Why No One Is Buying Volts: Twenty Years to Earn Back the Fuel Saving

The Journal’s “Is Chevy’s Cruze Dulling the Spark of its Volt?” runs the numbers on the Volt and the similarly sized Chevy Cruze.  

The Volts sells for some $20,000 more than the Cruze. According to EPA estimates (which has the Volt running on gas for part of its usage), the Volt consumes $1,508 gallons per year, while the Cruze burns $1.779. If the Volt is used only for short distance travel, its electricity costs $648 per year.

Thus a typical driver who mixes long distance and city driving would need more than sixty years to earn back the fuel saving. A Volt owner who drives only short distances in the city would require twenty years.

Even if our gas prices rose to European levels, it still would not make economic sense to buy the Volt.

And does anyone wonder why GM sold only 603 Volts in January? Another loss for Obama’s industrial policy.

A New Low for the Times: “Wide Support for Gas Rules”

The NYT’s “New Gas Economy Rules Generate Wide Support” is a dishonest piece of news reporting, claiming:

 “Nearly everyone involved in the process is on board with the results. More than 90 people who spoke throughout the day asserted that the stricter fuel economy requirements would create jobs, reduce oil consumption, create cleaner air and save drivers money, all while helping automakers increase their profits.”

Not surprisingly, the people “on board” are executives of bailout recipients, GM and Chrysler, and the UAW (whom Obama placed in line before secured creditors). Michigan Democrat, John Dingell (a neutral observer) is quoted as asserting  there is “no significant opposition amongst responsible persons.”

Although the headline and Dingel promise wide agreement, the Times mentions in passing that individual automobile dealers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and high-end foreign car manufacturers oppose the measure. The article cites as gospel the estimates of an environmental advocacy group, the EPA and NHTSA  that vehicle prices will rise only $2,000. They fail to mention the automobile dealers’ estimate that the regulations will add $5,000 to the car price.

If the Times wishes to be called the “Newspaper of record,” it should cease such irresponsible and biased reporting. Clearly, the new mileage standards are controversial. There is no way to calculate their costs and benefits with any certainty, and there will be strong disagreement. Why can’t the Times simply report this fact, instead of promoting its political agenda in an article that purports to be news reporting and not opinion?