If a full page color ad saying thank you to Americans brings some people into Chrysler showrooms then maybe this is money well spent.

If I own stock in Coke I will not purchase Pepsi at the super market!

Sure there’s a market, just a very small one. I’m glad you’re coming around.

-

I’d agree if there were an MBA saying it.

Don’t be so modest. You obfuscate with the best of them.
-

The amount of portable electic power relative to weight of the storage medium has improved nicely over the past 20 years, just not impressively compared to digital tech.

Not really. Lithium’s been around for while. Hell fuel cells have been around forever. There’s not much else on the horizon. We’re stuck unless something magical happens. Improving something with volt’s size/cost to 50mi from 40mi is not a game changer.

-

Between my wife and I, one car could be electric and one ICE, and all of our private mobility needs would be met. There are a lot of couples in that position.

I’m sure if this is an authoritarian country, people can make do with electrics when mandated. But the reality is people have to choose to buy them, and those numbers are very low for the cost and drawbacks they possess.

-
Early electric car adoption will be emotionally-driven, which will break down inhibitors holding back some others.

Again, sure. But number of people willing to drop 30-40 large at least on something objectively inferior is not exactly plentiful. The user experience when they’re stuck on the side of the road will ensure it.

-
This is the classic engineer objection that just won’t matter to people who want an electric car for other reasons.

I’m perfectly aware people often make “dumb” purchasing decisions. Otherwise why would so many keep buying domestics all these years? :-) The reality remains that it’s a niche for people with money to throw around. With better marketing, maybe you get a couple more percent to spend it here, or make it a halo or whatever, but the fundamental issues will keep it from being anything more than a side show.

Where are your numbers. I can see ~4% US only in 2001, and around 8% in in 2008. They were 8.3 last quarter. 2% numbers are worldwide.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/214083.html

While I did give more examples than Apple, that company is the one you latched onto. Apple turned itself from a boutique shop into a mainstream brand that now generates more revenue than car companies used to. It is an illustration of how a company written off can reclaim its position and then grow further with strong leadership-driven execution.

Apple is perfect example of why your thinking is skewed. In the mid 90’s they had >10% WORLDWIDE market share, when they were quite mainstream with education and some business.

Now, they are a home fashion accessory. Luxury designer labels did pretty well in the same period, too. I’m sure sure you can just substitute LVMH or similar for Apple in your fluff pieces above.

Somehow you still like to bring this as an example for the D3, don’t see why a fashion house is not the same as a full line auto maker.
-

There was a time when Asian cars were not reliable, but their business practices in rectifying problems won them forgiveness.

Yes, they business practice was to make far more reliable cars.

-

I and others have pointed out that part of the market wants such a car and can live within its limits.

Yeah, whatever. You must one of the EV-1 conspiracists, too.

I’m willing to put some $ where my mouth is on volt sales numbers if you are. Easy cash I’d say. Even easier if anyone were stupid enough to release a pure electric car.
-

What I informally described is not what “every manufacturer does.” Many have no idea how to sequence these initiatives to achieve a turn-around from dire circumstances.

Who might these manufacturers be? And I presume your brilliant insight on the obvious will lead them around. I guess taking credit is an mba’s strong suit.

-

Detroit’s challenge is to rebuild a demand-driven business, which they once had, and recently enjoyed in trucks and SUVs. The competitive advantage is in design and ability to deliver accessible luxury in mainstream vehicles, along with world-class technology integration.

So their advantage is in something they’re at a strong disadvantage in right now. Great.

BTW, I’m still waiting on your segment growth estimates. Or I take it you agree with mine.

An insufficiency in energy density relative to what *you* want to see isn’t a flaw, it’s just a trait. Batteries work well if regulated, they just don’t offer enough to replace a gasoline powered car in like utility. So what? There’s a market for what a contemporary electric drive car can do, whether it’s driven by batteries, or a charging engine.

Some mba saying it does not make it so.

I’d agree if there were an MBA saying it.

The known chemistries are a dead end. What improvments do you see? 20% maybe?. This is why hydrogen is brought up, but that’s still pie in the sky within our lifetimes.

In computing we’ve grown accustomed to dramatic gains, but outside the digital realm, 20% improvements are still quite meaningful. The amount of portable electic power relative to weight of the storage medium has improved nicely over the past 20 years, just not impressively compared to digital tech. Hydrogen is just another battery in this scheme and I don’t see it going mainstream anytime soon. But we’ve finally gotten to the point where Lithium batteries are compact, light and powerful enough to nudge electric cars over a threshhold of acceptability for substantial numbers of people, and we’re going to get them as serial hybrids, plug-in hybrids and pure battery cars for reasons other than strict adherence to current perceptions of automotive utility.

I drive less than the average american, and just off the top of my head can list a handful of situations where I’d be stuck on the side of the road in an electric, as I’m sure most people.

Likewise in my case. Yet there are scores of people in my network who have or will buy an electic-drive car for secondary uses or their commute is short enough that none of these worries materialize. Between my wife and I, one car could be electric and one ICE, and all of our private mobility needs would be met. There are a lot of couples in that position.

As I’ve said, people choose to buy more imports over domestics over differences that are relatively small compared to ICE vs electric.

The early adoption of electric cars will be driven by different criteria than the small differences that pollute the selection process for commodity ICE vehicles. Early electric car adoption will be emotionally-driven, which will break down inhibitors holding back some others.

All you’re doing is adding a separate electric drive to make an overall worse car. Look at the packaging implications. These car have to be small, and lightweight (ie. less safe). The average camcord size is not going to work as an economic compromise. Two drive trains are more problem prone.

This is the classic engineer objection that just won’t matter to people who want an electric car for other reasons. There are in cities a lot of people who want to give up the noise and local emissions of a gasoline car. They want to stop supporting oil producers. They have real or imagined Green concerns. Their social affinity and political stature will rise. They’re going to overlook everything you cite.

Electric drive doesn’t have to immediately reach Camry + Malibu + Accord + Fusion sales to be a succes. “Mass consumer” isn’t what it used to be in our auto market.

Phil

BTW, your confusion and mixing between the two sets of figures is likely why you thought they quadrupled market share.

Nope. I cited like for like. Apple engineered a nearly 4X increase in US market share 2001 – 2008.

Spoken like a true MBA. No wonder you can’t see why the D3 is in such deep trouble, because you have the same mindset as their leadership.

And why are you still talking about Apple as if a full line auto company can turn itself into a boutique fashion house?

No, not an MBA. But I have actually *proven* what I say in my own life.

While I did give more examples than Apple, that company is the one you latched onto. Apple turned itself from a boutique shop into a mainstream brand that now generates more revenue than car companies used to. It is an illustration of how a company written off can reclaim its position and then grow further with strong leadership-driven execution.

You can’t seriously expect people to believe this given the history of products from the respective camps.

I don’t really care whether *you* believe it. But practices set back the D3 even more than product missteps. There was a time when Asian cars were not reliable, but their business practices in rectifying problems won them forgiveness. I think you just don’t understand business.

If you want details, I don’t foresee any growth in the GM lineup. Their small lineup, which has the most potential in the industry in general, is terrible. Ford has a decent changeup with the KA, and the new Focus (which can at least hold sales like the better transplants). SUV’s and more expensive CUV are going down the drain along with profits. The worst cuts (~50% or more) are coming from these types. Family cars will trend with the general industry, and neither ford nor GM have standouts. The best they can hope for is not drop below H & T’s change numbers, but given longer term consumer thinking, reliability is going to be a major factor which the d3 can’t match.

Your repeated claim to already know this and subsequent dropping the topic is why there doesn’t need to be further discussion.

What’s there to talk about? You dismiss electric cars because of battery limits and I and others have pointed out that part of the market wants such a car and can live within its limits. Well, your view is moot. Electric cars will be in the mix for those who want them. And they *will* improve, and some will buy them for reasons that you deem irrational.

Your whole “plan” is just what every manufacturer does as course of business. Where is the difference? The history of the d3 is stifled by the lack any competitive advantage except they’re the home team. Where is it now? How does it necessarily lead to 3?

You presume that nothing will change. What I informally described is not what “every manufacturer does.” Many have no idea how to sequence these initiatives to achieve a turn-around from dire circumstances. Detroit’s first problem is managerial: how to unlock the engineering and design talent within. Its second problem is economic: how to wrestle down the cost of direct car-making and attendant economics (health care, regulatory) in the US. The second problem is susceptible to remedy if the first problem solved begins to change consumer perception, preference and moves cars. Detroit’s challenge is to rebuild a demand-driven business, which they once had, and recently enjoyed in trucks and SUVs. The competitive advantage is in design and ability to deliver accessible luxury in mainstream vehicles, along with world-class technology integration. These attributes just have to make their way through the currently thick layer of financial management. $100B or more attached to teams that can drive radical change and focus creative output would prove cheap.

Phil

Electrics use batteries for the foreseeable future. Therefore they are flawed unless you go invent something to circumvent that.

I anticipate a game from you dance around what flawed and tech mean.
-

It’s the battery chemistry that hits limits, but the rate of improvement has increased somewhat.

Some mba saying it does not make it so. The known chemistries are a dead end. What improvments do you see? 20% maybe?. This is why hydrogen is brought up, but that’s still pie in the sky within our lifetimes.

-

Electric cars will be in the mix because people want them.

Some people say they want them due to the current trend of greenwashing. That’s only because they don’t comprehend the substantive drawbacks. Every single person I’ve fully explained the implications to has now nixed it.

Take simple examples like forgetting something at home or minor emergency after arriving at work. You won’t necessarily be able to make a trip back. Change of plans after work because some friends want to go out? Cross that out. Just driving to a city slightly further away? (and back?). No. Depending on someone else to upgrade your charging infrastructure? Sorry.

I drive less than the average american, and just off the top of my head can list a handful of situations where I’d be stuck on the side of the road in an electric, as I’m sure most people.

This is the common case.

-
and they will learn to accept performance and range differences from gasoline so long as the basic needs are covered.

That must be why cars don’t get slightly better every year. Oh wait.

As I’ve said, people choose to buy more imports over domestics over differences that are relatively small compared to ICE vs electric.

The only thing needed for this to work out is magical thinking and total suspension of disbelief.

-

Yeah, engineers look at it as inelegant because something in the equation is “dead weight” under one condition or another. But it doesn’t matter.

All you’re doing is adding a separate electric drive to make an overall worse car. Look at the packaging implications. These car have to be small, and lightweight (ie. less safe). The average camcord size is not going to work as an economic compromise. Two drive trains are more problem prone.

Sure a few people might justify it, but I don’t see people putting solar panels on their house “just because”.

Money and cost are sensitive matters for a mass consumer product. So are packaging and convenience and reliability.

The Gartner figures are selective US ones. Global share matters more in the OS context anyway.

BTW, your confusion and mixing between the two sets of figures is likely why you thought they quadrupled market share.
-

But that doesn’t mean no PC vendors are innovators. The iPod brought no new base technology to digital music players, nor did the iPhone to phones. But they were masterful innovations in integration.

Clever diversion from the topic. Those are quite different from their reference design PCs.
-

Marketing and business execution overwhelm the contribution of tech, in driving value. That’s reality.

Spoken like a true MBA. No wonder you can’t see why the D3 is in such deep trouble, because you have the same mindset as their leadership.

And why are you still talking about Apple as if a full line auto company can turn itself into a boutique fashion house?
-

A growth strategy resulting from a turnaround effort involves more than product. In fact product is less of it than business execution.

You can’t seriously expect people to believe this given the history of products from the respective camps. Between just making stuff and straight obfuscation, I can’t decide your worse vice.
-

This is not a serious question. Turn it around: Show everyone why growth is not possible for the D3. Which cars will sell less, by how much, and why.

It’s an absolutely serious question. Unless you can show where growth can be achieved, they’re just words.

BTW, I hope the business plan they’re required to submit for the loans are better than the BS you’re trying to pass off here as anything meaningful.

If you want details, I don’t foresee any growth in the GM lineup. Their small lineup, which has the most potential in the industry in general, is terrible. Ford has a decent changeup with the KA, and the new Focus (which can at least hold sales like the better transplants). SUV’s and more expensive CUV are going down the drain along with profits. The worst cuts (~50% or more) are coming from these types. Family cars will trend with the general industry, and neither ford nor GM have standouts. The best they can hope for is not drop below H & T’s change numbers, but given longer term consumer thinking, reliability is going to be a major factor which the d3 can’t match.

Chrysler is about dead anyway, they have nothing in the pipe except for the last minute deal with Fiat. The 500 has potential, but it’s niche, and the rest of italian lineup is hardly better than the d3 par for course.

Your turn. Don’t dodge like you usually do.

-
Outside of a brief recitation of energy storage density limits in batteries which *everyone* here already knows, your posts are so far tech-free.

Your repeated claim to already know this and subsequent dropping the topic is why there doesn’t need to be further discussion.

But nobody knows what you’re talking about, because you’re just throwing out meaningless claims. Save the BS for your clients.
-

OK, your business education is from South Park? I can see why your view of what’s possible is constrained.

You can take jokes seriously if that’s your thing, like south park, or the D3.

Your whole “plan” is just what every manufacturer does as course of business. Where is the difference? The history of the d3 is stifled by the lack any competitive advantage except they’re the home team. Where is it now? How does it necessarily lead to 3?

Well, actually, no. The “tech” associated with electric cars isn’t flawed. It’s the battery chemistry that hits limits, but the rate of improvement has increased somewhat. Motor tech is very well developed, and the electric car allows a creative rethinking of how cars should be built.

Electric cars will be among volume vehicles in the automotive market, and tech or economics will not be the primary drivers. Electric cars will be in the mix because people want them. They want to quiet, the smooth operation, the usable torque, and they will learn to accept performance and range differences from gasoline so long as the basic needs are covered.

One has to love gasoline. I certainly do. It’s energy density is a gift to human mobility. But an increasing number of people will want to abandon it, or curtail their consumption for a variety of non-technical reasons, ranging from environmental to political to economic. For requirements met by 80, 100, 120, 150 miles of daily driving below 60 mph, lots of people will sign up for a quiet, locally-clean car that meets that need. Second cars and primaries for people of limited transit requirements.

For others who need range, a serial hybrid is the best way to implement a dual power solution. Optimize a small hydrocarbon engine or fuel cell for electricity generation and drive via electric motor(s) all the time. Yeah, engineers look at it as inelegant because something in the equation is “dead weight” under one condition or another. But it doesn’t matter. For the person who isn’t performance oriented, it will use less fuel and give them substantial electric-only range.

It’s not the only product GM needs, but it’s on point.

Phil

People don’t buy cars for their minimal requirements. Otherwise 2 passenger vehicles would be much more popular.

It doesn’t matter what you think they can get away with. Sales will be relatively poor, which is the bottom line.
.

building sports cars and motorcycles is a stupid idea, and no one has grown making such things. Oooookaaaayyyy.

You should find out what a niche market means.
.

By working on hybrids, companies are also learning about electric propulsion. They are in a better position to make pure electrics, if they should choose to do so.

You can’t seem to comprehend that they’d avoiding electric cars not because they can’t figure out how to make a motor, but because the tech is fundamentally flawed. See above posts, even Phil gave up on that one.
.

[Apple and vw]. Neither are the D3.

You should tell Phil that.

Quite. Gartner’s data agrees with multiple sources and differences among them are small. For some reason you have trouble accepting anything that Apple accomplished after 2005. The figures I gave you are US market share figures. The global number is smaller and closer to what you imply you believe their market share to be.

All apple does is put same hw in a nice case. Then they made a simple, limited UI different enough so users paying twice as much for a less functional computer can justify themselves. It’s the H2 and its ilk to a T.

Personal computers have become commodities that are themselves supersets of commodity components. The entire PC industry is in the same boat. Pure technical innovation on the hardware side is in chips, to some extent in base storage, and in displays (lcd, led-lcd, oled, etc.). But that doesn’t mean no PC vendors are innovators. The iPod brought no new base technology to digital music players, nor did the iPhone to phones. But they were masterful innovations in integration. Innovation comes in many forms. It’s usually hard for engineers to swallow, but reality is that what you call “tech” generally drives only the first 10 – 20% of value accumulated by a company. Marketing and business execution overwhelm the contribution of tech, in driving value. That’s reality.

It doesn’t work as primary car except for maybe 1% of the population. You should look up the ev-1’s lease selection criteria.

Anything’ll work as a second car. You can use a bicycle, a corvette, a riding mower. It doesn’t matter, it’s a toy.

Second cars are more than toys. They have to provide real transportation. Third cars might be toys, but it depends on the size of the household. It just doesn’t matter. Electric drive is going to gain market share, whether serial hybrid, battery-only, fuel cell. There are technical, environmental, social and economic trends that assure it. The auto enthusiast perspective is held only by a small minority.

Show everyone how growth is possible for them. Which cars will sell more, by how much, and why.

This is not a serious question. Turn it around: Show everyone why growth is not possible for the D3. Which cars will sell less, by how much, and why. Neither question can be answered by anything other than an opinion outside the context of an execution plan. A growth strategy resulting from a turnaround effort involves more than product. In fact product is less of it than business execution. Put another way, more effective business execution can drive more sales of existing products regardless of what you think of them. And in today’s market, macro inhibitors like credit availability, removing uncertainty about the near-term survival of the D3, and stopping the fall in employment confidence and employment itself all have to be resolved. At a product level, an extended growth strategy will be driven by products that aren’t yet in the market.

And yet, you’ve stopped replying to the tech portions of my posts. Repetitive cliches do not count.

There haven’t really been any “tech portions” of your posts. Outside of a brief recitation of energy storage density limits in batteries which *everyone* here already knows, your posts are so far tech-free.

This is really just fitting. This isn’t a pep talk. There was nothing substantive in your entire post.* The gnomes sum them up:

OK, your business education is from South Park? I can see why your view of what’s possible is constrained.

The “#2″ is, use the time bought by bridge financing to complete development and productization of next-gen or next-iteration technologies appropriate to market, regulatory and environmental mandates. For both GM and Ford this means proliferating hybrid drivetrains throughout their lines, continue efficiency gains in ICE, and accelerate delivery of meaningful alt-power options. Volt is one. It might also mean expanding production of existing motive options like GM’s 2.0L Turbo and NA Ecotec and pushing them into the availability options in more lines. Use bailout leverage to revamp UAW contracts to a more sustainable footing. Preferably, use bailout leverage to change the composition of Boards, in turn addressing deficient executive management. Retool more factories for green and flexible production, and more consistent build quality. Put finance in its proper place in management. Integrate the interests and collaboration of engineering and marketing. Revive marketing as a core skill in the D3 (long lost, once superb; can be again). Use the next few years to reshape and improve public perceptions of the relevant brands. Use offensive tools like warranties, depreciation mitigation, test drive loan programs to shift consideration and demand. Continuously improve product already in production and move forward with a surge in competitive new product releases. It has to be a multi-layered attack with near-term tactics and long term strategic revisions.

Profit! Growth!

Perform at current market share or *slightly* below. Defend turf. Growth over profit initially, then profitable growth. Growth is the immediate imperative.

Phil

Um, yes it is. I know my driving habits, and I know what will work for me. The functionality needed is actually much less than people think, because they don’t factor the average case, they factor the unusual case.

It’s a fundamentally limited niche much like a corvette, or motorcycle. Sure it’ll work as a second car, and might even attract a cult following, but no one is advocating that as a foundation for growth because it’s a stupid idea.

OK, If I understand you correctly, building sports cars and motorcycles is a stupid idea, and no one has grown making such things. Oooookaaaayyyy.

The hybrid you refer to is fundamentally dependent on the ICE. An electric assist (and recovery) does not make an electric car.

But BTs and motors do. That’s the point. By working on hybrids, companies are also learning about electric propulsion. They are in a better position to make pure electrics, if they should choose to do so.

1. VW is not apple. They are supported by a large market in the fatherland where they can sustain the cost of a real lineup (instead of a fancy recase, eg. tahoe -> H2 / camry -> e300, like apple).

Neither are the D3. Between them they have almost half of the 2nd largest market in the world. Much larger than the market in the Fatherland.

No it is not. For electric cars, all’s well unless you need that functionality, which is more often than most people think because they only factor in the average case. Then you’ll curse yourself for buying a much less flexible car for more $. Why do you think the Volt has an ICE?

It’s a fundamentally limited niche much like a corvette, or motorcycle. Sure it’ll work as a second car, and might even attract a cult following, but no one is advocating that as a foundation for growth because it’s a stupid idea.

Plus it’s relevance to detroit is minimal since the transplants will assume their usual position of creating a somewhat more desirable vehicle.
.

A hybrid of course is not a pure electric, but the technology is there.

The hybrid you refer to is fundamentally dependent on the ICE. An electric assist (and recovery) does not make an electric car.

Re: the argument about market share/apple/growth. You seem to acknowledge that Apple has at least 4% of the market. VW has 2% of the American market. Do you council VW to adopt a holding strategy ? Given their numbers, is it inevitable that they can never grow their share in the US?

1. VW is not apple. They are supported by a large market in the fatherland where they can sustain the cost of a real lineup (instead of a fancy recase, eg. tahoe -> H2 / camry -> e300, like apple).

2. If the methodology by which they create their customer base is through hype and lifestyle, then no.

Sure, similar data for that report all lead to Gardner, which gets referenced everywhere. You should know how these PR “analyst” firms work.
.

The initial example, Apple, is not selling mere fashion products. Hummer is also not an illustration of a corporate turnaround….Apple is a master packager, which is an engineering challenge all by itself, and an elegant hardware integrator. On the software side, they have proliferated leading implementation of high-abstraction applications and UI, along with a resilient OS. You may see it as “simplistic” but its purposeful simplicity is elegant, market-expanding and elevating to the market as a whole. They’ve forced everyone’s UI game to improve while winning converts to expand share.

LOL, I guess you can do analyst work for Apple, too. For someone in the tech industry, you should study how tech works when you have the time.

All apple does is put same hw in a nice case. Then they made a simple, limited UI different enough so users paying twice as much for a less functional computer can justify themselves. It’s the H2 and its ilk to a T.

Their real trick is to position themselves in the media as a fashion house selling an edgy lifestyle, so nerds and wannabes drool over their designer purse laptop.

To be fair, it works for their niche, but it’s not a mainstream product.
.

An electric car can be an excellent second car for many in L.A. and a primary car for some.

It doesn’t work as primary car except for maybe 1% of the population. You should look up the ev-1’s lease selection criteria.

Anything’ll work as a second car. You can use a bicycle, a corvette, a riding mower. It doesn’t matter, it’s a toy.
.

You haven’t asked for any “numbers” associated with any product lines.

You lie. From above: “Show everyone how growth is possible for them. Which cars will sell more, by how much, and why.”
.

I’ve named several D3 automotive products that can gain market share if marketed competently and their general attributes are proliferated throughout product lines.

So where are your sales numbers.
.

Self-referential, you’ve discredited nothing. Certainly not “thoroughly.” I’m looking hard for this and can’t find it.

And yet, you’ve stopped replying to the tech portions of my posts. Repetitive cliches do not count.
.

A manager shrinks from it; leaders step in.

This is really just fitting. This isn’t a pep talk. There was nothing substantive in your entire post.* The gnomes sum them up:

1. The present constriction in automotive demand is temporary and should not limit forward agendas. No automaker however weak can afford absence of innovation. The whole point of federal assistance is to put a floor under these companies so they can continue to innovate independent of their immediate market performance.

2. ?

3. Profit! Growth!

–

*ok, to be fair, there was this one sentence: But even if you assume *everything* Detroit makes is unable to win share, the purpose of taxpayer bridging is to sustain losses while financing innovation and revising products.

It’s not quite adequate that a car meets the 80% or even 90% usage bar. The remaining 10-20% where you need to go somewhere slightly further away once every week or two outside (or even worse, in addition to) work is not an acceptable compromise against less expensive and more performant options. Sure there’s workarounds possible with careful planning, but why settle with less for more $?

It may not be adequate for you, but it is for me, and I suspect millions of others.

Electric tech will also be more widespread simply for the performance enthusiast. If you happened to read RF’s recent article on driving the big Lexus Hybrid, you’ll have noticed that he was quite enthused about the massive amounts of torque available instantly. A hybrid of course is not a pure electric, but the technology is there.

You seem to assume that everyone’s needs are similar to your own, but one of the realities of the future car market is that cars will be more narrowly tailored to people’s real needs. I dont really need a vehicle capable of 340 miles of driving between 5 minute fillups. Lots of others dont either.

Re: the argument about market share/apple/growth. You seem to acknowledge that Apple has at least 4% of the market. VW has 2% of the American market. Do you council VW to adopt a holding strategy ? Given their numbers, is it inevitable that they can never grow their share in the US?

“Clocked” isn’t accurate. Their market share slipped primarily due to surging netbook sales, where they aren’t playing, by intent.

“…Mac growth to have slowed to 8.3 percent during the three-month period ending December, representing 1.225 million Macs shipped domestically. Apple has still gained a over a point in market share on a yearly basis, shipping 96,000 more systems than it did during the fourth quarter of 2007. However, its performance is down from quarter to quarter with 29.4 percent growth during the September quarter, when it reportedly shipped 1.645 million units to Americans.”

“…Still, Apple is one of just three top-tier PC vendors in the US who would have seen positive growth during the quarter based on Gartner’s data. Toshiba has shipped just over a million systems stateside to boost its share of US market to 6.5 percent, representing 12 percent yearly growth. Meanwhile, netbook maker Acer is expected to have had its unit shipments surge over 55 percent in the fall to propel its share to 15.2 percent from summer’s 8.8 percent while reclaiming its third place ranking from Apple….”

Plus you seemed to have used a source about as credible as you are: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39284186,00.htm

No. But the data is widely available and referenceable from a long list of diverse sources.

To put it in context, GM also “charted out, engineered, achieved” a significant growth in Hummer sales before a downfall. Such is the reality of trendy fashion products as I’ve explained and you willfully ignored.

I ignore irrelevancies after reading them twice. The initial example, Apple, is not selling mere fashion products. Hummer is also not an illustration of a corporate turnaround.

It’s also kind of funny you use the word “engineered”, because they seem to have completely dropped their hw dev to making fancy enclosures, and sw got also switched to generalized foundations and limited to creating a simplistic UI on top. Their turnaround is entirely image based just like any other boutique producer.

I presume you’re referring to Apple. Apple is a master packager, which is an engineering challenge all by itself, and an elegant hardware integrator. On the software side, they have proliferated leading implementation of high-abstraction applications and UI, along with a resilient OS. You may see it as “simplistic” but its purposeful simplicity is elegant, market-expanding and elevating to the market as a whole. They’ve forced everyone’s UI game to improve while winning converts to expand share.

And you still won’t admit an electric car is a poor idea in a sprawled city.

An electric car can be an excellent second car for many in L.A. and a primary car for some. I’m not impatient for one by any means, but right now, even a latter-years NmH EV-1 would effectively handle 70% of my routine mobility needs in L.A. A Volt would easily handle 100% of my needs, though not all of my wants. A Tesla, would handle all of my home-to-office commute.

You can’t seem to find any existing product lines you’d willing to claim numbers for, so it’s implied the electric or hydrogen or whatever tech you brought up must be very significant to this growth.

You haven’t asked for any “numbers” associated with any product lines. I’ve named several D3 automotive products that can gain market share if marketed competently and their general attributes are proliferated throughout product lines. More can be done independent of products to make having a customer relationship with a D3 company more appealing and competitive. But even if you assume *everything* Detroit makes is unable to win share, the purpose of taxpayer bridging is to sustain losses while financing innovation and revising products. But it’s not that so dire that progress can’t be made with what’s on the lots today.

However, after this tech is thoroughly discredited, now you’re stuck with the empty rhetoric of growth and nowhere to apply it.

Self-referential, you’ve discredited nothing. Certainly not “thoroughly.” I’m looking hard for this and can’t find it. All you’ve offered are objections for why you don’t think alternate drivetrains represent innovation, and they’ve been answered by me and others. You’ve offered nothing persuasive so far.

This is the point where…..

There is that old adage about never arguing with a…..aw, nevermind.

To improve in the future, you should think more about causality, and try applying it more often because all I see are outrageous claims and goals discordant from the present, and nothing substantive to connect them.

You haven’t been reading. Or, let’s just accept that you long ago made up your mind and that’s that. You assume data two people agree exists has only one meaning. It doesn’t. Without knowing you, I’d have to guess you’ve never taken on the project and responsibility for a business turn-around, and succeeded. Your view of what’s not just possible, but also highly feasible in revamping a dysfunctional company is just too restricted and lacking in ambition. A manager shrinks from it; leaders step in.

Phil

No, that’s not how “miracles” are defined. They usually involve events that happened outside our known laws of causality.
.

A nearly 4X gain in market share in seven years, that was charted out, engineered, achieved.

For a change you can try using actual consistent shipped numbers like Reimer does instead of selective press releases to judge share. Apple also just got clocked last quarter.

You will note that accurate numbers place their shipped units % as similar in 2005 as 2000/2001. They outgrew the overall market by I recall around 20 percent after that, so that makes maybe 4% total share instead of 2-3%. Significant no doubt, but not unprecedented for a niche player.

Plus you seemed to have used a source about as credible as you are: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39284186,00.htm

To put it in context, GM also “charted out, engineered, achieved” a significant growth in Hummer sales before a downfall. Such is the reality of trendy fashion products as I’ve explained and you willfully ignored.

It’s also kind of funny you use the word “engineered”, because they seem to have completely dropped their hw dev to making fancy enclosures, and sw got also switched to generalized foundations and limited to creating a simplistic UI on top. Their turnaround is entirely image based just like any other boutique producer.
.

I…uh….live in Los Angeles….

And you still won’t admit an electric car is a poor idea in a sprawled city.
.

I work in the tech industry. I’m easy to research. Unlike most here, including you, I post comments here under my name. In case you didn’t notice, I’ve had trouble-free American cars in my garage for over 25 years, and have not had any trouble finding responsive dealer service, either.

Nobody cares. The D3 obviously haven’t lost you as a customer, but they lose many tens of thousands or more every year, no thanks to their products.
.

There is more to innovation than a single serial hybrid electric vehicle. Innovation hasn’t been the limiting factor at GM and Ford. It’s the rate at which innovations reach the market. All the constrictions competitive content delivery to market are susceptible to remedy.

Business cliches will not save you from logic:

1. You claim d3 must grow, with innovation.

2. You can’t seem to find any existing prod lines you’d willing to claim numbers for, so it’s implied the electric or hydrogen or whatever tech you brought up must be very significant to this growth.

3. However, after this tech is thoroughly discredited, now you’re stuck with the empty rhetoric of growth and nowhere to apply it.

This is the point where you should give in and admit that your argument lacks standing instead of digging yourself a bigger hole.

To improve in the future, you should think more about causality, and try applying it more often because all I see are outrageous claims and goals discordant from the present, and nothing substantive to connect them.

P.S. The funny bit to google are the “underwear gnomes”. The visual works well in PP presentations.

They aren’t miracles if you deliver.

You should look at actual sales share history (here is up to 2005, http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html, with couple percent gains last couple years with 9mil units sold).

2005 was four years ago. From various sources, 2008: (lots more available.)

“According to data from Gartner, Apple posted a nearly 30 percent gain in market share over third quarter sales numbers from last year to hold 9.5 percent of the US PC market.”

“Perhaps more important, however, is the story of Apple’s steady and significant growth. Gartner’s numbers show Apple’s year-over-year growth at 29.4 percent, and IDC at 32 percent. Either way, the trend is clear. The overall growth in unit shipments for PCs in the US market is 4.6 percent. As Apple COO Tim Cook said at Tuesday’s media event, “If you look at the history, the Mac has outgrown the market for the last 14 of 15 quarters.”"

“Apple’s substantial growth comes despite the fact that average PC prices continue to drop while Apple’s tend to remain steady. While many analysts called for Apple to release a cheap MacBook at Tuesday’s event, Apple instead did what it always does. That is, the company released products that, while priced higher than average, represent a good value for the money. There is little evidence to suggest that this strategy won’t continue to work in Apple’s favor.”

When you grow faster than the market overall, you’re gaining market share on somebody.

Apple’s PC market share in the US was 2.6% in 2001. A nearly 4X gain in market share in seven years, that was charted out, engineered, achieved.

The company, on the brink a decade ago, is no longer trivial. It’s closing in on a $50B annual revenue run-rate if the 2009 economy doesn’t interfere.

I’ll assume you only say this because you have no idea how LA is laid out.

I…uh….live in Los Angeles….

I find it hard to believe you don’t get paid for Volt PR work. But for the sake of ttac, I’ll only point out the accuracy of Lutz’s prior predictions.

I work in the tech industry. I’m easy to research. Unlike most here, including you, I post comments here under my name. In case you didn’t notice, I’ve had trouble-free American cars in my garage for over 25 years, and have not had any trouble finding responsive dealer service, either.

So where is this innovate for growth talk coming from? Did you forget that part of your speech?

There is more to innovation than a single serial hybrid electric vehicle. Innovation hasn’t been the limiting factor at GM and Ford. It’s the rate at which innovations reach the market. All the constrictions competitive content delivery to market are susceptible to remedy.

Phil

I shouldn’t have to point out that your post read exactly like every single detroit exec and PR mouthpiece. They share in common a belief in miraculous recoveries not rooted in any realistic plan.
.

By various measures, Apple tripled or quadrupled their market share in computers in the span of several years, after extended, recurring, decline.

You should look at actual sales share history (here is up to 2005, http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html, with couple percent gains last couple years with 9mil units sold).

Plus you can’t stop pretending a boutique shop selling $1-2k lifestyle machines with short life cycles is in any way analogous to the D3.
.

Toyota’s relentless drive for growth, from feeble beginnings, was far more than a JDM push. In non-manufacturing areas of business execution, they exercised a predatory growth strategy that left Honda in their rear-view mirror despite making less sophisticated cars.

Or that the D3 is analogous to Toyota. The hilarity just doesn’t end.
.

Despite product superiority on Honda’s part, Toyota persistently advances their market share lead.

That’s because they have marginally better reliability, often slightly lower cost, and somewhat softer vehicles (which is what their customers want). This is in addition to intangibles like a more complete line of vehicles, a real luxury halo brand, etc. Obviously they’re giving buyers what they desire, which is what the d3 can’t do, thus the consistent, unerring shift in market share.
.

In places like L.A. there will be significant adoption of electric cars with various schemes for power generation or storage, as second and third vehicles in a household.

I’ll assume you only say this because you have no idea how LA is laid out.

I guess electrics are more useful in urban areas in general. But then again, so are CNG and other alternates that never panned out. In fact I recall the only alternate-ish car panning out is the toyota, which is mostly a ICE.
.

You’re free to stay on the sidelines, and I may too, but electric cars of various types will find a significant market over the next 15 years.

I find it hard to believe you don’t get paid for Volt PR work. But for the sake of ttac, I’ll only point out the accuracy of Lutz’s prior predictions.
.

No one at GM believes Volt absolves them of responsibility to succeed in winning customers for mainstream, ICE-based hydrocarbon-fueled cars, nor has the company said so.

So where is this innovate for growth talk coming from? Did you forget that part of your speech?

I have no connection to any automaker from anywhere, whatsoever. I’m not part of the Detroit groupthink, which I’m a critic of, nor the groupthink of the line of criticism represented by you and others. My view is orthogonal to both. One can be critical of embedded deficiency in the D3, while appreciating their instances of success and the good reasons for righting the ship.

Sure whatever. Keep pretending they’re anything other than a minor boutique shop perpetually stuck at a few percent despite a order of magnitude faster product cycle, and it’s the best detroit can hope to be within our lifetimes if they go with your brilliant plan for depending on niche vehicles.

By various measures, Apple tripled or quadrupled their market share in computers in the span of several years, after extended, recurring, decline. More to the point, they *planned* that reversal and executed well when many who dismiss them as an irrelevant “boutique” counseled pessimism. They also found their way back to ecxellent profitability after a long period of poor performance. They’re not done and it shows what a company on the ropes and left for dead can do in about a decade, willfully ignoring the argument of extant “data” that argues the situation is irretrievable.

No, why don’t you explain how two JDM manu’s with unique history between them is relevant to anything here.

Toyota’s relentless drive for growth, from feeble beginnings, was far more than a JDM push. In non-manufacturing areas of business execution, they exercised a predatory growth strategy that left Honda in their rear-view mirror despite making less sophisticated cars. Companies that aren’t committed to a mandatory growth strategy tend to perform to a lesser result even if they are doing reasonably well.

Listen, if you’re so enamored with Honda, why don’t we just buy them with the inevitable bailout $ and move them over here? At least then you’d have a performer out of the gate.

I’m not enamored with Honda. I’ve never owned one and probably won’t going forward. They make nothing appealing to me so far. However, for the mainstream buyers that have embraced the Japanese flavor of bread & butter FWD sedans and suburban utes, their quality and engineering generally has more polish than Toyota’s. I mean, really. Have you driven a current Accord and Camry in immediate sequence? A Civic and a Corolla? Neither is for me in either case, but Honda’s edge is vivid in that comparo. Despite product superiority on Honda’s part, Toyota persistently advances their market share lead.

The kind of buyer that is an idiot or doesn’t care about throwing some $ away. How many of those do you figure is around?

I imagine you think a lot of people are idiots whose thinking and preferences are at variance to yours. In places like L.A. there will be significant adoption of electric cars with various schemes for power generation or storage, as second and third vehicles in a household. Miami, San Francisco, San Jose, Richmond, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, Boston, New York will see replication of that acceptance. You’re free to stay on the sidelines, and I may too, but electric cars of various types will find a significant market over the next 15 years.

Uh, the stupid company is the one pretending the electric car is going to be their salvation. Are you claiming Honda is that stupid?

Aside from the start-ups, no company is pretending that electric cars will be their salvation. If you are referring to GM, their point is that Volt will be competitive among the various transition technologies that will be fielded over the next decade, and that its entry into the market also accelerates options for changing removing the car from the environmental debate. No one at GM believes Volt absolves them of responsibility to succeed in winning customers for mainstream, ICE-based hydrocarbon-fueled cars, nor has the company said so.

Phil

That’s core psychological problem with detroit, apologists who haven’t been constrained by reality for the last few decades. The foreign competition thanks you for continuing the detroit groupthink and making their job easier.
.

And I say this as a Windows PC user. Their market share gains over the last 5 years have been significant in a locked-up market, and they were engineered from a business and marketing perspective.

Sure whatever. Keep pretending they’re anything other than a minor boutique shop perpetually stuck at a few percent despite a order of magnitude faster product cycle, and it’s the best detroit can hope to be within our lifetimes if they go with your brilliant plan for depending on niche vehicles.
.

Already amply explained. I have to assume you are intentionally obtuse on this point.

No, why don’t you explain how two JDM manu’s with unique history between them is relevant to anything here.
.

We can take the risk that growth isn’t achieved. We should be happy to fund a real effort.

Yes, let’s fund a history of consistent failure caused by the same delusional thinking. Let’s do it with financial guarantees that only guarantee complacency. We should only be so lucky.

Listen, if you’re so enamored with Honda, why don’t we just buy them with the inevitable bailout $ and move them over here? At least then you’d have a performer out of the gate.
.

That buyer is willing to judge electric cars by acceptance criteria different from gasoline-fueled ICE automobiles.

The kind of buyer that is an idiot or doesn’t care about throwing some $ away. How many of those do you figure is around? Hint: see apple computers.
.

Honda not that stupid? The FCX is an electric car.

Uh, the stupid company is the one pretending the electric car is going to be their salvation. Are you claiming Honda is that stupid?
.

It’s not quite adequate that a car meets the 80% or even 90% usage bar. The remaining 10-20% where you need to go somewhere slightly further away once every week or two outside (or even worse, in addition to) work is not an acceptable compromise against less expensive and more performant options. Sure there’s workarounds possible with careful planning, but why settle with less for more $?

I mean, it’s already pretty clear people won’t settle for cars that die by the side of read occasionally, so how about a car that does it every time you really need to get somewhere? This is why they had to include the dead weight ICE in the Volt instead of making it a mass produced tesla.
.

IMO, the electric of the future will the the plug in hybrid. A switch will allow the car to be used in purely electric mode, or in hybrid mode.

This makes assumptions about oil prices and ICE efficiency. The main draw and saving factor of a hybrid are:
1. energy source
2. regen braking
3. eliminate idling/low throttle

2 and 3 can be solved using mild hybrid or even mechanical solutions. To combat (1) the potential rise in hydrocarbon prices, ICE development is also not necessarily stagnant with development of 6cycle engines and efficient injection. Even in your ideal case that still leaves us where we are about right now.

As mentioned before, this plus the gigantic infrastructural inertia inherent in the industry makes “innovation” a limited source of growth.

.

Both Honda and Toyota are in a good position to develop electrics, given they both (particularly Toyota) have years of experienc with Hybrids.

And in general our competition have show to be at least as technically competent with slightly better efficiency and a superior managed business with a mind towards the compromises consumers response to.

So perhaps the d3 can draw even over time and retain that portion of the market I’ve mention, but unfortunate there are no magic bullets in mature industries.

They’ll have to dredge through making better family and econocars, gradually winning the buyer’s confidence, instead of pretending the basics rules don’t apply to them.

You make the mistaken assumption that if someone is aware of data, they must agree with how you interpret it, or assign it value for decisions at hand. I’m not ignoring data we both know exists; I just don’t think it means the same thing you do, nor do I feel constrained by it.

They have minimal market share that cycle like any niche fashion product.

Apple’s computer market share gains are not cyclical. And I say this as a Windows PC user. Their market share gains over the last 5 years have been significant in a locked-up market, and they were engineered from a business and marketing perspective.

You had no point and was just grasping at straws pretending honda vs toyota mean anything in this context.

Already amply explained. I have to assume you are intentionally obtuse on this point.

It does when growth isn’t achieve. Growth is only believed by the likes of Bob Lutz. It’s NEVER happened with any consistency or strategy for detroit so most would venture to say it won’t magically start happening now without extraordinary evidence to the contrary. Or hell, I’ll take ANY evidence to the contrary, which has yet to be forthcoming.

We can take the risk that growth isn’t achieved. We should be happy to fund a real effort. That is hasn’t happened recently in no way precludes Detroit growing its market share in coming years. The intention is to fund a change, not stasis.

No, you clearly do not. Because if you did, you’d realize just how irrelevant and niche they will remain. Let’s see you sell a car that has inferior range, molasses fill up time, much higher intrinsic cost for performance, inadequate infrastructure, to anyone other than those with a house buying it as an expensive toy.

Electric cars will be embraced within their incrementally improving limits. People who don’t have long distances to travel, don’t care about sustained high speed, have a preference to reduce their oil drip, and travel lightly want them for what they can offer. That buyer is willing to judge electric cars by acceptance criteria different from gasoline-fueled ICE automobiles.

Why? Because you wish it so? Electric cars are and will remain for as long as the rules of physics and chemistry apply, far inferior to ICE systems, much more so than D3 cars are inferior to their current competitor. When are you proposing the laws of physics be repealed?

As I said, if I ever buy an electric car, I’ll most likely be a laggard adopter. We’re getting them because it will be an environmental mandate regardless of compromises, and practicality within a specific functional scope plus the interests of certain buyers are about to intersect.

Finally, you realize electric or whatever alternate propulsion is not the exclusive providence of d3 and the reason why Toyota or Honda aren’t launching one is because they’re not that stupid, right?

Electric drive cars aren’t the exclusive domain of anyone. But GM has genuine experience building and fielding them. The fucntional, durable electric car will find its place in the automotive mix.

Honda not that stupid? The FCX is an electric car. It just uses a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricity instead of humping a battery. But its motive drive is an electric motor. Once you’ve taken that step, the means of supplying electricity to said motor(s) is changeable. This is why both Volt and FCX are important way stations to a reconfiguration of the personal automobile.

Phil

Inferior only by the criteria you choose to apply. If you think a car needs to go 400 miles between refills, and be refilled in less than 5 minutes, then you’d be right. However, other people may apply different criteria. My wife and I both live 6 miles from work. That’s 12 miles a day, M-F. Even with a range of 25 miles, that leaves ample capacity to do errands on the way home from work. Once we get home, we rarely go out again, so an overnight “refill” is not a problem.

As a practical matter, we’d probably have one ICE car, and one electric. Sooner or later, the average American family will realize that not every vehicle they own needs to be constantly at the ready for cross-country motoring.

IMO, the electric of the future will the the plug in hybrid. A switch will allow the car to be used in purely electric mode, or in hybrid mode. Most people will find they can go in pure electric mode, most of the time. The ICE will still be there to allay fears of being stranded.

Finally, you realize electric or whatever alternate propulsion is not the exclusive providence of d3 and the reason why Toyota or Honda aren’t launching one is because they’re not that stupid, right?

Both Honda and Toyota are in a good position to develop electrics, given they both (particularly Toyota) have years of experienc with Hybrids.

This is just hilarious. So essentially you know the data, but choose to ignore it when it doesn’t suite the hoped for conclusion.

I think this is about the 3rd time I’ll have to point out this kind of wishful thinking is why detroit and its apologists have NO credibility; and that’s the level of credibility they deserve.
.

But the economic benefits of a D3 domestic purchase extend further into the economy and that is consequence of total expenditure, gross margin, net margin and the number of times those expenditures turn over in the domestic economy.

You use a lot of words that have no bearing on the argument. Again, dropping and repeating accounting terms doesn’t mean anything.
.

Apple has been proactively growing its market share in computers for the past few years. That’s not “conceding their original market.”

They have minimal market share that cycle like any niche fashion product.
.

I’m aware of Toyota’s history. Your comment is non-sequitur to my point.

You had no point and was just grasping at straws pretending honda vs toyota mean anything in this context.
.

A growth agenda doesn’t mandate heavy losses.

It does when growth isn’t achieve. Growth is only believed by the likes of Bob Lutz. It’s NEVER happened with any consistency or strategy for detroit so most would venture to say it won’t magically start happening now without extraordinary evidence to the contrary. Or hell, I’ll take ANY evidence to the contrary, which has yet to be forthcoming.
.

I am fully aware of the limits of battery energy density.

No, you clearly do not. Because if you did, you’d realize just how irrelevant and niche they will remain. Let’s see you sell a car that has inferior range, molasses fill up time, much higher intrinsic cost for performance, inadequate infrastructure, to anyone other than those with a house buying it as an expensive toy.

Ironically this is where the Apple analogy does apply.
.

However, we’re getting electric cars in the private transportation mix, like it or not.

Why? Because you wish it so? Electric cars are and will remain for as long as the rules of physics and chemistry apply, far inferior to ICE systems, much more so than D3 cars are inferior to their current competitor. When are you proposing the laws of physics be repealed?

Finally, you realize electric or whatever alternate propulsion is not the exclusive providence of d3 and the reason why Toyota or Honda aren’t launching one is because they’re not that stupid, right?

You wrote, among other things:

“As already shown in the thread…”

“I’ve summarized my trending and calcs above. They are logical statements based on actual realistic datum.”

Both suggest there’s something persuasive and factual above. Nothing I’ve written here is in conflict with any known trends, market data, performance data. My view of what can be done under sufficient reset conditions, and why bailouts are worthwhile is not constrained by present conditions.

No they are not. Things that matter like employee income are part of total expenditures, not profit. If only profit mattered, it’s flat refutation of your position since the d3 are incapable of profit.

You either don’t, or don’t want to, understand my point. I haven’t said there’s a complete lack of economic leverage in a transplant purchase. There is and it’s clearly better domestically than a pure import. I’ve said same before. But the economic benefits of a D3 domestic purchase extend further into the economy and that is consequence of total expenditure, gross margin, net margin and the number of times those expenditures turn over in the domestic economy. The multiplier effects of a domestic purchase are greater than for a transplant purchase, and that includes the portion of the domestic purchase that supports HQ jobs. The difference in economic leverage is relative. Both have contributory effects domestically.

Its struggles are with systematic selection of incompetent people for promotion, and letting those people dictate direction. Their pay gradient is higher (thus more top heavy, since you know, money==prestige in capitalism), and they get worse performance for more money.

Hiring and promoting the wrong people is not a measure of top-heaviness. Just poor execution.

They really can’t get anything right, can they?

Well, obviously they do get some things very right because the D3 still manage to produce a number of exceptional vehicles despite their systemic deficiencies. Imagine what’s possible if the deficiencies we both agree exist are systematically corrected.

Legacy matters, especially when there’s decades of it. To claim different is to be ignorant of corporate culture.

Yes, legacy defines the problems to be solved. You seem to believe that legacy in this case precludes progress. I believe otherwise. This is a difference in worldview that can’t be bridged.

Reality also matters. Which is why they need to prepare for a realistic share of the market instead of positioning [with our money] for heavy loses.

A growth agenda doesn’t mandate heavy losses. But a full retreat in market share to restore profitability too quickly will permanently cede the market. The auto sector is not a shrink-to-success market. I’m willing to use public money to bridge a market share reversal plan through some period of losses.

The business analyst PR fluff piece on apple is especially hilarious, especially coming from someone advocating innovating out of trouble (with substance I presume). You should look behind the scenes at what actual tech is going on, and if anything they’ve basic conceded their original market. Unless you’re suggesting the d3 should start making major stuff other than cars.

Apple has been proactively growing its market share in computers for the past few years. That’s not “conceding their original market.”

You should look up the japanese gov’s involvement with these two companies to see why toyota has been historically favored.

I’m aware of Toyota’s history. Your comment is non-sequitur to my point.

I can’t blame you for not understanding why electric is not “in reach”, since you buy into PR hype and don’t seem to be in the business of thinking about tech/physical fundamentals like energy density and flow rate which kills electric vs ICE. (the dead weight of the ICE for insurance in the volt basically admits defeat).*

I didn’t say I’m a fan of the electric car. I am fully aware of the limits of battery energy density. However, we’re getting electric cars in the private transportation mix, like it or not. In the mix, not full replacement of petrol cars. And many people will like them for a portion of their mobility requirements. We finally have enough progress in battery chemistry to make an electric urban car feasible for many people. And while battery chemistry is a field of incremental progress, it nevertheless progresses. Add that mass application of truly lightweight structural materials hasn’t yet hit mainstream manufacturing and you can see that electric cars will get better.

The serial hybrid architecture of the Volt isn’t an admission of defeat, it’s a coping strategy to bring useful practical range to the electric car as a primary automobile. It’s a bridge vehicle, transitional. It might be a transitional architecture for quite some time. WRT electric cars, I’m personally likely to be a late adopter. Nevertheless, we’re getting more.

Just pretending something is possible is not enough, even if a lot of business terms get dropped. You actually have to understand if that act is, in fact, realistically possible.

I do; and it is. But that’s not a guarantee it will happen.

Anyone interested should look up storage/mass densities for fuel/energy types, and their transfer rates. Note especially the current levels (assuming reasonable voltage) required for practical “fill up’s”. Suffice to say you wouldn’t want your new car to burn down your house every time you’re in a hurry.

Everyone here understands that the energy density of gasoline vastly exceeds that of battery chemistry, so feasible portability of stored electrical energy is going to result in a lower-performance, range-restricted car. Electric car buyers will be judging their satisfaction with their purchases on different criteria.

Phil