Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > August > 14 > Entry
GM has the right goals even if it’s overselling
There’s been a lot of talk about how General Motors is now Government Motors, given the feds’ 60 percent stake in the company. GM is feeling heat to prove that it will not act like government, but, on the contrary, will be more entrepreneurial, more adaptable than it has ever been.
In that context, whose idea do you suppose it was to have the CEO hold a news conference on the Chevy Volt and stand in front of a great big sign saying “230 mpg”?
Kind of brings to mind “Mission Accomplished,” doesn’t it? Imitating a president’s mistake doesn’t seem like a great way to live down the Government Motors label.
And, after all, we are talking about a number that’s almost destined to be doubted and debated. It’s GM’s number, not the Environmental Protection Agency’s. And it seems fairly arbitrary. Truth is, if you have a 40-mile round-trip commute, and then plug the thing in overnight, you actually use no gas.
GM is referring to 230 as a city number, a sort of average based on how people drive in the city. (Unlike with other cars, highway driving yields lower mileage.)
But the car hasn’t been tested by average drivers.
It is being built at the rate of about 10 a week, with an eye on showrooms late next year, roughly the time when Nissan is expected to have something similar. (After the GM announcement, Nissan said its Leaf will get 367 mpg.)
Ideally, the 230 number should be in normal-size print, surrounded by qualifiers. After all, the number makes your eyes pop, no matter how big the print.
But GM is rightly eager to deliver the news that this is not your father’s GM, or even your older brother’s (and certainly not some bureaucrat’s).
A few days earlier, the big news was that GM is leading the world into the selling of new cars on eBay, heretofore used only for used cars. Another big splash.
To anybody who wishes GM well, the signs of life are good to see.
Dayton will have more than its share of such people for a long time, even beyond those who are still involved with GM projects or GM spinoffs and suppliers.
The people who run GM and who work there may be different people from the old days, but such changes in sports teams don’t prevent people from rooting for the team they have always rooted for. The same is true in business, to a degree, anyway. Beyond that, Dayton — with its empty plants and laid-off workers — will continue to have a stake in GM’s success.
The old world isn’t coming back. But new opportunities do arise. A company named Applied Sciences, in Cedarville, is working on parts that could one day double (from 40 miles to 80) the distance a Volt can go on one charge — that is, without having to use gas.
In siting manufacturing plants, GM is proceeding with an eye on Michigan, feeling an apparent obligation to create jobs in that state. Fair enough. But the next state in line has to be Ohio, if not for the Volt, for something else.
The Volt is expected to cost about $40,000 (and the Nissan Leaf reportedly $25,000 to $30,000). Buyers can also get a $7,500 tax credit for cars that use electricity. And the price is likely to come down with time.
It will apparently be a while, at best, before the Volt revolutionizes driving habits. Still, it’s good to see GM looking to the future, not the past; good to see it trying to justify the investment of taxpayers. And a little disconcerting to see it inviting skepticism and high-profile rebuttals by making eye-popping claims in eye-popping print.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Auto industry, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb
Comments