Volt used as a keyword for Chrysler's ENVI
The Chevy Volt has drummed up an absolutely huge amount of hype for General Motors. The car isn't expected to be sold this year or even next near. No, those eager to lower their petroleum usage for transportation in a GM bowtie will need to wait until late 2010 before the new car is expected to be available, and that's assuming everything continues to go relatively smoothly with the car's development. But General Motors has still gotten plenty of publicity, and most of it positive, for even starting on the extended-range electric vehicle in the first place. And now, perhaps Chrysler is trying to get in on the positive spin as well. Perhaps the automaker is ENVI-ous? Or is the automaker preparing for its rumored corporate takeover?
Those of you who use Gmail are probably very familiar with the short little advertising blurbs across the top of your inbox. Those brief ads use keywords from your emails to try and predict your interests, and advertising bits for Chrysler's ENVI program are showing up using "Volt" as a keyword. One one hand, this should be expected, considering that anyone who's interested in the Chevy Volt may be interested in Chrysler's ENVI project. Not all agree with that assessment, though, as you can see here. What's more, that ENVI site has almost nothing of real substantial interest to the green automotive crowd. We'd expect more from Detroit's third largest automaker if its actually going to be attracting attention to the ENVI minisite.
[Source: EcoGeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Doug 11:32AM (10/29/2008)
About a week ago, I noticed that "Tesla" was being used as a keyword for Chrysler's ENVI in Google's Adsense. This advertising just reflects the purpose of the three vehicles they unveiled a month ago. That purpose being a poor attempt to steal publicity from the Tesla Roaster and the Chevy Volt; a wholly unoriginal "me too," with a few lackluster conversions.
I don't think it has anything to do with a corporate takeover. Are they also trying to merge with Tesla?
Reply
Jon 11:41AM (10/29/2008)
slow news day huh?
Reply
haefa 1:29PM (10/29/2008)
no matter what you make the outside to be they're still burning a billion a month and going out of business. LOL. Two bad businesses merging is one giant bad business. It's laughable how these top execs are so full of themselves.
Reply
gorr 2:37PM (10/29/2008)
Yes they are laughable to the utmost, LOL' LOL' LOL' LOL to chrysler and GM , LOL. They are investing a lot of money in complicated, inneficient, costly and inpracticable technology called batteries. First of all if their sale of big s.u.v, big car and well beloved pick up truck are in decline, it's because of high gasoline prices. Then the easy reasonnable solution is not to study, invest billions and take 4 years to change completely their technological basis that they know for years by their engineers up to workers on the assembly line and dealerships. They know ice engine then some old farts listening to everyone at the same time saying yes to everyone and deciding nothing or deciding to change everything to please everyone including criminal in goverments and big oil, LOL. pathetic. The simple decision is to go to natural gas for basically the same product they have for years and that is know by all the compagny staff from president to dealership, the very old furnace called ice engine that burn polluting fuel call gasoline or sometime diesel.
If they switch to natural gas option it will cost 50x less money and the technology is already available. Just helping to devellop infrastruture a little bit is needed because goverments and big oil can oppose that behing the curtain but if they stick with their decision people will buy what they love( big suv and cars) and put pressure to goverment and especially if it's not mccain that is elected then any normal president can spur 100 millions to push natural gas infrastructure to expand a little bit then the rest of the infrastructure can be made by regular normal business that want to sell a product for a living , called naturtal gas that can be captured by municipal waste for depollution and natural gas field that are plenty and pollute 10x less then petrol because it come out of the groung ready without refining and petrol need to be refine to get rid of the dust, soot, toxins, tar that is in it. And all the soot, tar, toxins,dust that are removed from petrol are disposed everywhere, air, lakes, soil. With natural gas you take it 100% somewhere and 100% end-up in your car tank for very less pollution.
Larry burn said a year ago that they can go the natural gas solution but we are in a communist mentality planet and one opinion is equal to any other opinion and nobody is able to decide anything just false commitee and big assembly of nobody like the house of representatives or the white house led by nobody that believe to martians and terrorism is able to decide something and he decided for 4000 billions to attack a desert called iraq, LOL. Maybe they got 10 barrels for free after the invasion.
Reply
Bill 1:58PM (10/30/2008)
WTF...?
Chris M 4:21PM (10/30/2008)
Sigh. Most online forums tend to get at least one poster that babbles several long irrational posts, and AutoblogGreen is no exception.
His obsession has changed, he used to rant on hydrogen fuel cells after the Honda FCX Clarity came out, now, after the Pickens Plan was announced he is ranting on compressed natural gas. One wonders what his next obsession will be.
gorr 3:11PM (10/29/2008)
This is the link. I want to convert my 2005 neon to this gas done at a tuner or mechanical shop. It will cost me 25x less money then a silly battery car and it can be done next month.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/01/larry-burns-promotes-natural-gas-as-an-alternative/
And foods have to be pre-treated by animals (including man and politicians) stomachs before been turn to methane, so it will end the criminals that turn foods directly to bio-fuels with subsidies from goverments all over the world. The end goal of all that is me putting fuel in my car without big drama for few money and few problems made by incompetants that are in charge of false security. This is a racket of protection like hell angels do in nude dancing or regular bars. They show themself and say you are in danger if you don't pay 30% of your income to us, and if not then fire is made to your building. High ranking politicians do the same things, they charge money to resolve dangers but end -up just charging money and promote and help the dangers by doing epa ruling for diesel and war in the desert called iraq or koweit for a product they own, petrol from chevron. They call that energy security. It's their own security only and if you go natural gas instead then they make some buildings dissapear and put everyone including some rock band on the potential terrorism list and your rights are ceased.
Reply