Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

In this case, I suspect it is a great car -- feature-wise. I posted something, I think back in September when they first put the car out there. The increase in range is huge, and there are a lot of neat features, including the over-the-air software updates. On the one hand, GM is typically not an innovator, on the other hand, this is probably not a "dogass car."

The problem is still the same problems EVs have. The cost of the batteries makes the cars much more expensive than comparable gas-powered vehicles. Plus, the cost of having to replace the battery is a killer. And people know it. In the case of the Volt, I was pointing out on this thread years ago that the battery range limitations, combined with that cost, were going to keep it from ever being a mass market vehicle -- even if it was a great car. You can be a great car, and not be a commercially viable car.

In the case of the Bolt, I suspect they have at least taken away one of the things keeping the Volt down -- the battery range. There is still the problem of cost. Chevy will be selling these things at a loss, with subsidization also in the mix to keep the true cost down. And the car is still way more expensive than a comparable gas vehicle. Off the top of my head. ... you can buy a BMW 3 series car at around the same cost (maybe for less).

For EVs to make better sense as a mass market seller for a lot of people, either the cost of the batteries has to come down significantly in a way that doesn't seem realistic, or the price of gas would have to skyrocket.

I will be interested in seeing how the Bolt sells. With the better range, my guess is it is a slightly better sell than the Volt. At the same time, I also still suspect this car really only makes sense (financially) for people who are evangelical about EVs. And there just aren't that many of those people. Of them, I think the Tesla benefits from its cult status. The person who wants a Model S wants the conversation piece. Is a Chevy going to achieve that? And then, within the next 3, 4 years, there are going to be dozens of EVs at similar cost on the market. Almost every manufacturer -- mostly luxury vehicles seeing a possible niche -- has one that is almost ready for market.

With regard to the "dogass" cars of the year, though, yeah, there have been some. In this case, I think it may be more that you can be a great car. ... and still not be very commercially viable. Some people who are emotionally invested in EVs confuse the two things.

 

Of course, that leads to why this is all backward and fucked up -- at least in my opinion.

You have these cars heavily subsidized, and even with that subsidization (making someone's decision to buy a car into something we all bear the cost of, which is ridiculous and unfair to me) the reduced cost isn't enough to make it a good sell for most people and even create much incremental false demand.

And it goes beyond that in a "viability of EVs" conversation. Because the cars aren't just subsidized at the consumer level. The only way GM can bring this to market at that price is to sell each car at a loss. This is a not-for-profit vehicle. Which no GOOD business should ever be doing. They have to sell each car at a significant loss to even get it out at that price point.

In a rational world (that we haven't fucked up with stupid interference in people's decisions), that just doesn't happen. In the world we have created, GM needs to use it as a "compliance vehicle." They will use to to try to accumulate ZEV credits, to avoid government fines. Right now, they buy those credits from Tesla (making GM have to be in business to subsidize Tesla!). GM needs to play this stupid game, in order to be in business selling cars that are actually profitable for them, because with their gas-powered vehicles, there is actual consumer demand, and they aren't dependent on a bunch of planners trying to dictate what everyone drives in order to exist.

It is perverse, to me at least. They are going to lose somewhere around $8K to $9K per Bolt they sell. In non ZEV states, they will just have to eat that loss -- my bet is that they don't push the cars too hard in those places. But in the ZEV states, they will avoid fines and receive credits that more than offset the loss they have to take on the actual car. That is why these cars are so much more expensive than the evangelicals want to see. That kind of "regulation" puts an anchor on your economy -- you are getting it with the consumer subsidies AND on the production / sales end. It has wide-reaching ramifications, from people's ability to earn a living to how much it costs to buy the things they want and need. All this idiocy does is drive up the cost of ALL cars and constrain economic activity.

 

We are not that "dependent" on foreign governments for oil. Maybe in 1973, when an oil embargo could shut the country down. But today, the U.S. is one of the largest oil producers (and exporter) in the world. We actually export a lot of oil, making a lot of places dependent on us. Of what we bring into the country, most (by far) comes from Canada. We import more oil from Colombia than we do from any Middle East country except for Saudi Arabia, and even there that is only about 10 percent of our imported oil (and a smaller percentage of our oil consumption).

That narrative just isn't true. And even if it was, it is still a convoluted argument for why we need the cronyism and favors that has given us the subsidies that keep as many EV cars in production as there even are. It's politicians trying to plan what people need, rather than allowing people to decide what they want. It takes away economic freedom, to force those "needs" on everyone. And it is done in a highly inefficient way, that leaves us all worse off.

Even if we were spending billions or trillions of dollars "securing oil for the country (and we really aren't)," it still proves WAY CHEAPER (if that were acually happening) than forcing the cost of this technology on the country does.