Chevrolet Dealers Reject Volt Allocation

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

With concurrent news that some GM dealers are trying to game the vehicle allocation system comes news that Chevrolet dealers are outright rejecting shipments of the Chevrolet Volt.

The gist of the story seems to be that dealers are waiting for the controversy over the NHTSA probe to die down, and GM’s reps aren’t putting pressure on the dealers to take on more Volt inventory. Automotive News reports that while 104 Volts were allocated to 14 New York City area dealerships, dealers only took 31 cars. Other eligible vehicles have a take rate among dealers of over 90 percent, making the Volt the least popular car among dealers in the NYC region.

Despite GM President Mark Reuss’ insistence that “We haven’t satisfied demand,” Volt sales were well short of their initial target, and GM has dropped their 2012 goal of selling 60,000 Volts worldwide, with 45,000 being sold in the United States.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Join the conversation
6 of 74 comments
  • Jimal Jimal on Jan 23, 2012

    What GM should do is abandon the sales goals for this version of the Volt and use what they can and have sold as the proof of concept while finding other platforms to adapt the Voltec system. The core problem with GM that encompasses all of GM's problems is consumer skepticism. GM has a long track record of not doing innovative things well. I thiink the Voltec drivetrain in general is a winner in the long run, and perhaps if gas prices spike again the Volt will do well. The last thing GM needs to do is make another short sighted decision and kill it.

    • SCE to AUX SCE to AUX on Jan 24, 2012

      The Cadillac Converj was killed once because it would have cost $60k and gone only 20 miles in EV mode. I suspect it will be killed again. If GM can't sell the Voltec platform under the Chevy name, how will they sell any under another badge, and certainly for more money? The Voltec platform is a technological wonder, but has too long of a payback for short-run commuters, and poor fuel economy for long-run commuters. Its price and association with the bailout are buzzkills. As for gasoline prices, gas is cheap, since it's at the same inflation-adjusted level as 1979. Just witness how many F150s and GM trucks are sold.

  • Carlson Fan Carlson Fan on Jan 24, 2012

    "By the bye, the 62mph would not be much of a problem during rush hour. This morning, nobody was doing over 20 on I-94. In the metro area, the posted speeds are 55 and on the beltway, it’s 60." It's ridiculous to use yesterday as an example when the highways were a virtual parking lot due to weather. If I drive 60 MPH on Crosstown, 94, any highway during rush hour, I'll be the slowest car on the road in the Twin Cities. I think your wrong about the 62 MPH but I'll look into it. My point is unlike the PIP, the Volt has no limitations in EV mode and 4X the range. It truly is an EV. The PIP, not really.

    • KixStart KixStart on Jan 24, 2012

      On the East end of town, 94 often backs up to 3M and when conditions are bad or there's an incident it can back up to 494. The idea here is to provide some EV capability for commuters. Most commuters are going to encounter slowdowns along the way. Use the EV miles there. On a 20-mile round-trip commute, between using secondaries to get to the expressways and then creeping along in traffic, much or all of the EV mileage will get used up. The Prius PHV isn't a perfect solution... it's just a reasonable approach designed to hit a price point that makes it tolerably attractive. After the small battery goes dead or when the road clears up and you can do better than 62... you go on gas. It's not a car for the EV-freak purists. For the typical commuter, it will likely use considerably less gas than the already thrifty Prius.

  • Fsuszka Fsuszka on Jan 29, 2012

    MrWhopee, political football? Why is that do you suppose? We bail GM out with our tax dollars that could better be spent on other things, they owe us billions and haven’t paid back one dime to date and oh yes, the poor performance of the vehicle, the safety issues and the outrageous cost of ownership. Obama tells us that GM is doing well and they turn around and are thinking about building the Volt in China? They what? Yes you read correctly. Why not, GM workers are being paid upwards of $75.00 an hour so why not build it off shore and save on labor costs. Not to mention giving away more of our high tech technology. So what do we have? A president that isn’t telling the truth, “again” and an overpriced poor performing car that will eventually become their “Edsel” at our expense. It doesn’t matter what political party you belong to. It boils down to the fact the car is an overpriced failure that no one wants. (You know, like Obamas failed economic policies.) You even said the Prius is better. Hard to believe you said that in light of the content of your post. You also said, “I’ve observed that, if you’re a certain kind of loyal Republican, you’re supposed to hate on the Volt and say something negative about “Obama” whenever the car is mentioned.” Not only the car Mr. Whopee, don’t forget the “bailed out” financial institutions. Oh, by the way Mr. Whopee, I hold no allegiance to any political party in case you want to use that in a reply. I am non-partisan and always have been. The bottom line is economics. As you so aptly pointed out, this was a “concept car” back in 2005. Pointing out that Bush was in office is like blaming him for Obama putting us in debt. What if, (I like playing this game), what if Obama was president at that time. What would you say then? You have presented a biased reply. Obama wants everyone to buy “electric cars” in the hopes of reducing energy, producing clean air and getting away from foreign oil. Hmmm Right. In theory it works well. In actuality it leaves a lot to be desired. You’re “sort-of” isn’t a political punching bag. It’s reality. Drive electric cars, use more energy, burn more fossil fuel and pollute the air more. Yeah that makes sense to me. Why not. You stated you frequently mistake thinking that technology is about technology and people should make decisions based on this? Why? In these hard times I think about the technology but base my decisions on what I or in this case, my family and I can afford. I’m not going any further in debt to have one of these overpriced poor performing vehicles regardless of what Obama says. What will it cost me to own this better than sliced bread technology. I’m pleased you get schooled on this belief. I would imagine that the schooling comes from you very astute and intelligent wife. I commend her for her observations if this be the case. Your post script has many well put points. It negates most of what you said in the bulk of your post. With the economy being what it is and jobs being hard to find, I would stick with the shoe that fits. If I want technology in a vehicles, I will look toward a more even keel kind of car… I mean after all, the Ford Eclipse gets what??? 40MPG, parks itself and talks to you? BWG Listen to your wife. More men should listen to their wives. The would have less trouble.

  • Chiefhighliner Chiefhighliner on May 08, 2012

    Another person said it perfectly: you can't sell a $41,000 economy car. I will never buy an electric car in this lifetime. The people who control the energy will just raise the rates. Since we drive gasoline-powered cars, we are at the mercy of the oil companies. They can charge whatever they want and we have to pay it or we can't drive. If everyone had electric cars, the price of electricity would quadruple or quintuple, just like gasoline did. In 2001, it was about $1.05 a gallon. Now it is $4.00 a gallon and higher. So, no matter what we do, the greedy corporations will always take advantage of the poor. There is no way under the sun I would pay $41,000 for a car unless it was a cool car like a Mustang or a Camaro. I think better still--since 90% of all commuters who drive have no passengers--is a cost-effective and safe jet pack. We need to rise above the traffic. Hang it all, it's 2012, how long do we have to wait for our cool invention??? The telephone, the phonograph, the TV, personal computer, what have you. Where is our really innovative invention that can change the way we live? And I'm not talking about a 4-G cellphone or some chinzy gadget, but a life-changing invention. A revolutionary invention. Something that gets us off the ground!