Recommended Posts

General Motors is taking a $49,000 bath on each Chevy Volt it sells, according to a report.

Citing data provided by consulting firm Munro & Associates, Reuters estimates that each one of the ballyhooed pug-in hybrid vehicles is currently costing upward of $89,000 to produce. With a sticker price of just less than $40,000, that makes for a sticker price disaster.

GM denied the estimate, calling it ?grossly wrong, in part because the reporters allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program.?

But Sandy Munro told FoxNews.com that he stands behind the number, though he added that it was calculated based on industry standards without any specific inside information about the Volt program.

GM has never released exact numbers on development and production costs for the Volt, in part because many of the components used to make it are shared with other vehicles, including its platform and internal combustion engine. Nevertheless, even before it went into production the automaker admitted that the first generation of the car was not likely to turn a profit.

GM's response to the Reuters article further states that ?every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the bottom line. The Volt is no different, even if it takes longer to become profitable.?

full story

General Motors is taking a $49,000 bath on each Chevy Volt it sells, according to a report.

Citing data provided by consulting firm Munro & Associates, Reuters estimates that each one of the ballyhooed pug-in hybrid vehicles is currently costing upward of $89,000 to produce. With a sticker price of just less than $40,000, that makes for a sticker price disaster.

GM denied the estimate, calling it ?grossly wrong, in part because the reporters allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program.?

But Sandy Munro told FoxNews.com that he stands behind the number, though he added that it was calculated based on industry standards without any specific inside information about the Volt program.

GM has never released exact numbers on development and production costs for the Volt, in part because many of the components used to make it are shared with other vehicles, including its platform and internal combustion engine. Nevertheless, even before it went into production the automaker admitted that the first generation of the car was not likely to turn a profit.

GM's response to the Reuters article further states that ?every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the bottom line. The Volt is no different, even if it takes longer to become profitable.?

full story

The sad part is that the American taxpayer is paying for this disaster caused by the Obama regime. I'll be elated to see him go this November.

The sad part is that the American taxpayer is paying for this disaster caused by the Obama regime. I'll be elated to see him go this November.

With people like you voting it's no wonder the USA is in the trouble that they are.

Actually, unlike the Bush debt, OBama didn't give money to these companies, he gave them loans, which are almost paid back. The government is MAKING money off the loans. You fail.

Hahha, and theyll say "according to the liberal media only"..cause we know Fox denies facts and gets away with it.

Remember, Bush gave Free grants to the banks with no strings attached, 800 billion or so. They're the folks that then used part of it to pay outrageous bonuses for running the business in the ground. They could do anything they want with it and never give a penny back.

The auto bailout as mentioned was a loan that is almost paid back with interest. Ford was the only major car manufacturer that didn't accept any money from the Feds.

I realize Republicans and Obama haters don't believe in 'fact checking' but here you have the facts.

Nice try pushing your agenda.

"It's the latest in a series of publicity challenges for the Volt, which conservatives has criticized as the Obama-mobile, despite the fact that it was in the works years before Barack Obama considered running for the White House. The car was first introduced as a concept vehicle in January 2007, two years before Obama took office, and was first sold in fall 2010.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/says+claims+loss+Volt+wrong/7237726/story.html#ixzz26NRv9goQ"

  • Like 2

Nice try pushing your agenda.

"It's the latest in a series of publicity challenges for the Volt, which conservatives has criticized as the Obama-mobile, despite the fact that it was in the works years before Barack Obama considered running for the White House. The car was first introduced as a concept vehicle in January 2007, two years before Obama took office, and was first sold in fall 2010.

Read more: http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz26NRv9goQ"

http://jalopnik.com/...-with-each-volt

To add to your post :p Even though theres a typo in their link XD

http://jalopnik.com/...-with-each-volt

To add to your post :p Even though theres a typo in their link XD

The big picture to take here is that only 21,500 so far. Which each car sold, the number ($40k) goes down. That is normal with product. It is a bit troubling, politics aside, that business analysts over at GM grossly overestimated the demand for the car. A smart company(and one that survives) is a company that knows a product will continue to cost money. Moving to a completely electric car so fast was a flawed business plan I think. They should have followed the hybrid model and did R&D in an environment that let a number of car models absorb the up to $1.2 billion. GM took a gamble and lost out. That is how our markets work though. As a tax payer, I think it was a mistake for the government to invest in this company at all. Car companies fail all the time. Way to much tax payer money was put on state on a bad business plan from what its looking like. I couldn't care less who's fault it is. I want to know what they are going to do is fix it.

Cut the product line. You have the R&D for a pure electric car. Put that research into a new product that will actually sell.

The woman in the video is an idiot. She thinks the Volt was an idea from Barack Obama? She needs to be picked up as an analyst / commentator for FoxNews. That's where she belongs.

  • Like 2

The woman in the video is an idiot. She thinks the Volt was an idea from Barack Obama? She needs to be picked up as an analyst / commentator for FoxNews. That's where she belongs.

Obama does not have the ability to design a soap box derby car. Is she an idiot? I do not know the women.

The big picture to take here is that only 21,500 so far. Which each car sold, the number ($40k) goes down. That is normal with product. It is a bit troubling, politics aside, that business analysts over at GM grossly overestimated the demand for the car. A smart company(and one that survives) is a company that knows a product will continue to cost money. Moving to a completely electric car so fast was a flawed business plan I think. They should have followed the hybrid model and did R&D in an environment that let a number of car models absorb the up to $1.2 billion. GM took a gamble and lost out. That is how our markets work though. As a tax payer, I think it was a mistake for the government to invest in this company at all. Car companies fail all the time. Way to much tax payer money was put on state on a bad business plan from what its looking like. I couldn't care less who's fault it is. I want to know what they are going to do is fix it.

Cut the product line. You have the R&D for a pure electric car. Put that research into a new product that will actually sell.

The Volt is a hybrid.

More than anything, their advertising sucks. I think everyone knows what the deal is with the Prius, but I've seen relatively few Volts anywhere, and heard even less.

The Volt is a hybrid.

More than anything, their advertising sucks. I think everyone knows what the deal is with the Prius, but I've seen relatively few Volts anywhere, and heard even less.

The Volt is NOT a hybrid. If you want to call it a Hybrid as it has about a 2-3 gallon supply of gas so be it.

The Volt is NOT a hybrid.

Yea that's what I thought. Could have swore it was the full electric car. Just read up on it. The combustion engine it has is only used if you fail to charge the car. Otherwise, it is perfectly capable of running electric only.

"Instead General Motors describes the Volt as an electric vehicle equipped with a "range extending" gasoline powered internal combustion engine (ICE)"

Basically, if you have to use any gas.... you are holding it wrong...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!