AutoblogGreen

"outcome. GM is undoubtedly loosing a significant number of dollars on every two-mode hybrid "

How do you know this ? Do you have a source other than your opinion to back up this claim?

Reply

Sam said "2. Yes I do."

Odd, why not share it? The details.

Reply

yeah come one selling now what 900 hybrid SUVs at a $5,000 premium they most certainly losing money with the development costs.

Reply

When will GM Break Even on development of the 650 hp Corvette? NEVER. Why are they still selling this loser?

Hybrids are the Future. That development isn't wasted.
The Corvette on the other hand, only makes sense if there's an Oil Kickback involved.

Reply

"Hybrids are the Future" WRONG!

Electric Cars are the future. Some of them will be range-extended at least until the general public gets over their range anxiety.

Look at what's happened to battery, ultracapacitor and Solar technology in the last 24 months. Now that the whole world is focused on renewable electricity, I can't wait to see what the next 10 years will bring. If necessity is the mother of invention, what will ever increasing oil prices bring? Alternatives!

Reply

* "Hybrids are the Future" WRONG! *

Hybrids are most likely the interim solution until an electric infrastructure is in place for the majority to "refuel" their vehicles.

1/3 of all American households are renters, usually apartments, the overwhelming majority of which have no outside plugs for the tenants. Many have no off-street parking at all.

That figure doubles to 2/3 of all households under 30 years old and is even higher for those under 20.

And your familiar refrain that you can drive 40 miles one-way and there's a plug at the other end to charge up for the return trip is pure fantasy. This only works (in today's world) if you're driving from a single-family home to another single-family home and you can park right next to the house/garage.

Mind you, I'm hoping for major advances in this regard, but right now, most of us are left in the cold even if viable EVs were available.

Reply

GM is definitely making money on the Corvettes, including the ZR-1. that car will cost 100K.

Reply

So in other words, Sam, by "yes I do," you mean "no I don't.

Dad called you out and you replied with a factual "yes I do." Then when pressed, you admitted it was based on your opinion.

There is no evidence that GM is loosing money on the duel-mode hybrid. Why not just admit to that and let it go.

Reply

Sam -

I'll bet that GM is making money on each Tahoe/Yukon. Okay, we get it, the retail prices of the 2-Mode hybrid premium for the SUV is less than GM's total cost for the 2-Mode hybrid treatment. You know that from your work on the brakes for one of the GM hybrids. Got it.

But it takes a deeper analysis and some accounting details that we don't exactly know about to come to the conclusion that GM makes (or loses) money on a 2-Mode:

1) The actual transaction prices. What else is bundled with the 2-Mode hybrid on an average transaction? For the factory configured dealer ordered cars, a bunch of other high margin stuff, thats what.

2) How large of an incentive does it take to move a Tahoe or Yukon off the lot? How big of an incentive is on the hybrid? Last I checked there was a $2000 customer incentive to move a base SUV, but $0 customer incentive on the 2-Mode. Also, what we don't know is any dealer incentives that are out there. I am sure that GM is paying retailers plenty to move the base SUVs in this market. No need for extra juice on the hybrid.

3) Is the contribution margin (net revenue per sale minus the variable cost) on a Tahoe/Yukon 2-Mode positive? You would need to understand the fixed vs variable costs of the SUV to answer. The Tahoe/Yukon is probably a high contribution margin vehicle.

If, after all the actual revenue is added up and all the variable costs (parts an labor) are subtracted, then the contribution margin is positive. This means that every additional incremental sale will add to the GM coffers, since the fixed costs of engineering and tooling the 2-mode are at this time sunk and so only the variable costs matter.

You could argue that GM would be better off selling a non-hybrid SUV vs the 2-Mode, but you have to prove that someone who purchased a 2-Mode would have otherwise entered the showroom and bought a non-hybrid Tahoe/Yukon if there was no 2-Mode available. Slim chance - these hybrid buyers were more likely looking at Oddeseys and Highlanders, but realized that they could have more utilty, better mileage and some enviro-cred with the 2 Mode.

Working on a high margin vehicle for a full hybrid is a good idea for GM from the accounting standpoint, since it gives them the best chance to still make money, despite the high costs of the system.

Reply

Anyone knows how long it took Toyota to recoup the development costs of the Prius? How many Prius were sold with a loss?

Of course these early GM hybrids are sold at a loss, no doubt about it.
If they sold 3000 in total, at $ 10.000 more than the normal GM they would have an extra $ 30 million.. it is rather unrealistic to think that this will cover the development costs.

Reply

For the manufacturer, there are 3 parts to their cost of any vehicle: The development cost, the materials cost, and the construction labor cost.

The material cost and construction labor cost is always proportionate to the number built - the more built, the higher the cost. The development costs are upfront and fixed, and are not affected by the number built. It would be foolish to sell the vehicles for less than the material and labor costs, but the development costs can be spread out over many years and lots of vehicles.

Toyota sold the Prius at a price higher than the material and construction labor cost, and it took 6 years of sales - 1997 to 2003 - to pay off the development cost. Now, Toyota is making record hybrid sales and record profits as well.

Reply

Sam, I really doubt that GM would be selling their 2 mode hybrids for less than the cost of building them. Now, GM would loose money if they can't sell enough to cover development costs before the hybrids are discontinued, but it is far too early to assume that will be the case.

Admit it - even the most brilliant bloggers sometimes make missteakes.

Reply

You have to love it when omissions, half truths and hear-say are the best we can hope for from the professional media. How dare we expect anything more from the internet bloggers? Not knowing the source of a “truth” is so much more exciting, isn't it?

Gee Double Yah knows a well informed mass is dangerous mass. Thanks for the keeping up the facade Sam...

Reply

Loos? its spelled "lose"

Reply

Sam said: 5."As such I'm not at liberty to share any information I might have anyway that isn't officially disclosed by the company. "

Yet you share it anyway, but in such a way that it sounds like opinion, not fact. Sounds like you get it both ways.

Reply

Talking about electric vehicles here is a very innovative electric vehicle conversion I happened to see. It didnt receive a lot of publicity but I think it has big promise since its being commercialised soon.A normal car that goes 30 miles to a charge and only costs $6-8000 to convert....I think that suits my needs:

Here's the link:

http://www.nj.com/morristown/news/index.ssf/2008/05/fdu_student_makes_his_chrysler.html

Reply

"GM is undoubtedly loosing a significant number of dollars on every two-mode hybrid"

You wanted to use "losing", not "loosing".

Reply