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.