Legacy Auto Makers will not build an Electric Vehicle

Puppyjump

100 W
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
190
Who does not want EV’s in our driveways:
-Legacy Automakers, because they, and their dealer networks do not earn enough revenue by selling cars. A look at how large their service departments are (and our out-of-wallet experience with them) shows what’s at stake revenue-wise because EV’s never need service beyond tire changes. EV’s don’t even need brake jobs due to electronic regenerative braking that does most of the work. Their ordinary friction brake pads and rotors thus last the life of the car (as shown on the Toyota electric Rav4).
The large established car companies depend on their service department, like printer companies depend on sales of ink cartridges. So why did Toyota sell the Rav4 instead of leasing and crushing as GM did with the EV1? It’s a mystery, but I came across a blog that mentioned that a Toyota exec at a public speech mistakenly said that the cars would be sold, and so to save face, Toyota reluctantly sold the Rav4. Buyers, however, now post on blogs that they actually had difficulty in getting the Toyota dealer to sell them an electric Rav4 and that they were highly pressured to instead buy a Gas Toyota or a Prius.
-Oil companies, for obvious reasons. Note they are also major stockholders in auto companies and thus probably have influence over their board of directors.
http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJXRRKIS9TE&feature=related
Business firms exist to make profits, but profits are going to be reduced if EV’s replace the ICE car. Much of our economy is based on the automobile, and its upkeep. Almost every business is related in some way to the car. What will happen to employment if the need to service a car is practically eliminated?
What happens to Midas, Pepboys, Kragen’s, smog check, AMCO, gas stations, Jiffylube, general service repair centers, the manufacturing plants that fabricate repair parts, the UPS people that deliver the parts, the corner deli or Taco Bells frequented by those firm’s workers at lunchtime? What about government agencies that depend on collecting all manner of tax revenue from the above interlinked economy?
If people understand this scenario, then they will understand why they can’t yet buy an EV from the legacy business infrastructure. Only recently can one sniff the scent of a potential EV from start-up EV manufacturers like Tesla (too costly for mass production partly because they hand-solder a battery pack of 6000 Lithium AA sized cells together in series-parallel groups), Aptera, and even the tiny BugE, etc., because a startup company does not need to address the risk that a service-free vehicle will parasitically affect revenue from other parts of its company. And startups probably are not in business relations with oil companies either. One interesting emerging EV contender is the Chinese and their unstoppable manufacturing base. Google the “Miles EV” and “Thunder Sky” Lithium battery (which can replace the suppressed NiMH battery. Google “95 AH Large Format NiMH battery” to see that a 30 million dollar lawsuit dismantled the Panasonic plant that built these batteries that gave the Toyota Rav4 EV more than 100 miles of highway speed range- 10 years ago).
http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm
The Chinese don’t have any obligations to any western business or oil cartel. Although they are importing oil at increasing rates, they are taking steps to limit dependency on oil by mass producing EVs. A $4000 Lithium powered highway speed scooter motorcycle just appeared from China: the “XM-3500Li” You can buy it now online.
Curiously, Nissan’s CEO has advocated a pure EV but I have a hard time believing he really will build one and that the announcement is mostly PR “green washing” in nature. After all, Nissan has service centers, too.
 
They certainly aren't service free, but the service is much less often than noise makers.

I think we will see the rise of new companies with the electric transportation scene. The demand will be here, and so supply will come. It amazes me that the entire revolution of the car started with electric, switched to internal combustion, and now is making a swing back to electric. Of course battery technology is a big reason why there was not a bloom in electric at first.
 
It will be interesting to see how the service side of EVs plays out in reality. I still think that the servicing will be on par with a new bare bones automobile though, and there's no way the battery pack will go the distance that a combustion engine will
 
Regarding service, I'm speculating, of course. However, I have read many reports from Toyota RAV4 EV owners that they have not had to service them. Only rotate the tires. Certainly, the EVs will never need the routine service like oil changes and the ICE 15K, 30K, etc "checkup". Obviously, EVs will need repairs, such as suspension work, air conditioning fixes, etc., but the auto dealers don't earn the same revenue stream from random repairs than they do with the scheduled routine service, which if you ignore, will void the Factory Warranty. To me, the loss of this revenue stream is the only logical reason why automakers will not willingly build an EV.
 
EVs can have a long life battery pack. Once again, it's the 10 year old Toyota RAV4 EV that embarrasses and myth-busts the EV detractors, be they intentional, or just uninformed. Many RAV4 EVs have well surpassed 100K miles and still running strong with no apparent degradation on their original 95AH Large Format NiMH battery pack that Chevron has now suppressed by enforcing their patent on this battery to prohibit its use in EVs.
 
http://www.evchargernews.com/miscfiles/sce-rav4ev-100k.pdf
I would call 76-85% of original capacity some degradation.

A Rav4 EV stickered for $42k, while a plain gas powered model was around $20k. That's going to be a tough sell to the general public. Adjusted for inflation, $42k becomes $55k, and with the current state of the economy, it will be extremely tough to convince people to go green. At Toyota.com a base 2009 Yaris can be had for $12,925 including delivery, processing and handling. Getting people out of their trucks and SUVs and into smaller more efficient vehicles they can buy right now will do more good than any pie-in-the-sky mass production plug in EV's.
 
That invites a circular argument

Prices will always be high until manufacturing spins up
Volume will increase
Innovation will occur
Prices will drop
More units will sell
volume will increase
infrastructure will mature
prices will drop
...

We can say it is too expensive all day long. So were cell phones, computers, and flat screen tv's.
How much is a cell phone now? Laptop?

Of course the masses are not going to jump on board right from the start. (have they ever?) That is what early adopters are for. My wife and I can afford to buy a pair of $60k electric cars just to make a statement. Our friends will do the same to show us up. Other people will see us and them. Others will buy. And so on. The bay area is a breeding ground for these things. I already have 4 other people building electric bikes. Those 4 people will be driving electric cars right next to me.

Shut down the auto industry?
GREAT! Two birds with one stone. We can fix the union and the health care system while we are at it.

China, Taiwan?
LOVE THEM

pessimism like what I am hearing makes me think of the grand novel writen by Ann Rand

"Atlas shrugged"

That is the "who killed the electric car" of yesterdecade. If you have not read it you should.
In a nutshell a guy creates a machine that creates electricity for free
So they mothball it.

Very old and very appropriate for where we are today. Long winded but way ahead of its time.

-methods
 
Electric cars are coming, for sure.

But wait til you see what "they" will start charging for electricity.

"They" have already convinced "us" that it's "dirty" to produce. Or, at the very least, "expensive" to produce "cleanly".

Who is going to pay for wind farms, solar, hydro-electric? "We" are. WILLINGLY! Look at Bullfrog Power. "Green" energy! :roll:

Who is going to shut down the nukes, the coal plants, the oil and gas burners? "They" will - when it's to their advantage.

The grid is the new pipeline.
 
Talk about legacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS10U79B8bk

I had one, unrestored, I never ran it. It was nearly identical to this example, same year,
but was the top of the line, dual-drive model 80. You had your choice of tiller steering from a fold-down tiller,
from a front, swiveling captain's chair (two of these in front), and there were two foot pedals for the two kinds of brakes,
and a twist throttle on the tiller end, where the key switch was also located.

Or you could sit in the rear seat, fold down the alternate tiller and there were a tandem pair of brake pedals there too.
Four ladies could ride in style, at 20mph (about as fast as cars were wanted to go in those days of few paved roads
and 12mph in-city speed limits. Wind resistance being so low at that speed, the Detroit could and would go 80 miles between charges.

Batteries a problem? No, not if you opted for the $800-extra Edison nickle-iron battery: Absolutely indestructable by time, use or neglect.
My car had sat idle since 1954, when the sole, original owner passed away. I topped the batteries with water, charged them up,
and they took a full charge and output 84V (there were something like sixty of them in series-parallel, selected by a drum controller: you had four or five forward speeds. No need to remove your top hat when entering; getting into the car was a big step up on the running board, another step up into the cab, and you did not have to bend over.

The interiors of these cars were luxuriously upholstered in fine leather and tapestry cloths.
The only instruments in my Detroit were an eight day time-only clock, and a very important meter:
a Sangamo watt hour meter: it told exactly how much run power remained: it looked like a clock, running one way while discharging,
and running in reverse during the recharge, so you knew when the batteries were recharged.
The charger: about 500 pounds of cast iron, copper wound transformers, mercury vapor rectifier,
recharge overnight, automatic shut off.
That little old lady drove her Detroit from late 1915 to 1954. I think she knew her car well.

Point: the Edison cell's sole disadvantages were their bulk vs. energy capacity and their inefficiency in accepting charge,
and needing to be watered often, as they fizz like soda pop while charging. They were very costly to make, but they did not ever die;
in fact, the kindest way to preserve an Edison cell: discharge it completely and short across its terminals.
Amazing technology for that time or any time. No other battery before or since has proved to have such a long life,
and proved so immune to: rapid discharge, partial discharge, sitting idle, let to dry out, etc.
Millions were made, and were very popular with the railroads for car lighting, charged by generators run by the car wheels themselves.

I like telephone booth cars.
Put a candlestick phone in one, and a very long extension cord and call the past, long distance, sometime?
 
reid, what happened to the car?

i don't think the auto workers will allow any money to be spent by a bankrupt GM except on them.

no matter what the Volt project represents, when they enter bankruptcy in 2 weeks, all will be wiped clean.

expect chrysler to try to merge with GM before then, without Fiat.

Buick will become a chinese venture. and join the current chinese-GM joint venture. they may buy up the Volt portfolio, wish you the best, marty.
 
Lowell said:
http://www.evchargernews.com/miscfiles/ ... v-100k.pdf
I would call 76-85% of original capacity some degradation.

A Rav4 EV stickered for $42k, while a plain gas powered model was around $20k. That's going to be a tough sell to the general public. Adjusted for inflation, $42k becomes $55k, and with the current state of the economy, it will be extremely tough to convince people to go green. At Toyota.com a base 2009 Yaris can be had for $12,925 including delivery, processing and handling. Getting people out of their trucks and SUVs and into smaller more efficient vehicles they can buy right now will do more good than any pie-in-the-sky mass production plug in EV's.

There's more to an EV than simple economics, as I have now learned by driving one for several months. There are people who would (and soon will when BYD brings them to our shores) buy them even though they cost more. Case in point, recently 2003 Rav4 EV sold on Ebay for over $80K.

EV's can be more pleasurable to drive. Quiet and vibration free. No hassle for ever stopping in line at a gas pump. No smog checks. Car pool lane bonuses. No dealer visits for routine service. No stops at JiffyLube. And I'll repeat that gas station point: There is much pleasure in simply driving past all of them. What used to be accepted as normal turns into a feeling of "we've all been had" when going in for a fill-up. Oil execs buy more penthouses; we (presently) have no choice but to fill up every week. On rare occasions when I have to fill up my second gas car (for long range driving that I now rarely use), I feel like I'd rather go to the dentist and get a filling done there. ICE seems so crude now.

The pleasures or perceived value of an EV can't be justified by economics. We all know they cost more to purchase.
But there is a market for costlier-than-ICE EVs right now. China is ramping up EV and LiFePO4 batteries big time, and we all know Buffet has invested in them (and he is no fool). Another benefit of an EV that can't be accounted for with economics is the fact that their owners feel good about not consuming oil. No money to the oil producing nations, some of which are hostile. Some drivers will pay more to drive each mile knowing that they are screwing the oil producing nations of revenue. Although most American imported oil comes from Canada, a friendly nation, the fact is that if we stopped importing their oil, then they would have to sell it elsewhere, displacing sales of oil from hostile nations, and almost certainly bringing the cost down so that hostile nations would get less revenue anyway. Less revenue for them to support terrorism. And then there is the pollution angle. There are papers that show that EVs contribute less pollution per mile driven even if their charge comes from a coal power plant. Yes, some exists, but less of it because an EV is so efficient in using their energy derived from the Grid.
Finally, if there were no market for EV's, why did Chevron buy the patent rights to the Rav 4 battery pack (Large Format NiMH) and bury it? You now can't buy a NiMH cell with a capacity greater than 10 AH because Chevron sued Panasonic for $30 million and forced them to dismantle their NiMH battery plant back in 2003. Perhaps Chevron fears the law of supply and demand is not linear: A small percentage of people who stop buying gas can cause its price to fall by a lot. American drove 10% fewer miles due to $4.50 gas and a recession, and then gas falls to $2? The numbers are not exact, but that's an approximation of what recently happened in the last year. I can see 10% of Americans buying an EV if they were readily available by auto dealers at a less than insane price, and I bet Chevron and their ilk can see that, too.

As for getting people out of their SUVs and raised suspension chrome tip dual exhaust F150's into a Yaris, it won't happen unless gas goes up way above $5. Those owners are in love with size and V8 power and noise. Neither would they buy an EV, even if they were cheap. People who WILL buy EVs will probably have a Yaris as their second "long range" vehicle. Mine is a Ford Focus.


And who knows, when enough EVs are built (thanks to China), their mass production economy of scale may bring their cost in line with ICE so that even a bank officer would buy one.
 
maybe fiat will merge with chrysler and then ghosan and nissan will merge with renault and then merge with fiat. nissan already had deals with chrysler too.

so we could actually have a backdoored EV in the US through the project that ghosan is following at nissan with NEC. imagine a chrysler EV of say 1500lbs, 36mi lifepo4 range, but streamlined body, because the italians can do it. but 4 wheel so it can be taxed.

the transportation sctry already said there will be no more road taxes. he is the republican, wrong kinda token to have in the current times, imo.

we need rad bad, amory lovins to the top right away.
 
Chry-Fiat is a done deal. Not only could we see a full-on EV, the 50mpg turbodiesels will be here soon too. Fiat has come a long way from the unreliable Spyder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090501/us_time/08599189529600

The 500
fiat_500_launch.jpg

The Bravo
fiat-bravo-main.jpg
 
TylerDurden said:
Chry-Fiat is a done deal. Not only could we see a full-on EV, the 50mpg turbodiesels will be here soon too. Fiat has come a long way from the unreliable Spyder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090501/us_time/08599189529600

The 500
fiat_500_launch.jpg

The Bravo
fiat-bravo-main.jpg
In the web link, the Fiat EV is "set to roll out in 18 months" along with the hybrid pickup truck. Yes, we will see the hybrid pickup truck, but it will most certainly be the phony kind: parallel hybrid instead of a series type. But we will not see the EV. Auto makers have been promising "EV's in 2 years" for decades.
 
Converting existing US made vehicles to hybrids on a LARGE scale.

I think our US automakers miss the boat on a very intriguing possibility, a manufacturer designed, approved installed and maintained hybrid conversion for your ICE car/van/truck.

Several articles have been printed regarding this of late, with the assumptions that it is a real waste to scrap a vehicle that just has bad fuel mileage.

so lets take a case of a high production vehicle like say a Dodge Front wheel drive Minivan. Lots of these made. very high volume. Gets pretty bad gas mileage in town, like 16mph. (I have two of these,) But for many years this came as a 4WD model.
Lets just take a rear axle, put it on my minivan and hook it up to a nice electric motor and controller. Lets layer the floor with some batteries, and a charger. maybe give it regen? hook the charger up to the normal ICE motor. prototype it, test it and sell it for installation at your dealership. US labor and parts. better gas mileage in town. maybe make it a plug in hybrid while at it. sign a liability waiver.

You would think that a whole company full of laid off employees could whip this out on a couple of bar room napkins in a week or two. (who knows how many computers and applications were designed at TGI Fridays)


GM could do the same for their little pickup truck the S10/ Colorado. I mean LOTS of backyard guys are doing this, why cant a big company with all that talent make this available to Joe and Juanita desk jockey that dont know how to run a torque wrench? What about that little post office delivery thing that brings the mail to us every day?

Pick a test city and make sure you have lots of parts and trained people. Like maybe Washington DC. Get some taxi drivers to test the things for you. Have a free tow/wrecker service if it breaks down.

Then expand the cities.

It takes a lot of money, energy and resources (generating lots of pollution) to make a totally new car. why not use the ones we already have?

Anyway that is how I would like my automaker bailout money spent.
 
deardancer3 said:
I mean LOTS of backyard guys are doing this, why cant a big company with all that talent make this available to Joe and Juanita desk jockey that dont know how to run a torque wrench?


Because they don't want to build EV's.
 
an even better solution to the problem of all the fat cars and trucks is to convert them to CNG vehicles. natural gas produces equivalent gas mileage to gasoline at 60 cents/gallon. the kits can be purchased in europe, argentina, and most countries, but not in the united states without a waiver from the EPA.

it is illegal to convert your own car to CNG in this country unless your are a certified converter, and the kit is approved by the EPA. guess what it takes to get approved? it is made so impossible specifically to protect the dominant car interests, not to serve the public.

rather than burn natural gas in generators to produce electricity, the natural gas could be burned in the vehicle for half the cost of the electricity stored as coulombs because the loss of efficiency in burning it in the generator and transporting it and converting it to stored coulombs robs half the energy.

yet it is cleanest, best for engine life, and abundant in our country, whereas we have almost run out of oil. so guess what fuel we depend on most.

stupidest culture ever. and we pay taxes to keep them in control of our future. united auto workers are still being paid for sitting around at home while the companies go under. thanks to the bailout. they will never cooperate in producing light vehicles, they could not care less.
 
dnmun said:
an even better solution to the problem of all the fat cars and trucks is to convert them to CNG vehicles. natural gas produces equivalent gas mileage to gasoline at 60 cents/gallon.

Sounds like an improvement but you still need to fuel it up someplace, and that "someplace" will be run by the same thieves who presently sell us gasoline. No thanks. I'll drive EV.
 
Back
Top