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

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 30 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]279070[/snapback]</div>

Just curious... Do you have the same feelings about Toyota? Sure, they developed the Prius, but THEY STOPPED MAKING EV CARS! JUST STOPPED IT!!! DIDN'T MAKE ANYMORE!!! How advanced would EV cars be today if they had continued making and developing fully EV cars?! Everybody would be driving one! All the problems would be solved!

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. They make lots of sub-20 MPG trucks, SUVs and minivans: Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, 4 Runner, Sienna, etc. They even just added a new sub-20 MPG SUV, the FJ Cruiser. Did we really need yet another sub-20 MPG SUV???? Don't they get it????

So... Do you feel this way about Toyota? If not, why not?

 

Nope, Toyota continued with efficient cars and tech (prius, HSD).

Sorry, GM just gave up EVERYTHING.

Yes, I realize Toyota also makes SUVs. Thanks for bringing up a weak point. Next...

Cheers,

Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 30 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]279140[/snapback]</div>

Also, Toyota also did not crush ALL of their Rav4EV and there are actually people who are driving and enjoying them today. Why not the EV1?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 30 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]279140[/snapback]</div>

If GM gave up on fully EV cars because they were stupid, corrupt, in the pockets of Big Oil, or what ever, then why did Toyota give up on fully EV cars?

If EV cars were such a slam dunk... If there was such a huge demand for them... If the technology was ready... Why did Toyota abandon the fully EV car and develop hybrids that run off of fossil fuels instead?

Why does GM get all your blame for the world not having EV cars and Toyota, Honda, and Nissan get none?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 30 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]279146[/snapback]</div>

What difference does it make? You guys seem to believe that if the 500 or so EV1s were left in service then the world would have embraced EV cars and we'd all be driving them. Well, Toyota made over 1200 RAV4EVs. I don't know how many were purchased when Toyota discontinued the leases, but I imagine, if EV cars are in as much demand as you guys claim, that a fair percentage of them ended up privately owned. So what effect have all these RAV4EVs had? Not much, as far as I can tell. You think adding 500 or so EV1s to the mix would have tipped the balance?

 

I choose to believe what I choose to believe. You do the same.

It's all Zen. The Prius is the right direction. GM is not. Simple.

Cheers,

Curt.

 

EV1 dead end.

Actually, not all of the EV1s were crushed.

According to Smithsonian"Only 40 EV1s were preserved, according to Jill Banaszynski, manager of the EV1 donation program, to be given to museums and institutions or kept for research by GM. Of these, the only fully intact EV1, complete with its (now inert) lead acid battery, is today part of the NMAH collection. “Our requirement is that all the vehicles in the museum have to be complete models,†says Withuhn. “We may remove parts, but we have to know that if we wanted to drive a car, or a steam engine, we could—not that we would. It’s a question of authenticity.

This stipulation initially posed a problem for GM, which had decided to take the cars off the road because only a relative handful of technicians knew how to work safely on the powerful batteries. But a series of negotiations proved fruitful, and the museum, in March of 2005, received its own complete example of an exemplary machine."

So the one at the Smithsonian still exists and it is functional.



BTW, the Prius is mentioned: "Perhaps the most telling blow, however, for the all-electric car was the development of gas-electric hybrids such as the Toyota Prius, capable of recharging their batteries while cruising down the highway."

 

It would appear that not ONE of my freaking quote tags worked! Sorry. Can't see what's wrong.


Whew -

Most of this has been covered and answered really well! Of course there are still those who don't want to hear or believe that things *might* have been different if GM had not sued the state of CA to stop the ZEV mandate and then proceeded to crush all the customer cars. I'll attempt to answer some of these questions from a consumer's point of view. Obiously I won't be changing the minds of the folks who already have their minds made up, so that isn't my goal.

They're right for the majority of the many millions of two-car families with one car serving commute duty every day. We put 12k miles/year on our "100 mile range" Rav4EV. In the past five years, we average about 3k miles on the gas car in our stable - our secondary car which is currently the Prius. An EV is not right for everybody. But neither is a pickup, a sports car, a motorcycle or a sedan.

Since the only one to be "sold" was the Rav4EV - and that only for eight months... and only from a total of 25 dealers in the nation, it is tough to make any sort of conclusion about number of sales. As it is, every EV that was ever offered for sale or lease was placed... with a waiting list of thousands. The hurdles to EV ownership were huge, and of course there were no model choices, or accessory choices, or even color choices in most cases. The current wait for a Prius is peanuts for what most of us did to buy or lease our EVs. And I never did quality for an EV1 lease... yet I ended up leasing one through alternate channels, and bought two other EVs... but no, I did not quality for GMAC's EV1 lease program. Same was true for most interested parties.

The biggest stake through the heart of demand was zero availability. Now that some EVs are *owned* the people back east are paying a HUGE upcharge to buy them on the used market, and trucking them back there... and using them... and then buying more because they work so well.

We're go for launch.

Don't even need a pocket protector. Just look at the battery in your cell phone. Battery technology has advanced (in terms of energy density) more in the past 10 years, than it had in the previous 100 years.

I'd like to see this bushel of laws. Turns out that there are MANY mainstream vehicles out on our roads for which there are no more parts - no support from the mfg. At the end of lease, the EV1's had no more warranty.

It isn't as black and white as you'd like to make it. Toyota sold their cars, and did not sue to stop the ZEV mandate. When they were allowed their "Get out of Jail Free" card by GM's actions, they certainly took it. And Toyota WAS crushing cars, but stopped when we confronted them. GM did not.

It would truly be awesome. And nobody wanted to take the chance. Next month Tesla Motors releases the first modern production EV since the ZEV mandate - and it will be an exotic, expensive car that has better performance and half the price of any gasoline car. It uses technology that simply was not available 15 years ago when the mandate cars were being designed.

I can't disagree with any of this!

Like I said... not black and white. Toyota left quietly, but did not actively destroy the ZEV mandate. And they at least continue to actually make some very desirable, efficient cars.

Correction. The one in permanent storage at the Smithsonian is still theoretically fully functional. But it is no longer on display and the offical Smithsonian blurb lumps this car into the "failed experiment" category per GM's wishes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 30 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]279165[/snapback]</div>

That certainly has not been my point... and I don't read that from anybody else's posting here either. Of course 500 more EVs on the road don't themselves make even a dent in our problem. This is more symbolic than anything else. We're told that EVs suck. That they can't do the job. That the range is too short. That nobody wants to plug them in. That there is no demand. If we still had all the EVs on the road that were made, there would be more people demonstrating the awesome benefits of EVs for others to see... and in this day of $3+ gas, that could very well make a difference in public education/perception.

I hear all the time that if EVs were any good, then everybody would be driving them. Well, if the car makers take them back and crush them, then how can we EVER show that these cars are viable?

If EVs suck so bad, and they work for so few people... why bother crushing them? Wouldn't that "free market" that I keep hearing about have just taken care of the problem by itself? Wouldn't the EVs just be abandoned along the side of the road as "unusable?" There's been no other vehicle in history that I'm aware of where the mfg destroyed perfectly working examples of their product that had qualified buyers lined up to purchase.

Because they could.

The technology was barely ready. We're just scratching the surface. Think of the Rav4 and the EV1 as the Model A of modern times. Should we have abandoned that 8 hp, 45mph piece of crap? The first EVs were freaking amazing when you consider that they were basically prototypes. Why did Toyota abandon it like eveybody else? Because it would have been expensive - and like everybody else they're already making profits on the tried-and true gasoline concept. No reason to change to something that would take years to be profitable.

GM doesn't get all the blame. Why do you insist on so much black-and-white here? The automakers share the blame... along with an uninformed public and myopic governemnt. GM gets the most attention... and the most blame here because they are largely responsible for killing the ZEV mandate, and they were the ONLY ones pull ALL their EVs off the road the minute that they were no longer required to have them out. The ONLY ones to do that. Of all the other EVs produced under the ZEV mandate, there are still examples of each vehicle still on the road... except the EV1.

You say that we don't put any blame on Toyota??? Do you know how much it costs to make a banner like this?


How about Ford?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 30 2006, 05:38 PM) [snapback]279351[/snapback]</div>

I never said it was still on display. I don't think the article does either. (If it does, check the date. It may have been written before the display was pulled.) I recall when someone posted that the EV1 was being taken off display at the Smithsonian, someone else asked if it was going to be taken back by GM and crushed too. This article states it is in the Smithsonian's permanenet collection and it is intact. That doesn't mean they have to display it forever. It also states there were approximately 1,100 EV1s and 40 still exist.

As for "failed experiment", yes, it was. For a lot of reasons stated above and some stated in the article. It was ambitious technology that was marketed too soon, too limited and never improved on. Now, I wouldn't consider it fully failed because I'm sure a lot was learned. But yes, I'd consider it an "Edsel". When I was shopping for a car I considered the EV1. I told the salesman I would buy one in a second, but I wouldn't lease. I bought a Saturn SC1 coupe instead. And I replaced that car with a Prius.

As for the future, I think Toyota is moving forward AND smart. I don't think the public is ready to quit gas cold turkey. So move them to hybrids that you don't have to plug in. And while more and more people start to embrace that concept, those with the mindset for it are buying hybrids with a plug in option. Then while people are getting their heads around that....and once the technology AND infrastructure has truly caught up to support it.....the ZEV comes back. Kyocera already has a "solar grove" over their parking lot. I can see driving my EV to work and plugging it in in the parking lot to charge up while I'm at work. Photovoltaic. I'd shop at grocery stores and malls that had solar groves for that very reason. You got a Solar Grove for my car you get my business. So...was the EV1 a failure? Yes and no. Yes, for GM who it seems has either learned nothing or chooses not to put into practice and development anything learned from that car. No for the public and for other companies, such as Toyota.

I think the actions of GM in regards to the EV1 reflect the same poor planning and business practices that have gotten them into trouble in other aspects of their company. Just part of a really big, stupid picture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 30 2006, 04:29 PM) [snapback]279380[/snapback]</div>

Sorry! In my haste I read your comment wrong. It is in their "permanent collection" with no plans to display it again.

I guess by definition it would have to be a failure since it no longer exists for all practical purposes. The REASON that it was a failure is often quoted as "there was no market." And that's where I take issue, of course. We don't have any idea what the market would or could be... if the car was ever marketed! Market the thing like a new SUV in the 90's and see where we are. As it was, there was little pro-marketing, and quite a bit of anti-marketing taking place. Plus the huge barriers... that it was a two-seater, that you had to pre-qualify and wait for three or four months with no updates on your progress, the huge lease payment, no way to purchase, etc.

Thrilled to hea that you actually tried to buy one!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 30 2006, 06:37 PM) [snapback]279385[/snapback]</div>

Yep, I would have bought one outright. Well, would have tried, depending on how much they would have asked. I couldn't afford a $60,000 car. So I bought the Saturn and waited for technology to catch up with what I wanted to buy. (Didnt' know about the RAV4EV for purchase.) So when it was time to replace the Saturn...I looked at hybrids. I'd been following hybrids since 2000 when Toyota released them in the U.S. (The Gen1 didn't thrill me at all.) In 2005 it was between the Prius and the Insight. For reasons too numerous to mention that I think we all know anyway...the Prius won.

And I'll probably buy the 2009 redesign rather than wait for 2015. If it has an plug-in option, I may go for that as well. Someday I'm going to have photovoltaic on my roof. That will zero my day use and I can plug the car in at night. For me the selling point of the Prius was that you didn't need to plug it in. And I think I'm not alone in that and that Toyota was smart to develop and market the car as not needing to be plugged in. That is one of the things that defeated the EV1. But that is going to change when there is finally an infrastructure in place to support plug-ins.

I think the biggest difference betwen GM and Toyota was that the EV1 program was designed to fail. It was a stopgap until they could litigate their way out. For Toyota...it was a change in direction that gave us the Prius. They learned, built and moved in a direction. They saw not just a challenge but an opportunity. GM is too busy looking back and protecting the status quo.

To steal and paraphrase from a recent West Wing...if GM was a medical company...they'd have the best iron lung money could buy....but would never have developed a polio vaccine.

And I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the possibility of the EV1 going on display again someday. It would be an interesting historical display with the next ZEV car that is developed and becomes successful....maybe within 10 years. So we can look back at that ancient EV1 technology and laugh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 30 2006, 05:59 PM) [snapback]279420[/snapback]</div>

Odd. Toyota says they spent more money advertising the Rav4EV for sale than the did advertising the Prius. But you aren't alone! Nobody I know saw any Rav4EV ads. Only reason I got one was because I was already "in the loop."

Yup - amazing how effective that advertising campaing is. On the one hand it implies that the Prius is basically an EV... without the pesky plug. On the other hand it capitalizes on somehow reversing the BIGGEST selling feature of EVs - the plug. On the EV1 driver surveys, the top "what do you like best about your EV?" answer (for women) was "I get to plug it in to charge at home." (The top answer for men was "performance.") I don't view the Prius as "not having to plug it in." I view it more accurately as "I have to drive to the gas station." (and plug the fuel nozzle in).

Of course you are not alone. Most people who have never lived with an EV feel the same way. Why wouldn't they? It is about all they hear in the press and advertisements. Now ask the folks who DO live with EVs and see what they say. I'll assume you don't need to hear from me, however.

I'd have trouble agreeing more. During the final phase of leasing the vehicle, GM was pumping millions into defeating the ZEV mandate that required the cars.

Much like the promise of fuel cells. That promise is what spelled disaster for the entire ZEV program.

Thanks for your insight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 30 2006, 05:59 PM) [snapback]279420[/snapback]</div>

At the end of my lease, I was one of many who actually handed over a check for the "residual value" of the vehicle. Instead of accepting the several million dollars from those of us who wanted to purchase, they instead spent several thousand dollars for each car to be dismantled, crushed and recycled.

 

Again, like so many of my Darrell replies, THANK YOU!

You are an inspiration to all of us trying to do the right thing with regards to energy efficiency/usage.

The education process is slow sometimes, but I'm convinced that it will HAVE to show some results soon. Energy in fossil form is getting expensive and will continue to become more so. Alternatives are here, let's embrace them now or just poo ourselves when the end of oil hits us square in the face.

If gasoline had it's TRUE costs shown at the pump back when the EV1 and Rav4 EVs were introduced, things would be different. Cost is one thing that gets people's attention. Clean air should be part of that mindset but unfortunately some cannot afford to think of that 1st. That's why Wal-Mart and it's evil work so well on the majority. Cheap, cheap, cheap, no matter the cost.

I could so do an EV now...waiting for a plug-in. ALL the arguments against EVs are bogus, IMHO.

Are any mfgs. out there listening? LET me choose to plug in my car!!!

America and the world has put up with enough crap from car pollution and one-source energy that seems to come from places that are bent on doing harm to Americans and others...

Be patriotic (if that helps the point)...plug-in and use domestic energy renewable sources. Sheesh, up here in S. Dakota, it's either windy or sunny!! C'mon what's not to like.

Cheers,

Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jul 1 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]279696[/snapback]</div>

Ah well, not ALL of them. Just the most common ones. There is no perfect car. EVs aren't the solution to all of our problems - they're just a WAY better idea than a gasoline car... for most people. And this is where most arguments go awry. The EV detractors want EVs to be perfect before they're willing to change teams. Have these people determined that gas cars are perfect? In what world? Who enjoys going to the gas station regularly? Having your oil changed regularly? Tuneups? Who enjoys sending their money out of the country to buy oil? Oop... I'll stop before I get on a real tear.

Thanks for the nice words, Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 30 2006, 09:30 AM) [snapback]279151[/snapback]</div>

Here is yet another review of Who Killed the Electric Car that explains how and why GM isn't the only one to blame. It also does a GREAT job of describing where political arguments fall apart.
http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/4092/47/

 

As for blaming car companys. I blame them all.

The big car companys really brainwashed a lot of American gearheads. They all believe in all the battery and EV myths GM throws around. I can only hope gas will be $5 soon. Then we will have more gearheads start to think differently when they work to pay for gas. :lol: