Re:GM Seeks 24 Patents for AUTOnomy Concept Vehicl (Score 2, Insightful)

Disclaimer: I work as a contract employee for GM. The points made in this posting are my own, based upon my own observations and opinions. In no way do they (or I) represent General Motors or my direct employer.

With regard to the Insight -- It's a Honda. I really doubt that any of the "American" car companies have anything to do with its relatively poor sales. I seriously considered purchasing one (ignoring my GM employee-discount) and abandoned the idea. They cost too much, and I'm leery of the diminished tire width. Less tire = = less control, which is a consideration in Michigan winters.

With regard to the EV1 -- amazing vehicle. Not yet ready for primetime. The battery life is simply not there; 90 miles does not a commute make. In my opinion, it would be better to regard these vehicles as very advanced prototypes. I believe they were as much about testing consumer acceptance as they were about battery technology. (Incidentally, if battery technology is so artificially expensive, why are the batteries on the Insight and Prius just as expensive as those on the EV1? I don't buy market-dominating conspiracy theories. I think it has been proven by the drug companies that profit-generating IP rights pale before consumer outrage. Li-ion batteries are not as necessary to life as AZT, but they are expensive enough so that somebody would break from the cartel and go into production, alone.

I've been following the internal GM news about AUTOnomy/Hy-Wire, the Parallel Hybrid Truck, and Displacement-on-Demand (shuts off engine cylinders when they aren't needed -- projected to save ~25% MPG). I have a completely different take on this article, and on GM/American automakers' view of these electrically-powered vehicles.

I think the Big 3 (2 1/2, whatever . . . :-) have finally realized that American consumers aren't coming back without a real reason to do so. I also think they've figured-out that Americans will only buy stereotypical "American" cars (read: BIG) from them. Successful econo-boxes (for whatever reason: better engineering, cheaper labor, weak dollar-to-Yen, Consumer Reports bias, etc.) are all imported. That means the only way for American car makers to survive is to change the rules.

That's where I think these vehicles are coming from. Finally, somebody pulled his head from the sand and decided it was better to risk losing the entire company in a hurry than to certainly lose the entire company slowly. That's why the first projects are "American" vehicles, in my opinion. BIG trucks, with better gas mileage. These are designed to be the point vehicles. To get the ball rolling, so to speak. The AUTOnomy is the follow-up.

You make, I think, an excellent point about the car makers losing control of the cars. It's not too difficult for me to see GM making the AUTOnomy chassis, but people buying auto bodies from other manufacturers. I think the people leading this project at GM have considered this, and accept it as the price of changing the rules. I also think (based, not least on what I read in the sciam article) that they aren't worried about it. I read between the lines and see GM trying not to become a resurgent car company, but a major energy company.

Last point -- about losing money from servicing vehicles. I work for the unit of GM that deals with servicing cars. GM doesn't make money on servicing cars. If the vehicle is under warranty, GM has to pay to get it fixed. If it's not under warranty, customers don't take it to the dealership -- they take it to AutoLab and repair it with aftermarket parts.