> > Alongside that reasoning, I offer the following > hypotheses: > > Manufacturers stand to lose the costs of > "stranded assets" including not only > the physical plants that make outmoded engines, > but patents and work put forth > on those technologies, and infrastructures > designed to service and repair those > outmoded technologies. If EV's are > dramatically simpler and more > maintenance-free over the life of the vehicle, > then this would reduce profits > over the life of the vehicle for the > manufacturer, and maybe get cars out on the > road that would need to be replaced less often. > > It's hard to say what demand there might be for > EV's because those few efforts > that have been made to half-offer them to > fleets or even (rarely) to the public > have been so anti-sales that it's hard for me > to say definiitively how much > interest there was or is. I think there's more > than the manufacturers have let > on, and I think their credibility is low. > > Josh and Peter, I agree on all points and offer the following as a (personal, first hand experience) explanation; The "factory" makes money at every point of the process; dealership franchise fees, fees for credit flooring, they sell all the support materials such as signs, banners, inserts, brochures, contracts, business cards, etc.. They also make money on the vehicles they sell to the dealerships, and even more money on the parts, by percentage of profit. The dealerships make some money on every vehicle they sell, but mainly through trade-ins, the Service Departments make an absolute KILLING!!! A profit margin of 75% is not uncommon or unthinkable. The Parts Departments make another, smaller killing, but still substantial. Parts sales and the service departments carry the dealerships. That's where "it all happens". Opinions follow; GM thought that the EV1 would certainly not be as popular as it was. It attracted way too substantial an interest level. That would have certainly taken money out of the corporate coffers, and allowed it to remain in the pockets of customers. EV's don't have as many parts, as many expensive time change itms, such as filters, wear items are drastically cut. You see what I've been saying for years. You see, they had to bury all the interest that people demonstrated by requesting test drives and by getting on waiting lists! It would have WRECKED them financially! They could have mass produced the EV1 and brought the price down through EOS. It was just a matter of time, as it is with any new vehicle line or model. They deemed it not profitable in the long run. It wasn't good for their long-term interests. I'm glad to finally see someone else, at least one person, agree's with me. I don't put it as eliquently as Josh. I use fewer, harsher and more maverick words. I'm too radical to acheive mass audience receptiveness. I think both of you are right on and can combine your points to form at least part of the mosiac of this great picture puzzle we analyze with gritted teeth. We'll never know everything, but I think we have a pretty solid ding from the horseshoe pit here. Thanks for letting me chime in guys!! Regards, Rick
