Limbaugh on Volt: Put it out there at 41 grand and let The Market decide

they subsidize fuel? Here I thought they were taxing it.

Last I heard china steals most of its technology from us.

As much as I dislike Rush, he has a point. The prius sold like hot cakes withe a rebate, now that its going away toyota is heavily scaling back production, it can't compete without it.

he forgot to say "heck, that's why we go overseas and fight wars to get oil", but that doesn't surprise me, he's probably unaware of that fact.

what surprised me most about reading this post was finding out that Rush hadn't OD'd yet.

I'm skeptical of these alternative fuel vehicles (and I drive a new diesel!). After being told for years by GM that E85 was viable, there is only 1 E85 outlet withing 200 miles of my house that is not a military base or refueling center for municipal vehicles - and I live in a metropolitan area of well over 1 million people.

The Volt on the Leaf are getting an awful lot of press for vehicles which are only sold in 5 states each. I am sure that many universities, utilities and local governments will buy these things since they already use taxpayer money, why not over-pay for these green machines?

There will be a very few; yet very vocal, private citizens who will plunk down $34K plus $7,500 welfare dollars to buy a Volt. The truth is, the Volt and Leaf are irrelevant. If John Q. Public just properly inflated his tires to the right pressure, we would would save more fuel in a year than the total output of Leafs (Leaves???) and Volts can save us.

Yeah, cause we own all those Iraqi oil fields now. All that oil is being sent to us. Good thing we fought that war for oil. Idiot.

dagmar3: "there is only 1 E85 outlet withing 200 miles of my house"

We're not all the same. I literally have hundreds within 200 miles of my house.

Back to Rush. Why in the hell does IL or any seemingly reputable publication care what he or any other extremist (left or right) babbles on about?

Rush is a well paid entertainer. We have to hear about the Hollywood Leftists all the time, why not Rush? Frankly, they all can pound sand.

"Rush is a well paid entertainer."

Exactly. Post his opinions in Entertainment Weekly. Not here. Same goes for the "Hollywood Leftists".

I have to give Rush his props, because this car should have to stand on its own merits at its list price.

Regarding E85, the availability of outlets isn't the real problem, but rather the poor value of the fuel. It takes more petroleum and fossil energy to grow and process corn than it provides energy as fuel. It costs too much for the economy it provides on a dollars/gallon basis. It drives up food prices because of opportunity costs between fuel and food usage. It can't be used in every gasoline vehicle because of the issues with corrosion in the fuel system and the low energy density that requires more fuel per combustion cycle that require modifications.

His iPhone argument is totally backwards. If the iPhone wasn't subsidized by the carrier it never would've sold in the quantities needed to make it a game changer. Same goes with the Volt/Leaf.

This is the reinvention of the automobile. It needs to be kick-started and subsidized until the technology goes mainstream.

The question is how long before the subsidies end? I think the answer isn't that complicated: once the cost of the technology doesnt bump the vehicle price significantly higher than the median vehicle price. This figure should be variable and adjusted annually.

I would approach the tax credit differently: Make it a credit towards the automaker, not the consumer. This way the consumer immediately sees the benefit in a reduces MSRP and the automaker collects credits annually. This should put pressure on the automaker to find ways to rapidly reduce the cost of the technology instead of relying on federal subsidies to make it palatable to the consumer.

newt77 - just because the government already interferes too much doesn't invalidate the calls for it to interfere less - unless you assume that the economy is operating in an optimal state at present....

brn - I agree that entertainers should not be given special status in having their opinions heard on topics they know little about. But if someone, be they right, left or center expresses a reasonably thought out viewpoint with a minimum of hyperbole, there's no reason it shouldn't be heard either. Judge on the words and actions, not the name.

cz_75 - the issues you cite are more focused on corn based ethanol. Sugar ethanol is more environmentally friendly, and arguably cheaper as well. Too bad our government imposes substantial tariffs on Brazilian manufactured sugar cane based ethanol to protect corn farmers. Ethanol is also a very easy fuel to use in modern vehicles. Most simply need a larger injector (no marginal cost increase at the point of manufacture - its just a bigger nozzle) and sometimes an upgraded fuel pump. Most modern vehicles already have ethanol tolerant fuel lines so that really isn't an issue anymore. Fueling strategies in most current ethanol compliant vehicles utilize long term fuel trim monitoring to adjust, rather than an inline ethanol content sensor, which keeps costs down. Having converted one of my cars to ethanol, I have to say I love the additional power available and the reduced fuel economy just about evens out with the lower price vs. premium gasoline.

Wow, typical idiotic statements by the usual suspects here on IL's blog. They see "Rush Limbaugh" and just start piling on - no need to actually READ what the man said. Just label him an "extremist" and move on. Why the hell do the American taxpayers have to pay every dolt out there who buys a Volt $7500? Somebody said they are trying to "reinvent the automobile" but why is that necessary? Because you buy into all of this GW crap? Because Cameron Diaz and George Clooney said you are destroying the earth?

If the government would just get out of the way (of both the auto and oil industries) you would see that the current IC technology is a much more viable and successful technology than any of this new crap for at least the next 50-75 years.

Read this very carefully: THERE IS NO CRISIS THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH BY 2016!!

@majin_ssj_eric - I think you're missing the point. Ignore the politics of Global Warming for a minute. Let's look at what drives some of the major technological advances in societies: Governments. Much of the tech we use today can be traced back to a government program (DoD, NASA, etc.). Some are peaceful, others are not. It's no secret that wars spur innovation and advances. We're willing to accept this type of advancement mostly because:

- the public only finds out after the money was spent and the tech was developed
- it becomes a part of our daily lives

I see no harm in the Government publicly funding advancements in the private sector. Its still a tech war out there and the Government stands to benefit from this too.

With regards to electric vehicles, the technology - or at least the idea - has been around and attempted since before IC took over from steam engines. However, it was primitive and therefore failed.

Fast-forward 100 years and now we see how electricity has entered every part of our lives. It's inevitable that the automobile will go the electric route. There are efficiencies to be gained in manfuacturing (parts reduction) and reliability. It doesnt hurt to ALSO concentrate emissions to large-scale operations that can better control pollution (referring to power plants here).

Electrification is the rule, not the exception.

Oh good, I'm glad this was posted. After reading reviews of GM products that are 90% commentary on ownership and the politics of the loans/restructuring, 10% insight on the merits of the vehicle itself and how it functions as a mode of transportation utility and/or entertainment, what I really want to see more of on car websites is political commentary.

@c5thunder

All that tech that was created through government spending in the past was when they were acting as a customer. The millitary or NASA goes to a company wanting to buy something. In this case, the government decided to go give GM money to build a specific vehicle for the general consumer to buy.

The iphone might have been a less than perfect example, but there are 1000s of others to choose from. Our first dvd player cost $500, now I think you can pick them up for $20 brand new. Look at any tech when it comes out (unsubsidized) and you will see that the ones that are revolutionary will stay in market and come back at a lower cost. The products that don't sell will disappear. If the cost of a product is so high that it won't sell without an 18% subsidy than it just isn't ready for market yet.

And ethanol (corn based) is not an answer at all. We need to kill the subsidy on corn products, they sell just fine on their own and should be taxed like every other product.

Another quote from that blowhard, Limbaugh, from the linked transcript:
"People ask me about satellite radio, do you see that being viable."

I answer with a "Hell yea!" My wife and I love XM Radio in our Chevy HHR. She wants to get an XM radio for home and for her Saturn, so I'm thinking about a portable unit that can from house, to car, to boat.

its viable for now. I love my satellite radio, but other than Howard Stern it can't beat playing pandora radio through your phone.

Quote from Limbaugh:
"That's why we go down 5,000 feet to get oil. We need it, and there's nothing better than oil to fuel our growth and our needs. And we're sounded by nincompoops who want to eliminate it, just take us all back to the Stone Age days of poverty in the name of saving something."

Spoken like a true oil exec...IL chose the perfect Rush Limbaugh picture for this article.

majin_ssj_eric says:
"If the government would just get out of the way (of both the auto and oil industries) you would see that the current IC technology is a much more viable and successful technology than any of this new crap for at least the next 50-75 years."

Keep that thought in mind if and when gas prices jump back up to $5+/gallon for no reason at all. Do you really think that the auto companies would have put in safety features like airbags and anti-lock brakes if the government didn't
After all; companies should be able to operate as they please without having to be held accountable right?

Wow...that's so below-the-belt it's ridiculous. A man comments on government involvement in the auto industry (something automobile publications and car enthusiasts typically decry) and all you can come up with is to re-hash the man's issues with prescription medication addiction from years ago. Amazing.

@mrryte

saftey systems are usually brought out by one company, and then either everyone starts using it by choice or because the government said you had to. It was never brought about by the government. Safety systems sell cars. Thanks for giving another example of how the government likes to take credit for things that the industry and market decided.

@lostboyz-

I'm aware that the government takes credit for forcing the industry to live up (or down) to whatever standards is set by some "agency". I'd be a fool to say that the government's constant involvement in every aspect of private industry is a good thing.

However; my point is that without the government's involvement in certain cases (gas mileage and occupant safety for example) the auto and oil industry would be relatively more complacent to stay with the tried and true. They'd only push the R&D envelope if and only if they saw immediate returns on their investment.

Thats absolutely untrue. It always starts at the top and works its way down. Mercedes is well known for inventing a lot of the now standard safety systems. Show me a safety system the government invented and forced to the OEMs. The only thing that really comes to mind is tire pressure monitors. Ford had the big rollover fiasco with the explorer, and in response they started putting TPMs in all their vehicles. To force everyone else to share the cost they lobbied congress to make it a standard.

When gas prices go up, people buy more fuel efficient cars. Know what the OEMs were doing? They all started making more and more fuel efficient cars. The only thing the government did was impose CAFE standards that didn't create any new small efficient cars but it just made it another hurdle everyone has to jump through.

I can see where people think the government is the one protecting you and forcing the big bad corporations to sell you a product that you want, but it simply is not the case. Lets say they mandated that the new viper be really fast and awesome. If it turns out that it is, was it because the government decided it or was it because it was going to happen anyway.

"cz_75 - the issues you cite are more focused on corn based ethanol. Sugar ethanol is more environmentally friendly, and arguably cheaper as well. Too bad our government imposes substantial tariffs on Brazilian manufactured sugar cane based ethanol to protect corn farmers. Ethanol is also a very easy fuel to use in modern vehicles. Most simply need a larger injector (no marginal cost increase at the point of manufacture - its just a bigger nozzle) and sometimes an upgraded fuel pump. Most modern vehicles already have ethanol tolerant fuel lines so that really isn't an issue anymore. Fueling strategies in most current ethanol compliant vehicles utilize long term fuel trim monitoring to adjust, rather than an inline ethanol content sensor, which keeps costs down. Having converted one of my cars to ethanol, I have to say I love the additional power available and the reduced fuel economy just about evens out with the lower price vs. premium gasoline."

Shawn,

I'm aware that sugar can produce several times more EtOH per acre and something like switchgrass more still, enough that they are efficient. However, we, as a matter of politics, as you've alluded, will be forced to use corn as a reality and sugar cane can never be feasible in most of our climate (sugar beets may be different, being cold-tolerant, but their yield per acre is something that may be an issue). Switchgrass would be ideal, however, and not have the environmental impact of clearing land for cultivation like they have in Brazil, which exchanges rain forests for crops like cane - which isn't what environmental-types had in mind.

The other issue, and something you've covered to some extent, is that it is cheaper to manufacture from scratch an E85 capability rather than retrofit, and that while it is possible, it isn't guaranteed to be possible or feasible with all older vehicles. I know some older muscle car drivers are converting for the sake of the increased octane and the improved timing they can run, but they have to adjust their tune by hand and the blend in E85 actually varies by season. In the Midwest, the cost savings, even against premium, doesn't seem to mitigate the decreased fuel efficiency, since the spread is, maybe, $0.50/gal, and certainly doesn't for vehicles that require regular.

I can't really disagree with your well thought out response cz_75. I would only add the following:

1. Politics is vastly changeable and ending protections for corn farmers can happen. People are perhaps more aware today (and growing more aware by the minute) than ever before of how special interests and government handouts are screwing up things in the US. And despite the contrary efforts of bureaucrats and politicians, I don't see things becoming less transparent. Hence, receiving a handout from the government, especially if you're a large company ala ADM could soon become a scarlet letter.

2. I don't really worry too much about what the environmentalists want. As long as the world's population keeps growing, we're going to keep putting pressure on other species and habitats. Minimizing that impact is admirable, but its a matter of choosing which technology creates the least disruption while preserving and improving human standards of existence. In that respect, I'm sure that switching rain forest to agriculture is probably better than more oil discovery/consumption (not that I'm against oil, I think its still the best transportation fuel bar none, but I don't like the US being beholden to so many bad actors on the international stage).

3. Most of the US vehicle fleet made since about MY2000 should be quite easy to retrofit for E85. If Wikipedia is to be beleived, that should be 50-60% of the US non-commercial fleet. Since we'd have a hard time meeting ethanol demand for that many vehicles, I don't see the conversion issue as too serious.