By on March 2, 2012

TTAC’s “Two Minutes Hate” was nearly torpedoed today – our best story was about a “wealth manager” and an Audi RS5. It turns out that  we have some real news with which to aim our invective; GM is suspending Volt production again to eliminate excess inventory.

The Hamtramck plant will be shut for 5 weeks, from March 19th to April 23rd. GM currently has a 154 day supply of the car. 1,300 workers will be temporarily laid off. Despite this, the official line remains a cheery “Volt sales have doubled” from last month, just like the Ford Focus is up 115 percent year-over-year. Of course, this is just a minor story which we’re promoting due to our anti-GM bias – excuse us while we report on car crashes involving “sexual anus plugs“.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

128 Comments on “GM Suspending Volt Production For 5 Weeks...”


  • avatar
    jhott997

    Looks like this validates yesterday’s editorial on the Volt sales.
    Now I will sit back and read the excuses from GM’s apologists.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      I have to say that it looks like Ed was right!

    • 0 avatar
      Volt 230

      Didn’t we read last week that they had re-started production again, this is like a bad Hollywood movie that keeps getting stalled cause the script sucks!

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        That was based on the premise that Obama could convince the Federal Government Fleet buyers to buy thousands of Volts. That met with strong opposition from fleet buyers everywhere since much better alternatives are available at much lower costs (without subsidy of taxpayers).

        It remains to be seen if GE and other corporate Obama supporters will follow though on their pledge to buy hundreds of Volts for use as their corporate vehicles.

        When doing a cost analysis of the Volt against, for instance, a Cruze, the Cruze clearly is the better deal at a lower cost.

  • avatar
    texlovera

    GM: Mark of Excrement

  • avatar
    Rob Finfrock

    Very nice forecast article yesterday, Derek. Now, could you let us know what next week’s Lotto numbers are going to be?

  • avatar
    minneapolis_lakers

    Must be a problem with the supplier or retooling the factory?

    The Volt has been a brilliant success for Government Motors, afterall.

  • avatar
    minneapolis_lakers

    Must be a problem with suppliers or retooling the factory?

  • avatar
    thornmark

    >>GM Suspending Volt Production For 5 Weeks<<

    Due to unpopular demand.

    >>””We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder,” Akerson said. <<

    Yes, and generations will wonder why it was ever produced.

  • avatar
    Lokki

    The halt in production doesn’t count Canadian sales, product in transit, or Ampera sales so it’s not an accurate picture of demand …

  • avatar
    replica

    It doesn’t matter if GM made a car that got a billion miles to the gallon. The product image for that hipster baby bird saving swagger is squarely owned by the Prius.

  • avatar
    cackalacka

    GM should be taking a long view, pricing these to sell. Better to take a hit now per unit, generate legitimate buzz/desire for the thing.

    Sounds like they’re doing the GM thing to do, which is to open the lunch-pail and swap the sandwich, cookies, and chips for Toyota/Nissan’s napkins.

    • 0 avatar
      jhott997

      “GM should be taking a long view, pricing these to sell”
      You have never been inside GM. They are functionally incapable, as an organizational culture, of looking beyond the next few months.
      They simply don’t “plan” and when they do “plan” the “plan” changes so many times along the way that the “plan” is irrelevant anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        cackalacka

        I, for one, look forward to having my salary garnished again to save the rust belt distributors in another 10 years, while seeing 3rd generation Leafs cruising around with high capacity quick-charge batteries.

      • 0 avatar
        Southerner

        jhott: in the navy this is known as “change 1”, followed by an inevitable “change 1 to ‘change 1′”; and on and on…

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        “They are functionally incapable, as an organizational culture, of looking beyond the next few months.”

        Yes, and the fact that even a single car platform takes years to develop is certainly supportive of your ludicrous assertion.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Conventional wisdom says that production costs for the Volt will drop significantly if volume increases. This is not going to be true for its battery pack; lithium ion prices just aren’t dropping. In fact, higher production of lithium ion powered products may actually increase costs due to higher demand.

      I suspect GM knows this, and simply can’t afford to continue selling Volts at a loss, which will only worsen if they a)continue production, or b)lower prices.

      This outcome was as predictable as a Hallmark TV movie, but less cheerful.

      • 0 avatar
        daviel

        What higher buyer demand? When? I am looking for that 3rd generation Leaf.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @daviel: Regarding lithium ion demand, I was speaking of total consumption – cell phones, laptops, tablets, electric cars, and smart grids. Cost per WH has leveled off for now, after decreasing for years.

        http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/battery_statistics

        Tesla, Nissan, and Mitsubishi face the same challenge. Their economies of scale will come from things other than the battery packs.

        Personally, I would like to have a Leaf but I don’t pay enough in taxes to even get the full tax credit.

      • 0 avatar
        Firestorm 500

        Oh, I don’t know. They sold Saturns at a loss the whole time they made them.

  • avatar
    Geekcarlover

    When I heard this story on the radio I somehow knew the GM/Volt haters & apologists would be pulling the long knives.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      There’d be a lot less hate if the taxpayers weren’t still on the hook for $50 billion, and if the Volt hadn’t been fanfared with the 230 MPG banner, and if it wasn’t the poster child for ‘cars Americans want to buy’, and if it didn’t require more taxpayer money incentives to move them.

      Suspension of Impala production would garner a yawn around here, and for good reason.

    • 0 avatar
      Southerner

      Geek: Not hate, schadenfreude!

  • avatar
    galaxygreymx5

    Welp, egg on my face with a plate of crow here.

    I hope they really are “matching supply with demand” and not beginning the end of the project. If Toyota had given up on the Prius in 2001 because of slack demand the automotive landscape would be a very different place right now.

    Fingers crossed that GM sticks with something long enough to make it profitably viable. Now I’m going to stroll past the parking lot and, oh, look, a Fiero. And a Reatta. And an EV1. A Saturn, an Aurora, and G8 are right around the corner…

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I suspect the Volt Death Watch has already begun inside GM. You’ll notice how quiet the news has been lately about expanding the Voltec platform.

      Voltec will never be profitable because it’s a two-engine platform (80 HP gas, 149 HP electric). Consider how much easier Nissan’s job is for the Leaf since it only has one engine.

      As for the Prius, its market demand was never low. After its pilot year 1997 (300 sold), 1998 saw 17k sales, and demand grew from there.

      • 0 avatar
        galaxygreymx5

        I meant first-year sales of the Prius in the US, which were about 5k units.

        I was Prius shopping then (guess I’m an early adopter) and believe me, they were stacked deep at Toyota of Hollywood. Interest in the car was roughly zero initially.

        I hope you’re wrong about the Volt Death Watch, as I love mine, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Oh well, at least there appear to be many more plug-in options coming on the market to choose from when my lease is up.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Voltec will never be profitable because it’s a two-engine platform (80 HP gas, 149 HP electric).”

        The platform is GM’s global compact car platform. The Cruze uses the same basic platform, and it’s obviously a high volume car.

        If you’re referring to the drivetrain, then that same thing can be said of any hybrid.

        “As for the Prius, its market demand was never low.”

        I don’t know where you’re getting that from, but it’s wrong. First year US sales were during 2000, with 5,562 units. It took five years to break the 50,000 unit sales mark.

        http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/docs/hev_sales.xls

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @Pch101: The Cruze ‘platform’ may share portions of the 1.4T engine and some chassis parts with the Volt, but little else. It’s not a $45k car with a second engine and a big battery.

        At what point do you think the Volt will ever reach 50k sales in a year? I bet the production line will be shut down again, and sales this year won’t exceed 10k.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “The Cruze ‘platform’ may share portions of the 1.4T engine and some chassis parts with the Volt, but little else.”

        You’re confusing the platform with the drivetrain. The drivetrain is unique (at least for now), but the platform is not. The platform is a high volume global platform, which is not unique to the Volt. That aspect of the R&D has a broad base over which to be amortized.

        “At what point do you think the Volt will ever reach 50k sales in a year?”

        I don’t know if it ever will. As I have noted, I suspect that GM isn’t very serious about the Volt, otherwise it wouldn’t be inclined to shut down the line at the drop of a hat. If GM was committed to it, it would be focusing on increasing sales volumes, not on cutting production when there are only two units of inventory for every Chevy dealer in the US.

    • 0 avatar
      FromaBuick6

      I don’t think the comparison with the first-generation Prius is a valid one. The Prius and original Honda Insight were pretty radical. EVs weren’t new; the GM EV-1 got quite a bit of press only a few years earlier. But nobody had combined gas and electric before. Initial sales were slow, but those cars opened the floodgates and turned consumers on to the idea of alternative powertrains.

      Moreover, gas was still really cheap when the Prius went on sale.

      Today, there’s myriad hybrid options. And several pure EVs. And lots of plug-in hybrids on the way. The Volt is totally lost in the mix. It’s not a real EV. It’s not a very good hybrid. It is not a watershed product by any stretch of the imagination.

      Between this and their stupid mild-hybrids (that they’ve had to rebrand as “E-Assist” because the mileage is too lousy for a hybrid), GM just doesn’t compete in the green segment. I think they stubbornly refuse to do hybrids like every other manufacturer just to satisfy their own corporate hubris, rather than actually sell lots of cars and make money.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “those cars opened the floodgates”

        Not much of a flood for anyone other than Toyota.

        During 2011, there were about 269,000 hybrids sold in the US. About 179,000 of those, or 2/3rd’s, were sold by Toyota or Lexus, with just the Prius alone holding half of the hybrid market. Honda got about another 12% of the hybrid market, which left the remaining 22% to be divided among nine other automakers, including GM.

        http://www.hybridcars.com/news/december-2011-dashboard-sales-still-climbing-35093.html

        The hybrid market is unquestionably dominated by TMC, and it is arguably already saturated. I don’t see how GM could possibly out-Prius the Prius. Simply copying Toyota probably wouldn’t help, either.

  • avatar
    kevnsd

    Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch!
    King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
    Black Knight: No, it isn’t!
    King Arthur: Well, what’s that then?
    King Arthur: I’ve had worse.
    King Arthur: You liar!
    Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!
    [they fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight’s right arm]
    King Arthur: Victory is mine!
    [kneels to pray]
    King Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy –
    [cut off by the Knight kicking him]
    Black Knight: Come on, then.
    King Arthur: What?
    Black Knight: Have at you!
    King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
    Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
    King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You’ve got no arms left!

  • avatar
    Steven02

    Thanks for including the supply in days numbers. I think that is a big help. Now, if GM has 154 days of supply, a 5 week shutdown would seem to be too short unless they are going to start exporting model soon. Any word on why they are planning on restarting in 5 weeks?

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Hope and change.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Thanks for including the supply in days numbers. I think that is a big help.”

      Again, it really tells you nothing. Let’s break this down, shall we?

      The Volt has sold about 8700 units in the US over the last twelve months. If you measure days of inventory on that basis, then 6000 units amounts to about eight months worth of inventory, not five months.

      To get to this 150+ day level requires ignoring most of the sales data and then assuming flat sales thereafter. That doesn’t make much sense, as it is presumptuous to assume that a limited amount of sales data should simply be projected forward.

      On the other hand, one would hope that some effort is being made to increase the sales rate, which means that the historical data that is being used is too low to determine the number of units to be built. So yet again, days of inventory isn’t helpful in this case.

      The current inventory is 6000 units. If it was a high volume car, such as a Toyota Corolla or Camry, then that might amount to about a week or ten days worth of inventory. For a lower volume car, it might be a few months of inventory.

      To put it another way, 6000 units is about two Volts for every Chevrolet dealership in the United States. That’s just not a lot of cars.

      With such low numbers, the issue here isn’t a lack of demand, per se. The issue is that GM is not doing enough to generate interest in the minimal inventory that it does have.

      It really shouldn’t be tough to build 1500-2000 units per month of just about anything with four tires and a steering wheel, and to sell them. GM manages to hit those kinds of numbers with even the worst of its cars.

      Shutting down the line on the basis of 6000 units being excessive is a strong indication that GM is not particularly serious about selling the Volt. (The fact that they opted to build it in a factory in which no other Delta-platform cars are assembled may be another hint.) It makes no sense to build the car on the assumption that so few of them can be sold.

      • 0 avatar
        Steven02

        I think that a 12 month avg for days of supply would be too long for an average. It would be much better to see a 3 to 4 month average in my opinion. Recent sales show much more about the trend of sales.

        Seeing sales for a single month vs production is a poor measure. I think there can be lots of variables during a single month that can take into account, like SUA investigations or battery fires.

        Now, we have seen from previous sales data that the Volt is outselling several other cars in the US market. I think that GM is serious about selling the Volt as they continue to have commercials for it on TV. Now, I don’t think the commercials are the best, but they are there.

        I think you should look into data to see how many cars don’t sell 24k units a year. I think you are going to find that most of these are higher priced cars. Oh, and did the Leaf sell 24k units in the US last year? No, it didn’t. Globally, the Volt could probably sell 24k a year as well.

        Honestly, I don’t think the Volt fits the needs of most people at its current price. There are some serious flaws with the concept and many people hate the gov’t motors tag. I might be interested in seeing what a used lease version will be selling for in a few years. I have driven one and liked it, but no way I am going to pay that much for it.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “I think that a 12 month avg for days of supply would be too long for an average.”

        Car sales are seasonal. When a product is seasonal, then it is necessary to use annual measures in order to account for that seasonality, otherwise you’re just kidding yourself.

        It is also necessary to have normalized data. A newly introduced product should be seeing sales growth as marketing, promotion, etc. begin to take effect.

        And that is why days of inventory for something like this is useless. It’s new, and there is no normalized sales data that can be used to determine demand. With only these sorts of inputs available, the statistic is GIGO.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        “one would hope that some effort is being made to increase the sales rate”

        Obviously, yes, except that GM loses money on the Volt, which higher volume will not solve.

        “Shutting down the line on the basis of 6000 units being excessive is a strong indication that GM is not particularly serious about selling the Volt.”

        Why would this be, after spending $1 billion to develop it? What sort of company does that? Or… could it just be another of GM’s colossal failures?

      • 0 avatar
        Paul Niedermeyer

        How many Corvettes are there in inventory for each Chevy dealer? The Volt and corvette play somewhat similar halo-car roles, and sell at similar levels (Corvette: 13k units in 2011).

        Is the Corvette profitable? Is the fact that Corvette sales have dropped dramatically since 2008 an issue? Should we start a GMDW because Corvette sales are down?

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @Paul N: I’m not suggest a GM Death Watch, only a Volt Death Watch.

        I think the term ‘halo’ car is misapplied to the Volt. Very few people – except enthusiasts and politicians – would think of it that way. Its death won’t be noticed except by those people.

        The Corvette is unquestionably a halo car; even soccer moms would agree. I don’t know if it’s profitable, but its death would be noticed by everyone.

        GM has indeed been profitable, but my long-term concerns for it lie not with the Volt, but with problems like Opel.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Why would this be, after spending $1 billion to develop it?”

        My guess is that this is largely a holdover project of the Old GM (which then used it to support its bailout story, even though the company would have been bailed out, anyway).

        The New GM inherited the Volt from the old company, which paid for much of the R&D, and is probably more interested in the short-term profits that are available from its US conventional compact car, mid-size, CUV and pickup truck sales than in throwing much cash into building awareness and desire for what was someone else’s project.

        Toyota is willing to take the long view; the Prius took years to develop into a viable, profitable car, but they made the effort to nurture it, anyway. I question whether GM is willing to make that same sort of commitment.

        In that sense, it could be similar to Saturn, which was supported by Roger Smith when he was CEO but then was largely neglected after he left. Nobody wanted to incur the costs of just getting rid of it altogether, but they starved it of resources to the point that it could no longer be resurrected. They won’t kill the Volt, they’ll just build them in low numbers and use the lackluster results to prove that nobody wants a green car.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @Pch101: Your theory about letting the Volt die on the vine is an interesting one, as well as where/when its development money was spent.

        If GM is abandoning the ‘green’ effort, that would be inconflict with the government’s view of the world.

        Given GM’s historically abject failure with hybrids (Saturn Green Line, trucks, EV1, mild hybrids), you may be right on this point. My opinion is that the hybrid thing is a bandwagon that not every mfr should feel obliged to jump on. Chrysler abandoned hybrids long ago. It’s particularly laughable when I see the likes of Ferrari and Lamborghini talking about adding hybrid capability to their cars.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        In this context, comparisons of the Volt to the Corvette don’t work.

        The Corvette is an old nameplate. Its format (two seat sports car) has been in the market for some time. Accordingly, its demand is well established, and it makes perfect sense to calculate a days of inventory figure for the Corvette, and to use it in order to manage production.

        The Corvette also carries a much higher price tag. It should be possible to make a profit on low volumes when the MSRP’s start at about $50,000 and go into the six figures.

        In contrast, the Volt is a new product, and a somewhat experimental one at that. Net of the tax credit, it is priced similarly to a near-luxury car or a high-end family car — not a bargain, but not exactly at the top of market, either.

        Accordingly, it is still not yet clear what the demand for the Volt is, which makes any days of inventory calculation inherently flawed. As such, GM should be building a market for it in order to figure out what the demand could be, and it should be building inventory in line with reasonable sales objectives, rather than merely relying upon past sales data. For something like this, the demand argument made by GM management is just bogus.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “If GM is abandoning the ‘green’ effort, that would be inconflict with the government’s view of the world.”

        Don’t fall into the right-wing trap of hyping up this stuff. I realize that much of the TTAC readership is gullible for that rhetoric, but there’s no real meat behind it.

        In the real world, governments in countries with auto industries generally aspire to protect those industries, as car production offers potential for export income and high-wage employment.

        In the United States, where talk of tax increases is verboten, we use green tech soundbites and toothless CAFE rules as substitutes for increases to the gas tax. Washington talks green out of one side of its mouth while encouraging pickup trucks out of the other. Over the long run, it won’t matter to the politicos whether the Volt is a hit. Don’t believe the hype.

  • avatar

    Remind me again why TTAC called off the Volt Death Watch? Or the GM Death Watch for that matter.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Nice to hear from you; all is now right with the world.

      Methinks the VDW ended when production began.

    • 0 avatar
      PintoFan

      Because TTAC does occasionally provide some insightful reporting on the industry rather than a series of immature bombasts about their least favorite companies.

      • 0 avatar

        I treat all companies equally, in that I really don’t care one way or the other who lives or dies. Once you see how sausage is made, you become a vegetarian.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Pintofan, ttac doesn’t create the news or the sales numbers for the Volt. A lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum recognize that GM is a money-losing entity and that the Volt sales numbers merely reflect what the real-world buyers think.

        Although I am no longer active in new car retail I still prefer to read ttac over everything that’s out there including the trades. There simply is no better reporting or more astute insight anywhere.

        During one of the sales and marketing conferences I attended last year one of the speakers asked the question if anyone in the audience read ttac online. A majority of hands went up.

        The question was then asked if anyone had never heard of ttac. No hands went up out of a group of over 500 national sales managers. That should tell you something. Pros read ttac.

      • 0 avatar
        Paul Niedermeyer

        highdesertcat: “A lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum recognize that GM is a money-losing entity”

        I guess they didn’t get the memo about GM’s $7.6 billion profit in 2011.

        Don’t mistake me for a GM apologist, but your comment is a joke. Maybe folks are reading too much TTAC?

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Paul, don’t come in here with your TTAC credentials and your facts and accounting figures that shows that GM is quite profitable. The B&B (some) are having their daily GM misinformation fest. Don’t you know how misinformation works, if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Now repeat this 100 times while clicking your heels…

        GM is unprofitable…
        GM is unprofitable…
        GM is unprofitable…

        Don’t you feel better now.

        I predict GM is dead by 2014 with the amount of cash burn on their sheets balance sheets ;-)

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Paul, GM’s current profit doesn’t go very far when held up against its current and future liabilities and debts. And GM’s sustainability to continue to make profits is in doubt, especially in Europe.

        But since the precedent has already been set, GM will soldier on at tax payer expense with special tax accommodations and write-offs not afforded other automakers who provide jobs to Americans in America. That’s what causes concern on the part of industry watchers.

        I have always been a GM fan and have owned many GM products over the decades. But even I could see that GM’s products (Caddy, Olds, Silverado) were not without serious problems. I don’t have problems any more with my foreign brand cars built in America.

        Buying Ford was no different. My wife’s Towncar needed so much TLC and part-replacement that I inspired the local Autozone to build a larger store.

        My comment was not meant as a joke as it reflects the sentiments of a growing segment of the population, inside and outside the US auto industry.

        A down and dirty comparison of bailed-out auto companies is often brought into the spot light by people in the financial sector who were not bailed out, and that is of GM vis-a-vis Chrysler. Clearly, the results with Chrysler are the preferred way to go.

        What people choose to read is directly related to the quality of the writing. You should be able to read from your hits how many people actually read ttac. Many other boards can only wish that they would get as many hits.

      • 0 avatar
        wsn

        Paul, your statement that “I guess they didn’t get the memo about GM’s $7.6 billion profit in 2011” missed the point that the $7.6B is only GM’s operating profit. That, is an entirely different concept from the kind of profit a family small business would make.

        While GM was making that $7.6B during 2011, what kind of long term debts were piled onto GM? Such as pension liability, cars sitting on lots that will eventually need manufacture cash on the hood to move. Also consider the negative equity caused by its competitor’s further advance in technology (such as TMC’s improvements). Everything combined, chances are that GM is still losing money and that’s why investors valued it at roughly 30% the value of TMC.

    • 0 avatar
      Johnny Canada

      Simply a lack of testicular fortitude.

    • 0 avatar
      Paul Niedermeyer

      Robert, there never was a Volt Death Watch. There was a Volt Birth Watch, which mostly consisted of your highly-certain proclamations that the Volt was vaporware and would never come to pass.

      GM Death Watch? For a company that booked a $7.6 billion profit in 2011? Now that would go over well.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Paul you have it all wrong.

        The Cruze is just a Daweoo.

        GM is like, totally dependent on large truck and SUV sales to survive and gas is going to $5 a gallon.

        The Sonic is just an Aveo by any other name.

        Buick is not a global brand.

        China don’t count. China sales what sales? GM just sells crappy Chinese vans and claims the numbers, they don’t sell anything with margin there.

        Europe is killing GM…but ONLY GM. No one else has problems there ;-)

        GM destroyed Saab because Saab was such a profitable powerhouse before GM bought them.

        And don’t forget, everyone knows that GM is a money losing enterprise burning through billions of taxpayers dollars. That’s why George Bush said last month if he could do it all over again, he’d had personally flown a plane into the Renaissance Tower to deliver the just go and die already paperwork himself.

        I heard that UAW workers on their smoke breaks, get $100 bills from a big box, and set them on fire to light cigarettes and laugh maniacally about how they are just like the 1% while doing it.

      • 0 avatar
        Rob Finfrock

        The Hypnotoad is more clever when all he does is buzz.

        The Cruze IS “just a Daewoo.” It’s as much a Chevy (or a Holden, for that matter) as the 1988 LeMans was a Pontiac.

        The Daewoo-designed Sonic is the direct replacement for the Daewoo-designed Aveo. That matters because Daewoo has a long and established history of producing thoroughly mediocre vehicles at best, absolute garbage at worst.

        While it’s made progress in actually making money on smaller vehicles, GM remains largely dependent on truck and SUV sales for its US profits.

        And Buick isn’t a global brand. It’s becoming a Chinese brand, and judging by the sales drop off over the past year the NA market seems to be realizing that. (Or maybe products aimed at Chinese buyers just don’t have the qualities North American buyers are looking for.)

        Now the rest of your points are, of course, false, and even somewhat humorous. But your “fight absurdity by being absurd” message would have been more effective had you not started out with a series of statements that are factually accurate.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Rob – you say most of the points APaGttH made were factually false, some may have been but these weren`t :

        “Europe is killing GM…but ONLY GM. No one else has problems there ;-)” Heard of PSA, Renault, Fiat?

        “GM destroyed Saab because Saab was such a profitable powerhouse before GM bought them.”

        Buick is about as Global as Acura.

        As for Daewoo’s reputation, I would agree with you but it is possible for a company to improve – Hyundai/Kia 1990 to now. Botht he Cruze and Sonic have had average to good reviews and sales seem to be good (Sonic is early days). So probably inaccurate to say they are “thoroughly mediocre vehicles at best, absolute garbage at worst.”

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        And “so what” if it is just a Daewoo. That’s like saying an Elantra IS just a Hyundai.

        Oh wait, Hyundai is a different company and the current Elantra has about as much in common with one or two generations ago as Jack-In-The-Box does today versus when it was literally killing their customers.

        It’s a Daewoo – so what – it’s definitely in the upper 1/3 of the class.

        The Sonic is also head and shoulders above its predecessor, and mopping the floor with the Fiesta in comparative sales; if anything the Fiesta is an over priced let down. The Sonic is in the top quarter of its class, if not at the top (the Fit is falling behind more due to the fact it needs a refresh, want to talk about backward steps, the new Versa is God awful compared to the prior version).

        Nah Buick isn’t a global brand, it just sells in the number one number two auto markets in the world. Missing the South Africa and Brazilian markets certainly is a terrible thing.

        If GM is dependent on truck sales, then why are truck sales so weak and GM is so profitable…oh that’s right…those profits are just lies too. No profits being made.

        Ya, big truck sales, that Tahoe and Suburban sales volume sure is at 2004 levels!!!

      • 0 avatar
        Rob Finfrock

        I’m fairly sure APaGttH intended all of his statements to be taken in a humorous and absurd manner, mike. My point is that the first four he cited are actually correct, which would contradict this intention.

        As for Daewoo, I stand by my comments. I’m a student of history and Daewoo has historically been a subpar automaker. I strongly doubt the company finally found religion with the Cruze or Sonic. Give it time.

      • 0 avatar
        Rob Finfrock

        “And “so what” if it is just a Daewoo. That’s like saying an Elantra IS just a Hyundai. Oh wait, Hyundai is a different company and the current Elantra has about as much in common with one or two generations ago as Jack-In-The-Box does today versus when it was literally killing their customers.”

        In the time between 2000 and today, Hyundai has remained its own company and made marked progress with each subsequent vehicle. Daewoo, by comparison, failed miserably with its own products for the US market, and its contributions to GM and Suzuki were widely panned and are considered inferior, mediocre, and even garbage offerings that don’t last more than five years or so. Seen any Nubiras lately? How about a Suzuki Forenza? No, huh? This is why Daewoo was ultimately “bailed out” by GM.

        “The Sonic is also head and shoulders above its predecessor, and mopping the floor with the Fiesta in comparative sales; if anything the Fiesta is an over priced let down. The Sonic is in the top quarter of its class, if not at the top (the Fit is falling behind more due to the fact it needs a refresh, want to talk about backward steps, the new Versa is God awful compared to the prior version).”

        The Sonic (and Cruze) make favorable first impressions. So did the Vega, Citation, J-Cars, Cobalt, and even the Aveo at first. In the long run, however, they’re all considered failed products and they each lost customers for GM. I predict something similar will happen with these cars, too. All it would really take is one big recall campaign for the sales numbers to come crashing down, and given Daewoo’s history I’d say that’s at least a 50/50 proposition.

        “Nah Buick isn’t a global brand, it just sells in the number one number two auto markets in the world. Missing the South Africa and Brazilian markets certainly is a terrible thing.”

        And it’s hemorrhaging sales in one of those markets. Maybe GM should move Buick into South America. It could only help fight the ‘ChiCom-preferred’ perception.

        “If GM is dependent on truck sales, then why are truck sales so weak and GM is so profitable…”

        I dunno, simple arithmetic? GM sold over 64,000 Silverados and Sierras in February 2012. Those aren’t F-Series numbers but it’s still impressive, and the products are all six years old now. Development costs were amortized years ago — all that’s left are build costs and profit. Now combine that with all the costs and taxes that GM no longer has to pay, thanks to that wonderful “bankruptcy” a few years ago…

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Are you trying to be disingenuous in the Daewoo argument.

        Shoot, a Kia Optima is JUST a Hyundai.

        Why don’t you just say, shoot, a Cruze is just a tarted up Saehan while your at it.

        Your comparison to a Chevy Citation would be like me trotting out the ’78 Accord with aluminum engine or an ’88 Hyundai Excel or an ’83 Ford Festiva or a ’93 Toyota Paseo as proof positive of the inabilities of any of these companies to build quality/competitive products in their respective classes.

        To your point on Sierra/Silverado sales, funny how you just glossed over Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Denali/Escalade sales numbers — and worth noting, Silverado/Sierra numbers as well as the entire GM fullsize line up is no where near the levels that they were a decade ago.

        And unlike a decade ago, GM is making money on its small cars now, not losing thousands of dollars per unit. Ya, ya, ya, prove it – $7.6 billion in profits in my proof. Prove those profits only come from trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Rob, I know his comments were humorous and ironic. I was commenting on your statement “Now the rest of your points are, of course, false, and even somewhat humorous. But your “fight absurdity by being absurd” message would have been more effective had you not started out with a series of statements that are factually accurate.” where you say those that you didn`t specifically answer were all false.
        That is why I relisted several of them, which are factually correct.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        These days, Hyundai scores high in reliability surveys.

        In contrast, the Cruze had the dubious honor of being the lowest rated small car in the Consumer Reports reliability survey.

        Let’s remember that GM also sold a lot of Vegas and Chevettes (and the Chevette was essentially a world car, being that it was based upon the Opel Kadett.) In hindsight, that success may have had some drawbacks.

        It’s good that GM has improved the styling and interior quality of its compacts. But they’re a long way from making them as reliable as are the best of the Japanese, or for that matter, the best of the Koreans.

      • 0 avatar
        Rob Finfrock

        “Prove those profits only come from trucks.”

        No need, because if you recall I said that GM remains “largely dependent” on profits from trucks. Qualifiers matter. I also gave GM credit for finally figuring out how to make money on small cars.

        However, since you asked, I ran the numbers for February. This is only for Chevy-branded vehicles, and is taken directly from GM’s own release.

        Chevy cars sold: 100,081 (includes crossovers, ‘Vettes, and yes, even the Volt. Remember when this thread was about the Volt?)

        Chevy trucks sold: 50,396 (includes the Avalanche, Colorado and Express Vans.)

        Wow, that is quite a disparity. Maybe APaGttH is right… except, wait, we need to also factor in average profits for those vehicles. That’s hard to do, but I think I can guesstimate fairly well that the average profit to GM on a car is somewhere around $2,000 a pop. Probably more on an Impala, but less on a Sonic and waaaaaay in the negative for a Volt. So that gives us a ballpark profit figure for cars of $200,162,000 for the month.

        Now, based on previous statements from those who know and my own experiences selling GM products, Silverados and their variants can carry more than $10,000 in profit to GM. I doubt Express vans carry that much, though, and the Colorado is a dog. There’s also a ton of discounting on the six year-old truck line, so let’s call it an average profit of $6,000. Oh heck, I’m in a good mood. Let’s say $5,000 per on average. That gives us $251,980,000 on “trucks.”

        Of course, this doesn’t include Buick (14,203) or Cadillac (11,505.) It also doesn’t include the 32,581 vehicles that GMC sold… which, you’ll note, is substantially more than those two lines combined. Of course, in keeping with the methodology I used for Chevy, some GMCs should be classified as cars (Terrain and Acadia sold 17,936 combined) just as some of those Cadillacs were high-dollar Escalades (1,851.)

        On the flip side, since the EPA classifies the Lambda and Theta crossovers as trucks, I probably should too. I’m sure they make at least $2,000 in profit. Even if I’m off by $1,000 on the car side or still $1,000 too high on trucks, the latter group would still make up over half of Chevy’s profits for the month of February.

        I call that “largely dependent” insofar that if those profits evaporated overnight, GM would be positively crippled in the North American market.

        P.S. I’d answer your other points now, too, except it’s a Saturday night and I really have better things to do than write another 500 words here. (This wasn’t always the case.) Suffice to say there wasn’t a 1983 Festiva, and the 1993 Kia-built Festiva remains generally well-liked for its segment and time. Pch already reiterated the point I was making about Daewoo vs. Hyundai (thanks for that.)

        P.P.S. I’m reasonably sure you don’t understand what disingenuous means.

        P.P.P.S. This is intended all in good fun, APaGttH. Your assertions did get me thinking about this a lot more critically than I had originally!

  • avatar
    Rob Finfrock

    All kidding and snide comments aside (I promise to try to be good.)

    Seriously… the smart money has to be that this is the beginning of the end, right?

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I’d like to know what the 1300 laid-off workers have to say about it, or the UAW for that matter.

      It will be amusing to watch the UAW parrot GM’s optimism for this car, at which point Bob King should resign in disgrace, having sold the union’s soul for a bowl of stew.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        “I’d like to know what the 1300 laid-off workers s have to say about it”

        I’m guessing they’d want GM to move up the start date of Malibu production at Hamtramck. They’re scheduled to get the Malibu and later the Impala, so most of them should have steady work once that happens. Maybe the shutdowns will give GM the opportunity to get some of the change-over work accomplished ahead of schedule and help move the date up a bit.

  • avatar
    lw

    Maybe they are shutting down to retool so they can cut the price in half?

    I tried… The volt is an epic failure… Please stop making these things so I don’t have to be reminded about this painful chapter of government waste again and again….

  • avatar
    gslippy

    This page is showing me a Volt ad from the local Chevy dealer: “It’s more car than electric”. Beautifully ironic.

    Why is GM going to continue building this car until March 19, when it already has 154 days of inventory?

    GM is also reporting that it might extend the summer shutdown. They’ll still be swimming in Volts at that point, so it seems possible they’ll kill the Volt around then… or maybe after November 6.

  • avatar
    inamishland

    The only reason GM had fired up the Volt production in Feb was Michigan’s Republican political primary. GM sure didn’t want the Republicans to be able to point at the stopped Volt manufacturing and plaster this all of the new cycle. So GM runs the plant full bore, big time dog and pony show, the political primary over, production stops.
    The real issue for GM is not the Volt plant, it’s the battery makers balanced on the knife edge. The battery maker, material process for the batteries tooled up for 60k production and had hopes for the technology used in fork trucks and all sorts of places. The battery makers are the tipping point. It’s really hard to sell a car without an engine no matter how much money’s on the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      FromaBuick6

      Interesting take. Wouldn’t be surprising or unprecedented. I’ve heard for years that GM kept the Corvair in production through ’69 pretty much as a screw you to Ralph Nader. The Mustang effectively killed it in ’65 (along with every other vaguely sporty compact) and the Camaro was slated to replace it for ’67. GM just didn’t want to be seen as caving to pressure.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      “The battery maker, material process for the batteries tooled up for 60k production and had hopes for the technology used in fork trucks and all sorts of places. The battery makers are the tipping point.”

      This is an excellent point. In a former life I worked on a portion of the Segway for a supplier; its suppliers experienced the same letdown when sales were about 1% of the fairy tale they’d been told. Some stayed on just for the name recognition, but others folded.

    • 0 avatar
      Rob Finfrock

      The timing of the restart is definitely interesting, and at least somewhat suspect.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    So… a 35 day layoff to allow for 154 day supply? What are they going to do with the overage? Load them on a Carnival cruise ship and hope they’re hijacked by Somali pirates? GM’s production goals were far too high, this whole mess sounds like something that used to happen in the old Soviet Union with the politbureau setting goals whether there was demand or not.

  • avatar
    redmondjp

    It’s a shame; the gov’t could have used the auto bailout money to subsidize the price of the Volt by another $10K per unit, instead of using it to keep UAW retiree benefits intact.

    All this while thousands of former non-union GM workers got completely screwed out of their retirement benefits (such as former Delphi employees), even after decades of work for the company. No love for them . . .

  • avatar
    PintoFan

    It’s a pretty sad day for anyone that actually cares about innovation in the auto industry, or sustaining the future of personal vehicle ownership and mobility for ourselves and generations beyond.

    It’s not a sad day for people who actually despise cars, and are only interested in them to the extent that they can provide short-term political grudge points.

    • 0 avatar
      FromaBuick6

      Yes, because the Volt is the only alternative out there to conventional ICE cars, and its failure means that one will ever develop or market another hybrid or EV…

      Are you for real? The Volt is a half-measure from a company that’s specialized in half-measures for decades. It lacks both the high gas mileage of a hybrid and the superior electric range and complete petroleum independence of a true EV. The Prius and Leaf are much better in those respective areas, and within the next year or two we’ll have the Tesla Model S, the Prius C, Mitsubishi iMEV, the Ford Focus Electric and Fusion Energi, among others. The Volt, whether it ultimately succeeds or fails, is just another entry.

      What’s truly sad is that anybody on this site actually still believes that the General is capable of doing anything right. The Volt isn’t a failure because the TTAC staff doesn’t like it, or because some Republican blowhard like Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like it. It’s a failure because GM is still mind-boggling incompetent at the at the design, manufacturing and marketing of vehicles. They promised us the greatest and most important car ever, and it naturally failed to live up to those expectations. And yet they keep digging the hole deeper with their staggering inability to do simple things like get cars to dealership and keep supply in line with the consistently low demand.

      This company will go bankrupt again, it’s only a matter of when. Meanwhile, the push for alternative fuel vehicles won’t suffer in the least.

      • 0 avatar
        Herm

        The Volt is a $30k hybrid (similar to a Ford or Camry) with a $10k worth of batteries.. that is why it costs $40k. It does not get the fuel economy of a Prius but then again it weighs 700lbs more.. you start with a heavy Delta II platform and stick a 400lb battery pack you know what will happen.

        In any case, the effective MPG of a Volt is very high.. much higher than a Prius.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      @PintoFan: Lots of people love innovation, but are you willing to go pay $45k for a Volt to prove it?

      The Volt hardly helps us ‘sustain the future of personal vehicle ownership and mobility for ourselves and generations beyond’. That’s a claim right from the Chevy Volt Talking Points Handbook.

      I assume you believe that the evaporation of fossil fuels is imminent, and the Volt is part of the cure. Well, fuels have never been proven to be ‘fossil’-based or limited in quantity. There is plenty of fuel; the earth seems to keep producing it.

    • 0 avatar
      panzerfaust

      Innovation is happening in the auto industry, but innovation in and of itself doesn’t necessarily translate into a profitable proposition. Venture capitalists invest into innovative new products on the basis of whether any money can be made on the product. When the government is the venture capital investor products get built for ideological reasons. That I think is the crux with the Volt. Had GM been playing with their own money (or that of their shareholders) it probably wouldn’t have been built at all.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        In fairness to GM and the government, the Volt program began long before the bailout. But its completion was displayed as one reason to bail out GM, so that the company could build cars “Americans want to buy”, to quote Mr. Obama.

        Nobody has ever verified this, but I suspect the Volt program would have been axed if the government hadn’t encouraged its completion. But it’s an albatross. Sort of like your bank lender forcing you to build a beautiful addition on your house that you can’t afford to make the payments for.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    The Volt line was designed around a sales forecast given to operations. This is how manufacturing determines how many workers they need(Routing) and purchasing knows how many parts to order(BOM) from suppliers to meet that forecast, ect., ect.

    The Hamtramck line can build roughly a 1000 Volts a week. That’s what sales told manufacturing they needed to be able to build. It’s obvious that even with the best month of 1500 units that somethings got to give/change.

    So forget “this is the beginnning of the end” or “time for a Volt death watch”. It means forcasted sales were way off. Hardly anything new in the world of manufacturing where forecasting is more of an art than science. An accepted figure for Inventory carrying costs is 28%. So tell me if you would want 4X the inventory you needed to fill customer demand in raw materials/parts & finished goods.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Nobody’s arguing that GM is wrong to shut down the line; it’s the prudent thing to do.

      As for the sales forecast, only the True Believers were fooled into thinking they’d move 60k – later 45k – Volts annually.

      Yes, missed sales forecasts happen all the time. And they often result in layoffs, killed products, and idled plants; this is where the idea of a Volt Death Watch comes from.

  • avatar
    Mike Kelley

    I just got the car issue of Consumer Reports. In their ratings of car companies, the domestics kind of sucked, as usual:
    http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-consumer-reports-car-ratings-20120227,0,599035.story

    The two that taxpayers bailed out came in last.

  • avatar
    unseensightz

    Why hasn’t TTAC reported on the fact that Chevy sold more Volts in February and Year to date than Nissan sold Leafs? 1,023 Volts versus 478 Leafs for February and 1,154 Leafs have been sold thus far this year versus 1,626 Volts. I would like to see a report on this as I feel it is very newsworthy as well. It seems like a big accomplishment for as much as people have been harping on how the Leaf has been beating the Volt, until now.

    Sales numbers:

    http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f78/industry-reports-february-2012-sales-109208/

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      The Leaf isn’t available nationwide until this month, and I think Nissan has experienced some production limitations with it. GM clearly doesn’t have a problem producing enough Volts.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        But when the Leaf outsold the Volt last year there was a TTAC article. So I suppose unseensightz was asking for consistency. I didn`t know Leaf sales were lower in January 2012 than most of 2011 – makes the argument about nationwide roll out irrelevant.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Although I’m not a Volt fan, I find the shutdown puzzling.

    HOV-privileged Volts are now being produced. Sales in California really ought to increase significantly. I know of very few ways to buy time and those HOV stickers really ought to help sell Volts.

    Did the HOV-priviliged Volt not move the sales needle in SoCal? If not, then what did sell Volts last month? It was a big increase over Jan.

  • avatar
    lw

    GM should put up or shut up….

    Either kill the Volt or start offering free gas to volt buyers. Let’s say the owner must charge it for a minimum of 4 hours per day on average and GM will give 2 free tanks of gas per month for as long as you own it.

    Since it never needs gas, it won’t cost them much and it incents GM to improve the battery only range.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    Wasn’t the Volt supposed to be the whole reason for the bailout?

    So shutting down for 5 weeks to work down 22 weeks of supply?

    Come on guys, the union owners can’t do simple math! If this isn’t a clue that it’s time for GM Deathwatch II, I don’t know what is.

    TTAC should start the Deathwatch series Monday morning and in addition, should also open an office pool on the date that we get the first bleatings for “Bailout II”.

    We could have several office pools:

    First Presidential words in favor…
    First House words in favor (probably from Wayne County, Michigan)…
    First Senate speech in favor…
    First GM executive words in favor…
    First Union boss words in favor…

    and maybe the most fun ones to track:

    The proposed dollar amount of Bailout II…

    First Presidential candidate’s words in favor…

    So who’s in?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      According to the former President, George W. Bush, it was to keep U3 unemployment from going to 21%, the nation plunging into depression, and he would do it again if he had too.

      But hey, what does Bernanke and his ilk know — clearly they were GM and UAW schills whispering into the President’s ear about economic disaster if he let the US auto industry collapse. Clearly, the UAW and GM were in tight alignment with conservative Republicans and Neocons, and then got the buy in from Liberal muslim Democrats to keep the lie going.

      Conspiracy I tell you – CONSPIRACY!!!

  • avatar
    Mike Kelley

    This is an interesting chart about GM:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/02/GM%20Channel%20Stuffing%20Feb.jpg

  • avatar
    Spike_in_Brisbane

    Does anybody know the schedule for Volt/Ampera release elsewhere in the world? In Australia it will debut as the Holden Volt late this year. (If it still exists). Here we have no government bailout backlash to affect sales, higher petrol/gas prices, standard 240 volt power for everybody and long distances to travel without range anxiety.
    The problem is that our market is less than 10% the size of the U.S. market so it won’t make much difference.

    See: http://www.holden.com.au/pages/volt-coming-soon?gclid=CNbsnYKxyq4CFUYcpAodVTG8AQ

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    Whether it will or has ever caught or started a fire aside, the reason the Volt is unpopular is that it’s very expensive, offers mediocre range barely bolstered by an anemic ICE engine, and just looks completely half-assed compared to the Leaf which was built without billions of American taxpayers’ dollars. I’ll repeat, Nissan built a better electric car without us having to pay for it.

    Now, amid rising gas prices and a president who has no desire to lower those prices and is getting on TV promoting algae and how he’ll drive a Volt when his reign is over in 5-10 years, anyone with half of a brain sees this as a VERY expensive exercise in social engineering.

    The Obama administration is displeased with the fact that Americans continue to buy cars they WANT in our inconvenient free market (which makes mandates oh so hard to enforce), so they will sit idly by as gas prices soar and pump billions into car companies to create undesirable and expensive alternatives to the ICE car… that surprisingly don’t sell despite hours of TV demagoguery lecturing us how we need to be energy independent and rely on expensive technologies founded by CEOs of companies who contributed heavily to the Democrats.

    …shocking.

  • avatar
    Lokki

    I said this in an earlier discussion but repeating myself is par for the course, so:

    The Volt has served its purpose even if they never sell another one. It was the bait used to get the public to allow the government to bail out GM. The environment left would have cheered the death of an evil corporation, and the “live-free-or-else” right would have cheered the death of the UAW. The Volt showed that GM had (has) a future as a maker of cars of the 21st century – they are (theoretically at least) not just a generic producer of fungible gas guzzlers. The whole idea of the Volt also fit the current president’s meme of ‘winning the gasoline free future’ .

    So the Volt was built. This particular design was chosen as it is a unique approach. Too similar to the Prius or Leaf would have left it vulnerable to attack as a copy or “me too” design.

    This not to criticize the Volt per se. GM got it done and it works well. However the sales forecasts were never made by analysts but by boardroom worriers. If they’d said they would sell only 15,000 over 2 years, they would not have been able to overcome the political resistance. So it was make big promises, save the company, and worry about actual sales later. It worked and the company is alive.

    • 0 avatar
      FJ60LandCruiser

      As the owner of a gas-guzzling GM product (Sierra HD) I can attest to the fact that full size trucks/SUVs is about the only thing they can get right, and about the only thing they seem to sell well.

      The fact that they did the Volt and it’s mediocre and not a complete hash job is well within my low expectations of GM to call it a success–kind of like coming home to find your mentally retarded dog has NOT s*** all over the place for a change.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    Will they continue to run the commercials with all those laid off workers building car America “had” to build? Salt in the wound.

  • avatar
    Trend-Shifter

    In hindsight GM should have built the first Volts as the Cadillac Converj. Then the car would have come in at an appropriate price point while still being a Halo car.

    The Converj would have competed in the same arena as Tesla and Fisker rather than Prius and Leaf.

    If the volume was there then economies of scale could have spawn the Volt at a lower price.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      The Converj is dead because the Voltec platform could only provide a 20-mile range in the heavier, faster Cadillac incarnation, and it would have cost $60k MSRP or more.

      Such a product would have enjoyed even lower economies of scale than the Volt, so GM killed it. Wisely, I say.

  • avatar
    alfred p. sloan

    You mean the public wasn’t fooled into buying a 41k Four place car that barely beats the mpg of the 15k five place car it’s based on?

    Stupid americans

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    “The Converj is dead because the Voltec platform could only provide a 20-mile range in the heavier, faster Cadillac incarnation, and it would have cost $60k MSRP or more.”

    Pretty sure your wrong about that as of August last year they had plans to build it for the 2013 model year. Unless something has happened since.
    As I stated before the shut-down of the Volt plant does not mean it’s time to start a Volt death watch. Trust me the Voltec drivetrain will be around long enough for at least the 2.0 version.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      I looked at GM’s facility directory for Hamtramck. In the products and production section they list the Volt, the Ampera (for 2012), the Malibu (2013), and the Imapala (next generation) without a date. Nothing about a Cadillac.

      http://goo.gl/QSPG9

    • 0 avatar
      Rob Finfrock

      Within days of GM announcing the Converj, it was reported that GM would base no other vehicles off Voltec until the platform’s second generation, sometime in 2015.

      https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/gm-no-volt-variations-until-2015/

      With these latest developments, I wouldn’t hold my breath for that ever happening.

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    Perception is reality. Now that the MSM has widely reported on this GM won’t be able to spin that the Volt isn’t a stiff. Middle America can’t afford it and the cachet for the 1% isn’t there. Also, the platform is ridiculously expensive. Not building any is the right move.

    The Volt is going to either be redesigned cheaper or die with a whimper.

  • avatar
    darex

    Middle America can’t afford it and no one on the East Coast (cities) or SF can buy one, because they don’t have garages, despite the fact that it’s in these very cities where EVs and the VOLT would be most at home.

    Summary: failure

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jalop1991: “I guess next to this idiot sleepy joe looks almost average.” Nailed it. The level of...
  • dal20402: Opel has a history of good-looking coupes over a long time period. Unfortunately, this one was...
  • el scotto: A gay Democrat talking about EVs and Elon Musk? The usual Caucasian, homophobic, anti-climate change,...
  • xtoyota: I had a 1972 however it was sold by a Mercury dealer not Ford. Great car but it needed a fuel pump every...
  • ajla: Yea the Manta looks cool. How much more was a Lancia Beta or Fulvia compared to these?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber