Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's the correct argument. Bob Lutz deals with it in one of his books.

The EV1 was a evaluation exercise/hedge against regulation; the impetus was a lunatic assertion in 1990 by the CA gov't: they wanted 10% of cars sold in the state by 2000 to be electric. Nobody outside of Sacramento thought this would be doable, but it was an excuse to do some useful R&D, as well as to demonstrate to lawmakers the difficulties involved.

As for the Prius-the Gen I Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive cost $380 million in 1990s dollars for R&D. Anybody at GM trying to spend that kind of money on an experimental(!) powertrain for a low-volume(!!) economy(!!!) car would've been fired. At Toyota, Shoichiro Toyoda was supportive of such an idea, despite the limited opportunity for near-term profit; and if you have that last name at that company, nobody's gonna fire you.



They seemed to do ok with selling the tech as the electric S-10. You can't argue it was a big mistake when they decided to try again.


How much do you think an electric S-10 cleared in terms of net profit, vs. a gas S10? Even before factoring in the development costs for the electric powertrain.

If you had to defend it to a roomful of the guys who would be writing checks for the program (and who, incidentally, decide what your annual bonus will be...) what would that sound like?


I don't believe they actually sold many of those, they had the same lease-only issue as the ev1, with the exception of a few private (ie government) owners...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: