Re: Spouse EVs (was: TZero replacement for EV1)

[Michael A Perry <mperry@efn.org>]

Mark Hanson wrote:

> Email Bill Gates
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson [mailto:nesenrik@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 3:14 PM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: Spouse EVs (was: TZero replacement for EV1)
>
> I have always felt that a small EV, selling for about $12k, would be a great
> success.  I actually got excited when Chrysler started experimenting with
> injected plastic bodies, as that would bring the price and weight down
> enough to allow adequate performance and range.  A car that could sustain 60
> mph for 60 miles on a daily basis would work.  I don't think any of the
> major automakers could get the same profit margin from such a car, so it is
> only a dream.  Perhaps a rich environmentalist will decide to take advantage
> of modern technology and introduce such a vehicle.

If a small company such as Corbin can do it... you have to know it could be done
world wide. True, their cars are $14K, but with the distribution channels of the
big-3, they could probably sell 10 times the cars they currently are selling...
and probably around $10-11K, at a profit.

Chrysler is an excellent example, although belated in their appearance on the EV
front. They can produce very limited production cars, 18 months start to
production, and make a profit.

If CA folds, Corbin may continue to provide a nitch market, but, again, it could
be very hard pressed. I would not be surprised, if CA holds fast, to see the
Sparrow offered at dealerships, under a different name tag... and thousands
less. Few people are going to drive the Think, and few can afford the EVII, as
nice as it is, nor even the full sized Ford EV. We need a small car, one of
capable mileage, single occupant, that will meet commuting needs.

If CA does hold fast on their car needs, I think you'll see significant cost
increases for ICE cars in that state... and possibly for all states. If they
hold true, you'll eventaully see these EV cars offered to other states, rather
than trying to hold them only for this limited market. This will be a marketing
effort... it's better to spread the costs across all states, rather than absorb
a loss in a single state. Perhaps, if they wish to back down on the state laws,
they could just limit parking to non EVs... or could somehow make it less
desirable to drive an ICE within the city limits.