Chrysler Surges Forward with Electric Vehicles: Jeep EV

[NearTheLimits]

Much better without that silly noise (music)

[billdale1]

all fueled cars must be supplied by a nightmare of tanker trucks, dispatchers, diesel mechanics, and an army of drivers and full-time support personnel just to keep the gas stations supplied-- that triples the true cost of running that sorry smelly noisy gas guzzler of yours.

And just how long do you think gasoline can remain @ its present price? They are already drilling miles below the ocean out of desperation, and the more trouble they have to go to to get the oil, the more it costs!

[billdale1]

juscurious (cont'd 4): instead of 25- 40 cents per mile for gasoline depending on cost of gas.

EVs never need to idle, only turn as fast as they need to turn to move the car; are far more efficient, simpler, cleaner.

The reason gas prices have not skyrocketed again since last 2008 is because OPEC realizes that when gasoline passed 3/ gal, there was enormous new interest in driving EVs. EVs R what hold down gas prices!

I have an EV (see my You Tube video), so I KNOW what I'm talking about!

[billdale1]

juscurious (cont'd 4): of 25 - 40 cents per mile for gasoline depending on price of gas. The reason OPEC has not allowed gas prices to skyrocket again since last year is cuz they know that if they keep it below $3/ gal., there will be far less interest in switching to EVs.

EVs do not need reverse gears like ICE cars do cuz electric motors can turn in reverse to back up, unlike ICEs. No wasted energy making noise, vibration & pumping gallons of air and fluid-- coolant, oil, etc. (cont'd)

[MrMegaWolfeman]

@billdale1 Well bill, by your own arguing, we should be using rotary engines, more reliable, less parts etc, and also are less damaging to the environment than the creation of batteries. If we have such an epidemic with throwing out double A batteries, what do you think when 100 million americans need to replace their car batteries?

[billdale1]

@MrMegaWolfeman U have no ability to reason! Just cuz there R some laughable conspiracy theories does not mean no one has ever carried out a conspiracy, & just cuz the oil companies don't conspire with each other does not mean they don't individually try to suppress products or legislation that would reduce their profits. BP's disregard for the lives & safety of its workers is being proven as we speak, as we all see.

I have no doubt U have a vested interest in sweeping dirt under the rug!

[billdale1]

@MrMegaWolfeman (cont'd) No, a rotary driven car is not simpler, more efficient or less polluting than an EV! An EV can be charged by solar and the energy delivered very efficiently over the grid-- not so with a rotary, which can be efficient, or clean-running, but not both! Any engineer knows that! The Mazda rotaries are extremely inefficient, which is why they are the poor man's sports car.

An EV requires no transmission or moving parts at all other than their wheels-- check yr facts!

[Acrimony01]

This car is awesome! Electric vehicles have a distinct advantage of near 100% torque at 0 MPH and electronic wheel control (which does anyway with what we think of as 4wd h or l. As long as the power and range keeps improving this is the future of all-terrain vehicles.

[emforty2]

ha ha the EV-1 not feasible

so is the HUMMER which is going bankrupt

Hummer sales are minimal even 5 years ago

[Knockturnall1]

Now corporate mutherfuckers are pushing forward vigorously Electric Vehicles now that they are in deep shit. What ever happened to the EV1 car that was already in production and in circulation in 1996-1999? I really hope that GM goes Bankrupt because they deserve it. And that is what they get for letting big oil companies manipulate them.

[juscurious]

You should learn a little more about EV1 before posting silly comments. The EV1 simply wasn't feasible in the 1990's. It was a two seater electric that cost GM more than $80,000each. They could never have sold more than just a few of these cars. The battery technology is just now getting to a point that an electric/extended range might be feasible. The batteries in an EV1 would not last longer than 50,000 miles and the public expects more than that. GM lost $2,000,000,000 on the whole thing.

[frankdahlin]

We can all try to understand what happend with the EV1. I don't know exactly what happend - but I don't belive its been proved it wasn't feasible. However I belive a lot point to that GM did not want to sell these cars - and was ready to take the loss. Perhaps the loss was more than paied by oil.

[juscurious]

Okay then why didn't Toyota or Honda or Ford or whoever jump into the all electric carr market. There's good reason. They knew as well as anyone that the market wasn't there in the early 1990's. Yes later Toyota would go for the Parallel Hybrid in the form of the Prius but that's nothing like the all electric. No GM canceling the all electric was the right decision. Granted crushing them - terrible PR but the EV1 was the wroing car at the wrong time. The Volt is the right car at the right time.

[frankdahlin]

Toyota Rav4EV and Ford Ranger EV was also made. Citroen in Europe made EV cars. Many of these still run in perfect condition. However EV was never advertised right. E.g. EV-1 commercials focusing on the limited range. GM trying to get the cars of the street. If they did not work - why help the cars "fail"? Battery factory overtaken by GM and forbitten to make battery for cars. Yes terrible PR.

[juscurious]

I drive the CA Freeways everyday and I've never seen a Toyota RavEV. Never seen a Ranger EV. If they were/are produced I bet everything I have they LOSE money. You conspiracy theorists will not give up on the fact that EV wasn't practical in early 1990s when gas was relatively cheap. So why has Toyota sold a ton of Prius and little or no RavEV? Because the Toyota EV is very expensive will very little range. The people who had EV1 were subsidized. They would not have bought EV1 at $80K.

[frankdahlin]

Toyota stopped production because GM sold the battery patent to a oil company. And they did would not allow Toyota to use the batteries for cars. Also a lot of these cars was leased - and crushed.

You might be right that EV was/are to expensive. But if I was a car producer and was looking at a loss - why then crush rather than sell? Also im not claming that EV would/could have been a success in the 1990s. I just claim that it seems to me that GM and others never gave EV a fair chance.

[juscurious]

Oh please stop with the conspiracy theories. The oil companies couldn't keep battery technology off the shelves if it was viable. Nickle Metal Hydride batteries didn't last. That the point. No one wants to replace a $10,000 battery at 40K miles. People who leased the EV1 got this battery for FREE. At least it was free for them. GM picked up the tab. Why were the cars destroyed? Liability reasons. If they sold the cars then by LAW they were required to furnish parts for a given amount of time.

[billdale1]

juscurious: you don't know what you're talking about! U use the term RAV EV... the proper term is RAV 4 EV... that shows right off that you're only looking at data superficially-- Santa Monica City bought a bunch of RAV 4 EVs when they were available, & have been using them daily-- many have more than 100 K miles on them & never even replaced the batteries-- the reason car companies don't want to sell EVs is cuz they never need parts or service-- no conspiracy necessary-- all of them... (cont'd)

[billdale1]

just curious (cont'd 1): would rather sell cars that require lots of oil changes, tune-ups, mufflers, air filters, transmission repairs, brake jobs, none of which EVs need-- EVs need no transmission, and the ones that do have transmissions have 2 speeds with no reverse gear-- most of the wear in a transmission is at idle and during shifting-- you can drive an EV all day without shifting one time, & EVs use regen braking that only needs friction brakes at very slow speeds-- regen uses (cont'd )

[billdale1]

just curious (cont'd 2): the motor as a generator to pump energy back into the batteries, extending range on each charge. Friction brakes R needed almost never, so even after years of driving they need no maintenance-- same with transmissions... EVs do not idle, so no wear-- the only time clutch plates are used is shifting from 1st gear to 2nd, which is far less wear than when starting from idle-- trannies r extremely simple & light, no service even after years of driving. Car makers (cont'd)

[billdale1]

juscurious (cont'd 3): want cars that r very complex, require lots of maintenance and R so complex they scare car owners away from doing their own repairs, which is why car makers R willing to sell parallel hybrids which r twice as complex as ordinary cars-- true EVs only have 1 moving part to replace hundreds of moving parts in an engine. The hi-performance Tesla electric car only has 12 moving parts total! EVs R extremely efficient-- just 2 or 3 cents per mile for electricity instead (con'd)

[MrMegaWolfeman]

@juscurious OBAMA IS SATAN, THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BLOWN UP BY ALIENS WHO WORKED FOR THE CIA WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY AL GORE, WHO COMES FROM GEORGE BUSHS PLANET OF CRIPTON 2, WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY COMMUNIST GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!! THE PENGUINS NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! ALL SPONSORED BY THE FBI AND PETA!!!!!

LOL okay, i am posting that because i think conspiracy theorists are retards, and 100% agree with you man, those EV1s had inherent issues for GM, oil companies invest in new tech, not destroy it

[MrMegaWolfeman]

@frankdahlin they would crush the cars rather than sell because of liabilities in selling the vehicle. They would have to perform maintenance on the vehicle, and also have specialists on call to work on the vehicles directly. Also, if there ever turned out to be an issue with these cars and someone got hurt, GM would be VERY liable

[44para]

This is awsome, may not go off roading now, but just wait the tech will get better. it always does...

[shigotoninja]

ya cant go offroading with that!!

[kostea13]

EV IS THE FUTURE!

[ESTEBAN4WD]

cool jeep