable" tax credit, meaning it can only reduce your tax bill to zero. If you owe $5000 in tax, it reduces your tax burden to 0. If it were a "refundable" tax credit and you owed $5000 in tax, you'd actually get a $2500 refund.
Chevy Volt 60-Day Return Makes Tax Credit Abuse Likely eneral Motors has announced a 60 day money back guarantee policy for all new Chevy models, including the Chevy Volt. The move sets up a scenario where purchasers can buy a Volt, claim the $7,500 federal tax credit (and most likely state credits) and return the vehicle for a refund within 60 days. Did GM really not consider this glitch, or is this just another way for Government Motors to prop up politically important Volt sales leading up to November elections?
IRS tax form 8936, for plug-in motor vehicle credit, does not have any minimum time requirement for buyers to own their qualified vehicles. The vehicle only has to be new and purchased during the tax year being claimed. Buyers of Volts will have documentation and VIN numbers for qualifying vehicles.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-30-2012).]
And the Obama factor wouldn't dissuade me from doing it.
