After arriving at the first Senate hearing by private jet, GM's Rick Wagoner is looking to feign innovation and a commitment to frugality by driving a Chevy
Volt prototype to Washington and past the camera crews awaiting his arrival. The obvious stunt meant to reverse public opinion in GM's bid for bailout cash will put Wagoner behind the wheel of the Volt prototype for just a fraction of the 355 mile journey. Good thing too, because without the
infrastructure required to
support electric vehicles, Wagoner's Volt would only last about 40 miles on battery before the fuel burning engine kicked in to maintain enough charge to drive the powertrain. Instead, the GM exec will begin his journey from Detroit in a hybrid Malibu capable of just 24/32 MPG city/highway. We just hope that the Saturns and dilapidated Chevettes he sees abandoned along America's rust-belt provides the man with ample reminder of GM's previous failures to revolutionize from within. Oh, sorry Rick was that too mean?
P.S. The car pictured above is a non-functional 2011 Volt prototype that will be parked in DC upon Wagoner's arrival.
[Via
Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Level 5 @ Dec 4th 2008 9:51AM
That's incorrect per Autoblog. The car will be a previous generation Malibu mule with the Volt powertrain.
Josh @ Dec 4th 2008 10:01AM
Why take the Malibu Hybrid when he could take a standard Civic which costs less, lasts longer and gets better highway fuel economy. After all, unless Indiana declared their independance, it is an american made car.
The Joker @ Dec 4th 2008 10:01AM
How incredibly unimpressive.
If GM made a magical flying carpet it would still only get 22 mpg
kornation @ Dec 4th 2008 10:16AM
I agree Joker, My car is from '72 (a Bond Bug) and it gets more Mpg that that hunka trash, also more stylish lol.
American cars have terrible Mpg, and are oversized so don't sell well outside of America, but because European and Japanese cars are small and not so thirsty they can sell anywhere.
And now the US Govt is giving them a bailout, well done, probably getting what they've paid the senate in backhanders back, here's an idea for helping your company and your country, sell something that will sell around the world and give better rewards for your dough, cause a cup holder just don't fly over here.
rock99rock @ Dec 4th 2008 10:33AM
"hybrid Malibu capable of just 24/32 MPG city/highway"
thats pretty horrible. Why is mpg going backwards?
I want to support American innovation, but someone out there in detroit has sold their soul to Big Oil.
Level 5 @ Dec 4th 2008 11:14AM
Well guys I was only half right. It was not a Malibu mule with the Volt powertrain, it was actually a Cruze with the Volt powertrain.
Me failzor.
stuntman-james @ Dec 4th 2008 11:31AM
kornation, you are totally wrong. I have lived in Europe for sometime and I can tell you that both ford and gm are some of the best selling cars. At one time, ford focus outsold other cars 3 to 1. Europe, Asia, Russia and the Middle East are burgeoning markets where they outsell cars there than america almost 5 to 1. Reason is the prices of cars here include their union and retirement fees. So to think that they are in financial trouble is ridiculus because other countries want our cars and there are sometimes waiting times as long as a year plus to get one
Ryan Trevisol @ Dec 4th 2008 11:42AM
@rock99rock: Let's not forget that for this model year, the EPA instituted a more realistic MPG rating system, so a lot of cars with very high estimated MPG's in the
lintsniffer @ Dec 4th 2008 1:15PM
@Josh
Don't listen to that union bullshit.
A Honda car made in the good ole U.S. of A. sends its profits to... Japan.
My Mazda 3 gets the same mpg as a hybrid Malibu...? That's disgusting.
Jake B @ Dec 4th 2008 2:05PM
Let's bash American cars yay. You guys are idiots. First off the Malibu is a larger vehicle than your Mazda 3, one would think it wouldn't get as good gas mileage as a little ricebox. The problem with vehicles not having amazing MPG isn't because of dumb GM, it is because of new safety standards and many other things. Have anyone of you idiots ever took the time to see on average what a new car currently weighs versus what a new car weighed in 1970? No you didn't? How surprising. MY BOND BUG GETS BETTER MPG LOLZAR! If you crashed that little hunk of scrap while traveling faster than 40mpg you will probably be dead, you'd survive in the Malibu. That is progress according to our government.
OneLove @ Dec 4th 2008 2:31PM
Please tell m that green "$" is shopped. lol
macserv @ Dec 4th 2008 4:20PM
I have a Mazda 3... as much as I love it, there's no way it matches that Hybrid Malibu's fuel economy.
I'll extole the virtues of the Mazda lineup to any and all who will listen (excelence in design, technology, interior space, performance, value) but hyper-miling fuel economy is not one of those virtues. I'm not saying Mazda makes gas guzzlers -- far from it -- but they're not leaders in that regard.
kornation @ Dec 4th 2008 5:10PM
To clarify some things I wrote earlier...
The bug was a joke, we even take the piss out of it.
Stuntman argued I was wrong on the account of mpg and selling, pointing out the Ford Focus, and he's right, its Euro's best seller, but it isn't American made nor designed, it was designed by Ford Europe in Cologne, while some profits do go back to USA it mainly stays in Europe.
The American Focus and the Focus's sold elseware are different cars. The availability of lower mpg versions is also different, The American Focus (least mpg available in USA) does 31.6mpg, the rest of the world focus (least mpg available) is 42.2 mpg, if I included diesel that would be 54.9 mpg.
Some also argued that General Motors also sell well elsewhere as well, they do, but with company's they bought from those markets and still design and sell their own cars, Vauxall/Opal and Daewoo.
People also argue that its cause of safety standards (Hi Jake B), the Euro safety standards are higher than USA's, we even include pedestrian safety requirements for people who might get hit by your car, and Japanese cars have a lot of new tech included that won't reach any other shores for years to come, yet still have lower mpg's, all you need to do is see the average MPG of an American car compared to a Euro or Japanese (or even emerging Indian cars.) and see its broken (btw heads up, according to MSNBC, 40mpg Euro - 20.4mpg US).
People are getting Patriotic here, that's not the point, the market is now global and you have to be able to sell to all markets, Hummer, Chrysler, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Pontiac, GMC, Lincoln, Mercury, Dodge & Jeep are all American badges, and designed for the American market, but unless they change to suit the world they will not sell well elsewhere.
superhobo @ Dec 6th 2008 3:45AM
The car looks like a squeezed camry
John @ Dec 4th 2008 9:53AM
^^^^ engadget....Level 5 wins.
Sisyphus @ Dec 4th 2008 9:53AM
Do you hear that?
Thats the sound of a dying brontosaurus.
Frankenstein Black @ Dec 4th 2008 10:41AM
Worse than that. Man Rick, how much does it stink that your “Oil Pals” whom you bolstered by creating (and advertising adnausium) sub 12mpg vehicles well past the proverbial “writing on the wall”, now have nothing to say to you! YOU SHOULD ASK EXXON/MOBILE (since your gas guzzlers aided their consecutive windfalls) FOR A “BRIDGE LOAN”! But you won’t will you, why? Because you know they don’t love you Ho’s!
PS The oil pimps put you on the stroll, made record profits off your azzes and tossed you to the graveyard of old streetwalkers. And like a broke old streetwalker you now want welfare from the government. How ironic...
Chad @ Dec 4th 2008 11:38AM
It would almost make you believe there is no relationship between Detroit and big oil.
iEye @ Dec 4th 2008 9:54AM
-And then when he is finished, he will take a shower in a $10,000 a night 5 star hotel, in bottled water with mineral salts to rid himself of the stench of a common car...
when asked if he had any comments behing closed doors, he said;
"I feel so dirty! (scrub scrub) The Dirt's not coming off!!!)"
thedesolate1 @ Dec 4th 2008 9:58AM
You missed the part in between the shower and being done driving.
And then he will fly home in his luxury private jet and take a shower inside it.
Lam Nguyen @ Dec 4th 2008 10:01AM
That's so true!
This is all a big publicity stunt. I hope they get jack ^$&#!
Frogboy @ Dec 4th 2008 10:25AM
I understand that corporate CEOs of large companies have a tendency towards financial abuse but by letting the industry fail, you’d only really be punishing the common people who actually rely on these jobs to make a living. The CEO’s will just go run other large corporations or retire. You’re not really punishing them much at all.
tcv @ Dec 4th 2008 10:46AM
These are the kinds of decisions I just wish I had better detail on. Why not drive the car the entire 355 miles? It's not that long especially if you do it over two days. Are they worried about him getting in an accident? Does he just not want to do it? When I envision myself in the same situation, I think that I would say, "Nah, I'll just drive it." I have a lot of trouble believing that the guy is just full of hubris and won't do it because he's too important/smart/rich/sexy/etc.
But maybe that's the case. :-/
joshua.blackmon @ Dec 4th 2008 12:43PM
355 miles is nothing to drive in one day, hell I'd drive that coming back from college every month or so. Supposedly the car drives 40 miles on the initial charge alone and the gasoline generator kicks in to maintain the charge for at least another 288 miles, 48mpg * 6gallons. Lets assume you only get 30 miles on the full charge, that brings the range to about 318 miles which is just shy of the 355 mile trip. So, he fills up with a couple gallons to finish the trip. He has burned 8 gallons of probably E85, maybe just E10, for the trip instead of around 300gallons an hour for a private jet. Granted the jet fuel typically produces less particulate matter per gallon, however the jet uses far more fuel than the car, not to mention the cost for the jet, it's crew, and permits.
d_inevitable @ Dec 4th 2008 3:29PM
@joshua
Seriously people. He is getting payed for running a company and has therefore a big agenda. He is not getting payed for driving a car around all day long. The private jet is to safe him time and time is money and for a case of a CEO a flight in a private jet is effectively often cheaper than other means of transportation.
Would you as a share holder be happy to spend a lot of money to someone who is (at least supposed to be) very good in running a company, while all he does is spend a lot of the time driving a car? I would say that this would be money badly spent.
joshua.blackmon @ Dec 4th 2008 4:38PM
@d_inevitable
Please keep in mind that a 355 mile trip can be done in about 5 hours. His flight may be only 1 hour, but the waits for takeoff and landing could add another hour or two, not to mention the drive to and from the airport. Let's be generous and say it takes him 2 hours to get from departure to destination using the jet. Jet fuel is currently about $1.72/gallon directly from the refinery, the jet burns about 300 gallons/hour and the engines might idle before takeoff and after landing, oh lets say 50 gallons/hour. The jet has burned 400 gallons of fuel at $1.72/gal totaling $688 for the fuel alone. The car on the other hand has burned 8 gallons at about $2/gal totaling $16 for fuel. Taking time into account that comes to $344.00/hour for the plane ride and $3.20/hour for the car ride. Assuming the CEO would not drive himself, he's not going to fly himself either, he could still be conducting some business and is still being productive. To offset the cost of his 3 extra hours in the car, should he not be able to conduct business, the CEO must be making the company $113.60/hr for those 3 hours. If the entire 5 hour car trip has him unable to do business, then in those 5 hours he would have had to make the company at least $68.16/hr to justify the fuel cost of the plane ride alone. If you begin to add in the other costs of private jet ownership, the time saved vs cost begin to not be worth it other than perhaps to offset the inconvenience to the CEO.
If the CEOs time is so precious that it justifies using the private jet, then maybe he needs to delegate his workload better.
d_inevitable @ Dec 4th 2008 5:20PM
Well you've made some nice calculations about how much the CEO's time could be worth and I would even reckon that the private jet is more expensive than you have mentioned. The value for time aspect, to be honest, really depends on what kind of agenda the CEO has. All I know is that CEOs of large corporations have very tight schedules and the faster they can move about to make decisions the better for the company (I know some CEOs are best to be kept shut, but general terms...).
And not everyone can work in car - I can't; it would make me feel sick. Unless its just talking on the phone.
Now don't get me wrong though. I am also getting annoyed with CEOs, especially as they keep getting large bonuses after failure. I just think that the use of private jets is justified in terms of spending resources. Environmental issues would of course be a different story.
Uncle Buck @ Dec 4th 2008 9:54AM
I've got a ten year old Civic that averaged 42mpg on both ways of a 1000 mile trip. Come on guys these electric/hybrid cars are a joke. They really ought to do much, much better than that ridiculous 32mpg.
mushadow @ Dec 4th 2008 10:04AM
Up hill both ways I would assume. Hybrid/electric cars were built to help in the city were there are lots of stops and congestion (lots of braking). On Long haul drives, the hybrid doesn't kick in and the volt won't make it 50 miles on all electric, hence the gas generator.
ethana2 @ Dec 4th 2008 10:18AM
Conspiracy theory dictates that the efficiency of these vehicles is limited almost directly by the oil lobby and each hybrid vehicle must therefore be modified by its owner to reach its full potential, which tends to be around 100 mpg.
I don't know exactly how much of that I believe, but I often walk; I just hate driving-- but then, being a pedestrian is plenty stressful too... especially when you come up to an intersection and you see someone waving signals at you from inside a vehicle you're about to walk in front of and their windows are tinted so you can tell they're waving frantically but you can't tell WHAT IN FRICK THEY WANT YOU TO DO. So really in the end, the reason I hate driving, other drivers, doesn't really go away just because I'm a meter off the road.
In conclusion, telecommute if at all possible.
Bellzebub @ Dec 4th 2008 10:33AM
Yeah, if that's their idea of an 'efficient' hybrid design, they really are taking the mick. Seriously, is he driving a truck? I have a petrol (gas) car that seats 5 and does 52 mpg at 60mph or 40mpg in the urban enviroment. The VW blue motion cars can get even more at up to 62mpg.
It worries me that this is the weak expectations the US industry has for hybrid drives. If this is green driving, I'll be sticking with petrol (or my bike).
guest @ Dec 4th 2008 3:38PM
my 97 nissan maxima, not a small car by any stretch of the imagination, gets 30mpg on the highway and about 25 in city.
i agree, hybrids are disappointing.
thedesolate1 @ Dec 4th 2008 9:56AM
Man they are really getting desperate huh? I know quite a few EV startups that can use the money instead such as Aptera and Tesla. Although I am concerned by all the shady dealings at Tesla as of late with all the in fighting and the resignations and firing of people. Seems like Mr.Musk is causing quite a stir within his company. Zap seems to be pretty sketchy according to this wired article so thats a no go for them...
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-04/ff_zapped
Tracy in Cary @ Dec 4th 2008 9:56AM
It's kind of a catch-22 isn't it?
GM: "We need billions o' dollars so we can stay afloat and sell this great car I drove here."
Congress: "If the car is so great and people will buy it, why do you need our money?"
iEye @ Dec 4th 2008 10:10AM
Because the car is shi...
darn...
Oh, I see what you did there, you are trying to trick me!
kjb434 @ Dec 4th 2008 10:19AM
The real problem is the stupid unions (UAW).
Imagine paying someone $80 an hour to screw bolts on and at the Honda, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes plants in the US where unions aren't in operation you only have to pay $30!
On top of that, the stupid UAW also forces big three to continue to pay the laid off workers at the high rate even when they don't work. No wonder they go bankrupt. Since they have to pay their workers so much, they have to cut cost everywhere else. Mainly in the quality of the cars.
And NO, cutting the executive pay down to $1 won't solve this problem. It's just a gesture to make the public and politicians feel good.
Tracy in Cary @ Dec 4th 2008 11:06AM
kjb434:
You $80/hour comment really surprised me so I took a little time to look it up. I found this document. ( http://chryslerlabortalks07.com/Economic_Data.rtf ) and for 2006 it says the wage is $29/hour. Scroll down to "Average DaimlerChrysler Labor Costs Per Hour Worked" and you see some different numbers. Add on another $20 for health care and another $26 for "other" and you get $75+ in 2006! Just what the heck is "other"?
Most interesting is the part I find where health care was about 16% of the employee cost from 1991 to 2002, then took a sharp increase to 27%. What happened to cause this sharp increase?
And don't forget the 17 days paid vacation and 17 holidays! Sounds like working for UAW has some nice benefits.
hayley @ Dec 4th 2008 11:21AM
because the car is due out in 2010? wiseass
rv @ Dec 4th 2008 3:00PM
This pissed me off. I have to go to college, then grad school to get a good wage. These asshole highschool grads are making $80. Fuck them, I have no sypmathy for some dumbass overpaid UNSKILLED worker
John @ Dec 4th 2008 9:59AM
Let's not give them the money and let them fail. And buy foreign cars. The more money we spend on foreign cars the better our economy will be in the long run.
Mike @ Dec 4th 2008 10:04AM
I don't entirely disagree but what's the logic behind that?
Nate @ Dec 4th 2008 10:17AM
The logic would be that tax payers would no longer have to pay GM's union dues. Average big 3 employee annual wage with benefits is $145,000 (+/- $5000 depending on which one you are talking about).
By comparison, foreign automakers with US based operations pay only an average of about $96k per employee. I may be completely off base here, but I'm pretty sure you need a lower cost per employee to compete in a global automotive market when domestic based foreign competition puts out a better, cheaper product on your own soil. Somethings gotta give.
Sisyphus @ Dec 4th 2008 10:58AM
I remember in the 90s there was a huge push to buy U.S. made cars (there's always an underlying "buy U.S." sentiment, but I remember something of more magnitude).
Did it work? Nope. People still bought foreign cars. Toyota is now one of the most successful brands worldwide. And due to mutual advantage, which protectionists don't seem to understand, all of those "foreign" brands now have plants in the U.S. and have given Americans jobs and cheaper cars.
user1 @ Dec 4th 2008 11:24AM
Why not subsidize companies who are actually producing FUNCTIONAL alternative fuel cars like Tesla? I'm getting tired of these massive companies who like to selectively participate in capitalism. The US government is beginning to set a scary precedent by eliminating the risk in building industries/business. Who is with me--let's start a company and make it so big that we can threaten massive economic failure if someone doesn't bail us out. If they can't handle the risks, they shouldn't be entitled to the rewards.
Chad @ Dec 4th 2008 11:46AM
I don't have a degree in economics, so you're going to have to explain this to me. How does shipping all of our money overseas make our economy better in the long run?
Awake @ Dec 4th 2008 11:56AM
I have a question no one is asking, why is GM asking for $18 Billion when the company is worth $3 to $5 Billion? This whole bailout idea is a bunch of BS
GeneMack @ Dec 4th 2008 1:38PM
Awake:
Are you basing that price on market cap? That's about the only way you I can see to come up with that number. And market cap has nothing to do with what a company is worth. GM has a market cap of 2.7b, with revenues of 187.1b. Apple has a market cap of 82.3b, with revenues of 32.5b. Microsoft is at 173.1b, with a 60.4b in revenue.
Given those figures, you still can't evaluate which is the more valuable company, the more profitable company, or much else about their "worth".
GM still still #4 on the Fortune 500 list.
SilverGixxer @ Dec 5th 2008 6:12AM
I'm reading alot of comments about how people want GM to fail, and I can honestly say that I want them to succeed, not because they're an American company, but because if they failed completely, our economy would be worse off than it already is. If GM fails, it would affect not only however many thousands of people who are employed by GM, but also all of their suppliers, transportation companies who transport their cars all over the U.S., dealerships and their employees, etc. You're talking about all of those people now unemployed or making significantly less who won't be spending their money at places like Toysrus, Best Buy, JCPenney or where ever. It would cause a chain reaction. IMO.
Jason @ Dec 5th 2008 9:36AM
Silver,
There is no succeeding for these 3. When word broke out back in October that they were halting plants Toyota stopped the freight coming to America, turned it around and returned to port in order to fill it up to 100% capacity. The problem is, the big 3, are old time conservative 'big car, fast, guzzler' and that was fine... 25 years ago. The market shifted a bit from, super fast v8's with 5-15 mpg to v4's, hybrids, 40+ mpg. Who was the first to answer to the changing market? The pruis and insight were released in the late 90s, when did one of the big 3 have a car that was competitive with them?
So ask yourself this: Do you want to see GM, Ford and Chrysler fail and cause job losses for many or do you want to see GM, Ford and Chrysler fail, cause job losses for many AND cost taxpayers 30 billion plus on top of that? I prefer the lesser.
Maestro @ Dec 4th 2008 10:01AM
The malibu hybrid is unlike the traditional hybrids (prius). Think of it more like a Hybrid-Lite. I believe I read that the malibu hybrid does not run on it's electric motor rather it just uses the electric motor for a boost in power thus letting the gas engine run a little slower.
The concept behind the Volt isn't that bad. The average driver puts less than 40 miles a day on their car. So if you can hit that sweet spot with a reliable electric motor you are doing fine. The gas tank is there for the longer trips or when recharging is not an option.