If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
On 15 Jul 2006 15:36:55 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote: > In this case you had a product that already existed and a number of >people (like 500) that were offering cash for them. 500 is not worth the trouble in the scheme of things for GM, it needs to be in the tens of thousands and then some to even begin about being profitable one day. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:17:38 GMT, SnoMan > wrote:
>On 15 Jul 2006 15:36:55 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > >wrote: > >> In this case you had a product that already existed and a number of >>people (like 500) that were offering cash for them. > > >500 is not worth the trouble in the scheme of things for GM, it needs >to be in the tens of thousands and then some to even begin about being >profitable one day. I think that GM had some nifty technology but it was too expensive. They saw that they would be forced to keep building these cars and selling (leasing) them at a loss while they drew sales away form profitable car lines and cast the rest of their business in a bad light. Ironically, GM is being punished for their short term mentality. Punished not by the government or consumer activists but by the market. Huge, fuel-guzzling vehicles have a large profit margin, until the day comes when they start sucking the wells dry. GM walked away from electric technology which could have formed the basis for successful, cost effective hybrid vehicles. Instead, GM spent money redesigning their huge, truck-frame SUVs which rolled out just in time for $78 oil. For the record, I don't think pure battery powered road cars are economically viable with any foreseeable technology. The high price and operational limitations can not be overcome in the near future. Hybrids OTOH, are economically viable now (barely) and give up little in utility. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
satyr wrote: > > I think that GM had some nifty technology but it was too expensive. > They saw that they would be forced to keep building these cars and > selling (leasing) them at a loss while they drew sales away form > profitable car lines and cast the rest of their business in a bad > light. > > Ironically, GM is being punished for their short term mentality. > Punished not by the government or consumer activists but by the > market. Huge, fuel-guzzling vehicles have a large profit margin, > until the day comes when they start sucking the wells dry. GM walked > away from electric technology which could have formed the basis for > successful, cost effective hybrid vehicles. Instead, GM spent money > redesigning their huge, truck-frame SUVs which rolled out just in time > for $78 oil. Bull****. Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but definite market to exist. Is a Ferrari cost-effective? My guess is there is a market for a $100,000 electric car in Hollywood and the Hamptons. Especially if there were a hybrid gen set module that could be swapped out for some battery storage. GM was being jerky and they should fear the legislature. > > For the record, I don't think pure battery powered road cars are > economically viable with any foreseeable technology. The high price > and operational limitations can not be overcome in the near future. > Hybrids OTOH, are economically viable now (barely) and give up little > in utility. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
On 16 Jul 2006 15:14:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote: > Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but >definite market to exist. This is where you are dead wrong because they have to be profitable to produce as GM is a mass producer and it is not profitable to make a small quanity of them. Do not compare them to a hand built car market manufacture because this is like trying to compare apple and oranges. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
On 16 Jul 2006 15:14:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote: > > Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but >definite market to exist. Is a Ferrari cost-effective? My guess is >there is a market for a $100,000 electric car in Hollywood and the >Hamptons. Especially if there were a hybrid gen set module that could >be swapped out for some battery storage. > > GM was being jerky and they should fear the legislature. Big difference. A 100lk Ferrari doesn't cost the manufacturer anywhere near 100k to produce and their whole company premise is to sell very few and very expensive cars. The electrics cost GM 100k to produce so they had no profit and GM is set up to sell a bunch of moderately priced cars. If you think this market exist why aren't you out raising capital and building it yourself? Steve B. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Bert Hyman wrote: >> In ups.com "Bret >> Ludwig" >> > wrote: >> >> > Wouldn't be that hard. >> >> But would be really stupid. >> > > No, it would be smart. > Smart to those with a collectivist orientation. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
GM can't "kill" the electric car. Any fool who wants to attempt that
business is free to try. There are already several vendors, though most are little more than garage customizations or fancy golf carts.. Remember back to the early 1970s when the U.S. Department of Justice was proposing to break up GM into its constituent parts because it was "Monopolizing the auto industry." So if GM is a monopoly, then if GM had continued to sell its electric car at a loss, it might have been construed as a violation of antitrust legislation, selling at a loss to force out smaller electric car companies. GM would be tarred as abusing its "monopoly" power, selling at a loss to run other electric car companies out of business. GM can't win. They're condemned when they screw up, and they're condemned when they succeed. RK Henry |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
Steve B. wrote: > On 16 Jul 2006 15:14:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > > wrote: > > > > > Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but > >definite market to exist. Is a Ferrari cost-effective? My guess is > >there is a market for a $100,000 electric car in Hollywood and the > >Hamptons. Especially if there were a hybrid gen set module that could > >be swapped out for some battery storage. > > > > GM was being jerky and they should fear the legislature. > > > Big difference. A 100lk Ferrari doesn't cost the manufacturer > anywhere near 100k to produce and their whole company premise is to > sell very few and very expensive cars. The electrics cost GM 100k to > produce so they had no profit and GM is set up to sell a bunch of > moderately priced cars. If you think this market exist why aren't you > out raising capital and building it yourself? You are very very very naive. Each car cost much less than 100k to produce. The total R&D amortized out per vehicle may have been that, but since over 1000 vehicles were produced, that would put the program cost at $100,000,000. I seriously doubt GM spent that much. The fact is that GM was offered a huge sum for all of the already-produced cars at the end and showed their ass to this offer. Ferrari is owned by Fiat and in fact is subsidized as far as their car production goes. Where Ferrari makes a profit is their extremely high tech light nonferrous foundry program, but the cars lose money. My guess is Corvette is a net-net loser too. But they make it up on the logo program. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Punishing GM for killing electric car
SnoMan wrote: > On 17 Jul 2006 17:28:46 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > > wrote: > > >You are very very very naive. Each car cost much less than 100k to > >produce. The total R&D amortized out per vehicle may have been that, > >but since over 1000 vehicles were produced, that would put the program > >cost at $100,000,000. I seriously doubt GM spent that much. > > > Your are the one nieve. It cost atleast 100K a car to make them back > them and likley more as that stuff was pricey then to build with. If > it had been possible to make a profit, GM would have built them but > the timing and costs were all wrong. Today, 70% of the cost of > building of a new vehicle is labor costs with health insurance along > adding about 1500 a car and climbing. No way you could build a cheap > all electric one today either. (not at GM's labor costs) $1500 a car for health insurance? I would like to see them prove that. I think it's hooey. But, the expensive parts of the electric car are the batteries, and GM would buy, not build these, from overseas probably. High labor is an argument FOR building high build cost low volume high margin producr, and let's face it, if a sleb will pay $100K for a electric car they will probably pay $125K. GM's luxury and sports cars are underpriced anyway. The top Corvette should be in Ferrari territory pricewise or Corvette isn't to be taken seriously (which it isn't). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GM crushed all of its electric cars ~ Pulling the plug on a dream | [email protected] | Driving | 0 | July 2nd 06 12:51 AM |
AWA [OFFER] electric air pump for air bed/mat,inflatables | [email protected] | General | 0 | February 14th 06 11:52 AM |
Electric problem ? | Oppie | Saturn | 0 | November 15th 05 06:54 PM |
Electric motor assisted super- or turbocharger? | Max Kallio | Technology | 13 | May 9th 05 09:09 PM |
Hybrid car cost of ownership | Tom Del Rosso | Technology | 47 | March 10th 05 12:32 AM |