<p>Consumers have incredibly short memories. Either that or we are too stupid to learn the lessons from the previous fuel price hyper-inflations. We keep making the same mistake over and over.</p>
<p>Maybe people are just rational and a small car does not work well for their needs. That’s the one problem you can’t really fix with small cars. They are small, can’t carry much stuff, can’t pull much stuff, and are not that comfortable. 100 mile electric cars are not good enough.</p>
<p>Uh…we’re already in a “deep economic contraction” brought on in great part to rising energy costs, caused in great part to our continued reliance upon fossil fuel, caused in great part because of Detroit’s reluctance to explore reasonably-priced alternative vehicles (e.g., electric cars), caused in part to too few American citizens putting pressure on Detroit to come up with something different.</p>
<p>Now that I think about it: not only Detroit, but everyone who didn’t want to see this inevitable gas shortage coming–and consequently did nothing about it–deserves an economic bite on the backside.</p>
<p>This thread seems to rejoice in pointing blame at the US auto makers. I would say that is just the tip of the iceberg and almost all of us have done a good job of sticking our heads in the sand. Gas guzzling SUV’s are only a small part of the problem. I can imagine our kids discussing energy policies and wondering how anyone could be dumb enough to burn precious petroleum products to heat houses and buildings.</p>
<p>Excellent post, edad, yet I don’t see anyone rejoicing.</p>
<p>Funny how you said much of the same thing I said in post #85, yet no one called you “dumb.”</p>
<p>Mr. Pain: >>And yet I certainly don’t wish they go under. You do.<<
Perhaps a remedial English course at the local community college could help you with reading comprehension? Just trying to help because I obviously state I’ve never been to Detroit, much less participated in the poor decision-making that put Detroit in the hole that they dug for themselves. </p>
<p>If I’m “wishing they would go under” by not wishing that I magically could stop Detroit from reaping what they sow, then I guess I’m guilty.
Cause/effect: look into it.</p>
<p>Maybe we can make Marv Albert the energy conservation czar!</p>
<p>I have a longer list of who deserve kicks in the backside and the people who are driving SUVs don’t make the list. The ones with eyes on their backside who have 20/20 vision are right there near the top. </p>
<p>Barrons is right. Small cars are fine for some people. Presumably they buy them instead of larger cars they don’t want or need. I have one. I also have a couple of SUVs that work quite well for what I use them for.</p>
<p>NPR’s show Marketplace had a different spin than the USA Today piece, saying that car sales are down across all types of models. </p>
<p>Our family has always managed with smaller cars, so I’ve never quite understood when people say that they need larger vehicles to hold all of their stuff. Our big vehicle is a Toyota Camry, which is fine for shopping trips to Costco and Ikea, road trips for a family of four, and (most demanding of all) driving two teenaged girls to an 8-week camp session. We’ve managed carpool (including two large teen boys) with a Honda Civic. I can understand why larger families need minivans, or how families where the kids are heavily invested in equipment-rich sports need more carrying capacity, or families that do a LOT of carpooling with a LOT of kids will really use 7 passenger carrying capacity more often than not. For all the families somewhat similar to mine, I still don’t get why there is a “need” for a larger vehicle. I understand the wanting, but don’t see a necessity for most.</p>
<p>SlitheyTove add one more child into the mix and make at least two of them boys and the Camry will quickly become too small. Minivans and mid-sized SUV’s use the same amount of gas. All this politicizing of vehicles is IMO ridiculous. </p>
<p>Energy prices and future availability are certainly a great stressor of our current economy, however the source of our economic difficulties is not primarily a result of high-energy prices.</p>
<p>I posted this once already in this thread, but it looks like we need a refresher. </p>
<p>On the Chevrolet Volt due out in 2010
Aren’t You the Guys Who Killed the Electric Car?
We are the guys that developed and launched EV1, the first modern-day electric vehicle, back in 1996. We are also the guys that devoted tremendous resources to design, engineer, and market this vehicle. Although the technical innovation and marketing efforts behind the EV1 were unparalleled, only 800 people were willing to lease the EV1. Yes, the EV1 quickly became the worldwide benchmark for electric vehicles, but its timing wasn’t quite right. When GM launched the EV1, gas was cheap, there wasn’t a war in Iraq, and there was less discussion about global warming. There were far fewer reasons for people to make the trade-offs in their transportation lifestyle to make the EV1 work for them.</p>
<p>“We didn’t kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead.”
The good news is that both the technology and the GM team who developed the EV1 live on. Chevy’s next generation of low- and zero-emission vehicles - Tahoe and Malibu Hybrids,(1) Equinox Fuel Cell electric vehicles,(2) and our range-extended electric E-Flex system (found on the concept Volt) - all feature technologies and innovations from the EV1. We didn’t kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead.
Jill Banaszynski
Manager of Electric Vehicle Programs
General Motors Corp.</p>
<p>All the advanced technology in the world is worthless if there is no one willing to buy it.</p>
It’s a combo of technology, practicality, and marketability. They can’t be separated. And apparently it ‘is’ taking this long (and longer actually) since we still don’t have any major manufacturer, including the number one seller of vehicles in the USA, Toyota and the techno-giant Daimler, selling an electric vehicle in the USA. GM is close with the Volt but even then they’re scrambling on the ‘marketability’ variable of the equation since the cost to produce them appears to be higher than the price people are willing to pay for them. Maybe GM will convince the government for us taxpayers to subsidize the sales of the Volt, as we have for hybrids, maybe the consumer will eventually get to the point where they’re willing to lay out $40-50K for a car that amounts to a small basic transportation vehicle, maybe GM will be willing to take the risk that they can sell enough Volts and leverage the technology enough to benefit from economies of scale, or maybe it’ll be another costly failure for GM.</p>
<p>I hope the Volt is a success and the technology and economies of scale can be leveraged into other vehicles. I also hope the other major vehicle manufacturers come up with viable competing products and I think they will eventually.</p>
<p>With gas at $4 a gallon, I’m sure many people are interested in buying this “worthless” technology today <w>. But, alas, there are “affordable” fossil-fuel cars on Detroit lots that they can hardly give away instead of affordable electric ones. Now, how did that happen? Cause/effect.</w></p>
<p>It takes a lot of time to respond to each of your posts. I’m glad others are sharing the load.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>GM has already said they would lose money on every vehicle.</p></li>
<li><p>Thirty-three thousand units is a tiny amount. The annual US car and light truck market is about 15 million units, plus or minus. Anyone want to divide 33,000 by 15,000,000? Anyone else want to make a $1 bet with me that Chevy will never sell 100,000 Volts in one year? That’s about 20% of the number of non-hybrid Camrys sold each year.</p></li>
<li><p>Did you notice that the average price those 33,000 people were willing to pay was $8,739 less than Chevrolet’s expected selling price (on which it will lose money)? Oops. I imagine that is not exactly the “people who have paid a $5,000 deposit” waiting list.</p></li>
<li><p>Despite what GM and electric-car lovers say, a 40-mile electric range is underwhelming. Lots of regular old folks that don’t own car companies have built electric conversions (admittedly without the on-board gasoline charging system) that get 50-75 miles per charge. OPINION: I’d say that it’s got to cost $10k less and go four or five times farther before it will challenge ICE cars.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In my view, the Japanese simply design and build much better cars than the Big Three – period. Disgusted with the reliability of American cars, I switched to the Honda Accord in the early 1980s and I doubt that I’ll ever go back. Since then, I’ve owned four Accords and they have all been relentlessly reliable. My current Accord, a 2003 LX sedan, has 138,000 miles, drives likes it’s new, and other than tires, wiper blades and its first scheduled tune-up at 110,000 miles, I’ve spent nothing on maintenace . . . and I average 31 mpg with regular gas. Detroit simply doesn’t build cars like this, and it’s a shame, because if they did, I would buy American.</p>
<p>Uh…collegemom, you <em>began</em> your initial diatribe with a personal insult.
Nothing like revisionism, huh?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So, you’re saying that a $20,000 proven electric automobile would not sell well today?..I gave proof that there’s a long waiting list for an unproven $40,000 electric car. But there’s no market today for a $20,000 proven electric car?..Mmm…that just goes to show you that you’re a marketing genius, collegemom. Who else would have figured that one out? You’re right GM’s recent quarter losses would be even higher if the GM lots were full of reasonably priced electric cars instead of the fossil-fuel powered cars they can’t hardly give away today. You should be making an obscene amount of money too like the CEOs in Detroit!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Poor attempt to save face. The Bible wisely put it nearly three millenia ago: “Where there is no vision the people (in this case Detroit) perish(es.)” </p>
<p>There is less need for hindsight when there is vision.</p>
If any of the major manufacturers had the capability of producing a marketable $20K electric automobile at a reasonable profit, don’t you think they would have done so? I’m sure GM would love it if they could get the manufacturing costs down to the point where they could sell the Volt at $20K and make a profit but they’re having trouble doing so for twice that price.</p>
<p>I’m quoting myself here. There is no personal insult to you Shecallsmedad. I clearly remarked about your lack of knowledge about current technology. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No I was (obviously) referencing the failure of Chevy’s EVI back in 1996. I guess developing an electric car back in 1996 was not showing any vision on GM’s part? They clearly had vision the problem was that there was no market for it. The customers were the ones who lacked vision. All the advanced technology in the world is worthless if there is no one willing to buy it. Your $20,000 electric car arguement is a strawman since no such vehicle exists.</p>
<p>BTW you might benefit from reading the whole thread before commenting. I already spoke about the waiting list for the Volt earlier in this thread.</p>