1
2
3
4
5
6
On a side note:
http://www.motorcities.com/vehicle/09F8A202029256.html
2009 GMC Topkick - Ironhide gets the AxeGM Statement Regarding Wind Down of Medium Duty Truck Production
After four years of working with multiple potential buyers, General Motors has decided to wind-down its medium-duty truck operations. Production of the Chevy Kodiak and GMC Topkick medium duty trucks will cease by July 31, 2009.
GMC Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.
Looks like Obamacorp has made a swift decision...
So by pointing out the concerns that any reasonably adept consumer would ask when faced with dropping $40k on very new technology I'm being some kind of a jerk? 
Of course I have different stuff for different needs: the Trooper for daily driving and towing (I believe you say everyone should own a Land Rover, right? So I guess that makes me a complete idiot.), the Jensen for weekend pleasure motoring and the Abomination for racing (soon to be supplanted by the Jensenator). And I fall into a category of roughly 1% of the population, i.e. 99% of the population will never willingly own more than 1 car at a time.
IIRC, when gas prices went through the roof and I wondered online about buying a DD Honda and relegating the Trooper to tow status only, I do believe you nearly had an aneurysm that anyone would be so stupid as to have different vehicles for different types of driving. Yet if the Volt has the problems that it's said to have that's EXACTLY what most people would wind up doing. Maybe a husband and wife could do it, but the fact remains that it COULD be necessary and yes that WOULD shrink GM's market drastically.
Get off your high horse. No two people have the same needs and to ignore real world needs and conditions is just plain stupid.
Chris_V wrote:Jensenman is doing the exact thing I always rant about here: if a car isn't 100% perfect for 100% of the motoring public (so far 190 million strong) then it's 100% garbage that no one should consider producing.
Stop it.
You want to go to grandma's house all the time, you buy a different effin' car, just like if you want to tow a horse trailer all the time you don't buy a GD Miata.
I have a 14 mile round trip commute. For me, I could commute pretty much all week without ever firing up the Volt's gas engine. in fact, with the Volt, I could probably commute for a month on less than $5 gasoline, even at current rates. If i drove carefully (and if the estimated range is anything like the EV1s) I could probably commute all month without ever using the gas engine.
The only thing that would really be an improvement on the Volt is that the engine should probably be a small diesel, but it's probably too hard to instantly start one when needed like a spark engine can be.
BTW, I saw a Tesla roadster with MD plates on it this week on the Baltimore beltway in rush hour traffic. now there's a cool commuter.
Jensenman wrote:So by pointing out the concerns that any reasonably adept consumer would ask when faced with dropping $40k on very new technology I'm being some kind of a jerk?
No, generalizing those concerns that might affect only YOU as though every motorist everywhere needs that, and the car will be a failure BECAUSE it doesn't meet the needs of every motorist, everywhere, makes you a jerk. 
Jensenman wrote: Of course I have different stuff for different needs: the Trooper for daily driving and towing (I believe you say everyone should own a Land Rover, right?
I've never said that. I've said that I've had three of them, and that they aren't as bad as some non-owners have made them out to be. But that has no bearing on the discussion, as I've never told anyone else what they should or should not have.
Jensenman wrote: I do believe you nearly had an aneurysm that anyone would be so stupid as to have different vehicles for different types of driving.
You'd have to prove that, as I've had over 100 different cars, and usually vastly different cars for different purposes at the same time. I think you may be having me confused with someone else, as I've ALWAYS advocated different cars for different purposes, and that one car cannot fulfill all purposes.
You might want to check your memory.
Jensenman wrote: Get off your high horse. No two people have the same needs and to ignore real world needs and conditions is just plain stupid.
Since no two people have the same need, then exclaiming a car like this as a failure because it may not meet YOUR needs is the issue. YOU'RE on the high horse saying YOUR needs are what people and GM should be focusing on.
Even if this only meets the needs of 1% of the car owning public, then there could be 20 million of them sold! I'd say that'sa fair reason to put it in production as is.
Lemme see: I say it won't fit my needs and that of those who are in the same boat as me and for that reason might not succeed.
And you say it's going to be a complete success because it will fit your needs exactly without you considering the needs of others.
But that's OK. 
Third party involvement request:
I see the car working for 10,000 families per year. A VERY SMALL portion of the purchasing market. GM is proving their ignorance by NOT building a car for the masses but rather for a niche. Honda or Toyota would build this in every plant possible and promote it on every media possible and sell 250,000 units to make money on the program.
I said it before in this thread and I will say it again:
the stories of power loss after 40 miles are NOT confirmed,
I haven't driven one so for all I know the thing may work perfectly,
$40k is still a LOT for a car,
and man I hope GM doesn't screw the pooch with this one.
John Brown wrote:On a side note:
http://www.motorcities.com/vehicle/09F8A202029256.html
2009 GMC Topkick - Ironhide gets the AxeLooks like Obamacorp has made a swift decision...GM Statement Regarding Wind Down of Medium Duty Truck Production
After four years of working with multiple potential buyers, General Motors has decided to wind-down its medium-duty truck operations. Production of the Chevy Kodiak and GMC Topkick medium duty trucks will cease by July 31, 2009.
GMC Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.
the right swift decision would be to bring back the geo variants. light, great on gas, easy to work on and cheap. can i get an amen? (Bobzilla sw1ft)
I would have to say it would make a good 3rd or 4th car except it's priced too high for that. The smart buyer would wait and let the tech evolve and buy one in another five or ten years and pay half for it. If you got to be one of the people who has to have the latest and greatest buy one and tell us what you think about it.
I'm still stuck in the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as far as cars go. I have to buy a bunch of old 2000 to 2009 cars before I can buy a 2010 and I can't buy them before 2015. So I won't be buying a Volt until at least 2025.
Edit: I just reread that and wow it was twisted....sorry.
Toyman01 wrote:Edit: I just reread that and wow it was twisted....sorry.
Which does not surprise me in the least.
Jensenman wrote:Lemme see: I say it won't fit my needs and that of those who are in the same boat as me and for that reason might not succeed.
And you say it's going to be a complete success because it will fit your needs exactly without you considering the needs of others.
Hm. Where did I say it would be a complete success?
But, be that as it may, it CAN be a compete success by selling to the 1% of the driving public that can use it. That's a lot different than saying it IS a failure because it doesn't meet the needs of 100% of the motoring public.
So no, the two statements != each other.
Your logic is as faulty as your memory.
Okay. You wanted the last word, it's all yours.
From what I have found, the amount of cars sold in the US in 2008 was 13.2 million. If GM sold 10,000 Volts, then they would have captured 0.076% of the market.
It is probably best to cater to the niche first, work out the kinks, and then make a model that is more accessible. Heck, the Toyota Prius was on the road for three years in the States, six in Asia, before the iconic wedge shape came out. Success doesn't happen overnight, even with Toyota.
John Brown wrote:On a side note:
http://www.motorcities.com/vehicle/09F8A202029256.html
2009 GMC Topkick - Ironhide gets the AxeGM Statement Regarding Wind Down of Medium Duty Truck Production
After four years of working with multiple potential buyers, General Motors has decided to wind-down its medium-duty truck operations. Production of the Chevy Kodiak and GMC Topkick medium duty trucks will cease by July 31, 2009.
GMC Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.
Looks like Obamacorp has made a swift decision...
GM has been trying to unload the Medium Duty line for a long time, The came close to selling it to International just before the economy tanked.
Jensenman wrote:Lemme see: I say it won't fit my needs and that of those who are in the same boat as me and for that reason might not succeed.
And you say it's going to be a complete success because it will fit your needs exactly without you considering the needs of others.
But that's OK.
Honestly, I think that most customers fit in your mold, and major worries as well. Most customers don't buy hybrids either.
Enough customers will understand that it will be ok.
But sales for a while will be based on the folk who are more than willing to compromise for this technology. My gut tells me that 2-5 years of sales will be to them, at the premium price. And actual sales will be pretty insignificant vs. total sales, but the publicity impact will really tell what happens post those sales. Toyota continues to thrive even though the Tundra outsells their hybrids by quite a bit, so it will be interesting to see GM's preception- if it changes.
Eric
As car things seem to go, I wonder what the Japanese response to the Volt will be? History says it will be cheaper and better, but who knows. Maybe the numbers aren't good enough for them, or course they did jump start the hybrid market.
I really wonder what Clarkson will think. Of course, on second thought, I already know. They did like the Hydrogen car, but liking the car and being able to get any practical use out of it are two entirely different things.
I keep going back to Cannondale motorcycles. Maybe it's not a perfect analogy, but it's a cautionary tale.
Short version: other than ATK, there were no US made dirt bikes for a long time. Cannondale decided to get into the dirt bike market and they started with a clean sheet, part of which was fuel injection. You have to realize that at the time (1997-2000), FI was still very much experimental on dirt bikes. They also had no dealer network (GM does not have that problem). They also made only a motocross version at first and did not take into account that 95% of MX bikes never see a MX track but are rather used as trail bikes. The average trail rider was terrified of FI and that meant that right out of the gate Cannondale had pinched their market way down. They were good bikes but the perception of FI unreliability and that the average guy couldn't bang on it with a stick to make it go made them a hard sell.
IMHO, Cannondale would have been much better off to start with a carbed bike, build a dealer network, then introduce the FI bikes. Unfortunately, in 2003 their entire $40 million investment went to ATK for pennies on the dollar.
Jensenman wrote:I keep going back to Cannondale motorcycles. Maybe it's not a perfect analogy, but it's a cautionary tale.
Short version: other than ATK, there were no US made dirt bikes for a long time. Cannondale decided to get into the dirt bike market and they started with a clean sheet, part of which was fuel injection. You have to realize that at the time (1997-2000), FI was still very much experimental on dirt bikes. They also had no dealer network (GM does not have that problem). They also made only a motocross version at first and did not take into account that 95% of MX bikes never see a MX track but are rather used as trail bikes. The average trail rider was terrified of FI and that meant that right out of the gate Cannondale had pinched their market way down. They were good bikes but the perception of FI unreliability and that the average guy couldn't bang on it with a stick to make it go made them a hard sell.
IMHO, Cannondale would have been much better off to start with a carbed bike, build a dealer network, then introduce the FI bikes. Unfortunately, in 2003 their entire $40 million investment went to ATK for pennies on the dollar.
I think this analogy breaks down because the market is already used to FI (Hybrid technology) What this is, is taking the technology to the next level (multi port ILO throttle body). Also GM isn't new to this sector, they already build cars. How would your scenario have worked if instead of Cannondale it had been Harley Davidson and they were expanding into a new market, dirt bikes, but they've been building bikes for years.
I personally like an off-road bike that you throw the battery over a cliff, kick start the bike and ride off. 
I am not entirely sure the US public is "not ready to accept" a electric-hybrid (or whatever it is). It just that a LOT of car sales come down to price. Hopefully in the future, the price will come down. I really hope it is not to long before we all can get a hold of a reasonably priced electric drivetrain so we all can start retrofitting. There are some very good old cars for this, and they are only getting older and rarer.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:...instead of Cannondale it had been Harley Davidson and they were expanding into a new market, dirt bikes, but they've been building bikes for years...
uhmmmm:
1977 Harley-Davidson SX 175
but I think we see what you are saying.
This all started with 'Can GM sell 10,000 of them' To that I still say yes. I think we've already proved that; A) for the average commute this will be fine B) Some people like new technology C) 'Perceived' greenness goes a long way D) 10,000 units is such a tiny portion of the US market that it's a no brainer.
Again we are confusing the 1% of the market this car will be built for.
Personally the reason the TDi Jetta is so popular here in Michigan has little to do with the 44+ MPG the vehicle gets, those buyers are coming in in droves though, I see a LOT of farmers running diesels and keeping a filling station at home for the Jetta, the F350 and the combine.
Yes the MPG deal helps sell more cars to those doing a fair amount of highway driving, but most of the new TDi converts I see don't understand that these cars are REALLY not meant for driving short trips across town to get milk. The engines don't like it one bit. We are trying to convince a lady with a 2005 Passat TDi wagon with 13K miles that the reason the car misfires is not that it needs new spark plugs and coils like her 2002 1.8T Passat did.
The Dolt will be a fine profit loss for GM. If they have $2.8bn in R&D over 3 years and make 10,000 cars for 7 years straight the company will break even.
aircooled wrote:As car things seem to go, I wonder what the Japanese response to the Volt will be? History says it will be cheaper and better, but who knows. Maybe the numbers aren't good enough for them, or course they did jump start the hybrid market.
Outside of 30 years ago, this isn't true. Pretty much all Ford, GM, and Chrysler products are cheaper than the equal counterpart from Toyota, Honda, or Nissan. And, quality wise, even when it's worse, it's not nearly the difference in price.
Chinese cars, maybe, but even Korean cars are a stretch.
Eric
Nevermind-reread what I said and it didn't make sense.
Right, I understand that my analogy wasn't perfect. The point was needing careful market research and realizing that no matter how exciting new technoogy can be, sometime's it's better to take an intermediate step (conventional hybrid with extended range battery?), build a reputation, then take the big plunge into what is (at least in the automotive market) untested technology. Another parallel between Cannondale and the Volt: the CD was about 20% higher priced than similar established brands. A lot of that was due to their use of very high quality components like Ohlins fork and shock, etc. Like I said, nice bikes.
Had Harley done the same thing as Cannondale at the same time, they likely would have encountered market resistance to the FI thing as well. They probably would have weathered it better since they do have the established dealer network. Fun fact: at about the same time as the Cannondale thing, Harley was negotiating to buy a part of KTM. That deal fell through.
It's quite possible that GM can sell 10k of them. In the US, there were 7.7 million cars sold in 2007. My math says the Volt would account for .0013% of new car sales. the question: can they make enough money to continue building them?
After reading this I am going to states that it does not matter... GM is going to implode.
New GM Chairman Whitacre admits: "I don't know anything about cars.by Frank Filipponio on Jun 10th 2009 at 12:57PM
Newly tapped General Motors Chairman Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. may have built AT&T into a telecommunications powerhouse, but it's fair to question whether he can help do the same for GM. You see, he isn't particularly savvy on the whole auto business thing. In his own words: "I don't know anything about cars." While he admits that cars are a new consideration for him, Whitacre doesn't see it as a much of a problem: "A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I'm not that old, and I think the business principles are the same."
The 67-year-old Whitacre has until Aug. 31 – the date GM is set to exit Chapter 11 – to bone up. Maybe we shouldn't be too critical. After all, former GM engineer and current 2953 Analytics principal, Jim Hall, thinks Whitacre is "a good choice" based on his experience and in the similarities he sees between AT&T and GM:
He was one of the guys who helped create a new AT&T that wasn't so dependent on land-line phone service. There's a parallel with General Motors. GM is not now about just making cars. It's about re-creating itself as a 21st-century car company. They have to have somebody at the top that understands they have to make a new GM
Whitacre says he was enticed out of retirement by the Treasury Department and Steven Rattner, President Barack Obama's auto task force dealmaker. He added that the Treasury basically told him, "We need your help. It's a great company. You could be a lot of assistance to GM." Big Ed says that he is helping GM out of bankruptcy as "a public service." We hope he is a quick study.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/10/new-gm-chairman-whitacre-admits-i-dont-know-any...
AT&T offered prepackaged products and services and GM manufacturers goods... yup I see the similarities in the business models.
