Grab our RSS Feed

AND

More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans

October 10th, 2008 | Posted in: Competitors

A couple of weeks ago Chrysler revealed prototypes of an EV and two E-REVs. They stated at the time that they planned on launching one of the three in 2010.

Bloomberg has a new report, fleshing out some of the details.

Apparently the mandate to build an EV was handed down by Chrysler’s CEO in January 2007. Although not specifically stated in the article, that was the same month GM unveiled the Volt concept.

It was mentioned that reporters got to drive both the EV as well as the Jeep Wrangler E-REV. GM’s David Darovitz, a Volt spokesman, thought it would be “interesting” to see how Chrysler would be able accomplish power management in a car the size of a minivan.

Chrysler apparently plans to give a 100 vehicle test fleet to utility companies and government agencies in 2009. It isn’t clear how many EVs or E-REVs they will manage to produce in 2010, with an analysts speculating it could be even as few as 400.

Source (Bloomberg)

Posted by: Lyle

60 Responses to “More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans”

JEC Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Nothing to see here…keep moving…nothing to see here.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/wheels/article/441950

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Lyle,

OT but how about some info on the economy/sport switch in the Volt? With your connections you might be able to get some info from GM, and it would make for a pretty lively thread.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/512790

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Arch Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/overview/

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

I asked my 17 year old son which of the three Chrysler’s he likes. He said he likes the van.

But, he still thinks the Volt is the best. And he wants Daddy to get one.

=D~

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

“Apparently the mandate to build an EV was handed down by Chrysler’s CEO in January 2007. Although not specifically stated in the article, that was the same month GM unveiled the Volt concept.”

So, little Tesla has inspired a lot of change in Detroit. Hope Ford can get to production at scale soon enough to survive the changing direction of the market.

(Quote)
George K Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Interesting that Chrysler came up with the idea of a 40 electric mile E-Rev in January of 07. Huh, I wonder what made them think of it??!

=D~~~~

(Quote)
ysf Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

GM explores merge with Chrysler (NY Times) , two sick men marry and be healthy? Ridiculous!

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Well, the volt’s officially out of the picture for Canadians, unless things bounce back.
The exchange is now ~20%.
In a week it’s increased 10%, ridiculous.
$40,000 car becomes 48,000.
I only hope it changes in 2 years
They charged us $5000 extra when USD:CDN was 1:1, I don’t wanna know what they charge if it goes back to 1.5

P.S. I dunno what chrysler’s trying to do with this.
They are rushing to take some of GM’s success/publicity with the idea, but they’re just going to crash and burn. I’ve never seen a quality chrysler vehicle.
They want to look good to the public by being innovative, but all I see is someone playing copycat to be with the “cool kids”.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

ysf .. yup.. apparently GM and Chrysler have been in talks for about a month…. this may be how GM plans to avoid bankruptcy….

…. that means GM and Chrysler can share resources and hopefully not only get the Volt out on time, but some other models (or plug-ins) as well!

(Quote)
JS1219 Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Even if Tesla goes bankrupt next month and 10 years from now no one knows who they were, they undoubtedly left there mark on this nation! The electrification of the automobile was sparked by them and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

More on the talks that would have GM merge into Chrysler….

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/business/11auto.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

G.M. and Chrysler Explore Merger

General Motors is in preliminary talks about a possible
merger with Chrysler, a deal that could drastically remake
the landscape of the auto industry by reducing the Big Three
of Detroit automakers to the Big Two.

The talks between G.M. and Cerberus Capital Management, the
private equity firm that owns Chrysler, began more than a
month ago, and the negotiations are not certain to produce a
deal. Two people close to the process said the chances of a
merger were “50-50″ as of Friday and would most likely still
take weeks to work out.

(Quote)
Blake Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Any idea which of the 3 “may” go into production? I’m hoping on the minivan. With the Sienna selling well, I gave up hope of the Toyota Estima ever coming to the US. I’m not sure how profitable minivans are, but it seems that this is an area where Chrysler could leapfrog Toyota and Honda.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Tesla?

The plug-in Prius became a concern of GM back in 2005, when it started to gain the attention of the media and politicians.

Aftermarket upgrades meant potential for change retroactively, something automakers had never dealt with before… a new type of reputation threat.

Say what you want about Tesla, but it won’t be any more of a factor other than being the final blow… not the primary cause, especially considering its price.

(Quote)
JS1219 Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

And where is this plug in Prius?

Exactly! Not a threat and in fact the Plug in Prius was sparked by the Volt which is sparked by Tesla!

And Lutz even admitted the Tesla is what sparked them.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

>> And where is this plug in Prius?

On the road, in the hands of ordinary owners.

Hymotion upgrades have begun.

Deny all you want. But put it this way, Volt enthusiasts have a genuine problem to be concerned about. The unqualified reverse-calculate from GM’s 9/18/2008 press-release is causing a rumor to be spread stating that Volt only gets 30 MPG in charge-depleted mode. What’s your plan to deal with that? I tried to point out the accounting includes other costs, yet the “30 MPG” claim persists.

(Quote)
JS1219 Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

The only ones on the road are the ones that have costly aftermarket adjustments which can potentially intefere with your warranty.

BTW, if by “deny” you mean “truth” then you are right.

BTW, if you want to get into that debate we can go into hybrid technologies and all the other companies out there, but why? I already spoke the truth!

(Quote)
vincent Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Since we bailed them out…we get employee pricing, 0% interest and shares of stock right???

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

>>…Plug in Prius was sparked by the Volt…

Whatever. Searches through articles from 2006 clearly state that aftermarket efforts to rollout to consumers were already well underway.

(Quote)
George K Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

# 17 john1701a
“GM’s 9/18/2008 press-release is causing a rumor to be spread stating that Volt only gets 30 MPG in charge-depleted mode.”

Haven’t heard 30 mpg for the Volt. What article is that?

=D~~~~

(Quote)
dylan Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

i am 14 and if i could have any one of these cars (volt or 3 c’s) i would wan the van. WHY? because it’s BIG. im glad there is an auto maker that has any sense to sell in the amerrican market (Chrysler)

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/VOLT_NoGas.JPG

no plug =D~ no sale

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

>> Haven’t heard 30 mpg for the Volt. What article is that?

It’s based on assumptions from this…

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=48589

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 12:02 am

A bit more about the GM/Chrysler merger talks from the NY Times: “…..the marriage of G.M. and Chrysler has far more potential than hitching Chrysler to a foreign automaker. While G.M. and Chrysler may be hamstrung by labor contracts from cutting jobs, the two companies could combine dealers, product lines and advanced vehicle technology.

“Under the terms of the deal being discussed, Cerberus would end up owning an unspecified equity stake in G.M.-Chrysler, people briefed on the talks said.

“The ramifications of the merger would be enormous in the global auto industry. G.M. and Chrysler together would control more than 35 percent of the United States vehicle market…. *
——————————————————————————————————————————————
I find this fascinating! My own technical analysis of the Volt drive train and the fundamental physics involved has long convinced me that any assumption that more massive vehicles (and even less aerodynamic shapes) are unsuitable for the E-REV approach is simply wrong. I was therefore not at all surprised when Chrysler announced its foray into range-extended EVs with the Town & Country & the Jeep …..both are highly feasible technically (as is the Dodge/Lotus EV, of course)!

One might even speculate that these GM/Cerberus/Chrysler talks have been underway MUCH longer than this Times article suggests, and perhaps even that GM’s drive train group helped Chrysler with their EV & E-REV designs. (Remember that Mercedes/Chrysler & GM jointly developed the 2-Mode hybrid transmission with BMW’s assistance a few years back. This might have opened some doors, since GM & Chrysler drive train people had to have worked together during that development effort.)

* Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/business/11auto.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 12:05 am

#9, #11, #13

Sounds like a great idea for GM to merge with Chrysler since the merger with Daimler (Mercedes) was so successful…it lasted for a whole ten years. :O

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 12:08 am

Jeff M #13

“More on the talks that would have GM merge into Chrysler….”

*** *** ***

Interestingly it would be Cerberus that would take a stake in GM. Since Cerberus is a private company it would obviously reduce GM’s shares outstanding, but GM would not be a private company. Since they are only in talks, who knows?

(Quote)
jdsv Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 1:06 am

#24 john1701a

Nice try, Volt hater, but that convoluted source material is obvious idiot-speak. What was SUPPOSED to be written (and badly transcribed / edited) was a comparison of the Volt to the care of the average driver stated in the next sentence. Remember that to GM, 30 mpg is their ‘magic number’, weak as it is.

So let me say this: I admire Toyota, and their ingenuity really is top-notch. However, I do not think that they can get almost twice the mpg (50-60) out of a heavier, less aerodynamic car with a larger engine and much more mechanical loss. GM has already proven that they can get bigger, clunkier cars than the Volt to get more than 30 mpg, if you only look at highway mpg (which you can assume they did here, as they only talk hwy mpg these days).

Nice try (though quite weak), come back with your hateration anytime!

(Quote)
DonC Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 1:18 am

Just like the US government, European governments would have given GM, Chrysler, and Ford the low interest loans they needed. However, they would have insisted on the sensible step that the three combine. We don’t need three management teams.

(Quote)
pstoller78 Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 2:56 am

I don’t claim to truely understand all of the details of how mergers can work, but an article I saw talking about the merger talks between Chrysler and GM stated that Cerebus might be in talks to trade GMs remaing stake in GMAC for the Chrysler automotive operations. If this sort of swap would occur what would happen with GMs debt, would it be possible for the debt to be transfered to Cerebus. I know that may not sound like alot of sense, but I just wonder with GMACs ties to the lending industry if they might be looking to get bailout money to cancel GMs debt. This may not be possible I don’t know how these things work, but it could it make me wonder if that might be what’s happening.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 7:06 am

#24 john1701a Says:
>> Haven’t heard 30 mpg for the Volt. What article is that?

It’s based on assumptions from this…

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=48589
————————————————————————————–
Yes. This GM news release has no mention of mileage. Previous info from GM has 50 MPG very prominent, right next to 40 AER. So it appears GM is backing away from 50 MPG.

This does get us back into the guessing game. What assumptions drive you to 30 MPG? Can you give more details?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am

#15 john1701a Says: “Say what you want about Tesla, but it won’t be any more of a factor other than being the final blow… not the primary cause, especially considering its price.”
————————————————————————————–
Tesla’s second model will cost around $50K. Tesla’s third model will cost around $30K.

As for the after-market Plug-In Prius, I believe these are also expensive, like $40K for the car, battery, and installation. There’s also no tax rebate for an aftermarket modification.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 7:20 am

cnn.com’s leading article is the GM/Chrysler merger. I can’t post the link due to moderation, but go to cnn.com.

Lyle,

Looks like we need a new thread for this topic.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am

Jeff @ 13,

I agree, the big news of the day… What if GM ends up with multiple EVs, especially with multiple E-REVs AND BEVs? Sounds like Darwin thinking to me.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am

money.cnn.com/2008/10/11/news/companies/bc.apfn.gm.chrysler.merger.ap/index.htm

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 7:52 am

#25 nasaman Says: “My own technical analysis of the Volt drive train and the fundamental physics involved has long convinced me that any assumption that more massive vehicles (and even less aerodynamic shapes) are unsuitable for the E-REV approach is simply wrong. I was therefore not at all surprised when Chrysler announced its foray into range-extended EVs with the Town & Country & the Jeep …..both are highly feasible technically (as is the Dodge/Lotus EV, of course)!”
————————————————————————————–
Does your analysis include economic issues? Just about anything can be made for a price, but can you sell it at that price?

I’m still skeptical that a large minivan or a square jeep can be made at a price anywhere near what people are used to paying for these vehicles. I hope I’m wrong here.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 8:12 am

>> Nice try, Volt hater, but that convoluted source material is obvious idiot-speak.

I’M NOT THE ONE THAT SAID THAT!

You just shot the messenger.

I am only the one telling you that others have jumped to the “30 MPG” conclusion. My purpose is to request help from you to get the real value. But instead, I got insulted. Thanks a lot.

(Quote)
Volt T's Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 8:15 am

Well the merger is a win-win in this situation

Poor Chrysler, they are becoming like the girl no one likes to date…

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am

JS1219 Says: @12

Even if Tesla goes bankrupt next month and 10 years from now no one knows who they were, they undoubtedly left there mark on this nation! The electrification of the automobile was sparked by them and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

***********************************************************************************

Whoa, not so fast. Give credit where credit is do.Telsa has not proven anything,yet. They have a car that still has many problems and might never pan out.Whereas GM had electric cars in the days when gas was dirt cheap, so naturally sales never took off.

Read this and make an honest judgment. I bet you are from California.

http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/08/gms-electric-history/

(Quote)
ziv Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am

John1701, I just don’t see where the people you are talking about would get 30mpg from that article, or from the Volt, for that matter. The way the ICE is tuned it will be trickle charging the battery up from 35% to 40%, while supplying juice to the motor first with leftover electricity to the battery. If I am climbing the Pikes Peak model we have discussed, yeah maybe the battery will get so little left over electricity that you can game the numbers to make it look like the car gets 30 mpg in ICE mode. But if you are driving around town it sounds like you will still get 50 mpg or close, if you are driving 65 mph it will probably be more like 45 mpg. When Nasaman ( I believe) and another engineer I am failing to remember ran the power requirements for in town driving vs. highway driving at different speeds the 1.4l ICE handled the average load rather nicely. And that is the crux of the matter, with the battery/ICE/motor combination it is average load that is critical, not max ICE output, because you can tune the ICE to maximize mpg instead of just power, and also run it at rpm settings that are most fuel efficient.
I just don’t see how the Volt could get just 30 mpg when the Cruze will do between 40 and 45 mpg highway.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/AUTO01/808220358/1148

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am

36 Dave G…… (Re: feasibility of Chrysler’s larger, less aerodynamic cars)
———————————————————————————————————————————
Cost has been overstated by GM IMHO, by their quoting the Volt’s 16KWh battery as costing ~$10K, which both of their suppliers have (indirectly, but indisputably) shown be ~$3K in production quantities, even for the initial Volt production run. This artificially inflates the Volt’s presumed MSRP by $7K, which is GM’s (very plausible) ploy to offer “rich people” the Volt at ~$40K until they decide to drop the price to increase the Volt’s sales volume by using the excuse that “battery costs have dropped”.

Also, we’ve long known that the Caddy Provoq (the predecessor to Caddy’s BRX, a crossover SUV that’s much heavier & less aerodynamic than the Volt) will be able to drive ~35 miles AER at highway speeds with a 16KWh battery (based on claims from GM’s drive train engineering …..not my analysis).

….And you’re right, Dave, the E-REV Town & Country and Wrangler will both cost MUCH more than their gas-powered versions. But again, as (real or claimed) battery costs drop, so will the MSRPs of these E-REVs ….if they actually reach the market.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am

Hrm, do I want to talk about this ‘Crysler/GM’ merger here and now…because there is sure to be another thread coming. Hmm…

Ok, just a quickie. This is a wild rumoUr. And if there was any chance of this happening, it died a death when all this economic issue started.

Maybe I’ll go into on the next thread.

There are just over 4,000 individuals/entities that could gain a controlling interest in GM…amount interested: 0

NUTSHELL OF ALL THE PARTIES INVOLED POSITIONS:

Mercedes:
—attempted to ‘give’ back the portion they still own of Chrysler because they don’t want to be on the hook for anymore of it’s loses…or potential share of debt if it goes bankrupt…Cerberus said, ‘no thanks, enjoy your piece of the delicious American automotive sector’

Cerberus:
—would love to hang Chrysler on GM for the same reason.

GM:
—lets it get some ’synergies,’ products, lines, technologies,dealers…but all that is BS as to the reason for doing it (other than streamlining the dealer network, GM would love to do that). It also gives it monsterous debts, huge losses…but would make it the TITANIC of the US auto business….and would cement it’s position in the ‘cannot be allowed to fail category’

New world reality: GM can’t even afford to attempt it, and it is too busy filing 10K to bank ‘bogus’ profits for the 3Q on the UAW agreement (thank goodness we are smart enought to do the math EX-items)…it just trying to stay alive month to month.

(Quote)
Pentastar Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am

Merger ? Say What.

I thought Chrysler will be taking over 100 percent of GMAC (they already own 51 percent of GMAC)

The Volt getting only 30 MPG , interesting. I always thought these EVs are over-rated and are not cost-effective over the long haul compared to a cheaper high-mileage gas vehicle.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am

#41 nasaman – “Cost has been overstated by GM IMHO”

Your cost estimates are soft, plus the “cost” to a manufacturer for a part necessarily includes a markup to cover the integration of the part. If you include both you can easily double the cost. You’re doubtless correct that $10k is high but $3k is equally low.

#41 nasaman – “Also, we’ve long known that the Caddy Provoq (the predecessor to Caddy’s BRX, a crossover SUV that’s much heavier & less aerodynamic than the Volt) will be able to drive ~35 miles AER at highway speeds with a 16KWh battery ”

You understand what you’re saying, but put this way the statement is somewhat misleading and potentially so encouraging it could lead to unrealistic expectations. The Volt will get about 28 miles at highway speed. If you use the same amount of the same pack to power a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle you are going to get a range of less than 28 miles, not 35 miles. Consequently we can deduce that the entire pack was used to get the 35 mile result. That means the CUV gets a little over 2 miles/kWh rather than 5 miles/kWh. That’s a big difference, suggesting that you’d need a 32 kWh pack to go 35 miles if you wanted to treat the battery like GM thinks you have to.

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am

I am vigorously against the merger of GM and Chrysler.
This would give GM a 35 percent share of U.S. market.
That would be outrageous. Clearly a breach of anti-trust laws. Under no circumstance should GM be allowed to have more than 25 percent market share. Remember this is NOT 1950 anymore, we now have many good foreign auto companies here that employ millions of American workers. This is just a desperate attempt to salvage two failing companies that are suffering through 100 percent self-inflicted difficulties.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am

I am not too sure how to respond to this link. I grew up, as did we all, with the Big Three. I guess I thought they would always be there. The Chrysler/Daimler deal shook that world somewhat, but I thought that maybe it had righted itself wth the Cerberus deal. I hope GM and Chrysler can both continue as separate companies. I would like to see closer cooperation among all the Big Three to develop auto technologies each of them can market and compete on the world stage.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am

Jimmy, yea, it would be about a third of the market for the merged company…. but they would still have to work/earn to keep that market share. If they don’t make cars that folks want then those that are will just continue to steal (earn) market share.

(Quote)
Ziv Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am

DonC, where did the 28 miles at highway speeds come from? I thought the pessimists were talking about 32 miles and the optimists were still talking about the 40 mile claim being at end of life so initial ranges would be greater. Personally I thought that the Volt would get 38-42 miles initially on the city cycle depending on how you drive, and about 34-36 miles on the highway at 65 mph, losing about 10% of the city cycle range. Regenerative braking will help to increase mileage in the city cycle but it isn’t 100% efficient so the steady highway speed commuter won’t be that far behind the stop and go city commuter in miles per charge. Exceed 70mph and you will pay in decreased miles, conversely, if you commute at 55, you will get range closer to that of a city commuter. The improved aero makes a huge difference at 65.

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am

“i am 14 and if i could have any one of these cars (volt or 3 c’s) i would wan the van. WHY? because it’s BIG. im glad there is an auto maker that has any sense to sell in the amerrican market (Chrysler)”

If this is what 14 year olds think, I fear for their future.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am

>> I just don’t see where the people you are talking about would get 30mpg from that article

Too bad they didn’t. Anywho, their equation is simple…

$3.60 per gallon / $0.12 per mile = 30 MPG

Sorry, but they absolutely insisted that the entire per-mile value represented consumption and did not include any of the usual accounting cost factors. I tried. Now it’s your turn to help.

My goal is to keep everyone in check. If something sounds fishy and the source provided to support it includes assumptions, I call out for assistance to verify.

(Quote)
everything.imp Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I just wanted to ask the question “what is all the put downs about Chrysler over?” I grew up with Chrysler….my mother would buy nothing but Chrysler and the only reason for her loyalty was the fact that she kept having good experiences. She has a Chrysler right now with over 200,000 miles on it and it’s still kicking. Never had any engine trouble or transmission problems. The only con that she can speak of is that the brakes locked up once…for unknown reasons. Chrysler can produce quality vehicles. My guess is that Chrysler’s image hasn’t morphed well with this new age of cars. If you notice…alot of American cars didn’t handle this shift well. I remember people speaking of the Japanese cars as “bubble shaped” ……while American vehicles were more edgy with defined lines….of course now the ball is in the other court and I don’t think Chrysler handled the curves to well. Hopefully it’s time for reinvention of the industry….and I hope it begins with GM and ford, Chrysler/dodge can follow.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
October 11th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

GM and Chrysler actually makes sense to me. The two pronged attack to build an EV will only help as well. I imagine someday Ford will roll up into a new American General Motors with all three brands in tow.

God Help America – the hey days are gone. I go out of my way to thank the Patriots who insisted it is an American right to buy all things foreign. I have owned 4 Buicks and everyone has been nothing short of a quality car equal to anything overseas.

CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED.

(Quote)
jabroni Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 8:30 am

So with GM and Chrysler merging, we have FOUR potential good electric vehicles! 5 counting the Vue plug-in.

(Quote)
Wolfgang Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

“GM’s David Darovitz, a Volt spokesman, thought it would be “interesting” to see how Chrysler would be able accomplish power management in a car the size of a minivan.”

Here are some hints, based on the Sprinter Plug-In Hybrid Test Vehicles Daimler and Chrysler introduced in September of 2004.

http://www.whnet.com/4×4/pdf/HTR2_04dualdrive_sprinter.pdf
http://www.whnet.com/4×4/pix/hybrid_sprinter_schmatic.jpg
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5863
http://www.whnet.com/4×4/sprinter.html

(Quote)
Jake Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I love it when people throw around statements like “The Volt will get about xx miles at highway speed.” Even with the obligatory “about” stuck in there, I just can’t take these claims seriously. I very much appreciate how people will go through some math to get some rough numbers on Volt performance…that is well within anyone’s rights and can be useful to us all. But I think some people should be careful about sounding too authoritative about the Volt’s exact performance specs. That is how rumors start (and have started and are starting this very instant). Eventually this originally insightful information leads to misinformation by less informed or less careful parties.

In short: float all the numbers you want, but know that some of our questions will not be answered until the Volt is released.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

SImply put…..the more the merrier.

I would want the jeep, but not over the Volt. GM keeps dumbing down the car, but I still like it.

(Quote)
CARNIVAL OF CARS: A Drive Around the Auto Blog Block for Saturday, October 11, 2008 | GT Boy - Car Blog Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
D Lo Says:
October 18th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

new details about an electric Mini-Cooper. Apparently Chrysler is not the only company jumping on the electric band wagon. It is interesting, though, that most of the other car companies have these silly pilot programs with tiny amounts of cars for lease. If having tiny distribution and complex lease scenarios allowed for successful product, then it is strange we don’t see these programs for gasoline powered cars. At least GM seems to get it now….

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/10/18/battery-powered-mini-e-revealed/

(Quote)
Robert Williams Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 1:01 am

Please, can you PM me and tell me few more things about this?.

(Quote)
Michael Jones Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 2:38 am

Keep working, great job!

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans

60 Responses to “More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts