Doug Korthof

Ford's EV Partners: Smith Out, Azure In

Saft-JCI sucks, but Smith has an even WORSE prospect. Ford is flopping around, thinking it's going to re-invent the wheel. We all think Smith's on life support, with a stupid battery choice; JCI screwed up Optima, and Saft makes shitty NiMH because it's stuck on old technology.

Ford is putting its head on the chopping block, if it's serious about EVs; probably, it's not serious, all for show.

Buy Ford Shares on the Stock Dilution

GM is a disgrace; imagine, arresting its own customers and betraying its own EV1 fan club (which still exists, even without the cars!!).

Lutz is a complete nincompoop, just as the rest of GM top management are complete losers.

You can actually "buy" GM shares for 30 cents, by selling put 2.50 due 2011 at $2.20.

GM management should be prosecuted for destroying a once-great American company with their stupid war against the UAW, and their even stupider stripping the US assets to fund operations in China, Korea, Brazil, Mexico, etc., which, in their hour of need, can't provide ANY return on investment.

Lutz, who refused to buy Nissan, and Wagoner, who handed $2B to Fiat, are now in the contradicted position that both Nissan and Fiat could buy GM for POCKET CHANGE.

Because Lutz and Wagoner killed GM, just as they killed the EV1.

Testing Plug-In Hybrids: What the Results Mean

There's a VAST difference in type of battery.
Hymotion is using Lithium, which so far has not been economical in plug-in cars.

The best and most economical battery for plug-ins is NiMH, which can be improved to last for more than 100,000 miles (perhaps more than 200,000 miles) and can be ENTIRELY recycled.

Not a fantasy: the Toyota RAV4-EV, as well as the 1999 EV1, RangerEV and HondaEV, all use NiMH, as well as the Prius, Insight, etc., no one expects Lithium to actually work in plug-in cars.

Ask youirself, why aren't auto makers using more economical, longer-lasting, proven technology, NiMH??

The answer may surprise you, it has nothing to do with weight (Lithium batteries weighing 400 lbs. in the so-called VOLT only yield 8 kWh; whereas lead or NiMH of the same weight would yield up to 12 kWh, enough to go up to 72 miles on a charge).

WHY NOT USE NIMH?? Even lead-acid would be fine for the VOLT, or other "extended range EVs", the 1997 and 1999 EV1 wtih PSB lead acid had over 100 miles range, the bateries are fully recyclable, and the cost is almost as low as NiMH for the life of the batteries.

Auto Industry Recovery Once Again Postponed

We already have Nickel Metal Hydride, the onl y battery proven to last longer than the life of the car; but lead-acid works too. Lithium has not been proven to work in an Electric car, no Lithium EV has so far gone more than 50,000 miles without significant battery degradation.

Yet we are still driving 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV with NiMH batteries, the same battery packs, but we can't buy replacement NiMH because Toyota stopped making them after Chevron funded a lawsuit that collected $30 million. Chevron bought control of the worldwide patent licensing rights from GM, and renamed GM-Ovonics to Chevron-Ovonics BAttery SYStems (cobasys).

So why not NiMH??

The fact that no supposed EV maker is using the batteries that work tells you that they are not serious and don't intend to make an EV that works.

Lithium: higher cost, lower life, no junk value;
NiMH: Chevron (an oil company) controls the patent licensing rights, none offered.

Auto Industry Recovery Once Again Postponed

Plug-in Electric cars and solar rooftop power are the ONLY full solution to reducing oil and oil-based pollution.

GM and the other Auto Alliance members just this year killed the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate (California and 13 other states) all over again; clearly, without some strength of character in the government, the auto makers won't make a plug-in car.

The oil industry has too much control over car makers, because oil is where the big money is.

Cashing In on the Electric Transport Boom

You are so WRONG. The EV1 was originally released on lead-acid batteries, not NiMH; and there were 650 in the original "1997" format. There were problems with failure-prone GM-Delco lead batteries, once they were upgraded to lead-acid PSB EV-EC 1260 batteries, they had a range of over 100 miles and never failed. In 1997, Toyota and Honda released NiMH EVs that were superior to the original GM EV1 and cost less.

It was 2000 (starting in Dec., 1999) before GM was forced, by CARB, to start releasing some of the 465 NiMH EV1.

Even though these had inferior GM-Ovonics NiMH batteries, they had an EPA certified range of 140 miles on a charge. With superior Toyota NiMH, such as are still running in the Toyota RAV4-EV (last sold in Nov., 2002), the EV1 would have had over 200 miles range.

Add them up: Lead-acid, not NiMH, over 100 miles range, the batteries were NOT the problem!!

And 650+465=1115, not "800". At least you don't repeat the GM lie that "nobody wanted them, they didn't sell".

Perhaps you should study more, then I'll read the rest of this puerile article.

Car Prices Keep Falling, Consumers Keep Waiting

Very true, despite the billions dumped into "fuel cell research", they could use CNG, it's here, now, cheaper than gas, any car can be converted to CNG, doesn't need a $300,000 fuel cell stack, the tanks are much cheaper (H2 gas permeates metal, embrittling it), and it's a well-proven technology with existing distribution tanks at 3600 psi (H2 requires 10,000 psi, much more difficult) for the same range.

And there are plug-in Electric cars, like the Toyota RAV4-EV, which don't use gas at all and plug in anywhere, powered by rooftop solar power systems that are paid for by the gas we DON'T buy.

Instead, GM and other car makers pretend that CNG doesn't exist, and pretend that EVs don't exist.

Chrysler's Rebadging Plan: Strategic Blunder for Nissan?

Well, Nissan has nothing to lose with this deal (it can sell less-than-perfect seconds to Chrysler); and Chrysler has nothing to lose either (doesn't cost them a thing to stock a rebranded Nissan; at worst, they don't sell).

On the other hand, most likely, they won't gain, either. But for Chrysler, it's worth the gamble: no loss vs. some possible gain, however unlikely.

Chrysler's problems are legion, but NONE of them involve the UAW or line workers. ALL of them involve betting the company on big, gas-guzzling monster hemi-mobiles; they just don't have the expertise, let alone the money, to develop a small excellent car.

Chrysler's best bet is to sell some brands to a company like Nissan that wants to be considered 'American'. And that's what they seem to be starting to do. If I were them, I'd rebrand the Nissans as "Plymouth" or even "Desoto", and eventually drop the Chysler connection, just sell them at rebranded Nissan dealers as "Plymouth Dealer". After all, Nissan was once Datsun...

Impact of GM Destroying the EV1

If GM were so concerned about the cost of building the EV1 -- and many posters here are swallowing GM lies about it -- then why did they crush or gut every one, instead of selling these "valuable" cars to willing buyers???

Default Risk of U.S. Automaker Debt: Too Big to Fail?

GM deserves its fate for killing the EV1. Nothing should stop GM from dying, painfully and slowly, unless it resumes production of an Electric car.

Impact of GM Destroying the EV1

PS, Toyota did NOT crush their RAV4-EV, they sold the last 328 off to the public between May and Nov., 2002; those are almost all running still in the hands of private citizens, being used to pay for rooftop solar electric systems.
WWW.SealBeach.org

Impact of GM Destroying the EV1

Good to see that at least ONE writer gets it right! Great article, showing to me what a criminal cabal runs GM.

Criminal in the sense of doing stupid stuff that benefits no one, not even their own stupid selves.

For the cost of the Afgan and iraqi wars, plus 3 years "defense" budget, we could have produced and GIVEN AWAY not just 100M hybrids, but 100,000,000 EV1 PLUS the solar rooftop system needed to power them.

But it doesn't take that; just the ability to BUY an EV1 allows you to use the money you save NOT buying gasoline to pay for a rooftop solar system. Thus, solarizing America becomes self-funding, taking money away from being wasted by Big Oil. No wonder GM, Toyota and Chevron colluded to kill the NiMH battery used in the EV1, RAV4-EV, HondaEV and RangerEV.

SUV Makers Feel the Heat of Higher Oil Prices

Very funny, GM putting SUV engineers to work on fuel-efficient cars! As if it just takes skin designers to make a new bumper or better door!

GM will find out that it has no skillsets needed for plug-in and other efficient cars; importing small cars (built using expensive Euros) into American is a money-loser.

The one plug-in car that GM had, the EV1, is NOT under consideration for a resumption of production. That entails, the rest is nonsense.