A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Saturn
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Punishing GM for killing electric car



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 16th 06, 01:17 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
SnoMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 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  
Old July 16th 06, 04:02 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
satyr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default 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  
Old July 16th 06, 11:14 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
Bret Ludwig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default 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  
Old July 17th 06, 01:51 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
SnoMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 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  
Old July 17th 06, 04:16 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
Steve B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default 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  
Old July 17th 06, 07:57 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
NapalmHeart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default 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  
Old July 17th 06, 08:43 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
RK Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old July 18th 06, 01:28 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
Bret Ludwig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default 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  
Old July 18th 06, 02:22 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.saturn
Bret Ludwig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 12:52 PM
Electric problem ? Oppie Saturn 0 November 15th 05 07:54 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 01:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.