When the U.S. Government took over GM, you knew things were going to get bad, but when you have the New York Times ripping on you, you know it has to be bad.
G.M. came out with a new car, the Volt, and the New York Times has this to say about the car:
"For starters, G.M.’s vision turned into a car that costs $41,000 before relevant tax breaks ... but after billions of dollars of government loans and grants for the Volt’s development and production. And instead of the sleek coupe of 2007, it looks suspiciously similar to a Toyota Prius. It also requires premium gasoline, seats only four people (the battery runs down the center of the car, preventing a rear bench) and has less head and leg room than the $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze, which is more or less the non-electric version of the Volt." ...
So the future of General Motors (and the $50 billion taxpayer investment in it) now depends on a vehicle that costs $41,000 but offers the performance and interior space of a $15,000 economy car. The company is moving forward on a second generation of Volts aimed at eliminating the initial model’s considerable shortcomings. (In truth, the first-generation Volt was as good as written off inside G.M., which decided to cut its 2011 production volume to a mere 10,000 units rather than the initial plan for 60,000.) Yet G.M. seemingly has no plan for turning its low-volume “eco-flagship” into a mass-market icon like the Prius.....
Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.
In the end, making the bailout work — whatever the cost — is the only good reason for buying a Volt. The car is not just an environmental hair shirt (a charge leveled at the Prius early in its existence), it is an act of political self-denial as well.
If G.M. were honest, it would market the car as a personal donation for, and vote of confidence in, the auto bailout. Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of cross-branding that will make the Volt a runaway success.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=3
So, GM is making a car that no will buy unless you are a glutton for punishment. Even though it's priced as a luxury car, it's not even that. Hell, my KIA Spectra seats more the Volt. You have to charge the battery every night and it uses premium gasoline.
But, GM and the Obama administration could have stopped the Volt when they found out that this was going to be a loser of a car (from the same article): In short, the Volt appears to be exactly the kind of green-at-all-costs car that some opponents of the bailout feared the government might order G.M. to build. Unfortunately for this theory, G.M. was already committed to the Volt when it entered bankruptcy. And though President Obama’s task force reported in 2009 that the Volt “will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short term,” it didn’t cancel the project.
Nor did the government or G.M. decide to sell the Volt at a loss, which, paradoxically, might have been the best hope for making it profitable. Consider the Prius. Back in 1997, Toyota began selling the high-tech, first-of-its-kind car in Japan for about $17,000, even though each model cost $32,000 to build.
This is what happens when you demand that everything turn Green. This is the Obama administration and Harry Reid's vision of the future. Green no matter what Who cares if no one buys the car. That it will put GM even more in debt to the U.S. government doesn't matter.
This car is a farce, just like most green energy projects.
I dunno, Dan. I think the Volt looks pretty cool. The Cruze too. GM seems to make "decent" cars that look dated 3 years later, but their latest round looks pretty good to me. I know you're down on the Obama Administration for saving GM, but Jesus, what was the alternative?
ReplyDeleteCarter saved Chrysler, and they flourished until recently. That was a 30-year lease on life right there. Sorry, I can't be down on this rescue, at least not yet.