DETROIT (Reuters) - Chrysler has disbanded a team of engineers dedicated to rushing a range of electric vehicles to showrooms and dropped ambitious sales targets for battery-powered cars set as it was sliding toward bankruptcy and seeking government aid.
The move by Fiat SpA marks a major reversal for Chrysler, which had used its electric car program as part of the case for a $12.5 billion federal aid package.
As late as August, Chrysler took $70 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a test fleet of 220 hybrid pickup trucks and minivans, vehicles now scrapped in the sweeping turnaround plan for Chrysler announced this week by Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne.
Chrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said on Friday that an in-house team of electric car development engineers had been disbanded in favor of a more traditional organization.

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE5A605N20091107?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

I suppose as long as the public loans are repaid, there's not much anyone can do about it. Seems a little like cheating though.

That is tragic, but understandable, as Fiat's strength is small cars, not advanced alternative fuel / propulsion systems.

Well since the bankruptcy, they are making money hand over fist while their market share goes into the trash can. They'll probably be ok for a while.

I honestly wish I knew why the auto industry was so resistant to moving away from oil. The ONLY reason I supported gazillions in loans to the auto industry was to keep electric car production on schedule. This is disappointing. Recently I saw somewhere that GM said the Volt would only be possible if gas prices didn't fall below $2.00 a gallon, which is now exactly what I expect to happen.

I don't blame the oil industry for not wanting to go away without trying to hold n to their monopoly over personal transportation. I just don't see why the auto industry wants the same. I can only guess there is some golden egg laying goose they aren't telling us about that is at risk with electric cars. Could it be replacement parts would take a hard hit? They don't need to be replaced as often and have double the road life? The technology to build them is a lot more basic, which could open the flood gates for new car manufacturers? Once EVs are in the showrooms they wont be able to get rid of their ICE inventory? Or is it that they really don't think there's enough public demand or is too expensive for the public to afford and still make a profit? I'm only thinking out loud.

I honestly wish I knew why the auto industry was so resistant to moving away from oil.

Building internal combustion engines and powertrains is a core competency for the auto industry, basically it's "what they do". They will only be dragged kicking and screaming into the Car 2.0 era.

"I honestly wish I knew why the auto industry was so resistant to moving away from oil."

Because there's a LOT of energy available in a kilogram of gas and there's far less energy available in a klogram of battery. And the battery takes either time or amazing kilowatts to recharge. And the combination of gas and standard ICE drivetrain is still very cheap.

You'd think the EREV would somehow break this mold but it's both a BEV and an ICV, so you've got enormous weight, cost and complexity penalties to manage a mere 40 miles electric (if that) and then perhaps as little as 35mpg in charge-sustaining mode (especially likely to be low out on the highway).

By way of comparison, the up-front cost of a Yaris is very low ($13K) and the operating cost is also relatively low.

If you want to break this pattern, you really need a big tax on oil. Of course, that won't just advance the cause of the EV, which will still be fairly expensive and still suffer the same drawbacks it does today. It will also draw people in from the exurbs and encourage them to use whatever mass transit is available (which could be improved if the population density of the area served was increased). An immediate effect would be people seriously looking for carpoolers and making compromises to work out carpools and opportunities to telecommute (although the exurbs still often suffer from crappy telecommunications).

I was anticipating the responce of the 4-wheel drive comunity with the Jeep. Looks like more waiting is in the mix. I didn't hear the fat lady sing yet, so I will try to be optimistic.

The biggest loser of this announcement is A123, for whom Chrysler was the sole customer that signed on.

A123 doesn't have what it takes to survive amongst the battle of Asian titans. The dream of American electric car battery leadership is just that, a dream. The cold hard reality is that 99% of electric cars on American road would have Asian batteries in them.

The biggest loser of this announcement is A123, for whom Chrysler was the sole customer that signed on.

A123 doesn't have what it takes to survive amongst the battle of Asian titans. The dream of American electric car battery leadership is just that, a dream. The cold hard reality is that 99% of electric cars on American road would have Asian batteries in them.




Finally, HyperMiler acknowledges that Japan is going to have a huge presence in the market. Notice he now says, "Asian" and not just Korean.

"I honestly wish I knew why the auto industry was so resistant to moving away from oil."

Because there's a LOT of energy available in a kilogram of gas and there's far less energy available in a klogram of battery. And the battery takes either time or amazing kilowatts to recharge. And the combination of gas and standard ICE drivetrain is still very cheap.

You'd think the EREV would somehow break this mold but it's both a BEV and an ICV, so you've got enormous weight, cost and complexity penalties to manage a mere 40 miles electric (if that) and then perhaps as little as 35mpg in charge-sustaining mode (especially likely to be low out on the highway).

By way of comparison, the up-front cost of a Yaris is very low ($13K) and the operating cost is also relatively low.

If you want to break this pattern, you really need a big tax on oil. Of course, that won't just advance the cause of the EV, which will still be fairly expensive and still suffer the same drawbacks it does today. It will also draw people in from the exurbs and encourage them to use whatever mass transit is available (which could be improved if the population density of the area served was increased). An immediate effect would be people seriously looking for carpoolers and making compromises to work out carpools and opportunities to telecommute (although the exurbs still often suffer from crappy telecommunications).

Thanks for your insight but I do have a few problems with the current predictable explanations given as to why alternatively fueled personal transportation is not realistic.

1. The argument that the first generation of products cannot compete with the status quo in terms of pricing, range and vehicle size so lets not modernize. Give me a break. In 1970 the electric calculator couldn't compete with the pencil and slide rule. In fact my grandmother bought my sisters an me one of the first calculators when they first came out. It was bulky, only did basic calculations and cost $300.00. Because we got started, competition grew that in turn fostered better quality calculators and lower prices. If that logic had been used we'd still be using pencils and slide rules today. Start where we are; low range, relatively expensive, lightweight electric cars. There are enough people out there with money who think the earth is going to fry who will happily support phase one of this important modernization. In short time competition will inspire technological advances and cost reductions just like it did for the calculator, PC, cell phone, landline phone service (flat rate long distance, voice mail, caller ID, call forwarding, etc. and recently VOIP).

2. Get the government out of it. The private sector needs to be left alone and the drive to earn profits is all that's necessary to foster better transportation products. I know this sounds great on paper. Under usual conditions I'm all about letting the free market do its thing and everything works out fine however these are not usual conditions. On September 11, 2001 barbaric mass murderers flew hijacked passenger jets into office buildings at the start of a workday. Their objective was to kill the 50,000 people who worked in the World Trade Centers. Due to the grace of God and the heroic actions of the NYPD and the FDNY, many of whom gave their lives to rescue innocent people, the death toll was only 3000, still a staggering number of dead moms, dads and children and the largest act of mass murder on US soil in history. And to add insult to injury later that day we get reports that average people throughout the Middle East erupted in spontaneous jubilation is cities throughout the Arab World dancing their butts off in the streets at the news.

I realize I'm different than most people but after this horrific event I wanted to know why and began a multi-year effort to get the answer to that question. Dan Rather said its because its because they're jealous of America prompting David Letterman to honestly ask you mean to tell me they killed 3,000 Americans because they don't have cable? Some say they want to force America to convert to their religion. President Bush said its because the hate freedom. In fairness I suppose those are all partial reasons but they don't tell the complete story. The real reason Osama Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 is because of our hopeless dependency to oil that leads to an entanglement in parts of the world where the leaders love us (actually our money) but rule over a population who hate America so much they are willing to kill themselves as long as they get to take out some of us in the process. Its about oil and getting off of oil is a national security emergency.

Finally, HyperMiler acknowledges that Japan is going to have a huge presence in the market. Notice he now says, "Asian" and not just Korean.
Japanese batteries will have a presence in the market simply because Japanese automakers refuse to use foreign batteries and stick with domestic batteries even if they cost more and are inferior. As to why Japanese automakers will continue to use Japanese batteries that are inferior and cost more than imported batteries, this is Japanese way of long term thinking, and the reason behind why Japanese auto industry is still strong, while the US auto industry went bankrupt.

You see the same thing in other components market, where certain Japanese TV makers continue to use Japanese LCD panels even though Korean panels are better and cheaper, and currently hold the majority of world market share. Complete foreign reliance on certain critical parts even if they are cheaper has a dire consequence down the road, and Japanese understand this very well.

I realize I'm different than most people but after this horrific event I wanted to know why and began a multi-year effort to get the answer to that question. Dan Rather said its because its because they're jealous of America prompting David Letterman to honestly ask you mean to tell me they killed 3,000 Americans because they don't have cable? Some say they want to force America to convert to their religion. President Bush said its because the hate freedom. In fairness I suppose those are all partial reasons but they don't tell the complete story. The real reason Osama Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 is because of our hopeless dependency to oil that leads to an entanglement in parts of the world where the leaders love us (actually our money) but rule over a population who hate America so much they are willing to kill themselves as long as they get to take out some of us in the process. Its about oil and getting off of oil is a national security emergency.

If you are interested in why Osama Bin Laden did what he did. Here's a letter he wrote to America explaining exactly why.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

The gist of it is that they are protesting America's recognition of Israel, and the military and monetary support we give them, and he wants Palestine back.

The reason America has funded Israel so heavily? Because we want to maintain a foot hold in the middle east to make sure our oil is secure.

You moron its just the same old deal get rid of the electric cars and get paid off when are you dumb MF,s going to see that oh mendler hendler whatever your name is wheres the volt in the promised 2010 so called linup hmmmmmm??

did they push it back again AWWWWWW how trajic

I think part of the problem with modernization is we're expecting maybe unfairly, interests who've invested decades of resources in yesterday's technology to be the very interests who produce the change that will essentially antiquate what they've worked to build for over a half a century. I don't think AT&T would have ever invented Skype. Showing up as a Johnny Come Lately because they have to after Skype is kicking their butts with their own version of video phone service, maybe. I think GM is to be commended for taking a leadership role in EV technology. I respect their heritage in contributing so much to America's security and prosperity in the past as well as their selfless courage to lead America and the world to a new future with innovations that others might see as threats.

I honestly wish I knew why the auto industry was so resistant to moving away from oil.

The auto industry as a whole is resistant to any type of change, or risk.

Part of the reason for the resistance to EVs is that the American auto makers have been barely scraping by for the last several years being suffocated by legacy costs, health care benefits, giant bureaucracies, high cash on the hood pay outs, etc. Ford and GM haven't made a profit in 5 years or something and Chrysler has probably been doing just as bad or worse, they were burning through several billion a month. They just didn't want to spend the time and money to develop a vehicle like that Volt that would cost $40,000 and cost billions just to engineer the first generation. Eventually they basically got pressured into doing it when they had no other aces to play and figured that they were likely going bankrupt no matter what and might as well make a stab at it.

That is tragic, but understandable, as Fiat's strength is small cars, not advanced alternative fuel / propulsion systems.

Fiat=Ferrari, Maserati, Lancia, Alfa Romeo, IVECO, et al, which encompasses everything from super efficient "small cars" to luxury sports cars, and F1 racing cars to trucks and vans. Fiat group cars have been certified by the European Union as having the lowest average emissions for any major manufacturer and are the only manufacturer to meet the EU guideline of <140gCO2/km.

The Fiat group spends billions of Euro annually on R&D and Fiat Powertrain Technologies in Turin are synonymous worldwide with being at the forefront of ICE innovation. Indeed most/all of the significant ICE innovation over the past decade has come from Turin, much of which has resulted from the transfer of Ferrari F1 technology to mainstream cars.

Fiat developed the the common rail Diesel engine in the mid 90s, which has resulted in a worldwide shift, with the exception of the USA, towards diesel engines. More than 50% of European cars sold this year will be diesels, which is a direct result of Fiat's common rail technology. The commmon rail has been emulated by every other manufacturer. My wife drives a 1.3l JTD Panda which easily achieves 70mpg & c.110gCO2/km, there's currently no hybrid that can come anywhere near that level of efficiency/emissions. GM's European brand is called OPEL and they use Fiat Diesel engines. It is suggested that the OPEL version of the "volt" will encompass the same Fiat1.3JTD engine, which will deliver far greater overall efficiencies than the Chevy version.

Fiat are launching their camless "multiair" engine in 2010. Other manufacturers, most notably Honda, have been trying to develop a camless engine for decades and have failed. It is suggested that multi air, which is a Fiat patented technology, will deliver a 20% improvement in power, 20% reduction in consumption/emissions. Fiat are launching the multi air on their 500, with a two cylinder 900cc engine. Initial suggestions are for 110bhp, 100mpg and <70gCO2/km, thus giving it the lowest emissions for any mass produced car.

I don't think that it fair to say that "Fiat's strength is small cars, not advanced alternative fuel / propulsion systems" as it doesn't reflect the level of innovation coming from the company. If I lived in the USA I'd be very excited about possibilities deriving from Fiat's partnership with Chrysler.