Well, I think the Autocar site is being a little misleading here. They act as if GM has been saying one thing in public but are actually having doubts and have finally put it in writing.

I've seen these kind of regulatory filing reports before and they are always pessimistic. They are essentially the fine print, the cavaets, the worst-case scenarios designed to avoid future lawsuits.

Doesn't mean the Volt will or will not succeed. Just saying that it is not an indication that GM secretly has doubts or has changed their mind. It has not "cast doubt" as the Autocar article misleadingly says.

And everything they list is true. NO manufacturer has proved an EV to be commercially viable. (Certainly not in the consumer space.) There is no assurance that any company will get an award from the US DOE, unless the award has already been given. There are other companies that either have deep investor money or are turning a profit in the hybrid business. And there cannot possibly be any assurance for any company that someone will not acquire similar or superior technology.

Nothing unique to GM, really. Again, not saying they WILL succeed, but this article is non-news blown out of proportion tabloid-style.

"GM is also fearful that wealthier competitors will come up with similar technology to the Volt and it will be left behind."

Yeah, when you announce a new "revolutionary" vehicle several years in advance and then delay it and delay it and delay it, I would say a person with a low I.Q. could figure out that someone else who is smarter than you and has their act together is going to develop and release their own idea of your "revolutionary" delayed, delayed, delayed idea before you do. Those who are smart don't reveal their plans. Consider Toyota and Honda for example. The only reason PriusChat had prototype photos was because some reporters went out of their way and caught "spy photos." It wasn't until just a few months before launch date and Toyota had the final version ready, did the "Blue Man" video surface. Prior to that, no one knew if Toyota was even working on a Gen III. Do you think the U.S. Military calls up the Russians on the phone and says "Hey! Check this out! Look what we just discovered!" Of course not. What GM has done is very foolish.

There's a fine line between stirring up advance interest (and, hopefully, starting an advanced buying frenzy) and giving away the farm. GM has always had the longest design-to-market time, which often hurts them (example: the HHR came to market as a competitor to the Cruiser as sales of the Cruiser were waining, the new having gone off the bloom so to speak). I know other non-car companies that have a bad habit of letting the cat out of the bag years early, and I believe it hurts them.

More telling is the Car & Driver test of the prototype. Chevy had a long way to go in programming less than a year ago. They hadn't even decided on some of the basic functionality parameters at the time. Since modern cars (especially our kind of cars) rely mostly on software for all things related to performance, economy and drivability, programming is everything. This is where GM probably has less experience than Toyota.

But that might be my consulting experience talking, since I'm into software development methodology.

The evidence I've seen suggests GM still thinks a fuel efficient vehicle is a 'life style' or 'statement:'

• GM's continued BAS foolishness
• GM management insisting on "HYBRID" being in big letters on the Saturn VUE
• GM putting two-modes only in massive, hugely expensive, and impractical, full-size SUVs
• Bob Lutz discussing the type of women attracted to Prius owners on David Letterman and Stephen Colber (sp?)

GM still thinks this is a 'fad' or some ego-trip. They hired Lutz back and that pretty well says it all.

Bob Wilson

The whole thing makes sicker every time I read about it, and the longer it takes to get going. In other words it really sucks!

Unfortunately, I don't believe this mindset is limited to fuel efficient vehicles. Or GM. Or vehicles. A huge portion of consumer spending fits this label, and companies that don't cater to it tend to be known as 'also-rans'.

Even the Prius is guilty. But your list (except for the 2-mode, which is a bus transmission and won't fit into anything smaller) does suggest that GM treats image as not just the main thing, but as the only thing.

Here in the UK, the REVA G-Wiz electric car and Smith / Tanfield electric trucks are selling like hot cakes (and profitably).

It might help that we are paying $6.05 per US gallon of petrol or diesel!

Doesn't it pretty much boil down to whether the new Lithium Ion Battery proves as reliable as the Nickle Metal Hydride battery used in today's Prius and the other hybrids?
If the new battery proves itself, Toyota is anxious and ready to put it in the Prius, making it a Plug-In hybrid. The Volt would have real competition, in that case.
If the battery cannot be made reliable, I assume the risk-averse Toyota management will not try to put it in the Prius, and if GM goes ahead with the Volt anyway, they will be manafacturing a lot of brand new lemons?
Of course, there are, as the old Technician always used to say, a lot of variables...

At $40,000 you will pay a hefty premium for the privilege of owning a Volt.

If the Volt gets 150mpg ...

compared to a $25,000 30mpg car, with gas at $3.00 gal.

It would take you nearly 200,000 miles just to break even.

Yes, to compete, they have to get the price down, or sell it as an electric Corvette/Caddilac ?