Is GM worried about "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Yeah, and the 1st (and only) 500 buyers of said "hybrids" were sorely dissappointed. Even the Insight sold more...

What a joke. An absolute stupid joke. So if the EV1 was the start, how do they justify crushing them....THEY CRUSHED THEM. Perfectly running vehicles. Wow, I can't tell ya how mad I am at them for this. What, too good for all of human kind, better get rid of it. We'll make more $$$ selling SUVs. What a mindset. Plus, and here's a real kicker...they were offered MONEY for them before they destroyed them. No, we don't need the money for this...now who's in the red so far that only a federal govt. bailout will save them. Who's gonna buy their crap...or put up with their seemingly absolute disregard for new technology or trends or designs. See ya GM, ya had the chance...

Cheers,

Curt.

 

I saw the guy on tv talking how the car companies, big oil, republicans, and all the other usual suspects killed off the electric cars. Too bad, so sad. These "wonderful" vehicles got about 100 miles per charge and were widely reported, whether true or not, to operate poorly in nothern climates in the winter. I for one never lusted for a vehicle which was a multi-problematic exercise.

Now the Prius is a different cat. Took a drive to Flint yesterday and drove 120 miles at 56.7 mpg. So, I use less than 2 gallons of gas, cost around $4.75 for fuel, and I still had a pretty full tank when I got home.

Solve the distance problem and recharge time for EVs and I may convert. Until then, as long as I have the Prius, couldn't care less.

 

Why hasn't GM crushed some of their other crap cars? I still can't believe they CRUSHED the EV1s!! Talk about a poorly thought out business plan.

EVs with new battery tech is the future. MANY thousands of people have a use for such a commuter car. And when range can be 300 miles, I see myslef ditching my gas-guzzler Prius (thanks Darrell D for that one!) and going EV.

I love all the nay-sayers excuses to continue to pollute and consume a non-replentishable (is this a term? did I just invent a new phrase?) resource that costs just as much in electricity (and then some) just to transport us around. Sheesh, it's as if NOTHING could be better than internal combustion. Silly humans...

Cheers,

Curt.

 

Hey TPS, nice to hear from you. As the proud owner of a Prius, I have to confess that I am also the caretaker of a Ford Exploder. I love the Prius and tolerate the Exp. Except when it snows and I love the thing. I also love the Exp. when I tow the bass boat. I do not believe in using a screwdriver as a hammer. I have always tried to use the right tool for its intended application. Both of my vehicles are "right" for the uses I make of them.

The EVs were good for some folks apparently, especially those who had short commutes or just needed to get around the neighborhood. They certainly would not have been right for me and it appears that their appeal and popularity was very limited, evidenced by their flaccid sales. While they may have been a good first start, the market in which they were introduced did not embrace them as an answer to much of anything. As Jeff Cooper said of the Colt Series 80, "It's an answer in search of a question."

Now that we have 3 buck gas, the EV seems to be back on the table. In two years when we have 5 buck gas, I believe there will be even greater demand for this and other vehicles which will relieve us from the tyranny of the cracking tower. Between now and then I sincerely hope the car builders - any car builder - will have developed the EV technology to the point where it will have overcome the killer shortcomings of the 1st gen EVs. Then, between the obvious environmental advantages delivered by EVs and the budget-busting cost of petro product, we may finally be able to free ourselves from the petro grid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(johnval1 @ Jun 29 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]278570[/snapback]</div>

I don't suppose that the fact the EV1 was exclusively available as a closed-end lease-only vehicle and that they were only available in one test market at only certain select dealers and that there were still thousands of people on a waiting list for them would have anything to do with it?

You're right, in the limited configuations they were available in combined with a limited daily range, they weren't for everyone, especially for a single person who owns and drives a single vehicle. But as a two-vehicle owning commuter myself, with a not-so-short 66 mile daily round trip, either the EV1 or the Toyota Rav4EV would have been an ideal commuter vehicle for me that I would have been able to rely upon for about 95% of my driving.

 

You are quite right David. For someone such as yourself, this would have been a very good vehicle. At the time of their market introduction, I lived in WashDC area, a commuting hell-hole if there ever was one. The general consensus was these were not optimal for the DC area, despite the fact they were not available. The length of our commutes, the uncertainty of our traffic patterns, and the complete lack of recharging capability at the halfway point of our commutes pretty much put a stake through the heart of demand for these cars. While I am certain there would have been a nice little market for them in the DC area, at that time of 1 buck gas, there was little or no outcry for supply. At the time, I worked at DOT and frequently spoke with the NHTSA engineers. The guys I knew predicted these cars would only be a curiosity.

100 mile capability just don't feed the bulldog. As I said, get the range up and shorten recharge time, and this may be a go for launch. Now I am certain there are some very capable pocket protector types out there who will tell us the technology is so much better at this point. I certainly hope so.

My point is not anti-EV. I would love for us to be off the petro grid. I believe gasoline is best used in outboard motors on bass boats. I am just not going to pine for something that didn't work out for whatever reason.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(johnval1 @ Jun 29 2006, 06:57 AM) [snapback]278544[/snapback]</div>

I recall when the EV1 rolled out and trying to get data. The Saturn dealers had the franchise in San Diego. I also recall at the time SDG&E was very expensive ($300-600/month was not uncommon in the summers). So, although petrol was $1 or so, the cost of that electricity+lease+the charger was a deterrent. At the time, I filled out the survey and was not qualified due to my driving parameters of distance and place did not fit the qualifications.

I also recall some time later, 1998 or so, seeing a Honda EV Plus and also a RAV4 EV, but I think that the price even then was in the $55K. Correct me if I am wrong there....


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 29 2006, 07:26 AM) [snapback]278566[/snapback]</div>

GM has crushed a lot of experimental cars, or sealed them off to museums.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 29 2006, 09:53 AM) [snapback]278542[/snapback]</div>

This is just a guess, but I expect it is a reasonable one...

I expect that there are a whole bunch of laws and regulations governing the responsibility of automobile manufacturers after the sale of a car. For instance, they have to provide a warranty. They have to perform recalls for safety defects. I'm sure there's a whole lot more.

GM leased the EV1s, they didn't sell them. Once they canceled the program, if they sold the cars, then they would have had to continue making replacement parts, training service technicians, be held liable for any injuries or deaths due to manufacturing or design defects, etc.

So, I doubt that they were crushed for nefarious reasons, but rather for economic and liability reasons.

The $25 million the would have gotten if they sold every EV1 to it's leasee for $50,000 would not have covered the continued liability and expenditure of GM.

 

No, I sure don't think I was attacked. You are correct about me writing off the early EVs though. They are done and over for good reason or ill. GM has never been accused of foresight or even keen discertion about what the market wants and needs. Having said that, let me go out on a limb just a little further.

At the time GM rolled out the EVs and later scrapped them, there were what, 8 or 9 other players in the American market large enough to make a commercially accrptable EV. I didn't see Mercedes, Volvo, Toyota, Ford, Nissan et al joing the fray. Either they are all stupid boys (possibility) or just did not see a marriage of market and technology as it existed. For some reason, Toyota went along the path of the hybrid and most of us are the happy recipients.

I do not pretend that the Prius is the holy grail of clean and efficient transportation, but I sure do enjoy the outstanding milage I get in the eggmobile. It would be nice to see the day when 55 mpg is considered excessive consumption. Happy day then.

Short story. My brother told me I was an idiot last year when I bought the Prius. He said there was no compelling reason to buy into this technology. Besides being an early adapter, I told him gas was going to hit $3/gal soon. He laughed. This same brother told me two weeks ago I made a brilliant move buying the Prius. I have gotten him to agree about $5/gal gas - or more.

 

First step? Really?

When are they releasing their EV2?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(johnval1 @ Jun 29 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]278735[/snapback]</div>

What about the Toyota Rav4EV? The Honda EV Plus? The Ford Ranger EV Pickup? The Nissan Altra EV?

Most of the major players responded to the CARB Zero Emmissions mandate with production EV's and all promptly removed them from the market as soon as their (especially GM's) lobbying pressure saw the mandate revoked.

 

Found this on GM's website:

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

By Dave Barthmuss GM Communications

The film EV Confidential: Who Killed the Electric Car? showcased the intense passion for GM's out-of-production EV1 electric vehicle. I understand why. It was great technology for its day, a great concept and a great car. GM was and is proud to have brought the electric vehicle concept as far as it did and further than any other electric vehicle project attempted by any other automaker around the globe. Sadly, despite the substantial investment of money and the enthusiastic fervor of a relatively small number of EV1 drivers - including the filmmaker - the EV1 proved far from a viable commercial success.

But the story for GM does not end with the final credits on the movie. I've been the person who has spent the last few years answering the questions of why GM discontinued the program. Although I have not seen the movie or received an advanced DVD as others have from the film's producers, I can tell you that based on what I have heard there may be some information that the movie did not tell its viewers. The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line. For example:

GM's two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.
The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.
GM is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group a new two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles. This new two-mode hybrid technology will debut next year in a Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV, which will offer a 25 percent improvement in combined city and highway fuel economy when joined with other GM fuel-saving technologies. Technology born in the EV1 is incorporated into this new two-mode hybrid system.
GM's fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today's HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.
Add to all this GM's leadership in flex-fuel vehicles that run on clean-burning bio fuels such as corn-based ethanol and our new "active fuel management" system that shuts down half the engine's pistons at highway speeds to improve fuel economy, and we feel we are doing more than any other automaker to address the issues of oil dependence, fuel economy, and emissions from vehicles. And we are committed to do more.

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

Could GM have handled its decision to say "no" to offers to buy EV1s upon natural lease expirations better than it did? Sure. In some ways, I personally regret that we could not find a way for the EV1 lessees to keep their cars. We did what we felt was right in discontinuing a vehicle that we could no longer guarantee could be operated safely over the long term or that we would be able to repair.

In turn, GM engineers used EV1s for cold-weather testing to continue the technology transfer to hybrids and fuel cells. We also donated them to universities and museums. In fact, we donated an EV1 to the Smithsonian and are now being wrongly accused of a conspiracy with the museum because they removed the car for renovation of the National Museum of American History. I can assure you that this is nothing more than unfortunate timing.

So as right and as good as our intentions were, we understand that the moviemakers see them as wrong. We'll accept that criticism, but don't punish GM for doing a good deed. Rather, work with us and give us credit for taking a necessary first step in developing technologies that hold the potential to change the face of automobile transportation. That's what GM engineers are doing everyday.

Posted by Editor at June 23, 2006 10:41 AM


Note: Bolded emphasis by this poster to highlight their multiple stock excuses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 29 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]278772[/snapback]</div>

Like I said. Keeping the parts suppliers, engineers, and service technicians running for the lifetime of the vehicle is likely a huge expense, particularly when you are supporting only 500 to 800 vehicles. That's why they chose not to sell the EV1s to the people who were leasing them. And if you can't afford to sell them, then the only sensible thing to do is crush them and recycle the steel instead of letting them rust in a storage lot.

 

F%&* GM and their stupid, stupid response.

Sorry, but I ain't falling for the stupidity. That's why they are dying. It makes me angrier and angrier every single day thinking about how this country can be so stupid to let GM take our tax dollars and crush the product that would have saved millions of barrels of oil. And then claim they didn't have a f*&%ing market.

No, they didn't want to do the right thing, they wanted to line the execs and big oil's pockets, compromising EVERYONE's safety and health (bigger, unsafe vehicles that continue to spew pollution, keeping us addicted to areas of the world that hate us).

WAKE UP!!!

Okay, I gotta stop, this is SOOO disheartening.

Again, F%&* GM.

Cheers,

Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 30 2006, 07:13 AM) [snapback]279070[/snapback]</div>

And you know this to be true how?

 

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/

cheers,

Curt.