Bail Out Automakers ... or let 'em fall?

[Rich Parsons]

A lot of the problems are self inflicted, and go beyond the SUV vs small car issue.

Ford, for example, produces really good small cars in Europe. But they can't sell them here because the standards are different. It's more than time for North America to get in line with European and Asian safety standards in the automotive industry. That would allow to desing only once, and to be able to manufacture the one model anywhere.

After seeing the news clips with the Big 3 CEOs in front of Congress yesterday, I'd say let them fail. It takes really big brass ones to collect your millions in compensation and use your private jet to come in front of the taxpayers and ask for a bailout. Why don't they start by following in Iacocca's foot step and reduce their salaries to $1.00??

While I agree it would go far to if they did decrease their salary, as many get bonuses and stock optiosn as well , here is what I have for some CEO's I found recently.

Position Company and ammount
4 Country wide 102,000,000
8 Goldman Sachs 73,000,000
9 Capital One 73,000,000
11 Lehman Bros 71,000,000
53 Cinga 30,000,000
58 American Ex 25,000,000
70 TRW 22,000,000
73 MBIA 22,000,000
82 JP Morgan 20,000,000
85 bank of America 20,000,000
153 Ford 12,000,000
374 Freddie Mac 3,400,000
433 GM 2,200,000

I listed many banks that got money or is scheduled to get money from the $700 Billion.

 

[Gordon Nore]

...It takes really big brass ones to collect your millions in compensation and use your private jet to come in front of the taxpayers and ask for a bailout...

The Execs walked right into that. How could they not know that the media was gonna milk that? Let them eat cake.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Good question, actually.

For the record, I'm a frustrated automotive engineer, as well as not so frustrated (to Rita's-that's the wife, also known as Mrs. Conscience, also known as the parsimonious Quaker-chagrin) car collector. And I love a lot of GM products, quite a few Chrysler products, and and a few Fords-at least, those made from 1968 back, but that's Bill Ford's fault..:lol:

In any case, I can anwer the question a lot more simply-we've got a Totyota SR5 pickup with over 300,000 miles on it, and we've only done regular maintenance. The carpet is worn, the paint is faded, but otherwise it's all good. I've also got a Dodge diesel pickup that I converted to bio-diesel that's got over 300,000 miles on it. While the drive train is good, the fit and finish on all the switches and door handles and such, was such that I've had to replace them several times-it has an odd electrical glitch, and I did have to replace the transmission. While it had a lot of miles on it when I got it (never experiment on anything under warantee!) these problems are typical of the model, and occurred early in its life.
So, that's one-an almost endemically inconsistent quality control in American models across the spectrum. I can remember test driving a Trans-Am convertible back in '93 or so, and while it was pretty nifty in some ways, being really shocked at the fit of the doors, the looseness of the handles, the chintziness of the window switches. This is due, I'm afraid, to your wages and benefits-it costs nearly $2000 dolllars more for an American car to leave the factory than its Japanese equivalent.

Another thing, since you asked about smaller models, is that while they have those same problems (some only discernible to the fanatic, some only over time) they have also been unappealing to Americans, for the most part. Their higher sales occur overseas, though they do sell here, mostly due to brand loyalty (Dad only bought Chrysler products, and I'll never buy a Ford, but that's Bill Ford's fault :lol and end of year sales.

The other thing, of course, is lackluster marketing of those cars. Saturns are a really good product, and have done well enough, but otherwise the big three have really pushed SUVs, minivans, and trucks. And, in the last couple of years, produced some nostalgic, gas-guzzlin', rootin'-tootin', air pollutin', high falutin', good old fashioned muscle cars.

(Really, really dig the new 'Cuda. Not gonna do it, though.)

I think the marketing will change-they've typically marketed those smaller cars, like the Chevy Aveo, to a niche market-entry level consumers, when they should have been more across the spectrum: sold the safety, reliability, cargo and passenger room and economy to housewives and commuters, instead of to kids.

Just my opinion, though, and what the hell do I know? Heck, you think I drive a Porsche 'cause it's economical? :lfao:

I drive it 'cause it's not a Ford, or, rather, a Jaguar-but that's Bill Ford's fault. :lfao:

Well I do not like Bill either so I understand.

I am an engineer but my Dad, Uncle and others retired UAW.

We grew up with a 1970 Chevrolet pickup. We bought it with 110,000 miles. We donated to the high school with 320,000 miles.

As to Dodge and Transmissions this is a common issue from the past, but with recent changes (* read Diamler *) introduced new transmissions to their line up. It has addressed.

I had a 1993 Grand Am, I gave to a friend who was going through a divorce. I gave it to him with 193,000 miles. I did simple maintenance. He has it today with 210,000 miles. But he only drives about 3 to 4,000 miles a year.

As to marketing to kids, this plan is actually good. Honda and Toyota target college kids who will go buy a new one when they graduate.

 

[elder999]

Well I do not like Bill either so I understand.

No, you don't, but that's okay. :lfao:

I've got a couple of Dodge Powerwagons-I couldn't even say what the mileage on either of them really is. Of course, one's a '65 and the other's a '48, sooooo.

Not so sure I agree with you about the marketing-marketing to youth fed into the whole credit crisis. Additionally, youth weren't really that interested. Who wants an Aveo when you can have a Scion, in dayglo color of your choice, with a loud, beer-can exhaust and thumpin' stereo for the same price, or less? EVen if they aren't the same price, that's the perception-and, mind you, I think the Scion is butt-ugly. So do a lot of kids who own them-but they've been marketed so even their ugliness is attractive, ala AMC back in the 70's.

 

[CanuckMA]

While I agree it would go far to if they did decrease their salary, as many get bonuses and stock optiosn as well , here is what I have for some CEO's I found recently.

Position Company and ammount
4 Country wide 102,000,000
8 Goldman Sachs 73,000,000
9 Capital One 73,000,000
11 Lehman Bros 71,000,000
53 Cinga 30,000,000
58 American Ex 25,000,000
70 TRW 22,000,000
73 MBIA 22,000,000
82 JP Morgan 20,000,000
85 bank of America 20,000,000
153 Ford 12,000,000
374 Freddie Mac 3,400,000
433 GM 2,200,000

I listed many banks that got money or is scheduled to get money from the $700 Billion.

TOTAL compasention should go down to a buck.

And those bank execs should be fired with no golden parachute.

 

[Rich Parsons]

No, you don't, but that's okay. :lfao:

I've got a couple of Dodge Powerwagons-I couldn't even say what the mileage on either of them really is. Of course, one's a '65 and the other's a '48, sooooo.

Not so sure I agree with you about the marketing-marketing to youth fed into the whole credit crisis. Additionally, youth weren't really that interested. Who wants an Aveo when you can have a Scion, in dayglo color of your choice, with a loud, beer-can exhaust and thumpin' stereo for the same price, or less? EVen if they aren't the same price, that's the perception-and, mind you, I think the Scion is butt-ugly. So do a lot of kids who own them-but they've been marketed so even their ugliness is attractive, ala AMC back in the 70's.

Tell me more about Bill - Send me a PM

As to the Youth for today in the crisis of finance. I agree. But in the mid 90's to three years ago it was a plan that got people to buy a car and then buy a second car when they graduated college.

 

[elder999]

Tell me more about Bill - Send me a PM

As to the Youth for today in the crisis of finance. I agree. But in the mid 90's to three years ago it was a plan that got people to buy a car and then buy a second car when they graduated college.

Do you know Bill?

Tell him that he still owes me for his graduation party, the ****.

Actually, ya better not.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Do you know Bill?

Tell him that he still owes me for his graduation party, the ****.

Actually, ya better not.

Elder999,

I understand an will respect your answer.

Now back to the subject of the thread.


I asked you and some others about perceptions and also data.

You provided your experiences which are good.

Here are thing(s) I would like people to consider and think about and possible do some research on there own before they make blanket statements.

Consumer Reports had two articles on the same two pages. The one in the center with the darker background to look like a summary about fuel economy. The center article was all about buying vehicles with Fuel Economy Labels that showed the best. The outside article was how the North American Manufacturers were the closest to the labels with the Japanese being the worse offenders.

Why would they run both articles if they did not have an agenda for the Japanese or against the US manufacturers?


Why did Toyota settle out of court with a Class Action law suit for Sludge with no admittence of guilt. But they paid for the engine replacements and all the costs.

Why did Toyota in 2006 recall more vehicles then built that year?

Why does CARB the California Air Resource Board base their inspections on national sales (* which favor US until recently with Toyota *) instead of Californai sales (* that favor the Japanese *)?

Why does CARB do a 100% inspection of all vehicles for the Number one manufacturer, but only 80% for the number two? And it drops more drastic as the numbers fall?

Why Did CARB not go after Toyota 100% when they claimed to sell the most in the world recently?


My points are that while the above qustions are leading they make one wonder about a fair playing field. If the Japanese get a pass on inspections for issues and the North American comapnies get the recalls and negative press,, does this not spell an agenda? This is not to say that the US did nto need to fix what was recalled, but that the perception of only recalling them and not the ones they did not inspect skews the perception of the public.

The auto mags and news writers that will do anything for DOCH review but claim that push rod is 19th century technology, even if the push rod engine gets better fuel economy and more Horse Power and More usable Torque (* i.e. Torque that is not at or near peak RPM *). This gives a negative perception to the US manufacturers and even when the did roll out DOCH's the reviews were still not good. But was it really quailty or was their perception.

When Toyota and Honda and Nissan have the largest delta's in Fuel Economy but people buy them for the fuel economy, does this not have a perception issue. I mean if the label is higher, people buy it for the reported numbers. But this is perception even with the deltas they end up being lower then the US.

I know that is you drive the hybrids with fuel economy in mind and drive slow they give good Fuel Economy as well. But when I see them driving 75 to 80+ mph down the road, I know they are not getting even close to what a non hybrid would be getting. But the perception is that they are saving fuel and money.


What I am trying to get people to do is post facts about their specific cars and experiences not broad and unconfirmed statements. Perceptions are how most people buy.

I will give and exmaple of a Sport bike forum that reported a broken frame. For 8 months people were all worried about their frame and all claimed to ahve known someone to have a broken frame. In the end it was a single frame with the the driver being a professional stunt driver who put it through it paces and when he crashed it, the frame broke. DUH!

But the perception in the market and for the people was that the product was bad.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Some more details I have been fowarded

ALL GM BRANDS ABOVE AVERAGE IN LATEST J.D. POWER REPORT … According to J.D. Power and Associates, the latest feedback from customers indicate GM and its dealers are top notch when it comes to customer satisfaction during the vehicle purchase experience. All GM brands outperformed the industry average in the 2008 J.D. Power and Associates Sales Satisfaction Index (SSI) Study.
SSI is an analysis of the new-vehicle purchase experience which measures five factors: dealership facility, salesperson, paperwork/finance process, delivery process; and vehicle price.

Industry Highlights
Customer satisfaction with the new-vehicle sales process has improved steadily over the past three years
Improvements are attributable to the level of attention that manufacturers and dealers place on providing a satisfying customers
Jaguar ranks highest followed by Hummer, Lexus, Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Premium brands dominate the top 10 rankings
Industry average - 857 index points (based on a 1,000 point scale)

GM Brand Highlights
All GM brands outperformed the industry average (by 10 index points or more)
Three brands ranked in the top 10 (Hummer, Cadillac, Buick)
Hummer #2
Cadillac #4
Buick #9
Saturn #11
Pontiac #13
Saab #13
Chevrolet #15
GMC #17
Cadillac - most improved GM brand, year-to-year, moving up 12 index points followed by Hummer (11) and Saab and Chevrolet (8)
Buick is the industry's top performing non-premium brand and Saturn follows close behind.

GM dealers are providing the best service to customers in the industry. In addition, GM customer satisfaction with vehicle price demonstrates their belief in the vehicle's value. Not only are our dealers industry-leading, but our product quality is as well. Between 2002-2006 GM reduced its warranty repairs by 40 percent and since that time another 14 percent improvement has been achieved. Our Chevrolet Malibu is segment leading and considered one of the industry's best launches. Chevrolet, Cadillac, Pontiac and Buick brands, which represent 82 percent of the cars and trucks we sell ranked above industry average in the 2008 J.D. Power and Associates Initial Quality Study. These improvements are reasons why GM can offer the industry's best warranty coverage (100,000 Mile/5 Year transferable powertrain).

Summing it up, at GM quality goes beyond the product. It's defined by the total ownership experience.

Additional information can be found in J.D. Power's news release or by clicking here.

Link seems to be down from JDPower. http://www.jdpower.com/autos

 

[Rich Parsons]

Some Talking points


All emphasis was in original document

Talking Points​

Product
The domestic industry is oftentimes criticized for building vehicles out of step with today’s need for fuel efficiency. The facts are these:

- At GM, we offer the most fuel efficient cars and trucks in 7 of the 20 Wards Automotive segments in which we compete (35%) -- more segments than any other manufacturer in 2009.

- We offer 20 vehicles achieving 30 miles per gallon, or more, on the highway, more than any other manufacturer. Popular high volume models include the Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G6, and Saturn Aura.

- We are the world leader in bio-fuel vehicles, with over 5 million vehicles
on the road today, including over 3 million vehicles in the United States. We
are committed to having over 50% of the vehicles we sell in 2012 being bio- fuel capable

- We offer 6 hybrid vehicle models today, with 2 more to be introduced by year end, more models than any other manufacturer, and this number will grow to 19 over the next few years.


- In 2008, GM has won 6 World Green Car titles, including Green Vehicle of the Year for the Tahoe Hybrid. . . .a vehicle that gets the same city fuel economy as the base 4 cylinder Toyota Camry, but can tow 6000 lbs, and comfortably carry 8 passengers with cargo.

- Over the next two years, GM will introduce 15 new models in the United States,
14 of which are fuel efficient cars and crossovers. Throughout our
product line up, our new and more fuel efficient 4- and 6-cylinder engines will
rapidly displace 6- and 8-cylinder engines previously preferred by our customers. Between 2007 and 2012, our 4-cylinder-equipped vehicle volume will more than double, and fuel-saving 6-speed automatic transmissions will grow by 800%.

We are clearly among the leaders in fuel efficiency, but we have more in the pipeline:

- Since moving to a ‘global’ product development process in March 2005, GM
has under development all-new mini, small, compact and intermediate size passenger cars, which provide fuel economy improvements of up to 25% compared to the models they replace. We also have a new class of pickups under development, somewhat smaller than what this country has grown up with, but with payload and towing capability that will cover most customers’ needs and provide up to 38% better fuel economy (with L4 gas engines).

- Included in this tally is the revolutionary Chevrolet Volt, an electric vehicle
providing up to 40 miles range on a single charge. . .enough to meet the
daily driving needs of 70% of Americans. For those needing to go farther,
a small range-extending gasoline engine kicks in to maintain the battery charge,
and extends the range of the vehicle to 300 miles.

Setting fuel economy aside, there are those who contend we don’t make vehicles that people want. Here are the facts:
- We still sell more cars, trucks and crossovers in this, our home market, than
any other manufacturer. . .despite carrying cost burdens not shared with our
Japanese, Korean and German counterparts. And where the playing field is arguably more level, like the emerging markets around the globe, we are the market leader, outselling Toyota by half.

- Since 2005, GM has won more than 270 awards in China, Europe, and North America - over two thirds of them right here in the United States. . . including the Saturn Aura, the Chevrolet Silverado, and the Chevrolet Malibu that were selected as Car and Truck of the Year recipients. And, just this week, the first vehicle from our new, global mid-size architecture, the Opel Insignia, we won the European Car of the Year.

- Many ask about the more fuel efficient fleet of vehicles that GM makes and
sells in Europe. These vehicles are typically one class smaller than those preferred by U.S. customers, in part due to European taxes on gasolinemaking
fuel about three times more expensive than in this country.

- Apart from fuel price and vehicle size differences, Europeans also equip their
vehicles with manual transmissions and diesel engines to a greater degree
(85% and 60%, respectively), with customer preference for diesels
oftentimes encouraged by European government incentives, and by diesel
emissions standards that are less stringent in Europe than in the U.S.












Productivity
The domestic industry, including our union-represented partners, are sometimes viewed as uncompetitive when it comes to productivity and, in turn, our manufacturing costs.
- Fact is, GM leads in manufacturing productivity in 11 of 20 vehicle North America Assembly Plant segments in which we compete, according to the 2008 Harbour Report.

- GM is the only manufacturer to have improved year-over-year overall for the entire history of the annual report (15yrs.)

- Also, GM has five of the top 10 engine plants in North America (all located in the U.S.) and the #1 transmission plant (Toledo, Ohio).


Safety
GM has become the World Leader in Occupational Safety. Toyota's 'recordable injury' rate is more than 3 times higher and their 'lost work day' rate is more than 4 times higher than that of GM. GM's 'recordable' and 'lost work day' rates are less than one-third that of any other plants operated by foreign manufacturers in the US.



Environment
2.60% of GM's US energy consumption comes from renewable resources (photo-voltaic, landfill gas) <0.001% of Toyota's US energy is from renewables

GM is aggressively eliminating landfill waste, and currently has 12 US sites that are 100% landfill free. 7 of these sites achieved this goal in 2008, and plan is to make 50% of all manufacturing operations landfill free by year-end 2010, this is along our overall goal to zero landfill.

In the area of renewable energy, GM --in the US-- has 5 sites that are using landfill gas; Toyota has none.

GM has the first and only LEED(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold Certified automotive manufacturing plant (LDT); Toyota has none.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I looked for the original on the web but was not able to find it.

Forwarded information

The boards of directors of many large corporations, including General Motors, mandate that key corporate officers travel by corporate aircraft for safety and security reasons.
The company also uses corporate aircraft to enhance the productivity of our senior leadership as they travel to important and, oftentimes, hastily called meetings in this country and around the world. On corporate planes, the executives can work without distraction and speak to each other freely on sensitive and proprietary issues. (posted: 11/20/08)

Here is another perspective on company planes: November 19, 2008
Mr. Brian Ross
Chief Investigative Correspondent
ABC News Dear Mr. Ross:
Concerning your November 19 report, “Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead
for Public Funds,” it is unfortunate that your story did not give viewers a full picture
of why companies have planes and use them as part of routine business.
The truth is that companies of all sizes, all across the country, fly many types of
aircraft to places where there is often little or no commercial airline service, so that
they can reach new markets, deliver parts to keep assembly lines open, provide
just-in-time customer service, reach distant company offices, transport sales
teams, and fly a host of other types of missions in order to stay nimble and remain
competitive, especially in a tough economic climate.
Studies show business use of general aviation aircraft adds tangible value to a
company’s bottom line. Businesspeople can make a trip involving stops at several
locations, then return to headquarters the same day, saving time and travel
expenses that would be needed to make the same trip over several days via auto,
train or airline transport. Also, because employees can meet, plan and work with
each other aboard business aircraft, productivity, confidentiality and security en
route are assured.
In a difficult economy like the one facing us now, the opportunities offered by this
mode of transport become even more important, because companies have to work
harder to grow their business, find new markets and serve existing customers.
We’re disappointed that your report left viewers with a skewed impression of how
and when business airplanes are routinely used.
Sincerely,
Ed Bolen
President and CEO
National Business Aviation Association

 

[Rich Parsons]

Another Article

fuel economy

GM BOOSTS FUEL ECONOMY ACROSS ITS BRANDS FOR 2009, BEATS TOYOTA, HONDA IN MIDSIZE SEDAN SEGMENT …. At 33 miles per gallon highway, four-cylinder, non-hybrid versions of the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura midsize sedans equipped with six-speed transmissions carry a higher EPA highway fuel economy label than comparably equipped Toyota Camry and Honda Accord models.

In addition, the Chevrolet Cobalt XFE and Pontiac G5 XFE, at 37 mpg highway, achieve a higher EPA highway fuel economy rating than comparably equipped versions of the Toyota Yaris and Corolla, or the Honda Fit.
“Fuel economy is top-of-mind for many of our customers, and we’re providing great-looking, well-equipped and fuel-efficient choices across our lineup – from subcompacts to crossovers to full-size pickups and SUVs,” said Mark LaNeve, GM North America vice president, Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing. “We are using our technology leadership to squeeze more miles out of a gallon of gas, and we are investing our global resources to develop advanced technologies to help us diversify the energy sources for our future transportation needs.” In all, GM delivers 18 ’09 models – including three hybrids – that achieve EPA-estimated 30 miles per gallon or more on the highway, more than any other automaker. Chevrolet, GM’s largest brand, leads with eight – including the popular Malibu midsize sedan – followed by Pontiac and Saturn with five each.
Click here for a look at some of GM’s more fuel-efficient 2009 model year vehicles.

For the link in the article: http://media.gm.com/servlet/Gateway...ws/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=49353

 

[Rich Parsons]

An article about Chrysler

Chrysler stunned the automotive industry by unveiling three production-intent electric vehicles (EVs) on cable news channel CNBC.
The first is a two-seat Dodge-brand sports car based on the Lotus Europa, which the company claims can go 0-60 mph in under 5 seconds, recharge in 4 hours on 220V current, and achieve a range of 150-200 miles. It features a 26-kWh lithium-ion battery and a 200W (268hp) electric motor in a lightweight platform.
Also unveiled were extended-range electric vehicle (E-REV) versions of its Chrysler Town & Country minivan and Jeep Wrangler 4-Door, both of which will reportedly be able to drive 40 miles on pure electric power before an onboard internal combustion engine kicks in to extend its electric range to nearly 400 miles. The minivan also features a similar motor, but comes with a 22-kWh battery; it will reportedly run to 60 mph in 8.7 seconds and comes with a massive 468 lbs/ft of torque at zero RPM. The Jeep features a massive 27-kWh battery and a more reasonable 260 lbs/ft of torque from its identical electric motor, allowing it to do 0-60 in 9.0 seconds. The total range for the E-REV minivan and Wrangler should be nearly 400 miles, according to the company, which would equate to roughly 50 mpg after the initial 40 miles of electrical power runs out.

The vehicles have powertrains developed in-house by Chrysler's ENVI division, according to Chrysler Vice-Chairman and President Tom LaSorda, who spoke with Global Insight early yesterday morning. Chrysler's ENVI division, tasked with the development of the company's alternative-fuel and electric powertrains, has used the last year-and-a-half to act as an integrator of various suppliers’ components. A collaboration deal between General Electric and Chrysler announced earlier this year has helped develop these vehicles, according to LaSorda, and several battery suppliers have been employed. Chrysler has said that at least one of these vehicles will enter production by the end of 2010, but that all of them are intended for production. The sports car will be developed in conjunction with Lotus, according to engineering guru Frank Klegon, with which Chrysler is currently holding discussions.
Helping to make these vehicles possible is the partnership that Chrysler announced earlier this year with General Electric, says Klegon. “Chrysler’s partnership with General Electric combines the electric-drive technology demonstrated in the Chrysler Electric Vehicles, with GE’s research and development of advanced energy storage systems”, the executive said in a statement. Those advanced storage systems revolve around a "dual-battery" solution being pursued by GE, in which two kinds of lithium-ion cells (ones specifically formulated for low but steady power output, and others formulated for fast discharge for immediate power) are both employed in the vehicle to optimise it for various driving conditions. “One of the challenges with electric vehicles is finding a battery with the correct balance between power—for example, during vehicle acceleration—and energy for long driving range,” said Klegon. “We believe that combining two unique battery chemistries—one biased toward power and the other toward energy—into a single battery pack is very promising for a future Chrysler Electric Vehicle”, he added.
Outlook and Implications
Perhaps the best-kept secret in the auto industry, Chrysler's electric car bombshell is an attempt to prove to the public and media that the company is indeed working on future vehicles, and that it still has life left in it. As for which of the vehicles will enter production, the most likely candidate is the Dodge EV sports car, as it seems to be based on an existing platform (the Lotus Europa) and is likely to require the least amount of development. The styling of the Europa looks similar enough to that of the Dodge Viper to suggest that it would fit well in the Dodge line-up and provide a very different kind of “halo” performance vehicle for the brand, which is set to see the end of its Viper brand soon. The decision to put an E-REV powertrain in the Jeep Wrangler is a curious one, as a plug-in electric off-roader seems something of an oxymoron (you cannot recharge a vehicle out in the woods). But Chrysler's plan to eventually place a motor at each wheel would make an electric off-road vehicle an intriguing idea, as it would provide exceptional manoeuvrability and traction control, and even running the gasoline (petrol) generator to provide electrical power would provide a significant emissions and fuel economy benefit over a standard Wrangler. For on-road applications, however, in-wheel electric motors can be cumbersome, as they add significantly to the suspension's unsprung weight.
An E-REV powertrain in a fully usable minivan, however, is frankly, genius. Used primarily for family-carrying duties around town and longer-range vacations, the fuel cost savings of such a vehicle would make it extremely appealing to family buyers seeking to reduce their fuel bills. Chrysler scores big points as well for making its minivans stand out from the crowd with such technology; with fewer players in the minivan field and the primary competition now coming from the Japanese and South Korean manufacturers, offering an E-REV powertrain would be a way for Chrysler to immediately leapfrog the competition. No other automaker has announced anything nearly as production-ready as the Chrysler offering, although one assumes that it would not take much for Toyota to adapt the Camry Hybrid's Synergy Drive to the Camry-platform-based Sienna minivan. The only question-mark hanging over Chrysler's minivan is its price: with the Town & Country already coming in north of US$35,000 for a well-equipped version, an extra US$10,000-15,000 for the new powertrain would push the price well into luxury car territory. It is uncertain whether or not the public would be interested in a US$50,000 minivan, even if it does operate on electrical power. Chrysler's other big challenge is to survive long enough to deliver these vehicles; its sales have been steadily dropping by over 30% year-over-year (y/y) for the past several months as a combination of unpopular passenger cars and intentionally reduced fleet sales take their toll on the company's income.
One frequently asked question that arose after yesterday's stunning announcement was how these vehicles compare to the Chevrolet Volt. GM has made much noise about how difficult and time-consuming development of the Volt has been, and how hard it has been for it to wring 40 miles out of the compact four-seater's super-slippery aerodynamic shape. After all of that, Chrysler comes along with a big, blocky minivan that seats seven, and says that its van can do exactly what the Volt does. The difference lies in the systems used: the Volt employs a 16-kWh battery versus the minivan's 26-kWh battery. As a result, the minivan (with far more room to put its components) can carry more energy storage capacity. What is not known is what the internal combustion engine looks like in the minivan, and whether or not it will retain a V-6 or move to something much smaller. The Volt is the "tip of the iceberg", according to one GM engineer, when it comes to what the company plans to do with the car's E-Flex powertrain, hinting that the system is scalable and that larger vehicles are soon to come, such as the Opel/Saturn Flextreme concept crossover utility vehicle (CUV). What Chrysler has done is thrown down the gauntlet to GM, declaring its own EV intentions; this is likely to speed up GM's own schedule of announcements of what vehicles might soon be coming after the Volt.
But even more interesting has been the response from the Japanese automakers—continued outright scepticism. Toyota has announced plans to basically offer hybrid-electric versions of everything it makes, but these differ from GM and Chrysler's planned offerings in that they are not E-REV vehicles; the internal combustion engine will continue to drive the wheels in Toyota's cars, whereas the IC engines in the American offerings will simply serve as generators. Even Toyota's plug-in Prius, expected to arrive in late 2010, will not be in consumers’ hands immediately. Honda has also chimed in, adding fuel cells to its call for more gasoline-electric hybrids, claiming that lithium-ion battery technology simply is not yet ready to allow for pure EV cars to be sold to consumers. Yet fast-forward two or three years, and it looks as though the American companies will beat their Japanese counterparts to the EV party, a mirror image of the current situation regarding hybrids, where the American companies find themselves behind the curve. Add to the mix the work that the domestic auto industry is doing in partnership with North American utilities to find solutions to make the United States more EV friendly (such as researching public charging stations, finding urban dweller street parking charging solutions, etc.), and there are definite signs that the American manufacturers are gaining a head-start in this area.Source: Global Insight 9-24-08

GMPT CI analyst Richard Doggart's assessment of Chrysler's EV and EREV Vehicle Annoucement: not just vapor...

https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/gallery/



It appears that Chrysler is using a Weber 750cc 2 cylinder engine. Naturally aspirated it produces 54hp (40kW) in automotive applications [59kW/80hp in recreational applications]. When turbo charged it produces 83hp (61kW) automotive [76kW/104hp recreational]. The engine is Ethanol Flex Fuel capable. It is possible Weber has developed a slightly higher displacement version of the engine, though there is not mention of it. Interesting that the Chrysler web site claims that the Dodge/Lotus is an EV only with no range extending ICE. Also, not sure how it would package, as the battery pack stands where the ICE would have been and the electronics appear to occupy most of the space above the electric motor.



Following is Weber's web site. Weber is well established and produces engines for Polaris PWC's.

http://www.weber-motor.com/en/products/mpe-750/turbocharged-engine/index.html

http://www.weber-motor.com/en/products/mpe-750/naturally-aspirated-engine/index.html

Here are pictures of the Weber.



Note the red headed non-automotive engine (weber 750cc NA... file) and the picture on the first page in the Weber service manual. The ignition coils are clearly mounted at the extreme ends of the head (one unique characteristic of this engine is that the cam drive is in the middle of the motor between the two cylinders - reversible heads). On the Wrangler picture, it is clear that the coil location as well as intake location plus what appears to be the fuel rail matches in all 3 pictures.

I recognized the Weber engine from the 2007 Geneva Auto Show where it was shown in the Dassault/Cleanova Hybrid PBV. They have a clever combination of two motors & two clutches to do a ER-EV, Parallel or Series Hybrid. Following is a little information (sorry not available as an English site)



http://www.dassault.fr/en/filiale.php?docid=82

http://www.cleanova.com/public/home.tpl?hl=fr (in French)

http://www.cleanova.com/public/rubrique.tpl?id=8051&hl=fr (system description and diagram)


http://www.cleanova.com/public/rubrique.tpl?id=8053&hl=fr (44Kw weber engine and hybrid transmission shown at Geneva 2007 - is also E85 capable)

Dassault/Cleanova package the 2 motors, clutches and controller/power electronics in 1 large box with electronics above the rotating components. In the Jeep and Chrysler Van pictures the motor appears to only have a small cover that would probably not package the power electronics. It does not appear they are using the Dassault/Cleanova system.


Alta Vista translation of the system description from the Dassault/Cleanova web site:
Developed for SVE by its Canadian partner TM4 (Hydro-Quebec Group), this synchronous permanent magnet motorization associated with an electronics of strongly integrated power is: Powerful: its high output contributes to l' autonomy of the vehicle in electric traction. Compact: it allows system CLEANOVA® s' to integrate easily in all the vehicle, with a mechanics very simplified thanks to the removal of the gear box. Pleasant: all at the same time soft, flexible and powerful, it ensures an easy, nimble and comfortable control. Two pedals are enough there. For the hybrid version, the engine two cylinders Weber MPE 750 is the perfect partner. Coupled with the generator/integrated starter, it forms with MoGen a group single motor bike compact engine. Its 40 kw come in support from the electric traction to ensure an indefinite autonomy, even on motorway. According to the conditions, l' mechanical energy is transmitted to the wheels or is converted into electrical energy to reload the battery. Controlled by the powerful electrical motor, l' approval of control is completely preserved in hybrid mode. Even d' is laid out; an addition of power still improving road and motorway qualities, appreciable when the vehicle is charged. It accepts indifferently Bio-éthanol and l' gasoline, pure or mixed, in all proportions. Its calculator determines the contents of the tank automatically and adapts the adjustments engine.

In the Dodge picture the Motor Controller/Inverter is clearly a UQM unit. UQM has experience with electric and hybrid systems including work for GM. They claim to have done the development of a “multipurpose unit” to start the internal combustion engine, control regenerative braking and synchronize gears in the Precept concept. They have also done military and heavy duty truck work.
This same controller (DD45/500L or similar) used in the Dodge/Lotus appears to be used in the Jeep mounted roughly in the area where the transmission would have been with a conventional ICE. The controller is not readily visible on the Chrysler Van. There appears to be an electronics stack on the passenger side of the 750cc Weber engine ( not likely the DD45/500L would not package there).

Following is a UQM presentation touting their capabilities and showing some of their offerings. The second is a motor/controller spec sheet. The controller appears very similar to the one in the Dodge/Lotus.



The generators in the Jeep and Chrysler appear to be the same/similar. The motor in the Jeep appears similar to the UQM 150 Traction, though at higher power & lower torque rating than on UQM's spec sheet. The layout in the Jeep is very similar to a 2006 UQM Chevy Silverado conversion using a 120kW/650Nm motor & 46kWh battery pack.


http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/01/edta-conference-more-details-on-uqm-s-electric-silverado/

Interestingly, UQM also partners with Phoenix Motor Cars of Ontario CA. An electric vehicle "manufacture", actually a converter of SSanygyong Rexton SUV's and SUT's to all electric vehicles using UQM technology. Phoenix is funded partially from Dubia. The specifications of their vehicles (retail sales start in 2010 - fleet sales presumably sooner) include a 200kw/268hp 800Nm UQM motor and 35kWh batteries. The peak power rating matches that of the Dodge and Jeep. Phoenix has been using NanoSafe lithium titanate batteries from Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. UQM's Chairman, VP of Technology & VP of Operations all serve on the Phoenix BOD.
Phoenix specifications:
In April 2007 Phoenix and UQM announced joint development of a 'battery dominant range extender' using a small gasoline engine.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/phoenix_motorca.html

It could be that UQM is working with Chrysler. They claim to have very good integration capabilities, as well as producing hardware and software solutions.

 

[Rich Parsons]

An article about Russian Automotive as someone asked about foriegn companies and other countries

Russia: AvtoVAZ Acquires Platform Licences from Renault—Report
Russia's largest carmaker AvtoVAZ has agreed a deal with Renault to acquire the French carmaker's platform technology for the Logan and Logan van, according to a company statement. AvtoVAZ said it had agreed to pay Renault 220 million euro (US$320.7 million) for the platforms which included the Logan's B0 platform and the Logan van's RF90 vehicle base. The licence also allows AvtoVAZ access to two unspecified Renault engines, although these are likely to be the 1.4- and 1.6-litre gasoline (petrol) units currently used in the Logan model range.
Significance: It appears that Renault is endorsing a plan for AvtoVAZ's Lada brand to manufacture a new passenger car based heavily on the Logan platform. The "Lada Logan" is likely to be heavily restyled in order to distinguish it from the Renault-manufactured version of the budget passenger car, which is currently manufactured at the Avtoframos plant near Moscow. Renault has taken the 220 million euro payment, it would seem, partly as compensation for the potential negative impact on sales of the Renault Logan in Russia that the new Lada design will have. However, as a 25% shareholder in AvtoVAZ Renault also stands to benefit if the much-needed new models help rebuild AvtoVAZ's dwindling market share, although the group still remains Russia's largest passenger car manufacturer by sales volume. Global Insight forecast last week that a redesigned Lada version of the Logan would be the best way to revive the company's fortunes in Russia (see Russia: 16 September 2008: Renault Increases Influence at Russia's AvtoVAZ).

 

[Rich Parsons]

This is information out of Germany about Diesels. Europe has been increasing their emission requirements over the past few years. The particulate filter is already in effect as a requirement for passenger vehicles in the US.

GERMANY: Short journey diesel ruled 'not fit for purpose'

23 September 2008 | Source: just-auto.com editorial team
A German court has ruled that a diesel car can be returned after its purchase if it is not deemed fit for purchase. In this case the car was deemed not suitable for short journeys.
The case concerned a complaint from a customer for a new diesel car. Shortly after the car was bought, it frequently stopped working because the car was fitted with a particulate filter that would clog up on short journeys.
The court ruled that a customer must be able to use any car exclusively on short journeys, without having to worry about technical problems. CI comment: There is an increasing awareness that vehicles need to have periods of extended driving for DPF cleaning. This might influence European customer purchase behavior toward gasoline fuel engines.

 

[Rich Parsons]

An article about Toyota Plug-ins that mention GM and Chrysler as well.

Toyota Plug-In Strategy Favors Low Cost Over Long Range
By Eric Mayne
WardsAuto.com, Sep 23, 2008 11:05 AM PORTLAND, OR – Toyota Motor Corp.’s first plug-in hybrid vehicles will have a 10-mile (16-km) range under electric power, well short of the 40 miles (64 km) promised by General Motors Corp.’s first offering, the Chevrolet Volt.
But Toyota believes its strategy represents a better consumer-value proposition, because less range corresponds to a smaller, and, therefore, more-affordable version of the lithium-ion battery that serves as the core of PHEV technology. The revelation is made as Toyota prepares to outline its alternative-powertrain strategy at a sustainable mobility conference it will hold here tomorrow, against a backdrop of global concern about future energy needs. The auto maker has gathered leading analysts and academics for a serious discussion about energy-resource management.

“What we really need to do as we go through this test is not only understand the durability of the (Li-on) battery, but also understand from the customer perspective the mix between range, cost and how much space are they willing to give up to increase range?” Jim Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., tells Ward’s in a recent exclusive interview in Southfield, MI.
The auto maker is searching for “the best landing spot between range, cost and an impact to the overall package,” he says. “Are these (PHEVs) going to be bought by people who are primarily doing commutes that are 15 miles (24 km) long? Are these going to be bought by people like myself? I’ve got a 47-mile (75-km) commute.”
Lentz says he “can’t imagine” a battery so large that it would accommodate a charge sufficient to power a vehicle even 50 miles (80 km). “I’m not sure if I would want to give up my cargo space, as an example, to be able to put the batteries in, or (cover) the cost of a battery made to get that kind of distance. “All of that has to be understood, along with the durability, before we come to market with a product,” he says.
Toyota officials here say the auto maker’s first PHEVs will feature sufficient battery capacity to power a 10-mile (16-km) commute using an electric motor. This is consistent with the minimum standard outlined in a pending low-emission-vehicle initiative in California aimed at encouraging auto makers to sell electric vehicles.
Toyota’s current plug-ins, made available here for media test drives, can travel about 7 miles (11 km) on a single charge using a nickel-metal-hydride battery.
Due at the end of 2009, Toyota’s next-generation plug-ins will arrive in low volumes. They will be leased to fleet customers that agree to provide performance data expected to help the auto maker advance the development of its PHEV technology.
Meanwhile, Toyota is unfazed by the Volt’s 40-mile (64-km) range target being trumpeted by GM.
“That’s General Motors’ price of entry,” says Bill Reinert, Toyota’s national manager-advanced product technology. “Personally, I look for a lower price of entry; a lower cost target; an easier approach; and a shorter range to get the customer ready for the car.”
GM says it will deliver the Volt for retail consumption in 2010. And Chrysler LLC today unveils four prototype electric-range plug-ins capable of 40-200 miles (320 km).
But Reinert, one of the presenters scheduled to address journalists here today, adds a note of caution. “You’re dealing with a fairly new technology,” he tells Ward’s. “You’re dealing with a market segment that’s never been explored before. How much do drivers value the EV range? “Here’s the thing: You put the bun in the oven, and five years later it comes out. So, we’re talking about 2010, 2011, 2012. And if gas is (back down to) $2.50 a gallon, will anybody care about any of this stuff?” Clearly, however, Toyota is balancing skepticism with a healthy dose of advanced planning. Spokesman John Hanson confides the auto maker also is tooling up a plant in Japan to produce 1 million Li-ion batteries annually.

 

[Rich Parsons]

As Dungeonworks referenced about cost of supplies going up here is proof that Toyota is looking into how to reduce the cost of use of Copper

NEXT TOYOTA YARIS TO GET ALUMINUM WIRING HARNESS
Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. will begin mass production of its new aluminum-based wire harness in 2010, The Nikkei reports. It says the first application will be in Toyota Motor Corp.’s 2011 Yaris subcompact. Although the aluminum harness is 20%-25% larger in diameter than a conventional copper system, it is as much as 40% lighter. It’s also cheaper than copper. Source: AutoTech Daily 9-24-08

I am not allowed to comment on GM as I do not know if it has been released to the public. I am sorry.

I will say this that Aluminum has to be much larger to handle the same load, but it may not be good enough in some cases for critical measurements.

 

[Rich Parsons]

More about foriegn car companies this being India and TaTa

United Kingdom - India: Jaguar Land Rover Losses May Affect Future Financial Performance, Says Tata Motors
Tata Motors has said that losses at its luxury brands Jaguar and Land Rover could hurt the future financial performance of its business, reports the Press Trust of India. The company said in a prospectus for a newly proposed rights issue that the pair could pressure its "profit margins and its operating ratios". The Indian company also revealed that the two brands made a loss of US$383 million during the first six months of 2008, although they did post earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of US$625 million over the same period.
Significance: This type of warning is often issued by companies to potential investors as they highlight the possible pitfalls of their future plans. Tata also said that any disruption to component supplies from Ford or other manufacturers could have a material impact on its business, while an increase in pension contributions could also have an adverse effect. The company will make 41.5 billion rupees (US$907.6 million)-worth of ordinary and A shares available to investors on 29 September, with the closing date set at 20 October. The cash will be used to make early repayments on the US$2.3-billion acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover that took place earlier this year, the bridging loan for which will expire in June 2009 Source: Global Insight 9-24-08

 

[Rich Parsons]

Nope there is no favor here:

Plug-In Tax Credit Tweaked to Toyota’s Benefit
By Eric Mayne
WardsAuto.com, Sep 24, 2008 12:20 PM
PORTLAND, OR – Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. is feeling vindicated today after the U.S. Senate approves an amended tax-credit plan that threatened to exclude the auto maker’s pending plug-in while favoring General Motors Corp.’s Chevrolet Volt.
The plan provides tax credits of $2,500 to $15,000 for plug-in electric-drive vehicles equipped with batteries that generate at least 4 kWh. A previous version of the plan set a battery-output threshold at 5 kWh. Toyota declines to outline its objections, because the auto maker has not revealed specifications for its plug-in, which will be available for lease to commercial fleet customers starting late next year.
“A broader range of vehicles will qualify, and that was what we were looking for,” Martha Voss, Toyota manager-government and policy issues, says at a sustainable mobility seminar here sponsored by the auto maker. The Volt, scheduled to arrive in retail showrooms in 2010, features a 16-kWh battery. GM promises a range of 40 miles (64 km) per charge, while Toyota has set its sights on a 10-mile (16-km) range in a bid to reduce the size and cost of its battery.
Toyota’s Capitol Hill quarrel recalls the 2004 fight to determine which hybrid vehicles would be allowed to use California’s express lanes. The auto maker was poised to benefit from the outset because its popular Toyota Prius hybrid sedan met a fuel-economy rating that Ford Motor Co.’s Escape Hybrid cross/utility vehicle could not.
The standard eventually was lowered to include the Escape.
News of the tax credit, approved by a 93-2 Senate vote, comes amid a flurry of electric-vehicle news. Toyota announces here it will make available to a Portland mobility project four reconditioned battery-powered RAV4-EV CUVs.
The vehicles, left over from Toyota’s EV experiment that ended in 2003 after five years, will be used to advance development of an infrastructure for charging future battery-powered vehicles.
“It is obvious that the next several years will bring us a range of and growing number of low-emissions and no-emissions vehicle options,” says George Beard of Portland State University, a project sponsor along with the University of California-Irvine. “Our region’s position in renewable energy and its leadership reputation in urban sustainability make this partnership a natural for all involved.”
Toyota’s announcement comes on the heels of Chrysler LLC’s revelation Tuesday that it plans to introduce a salable electric car by 2010.
Meanwhile, the tax credit approved Tuesday by the Senate features a weight provision. The maximum amount is available only to qualifying vehicles weighing more than 26,000 lbs. (11,818 kg). For light vehicles, the maximum credit is $7,500.
The credits decline in value after the number of vehicles sold in reaches 250,000. The program, which has White House support, expires in 2014. “I have long maintained that targeted tax incentives are an essential element of a bold new energy policy for our country,” Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman says in a statement. “These incentives will play a critical role in promoting clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and, in turn, reduce our reliance on conventional fuels, promoting a more secure energy supply and combating global warming. “Equally important, these tax credits will create high-paying jobs and reduce energy costs for all Americans.” Source: WardsAuto 9-24-08

 

[Rich Parsons]

To show more major differences between North America and other markets:

Europe: EC Rules to Install Daytime Safety Lights on All Vehicles by 2011
Vehicle manufacturers in Europe will be required to equip all of their new models which are sold in the European Union (EU) with daytime safety lights starting from 2011, the European Commission (EC) has said. "The introduction of daytime running lights for cars, trucks and buses makes them more visible, which will increase road safety," EC vice-president Günter Verheugen said in a statement. He went on to say that "this will make a positive contribution to our goal of reducing fatalities on European roads whilst being more fuel efficient then existing lights." The EC claims that the lights will substantially increase the visibility of motor vehicles to other road users, and said that they have a low energy consumption compared to existing dipped-beam head lamps. Under the plans, all new types of passenger cars and small delivery vans will have to be equipped with the daytime safety lights from 7 February 2011. The new rules will be introduced for trucks and buses in August 2012.
Significance: The commission hopes this move will cut fatal road accidents in Europe by 3–5% and total collisions by 15%. These rules already apply in most Scandinavian countries, including Sweden, where the effects on road safety have been "very positive" according to the Commission. It is unclear at this point what the region's vehicle manufacturers make of the rules, although they may complain about added cost and a slight increase in fuel consumption at a time when they are being required to improve their vehicles' fuel consumption which will in itself lead to significant added costs.

Within the US we have had this on Motorcycles since the 70's and for years on vehicles. Also Canada had it as a law / requirement before US for passenger vehicles.