GM Loses Over $49,000 On Every Chevy Volt
- Thread starter Leftwith
- Start date
Question about this, from link:
"The weak sales are forcing GM to idle the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant that makes the Chevrolet Volt for four weeks from September 17, according to plant suppliers and union sources. It is the second time GM has had to call a Volt production halt this year."
Do the workers still get paid? Who picks up that tab.
and i hate to think of how this affects all the small businesses that are ancillary to a plant.
I guess BO will have to have us taxpayers buy more cars for gov't agencies so we won't lose even more of our money
"The weak sales are forcing GM to idle the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant that makes the Chevrolet Volt for four weeks from September 17, according to plant suppliers and union sources. It is the second time GM has had to call a Volt production halt this year."
Do the workers still get paid? Who picks up that tab.
and i hate to think of how this affects all the small businesses that are ancillary to a plant.
I guess BO will have to have us taxpayers buy more cars for gov't agencies so we won't lose even more of our money
My interest in raising fuel efficiency has less to do with Green and more to do with getting the heck out of the ME. I borrowed this from another site....
'Well, if you want to attack Reuters on that front, here are the numbers:The Link
Fixed Costs
* Development: $18,650
* Tooling: $37,350
Production Costs
* Standard Parts, Material and Labor: $12,000
* Unique Parts, Material and Labor: $12,000
TOTAL: $80,000
Now, as I see it, the base cost for producing each Volt is about $24,000. That leaves $56,000 in development and tooling costs for each Volt (21,000 so far), so according to their numbers, the initial cost for development and tooling was $1,176,000,000 (~$1.2 billion). So, to be fair, Volt #21,001 would be $79,997. Less, but not significantly so, than the current $80,000.
The problem is, this is a much more complicated numbers issue than they are implying. They are repackaging this information (and poorly, I might add) so that it is digestible for the average, uniformed reader and still pushing their (Reuters's Agenda).
Now, say the Volt is costing $24,000 to build. We also need to figure out the invoice price, which is what ~ $34,000? That gives GM a $10,000 window to fit development and tooling costs and still break even. So, working backward, $1.2 billion divided by $10,000 is 117,600. In other words, GM will need to sell 117,600 Volts before they break even, and probably another 80,000 before it becomes reasonably profitable. At current rates, that is 10 years, which from a business standpoint, might or might not be a bad thing. A more reasonable assumption is, as gas prices start to rise, and the Volt stigma starts to go away, GM could expect to sell 40,000 a year, which means that profitability comes within five years.
And of course, all of this is failing to mention that other platforms will benefit from the R&D done on the Volt, so, in order to be fair, you'll have to start dividing the R&D costs up evenly amongst all GM cars that derived any benefit as a result of that R&D. "
====================================
and this....
"It reminds me of the joke in the pharmaceutical industry. The second pill costs only a few cents to make. The first pill costs billions"
'Well, if you want to attack Reuters on that front, here are the numbers:The Link
Fixed Costs
* Development: $18,650
* Tooling: $37,350
Production Costs
* Standard Parts, Material and Labor: $12,000
* Unique Parts, Material and Labor: $12,000
TOTAL: $80,000
Now, as I see it, the base cost for producing each Volt is about $24,000. That leaves $56,000 in development and tooling costs for each Volt (21,000 so far), so according to their numbers, the initial cost for development and tooling was $1,176,000,000 (~$1.2 billion). So, to be fair, Volt #21,001 would be $79,997. Less, but not significantly so, than the current $80,000.
The problem is, this is a much more complicated numbers issue than they are implying. They are repackaging this information (and poorly, I might add) so that it is digestible for the average, uniformed reader and still pushing their (Reuters's Agenda).
Now, say the Volt is costing $24,000 to build. We also need to figure out the invoice price, which is what ~ $34,000? That gives GM a $10,000 window to fit development and tooling costs and still break even. So, working backward, $1.2 billion divided by $10,000 is 117,600. In other words, GM will need to sell 117,600 Volts before they break even, and probably another 80,000 before it becomes reasonably profitable. At current rates, that is 10 years, which from a business standpoint, might or might not be a bad thing. A more reasonable assumption is, as gas prices start to rise, and the Volt stigma starts to go away, GM could expect to sell 40,000 a year, which means that profitability comes within five years.
And of course, all of this is failing to mention that other platforms will benefit from the R&D done on the Volt, so, in order to be fair, you'll have to start dividing the R&D costs up evenly amongst all GM cars that derived any benefit as a result of that R&D. "
====================================
and this....
"It reminds me of the joke in the pharmaceutical industry. The second pill costs only a few cents to make. The first pill costs billions"
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
BrntOrange, those were my thoughts exactly. I was too lazy to write them down, though.
I wonder what the typical early per unit costs for a new vehicle are? For an innovative one that incorporates new technology? Considering how innovative the volt is, I'm sure the investment was much more substantial in its case, but I bet you'd find there are a lot of development and retooling costs for any new vehicle and it takes a while to break even.
Gas isn't getting any cheaper and getting ahead in the electric/ultra-high mileage game would be huge in the long-run. It's unfortunate this impressive vehicle has become a political football.
I wonder what the typical early per unit costs for a new vehicle are? For an innovative one that incorporates new technology? Considering how innovative the volt is, I'm sure the investment was much more substantial in its case, but I bet you'd find there are a lot of development and retooling costs for any new vehicle and it takes a while to break even.
Gas isn't getting any cheaper and getting ahead in the electric/ultra-high mileage game would be huge in the long-run. It's unfortunate this impressive vehicle has become a political football.
Cyclist
The issue isn't how much the start up costs for the Volt are, the issue is it is OUR money being spent on it and OUR money being spect on tax incentives and OUR money for gov't agencies to buy the Volt .
How about the gov't NOT taking our money or borrowing more money to give to GM?
Let the marketplace work.
How many ecars is the gov't buying from any other company besides GM?
The issue isn't how much the start up costs for the Volt are, the issue is it is OUR money being spent on it and OUR money being spect on tax incentives and OUR money for gov't agencies to buy the Volt .
How about the gov't NOT taking our money or borrowing more money to give to GM?
Let the marketplace work.
How many ecars is the gov't buying from any other company besides GM?
Roger
1,000+ Posts
GM Responds basically laying out that they don't report the development costs the way Reuters reported
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Of course, that 49,000 dollars per unit to the U.S. taxpayer has to be weighed against the ongoing monumental cost to U.S. taxpayers for defending oil supply pipelines in the Middle East. This has already been the cause of at least one gigantic U.S. military operation and demanded a decades-long military presence. And you have to add in whatever costs might be incurred by having unemployed GM workers on the dole.
Not to mention all the dead soldiers and their mourning families.
Not to mention all the dead soldiers and their mourning families.
BI
Then based on that logic we , the taxpayer, should be helping Ford, Nissan Honda etc more. They are also developing and bringing elecs and hybrid elecs to market
whichs as You pointed our reduces our need for the ME pipeline
It isn't like GM is the ONLY maker bringing out elecs etc
Then based on that logic we , the taxpayer, should be helping Ford, Nissan Honda etc more. They are also developing and bringing elecs and hybrid elecs to market
whichs as You pointed our reduces our need for the ME pipeline
It isn't like GM is the ONLY maker bringing out elecs etc
rv so if you don't want to take a Zerohedge guy's article as credible how about Reuters?
The Link
"Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts. GM on Monday issued a statement disputing the estimates."
is this more credible to you?
Notice reuters ackonowledges GM dispute the findings
but GM doesn't explain Why it disputes them
The Link
"Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts. GM on Monday issued a statement disputing the estimates."
is this more credible to you?
Notice reuters ackonowledges GM dispute the findings
but GM doesn't explain Why it disputes them
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was about oil. Is our interest in that part of the world heightened because of the abundance of oil? Yes. Is Afghanistan a major oil producer? No. Iraq is, but if our main interest there was stability of oil production the US wouldn't have attacked them. What we did only created instability. It threatened oil production. It didn't defend it. People who say it was about oil are seeing the situation through their ideology.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
Has anybody heard how many Volts the Pentagon is buying?
I can tell you that the Pentagon is one of the more interested parties when it comes to fuel supply. It costs many times more to get fuel into a hostile country than it does at our pumps. The lions share of costs in fighting a war are logistics and fuel is a huge component of that. They are worried about being able to afford the next war.
And not everyone sees the current NatGas abundance as clean, due to the way a lot of it has been accessed. and that's a big part of why it hasn't taken off yet.
I have concerns about fracking but I have more concerns about the economy and security so in the end I take, IMO, the lesser of two evils (NatGas cars).
And not everyone sees the current NatGas abundance as clean, due to the way a lot of it has been accessed. and that's a big part of why it hasn't taken off yet.
I have concerns about fracking but I have more concerns about the economy and security so in the end I take, IMO, the lesser of two evils (NatGas cars).
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
