Also, good job in making Americans look like ignorant and delusional jingoists.

Ford and GM, like many other international businesses of the time, collaborated with the Nazis during the war. There was even a class action lawsuit filed against Ford and GM for the slave-labor they used in their German factories. So don’t think they helped the American war effort out of some selfless altruism–they were just interested in making money, and they profited greatly from doing business both with the Allies and the Axis governments.

Mitsubishi was equally interested in profit as GM and Ford. They could care less what their planes were being used for. Even still, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed far fewer Americans (and even fewer civilians) than did GM and Ford’s disregard for vehicle safety prior to the 1970s. In fact, GM and Ford demonstrated that they would rather slander and extort consumer rights activists than fix safety problems in their cars. Oh, and repayment of the bailout? Maybe you should do a little more research on that one…

In fact, while you’re at it, maybe you want to research into who invented the internal combustion engine that gave birth to companies like Ford and GM in the first place. And, hopefully neither you nor anyone you care about will ever be involved in a serious car accident, but should that happen, you can thank Volvo for improving occupant survival rates by 50% by inventing the 3-point seat-belt.

Your xenophobia is even more ridiculous given that companies like Toyota and Honda make a ton of their cars in the U.S., helping to employ Americans while Ford and GM have been exporting jobs and investing the bailout money overseas. In fact, Honda manufactured more cars in the U.S. this year than in Japan.

Blind nationalism makes no sense in today’s global economy. Every single American auto maker has used parts manufactured by Japanese or European auto makers, just as many Japanese models were designed in cooperation with American auto makers. This technology exchange benefits both sides, which is why successful multinational corporations do not care about national borders when it comes to business.

The reason the series configuration makes sense for some trains is the need to drive multiple axles from a single large diesel, to provide the necessary traction with steel on steel. The mechanical alternative would be much more expensive. For a train, fuel consumption is not the critical issue.

Take a look at the DuoDrive taxi, which is a series hybrid plus direct drive. Why would they bother adding direct drive if it didn’t improve cruising fuel consumption? And why will GM add direct drive to the Volt?

My progression was meant as a progression of ICE to EV in degrees. I do not think there is one “end game” way to power a vehicle. I do think over the next 20 years pure ICE personal vehicles will decline to a small percentage of the market. I hope and wish for pure EVs to be the dominant vehicle over the next 30 years, but I do not think that will happen. To have almost all pure EVs on the road the battery technology needs to improve beyond what I think we can archive, ever. FCVs may well be a great solution, but it does have many problems. H2 is hard to hold and is a potent greenhouse gas when it escapes. Making H2 is very energy intensive. I admit I have not looked at the data, but I bet it takes more energy to get H2 ready as a fuel compared to even something as bad as corn.

I hope none of us live to see the “end game” for fueling vehicles, because that means we have lived to see the end of civilization.