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.