car_guy

Cash-For-Clunkers Reveals Weakness Among Detroit Brands

You conveniently avoided mentioning California, which was awarded the lions share of the funding, $322,677,500 or 11.3% (almost twice runner up Texas). Over 72% of their purchases with the program were for Asian OEMs. They also had the highest percentage of Toyota sales in the nation with 28% of total purchases being Toyota's. They also had the 2nd highest percentage of Honda sales, after Hawaii, with 19%.

Gee, California buys Asian OEM vehicles, and the mid-west buys US OEM vehicles. What amazing insight. This is hardly a useful picture of the US car market.

Chevy Volt: How It Stacks Up

Rick,

Good article. Accurate and factual and objective. Rather rare traits for Auto articles on Seeking Alpha. I strongly agree with the thesis that cost/mile is a superior rating to mpg for consumers to use. This should be one of a number of possible metrics for rating performance/efficiency based on a person's objectives/expectations. A web calculator for carbon/mile would be straight forward to develop based on the location of the user. A calculator for petroleum used/mile would also be useful if we are still interested in reducing dependence on foreign oil.

Chevy Volt: How It Stacks Up

The article's assumption of 20mpg under the gas engine is the crux of the argument and obviously calculated backward to support the thesis that the Volt will be no better than the Prius. 20mpg from a 1.4 L gas engine is ridiculously low and the Volt will easily achieve more than that, likely 40-50mpg running on gas. GM's statement that they expect the combined mileage to be 'triple digit' means they expect 100mpg combined which would mean 40-50mpg highway.


On Aug 23 01:55 AM John Petersen wrote:

> There's a good article in Friday's Economist that talks about how
> the Volt's mileage was calculated and the factors that will likely
> impair mileage.
>
> www.economist.com/scie...

Ten Cars Detroit Should Copy

Actually CR does look at long term reliability and their statement is about reliability of all systems not just fit and finish. The JD Powers 3 YEAR reliability study which I reference also obviously looks at 'engineering', using your definition. You are mistakenly referencing the JD Powers 90 day quality study, which I agree provides minimal value. GM still beat Lexus for the reliability study.


On Mar 29 06:32 PM TinyTim wrote:

> "small, luxury domestic crossover" like my Pontiac Vibe; may not
> be total luxury & it is based on a Corolla platform
>
> "Consumers Reports states that Ford's quality equals Toyota and Honda
> and that many GM vehicles, but not all, are also world class for
> quality."
> There's a big misunderstanding between quality and engineering.
> Consumers looks at fit and finish and obvious defects for about 2
> weeks. My 88 Civic has 285K miles on it, only cost me $7K new in
> Oct 87 and my teenager is driving the piss out of it. That kind
> of reliability is engineered in. Toyota used to call it life-cycle
> cost before they fell victim to US mktg and started with Tundras,
> etc.
> Even Honda caught the Detroit disease as the new Civics look like
> the original Accords. The Fit is just their recognition that there
> is a place for a cheap, sporty econobox, unlike the Yaris which
> is just a cheap econobox.
> What's always been missing from the Big3 is any appreciation for
> engineered reliability. After all, these guys invented planned obsolescence.

Ten Cars Detroit Should Copy

My favorite example of this was the news of the Tesla sedan announcement at the LA Auto Show. Not only was the company given a free pass on their statement that they will begin to sell these vehicles in 2011 when they don't even have a plant site selected, but the reports I heard and read went out of their way to classify the $350 million dollars from the DOE fund Tesla is requesting as loan. When these same people refer to the US 3 getting money from this same fund it is always termed a bailout. This is in spite of the fact that the $25B fund was established in he first place to offset the $70B+ cost of implementing the new CAFE standards. Point of fact is that Tesla cannot qualify for money under this program as an OEM therefore must be applying as a supplier of battery technology. Really sad the double standard at play.


On Mar 29 11:02 AM User 385103 wrote:

> Interesting how "journalists" gravitate to ANY argument that supports
> their one-sided game of dodge ball. "

Ten Cars Detroit Should Copy

Stop living in the '80s. The latest JD Powers 3 year reliability studies show Buick #1, dethroning Lexus after 14 years; Mercury, Lincoln, and Cadillac beat Honda (Mercury beat Acura also); Ford and Chrysler beat BMW and Mercedes and along with Chevy beat Nissan. Ofcourse everyone, except Suzuki, beat VW.

This isn't only JD Powers, even Consumers Reports states that Ford's quality equals Toyota and Honda and that many GM vehicles, but not all, are also world class for quality.


On Mar 29 02:49 PM ksmithdc wrote:

> Instead of copying ideas from Asian competitors, the big three need
> to innovate and create new markets with a focus on ultra high reliability
> (something which we've NEVER been able to compete toe-to-toe with
> the imports).
>
> Better to be #1 in a niche than to be playing catch-up in already
> existing fields.

Ten Cars Detroit Should Copy

Rick,

I normally like your articles because unlike the vast majority of Seeking Alpha contributors you typically do some homework before commenting on the Auto industry. This article however, is not one of those times. Here is some item by item feedback:

Honda Fit - GM & Ford have these vehicles in Europe and Asia where people actually buy them. Aside from a couple of months last year vehicles this small are very low volume and Americans consistently equate small w/cheap, something I do not personally agree with, therefore the legacy cost penalty the US 3 have been paying really hits home in this segment. However, Ford will be selling the new Fiesta in the US next year (weak US $ is keeping them from importing them this year). The Fiesta came in second, 1 point behind GM's Opel Insignia and 87 points ahead of the VW Golf, for the 2009 Car of the Year award in Europe. The Fit, known as the Jazz in Europe, was a candidate for CoY but did not even make the nomination cut.

Tiguan? Reallly? The US News article you reference in your link rates the interior for the Chevy Equinox higher than the Tiguan, the Escape equal, and the Saturn Vue 0.1 point lower. It also ranks the Ford Escape Hybrid 3rd in the class and the Tiguan 6th. VW is the one trying to catch up in this category, not GM or Ford.

"Quick, name a small, luxury domestic crossover" - Lincoln MKX, Buick Enclave, even the Cadillac SRX falls into this category. This another very weak argument. Just because US News made up a new category and placed a few random vehicle in it, does not make it a valid category. Size is not issue, gas mileage is the issue. None of the vehicles in the "small luxury SUV" category get significantly better mileage, so why sacrifice the size to fit full size adults? The Lincoln is a weak showing, but the Buick is a hit and attracting new customers to the brand. The new SRX is due in May. The key Japanese competition in this category is the Lexus RX 350, not the Infinity.

Hybrid vehicles. You will have to explain why Honda is so far ahead of GM & Ford since Honda had to redesign their systems because they originally targeted performance improvement and not fuel economy. Toyota is the obvious leader in both technology and especially market. Honda is attacking them with the Insight by essentially building a cheaper Prius. It will be interesting to see if this works since people prefer to buy the original rather than the knockoff. The Prius has also attained mythical status with much of the public so directly attacking it is high risk. GM & Ford & Chrysler have already learned this so they are attacking in different markets and with different technology. They attacked the SUV space, where they are strong. They put out less expensive mild hybrids in the car space to test the market for a low cost alternative. This worked well for ABS brakes, but not for hybrids. What they discovered is that hybrids aren't about fuel economy, they are about everyone knowing that you are helping to save the world. To succeed the vehicle has to be something the owner can brag about and use to make a statement. Ford is attacking the Camry with a vehicle that is priced the same and beats the Camry Hybrid mileage by 8 MPG and drives all electric to a higher speed. It not only beats the pants off Toyota's hybrid but their higher all electric top speed means you can drive around town without using the gas engine, something you can brag about. The mid-size sedan market is also much larger than the small car market. If gas hits $4 again people will buy the Fusion because they fit their family in it while saving $. GM and Chrysler plan to move past Toyota with serial hybrids that are electric vehicles w/small gas engines to recharge the batteries and extend range. This will allow people to drive locally w/o using any gas but not have to worry about being stuck if/when the batteries run out. Drive all electric like a Tesla and have the range and convenience of a Prius, in a bigger car with much better mileage. Both GM & Ford's strategy is to simply build a greener vehicle than Toyota. This is a much better strategy than being cheaper since the cost of batteries makes being cheaper difficult and risky while being better enables you to charge a premium. If GM can their batteries to work, and since they are leveraging their EV1 and hydrogen fuel cell research they most likely will, Toyota will be in a very tough spot. They will never be able to reach the performance of a serial hybrid with their parallel model and they will be forced to be the cheaper alternative, someplace they haven't been in a long while.

Audi's don't sell because they are overpriced VW's. They used to be unique but not any more. This is actually a big problem for VW and a really bad example.

Mazda MX5 - The 2 seat convertible market has always been very small and very finite. That is why everyone in the under the under $30K market has pulled out except Mazda (Honda is killing the S2000 which wasn't that old) in the last 10-20 years. This market is only good for aspirational vehicles that bring people into the showroom only to buy a more practical vehicle. This is why Mazda keeps the MX-5, Chevy keeps the Corvette, and why Pontiac & Saturn built their vehicles. Aside from the surge in initial sales this market never sells in sustaining volume for anyone. The vehicles are to impractical and outside of the south and west cannot really be used year round. Ford has the Mustang, also in convertible form and they learned they didn't need a 2 seater after the Thunderbird, which sold well for the segment but did not justify a unique vehicle. Chrysler had the same experience with the Crossfire, which was based on a Mercedes, but recently killed it to cut back on costs. In fact you can still buy a Crossfire if you do some searching.

GTI - While the GTI is a great car, you sell the Cobalt way short. From Car & Driver's test of the '09 GTI vs Cobalt they said "The steering, brakes, transmission, and suspension are all contenders in this class. " and "The Cobalt is fun to drive, but it’s also amazingly well composed, and not just for a Cobalt." and "But considering how much ground Chevy has gained in such a short time with this car, we’re eagerly awaiting the next iteration. " The next iteration will be off of the Cruze platform which is far superior to the existing Cobalt. Their only complaint was the interior and the Cobalt SS came in 3rd behind the 2nd place GTI. Ford will compete here is a performance version of the Fiesta and Chrysler competes here with the Dodge Caliber SRT. The US 3 have been in this space for decades and they increased their efforts in the beginning of the decade when the Japanese lost the interest of the West Coast tuners. The vehicles, like the Caliber, may not always be successful, but the effort and attention is there.

Genesis - Hyundai learned this trick from Chrysler who pulled the same thing off with the 300C. All of a sudden it was cool to drive a Chrysler. The Genesis is a threat to every high end brand, not just Buick and Lincoln. However, offering luxury for less is easy to say and very hard to do because it requires that you get the biggest bang for your buck w/every $ you spend on your interior. You put the majority of your $ on a few key items that you hope will give the customer that luxury impression and hope they don't mind/notice the areas where you spent less $. The 'full price' luxury brands spend their $ on all of the important items to avoid guessing wrong.

Mazda 5 - I guess a small minivan is only a good idea when a Japanese company builds it. Chrysler had a short wheelbase minivan since they invented the vehicle segment in 1984. However with small SUVs and now crossover vehicles/wagons nobody is much interested in a short wheel base minivan and they canceled it 2 years ago. The US 3 make at least a dozen vehicles in this segment including the Taurus X, Ford Edge, Dodge Journey, Saturn Vue, etc. Since the Mazda 5 is hardly a sales leader in this category and since GM and Ford have very similar euro vans in Europe (Ford's is probably built off the Mazda 5) I don't get your point. Mazda is simply trying to grab market by being very different. That is what you do when you are way behind not ahead like Chrysler is in the minivan market and the US 3 are in the SUV market.

Forester - Gee its a crossover/suv with a start price just under $20K. The Jeep Patriot and Compass do this and the Patriot's interior has been vastly upgraded this year to address the only real complaint about the vehicle. You conveniently leave out that the price tops out at $30K which then includes a variety of similar US 3 vehicles, many better than the Forester. Is you point that the US 3 should build a stripper vehicle to try to sucker people into their showrooms? I seem to remember that didn't work out so well.

Overall this article is an example of one of the real problems the US 3, the gap between the public's perception of the issues and the actual reality of the industry and market. The media make the problem worse by continuing to publish misleading and downright incorrect information about the industry. Buick and Jaguar just displaced Lexus as #1 in the JD Powers 3 year durability report for the first time in 14 years and the media either ignored this or downplayed it. The Buick Century & Regal and Mercury Sable beat the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry in the study and yet you still continuously read and hear how the Toyota's and Honda's quality is better. You still hear and read, even in this article, that the US 3 only like to build big vehicles. Gee maybe that's because Americans only pay big $ for big vehicles and the cost to make a big vehicle is not much higher than a smaller one. Apparently the pundits would invest their capital in low margin, low volume vehicles instead of high margin high volume vehicles. I would really like to know why Rick and others apparently believe this makes sense.

It would be great if the media actually worked at educating the public on the reality of the situation rather than continue to feed the mis-perceptions. It won't matter what great product these companies produce if nobody realizes something has changed.

Who Might Benefit From Detroit's Failings

Rick,

Another article highlighting a thoughtful approach combined with a lack of industry knowledge.

1. If GM goes down the entire industry in North America is going down for up to 1 year. There is an excellent research paper at cargroup.org that details this scenario. The problem is that every auto plant in North America buys something from the NA supplier base. Suppliers have spent the last 15 years creating a diverse customer base for themselves to reduce their exposure to reductions at a single OEM. However, the big suppliers will still have 15-30%+ of their business w/GM and if GM goes into chapter 11 expect at least 5-15 major suppliers to follow some for financial reasons and some to protect themselves from GM's bankruptcy judge. With credit this tight, production will stop for some period of time, which will hurt everyone.

Chrysler would not be as bad, but in this market it would still cause a shock because the banks will shut off credit to suppliers with Chrysler business and the OEMs do not have the cash to fill the void.

If Ford were to survive, & this is the scenario they want the $9B backstop for, they would benefit from GM or Chrysler customers moving to Ford.

I think Toyota would be a big loser because as the new #1 automaker in the world, and in the US, they will have the big target on their back that GM used to wear. They will be blamed by many people for the failure of the US OEMs (this would not be fair, but neither is the bulk of the criticism of GM), they will have to spend billions of dollars cleaning up their supply chain issues, and any big surge in sales from displaced GM customers would force them to make decisions they are not comfortable making, like significantly expanding their dealer base. They will be under huge pressure from the states & feds to make up for the 4-6K dealers that would go under with GM & Chrysler. They have been unwilling to do this in the past, I don't see why this would drastically change.

The southeastern US states are living a fantasy if they think the remaining automakers will just simply build a bunch of new plants. Honda & Toyota built small car plants in the US in '80s because they were worried about getting locked out of the market by the feds. In the last 10+ years all of the new factories built by foreign automakers have been for vehicles that Americans buy a bunch of but their home markets do not (that would trucks & SUVs). The only reason Toyota is building the Prius in Mississippi is because they won't be able to sell the trucks they planned to build there. I would not expect to see a single new plant built after what happened in 2008. If the US moves to smaller cars like the rest of the world, they will be built with Europe's and Asia's small cars either in the OEM's home country or in China. Especially if Americans refuse to pay a premium for small cars like Europeans & Japanese do (the cheapest comparable Yaris in the UK is $1,300 more expensive than the US). With the lack of a US energy policy, which causes gas prices, and consumer demand, to fluctuate wildly, the soaring cost of healthcare premiums (doubled since 2000), the fact that the US market will not grow significantly (getting back to norm is not growth) in the next 10-15 years, and if Americans start buying what the rest of the world buys, the foreign automakers will stand pat and using their existing capacity to meet demand and importing the rest. It worked well so far, why change? If a company wants to make cars here there would be a number of fairly new GM or Chrysler plants that they could buy super cheap and they would have their pick from a pool of highly experienced autoworkers in the Great Lakes region. Honda has been working in Ohio, which has almost as many UAW jobs as Michigan, for 30 years without problems. It wouldn't make any sense to build from scratch and train a new workforce.

Lastly, consumers are in for a real shock in a couple of years, sooner if Chrysler & GM go down. All of the automakers are re-sizing their business for a 12-13 million vehicle market and they will use any increase in the market to drive up prices to pay for all of the new CAFE mandates, healthcare increases, etc. The overcapacity will be gone either way, but if GM and/or Chrysler go down it will be eliminated almost overnight. Buy a car or truck right now if you can because they will never be this cheap again.

Who Might Benefit From Detroit's Failings

Everybody has a different experience. I have owned numerous US products, primarily Chrysler products, and have had very few problems with them. My 2002 Mercedes Benz on the other hand was the most unreliable vehicle I have owned in 20+ years. I had a wide variety of parts on the car replaced under warranty and some problems they never did get fixed.

That is why it is better to use Consumers Reports or JD Powers to determine the quality of a vehicle model.

What your story does show is problem the US 3 have with their dealers who, in many cases, will tell their customers anything to deflect the blame from themselves. The service manager has no information on how Ford is dealing with the supplier. Honda/Toyota/Lexus/Sat... dealers don't do this and instead help their customers resolve their issues.

All of the OEMs, and I have worked with them all as a supplier, work very hard to reduce cost and none of them is willing to pay extra for quality and all of them monitor it closely and expect it from all suppliers.


On Dec 04 01:41 PM scammy wrote:

> I never owned a foreign car UNTIL ford and gm wore me out.. 2003
> Malibu, sold at 44k, just out of warranty, problems like 1000's of
> others on the internet, brought back (3) times before 35k for front
> brakes that GRINDED bad, never really fixed, ac compressor would
> go on & off at will whether you had temp all the way up or not,
> intake manifold started leaking all over front of engine, that was
> to be a $1500 repair, but traded it in first, then, would NOT START
> until you sat for 10 minutes with the key OFF then ON, then it would..
> Gassing up at a filling station you had to WAIT 10 MINUTES to start
> the sucker.. Rear window defroster STOPPED WORKING.. Need I SAY MORE..
> EVERY FORD I owned NEW since 1993 had the sending units FAIL in the
> fuel tank, thats (4) DIFFERENT vehicles and types.. Kept bringing
> them back, one (5) times. They have to drop the fuel tank, drain
> the gas, replace the sending unit, reverse, a 3 hour job.. A service
> manager told me that Ford takes the lowest cost bid and that the
> subcontractor that makes the sending units was taking them to the
> cleaners and that Ford DIDN'T CARE.. How many OTHER items have similar
> ends..LOL..!! Had two of these fords blow head gaskets BEFORE 50k,
> and I DON'T dog my vehicles..WTF..
>
> FINALLY bought a 2005 V6 Honda Accord made in Marysville, Ohio..
> With 50k on it, ITS THE BEST CAR I'VE EVER OWNED, PERIOD..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
> I can see putting 200k on it with no problem, just change the timing
> belt at 110k like the book says and water pump and drive on with
> oil changes, brakes, etc.. WTF.. Why gm, ford, and chrysler can't
> do it is THEY DON'T CARE ENOUGH at the higher levels in the company..
> They can save .45 on a sending unit, so they buy them and KEEP BUYING
> THEM even if 1000's fail, THEY DON'T CARE..!!!! WHY SHOULD I CARE
> THEN.. I took a BUTT KICKING ON THAT MALIBU with the trade-in, NOBODY
> WANTED IT.. IT WAS TRASH.. THAT whole model was trash, THEY MAKE
> TRASH.. SORRY..!!!
>
>
> On Dec 03 06:09 PM closed book wrote:

Who Might Benefit From Detroit's Failings

Who is actually going to pay for this? Most analysts don't believe that Toyota has actually made back their 10 year Prius investment and is actually making a profit selling them at $21K and you want GM to sell a similar vehicle at $12K out of the gate? This is easily the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. If anyone should be selling $12K hybrids it should be Toyota since they have at least paid for all of their tooling.

If you are working at one of the Auto plants in the south, Michigan has nothing to worry about.


On Dec 05 06:26 AM countrycuz wrote:

> So GM has the audacity to beg for a handout so that they can produce
> more cars that are not needed or wanted by smart shoppers.
> Tell me this.
> at a price of thirty thousand dollars, who in the hell is going to
> benefit from the Volt electric car? they need to rethink just who
> needs such a car how it would benefit The USA.
> Drop the price to 12 thousand dollars so that low income people can
> afford them by the thousands. then build them by the thousands in
> a war against OPEC. use every plant at their disposal . put it on
> a war footing. every Volt produced would be a virtual tank to fight
> against the demand for foreign oil.

Who Might Benefit From Detroit's Failings

Consumers Reports latest article on automotive quality stated that Ford was as consistently good as the good Asians (Honda & Toyota) and that GM had many vehicles that were just as good. In GM's case, they also had some models that were not as good, so CR penalized them for that. Chrysler was the only US OEM they said had consistent issues.

CR also rates a number of US 3 vehicles above the Camry V6 for quality. Car & Driver has hardly been easy on the US 3 for the last 20-30 years, but has grudgingly given them credit when they produce good vehicles. On their latest Top 10 List GM had 2 vehicles, Ford had 1 and Toyota had none. That is not a simple quality assessment, but an assessment of the best vehicle period. It was not unusual 10-15 years ago to not have a single US car on this list.

Lastly, North American Car of the Year simply means you can buy the car in North America. "Car of the Year" wouldn't be very helpful for consumers it was a European only car like the new Ford Fiesta, which will likely earn a few European Car of the Year awards but cannot be purchased in the US until 2010.

Try using a few facts next time.


On Dec 05 12:52 PM iapproveu wrote:

> Just make sure you buy an extended service contract to cover it..!!

>
>
> After we bail out the Big 3, lets bail out the 8 track player companies,
> Beta max manufacturers, casset tape manufaturers too. Lets bail out
> EVERY company that makes old fashion technology that does not sell
> in todays market.
>
> I LOVE HEARING FROM THE REDNECK BUBBA POSTERS ON HERE SAYING I HAVE
> A CHEVY/FORD PICKUP THATS 20 YEARS OLD WITH 250,000 MILES, NEVER
> SPENT A DIME ON IT, BEST QUALITY TRUCK ETC....so anotherwords you
> have not spent anything to help out detroit either.....right? LOL

>
>
> Also, if you want to see what that stunning piece of american engineering
> made by the proud UAW will be like in a year....just go rent a few
> cars from Avis/Hertz etc. Rent both, the big 3 and the compitition.
> You will see all the Big 3 plastic crap, with gaps that are DRASTIC
> in the quater panels/hood(no attention to detail at all). Then drive
> it over a normal road and liten to the squeeks and rattles at 22,000
> miles. Ever notice that a rental company NEVER has one of these cars
> passed the factory warr..??? yea, neither would I..! YES, quality
> has come a long way.....but its not like the others. Here is a point.
> Go to any site on the net that sells extended service contracts.....put
> in some hypothetical cars. 2006 Camry, 2006 Altima, 2006 Accord,
> 2006 Malibu, all with the same milage, say 60,000....and you'll see
> for yourself which is the better made car. The malibu warranty is
> $1013 more. Why? Because the quality is so good? please! THESE ARE
> THE PEOPLE THAT PAY TO FIX THEM....THEY KNOW THE FACTS AND ACTUARAY
> REPORTS! Quit reading motor trend and car and driver and wake up.

>
> Ever wonder why the magazines had to come up with "North American
> Car of the year"..? Because a "Big 3" cant win the over all "Car
> of the year"...so they had to eliminate the compitition.
> VOTE with your feet and your dollars when you make a purchase. you
> work hard for your money, spend it wisely. Yes, its a personal choice,
> but demand that quality go up......or.....force the other companies
> to make a lesser quality car so the Big 3 can compete on a level
> playing field.
>
> Im done.
>
> On Dec 05 09:48 AM okbtan wrote:

Who Might Benefit From Detroit's Failings

Yeah, 1 bailout every 100+ years vs an industry wide bailout for the banking industry, located New England and the South, about every 10-15 years. This doesn't count the trillions of $ they have access to from the government every year.

The auto industry had a solid plan and was even making money before the banking industry drove the economy into the ground selling liar loans. The southern banks, like Bank of America, were the first to the trough.

I don't know what you have against Michigan but you obviously don't know that Toyota has their US design center here and Honda's design center is a few hours away in central Ohio.


On Dec 06 04:24 AM TenQ wrote:

> Bailing out the Big 3 is like filling a black hole.
> It will never end. It's like giving intensive care for the next
>
> 10 years or more. Just impossible to do that. Plus, the same

>
> old same old will never change. With the bailout money, America

>
> can start a brand new Car company some where in the the Southern

>
> States. Forget about Michigan.

Who Might Benefit From Detroit's Failings

Zenith is actually a Korean company, division of LG, and has been for almost 10 years.


On Dec 04 12:34 PM jamewhiteperson wrote:

> Maybe the us american should start making better product, invest
> more in R&D and that would create more jobs? I have Zenith lcd
> I brought last black friday.. the screen is all in mess up in one
> color now.

Chrysler: Trying to Stake Its Claim in Electric Cars

Paulk8756
What 'raid on the federal treasury' are you referring to? The $25B in LOANS was part of the original energy bill that raised the CAFE standards and is forcing the auto industry to spend $35B in tooling & research trying to meet these standards. If the government is going to force the companies to make cars consumers may or may not buy the least they can do is help them pay for it.

Also, the Japanese government has been investing heavily in the development of batteries for the Auto industry which is why most of the companies supplying hybrid batteries are Japanese. Since the US has been investing nothing, we have nothing. If we do not start investing now, we will be importing batteries forever.

Chrysler: Trying to Stake Its Claim in Electric Cars

Not only is the serial hybrid approach simpler, but it is more efficient since the gas engine can operate at constant RPM charging the batteries. This is like driving on the highway at a constant speed 100% of the time, even a full size SUV uses only 40 hp to cruise at a constant highway speed. They key to making this work is batteries with enough power density to get the 40 miles on electric w/o charging and to reduce the vehicle's weight as much as possible to compensate for the heavy batteries.

Paulk8756 - Chrysler is using suppliers for the technology and 3 of the 4 vehicles (EV, Jeep, & Minivan) are modifications of existing designs. They face a bigger challenge to reduce the weight of the existing vehicles to compensate for the batteries, but all of this investment can be distributed across the non-electric vehicles which will benefit from being lighter.