On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
Battery cables are not thin.

So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
just arm waving.

What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
battery cables? What percentage of the weight
of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?

It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
reengineer to make that happen.

That's true, but will having two different
electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
48v actually save those few cents?

Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
rig what they have to work.

That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).