Re-Volt?

The Chevy Volt is probably a fine vehicle, at least GM says it is.

I'm not in the market for one for several reasons, not the least of which is the $40,000 price tag. A guy named Eric Bolling, a Fox News reporter, made a few comments (six minutes worth) about the Volt.

I didn't hear what he said and I wasn't even aware of his critique. Anyway, it gave rise to an e-mail that traveled far and wide. Ed Wallace addressed the situation yesterday in his newspaper column.

Chevy (Re)Volt | Ed Wallace | Dallas-Fort Worth Automobiles and Cars | Star-Telegram.com

I found it interesting.

If I happened to find forty thousand bucks I didn't know I had (?) I wouldn't buy a Volt. I probably wouldn't even buy a new car. I would probably try to sniff out a '48 Continental or a '58 Chrysler 300 hard top.

Jim

Jim, I always enjoy when you share Wallace with us, and he's done a fairly good job of debunking a wive's tale, in part, but I noticed he did samewhat the same falacy mongering thing himself toward the end. Granted, he was running out of column room and maybe he's addressed it elsewhere, but he tosses what he would refer to as a "throw away line" about how if GM had gone into normal bankruptcy it would be gone. That's a frequently used political device (in this case bipartisan) that's just flat out false. Had GM gone through "normal" bankruptcy they would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy wherein a court administrator would have protected it from it's creditors, and allowed it to renegotiate contracts, make structured pay backs of at least some of it's debt, and a long list of other procedures that have been repeated innumerable times by other companies that got themselves in financial trouble in a big way but are still around to tell about it. The rub is, GM went through a quasi-chapter 11 wherein instead of a legal court, the political class inserted itself and didn't follow the normal laws (like that's a surprise......). It's my opinion their primary objective was to save the UAW (which really means the political contributions of the union), along with a variety of less important manipulations to serve the interests of the political class (such as protecting questionable technologies such as the Volt, again for political not practical reasons). A real Chapter 11 wouldn't have turned out too much differently as far as, for instance, the viablility of sub contractors, but it would have made the company less dependant on government and union influence.

Yeah, Bob, I have read and/or listened to Ed Wallace for quite a long time and I have disagreed with him on occasion, but I'll say this for the man, he always responds to his "fan mail" however snide the tone of that mail may be.

That said ....... I have never known him to say anything that was the least bit UNcomplimentary about the UAW. He doesn't exactly sing their praises but sometimes some finger-pointing would be entirely appropriate. I'm sure that his position requires him do some dicey tight-rope walking to maintain his relationships with the government, the corporations, the union, his advertisers, and his readers.

And who knows who else.


Jim

Great read! 40 grand for any electric car seems way to steep of a financial curve to be user friendly, that said, look at Tesla's price tags of 50k and 100k per electric vehicle. As for cool concepts, the fact that when you run out of (electric) juice you can run on gogo(gas) juice is very cool, and factors in the fear and flaw with most all electric vehicles, that could leave you stranded for quite a few hours of charging time. The one thing I have never heard addressed on any sort of hybrid or all electric vehicle is environmental cost of producing the electricity they run on, and the battery metals both mining and recycling along with the longterm maintenance cost of electric vs. gas vehicles. It's easy to say electric is clean, no gas burned, no damage to ozone driving this "clean" vehicle, but conviently ignoring where the extra resources come from.

It's my opinion their primary objective was to save the UAW (which really means the political contributions of the union), would have made the company less dependant on government and union influence.[/QUOTE]
A little on unions! company owned pensions are money makers or brakers for companys, A company will have to put money in the pension to cover the workers so that amount is invested to get a return on that money but is not put back in the pension but becomes bonus for top brass,if there is no return due bad investments they still have to cover the pension amount thus costing the company more for that year. The people making the investment decisions are not in the pension system(does not hurt there pension). when the union has controll of its own penision the receive the amount needed for that year or contract but are solely responsible for their investments,if they lose money its on them. Yes i,m in a union (carpenter)we hold our own pension,my union officials get the same pension i get no more no less,they make bad investments it hurts them and me.A company that controlls the pension reminds me of social security ,the people making the decisions on the money are not in the system(why should they care) but thats a whole another major argument that would to fists a flying!! Pete