**UNITED
      STATES**


**SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**


**Washington,
      D.C. 20549**














**Form
      10-QSB**





**QUARTERLY
      REPORT PURSUANT SECTION 13 OR 15(d)**


**OF
      THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**







For
      the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007





Commission
      File Number 001-32534





**ZAP**


(Name
      of
      small business issuer in its charter)





**CALIFORNIA**
            **94-3210624**(State
                or other jurisdiction of
            (I.R.S.
                Employer Identification No.)incorporation
                or organization)





**501
      Fourth Street**


**Santa
      Rosa, CA 95401**


**(707)
      525-8658**


(Address,
      including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of


registrant’s
      principal executive offices)







Check
      whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such
      shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and
      (2)
      has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
      days.        Yes x No o




Indicate
      by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
      12b-2
      of the Exchange Act)      Yes o    No
x




Check
      whether the issuer has filed all documents and reports required to be filed
      by
      Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution of securities
      under a plan confirmed by a court.        Yes
x No
o




State
      the
      number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common equity,
      as of the latest practicable date.





45,610,591**shares
      of common stock as of May 14, 2007.





Transitional
      Small Business Disclosure
      Format          Yes o    No
x












**ZAP**





**FORM
      10-QSB**




**INDEX**





**Page
                No.****PART
                I.**
            **Financial
                Information**Item
                1.
            Condensed
                Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited) :Condensed
                Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2007
            2Condensed
                Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three  Months
                Ended March 31, 2007 and 2006
            3Condensed
                Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Three Months Ended
                March 31,
                2007 and 2006
            4Notes
                to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
            5Item
                2.
            Management’s
                Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
                Operations
            20Item
                3.
            Controls
                and Procedures
            34**PART
                II.**
            **Other
                Information**Item
                1.
            Legal
                Proceedings
            35Item
                2.
            Unregistered
                Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
            39Item
                3.
            Defaults
                Upon Senior Securities
            39Item
                4.
            Submission
                of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
            39Item
                5.
            Other
                Information
            39Item
                6.
            Exhibits
            40SIGNATURES
            
            41




1


Part
      I.     FINANCIAL INFORMATION




Item
      1.    Financial Statements




**ZAP**


**CONDENSED
      CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)**


***(In
      thousands)***


**March
                31,**
              **2007****ASSETS****CURRENT
                ASSETS**Cash
                and cash equivalents
            
            $
            2,561Accounts
                receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $199
            
            
            248Inventories
            
            
            2,017Prepaid
                non-cash professional fees
            
            
            903Other
                prepaid expenses and other current assets
            
            
            320Total
                current
                assets
            
            
            6,049**PROPERTY
                AND EQUIPMENT,**net of accumulated depreciation of
                $955
            
            
            4,420**OTHER
                ASSETS**Patents
                and trademarks, net
            
            
            41Goodwill
            
            
            175Prepaid
                non-cash professional fees, less current portion
            
            
            207Deferred  offering
                costs
            
            
            40Deposits
                and other assets
            
            
            63Total
                assets
            
            $
            10,995**LIABILITIES
                AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY****CURRENT
                LIABILITIES**Current
                portion of long-term debt
            
            $
            1,679Accounts
                payable
            
            
            184Accrued
                liabilities
            
            
            2,745Deferred
                revenue
            
            
            1,026Total
                current liabilities
            
            
            5,634**LONG-TERM
                LIABILITIES**Secured
                convertible note, less current portion
            
            
            1,7688%
                Senior convertible notes, net of discount of $981, less current
                portion
            
            
            144Total
                Liabilities
            
            
            7,546**SHAREHOLDERS’
                EQUITY**PePreferred
                stock, authorized 50 million shares; no par value, no shares issued
                and
                outstanding
            
            
            —Common
                stock, authorized 200 million shares; no par value; 44,563,083 shares
                issued and outstanding
            
            
            106,529Common
                stock issued as loan collateral
            
            
            (1,549
            )Accumulated
                deficit
            
            
            (101,531
            )Total
                shareholders’ equity
            
            
            3,449Total
                liabilities and shareholders’ equity
            
            $
            10,995


See
      accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
      (unaudited).





2


**ZAP**


**CONDENSED
      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)**


***(Thousands,
      except share amounts)***




**Three
                Months**
              **ended**
              **March
                31,
                2007**
            
            
            **Three
                Months**
              **ended**
              **March
                31,
                2006****NET
                SALES**
            
            $
            1,137
            
            
            $
            2,929**COST
                OF GOODS SOLD**
            
            
            1,083
            
            
            
            2,505**GROSS
                PROFIT**
            
            
            54
            
            
            
            424**OPERATING
                EXPENSES**Sales
                and marketing
            
            
            371
            
            
            
            251General
                and administrative (non-cash of $12.9 million and $1.8 million for
                the
                three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006)
            
            
            13,990
            
            
            
            3,068Research
                and development
            
            
            335
            
            
            
            —14,696
            
            
            
            3,319**LOSS
                FROM OPERATIONS**
            
            
            (14,642
            )
            
            
            (2,895
            )**OTHER
                INCOME (EXPENSE)**Gain on
                revaluation of warrant and put option liabilities
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            135Interest
                expense, net
            
            
            (216
            )
            
            
            (6
            )Other
                income (expense)
            
            
            23
            
            
            
            (3
            )(193
            )
            
            
            126**LOSS
                BEFORE INCOME TAXES**
            
            
            (14,835
            )
            
            
            (2,769
            )**PROVISION
                FOR INCOME TAXES**
            
            
            (4
            )
            
            
            (4
            )**NET  LOSS**
            
            $
            (14,839
            )
            
            $
            (2,773
            )**NET
                LOSS PER COMMON SHARE****BASIC
                and DILUTED**
            
            $
            (0.36
            )
            
            $
            (0.08
            )**WEIGHTED
                AVERAGE OF COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING — BASIC AND
                DILUTED**
            
            
            41,526
            
            
            
            36,021


The
      accompanying notes to condensed
      consolidated financial statements (unaudited).








3


**ZAP**


**CONDENSED
      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)**


***(In
      thousands**)*


**Three
                months ended**
              **March
                31,****2007**
            
            
            **2006****CASH
                FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES**Net  loss
            
            $
            (14,839
            )
            
            $
            (2,773
            )Items
                not requiring the use of cash:Amortization
                of note discount
            
            
            85
            
            
            
            —Stock-based
                compensation for consulting and other services
            
            
            887
            
            
            
            1,283Stock-based
                employee compensation
            
            
            12,040
            
            
            
            518Gain
                on revaluation of warrant and put option liabilities
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            (135
            )Depreciation
                and amortization
            
            
            114
            
            
            
            494Loss
                on disposal of equipment
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            4Allowance
                for doubtful accounts
            
            
            20
            
            
            
            (16
            )Changes
                in other items affecting operations:Receivables
            
            
            (38
            )
            
            
            (142
            )Smart
                car inventory
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            1,235Inventories
            
            
            330
            
            
            
            (188
            )Prepaid
                expenses and other assets
            
            
            79
            
            
            
            (213
            )Accounts
                payable
            
            
            (66
            )
            
            
            (12
            )Accrued
                liabilities
            
            
            (217
            )
            
            
            (40
            )Deferred
                revenue
            
            
            (164
            )
            
            
            50Net
                cash provided by (used for) operating activities
            
            
            (1,769
            )
            
            
            65**CASH
                FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITES**Purchase
                of equipment
            
            
            (18
            )
            
            
            (24
            )Proceeds
                from sale of equipment
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            35Net
                cash provided by ( used for) investing activities
            
            
            (18
            )
            
            
            11**CASH
                FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES**Issuance
                of common stock and warrants, net of offering costs
            
            
            1,045
            
            
            
            1,005Borrowings
                of long-term debt, net of offering costs
            
            
            1,185
            
            
            
            (18
            )Repayments
                of long term debt
            
            
            (42
            )
            
            
            —Net
                cash provided by financing activities
            
            
            2,188
            
            
            
            987**NET
                INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS**
            
            
            401
            
            
            
            1,063**CASH
                AND CASH EQUIVALENTS,**beginning of period
            
            
            2,160
            
            
            
            1,547**CASH
                AND CASH EQUIVALENTS,**end of period
            
            $
            2,561
            
            
            $
            2,610


See
      accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
      (Unaudited)





4


**ZAP**


**NOTES
      TO THE INTERIM UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS**





**Note
      1  BASIS OF PRESENTATION**




The
      accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared in
      accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for
      interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article
      10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information
      and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. All
      adjustments (all of which are of a normal recurring nature) considered necessary
      for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three
      months ended March 31, 2007 are not indicative of the results that may be
      expected for the year ending December 31, 2007 or for any other period. These
      condensed financial statements and the notes thereto should be read in
      conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto included
      in
      our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on April 2, 2007 (our “2006
      10-K”).




Going
      Concern - The accompanying consolidated condensed financial statements have
      been
      prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern.  The Company
      has a history of losses and might not achieve profitability.  The
      Company will need to arrange additional financing in the future. There can
      be no
      assurance that additional financing would be available, or if it is available,
      that it would be on acceptable terms. The Company’s future liquidity and capital
      requirements will depend on numerous factors, including successful development,
      marketing and sale of advanced technology vehicles, protection of intellectual
      property rights, costs of developing its new products, including the necessary
      intellectual property rights, obtaining regulatory approvals for its new
      products, market acceptance of all its products, existence of competing products
      in its current and anticipated markets, and its ability to raise additional
      capital in a timely manner. Management expects to be able to raise additional
      capital; however, the Company may not be able to obtain additional financing
      on
      acceptable terms, or at all.




Other
      risks include, but are not limited to, the following:





We
      face
      intense competition, which could cause us to lose market share. Changes in
      the
      market for electrical or fuel-efficient vehicles could cause our products to
      become obsolete or lose popularity. We cannot assure you that growth in the
      electric vehicle industry or fuel-efficient cars will continue and our business
      may suffer if growth in the electric vehicle industry or fuel-efficient market
      decreases or if we are unable to maintain the pace of industry demands. We
      may
      be unable to keep up with changes in electric vehicle or fuel-efficient
      technology and, as a result, may suffer a decline in our competitive position.
      The failure of certain key suppliers to provide us with components could have
      a
      severe and negative impact upon our business. Product liability or other claims
      could have a material adverse effect on our business. We may not be able to
      protect our Internet address. Our success is heavily dependent on protecting
      our
      intellectual property rights.








**Note
      2  SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES**




**ADOPTION
        OF NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENT**
 
 Effective
        January 1, 2007, we adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Staff
        Position (FSP) Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) 00-19-2, “Accounting for
        Registration Payment Arrangements”. This FASB staff position addresses how to
        account for registration payment arrangements and clarifies that a financial
        instrument subject to a registration payment arrangement should be accounted
        for
        in accordance with other generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
        without
        regard to the contingent obligation to transfer consideration pursuant to
        the
        registration payment arrangement. This accounting pronouncement further
        clarifies that a liability for liquidated damages resulting from registration
        statement obligations should be recorded in accordance with Statement of
        Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies *,* "
        when the payment of liquidated damages becomes probable and can be reasonably
        estimated.
 
 Prior
        to
        the adoption of this FSP, we had classified as a note derivative liability
        and
        as a warrant liability, financial instruments included in or issued in
        conjunction with our December 5, 2006 convertible note financing, since the
        offering of the underlying shares issuable upon conversion of the notes and
        exercise of the warrants was required to be registered with the SEC, and
        our
        failure to file, and obtain and maintain the effectiveness of a registration
        statement would result in potential cash payments which were not
        capped.  Our adoption of this accounting pronouncement as of January
        1, 2007 resulted in a reclassification of the note derivative liability to
        the
        note liability and the warrant liability to equity, and an adjustment to
        the
        note discount to reflect the allocated value of the warrant and a beneficial
        conversion feature, accreted to December 31, 2006, both calculated in accordance
        with EITF Nos. 98-5 and 00-27.  The cumulative effect of this
        accounting change of $24,000 was credited to our opening accumulated deficit
        balance as of January 1, 2007.
   5
 
 In
            June
            2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in
            Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109”**(“FIN
            48”). This Interpretation clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income
            taxes recognized in a company’s financial statements in accordance with FASB
            Statement No. 109, *Accounting for Income Taxes.*  FIN 48
            prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the
            financial
            statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected
            to be
            taken in a tax return. This Interpretation also provides guidance on
            derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in
            interim
            periods, disclosure, and transition.  The evaluation of a tax position
            in accordance with FIN 48 is a two-step process. The first step is recognition:
            The entity determines whether it is “more-likely-than-not” that a tax position
            will be sustained upon examination, including resolution of any related
            appeals
            or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position.
            In
            evaluating whether a tax position has met the “more-likely-than-not” recognition
            threshold, the entity presumes that the position will be examined by
            the
            appropriate taxing authority that would have full knowledge of all relevant
            information. The second step is measurement: A tax position that meets
            the
“more-likely-than-not” recognition threshold is measured to determine the amount
            of benefit to recognize in the financial statements. The tax position
            is
            measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent
            likely
            to be realized upon ultimate settlement. We adopted FIN 48 on
            January 1, 2007 and the impact on our financial statements was not
            material.
   **RECENT
        ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS**
 
 In
        February 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for
        Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“FAS 159”).  FAS 159
        permits the measurement of many financial instruments and certain other items
        at
        fair value. Entities may choose to measure eligible items at fair value at
        specified election dates, reporting unrealized gains and losses on such items
        at
        each subsequent reporting period.  The objective of FAS 159 is to
        provide entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported
        earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without
        having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions.  It is intended
        to expand the use of fair value measurement.  FAS 159 is effective for
        fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007.  We have not evaluated
        the potential impact of adopting SFAS 159.
 
 In
        September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued
        Statement No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“FAS 157”). FAS 157 defines fair
        value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted
        accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements
        required under other accounting pronouncements. FAS 157 does not change existing
        guidance regarding whether or not an instrument is carried at fair value.
        SFAS
        No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning
        after November 15, 2007. We are currently evaluating the impact on our
        consolidated financial statements of adopting SFAS No. 157.


**NET
      LOSS PER SHARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS**




Basic
      and
      diluted loss per common share is based on the weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding in each period. The weighted average number of shares
      outstanding for the period ended March 31, 2006 has been restated for the 10%
      stock dividend of February 2007. Potential dilutive securities associated with
      stock options, warrants and convertible preferred stock and debt have been
      excluded from the diluted per share amounts, since the effect of these
      securities would be anti-dilutive. At March 31, 2007, these potentially dilutive
      securities include options for 8,632,783****shares of common
      stock, warrants for 68,651,324 shares of common stock and debt convertible
      into
      4.33 million shares of common stock.





6


**PRINCIPLES
      OF CONSOLIDATION -**The accounts of the Company and its consolidated
      subsidiaries are included in the condensed consolidated financial statements
      after elimination of significant inter-company accounts and
      transactions.






**REVENUE
      RECOGNITION**




The
      Company records revenues only upon the occurrence of all of the following
      conditions:





-The
      Company has received a binding purchase order or similar commitment from the
      customer or distributor authorized by a representative empowered to commit
      the
      purchaser (evidence of a sale);





-The
      purchase price has been fixed, based on the terms of the purchase
      order;





-The
      Company has delivered the product from its distribution center to a common
      carrier acceptable to the purchaser. The Company’s customary shipping terms are
      FOB shipping point; and





-The
      Company deems the collection of the amount invoiced probable.





The
      Company provides no price protection. Product sales are net of promotional
      discounts, rebates and return allowances.




The
      Company does not recognize sales taxes collected from customers as
      revenue.





**DEFERRED
      REVENUE -**One of the Company’s subsidiaries, Voltage Vehicles, sold
      licenses to auto dealerships under the ZAP name. The license agreements call
      for
      the licensee to purchase a minimum number of vehicles from ZAP each
      year.  As the Company collects monies related to these agreements, it
      is classified as deferred revenue until the Company begins delivering a
      substantial number of vehicles to these dealerships on a regular basis. During
      the first quarter of 2006, the company began recognizing revenue on various
      license agreements on a straight line basis over the terms of the
      agreement.  Accordingly, the Company has recognized approximately
      $26,000 of revenue and other adjustments for the three month period ended March
      31, 2007 resulting in an ending balance of $1,026,000.




**USE
      OF ESTIMATES -**The preparation of financial statements in accordance
      with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to
      make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Company’s
      financial statements and accompanying notes.  Estimates were made
      relating to the useful lives of fixed assets, valuation allowances, impairment
      of assets and valuation of stock-based compensation and contingencies. Actual
      results could differ materially from those estimates. Significant estimates
      include:





**ACCOUNTS
      RECEIVABLE**- The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its
      customers’ financial condition and generally requires no collateral from its
      customers. The Company maintains allowances for doubtful accounts for estimated
      losses resulting from the inability of its customers to make required payments.
      If the financial condition of the Company’s customers should deteriorate,
      resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, additional
      allowances may be required.





**INVENTORY**- The Company maintains reserves for estimated excess, obsolete and
      damaged inventory based on projected future shipments using historical selling
      rates, and taking into account market conditions, inventory on-hand, purchase
      commitments, product development plans and life expectancy, and competitive
      factors. If markets for the Company’s products and corresponding demand were to
      decline, then additional reserves may be deemed necessary.





**LEGAL
      ACCOUNTS**- The Company estimates the amount of potential exposure it
      may have with respect to litigation claims and assessments.




7


**RECOVERY
      OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS -** The Company evaluates the recovery of its
      long-lived assets at least annually by analyzing its operating results and
      considering significant events or changes in the business
      environment.





**STOCK
      ISSUED AS COLLATERAL -**In January 2003, the Company entered into a Loan
      Agreement with Mercatus Partners LLP (“Mercatus”) and issued 2, 941,176 common
      shares to Mercatus as collateral for a $1 million loan that never funded. The
      $3.529 million market value of these shares at the date of issuance was recorded
      in common stock with an offsetting contra equity account. The shares were
      reported as lost to the Company in December 2003 and in December 2004, the
      shares were reissued to Mercatus who then assigned the shares and their
      interests to Phi-Nest Fund, L.P. (“Phi-Nest”) as collateral for the $1 million
      loan commitment. The Company amended the Loan Agreement allowing Phi-Nest to
      purchase 500,000 shares for $1.16 per share. On March 30, 2006, the Company
      received $500,000 in net proceeds from the sale of the 500,000 shares and the
      collateralized shares were reduced to 2,441,176 shares. Phi-Nest did not provide
      the $1 million loan. In September of 2006, the Company signed a Settlement
      Agreement with Phi-Nest requiring that the common stock being held as collateral
      be transferred to an independent third party (Michael C. Sher dba the Law
      Offices of Michael C. Sher), to hold the securities in a depository account.
      At
      the same time, the Company entered into an agreement with International Monetary
      Group (“IMG”) whose President and CEO is Patrick D. Harrington, a merchant
      banking company to procure financing for the Company. Michael C. Sher was also
      acting as IMG’s in-house attorney. In return, Phi-Nest received 150,000 shares
      of the collateral stock for consulting services and forgiveness of a note
      receivable for $56,000 owed by a cousin of Steven Schneider, ZAP CEO. As a
      result, the Company recognized $236,000 in non-cash charges in the consolidated
      statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006. In September,
      the
      Board of Directors approved the sale of 500,000 shares of the collateral stock
      to a qualified investor for $500,000. In October 2006, the qualified investor
      transferred $500,000 directly to IMG who in turn was to transfer the proceeds
      to
      the Company after the Company authorized Michael C. Sher to release 500,000
      shares of the collateral stock. In October, IMG required the Company to sign
      a
      $500,000 note and represented that they would not enforce the note based on
      other agreements with the Company and in return IMG transferred $487,500 in
      net
      proceeds to ZAP for the 500,000 shares of collateral stock previously issued
      to
      the qualified investor. Also in October 2006, the Company authorized the
      issuance of 250,000 shares of the collateral stock to IMG and 250,000 shares
      of
      the collateral stock to Michael C. Sher for consulting services and recognized
      $600,000 in non-cash consulting expense in the consolidated statement of
      operations for the year ended December 31, 2006. At December 31, 2006, there
      were 1,291,176 shares remaining in collateral stock held by Michael C. Sher.
      In
      January 2007, IMG provided the Company with a notice of default on the $500,000
      alleged note obligation. In addition, Michael C. Sher has refused to release
      the
      remaining 1,291,176 shares of collateral stock to the Company due to a dispute
      over the alleged debt obligation with IMG. In February 2007, the Company filed
      suit to have the collateral stock returned. See Note 9 ZAP v. International
      Monetary Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Michael C. Sher dba the Law
      Offices of Michael C. Sher, Case No. SCV 240277) for a detailed
      discussion.  Management has recorded an estimated liability for any
      potential exposure to this transaction which is included in the accompanying
      condensed consolidated balance sheet. In addition, management believes that
      the
      ultimate resolution of this claim will not have a material adverse effect on
      our
      consolidated financial position or on the results of operation.





**WARRANTY
      -** The Company provides 30 to 90 day warranties on its personal
      electric products and records the estimated cost of the product warranties
      at
      the date of sale. The estimated cost of warranties has not been significant
      to
      date. Should actual failure rates and material usage differ from our estimates,
      revisions to the warranty obligation may be required.




The
      Company had provided up to an extended 36 month or 36,000 mile warranty on
      the Smart Car Americanized by ZAP, no longer distributed by ZAP since September
      30, 2006 and 6 month warranties for the XebraTM vehicles. At March 31, 2007, the
      Company has recorded a warranty liability for $251,973 for estimated repair
      costs.




**CASH
      AND CASH EQUIVALENTS** - The Company considers highly liquid investments
      with maturities from the date of purchase of three months or less to be cash
      equivalents.






**Note
      3   STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION**





We
      have
      stock compensation plans for employees and directors which are described in
      Note
      10 to our consolidated financial statements in our 2006 Annual Report on Form
      10-KSB as filed with the SEC on April 2, 2007. In June




8


2006,
      our
      shareholders approved the Company’s 2006 incentive stock plan. Under the 2006
      plan, we may grant stock options for up to 4 million shares of common stock.
      We
      adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
“*Share-Based Payment,*” (“SFAS 123R”) effective January 1, 2006. SFAS
      123R requires the recognition of the fair value of stock compensation in net
      income (loss). We recognize the stock compensation expense over the requisite
      service period of the individual grantees, which generally equals the vesting
      period. All of our stock compensation is accounted for as an equity instrument.
      Prior to January 1, 2006, we followed Accounting Principles Board Opinion
      25, *Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees”* (“APB 25”) and related
      interpretations in accounting for our stock compensation.





We
      elected the modified prospective method in adopting SFAS 123R. Under this
      method, the provisions of SFAS 123R apply to all awards granted or modified
      after the date of adoption. The unrecognized expense of awards not yet vested
      at
      the date of adoption is recognized in net income (loss) in the periods after
      the
      date of adoption using the same valuation method ( *i.e.*Black-Scholes)
      and assumptions determined under the original provisions of SFAS 123, “
*Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,”*as disclosed in our previous
      filings. In accordance with the modified prospective method, the consolidated
      financial statements for periods prior to 2006 have not been restated to reflect
      SFAS 123R.




On
      January 26, 2007, the Company extended the expiration date of 21.8 million
      warrants previously issued to employees and officers by five years to July
      1,
      2012, with new exercise prices ranging from $1.00 to $1.20. As a result of
      the
      modification of the warrants, the Company determined the fair value of the
      warrants immediately prior to and after the modification. The incremental
      difference in value resulted in the recognition of $11.7 million in non-cash
      compensation expense during the first quarter of 2007. The Company valued the
      modified warrants at $0.57 per share using a Black-Scholes option pricing model
      with the following assumptions: risk free interest rate of 4.98%; dividend
      rate
      of 0.00%; volatility of 123%, and expected term of 2.7 years.




Under
      the
      provisions of SFAS 123R, we recorded $ 12 million of stock compensation, net
      of
      estimated forfeitures, in selling, general and administrative expenses, in
      our
      unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months
      ended March 31, 2007 . We utilized the Black-Scholes valuation model for
      estimating the fair value of the stock compensation granted after the adoption
      of SFAS 123R, with the following range of assumptions for the three months
      ended
      March 31, 2007:




2007Expected
                Dividend yield
            
            0%Expected
                volatility
            
            
            121.60
                to 154.43Risk-free
                interest rate
            
            
            4.58
                to 5.21Expected
                life (in years) from grant date
            
            
            2.5
                to 5.75Exercise
                price
            
            
            $0.68
                to $2.13







The
      dividend yield of zero is based on the fact that we have never paid cash
      dividends and have no present intention to pay cash dividends. Expected
      volatility is based upon historical volatility of our common stock over the
      period commensurate with the expected life of the options. The risk-free
      interest rate is derived from the average U.S. Treasury Constant Maturity Rate
      during the period, which approximates the rate in effect at the time of the
      grant. Our unvested options vest over the next three years. Our options
      generally have a 10-year term. The expected term is calculated using the
      simplified method prescribed by the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 107. Based
      on the above assumptions, the weighted-average fair values of the options
      granted under the stock option plans for the three months ended March 31, 2007
      was $0.91.  As required by SFAS No. 123R, we now estimate forfeitures
      of employee stock options and recognize compensation cost only for those awards
      expected to vest. Forfeiture rates are determined based on historical
      experience.  Estimated forfeitures are now adjusted to actual forfeiture
      experience as needed.




9


A
      summary
      of options under the Company’s stock option plans from December 31, 2006 through
      March 31, 2007 is as follows:





Number
                of
              Shares
            
            
            Weighted
              Average
              Exercise
                Price
            
            
            Weighted
              Average
              Remaining
              Contractual
              Term
              (in
                years)
            
            Aggregate
              Intrinsic
              ValueOutstanding
                December 31, 2006
            
            
            8,288,177
            
            
            $
            1.02
            
            
            
            7.40
            
            1,942,600Options
                granted under the plan
            
            
            589,606
            
            
            $
            1.15
            
            
            
            9.99
            
            —Options
                  exercised
            
            
            (245,000
            )
            
            $
            .059
            
            
            
            —
            
            119,300Options
                forfeited and expired
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            —
            
            
            
            —
            
            —Outstanding
                March 31, 2007
            
            
            8,632,783
            
            
            $
            1.03
            
            
            
            8.04
            
            1,823,300




Aggregate
      intrinsic value is the sum of the amounts by which the quoted market price
      of
      our stock exceeded the exercise price of the options at March 31, 2007, for
      those options for which the quoted market price was in excess of the exercise
      price (“in-the-money-options”). The total intrinsic value of options exercised
      was $119,300 and $222,590 for the three month period end March 31, 2007 and
      2006, respectively.




As
      of
      March 31, 2007, total compensation cost of unvested employee stock options
      was
      $675,000. This cost is expected to be recognized through March 2010. We recorded
      no income tax benefits for stock-based compensation expense arrangements for
      the
      three months ended March 31, 2007, as we have cumulative operating losses,
      for
      which a valuation allowance has been established.




As
      of
      March 31, 2007, total compensation cost of unvested options and warrants to
      consultants was $1.1 million. This cost is expected to be recognized through
      March 2010.




**Note
      4   INVENTORIES-**Inventories at March 31, 2007 are summarized
      as follows (thousands):





Vehicles
                - conventional
            
            $
            214Advanced
                Transportation vehicles
            
            
            1,070Parts
                and supplies
            
            
            478Finished
                Goods
            
            
            6952,457Less-inventory
                reserve
            
            
            (440
            )$
            2,017




**Note
      5   LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION FEE**





On
      April
      19, 2004, ZAP entered into an Exclusive Purchase, License and Supply Agreement
      with Smart-Automobile LLC (“SA”), a California limited liability company, to
      distribute and manufacture Smart Cars. Smart Cars is the brand name for a
      3-cyclinder gas turbo engine car manufactured by Daimler Chrysler AG, which
      can
      achieve estimated fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon. SA is not affiliated
      with
      Daimler Chrysler, but is a direct importer.





Under
      the
      agreement ZAP was SA’s exclusive distributor and licensee of the right to
      manufacture and distribute Smart cars in the United States and the non-exclusive
      distributor and licensee outside of the United States for a period of ten years.
      Subject to the terms of the agreement, ZAP was obligated to pay SA a license
      and
      distribution fee of $10,000,000: a $1 million payment in cash was made upon
      execution of the agreement, $1 million will be payable
      in cash ratably commencing with the delivery of the first 1,000 Smart Cars,
      and
      $8 million was paid in ZAP preferred stock.




A
        more
        detailed agreement was signed and completed on October 25, 2004. Under this
        agreement, SA exchanged their original Preferred Shares for new Preferred
        Shares
        with the designation of SA. These SA preferred shares convert to ZAP common
        shares under the following formula: For every 1,000 Smart vehicles delivered
        to
        ZAP in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 which are fully EPA compliant to sell
        in
        the United States as new cars, the holder shall convert 500 shares of preferred
        stock SA to $500,000 of common stock, and the holder was to receive 505,000
        warrants with an exercise price of $2.50 per share exercisable through July
        7,
        2009, or when all the preferred have been converted. During 2004, ZAP allowed
        SA
        to convert 500 preferred shares to $500,000 of common stock prior to delivering
        any EPA compliant Smart Cars.
 
 The
        Company recorded the cost of the Smart Automobile license at $10.6 million,
        based on: 1) the $10 million the Company paid to Smart Automobile LLC as
        consideration for a Purchase, License and Supply Agreement dated April 19,
        2004;
        and 2) the fair value of five-year warrants issued under the Agreement for
        the
        purchase of 505,000 common shares at $2.50 per share and expiring in July
        1,
        2009. The warrants were valued at $1.16 per share using the Black-Scholes
        option
        pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield of
        0.0%;
        risk free interest rate of 3.08%; contractual life of 4.5 years; and volatility
        of 229.43%.


10


In
      the
      fourth quarter of 2005, the Company filed a lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler
      Corporation (“Daimler Chrysler”) and others alleging that Daimler Chrysler has
      engaged in a series of anti-competitive tactics aimed at defaming ZAP and
      disrupting its third party relationships including this arrangement.
      Shortly thereafter, the Company commenced its annual impairment assessment.
      An
      independent valuation of the Smart Automobile license as of December 31, 2005
      estimated the fair value to be $3.1 million with a remaining life of two years
      which was less than the $10.6 million recorded cost of the license. The carrying
      cost of the license was $8.8 million prior to the impairment calculation and
      accordingly, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $5.7 million for
      the
      year ended December 31, 2005. The valuation of the license was based on the
      Company’s discounted projected cash flows from projected sales of Smart Cars
      over the estimated life of the license agreement.




In
      June
      2006, ZAP agreed in principle to amend its agreement with SA that was originally
      signed in April 2004. As a result, SA returned to ZAP all of the remaining
      preferred shares, or 7,500 preferred shares valued at $7.5 million, in exchange
      for, among other things, 300,000 common shares valued at $405,000 and 1 million
      warrants with an exercise price of $1.75 per share, valued at $950,000 using
      the
      Black-Scholes option pricing model. In addition, ZAP’s obligation to pay accrued
      license fees of $906,000 at June 30, 2006 was canceled. As a result, ZAP
      recorded a liability to SA of $7 million at June 30, 2006.




In
      September 2006, the Company further amended and renegotiated its agreement
      with
      SA for the Smart Car, due to the unavailability of Smart Cars and
      Daimler-Chrysler’s announcement to begin selling Smart Cars in the U.S. in 2008.
      This negotiation superseded all previous license and other distribution or
      asset
      agreements between ZAP and SA. The renegotiated agreement released ZAP from
      any
      remaining obligations to SA under its previous agreements and any liability
      to
      SA and resulted in the reversal of the $7 million liability owed and the
      corresponding recognition of $7 million in other income. The Company also
      recognized an impairment loss on the remaining value of the license with SA
      of
      approximately $2.2 million. Amortization expense of the license was $1,056,000
      and $1,059,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. As of September
      30, 2006, the Company no longer distributes Smart Cars.








**NOTE
      6 - LONG-TERM DEBT**




**8%
        SENIOR CONVERTIBLE NOTES**
  On
        December 5, 2006, when the market price of the Company’s common stock was $0.89
        per share, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with
        three
        institutional and accredited investors or purchasers pursuant to which the
        Company sold to the purchasers $1.5 million aggregate principal amount of
        8%
        senior convertible notes due December 5, 2008 (the “Notes due 2008”) and
        warrants to purchase 450,000 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Initial
        Warrants”) in a private placement. The Notes due 2008 are convertible at $0.90
        per share into 1,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, subject to
        anti-dilution and other adjustments. The Initial Warrants, each immediately
        exercisable and expiring on December 5, 2011, are exercisable at $1.10 per
        share, subject to anti-dilution and other adjustments.


On
          February 20, 2007, when the market price of the Company’s common stock was $1.08
          per share, the Company entered into a Purchase and Amendment Agreement
          (the
“Amendment”), amending the Securities Purchase Agreement entered into by the
          Company on December 5, 2006 (the “Original Agreement” and as amended by the
          Amendment, the “Agreement”), with several institutional and accredited investors
          or purchasers pursuant to which the Company sold to the purchasers $1.2
          million
          aggregate principal amount of 8% senior convertible notes due February
          2009 (the
“Notes due 2009” and with the Notes due 2008, the “Notes”) and warrants to
          purchase 360,000 shares of the common stock of the Company (the “Additional
          Warrants” and with the Initial Warrants, the “Warrants”), in a private
          placement. The transaction closed on February 22, 2007 (the “February 2007
          financing”). The Notes due 2009 are convertible at $0.90 per share into
          1,200,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, subject to anti-dilution and
          other adjustments. Gross proceeds from the sale to the Company were $1.2
          million, of which $15,000 was paid to one of the purchasers for expenses
          incurred in connection with the February 2007 financing.
 
 The
          Notes
          provide for anti-dilution adjustments of issuable shares and the conversion
          price should the Company issue common stock or common stock equivalents
          for a
          price less than the conversion price, on or prior to the later of 1) the
          earlier
          of (x) the date a registration statement is declared effective by the SEC
          and
          (y) the two year anniversary of the issue date and 2) the six month anniversary
          of the issue date. The Warrants provide for anti-dilution adjustments of
          the
          issuable shares and the exercise prices thereof should the Company issue
          common
          stock or common stock equivalents for a price less than the exercise price
          of
          the Warrants, on or prior to the later of 1) the earlier of (x) the date
          a
          registration statement is declared effective by the SEC and (y) the two
          year
          anniversary of the issue date and 2) the six month anniversary of the issue
          date. The anti-dilution provided by the Warrants calls for the exercise
          price of
          the Warrants to adjust to 110% of the price of any dilutive issuances,
          on a per
          share basis. After December 31, 2007 and if the daily volume weighted average
          price of its common stock is equal to or greater than the Forced Conversion
          Price (as defined) for 20 trading days occurring during any period of thirty
          consecutive trading days, and certain other conditions are satisfied, the
          Company has the right to require the conversion of any unconverted Notes
          into
          shares of common stock. After December 31, 2007, and if the daily volume
          weighted average price of its common stock is equal to or greater than
          the $2.20
          for 20 trading days occurring during any period of thirty consecutive trading
          days, and certain other conditions are satisfied, the Company has the right
          to
          require the exercise of any unexercised Warrants into shares of common
          stock.
 
 The
          Notes
          provide for quarterly interest to be paid in cash, or subject to certain
          conditions, by issuing shares of common stock. If the Company is eligible
          and
          elects to pay quarterly interest in stock, the price per share used to
          calculate
          the number of shares due for interest will be calculated by reducing the
          market
          price of the shares by 5% (as defined).
 
 The
          Company will use the proceeds from the issuance of the Notes for general
          working
          capital purposes and to increase the capacity of its product distribution
          network.
 
 Under
          terms of a registration rights agreement, the Company is obligated to file
          a
          registration statement within 90 days of the closing date of the sale of
          the
          Notes due 2008 for the resale of the shares of common stock underlying
          the
          Notes, the Warrants and any other shares issuable pursuant to the terms
          of the
          Notes or the Warrants and to cause the registration statement to become
          effective within 180 days of the closing date.  The Company is also
          required to maintain the effectiveness of the registration statement until
          all
          shares have been sold or may be sold without a registration
          statement.
 11
 In
          the
          event the registration statement is not filed within 90 days after the
          closing
          or does not become effective within 180 days of the closing, or once declared
          effective ceases to remain effective during the period that the securities
          covered by the agreement are not sold, the Company will be required to
          pay, in
          cash, an amount for such failure, equal to 1% of the aggregate principal
          amount
          for each thirty day period in which the registration statement is not filed,
          effective, or maintained effective. There is no cap on the amount of damages
          potentially payable by the Company should the registration statement not
          be
          filed, declared effective, or maintained effective. At
          May
          14, 2007, the Company has not filed a registration statement pursuant to
          the
          registration rights agreement and has not made any payments to the purchasers
          of
          such amount. The
          Company has been contacted by one of the noteholders regarding this situation.
          In the current discussions, the Company has indicated its intention to
          file the
          required registration by June 30, 2007. The noteholder has expressed their
          willingness to work with the Company to resolve any issues regarding compliance
          with the notes including a possible restructuring of the debt instruments
          if
          necessary.
 
 If
          the
          Company issues additional common stock or common stock equivalents for
          a price
          less than the Conversion Price, on or prior to the later of 1) the earlier
          of
          (x) the date a registration statement is declared effective by the SEC
          and (y)
          the two year anniversary of the issue date and 2) the six month anniversary
          of
          the issue date of the Notes, the investors will have the right, but not
          the
          obligation, to participate in such issuance, upon the same terms as those
          offered, so that each Investor’s percentage ownership of the Company remains the
          same.
 
 The
          Company paid fees of $40,000 related to the Notes. These cash fees have
          been
          recorded as deferred offering costs and are being amortized over the life
          of the
          Notes.
 
 As
          discussed in Note 2, on January 1, 2007, we adopted Financial Accounting
          Standards Board (FASB) Staff Position (FSP) Emerging Issues Task Force
          (EITF)
          00-19-2, “Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements”. This FASB staff
          position addresses how to account for registration payment arrangements
          and
          clarifies that a financial instrument subject to a registration payment
          arrangement should be accounted for in accordance with other generally
          accepted
          accounting principles without regard to the contingent obligation to transfer
          consideration pursuant to the registration payment arrangement. Prior to
          the
          adoption of this FSP, the Company classified as a note derivative liability
          and
          as a warrant liability, financial instruments included in or issued in
          conjunction with our December 2006 financing, since the resale of the underlying
          shares issuable upon conversion of the notes and exercise of the warrants
          was
          required to be registered with the SEC, and the Company’s failure to file, and
          obtain and maintain the effectiveness of a registration statement would
          result
          in potential cash payments which were not capped. The Company’s adoption of this
          accounting pronouncement as of January 1, 2007 resulted in a reclassification
          of
          the note derivative liability to the note liability and the warrant liability
          to
          equity, and an adjustment to the note discount to reflect the allocated
          value of
          the warrant and a beneficial conversion feature, accreted to December 31,
          2006,
          both calculated in accordance with EITF Nos. 98-5, “Accounting for Convertible
          Securities with Beneficial Conversion Features or Contingently Adjustable
          Conversion Ratios,’ to Certain Convertible Instruments,” and EITF 00-27,
“Application of EITF Issue No. 98-5, ’Accounting for Convertible Securities with
          Beneficial Conversion Features or Contingently Adjustable Conversion Ratios,’ to
          Certain Convertible Instruments.” The cumulative effect of this accounting
          change of $24,000 was credited to the opening accumulated deficit balance
          as of
          January 1, 2007.
 
 In
          accordance with EITF 98-5 and 00-27, the Company allocated the note proceeds
          of
          $1.2 million from the February 2007 financing between the fair value of
          the
          notes and the fair value of the warrants. The Company valued the warrants
          at
          $0.97 per share using the binomial option pricing model with the following
          assumptions: risk free interest rate of 4.69%; effective dividend rate
          of 0.00%;
          volatility of 140%, and expected term of 4 years. The relative fair value
          of the
          warrants is $272,000, which was recorded as a discount to the notes, with
          a
          corresponding credit to equity or common stock. The Company determined
          that the
          proceeds allocated to the warrants should be treated as equity in accordance
          with the provisions of EITF 00-19 and FSP 00-19-2. The Company further
          determined that there was a beneficial conversion feature associated with
          the
          notes of $368,000, calculated as the difference between the fair value
          of the
          shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the notes and the proceeds
          allocated to the notes. The Company recorded the amount of the beneficial
          conversion feature as an additional discount to the notes, with a corresponding
          credit to equity, or common stock. The aggregate amounts of the discounts
          to the
          notes was $640,000, which is being amortized to interest expense using
          the
          effective interest method prescribed by APB Opinion No. 21, “Interest on
          Receivables and Payables,” over the life of the notes. The effective interest
          rate of these notes is approximately 46.7% based on the stated interest
          rate,
          the amount of amortized discount, the amount of deferred offering costs
          attributable to the notes and their term.
 
 The
          Company is required to make monthly principal payments on the Notes beginning
          on
          June 1, 2007, in twelve equal installments. Under certain circumstances,
          the
          Company may make all or a portion of these principal payments with common
          stock.
          If the Company chooses to repay principal with common stock, the principal
          payment share price will generally be the lesser of i) 90% of the lowest
          daily
          volume weighted average price for any trading day among the ten consecutive
          trading days occurring immediately prior to the principal payment date
          and ii)
          the conversion price in effect on such principal payment date.
 
 Scheduled
          annual maturities for this long-term debt for years ending after December
          31,
          2006 are as follows: $1,575,000 - 2007 (nine months); and $1,125,000 -
          2008.
 
 The
          note
          agreements contain certain affirmative and restrictive covenants, including,
          among other things, covenants prohibiting the Company from paying cash
          dividends
          on its common stock and requiring the Company to file, and achieve and
          maintain
          the effectiveness of a registration statement. If the Company breaches
          any of
          the covenants and, after receiving notice from noteholders, does not, within
          a
          certain period of time, cure the breach, , or if there is a change in
          control,the noteholders may call the loan, thereby requiring the payment
          of the
          principal balance of the notes and accrued interest plus a 20%
          penalty.
 
 **SECURED
          CONVERTIBLE NOTE**
 
 The
          Company also has a $2 million convertible note due in March 2025, with
          annual
          interest at 2% through March of 2005, and thereafter at the prime rate
          (as
          defined) plus 2%. Payments started on April 2005, at which time, the note
          is
          payable with equal principal and interest payments over the next 240 months.
          The
          noteholder has the option to convert some or all of the unpaid principal
          and
          accrued interest to shares of ZAP’s common stock at $2.15 per share or an agreed
          upon conversion price (as defined). The note was issued in exchange for
          the
          purchase of the Company’s new corporate headquarters and is secured by this
          property. The note has a balance of $ 1,872,000 at March 31, 2007.
 
 Scheduled
          annual maturities for this long-term debt for years ending after December
          31,
          2006 are as follows: $78,000 - 2007 (nine months); $104,000 - 2008; $104,000
          -
          2009; $104,000 - 2010; $104,000 - 2011; and $1,378,000-
          thereafter.


12


**NOTE
      7 – INCOME TAXES**




We
      adopted the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for
      Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,*or FIN 48, on January 1, 2007. Upon adoption of FIN 48, we
      commenced a review of our tax position taken in our tax returns that remain
      subject to examination. Based upon our review we do not believe we have any
      unrecognized tax benefits or that there is a material impact on our financial
      condition or results of operations as a result of implementing FIN
      48.




We
      file
      income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various state and
      foreign jurisdictions. We are subject to U.S. federal or state income tax
      examinations by tax authorities for all years in which we reported net operating
      losses that are being carried forward. We do not believe there will be any
      material changes in our unrecognized tax positions over the next 12
      months.




We
      recognize interest and penalties accrued on any unrecognized tax benefits as
      a
      component of income tax expense. As of the date of adoption of FIN 48, we did
      not have any accrued interest or penalties associated with any unrecognized
      tax
      benefits, nor was any interest expense recognized for the period ended
      March 31, 2007.








**NOTE 8
       – SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY**




On
      July
      1, 2002, ZAP’s stock began trading on the National Association of Securities
      Dealers, Inc. Electronic Bulletin Board (the “OTC Bulletin Board”) under the
      stock symbol of “ZAPZ.”


On
      June
      20, 2005, ZAP received approval to list its common stock on the Archipelago
      Exchange (ArcaEx). This exchange was a facility of the Pacific Exchange (PCXE)
      and is the nation’s first totally open, all-electronic stock exchange. The
      Company changed its stock ticker symbol used on the ArcaEx from “ZAPZ” to “ZP”
on July 7, 2005. On March 7, 2006, the ArcaEx merged with the New York Stock
      Exchange (the “NYSE”) creating the NYSE Arca electronic trading
      platform.





On
      October 31, 2006, ZAP received written notice that its common stock would be
      suspended from trading on the NYSE Arca effective at the market opening on
      November 8, 2006. This action was due to ZAP’s inability to satisfy the
      continued listing standards.  On November 8, 2006, ZAP’s common stock
      was approved for quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol
“ZAAP.”





On
      November 9, 2006, ZAP’s Board of Directors approved a 10% stock dividend to be
      issued effective February 28, 2007, to all shareholders of record as of February
      15, 2007. As a result of the stock dividend, approximately 4.0 million shares
      were issued to shareholders. The number of shares and loss per share amounts
      included in these financial statements has been adjusted for all periods
      presented to reflect the stock dividend.





On
      January 25, 2007, the Board of Directors extended by five years through July
      1,
      2012, the expiration date of certain of the Company’s warrants, Series B through
      K . These warrants were issued for executive compensation and by the plan of
      reorganization. The exercise prices of the warrants were also revised from
      prices ranging from $1.00 to $8.00 to prices ranging from $1.00 to
      $1.20.





13


During
      our annual
      meeting of shareholders held in June of 2006 an amendment to the
      Company’s Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation was
      approved  to increase the authorized common stock from 100 million to
      200 million shares.





Preferred
      Stock


On
      June
      19, 2006, Smart Automobile LLC returned to the Company all the remaining shares
      of preferred stock with a carrying value of $7.5 million in exchange for 300,000
      shares of common stock valued at approximately $400,000, one million warrants
      with a strike price of $1.75 valued at approximately $950,000.  See Note 5,
      License and Distribution Fee, for further discussion on this
      transaction.









The
      Company’s shareholder equity activity for the three months ended March 31, 2007
      is summarized as follows:  (in thousands)




**Common****Shares**
            
            
            **Amount****Balance
                at December 31, 2006**
            
            
            38,414
            
            
            $
            91,227**Issuances
                of Common Stock for:**Exercise
                of options and warrants for cash
            
            
            245
            
            
            
            145Cash
            
            
            843
            
            
            
            900Consulting
                and other services
            
            
            837
            
            
            
            876Employee
                Compensation
            
            
            267
            
            
            
            300Stock
                dividend
            
            
            3,957
            
            
            
            —6,149
            
            
            $
            2,221**Stock
                Option and Warrant Transactions******Warrants
                issued to convertible debt holders
            
            
            
            
            
            
            1,081Fair
                value of warrants issued for consulting and other services
            
            
            
            
            
            
            260Fair
                value of options and warrants issued to employees
            
            
            
            
            
            
            11,74013,081**Balance
                at March 31, 2007**
            
            
            44,563
            
            
            
            106,529




The
      Company issued common stock as consideration under agreements for consulting
      and
      employee services during the three months ended March 31, 2007. The Company
      recorded the cost based on the market value of the stock at the date of grant.
      The cost of consulting services resulting from issuing stock and warrants and
      stock options is being recognized as expense over the term of their
      respective agreements.




14


Stock
      issued as collateral is discussed in detail in Note 2, “Stock Issued
      as
      Collateral”,
      and Note 9, “Litigation,”*ZAP
      v.
      International Monetary Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Michael C. Sher
      dba
      the Law Offices Of Michael C. Sher,* Case No. SCV 240277.





The
      Company also issued options and warrants to consultants for professional
      services.  During the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company issued
      options and warrants to consultants to purchase 272,000 shares of common
      stock at prices ranging from $1.00 per share to $1.32 per share, with a
      contractual life ranging from 5 to 6 years. The options and warrants were
      nonforfeitable and fully vested at the date of issuance and were valued using
      the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following range of
      assumptions:




**Low**
            **High**Exercise
                price per share
            $1.00
            $1.32Market
                price
            $1.15
            $1.15Assumptions:Expected
                dividend yield
            0.0%
            0.0%Risk
                free rate of return
            4.58%
            4.58%Expected
                life (contractual term)
            3.9
                years
            6 yearsVolatility
            120.97%
            120.97%Fair
                market value
            $0.89
            $0.98







**NOTE  9 –
      LITIGATION**




In
      the
      normal course of business, we may become involved in various legal proceedings.
      Except as stated below, we know of no pending or threatened legal proceeding
      to
      which we are or will be a party which,if successful, might result in a material
      adverse change in our business, properties or financial condition. However,
      as
      with most businesses, we are occasionally parties to lawsuits incidental to
      our
      business, none of which are anticipated to have a material adverse impact on
      our
      financial position, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. The Company
      estimates the amount of potential exposure it may have with respect to
      litigation claims and assessments.





*ZAP
      v. Daimler Chrysler AG, et
      al.,*Superior
      Court of
      California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.  BC342211.  On
      October 28, 2005, ZAP filed a complaint against Daimler Chrysler Corporation
      and
      others in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint includes claims for
      intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations,
      trade libel, defamation, breach of contract - agreement to negotiate in good
      faith,




15


breach
      of
      implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition. The
      complaint alleges that Daimler Chrysler has engaged in a series of
      anti-competitive tactics aimed at defaming ZAP and disrupting its third-party
      business relationships. As a result of the allegations, the complaint requests
      damages in excess of $500 million and such other relief as the court deems
      just
      and proper. Daimler Chrysler has successfully filed a motion to quash that
      compliant for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court’s ruling on that
      matter is in the process of being appealed.  Two of the other defendants in
      the action, G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. and The Defiance LLC, have filed
      a cross-complaint against ZAP in the Los Angeles Superior Court for, among
      other
      things, violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, statutory and common
      law  unfaircompetition, and
      intentional and negligent interference withprospective economic
      advantage.  ZAP has responded to the cross-complaint and denied engaging in
      any wrongful actions.




*James
      A. Arnold, et al. v. Steven
      Schneider, et al.,* Superior Court of California, County of
      Sacramento, Case No. 02AS02062, filed April 5, 2002, dismissed October 9, 2003,
      dismissal set aside and referred to Case Management Program March 4,
      2004.  Plaintiffs seek damages of $71,000 in compensatory damages, $50
      per month since April 5, 2002, other charges, interest, and further relief
      in
      the court’s discretion for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and
      fraud.  Plaintiffs also seek $750,000 in punitive damages for
      fraud.  The Company has cross-claimed against Plaintiffs seeking
      compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and equitable relief for breach of oral
      contract, common count for goods sold and delivered, conversion, liability
      of
      surety, violation of statute, and violation of the Unfair Practices
      Act.  On February 17, 2005, the court referred the matter to
      non-binding arbitration pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
      1141.1.  The non-binding arbitration hearing was held on July 27,
      2005.  The arbitrator award, issued on August 5, 2005, awarded
      Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $68,290, plus prejudgment interest at the
      rate of 7%.  This amount was awarded against both the Company and Mr.
      Schneider.  Given an admission in the plaintiff’s case management
      conference statement and the decision of the court to refer the matter to
      non-binding arbitration, the Company believes that the amount in controversy
      should be less than $50,000, though the complaint asks for more than $71,000
      in
      damages.  Trial in Sacramento County Superior Court began on Tuesday,
      May 2, 2006, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 47.  At the trial, the
      parties agreed to settle this matter upon the following terms:  (1)
      the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the causes of action it had alleged against
      Mr.
      Schneider; and (2) RAP Group agreed to (a) pay the plaintiff $20,000 on or
      before May 31, 2006; (b) pay the plaintiff an additional $20,000 on or before
      January 5, 2007; (c) provide the plaintiff with whatever ownership documentation
      (such as titles) it can find in its possession, custody, or
      control regarding the 43 cars identified by the plaintiff during discovery
      as being the subject of this litigation; (d) allow the court to enter an order
      directing that plaintiff may dispose of the vehicles that are the subject of
      the
      litigation; and (e) allow the court to enter judgment against it in the amount
      of $50,000, minus whatever monies have already been paid by RAP Group to the
      plaintiff, if RAP Group does not timely make either of the payments identified
      above.  Both the plaintiff and RAP Group agreed to execute general
      mutual releases of all claims arising out of the subject matter of the
      litigation (pursuant to section 1542 of the Civil Code) and to dismiss with
      prejudice the complaint and the cross-complaint after performance of the
      settlement agreement.  The plaintiff and RAP Group further agreed that the
      stipulated settlement will be governed by section 664.6 of the Code of Civil
      Procedure.  RAP Group made the first payment to the plaintiff for
      $20,000, but did not pay the second payment of $20,000 that was due by January
      5, 2007.  Plaintiff has therefore moved the court to enter a default
      judgment against RAP Group for $30,000 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
      Agreement.  A hearing on that motion for default judgment was heard on
      April 4, 2007, and on April 27, 2007, the court entered judgment against RAP
      for
      $30,000.




*Leandra
      Dominguez v. RAP Group,
      Inc. dba The Repo Outlet et. al*., Superior Court of California,
      County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV-235641, complaint filed October 14, 2004, first
      amended complaint filed December 15, 2004.  Plaintiff has sued The
      Repo Outlet and Credit West Corporation for negligent misrepresentation, for
      a
      violation of the Business and Professions Code Section 17200, for breach of
      the
      implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnusson-Moss Act, and for
      violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act.  On January 13, 2005,
      the RAP Group, Inc. agreed to defend and indemnify Credit West
      Corporation.  At a hearing before the Sonoma County Superior Court on
      February 23, 2005, the court granted The Repo Outlet’s motion to compel
      arbitration, and on March 8, 2005, the court stayed the court proceeding pending
      arbitration.  The RAP Group, Inc. filed a demand for arbitration with
      the American Arbitration Association (the “Association”) on April 7, 2005, but
      the parties later stipulated that the arbitration would proceed before
      JAMS.  The Repo Outlet made a Code of Civil Procedure 998 offer
      to settle and have Dominguez dismiss the matter with prejudice for the sum
      of
      $1,001.  Because Dominguez failed to timely respond to The Repo Outlet’s
      Section 998 offer, that offer expired on March 2, 2006.  The Repo
      Outlet made another settlement offer of $1,857 to settle this matter as to
      both
      defendants on January 8, 2007, but this offer was rejected as plaintiff’s
      counsel seeks to recover all of his attorneys’ fees.  Although the
      case was sent to arbitration before JAMS, and set for arbitration in February
      2007, on January 9, 2007,




16


The
      Repo
      Outlet informed the arbitrator and plaintiff’s counsel that it would be ceasing
      operations and its counsel would be withdrawing as attorneys of
      record.  At a status conference on February 8, 2007, the court was
      informed that counsel for RAP Group had moved to withdraw for non-payment of
      fees.  The hearing on that motion is set for April 18,
      2007.  Since that time, Credit West has substituted its own counsel of
      record, and so RAP Group is no longer tendering a defense to Credit
      West.  On April 4, plaintiff Dominguez filed with the Court a Request
      for Entry of Default Judgment against RAP Group.  On May 2, 2007, the
      Court granted Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel of
      record.  Thus, RAP Group is currently unrepresented by counsel in this
      matter.




*Marieta
      Cruz Hansell v. Robert
      Warren Johnson, Jr.,**ZAP, et. al.,*
      Superior
      Court of California, Case No. SCV-237645.  On October 21, 2005,
      Marieta Hansell filed suit against Robert Johnson (a former employee of ZAP),
      ZAP and other defendants for personal injury, property damage and permanent
      disability based on an alleged automobile collision between the plaintiff and
      defendant Johnson.  The Company and Mr. Johnson have both filed
      answers and case management statements containing a general denial of all of
      the
      plaintiff’s claim, and the Company has agreed to defend Mr. Johnson in this
      matter.  The parties are in the process of propounding and responding
      to discovery.  The plaintiff is claiming permanent
      disability,  and she has submitted a Statement of Damages in the
      amount of $108,727.34, plus unspecified amounts of future general damages,
      future wage loss, diminution of earning capacity damages, and incidental,
      consequential and special damages.  The plaintiff has not yet made any
      demand for settlement.  The Company intends to vigorously defend both
      itself and Mr. Johnson against these claims.  This matter is now being
      handled by alternative counsel for ZAP.  According to information received
      from alternative counsel, the partieshave agreed to settle
      this
      matter with a payment by the Company and Mr. Johnson to the plaintiff of a
      total
      of $70,000.  The lawsuit was settled on February 15, 2007 and was dismissed
      with prejudice.





*ZAP
      v. Norm Alvis, et al.,*Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV-238419,
      complaint filed March 27, 2006.  Mr. Alvis was engaged by the Company
      and Rotoblock Corporation (“Rotoblock”) as a consultant to perform public
      relations work on behalf of the Company and Rotoblock.  As
      consideration for Mr. Alvis’ consent to the contract with the Company, the
      Company provided Mr. Alvis with use of a motor home worth approximately
      $306,000.  The Company then sued Mr. Alvis, claiming he failed to
      perform his obligations under the contract and refused to return the
      consideration he received therefore (i.e. the motor home).  The
      Company is seeking either the return of the motor home or $500,000 in
      damages.  Mr. Alvis initially did not respond to the complaint, which
      prompted the Company to take his default on May 9, 2006.  The court
      then entered a default judgment on May 16, 2006, on which date the Company
      obtained a writ of possession allowing it to reclaim possession of the disputed
      motor home.  On June 18, 2006, Mr. Alvis moved the court to set aside
      the default and default judgment and to vacate its order authorizing issuance
      of
      the writ of possession.  The court agreed to set aside the default
      judgments, but it left intact the writ of possession.  The court also
      required Mr. Alvis to pay the Company $1,000 as compensation for forcing the
      Company to initially take his default.  Mr. Alvis has paid the Company
      the required $1,000.  Mr. Alvis then filed (1) an answer denying the
      Company’s allegations, and (2) a cross-claim against the Company, Steve
      Schneider in his individual capacity, and Rotoblock, alleging two counts of
      breach of contract, one common count of work, labor, and services received,
      and
      one count of fraud.  All of Mr. Alvis’ claims relate to the two
      contracts he executed with the Company and Rotoblock.  Mr. Alvis
      claims he provided services to the Company and Rotoblock pursuant to these
      contracts but received no consideration in exchange therefore.  For
      the fraud claim, defendant claims the Company and Schneider executed the
      contracts with no intent to perform.  Mr. Alvis has prayed for damages
      of $2,000,000, interest according to proof, punitive damages, and an order
      directing the Company to perfect title to the motor home.  Mr. Alvis
      then moved the court to quash the writ of possession.  On November 2,
      2006, the court denied this motion, although it did require the Company to
      post
      a $300,000 bond to enforce the writ.  The Company has not yet posted
      that bond, and consequently Mr. Alvis has threatened to move to revoke the
      writ.  The Company, Rotoblock and Schneider then demurred to the
      cross-complaint, and Alvis responded by filing an amended cross-complaint.
      The
      first amended cross-complaint again seeks breach of contract and common count
      damages against the Company and Rotoblock, as well as fraud damages against
      the
      Company and Schneider.  The Company and Schneider answered the first
      amended cross-complaint with general denials; Rotoblock responded by filing
      a
      second demurrer in which it has alleged it was an improperly named
      party.  The hearing on Rotoblock’s demurrer was heard
      on  March 21, 2007, at which time the demurrer was denied. Rotoblock
      intends to file an answer to the amended cross-compliant with general denials.
      Counsel has given notice of the claims against Schneider to the Company’s
      D&O insurer, which has acknowledged receipt of the
      notice.  Discovery is on-going, and the next case management
      conference is scheduled for April 9, 2007, but has been continued until July5,
      2007.




17


*Robert
      Chauvin; Mary Chauvin; Rajun
      Cajun, Inc. dba ZAP of Carson City, dba ZAP of Reno, dba ZAP of Sparks
      (“Robert**Chauvin,
      et al.”) v. Voltage Vehicles; ZAP; ZAP Power Systems Inc.;
      ZAPWORLDCOM*; *Elliot Winfield;
      Steven Schneider;
      Phillip Terrazzi; Max Scheder-Breschin;****Renay
      Cude;* [*sic] and Does
      I*-*XX*,
      Second Judicial
      District Court State of Nevada, County of Washoe, Case No. CV06 02767.On November 17, 2006,
      Robert Chauvin, et al. filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, breach
      of
      the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of warranties,
      fraud/misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, quantum merit or unjust
      enrichment, civil conspiracy, violation of Security [sic] and Exchange
      Act/federal securities law, and deceptive trade practices, pursuant to a License
      Agreement (for a distribution license) entered into between Rajun Cajun, Inc.
      dba ZAP of Carson City, dba ZAP of Reno, dba ZAP of Sparks (“Rajun Cajun”) and
      Voltage Vehicles.  The complaint seeks general damages in an amount in
      excess of $10,000, special damages in an amount in excess of $10,000, punitive
      damages in an amount in excess of $10,000, attorneys’ fees and cost of suit, for
      judgment in an amount equal to treble actual damages, and recession in the
      amounts of $397,900 and $120,000.  On January 19, 2007, defendants
      Voltage Vehicles and ZAP filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the
      License Agreement entered into between Rajun Cajun and Voltage contains a forum
      selection clause designating Sonoma County, State of California as the only
      appropriate forum.  The court granted that Motion on April 13,
      2007.  In its order on that motion, the court also found that all
      other motions pending in the Nevada court in this matter are now
      moot.  (As of that time, the following motions were still
      pending:  (1) Chauvin, et al.’s Notices of Intent to Take Default
      against two of the named corporate defendants and against the individual
      defendants, except Renay Cude; (2) a Motion to Quash Service of Process or
      Alternatively for Dismissal by each of the individual defendants and both of
      the
      defunct corporate defendants; and (3) Chauvin, et al.’s Motion for
      Publication of Summons against the named individual defendants.)




*Voltage
      Vehicles v. Rajun Cajun, et
      al.*, Superior Court
      of California, County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV 240179, filed February 9,
      2007.  (This suit is related to the Nevada case
      of*Robert
      Chauvin, et al. v. Voltage Vehicles, et al.*discussed immediately
      above.)In its Complaint, Voltage Vehicles requests Declaratory Relief against
      Rajun Cajun, asking the Court to declare that the License Agreement between
      those two parties does not grant Rajun Cajun an exclusive dealership in northern
      Nevada to distribute Voltage Vehicle products and that Voltage Vehicles has
      performed its obligations under the License Agreement.  On April 19,
      2007, Rajun Cajun filed a Motion to Quash and/or for Dismissal or
      Stay.  Rajun Cajun has since agreed to voluntarily withdraw that
      motion, but Voltage Vehicles is still awaiting confirmation of that
      withdrawal.  It is anticipated that Rajun Cajun will thereafter file
      an answer and cross-complaint in this matter.




*ZAP
      v. International Monetary
      Group,(Patrick J Harrington President and CEO) Inc., a Delaware corporation;
      Michael C. Sher dba the Law Offices of Michael C. Sher*, Case No. SCV
      240277,complaint
      filed March 1, 2007 in Sonoma County Superior Court.  ZAP sued
      International Monetary Group (“IMG”) who’s President and CEO  is
      Patrick D. Harrington and Michael Sher for declaratory relief, rescission,
      and
      breach of contract.  ZAP had entered into an agreement with IMG, a
      merchant banking company, to procure financing, and ZAP alleges that IMG,
      contrary to the parties’ agreement, is seeking to enforce a $500,000 promissory
      note.  ZAP also alleges that IMG and Sher have taken $12,500 and
      10,000 shares of ZAP common stock that they held in trust for ZAP without
      authorization.  ZAP also alleges that IMG and Sher continue to hold
      1,291,176 shares of ZAP stock that was supposed to have been used as collateral
      for a $1 million loan to be procured by IMG and Sher that never
      materialized.  After being served with the complaint, counsel for IMG
      and Sher initiated settlement discussions and, in consideration, were given
      until May 7, 2007 to respond tothe complaint. The Company has not received a written response from IMG
      as of May 14, 2007. Management has recorded an estimated liability for any
      potential exposure related to this transaction which is included in the
      accompanying consolidated balance sheet.  In addition, management
      believes that the ultimate resolution of this claim will not have a material
      adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or on results of
      operations.





*ZAP
      v. Thomas C. Graver and Auto
      America Group, Inc.*,
      filed in federal court for the Northern District of California on April 3,
      2007,
      Case No. CV-01836-MJJ.In its Complaint ZAP makes claims
      against Graver and Auto America Group under the Federal Anti-Cybersquatting
      Act
      and for trademark infringement.  Graver is the President and Chief
      Executive Officer of Auto America Group, Inc. (“AAG”).  AAG and Graver
      signed an independent contractor agreement with ZAP on October 21, 2005 to
      provide certain services to ZAP, but that agreement terminated on October 18,
      2006.  At no time did ZAP enter into an agreement with AAG or Graver
      giving either of them permission to use ZAP’s federally-registered trademark
“zapworld.com.”




18


Following
      discussions regarding a business dispute between Graver, AAG and one of ZAP’s
      business partners, a Brazilian company called Obvio, Graver registered the
      domain name www.zapworld.us on January 4, 2007.  Although there is
      very little content on the website www.zapworld.us, the home page does refer
      extensively to Obvio and has two references to ZAP. One of those references
      is
      to “ZAP Agreement Correspondence” with an apparent link that is not
      functional.  The other ZAP reference is to an article referring to ZAP
      in a negative light.  Graver failed to respond to ZAP’s cease and
      desist letters.  In its lawsuit, ZAP requests that the domain name
“zapworld.us” be transferred to ZAP and also that ZAP be awarded its damages and
      attorneys’ fees.  The defendants have now been served, and the parties
      are discussing a proposed settlement agreement with terms favorable to
      ZAP.




First
      Class Auto Sales, Inc. d/b/a
      First Class Imports v. Voltage Vehicles and ZAP, American Arbitration
      Association Case No. 74 133 00081 06 NOCA.**First Class Imports is
      a vehicle dealer that executed a licensing and distributorship agreement with
      Voltage Vehicles, a subsidiary of the Company, in May, 2004. On January 14,
      2006, First Class Imports and its principal, Leon Atkind, filed an arbitration
      demand with the American Arbitration Association alleging that the Company
      and
      Voltage Vehicles breached the licensing agreement by not delivering new
      SMART-branded vehicles to First Class Imports and demanded return of the
      $100,000 licensing fee paid to Voltage Vehicles under the agreement, plus
      interest.  In a separate cause of action, Mr. Atkind alleged the
      Company breached a second contract by failing to timely deliver a stock
      certificate in exchange for a Mercedes vehicle that he sold to the
      Company.  Regarding this second claim, Mr. Atkind contends that the
      late delivery of the certificate caused the shares to be restricted for an
      extra
      month during which the Company’s stock price declined.  He seeks as
      damages the difference in the value of the stock on the two subject dates
      multiplied by 59,999, the number of shares he received.  Voltage
      Vehicles filed a counterclaim against both First Class Imports and Mr.
      Atkind.  The first cause of action in the counterclaim alleges breach
      of contract against First Class Imports for its refusal to accept SMART-branded
      vehicles offered to it pursuant to the parties’ licensing
      agreement.  Voltage Vehicles seeks as damages the lost revenue it
      otherwise would have gained through First Class Imports’ purchase of
      SMART-branded vehicles, as well as damages based on the depreciation of a
      SMART-branded vehicle it loaned to First Class Imports.  The second
      cause of action alleges breach of contract against Mr. Atkind based on his
      failure to deliver title to the Mercedes identified above.  On this
      claim, Voltage Vehicles seeks as damages the depreciation of the Mercedes during
      the time in which it has been unable to sell the vehicle.  An
      arbitrator was selected, which resulted in the parties reaching settlement
      in
      April.A Request for
      Dismissal with Prejudice was filed with the court in this matter on April 11,
      2007.






**NOTE
      10 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS**





Rental
      agreements





The
      Company rents office space, land and warehouse space from its CEO and major
      shareholder. These properties are used to operate the car outlet and to store
      inventory. Rental expense under these rentals was approximately $21,000 and
      $39,500 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006,
      respectively.





Inventory
      Purchase





In
      December 2005, the Company purchased inventory from a related entity where
      three
      of ZAP’s officers and or Directors are also members of its Board of Directors.
      The transaction resulted in a payable due to the related Company of $204,000
      at
      December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007. During the second quarter of 2006 the
      parties agreed that the payment will be offset against future outside
      advertising services which will be provided to the related entity by the
      Company.







**NOTE
      11 – SUBSEQUENT EVENT**





On
      April
      18, 2007, ZAP (the “Company”) accepted a purchase order from the Electric
      Vehicle Company, LLC (“EVC”) for 10,000 of its Xebra 2007 model year electric
      vehicles. The purchase order requests 6,000 sedans and 4,000 trucks. The total
      amount of the order is $79.1 million with a dealer
      acquisition costs  ranging from $7,500 to $8,200 depending on the
      equipment included with the vehicle.  If the entire order is fulfilled
      within one year, a rebate equal to 8% of the total sales price will be granted
      to EVC. This rebate maybe extended by ZAP depending on the delivery schedule
      of
      the vehicles. The order is also subject to meeting performance criteria of
      EVC.




EVC
      is
      funded by two hedge funds, Diversified Equity Funding, LP and Diversified
      Strategies Fund, LLC  both of which have an ownership interest in
      ZAP.  Larry Spatz, the CEO of EVC has also entered into a consulting
      agreement with ZAP, to provide consulting services, to assist ZAP with
      marketing, sales and public relations, for up to one year.




19


**Item
      2.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS
      OF OPERATIONS.**





THIS
      QUARTERLY REPORT OF FORM 10-QSB, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION
      AND ANALYSIS, AND OTHER REPORTS FILED BY THE REGISTRANT FROM TIME TO TIME WITH
      THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (COLLECTIVELY THE “FILINGS”) CONTAIN
      FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WHICH ARE INTENDED TO CONVEY OUR EXPECTATIONS OR
      PREDICTIONS REGARDING THE OCCURRENCE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE EVENTS OR THE EXISTENCE
      OF TRENDS AND FACTORS THAT MAY IMPACT OUR FUTURE PLANS AND OPERATING RESULTS.
      THESE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ARE DERIVED, IN PART, FROM VARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS
      AND ANALYSES WE HAVE MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR CURRENT BUSINESS PLAN AND
      INFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US AND IN LIGHT OF OUR EXPERIENCE AND
      PERCEPTIONS OF HISTORICAL TRENDS, CURRENT CONDITIONS AND EXPECTED FUTURE
      DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER FACTORS WE BELIEVE TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THE
      CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU CAN GENERALLY IDENTIFY FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS THROUGH
      WORDS AND PHRASES SUCH AS “SEEK”, “ANTICIPATE”, “BELIEVE”, “ESTIMATE”, “EXPECT”,
“INTEND”, “PLAN”, “BUDGET”, “PROJECT”, “MAY BE”, “MAY CONTINUE”, “MAY LIKELY
      RESULT”, AND SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS. WHEN READING ANY FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT YOU
      SHOULD REMAIN MINDFUL THAT ALL FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ARE INHERENTLY
      UNCERTAIN AS THEY ARE BASED ON CURRENT EXPECTATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING
      FUTURE EVENTS OR FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF OUR COMPANY, AND ARE SUBJECT TO RISKS,
      UNCERTAINTIES, ASSUMPTIONS AND OTHER FACTORS RELATING TO OUR INDUSTRY AND
      RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING
      FACTORS:





o
            WHETHER
                THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND GAS-EFFICIENT VEHICLE MARKET
                FOROUR
                PRODUCTS CONTINUES TO GROW AND, IF IT DOES, THE PACE AT WHICH
                ITMAY
                GROW;


o
            OUR
                ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN THE PERSONNEL QUALIFIED TO
                IMPLEMENTOUR
                GROWTH STRATEGIES,


o
            OUR
                ABILITY TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES FOR
                OURPRODUCTS;


o
            OUR
                ABILITY TO PROTECT THE PATENTS ON OUR PROPRIETARY
                TECHNOLOGY;


o
            OUR
                ABILITY TO FUND OUR SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM FINANCING
                NEEDS;


o
            OUR
                ABILITY TO COMPETE AGAINST LARGE COMPETITORS IN A RAPIDLY
                CHANGINGMARKET
                FOR ELECTRIC AND GAS-EFFICIENT
                VEHICLES;


o
            CHANGES
                IN OUR BUSINESS PLAN AND CORPORATE STRATEGIES;
                AND


o
            OTHER
                RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES DISCUSSED IN GREATER DETAIL IN
                VARIOUSSECTIONS
                OF THIS REPORT, PARTICULARLY THE SECTION CAPTIONED “RISK
                FACTORS.”





SHOULD
      ONE OR MORE OF THESE RISKS OR UNCERTAINTIES MATERIALIZE, OR SHOULD THE
      UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS PROVE INCORRECT, ACTUAL RESULTS MAY DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY
      FROM THOSE ANTICIPATED, BELIEVED, ESTIMATED, EXPECTED, INTENDED OR
      PLANNED.





EACH
      FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT SHOULD BE READ IN CONTEXT WITH, AND WITH AN
      UNDERSTANDING OF, THE VARIOUS OTHER DISCLOSURES CONCERNING OUR COMPANY AND
      OUR
      BUSINESS MADE IN OUR FILINGS. YOU SHOULD NOT PLACE UNDUE RELIANCE ON ANY
      FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT AS A PREDICTION OF ACTUAL RESULTS OR DEVELOPMENTS.
      WE
      ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UPDATE OR REVISE ANY FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT CONTAINED
      IN
      THIS REPORT TO REFLECT NEW EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES UNLESS AND TO THE EXTENT
      REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW.




In
      this
      quarterly report on Form 10-QSB the terms “ZAP,” “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our”
refer to ZAP and its subsidiaries.





**Overview**





We
      market
      many forms of advanced transportation vehicles, including electric automobiles,
      fuel-efficient vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, scooters, neighborhood electric
      vehicles and all terrain vehicles. We market products designed solely by us,
      as
      well as products we design together with other companies. Most of our products
      are manufactured in China. Our automobiles are assembled outside of the United
      States, but made to comply with United States laws. The Smart Car Americanized
      by ZAP is manufactured and made compliant for sale in the United States by
      a
      registered importer. As of September 30, 2006,the company no longer distributes
      the Smart Car Americanized by ZAP due to the unavailability of Smart Cars.
      We
      also make the Xebra compliant for the United States market. Our automobile
      products require registration with state vehicle registration departments and
      must be sold through licensed dealers, while our consumer vehicles can be sold
      directly to consumers without registration.





Our
      automobile vehicles are subject to environmental and safety compliance with
      various Federal and State governmental regulations, including regulations
      promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Traffic
      Safety Administration and Air Resource Board of the State of California (CARB).
      The costs of these compliance activities can be substantial.





Our
      existing product line, which includes completed, market ready products and
      planned introductions, is as follows:




20


ZAP
        AUTOMOTIVE
 
 ZAP
        believes it is positioned to become one of the leading distributors of fuel
        efficient alternative energy vehicles in the United States.  We
        believe that we are one of only a few companies distributing a 100% production
        electric vehicle capable of speeds up to 40 mph.  Within the next
        twelve to thirty-six months, we hope to have distribution agreements in place
        with  three to four vehicle manufacturers whose products fit ZAP’s
        mission.  To distribute our product to end consumers and fleets, we
        have established more than 20 licensed automotive dealers and intend to grow
        this base significantly over the next several years.


In
      2006,
      ZAP Automotive introduced the following automobile products:




·
            the
                100% electric XEBRA sedan with an MSRP of approximately
                $10,000;




·
            the
                100% electric XEBRA utility vehicle truck with an MSRP of approximately
                $10,500; and




·
            the
                Smart micro-car with an MSRP of  approximately $25,000 (no
                longer distributed after September 30,
                2006).







Our
      future offerings that are currently in the developmental stage
      include:




·
            the
                OBVIO 828, an economy micro-car from Brazil with an estimated MSRP
                of
                $14,000,




·
            the
                OBVIO 012, a sports-coupe from Brazil with an estimated MSRP of $28,000;
                and




·
            the
                ZAP-X, a 100% electric vehicle which will use Lotus Engineering’s Aluminum
                Performance Crossover (“APX”) design
                .




We
      are
      also in discussions with a number of other foreign manufacturers and hope to
      establish additional relationships within the next twelve to thirty-six
      months.




XEBRA





We
      believe that XEBRA is the only series production electric vehicle in the United
      States that can legally travel faster than 25 mph.  The car’s
      suggested retail price of $10,000 is significantly less expensive than most
      of
      its competitors, some of which cost more than $100,000 and are not yet widely
      available today.  XEBRA has three wheels and is being imported as a
      motor-driven cycle, yet, unlike most other motor-driven cycles, the XEBRA is
      enclosed with windows and a roof, affording it protection from inclement
      weather.





Working
      with our Chinese manufacturing partner, we have designed two XEBRA models:
      a
      sedan and a utility pick-up truck.  The Chinese manufacturer’s current
      manufacturing capacity is approximately 1,000 vehicles per
      month.  Subject in large part to the level of financing secured, our
      current target is to distribute approximately 200 vehicles per month over the
      next 12 months.  Initial market demand has been overwhelming, both
      from end consumers using the vehicle as a “city-car” and from fleet managers of
      municipalities, states, green friendly corporations, and universities who have
      a
      preference or mandate to purchase zero emission vehicles.





We
      are
      working closely with our manufacturing partner to continually upgrade the XEBRA,
      adding features while balancing the goal of maintaining an affordable price
      level.  We are in the process of looking into incorporating options to
      enhance the consumer’s experience, including providing lithium battery packs for
      additional (up to 100 mile) range and solar panels for low cost and true zero
      air pollution charging.  These options are expected to be available by
      the second quarter of 2007.





XEBRA
      Sedan (ZAPCAR ®)





ZAP
      launched the sedan version of its XEBRA ZAPCAR on July 11,
      2006.  The sedan has a seating capacity for four and is being targeted
      for city/commuter use. Based on initial feedback, ZAP will be marketing the
      XEBRA sedan to government and corporate fleets as well as to families with
      two
      or more cars, but with plenty of occasion to use their vehicles for short,
      city
      drives.





XEBRA
      PK
      ( ZAPTRUCK TM)





ZAP
      launched its utility pick-up truck version of the XEBRA, the
      XEBRA  ZAPTRUCK, on August 24, 2006.  This electric
      vehicle seats two with a multi-purpose platform behind the passenger compartment
      that serves as a hauler, dump truck or flatbed. The XEBRA ZAPTRUCK is targeted
      to municipalities, maintenance facilities, universities,




21


ranches
      and warehouses.  Since its launch, we have received overwhelming
      inquiries for test drives.  To date, we have focused on our west coast
      market and sales have exceeded our initial distribution and sales
      plans.




Smart
      Car





The
      Smart
      Car was our initial automotive product. The project provided us with an
      excellent entry level opportunity in the micro-car market in the United States
      and confirmed our belief that there is a sizable demand for smaller, more fuel
      efficient (or alternatively fueled) vehicles. The Smart Car is manufactured
      by
      Daimler Chrysler Corporation, who we believe failed to identify the United
      States as a potential market. In Daimler Chrysler’s absence, we contracted with
      a third party unaffiliated with Daimler Chrysler to have the Smart Car imported
      and “Americanized” to meet the growing demand for micro-cars.  The
      process of Americanizing the Smart Car involve having the car modified to meet
      all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, United States Department of
      Transportation requirements, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations
      and
      applicable state requirements.





We
      have
      sold over 300 Smart Cars to date, but due to the conflict with Daimler-Chrysler
      and others, and the uncertainty of auto supply we discontinued distribution
      of
      the Smart Car in September of 2006.





OBVIO!





In
      September 2005, we entered into an exclusive (in North America) distribution
      contract with the Brazilian automobile manufacturer OBVIO! for the future
      importation of two models of micro-cars – an economy 828 model and a full
      performance 012 model. The cars will have butterfly doors, seating capacity
      to
      accommodate three persons, up to 250 horsepower output and accessories such
      as
      iMobile and air conditioning. This car will function on multi-fuel technology,
      meaning they will have the ability to be powered by ethanol, gasoline, or any
      combination thereof. We are also working with OBVIO! to produce a 100% electric
      version.  OBVIO!expects to deliver its first cars into the United
      States market in 2009.





There
      are
      currently over four million flex-fuel vehicles in the United States and most
      of
      these vehicles are sport-utility vehicles or others in the “light truck”
class.  Sedans, wagons, and others are usually only available in
      flex-fuel configurations as part of fleet vehicle purchases by
      corporations.  A recent poll conducted by Maritz® showed that 84% of
      consumers would consider purchasing a vehicle capable of running on E85, a
      fuel
      blend of 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol, and consumers were willing to pay a
      median premium of $1,000 more than for a gasoline only
      vehicle.  Unlike most flex-fuel vehicles in the U.S. which can run on
      up to 85% ethanol, OBVIO! vehicles will have the capability to run on 100%
      ethanol.





The
      initial retail price of the 828 model is expected to be approximately $16,000
      and the retail price of the 012 model is expected to be
      $28,000.  OBVIO! is scheduled to deliver 7,500 cars during the first
      year of production, 17,500 cars during the second year and 25,000
      thereafter.  We intend to capture market share of the flex-fuel
      segment by offering cars that are sporty, fun to drive, and high-performance,
      but yet efficient and economical.




LOTUS





On
      January 30, 2007, we announced a contract with Lotus Engineering to develop
      a
      production-ready electric all-wheel drive crossover high performance vehicle
      for
      the US market.   A combination of the lightweight aluminum
      vehicle architecture, a new efficient drive and advanced battery management
      systems is intended to enable a range of up to 350 miles between charges, with
      a
      rapid 10-minute recharging time. An auxiliary power unit is planned to support
      longer distance journeys.





Lotus’
      APX will be powered by revolutionary in-hub electric motors, delivering 644
      horsepower in all wheel drive mode, theoretically capable of powering the ZAP-X
      to a potential top speed of 155mph. A new strong, lightweight and highly
      efficient structure based on the Lotus technology is planned to give the car
      a
      very attractive power-to-weight ratio.





Future
      Automotive Offerings





Over
      the
      next 36 months, we hope to establish relationships with two to four additional
      manufacturers who can supply automobiles and related vehicles that meet our
      mission of affordable, advanced transportation technologies that are socially
      responsible and environmentally sustainable.  In 2007, we have
      identified the following products as potential future offerings for the Company:
      (1) an affordable 100% electric two-seater sports coupe; (2) a 100% electric
      “Vespa”-type scooter with brushless hub/wheel motors; and (3) a 100% electric,
      four-wheel low-speed utility truck.  There can be no assurances that
      any of these future product offerings will be realized.




22


ZAP
      Power Systems





We
      launched the Company in 1994 with the invention of the ZAPPY electric scooter
      and quickly established a presence as one of the market leaders in the electric
      “personal” transportation product segment. Since inception, the Company has been
      able to maintain a steady business and committed buyers in this
      segment.  In keeping with our initial product offerings, at the
      beginning of 2006, we revitalized our consumer products line (recently renamed
      “Power Systems”), including an updated version of the electric scooter. As part
      of the segment’s revitalization, we reduced the number of suppliers and placed
      more emphasis on upgrading existing models with newer component technology
      and
      more robust features in order to provide a higher quality consumer experience
      and product.





Our
      goal
      for our consumer product line is to sell an average of 10,000 units per
      year.  At $350 to $500 average unit prices, the business represents a
      strategic compliment to the automotive portal by providing stable and increasing
      cash flows, facilitating access to, and use of, new technologies, and continuing
      to foster loyalty of ZAP’s brand.





Our
      current product offerings include:





·
            Three-wheeled
                personal transporters (ZAPPY3, ZAPPY3 Pro, ZAPPY3
                EZ);


·
            Off
                road vehicles (electric quads and motorcycles);
                and


·
            Portable
                energy (universal recharge-it-all batteries and ipod auxiliary
                batteries).





The
      ZAPPY3 Personal Transporters





Segway’s
      highly publicized “human transporter to change the world” unearthed a growing
      need for a “scooter for adults,” better known as personal electric
      transportation. The Company responded to this demand by designing the ZAPPY3.
      Unlike the Segway, the ZAPPY3’s 3-wheeled vehicle design provides stability and
      maneuverability allowing just about anyone to ride this vehicle without
      training. It has a top speed of 15 mph, and the Pro has the farthest range
      of
      any personal transporter available today at 25 miles range per
      charge.





The
      Company initially thought that the ZAPPY3 would be great for the consumer
      market. Over the past year, the Company has revisited its sales strategy and
      come to recognize that the largest market opportunities are in the industrial
      and commercial applications. The Company’s primary sales channels are now more
      clearly defined as security, sporting goods and material handling.





With
      the
      increased emphasis on homeland security, there are several product competitors
      in the security and police market segment. Segway, the most well known, can
      be
      found in select police departments and airports and sells for about $5,500.
      American Chariot which is a chariot-like transporter has entered the market
      selling for between$1,500 to $2,500. Newest to the security transporter business
      is T3Motion, which is built like a small tank and priced at up to $8,000. The
      ZAPPY3 meets the need of a majority of the security transportation needs and
      with an average selling price of $850, depending on the model purchased, we
      believe is the most economical of all offerings.





The
      ZAPPY3 retail focus has continued strong in 2006. In early 2006, the Company
      rolled out a new dealer development program that emphasized the Company’s
      commitment to a nationwide distribution strategy coupled with consistent and
      responsive customer service. As the product line has gained momentum and market
      acceptance, we plan to grow distribution in the retail channel through larger
      regional and specialized chain stores.





23


The
      material handling, warehousing, fabrication, and construction industries are
      the
      ideal markets for the ZAPPY3 Pro. We are not currently aware of any major
      competitors in this market.  The traditional solution for short
      distance transportation has been bicycles. The ZAPPY Pro offers the perfect
      utility vehicle for shuttling, picking and packing and getting into small areas
      like elevators. While the Company’s entrance into this market is still in the
      early stages, the product response has been very favorable, demonstrated by
      our
      newly established relationship with Indoff, the largest distributor of material
      handling equipment in the United States.





Off
      Road
      Vehicles





All
      terrain vehicle (“ATV”) manufacturers recognized in excess of $5.5 billion in
      revenues in 2005 with the market for ATVs and off road vehicles growing steadily
      since 2003. In the United States alone, approximately 800,000 units were sold
      in
      2005. To date, all of the ATV on the market are gas-powered.  We
      believe electric ATV have practical environmental benefits over their
      gas-powered counterparts: they are silent and generate no emissions. Moreover,
      there are now over 8,000 organic farms in the United States which are committed
      to reducing pollutants that may put organic certification at risk.  The
      electric ATVs can provide the ruggedness of the traditional ATV in areas never
      before accessible, while being more versatile than golf carts.





We
      entered the electric ATV market in 2006 with our ZAP Buzzz mini
      ATV.  The Buzzz has a 450 watt geared-motor and a top speed of 15 mph
      with a range of approximately 20 miles.   By the second quarter
      of 2007, we anticipate the 800 watt “mid size” ATV will be available for sale in
      the United States and some of our existing ZAP dealers already have placed
      preorders. We hope to launch a heavy duty ATVs in late 2007 with product
      features and styling comparable to existing gas-models. We believe our position
      as an innovator in the electric vehicle market, coupled with first-mover
      advantage in the electric ATV market, will allow us to capitalize on this market
      segment.  If we are able to capture 1% of the all terrain vehicle
      market share, it could equate to over $40 million in revenues per
      year.  However, there can be no assurances that we will be able to
      achieve such market share.





Portable
      Energy – Recharge-It –All Batteries





We
      believe we were one of the first and now one of the leading producers of
      rechargeable battery sources using lithium-ion and lithium polymer technology.
      Through our Recharge-It-All line, we sell battery packs to power or charge
      a
      wide range of mobile electronics such as cellular phones, digital cameras and
      laptops, providing significantly more charge time than currently available
      technologies.





Our
      Portable Energy devices fall under two product lines: universal chargers and
      made-for iPOD models.  The universal chargers are rechargeable battery
      packs that extend the use of most small and medium-sized electronic devices
      up
      to 2 to 5 times their normal battery life.  The made-for iPOD models,
      which we  begun selling  are a series of portable energy
      devices designed to work specifically with all the major iPOD products,
      including the iPOD, nano, iPOD shuffle and the iPOD with video.





We
      launched our Portable Energy products at the end of 2006 with marketing targeted
      to large electronic retailers.  Market statistics indicate that there
      will be over two billion users of mobile electronic devices by
      2007.  Our goal with Portable Energy is to provide a solution that
      helps solve the energy management challenge for electronic and mobile internet
      users.  Today, there are only a few companies that have begun to
      address the mobile device backup power/charge market.  The currently
      available products include Energizer’s “Energi to Go”, Charge 2 Go, Cell Boost,
      and Medis Power Pack.  We believe that no manufacturer offers
      rechargeable devices and we believe that none offer the ability to re-charge
      a
      myriad of electronic devices from the same device as effectively as ZAP’s
      Portable Energy.








ZAP
      was incorporated under the laws of
      the State of California, on September 23, 1994, as “ZAP Power Systems.” The name
      of the Company was changed to “ZAPWORLD.COM” on May 16, 1999 in order to
      increase our visibility in the world of electronic commerce. We subsequently
      changed our name to ZAP on June 18, 2001 in order to reflect our growth and
      entry into larger, more traditional markets. Our principal executive offices
      are
      located at 501 Fourth Street Santa Rosa, California, 95401. Our telephone number
      is (707) 525-8658. Our website iswww.zapworld.complease refer to it for further
      information on ZAP.





24


**Subsidiaries**





We
      have
      the following wholly owned subsidiaries: Voltage Vehicles, a Nevada company
      (“Voltage Vehicles”), ZAP Rental Outlet, a Nevada company (“ZAP Rentals”), ZAP
      Stores,  Inc., a California company (“ZAP Stores”), ZAP Manufacturing,
      Inc., a Nevada company (“ZAP Manufacturing”) and ZAP World Outlet, Inc., a
      California company (“ZAP World”).  Voltage Vehicles is engaged
      primarily in the distribution and sale of advanced technology through Voltage
      Vehicles dealers. The Company also operates a retail vehicle outlet in Santa
      Rosa to distribute advanced technology vehicles and some conventional gas
      automobiles.  ZAP Stores is engaged primarily in consumer sales of ZAP
      products and ZAP Manufacturing is engaged primarily in the distribution of
      ZAP
      products. ZAP World Outlet and ZAP Rental Outlet are not currently operating
      subsidiaries.





**Recent
      Developments**





Some
      of
      the significant events for the Company that occurred during the first quarter
      of
      2007 and through the date of this report are as follows:




1.
            We
                have undertaken a feasibility study with Lotus Engineering to explore
                the
                development of next generation electric vehicles that incorporate
                the
                latest advances in technology.




2.
            In
                April, the Electric Vehicle Company, LLC, which is backed by two
                hedge
                funds, has placed a purchase order with us for 10,000 of our Xebra
                2007
                model year electric vehicles. The purchase order requests 6,000 sedans
                and
                4,000 trucks The total amount of the order is $79.1 million with
                a dealer
                acquisition cost ranging from $7,500 to $8,200 depending on the equipment
                included with the vehicle.





3.
            Joining
                State and community efforts to green transportation, we introduced
                a  new design that uses a solar panel. The XEBRA ZAPCAR and
                ZAPTRUCK, now with a solar panel option.  With the solar panel
                we have enabled short commutes on sunlight
                alone.




4.
            We
                attended the February National Automobile Dealers Association Trade
                show
                in Las Vegas Electric where we received purchase orders for 2,300
                electric
                cars from various dealers.





5.
            We
                introduced a rapid battery charger, enabling purchasers of the XEBRAS
                to
                charge the vehicle in one hour or
                less.





6.
            We
                began the development and manufacturing of a wheel motor “Vespa” type
                electric motor scooter, with sales expected to begin by the second
                quarter
                of 2007.







**CRITICAL
      ACCOUNTING POLICIES**





Revenue
      Recognition





The
      Company records revenues only upon the occurrence of all of the following
      conditions:





-The
      Company has received a binding purchase order or similar commitment from the
      customer or distributor authorized by a representative empowered to commit
      the
      purchaser (evidence of a sale);





-The
      purchase price has been fixed, based on the terms of the purchase
      order;





-The
      Company has delivered the product from its distribution center to a common
      carrier acceptable to the purchaser. The Company’s customary shipping terms are
      FOB shipping point; and





25


-The
      Company deems the collection of the amount invoiced probable.





The
      Company provides no price protection. Product sales are net of promotional
      discounts, rebates and return allowances.




The
      Company does not recognize sales taxes collected from customers as
      revenue.





Allowance
      for Doubtful
      Accounts




The
      Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers’ financial
      condition and, generally, requires no collateral from its customers. The Company
      records an allowance for doubtful accounts receivable for credit losses at
      the
      end of each period based on an analysis of individual aged accounts receivable
      balances. As a result of this analysis, the Company believes that its allowance
      for doubtful accounts is adequate at December 31, 2006 and 2005. If the
      financial condition of the Company’s customers should deteriorate, resulting in
      an impairment of their ability to make payments, additional allowances may
      be
      required.





Inventory
      Valuation




We
      adjust
      the value of our inventory for estimated obsolescence or unmarketable inventory
      equal to the difference between the cost of inventory and the estimated market
      value based upon assumptions about future demand and market conditions and
      development of new products by our competitors.  Inventories consist
      primarily of vehicles gas and electric, parts and supplies, and finished goods
      and are carried at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out method) or
      market.




Deferred
      Tax Asset Realization





We
      record
      a full valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount
      that
      is more likely than not to be realized.  While we have considered
      future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies
      in assessing the need for the valuation allowance, in the event we were to
      determine that we would be able to realize our deferred tax assets in the future
      in excess of its net recorded amount, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset
      would increase income in the period such determination was made.




Classification
      of Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liability and
      Equity





We
      account for financial instruments that we have issued and that have
      characteristics of both liability and equity in accordance with SFAS No. 150,
      *Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both
      Liabilities and Equity*.  SFAS No. 150 specifies that mandatory
      redeemable financial instruments are to be recorded as liabilities unless the
      redemption is required to occur upon the liquidation or termination of the
      issuer.  SFAS No. 150 also specifies that a financial instrument that
      embodies a conditional obligation that an issuer may settle by issuing a
      variable number of its equity shares is to be classified as a liability if,
      at
      inception, the value of the obligation is based solely or predominantly on
      variations inversely related to changes in the fair value of the issuer’s equity
      shares.  Should a financial instrument not be classified as a
      liability under the provisions of SFAS No. 150, we further apply the criteria
      in
      Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 00-19, *Accounting**for
      Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a
      Company’s Own Stock,*which enumerates additional criteria to determine the
      appropriate classification as liability or equity.  We also evaluate
      the anti-dilution and/or beneficial conversion features that may be included
      in
      our financial instruments in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 133,
      *Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,*which may
      classify the feature as an embedded derivative and require that the financial
      instrument be bifurcated and the feature accounted for separately.  We
      evaluate each financial instrument on its own merits at inception or other
      prescribed measurement or valuation dates and may engage the services of
      valuation experts and other professionals to assist us in our detemination
      of
      the appropriate classification.








26


Accounting
      for Stock-Based Compensation





Effective
      January 1, 2006, we adopted the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No.
      123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“SFAS 123(R)”), using the
      modified-prospective transition method. Under the fair value recognition
      provisions of SFAS 123(R), share-based compensation cost is estimated at the
      grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized 
as  expense, net  of  estimated pre-vesting 
forfeitures,  ratably  over  the  vesting  period 
of  the  award.





We
      selected the Black-Scholes option-pricing model as the most appropriate
      fair-value method for our awards. Calculating share-based compensation expense
      requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected
      term
      of the share-based awards, stock price volatility, and pre-vesting forfeitures.
      The assumptions used in calculating the fair value of stock-based awards
      represent our best estimates, but these estimates involve inherent uncertainties
      and the application of management judgment. As a result, if factors change
      and
      we use different assumptions, our share-based compensation expense could be
      materially different in the future. In addition, we are required to estimate
      the
      expected pre-vesting forfeiture rate and only recognize expense for those shares
      expected to vest. If our actual forfeiture rate is materially different from
      our
      estimate, our share-based compensation expense could be significantly different
      from what we have recorded in the current period.




**ADOPTION
        OF NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS**
 
 Effective
        January 1, 2007, we adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Staff
        Position (FSP) Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) 00-19-2, “Accounting for
        Registration Payment Arrangements”. This FASB staff position addresses how to
        account for registration payment arrangements and clarifies that a financial
        instrument subject to a registration payment arrangement should be accounted
        for
        in accordance with other generally accepted accounting principles without
        regard to the contingent obligation to transfer consideration pursuant to
        the
        registration payment arrangement. This accounting pronouncement further
        clarifies that a liability for liquidated damages resulting from registration
        statement obligations should be recorded in accordance with Statement
        of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, “Accounting for
        Contingencies*,*” when the payment of liquidated damages becomes probable
        and can be reasonably estimated.
 
 Prior
        to
        the adoption of this FSP, we had classified as a note derivative liability
        and
        as a warrant liability, financial instruments included in or issued in
        conjunction with our December 5, 2006 convertible note financing, since the
        offering of the underlying shares issuable upon conversion of the notes and
        exercise of the warrants was required to be registered with the SEC, and
        our
        failure to file, and obtain and maintain the effectiveness of a registration
        statement would result in potential cash payments which were not
        capped.  Our adoption of this accounting pronouncement as of January
        1, 2007 resulted in a reclassification of the note derivative liability to
        the
        note liability and the warrant liability to equity, and an adjustment to
        the
        note discount to reflect the allocated value of the warrant and a beneficial
        conversion feature, accreted to December 31, 2006, both calculated in accordance
        with EITF Nos. 98-5 and 00-27.  The cumulative effect of this
        accounting change of $24,000 was credited to our opening accumulated deficit
        balance as of January 1, 2007.
 In
          June
          2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in
          Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109”**(“FIN
          48”). This Interpretation clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income
          taxes recognized in a company’s financial statements in accordance with FASB
          Statement No. 109, *Accounting for Income Taxes.*  FIN 48
          prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial
          statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected
          to be
          taken in a tax return. This Interpretation also provides guidance on
          derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim
          periods, disclosure, and transition.  The evaluation of a tax position
          in accordance with FIN 48 is a two-step process. The first step is recognition:
          The entity determines whether it is “more-likely-than-not” that a tax position
          will be sustained upon examination, including resolution of any related
          appeals
          or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position.
          In
          evaluating whether a tax position has met the “more-likely-than-not” recognition
          threshold, the entity presumes that the position will be examined by the
          appropriate taxing authority that would have full knowledge of all relevant
          information. The second step is measurement: A tax position that meets
          the
“more-likely-than-not” recognition threshold is measured to determine the amount
          of benefit to recognize in the financial statements. The tax position is
          measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent
          likely
          to be realized upon ultimate settlement. We adopted FIN 48 on
          January 1, 2007 and the impact on our financial statements was not
          material.
 
 **RECENT
        ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS**
 
 In
        February 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for
        Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“FAS 159”).  FAS15
        permits the measurement of many financial instruments and certain other items
        at
        fair value. Entities may choose to measure eligible items at fair value at
        specified election dates, reporting unrealized gains and losses on such items
        at
        each subsequent reporting period.  The objective of FAS 159 is to
        provide entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported
        earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without
        having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions.  It is intended
        to expand the use of fair value measurement.  FAS159 is effective for
        fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007.  We have not evaluated
        the potential impact of adopting SFAS 159.
 
 In
        September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued
        Statement No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“FAS 157”). FAS 157 defines fair
        value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted
        accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements
        required under other accounting pronouncements. FAS 157 does not change existing
        guidance regarding whether or not an instrument is carried at fair value.
        SFAS
        No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning
        after November 15, 2007. We are currently evaluating the impact on our
        consolidated financial statements of adopting SFAS No. 157.




**Results
      of Operations**




The
      following table sets forth, as a percentage of net sales, certain items included
      in the Company’s Income Statements (see Financial Statements and Notes) for the
      periods indicated:





**Three
                months ended March 31,****2007**
            
            
            **2006****Statements
                of Operations Data:**Net
                sales
            
            
            100.0
            %
            
            
            100
            %Cost
                of sales
            
            
            95.3
            %
            
            
            (85.5
            )Operating
                expenses
            
            
            1292.5
            %
            
            
            113.3Loss
                from operations
            
            
            (1287.8
            )%
            
            
            (98.8
            )Net  loss
            
            
            (1305.1
            )%
            
            
            (94.7
            )






**Quarter
      Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to Quarter Ended March 31,
      2006**





**Net
      sales** for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 were $1.1 million compared
      to $2.9 million for the period ended March 31, 2006.  Sales of
      vehicles were $964,000 versus $2.8 million in 2006. The difference was primarily
      due the the decrease in sales of the Smart Cars Americanized by ZAP in 2007,
      since the Company decided in September 2006 to no longer distribute the vehicles
      due to the conflict with Damlier Chrysler, the supply was uncertain. The Company
      had to initiate new market strategies, and was forced to close down Smart only
      dealers and to convert some Smart dealers to XEBRA dealers and to train all
      dealers in the sales and service of electric vehicles.


The
      consumer products increased from $87,000 in 2006 to $173,000 for the three
      months ended March 31, 2007. The increase was primarily due to sales of the
      new
      ZAPPY 3 electric scooter and launch the portable energy recharable
      line.





**Gross
      profit** the overall gross profit decreased from $424,000 for the first
      quarter ended March 31, 2006 compared to $54,000 for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2007. The major reason for the decrease was due to less vehicle unit sales
      in
      the first quarter of 2007 due to the lack of Smart Cars and the start-up of
      XEBRA sales. where the gross margin in 2006 was $417,000 compared to $89,000
      in
      2007.  While Consumer products also decreased from a gross




27


profit
      of
      $4,000 in 2006 a gross loss of $37,000 in 2007. Although overall sales of
      consumer product units were greater for 2007, these increases were offset by
      inventory adjustments for certain outdated and slow-moving
      products.





**Sales** **and
      marketing expenses** increased by $120,000 from $251,000 for the quarter
      ended March 31, 2006 to $371,000 in 2007.  As a percentage of sales,
      total selling expenses also increased from 8.6% of sales  in 2006 to
      32.6% in 2007. The increase was due to the following: higher salary expenses
      due
      to hiring of additional sales personnel, also expenses for trade shows and
      marketing were higher to promote the new Xebra TM vehicle product line and
      selected  new portable energy items.





**General
      and administrative** **expenses** increased by $10.9
      million from $3.1 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 to $14.0 million
      in 2007. The primary increase was due to non-cash expenses of  $12
      million of expense to account for the modification and extension of certain
      expiring warrants that were issued to shareholders per the plan of
      reorganization in June of 2002 and also to current ZAP employees and
      officers for compensation purposes. The warrants were extended by five
      years until July, 2012 with the exercise prices also adjusted. The
      aforementioned increase was offset by lower expenses in 2007 versus 2006 for
      the
      following areas:  professional fees, amortization for previous
      terminated licenses agreements and salaries paid to fewer administrative
      personnel. Many of the other operating expenses for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2007 remained comparable with the first quarter of 2006.





**Research
      and development expenses******of
      $335,000 in 2007 were for the Company’s investment in a project
      with  Lotus Engineering  to develop a new electric car based
      on the APX (Aluminum Performance Crossover) concept, which showcases Lotus
      Engineering’s Versatile Vehicle Architecture technology. The vehicle, the ZAPX,
      will potentially be a production-ready electric all-wheel drive crossover high
      performance vehicle for ZAP in the USA market.





**Interest
      expense, net**increased from an expense of $6,000 in first quarter
      2006 to $216,000  in first quarter 2007. The increase was due
      to interest expense on the 8% convertibel notes issued in December 2006 and
      February 2007.





**Other
      expense, net**increased  from other expense
      of $3,000 for the first quarter of 2006 to other income of $23,000  in
      the first quarter of 2007. The increase was due to minor administration fees
      earned by the company.





**Net
      Loss**the Company reported a net loss of $14.9 million for
      the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as compared to a net loss of $2.8 million
      for
      period ended March 31, 2006.The additional losses in 2007 were primarily due
      to
      the modification and extension of certain expiring warrants that were issued
      by
      the Company to selected shareholders and current ZAP employees and
      officers.




**Liquidity
      and Capital Resources**




In
      the
      first three months of 2007 net cash used for operating activities was $1.8
      million In the first three months of 2006, the Company received cash provided
      by
      operations of $65,000. Cash used in the first three months of 2007 was comprised
      of the net loss incurred for the first three months of $14.8 million plus net
      non-cash expenses of $13.1 million  plus the net change in operating
      assets and liabilities of $76,000. Cash used in operations in the first three
      months of 2006 was comprised of the net loss of $2.8 million plus net non-cash
      expenses of $2.1 million, and the net change in operating assets and liabilities
      resulting in a use of cash of $700,000.





Investing
      activities used cash of $18,000 in the first three months ended March 31, 2007
      and provided cash of  $11,000 during the first three months ended
      March 31, 2006.




Financing
      activities provided cash of $2,188,000 and $987,000 during the first three
      months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.





The
      Company had cash of $2.6 million at both March  31, 2007 and 2006. At
      March 31, 2007, the Company had working capital of $271,000, as compared to
      working capital of  $1 million at March 31, 2006.





We
      do not
      have a bank operating line of credit, and there can be no assurance that any
      required or desired financing will be available through bank borrowings, debt,
      or equity offerings, or otherwise, on acceptable terms. If future financing
      requirements are satisfied through the issuance of equity securities, investors
      may experience significant




28


dilution
      in the net book value per share of common stock and there is no guarantee that
      a
      market will exist for the sale of the Company’s shares.





At
      a
      special meeting of shareholders, scheduled for October 17, 2006 and subsequently
      adjourned to October 31, 2006, shareholders approved the issuance and sale
      of up
      to 20,000,000 shares of common stock and up to 6,000,000 securities exercisable
      or convertible into shares of common stock at below-market prices in future
      private financing transactions.  At present, the Company needs
      additional capital to continue expanding its current operations.




The
      Company’s primary capital needs are: (i) to purchase XebraTM vehicles, both sedan
      and utility trucks from ZAP’s Chinese partner to fulfill the increasing demand
      for 100% electric vehicles in the United States, and (ii) to continue building
      our dealer network and expanding ZAP’s market initiatives.  ZAP also
      requires financing to purchase consumer product inventory for the continued
      roll-out of new products, to add qualified sales and professional staff to
      execute on ZAP’s business plan, and to expand ZAP’s efforts in the research and
      development of advanced technology vehicles, such as the ethanol-driven OBVIO!
      Automobiles and other fuel efficient vehicles.




**Risk
      factors**




We
      have a
      history of losses and our future profitability on a quarterly or annual basis
      is
      uncertain, which could have a harmful effect on our business and the value
      of
      ZAP’s common stock.





Since
      we
      began operation in 1994, we have generated a profit only for the three month
      period ended September 30, 2006 and not in any other fiscal quarters or any
      fiscal year. We incurred net losses of $11.9 million, $23.5 million, and $27.8
      million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
      respectively.  We can give no assurance that we will be able to
      operate profitably in the future.





In
      each
      of the thirteen years since we began operations, we have not generated enough
      revenue to exceed our expenditures.  Since our inception, we have
      financed our operations primarily through private and public offerings of our
      equity securities.  Our planned expenditures are based primarily on
      our internal estimates of our future sales and ability to raise additional
      financing.  If revenues or additional financing do not meet our
      expectations in any given period of time, we will have to cut our planned
      expenditures which could have an adverse impact on our business or force us
      to
      cease operations.  Our cash on hand was $2.6 million on March 31,
      2007.  Failure to achieve profitable operations may require us to seek
      additional financing when none is available or is only available on unfavorable
      terms.




We
      may
      face liquidity challenges and need additional financing in the
      future.





We
      currently expect to be able to fund our working capital requirements from our
      existing cash and cash flows from operations through at least December 31,
      2007.
      However, we could experience unforeseen circumstances, such as an economic
      downturn, unforeseen difficulties in manufacturing/ distribution, or other
      factors that could increase our use of available cash and require us to seek
      additional financing. We may find it necessary to obtain equity or debt
      financing due to the factors listed above or in order to support our expansion,
      develop new or enhanced products, respond to competitive pressures, or respond
      to unanticipated requirements.




We
      may
      seek to raise additional funds through private or public sales of securities,
      strategic relationships, bank debt, or otherwise. If additional funds are raised
      through the issuance of equity securities, the percentage ownership of our
      stockholders will be reduced, stockholders may experience additional dilution
      or
      any equity securities we sell may have rights, preferences or privileges senior
      to those of the holders of our common stock. We may expect that obtaining
      additional financing on acceptable terms, we may be unable to pay our debts
      as
      they become due, develop our products, take advantage of future opportunities
      or
      respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements, which could
      have
      a material effect on our business, financial condition and future operating
      results.





29


We
      have
      substantial indebtedness and we are highly leveraged. As of March 31, 2007,
      we
      have total indebtedness of approximately $4.5 million. Our substantial
      indebtedness may limit our strategic operating flexibility and our capacity
      to
      meet competitive pressures and withstand adverse economic conditions. In
      addition, our notes contain restrictive covenants which, among other things,
      limit our ability to borrow additional funds, repay the notes, before maturity
      or grant security interests on our assets.





Our
      substantial indebtedness could have significant adverse consequences,
      including:





• 
      increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry
      conditions,





• 
      limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working
      capital, capital expenditures, research and development and other general
      corporate requirements;





• 
      limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our
      business and the industry; and





• 
      placing us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors with less debt and
      competitors that have better access to capital resources.





We
      face
      intense competition which could cause us to lose market
      share.





In
      the
      advanced technology vehicle market in the United States, we compete with large
      manufacturers, including Honda, Toyota, and Daimler-Chrysler, who have more
      significant financial resources, established market positions, long-standing
      relationships with customers and dealers, and who have more significant name
      recognition, technical, marketing, sales, manufacturing, distribution, financial
      and other resources than we do.  Each of these companies is currently
      working to develop, market, and sell advanced technology vehicles in the United
      States market.  The resources available to our competitors to develop
      new products and introduce them into the marketplace exceed the resources
      currently available to us.  We also face competition from smaller
      companies with respect to our consumer products, such as our electric bicycle
      and scooter.  We expect to face competition from the makers of
      consumer batteries and small electronics with respect to the ZAP Portable Energy
      line.  This intense competitive environment may require us to make
      changes in our products, pricing, licensing, services, distribution, or
      marketing to develop, maintain, and extend our current technology and market
      position.





Changes
      in the market for electric vehicles could cause our products to become obsolete
      or lose popularity.





The
      electric vehicle industry is in its infancy and has experienced substantial
      change in the last few years.  To-date, demand for and interest in
      electric vehicles has been sporadic.  As a result, growth in the
      electric vehicle industry depends on many factors, including:




·
            continued
                development of product
                technology;


·
            the
                environmental consciousness of
                customers;


·
            the
                ability of electric vehicles to successfully compete with vehicles
                powered
                by internal combustion engines;


·
            widespread
                electricity shortages and the resultant increase in electricity prices,
                especially in our primary market, California, which could derail
                our past
                and present efforts to promote electric vehicles as a practical solution
                to vehicles which require gasoline;
                and


·
            whether
                future regulation and legislation requiring increased use of nonpolluting
                vehicles is enacted.




We
      cannot
      assure you that growth in the electric vehicle industry will
      continue.  Our business may suffer if the electric vehicle industry
      does not grow or grows more slowly than it has in recent years or if we are
      unable to maintain the pace of industry demands.





We
      may be
      unable to keep up with changes in electric vehicle technology and, as a result,
      may suffer a decline in our competitive position.





30


Our
      current products are designed for use with, and are dependent upon, existing
      electric vehicle technology.  As technologies change, we plan to
      upgrade or adapt our products in order to continue to provide products with
      the
      latest technology.  However, our products may become obsolete or our
      research and development efforts may not be sufficient to adapt to changes
      in or
      create necessary technology.  As a result, our potential inability to
      adapt and develop the necessary technology may harm our competitive
      position.





The
      failure of certain key suppliers to provide us with components could have a
      severe and negative impact upon our business.





We
      rely
      on a small group of suppliers to provide us with components for our products,
      some of whom are located outside of the United States.  If these
      suppliers become unwilling or unable to provide components, there are a limited
      number of alternative suppliers who could provide them.  Changes in
      business conditions, wars, governmental changes, and other factors beyond our
      control or which we do not presently anticipate could affect our ability to
      receive components from our suppliers.  Further, it could be difficult
      to find replacement components if our current suppliers fail to provide the
      parts needed for these products.  A failure by our major suppliers to
      provide these components could severely restrict our ability to manufacture
      our
      products and prevent us from fulfilling customer orders in a timely
      fashion.




As
      described elsewhere, we have entered into a contract with a Brazilian automobile
      manufacturer, OBVIO, for the delivery of 50,000 flex-fuel vehicles in two
      different models.  We may not be able to obtain the vehicles that we
      expect to obtain from OBVIO because OBVIO is a new developer and manufacturer
      of
      automobiles in Brazil and there are many risks associated with its design and
      manufacturing of cars for us, including, but not limited to, risks associated
      with the constructing its factory, hiring personnel, acquiring equipment,
      assembling a network of suppliers and developing the vehicle assembly
      process.  If we cannot get the vehicles from OBVIO that we expect to,
      our business will be adversely affected.





Litigation
      risks.





ZAP
      v.
      Daimler Chrysler AG, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los
      Angeles, Case No.  BC342211.  On October 28, 2005, ZAP filed
      a complaint against Daimler Chrysler Corporation and others in the Los Angeles
      Superior Court. The complaint includes claims for intentional and negligent
      interference with prospective economic relations, trade libel, defamation,
      breach of contract - agreement to negotiate in good faith, breach of implied
      covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition. The complaint
      alleges that Daimler Chrysler has engaged in a series of anti-competitive
      tactics aimed at defaming ZAP and disrupting its third-party business
      relationships. As a result of the allegations, the complaint requests damages
      in
      excess of $500 million and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
      Daimler Chrysler has successfully filed a motion to quash that compliant for
      lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court’s ruling on that matter is in the
      process of being appealed.  Two of the other defendants in the action,
      G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. and The Defiance LLC, have filed a
      cross-complaint against ZAP in the Los Angeles Superior Court for, among other
      things, violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, statutory and common
      law  unfair competition, and intentional and negligent interference with
      prospective economic advantage.  ZAP has responded to the cross-complaint
      and denied engaging in any wrongful actions.





Product
      liability or other claims could have a material adverse effect on our
      business.





The
      risk
      of product liability claims, product recalls, and associated adverse publicity
      is inherent in the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of electrical
      vehicles.  Although we have product liability insurance for our
      consumer products for risks of up to an aggregate of $5,000,000, that insurance
      may be inadequate to cover all potential product claims.  We also
      carry liability insurance on our automobile products.  Any product
      recall or lawsuit seeking significant monetary damages either in excess of
      our
      coverage, or outside of our coverage, may have a material adverse effect on
      our
      business and financial condition.  We may not be able to secure
      additional product liability insurance coverage on acceptable terms or at
      reasonable costs when needed.  A successful product liability claim
      against us could require us to pay a substantial monetary
      award.  Moreover, a product recall could generate substantial negative
      publicity about our products and business and inhibit or prevent
      commercialization of other future product candidates.  We cannot
      assure you that such claims and/or recalls will not be made in the
      future.





We
      must
      devote substantial resources to implementing a product distribution
      network.





31


Our
      dealers are often hesitant to provide their own financing to contribute to
      our
      product distribution network.  As a result, we anticipate that we may
      have to, provide financing or other consignment sale arrangements for dealers
      who would like to participate as our regional distribution
      centers.





The
      further expansion of our product distribution network will require a significant
      capital investment and will require extensive amounts of time from our
      management.  A capital investment such as this presents many risks,
      foremost among them being that we may not realize a significant return on our
      investment if the network is not profitable.  Our inability to collect
      receivables from our dealers could cause us to suffer losses.  Lastly,
      the amount of time that our management will need to devote to this project
      may
      divert them from performing other functions necessary to assure the success
      of
      our business.





Failure
      to manage our growth effectively could adversely affect our
      business.





We
      plan
      to increase sales and expand our operations substantially during the next
      several years through internally-generated growth and the acquisition of
      businesses and products.





To
      manage
      our growth, we believe we must continue to implement and improve our
      operational, manufacturing, and research and development
      departments.  We may not have adequately evaluated the costs and risks
      associated with this expansion, and our systems, procedures, and controls may
      not be adequate to support our operations.  In addition, our
      management may not be able to achieve the rapid execution necessary to
      successfully offer our products and services and implement our business plan
      on
      a profitable basis.  The success of our future operating activities
      will also depend upon our ability to expand our support system to meet the
      demands of our growing business.  Any failure by our management to
      effectively anticipate, implement, and manage changes required to sustain our
      growth would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
      condition, and results of operations.  We cannot assure you that we
      will be able to successfully operate acquired businesses, become profitable
      in
      the future, or effectively manage any other change.  An inability to
      successfully operate recently acquired businesses and manage existing business
      would harm our operations.





The
      loss
      of certain key personnel could significantly harm our
      business.





Regulatory
      requirements may have a negative impact upon our business. While our products
      are subject to substantial regulation under federal, state, and local laws,
      we
      believe that the products we have sold are materially in compliance with all
      applicable laws.  However, to the extent the laws change, or if we
      introduce new products in the future, some or all of our products may not comply
      with applicable federal, state, or local laws.  Further, certain
      federal, state, and local laws and industrial standards currently regulate
      electrical and electronics equipment.  Although standards for electric
      vehicles are not yet generally available or accepted as industry standards,
      our
      products may become subject to federal, state, and local regulation in the
      future.  Compliance with this regulation could be burdensome, time
      consuming, and expensive.





Our
      automobile products are subject to environmental and safety compliance with
      various federal and state regulations, including regulations promulgated by
      the
      EPA, NHTSA, and Air Resource Board of the State of California, and compliance
      certification is required for each new model year.  The cost of these
      compliance activities and the delays and risks associated with obtaining
      approval can be substantial.  Although the Company had marketed its
      Smart Car product in the United States, the car must be certified by the
      California Air Resources Board before it can be sold in California, New York,
      and three other states.  In addition, the two models of our OBVIO
      products will need to satisfy all regulatory requirements before they can be
      sold in the United States.  The risks, delays, and expenses incurred
      in connection with such compliance could be
      substantial.





Manufacturing
      overseas may cause problems for us.





We
      have
      been shifting our manufacturing overseas, including contracting with OBVIO,
      a
      Brazilian company, for the manufacture of 50,000 vehicles over three
      years.  There are many risks associated with international
      business.  These risks include, but are not limited to, language
      barriers, fluctuations in currency exchange rates, political and economic
      instability, regulatory compliance difficulties, problems enforcing agreements,
      and greater exposure of our intellectual property to markets where a high
      probability of unlawful appropriation may occur.  A failure to
      successfully mitigate any of these potential risks could damage our
      business.





We
      may
      not be able to protect our internet address.





32


We
      currently hold the internet address, http://www.zapworld.com, a portal through
      which we sell our products.  We may not be able to prevent third
      parties from acquiring internet addresses that are confusingly similar to our
      address, which could adversely affect our business.  Governmental
      agencies and their designees generally regulate the acquisition and maintenance
      of internet addresses.  However, the regulation of internet addresses
      in the United States and in foreign countries is subject to
      change.  As a result, we may not be able to acquire or maintain
      relevant internet addresses in all countries where we conduct
      business.





Our
      success is heavily dependent on protecting our intellectual property
      rights.





We
      rely
      on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret protections
      to protect our proprietary technology.  Our success will, in part,
      depend on our ability to obtain trademarks and patents.  We hold
      several patents registered with the United States Patent and Trademark
      Office.  These registrations include both design patents and utility
      patents.  In addition, we have recently submitted provisional patents
      which may or may not be afforded the limited protection associated with
      provisional patents.  We have also registered numerous trademarks with
      the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and have several pending at
      this
      time.  We cannot assure you that the trademarks and patents issued to
      us will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, or that the rights
      granted under those registrations will provide competitive advantages to
      us.





We
      also
      rely on trade secrets and new technologies to maintain our competitive
      position.  Although we have entered into confidentiality agreements
      with our employees and consultants, we cannot be certain that others will not
      gain access to these trade secrets.  Others may independently develop
      substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise
      gain access to our trade secrets.





We
      may be
      exposed to liability for infringing intellectual property rights of other
      companies.





Our
      success will, in part, depend on our ability to operate without infringing
      on
      the proprietary rights of others.  Although we have conducted searches
      and are not aware of any patents and trademarks which our products or their
      use
      might infringe, we cannot be certain that infringement has not or will not
      occur.  We could incur substantial costs, in addition to the great
      amount of time lost, in defending any patent or trademark infringement suits
      or
      in asserting any patent or trademark rights, in a suit with another
      party.





Risk
      of
      Unregistered Securities Offering.





In
      the
      past, we have had numerous sales of our securities which were not registered
      under federal or state securities laws.  We have strived to comply
      with all applicable Federal and state securities laws in connection with our
      issuances of unregistered securities.  However, to the extent we have
      not complied, there may be liability for the purchase price of the securities
      sold together with interest and the potential of regulatory
      sanctions.




Our
      stock
      price and trading volume may be volatile, which could result in substantial
      losses for our stockholders.





The
      equity trading markets may experience periods of volatility, which could result
      in highly variable and unpredictable pricing of equity
      securities.  The market price of our common stock could change in ways
      that may or may not be related to our business, our industry or our operating
      performance and financial condition.  In addition, the trading volume
      in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to
      occur.  We have experienced significant volatility in the price of our
      stock over the past few years.  See Item 5.  Market For
      Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters in our annual report on Form
      10KSB
      for the year ended December 31, 2006.  For example, on December 31,
      2004, our stock had a high of $5.15 and on December 31, 2005, it had a low
      of
      $.26.  If the market price of our common stock declines significantly,
      you may be unable to resell your common stock at or about its purchase
      price.  We cannot assure you that the market price of our common stock
      will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future.  In
      addition, the stock markets in general can experience considerable price and
      volume fluctuations.





A
      substantial number of shares we have issued in exempt transactions are, or
      are
      being made, available for sale on the open market, and the resale of these
      securities might adversely affect our stock price.





We
      have
      on file with the SEC effective registration statements for a substantial number
      of shares for resale.  The selling stockholders under our effective
      registration statements will be permitted to sell their registered shares in
      the
      open market from time to time without advance notice to us or to the market
      and
      without limitations on volume.




The
      sale
      of a substantial number of shares of our common stock under our registration
      statements, or the anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult
      for
      us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and
      at a
      price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales.





We
      have
      not paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying any
      cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.





We
      have
      not achieved profitable operations and if we do realize a profit in the future,
      we anticipate that we will retain all future earnings and other cash resources
      for the future operation and development of our
      business.  Accordingly, we do not intend to declare or pay any cash
      dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.  Payment of
      any future dividends will be at the direction of our board of directors after
      taking into account many factors, including our operating results, financial
      conditions, current and anticipated cash needs and plans for
      expansion.


33


**Seasonality
      and Quarterly Results**


The
      Company’s business is subject to seasonal influences for consumer products.
      Sales volumes in this industry typically slow down during the winter months,
      November to March in the U.S. The Company’s auto distribution network is
      affected by the availability of cars ready to sell to dealers.





**Inflation**


Our
      raw
      materials and finished products and automobiles are sourced from stable,
      cost-competitive industries. As such, we do not foresee any material
      inflationary trends for our product sources.




**Item
      3.    Controls and Procedures**




Our
      management, with the participation of our principal executive officer (“CEO”)
      and principal financial officer (“CFO”), has evaluated the effectiveness of our
      disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)
      under the Exchange Act) and our internal controls and procedures for financial
      reporting (the “Controls Evaluation”) as of March 31, 2007.




**Limitations
      on the Effectiveness of Controls.**




Our
      CEO
      and CFO do not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal control
      over
      financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system,
      no
      matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not
      absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Further,
      the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource
      constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their
      costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation
      of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances
      of fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected. These inherent
      limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be
      faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or honest mistake.
      Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of certain
      persons, by collusion of two or more persons, or by management override of
      the
      controls. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon
      certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be
      no
      assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under
      all
      potential future conditions. Over time, specific controls may or may not become
      inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree
      of
      compliance with policies or procedures. Because of the inherent limitations
      in a
      cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur
      and
      not be detected.




**Conclusion
      regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and
      Procedures.**


As
      defined under Sections 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act, the term
      “disclosure controls and procedures” means controls and other procedures of an
      issuer that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed
      by
      the issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is
      recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified
      in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include,
      without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information
      required to be disclosed by an issuer in the reports that it files or submits
      under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the issuer’s
      management, including the issuer’s CEO and CFO, to allow timely decisions
      regarding required disclosure.  As described in Item 8A “Controls and
      Procedures” in our Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed with the SEC on April 2,
      2007, our registered independent public accounting firm, Odenberg, Ullakko,
      Muranishi & Co. LLP (“OUM”), noted several deficiencies in both the design
      and operation of internal controls over financial reporting, when considered
      in
      the aggregate, they believe the deficiencies constitute a material weakness
      over
      financial reporting at December 31, 2006. We have been and continue to be
      engaged in efforts to improve our internal controls and procedures and we expect
      that these efforts will, over time, positively address the weakness noted by
      our
      independent auditors. We intend to engage an outside firm to assist us in
      analyzing and improving our system of internal controls.




**Changes
      in Internal Control over Financial Reporting**





There
      were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred
      during the quarter ended March 31, 2007 that have materially affected, or are
      reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
      reporting.


34


**PART
      II - OTHER INFORMATION**




ITEM
      1.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.





In
      the
      normal course of business, we may become involved in various legal proceedings.
      Except as stated below, we know of no pending or threatened legal proceeding
      to
      which we are or will be a party which, if successful, might result in a material
      adverse change in our business, properties or financial condition. However,
      as
      with most businesses, we are occasionally parties to lawsuits incidental to
      our
      business, none of which are anticipated to have a material adverse impact on
      our
      financial position, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. The Company
      estimates the amount of potential exposure it may have with respect to
      litigation claims and assessments.




*ZAP
      v. Daimler Chrysler AG, et
      al.,*Superior
      Court of
      California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.  BC342211.  On
      October 28, 2005, ZAP filed a complaint against Daimler Chrysler Corporation
      and
      others in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint includes claims for
      intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations,
      trade libel, defamation, breach of contract - agreement to negotiate in good
      faith, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair
      competition. The complaint alleges that Daimler Chrysler has engaged in a series
      of anti-competitive tactics aimed at defaming ZAP and disrupting its third-party
      business relationships. As a result of the allegations, the complaint requests
      damages in excess of $500 million and such other relief as the court deems
      just
      and proper. Daimler Chrysler has successfully filed a motion to quash that
      compliant for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court’s ruling on that
      matter is in the process of being appealed.  Two of the other defendants in
      the action, G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. and The Defiance LLC, have filed
      a cross-complaint against ZAP in the Los Angeles Superior Court for, among
      other
      things, violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, statutory and common
      law  unfaircompetition, and
      intentional and negligent interference withprospective economic
      advantage.  ZAP has responded to the cross-complaint and denied engaging in
      any wrongful actions.




*James
      A. Arnold, et al. v. Steven
      Schneider, et al.,* Superior Court of California, County of
      Sacramento, Case No. 02AS02062, filed April 5, 2002, dismissed October 9, 2003,
      dismissal set aside and referred to Case Management Program March 4,
      2004.  Plaintiffs seek damages of $71,000 in compensatory damages, $50
      per month since April 5, 2002, other charges, interest, and further relief
      in
      the court’s discretion for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and
      fraud.  Plaintiffs also seek $750,000 in punitive damages for
      fraud.  The Company has cross-claimed against Plaintiffs seeking
      compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and equitable relief for breach of oral
      contract, common count for goods sold and delivered, conversion, liability
      of
      surety, violation of statute, and violation of the Unfair Practices
      Act.  On February 17, 2005, the court referred the matter to
      non-binding








35


arbitration
      pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.1.  The
      non-binding arbitration hearing was held on July 27, 2005.  The
      arbitrator award, issued on August 5, 2005, awarded Plaintiffs damages in the
      amount of $68,290, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 7%.  This
      amount was awarded against both the Company and Mr. Schneider.  Given
      an admission in the plaintiff’s case management conference statement and the
      decision of the court to refer the matter to non-binding arbitration, the
      Company believes that the amount in controversy should be less than $50,000,
      though the complaint asks for more than $71,000 in damages.  Trial in
      Sacramento County Superior Court began on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.,
      in
      Department 47.  At the trial, the parties agreed to settle this matter
      upon the following terms:  (1) the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the
      causes of action it had alleged against Mr. Schneider; and (2) RAP Group agreed
      to (a) pay the plaintiff $20,000 on or before May 31, 2006; (b) pay the
      plaintiff an additional $20,000 on or before January 5, 2007; (c) provide the
      plaintiff with whatever ownership documentation (such as titles) it can
      find in its possession, custody, or control regarding the 43 cars
      identified by the plaintiff during discovery as being the subject of this
      litigation; (d) allow the court to enter an order directing that plaintiff
      may
      dispose of the vehicles that are the subject of the litigation; and (e) allow
      the court to enter judgment against it in the amount of $50,000, minus whatever
      monies have already been paid by RAP Group to the plaintiff, if RAP Group does
      not timely make either of the payments identified above.  Both the
      plaintiff and RAP Group agreed to execute general mutual releases of all claims
      arising out of the subject matter of the litigation (pursuant to section 1542
      of
      the Civil Code) and to dismiss with prejudice the complaint and the
      cross-complaint after performance of the settlement agreement.  The
      plaintiff and RAP Group further agreed that the stipulated settlement will
      be
      governed by section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  RAP Group
      made the first payment to the plaintiff for $20,000, but did not pay the second
      payment of $20,000 that was due by January 5, 2007.  Plaintiff has
      therefore moved the court to enter a default judgment against RAP Group for
      $30,000 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  A hearing
      on that motion for default judgment was heard on April 4, 2007, and on April
      27,
      2007, the court entered judgment against RAP for $30,000.




*Leandra
      Dominguez v. RAP Group,
      Inc. dba The Repo Outlet et. al*., Superior Court of California,
      County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV-235641, complaint filed October 14, 2004, first
      amended complaint filed December 15, 2004.  Plaintiff has sued The
      Repo Outlet and Credit West Corporation for negligent misrepresentation, for
      a
      violation of the Business and Professions Code Section 17200, for breach of
      the
      implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnusson-Moss Act, and for
      violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act.  On January 13, 2005,
      the RAP Group, Inc. agreed to defend and indemnify Credit West
      Corporation.  At a hearing before the Sonoma County Superior Court on
      February 23, 2005, the court granted The Repo Outlet’s motion to compel
      arbitration, and on March 8, 2005, the court stayed the court proceeding pending
      arbitration.  The RAP Group, Inc. filed a demand for arbitration with
      the American Arbitration Association (the “Association”) on April 7, 2005, but
      the parties later stipulated that the arbitration would proceed before
      JAMS.  The Repo Outlet made a Code of Civil Procedure 998 offer
      to settle and have Dominguez dismiss the matter with prejudice for the sum
      of
      $1,001.  Because Dominguez failed to timely respond to The Repo Outlet’s
      Section 998 offer, that offer expired on March 2, 2006.  The Repo
      Outlet made another settlement offer of $1,857 to settle this matter as to
      both
      defendants on January 8, 2007, but this offer was rejected as plaintiff’s
      counsel seeks to recover all of his attorneys’ fees.  Although the
      case was sent to arbitration before JAMS, and set for arbitration in February
      2007, on January 9, 2007, The Repo Outlet informed the arbitrator and
      plaintiff’s counsel that it would be ceasing operations and its counsel would be
      withdrawing as attorneys of record.  At a status conference on
      February 8, 2007, the court was informed that counsel for RAP Group had moved
      to
      withdraw for non-payment of fees.  The hearing on that motion is set
      for April 18, 2007.  Since that time, Credit West has substituted its
      own counsel of record, and so RAP Group is no longer tendering a defense to
      Credit West.  On April 4, plaintiff Dominguez filed with the Court a
      Request for Entry of Default Judgment against RAP Group.  On May 2,
      2007, the Court granted Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP’s motion to withdraw as
      counsel of record.  Thus, RAP Group is currently unrepresented by
      counsel in this matter.




*Marieta
      Cruz Hansell v. Robert
      Warren Johnson, Jr.,**ZAP, et. al.,*
      Superior
      Court of California, Case No. SCV-237645.  On October 21, 2005,
      Marieta Hansell filed suit against Robert Johnson (a former employee of ZAP),
      ZAP and other defendants for personal injury, property damage and permanent
      disability based on an alleged automobile collision between the plaintiff and
      defendant Johnson.  The Company and Mr. Johnson have both filed
      answers and case management statements containing a general denial of all of
      the
      plaintiff’s claim, and the Company has agreed to defend Mr. Johnson in this
      matter.  The parties are in the process of propounding and responding
      to discovery.  The plaintiff is claiming permanent
      disability,  and she has submitted a Statement of Damages in the
      amount of $108,727.34, plus unspecified amounts of future general damages,
      future wage loss, diminution of earning capacity damages, and incidental,
      consequential and special damages.  The plaintiff has not yet made any
      demand for settlement.  The Company intends to vigorously defend both
      itself and Mr. Johnson against these claims.  This matter is now being
      handled by alternative counsel for ZAP.  According to information received
      from alternative counsel, the partieshave agreed to settle
      this
      matter with a payment by the Company and Mr. Johnson to the plaintiff of a
      total
      of $70,000.  The lawsuit was settled on February 15, 2007 and was dismissed
      with prejudice.





36




*ZAP
      v. Norm Alvis, et al.,*Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV-238419,
      complaint filed March 27, 2006.  Mr. Alvis was engaged by the Company
      and Rotoblock Corporation (“Rotoblock”) as a consultant to perform public
      relations work on behalf of the Company and Rotoblock.  As
      consideration for Mr. Alvis’ consent to the contract with the Company, the
      Company provided Mr. Alvis with use of a motor home worth approximately
      $306,000.  The Company then sued Mr. Alvis, claiming he failed to
      perform his obligations under the contract and refused to return the
      consideration he received therefore (i.e. the motor home).  The
      Company is seeking either the return of the motor home or $500,000 in
      damages.  Mr. Alvis initially did not respond to the complaint, which
      prompted the Company to take his default on May 9, 2006.  The court
      then entered a default judgment on May 16, 2006, on which date the Company
      obtained a writ of possession allowing it to reclaim possession of the disputed
      motor home.  On June 18, 2006, Mr. Alvis moved the court to set aside
      the default and default judgment and to vacate its order authorizing issuance
      of
      the writ of possession.  The court agreed to set aside the default
      judgments, but it left intact the writ of possession.  The court also
      required Mr. Alvis to pay the Company $1,000 as compensation for forcing the
      Company to initially take his default.  Mr. Alvis has paid the Company
      the required $1,000.  Mr. Alvis then filed (1) an answer denying the
      Company’s allegations, and (2) a cross-claim against the Company, Steve
      Schneider in his individual capacity, and Rotoblock, alleging two counts of
      breach of contract, one common count of work, labor, and services received,
      and
      one count of fraud.  All of Mr. Alvis’ claims relate to the two
      contracts he executed with the Company and Rotoblock.  Mr. Alvis
      claims he provided services to the Company and Rotoblock pursuant to these
      contracts but received no consideration in exchange therefore.  For
      the fraud claim, defendant claims the Company and Schneider executed the
      contracts with no intent to perform.  Mr. Alvis has prayed for damages
      of $2,000,000, interest according to proof, punitive damages, and an order
      directing the Company to perfect title to the motor home.  Mr. Alvis
      then moved the court to quash the writ of possession.  On November 2,
      2006, the court denied this motion, although it did require the Company to
      post
      a $300,000 bond to enforce the writ.  The Company has not yet posted
      that bond, and consequently Mr. Alvis has threatened to move to revoke the
      writ.  The Company, Rotoblock and Schneider then demurred to the
      cross-complaint, and Alvis responded by filing an amended cross-complaint.
      The
      first amended cross-complaint again seeks breach of contract and common count
      damages against the Company and Rotoblock, as well as fraud damages against
      the
      Company and Schneider.  The Company and Schneider answered the first
      amended cross-complaint with general denials; Rotoblock responded by filing
      a
      second demurrer in which it has alleged it was an improperly named
      party.  The hearing on Rotoblock’s demurrer was heard
      on  March 21, 2007, at which time the demurrer was denied. Rotoblock
      intends to file an answer to the amended cross-compliant with general denials.
      Counsel has given notice of the claims against Schneider to the Company’s
      D&O insurer, which has acknowledged receipt of the
      notice.  Discovery is on-going, and the next case management
      conference is scheduled for April 9, 2007, but has been continued until July5,
      2007.




*Robert
      Chauvin; Mary Chauvin; Rajun
      Cajun, Inc. dba ZAP of Carson City, dba ZAP of Reno, dba ZAP of Sparks
      (“Robert**Chauvin,
      et al.”) v. Voltage Vehicles; ZAP; ZAP Power Systems Inc.;
      ZAPWORLDCOM*; *Elliot Winfield;
      Steven Schneider;
      Phillip Terrazzi; Max Scheder-Breschin;****Renay
      Cude;* [*sic] and Does
      I*-*XX*,
      Second Judicial
      District Court State of Nevada, County of Washoe, Case No. CV06 02767..On November 17,
      2006, Robert Chauvin, et al. filed a complaint alleging breach of contract,
      breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of warranties,
      fraud/misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, quantum merit or unjust
      enrichment, civil conspiracy, violation of Security [sic] and Exchange
      Act/federal securities law, and deceptive trade practices, pursuant to a License
      Agreement (for a distribution license) entered into between Rajun Cajun, Inc.
      dba ZAP of Carson City, dba ZAP of Reno, dba ZAP of Sparks (“Rajun Cajun”) and
      Voltage Vehicles.  The complaint seeks general damages in an amount in
      excess of $10,000, special damages in an amount in excess of $10,000, punitive
      damages in an amount in excess of  $10,000, attorneys’ fees and cost
      of suit, for judgment in an amount equal to treble actual damages, and recession
      in the amounts of $397,900 and $120,000.  On January 19, 2007,
      defendants Voltage Vehicles and ZAP filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
      that the License Agreement entered into between Rajun Cajun and Voltage contains
      a forum selection clause designating Sonoma County, State of California as
      the
      only appropriate forum.  The court granted that Motion on April 13,
      2007.  In its order on that motion, the court also found that all
      other motions pending in the Nevada court in this matter are now
      moot.  (As of that time, the following motions were still
      pending:  (1) Chauvin, et al.’s Notices of Intent to Take Default
      against two of the named corporate defendants and against the individual
      defendants, except Renay Cude; (2) a Motion to Quash Service of Process or
      Alternatively for Dismissal by each of the individual defendants and both of
      the
      defunct corporate defendants; and (3) Chauvin, et al.’s Motion for
      Publication of Summons against the named individual defendants.)




37


*Voltage
      Vehicles v. Rajun Cajun, et
      al.*, Superior Court
      of California, County of Sonoma, Case No. SCV 240179, filed February 9,
      2007.  (This suit is related to the Nevada case
      of*Robert
      Chauvin, et al. v. Voltage Vehicles, et al.*discussed immediately
      above.)In its Complaint, Voltage Vehicles requests Declaratory Relief against
      Rajun Cajun, asking the Court to declare that the License Agreement between
      those two parties does not grant Rajun Cajun an exclusive dealership in northern
      Nevada to distribute Voltage Vehicle products and that Voltage Vehicles has
      performed its obligations under the License Agreement.  On April 19,
      2007, Rajun Cajun filed a Motion to Quash and/or for Dismissal or
      Stay.  Rajun Cajun has since agreed to voluntarily withdraw that
      motion, but Voltage Vehicles is still awaiting confirmation of that
      withdrawal.  It is anticipated that Rajun Cajun will thereafter file
      an answer and cross-complaint in this matter.




*ZAP
      v. International Monetary
      Group,(Patrick J Harrington President and CEO) Inc., a Delaware corporation;
      Michael C. Sher dba the Law Offices of Michael C. Sher*, Case No. SCV
      240277,complaint
      filed March 1, 2007 in Sonoma County Superior Court.  ZAP sued
      International Monetary Group (“IMG”) whose President and CEO  is
      Patrick D. Harrington and Michael Sher for declaratory relief, rescission,
      and
      breach of contract.  ZAP had entered into an agreement with IMG, a
      merchant banking company, to procure financing, and ZAP alleges that IMG,
      contrary to the parties’ agreement, is seeking to enforce a $500,000 promissory
      note.  ZAP also alleges that IMG and Sher have taken $12,500 and
      10,000 shares of ZAP common stock that they held in trust for ZAP without
      authorization.  ZAP also alleges that IMG and Sher continue to hold
      1,291,176 shares of ZAP stock that was supposed to have been used as collateral
      for a $1 million loan to be procured by IMG and Sher that never
      materialized.  After being served with the complaint, counsel for IMG
      and Sher initiated settlement discussions and, in consideration, were given
      until May 7, 2007 to respond tothe complaint. The Company has not received a written response from IMG
      as of May 14, 2007. Management has recorded an estimated liability for any
      potential exposure related to this transaction which is included in the
      accompanying consolidated balance sheet.  In addition, management
      believes that the ultimate resolution of this claim will not have a material
      adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or on results of
      operations.




*ZAP
      v. Thomas C. Graver and Auto
      America Group, Inc.*,
      filed in federal court for the Northern District of California on April 3,
      2007,
      Case No. CV-01836-MJJ.In its Complaint ZAP makes claims
      against Graver and Auto America Group under the Federal Anti-Cybersquatting
      Act
      and for trademark infringement.  Graver is the President and Chief
      Executive Officer of Auto America Group, Inc. (“AAG”).  AAG and Graver
      signed an independent contractor agreement with ZAP on October 21, 2005 to
      provide certain services to ZAP, but that agreement terminated on October 18,
      2006.  At no time did ZAP enter into an agreement with AAG or Graver
      giving either of them permission to use ZAP’s federally-registered trademark
“zapworld.com.”  Following discussions regarding a business dispute
      between Graver, AAG and one of ZAP’s business partners, a Brazilian company
      called Obvio, Graver registered the domain name www.zapworld.us on January
      4,
      2007.  Although there is very little content on the website
      www.zapworld.us, the home page does refer extensively to Obvio and has two
      references to ZAP. One of those references is to “ZAP Agreement Correspondence”
with an apparent link that is not functional.  The other ZAP reference
      is to an article referring to ZAP in a negative light.  Graver failed
      to respond to ZAP’s cease and desist letters.  In its lawsuit, ZAP
      requests that the domain name “zapworld.us” be transferred to ZAP and also that
      ZAP be awarded its damages and attorneys’ fees.  The defendants have
      now been served, and the parties are discussing a proposed settlement agreement
      with terms favorable to ZAP.




First
      Class Auto Sales, Inc. d/b/a
      First Class Imports v. Voltage Vehicles and ZAP, American Arbitration
      Association Case
      No. 74 133 00081 06 NOCA.**First Class Imports is a vehicle
      dealer that executed a licensing and distributorship agreement with Voltage
      Vehicles, a subsidiary of the Company, in May, 2004. On January 14, 2006, First
      Class Imports and its principal, Leon Atkind, filed an arbitration demand with
      the American Arbitration Association alleging that the Company and Voltage
      Vehicles breached the licensing agreement by not delivering new
      SMART-branded vehicles to First Class Imports and demanded return of the
      $100,000 licensing fee paid to Voltage Vehicles under the agreement, plus
      interest.  In a separate cause of action, Mr. Atkind alleged the
      Company breached a second contract by failing to timely deliver a stock
      certificate in exchange for a Mercedes vehicle that he sold to the
      Company.  Regarding this second claim, Mr. Atkind contends that the
      late delivery of the certificate caused the shares to be restricted for an
      extra
      month during which the Company’s stock price declined.  He seeks as
      damages the difference in the value of the stock on the two subject dates
      multiplied by 59,999, the number of shares he received.  Voltage
      Vehicles filed a counterclaim against both First Class Imports and Mr.
      Atkind.  The first cause of action in the counterclaim alleges breach
      of contract against First Class Imports for its refusal to accept SMART-branded
      vehicles offered to it pursuant to the parties’ licensing
      agreement.  Voltage Vehicles seeks as damages the lost revenue it
      otherwise would have gained through First Class Imports’ purchase of
      SMART-branded vehicles, as well as damages based on the depreciation of a
      SMART-branded vehicle it loaned to First Class Imports.  The second
      cause of action alleges breach of contract against Mr. Atkind based on his
      failure to deliver title to the Mercedes identified above.  On this
      claim, Voltage Vehicles seeks as damages the depreciation of the Mercedes during
      the time in which it has been unable to sell the vehicle.  An
      arbitrator was selected, which resulted in the parties reaching settlement
      in
      April.A Request for
      Dismissal with Prejudice was filed with the court in this matter on April 11,
      2007.


38


Item
      2.    Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of
      Proceeds





The
      following lists sales of unregistered securities during the period ended March
      31, 2007 that were not previously included in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      or a Current Report on Form 8-K.   We relied on the exemption
      from registration afforded by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
      amended (the “Securities Act”) for the issuance of these
      securities.  Except as stated below, no underwriting discounts or
      commissions were payable with respect to any of the following transactions.
      The
      offer and sale of the following securities was exempt from the registration
      requirements of the Securities Act under Rule 506 insofar as (1) except as
      stated below, each of the investors was accredited within the meaning of Rule
      501(a); (2) the transfer of the securities were restricted by the company in
      accordance with Rule 502(d); (3) there were no more than 35 non-accredited
      investors in any transaction within the meaning of Rule 506(b), after taking
      into consideration all prior investors under Section 4(2) of the Securities
      Act
      within the twelve months preceding the transaction; and (4) none of the offers
      and sales were effected through any general solicitation or general advertising
      within the meaning of Rule 502(c).




On
      January 2, 2007, the Company issued 625,000 shares of common stock, one warrant
      for the purchase of 100,000 shares at $1.50 per share, and two warrants for
      the
      purchase of 1,150,000 shares at $1.20 for a direct investment in the amount
      of
      $625,000 to a qualified investor.





On
      January 25, 2007, the Company issued 27,174 shares of common stock for
      professional services valued at $25,000.





On
      February 2, 2007, the Company issued 217,391 shares of common stock and one
      warrant for the purchase of 2,000,000 shares at $1.20 per share for a direct
      investment in the amount of $200,000 to a qualified investor.





On
      February 20, 2007, the Company issued four 8% convertible notes with par value
      totaling $1.2 million and four warrants for the purchase of 360,000 shares
      at
      $1.32 per share in connection with a direct investment.





On
      February 23, 2007, the Company issued 8,532 shares of common stock for
      professional services valued at $9,300.





On
      March
      30, 2007, the Company issued 45,565 shares of common stock for professional
      services valued at $52,400.





On
      March
      30, 2007, the Company issued a warrant for the purchase of 2,000,000 shares
      at
      $1.20 per share for a direct investment in the amount of $200,000 to a qualified
      investor.





The
      Company will use the proceeds from the above transactions for general corporate
      purposes.






Item
      3.    Defaults Upon Senior Securities





Not
      Applicable







Item
      4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security
      Holders




Not
      Applicable







Item
      5.    Other Information





Not
      Applicable




39


Item
      6.     Exhibits




10.36
            Agreement
                dated July 14, 2006 between ZAP, Thomas Heidemann and Smart Automobile
                (incorporated by reference from our Current Report on Form 8-K filed
                on
                July 20, 2006)10.37
            Amendment
                Agreement Dated August 30, 2006 between ZAP and Smart Automobile
                LLC
                (incorporated by reference from our Current Report on Form 8-K filed
                on
                September 6, 2006)10.38
            Exclusive
                Distribution Agreement dated May 1, 2005, as supplemented by a letter
                dated June 9, 2006 (incorporated by reference from our Current Report
                on
                Form 8-K filed on November 6, 2006)10.39
            ZAP
                Guarantee (incorporated by reference from our Current Report on Form
                8-K
                filed on November 6, 2006)10.40
            Shandong
                Jindalu Vehicle Co., Ltd. Guarantee (incorporated by reference from
                our
                Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 6, 2006)10.41
            Joint
                Venture Agreement Dated September 21, 2006 (incorporated by reference
                from
                our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 6,
                2006)10.42
            Memorandum
                of Company’s Extension of Warrants issued to Executives, January 26,
                200710.43
            Purchase
                and Amendment Agreement, dated February 20, 2007 (incorporated by
                reference from our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 26,
                2007)10.44
            Form
                of Convertible Note (incorporated by reference from our Current Report
                on
                Form 8-K filed on February 26, 2007)10.45
            Form
                or Warrant (incorporated by reference from our Current Report on
                Form 8-K
                filed on February 26, 2007)31.1
            Certification
                of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
                Act.31.2
            Certification
                of Principal Financial and Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section
                302 of
                the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.32.1
            Certification
                of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
                Act.32.2
            Certification
                of Principal Financial and Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section
                906 of
                the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
















40


**SIGNATURES**





In
      accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused
      this
      report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
      authorized.







**ZAP**Dated 
May
                14, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Steven
              SchneiderName: Steven
              SchneiderTitle:  
Chief
              Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)








**ZAP**Dated 
                May 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/ William
              HartmanName: 
              William HartmanTitle:   
              Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
              Officer)


























41