Finally, the Japanese, recognizing they are at least 2 years behind GM, have finally offered an EV with a range-extender:

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121074186054991351.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Carlos Ghosn is an amazing dude. If other manufactures were holding off on making major changes to their long-term strategies I'm guessing his words will get them moving. He's going to produce a lot of BEVs for Project Better Place and having hybrids only make perfect sense. Hummm, extended range as an option... Interesting. This guy is going to go down as one of the great ones.

The only thing I wonder about is his talk about hydrogen cars being the long-term solution. I Doubt he really feels this way. I'm guessing that's to keep the hydrogen funding coming it and to make his competitors also keep expensive hydrogen programs going. Surely he's smart enough to know this will never be as practical as other technologies. No way. Just the natural loss of energy when generating hydrogen and the difficulty of storing such a tiny element make it a long shot for being the transportation technology of choice. It will be interesting to see where things are headed five years from now. I hope these forums are still available for review. We should all get a good laugh.

It is too bad that Ghosn didn't buy Chrysler, as he had planned, but was blocked by his own board members. Instead, Daimler bought Chrysler, and destroyed the momentum the company had with new vehicles like the Prowler, the PT Cruiser and the 300.

I think Chrysler would have been a much better fit with Nissan and Renault.

Until quick charge batteries and their infrastructure is developed and deployed, hydrogen is the only quick charge renewable solution available. Iceland and Japan are clearly committed to it, as their nations are resource poor, but geo-thermal energy and sea-water rich.

"Finally, the Japanese, recognizing they are at least 2 years behind GM, have finally offered an EV with a range-extender" - Hendler.

What is it about EV announcements that causes some people to lose all perspective?

1. Nissan has not "offered" anything as of yet. They have announced that they intend to make something available, in limited numbers, in Japan and the US in the future.

2. The Japanese, or at least Toyota and Honda, are not two years behind GM. Go outdoors and see what's on the road. Report back on what you find on America's highways that has gas-electric drivetrains and really, really impressive fuel economy. GM is the better part of a dozen years behind Toyota and, as a bonus, a few years behind Ford. Especially where it counts, in SALES and REVENUE.

A hint as to what you'll find, today I parked between two Priuses. They're all over the place. I've never even seen a GM "mild" hybrid on a public road, let alone a two-mode hybrid Yukahoe.

3. "The Japanese" are not a monolithic entity. There are several major manufacturers that compete with us and each other. Some of the Japanese, Toyota and Honda, have offered technologically advanced, effective and LOW-COST hybrids for people to drive, in large numbers, starting some years ago, and these cars get EXCELLENT fuel economy.

Nissan might think they're behind the curve on this, although they also do offer a pretty decent hybrid version of the Altima, which is actually a pretty nice car. Even Nissan is probably ahead of GM.

1. You are correct, Nissan is the first to announce a series hybrid, as neither Toyota nor Honda have announced anything other than high efficiency ICE's with regenerative breaking systems. Honda is selling a FCV, not sure if it is plug-in.

2. You are correct, Toyota and Honda have many high efficiency ICE vehicles with regenerative breaking systems, but NONE are plug-in.

3. The Japanese are monolithic (until Nissan's recent announcement) in that they are embracing parallel hybrid approaches, whereas GM, Fisker Automotive, Tesla Motors and Aptera have all announced plug-in series hybrids.

Get it yet? Japan has bet the farm on vehicles that require high efficiency ICE's for highway speed operation, whereas American auto companies are seguing to plug-in EV's with various range extenders.

I get it. I get a lot of things.

"The Japanese are monolithic (until Nissan's recent announcement)..."

In other words, not monolithic. And they were never monolithic; Nissan simply licensed HSD to get into the market without spending a lot of money in development until they could take their time over their own plans. Honda's system is quite distinct from Toyota's.

The one thing they have in common, is that they got out ahead of GM.

"... whereas GM, Fisker Automotive, Tesla Motors and Aptera have all announced plug-in series hybrids."

Pardon me? Where did Ford and the Escape hybrid disappear to? Not to mention two-mode hybrids that GM has developed but failed to sell?

GM doesn't even have a monolithic approach all on its own. GM's approach is more that of a PR machine firing in all directions. Why did they sink all that money into the two-mode system if it's pointless? Why are they building the Volt as a series hybrid? For the PR. They have some fantasy that they "win" in the marketplace because people compare future products based solely on announcements entirely disconnected from current production and sales.

Well, lo and behold, some people do. Maybe GM's smarter than I credit them.

And ALL of those announcements you refer to are solidly (perhaps eternally) in the future. Fisker, Tesla and Aptera have about as much chance of becoming a major force in advanced tech automobiles as the Toledo Buggy Whip Manufacturing Company does.

100 miles all electric range is quite a distance. If they offer that at a price competitive to the Volt...I will be hard-pressed to ignore the Volt. I think Nissan is making a WHOLE LOT of promises without much to display. Detroit 2009 should be very very interesting this next go around.

Dave

Take a look:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/16/renault-debuts-electric-sedan-in-israel/

I get it. I get a lot of things.

"The Japanese are monolithic (until Nissan's recent announcement)..."

In other words, not monolithic. And they were never monolithic; Nissan simply licensed HSD to get into the market without spending a lot of money in development until they could take their time over their own plans. Honda's system is quite distinct from Toyota's.

The one thing they have in common, is that they got out ahead of GM.

"... whereas GM, Fisker Automotive, Tesla Motors and Aptera have all announced plug-in series hybrids."

Pardon me? Where did Ford and the Escape hybrid disappear to? Not to mention two-mode hybrids that GM has developed but failed to sell?

GM doesn't even have a monolithic approach all on its own. GM's approach is more that of a PR machine firing in all directions. Why did they sink all that money into the two-mode system if it's pointless? Why are they building the Volt as a series hybrid? For the PR. They have some fantasy that they "win" in the marketplace because people compare future products based solely on announcements entirely disconnected from current production and sales.

Well, lo and behold, some people do. Maybe GM's smarter than I credit them.

And ALL of those announcements you refer to are solidly (perhaps eternally) in the future. Fisker, Tesla and Aptera have about as much chance of becoming a major force in advanced tech automobiles as the Toledo Buggy Whip Manufacturing Company does.

American automakers are leapfrogging the Japanese dead-end approach, and Nissan has finally admitted that reality, by announcing that they are following the American lead of designing series hybrid vehicles. GM is offering a wide array of products at various price points, so that they have first hand knowledge of what the markets are willing to pay for a given amount of benefit. Considering that GM is going full tilt on the Volt is a clear indication that GM already knows what that answer is. Now Nissan knows it too.

Toyota, Ford and Honda all developed successful parallel hybrids. Nissan licensed HSD from Toyota and built a successful hybrid.

GM has tried two different approaches to hybrids, to date, the BAS system (intended to be low effect but very low cost and resulted in moderate cost and low effect) and the two-mode hybrid (intended high effect at moderate cost and resulted in high effect at unsustainable cost).

Neither one sells. GM, to date, is a dismal failure in anything that looks, smells, feels or tastes like EV technology. Why should anyone believe that GM is going to successfully leapfrog anyone or anything, given their record? It is perfectly obvious that GM is going into serial hybrids (or RE-EVs, if you like) because they can't build a cost-effective, workable parallel hybrid and have run out of other options.

And including Fisker, Tesla and Aptera as "American automakers," just makes a mockery of the idea of an "automaker." They're all boutique engineering shops that exceedingly unlikely to grow to mass production. If there is a mass market for a motocycle-style platform EV, then Honda, Yamaha or Suzuki will knock off Aptera quickly enough. I forget what Fisker builds (that's how important they are) and the Tesla roadster has been shipped, PERHAPS, to three customers, only one of whom might not be a corporate officer, although he is said to have invested in the company. When EVs go mainstream, Tesla will go belly up.

Toyota is embracing parallel hybrid approach for its future. When gas hits 6 dollars a gallon that approach will be worthless as the Prius car will most likely cost the same to drive as a 9 mpg big SUV in simple dollar terms per fill up. All the fuel economy features will be negated. The word fuel needs to come out of the equation for any long term success by any auto manufacturer. A BEV car does not have any fuel economy numbers, just a simple price to drive per KWH. I have already spent 2.5k to recharge my future BEV off solar. Please share your input for my thoughts on this issue.

"When gas hits 6 dollars a gallon that approach will be worthless as the Prius car will most likely cost the same to drive as a 9 mpg big SUV in simple dollar terms per fill up." - Wilson.

Anyone who's measuring his automotive expenses in "dollars per fillup" across two entirely dissimilar vehicle types is someone I would probably not want working in my department.

SO if it cost you 200 bucks to fill up your car every week or a 800 a month fuel bill and your ok with that huh. Your the one I wouldnt want working in my Dept. Common simple sense dude. What do you want me to write engineering specs or something. Its just plain and simple cost to drive per week period. NO BS.

Cover Story May 15, 2008, 5:00PM EST text size: TT
GM: Live Green or Die
The lumbering, money-losing giant finally sees that gas engines are a losing bet. But is it too late?
In April of 2005, General Motors (GM) Chairman and Chief Executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. convened his management team for a monthly strategy session. Held in the boardroom at GM's Detroit headquarters, these meetings can last a day as 20 or so executives mull plans for new cars and product strategies. Meetings often kick off with a roundtable format, and attendees are encouraged to pose new ideas and stray from the agenda. That's when Vice-Chairman Robert A. Lutz spoke up. Lutz, whose gravelly pronouncements routinely enliven auto shows and generate headlines, has a certain genius for challenging conventional wisdom. Maybe, he told GM's brain trust, it was time to build another electric car—one that would use a giant version of the lithium ion batteries that power cell phones and laptops.

It was a provocative suggestion—and Lutz knew it. Two years earlier, General Motors had killed its experimental EV1 electric car and set off a public relations furor. The environmental lobby was deaf to GM's assertions that the EV1, leased to a limited number of people but not sold, would never have earned its maker any money. And the greens accused GM of pulling the plug to show policymakers that such techno wonders were bad business.

By the time Lutz revisited the issue in 2005, Toyota Motor's (TM) quirky Prius hybrid had turned the Japanese automaker into a poster boy for the environmental movement and cast a greenish halo over the entire company. By contrast, GM, at least in the popular imagination, had tunnel vision; it was still making gasoline hogs like the Hummer and fighting congressional efforts to boost fuel economy. GM executives were furious Toyota was winning green cred despite making its own fuel suckers. But no one at the meeting wanted to hear about electric cars. "We lost $1 billion on the last one. Do you want to lose $1 billion on the next one?'" Lutz recalls one executive saying. "It died right there."

Myopia. Fear. Inertia. All had a seat at the table in Detroit that day. And yet 20 months after the meeting, in January, 2007, Wagoner stood on a stage at the Detroit auto show and surprised the world with a vow to start developing a newfangled electric car called the Chevrolet Volt. It would plug into a regular outlet, leapfrog the competition, and could be ready in three years.

Why did Wagoner suddenly get religion? After years of avoiding the future, he finally understood oil prices were not going to return to earth, global warming was a de facto political reality, and Washington was serious about imposing tougher fuel economy rules on his industry. GM would have to live green or die.

Now Wagoner is racing the clock. Not only has he promised to get the Volt ready by 2010, but he also must transform GM's entire fleet to meet stringent new fuel economy rules that take effect in 2017. As many as three-quarters of the company's 50 models may need to be fitted with hybrid systems that combine an electric motor with a small gasoline engine. Many other existing models will be shrunk or fitted with some other kind of fuel-saving technology.

General Motors' green strategy is akin to a moon shot. It will cost billions to get the Volt ready by 2010 and fill out the fleet with hybrids, require GM's 22,000 engineers to stretch like never before, and involve the top-to-bottom transformation of a culture wedded to big cars and horsepower. Other automakers, of course, must also hew to the new realities. Most, including GM's two crosstown rivals, Ford and Chrysler, are rolling out hybrids, too. But the Volt is controversial in automotive circles because the technology is so new and unproven. And GM, bleeding cash and losing money in North America, is at a serious disadvantage compared with well- financed Toyota.

Inside the company, meanwhile, there is debate about how to make cars planet-friendly and desirable. And there is fear that Wagoner has handicapped GM by waiting too long. Three years ago, Toyota was the main threat.

Wilson,

Even with gas at $6/gallon - or $12/gallon - or any price you like, it will still cost far more to operate a 9mpg SUV than a 48mpg Prius.

I spent 200 a week going to work in my 9 mpg gallon pickup at $3 a gallon, I traded it in on a car that gets 40mpg, but at 6 to 10 bucks a gallon I will still spend 200 a week, so This is why Im trying to explain the Prius is a very short term problem solver. Toyota will not pave the way to get off gas with the Prius or any other car with the same hybrid technology. We will have to truly go to a gas free BEV to make a difference. The REV from GM is also a short term solution till battery prices come down and the second generation can be a true BEV. Hopefully they will have one by the time gas reaches 200 a barrel.

jeremy,

California's Air Resources Board actually laid out the product plans for automakers, by giving progressively more points to:

hybrids with ever greater all-electric ranges
hybrids with fast refill / recharge times

Dad what is a gas can? GM can see it. Toyota can't.

Actually I think they can but they screwed thereself legally so their transition to li-ion isn't as easy as it is for GM.

When the need for gas goes away then GM will be ready and waiting to fill you car buying needs. Toyota will have to go back to the drawing board and start from ground zero as all of their cars use ICE for propulsion.

Dad what is a gas can? GM can see it. Toyota can't.

Actually I think they can but they screwed thereself legally so their transition to li-ion isn't as easy as it is for GM.

When the need for gas goes away then GM will be ready and waiting to fill you car buying needs. Toyota will have to go back to the drawing board and start from ground zero as all of their cars use ICE for propulsion.

Amen brother, that is what I've been trying to tell them.

"Dad what is a gas can? GM can see it. Toyota can't." - omegaman66

GM is having difficulty making more than 20K of the perfectly conventional Malibus per month (their second Malibu plant has not reached full volume production). Their Volt output may be in the neighborhood of 120K Volts per year. It may even be less.

GM might be first out of the gate with what might turn out to be winning technology but the automobile market does not turn on a dime. It will take a decade for GM to shift production to a largely EV fleet. One of the limits will be available money for investment in new production facilities. Guess who doesn't have that problem?

What makes you think Toyota has "screwed thereself legally?"

What makes you think Toyota will have to "start from ground zer?" Toyota ships 30K cars/month with battery, electric drive and control electronics. I routinely hear people talk about the "complexity" of HSD. Given that they not only have experience with batteries, electric motors and control electronics, I'd think they could master something that's allegedly simpler.

One of the key factors will be price. Even if gas is fairly expensive, a Prius for a third less is going to look extremely attractive at 50mpg.

"I spent 200 a week going to work in my 9 mpg gallon pickup at $3 a gallon, I traded it in on a car that gets 40mpg, but at 6 to 10 bucks a gallon I will still spend 200 a week..." - wilson

You might look your math over. At $10 per gallon and the same distance traveled, your 40mpg car will require only $150/week in fuel. Even at $10/gallon, you'll be saving $50/week with the high-mpg car.

dagwood,

Glad to see you concede that GM, now 2 years ahead of Toyota with an REEV, is working on what may be the winning configuration - that's a big step for you and a couple other posters on this site.

Electric assist up to 25 mph is NOT the same as a full EV electric drive, so Toyota IS starting from scratch, having to dump both NiMH's and their electric assist technologies. You are right though, Toyota can still reuse the nameplate, tires and steering wheel.

The Prius will be cheaper, but if people are going for cheap and efficient, they can buy a Honda.

Conceptually the Volt type serial ICE/electric motor hybrid is much simpler than the parallel hybrid. I think Toyota tried several different ideas before reaching the Prius type drivetrain, which is much more complex mechanically than the serial design. Why? It is possibly because of the very nature of electric motor; i.e. the motor is generating electricity (back or counter electromotive force) while it is rotating. The voltage of this force increases in direct relationship to the rotational speed and the strength of field magnetism, and if the voltage becomes equal to the incoming (driving) voltage the motor loses torque (no incoming current). In order to reduce this current impeding force you have to either increase the supply voltage or weaken the field magnetism. For a small EV intended for slow max speed (golf cart) you do not have to worry about this phenomenon. But for freeway speed this can be a challenge. You might need a transmission mechanism so that you can keep motor speed low and torque high. Toyota, I speculate, abandoned the idea of using the motor all the way to the freeway speed, and utilized the high torque nature of electric motor at low rpm as the source of start up power and slow-speed runabout as well as a power booster (green turbo) to supplement a smallish ICE. By looking at the Prius motor you know it is very well designed for high efficiency and high torque. Basically it is a permanent magnet synchronous motor with additional reluctance torque poles intended to be driven by a variable voltage (PWM) and variable frequency inverter, a Toshiba original.

G35X,

Seems to me it would be a lot simpler to just have a motor driven planetary gear system around the mechanical driveshaft that could lock when you don't want the motor spinning backwards.

I've no doubt that Toyota's system is complex, but, in many cases, as with this case, more complex is not better - in addition, a simple series approach gives you are great platform off which to develop a full BEV in the future.

"Glad to see you concede that GM, now 2 years ahead of Toyota with an REEV, is working on what may be the winning configuration - that's a big step for you and a couple other posters on this site." - Hendler, Master of Creative Reading

"GM might be first out of the gate with what might turn out to be winning technology..." - dagwood55

Dude, two "might"'s doesn't make a "right." I am conceding nothing. The probabilities are still against GM, in several ways:

1. Toyota thinks its better to directly use the gas engine you're carrying along. They have the experience of a million units behind them. When the leader talks, I listen.

2. Not only does GM have to get a Volt onto the market, they have to be able to profit from it. Recently, an article here from one of the engineers said that GM was giving them anything they asked for. That strikes me as a bad thing, as it suggests that the project lacks discipline, a budget and a clear path to the finish line. If engineering gets anything they want, it's likely that project development costs will balloon to make the Volt even more costly.

3. Not only does GM have to get the Volt to the market, they have to profit from it. GM has, probably, enough cash to last 3 years without filing for bankruptcy protection. If things don't break their way, they might not last that long. The current price spike in fuel isn't doing them any favors. Other manufacturers are better positioned to weather this storm. With that money, GM has to fund operations AND start to design and engineer the successor vehicles to the Volt. They have to be able to build it inexpensively enough to make a profit for other operations, in short order, or the Volt does them no favors. No one's going to a GM showroom and buying a Yukaburbahoebelade for top dolalr because GM also builds a Volt. If they are interested in the Volt, that's what they'll want. Interest in the Volt will wane after the first, ohhh... 20K buyers if the price isn't right.

Building it costs serious money. GM has to take a factory out of service and fix the assembly line to build Volts. That first asembly line is your first 10 to 12K Volts/month. Want more Volts? You need a second assembly line. This is going to take a lot of money. Getting Volt #1 out of the plant and into a customer's hands does not make the vehicle profitable.

4. Not only does GM have to get the Volt to the market, they have to profit from it. GM is far, far behind Toyota in production, sales and revenue in combination gas/electric powertrains. Market share has its own weight and there are many greenies who are perfectly satisfied with their Priuses and likely to trust Toyota for their second hybrid rather more than GM. Toyota has skimmed the cream from this market segment and, very likely, secured their allegiance for their second hybrid purchase. The 2009 Prius won't have much standalone EV capability but Toyota will almost certainly deliver an HSD with more serious EV capability about the time the Volt is hitting the street. In all likelihood, Toyota will be able to build and deliver 35K Priuses to the US, quite possibly more, in November of 2010 and a significant fraction of them will have an enhanced battery capability of some sort. This will chip away at the Volt's market.

Look at the two-mode hybrids... well, it would be NICE to look at a two-mode hybrid, wouldn't it? In fact, not only does GM not seem to want to build them very often, they do seem to languish on the Chevy/GMC dealer lots. The nearby Chevy dealer has three that have not moved. One has been on the lot for 3 weeks. People are looking at this and getting sticker shock.

Matters of principle do not routinely apply in buying a car. As I pointed out, Toyota got many of those people, already, with a reasonably priced car (it's a little more than a base Camry and has almost as much room inside, it asks no meaningful sacrifice from the owner). Yukahoe prospects are looking at the eco-friendliness of the two-mode and saying, "$55K for a Yukahoe? You're $h!tt!ng me!" If the Volt, a vehicle for four does not deliver the same perceived value as a Prius, another vehicle for four, it's going to have a very rough time selling.

5. Never mind Toyota, both Nissan and Honda will join the fray in a big way. The Volt will be struggling for market share agsint not one competitor, the Prius, but THREE competitors. The "pie" of people wanting very fuel efficient cars is increasing in size but by 2011 we'll be slicing into 4 pieces instead of 2. GM's share going to be quite a struggle. On the plus side, this will compel Toyota to hold down the price of the Prius. Oh, wait, that's not a plus for GM. Well, it's a plus for consumers.

6. As for GM being two years in the lead, that's your most creative reading of all. If Toyota decided, today, to build a vehicle with the same profile as the Volt, they'd do it and they could deliver it the same month the Volt hits the street. The original Prius took two and a half years and they had no hybrid experience at that time. Toyota could readily deliver a simpler car in less time, IF THEY WANTED TO.

As of today, GM is a dismal failure in hybrids. They have what might be a good idea but they've lost two races, so far. When a horse comes in dead last in two races, I'm very reluctant to bet on him to win in the third.

Thinking GM can win because Toyota can't build something simpler than what they currently build - that's pretty close to lunacy.

By the way, the CURRENT Prius offers not electric assist but full electric propulsion up to about 32mph (not 25). The Prius due in MY 2009 will go much faster on full electric propulsion (rumors of 100kph - we'll see). The Volt doesn't have to beat the 2004 Prius, it has to beat the 2009/10/11 Prius. You might try to remember that.

Allow me to present you with my favorite link, which expresses the brilliance of brevity:

Link (http://www.quotegarden.com/brevity.html)

The Prius has been slowly accepted, due to its poor performance and homely looks. For that reason, the Volt will vault right past the Prius, when it hits full volume production in 2011 or 2012.

The longer Toyota lingers with its old, dead-end tech, the longer it will take for Toyota to hold or recapture its hybrid gains. I am happy with every day that passes in which Toyota fails to develop a REEV.

"The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal

If I had time, I'd write a shorter letter. - Dagwood55's shorter rewrite.

"Allow me to present you with my favorite link, which expresses the brilliance of brevity:" - Hendler

If someone was paying me for what I write here, well, I'd be happy to deliver brevity or whatever was paying best. As it is, for free, you get a rough draft that includes all pertinent useful information, theories, support and conclusions.

If you would really prefer to whine about style, I'd say you must be lacking substance but I can accomodate you, nonetheless. A rewrite is available for $100 or so, send a private message if it's that important and I'll talk specific length reduction and terms.

To the matter at hand...

In fact, Toyota learns from its mistakes. As it happens, Toyota also thinks that the current Prius is underpowered, at least for the US market, and it gets a new 1.8L engine for MY 2009. Of course, the current Prius is such an underpowered flop that, last month, it outsold almost every passenger car in GM's entire line. I believe only the Impala outsold it and that was nearly 54% to fleets, as near as I can tell (deduction from figures revealed by Ed Peper).

I'd prefer to see Toyota stick with the 1.5L but Toyota's goal is to MAKE MONEY and they're doing OK at that, so it's hard to criticize any specific decision. It will be easy enough for Toyota to put the 1.5L back in and they may intend to do that with a different ICE/EM/battery combination. We will wait and see.

The question with GM and the Volt is, "Does GM learn from its mistakes?" GM has a bad habit of reaching beyond their grasp. The Vega had some nifty new ideas but a combination of cheaped-out specifications (3-speed instead of 4-speed transmission) and overambitious engineering (alumin/iron engine that self-destructed in short order) led to an early demise. GM is still feeling the effects of the Dexcool disaster. GM whines on and on about CAFE. Toyota and Honda have fleets that fit with upcoming CAFE regs and both could still sell cars from their current product line in meeting the 2020 CAFE regs (which aren't all that ambitious). GM's product mix has, for 35 years, been disastrously sensitive to the effects of oil price shocks. This was true in 1973 and it's true today.

The current two-modes don't sell. GM can't build them cheaply enough to price them where they'll sell and GM doesn't build them and on the rare occasions that they do, the public is fairly well unwilling to buy them. A vehicle that is designed to appeal to the thrifty must be, in fact, thrifty. The projected price for the Volt, fanboy hopes aside, is $48K per the Lutzmeister himself. Yeah, I know he denied it but he didn't specify what the price would be and no one at the source I found has issued a correction. I believe he actually said it and, until I see something dfferent, that's the price. Even were I to agree that $48K is off the table, on a number of occasions, $40K was floated by GM and that would be disaster enough.

GM is taking a risk for which I think they are ill prepared.

I was making a basic statement with the numbers on gas. Dagwood
I do not wish to give the 150 a week on gas money to the American Oil companies. You can if you want, I will charge my BEV with my solar panels and not even worry about rising electricity cost. Why because its the smart thing to invest in.

I find it amusing to see people comparing the specifications of a dream against the specifications of a successful product. Of course the argument is long because there is no way a dream can be refuted. How about we wait to test the final products in 2011 and then wait for the sales numbers and subsequent profit statements? "That's just crazy talk Texas!"

No question that Toyota is the master of incremental improvement, so their engine upgrade is no surprise. The Prius is selling well, because it has no current competition, until the Volt leapfrogs it.

[quote]I'd prefer to see Toyota stick with the 1.5L but Toyota's goal is to MAKE MONEY and they're doing OK at that, so it's hard to criticize any specific decision. It will be easy enough for Toyota to put the 1.5L back in and they may intend to do that with a different ICE/EM/battery combination. We will wait and see.[/qutoe]

I doubt Toyota will go backwards, and instead try to incrementally improve the Prius to catch up to the Volt - that's the only way the Japanese can think. Innovation starting with a clean piece of paper is not a strength of Japanese design - I will never understand how they ever came up with the video game console, as it is so brilliantly innovative.

[quote]The question with GM and the Volt is, "Does GM learn from its mistakes?" GM has a bad habit of reaching beyond their grasp. The Vega had some nifty new ideas but a combination of cheaped-out specifications (3-speed instead of 4-speed transmission) and overambitious engineering (alumin/iron engine that self-destructed in short order) led to an early demise. GM is still feeling the effects of the Dexcool disaster. GM whines on and on about CAFE. Toyota and Honda have fleets that fit with upcoming CAFE regs and both could still sell cars from their current product line in meeting the 2020 CAFE regs (which aren't all that ambitious). GM's product mix has, for 35 years, been disastrously sensitive to the effects of oil price shocks. This was true in 1973 and it's true today.

If GM was trying to design an Atkinson or compound Rotary engine, I would agree with you, but batteries are being done by two vendors, the motor is a simple device, and the range extender has been in development for years, so there is no real risk.


The current two-modes don't sell. GM can't build them cheaply enough to price them where they'll sell and GM doesn't build them and on the rare occasions that they do, the public is fairly well unwilling to buy them. A vehicle that is designed to appeal to the thrifty must be, in fact, thrifty. The projected price for the Volt, fanboy hopes aside, is $48K per the Lutzmeister himself. Yeah, I know he denied it but he didn't specify what the price would be and no one at the source I found has issued a correction. I believe he actually said it and, until I see something dfferent, that's the price. Even were I to agree that $48K is off the table, on a number of occasions, $40K was floated by GM and that would be disaster enough.

It is my understanding that their two mode hybrids don't stay on the lot longer than a day or two, and it is the standard SUV's and trucks that aren't selling. Also, $40K was floated as a cost, and therefore, perhaps a price at which GM would break even. The final price will be a calculated risk / reward to move the product to market.


GM is taking a risk for which I think they are ill prepared.

I will admit that this is a bold challenge for GM, but their current approach to this effort, and the corresponding rapid results, gives me confidence that they are making the best moves possible.

"I doubt Toyota will go backwards, and instead try to incrementally improve the Prius to catch up to the Volt..." - Hendler.

To catch up to the Volt? How does one catch up to something that doesn't exist?

"- that's the only way the Japanese can think." - Hendler.

How delightfully racist that is. I hope what you have isn't catching.

"It is my understanding that their two mode hybrids don't stay on the lot longer than a day or two, and it is the standard SUV's and trucks that aren't selling." - Hendler.

Observation of the nearby dealer lot says this is not the case. They received their first 3 weeks or more ago and still have it. Since then, they've managed to get two more to keep it company.

I have heard there are waiting lists for the BAS system vehicles... they are not terribly expensive. Not terribly useful but not terribly expensive, either. People are willing to buy them, apparently. But they're rarely available.

If one steps back from GM's current hybrid "product line," there is clearly "something wrong with this picture." Now, one might argue about exactly what the problem is but the automaker that would like to be considered the #1 automaker in the world sold just 1100 of these last month, out of the 260K or so vehilces they sold in the North American market and in spite of the trash-talking Lutz was doing about this last year. And they've been on the market all year.

"Also, $40K was floated as a cost, and therefore, perhaps a price at which GM would break even. The final price will be a calculated risk / reward to move the product to market." - Hendler.

GM doesn't have profits from other vehicles to subsidize the Volt's street price. They must build it cost-effectively or they will end up doing what they're doing with the two-modes and BAS system vehicles - putting them in the catalog but only dribbling them, reluctantly, to dealers.

"I doubt Toyota will go backwards, and instead try to incrementally improve the Prius to catch up to the Volt - that's the only way the Japanese can think. Innovation starting with a clean piece of paper is not a strength of Japanese design - I will never understand how they ever came up with the video game console, as it is so brilliantly innovative." - Hendler

You know, this is just wrong on so many levels. First, your assertion that the Japanese aren't innovative, to claim they just don't think that way, that's simply racist.

Second, you supplied a counter-example of your own... the video game console. And we have another counter-example staring us in the face - the Prius itself, a clean-sheet design at the end of the 20th century. And a successful one. It met all the goals that Toyota set for it. And, of course, there's the Insight, too.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your attitudes towards the Japanese.

"I doubt Toyota will go backwards, and instead try to incrementally improve the Prius to catch up to the Volt - that's the only way the Japanese can think. Innovation starting with a clean piece of paper is not a strength of Japanese design - I will never understand how they ever came up with the video game console, as it is so brilliantly innovative." - Hendler

You know, this is just wrong on so many levels. First, your assertion that the Japanese aren't innovative, to claim they just don't think that way, that's simply racist.

Anyone who has ever competed with Asian manufacturers know they copy everyone else's designs without innovating themselves. Everything they do is a result of their incremental improvement CULTURE, not racist. Call me a culturalist, not a racist. I suspect an Asian raised in an American household would be as innovative as any other American.


Second, you supplied a counter-example of your own... the video game console. And we have another counter-example staring us in the face - the Prius itself, a clean-sheet design at the end of the 20th century. And a successful one. It met all the goals that Toyota set for it. And, of course, there's the Insight, too.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your attitudes towards the Japanese.

I supplied one counter example, although, upon reflection, the video game console was developed by an American company that got the Japanese to manufacture it for them, then the Japanese simply continued to improve incrementally on what was already shown to them, so I have to retract it.

Your example of the Prius, as a complete vehicle, isn't innovative, but an amalgamation of previous techs - Atkinson engine (Atkinson doesn't sound Japanese) and regenerative braking have all been around before, and the Japanese simply reacted to a Clinton administration call for hybrid vehicles. The fact that this design can't easily be made plug-in, nor does it easily convert to a series hybrid, shows lack of vision.

I give Asian CULTURE all the credit in the world for being able to incrementally improve technology and reduce costs while maintaining excellent quality. In a couple decades, when the Asian automakers catch up to the innovation of the American automakers, they will, as usual, surpass the US in performance / cost reduction, forcing the US to innovate yet again.

Anyone who has ever competed with Asian manufacturers know they copy everyone else's designs without innovating themselves. Everything they do is a result of their incremental improvement CULTURE, not racist.


What you wrote is a very racist comment and has no place in this forum. Anytime you use "they" and "them" to describe the actions of an entire nation as though every individual was one person is considered racist.

What you wrote is a very racist comment and has no place in this forum. Anytime you use "they" and "them" to describe the actions of an entire nation as though every individual was one person is considered racist.

Texas,

As usual, you have nothing to say until you can demogogue an issue. It is not racist to speak generally about any CULTURE and their BEHAVIORS. Asian culture does not teach, promote or reward visionaries / innovators - that is a fact. Their cultures emphasize teamwork and small steps with which everyone agrees, so no true innovations are possible.

The Prius was a clean-sheet design. One can start with a clean-sheet and integrate technologies already developed. Everything works that way, you're not going to go back and re-invent the 7 basic machines and derive everything from first principles of physics. You build on what everyone else has discovered.

It is amusing that you say, "the Japanese simply reacted to a Clinton administration call for hybrid vehicles." First, it was not "the Japanese," it was Toyota and Honda. Second, they DID react to a Clinton Administration call - but they didn't get the largesse from it that Detroit did. Toyota and Honda just built cars with fuel economy that is a quantum leap beyond "normal" mid-size and compact fuel economy. They commercialized it. Successfully.

Detroit took the money, showed off a couple prototypes and promptly forgot all about it (to their sorrow; GM had to relearn quite a bit about the importance of aerodynamics to low-energy-budget vehicles). They went back to gas hogs as usual.. And today? Is any one of them profitable? Detroit is so bad off that Chrysler's president has described Chrysler as "bankrupt."

Texas,

As usual, you have nothing to say until you can demogogue an issue. It is not racist to speak generally about any CULTURE and their BEHAVIORS. Asian culture does not teach, promote or reward visionaries / innovators - that is a fact. Their cultures emphasize teamwork and small steps with which everyone agrees, so no true innovations are possible.

This is the most idiotic paragraph you have ever written (that I have read). I challenge anyone to find something written by you that is more ridiculous.

Anyone who has ever competed with Asian manufacturers know they copy everyone else's designs without innovating themselves.

You're doing it again, ばか.

The Prius was a clean-sheet design. One can start with a clean-sheet and integrate technologies already developed. Everything works that way, you're not going to go back and re-invent the 7 basic machines and derive everything from first principles of physics. You build on what everyone else has discovered.]

If they had a clean sheet and could snap together whatever available tech to build a hybrid, then why did they choose a configuration off which future EV's and FCV's could be developed? That's my point - Toyota has no vision.

[quote]It is amusing that you say, "the Japanese simply reacted to a Clinton administration call for hybrid vehicles." First, it was not "the Japanese," it was Toyota and Honda. Second, they DID react to a Clinton Administration call - but they didn't get the largesse from it that Detroit did. Toyota and Honda just built cars with fuel economy that is a quantum leap beyond "normal" mid-size and compact fuel economy. They commercialized it. Successfully.

The Japanese government HEAVILY subsidizes their industries, especially the auto industry, with some recent estimates put at $25 billion. It's true they didn't get it from the US government, but they got far more subsidies than Detroit or the American consumer.


Detroit took the money, showed off a couple prototypes and promptly forgot all about it (to their sorrow; GM had to relearn quite a bit about the importance of aerodynamics to low-energy-budget vehicles). They went back to gas hogs as usual.. And today? Is any one of them profitable? Detroit is so bad off that Chrysler's president has described Chrysler as "bankrupt."

Detroit's profitability was heavily burdened by UAW contracts giving wages and benefits twice as high as those paid to Americans working in foreign owned plants. Detroit sold the vehicles that Americans wanted to buy. Now, Americans want high gas mileage, without sacrificing performance or comfort - hence, the Volt.

This is the most idiotic paragraph you have ever written (that I have read). I challenge anyone to find something written by you that is more ridiculous.

I love debating those West Coasters, who grab a book on Kaisan, and boast about their new found religion of continual improvement. They talk about the beauty of the Japanese social arrangement within factories, where the boss makes little more than the employees and everyone works in harmony, making small changes through the approval of the group.

When I then point out that such a system discourages radical changes (as no group desires changes larger than they can each understand), and offers little or no reward to those who show vision and radical innovation (because bosses make only slightly more than employees with very little responsibility), they immediately label me a racist. KAISAN does not encourage, support or reward radically innovative leaders - that is a fact.

"And if you think Thomas Edison is the person in history who
registered the most inventions you;d be wrong - he actually only
had about 1,093 patents. Outdone by Dr. Yoshiro
NakaMats, who at 78 years old is still going
strong and now has more than 3,200 patents to his name.
You can read more about him in Japan Inc.,

www.japaninc.com/article.php?articleID=653.
"

http://www.geekgirl.com.au/blog/?p=352


Impossible? Hardly.

"I love debating those West Coasters,..." - Hendler.

I've never lived West of the Mississippi. At a guess, I'd say "Texas" is from Texas or otherwise identifies himself as "Texan."

By the by, when you put down "West Coasters," that's somewhat less distasteful than your earlier racist remarks but still an inappropriate remark.

"When I then point out that such a system discourages radical changes..."

Then it's curious that such a system also allowed for the Prius, which IS a radical change. A bold change. Which is kicking GM's ass.

Then it's curious that such a system also allowed for the Prius, which IS a radical change. A bold change. Which is kicking GM's ass.

That's my point, the Prius is NOT a radical change, but a dead-end parallel hybrid approach that will be displaced by truly radical REEV's and eventually BEV's and PFCV's. A company with true vision would have developed a series hybrid, not parallel, if they want to target American tastes for performance.

The Prius will be a footnote, alongside the EV1, as the series hybrids finally deliver everything American consumers want.

There is no doubt that Toyota is currently dominating the automotive industry. I have a problem with this whole argument.

If GM Volt does what it says and they produce it in big numbers, then GM Volt will be the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road. If Toyota stays with their current superior technology and Volt does what it promises. Then Gm Volt will surpass Prius, but it will take years for GM to pass Toyota, if ever. Toyota could put it together quickly.

I would pay extra money to own a Volt because I would rather send my extra dollars to American automotive company's, building cars in America, employing American workers, and send my money to power company's in America using mostly American power. Instead of causing inflation by sending dollars out to the middle east.

Toyota employs American workers. I have no problem if Toyota helps America by building more fuel efficient vehicles. Toyota currently has the better technology. I can admit that, but you are crazy if you can't admit that if GM pulls of the Volt technology that it won't be a better option than the current Prius.

That is the problem I have with this argument. Because you are approaching it from the angle that what is good for GM, or what is good for Toyota, or what is good for my personal finances, rather than how it helps America as a whole. It may cost me more money in extra finance charges to own a volt, but I would pay it to help the country as a whole. The Volt produced in large numbers has the potential to help America in so many ways. Most Americans drive less than 40 miles a day. If we are sending less dollars out of the country for fuel. That will decrease inflation. Also decreased demand for fuel will drive down the price of fuel making it cheaper to ship goods. Making the cost of goods drop. Energy independence is good for America.

Toyota is doing good with the Prius, but we need something significant. The Volt has the potential to be significant. It is just potential, but it is hope. I believe GM will do it because they are currently working on it. What GM is doing is going to force other car company's to come out with the same technology and that is good for America.

Currently Toyota is doing well with the Prius. Thank You for that, but from what I have heard, they are not too excited about this new technology and it's my opinion that this technology will help the U.S in a great way. I don't care if you guys keep comparing who has the bigger ****. I just want to see what is good for America. I think Toyota is missing the boat if they don't see the benefits of this technology, but I do agree that Toyota is currently the superior car and company. They could catch up with this technology very quickly, and I hope they do. The more options the better. If the Volt was a reality right now and if it performed the way they say. It would be superior to the Prius. If Toyota stays with the Prius and only upgrades it with lithium ion battery's and makes it a plug in and the Volt comes out at the same time as you get these upgrades from Toyota, then the Volt is still superior. It is just hope by believing in GM to do what they say with the Volt, and they will be finished if they don't, but if they do and Toyota doesn't move in the same direction. GM will surpass Toyota with the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market, and Toyota will have to scramble.

In 2.4 years the volt will hit the market. In 2.4 years GM will have the best design no doubt. As gas gets more and more expensive 50 mpg will hurt the pocket book like 20 mpg does now.

If you read the Nissan announcement carefully you will see any serious bev or erev maker has nothing to worry about from them.

In 2.4 years Toyota will still be trying to push gasoline powered vehicles that are all electric at low speed IF the battery has any charge left.

People in 2010 will be clamouring for an all electric vehicle or a vehicle that runs all electric 97% of the time. Unless toyota changes its ways they will not even have such a vehicle under development.

Think about it.
Right now the volt design goes from no gas to ~50mpg after depletion.
Right now the prius goes from 50 to something like 35!

Clearly the volt is the winner in this comparison as the worst case for the volt matches the best case for the prius.

But you argue logically that the prius will be improved by 2010. That will likely be countered by increases in gas prices which lessens the gains made by any gasoline powered vehicle like the prius. Sure the prius by 2010 might get as much as 100 mpg. But that design still looses out to the volt which will go 40 miles or more (probably more) on an 80 cent charge. If gas is at 5 dollars a gallon then a 100 mpg car will still cost 3 times as much to drive as the volt.

At some point the gasoline engine will not be needed at all for a cheap all electric car possible as early as 2009 if eestore is right. Once this occurs of even before if people enbrace the EREV then toyota will have to make the switch to haveing its cars powered primarily by gasoline to primarily by grid electricity. The sooner that comes, the better for toyota. The later this happens then the further toyota will be behind in technology as they will have to scrap their old fashioned ice engine for a car that they will have to design from the ground up.

To think otherwise is to bet that GM goes broke before they can make the obviously better technology profitable. Not a bet I would make since a gov. bail out will most likely occur, especially when it is known that GM has the future car on the road.

"That's my point, the Prius is NOT a radical change..." - Hendler

Oh? Then there must have been others on the market. Other manufacturers use something very much like HSD? Before Toyota? Someone brought out IMA before Honda?

In fact, your only "evidence" that the Prius is not a radical change is your belief that the Japanese are incapable of radical change. Sorry... the Prius IS a radical change that shows your beliefs are demonstrably wrong.

People in 2010 will be clamouring for an all electric vehicle or a vehicle that runs all electric 97% of the time. Unless toyota changes its ways they will not even have such a vehicle under development.

Think about it.
Right now the volt design goes from no gas to ~50mpg after depletion.
Right now the prius goes from 50 to something like 35!

Clearly the volt is the winner in this comparison as the worst case for the volt matches the best case for the prius.

As of today, Toyota ships a vehicle that contains batteries, an electric motor, driver-by-wire controls, charge and motor controller. To think Toyota can't rapidly build a vehicle that contains ONLY those things is foolish.

"Right now, the volt design goes..."

There's your big mistake. The design goes nowhere. If GM builds a vehicle to that design and can manufacture it at a good price, then hundreds of thousands of vehicles built to that design might, someday, go somewhere.

"Right now the prius goes from 50 to something like 35!"

That's a more minor mistake. The Prius does about 45-50mpg in most circumstances. Some people do way better.

(granted my figures are ball park) What I mean by the prius goes from 50 to 35 is that when using its batteries to help with propulsion the vehicle does roughly 50 ish mpg. But if you are tooling along the interstate or a local hwy with few stops or any situation where the battery is depleted or not used then the vehicle drops to 35ish mpg.

"That's my point, the Prius is NOT a radical change..." - Hendler

Oh? Then there must have been others on the market. Other manufacturers use something very much like HSD? Before Toyota? Someone brought out IMA before Honda?

In fact, your only "evidence" that the Prius is not a radical change is your belief that the Japanese are incapable of radical change. Sorry... the Prius IS a radical change that shows your beliefs are demonstrably wrong.

If you read The Innovator's Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution, you will understand that the Prius is a sustaining innovation, supplementary tech to stretch out the mileage of an internal combustion engine based vehicle. The Volt is a disruptive innovation, because it carries an internal combustion engine ONLY as a range extender, and as GM beats the costs out of the configuration, they will increase the EV range until the ICE is phased out.

The Prius is just more polish on a turd.

Personally it doesn't really matter who builds the first affordable EREV or quick charge BEV or Long Range BEV. Whoever makes it will most likely get my money. Right now GM "APPEARS" to be the first major company that will accomplish this goal. But that is just speculations.

Electric power assist was pretty radical at the time. Unfortunately when the prius first came out I just shrugged my shoulders and said so what! My brother has an all gas car that gets the same gas milage without the extra stuff to break at a cheaper price.

Yes it was radical unfortunately it wasn't and isn't all that much better than vehicles, in terms of gas milage, than vehicles that have been on the road for 20 years.

What good is a nuclear powered car if it still only gets 50 mpg? Sure it is radical but for me 50mpg makes me say... "what thats it... thats all you got? don't see the big deal."

Before some of you declare victory maybe you should read the following article:

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MKWJE1C00I5S2QSNDLSCK HA?articleID=207800865

"Nissan is determined to become a leader in this next shift in global mobility," Nissan Executive Vice President Carlos Tavares told a news conference, adding that the venture's advanced battery technology was critical in reaching that goal.

AESC also aims to supply the rest of the industry, but acknowledged that competition was fierce.

"There are more than 10 rivals competing in this field," AESC President Masahiko Otsuka said.

The venture had approached more than 20 companies since marketing operations began last year, Otsuka said, declining to say how many of the 65,000 units planned for production in 2011 would be supplied outside the Nissan-Renault group.

Toyota Motor, Honda Motor and Mitsubishi Motors Corp are all working on their own lithium-ion batteries in separate joint ventures.

Mitsubishi Motors, which has also been aggressive in promoting electric vehicles, is due to begin producing lithium-ion batteries by 2009 in a joint venture with Mitsubishi Corp and GS Yuasa Corp.

AESC also said on Monday it had raised its capital to 2.99 billion yen from 490 million yen, with Nissan increasing its stake to 51 percent from 50 percent. NEC holds 42 percent and NEC Tokin has 7 percent. ($1=104.17 yen) (Reporting by Chang-Ran Kim, Editing by Brent Kininmont)"


I hope you can all agree that the battery is the key to success. The manufacturers are not idiots. They are testing all different methods including serial hybrids to see what would be most attractive to their customers. Some may decide to go all out with a pure BEV some may extend what they already proved and others may go the least expensive path. Point is that there is now a lot of activity going on to ramp up production of advanced technology lithium-ion batteries and packs. To think the rest of the automotive industry is sitting still while GM is basking in their brilliant design is naive. There will be strong competition from the usual suspects. Count on it. It's not like GM is holding back on what they are doing. They are telling everyone three years in advance!

I hope you can all agree that the battery is the key to success. The manufacturers are not idiots. They are testing all different methods including serial hybrids to see what would be most attractive to their customers. Some may decide to go all out with a pure BEV some may extend what they already proved and others may go the least expensive path. Point is that there is now a lot of activity going on to ramp up production of advanced technology lithium-ion batteries and packs. To think the rest of the automotive industry is sitting still while GM is basking in their brilliant design is naive. There will be strong competition from the usual suspects. Count on it. It's not like GM is holding back on what they are doing. They are telling everyone three years in advance!

The battery is one of a few keys to success, but it is essential.

I think it was brilliant for GM to announce their plans. Toyota responded by wasting the last 1 1/2 years trying to squeeze more out of their parallel hybrid, instead of copying GM's approach. No CEO ever wants to look like another is smarter, so Toyota's CEO squandered precious time proving that he is far less visionary than GM.

The "polished turd" is the ONLY thing that forced GM to step to the plate and develop anything other than their current line of "unpolished" turds. It was a radical change that GM railed against...if you like I can provide you direct quotes from Lutz as he bashed the Prius much like you are now doing. It was a bold step in auto technology. And if not for the successful implementation of the Prius GM would still be doing NOTHING...absolutely nothing...other than chewing up tons of tax payer money on a dead-end Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

I love the concept of the Volt, a car that doesn't exist yet I'll remind you. And I think your point that it is a stepping stone is a logical progression. But there's nothing about the Toyota system that suggests they, too, can't phase away from ICE technology. I see your point here, as crudely made as it is, but you imply that b/c Toyota currently prefers that future changes/advances toward a BEV are impossible...they're not. All of the inverter, battery, motor and software technology used in the parallel hybrids will easily adapt to a BEV or series (or EREV if you prefer) if and when they feel the time is right.

This is a philosophical debate...GM thinks they have the right plan, Toyota thinks they do. The up side is that BOTH are working toward a long term solution in a competative manner...the consumer wins when that happens, not when only one side dominates.

The battery is one of a few keys to success, but it is essential.

I think it was brilliant for GM to announce their plans. Toyota responded by wasting the last 1 1/2 years trying to squeeze more out of their parallel hybrid, instead of copying GM's approach. No CEO ever wants to look like another is smarter, so Toyota's CEO squandered precious time proving that he is far less visionary than GM.
Brilliant/desperate...just depends upon your point of view.

"I think it was brilliant for GM to announce their plans." - Hendler

I think it was brilliant for Toyota to actually build a hybrid car. In 1997. The better part of a decade before GM.

I'm building a 2,000 mile range car with a battery based on Pinotium-64 that can be recharged in 5 minutes.

Whoa! By Hendler's standards, I'm in the lead!

omegaman, Your figures are off. Fuel economy in the Prius does depend on how you drive but at a steady 65, most people report something approaching 50mpg - and many do better. No other car routinely comes close with that much interior room. The people that drive a Prius and get really crappy mileage are the people that would drive a Yaris and get really, really crappy mileage.

Part of the reason for success at speed is the electric drivetrain; it allows Toyota to put what would ordinarily be considered an undersized motor in it and use the Atkinson cycle to further erode power for the sake of efficiency. If you did that without the electric drivetrain, performance would really suffer. This is part of the Volt strategy, too. We expect GM to go with about a 1-liter engine, which would hardly sell the car if it was the only power source in the drivetrain.

The "polished turd" is the ONLY thing that forced GM to step to the plate and develop anything other than their current line of "unpolished" turds. It was a radical change that GM railed against...if you like I can provide you direct quotes from Lutz as he bashed the Prius much like you are now doing. It was a bold step in auto technology. And if not for the successful implementation of the Prius GM would still be doing NOTHING...absolutely nothing...other than chewing up tons of tax payer money on a dead-end Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

I love the concept of the Volt, a car that doesn't exist yet I'll remind you. And I think your point that it is a stepping stone is a logical progression. But there's nothing about the Toyota system that suggests they, too, can't phase away from ICE technology. I see your point here, as crudely made as it is, but you imply that b/c Toyota currently prefers that future changes/advances toward a BEV are impossible...they're not. All of the inverter, battery, motor and software technology used in the parallel hybrids will easily adapt to a BEV or series (or EREV if you prefer) if and when they feel the time is right.

This is a philosophical debate...GM thinks they have the right plan, Toyota thinks they do. The up side is that BOTH are working toward a long term solution in a competative manner...the consumer wins when that happens, not when only one side dominates.

WRONG.

Bob Lutz pointed directly at the Tesla Roadster as the game changer GM needed to meet or beat. The Prius was around for 10 years, and no automaker flinched, but the Tesla Roadster lit a fire under GM to use Li Ion batteries to reduce size and weight and add plug-in capability, which the Prius STILL DOES NOT HAVE. Keep dreaming if you think anyone cares about the Prius, as all automakers are now looking at Li Ion battery packs, hydrogen ICE and fuel cell powerplants.

"Bob Lutz pointed directly at the Tesla Roadster as the game changer GM needed to meet or beat." - Hendler

If that's true, then Lutz is in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The Tesla is really no better than the Rav4-EV. True, it goes faster and it may have more range (this has yet to be proven to any degree) but the Rav4-EV has more utility (holds 4 or 5 and can tow something).

The Tesla is built of a stack of notebook batteries with a complex cooling system that adds significantly to cost, bulk and weight and is a drag on range and capability. People convert Chevy S-10s in their garages that are the equal of this. The Hymotion drop-in for the Ford Escape or Prius makes a far more practical EV.

Toyota built 9 million cars last year and has, to date, shipped a million hybrids.

Tesla has shipped THREE cars, two to corporate officers (or former ones) and one to a major investor. If Tesla has ever looked like it might be a going concern (and many have long had their doubts), no one would have believed it would make a dent in North American Auto sales. Tesla is, at BEST, doomed to be a boutique shop until one of the major auto manufacturers weighs in with a real electric car and crushes them. At $100K, with no near-term prospects for significant price reduction, no clear path to model #2, no real mass production facility and none on the horizon, if GM really was worried about Tesla, a 100-car-per-year company, then GM should just fold their tents and go home because they clearly don't have what it takes to build cars.

However, I find it hard to believe even Lutz is that stupid or detached from reality. It is barely convceivable that Lutz might have said this to avoid mentioning the name, "Toyota," but, if he did, he'd still look like a fool.

"but the Tesla Roadster lit a fire under GM to use Li Ion batteries to reduce size and weight and add plug-in capability, which the Prius STILL DOES NOT HAVE. Keep dreaming if you think anyone cares about the Prius, as all automakers are now looking at Li Ion battery packs, hydrogen ICE and fuel cell powerplants."

You won't catch me betting Toyota doesn't know how to do any of that.

By the way, when you say, "add plug-in capability, which the Prius STILL DOES NOT HAVE," you know you're already wrong, don't you? That Toyota has had prototype plug-ins on the road for the better part of a year? Vehicles with short range, 'tis true, but much more sophisticated than "Volt mules" made out of recycle Malibu parts. Toyota just doesn't waste money paying a Lutz to blather on, endlessly, about their plans in public. For the same money that GM pays Lutz to blather, Toyota gets 10 or 20 really good engineers.

Say, if all the automakers are looking at fuel cells... are those the hydrogen fuel cells for which we can build enough filling stations to be convenient to 70% of the population for a mere $24 billion? Are those automakers looking at the bill for that?

I think Honda might be the leader of the three japanese big three. Toyota is pushing their small battery gas powered cars and is not taking the next logical step in drive train progression. Nissan is pursuing swapable battery packs which aren't going to fly in the USA and their numbers will lag well behind GM. Honda pulled the Insight hybrid... maybe to reconsolidate and move forward with something better... something toyota is reluctant to do possible because of contracts and patents holding them back.

So Toyota and Nissan are certainly not likely to surpass the volt drive train in the near term. Honda is either stuck in the mud or moving forward in stealth mode poised to beat GM to the punch! Time will tell.

Lutz recognized that if a Silicon Valley start-up could contract with a vehicle development house like Lotus to create a viable, albeit expensive, BEV, then any large automaker could create an inexpensive REEV using a much smaller Li Ion pack - that's what scared them.

You can speculate all you want about Toyota's activities, but their announcements about adding a little more all electric range and speed to their existing Prius is a damn good indication that Toyota just doesn't get it. The Volt's specs are a lot more impressive than even the future Prius.

You can speculate all you want about Toyota's activities, but their announcements about adding a little more all electric range and speed to their existing Prius is a damn good indication that Toyota just doesn't get it. The Volt's specs are a lot more impressive than even the future Prius.


Agreed. I'm not thrilled with the Volt's minimal 40 miles EV range. I want more and I certainly will not consider buying a hybrid let alone one with a lame EV range that is limited to 35 mph. At least Nissan is planning an all electric and E-REV. Honda will be left in the dust with their diesels, even though I drive an '05 TDI (and love the mileage).

I find it odd that Honda is choosing to stay out of this round. I know they are dead set on the hydrogen car and if anyone can pull off the needed refinement of that technology it's them. However, by not building a plug-in hybrid or BEV I think they will be losing a lot of electrification experience. By the time hydrogen and the infrastructure is ready for the masses (if ever - I doubt it because I feel the quick-charge BEV will beat it to mass appeal) the other manufactures will be selling plug-in and BEVs in high volumes. Well, they do have plenty of tiny cars to keep them doing well, unless the price of gas really goes crazy because nobody will want to buy a pure ICE vehicle. I love this time in history because all the automakers are placing their bets. Who will come out with the winning hand? Us!

As of today, Toyota ships a vehicle that contains batteries, an electric motor, driver-by-wire controls, charge and motor controller. To think Toyota can't rapidly build a vehicle that contains ONLY those things is foolish.

"Right now, the volt design goes..."

There's your big mistake. The design goes nowhere. If GM builds a vehicle to that design and can manufacture it at a good price, then hundreds of thousands of vehicles built to that design might, someday, go somewhere.

"Right now the prius goes from 50 to something like 35!"

That's a more minor mistake. The Prius does about 45-50mpg in most circumstances. Some people do way better.

I hope they do. Toyota employs a lot of Americans. I would buy it if it was equal or better than the Volt. Who ever comes out first will get my money. I don't intend on buying a vehicle until someone does.

"You can speculate all you want about Toyota's activities, but their announcements about adding a little more all electric range and speed to their existing Prius is a damn good indication that Toyota just doesn't get it." - Hendler

Or that they do. One of the biggest factors in vehicle purchase is price. The Plain Jane Prius 3 will be about as inexpensive as today's Prius. Possibly even less. Toyota is likely to introduce some variations (the HSD is very flexible that way) that address different market needs. They can do this with inexpensive incremental development off the current platform. While GM's struggling to make money with the Volt, into which they may have sunk billions, Toyota will be introducing different versions of the Prius and extending its reach across market segments. Or using HSD in other vehicles. In 2011, GM may find it self attempting to subsidize the Volt purchase price (with profits from what, we wonders?). Toyota will be selling Priuses at a 30K/month clip and banking a chunk of the proceeds.

"Bob Lutz pointed directly at the Tesla Roadster as the game changer GM needed to meet or beat." - Hendler

"Meet or beat" a $100K boutique car? It's a wonder GM woke up at all. If I were running GM, I think I would have been alarmed by how much ground Toyota gained between 1970 and 2000. And Honda. And Mitsubishi. And Subaru. And the Koreans. Somebody up there is bad at gathering and evaluating competitive intel.

WRONG.

Bob Lutz pointed directly at the Tesla Roadster as the game changer GM needed to meet or beat. The Prius was around for 10 years, and no automaker flinched, but the Tesla Roadster lit a fire under GM to use Li Ion batteries to reduce size and weight and add plug-in capability, which the Prius STILL DOES NOT HAVE. Keep dreaming if you think anyone cares about the Prius, as all automakers are now looking at Li Ion battery packs, hydrogen ICE and fuel cell powerplants.

LOL!!! What do you think he's going to say? "We're a bunch of idiots and thanks to Toyota we've seen the light now that we're losing 100s of billions of dollars a year."

The Tesla wasn't even in production when the Volt was announce/introduced. It's hard to call the Tesla a success since production is up to what...8, 9 on the road now?

Lutz has also pointed directly at the Prius and admitted what an error it was to ignore hybrids.

If I were running GM, I think I would have been alarmed by how much ground Toyota gained between 1970 and 2000. And Honda. And Mitsubishi. And Subaru. And the Koreans. Somebody up there is bad at gathering and evaluating competitive intel.

The big 3 automakers know exactly how foreign automakers are gaining on them - cheaper labor, both in foreign and domestic factories. If it weren't for the unexpected appetite of SUV's in America, for which the Asians were late to the game, the big 3 would have shut down by now. Fortunately, circumstances changed enough that GM was able to renegotiate with the unions and leapfrog Toyota's offerings with a whole new approach.

"The big 3 automakers know exactly how foreign automakers are gaining on them - cheaper labor, both in foreign and domestic factories."

Nope. The wedge for foreign automakers was inexpensive cars that held up well and got good fuel economy. Whenever oil prices spiked (starting in 1973), Toyota and Honda were there with good, reliable cars that held up well in comparison to Detroit and with a committment to customer satisfaction. Detroit has not figured this out in 35 years.

Detroit has never cultivated the inexpensive high-mpg end of the market and gets caught, time and time again, flat-footed, with a mix of vehicles that get poor fuel economy sitting on their lots when oil price spikes hit. A chunk of market share evaporates right then.

Go drive by the local Chevy dealer... you even can't see the HHRs and Cobalts hidden behind the ranks of Tahoes. Does your local Saturn dealer have any Auras BAS hybrids in stock? I have seen more new Bentleys (2) this year than Aura/Malibu BAS hybrids on the road (1, finally, yesterday).

Even today, GM's message on fuel economy doesn't get through. Look at the recent 6-speed/4-cylinder introduction for the Malibu. It EPA-rates very well and will likely improve real fuel economy for 4-cylinder Malibu customers. But who will buy it? To buy a Malibu with that powertrain, you must buy an LTZ-equipped Malibu. That's thousands of dollars more than a very nice Camry LE. It's MORE than a Camry hybrid, which gets far better fuel economy than the improved Malibu. I believe you could buy an Altima hybrid for less.

To make an argument for the Malibu BAS hybrid, it needs good fuel economy. Does it get the 6-speed to help improve its numbers? Nope, at least not for a while.

Is it available in the Saturn at all? Not that I know of.

Once people looking for good fuel economy get into a Toyota or Honda, they find it's actually a pretty nice ride and that the dealer service might be bad (my Toyota dealer is great but I imagine some aren't) but it doesn't matter because they rarely go back for any service at all. They buy another.

Not to discount, of course, the customers Detroit drove away with chronic problems (that's me, a Ford refugee, three transmissions in two years and no justice from Ford).

"The big 3 automakers know exactly how foreign automakers are gaining on them - cheaper labor, both in foreign and domestic factories."

Nope. The wedge for foreign automakers was inexpensive cars ....

There was no need for me to read beyond this point, because you contradicted yourself within the first line of your response.

Foreign inexpensive cars are inexpensive, because they are built with much cheaper foreign labor. The big 3 abandoned small cars, because the margins were too thin, due to higher union wage and benefit costs.

To save us all time, trying reading, then thinking, then responding.

Or, Hendler, you might read the whole sentence...

"Nope. The wedge for foreign automakers was inexpensive cars that held up well and got good fuel economy."

Which is really a polite way of saying, "small cars that don't suck." Detroit, historically, builds small cars that do suck. At any price, it's difficult to get people to buy something that sucks. It also helps if the car is what you would describe as "nice." People who finally get dragged into a Honda or Toyota are usually surprised to find a really nice car on the inside. This is one of the "surprises" about the Malibu - the interior is said to be "competitive" with Toyota and Honda, as usually a decent interior is only a hallmark of a very expensive GM car.

Now, when you go bemoaning a perceived labor cost gap, you overlook quite a few things...

Detroit, in fact, enjoys a significant home field advantage at the retail end and, for similar cars, should not have to actually match price with the Japanese to sell cars. Even today, 40% of US auto buyers WILL NOT BUY A JAPANESE CAR. Period. Not that there's anything wrong with the car but because they're Japanese. Today, unfortunately, this is somewhat offset by the fact that 25% or so of US auto buyers WILL NOT BUY A DETROIT CAR. Period. Not because they're "American" but because they've had some extraordinarily painful experiences and sworn of {GM | Ford | Chrysler} junk FOREVER. If Detroit had developed a culture, in the '70's, say, of delivering solid value and solving problems before the customers experience them, then this 25% Detroit-averse would be a far, far smaller number. Back in 1970, for example, the usual response to the suggestion to look at a Japanese car would, overwhelmingly be, "Are you nuts? Why would I want to do that?" US buyers were 90+% averse to Japanese cars. Constant improvement and constant value have changed that.

However, in spite of that history, the balance still tips towards Detroit in terms of flag loyalty rather than away from it by a factor of 9 to 5. This means that GM can actually charge a bit more for their cars than the Japanese, as long as the cars are of perceived equal value. This actually provides a small price cushion for GM to help them be profitable IF their costs do happen to be higher.

But you, Hendler, are wrong about lopsided build costs, anyway. Hondas and Toyotas are built in high-wage locations, the US and Japan. American labor is often more productive. Toyota wages are nearly as generous as UAW wages. A key differentiation in cost is not labor price, so much as intelligent use of robotics and flexible manufacturing plants. In fact, SOME GM and Ford vehicles are built in very low-wage places (like Mexico and Korea). And some GM motors are now sourced in China. Chrysler appears to be openly encouraging suppliers to move offshore.

Now, Detroit let wages balloon for the last 35 years, so if the workers' pay really is out of line, I guess Detroit can go grab a mirror and find someone to blame for that.

But that isn't the problem. Detroit did not guard against entry level cars and they were never prepared for an oil price shock with cars that delivered good fuel economy. Every oil price shock was a boost for Toyota and Honda. Like I said, go look at any lot. Can you even find the high-mpg Detroiters? The changes to the Cobalt XFE were practically trivial. Why didn't Cobalt #1 arrive with 36mpg, highway, EPA test results? Answer: Because GM couldn't be bothered.

Nor did Detroit develop a culture of delivering value to the customer. When my Ford needed its third transmission rebuild in two years, I literally asked a Ford Customer "Service" rep in Dearborn, "Don't you care if I ever buy another Ford again?" and was told, "No, I'm not in Sales." Plenty of people have run into the same attitude with GM and with Chrysler. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

dagwood,

You refuse to accept reality - what was the significance of the latest contracts with the UAW, do you even know? It seems not, so I will tell you. The big 3 are able to hire new workers at wages only slightly higher than what Honda and Toyota pays at their non-union factories. THAT is why Honda and Toyota are able to sell small cars with higher comfort, performance and satisfaction than the American car companies. The big 3 can't afford to build cars of equivalent comfort, performance and satisfaction in that price range, until now. GM is now bringing Euro designed vehicles from Opel into the US to build and sell, which, no surprise, provide higher comfort, performance and satisfaction than previous vehicles from the big 3. I expect they will compete well with Japanese and Korean vehicles.

GM makes the Extended cab fully loaded pickup for $14,800 and sold millions of them for $24k to 33k each. I am sure they could have made a little car with 36 mpg for 9k and sold it for 15k with the comforts of a Toyota. Its just not their cup of tea and never was. The high prices of gas is their only reason for change. They have 2 mini cars that looks like the Scion XB that is coming out in 2010 with 4 cylinder engines. They may even lose their butts on these toyota replica's if gas goes to 6 bucks a gallon next year by not thinking ahead and making them a hybrid. GM always has their pants at their ankles, will they survive by offsetting toyota and beat them to the market with a small scion hybrid look alike, I dunno but they should do it to get the edge over Toyota.

"You refuse to accept reality - what was the significance of the latest contracts with the UAW, do you even know?" - Hendler

And if you build a car no one wants? Then there is no significance to building it for a bit less money. Labor is just one dimension of cost and to fully reap the benefit, they must force older workers out. That's so admirable. Do they have flexible manufacturing? Good processes? Maximum commonality of parts? Workers who actively seek improved processes? Good relationships with suppliers?

Or do they have a slew of badge-engineered products? Mutliple development, promotion, sales channel and advertising budgets to sell what's essentially the same car? Too many engines? Wrong product mix?

"GM is now bringing Euro designed vehicles from Opel into the US to build and sell..." - Hendler

That's really funny. Build a car in Euros that are worth about a buck-fifty and then sell them here for dollars that are worth about two-thirds of a Euro. Similar genius plan with the G8.

"You refuse to accept reality..." - Hendler.

I know a Hail Mary play when I see it. And when the quarterback and the receiver haven't connected on any pass in the last 4 quarters and the defensive line is overwhelming the offense on play after play, well, I think we can predict what will happen there.

"GM makes the Extended cab fully loaded pickup for $14,800 and sold millions of them for $24k to 33k each." - Wilson

Ah. That explains GM's massive profits. Thanks for the info.

"You refuse to accept reality - what was the significance of the latest contracts with the UAW, do you even know?" - Hendler

And if you build a car no one wants? Then there is no significance to building it for a bit less money. Labor is just one dimension of cost and to fully reap the benefit, they must force older workers out. That's so admirable. Do they have flexible manufacturing? Good processes? Maximum commonality of parts? Workers who actively seek improved processes? Good relationships with suppliers?

This is why you are rank and file, and I am executive level. Invert the equation - with more money to spend on the vehicle instead of wages and benefits, then you can build a car that people want.


Or do they have a slew of badge-engineered products? Mutliple development, promotion, sales channel and advertising budgets to sell what's essentially the same car? Too many engines? Wrong product mix?

"GM is now bringing Euro designed vehicles from Opel into the US to build and sell..." - Hendler

Your criticisms of GM designs from the first paragraph was answered by my quote in the second paragraph. All the things you try to attribute to GM's failure to design / sell small cars is neutralized by the fact that Opel will be offering their platform of vehicles in the US.


That's really funny. Build a car in Euros that are worth about a buck-fifty and then sell them here for dollars that are worth about two-thirds of a Euro. Similar genius plan with the G8.

The Opel designs will be built in the US under an American nameplate, so no exchange rate concerns exist.


"You refuse to accept reality..." - Hendler.

I know a Hail Mary play when I see it. And when the quarterback and the receiver haven't connected on any pass in the last 4 quarters and the defensive line is overwhelming the offense on play after play, well, I think we can predict what will happen there.

Considering other automakers are now playing catch-up to the Volt design, it's no Hail Mary. It is a brilliant strategy and GM knows they are on the best path going forward, so they are putting everything into it so that they keep their lead.


"GM makes the Extended cab fully loaded pickup for $14,800 and sold millions of them for $24k to 33k each." - Wilson

Ah. That explains GM's massive profits. Thanks for the info.

I can't fault Wilson for trying to explain the obvious to you, as you fail to hear it from anyone else.

"This is why you are rank and file, and I am executive level." - Hendler.

Yes, you clean the washrooms on the top floor but that's not what we traditionally call "executive level."

"he Opel designs will be built in the US under an American nameplate, so no exchange rate concerns exist." - Hendler.

I love the way some GM fanboys play fast and loose with present, past and future tenses. "Exist" is present tense. As in "today." As of "today," GM imports Opels built with euros and sells them for dollars as Astras. Ditto the G8. These cars are losing propositions until that assembly line is established. And how long will that take? And how much money will that take? Does it actually require money that's being spent on the Hail Mary pass they call the Volt?

So, at some indeterminate future time, it may be that no exchange rate concerns WILL exist but at the present time, exchange rate concerns are a big problem.

Luckily, nobody seems to want the Astra. Or perhaps no one knows about it (I don't know that I've ever seen an ad for it but perhaps the ads are ineffective). Or GM doesn't bother to import many. For whatever reason, the low volume of sales will help to prevent GM losing much more than the original development cost on it.

"Considering other automakers are now playing catch-up to the Volt design..."

Who "catches up" to something that doesn't exist? Jeepers, talk about refusing to accept reality.

"Considering other automakers are now playing catch-up to the Volt design..."

Who "catches up" to something that doesn't exist? Jeepers, talk about refusing to accept reality.

You are showiing your inexperience again. Anyone who has worked in product development understands development leadtimes to production and delivery. GM is in development of their series hybrid, and hitting their milestones, while nothing is heard from other automakers, other than embarassing boasts of insignificant improvements on their parallel hybrid designs, while poo-pooing a series hybrid - that does not bode well for their future product offerings. This puts GM in the lead on series hybrids, but a rank and filer like you wouldn't be able to see that from your position.

"GM is in development of their series hybrid, and hitting their milestones..." - Hendler

Actually, they missed that big "Easter Bunny" milestone, didn't they?

"... while nothing is heard from other automakers, other than embarassing boasts of insignificant improvements on their parallel hybrid designs, while poo-pooing a series hybrid - that does not bode well for their future product offerings..." - Hendler

Just because an automaker does not pay a loudmouth a few million a year to divert the attention of the weak-minded does not mean that they aren't busy in engineering.

"This puts GM in the lead on series hybrids" - Hendler

See my earlier note on past/future/present tense confusion.

Track record counts. Who's in the lead in showrooms TODAY? Who's SUCCESSFULLY developed and sold an advanced tech vehicle? Who did it in 2.5 years?

As a matter of fact, what's probably the best EV on the road today? That would be the 2001 Toyota Rav4-EV.

There is nothing in a series hybrid that isn't already in the Prius. If they built the Prius from scratch in 2.5 years, they can certainly do something simpler in less time. Thinking GM is somehow "in the lead" is wishful thinking.

Here, amuse yourself by reading up on GM's marketing genius and hybrid prowess:
GM Hybrids Not Moving (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24466666/)

Those of us in the "rank and file," we do tend to stay grounded in reality down here.

There is nothing in a series hybrid that isn't already in the Prius. If they built the Prius from scratch in 2.5 years, they can certainly do something simpler in less time. Thinking GM is somehow "in the lead" is wishful thinking.

There isn't a developed and sourced Li Ion battery pack.

There isn't a developed and sourced pure electric drive system that can operate at highway speeds.

Toyota is behind, because they haven't invested the time to line up these subsystems for implementation into a series hybrid, but GM has.

"There isn't a developed and sourced Li Ion battery pack" - Hendler.

Battery manufacturers all around the world are working on that and will be working to get Toyota's business. Not a problem.

"There isn't a developed and sourced pure electric drive system that can operate at highway speeds." - Hendler

With the engine switched off, the Prius does operate in pure electric drive. The next version will, according to Toyota, achieve something like highway speeds. Getting the rest of the way? No problem.

Try to remember, Toyota's prototypes are on the road today. Whereas Lutz didn't get his driveable Volt by Easter.

Toyota is in the lead because their system is a proven, reliable success in dealer showrooms today. And they made profits of $16billion or so to fund further development.

Try to imagine that; Toyota can fund their own Volt-like vehicle with petty cash without impacting other development projects. GM must borrow to finance their car. GM's bond rating is junk-grade. GM must put off other projects to develop the Volt.

And who has the track record for delivery? 'Tain't GM, that's fer darn sure.

Down here at street level, we can readily see who's in the lead.

dag,

I didn't say that developing and sourcing those major components would be a problem for Toyota, just stated that Toyota hasn't done any part of that work, therefore, GM is in the lead developing a series hybrid vehicle, while Toyota keeps polishing that turd, Prius.

... while Toyota keeps polishing that turd, Prius.

...which has sold over a million units and which are flying off the dealership's lots while GM's lame ass excuse for hybrids are selling like, um, turds.

Oh yeah, Hendler, you do know that Colbert is a flaming liberal whose whole shtick is about making fun of you, right?
Just checking.

...which has sold over a million units and which are flying off the dealership's lots while GM's lame ass excuse for hybrids are selling like, um, turds.

Oh yeah, Hendler, you do know that Colbert is a flaming liberal whose whole shtick is about making fun of you, right?
Just checking.

Could have fooled me about Colbert, who aptly depicted Kos with Hitler's mustache to the stunned silence of the audience.

Booyah!

"stunned silence of the audience."

That's usually a sign something's not funny. If you're not in tune with that, avoid going into showbiz.

Could have fooled me about Colbert, {...blah blah blah...}

Booyah!

OMG, you really don't get it. Ok, there's this comedic device called parody and... ah, heck, just read the wiki on Colbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert). I'm laughing too hard to type. :)

OMG, you really don't get it. Ok, there's this comedic device called parody and... ah, heck, just read the wiki on Colbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert). I'm laughing too hard to type. :)

Sometimes parody is so similar to direct ridicule, that the two can be indistinguishable, which is why the audience didn't laugh. Colbert had shown a clip of Kos in front of a crowd at a convention, and he was visibly high on his own fumes. When Colbert extrapolated on his drunken stupor, by showing him with Hitler's famous mustache, the point was all too clear. Nazi's were ALSO a grassroots movement.

For many of us, Hitler is just not funny. I suppose there are some crowds where Hitler's OK.

And then there are the people who can't tell the difference between "grass roots movements" and "political terrorists." I suppose they'd be OK with Hitler humor, too. Maybe they'd say, "Booyah!" to a bit of Hitler humor.

You're right, fascism isn't funny (and yes, Nazis were fascists with their own brand, but fascists none the less).

Maxine Waters just admitted to wanting to "nationalize the oil industries" and run those oil companies. Hugo Chavez, the communist, did the same thing in Venezuela. As you can see, and as the Book of Isms, 11th Edition explains, fascism and communism are essentially the same system of government with national ownership / control of industry. They differ only in motivation:

Fascism uses nationalism, xenophobia, religion, race, etc. to create a coalition.

Communism uses populism, wealth disparity / jealousy and other "common causes" to create a coalition.

Once the coalition is built, and made unsympathetic to the individual rights (privacy, property, liberty) of their competition, both fascists and communists seize the assets of various industries.

Maxine Waters wanted to claim that her desire to "nationalize and run the oil companies" was merely socialism, but socialism doesn't violate property rights beyond taxing people, and using the taxes for anyone / everyone other than those who were taxed. Socialism DOES NOT seize property. Maxine Waters is a fascist / communist.

"Maxine Waters... yadda yadda yadda." - Hendler

And this rant is in aid of...? Relevant to anything... how? Is this your way of saying that you were kidding about "Booyah!" and that you really don't find Hitler funny, yourself? Why not just say so? Or is that not the case?

Why don't you take a minute to remind us that you're "executive level" and I'm not? Not that you'd actually know that but don't let that stop you.

Never said that Hitler was funny, just pointing out that Colbert, the purported liberal, landed a shot on Kos that left the audience stunned in silence. Was he parodying O'Rielly, or skewering Kos - liberal or conservative?

I am the most visionary and effective executive I know, so I don't mind telling you that as many times as you request hearing it.

"I am the most visionary and effective executive I know..." - Hendler

Mmmm... Funny but not "Tonight Show" grade or anything like that. Don't quit your day job.

Great quote dagwood55

I admit it's been a while since I've seen Colbert since I haven't turned on the tv in months and then it was for a weather alert. So, I checked out a couple clips on the net just to remind myself and goddamn, that show is funny. The only thing that could possibly be funnier is to have someone think his parody is not parody and that he is actually like the people he lampoons. Not only is that hilarious, it makes everything he says in his pompous, superior tone hilarious. I'm going to have to go back through the forum just so I can get guffaws from more Hendler material.

I guess dag was flailing, so he needed another poster to back him up - typical of those I face down.

You will try to hide your intentions, and to the extent that the media hides your motives, you will succeed. The media hounded Hill'reh, until she admitted to supporting driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. The media pressed Obama, until he admitted that he would meet with Chavez, Castro, Ahmedinijad, etc. without any preconditions.

All you have to do is corner Dems with a question on video, and their true selves shine through. The netroots movement has been hijacked, or it has always been lead, by closet communists / fascists.

Obama's latest attempt to tear down the country, is to offer benefits to military personnel that would cause soldiers trained on American dollars to leave the military. He is again trying to undermine the very responsibility that a President is sworn to uphold - protect the people and constitution of the US.

"You will try to hide your intentions, and to the extent that the media hides your motives... yadda yadda yadda..." - Handler

Golly, I guess someone was just itching to write political rant.

You don't find Hitler funny? Then I guess we're at a loss to understand your "Booyah!" boosting of the skit. Decent people reserve comparing Hitler to people to situations where it's actually warranted. You should go read up on the history of the Nazi party and their rise to power and see if you can draw any actual parallels between Kos and the violence and terror of Hitlers supporters (hint: you'll be wasting your time) before you chime in with your "Booyah!"

"I am the most visionary and effective executive I know..." - Hendler

It's not good but it's your best material so far. Try to develop it. It reminds me of Carell's character on "The Office." You probably won't be as good but there's money in cheap imitations.

"You will try to hide your intentions, and to the extent that the media hides your motives... yadda yadda yadda..." - Handler

Golly, I guess someone was just itching to write political rant.

You don't find Hitler funny? Then I guess we're at a loss to understand your "Booyah!" boosting of the skit. Decent people reserve comparing Hitler to people to situations where it's actually warranted. You should go read up on the history of the Nazi party and their rise to power and see if you can draw any actual parallels between Kos and the violence and terror of Hitlers supporters (hint: you'll be wasting your time) before you chime in with your "Booyah!"

Kos and his ilk are constantly skating the line, using aggressive means to attack and damage people, both inside and outside of politics. One of Kos' ilk, Mike Stark, had to be made to eat carpet, as he lunged at a George Allen during a campaign. This is why I consider the grassroots movement more communist than fascist, in that communists wait until they hold power, before resorting to violence, whereas fascists tend to get violent too soon. Already, commies are trying to invent ways to undermine capitalists and industries, to create a crisis, which they can use to fan the flames of revolution, and nationalize (seize / steal / loot) individuals and corporations. This is nothing new, it is the old pattern seen most recently in Venezuela. Maxine Waters just couldn't help herself, as she openly admitted her party's goals, when prodded by a strong man.


"I am the most visionary and effective executive I know..." - Hendler

It's not good but it's your best material so far. Try to develop it. It reminds me of Carell's character on "The Office." You probably won't be as good but there's money in cheap imitations.

Michael Scott strives to be beloved and appreciated, not visionary and effective. Dwight Schrute sees himself as effective, which is supported by his high sales numbers - when Dwight was fired, the entire office struggled to carry the workload he left behind. Ryan Howard thought himself a visionary, but he couldn't back it up, and in desperation, committed fraud and was arrested.

It's no surprise that you don't understand the intricacies of The Office, anymore than you do of political / corporate structures and responsibilities.

Oh, I get it now. You're doing a parody of a wacko the way Colbert does. What a relief, I thought you were actually completely delusional. You really had me going there. Whew.

So, anyway, back to Nissan's EV plans...you heard they were going to offer a range extender option of some of their electric models?

Entertaining thread.

Good arguments both sides. But Dagwood, you lost big points by calling Jason "GM fanboy? (was it ?). That tells me you have no interest here in the Volt. Unless it actually has the upper hand on your favorite, the Prius. Why are you here? To show us the error of our ways? I don't care. The Prius is ugly.

No matter what you say or how much you disparage the Volt tech, the Prius will break mirrors for years. The Volt won't.

You couldn't GIVE me a Prius to drive. I don't drive ugly appliances. Some of us have different standards and buttons that get pushed when buying a car.

For me, the argument is over. Volt wins.

"You couldn't GIVE me a Prius to drive. I don't drive ugly appliances." - MetrologyFirst.

The Prius isn't ugly, it's simply form over function. If the Volt is going to have good AER range, it must be aerodynamic, too. If Chevy makes a choice for "styling" over aerodynamics, AER will be hurt. You can't fight physics.

I buy a car for what it will do for me, not for whether or not it impresses the neighbors or has some unquantifiable "style" points.

"It's no surprise that you don't understand the intricacies of The Office..." - Hendler.

It's no surprise because I don't watch all that much TV. I know of "The Office" and I've seen maybe a couple episodes. The characteristic you share with Michael Scott isn't a desire to be liked and admired, it's the fact that your self-image and reality are completely disconnected.

"The Volt wins." The Volt has won nothing. As of today, it does not exist. By the time it does arrive, the competition will be different (although the Prius will probably look the same).

Thinking the Volt has already "won" is one of the hallmarks of GM fanboys. This is something that Hendler says time and time again. When 2011 arrives, we'll see which car wins for overall fuel economy, AER and, most importantly, SALES.

Dagwood, I think you meant function over form.

I feel sorry for you, that what you drive means so little. Thats its only about mpg, function, and resale. For most people it is a big purchase. I can not imagine buying something that expensive and not be happy with how it looks and how it makes me feel. "Style points" are quantifiable. Anyone who ever has looked at a car on a lot knows that. I guess you buy your cars over the net, sight unseen. Too bad, your missing a great part of the American experience. Do you even care what color your car is? Or is that also too simplistic to matter?

For those of us who want to like what we drive, all this matters. Driving began as something that people did for status, years later it was business, then for necessity. At some point people began driving for fun, excitement, enjoyment. Only recently, with the creation of boring, cheap, insignificant cars have we regressed to driving as being all about mpg, resale value, and the "Consumer Report rating". It sounds like, if you had your way, all cars would be small, utalitarian, ugly, and Japanese. Rolling boxes with seats, nothing more. Get from point A to point B. This is a world I could do without. How depressing.

The Volt does win, FOR ME. Your opinion is irrelevant to me. I might want mine bright yellow with a big red stripe that says "ANTI-PRIUS" on it. My kids will love it too. They are excited about cars. I bet you were also at one point in your life. Remember?

And yes, I fully understand the physics of cars and most other things. I am just not willing to be held hostage by them.

Met,

The other point dag fails to recognize is a performance threshold. Above 50 mpg, Americans aren't going to care about 1 or 2 more mpg, and move right on to how the vehicle performs and looks.

Bill Maher gave up on trying to be Prius green, and found another vehicle that would be "green enough", that had the performance and styling he desired.

The ONLY thing the Prius has going for it is the Atkinson cycle engine. Otherwise, their NiMH's lose 61% of their charge capacity and the styling was based on a semi-viscous material passing through a colon.

"I feel sorry for you, that what you drive means so little..." - MetrologyFirst

Why? Why should I value how a car looks? Why should I be bound to how my car looks? Why should my self-image be tied up to transportation expense? I'd consider it a poor reflection on me if it wasn't well-maintained or if it was dirty but aside from that it takes me from A to B so that I can do other things which are far more important to me.

"The other point dag fails to recognize is a performance threshold. Above 50 mpg, Americans aren't going to care about 1 or 2 more mpg, and move right on to how the vehicle performs and looks." - Hendler

Says who? In fact, you don't know this. Few Americans are so math-challenged that they don't understand 52 > 50. Few Americans are so math-challenged that they don't understand $22,000 < $30,000. What we may find out, when the Volt ships, is whether or not enough Americans are strongly enough motivated to eschew gas use altogether that they're willing to pay $8,000 extra for the privilege. Is it worth $2,000? $4,000? More?

We do not yet know but have enough evidence to begin to strongly suspect that very few Americans are willing to pay an extra $9,000 to get a hybrid SUV to save on fuel. A desire for very good fuel economy seems to be tied very close to low or reasonable vehicle prices.

"Bill Maher gave up on trying to be Prius green..." - Hendler.

You might be the kind of person who needs a celebrity to tell him what to buy but the rest of us aren't so limited.

"Otherwise, their NiMH's lose 61% of their charge capacity..." - Hendler

Do you even read your own links? That was the earlier Prius. Which many people are still quite happily driving, so, even if true for most, it appears to make no difference whatever. HSD must be a fairly robust system if the degradation of a major component doesn't degrade overall performance significantly. That's genius.

"The other point dag fails to recognize is a performance threshold. Above 50 mpg, Americans aren't going to care about 1 or 2 more mpg, and move right on to how the vehicle performs and looks." - Hendler

Says who? In fact, you don't know this. Few Americans are so math-challenged that they don't understand 52 > 50. Few Americans are so math-challenged that they don't understand $22,000 < $30,000. What we may find out, when the Volt ships, is whether or not enough Americans are strongly enough motivated to eschew gas use altogether that they're willing to pay $8,000 extra for the privilege. Is it worth $2,000? $4,000? More?

We do not yet know but have enough evidence to begin to strongly suspect that very few Americans are willing to pay an extra $9,000 to get a hybrid SUV to save on fuel. A desire for very good fuel economy seems to be tied very close to low or reasonable vehicle prices.

Hybrid SUV's are currently selling at a rate of 6,000 units per year, which is lower than the targeted 10,000 - 15,000, but we have only seen the first two months results. Since those hybrids don't stay on the lot long, you don't get the benefit of buyers' repeat exposure to the vehicles on the lot, but at least now those vehicles are on the road. How well did the Prius sell in its first two months. You've admitted that it took the Prius 10 years to build up sales, so I am not going to fret over the numbers from the first two months.


"Bill Maher gave up on trying to be Prius green..." - Hendler.

You might be the kind of person who needs a celebrity to tell him what to buy but the rest of us aren't so limited.

He, nor any other celeb, influences my choice, just showing how a purported environmentalist who OWNED a Prius decided to DUMP the POS for something "green enough", but with more performance and styling.


"Otherwise, their NiMH's lose 61% of their charge capacity..." - Hendler

Do you even read your own links? That was the earlier Prius. Which many people are still quite happily driving, so, even if true for most, it appears to make no difference whatever. HSD must be a fairly robust system if the degradation of a major component doesn't degrade overall performance significantly. That's genius.

I've read my threads, and already answered that if the Prius performance doesn't even register the loss of 61% of its charge, then:

1) the Atkinson cycle engine is what delivers the fuel economy to the Prius, not the regenerative breaking system, or

2) Toyota KNEW those NiMH's weren't worth a damn, and put 3X or more times the quantity of those batteries into the system

Considering that the Prius is still a dog in performance, showing that the regenerative breaking system isn't providing any considerable boost, I believe the first option is the reality.

Met,

The other point dag fails to recognize is a performance threshold. Above 50 mpg, Americans aren't going to care about 1 or 2 more mpg, and move right on to how the vehicle performs and looks.

Bill Maher gave up on trying to be Prius green, and found another vehicle that would be "green enough", that had the performance and styling he desired.

The ONLY thing the Prius has going for it is the Atkinson cycle engine. Otherwise, their NiMH's lose 61% of their charge capacity and the styling was based on a semi-viscous material passing through a colon.

Sometimes we do agree.

"Since those hybrids [Tahoe and Yukon] don't stay on the lot long," - Hendler.

More wishful thinking. There's three at the nearby Chevy dealer. One has been there more than a month, one has been there going on three weeks and another is going on its second week in stock.

And there's a LOT of SUVs on the road here. This is Middle America. If it won't sell here, it's going to have a tough time elsewhere.

Do you ever get anything right?

As for "I've read my threads..." that's not what you were asked... you were asked it you read your links. That's the old Prius that was tested and found to lose battery capacity. Doesnt' matter, though, Toyota still built a car that satisfies its buyers. That's what smart car companies do.

By the way, NiMH in the successful Prius is the same chemistry as in GM's two-mode unsellable hybrids. You might reflect on the meaning of all that.

Back in 1997, Toyota built a car that a) sells and b) delivers value. They brought it here a couple years later where it a) sold and b) delivered value.

Yes, it took Toyota a while to produce large numbers of Priuses. On the other hand, they weren't making rude noises about how they were going to kick ass with their vehicle. Go review Lutz' comments on the outlook for the GM two-modes.

In 2001, Toyota could be expected to tread carefully, no one knew whether the market would accept hybrids. In 2008, this is not the case, Toyota alone sells 30K/month. GM"s either in the game to sell vehicles or in the game for PR. With their manufacturing volume, it looks like "PR" is the answer. However, since the land yachts don't sell, perhaps it's just as well GM didn't build very many.

And this is the same marketing and manufacturing genius behind the development of the Volt. Be prepared for another expensive flop.

What do you figure it cost to develop that? If I recall correctly, there was a $100+million investment in the Baltimore transmission plant alone. At 6K units/year, how long to recover that investment? Remember, there's increased unit production costs, too. What will happen to warranty costs?

I'd expect an "executive level" fellow, such as yourself (LoL) to reflect on the financial implications of GM's moves. After all, they're in the car business and they're not registered as a non-profit (although, perhaps, that should be their next step).

"Since those hybrids [Tahoe and Yukon] don't stay on the lot long," - Hendler.

More wishful thinking. There's three at the nearby Chevy dealer. One has been there more than a month, one has been there going on three weeks and another is going on its second week in stock.

As you are clearly a Prius (turd) fan, I don't believe for a moment that you've set foot on any Chevy lot, or noted their inventory passing by. You are a plant in support of Toyota, nothing more.


And there's a LOT of SUVs on the road here. This is Middle America. If it won't sell here, it's going to have a tough time elsewhere.

I grew up in middle America, studied automotive engineering at U of Detroit, and was a GM scholar working at GM's Tech Center. I know a few things about the business that I'm certain you don't.


Do you ever get anything right?

More often than the supposed experts and authorities.


As for "I've read my threads..." that's not what you were asked... you were asked it you read your links. That's the old Prius that was tested and found to lose battery capacity. Doesnt' matter, though, Toyota still built a car that satisfies its buyers. That's what smart car companies do.

The question is, then, what is so satisfying about the Prius (turd)? Since it has mediocre looks and poor performance, it must be the mileage. The mileage is attributible to the Atkinson cycle engine, as the degradation of the batteries doesn't seem to effect the mileage. The Prius, as a hybrid, is a scam, as it is the highly efficient engine that delivers the mileage, not the batteries.


By the way, NiMH in the successful Prius is the same chemistry as in GM's two-mode unsellable hybrids. You might reflect on the meaning of all that.

GM can demonstrate an improvement in mileage with the addition of their various hybrid approaches to their stock vehicles. The Prius doesn't seem to need batteries, given that 61% of their capacity can disappear without effecting mileage - get the difference? Does Toyota offer a Prius without the regenerative breaking system for comparison? NO, because the scam would be revealed.


Back in 1997, Toyota built a car that a) sells and b) delivers value. They brought it here a couple years later where it a) sold and b) delivered value.

Due to a highly efficient Atkinson cycle engine, nothing more.


Yes, it took Toyota a while to produce large numbers of Priuses. On the other hand, they weren't making rude noises about how they were going to kick ass with their vehicle. Go review Lutz' comments on the outlook for the GM two-modes.

These hybrid SUV's have only been selling for 2 months, and as the Prius only started selling in trickles, I believe GM achieving half their target rate of sales within the first two months is pretty good. Even if it stays at that rate, it will add 6,000 vehicles to their sales vs. competitors who don't offer such things.

Toyota's flacid CEO made plenty of noises when GM announced the Volt, even the then CEO of Tesla Motors laughed at his response, as it was obvious they feared a configuration from GM, which Toyota was not prepared to match.


In 2001, Toyota could be expected to tread carefully, no one knew whether the market would accept hybrids. In 2008, this is not the case, Toyota alone sells 30K/month. GM"s either in the game to sell vehicles or in the game for PR. With their manufacturing volume, it looks like "PR" is the answer. However, since the land yachts don't sell, perhaps it's just as well GM didn't build very many.

GM will achieve both, as they place many different bets to determine the payoffs. I believe doing the easiest things first, selling hybrid options in high-end, high-profit vehicles, was a good start, and those vehicles are selling, even if initial sales are 1/2 what was planned / hoped.


And this is the same marketing and manufacturing genius behind the development of the Volt. Be prepared for another expensive flop.

With a signup list of 20,000 people, based on only the vehicle's announcement, I am very confident this vehicle will sell well, taking a huge bite out of Toyota.


What do you figure it cost to develop that? If I recall correctly, there was a $100+million investment in the Baltimore transmission plant alone. At 6K units/year, how long to recover that investment? Remember, there's increased unit production costs, too. What will happen to warranty costs?

These are costs all automakers are going to incur to achieve the new CAFE standards, so it creates no disadvantage. As I stated above, GM is placing many bets to see which one pans out.


I'd expect an "executive level" fellow, such as yourself (LoL) to reflect on the financial implications of GM's moves. After all, they're in the car business and they're not registered as a non-profit (although, perhaps, that should be their next step).

GM has made smart changes to their high-end, high-profit vehicles, which have achieved a rate of sales 1/2 of their target in just the first two months. They have protected their bread and butter, and with the new UAW agreements, they can now re-enter the smaller car markets competitively. The Volt is just one more step in that direction. I suspect (and have heard) Opel will design the low price, low power vehicles for GM to build in the US.

Here is a LA Times article that supports the claim that hybrid SUV's don't stay on the lots long:

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4004279.ece)

It makes sense that the CA market, with their extremely high gasoline taxes, most favors hybrid SUV's sales.

"You are a plant in support of Toyota, nothing more." - Hendler

Too pathetic to be funny.

"Here is a LA Times article that supports the claim that hybrid SUV's don't stay on the lots long:

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4004279.ece)

Thus causing me to ask, once again, do you read the links you post? Or do you just hope we won't? That article supports the notion that Toyota hybrids sell like hotcakes. Not a peep about GM's dismal failures.

"GM has made smart changes to their high-end, high-profit vehicles, which have achieved a rate of sales 1/2 of their target in just the first two months." - Hendler

They have achieved merely 1/2 of their original, pitiful goals. Three of the beasts are peacefully slumbering at the nearby Chevy dealer.

Luckily, I don't have to actually speak to a salesperson, I can see them from the street, do a drive-through to get a close check then track their progress or lack thereof on the web. And there they rest. GM has priced them out of reach of anyone that would want them.

Of course, some of the improvements have nothing to do with the two-mode system. Better aerodynamics, a V8 with valve trickery, features that could make a non-hybrid Tahoe or Yukon perform better, too. It's surprising that GM doesn't releas some of these improvements to the regular vehicles. But fuel economy is not their goal. GM wants green cred and thinks they can get that with a hybrid that does not sell.

"I believe doing the easiest things first, selling hybrid options in high-end, high-profit vehicles, was a good start, and those vehicles are selling, even if initial sales are 1/2 what was planned / hoped." - Hendler

GM lost $ biillions over the last few years. Their market share has declined dramatically and new players are entering the NA market. This was not a time for "easiest things first." One of Lutz' recent FastLane blogs promised to be "bold." Where's the "bold?" Still stuck in GM's eternal future?

dag,

GM's North American Operations have been hurting for years, unable to compete with non-union domestic manufacturing by Toyota, Honda, etc.

Once the new UAW contract was signed and the 2007 CAFE standards passed, GM was able to dive directly into the more "bold" initiatives of series hybrids. Prior to the UAW contract and 2007 CAFE standards, the only wise bet was offering enhancements to the high end vehicle lines.

My point about the LA Times article was about regional sales. In CA, where gasoline is well over $4 per gallon, with no ethanol available, people will opt for the hybrid SUV's. In the midwest, where Ethanol is available, people can simply by the flex fuel standard SUV's to avoid high gasoline prices, so the hybrid SUV is not the only option.

My point about the LA Times article was about regional sales. In CA, where gasoline is well over $4 per gallon, with no ethanol available, people will opt for the hybrid SUV's. In the midwest, where Ethanol is available, people can simply by the flex fuel standard SUV's to avoid high gasoline prices, so the hybrid SUV is not the only option.

Ok, Jason, you've said some pretty crazy things on this thread, but this one crosses the line for me.

E-85 has 30% less energy density than gasoline (you know about energy density, right, being a GM technical fellow and all?), yet the price of E-85 is NEVER more than about 14-20% below E-10. At my local station E-10 is selling for 3.79, E-85 for 3.29.

Here's a link to some of the autos Hendler has been engineering since he graduated from the University of Detroit. Link (http://www.hotwheels.com/index_hwkids.aspx).

(Sorry if you were going to use that as part of your ongoing spoof, Hendler, but the link to the pinko Times Online article about how great Toyota hybrids are selling was such a stroke of comedic genius I figured you thought the Hotwheels gag would be beneath your level of comedy)

Ok, Jason, you've said some pretty crazy things on this thread, but this one crosses the line for me.

E-85 has 30% less energy density than gasoline (you know about energy density, right, being a GM technical fellow and all?), yet the price of E-85 is NEVER more than about 14-20% below E-10. At my local station E-10 is selling for 3.79, E-85 for 3.29.

I didn't say ethanol or E-85 was free, just cheaper than gasoline. Keep your shirt on.

Here's a link to some of the autos Hendler has been engineering since he graduated from the University of Detroit. Link (http://www.hotwheels.com/index_hwkids.aspx).

(Sorry if you were going to use that as part of your ongoing spoof, Hendler, but the link to the pinko Times Online article about how great Toyota hybrids are selling was such a stroke of comedic genius I figured you thought the Hotwheels gag would be beneath your level of comedy)

If you are just going to latch onto every mentioning of the name Toyota, and not read what the article implies, then yes, you would think it a joke. Those states with the highest gas prices are snapping up the hybrid SUV's more quickly than those states with feasible alternatives.

GM's move to add expensive options to premium vehicles, while union contracts and emissions standards were unknown, was very wise at the time. New contracts and new emission standards now dictate a different approach - the Volt.

"GM's North American Operations have been hurting for years, unable to compete with non-union domestic manufacturing by Toyota, Honda, etc." - Hendler

"In CA, where gasoline is well over $4 per gallon, with no ethanol available, people will opt for the hybrid SUV's. In the midwest, where Ethanol is available, people can simply by the flex fuel standard SUV's to avoid high gasoline prices, so the hybrid SUV is not the only option." - Hendler

I apologize for doubting your word. You exhibit poor reading comprehension, you repeatedly blame the unions for a company's problems and now you recommend E-85 (slightly cheaper, much worse fuel economy) as a solution to high gas prices...

Clearly, you ARE executive level and, most likely, with GM. In fact, if all the other execs you know are with GM, then you may well also be the most visionary and effective exec of your acquaintance.

Met,

The ONLY thing the Prius has going for it is the Atkinson cycle engine.

You forget the most important thing the Prius has going for it. It's available today. ;)

"I feel sorry for you, that what you drive means so little..." - MetrologyFirst

Why? Why should I value how a car looks? Why should I be bound to how my car looks? Why should my self-image be tied up to transportation expense? I'd consider it a poor reflection on me if it wasn't well-maintained or if it was dirty but aside from that it takes me from A to B so that I can do other things which are far more important to me.

"The other point dag fails to recognize is a performance threshold. Above 50 mpg, Americans aren't going to care about 1 or 2 more mpg, and move right on to how the vehicle performs and looks." - Hendler

Says who? In fact, you don't know this. Few Americans are so math-challenged that they don't understand 52 > 50. Few Americans are so math-challenged that they don't understand $22,000 < $30,000. What we may find out, when the Volt ships, is whether or not enough Americans are strongly enough motivated to eschew gas use altogether that they're willing to pay $8,000 extra for the privilege. Is it worth $2,000? $4,000? More?


Dagwood,

How can you in the same sentence say how a car looks is irrelevant to you then say that keeping it washed is important? I absolutely do not understand this reasoning. There is no way this line of logical thinking you claim to use towards cars is applied to all the other aspects of your life. What about your food? Clothes? Your home? Do you apply the same reasoning to all of these equally vain human vices?

And I agree with Jason about the fact that a few mpg one way or the other is meaningless. (Except for car magazine rags who feel the need to make lists.) At that point, other things will become more important. Maybe price of some. Maybe looks for others. Some may actually need a truck! You can not paint all people with the same brush and assume they will behave as lemmings because you think they should.

Maybe in your world, only the all mighty dollar matters, and that the raw function of devices is far more important than their impact on emotional appeal, or heritage, or family values, or national security, etc... This sounds like an amazingly depressing place, wholely analytical, full of people who never smile, chained to their PDA's. A world full of robots.

I do think that is the goal of some, actually.

IMO, the Prius is ugly. Sorry. I know they are selling boat loads of them to people here. I think because its the only game in town, if you are looking for real high mpg and "green cred". Cost is not important to these Prius owners; if it were they would have bought a Hyundai at many $$$ less. Prius sales is not a great way to make the "cost is critical" argument.

Volt will be an electric, attractively styled, U.S. flag waving game changer. I would be careful projecting Prius sales beyond the Volt introduction. A LOT of people wanting "green cred" at that time will be looking closely to the Volt. And thats the problem, once they get a look, they won't be going back to the Toyota dealer.

And I agree with Jason about the fact that a few mpg one way or the other is meaningless. (Except for car magazine rags who feel the need to make lists.) At that point, other things will become more important. Maybe price of some. Maybe looks for others. Some may actually need a truck! You can not paint all people with the same brush and assume they will behave as lemmings because you think they should.

As much as I would LOVE to take credit for that insight, it is actually one of the tenets of disruptive technologies described in Clayton Christensen's books - Innovator's Dilemma and Innovator's Solution:

Link (http://www.claytonchristensen.com/publications.html)

Once a new tech has achieved crossing the threshold for adoption in one aspect, people then only consider other aspects which concern them, regardless of how much over the threshold the previous aspect is.

I see that he has a new book, "Seeing What's Next", so I am going to have to run out a buy it right away, as I have devoured the first two.

As much as I would LOVE to take credit for that insight, it is actually one of the tenets of disruptive technologies described in Clayton Christensen's books - Innovator's Dilemma and Innovator's Solution:

Link (http://www.claytonchristensen.com/publications.html)

Once a new tech has achieved crossing the threshold for adoption in one aspect, people then only consider other aspects which concern them, regardless of how much over the threshold the previous aspect is.

I see that he has a new book, "Seeing What's Next", so I am going to have to run out a buy it right away, as I have devoured the first two.

Within this scheme, what do you think the threshold mpg is at $4/gallon? $8/gallon?

Within this scheme, what do you think the threshold mpg is at $4/gallon? $8/gallon?

I think the threshold is pure EV range at highway speeds that covers an individual's daily commute, with the ability to use and rapidly refill with petroleum on long trips / emergencies. If worst case mileage is 50 mpg for the full range of EV + full tank, the customer will then look at performance (acceleration, comfort), then styling.

I think the threshold is pure EV range at highway speeds that covers an individual's daily commute, with the ability to use and rapidly refill with petroleum on long trips / emergencies. If worst case mileage is 50 mpg for the full range of EV + full tank, the customer will then look at performance (acceleration, comfort), then styling.

Are you saying that this threshold is independent of fuel and electricity prices?

Are you saying that this threshold is independent of fuel and electricity prices?

Petroleum prices will matter for long trips and emergencies only, which will be rare for the typical user, so it's not a big factor. Electricity prices aren't going to go very high, because people can buy their own solar panels / charging systems to generate their own electricity, so their will be a low upper limit to electricity prices - moreover, with all the renewable choices now that are near the same price as coal, electricity prices aren't going to be very high, until governments realize that their gasoline tax revenues are dropping, and start taxing electricity.

I guess that is a very long way to say that "yes, the threshold is independent of fuel / electricity prices", because fuel will seldom be used, and electricity will always be cheap for commuting. People now want a car that frees them from petroleum use, except for rare occasions. If you give them that, then they will buy the vehicle.

"How can you in the same sentence say how a car looks is irrelevant to you then say that keeping it washed is important? I absolutely do not understand this reasoning. There is no way this line of logical thinking you claim to use towards cars is applied to all the other aspects of your life. What about your food? Clothes? Your home? Do you apply the same reasoning to all of these equally vain human vices?" - MetrologyFirst

What part of GM do you run? The customer (me) does not conform to your view of how a customer should be. Never mind correcting your perception; declare the customer invalid!

How the car is styled has nothing to do with me. How it's maintained is all my responsibility. Buying a car that looks a specific way says very little about me; it says I have some disposable income and nothing more. Keeping the car maintained and clean says much more about me as a person; therefore it's much more important to me.

"And I agree with Jason about the fact that a few mpg one way or the other is meaningless." - MetrologyFirst

Again! The customer conforms to your specifications or the customer is invalid! For some customers, mpg is not the biggest factor. However, all other things being equal, different mpg will certainly tip the balance. And for some customers, 2mpg (or some other factor) will be more importan than some transient "style."

Round headlamps, square heaqlamps, round rooflines, square rooflines, vinyl roofs, plain roofs, opera windows, coachlights, waterfall grilles, eggcrate grilles, chrome, no chrome... whatever... it all comes and goes. Why should I get excited about ANYTHING in a car except its function? Is it big enough for my typical load of passengers? Does it get good fuel economy? Is it reliable? Are the controls convenient? If I buy opera windows over any of that, I'm a fool.

'Maybe in your world, only the all mighty dollar matters, and that the raw function of devices is far more important than their impact on emotional appeal, or heritage, or family values, or national security, etc... "

"Emotional appeal" of a car? I'm more into the opposite sex. Family values? What have they to do with how a car is styled? Our family values the time we spent going places in the car; the vehicle itself is incidental to the experiences and the scenery and the togetherness.

GM can keep pitching "style" but "value" is what's winning.

Here's something that still makes me laugh... Twenty or more years ago, Chrysler built a fairly fancy vehicle, a Dodge Dynasty or LeBaron or some other piece of unadulterated crap on a K-car chassis. What distinguished this car? Why did Chrysler think I would want to buy it? Because it had a "new, more formal roofline." What did that mean? The roofline was more square that year. So what? What makes that "more formal?" You don't get much more formal than, say, a '57 Rolls and that had a distinctly round rear roofline. The later Lincoln Town cars has a more round roofline. Is they less formal?

Sure... it's a little thing but it perfectly crystallizes and symbolizes all the BS that is Detroit's notions of "style."

Detroit can keep their "style." A car goes into the household budget under "transportation expense." I'm buying a car for value.

"This sounds like an amazingly depressing place, wholely analytical, full of people who never smile, chained to their PDA's."

Hilarious. I don't have a car you'd admire, so my life is empty.

You're right, fascism isn't funny (and yes, Nazis were fascists with their own brand, but fascists none the less).

Maxine Waters just admitted to wanting to "nationalize the oil industries" and run those oil companies. Hugo Chavez, the communist, did the same thing in Venezuela. As you can see, and as the Book of Isms, 11th Edition explains, fascism and communism are essentially the same system of government with national ownership / control of industry. They differ only in motivation:

Fascism uses nationalism, xenophobia, religion, race, etc. to create a coalition.

Communism uses populism, wealth disparity / jealousy and other "common causes" to create a coalition.

Once the coalition is built, and made unsympathetic to the individual rights (privacy, property, liberty) of their competition, both fascists and communists seize the assets of various industries.

Maxine Waters wanted to claim that her desire to "nationalize and run the oil companies" was merely socialism, but socialism doesn't violate property rights beyond taxing people, and using the taxes for anyone / everyone other than those who were taxed. Socialism DOES NOT seize property. Maxine Waters is a fascist / communist.


You will try to hide your intentions, and to the extent that the media hides your motives, you will succeed. The media hounded Hill'reh, until she admitted to supporting driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. The media pressed Obama, until he admitted that he would meet with Chavez, Castro, Ahmedinijad, etc. without any preconditions.

All you have to do is corner Dems with a question on video, and their true selves shine through. The netroots movement has been hijacked, or it has always been lead, by closet communists / fascists.

Obama's latest attempt to tear down the country, is to offer benefits to military personnel that would cause soldiers trained on American dollars to leave the military. He is again trying to undermine the very responsibility that a President is sworn to uphold - protect the people and constitution of the US.


Kos and his ilk are constantly skating the line, using aggressive means to attack and damage people, both inside and outside of politics. One of Kos' ilk, Mike Stark, had to be made to eat carpet, as he lunged at a George Allen during a campaign. This is why I consider the grassroots movement more communist than fascist, in that communists wait until they hold power, before resorting to violence, whereas fascists tend to get violent too soon. Already, commies are trying to invent ways to undermine capitalists and industries, to create a crisis, which they can use to fan the flames of revolution, and nationalize (seize / steal / loot) individuals and corporations. This is nothing new, it is the old pattern seen most recently in Venezuela. Maxine Waters just couldn't help herself, as she openly admitted her party's goals, when prodded by a strong man.

If you didn't believe me when I posted those quotes above, perhaps you will listen to Kyle-Anne Shiver of the National Review Online:

Link (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTNkNTU5MjE2MjUwNmQ2MWQ3YWRlYjhmNzQ4OTQyOGU)

The customer (me) does not conform to your view of how a customer should be. Never mind correcting your perception; declare the customer invalid!

"And I agree with Jason about the fact that a few mpg one way or the other is meaningless." - MetrologyFirst

Again! The customer conforms to your specifications or the customer is invalid! For some customers, mpg is not the biggest factor. However, all other things being equal, different mpg will certainly tip the balance. And for some customers, 2mpg (or some other factor) will be more importan than some transient "style."

Hilarious. I don't have a car you'd admire, so my life is empty.

Dagwood,

I have never declared the customer "invalid" (whatever that means). I have declared I do not understand your criteria for car discussions.

You also did not read my writing very clearly, either. I made it a point to tell you that all customers are different. Car makers should take that into account. You think anyone who buys a car for anything other than function is a fool.

I don't care a lick about the kind of car you have. You clearly view a car as an appliance. Your the kind of person they build Toyota's for.

To each his own. Maybe you will agree that Toyota builds appliances, GM builds cars. How about that?

I chose to drive a car with some style, not an appliance. I guess I'm a fool.

So be it. At least I'm a happy fool. :)

MetrologyFirst, I read your note carefully. You don't understand my view on cars, so you clearly reject it as invalid. You'd make a great GM exec, if you aren't one already. They don't let the real customers intrude on their worldview.

You as much as said my life is empty because I don't share your view on cars and am perfectly willing to live with an appliance. "This sounds like an amazingly depressing place, wholely analytical, full of people who never smile, chained to their PDA's. A world full of robots." Recognize that?

I'm not buying into a mass production car as style or any kind or personal statement, lifestyle element or whatever. For a hundred K more than what I'm comfortable spending on transportation, I could get something that is, clearly, beautiful. A Maserati Quattroporte. In 20 years, it will still look good. If I had that kind of money to spend on a car, I'd consider it. But in the sub-30K range, the best move, financially, is to buy the best appliance one can.

Now, for the record, I did not say you were a fool. Exactly what I said is, "If I buy opera windows over any of that, I'm a fool." You have your values, I have mine.

On to other things...

"Obama's latest attempt to tear down the country, is to offer benefits to military personnel that would cause soldiers trained on American dollars to leave the military. He is again trying to undermine the very responsibility that a President is sworn to uphold - protect the people and constitution of the US. " - Hendler

I saw that. Obama wants to resurrect the GI Bill. The nerve of that guy, thinking a well-educated vet might be an asset to society.

It's not like he served alongside you in the 101st Keyboarding Chickenhawks, did he, Hendler? Therefore, he knows little of military matters, right?

A few days ago, when (I think it was) Texas said he challenged anyone to find a more ridiculous statement than whatever you'd written at that time, I didn't think he was challegning you to actually come up with something more ridiculous.

But... I see you've thrown yourself into the spirit of the thing and topped yourself. Well done.

"Obama's latest attempt to tear down the country, is to offer benefits to military personnel that would cause soldiers trained on American dollars to leave the military. He is again trying to undermine the very responsibility that a President is sworn to uphold - protect the people and constitution of the US. " - Hendler

I saw that. Obama wants to resurrect the GI Bill. The nerve of that guy, thinking a well-educated vet might be an asset to society.

No, Obama is proposing a policy to entice highly trained and valuable servicemen to leave the military, which is the highest calling in our society, so once again, Obama wants to undermine both our military and, by extension, our society.


It's not like he served alongside you in the 101st Keyboarding Chickenhawks, did he, Hendler? Therefore, he knows little of military matters, right?

If you had read my link in the last post, you would have learned how Obama was / is spending his time fraternizing with leftist radicals who bombed the Pentagon and encouraged the Black Panthers and other separatist groups to break down American society. Those old leftist radicals have now found the race-bating candidate to serve as a Trojan Horse containing a socialist agenda. His views are now seeing the light of day, thanks to Fox News running Rev. Wright's "G** D*** America!" sermon. We are all seeing who and what Obama really is.

Petroleum prices will matter for long trips and emergencies only, which will be rare for the typical user, so it's not a big factor. Electricity prices aren't going to go very high, because people can buy their own solar panels / charging systems to generate their own electricity, so their will be a low upper limit to electricity prices - moreover, with all the renewable choices now that are near the same price as coal, electricity prices aren't going to be very high, until governments realize that their gasoline tax revenues are dropping, and start taxing electricity.

I guess that is a very long way to say that "yes, the threshold is independent of fuel / electricity prices", because fuel will seldom be used, and electricity will always be cheap for commuting. People now want a car that frees them from petroleum use, except for rare occasions. If you give them that, then they will buy the vehicle.

I agree. As long as the daily commute is within the all-electric range, fuel economy higher than about 45 mpg in charge-sustaining mode won't make a big difference to most people. Could be different for people with very long commutes or special applications like taxis.

Although my conclusion is the same regarding electricity prices, I don't think it is because of low renewable costs. Even with CO2 sequestration the generation costs of coal will probably not be more than $0.10/kWh. Coal is literally dirt cheap. While I remain skeptical about renewable generation costs (especially solar) competing with current coal technology costs, the big issue with large-scale market penetration of renewable sources is energy storage. While I believe that energy storage will be available in the $0.03-$0.05/kWh at some point, those storage costs still need to be added to the cost of renewable generation to make a good comparison. Either way, I doubt electricity prices have much of a chance of going above $0.20/kWh on average in the near future.

"No, Obama is proposing a policy to entice highly trained and valuable servicemen to leave the military, which is the highest calling in our society, so once again, Obama wants to undermine both our military and, by extension, our society." - Hendler

The radical policy that passed the Senate by 70 to 30 or so? Next thing you know, he'll be proposing decent housing, food and medical care for the troops and their dependents. We can't have that - it might raise your taxes.

When you're in a hole, Hendler, the most useful thing you can do is stop making it deeper.

"No, Obama is proposing a policy to entice highly trained and valuable servicemen to leave the military, which is the highest calling in our society, so once again, Obama wants to undermine both our military and, by extension, our society." - Hendler

The radical policy that passed the Senate by 70 to 30 or so? Next thing you know, he'll be proposing decent housing, food and medical care for the troops and their dependents. We can't have that - it might raise your taxes.

When you're in a hole, Hendler, the most useful thing you can do is stop making it deeper.

Decent housing, food and medical care would keep military personnel in the military, so everyone is all for that. The particulars of the education bill would cause the military to lose personnel - that is a bad policy for the military.

I know, leftist looters like you prefer to buy everyone else's love by giving away money from the government or the wealthy, but love and money is fleeting, so what will you do for a second act.

For a hundred K more than what I'm comfortable spending on transportation, I could get something that is, clearly, beautiful. A Maserati Quattroporte. In 20 years, it will still look good. If I had that kind of money to spend on a car, I'd consider it.

Sorry. You can dismiss me if you like, but your argument is becoming less clear all the time. If you had $130K you would buy a beautiful, well styled car. But the fact that you don't, you buy an appliance? So a cars looks should only matter if you have a lot of disposable income? Why not buy a well styled, attractive $30K-$40K car and save the other $100K? Or does it matter to you that it is a Maserati? Who are you trying to impress? Why penalize yourself by driving a boring nondescript car (appliance) because you are not wealthy? This viewpoint is depressing, absolutely.


But in the sub-30K range, the best move, financially, is to buy the best appliance one can.

"one"?? How about "I". Again, this statement says anybody who does not agree with you is financially a fool. Money does apparently matter to you more than anything, it appears.



You'd make a great GM exec, if you aren't one already. They don't let the real customers intrude on their worldview.

Who, in heaven's name, are the real customers?! Those who want appliances? Those with 130K to spend on a car? Your disdain for GM is obvious. No problem. I don't care. I likely have the same disdain for Toyota. But you imply that anyone who buys a GM car is not a real customer? I may not like Toyota, but people who buy their appliances are certainly "real" customers. As long as the checks clear.

Whoops don't know why it posted twice. Sorry.

Oh, and Dagwood, what are "opera windows"?

I didn't say ethanol or E-85 was free, just cheaper than gasoline.

Wrong. The point I was making (and you still did not get) is that E-85 is MORE EXPENSIVE than gasoline.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16095

Man Dagwood, you just won't give up. This thread is the strangest I have seen on these forums. It's the only one with negative volt mentality and it's all coming from you. Are you and implant? Or ermm..something.

ANYWAY, it's obvious which technology is better. Driving without using gas verses using gas. The volt wins hands down. If the first generation of volts come in at a less than 40,000 then it's hard to argue that it's going to do badly. It out performs the prius in power, styling, probably luxury (that is just guessing who knows right?), I would assume with it's aerodynamic sporty style it should handle a good deal better, and last but not least......it's fully electric. The concept must boggle the mind. If the second generation of volts can come in at 35,000.....and by then GM will have their sub compact econo car which will come in around 25,000 but based on the same technology as the volt, that car will be the prius killer.

Toyota really is looking toward the future wearing bifocals. I know GM has been doing that for years but now they have finally got their heads on straight. I noticed you wanted to make it sound like GM couldn't produce a good hybrid...it's not that they couldn't it's that they didn't see it as the solution.

There are so many things that this can do though....what if it drives the price of gas straight down and all the fuel efficient cars are once again not very attractive......this will be an interesting time in our history....personally I hope they put emission laws into effect that stop us from reverting back to fully gasoline cars. Man, I really got off topic haha. Anyway dagwood, keep an open mind and just wonder about which side you want to be on. The one that is good at making oil dependent technology or the side that may not be perfect but is swinging for the fences to break the addiction to oil.

Oh, and Dagwood, what are "opera windows"?

You must be young.

Opera windows are small windows in the C pillar (usually oval, wider than tall) of "high class" cars - they were right up there with vinyl roofs, velour aupholstery, and wire spoke hubcaps.

Thankfully that cheese died out in the 80's.

http://jdreed.home.mindspring.com/lincoln1.JPG

You guys are funny!! A bunch of people with no influence on the market (that I know of--any of you guys automobile company executives? Or maybe even project leaders for an auto company??). Ah well, I guess it's fun for you!


I am excited about products. I don't care who makes em. Get em out there! No, I don't think that the current hybrids are good enough. Sorry. Not with nearly 40 mile-per-gallon standard ICE cars out there that only cost $15000 new. (The Honda FIT, which I will probably pick up this Fall and get rid of my Jeep). Someone just needs to release an all-electric with 100 mile plus range or an RE-EV with 40+ battery range and I am in, as long as it doesn't cost $40,000 or more....

As for the completely irrelevant GI Bill talk... I gotta agree, it's a good thing. Career soldiers, especially enlisted, cannot do it forever. 35 years is max, and that's if you make E9. So, if you got in at 18, that means forces retirement at age 53, only if you make E9--its even sooner if you are E6-E8.

I look forward to using Army tuition assistance to earn a new degree and enter a new career field after my 20 years!

The new GI Bill will recruit many more soldiers as well, more than enough to re-coup the losses. The military gets a lot of its career soldiers from people who only intended to do 3-4 years, just loved it, and decided to stay in! (After all, we can tap the GI Bill while we are still IN service--I'll be beginning my new degree after about 10 years in, taking part time classes)