Miken

What Lies Ahead for Hybrid Car Investors?

Through a number of factual errors pointed out previously, the author has somehow arrived at the right short term conclusion in my opinion. PHEV's (not BEV's) are the near term right step. We should do a serious grid analysis (done by serious people with no advance agenda) to determine what kind of energy draw will be necessary to accommodate this technology.

I do think that research and infrastructure analysis should continue with hydrogen powered vehicles however.

China Looks to Electrify Our Cars

I would like one person to prove to me that ANY hybrid makes economic sense. For example, compare the Toyota Corolla to a Prius. Both within 200 lbs. of each other, wheelbase less than 4" different, basically would be appealing to the same customer from a size standpoint. The Corolla base model is $16,150 and the Prius is $23,375, a difference of $7225. Based on the EPA estimated combined mileage, the Corolla gets 30 mpg and the Prius 46.

At $2 per gallon gas, and driving 12,000 miles per year, it would take 26.0 years to pay off the premium cost for the Prius. At $4 per gallon, it would take 13 years, of course.

An even better comparison would be the Honda Civic and the Hybrid Civic. The regular Civic gets 29 mpg and the hybrid 42. There is a $7545 difference in base price. Using the same calculations it would take 29 years to pay off the premium.

If you want to save the world, by all means, drive a hybrid. If you just want to save money....not a smart idea.

U.S. Automakers’ Race to the Bottom

STOP WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS....IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT!!!!!!


On Mar 05 11:39 AM wrote:

> WHY ARE YOU SUPRISED ABOUT GM AND FORD. dID YOU REALLY THINK THAT
> THE BLLOD SUCKERS FROM THESE COMPANIES WOULD NOT BE BACK TO THE A--
> H---- IN CONGRESS FOR MORE MONEY.WE, THE TAXPAYER SHOULD HAVE NOTHING
> TO DO WITH CHRYSLER, ITS A PRIVATE COMPANY. GM AND FORD SHOULD MERGE.
> AS A MERGED COMPANY THE CAN REBUILD THEIR BALANCE SHEETS AND GO FORWARD.
> COMBINING THESE TWO COMPANIES WILL ENABLE THEM TO PRODUCE THE BEST
> PRODUCTS AVAILABLE AND SEND THE FOREIGN CAR COMPANIES BACK TO WHERE
> THEY CAME FROM. YOU WANT SOMEONE TO BLAME? BALME THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
> BUYING FOREIGN CARS BECAME A STATUS SYMBOL. LIKE MANY YEARS AGO IF
> YOU HAD A cADILLAC,YOU MADE IT. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BECOME THE
> MOST SELFCENTERED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. GAS PRICES HAVE COME DOWN,
> AND AMERICANS ARE STILL BUYING THE LARGEST GAS GUZZLING FOREIGN CARS.
> GAS SHOULD HAVE GONE TO $5-6, THEN MAYBE WE WOULD LEARN

Chrysler's Rebadging Plan: Strategic Blunder for Nissan?

I agree with the author that re-badging is a bad idea, but I think there's one reality that he didn't cover. The deal has to be a good one for both parties (read that profitable). The seller (Nissan) will build the car and will sell to the buyer (Chrysler) at some margin. Chrysler will then turn around and sell to the customer, again, presumably at a positive margin.

In today's competitive environment I don't think there's room for an extra profit layer.

In addition, I'm not sure that Nissan has a strong enough product line to pull it off anyway.

I think Carlos Ghosn just likes to see his name in print as the "deal maker". I would suggest he has a full time job getting the Nissan/Renault combination to work.