Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea Party Get What They Want With False Attacks on Chevy Volt

[kristopher]

Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea Party Get What They Want With False Attacks on Chevy Volt: 1300 GM Lay-Offs
By Joe Romm on Mar 3, 2012 at 10:01 am


Yesterday, General Motors told 1,300 Detroit employees “they will be temporarily laid off for five weeks” due to lower than expected demand for its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle.

No doubt there are many contributing factors, but in January, GM CEO Dan Akerson explained:
We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.

He had been called in to testify by the Tea-Party crowd running the U.S. House in a hearing witch-hunt titled, “Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?” Yes, that’s a reference to Nixon and Watergate!

In fact, NHSTA concluded it does not believe the Volt and other electric vehicles “pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.”

As TP Green reports...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/03/437116/limbaugh-fox-news-tea-party-false-attacks-chevy-volt-gm-lay-offs/

Media Matters put together this video of the conservative media misrepresentations:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201201270003

[mdmc]

1. My dad just purchased a Prius, and it had nothing to do with the tea party

My old man is a man of cars. He lives them. Always has, always will..

[earthside]

2. "No doubt there are many contributing factors"

Like a $40,000+ price tag.

Face it, the Volt experiment has failed.

It should be back to the drawing board for Chevrolet ... perhaps from the Volt experience they can design a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle that is affordable.

[madokie]

3. You can't design your way out of greed and thats whats at play here

teh stupid it burns
GM not you

[tinrobot]

5. Oil companies are not greedy?

How much are you spending on gasoline, oil, and tax dollars for the armies needed to invade oil-rich countries?

[madokie]

7. Not very much bro'

tax dollars yes but I have no control over that. Anyways you're not being serious when you said that oil companies are not greedy are you

[tinrobot]

10. I'm saying oil companies are very, very greedy.

Personally, I'm done giving money to them.

Bought an EV from a greedy car company instead.

[madokie]

11. My bad.

You done good on the EV purchase

[tinrobot]

4. Very myopic. Don't forget how expensive it is to fill gas tanks.

You can get a Volt for $0 down and $369/month here in California. With gas at over $4.00/gallon, most people will save $100-$200 per month in fuel costs alone, not to all the mention hidden costs associated with oil.

If you have the least bit of concern about our dependance on oil, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

[kristopher]

6. Price vs volume 2010

Throughout the month, TTAC tries to go back to recent sales numbers in hopes of providing greater context for the industry’s day-to-day decisions. On the first of each month, however, we get so overwhelmed with volume numbers, we thought we’d take this opportunity to explore the price-volume frontier. Inspired by recent rumors of a 120k unit production goal for the $41k Volt and the ensuing discussion of the BMW 3 Series’ unique position on the price-volume frontier, we thought we’d feel around the data for this mythical plateau. Sadly our unsophisticated graphing software (and overworked editor) didn’t allow for a more full exploration of high-priced vehicles reaching near-mass-market volumes, so we put together a “basket” of higher-priced, strong-selling models. And though we obviously cherry-picked a little, we did use four manufacturers to indicate an approximate “delta” between price (base MSRP) and volume (2010 numbers). Are there outliers to our “price-volume frontier”? Possibly. Did we leave out the most interesting area of the graph (the mass-market vehicles) Definitely. But in the process we have hopefully proved that selling over 100k units of a vehicle costing $40k or more is not a goal to be taken lightly.

From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/02/chart-of-the-day-the-price-volume-frontier/

[TexasBill]

8. Neanderthals did not force Volt suspension

While we might like to believe in their oppression and they might like to believe in their power, the Axis of Evil did not force the suspension of Chevrolet Volt production. As a matter of fact, other than a one-month blip, neither did the NHTSA investigation.

From a safety viewpoint, the Volt is as good as any other battery-powerered car. In fact, since the GM fix, it's probably better. The power cells are now very well protected against punctures or leakage.

The real issue with the Volt is the price. Not long ago, in research for an article, I did a cost/benefit analysis of the Volt and it's actually a complete loser in comparison to other vehicles. Even in 100% electric mode, measured by the same criterion used by the government, the savings do not begin to cover the huge difference in cost, even including the full value of the government incentive.

BTW: That government incentive touted in ads for the Volt, LEAF. Mitsubishi i-EV and upcoming Ford Focus Electric are a bit misleading because it's promoted as being like the government rebate from the "Cash for Clunkers" program. The incentive is a non-refundable tax credit of up to $7,500.00. What this means is that you have to have an additional one-year tax liability of $7,500 or more, after all deductions and other credits have been applied, to get the full value of the credit. If you don't owe that much, you only get the amount equal to the remaining taxes owed. If you don't owe any additional taxes, your credit for buying the Volt or LEAF is zero. A non-refundable credit means the government does not issue a refund for the balance.

Compare the purchase of a Chevrolet Volt to a comparably-equipped Chevrolet Cruze ECO: in the 75,000-mile example used by the EPA, the cost of the vehicle, plus fuel or power (at the national average rates) is $7,123 higher for the Volt than the Cruze, even with the full value of the tax credit. Without the credit, the cost differential is $14,623. That's running the Volt only on electric power for the entire 75,000 miles. A mix of 75% electric and 25% gasoline comes out to a difference of $8,264 with the credit or $15,764 without it. You save nearly enough by buying the Cruze Eco to buy another Cruze Eco.

What if gas goes to $5,00/gallon? In pure electric mode, the Volt is still $4,314 more expensive, including the credt, or $11,814 without it.

Another kicker is the fact the EPA uses the national average price of a kilowatt-hour from 2010. That's $0.115/kWH. In the states where the Volt, LEAF and others are hot items, the cost is higher. In New York, for example, the rate is $0.1863/kWH. In California, it's $0.153/kWH. So, in California, gasoline has to average $7.349/gallon without an increase in electric power rates for the entire 75,000 miles for the Volt to break even compared to the Chevrolet Cruze ECO.

If the breakthrough recently announced by Envia can be translated into mass production, it would make a big difference, but it still doesn't address battery power's second Achilles heel: charging times. Rapid chargers can add another $2,000 to the cost of a LEAF because they not only require the special charger itself but a dedicated 220/240Volt, 40 Amp circuit that must be installed by a qualified electrician almost anywhere in the U.S. If you have a lot of time (up to 20 hours), you can charge the battery using standard household current but, here again, there's a kicker: household wiring is not designed for prolonged use at maximum current draw. There is a potential for fires if the wiring overheats or the house has old wiring, such as aluminum.

Please understand I am not knocking anyone who likes the Volt. I began downsizing my personal vehicles almost 20 years ago and would have bought a Volkswagen TDI diesel last time had one been available. However, as things stand right now, the Volt isn't a sufficiently compelling vehicle for most buyers unless they want to make an environmental statement and have the money to do so. As sales figures for electric cars have shown so far, that is a very tiny segment of the population.

So, it was the numbers, not the Neanderthals, that forced GM to curtail Volt production.

[kristopher]

9. So manufacturers advertise because publicity doesn't affect buyer preferences?

Your case is not at all persuasive. In fact, it reads as little more than yet another recitation of Koch Brothers' talking points.

For example, how is the tax incentive "misleading"? By the standard you are apparently using, any incentive program that every consumer doesn't understand fully prior to exhibiting any interest in a vehicle is "misleading. BTW, unless I miss my guess, any unused portions of the tax credit will carry forward until used.

Why should the cost comparison be to the Cruze? People pay more for thousands more for diesel engines in pickup trucks all the time even when it doesn't make good economic sense to do so. Does that merit hundreds of "analysis" claiming diesels in pickups are dead? Or is the nature of the "analysis" for the Volt really reflective of a well funded FUD campaign that is entirely consistent with the modus operandi of the Koch Brothers?

Is the Volt pricey? Sure, but so is a Cadillac in comparison to a comparable Chevy or a F250 diesel in relation to an F250 gas. So what? People routinely find value in the product that justifies to them paying the premium.

Your overtly negative slant belies the objectivity you claimed.