Coming in very late - I was
Coming in very late - I was actually searching to see if there is a way to raise my windows remotely if I can't get to it before the thunderstorm hit (nope). I agree with some of this, and while i can understand GM's logic, I think they kept their thinking much too conventional.
First, yes it was expensive, but the prices could and would come down. Next, the argument about scaling Voltec up is specious. GM had plenty of small, powerful engines in Europe. And even more efficient. But "Americans won't drive them" is antiquated and out of touch, especially in this application.
GM was probably too conservative in it's charging system. While Tesla was always talking about supercharging their cars in under an hour (which is basically a lie, since you can't do that at home - that took hours, and even days), Volts still took 4 hours at 220V and 8 or 10 at 110V. For 50 miles of range. I know it was to extend battery life, but who really cares if the battery only lasts (a theoretical) 300K miles, not 450K? If that's the sacrifice I have to make to recharge my battery to 30 miles in an hour on 110, I'm in!
They had no idea how to market this car. And still don't with the Bolt. They're both purely word of mouth. Talk to a Chevy salesperson. 3 out of 4 will know less about it than the customer. The only other affordable EV that comes close to competing with the Bolt is the Hyundai Kona. You want further example? How about the joke back seat for "3?" Instead of finding a better layout, to fit a REAL family in the car, they just said, "Screw it. Close enough."
The Volt was supposed to be the "Gateway" to EV for GM, and it should have been a Prius killer. But as soon as it started to get traction, they killed it. And just as they were starting to offer an all EV.
HIdden in all of GM's meandering excuses is one true reason: Their data from all the Volts showed most people were driving it less than 50 miles a day. Which meant they weren't using the greatest feature of the car, the generator. So the current EV buyers didn't need 250 miles of electric range, just 40 plus a little extra for a short trip here or there.
This makes me think of a strange comparison in GM's past. In 1984 they introduced a wonderful little two-seater, the Fiero. But they tied Pontiac's hands and made it grossly underpowered and skimped on some design, like when the drive train got in the way of the oil pan they simply cut off part of it. So it only had about 3 quarts of oil, which led to the oil running dry, which ked to overheating, which led to a handful of fires. It actually outhandled the Corvette. But they still sold a s**t-ton of them. Projecting about 20 or 30K in the first year they sold about 100K(!). ANd then they started improving it. By 1988 it had a decent (for the time) 6-cylinder and a spectacular suspension. But GM killed it because sales dropped - down to about 20Km ironically. But the sales problem was they sold too many the first year, so 3 or 4 years on, the original owners weren't ready to trade up yet. And trust me, if they waited another year or two, a ton of those owners wanted new ones.
Almost all the new technology they developed in the Fiero is now used on every car they make. Most obviously, all those light weight, sturdy plastic body panels that can be correctly painted and shaped were first made on the Fiero.
And then came the Volt, with great technology, prestige, and a path forward into being a dominant EV manufacturers. And again, they screwed the pooch. I guess it shows that GM is tolerant of failure, which is good. But only if you fail the GM way.