Report: Rush Limbaugh tears into Chevy Volt, fails to understand how it works [*Updated]
It has long been apparent that the more successful a talk radio host is, the less relevant the facts become. Case in point is this week's apparent tirade by Rush Limbaugh against the 2011 Chevrolet Volt. No doubt the Volt's sticker price came in higher than most of us had hoped at $41,000, and Limbaugh may have had a slight point there. However, suggesting that the federal $7,500 tax credit for plug-in vehicles like the Volt and the Nissan Leaf was there as an admission that no one wants these vehicles strikes us as disingenuous at best, especially when you recall the tax write-offs that were available to people buying Hummers and other large SUVs just a few years ago. As far as we know, Limbaugh also made no mention of the more palatable $350-per-month lease deal available for the Volt.
The Detroit Free Press reported that Limbaugh also ripped into the Volt's 40 mile range, implying that the 40 miles of range from the battery is all that is available. He was either unaware of or chose to ignore the fact that in charge-sustaining mode, the car's onboard engine-generator can keep the battery going for another 300 miles on a tank of gas. If you don't have time to sit around while the battery charges, you can just take a couple of minutes to fill the tank and be on your way again, just as you would in a normal car.
*Update: When this story was originally posted, we were unable to find a transcript online. After reviewing the transcript post-publication, it's clear that the Detroit Free Press took Limbaugh's comments out of context just as much of the media did last week in the case of Shirley Sharrod. Limbaugh is clearly aware of the range-extending capabilities of the Volt powertrain, although he didn't make any mention of the lease deal.
Until a caller informed Limbaugh of the Department of Energy-funded Charge Point America program, he was apparently unaware that over 4,000 free home 240-volt chargers would be available. However, the reality is that the Volt can be charged from a standard 110 volt outlet in 8-10 hours because of its smaller capacity batteries. Speaking of its range, the continual harping on the 40 mile range neglects the fact that for the vast majority of trips that will be perfectly adequate and the car can continue on after that on gasoline essentially without driver input.
From where we sit, comparisons of the Volt (and other EVs) to the Apple iPhone are also flawed. At launch, the iPhone did not have a carrier subsidy from AT&T and while it did well, sales didn't really take off until a few months later when the service provider cut the cost. Those subsidies have been more than recovered by AT&T (and other cellular companies) through very expensive smartphone service plans. The groundbreaking aspect of the iPhone was its software, not its hardware which was not significantly more expensive than other phones. While it remains to be seen if battery-powered vehicles can change the game, there is no argument that they are currently substantially more expensive to manufacture. As long as the United States has significantly lower gasoline prices than other countries, EVs are unlikely to thrive at their true cost.
Gallery: 2011 Chevrolet Volt
[Sources: Detroit Free Press, RushLimbaugh.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 13)
Tricky dicky 11:33AM (7/29/2010)
The handouts, state and federal are efforts to engineer a market for these. I don't know how that can be argued. IF people truly wanted these, they would have had them on the road years ago. Stacking the deck with incentives, and emissions / economy laws is the only way these things be mass market winners.
Reply
paul34 11:39AM (7/29/2010)
They were from a time when perhaps that wasn't as much market demand, yes. But now, there is a a genuine demand for them. First gen tech is always expensive, but can only be made cheaper with little regulation (look at technology markets for example) and high enough demand.
The credits will slow the fall of prices for these types of cars, now that there is a demand.
It is unfortunate Mr. Limbaugh decided not to look at the facts of how the vehicle actually worked, or at the market dynamics in this situation.
Summary: it's a case of an intersection of a gov attempt to do economic engineering with actual demand. A mere coincidence, but it's time (past time) for the .gov to get out of the credits game.
some1 11:52AM (7/29/2010)
I am not the biggest fan of hybrids, but even I still know that people want them. The market on its own, would take much longer to bring down the price without government help. You have the chicken and the egg concept going on. In order for an automaker to make a profit off these, they have to dump a large amount of initial cash into development. And no automaker wants to take that huge of a risk. On the flip side, you have consumers, who dont want to spend large sums of money, to save it slowly over 10 years. These are two extremes, and all the government is doing is leveling them out, to get the thing jump started. This has happend time and time again with all kinds of indusrty, and it accelerates the process. Once the automakers can start pushing out alot, and the price can come down because of it, then people wont have a prob buying, and the problem will go away.
On a side note, im glad to see rush is still a big fat idiot.
Luis 11:53AM (7/29/2010)
The government has been engineering a market for oil/gasoline consumption for decades from subsidized highways to tax breaks for drilling. Why doesn't he rail on corn subsidies instead? Maybe because Monsanto and ConAgra line his pockets. Those are far more detrimental to actually encouraging a positive market force, rather than obesity with cheap orange soda.
cdwrx 11:59AM (7/29/2010)
Agreed, Luis. Layer upon layer of subsidies has distorted the market to the point that you can't really tell what the true cost of anything is.
Stripes 12:13PM (7/29/2010)
"IF people truly wanted these, they would have had them on the road years ago."
Not true. What is true is the related but weaker:
If at least one big car company (or other well funded entity with a desire to become a car company) thought there was a market AT A PROFIT GENERATING PRICE, and was confident enough about it AND tech was possible at the time then we would have it.
So failure to "invent" the volt in 1960 could be entirely due to lack of ability to make one. In 2000 it could well have been because the perceived number of people who wanted a (mostly) eletric car was too small to justify the cost of designing and tooling and building them (remember Toyta hasn't made their gamble yet, so everyone in 2000 is guessing). In 2008 it would have more to do with a guess that the thing would cost $40k and while it would be a best seller at $15k, at $40k it wouldn't turn a profit.
(and I think absent government rebates and other meddling these would eventually take off, but the price of oil would have to raise a fair bit first, and then production would lag demand by at least a half decade...plus one can argue the current laws have meddled the other way, made oil cheaper, and moved costs of pouting from the polluter to everyone, and dismantling that system would also get us to eletric cars sooner but cause more economic damage. I'm not personally fond of market meddling, but this is pretty minor on the scale of things anyway so I choose to worry about other things)
trustedcarsalesman 12:13PM (7/29/2010)
+10 for Luis
Whenever I hear these "government intervention" arguments, no one ever seems to mention the billions of dollars worth of lobbying that corporations spend so that THEY can intervien...
Sea Urchin 12:33PM (7/29/2010)
Shouldn't cost of wars also be considered a gasoline subsidy. If we did not have bases in Middle East to protect oil fields price on gas would have been higher. So it is an indirect subsidy.
ROCKandREVIEWcom 12:54PM (7/29/2010)
@Sea Urchin - as well as the cost of anti-gas regulations.
The natural price of gas will be near zero when we begin to use all of the vast resources we have in this country.
It's funny how some want to make you think there is a scarcity (when they've manufactured that scarcity through government in order to "compete" with their own alternative products) of oil and resources, when in-fact, we have more resources here than any other place on earth!
I'm expanding my carbon footprint - I happen to like Diamonds, Trees and People.
Cutting your carbon footprint is like sticking your head in a plastic bag. You need carbon and other greenhouse gases to get other things. But legit scientists know that energy flows from one form to another - from your fingers, to the keys to the net - and that it takes all forms to have balance.
Yang and Yang never produced anything but a butt disease, but when Yang met Yen a whole lot of BOOM-BOOM-POW started taking place!
The point is, those who vilify a technology or person usually do it because they've got something they want to sell you.
They capitalize on your wrong thinking (sometimes purposely cause by people like our friend Sam here) by not having all the facts, encouraging you make snap decisions, forcing you through regulation and by taking things out of context. By turning your fear of something or someone into profit they've taken greed to a new level. That's not capitalism, it's called Socialism, which is just another word for greed. See the disingenuous want to make you think that capitalism lives in a vacuum from honesty and fairness when in-fact, it requires them. A person who is greedy and calls themselves a capitalist or free-market person, is really just a liar, they are socialist.
Judy Zik 1:04PM (7/29/2010)
Chicken Tax Anyone? Corporate write offs? Low gas taxes? Subsidized Health Care and Road Building to offset the actual cost of driving? Government has been deciding who builds what and how since the dawn of time. These subsidies are no different than all the subsidies that allowed soccer Mom's to drive Ford Explorers.
As usual Farce News misses the point. Here is an American company that is first to market for once with a new potentially ground breaking technology that will be made in America. Here is an Electric Car with a virtually unlimited range! Instead of having to choose between a gas automobile that can go anywhere but burn fuel all the time and an electric that will only let you go a short distance you get both in one package. If it was Toyota bringing it out people would be up in arms that North American Automakers are always lagging behind. I don't understand the obsession with the negative in your media. Americans should be patting themselves on the back for once. Here is a made in America automotive product that is way ahead of the curve.
I have no plans to purchase a Volt but I admire the fact that it has been built. American automakers are bouncing back in a big way.
Tricky dicky 1:14PM (7/29/2010)
butthurt apologies are what they are. the government is engineering a market for these. lock stock and 2 smoking barrels.
Not THAT Matt 1:15PM (7/29/2010)
Doesn't Rush have some blood pressure medication to take, or some illegal substances to consume or something?
Fat-faced idiot.
Paul 1:18PM (7/29/2010)
More Rush Limbaugh "handout" rhetoric? Are tax breaks for married couples handouts (which gay people can't enjoy)? Are income tax credits for having a child or buying a home a handout? Is it a handout to give you a tax break for giving to charity? Our government has ALWAYS had incentives for positive, desirable behavior, as they should.
In this case, cracking our nation's damaging addiction to oil is an obvious need that our government needs to undertake. Given the wars, the damage to human lives and (yes) the environmental problems, this is an obvious policy to help seed a market for efficient machines.
Don't like it? Go to China and try breathing the air. Seriously, just try it.
PickleSlinger 2:21PM (7/29/2010)
That's ridiculous. You're claiming that people just want to pay for gas, and enjoy producing lots of greenhouse gases. The market is there, but it's for this style of electric car available at the prices of regular gas cars. So, if a learjet cost $25,000, they wouldn't sell any more than they do now?
Frank 3:38PM (7/29/2010)
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Everybody's all excited today, the Chevy Volt has announced a price at 41 grand. However, you can get it for less -- there's a $7500 tax credit which means that Obama and the government are admitting that nobody wants this, nobody wants it. We gotta give you a $7500 discount. Why don't you try this, Mr. Obama, and the rest of you at Obama Motors, just put it out there at 41 grand and let the market decide. I'm going to be very honest with you people about something. General Motors about a year ago, after Obama took 'em over, we didn't make a big deal about this, but General Motors at the time, before Obama took over the company, we were participating in an advertising campaign, and they wanted us to continue, and it was a large financial commitment that they were making. We turned it down. I turned it down because I could not honestly recommend -- I knew this was coming. I'm not going to recommend people go buy an electric car that gets 40 miles to a charge. That would shoot my credibility. It takes three to four hours to charge the thing, 40 miles to the charge. And then there's a backup gas tank that gives you 375 miles.
------
Wait, wait, wait... Didn't AutoBlog just say that "Limbaugh also ripped into the Volt's 40 mile range, implying that the 40 miles of range from the battery is all that is available."
Uh AB, you do listen to him before you post don't you? Or do you just rant about him to get page hits?
dinnercoat 5:28PM (7/29/2010)
Frank:
I commend them for being able to listen to him beyond a few seconds, let alone to where he starts talking about the Volt's range.
Really though, the fact that they missed (or didn't make it far enough) for him to bring up the range extension kind of deflates the purpose of this article.
tekdemon 5:38PM (7/29/2010)
Quit your whining or get off the government designed and subsidized project that is the internet. Because clearly, the government paying to advance certain technologies can't possibly result in huge benefit for the country, right? Seriously, it's hilariously hypocritical to ignore that government regulation and subsidies helped make sure that everyone could get electricity in their homes, a telephone to make calls with, the friggin' internet everyone uses now, etc. Or did you think private companies built the internet in the early days?
Devin 6:50PM (7/29/2010)
In Rush's tirade today, he implied that the only reason "Obama Motors" was getting the $7500 tax incentive was because President Obama realizes the Volt is not a winning or gamechanging product and doesn't want to see GM fail under his administration. WRONG!! The $7500 tax incentive for electric vehicles was put in place BEFORE GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. Buyers of the Nissan Leaf (and possibly Tesla Roadster?) currently enjoy the exact same tax break. It was originally designed so the middle class, who cannot typically afford cutting edge technology, would be able to help America switch to a clean energy future.
Day by day, Rush Limbough has even less credibility.
hdstyle1957 7:26AM (7/30/2010)
No one wants to buy this piece of crap. They do not have the technology to make and electric car that is really worth a damn. This is just another P.O.S. that will earn a place in the history books.
B Bonds 10:35AM (7/30/2010)
$41,000 for middling performance and it's the savior of the US auto industry. Nothing more need be said.