Chrysler's plan to beat the Chevy Volt

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CNN

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler is pinning a huge part of its future on a plan to produce a full line of electric vehicles, at a reasonable cost to both the carmaker and the consumer.

While General Motors is moving ahead with its Volt electric midsized car, Chrysler says it already has plans in place, not just for electric cars, but also for minivans and even off-road vehicles.

Chrysler's strategy hinges on keeping it cheap. The carmaker will dispense with flashy designs in exchange for low cost and flexibility. And it plans to pile on more electric-powered models quickly once the program launches in 2010.

"We aren't a one-electric-vehicle company," Lou Rhodes, Chrysler's vice president for advanced vehicle engineering, told CNNMoney in an exclusive interview.

-----

Instead of making one, or just a few, electric-only models, Chrysler will sell the same models in both gasoline-powered and electric-powered versions. This low-cost, high-variety electric-vehicle strategy will play a big part in any comeback plan Chrysler may present in hopes of getting government rescue funding.




Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/autos/chrysler_envi/index.htm?postversion=2008121513

---

Sounds like a good plan to me!

[flvegan]

1. This is the correct way to do it.

Spread the electric technology across your entire brand.

[oldnslo]

2. I'll believe it when I see it. Chrysler is all but dead.

[lithiumbomb]

26. Agreed

I wish them luck, but I believe there is a fair amount of smoke and mirrors to get some positive PR as well as make the company more attractive for sale. Their electric sports car is a Lotus Europa and I'll bet you it's got a Tesla drivetrain in it. The Tesla electric sports car is based on the Lotus Elise, and Lotus helped with some of the development and manufacturing. Tesla sells theirs for $100k each (and is on the verge of going under). This isn't a mass market car.

For their gas/electric contraptions, their prototypes were simply mockups. Even if Chrysler gets a bailout, it has no money to even develop replacements for its existing product lines, much less come up with gas/electric hybrids. I hope they pull it off but they are going to need a serious injection of money from a partner.

[depakid]

3. "dispense with flashy designs"

I reckon so.

[Jack Bone]

4. Here's the roll-out from this past autumn..

Chrysler pulls some electric cars out of its hat
Updated 9/26/2008 9:57 AM
By Sharon Silke Carty, USA TODAY
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. — Chrysler on Tuesday showed three plug-in electric cars, one of which will be in showrooms in 2010 as part of a plan to eventually use electric power in some form across its entire product line.

The automaker has quietly watched General Motors tout its own plug-in electric Chevrolet Volt, unveiled in production form last week. The Volt, built on a new E-Flex platform that might be used for a variety of vehicles, also is to go on sale in 2010.

"We've kept a pretty good secret here, perhaps because we haven't tooted our own horns," said Tom LaSorda, vice chairman and president of manufacturing and business development for Chrysler. "We believe action speaks louder than words." <snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-09-23-chrysler-electric_N.htm

[alllyingwhores]

5. Seriously, what's the rush?...

...Weren't we all told by our great leader (Dick Cheney) that "conserving gasoline was a personal virtue"?

[thesquanderer]

6. wrong target

"Chrysler's plan to beat the Chevy Volt" might as well be Fiat's plan to beat Yugo. The target isn't GM who will be operating on life support if they're operating at all. The real target will be what companies like Toyota and Honda will be doing.

I actually question whether the Volt is even the right strategy for GM, since from what I've read, there's no chance it will be profitable for some number of years. Maybe they could have gotten away with a strategy like that when they were making money. But when you're barely staying in business, how do you rebuild your business on a non-profit product?

[madrchsod]

7. anything is better than the stuff they build now....

i`ve owned or driven every generation of chrysler products since 1962 and this generation of dodge/chrysler is one of the worse. the guy who bought chrysler took a different model home each week and he could not believe just how bad the autos were.

he`s taking a page from the last chrysler bail out when chrysler revolutionize the industry with the mini van and a new generation of small inexpensive autos...

[Phred42]

8. If the dumb bastards had done this even 5 years ago

they would own the market NOW.

[knixphan]

19. EXACTLY!

[Ian David]

9. Ooh! Ooh! I want an Electric PT Cruiser! No! No! An Electric PROWLER!

[Aristus]

10. Oh...NOW they're competing to get a quality electric car on the market!...

...too fuckin' late, assholes... :eyes:

[dwilso40641]

11. I hope it's not another K-Car

[JJ]

14. I hope it is another K-car

basic transportation that many can afford.
I've been looking at the hybrids (Prius) on the market, and they cost too damn much.

[Owl]

21. Exactly right.

[last1standing]

12. Do you really believe Chrysler just thought of this last week?

Seriously?

Are you telling me you don't understand even the basics of how long it takes to move a vehicle of this nature from concept to creation to showroom? In case you're really that unaware, it takes years to do it and if they're announcing that they'll have them ready by 2010, then they started this at least 2-3 years ago.

And they'll be in front of not only GM, but Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, etc....

So how is first "too fuckin' late"?

Really, it's only too late if ignorant senators and people on message boards are successful in destroying an American company and millions of jobs for the sake of narrow ideology.

[DCKit]

17. I don't know how old you are, but as I remember it....

we got the wake-up call in 1973. Our dependence on imported petroleum was seen by many as a national security issue even then.

If 35 years isn't enough time to get something as comparatively simple as the electric car vs. the ICE to market, we probably should allow the big three do die a well deserved death - putting them on life-support at this late date would be cruel.

[TommyO]

20. Then all of the Japanese and Korean manufacturers deserve to die as well

None of them has a marketable all electric car at this point either, and they're no farther along than the US manufacturers in developing them.

[tclambert]

22. It's the battery technology that held everything up.

Ten years ago, they weren't good enough. Even this year, they aren't quite good enough in large enough quantities. Cell phones and laptop computers have driven battery technology into the right territory. Now for cars we need, oh, about a thousand times as much battery production.

[last1standing]

31. Please then, explain to this neophyte why the Germans and Japanese haven't done it.

If the market was there and it was so simple, why didn't auto companies from countries with far less oil production than ourselves do it yeas ago? Germany and Japan had the technology and certainly with much higher gas prices they had the incentive but didn't do it. It seems to me that we should be Damning Daimler and Toyota before GM and Chrysler for this.

Or could this just be about your own desire to take revenge on any American company even at the expense of a few million jobs? There are some posters here who would welcome another Great Depression with open arms just so they can say they were right. :mad:

[DCKit]

33. I'm not personally responsible for what any of the car companies have or haven't done...

to develop a sustainable fleet. My participation is limited to not choosing to buy a car - any car - from any of the above.

I can't speak for the Japanese or European automakers, but the U.S. government has thrown billions of dollars at the car companies for the development of new technologies over the past three decades. I have every reason and right to be disappointed in our domestic manufacturers.

Lead acid was good enough for the EV-1 and NiMh was coming along nicely - until Big Oil and the automakers bought the technology and squelched it. Thankfully, there are too many derivations of Lithium technology and too many patent owners for a convenient round-up and suppression.

We deserve better.

[last1standing]

34. That is not true.

Even the Clinton administration did little to advance new technologies for automobiles and to suggest that either Bush or Reagan did is ludicrous. The last president, or congress, to do much toward alternative energies is Carter and his work was quickly undone.

It's also very telling that you "can't speak for the Japanese or European automakers" but feel quite able to condemn the U.S. automakers when you know no more about them than their counterparts. I suggest you learn a bit about why they have done even less than the American companies to push progress in this area before slamming our companies so hard.

As for The EV-1 and EV-2, as I said elsewhere in this thread, that was a colossal failure on the part of GM and should never have been allowed. However, when you have a government that is tearing down regulations and oversight, you will have fiascoes of this nature. GM saw that their aftermarket sales would plummet with electric cars so they stopped the project. If the government had stood up to them we could have efficient electric cars running all over the country today. But you can't blame a corporation working to improve profits, only a government that doesn't moderate corporate greed with consumer needs.

Yes, we deserve better, but we got what we voted for - a deregulated economy that is spinning out of control. Now is the time to fix it, not to let it implode by allowing 3 million people to lose their jobs.

[DCKit]

37. The Clinton administration did give the big three massive amounts of money...

to develop new technologies. I worked on some litigation dealing with the project back in the early-mid 90's. From what I remember, the total funding/grants were about $2.4 billion - cash paid directly to the Big Three.

http://www.ibiblio.org/darlene/tech/report8.html

Clean Car Initiative.

On September 29, 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore joined with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to announce an historic new partnership. The Clean Car Initiative aims to strengthen U.S. competitiveness by developing technologies for a new generation of vehicles that are both safer and up to three times more fuel efficient (80 miles per gallon or better) than today's cars. Major collaborations with the Big Three U.S. automakers are under development. On the government side, a high-level coordinating committee chaired by Under Secretary of Commerce for Tech- nology Mary Good is directing R&D in a strategic plan to avoid duplication, focus on priority areas, and make the most of existing resources. The first stage of the plan is in fast-track development, to be completed before the end of the year.

--snip--

And no, I don't speak for the Japanese and European auto makers because MY government doesn't fund their technology programs. However, my government does continue to roadblock their most efficient cars from import.

As far as the EV-1 and EV-2 go, we obviously took very different messages from "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Had GM tried to build an affordable electric car instead of making them a test-bed for all of their advanced technology, they would have had no case at all. Everything they did was engineered to fail.

My criticism of the Big Three isn't recent: I've been critical of them for a couple of decades because I remember the '70's. I was critical of them here on DU long before they suddenly went broke building SUVs - just as I have been critical of government, the mortgage industry, Big Agro, Wall Street and Big Oil - they invaded the government agencies who were supposed to regulate them with the collusion of the Republics and Dinos, and the resulting economic mess is no surprise to me.

[last1standing]

38. I read about some 'proposed' funds, but not actual monies spent.

It also emphasizes my point that even if the money was provided, why was there no oversight to see that it was spent properly? We can never depend on a corporation, foreign or domestic, to work in our interests. That's why we have governments and ours has let us down, badly.

And we learned the same lesson from "Who Killed the Electric Car?". Once again, GM worked in its own short term interests, just as all corporations do. They saw that the aftermarket would be decimated and decided to pull the project. Yet another reason for government regulations and oversight. If the government hadn't pulled their CAFE standards we could be looking at an entirely different scenario now. Also, I've been extremely critical of the auto companies. I live in motorcity and know first hand the problems they've caused and ignored. That still doesn't mean we should allow the last of our manufacturing to go overseas or destroy the unions. It also doesn't mean we should decimate the national economy by shoving 3 million people into the unemployment lines. Lastly, it doesn't mean we should forfeit our national interests by losing the knowledge and infrastructure domestic auto plants provide.

[DCKit]

39. I never said I opposed the loans, and I don't.

However, $12-$25 billion in loans with a Car-Czar to oversee them under the Republics is simply going to mean the loss of another $12-$25 billion dollars.

The automobile manufacturers have the technology to roll out a whole new generation of energy efficient vehicles. It's up to U.S. to demand they do so as a condition of the loans.

[last1standing]

40. Now we're entering territory we can agree on.

Yes, we need proper oversight and strong regulations that force companies (all companies) to act in a way that serves the public. Give the auto companies their loans but make them keep jobs in this country and make them work toward renewable energy solutions.

[tclambert]

23. I have to keep explaining to people it takes 5 years to bring a new car design to market.

Even a prototype takes a long time to cobble together. To put one in production requires massive testing and building a gigantic manufacturing facility. A lot of people seem to expect it to be a weekend project.

The Chevy Volt was displayed as a concept car at the 2007 NAIA auto show. Yet it won't be on sale for two years yet.

[last1standing]

32. I don't give US auto companies a free ride on this.

GM had the EV-1 and EV-2 back in the 90's and should have continued with it. Unfortunately, greed took hold and they destroyed them because they found the aftermarket for parts was so small. But this doesn't excuse any of the foreign companies who have had the chance to jump in and do the same and it sickens me to see how many posters at DU are actually cheering on the demise of millions of jobs and the fundamental core of our nation.

[Aristus]

27. "Too fuckin' late" is Detroit was building viable electric cars back in the 1920's.

Then they threw them over for internal combustion cars. Rather than work a little harder developing the technology, they took the easy way out. So we're essentially ninety years behind the times. I can't believe every time I go out and start up my car, I'm using 120 year-old technology. I thought capitalism was supposed to be about innovation, visionary advancement and daring developmental business practices...

[Rage for Order]

28. Are you serious?

Or should I say, "Are you series??/???//?//?" If you are, then please tell us what technology we should focus on today, in 2008, so when the year 2100 rolls around we won't be 90 years behind the times again. :eyes:

[last1standing]

30. So American car companies should fail and millions of people put out of work?

No one, including the Japanese and Germans developed the electric car but I don't hear anyone attacking them for being too fucking late. I find that very interesting.

Also, did it ever occur to you that many homes didn't have electricity in the 1920's, especially rural homes? Lyndon Johnson had to force the utilities to bring electricity to many areas of the country in the mid to late '60's. Did those people not deserve cars in your mind? It was also more expensive than gas and much more dangerous before proper insulators like plastic were readily available. And then there's the fact that coal supplied the vast majority of electric at the time and would have created much more pollution than gas did.

I'm just not willing to wish failure on our auto companies because they didn't move toward a different fuel source 90 years ago. Especially when the decision would have been a worse one at the time.

[Aristus]

35. See? This is why we've lost our edge as a developer of new technologies. We've rationalized it too

much.

Essentially, your argument is "Since it's okay that the Germans and Japanese haven't done it, it's okay for us not to have done it."

Don't forget, Germany and Japan both have extensive rail networks that can put you anywhere in the country in a short amount of time. Their light-rail and commuter rail systems are second-to-none. Both countries have worked tirelessly to move travelers out of their cars and onto the rails. Their oil demands are much lower than ours, both grossly and per capita. Many sections of their rail networks are electric. And while much of that electricity is derived from coal-fired power plants, the per-traveler carbon emissions rate is much, much lower due to the higher usage-rate of mass transit. It's hard to argue that both countries have had a lower incentive for building electric cars when their overall national car use is so much lower than ours.

What did we do in this country? The Big Three, allied with oil companies and tire companies, bought up scores of regional light-rail systems and dismantled them, paving the way for an all-car highway commuter system. And we, the people, in the form of our government, sat by and let them do it. We have a lot to atone for, and we should start by getting electric cars out on those highways the Big Three wanted so badly.

[last1standing]

41. No, my argument is destroying our manufacturing base won't make things better.

You make a good point about mass transit and who's to blame, but then go off base on how to repair the damage done. Yes, the auto companies did work to keep reliable mass transit from coming to America and yes, the government and people let them do it. So how do we rectify this?

Do you think three million more unemployed workers will be able to pay the necessary taxes to create a new infrastructure?

Do you think a bankrupt auto industry can be made to foot the bill?

Do you want to sell the husks of what was once a thriving industry to foreign competitors for pennies on the dollar and use that money?

Or do you want to work with the auto companies to save those jobs, demand that the resuscitated companies work with the government for real mass transit and keep the middle class from being entirely wiped out? This can be done, but only by loaning the auto companies the money they need to survive with strict regulations and oversight to ensure that they actually do what the law demands.

This isn't a time to nurse petty grudges because you bought a bad Vega in 1977. There's too much on the line for us to let our manufacturing base and our middle class disappear.

[madrchsod]

13. why is it to late?

hybrid/electric cars are about 2% of the overall auto market...looks like there is plenty of room to expand sales in the future

[TommyO]

18. Hardly too fuckin' late.

Where are the series hybrids (all electric drivetrain plus a small gas engine to charge the batteries for longer range driving) from the Japanese manufacturers? The Chevy Volt leapfrogs anything the Asian manufacturers have, as does the Chrysler strategy. I strongly suspect that Chrysler has been working on their electric cars and strategy for at least as long as GM has been working on the Volt.

Not only that, but in the world of parallel hybrids (like the Prius and Camry hybrids), Ford is getting excellent reviews for their Fusion hybrid, it gets better mileage than the Camry, it's direct competitor, and is a better car to drive according to the test drives that car mags have had.

[tclambert]

24. Effin' A, TommyO

One of my brothers explained to me the difference between parallel hybrids, like the Prius, and serial hybrids, like the Volt. The Prius has a complicated transmission arrangement. The gasoline engine runs a generator to recharge the battery pack and sometimes drives the wheels. The Volt's gasoline engine will only run a generator. And you can plug it in to recharge the batteries. Toyota did it all wrong with the Prius. It is not economically viable. You can get better mpg from some pure gas burners. What the Prius has going for it is novelty.

I know people who are working on the hybrid designs. They are extremely busy, and the engineering design shops who work on them are hiring, even in this economy. I've got a nephew who is even working on a hybrid motorcycle design. In five years, we will have a flood of hybrids, lots of them better than the Prius.

[Gregorian]

15. YAY!!!!

Now we're talking.

But what am I going to do with my Porsche? Waaaaaaaah! It's going to be worthless soon. Which is just fine by me. I want an electric car. 100% torque at 0 rpm. That's fun. Clean fun.


PS- I realize this doesn't solve anything. But I'm still happy about it. Now we need to find a way to generate volts and amps without using petroleum. Or coal.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I'm guessing by the time I need a new vehicle

There will be off-the-shelf conversion systems to retrofit new electric systems to current gas-powered chassis. If not, I'll make my own dammit.

[Gregorian]

25. There already are.

There's a shop in San Francisco that retrofits Priuses. They get 100 mile per gallon. But I doubt one could find that sort of thing in Boise.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I've seen that kit. You can order it somewheres...

But I mean fully electric solutions, not hybrids. I need my truck a couple times a month for truck-y type things, hauling things, etc. If I could get 2-300 miles of range out of it without any hybrid crap, just pure electric, I would be so happy. First opportunity, I will convert it to electric. (or maybe a fuel cell, if that ends up making sense when they iron out the carbon-free source of hydrogen stuff.)

[Javaman]

36. Finally, it takes them being pushed to the wall financially to see the future.

If they actully do this, instead of giving us lip service, I will gladly buy one.