Hopefully the Tesla can use some currently vacant US operating systems. I do not know the Aptera. I have ridden in the Phoenix truck, and I was quite happy with that. I’m easy to please if the vehicle handles well, has a good turning radius, can get me into and out of freeway traffic safely, doesn’t stink or burn my throat and eyes with the exhaust, is easy to refuel, is crash reliable, etc.

The electric vehicles seem to use speed governors at the upper speed ranges, not for protection from stupidity, but to extend range. The faster one drives, the faster one burns watts/volts.

People want action not the same hot air we get from all the politicians. If they want to regain a foothold – offer as good a car as we can make (which BETTER be as good if not better than our competitors) at a reasonable price.

But if you are 3 or 4 years behind all the , you’ll never catch up.

Bob

Increase Gas Mileage-Use Water 4 Fuel

GM prefers to waste precious gasoline on non-aerodynamic ‘muscular styling’ and race car engines for (adrenaline) drug addicts who love to drive (often drunk) dangerously fast on public roads. Putting governors on cars and trucks preventing speeds above 80 mph and telephone software prohibiting calls or texting while vehicles are in motion are ideas anathema to an industry more self-absorbed than intelligent. Manufacturing inertia will keep GM from ditching old technologies as ‘sunk costs’ until it slips beneath the waves of time, thankfully not too far off now.

My guess is that if GM had not asleep at the switch, a Volt could have been in production about now. The first production extended range EV from Friskar (with Quantum drive) will be at the Detroit Auto Show. The range, speed and power of this car is supposed to be more than the Volt, with speeds close to the Tesla.

These new products and technologies are interesting. It looks like GM has made some bad missteps. I hope these mistakes can become objective lessons for the future and the auto industry in the USA can recover. I wish I could afford the first Fiskars, or Teslas, both cars are hunky, sporty, beauties. Maybe I will have enough for the planned family cars, a few years in the future.

If GM were serious, it would first admit that past Electric cars, such as the EV1, RAV4-EV and HondaEV, were successful and worked well, were beloved by their drivers, and didn’t have any problem with “RANGE” or “RECHARGE”. In fact, there were no problems with the EV1 or any other Electric car except the fact that the Auto Alliance members were unwilling to sell them to willing buyers.

Secondly, IF GM were serious and the VOLT were not a HOAX, GM would look to past experience: instead of waiting for the perfect battery, past EVs were started with the batteries that existed, and later upgraded to better batteries.

The EV1 — The original team, including Alan Cocconi, used lead-acid battteries, later upgraded to NiMH. For years, until 1999, former GM employees who created the T-zero and sold the technology to Tesla insisted on using lead-acid batteries. Issue it first with lead, then upgrade.

RAV4-EV and HondaEV: the first versions had lead-acid batteries, later upgraded to NiMH and then improved.

S10E: This Chevy electric truck first came out using lead, then was upgraded to NiMH.

RangerEV: Ford’s electric pickup came out using lead, then upgraded to NiMH.

If the VOLT were not a HOAX, GM would issue it with LEAD batteries, which is all you need for 100 miles all-electric range, and which are very cheap (as proven by the 1997 and 1999 lead-version EV1, which got over 100 miles range on the PSB EV-EC 1260 lead-acid battery).

But the VOLT, is a HOAX, for these exact reasons. GM is supposedly waiting for a battery that does not exist; they are just delaying until the price of gas comes down.

- 1992: GM unveils the Ultralite, an 80 mpg 4 seat family car. Used only as greenwash.

- 2000: GM unveils the Precept, an 80 mpg 5 seat family car. Since they are overpromoting SUVS, minivans, and Hummers, GM asks the DoE to kill the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle program. The Bush adminstration obliges.

- 1990-2008: The automative industry invests $131,095,296 in lobbying and campaign contributions to buy influence. The same amount of money could have paid for 50 engineers working full time for that same 18 year timespan.

The marketing idea is to keep GM in the spotlight but at the same time lower expectations to deliver on promises. Risky game if you ask me but at the same time you want excitement about your new products but you don’t want to be put in a box.

Here’s another problem, that is forward thinking and its not just GM that suffers with this but even Toyota trying to capture almost every market that the domestics have enjoyed in the past. The mindset is awful car companies love to talk about being green but push the larger less fuel efficient vehicles when they see a opening. Don’t believe me, even in a weak economy the car companies in the last few weeks with lower gasoline prices have been pushing more trucks and Suv’s in ads w/c they did rarely when gas prices where high in late spring-summer. That may not work if consumers can’t get credit to buy those vehicles. Also when it comes to regulations or mandates they kick and scream about offering newer greener vehicles, even if the regulations are not fully mandated for another 20 some years. This may change in the near future but I see car companies still fixated on those larger more profitable standard vehicles and gimmicks like E85, which does very little in the long run for fuel efficiency, land issues, and environmental issues.

Cash problems, labor issues, consumer demands all add up and we should look at what GM does in the next 5-7 years before casting them off.