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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:26:51 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> Well, if, in your words, "South Korean culture is, by some accounts, >> incredibly hostile towards the US and this appears to influence >> consumer purchasing habits" this doesn't strike me as a promising >> market for Chrysler. Wouldn't it make more sense for Chrysler to >> focus its attention on markets that are a little less "hostile"? > >Consumer sentiment can always be changed. But it makes no sense to even >try if import tariffs are stacked up against you, with the intent to >form a trade barrier. > >Why do you give absolutely no credence to the effects that gov't tariffs >have on global trade flows? What I've been saying is that Chrysler needs to focus its attention squarely on the North American market and not get distracted trying to sell its products in countries where, for a variety of reasons, it's not likely to perform well. It goes to the point I made earlier, that if you can't sell North American cars to North American car buyers who, in the past, have been largely loyal to you, it's not likely you'll fair much better in foreign markets where the general public is even more committed to supporting their own domestic manufacturers. >> At a time when gasoline prices nation wide were peaking above >> $4.00 a gallon, what were the vehicles Chrysler was trying to >> sell us? > >When gas was $2, even $3 a gallon, "WE" (Canadians and Americans) were >busy filling our driveways with pickup trucks and SUV's. That was only >a year or two ago. It's not like $4.00 gas jumped out of the blue and smacked Chrysler in the face. Like GM and Ford, they chose to ignore the fact that America was becoming increasingly more dependent on foreign oil, most of which originating in countries that don't exactly like the U.S. -- did they simply forget the '70s? And, yet, they've done everything in their power to expand their full-size luxury truck and SUV sales, whist efffectively abandoning the passenger vehicle segment to foreign competitors. >And it's NOT like the big-3 don't have small car options to sell when >gas hits $4. They have always had small cars with small engines, and >they always do sell a lot of them. They just don't make much profit on >them, and they can't when Korean and Japanese cars are effectively >dumped into the US market, and the big-3 face trade barriers trying to >sell their small cars into those foreign markets. And North American car buyers have, for the most part, rejected them. I read this morning that, in 2008, the Dodge Caliber hatchback has sold for an average of $1,717.00 *less* than a Honda Civic. Why then, even with this price premium, does the Honda Civic outsell the Dodge Caliber by, what, I'm guessing, ten to one? >It's been said for a long time that Jap companies uses their protected >domestic market to sell their cars at home and make healthy profits, and >then sell into the US at practically a loss and build market share. > >Maybe the big-3 were giving us large vehicles because they couldn't >compete with the Korean and Japanese imports which were coming ashore >helped by low duties and tariffs? The same ones that, as noted above and in my previous posts, are *more* expensive than the domestics? >Maybe if the US import tariffs were evenly matched with Korea's and >Japan's import tariffs, then we would have seen a different mix of >domestic vehicles from the big-3. > >> > Years of preferential treatment of foreign car imports have >> > taken their toll on the domestic US auto industry and have >> > left them with a dwindling warchest of operating cash. >> >> "Years of preferential treatment of foreign car imports"?!? > >Yes, and you have posted nothing to counter that statement. I'm sorry, did I fail to mention the 25% import duty that applies to foreign made trucks? >> I think it's safe to say we see things differently. > >You can't, or won't, admit that tariffs and taxes affect trade and >access to markets. The trade barriers that domestic US makers face when >selling (or trying to sell) into Korea and Japan never get much press, >because those societies are so alien to us and so far away. Actually, I can and I will. My point is that Chrysler has bigger fish to fry right now than worring about an 8% duty on cars it doesn't sell in Korea. >Read this: > >http://www.constitutionpartyofwa.com...ctim_ftaa.html > >----------------- >"Here is an example of how it worked: If Toyota produced a car with a >basic dealer price of $8,160 it would pay a commodity tax, $1,840, to >the Japanese government causing the dealer price to rise to $10,000. >That tax was then paid by Japanese consumers as a hidden part of the >total price, along with other taxes.... > >"However, the fine print in Japan's tax manual revealed that if that car >was exported to the U.S., Japan would rebate (kick back) the commodity >tax." > >Toyota could sell the car in America for $8,160...$1,840 less than its >price in Japan. > >"On the other hand, if a U.S. car carrying a similar dealer price of >$10,000 was exported to Japan the U.S. government would not rebate even >one dime from $4,000 of taxes that had been imbedded in that price >through income, PICA, property, and many other taxes. When the $10,000 >U.S. car entered Japan it would not be released from customs bond until >the manufacturer paid the 22-1/2 commodity tax, thereby causing the >price of the U.S. car in Japan to rise to $12,250, plus other >charges...." > >As a result of these assaults on American auto manufacturers, Stelzer >says, "GM has closed at least 70 plants and offices in the U.S. while >reducing its domestic work force from over 600,000 to barely 300,000 >today, and opening plants in many other countries. At the same time, >GM's role as the largest private generator of federal, state, and local >tax revenue shrunk by at least 50 percent." He points out that federal, >state, and local governments have enacted millions of tax and regulatory >laws that have been responsible for over 80 percent of the cost of the >average American product. That being a ratio of 4- to-1, it constitutes >a tariff of 400 percent on our products. Yet we assess a tariff of only >2 percent on imported cars and parts which are assembled in Japanese >plants in the U.S.? >--------------------- > >> all my vehicles have been Chrysler products, most recently a >> 300M Special and a Dodge Magnum R/T. I would dearly like my >> next vehicle to be a Chrysler but, as I've stated on this forum >> before, I'm not the least bit interested in driving a truck or >> SUV, and whilst the new 300 is OK, it's doesn't drop me to my >> knees > >Why not buy the new Challenger then? > >Last time I passed 2 or 3 car carriers full of Challengers on the 401 >heading west, they didn't look too much like trucks to me... The '74 Dodge Challenger was my first car and so the 2009 Challenger holds considerable appeal. However, I've decided my next car will be a hybrid or, better yet, plug-in hybrid. Don't get me wrong, a 5.7 or 6.1L Hemi Challenger would be an incredible ride, but I'm not convinced it's the type of car I want to be driving now or two to three years from now, given the general direction of our economy. Cheers, Paul |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> What I've been saying is that Chrysler needs to focus its attention > squarely on the North American market The whole world is entering a recession, possibly deflationary in nature. Most every sector of every economy is shedding jobs. The US auto industry has been maligned as inept and foolish, but the big-3 have done better than most mega-corporations in other sectors. How many airlines have been in and out of bankruptcy protection over the past 10 years? How many technology, energy, telecom, banks and financial services corporations have folded or have seen their share prices reduced to penny-stock value in the past 10 years? There is no correct path for any company right now. Every company is in survival mode as consumers flee the markets. Now is not the time for the big-3 to hatch long-term product planning and expensive R&D. Now is the time to reduce costs and hunker down and hope for the best. > It goes to the point I made earlier, that if you can't sell North > American cars to North American car buyers who, ... The big-3 have roughly 50% market share in the US. Saying that they "can't sell North-American cars to North American buyers" is hyperbole. > > And it's NOT like the big-3 don't have small car options to sell > > when gas hits $4. They have always had small cars with small > > engines, and they always do sell a lot of them. > > And North American car buyers have, for the most part, rejected > them. More hyperbole. > I read this morning that, in 2008, the Dodge Caliber hatchback > has sold for an average of $1,717.00 *less* than a Honda Civic. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...0/1003/RSS6004 The Caliber does sell $1,717 less then the average Civic, but that's better then the Chevy Cobalt and Ford Focus, which sell for $4,192 and $3,371 less than the Civic. However, Caliber 2008 sales (through the end of October) are less than half of Focus sales (176k Focus) with Civic volume of about 304k units. ---------------- If the Detroit Three lower their labor costs, and retool to build more compact and subcompact cars, but still have to get by on $3,000 to $4,000 per car less than what Honda takes in for each Civic, they will face a painful struggle to survive. It will take years for Ford, Chevy and Dodge to heal the damage done to their small car brands by years of second-tier quality, uninspired styling and technology, and marketing strategies that focused on filling rental-car fleets at the expense of resale values. ---------- Translation: The US Big-3 have never before relied so heavily on sales of their low-end cars as much as they do now. > Why then, even with this price premium, does the Honda Civic outsell > the Dodge Caliber by, what, I'm guessing, ten to one? Advertizing. > > Why not buy the new Challenger then? > > Don't get me wrong, a 5.7 or 6.1L Hemi Challenger would be > an incredible ride, but I'm not convinced it's the type of > car I want to be driving now or two to three years from now, You can get a Challenger with the 3.5L engine. I have no problems getting 26 - 28 MPG on the highway in my 9-year-old 300M with the 3.5L. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:59:20 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> What I've been saying is that Chrysler needs to focus its attention >> squarely on the North American market > >The whole world is entering a recession, possibly deflationary in >nature. > >Most every sector of every economy is shedding jobs. > >The US auto industry has been maligned as inept and foolish, but the >big-3 have done better than most mega-corporations in other sectors. >How many airlines have been in and out of bankruptcy protection over the >past 10 years? > >How many technology, energy, telecom, banks and financial services >corporations have folded or have seen their share prices reduced to >penny-stock value in the past 10 years? > >There is no correct path for any company right now. Every company is in >survival mode as consumers flee the markets. Now is not the time for >the big-3 to hatch long-term product planning and expensive R&D. Now is >the time to reduce costs and hunker down and hope for the best. Forgive me if this sounds flippant, but have the big-3 done much in the way of long-term product planning and expensive R&D relative to their peers? If what we have today is the result of long-term product planning, please let these folks be the first in line to receive their termination slips. >> It goes to the point I made earlier, that if you can't sell North >> American cars to North American car buyers who, ... > >The big-3 have roughly 50% market share in the US. Saying that they >"can't sell North-American cars to North American buyers" is hyperbole. Year after year, the big-3 continue to lose market share to their foreign competition and I don't see this trend reversing anytime soon. BTW, isn't calling GM, Ford and Chrysler the "big-3" somewhat hyperbolic in itself now that Toyota's sales surpass those of both Ford and Chrysler? >> > And it's NOT like the big-3 don't have small car options to sell >> > when gas hits $4. They have always had small cars with small >> > engines, and they always do sell a lot of them. >> >> And North American car buyers have, for the most part, rejected >> them. > >More hyperbole. Perhaps we measure success differently. Toyota sells 3.4 times more passenger cars than Chrysler; Honda outsells Chrysler 2.2:1 and Nissan 1.5:1. >> I read this morning that, in 2008, the Dodge Caliber hatchback >> has sold for an average of $1,717.00 *less* than a Honda Civic. > >http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...0/1003/RSS6004 > >The Caliber does sell $1,717 less then the average Civic, but that's >better then the Chevy Cobalt and Ford Focus, which sell for $4,192 and >$3,371 less than the Civic. > >However, Caliber 2008 sales (through the end of October) are less than >half of Focus sales (176k Focus) with Civic volume of about 304k units. > >---------------- >If the Detroit Three lower their labor costs, and retool to build more >compact and subcompact cars, but still have to get by on $3,000 to >$4,000 per car less than what Honda takes in for each Civic, they will >face a painful struggle to survive. > >It will take years for Ford, Chevy and Dodge to heal the damage done to >their small car brands by years of second-tier quality, uninspired >styling and technology, and marketing strategies that focused on filling >rental-car fleets at the expense of resale values. >---------- > >Translation: The US Big-3 have never before relied so heavily on sales >of their low-end cars as much as they do now. > >> Why then, even with this price premium, does the Honda Civic outsell >> the Dodge Caliber by, what, I'm guessing, ten to one? > >Advertizing. Advertising? That's it? Well the folks on Madison Ave. will be pleased to hear that. >> > Why not buy the new Challenger then? >> >> Don't get me wrong, a 5.7 or 6.1L Hemi Challenger would be >> an incredible ride, but I'm not convinced it's the type of >> car I want to be driving now or two to three years from now, > >You can get a Challenger with the 3.5L engine. > >I have no problems getting 26 - 28 MPG on the highway in my 9-year-old >300M with the 3.5L. It's not just a matter of good gas milage. If that were the case, I could choose from any number of fuel-efficient sub-compacts. I want a plug-in hybrid because that's the type of vehicle I want to drive. Cheers, Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> Forgive me if this sounds flippant, but have the big-3 done much > in the way of long-term product planning and expensive R&D relative > to their peers? The Big-3 (B3) all produce a mix of cars that satisfy a variety of consumer needs, including fuel efficient small compacts. If the buying public in the US/Canada prefers to buy a foreign vehicle of any particular class or catagory or if they would only buy a B3 vehicle only if priced substantially lower than a competing foreign model, then the reasons for this should be discussed here. Continuously stating that the B3 are losing sales to foreign (or more specifically, asian) cars because they are not making the correct mix vehicle types is flat-out wrong. > If what we have today is the result of long-term product planning, What we have today is the result of 2 decades of consumer perception that B3 cars are inferior to asian cars, combined with a tax and tariff structure that favors asian car sales in the US. > > The big-3 have roughly 50% market share in the US. Saying that > > they "can't sell North-American cars to North American buyers" > > is hyperbole. > > Year after year, the big-3 continue to lose market share to their > foreign competition and I don't see this trend reversing anytime > soon. They've lost market share because there are more foreign players with more models in the market today vs 4 years ago. And they will continue to lose market share as the US dollar appreciates vs other currencies in this current climate of economic fear (or terror). As global stock markets tank and commodity prices fall, the US dollar is (or will) be seen as the only asset to hold that will not decline in value vs anything else, hence this will put extreme pressure on all US manufacturing (not just the B3). > BTW, isn't calling GM, Ford and Chrysler the "big-3" somewhat > hyperbolic in itself now that Toyota's sales surpass those of > both Ford and Chrysler? GM, Ford and Chrysler have collectively been called "the big-3" by the north american media for years, and probably got that name when there were other US car makers still operating (like AMC). I use the term "Big 3" because it's faster to type than the names of the 3 US car makers, which we are lumping together here for the purpose of this thread. > Perhaps we measure success differently. Toyota sells 3.4 times > more passenger cars than Chrysler; Honda outsells Chrysler > 2.2:1 and Nissan 1.5:1. We know there are size differences between the various car companies. We know that Chrysler has always been the smallest of the B3, and is smaller than Toyota and probably Honda as well (in the global sense). The real issue is the change of North American market share and relative profitability between the various players. Over the past 4 years, the B3 have gone from almost 60% market share to just under 50%. I don't know who of the B3 lost more of their share. > I want a plug-in hybrid because that's the type of vehicle > I want to drive. Even the Prius is not a "plug-in" hybrid. I don't know who makes a "plug-in" hybrid. And I'll tell you that the consumer market is just beginning to build an experience base for electric power storage in cars, and it will take another 10 years before we know just how ergonomic and economical those batteries will be. Plug-in vehicles (either totally electric or hybrid) will create their own social problems, and soon, as people drive around with extension cords and try to charge-up using any exterior outlet they can find on any building, shed, or utility pole (essentially stealing power). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:59:24 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> Forgive me if this sounds flippant, but have the big-3 done much >> in the way of long-term product planning and expensive R&D relative >> to their peers? > >The Big-3 (B3) all produce a mix of cars that satisfy a variety of >consumer needs, including fuel efficient small compacts. > >If the buying public in the US/Canada prefers to buy a foreign vehicle >of any particular class or catagory or if they would only buy a B3 >vehicle only if priced substantially lower than a competing foreign >model, then the reasons for this should be discussed here. > >Continuously stating that the B3 are losing sales to foreign (or more >specifically, asian) cars because they are not making the correct mix >vehicle types is flat-out wrong. We've been walloped by high crude oil prices and now, in no small part because of this, the economy is going into a nose dive. Neither of these two events should come as any surprise. We all knew -- or should have known -- the risks of being heavily dependent upon imported oil and we've known that the marginal cost of new supplies is steadily trending upward. We also knew that many North American consumers were living well beyond their means and that sooner or later these personal debt loads would become unsustainable. This is not the type of market that favours a large portfolio of full-size luxury trucks and SUVs, and to be financially dependent upon this one segment is, quite frankly, an error in judgement of monumental proportions. In addition, there's a growing awareness of how the choices we make as consumers has a direct impact on our environment and our relations with others. Those who are genuinely concerned about global climate change, resource depletion, rampant consumerism, invading sovereign nations under the pretence of routing-out terrorism and championing world democracy when we all knew damn well the only reason was to steal their oil, view trucks and SUVs as a shining example of all that is wrong in this world. >> If what we have today is the result of long-term product planning, > >What we have today is the result of 2 decades of consumer perception >that B3 cars are inferior to asian cars, combined with a tax and tariff >structure that favors asian car sales in the US. I know many folks who won't ever consider a domestic vehicle either because of their poor past experience with the big-3 or because they've bought imports in the past and they're quite content to stick with what they know and like. That's the reality facing the big-3 and we can't simply wish it away. >> > The big-3 have roughly 50% market share in the US. Saying that >> > they "can't sell North-American cars to North American buyers" >> > is hyperbole. >> >> Year after year, the big-3 continue to lose market share to their >> foreign competition and I don't see this trend reversing anytime >> soon. > >They've lost market share because there are more foreign players with >more models in the market today vs 4 years ago. > >And they will continue to lose market share as the US dollar appreciates >vs other currencies in this current climate of economic fear (or >terror). As global stock markets tank and commodity prices fall, the US >dollar is (or will) be seen as the only asset to hold that will not >decline in value vs anything else, hence this will put extreme pressure >on all US manufacturing (not just the B3). Well, if they can't significantly trim their costs and thereby adjust to a shrinking market or, alternatively, regain some of this lost market share, their future looks particularly grim. We might as well post a "do not resuscitate" sign next to their death bed. >> BTW, isn't calling GM, Ford and Chrysler the "big-3" somewhat >> hyperbolic in itself now that Toyota's sales surpass those of >> both Ford and Chrysler? > >GM, Ford and Chrysler have collectively been called "the big-3" by the >north american media for years, and probably got that name when there >were other US car makers still operating (like AMC). > >I use the term "Big 3" because it's faster to type than the names of the >3 US car makers, which we are lumping together here for the purpose of >this thread. Fair enough. There are other examples of commonly used expressions that no longer accurately reflect current circumstances. >> Perhaps we measure success differently. Toyota sells 3.4 times >> more passenger cars than Chrysler; Honda outsells Chrysler >> 2.2:1 and Nissan 1.5:1. > >We know there are size differences between the various car companies. >We know that Chrysler has always been the smallest of the B3, and is >smaller than Toyota and probably Honda as well (in the global sense). > >The real issue is the change of North American market share and relative >profitability between the various players. Over the past 4 years, the >B3 have gone from almost 60% market share to just under 50%. I don't >know who of the B3 lost more of their share. As stated before, the big-3 have, for all intents and purposes, forfeited the passenger vehicle market, choosing, instead, to concentrate their attention on the previously more profitable light truck and SUV segment. No doubt it seemed like a reasonable strategy at the time, but being heavily dependent on a single product group is not without risk, as we can clearly see, and it does nothing to address the fundamental weaknesses that underlie this choice. >> I want a plug-in hybrid because that's the type of vehicle >> I want to drive. > >Even the Prius is not a "plug-in" hybrid. > >I don't know who makes a "plug-in" hybrid. No one as yet, but I expect that will change within the next two to three years and by that point my 2002 300M will be due for replacement. >And I'll tell you that the consumer market is just beginning to build an >experience base for electric power storage in cars, and it will take >another 10 years before we know just how ergonomic and economical those >batteries will be. > >Plug-in vehicles (either totally electric or hybrid) will create their >own social problems, and soon, as people drive around with extension >cords and try to charge-up using any exterior outlet they can find on >any building, shed, or utility pole (essentially stealing power). Well, we'll have to see how it all shakes out. For now, I'll worry about gas being siphoned from my tank. Cheers, Paul |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Nov 20, 11:35*pm, Paul M. Eldridge >
wrote: > > It's not just a matter of good gas milage. *If that were the case, I > could choose from any number of fuel-efficient sub-compacts. *I want a > plug-in hybrid because that's the type of vehicle I want to drive. > http://www.poulsenhybrid.com/index.html |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
In article >, MoPar Man >
wrote: > They've lost market share because there are more foreign players with > more models in the market today vs 4 years ago. The "foreign" manufacturers also produce a larger variety of cars. The B3 got stuck on trucks, even some of their cars look like trucks, particularly Chrysler's. > > And they will continue to lose market share as the US dollar appreciates > vs other currencies in this current climate of economic fear (or > terror). As global stock markets tank and commodity prices fall, the US > dollar is (or will) be seen as the only asset to hold that will not > decline in value vs anything else, hence this will put extreme pressure > on all US manufacturing (not just the B3). The USA dollar appreciation is temporary, it will drop next year. > And I'll tell you that the consumer market is just beginning to build an > experience base for electric power storage in cars, and it will take > another 10 years before we know just how ergonomic and economical those > batteries will be. I know the Toyota Prius battery lasts the 8 year guarantee period, based on a friend who has a 2000 Prius still going strong. > Plug-in vehicles (either totally electric or hybrid) will create their > own social problems, and soon, as people drive around with extension > cords and try to charge-up using any exterior outlet they can find on > any building, shed, or utility pole (essentially stealing power). The big problem will be supplying the huge amount of electricity. Big expansion of electric generating capacity will be needed. Solar cells on the roofs of plug in electric vehicles would help. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
In article
>, Jalapeno > wrote: > On Nov 20, 11:35*pm, Paul M. Eldridge > > wrote: > > > > It's not just a matter of good gas milage. *If that were the case, I > > could choose from any number of fuel-efficient sub-compacts. *I want a > > plug-in hybrid because that's the type of vehicle I want to drive. > > > > > http://www.poulsenhybrid.com/index.html > Changing the way you Commute to help the Environment > > A PHEV with an electric range of only 15-25 miles can take care of the daily > commute for maybe 70% of American drivers. This figure could be even higher > if charging stands were to be provided in company parking lots. Commuting, > often at moderate speeds in grid-locked traffic jams does not provide a lot > of excitement but could benefit immensely from the elimination of exhaust > gases. That's a pretty wimpy distance. I'd need another car for a good percentage of my urban trips. Much more work is needed on the distance. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
Some O wrote:
> > They've lost market share because there are more foreign players > > with more models in the market today vs 4 years ago. > The "foreign" manufacturers also produce a larger variety of cars. That may be. I don't know. It may be that simply changing some exterior trim on a Civic turns it into a different model. > The B3 got stuck on trucks, even some of their cars look like trucks, > particularly Chrysler's. Blame Chrysler's current vehicle offerings on Germans working for Daimler. They had their own agenda, which was to treat Chrysler as a low-end sister division to Mercedes, and to design Chrysler vehicles with as much Mercedes parts content as possible. That meant lots of 4-wheel drive, and raising the car up to accomodate the extra parts for 4-wd. What you get is more truckish looking cars - and more heavy. The Pacifica was a good example of lots of effort and cost invested into a vehicle the market did not embrace. The Crossfire is another. Look at Chrysler's concept for what the 300m was going to evolve into. The Hemi 300N concept was shown at the Detroit auto show in January 2000, and was never seen in public again, because by then it was already under control of Daimler. Back during 2003 - 2005, Dodge/Chrysler dealers were screaming for new or different models. Everything that was on the drawing board in 1999 - 2001 was scrapped by Daimler. You're not going to get a low-cost compact car when you're using expensive E-class parts imported from Germany. > > And they will continue to lose market share as the US dollar > > appreciates vs other currencies in this current climate of > > economic fear (or terror). > The USA dollar appreciation is temporary, it will drop next year. If it does, then something else will have to go up. What will it be? The yen? The Euro? Gold? Oil? Potash? > I know the Toyota Prius battery lasts the 8 year guarantee period, > based on a friend who has a 2000 Prius still going strong. Many people really don't know how a hybrid car works or how the batteries are used. The battery system in a hybrid is designed pretty much only to capture energy wasted during braking or coasting to a stop, which is encountered mainly in city driving and especially for taxis. Constant speed operation, long-distance commuting with few stops is not a good use of a hybrid. Here's mo NiMH batteries used in hybrids are not used as if they were a tank of gas, where you can charge them to 100% and then run them down to close to zero. The battery control computer in the Prius likes to keep the batteries at around 60% charge, and only let the battery level vary around 10 to 15%. So the battey is rarely more than 75% or less then 45% charged. What is displayed on the dashboard screen in the Prius is not be the true charge state of the battery, but is scaled based on the 75% / 45% charge targets. This pattern results in the LONGEST LASTING battery life. Also note that if a hybrid battery starts to fail or lose capacity in a hybrid, it will resort to using it's gasoline engine more and more as the battery loses capacity. This will be gradual, and hard for the driver / owner to notice. For a pure electric vehicle, a failing battery system can't be tolerated, and a reduction in the distance between charges will be quickly noticed by the driver. > The big problem will be supplying the huge amount of > electricity. Big expansion of electric generating > capacity will be needed. Solar cells on the roofs > of plug in electric vehicles would help. Actually - no. If we're talking about a mass adoption of gas-electric hybrids, then we're not looking at much, or any, additional load to the electricity grid. Remember that the Prius does not (from the factory) have the ability to be plug-in charged. There is no need, because it's battery system is not large enough, nor designed, to be the main energy source for the vehicle. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
> True, not a whole lot better, but compared to their North American > counterparts, perhaps as good as can be expected. As of October 31st, > the score card, year-to-date, is as follows: > > GM - down 20.4% > Ford - down 18.6% > Chrysler - down 25.9% > Toyota - down 11.5% > Honda - down 3.2% > Nissan - down 6.2% > Volkswagen - down 1.8% > Mitsubishi - down 23.9% > Mazda - down 7.5% > Hyundai - down 7.8% > BMW - down 4.8% > Daimler AG - up 4.7% > Subaru - up 2.1% > Kai - down 5.3% Sometimes it's not accurate to compare report figures. Different manufactures are involved in differing market sectors. Subaru has a very limited market. If you compare them against direct competitors of other manufactures Subaru didn't do so well. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast | No UAW Welfare | Driving | 20 | November 17th 08 09:34 PM |
WWSD What would Sarah Palin Do? Bailout Plan | Angelocracy | Driving | 9 | September 28th 08 04:11 AM |
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve | Jim Higgins | Chrysler | 24 | September 20th 08 02:25 PM |