Government Motors Losing $49,000 on Every Chevy Volt


Here’s how the economy works in the United Socialist States of America.

The government gives GM a 50 billion dollar bailout in exchange for making the Chevy Volt cars that it wants the company to make. Chevy Volts cost 89,000 dollars to make. But they can’t be sold at that amount because absolutely no one would buy them. Instead they’re sold at $40,000. Less than half the cost of making them.

Or to put it another way. A Chevy Volt costs GM, the government and you more money… than it costs the idiot who buys one. You may not have a Chevy Volt in your garage, but you already paid for one and you paid 9,000 dollars more than the guy who actually bought one.

(This model repeats itself with virtually every Green energy boondoggle, including solar and wind.)

Still this miserable failure of a car from the miserable failure in the White House doesn’t stop there.

No one wants to buy a Chevy Volt even at 40 thousand dollars. So Government Motors is selling its electric lemons to… the government.

Not only did the government lose 42 billion on the GM bailout, not only is GM in a worse financial position than ever, but the government is now forced to buy its cars that no one wants… at a loss to the government.

The government is buying cars at a loss, whose manufacture is being conducted at a loss. The more cars the government buys, the more it loses at both ends.

Instead of providing protection for Benghazi, the State Department bought Chevy Volts. The military is facing huge budget cuts, but buying Chevy Volts.

Taxpayers paid to save GM. Now taxpayers are paying to keep GM afloat. Taxpayers paid so that Obama and his buddies could play with their very own car company and make their very own cars. They blew that, so now we’re forced to buy their cars.

It’s a pity that Obama learned so little about the Soviet Union before trying to revisit all of its mistakes at the expense of the American economy.

  • Steeloak

    Chevy Volt, American name for a Trabant.

    • Fact Checker

      Why do we waste our time with hard line right wing Republicans and their propaganda? Someone needs to remind these morons that the election results sending Romney home to count his money kind of speaks for itself. I have 4 Chevy Volts that I own personally and in my business and they are the best vehicles I have ever owned. Gas is a faint memory to me, like Romney and Rush.. The author of this article needs to get some help.

  • Art Vandalay

    I've owned my Volt for 6 months and it's the best car I've ever owned. Your assertions are incorrect. I LOVE not buying gas! I haven't bought a drop for more than 3 months. How much gas have you bought lately?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      None.

      • Jim_NJ

        The thing that really surprises me, Daniel (as a 'writer focusing on Radical Islam') is how you support sending billions of dollars a year to OPEC regimes, most of which are breeding grounds for the spread of Radical Islam (or in the case of Venezuela, Socialism). Don't kid yourself: By being against the Republican-built (i.e. Bob Lutz), American made, and AMERICAN FUELED, Chevy Volt, you are supporting those who continue to send billions of dollars to OPEC regimes.

        I used to fund OPEC by over $500/year before I got my Chevy Volt. Now my 'support' of OPEC has been reduced by over 90%. According to Fox News, if just a little over 10% of the U.S. cars were replaced with Chevy Volts, the United States woudl be completely independent of OPEC oil. Please explain why you, Daniel Greenfield, want us to continue supporting OPEC.

        (By the way, I totally believe in more drilling. I made my first investment in the North Dakota oil fields over four years ago.)

      • Jim_NJ

        Daniel – the big problem with this 'article' is that the $49,000 loss has been completely debunked. The $49,000 was calculated a few months ago by rolling all the production AND development costs into the cost of Volts sold-to-date a few months ago. That's like saying a restaurant loses $1000 per plate the first month that their open because of the cost of starting the business is divided by meals sold.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Where has it been debunked?

          • Jim_NJ

            I should have said, 'your claim that "Chevy Volts cost 89,000 dollars to make" has been debunked. The article itself debunks your $89,000 number. Either you're using a second-hand source, or you didn't understand the article. Plus, over 33,000 Volt/Ampera's (Euro-Volts) have now been sold.

            From the Reuters article [my caps]:

            "It currently costs GM "at least" $75,000 to build the Volt, INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT COSTS….

            Spread out over the 21,500 Volts that GM has sold since the car's introduction in December 2010, the DEVELOPMENT AND TOOLING COSTS average just under $56,000 per car. That figure will, of course, come down as more Volts are sold.

            The ACTUAL COST TO BUILD the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."
            http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-gene

          • Jim_NJ

            To further clarify:

            The $89,000 cost-per-Volt is calculated by the worst-case scenario adding $32,000 in production + $56,000 in development costs. The 'best case' is that Volts cost $20,000 + $56,000 = $76,000 per Volt. But that $56,000 number is calculated on a base of 21,500 Volts sold.

            Today, with over 33,000 Volts/Amperas sold (not to mention several thousand more produced), the $56,000 number drops to $36,500 (or as low as $30,000 if you consider all Volts actually built). Doing the math, that means if GM stopped all production of Volts and Amperas (and cancelled the Cadillac ELR), that each one sold would have cost $56,500 – $68,500.

            This is way less than $89,000, and this is just two months after the Reuters article was written. Volt sales continue to accelerate (nearly 3,000 sales in the U.S. alone for each of the last three months), so the pro-American-energy, pro-American-ingenuity, pro-American-manufacturing side is winning with the Volt. I'm sorry that you are on the other side, Daniel, and that you oppose the Republicans that I listed below from "Secureenergy.org".

      • Jim_NJ

        Please understand, Daniel, that your position is in direct contradiction to the following people (very partial list from Secure Energy.org):

        General P.X. Kelley, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
        28th Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (CO-CHAIR)

        Frederick W. Smith
        Chairman, President and CEO, FedEx Corporation (CO-CHAIR)

        Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
        Former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command

        General Bryan "Doug" Brown, U.S. Army (Ret.)
        Former Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command

        Admiral Vern Clark, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
        Former Chief of Naval Operations

        Check out this link: http://www.secureenergy.org/priorities/electrific

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Dennis Blair. My goodness. A man who collaborated in genocide disagrees with me.

          I should probably change my position.

          • Jim_NJ

            I suppose you're speaking about the incident in East Timor? Dennis Blair has defended himself with good arguments against your accusation. I wasn't in East Timor at the time, but if you were, please let us know what you know.

            But back to the point of your 'article' today: Do you admit that your following statement is false, as has been proven by me and others in these comments?

            " Chevy Volts cost 89,000 dollars to make. But they can’t be sold at that amount because absolutely no one would buy them. Instead they’re sold at $40,000. Less than half the cost of making them."

    • Dave – Phoenix

      Approaching 12 months with my Volt.

      - 7500 EV miles and 2500 gasoline miles (All on long road trips).
      - Drive an average of 1000 miles per month at a cost of $35 (gas + electric)

      But even more important than the savings…. I cut my foreign oil consumption by 90%. That is something that should appeal to "all" Americans….

  • J Wiley

    Agree with the guy above, you know nothing about the Volt.

  • todlo

    really? we're still perpetuating this "losing $49k on every volt" lie? even after it was debunked a long time ago?

    "Volt development began in April 2006."

    "President George W. Bush signed into law the federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for any electric vehicle, so long as it had a battery capacity of 16 kW or more."

    (sources: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120913/CARNEWS/… , http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/p… )

    these types of articles are exactly why republicans were so flabbergasted when obama won: they do nothing but reinforce a bubble that gives some people what they want to hear while simultaneously isolating them from reality.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Even though the environmentally friendly Volt's base price is about $40,000, says Reuters, production costs per vehicle run a stratospheric $89,000 — given the car's pricey lithium-polymer batteries, hybrid gas-electric engine, and next-age electronics. That means GM is losing $49,000 for each Volt it sells. Worse: GM has been offering two-year leases for a mere $5,000 to get customers hooked, which is eating deeply into its profits.
      http://theweek.com/article/index/233140/the-chevy

      Reuters and the Week are not Republican sites.

      • todlo

        > Reuters and the Week are not Republican sites.
        while that may be true, it doesn't mean that they're completely immune to misinformation, passed on as fact, originating from entities who stand to lose a lot from the proliferation of electric vehicles.

        all that aside, these articles were, in fact, debunked. at worst, GM is breaking even on these cars.

        solid math can be found here: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=28697

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I'll give Reuters more credibility on reporting a GM scandal… than a GM chairman

          Do you have a retraction from Reuters?

          • paul

            Daniel, Reuters report is accurate to the extent of their assumptions. They amortized the development cost only over the vehicles sold at the time of the study. I doubt any new vehicle model would be profitable using this methodology. The appropriated method would have been to amortize the development cost over the life of the vehicle. The $89,000 includes production and development cost. I am surprised to see an intentionally deceptive report from Reuters.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So that's no retraction. Just a counter-argument from a former GM Chairman.

          • AC Points

            Using this sort of logic if a development firm built an office building for $10 Million and rented the space out for $1 Million dollars per year, after two years you would claim it was bad business because they had "lost" $8 Million dollars.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If the office building was non-viable and not likely to last past two years, then they would have lost 8 million dollars.

          • Jim_NJ

            Daniel – your statement is non-sequitir. Unlike a hypothetical office building that is non-viable after two years, Volt sales are increasing every month. More Volts are being sold every month than half of all other car models being sold in the U.S.

          • AC Points

            I see you "logic" now. GM is non-viable because of the Volt program. The Volt program is a failure because GM is non-viable.

            You also seem to be asserting that the government is buying Chevy Volts in order to keep GM afloat. To this point the government has bought about two dozen Volts, and could over the next three years buy as many as 1000 to 1200 of the vehicles. Trust me Daniel, for a company that sold over 9 million vehicles world wide last year, this is not going to be a significant factor in GM's success.

            If you want to read a serious conservative argument about the auto bailouts read
            http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/

            I'll warn you ahead of time, its got numbers and graphs and arithmetic and logical arguments in it.

            My suggestion to you is to stick to your area of expertise and leave the areas of business and manufacturing to people who understand it. You also might want to learn a little about logical argument. Circular reasoning and tautological rambling may impress a small minority but most intelligent people will just laugh at you.

          • Evan

            You obviously did not take any economics classes in school. You do NOT attempt to write off all of your R&D and set up costs over the first 20,000 units produced. That's just stupidity. By that logic, you would lose money on everything ever produced. Try reading a little about investments and economics…

      • Dave – Phoneix

        It doesn't cost $89,000 to build each individual Chevy Volt…..

        The clever journalist from Reuters simply divided the total R&D costs and the total production costs so far by the total number of Volts sold at the time he wrote the article several months ago, and came up with $89,000.

        All he is really saying is that GM has not yet recouped all the R&D and development costs for the Chevy Volt, something that is not unusual for a vehicle only in its second year on the market and still in its first year of being available nation-wide…

        The $89,000/Volt figure is down from $250,000/Volt a year ago (When only 6000 Volts had been sold so far).

        By next year, as Volt total sales continue to add up, GM will be close to recouping all of its R&D and development costs, and that number may well be below the $40K list price…

      • Ralph

        Nope, go back and read the article. Pay attention to Para's. 22-24. Reuters admits it added R&D costs. Every new product on earth incurs R&D costs. Reuters froze the "losing cost" at 21,000 units sold. There have been 15,000 more units sold since, thus bring down that "losing cost". Reuters admits that in paragraph 23. Reuters admits that the production cost of the Volt is $26,000 (avg).

        All reputable financial sites have poo pooed this article. The problem is, haters froze that figure in their brain. The Prius took 5 years to recoup R&D costs. At current pace, the Volt will recoup the $1 billion R&D cost Reuters reported in the article in 3 years.

  • http://twitter.com/TooomPlahn @TooomPlahn

    Not one citation…sounds like the writer is getting his information from the Reuters article, which was soundly debunked right after it was written.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The Volt's high production costs "prove that the innovative plug-in hybrid is impractical and will probably never be more than a niche product," says Jonathan Berr at MSN Money. Even if GM could bring down its production costs, at $40,000 it is still "asking people to pay BMW or Mercedes prices for a Chevy."
      http://theweek.com/article/index/233140/the-chevy

      • Evan

        Linking to another false story is not a citation. How about you look at reliable sources.
        Yes the price is high, but the technology is too. Do you remember how much Bluray players were when they came out? $2000+. Now you can get one for <$100. New technology comes at a higher price tag, but the price will inevitably decrease.
        The Volt is of comparable quality to a BMW 3 series. Just because it has a Chevy logo doesn't mean it can be higher priced.

      • Dave – Phoneix

        I owned a BMW before owning a Volt. The Volt is a better vehicle.

        Quieter. Smoother. Better acceleration. Similar handling. Comparable luxury features…

        Don't let the Chevy logo fool you. The Corvette also has a Chevy logo….

      • bibes1949

        Well, I usually buy Acuras. Tried a BMW once and didn’t care for it.
        My Volt went 14300 miles in the first year on 109 gallons of gasoline.
        My Ford Escape hybrid would have used about 420 gallons to go the same distance.
        My Acura MDX would have used about 720 gallons.
        Plus, it drives better, in my opinion, than either the Acura or BMW-very quiet and smooth as glass when on batter ypower.

  • Dave – Phoenix

    The election is over…

    America decided it was in favor of the GM bailout. Obama won Ohio, mainly "because" of the GM bailout

    Time to move on….

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Right and wrong don't change because 200,000 more Obamaphone voters showed up at the polls.

      • BillD

        Daniel, if you are serious about the profession of journalism, you should critically evaluate your sources. That old bromide about calculating the the cost of a Volt by amortizing the R&D cost over the number of vehicles produced is valid if production has ceased, but not if production continues. Production is continuing, and GM will use the same technology in other models in their lines, as well – beginning next year with a Cadillac extended range electric car.

        For example, one might say that the first Volt off the production line cost more than $1.5 billion to produce. The per-car figure would drop as each additional car is produced. At this point more than 30,000 Volts have been produced. Sales trends are up. Did you know that the Volt is currently at the median point of sales for all vehicle models in the U.S. marketplace. Even within GM's lines, the Volt is outselling several other models.

        I like cars. I don't buy econoboxes. My previous purchases for many years have been foreign luxury models. I bought a Volt because of the excellent engineering, with good fit and finish and amenities. Its a very good car, and provides as a bonus the fact that my lifetime mileage has passed 250 mpg. It's a pleasure to drive on the winding roads of the hill country where I live.

        Other Volt owners agree. J. D. Powers found the Volt highest in owner satisfaction. It's real, with great technology, engineering and reliability. It won't go away.

        I'm a Republican, if that matters.

      • DeCa

        Obamaphone voters? Okay, it's time to grow up. The government phone assistance program "LifeLine" was started in 1984 during the Reagan administration. It has expanded to cellphones, because that's what phone technology has expanded to.

        I understand and agree with being against bloated government aid programs, but the phone assistance program has been around for a while.

  • rayluthye

    I voted for Romney and own a Volt. Best car I have owned in 50 years! Absolutely love i.. Thanks GM for having the guts to bring it to market.

    .

  • JCS

    To you proud Volt owners. I want the government to pay for 50% of my Ford Taurus.
    Why not? You go it.
    If Volts are so wonderful why haven't they sold.
    I guess because most people are too stupid to choose their own vehicles without the governments help.

    • Evan

      The government didn't pay a dime for my Volt. The government loaned money to GM. NONE of it went directly to the Volt. The Volt was in development since 2006 and was nearing production when GM took the bailout.
      Volts have been selling, to the tune of nearly 3000 a month for the last 3 months. That's better than about 60% of all vehicles sold in the US. Part of the reason the sales aren't higher is the pointless, deliberate attacks such as this article. Yes, lets shoot down the biggest advancement in automotive technology in decades. Not to mention it's an American made car, that runs on American made energy.

    • Einar

      Actually people who read these type of articles and believe them are the stupid ones. I'm an engineer and I did quite a bit of research on this vehicle before I bought one (you might try that yourself – start with Wikipedia, they have a good article describing the Volt and plenty of citations for you to verify their information). Everything pointed to a good reliable car with a very advanced and efficient drivetrain. And that's been my experience so far. With 20K miles on the odometer my 2012 has met and exceeded my expectations many times over. I have a very long commute and am averaging over 60 mpg, cutting my monthly fuel expenses by over $400/month. That kind of savings really cuts in to the payments, and with the insanely simple maintenance on this car I've paid a whole $40 in periodic maintenance since buying the car. Can you say that?

    • Dave – Phoneix

      JCS,

      So many folks like you are blinded by the smoke screen of political rhetoric around GM receiving a bailout and "loans" by the gov't, that you never actually analyze the Volt from an engineering point of view.

      I emphasize the word "loan" because loans are not gifts. They are paid back. Even the bailout will result in close to a zero net loss once the gov't sells back all of its shares in GM.

      But those blinded by this rhetoric, never actually analyze the Volt as a vehicle. If they did, they would find that it is one heck of a piece of engineering and uses very little gas. THAT is what Volt owners are buying…

      I bought my Volt for one reason. My brother was killed in Iraq, and I wished to reduce my own dependence on foreign oil, rather than donate money every week to those that killed my brother. I am glad that GM made such a vehicle and I am also glad for any assistance the gov't gave in helping such a vehicle come to market. This is money well spent.

      And you know what? It worked!!! I reduced my foreign oil consumption by 90% compared to my Ford Explorer.

      In the end, we Volt owners aren't buying a tax break. We are buying a car that uses less foreign oil than just about any other car on the market. We believe that this is the kind of vehicle that "all" Americans should buy and the gov't should provide any and all support necessary to ensure that more of these types of vehicles are brought to market.

      SIDE NOTE: Ford received a $5.9 billion gov't loan in 2009 to help build EV's and hybrids, so don't be thinking that you are buying a Ford because they didn't take any gov't money…. I think this is a good thing, and, once again, it is a "loan" not a gift….

    • bibes1949

      4000 Americans died and trillions of dollars were spent by the government to protect the gasoline supply for your Taurus.

    • Ralph

      This is why. We spend $660 billion a year on the military budget. Of that, about 75% is spent in countries that are oil rich. That is not a coincidence. These countries hate our guts and contribute a lot of our money to Al Qaeda.

      Per Fox News, the total for all electric car subsidies was $6.5 billion. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/09/electr

      Of that, GM received $2.7 billion. Of that, the Volt mus share with the Cadillac ELR, an SUV Volt in the making and the all electric Spark. Thus, the Volt's share will be about $700 million.

      The subsidies are meant to help us get away from those hateful countries. When you compare about $400 billion being spent so you can drive your Ford Taurus (every year!!!) to a one time subsidy of $700 for the Volt, well, there is no comparison.

      When you consider that there are 138 million tax payers in this country, each persons contribution to getting us away from terrorists is only $5 for the Volt.

      Being a patriot means fighting terrorists on all fronts.

  • Evan

    Wow, way to be the last one on the crazy train… It's been proved time and time again that these accusations are completely false. Do a little research on how economics really work next time. GM has also paid back the majority of the govt loans and posted very high profits this year.
    The Volt is an amazing vehicle. Fleets are buying them because they look at the lifetime cost of a vehicle, not just the upfront cost. The bottom line is that electricity is far cheaper than gas.
    How about you pull your head out of your a$$ and read some real facts before posting falsehoods. You should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.

  • Alice

    Daniel,
    Get back to us when you learn how to do some research.

    JCS – no, the government doesn't pay for half of a volt.

    It is like writing "Microsoft lost $1 Billion selling the very first copy of Windows 8!" oh the horror.

  • Mark Renburke

    This article is not nearly exposing the all the real, shocking truth about this so-called "car". I have made a short (just 1 minute long) video that is much more effective. Please watch and tell me what you think! "The Shocking Truth About The Chevy Volt": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJ6NWe0t3g

  • ViperRT10Matt

    The rebuttal to that Reuters article is found right within the Reuters article:

    "[On top of R&D], The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."

    So there's your cost to actually BUILD each Volt. Per those estimates from the article and given a sales price around $40k, each Volt built and sold by GM results in a profit.

    Of course there was a huge R&D commitment that went into the Volt program; whether or not it will ever break even is a separate discussion. But making it sound like each volt is marginal sale of a Volt is done at a loss is false.

    Ford debuted their new Escape SUV this year. They surely spent a few hundred million developing it. Would you say that each new Escape is being sold at a six figure loss? Because if you use the same math, it is.

  • Kyle

    This piece of "journalism" is both disgusting and unethical. This smells like oil company propaganda to me…

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That's my impression of the comments section. Actually.

      • Kyle

        Using the title "Government Motors" and stating false losses on a new product that include r&d costs that should be amortized over the entire life of the product to me states a clear and obvious intention to lead consumers away from this sort of technology. Not to mention your obvious distaste for any attempt at green energy. What other possible motivation could there be for an article like this?

        • Kyle

          Not to mention referring to a car that was awarded car of the year both in Europe and the USA as a "lemon" Chevy should sue for Libel like this…

      • Evan

        Wow, insulting your audience now…

        • Kevin

          The man has no journalistic credentials. He's just a troll, trolling on a trolls website.

  • anon

    The problem with Republicans trying to bash the Volt and GM is

    1. Hybrids and EVs are the future of automobiles. Any idiot should be able to grasp that by now.

    2. The Volt is a well designed award winning car and respected by all the auto pubs that tested it.

    3 GM made record profits last year

    4. Way more tax dollars have been spent on middle east oil than on Hybrids or EVs.

    Go crawl back under your rock. You are the idiot.

  • alan

    Daniel, are you a journalist, do you research any part of what you write.
    this article is pure gump.
    I think what you write is unpatrotic, BUY MORE GAS? don't buy American cars.
    it is now wonder the dems won, you and your kind are completly out of touch!

  • Turd Nugent

    Never write an article without first checking the facts else you look like a turd..
    The chump who wrote this Pulitzer Award winning journalism (NOT) is either an idiot or a troll.
    He deserves some fleeting notoriety before his impending and hopefully permanent unemployment.

  • JDan

    I purchased a Chevy Volt partly because I wanted to minimize any support of terrorism via giving money to counties for their oil who do support terrorism. The selling point for me came when I could lease the Volt for the same amount an econobox would cost adjusting for the cost of the gas. I mainly leased due to cost and the likely changing nature of this new technology. I haven’t used gas in months, yet I use this car as my daily driver. The Volt is no “econobox”. It is stylish, with very good performance, a smooth quiet ride, and very good build quality. Daniel you were asked early in the comments “How much gas has you bought lately?” to which you answered “None.”. So I can only assume you do not own or drive a car, is this correct? If you do, does your employer or someone else buy the gas your car (likely a BMW) uses? If, not then you have absolutely no grounds to talk either for or against any car. As for this car being anything but a winner, I think if you are a car driver, you owe it to yourself to do a lengthy test drive. If you can give it a fair try without prejudice, you will be pleasantly surprised. My guess is you probably have not. If you’re not a car driver then my point is moot. The future sales will tell when the Volt will be fully profitable for GM. Time will tell, but to wager a guess given the sales projections I would say late next year!

  • AC Points

    If you’re going to use the Reuters method of carrying the development cost over the units sold so far, you need to keep your numbers current. The $49,000 number was based on the number of units (21,500) sold through sometime this summer. Through the end of October 33,000 units had been sold worldwide, so that number is now down to around $30,000.

    As a frame of reference, using Reuters method, after the first Volt was sold, GM was “losing” $1.2 Billion on every unit. At the end of 2010 GM was “losing” $3.7 Million on each unit. At the end of 2011 they were “losing” $130,000, and now it is down to $30,000. Depending on pricing, they will probably have to sell somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 units to make up development costs, if you only look at the Volt/Ampera and not any other car programs that may use the technology.

    In today’s economy, that sales target seems pretty optimistic. I’m sure GM was counting on significant sales in Europe where gas is often twice as much as North America. With the banking crisis going on over there most car companies are anticipating losses and expecting a large dip in sales for several years at least. This will probably hurt sales of vehicles like the Volt especially hard.

  • ozzy

    Look up the sales numbers for the Volt. It has sold very well over the last year and a half. Call a couple of your local dealers, I'm sure you'll discover that they don't have any old Volts sitting on the lot.
    TO ANYONE READING THIS ARTICLE, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE TAKING THE OPINION AS FACT!

  • Kevin

    It's becoming quite boring to undertake the simple task of continually refuting the nonsense concerning the Volt, spewed by the low-budget hack writers who shill for the increasingly irrelevant slow-thinkers on the right. So instead I'll just offer up this fact in response: everything you think you know about everything is simply wrong.

  • riverboatbill

    This car should be called the :" Watt TF".

  • Ed Tyer

    There are so many lies in this article that Nixon , Pinochio, and Hitler are now being relegated to amatuer lier status

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Right.

      Attacking the Chevy Volt makes me worse than Hitler.

  • Electrons

    Daniel,
    I took the Volt for a test drive and this was enough to convince me. I went back home and did some research and discovered that owners of the Volt consistently ranked this car #1 since 2011. I did the math and figured I would save enough on gas to pay for almost half of my monthly payments. Even if gas went back down to $1/gallon I would still enjoy the ride – and be proud to own such a unique car… made in America.

  • bart

    "Chevy Volts cost 89,000 dollars to make. " got any evidence of that? this 'article' reminds me of something I regularly flush down the toilet usually about an hour after I get up in the morning before my shower.

  • boon doggle

    Can they be bought on a government subsidized loan? At point of purchase, I mean, you know, interest free credit, all you have to produce is your green card and your useful idiot card, then hey presto it's yours on a monthly installment that will be topped by Barry's green dream team if you default at some point in the future. The author is getting way too close to the real math behind all this. Watch out for the union thugs on your way home tonight. In a Ponzi Pyramid, sometimes it makes sense to register your contempt, then take advantage before it all goes tits up. After all, you are paying for it, whether you buy one or not!

  • martin

    bottom line if u are bashing the volt it is because u haven;t own one I HAVEN.T USE GASOLINE SINCE 5 MONTH AND THE MONEY THAT THAT I SAVE ON GAS I WILL PUT IT BACK IN THE ECONOMY . buying stuff that i need NOT FILLING UP OIL COMPANY POCKET ANYMORE wake up

  • Jim_NJ

    Daniel Greenfield: I was curious why you haven't responded to any of the substantive posts by me, ViperRT10Matt, BillD, Dave-Phoneix, etc, that have refuted your article with hard numbers. But then I found the answer in your profile: "Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman …writer focusing on radical Islam." Reading between the lines, we realize that you are a "Shill-man" who supports "radical Islam".

    As Fox News has pointed out (in the link below) adoption of technology like the Volt's can get the U.S. completely independent of OPEC. OPEC regimes are the biggest funders of radical Islam. Ergo, with Toyota and Ford now selling Volt-like vehicles, and Tesla showing that a 100% U.S.-fueled car can stand up to the best cars in the world, people like you who support funding OPEC for spreading radical Islam are scared shirtless. I thank God that there are patriotic American Volt-buyers who every day move this country closer to energy independence.

    Fox News: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1529856944001/can-the-

    • anon

      Just because he focuses on radical Islam doesn't means he supports it. He's just an Obama hating idiot trying to get clicks to his articles and not caring about the truth or facts. The only time he'll stop posting negative things about EV's and Hybrids is when public opinion on the topic shifts completely over to positive in favor of the new technology. Which will happen very soon. At that point he'll pretend like he was always in favor of the Volt and hybrids because he is spineless. If he wrote this article 6 months ago, most the comments would have been supporting him. But now that EVs and hybrids are winning Motortrend car of the year awards year after year people are starting to realize.

      • Jim_NJ

        I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek suggesting that Daniel was actually a supporter of radical Islam. However, he really should understand that he is encouraging others to support radical Islam by buying more OPEC-oil. If he has even a shred of human decency, I agree that he may someday switch sides and support American energy, and end his de-facto support of OPEC.

        • anon

          A lot of republicans can't seem to grasp reality. They want to end EV subsidies but completely ignore all the tax dollars that go into securing mid-east oil. They don't realize that our economy depends on that oil, and if the continuous flow was disrupted in any way, we would be screwed. A quote from Alan Greenspan:

          "People do not realize in this country, for example, how tenuous our ties to international energy are. That is, we on a daily basis require continuous flow. If that flow is shut off, it causes catastrophic effects in the industrial world."

          When in comes to energy policy, our government is involved, always has been and has to be. And our tax dollars have been used for decades to ensure a steady energy supply from foreign oil. Add that up with environmental concerns and sending money overseas as you stated and it's a situation that needs to be corrected.

          Greenspan again:

          "we better start finding alternatives. Because we are not going to be able to maintain this."

          Republicans have blinders on. They live in a fantasy world. They want to ignore problems in order to perpetuate a false reality. They have to be dragged kicked and screaming towards towards progress.

  • Mike

    Is this article a joke? Are you the Weird Al Yankovic of journalists? I hesitate to call you names because I think you may have intentionally written this for laughs.

    But let me take a guess at your motives, assuming you are quasi-serious about what you wrote: I think you are possibly angry because Obama doesn't allow Israel to persuade the U.S. world into fighting on Israel's behalf. You are probably very ticked that Obama won a second term because he doesn't kiss Israel's behind, like Bush did and Romney would. What's most interesting to me is that many, many, Jewish people abandoned the Democratic Party after 9/11 occurred, throwing aside their long-held Democratic ideals in favor of killing Arabs and protecting their precious State of Israel.

    Your hate propaganda is not well-received and you will not achieve your objectives.

  • http://twitter.com/canuck42012 @canuck42012

    Not much to say about the awesome Volt other than the fact it is a real American success story. Just wanted to say thanks to all you wingnuts for helping to make Obama a 2 term president. Have a nice day.

  • Volt Owner

    Whack-job article, author is either retarded or have been smoking crack, perhaps both.
    The Volt and it's related tech is the future, pumping hard earned money into Saudi Arabia is not.