88
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: +
no edit summary
:The fact that [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car] is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily [http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/ to meet a California regulation]. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)
:The fact that [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car] is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily [http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/ to meet a California regulation]. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)