It sounds like a stupid thing, but the last time I was car shopping I really wanted a car with an ipod dock our outlet to make my life easier. I never thought I'd look for a car based in part on its ipod compatibility, but i did. take note, detroit!

What about this car technology: Build cars that don't suck!!

;)

electric cars are a great theory, but until they can charge in minutes, and go more than 100 miles to a charge, they will never really take over... no one wants to have to stop to "fill up" their car 4 or 5 times a week, taking hours at a time to do so.
Electric needs to be as efficient/convenient as gas is now, ... stop at a station, for a few minutes, and your ready to go for a whole week at a stretch!

One very important technology excluded here: give every single car produced in Detroit a flex-fuel engine. It'll cost pennies per car, and Detroit already has the technology integrated in their production line to do so. To satisfy government mandates, Ford, GM and Chrysler already produce a portion of their fleet that IS flex fuel capable.

The result? Each flex fuel car produced can run on gasoline, ethanol, methanol and any mix thereof. Want to run your car on algae fuel? Corn ethanol? Liquid coal methanol? A flex fuel car can do it-- your current car cannot. So since the US already has an ethanol production system in place (see e85prices.com for a pump map) we'd now have cars that could take advantage of this infrastructure.

It ain't my idea-- President-Elect Obama called for such a mandate in his August-released energy policy outline. I quote:

“Sustainably‐produced biofuels can create jobs, protect the environment and help end oil addiction – but only if Americans drive cars that will take such fuels. Obama will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability – the capability by the end of his first term in office.”

I don't have an iPod so the dock would go unused. What I do have in my car is a USB port on my radio, iPod, Zune, Thumb drive, cell phone, they all work for me.

There's no reason to make tiny cars if they just improve the gas milage of the ones we have now. Lets face the fact that most Americans won't buy tiny cars. Even the mini-Cooper isn't as small as the new mini-toy cars we've been seeing. No family of 3 or more could do anything in a car that small. The only people who could use that car don't really need a car, they should just get a bike.

What Duncan said!

Detroit has been pumping out unreliable garbage since the late 70's. Who cares about Ipod docks and backup cameras when the damn thing sits around at the shop all the time?

Take a hint from the Japanese; people want reliable cars, not hunks of junk that can't go for a month without breaking down!

are there any petitions going to congress addressing these issues? It seems like if there isn't then something is seriously wrong.

Sure some of these are superfluous (ipod dock), but if we're paying for recessed sales, why not add in a few things that'd make us happy.

Um...Dash Can't even help themselves. They're restructuring and exiting the hardware market.

#7 auto park a standard feature? Good Lord, if you can't parallel-park a car, you shouldn't be driving at all.

Read on CNN 2day they may kill the Saturn. I guess bc they were too good. It used to be a different car, now they make saturns with metal body panels and you can get the identical car in chevy or gm.
They deserve to go broke, and bankrupcy is actually the only way to REALLY fix the problem.
I guess we'll just kick the can down the road...as usual. Just so long as I have a tv to watch while I wait in the gas line or for the tow truck.

9.Ipod doesn't have a monopoly on the mp3 market.
it should be a USB port...not something ONLY for ipods.

8.If you want the roofs of every car to have solar cells in them...then I hope everyone who buys a car is willing to shell out thousands more per car. (so much for affordable)

7.I can park my own car, thanks.

6.I dont want to be monitored all the time. I'm fine with having lcd screens and gps, accept the traffic part.

5.Back-up camera's only make sense on bigger vehicles, smaller cars do not need them.

4.Agreed, 100%. (I lost most of my interest in the volt once they re-designed it)

3.Agreed.

2.Tiny Cars suck. people like to have room, and not be uncomfortable for a 15 hour road trip. Some people like them though...I see nothing wrong with making every thing from tiny Smart cars and mini's, to normal sized cars like the malibu or fusion, to CUV's and SUV's. people like choice.

1.I'm all for electric, electric only.
We need to stop wasting our money of CNG & E-85 & Hydrogen Fuel Cells.

BTW, my stance is simple: LET THEM GO BANKRUPT!
I like the Big Three, I'm a car guy, but this is simple capitalism. If you fail...game over.
I hate bailouts...regardless of who the money is going to.

Really don't see why people are pushing ethanol fuels. Not only are they not as environmentally sound as people seem to think they are, but it has driven corn prices up causing literally millions of people to face starvation in third world countries. As for the rest, a fair bit of them are just luxuries that are not needed by most people and would greatly increase the cost of the cars unnecessarily. If we are going to demand technological innovations, let's pick ones that actually help us. Options sure, but I really don't want to have to buy an ipod deck when I don't have an ipod to use it.

I don't know why people are hating on the hydrogen fuel cell. Other than solar panels, they can be the cleanest power source we have. While electric sounds good, the electricity produced in this country comes primarily from fossil fuel plants. Though at this time hydrogen is mainly produced using hydrocarbons such as natural gas there are several other methods that may become cheaper over the next few years. P.S. working in the autoparts industry has made me pretty familiar with wich cars are more reliable, and I promise you it's not Honda, Mitsubishi, or Nissan

"2.Tiny Cars suck. people like to have room, and not be uncomfortable for a 15 hour road trip. Some people like them though...I see nothing wrong with making every thing from tiny Smart cars and mini's, to normal sized cars like the malibu or fusion, to CUV's and SUV's. people like choice."

Those "tiny cars" have more internal space than your Sports Utility Monstrosities . I don't see the logic here. Bigger car does not equate to more internal space for the user.

someone forgot to mention a lower price on everything...

I totally agree with JDMIMIC.

WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT CHRYSLER? ARE THEY NOT A GERMAN OWNED COMPANY ANYMORE? LET GERMANY BAIL THEM OUT IF THEY ARE STILL OWNED BY A GERMAN COMPANY.

I would really rather NOT bail out the auto makers. Too big to fail they say? Break em up! They have been on the edge of failure for a long time now. They should be restructured not REWARDED for failing to adapt to the market. Companies that can't change with the market can't survive.

@Confused
Daimler sold off its stake of Chrysler in 2007, Chrysler is majority owned by Cerberus capital management.

Now, as to the article, I have to echo the sentiment about the iPod thing, that is add a USB port, since I'm willing to bet less than half the country actually owns an iPod, further more alot of us purposefully choose not to own an iPod (I personally dislike apple) so it would essentially be a degrading government enforced monopoly.

I agree though that we need to embrace electric and make smaller cars, I mean face it, people do not need massive vehicles that only take up space and waste resources.

what i dont get is why anyone whould be woried about an i pod dock when you can clearly see the companys are screwing us, come on we have all this technology yet we fail to make a car that can get forty miles per gallon. honestly, i drive a eighty-six nova and i get thirty plus miles a gallon, so your telling me in twenty years we can acomplish amazing things with technology but weve acttualy gone backwards in the way of fuel eficientcy? this is bogus

First, actual fuel economy has gone up but the way in wich the epa rates fuel economy changed this year to "better reflect real-world conditions".Second, how you drive and maintain a vehicle can drastically alter your fuel economy. Thirdly, government regulation of emissions has restricted fuel economy gains a great deal by adding more demands on engines.

Scruffy: I believe the reason that cars from the eightys get better fuel efficency is because in the 90's the collision standards were increased. In order to meet those new requirments you either need to add a whole lot of steel (i.e. weight) to the car, or use very expensive alloys or composits. Of course the manufactures chose cheap, but heavy steel.

@Bio:

For one, most small cars like the Mini seat only 4 people comfortably or maybe 5. An SUV like the Suburban can seat 9. Some smaller SUVs only seat 5, but still have more cargo room. No comparison there. A family of 5 would have to take 2 small cars or one SUV. 2 cars would cost more, use more gas, and pollute more unless they are DRASTICALLY more efficient and reliable.

Cargo space is another deal. A suburban can hold 137 cubic feet worth of cargo. A Honda Fit only has 20 cubic feet of storage. A Mini Coooper only has 5.7 cubic feet unless you put the back seats forward, in which case it only has room for 2 and still only has 20 cubic feet.

So, I'd like to see what data you have that shows that small cars have even close to as much space as SUVs... BTW, I own a small car - I'm not a hater, just realistic...

Sorry Verumaddo, economy has gone down from the 80's and 90's, and it's not due to safety standards.

Everybody wants a car that can boogie on the freeway. The economy cars of yesterday couldn't do that, and the big cars could only do it if the driver had some self control...most don't.

They're goal has been to make cars as cheap and junky as possible, for maximum profits. They make more money on the car, more money when that car falls apart, and more money when the poor fool comes back for a new one. They do like to throw in the Ipod docks and useless gadgets to make the poor, misinformed souls happy, such as those who thought an Ipod dock would actually do something to save GM.

Meanwhile, the Japanese have gone the Slow and Steady route. Make a good, reliable car first, then start adding the doodads, but not so many that it takes NASA to change a fuse.

Thing is, I DO like Dodge trucks, GM's Suburban, and Ford's Excursion, and I'm actually in a position to buy one of these three awesome rides. I won't, because the damn things won't get me from point A to B without calling a friggin tow truck.

To Eidylon:
I drive an electric car (2001 Toyota Rav4EV) that gets about 85 miles to a charge. My work commute is about 15 miles a day, and cross town (LA) and back is typically about 50. In normal driving, I charge at night (just like a cellphone) and there are still the remnants of a charger network around LA. Bottom line: this is the best car I've ever driven and the limited range is entirely acceptable (most people drive less than 40 miles a day). More range and faster charging would be great (and that's in the works; see Teslamotors.com) but really, for typical driving its a small mental adjustment to get used to it. The benefits are great. It costs about 40% in electricity compared to the same car using gas (I have one of those too) at $2.50 a gallon, its just as fast, and its super quiet. I love it!

Regarding iPods, just put a big hard drive in the dash so you can put your MP3s, GPS data, points of interest, phone book, calendar, and whatever else on it. Heck, add WiFi so you can drag and drop media to your car from your PC.

From a world perspective, current bio-fuels are as bad or worse than using oil. The huge variety of resources and energy required to produce them more than offsets any benefit. Plus, they raise prices in many other areas of our lives - our food and livestock feed being just two.

We don't yet have inexpensive battery technology for long-range pure electric vehicles.

A great middle step before distant future pure electric cars comes in the form of extended-range electric vehicles. They use electric to drive the wheels, but use another fuel to recharge the batteries as you are driving. With those vehicles, you can get up to 500 miles or more of range.

My personal preference would be to use a CNG-fueled (compressed natural gas) motor to charge the batteries of extended range electrics. CNG has vastly lower emissions than gasoline powered motors, whether oil or bio created. We have vast reserves of natural gas in this country, so CNG would make us self-sufficient, as well. CNG is usually cheaper than gasoline. It's also a fairly simple conversion for old cars to use CNG as a fuel, if necessary.

If the auto-makers had CNG-powered extended range electrics with plenty of interior room, and a 500 mile range, I'd be all over that. Of course, we need to make CNG available at far more gas stations, as well. Oddly, Utah (not California) leads the nation in CNG availability and usage. I guess that explains why their air is so much cleaner.

Instead of trying to cherry-pick technologies, how about doing what's always worked: price-based signals via incentives and penalties. Translation: make vehicles that are big and heavy or which use a lot of gas (or both) cost more, to purchase and in recurring fees every year. Make cars that get really high mileage (whether they are tiny, or use electricity, regardless of how) cheaper to buy and cheaper to register every year. Price signals work: people buy less of the more expensive thing, and more of the less expensive thing. As for the details, let markets work that out with consumers voting with their dollars.

The sad thing is there are non-profit technology companies out there that do nothing but work on developing newer technologies for the auto industry and GIVE it away to them so that they can utilize it to improve our countries vehicles, emissions and energy crisis. So... why are vehicles still so expensive and the technology isn't being used??? I think every one will have their speculations on that idea. As for the iPod dock... sorry... I don't thing thats a necessity but the other stuff would work.

I wouldn't want an ipod dock. It locks me into ipod and I'm truly not interested in an ipod. Its feature limited as compared to its competition. Worse, it locks me into Apple for music and I'm really not interested in that, either. I'm happy with the aux jack.

I wouldn't want an ipod dock. It locks me into ipod and I'm truly not interested in an ipod. Its feature limited as compared to its competition. Worse, it locks me into Apple for music and I'm really not interested in that, either. I'm happy with the aux jack.

Very cool photos, but in 10 years we smiles about it...;) Because its go on and go on.