The hardest part of the EV system is the software. Even that isn’t that hard, Chrysler and Ford have built EV’s before. They like to lie to the public, (maybe not lie, but you know what I mean) that the technolgy isn’t there, and it’s too hard to build/pull off..

If a rookie can convert a heap of junk Mitsubishi on his own dime, and have a good reliable car, and had little technical experience, what is wrong with the picture here? Why the hell does the big 3 have all these high and mighty people working for them, and having such a hard time with it? 2010? Really, they could have it out the end of this year, but they enjoy dragging their feet I guess.

Really, I’m at a loss of words, I really don’t understand what the problem is…… Waiting for testing of the battery? Please.. we’ll see what happens..

By the time it does start catching on, more will demand this technology and GM will want to sell all the vehicles it can, and so will the other 4 GM divisions. Not licensing the technology will allow for more vehicle sales and the ability to take a bite out of CAFE.

To give that up for a few bucks per vehicle, not to mention that these vehicles might be opportunities lost for GM just doesn’t seem to make sense at this point.

1997 sales of Prius began… the same year RAV4-EV was first available.

The purpose was to compete with the PNGV automakers.

“Sorry, that guess is not what happened.”

Yes it was. Check out the RAV4.

Sorry, that guess is not what happened.

PNGV is the history you need to read about.

The Big-3 were funded by the US government to build high-efficiency cars. Toyota was denied the opportunity to join… so, they found their own way to compete instead. Prius was born.

The Big-3 abandoned their efforts… and our now regretting delay of the inevitable. Taking E-Flex to high-volume production as rapidly as possible is a really, really big deal.

Yes I saw this in the press, and they considered to get the Viper out of the market too, note that I found this : “The Viper’s almost surely dead — the company wants to close this low-volume operation, and in the new labor agreement would not commit to any new product for Conner Ave.”
Here : http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/11/chrysler-produc.html
Note that this information is from November 5, 2007.
So the plan from Cerberus Capital Management is going on, time will tell what will be left of Chrysler, hope that will be the occasion to produce EV vehicle basd on the concepts shown in january at the NAIAS

“GM, FOCUS ON THE PRODUCT HERE. The consumers are screaming for higher fuel efficiency AND lower emissions (as evidenced through legislative mandates). Quit fighting the inevitability of change and make your products better. The Volt should have no issues meeting requirements. Now the rest of your line-up may suffer…but if you pass the expenses on to the consumer, your shareholders will suffer as will your execs.”

—————-
I agree with Noel and You.

And GM, while you’re at it, instead of spending the enormous amount of money fighting these mandates, embrace them and be first on the block to have them. Then you will have something to brag about and please the American people. Are you still so clueless as to continue to make vehicles people don’t want to buy? Come on! Get the Volt right, spread it amongst the rest of your fleet, and you will have your lower emissions and higher fuel efficiency. This is not rocket science. Your Marketing and PR departments need to be cleaned out because this fight you are fighting is NOT making you look good.
I realize that looking good has not been part of your nature for the last couple of decades, but I honestly thought you had made a turn around and have come to your senses. Start building cars that people want to buy. Start building cars that people want to buy. Do I need to keep repeating myself?

That being said, GM could make some nice scratch by saving these companies the time and hassle of developing the 99% alternative, and protect themselves from the possibility of someone accidently (or purposfully) developing a 105% alternative. They could get some favorable PR to boot.

Go ahead and sell the technology GM, but make sure you get the right $. I suggest a minor fee, per car produced by a competetor, worldwide, that uses your technology, but only if they are willing to pay the minor fee for 10 years (3 years following the experation of the patent.) Likewise, if they develop a technology in that time frame, they must be contractually obligated to sell to GM, at the same cost, or less if it is a less important breakthough. Furthermore, they must agree to refrain from comparing their versions of the GM technology to a GM product in advertising. Furthermore, GM must be allowed royalties on maintenance components that utilize the GM technology.

“Wagoner asks dealers to fight state level emissons regulations?

Almost half of the states, including many with the largest populations, have signed on to implement the California CO2 regulations. The argument about a hodgepodge of individual state requirements is just BS spin.

With that level of “leadership”, no wonder GM is circling the drain.”

I agree, and GM is trying to delay and strain an overburdened judicial system because the legislatures are speaking, adopting the CA mandate state-by-state. The next stop, will be the courts, but to do it piecemeal, is ridiculous. GM doesn’t have the resources to go it alone at the local level, but asking dealers to do it will only increase prices to the consumer.

GM, FOCUS ON THE PRODUCT HERE. The consumers are screaming for higher fuel efficiency AND lower emissions (as evidenced through legislative mandates). Quit fighting the inevitability of change and make your products better. The Volt should have no issues meeting requirements. Now the rest of your line-up may suffer…but if you pass the expenses on to the consumer, your shareholders will suffer as will your execs.