# All-Electric Cars Are Now In Sight



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

It may be just me, but it sounds like his paycheck comes from Mr. Big Oil.

"The electric cars of the past could not go very far", crap.

Even the EV1 on LA batteries was capable of 90+ miles per charge.
With the, now Chevron controlled, NiMh batteries the range was over 100.

"They are more costly to produce" (EVs), also crap.

If you are building a car from scratch, that has no engineering need for an ICE and ALL of the accompaning parts, the cost has to be a lot less.

The mounting of batteries, motor and control items can be designed in at a less cost.

Granted the batteries can be a high ticket item, but will not push a well designed EV over the $35,000.00 mark.

Gm could produce a car similar to the EV1, with the newer controls and batteries and sell the hell out of them, as daily commuters.

THEN they could build larger, more fuel efficient, gas cars that the public could use for the longer trips, larger familiy, vacations. etc. 

Plus SUVs for the ones that can afford the gas and NEED one.

That would keep their dealerships in the repair business and make them even more money.

GM needs to get someone's head out of their butt and move up to this challenge....


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Hmmm... It sounded like a pretty positive article to me. I do however find it amusing that the fed is giving the auto industry $30 million over the next 3 years for development. That's 10 million per each of the big three. That's only about 3 million per year. GM already spends about 9 billion per year on new product development and Toyota spends more than 15 billion for the same thing. What the heck is an extra 3 million supposed to do? That's chump change.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Wonder how restrictive the use of that money will be...

Spend it on PR or actual research.....?


----------



## mark (Nov 14, 2007)

When you said chump change I believe that's what "they" (most in congress) consider a person or corporation who would promote electric vehicles, a chump, whose interest would it serve to promote or even more absurdly mandate such a thing,? Where is the money to be made and who could they collect it from" Certainly not through a gasoline tax. If the electric vehicle industry took off it would in effect cripple if not decimate the existing business/tax platform enjoyed by auto makers and the federal government alike, why would they allow a change? These so called elected representatives of the people by the people, obviously through their inaction have failed miserably to promote and enact legislation that would revolutionalize the transportation industry as we know it. Infrastructures and transportation industry platforms must and will change, these corporate puppets know this they are not stupid people. Their actions and inactions have shown them to have been serving a different master and he or should I say they are not you and I. As for batteries I am waiting for A123 systems to provide a $5,000 battery not $10,000 to replace my current nine 8volt Enegizer golf cart batteries which provide a paltry 15 miles of range. I'll probably be waiting in vain to collect my social security benefits by the time that reality is recognized. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

I hope you're wrong about both the time required for A123 to start delivering affordable batteries and the future gloomy of social security Mark. However, many of us know that the US is facing some economic hard times. The question is whether the hard times will be a nasty recession, or another great depression. 

I didn't mean to suggest that Congress didn't know that a few million would basically do nothing. I was just pointing out that it truly was a drop in the bucket.


----------

