GM offers big price cut on Chevy Volt

[PoliticAverse]

Source: CNN

General Motors announced Tuesday that it will knock $5,000 off the sticker price of a new Chevy Volt, making it the latest electric car to be steeply discounted as automakers battle for buyers.

Customers will be able to get the discount on 2014 Volts, reducing the car's starting price from $40,000 to $35,000. Government tax rebates can bring the price down as low as $27,495, GM says.

Pricing and incentives on electric cars have been getting more aggressive recently as automakers try to improve sales.

...

"We have made great strides in reducing costs as we gain experience with electric vehicles and their components," said Don Johnson, a vice president at Chevrolet. "The 2014 Volt will offer the same impressive list of features, but for $5,000 less."

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/index.html

[hobbit709]

1. I would barely be able to afford one if they divided the price by 10.

Even $4K would put a severe strain on my budget and assets.

[DainBramaged]

2. The Electric Spark is coming....

http://www.chevrolet.com/spark-ev-electric-vehicle.html


$27,495.00 B4 tax credit



http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-spark-ev-first-drive-review

It spins out 105 kW (140 horsepower) and a strong 400 lb-ft of torque. That latter figure, especially, makes us think it's past time the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) weighed in with a standard for reliable comparisons, but once you drive it, there's no question this motor's got muscle. Car and Driver estimates the Spark EV can reach 60 mph in fewer than eight seconds (versus 11-plus for the gas model). We’ll update that number once we’re able to test one with our gear.

[hobbit709]

3. Still way out of reach for me.

I get a whopping $938/mo SS. I make about $300/mo more.

[PoliticAverse]

9. More on the Spark...

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130624/RETAIL03/130629951#axzz2bBtpenQJ

[MADem]

5. I live in a house that cost less!!! nt

[MADem]

4. I need a car that go four hundred miles in a single charge.

I don't drive overmuch, but when I do long hauls I need to be able to go a long distance.

[Schema Thing]

6. The Volt can go as far as any car.

Not on all electric of course.

But most daily drives aren't long hauls for most people.

The Volt is a real world way for many people to get 100+ mpg average.

[MADem]

8. That's good, then--now, if they can cut the price by seventy percent, I might be able to swing it!

I just can't afford that kind of money for a vehicle-- hell, my present car is over a quarter century old!

[Schema Thing]

10. believe me, I've been there.

and while I'm saving money with a 2011 Prius (bought "new", for me, with 11000 miles), I couldn't afford to save money with a Volt, the payment would just be too much, even if the 10 year cost might be as good or better.

Even buying a 1 year old Prius was a stretch for me, but the math works out - every time I fill up for 35 - 40 bucks, it means I'm also saving 35 -40 bucks or more. That helps with the payments a lot, and the lack of maintenance on a newer car w/ a good warranty makes up for the rest.

[MADem]

12. I know I am going to have to break down and buy a car with airbags, eventually...

I keep kicking the can down the road, but the day will come.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. There's a 2012 for sale for $17K already.

The used ones are going to come down significantly as the model ages.

I never buy a vehicle new, they instantly depreciate as you drive them off the lot.

[MADem]

47. Is that a normal depreciation, or is that one a lemon, do you think?

Don't the batteries have to be replaced every 'x' number of years, too? That's a bit of an expense, I should think...!

[AtheistCrusader]

49. First gen prius's are still on the road, 12 years later, original battery packs still working.

I don't know about the Volt's performance, it sort of remains to be seen. (A 2012 is still under warranty)

That one might have some physical damage or something. The price is a bit low, compared to the average.

[MADem]

51. Even though I see Brian Griffin driving a Prius on late night cartoons,

which are old reruns, I still think of them as "new" cars! I can't believe they've been around as long as that!

[AtheistCrusader]

52. A fairly amazing piece of engineering, I must say.

I'd be willing to buy a used one, as old as 2006, no problem, if the price was right.

[MADem]

61. Do they need to be driven daily, or often?

I can go a week or more without getting into my car, and then drive every day for the following week this bit of business or that...and if I am gone off on a trip as I do now and again, the car will sit for a week, sometimes more.

AAA can give me a jump if needs must...but those cars are a different kettle of fish!

[AtheistCrusader]

62. I'd put it on a trickle charger.

I'd probably scrap the spare tire, and put in the drop-in extended range battery too.

[Bette Noir]

63. Beg to differ. Hubby had a 1st gen Prius.

The batteries were replaced under recall when it was 2 years old. The replacement batteries wore out six years later. Replacement batteries were quoted to us, in CA, at $5000, so he bought a new 3rd gen Prius.

Friends who had moved their Prius to AZ were able to replace the batteries for $2000, so they went for the replacement and still drive the old buggy.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Highly unusual.

http://autos.aol.com/article/toyota-prius-reliability/

Less than 10% have been replaced. More than 250,000 miles on the pack is not unusual, with near-factory performance.

You see, they only allowed a certain percentage of the battery to be 'used' by software limitation. So the battery showed 'depleted' when it still had a good chunk of charge left. (I think the number was only 90% of the battery gets 'used') By not completely draining the battery, and carefully under-charging it, rather than over-charging it, the life of the battery was extended significantly, because as the battery degraded, it had a lot of play before it fell below the original specs.

[Finishline42]

68. I have 2009 - Gen 2

Replacement battery has been quoted at $1100 installed. But not by a dealer - by a company that rebuilds insurance totals.

[Niceguy1]

77. same thing for one of my family

Members..it cost more to fix her prius that a new cars cost.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, it has a backup gasoline engine and a range of ~ 380 miles

on a full charge + full tank of gas before needing refueling.

[happyslug]

71. That is less then my Cruze Eco.....

When GM decided to build the Volt, they knew they could NOT produce or sell enough to justify just a production line for the Volt. Unlike Toyota (which received a Japanese Government subsidy to build the factory where the Prius is built) and Honda (the used a car already in production and retrofitted a hybrid into it) GM decided to put production of the Volt with the replacement for the Cobalt, the Chevrolet Cruze. For every Volt GM sells, it sells 10 Cruzes. This spread out the cost of developing the Volt to the Cruze (costs NOT related to the engine or drive train, i.e. body, wheels, interior, steering, brakes, and frame). From the outside you can NOT tell the difference, except for the labels "Cruze" or "Volt" and in some models the front grill.

Since I purchased my Cruze Eco, I have done better then 40 mpg. I had it up to 41.8 mpg, but then decided to install a roof rack and carry my bicycles on it, that increased wind resistance and reduced fuel mileage. The Cruze Eco gets 42mpg on the highway EPA. I have done that and better, but it is off set by in city driving AND driving up Allegheny Mountain 2-3 times a week.

With its 12 gallon tank and 40 mpg, I get 480 miles per tank, and if I avoid in city driving over 500 miles per tank. All this for $21,000 dollars NOT the $39,000 being asked for the Volt.

The key is in the Eco version of the Cruze, I get the same low roll resistance tires the Volt gets and the same gasoline engine (through in the Eco, it is turbocharged and tied in with a traditional transmission). I get extra trunk room (no batteries to take up trunk room) and everything else that is in the Volt except the electric drive.

In fact according to the EPA, my ECO gets 42 mpg, while the Volt, when it is using gasoline gets only 40 mpg on the highway, In the city the ECO gets 28 mpg, and the Volt does better at 35 mpg (EPA estimates).

Please note the EPA says the Volt get 98 mpg EQUIVALENT, when both electrical and gasoline drive is used.

In simple terms, if you use your car on the Highway on long trips, the ECO will get better fuel economy (Which is how I use my Cruze ECO). On the other hand, in the city or on short trips the Volt wins hands down.

EPA Comparison between the Volt and the Cruze Eco:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32655&id=31377

[PoliticAverse]

72. Interesting. Thanks. n/t

[bigdarryl]

11. I wish I could get one but I live in an apartment

Plus 35,000 dollars is way to much on any car FUCK THAT!!!

[branford]

13. The charging issue is signicant.

I live in an apartment in NYC. Many individuals in the Big Apple and other urban environments are concerned with energy efficiency and fuel mileage, but simply live in situations where recharging a vehicle is impossible. It is certainly problematic when much of the wealthy middle and upper class target market for such high-cost plug-in cars well, . . . can't plug it in.

A $5000 cut in price is also not a good sign the plug-in market. Manufacturing efficiency does not suddenly result in that dramatic a price cut. Sales are like well below estimates and they want to clear stock.

[PoliticAverse]

20. 2013 Volt sales are about the same as 2012. There's increased competition in the marketplace. n/t

[branford]

22. The sales might be the same, but they still are objectively bad.

With greater marker penetration and awareness, and government encouragement (and fleet purchases), sales should be notably increasing, even with new competition.

[bigdarryl]

53. They need to build more plug in stations around the country

Apartment complexes probably don't want to install electric car plug ins because one its cost effect and two they wouldn't know how many people owning Volts would rent

[branford]

60. Who is going to build these plug-in stations?

I don't like being a pessimist, but . . .

The fossil fuel companies have no incentive.

American car manufacturers cannot afford such a significant investment, and if they tried, the cost of these cars would increase and the companies we spent billions of dollars to save will become uncompetitive. Foreign auto makers would have even less incentive.

Private investors are unlikely to warm to the idea with electric car technologies in their infancy, so few electric-only cars on the road, with many chargeable in the owner's own homes, and upcoming competition from alternative technologies like natural gas.

There is also virtually no chance of significant public investment. Our roads and bridges are falling apart, tolls and mass transit prices are increasing and our debt and deficit is outrageous. I cannot imagine many liberal democrats voting for such an endeavor, no less any republicans who would audibly scoff at the mere notion of dirty hippy hangouts, ah . . . I mean electric recharge stations.

Except for some small-scale experiments by some localities, the number of electric-only cars will need to drastically increase before wide spread recharging stations become a possibility.

[PoliticAverse]

14. GM Cuts Chevy Volt Price by $5,000 to Spur Sales

General Motors Co. (GM), facing disappointing Chevrolet Volt sales, cut the starting price of the plug-in hybrid sedan by $5,000 to compete against the less-expensive and better-selling Toyota Prius and Nissan Leaf.

The 2014 Volt, arriving in U.S. dealerships later this month, will start at $34,995, the Detroit-based automaker said today in an e-mailed statement. The price cut comes, in part, to make sure the Volt shows up in online shopping searches along with the Prius and Leaf, which start, respectively, at $25,010 and $29,650, including destination fees, GM said.

...

“GM is getting with the times,” Michelle Krebs, a senior analyst with Edmunds.com, a website that tracks auto pricing, said in an e-mail. “Consumers want electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles at prices competitive with other vehicles without the advanced technology.”

GM loses money on each Volt it sells while not disclosing a specific figure. The model, which is eligible for a $7,500 U.S. tax credit, was introduced in 2010 and has struggled to meet some sales targets. Volt is GM’s flagship car for its efforts to have about 500,000 vehicles on the road by 2017 with some form of electrification. The car can travel 38 miles (61 kilometers) on battery power before a gasoline engine engages.

Read the rest: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/gm-cuts-chevy-volt-price-by-5-000-to-spur-sales.html

[PoliticAverse]

15. GM slashes Chevy Volt prices to spur flagging sales

With signs that sales of its Chevrolet Volt battery car could be coming unplugged, General Motors is offering potential buyers as much as $5,000 in incentives – making it the latest maker to try to cut prices in a bid to boost lagging demand for electric vehicles.

Whether the move will work remains to be seen, as GM has already trimmed the price on the Volt plug-in hybrid. But rival Nissan has had some clear success after cutting the price on its own Leaf battery-electric vehicle, or BEV, earlier this year.

Both vehicles were introduced to high expectations nearly three years ago, but they have so far consistently missed sales targets. Only a handful of battery-based vehicles have come close to meeting expectations, most notably the Tesla Model S.

That might be enough to convince a maker to pull the plug on a vehicle like Volt. But manufacturers like GM and Nissan are under heavy pressure to make their electric vehicle programs a success – at almost any cost – in part because of pressure they face in the nation’s largest state, California, where regulators require all major makers to offer a minimum number of so-called Zero-Emission Vehicles.

Read the rest at: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/gm-slashes-chevy-volt-prices-spur-flagging-sales-6C10272201

[toby jo]

16. Cars are outrageously priced. I bought a new 45 hp diesel tractor for $20,000. It will be on the

road 50 years from now. My old tractor was a '72 Ford. These things take a beating and keep ticking.

[Myrina]

17. I'm confused about "electric" cars being labeled "environmentally friendly" ...

.... I don't completely understand how it all works, hopefully someone can explain.
Don't utility companies burn coal to create electricity? Isn't coal-pollution just as bad as petro-based energy pollution?
So where's the benefit to the environment?

Thanks in advance.

[Marrah_G]

19. You can use a solar charger

That will become more popular as the cars become more popular. Think of it as the first steps away from fossil fuels.

[branford]

23. That's not all.

Batteries and other parts use many rare earth metals requiring carbon-intensive and environmentally damaging mining techniques. The batteries are also very toxic, and disposal is a nightmare.

[Finishline42]

26. Looks like an opportunity?

Batteries are what you say they are - but in volume there is a market for recycling. Batteries the size required to power cars will have enough to make that profitable.

BTW, ever pay a core charge when you replaced the battery in your car? That's a way to 'encourage' that the battery is recycled and that's for a battery that cost typically less than a $100. So when you get to a battery that costs thousands initially, there's plenty of value to recover.

[branford]

29. You raise good points.

However, I do not own a plug-in, or any other car. I'm a resident of Manhattan who rarely needs to use a car, and rents when required for work or personal travel. You can't get much more environmentally friendly than me.

More seriously, although your proposal certainly has merit, current electric and hybrid car technologies unfortunately leave a lot to be desired. They are comparatively very expensive, present their own unique and significant environmental and practical issues, and do not really save money over the expected life of the car. If your average car purchaser wants to actually save money and get good gas mileage in 2013, your best bet is still a small, efficient gas car. Sadly, "green" cars are often vanity purchases for the wealthy.

I hope government encouragement and private investment improve the relevant technologies to make cars that are more environmentally friendly accessible to more Americans. Nevertheless, there will always be trade-offs like the battery life, toxicity and disposal problems. Sadly, nothing in life is free.

[AllyCat]

24. Many communities get power from things other than coal

Hydroelectric, solar, wind, waste-combustion... Someone here awhile back said electric is more efficient than internal-combustion so even with "dirty" power, it is less polluting than burning petroleum. Not sure about a link for that or anything.

[Finishline42]

25. To begin with - Electric motors are more effecient than gas IC.

Gas begins as crude - it has to be pumped - I wonder where that energy comes from? Electricity or diesel generator?
Then the crude has to be transported to a refinery - more energy used
What powers the refinery? Electricity from coal fired generators?
The refined gas then has to be transported to a gas station - most gasoline is sent via pipeline to a local distribution point - pumps that again probably are powered by electricity from a coal fired generator.
Then a semi tanker truck picks up a load and starts delivery to individual gas stations.
Then you have to drive to get a fill up.

If you charge your Electric car at home, you would eliminate many of those steps, but the biggest plus is that electric motors are much more efficient than internal combustion (IC) engines. Another efficiency that electric has over IC's is their durability - much longer lifespan and a lot less maintenance during that lifespan. I think this is an aspect of 'green' that is seldom emphasized - no matter what the object is - do you use it up before replacing it?

HTH

[wercal]

28. Some calculations

In a worse case scenario, coal would be used to generate electricity, at around 2 lb co2 per kwh...and it takes around 14 kwh to charge a Volt to go 40 miles...it all comes out to 0.7 lb co2 per mile (in electric mode).

A gallon of gasoline makes around 19.6 lb of c02...so the breakover point, where a car would produce less co2 than a Volt (in electric mode) would be 28 mpg. Of course, many cars get better mileage than that - some pickup trucks actually create less co2 than a Volt. And, a Volt in gas mode creates less CO2 than a Volt in electric mode.

If you happen to get electricity from natural gas, at around 1.22 lb co2 per kwh...leads to 0.43 lb per mile, or a gas breakover point of 46 mpg. So, a Volt powered by electricity from natural gas is competitive with current compact cars on the co2 front.

There are lots of ways to confuse this issue - by looking at the entire extraction and refining process of gasoline (but oddly most who do that seem to ignore the mining and transportation processes of coal). Or, some will claim the electricity could come from wind power of hydro-electric.....well maybe it could, but statistically, you are very likely getting power from coal of natural gas. And, some would argue that burning gas produces other pollutants that coal doesn't, or is at least controlled better at the power plant through hydrostatic scrubbers. That is a valid argument, but not a game changing argument.

So what does this mean? Well, frankly, electric cars are not an environmental magic pill. And, you could buy a nice compact for 2/3 the cost.

[branford]

30. Excellent analysis. n/t

[Finishline42]

33. RE: Well, frankly, electric cars are not an environmental magic pill.

Your analysis takes into account current cost of gas - what happens if/when gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon?

Buying an electric car coupled with the purchase of PV panels would lock in the cost of electricity at time of purchase.

The cost of electric cars will probably go down as well as the cost of PV panels - gas shows no such trends.

[wercal]

37. I gave a CO2 analysis

You are arguing costs, which doesn't make any sense.

I think you meant to reply to a different post of mine.

So, what if gas turns out to cost $5.00/gallon?

Most people fail to realize that the price of gas is NOT ballooning out of control. When compared to the CPI, the price of gas is fairly constant. Here is a graph of just that:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/

You can scroll back as far as 1976. What do I find?

In 1981, the real price of gas was $3.53 using today's dollars.
It dipped to as low as $1.47 in 1998.
Its recent high is $3.68 in 2011.
Presently, it is $3.48...actually below 1981 levels.

What does this tell me? Well, if gas were to rise to $5.00/gal, EVERYTHING else would also have risen...to include the cost of electricity. In fact you can use the same graph, and flip to the electrical cost tab...and discover that the cost of electricity has gone from $0.026/kwh to $0.12/kwh from 1960-2013....but the actual cost has been fairly flat since the 1970's. History tells us to definitely not expect the cost of gasoline to suddenly outpace electrical costs.

PV panels - I assume you are proposing putting them on your house? Solar systems currently cost $4.87 per watt...and lets assume you can get sun for 12 hours a day. Your solar system costs $5,681 to recharge a 14 kwh Volt. Assuming no upkeep costs and completely free sailing after that, and using $3.60/gallon gas getting 29 mpg in a Cruz, and 40 miles a day in the solar charge, driving 6 days a week, you get payback in 3.66 years.

Now I have made a lot of rosy assumptions (during the winter you won't get 12 hours sunlight, for example...and the batteries in the solar system will need periodic replacement)...but even with those assumptions, from a cost perspective, you will reach your breakover point on the Volt much faster, if you simply stay on the grid and plug into the wall.

[branford]

39. Additionally, the choice will not always be between electric or gasoline.

Natural gas is abundant, located in the United States and other stable democracies, and is more efficient and less carbon polluting than gasoline. Conversion to natural gas powered vehicles might prove more to be more economical in our quest to reduce emissions.

[wercal]

42. Bingo

Natural Gas produces 40% less co2 than gasoline, has suddenly become abundant, and dual fuel gasoline/natural gas vehicles have been on the road for decades in Portugal and Spain.

Somewhat quietly, major trucking fleets are converting to natural gas. The company I work for did preliminary design work on a site, which was competing to be the new fueling center for fleet that ships potato chips. We lost out to another site, but it will be built soon. What the fleet owners are discovering is major improvement in maintenance costs. Most of what can go wrong internally in an engine stems from dirty oil, and the natural gas burns so cleanly, they are discovering fewer problems - and discovering that they can quadruple the oil change interval and still have fewer problems.

The conversion for a car is not complicated...and kits cost $2,500. I've considered it, but so far we only have one filling station in town, and its a card lock thing where you have to commit to buy a certain amount every year. But it is very tempting.

The burning of Natural Gas vs Gasoline is leaps and bounds a better environmental improvement than electric cars.

[branford]

46. I fear the perfect will always be the enemy of the good.

Natural gas has tremendous environmental and economic advantages given our current level of technology. However, it is still a non-renewable fossil fuel. Many of our fellow liberals therefore oppose it on principle, in a manner similar to opposition to nuclear energy.

I hope we do not burn waiting for the perfect zero-carbon, renewable, cheap, non-polluting, non-toxic, puppies and rainbows solution.

[wercal]

67. I fear you are correct

I feel like a pariah sometimes, suggesting natural gas....because someday, just over the rainbow, we won't get the bulk of our electricity from fossil fuels.

For the today, natural gas is a very workable solution...but for some reason its not even allowed in most discussions.

[MADem]

48. I've lived in many countries where having a propane bottle in the trunk was the way to go.

I always felt like I was riding a bomb, but I never saw one of 'em blow up, so I guess it was reasonably safe.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. I think people are making bad bets on the cost of NG, once the political opposition to fracking gain

s traction.

Take away fracking near human-utilized aquifers. What happens to the price of NG?

[branford]

59. I think you're vastly overestimating the political opposition to fracking.

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

The profit combined with other environmental advantages are just too immense, particularly now that nuclear is taboo, particularly in Europe, due to Fukushima.

Moreover, cheaper gas is not all bad. It may drive down some exploration and investment, but much of the infrastructure is already available. Lower prices will also spur demand that may equalize prices.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. PV panels suck.

Depending on where you live, and how much you bought, you'd be hard pressed to charge that car overnight, because you probably used it during the day, when it could be best charging, meaning you'd have to store power over the day from the PV Panels, which aren't very efficient, and then use that to charge the car.

You'd probably be better off sticking a 35 foot tall wind turbine in your backyard.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Some utilities do. Some do NOT burn coal.

Statewide, we have one last coal plant here in WA, and it is going away. Converting to gas. Statewide, 72% of our power is hydro, a goodly chunk is wind, and the rest is mostly NG.

Pretty fucking friendly, compared to a gasoline powered car.

[IDemo]

75. Coal power is on the decline in the US

http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/02/coal-plants-are-victims-their-own-economics

Although the United States has long generated the bulk of its electricity from coal, over the past 6 years that share has fallen from 50% to 38%. Plans for more than 150 new coal-fired power plants have been canceled since the mid-2000s, existing plants have been closed, and in 2012, just one new coal-fired power plant went online in the United States.

[PoliticAverse]

18. Will A $5,000 Price Cut Recharge Volt Sales? Sort Of.

GM made the unofficial official today, cutting the price of the 2014 Chevrolet Volt to $34,995 — $5,000 less than the 2013 model. What they didn’t say was, “We sort of did that a few months ago, but without shouting it from the rooftops, it didn’t have the effect we hoped for.” So now the secret is out. And if history is a guide, it should help, although perhaps not dramatically.

But it’s one thing for that to be true and another for everyone to know it. Chevy has been back advertising their lease special on the car for a couple of months. It sold 23,461 Volts last year, but looking at the August-October period when the lease deal was in full force and extrapolating that over a year, the car would’ve moved closer to 35,000 units. While neither figure is breathtaking, the latter would’ve put the Volt near the top 100 rather than in 127th place on the list of cars tracked by GoodCarBadCar.Net.

Chevy’s problem, though, is that the Volt is simply too expensive, especially early in the year when a buyer might face a wait of nearly 18 months before receiving their $7,500 tax credit with the following year’s refund. And without lease support, 2013 sales barely ran ahead of 2012 until June, when the discounting came back, along with a more visible television presence. And it seemed to work, with June sales of 2,298, nearly 1,000 more than the prior year. But July lacked follow through; year-to-date sales are now barely above 2012′s, and that forced GM’s hand.

Read the rest at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/08/06/will-a-5000-price-cut-recharge-volt-sales-sort-of/

[NoMoreWarNow]

21. I looked at one a couple of years ago and was interested in it-- drove nicely

but the price was too steep. I think it was almost $50K back then.

$35,000 is not bad.

[James48]

27. CONGRATS TO CHEVROLET!

On such an outstanding technological leap, and then dropping the price to make it closer to reality.

I am now seriously interested in taking one for a test drive. At $45K, it was beyond my means. At $34K, it's a lot closer.

When you run the numbers of the gasoline savings- it now is cost competitive with a gasoline powered car- IF you have a charger available at both ends of the 40 mile commute drive that I have. I have to work on getting a charger set up at my work place.

[wercal]

32. Numbers

Lets run the numbers:

A completely loaded Chevy Cruz is $23,550..and a reduced price Volt, after subsidy is $27,495....so the gap in price is $3,945.

First let's pause and look at the $7,500 subsidy. It is a refundable tax credit. This means that your federal income tax burden would have to be at least $7,500 for you to take advantage of the entire credit...so you need to make around $80k and not have a lot of kids to be paying that king of tax bill.

Assuming you do, how many miles would it take to make up the gap. Assuming gas is $3.60/gallon, and the Cruz gets 29 mpg, and you pay $0.12 per kwh and it takes 14 kwh to charge and go 40 miles...that's 48,028 miles.

Ok, lets assume your employer lets you charge for free...you costs are cut in half, so the breakover is 24,000 miles. Now, lets assume that you drive it 80 miles a day for 6 days a week, that's 50 weeks.

Not bad. I have neglected the slightly higher cost of ownership (higher insurance and personal property taxes, since the car is worth more), but not bad. Now it doubles if your employer doesn't give you free juice, to around 2 years...and the entire thing would double again, if you compared it to a stripped Cruz at $19,500 - to 4 years.

So the numbers greatly depend on what you would buy as an alternative. For me, there is way too much that is not known about the Volt's resale value. I have seen reports that it should be high...but I am skeptical. The battery is a major component, and I think it will make used car buyers think twice about buying a Volt. Time will tell.

[roody]

35. The tax credit should roll over

into subsequent years. My CA credit for solar did.

[wercal]

38. No it doesn't

Here's the IRS link:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf

Look at page 4, instructions for Line 23. It very clearly states that the unused portion of the credit is lost, and it CANNOT be carried forward or back to other tax years.

Please do not spread rumors when giving tax advice.

People, the credit is Refundable, and CANNOT be carried forward. That means your actual tax liability has to be at least $7,500, in order to get the full credit. The Chevy Volt forums are full of confused souls who don't understand why they didn't get the full credit...because they believed internet rumors instead of the IRS.

[James48]

45. My stats

1. My federal tax bill is considerably higher than that. Last year it was about 11K.

2. I drive 20,000+ miles per year, mostly to and from work.

3. I live 42 miles (each way) from work.

4. I think I can convince my work to install a charger.

5. You are missing the most important point. I don't want to use gasoline, because I am a retired U.S. Army soldier and to me, gasoline equals dead soldiers. We don't need to be putting soliders in places all over the world when we can avoid it through using other fuel besides gasoline.


I currently drive a flex-fuel car and only use renewable E85 fuel. I would not mind driving an electric car (yes, I know, I know- coal powered electric for many places).

But I wil not buy gasoline.

Period.

[wercal]

55. Gasoline

Hey, I'm ex Army too, and I understand the sentiment with gasoline.

I actually believe the future lies with natural gas, and not electrics.

But, I also believe the dynamics of gasoline are slowly changing. Canada and the US are producing more oil than ever....our biggest foreign supplier has always been Mexico, and it still provides a huge amount of our oil. Other nations are making huge finds of oil....and the Saudis are exhausting their supply of incredibly shallow and easy to get at oil.

At some point, our presence in the Mideast is less about oil, and more about keeping the Suez open and our commitments to protecting Israel. I read a fascinating book called The High Cost of Peace, by a man named Bodansky. He is Israeli, and the book is on its face an anti-Clinton book, which concentrates on his efforts to broker a mid-east peace...from a right wing Israeli perspective. But along the way, in an almost incidental manner, he describes the events in the region prior to 9-11. He describes how Hussein and his son Uday became allied with Assad and his son (the guy who is in charge now)...and even performed joint military operations in the west part of Iraq to simulate an attack on Israel. And in general, there seemed to be a competition at the time to be the first to annihilate Israel, and become a non-secular 'savior' of the region...and a unifier of the region, which would eradicate colonial era boundary lines. Well, the Iranians stepped up their efforts with Hamas, and non government entities in Egypt wanted in on the act. Suddenly there was a race to see who could hit Israel first.

Then 9-11 happened. You may remember a video from that evening. It was a video of Palestinians around a campfire, shouting and firing in the air....then Arafat comes out of somewhere and tries to calm everyone down. What Arafat knew was that 9-11 was serious, and most of the world would unite with us, and the US would have a free pass to do extraordinary things in the region. And we did. And the byproduct of the Iraq and Afghan wars has been a continuous fleet presence in the Gulf, and essentially a 'superbase' in the region. And even today, many of the troops that left Iraq are now positioned in Jordan. So, for 12 years now, the US has had a huge presence in the region....but it may not particularly be about oil. It may be about protecting Israel (for better or worse).

I think we could go all-electric vehicle tomorrow, and we would still keep forces in the Mideast, for a very long time.

[branford]

66. I never served in the army, but I agree with many of your points. (Go, Army!)

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

You raise many pertinent points, particularly about natural gas and evolving energy politics in the Mideast.

I do object to your stressing Israel as a primary reason for our forces and involvement in the region. Our relationship with Israel no doubt is a factor, but in recent years I believe it has substantially diminished and is overshadowed by other concerns.

The Mideast is violent and unstable. Conflict in the region is bad for everyone, including the United States. However, recent instability is totally unrelated to either Israel or the Palestinian conflict. The Arab Spring, Libya, Syria and now Egypt are primarily sectarian and religious conflicts unrelated to Israel or American support thereof. These conflicts nevertheless have significant domestic and international (primarily economic and security) repercussions that must dealt with effectively. That is the reason that Europe has also now chosen to significantly increase their regional involvement (also their lack of energy resources and souring relations with Russia).

Additionally, even though American reliance on Mideast oil has vastly diminished (I believe we now even export and have always primarily relied on Canadian and Mexican oil), the overall worldwide demand for Mideast energy resources is increasing, particularly as the third-world industrializes. China and the rest of Asia are certainly interested in Mideast oil and politics, and realpolitk demands no less of us, lest we be left behind the curve.

[happyslug]

78. Palestinains Celebrated 9/11???

Annette Krüger Spitta of the ARD's (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin Löffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#cite_note-33

Now Wikipedia then goes on and says 65% of Palestinians supported the attacks and site a report from Israel. THAT report actual shows 65% support for Al Queda attacks on the US AND EUROPE not just 9-11. That is not the same. Al Queda, beside 9-11, has attack US Warships (The USS Cole) and US Embassies and that survey would report support for such attacks as also support for 9-11, when the people actually being polled may NOT connect the two. It is an example of "Figures don't lie, but Liars Figure".

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/95535#.UgF2DtLMCEZ

As to Oil Supplies, Mexico oil production is in steep decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Mexico
http://peak-oil.org/2013/04/reasons-mexicos-oil-production-has-stagnated/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0412/The-decline-of-the-world-s-major-oil-fields
http://www.peakoil.net/files/Cantarell%20Is%20Not%20Mexico%E2%80%99s%20Only%20Oil%20Production%20Problem.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/declining-oil-production-mexico-canada-2011-1

Mexcio is NOT the only oil field in decline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/13/peak-oil-isnt-dead-an-interview-with-chris-nelder/

Within the next couple of years, production in Mexico will exceed consumption, i.e. Mexico will become a net oil IMPORTER, as has Britain and Indonesia.

Now, Shale Oil is claimed to have eliminated Peak Oil. The problem is "Shale Oil" (or more accurately called "Tight Oil&quot are very small fields with a production life of less then five years. Such fields tend to peak in about 18 months after put into production, then go into rapid decline. Present Calculation of Tight oil production would make the US the #1 oil producer in the world by 2017, then the US oil production will go into rapid decline, by 2020 US Oil production will be the same as in 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-davis/domestic-oil_b_2898256.html

Remember no one is really planning for peak oil, when it comes up the solutions are unpleasant to the elite (i.e. the top 10% of the economy). The bottom 90% can survive the drastic changes needed at that point, but it means massive disruption to the ruling 10%. i.e. how can you still live in New York City and collect your rents from tenants in Ohio? The answer is by moving back to Ohio OR giving up what ever ownership right you have to those rents because they is no way to collect them economically.

http://www.oildecline.com/steps.htm

Please note, oil production in the Soviet Union peaked in 1985 and one of the reason the Soviet Union collapsed was due to loss of western money due to having less oil to export. Since Putin became the leader of Russia, oil production INCREASED but is expected to peak soon. at a much LOWER rate then its previous peak in 1985. Most of the increase production is unconventional oils, which like Tight Oil in America has short production lives:.

http://blogs.platts.com/2013/06/06/russia-output/

Now, Russia has "Tight oil"but if it is anything like the "Tight Gas" in Poland, contains to much impurities to burn (and the energy needed to remove the impurities exceed the energy in the gas produced). Please note "Tight Oil" and "Tight Gas" are coming from similar fields and as such have similar production history,. Here is some information on "Tight Gas" production that clearly shows the problem if we rely on "Tight Oil" and "Tight Gas":

Polish Tight Gas has 50% nitrogen content:
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/05/shale-gas-view-from-russia.html

Now, the various oil and gas companies that entered Poland blamed government red tape for the reason they were pulling out, but it appears that is an excuse. Polish Shale/Tight Gas is even deeper then Tight Gas in the US and with 50% nitrogen content not profitable.

Shale Gas in Europe has been more bust then boom, One exploratory well in Poland was found to produce natural gas with a 50% nitrogen content, it just would NOT burn.

http://peakoil.com/production/orlov-shale-gas-the-view-from-russia/

http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com/articles/p/156/article/1754/

Let me quote a paragraph:
The best-developed shale gas basin is Barnett in Texas, responsible for 70% of all shale gas produced to date. By “developed” I mean drilled and drilled and drilled, and then drilled some more: just in 2006 there were about as many wells drilled into Barnett shale as are currently producing in all of Russia. This is because the average Barnett well yields only around 6.35 million m3 of gas, over its entire lifetime, which corresponds to the average monthly yield of a typical Russian well that continues to produce over a 15-20 year period, meaning that the yield of a typical shale gas well is at least 200 times smaller. This hectic activity cannot stop once a well has been drilled: in order to continue yielding even these meager quantities, the wells have to be regularly subjected to hydraulic fracturing, or “fracked”: to produce each thousand m3 of gas, 100 kg of sand and 2 tonnes of water, combined with a proprietary chemical cocktail, have to be pumped into the well at high pressure. Half the water comes back up and has to be processed to remove the chemicals. Yearly fracking requirements for the Barnett basin run around 7.1 million tonnes of sand and 47.2 million tonnes of water, but the real numbers are probably lower, as many wells spend much of the time standing idle.

The following rha rha natural gas site, even points out the rapid decline in production of these wells, 80% reduction in the first year:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/358311-making-sense-of-north-america-s-shale-oil-and-gas-future

Notice, I am ignoring the financial and environmental problems with Fracking, just to show how expensive this process is. Shale gas and oil is more bluff then real. something even the Federal Government is slowly coming to accept.

ASPO (Association to study Peak Oil) has always maintained that given the nature of Natural gas (That oil is converted to Natural Gas whenever it drops below 20,000 feet) it is much harder to predict when Natural Gas will peak and decline. Unlike an oil well, which builds up slowly, then peaks and then go into a steady decline, Natural Gas wells produce at peak almost from the first day of production, continues that peak till it empties out. Thus Natural Gas wells can produce for years, then one day stop production. On the Marcellus Shale level it appears to be about a year between the start of production and the end of production. That is NOT a good sign but most people are ignoring that unpleasant idea, preferring the idea that all we have to do is drill more wells faster.
http://endofcrudeoil.blogspot.com/2012/02/shale-gas-development-in-united-states.html

Thus the more I get into Shale Natural Gas production, it appears to be a heavy short production life, and given that most wells are drilled where it is expected to have the most gas, sooner or later I see a decline as it gets harder to find new places to drill.

[happyslug]

73. I hate to say this, but given your situation, the Cruze Eco may be the better choice

First it is cheaper, $21,000 vs $39,000.

Second, in the Standard transmission version, it gets 42 mpg, which is better then the Volt when you have to use Gasoline (The Volt on the highway gets only 40 mpg). The opposite is true in in city driving, the Volt get better fuel economy.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32655&id=31377

Third, it is basically the same vehicle. GM developed both at the same time to spread out the cost of developing the non-engine and transmission costs of the Volt. i.e. they look much alike for the body, frame, brakes, steering, wheels, interior etc are the same).

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/21/2012-chevrolet-cruze-eco-review/

Fourth, no electric car, at the present time, can go 40 miles one way on a single charge. In theory it is possible, in actual practice no. My brother has a Prius and its electric charge only last 10-15 minutes before the gasoline engine has to kick in. Thus you have to accept the use of gasoline.

Fifth, Flex Fuel vehicle is a marketing gimmick, instead of buying oil directly, you have farmers buy it, harvest corn that is converted to gasohol that gets less mpg then gasoline. The net result is more oil used but SOUNDS like you are using less.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2007/06/18/3139/flex-fuel-bait-and-switch/

Sixth, The "Arab Spring" which we have heard so much about, appears to have been triggered by increases in FOOD PRICES. One reason for the increase in food prices has been increase use of corn for use in gasohol (and US Farmers converting from wheat to corn for Gasohol production). This has lead to unrest in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, the Persian Gulf States and even Egypt. In fact your use of Flex Fuel may be causing much of the unrest in the Middle East due to the upward pressure it does on the price of food. Now in Egypt, the price of bread in controlled and appears to available, but anything other then bread is NOT price controlled and the people of Egypt has seen huge increase in those prices over the last five years. Thus Flex Fuel may be leading to the problems of the Mid East simply by increasing the price of food.

http://www.economist.com/node/21550328
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring

Seventh, the best way to reduce one's use of oil is to move closer to work and bike to work (that is what I did). Please note this also reduces your use of Gasohol and thus the increase in the price of food.

[AllyCat]

79. I admire your resolve and thank you for your service

There is this part of me that runs the numbers and thinks I want to support the new technology, if I can afford it. It is hard to continue to fuel a vehicle off the pus of the earth that we kill, maim, torture, subjugate, and rob to get. Electric is usually coal, but not always. People are waking up on alternative electric. My lottery fantasy is enough to buy a Tesla with a solar charger for home

[roody]

69. The verb used is 'should'.

That is not advice.

[wercal]

70. Wow - Talk about semantics

[PoliticAverse]

76. "People, the credit is Refundable" - Actually it is _NOT_ a 'refundable' credit.

In the case of a 'refundable credit' if the amount of the credit exceeds the tax you owe the amount by
which the credit exceeds your tax liability is sent to you in the form of a refund check (hence the name 'refundable').

For example if you owe $5,000 in tax and have a $7,000 refundable credit you will receive a refund of
$2,000 ($7,000 - $5,000).

As you point out for the Qualified Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicle credit if the credit exceeds your tax liability
the excess is not refunded to you. This is because it is a nonrefundable credit.

From: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch36.html#en_US_2012_publink1000174905

This chapter discusses the following nonrefundable credits.

...

Plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit.

Plug-in electric vehicle credit.

...

Nonrefundable credits. The first part of this chapter, Nonrefundable Credits, covers eleven credits that you subtract from your tax. These credits may reduce your tax to zero. If these credits are more than your tax, the excess is not refunded to you.

Refundable credits. The second part of this chapter, Refundable Credits, covers four credits that are treated as payments and are refundable to you. These credits are added to the federal income tax withheld and any estimated tax payments you made. If this total is more than your total tax, the excess will be refunded to you.

[closeupready]

31. Still $15,000 too much.

[Safetykitten]

34. Rich Democrat problems and solutions.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. The Leaf is still cheaper

and a full electric.

I like the idea of the Volt's range, but in my opinions, hybrids are the worst of both worlds. Not enough battery to give you range and save enough money on gas, plus the thousands of moving parts of an internal combustion engine, reducing reliability.

I can get comparable MPG with a Yaris or Fit.

I am VERY fortunate in that I live close enough to work to make commuting viable and will probably lease a Leaf next time I go for a car.

[Schema Thing]

40. The Volt is the best of both worlds imo

If you drive 120 miles w/o stopping every day, the Yars or Fit will give you comparable mileage. If you drive the average daily drive of Americans (95% of all trips are shorter than 30 miles), then the Volt can be driven all electric, or electric/ice combo with mileage well over 100mpg.

And then when you need to take a vacation or go see a relative in another town, the Volt can get your there with very respectable mileage.

That said, I bought a Prius after considering a lightly used Leaf ( a friend is car dealer and was able to get Leafs off of rental stock and could sell me one for 19K with only 11K miles on it). I can't afford a Volt and the Leaf doesn't work for my commute - too many days where I make unplanned drives across town). Love the Prius.

[wercal]

44. 100 mpg?

I think they advertise 93...and its mpge.

The 'e' stands for equivalent, and it is based on a lot of assumptions...and imho these assumptions make it impossible to actually compare mileage.

Why?

Well here's a challenge - take that 93 mpge Volt, charge it up, and put one gallon of gas in it. Will you go 93 miles? No.

It would be much simpler if the sticker gave the gasoline mpg, and miles per kwh.

A Volt sticker would be something like:

34 mpg/3 mpkwh

and a LEAF would be:

0 mpg/3.9 mpkwh....its listed as 129 mpge right now, which exceeds its range, and is really a meaningless way to portray its mileage.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. I say should best for me.

My wife and I work at the same place. and it is only about 3 miles from our house.

Were it not for the dangerous roads (poor repair, no sidewalks) I would bike/walk.

My ideal is to have 1 car for long trips and an electric. I would go to just one car, but you don't want to miss work because of car issues these days. I am very lucky in that I got a "hand me down" from my sister and bought a low mileage used.

But next year I may lease a Leaf if the economy holds.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

41. Sure, new cars are expensive

and not everybody is in the market.

But for those that ARE, the average new car cost $31,087 in March 2013:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1083364_average-transaction-prices-cross-31000-in-march-incentives-keep-declining

$27,495 (sure, after waiting for a $7,500 tax credit - but you probably won't buy the car with cash, will you ?) is actually less than the average new car. And the more Volts that are out there (43,101 have been sold so far), the more chance of picking up a used Volt (the battery is warrantied for 8 years/100,000 miles).

Anyway, the whole point of the Chevy Volt 1.0 was just to pay R&D costs for the Next Generation Volt, which is coming soon. $1.7 billion in Chevy Volt sales so far has done that nicely. The global li-ion automotive battery market is expanding exponentially (it is used in the batteries in the Chevy Spark, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, Chevy Volt, Plug-in Prius, etc), which is leading to increased R&D on these batteries all over the world, e.g.:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=breakthrough-energy-dense-battery-uses-lithium-and-sulfur

http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/06/14/germans-claim-advances-in-lithium-ion-battery-technology/

http://gm-volt.com/2009/03/11/100-fold-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/

These batteries will definitely be smaller, more powerful, and cheaper soon - then plug-in vehicles will be ever more cost-effective, just in time for Peak Oil Mayhem.

[DainBramaged]

58. When the oil's gone we'll still have fast cars and boats

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-mercedes-benz-sls-amg-electric-drive-photos-and-info-news




http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1082345_worlds-fastest-electric-boat-inspired-by-the-mercedes-sls-amg-electric-drive

http://wot.motortrend.com/mercedes-benz-sls-amg-electric-drive-laps-nurburgring-in-756-375815.html#axzz2bDAh6XDY

[shenmue]

65. I really want one of these

I can't wait until I'm working again and I can start socking away.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. If they had one around $16000

but ill wait until they have improved the battery