Ram Trucks Pull the Plug on Hybrids

Chrysler is still in business? Huh

>> Chrysler is still in business? Huh <<

If I recall, they made a nice (albeit overdone) luxury car in the late 50's, the Imperial. Then there was a stint with "Safety doesn't sell!" Iaccoca, and the stunning K cars. Oh, yeah, later there was the Viagra alternative, the Dodge Viper. That's all I remember, other than the inability of some German company to provide a proper funeral.

Chrysler has a long history of failure and bailout by the US Government. This is one company that truly should have been allowed to fail. They have no problem talking the talk to get the coin, but a bit of trouble walking the walk. I can't fathom why they are still in business (having nothing to do with their hybrid or EV plans.)

I see in the comments that the Republican are still blaming Obama for the collapse of the American economy. Is it any wonder that the two worst automakers in America, GM and Chrysler are owned and operated by Republicans? Yeah, its Obama's fault that these two worthless automakers are fat and oily welfare babies. The Republicans never did and never will take responsibility for themselves and, I reckon, they will always blame the democrats for their downfall and seek revenge no matter the American casualties they leave in their wake.

Why all that Chrysler bashing?
Toyota doesn't plan any hybrid Tundra either.

@ Michael Coates -

I don't follow the logic that just because pickups are most often used for "real" stuff like hauling and going places cars don't go (This isn't the case anywhere that I've been in CA (where the're mostly used for single-occupant commute vehicles), but it may well be the case in the general US population) - that they can't be hybrid? Is the idea that hybrids are only useful for light duty? Like locomotives (in use for too many years to count) or earth movers (in use for too many years to count)??

How could heavy-duty mean "no hybrids" to anybody? Makes no sense. What did I miss?

I'm really curious - is the picture of the blue pickup attached to this article one of those "real" trucks that's used for hauling and towing in places cars can't go? Has about as much ground clearnace as my Prius. And far less than my Rav4EV.

I guess I'm wondering most about the "natural environment for a hybrid" comment. It seems to imply that hybrids aren't any good for "real" vehicles that people need to rely on.

@Michael Coates,
Truck manufacturers are the same as car manufactures in that they suffer from the same archaic attitudes about EVs. To them EVs must be weak, underpowered things which must be crushed like cockroaches whenever they are detected or suspected.
Therefore, the lame 'two-mode' hybrid trucks the GM let out were carefully designed to be as expensive as possible and get the minimum benefit possible from an electric drivetrain. GM was definitely successful at achieving their design goal of perpetuating the myths about EVs.
It would take very little effort to make a serial hybrid truck with 500 lb-ft of torque independently driving each wheel that runs off of a 70 hp, 4 cylinder motor and gets over 25 mpg. But who would want that when you only know how to make and sell big V-8 gasoline engines?

@Michael Coates · "Don't see that happening with Tesla and Fisker any time soon"
That is because they haen't been bailed out and forced through a quick bankruptcy proceeding that removed all their other debts.

@Austintatious,
I won't speak on Fisker's behalf but I will remind you that Tesla was and is making money selling their $100K supercar and they were making money on it before the government backed any loans or subsized them.
They could just go sit on their supercar profits as Ferrari and Lamborghini do but no, they continue to pour their own profits and efforts along with the subsidies into development of their next model which will be more twice the utility and half the cost.
The government money was put in because people like you, who can't or don't chose to buy $100K cars want to speed up Tesla's development of more affordable cars. They would get there eventually through the profits from Roadster sales but it could take a long time and the state and Federal governments decided they don't want to wait that long.
Startups can't make affordable vehicles. I don't believe that today's litigious and regulatory hamstrung environment makes it economically possible and there hasn't been any evidence to suggest otherwise. There hasn't been a new car company started for nearly 100 years, way before most of us on this forum were born.
Trickle-down is the only thing that seems plausible. Tesla said this and I and many others agreed so we put our money down to buy there cars - at great personal expense and risk. Our short-term dividend, of course is minimal maintenance and a really fun car :-) . Our long-term dividend is that Tesla's Roadster proves that EVs are possible and has led to the development of others. The Volt is here because of Tesla and Tesla could also have been a big influence in Nissan's decision to go through with the Leaf - although I haven't heard of them actually saying so.
You can grouse around like a self-entitled ghetto bum or you can wake up to the realities of the world.

@Michael Coates,
That loss is corporate loss, not loss on Roadster sales. That includes costs and revenue from the Roadster as well as investment in the Model S. Once Roadster sales end, I'm sure you'll see that number jump a lot. I, for one hope we don't see any corporate profit until the Model S is well into production, otherwise, something funny is going on.

@Michael Coates,
A loss is not a loss. With large, established companies losses mean losing. With startups, it is necessary in order to grow to a point where they can earn large profits (Capitalism 101)
I don't expect or (as a shareholder) want to see any profits from Tesla for a long time. They are a startup and need to take every dollar that comes in, be it from sales or investors and use it to build their company. This will allow them to get a production line going and then get some market share, after which, if all is successful, profit will become important.
Clearly, they are a hardware manufacturing company (think Sun, Intel, Apple, or Cisco), not a dot com or software company where they might turn profit quickly. Also, hopefully, they will be large enough and reduced operating costs sufficiently that by the time they start focusing on profits, their stock will have grown in value as their company does.

@Michael Coates,
I agree, it will be interesting to see if there are any investors left in the stock market or whether only short-term speculators remain after the dot com fiasco.
I don't have a significant piece of the action though - unless you're referring to the car. That's definitely action >:-)

@Michael Coates,
Huh? Tesla is at $22.77 right now (yesterdy was Valentine's Day so I wasn't checking the price at the close) and it's IPO was at $17. I'm not familiar with your math but I was taught that $22.77 is greater than $17.
Besides, it wouldn't surprise me if it drops below IPO. That would be a great time to do a little due dilligence and maybe buy up. You're welcome to gloat all you like if that makes you feel good though. Just don't forget that it's the horse that finishes the race first that is the winner, not the one who takes the lead at the start. Not that I'm saying Tesla is definitely going to succeed. Less that 10% of startups succeed and there are a lot of ways Tesla could fail too, many of which have nothing to do with their product.
Clearly, you're not a Silicon Valley guy and maybe you learned about startups at the same place as you learned your math. Do you work at Argonne Labs or for the ACEEE (http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-volt-barely-makes-2011-list-top-12-green...)?
As an example of startup performance, I just sold the remainder of the stock from my first startup for more than 10x what I paid for it (I had offloaded bits and pieces along the way as well). It had dipped down to less than half it's IPO price when the speculators abandoned it in favor of dot coms. It stayed below IPO for about 5 years before the street woke up and realized that the company had quietly established itself as a market leader. It was just acquired by a huge company that couldn't compete with its technology so I dumped all I had.

> But always comes down to the weighting of different elements. <

Including the weighting of *weight* of all things.

That's it! I'm not buying a Ram 2500 until it incorporates a mild hybrid system. They need to get the 13mpg city up to at least 15 or I won't even consider it.