- Posted on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
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.
140 Comments
Paul
Forgive my skepticism, but I don’t see GM doing much to really change the face of automobile transportation.
Yes, they are researching a hydrogen fuel cell car, but that car is still at least four years off by your own estimation, and a decade off by others. It will not solve transportation troubles here and now.
Your hybrid vehicles are large SUVs that, while the improvement in mileage is commendable, get mileage comparable to a conventional passenger car that can serve 90% of the needs of the average driver. And E85, which you are trumpeting as a ‘green’ fuel, is truly far from it.
GM may not have killed the electric car, but it isn’t doing enough to convince people to drive smaller cars and to drive less. GM, to me, only wishes to change the face of transportation in a way that is profitable to them. E85 and mild hybrids in SUVs are profitable. Electric cars and less driving are not. This is understandable. We wouldn’t be expecting Nike to tell people to buy fewer shoes, would we?
We shouldn’t be looking to industry for leadership in reinventing our transportation systems, we should be looking to the government to set the rules by which industry operates.
MichiganDriver
Paul - I wish consumers worked as a pack and all bought fuel efficient vehciles. GM would be making them. GM, and every car manufacturer on the planet, makes the cars and trucks that people want to buy. I encourage you to buy the new Saturn VUE GreenLine or the Chevrolet Aveo which gets 35mpg. Most Americans don’t want these vehicles right now. That’s why Toyota is opening a new factory dedicated to big trucks. As for leadership, a billion dollar investment in hydrogen fuel cells by GM is impressive to me. As for the government making rules - like CAFE - that’s just a bandaid to our national security, environmental and energy problems. Let’s stop talking about opening up ANWR and perpetuating the problem. The federal government should be providing more investment and incentives into long-term solutions like hyrdrogen fuel cells. That would be real leadership: to preserve America’s technology lead, potentially to save us from war in the Middle East, and to eliminate the environmental impact of carbon-based fuels.
indi500fan
Timing is everything and the GM EV was designed and developed in a period when US fuel prices were very low.
Because of the low interest on the part of the buying public, the program was phased out. Unfortunately near the end of the phaseout there was a fuel price spike.
So it is quite easy to “Monday morning quarterback” GM’s decision to terminate the program.
Even at $3/gallon there does not seem to be that much interest in very small cars.
The Honda 2 seat hybrid of similar size to the EV1 is being discontinued also.
Paul
I wish consumers worked as a pack and all bought fuel efficient vehciles. GM would be making them. GM, and every car manufacturer on the planet, makes the cars and trucks that people want to buy.
I don’t believe this for a minute. The relationship between producers and consumers is not as simple as “if they want it, it will be built.” To think that, you’d have to ignore the role of advertising and the role of economies of scale affecting what will be produced.
Case in point: The EV1. There are consumers that would snap up an EV1 right now. But does GM produce them? Of course not. Why? Because the economies of scale aren’t there to produce them at a price that’s reasonable.
It’s widely known that the profit margins on SUVs are higher than on passenger cars. Therefore, GM is obligated, because of its duty to its shareholders to maximize profits, to advertise SUVs instead of passenger cars. And, by pushing the utility aspect of SUVs, they’ve succeeded in convincing a large segment of the population that they need an SUV.
And to counter the folks who will inevitably say that advertising doesn’t work: Why, then, is it an multi-billion dollar per year industry? Because it doesn’t work?
I encourage you to buy the new Saturn VUE GreenLine or the Chevrolet Aveo which gets 35mpg.
I am going to be selling my car in the near future and buying a motor scooter that gets 90+ mpg for the few trips I make that aren’t within walking distance. I can’t imagine having to park an SUV on my block.
And the Aveo’s 35mpg is pitiful for a car that size. If I were going to buy a car, I would buy a Fit, Yaris or Golf TDI. They get far superior mileage.
Most Americans don’t want these vehicles right now.
I beg to differ. Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai have all introduced new small cars in 2006. Dodge is even getting on board with their Hornet concept. They’re also expanding their line-up of hybrids. Maybe they’re aware of a market movement that GM isn’t.
As for the government making rules - like CAFE - that’s just a bandaid to our national security, environmental and energy problems.
Making rules is the single best way for the government to define how business should operate, and is a lot less expensive than direct investment. Instead of the government picking a solution, industry can innovate to find the best fit. Maybe it’s ethanol. Maybe it’s hydrogen. Maybe it’s electric cars.
But if the government picks a solution, all the other possibilities will be at a disadvantage, and technology would stagnate as we wait for a possibly unworkable technology to hit the scene.
If GM really wanted to do something that would convince me that they’re serious about fuel efficiency, they’d push to raise CAFE standards to where they would have been had they not been changed in 1986, and for that standard to include light trucks.
Jim Mbongo
Sometimes it is difficult to understand GM. Everyone knows how GM is losing market share, almost every day to imports. The reason is the lack of fuel efficient cars like Toyota Pruis, Camry or Honda Accord. What is so disturbing is that GM today has every technologies it takes to produce fuel efficient cars. But GM doesn’t want to use them. Instead of keep repeating every day the same think (10 cars that get at leat 30 mpg than the competition), I think in my view that it is now time that GM starts producing true electric and hybrid cars. Do you know how many MPG Saturn Green Line will get if two electric motors are added to its rear wheels, or how many MPG will get Cobalt, HHR or AVEO if one of this car is combined with an EV1. GM has all of these technologies. Why not GM stop talking about 30 MPG and uses them to produce true efficient cars that will get more that 30 MPG?
Jim Mbongo
Jeff Crew
Paul - Supply and demand. GM is the ONLY manufacturer to mass produce a pure electric vehicle and market it. They did not make a profit on this and surely customers that did buy (lease) one were paying dearly for them to be the “ultimate greenie” when they were not driving their other SUV’s or luxury cars. Someone should make a movie about the Toyota Prius on how it does not come close to its MPG ratings and the fake goodwill Toyota gets for it. You would think Toyota engineers fart clean air! Either way, GM is being slammed again for doing something no other OEM has done. They cancelled the program because they were losing money on the deal and that is simply a good business decision. GM would have made more if demand was there and they could turn a profit. Look at how many other manufacturers there are in the world that have not made a production viable electric car. Good for you GM for trying something new. It is too bad that it did not work out, but that is the natural balance of supply and demand. GM should sue for slander after being thrown under the bus. How does one fight a major movie dedicated to a project that was tried and failed? Then they go after the Hummer??? Look at how many of them are sold per year… not that many. They stand out in a crowd and get lots of attention for looking good and performing well off road. I am surprised the NY Times did not create this movie.
Robert
You guys should crash the premier, show up with the hydrogen vehicles and have big bob make a speech.
Make a statement GM. Show the world what you do. Not everyone knows about and reads this blog.
Mike Stone
it seems really strange to me how so many anti-GM people are willing to bash a company for the suvs it produces [which get better mileage than the toyotas,nissans,masdas,fords,chryslers in the same class of vehicle], but they don’t seem to notice the fuel efficient vehicles that are produced by GM,[ like the cobalt, saturn,smaller buicks and pontiacs], it is people like this paul chump, and mr. bekker, who have perpetuated this anti-american corporation sentiment to the point that, to stay competetive in the american market we have to out-source quite a bit of work to other countries. kind of counter productive isn’t it? i say to mr.bekker and paul–go to other countries like i have,and truly look at the middle class living standards,and ask yourself—how did we get here— companies like GM and FORD and Motorola, singer,dodge, and RCA, GENERAL ELECTRIC, and many others helped create this middle class [that is rapidly shrinking],we have had to compete with countries that use slave labor, have NO ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS [you DO breathe the pollution that these countries make, by the way],So, paul, and bekker how about you go home and turn everything in your house upside down and look for the “made in america” logo, i,m sure the results will suprise you [since you haven't been paying attention] and ask your self,am i part of the problem, or am i part of the solution.[bitching doesn't count], i may have paid more for my GM product, but all of my vehicles [three] have surpased the three hundred thousand mile mark, and as a certified foreign and domestic vehicle technician, i can assure you, i have seen very few toyotas,hondas,nissans,volkswagons,volvos,or any other make for that matter[except for mercedes], that can realisticly do that, and most of those are running on will power alone[you would not believe the crap i've seen!]i have to hold back from slapping some rabid environmentalist when i see him driving off in a smoking honda. by the way, just because a car gets good mileage,doesn’t mean that it is clean.
Edward Hayes
It was cute to see the Toyota Yaris suck up drops of gas from the gas hose monster. What if GM would use its flex Chevy Impala to suck up corn plants? What if GM promoted an EV2 electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle at about the time the movie premieres? And that is how image and perceptions are born.
I don’t consider GM in financial danger anymore and I think it is ready to break out into it greatest period of expansion that it has not seen since its heydays of the 30’s or 50’s. It will come in three ways.
1. Design
Cars like the Camaro, Solstice, HHR, H3 will be joined by breakouts such as the Holden FJ Efijy, H4 and Hummer pickups, Aero X, just to name a few.
2. Synergies
As GM for the first time works as one single automaker.
Daewoo helps Chevrolet
Heritage Holden helps Buick
Holden RWD helps Pontiac
Opel helps Saturn
Cadillac helps Saab
and vice-versa
3. Technologies
Namely fuel and fuel saving technology. GM is ready to HEED what the customer wants concerning energy.
H - Hydrogen, Hybrid
E - Ethanol
E - Electric
D - Diesel
GM is taking the lead, I think in all of these technologies and we must consider all of them.
Diesel
is important because Biofuels is to Diesel what Ethanol is to Gasoline only better. A 100% ratio of biofuel can be used in an unmodified post ‘93 diesel engine, and it is Made in the USA with crops or recycled oil. GM’s commitment to diesel is underlined with recent business decisions in Europe.
Electric
A GM article recently stated it is in fact working on a plug in electric vehicle that will best the Prius for mileage.
Ethanol
The “Live Green Go Yellow” campaign contributed to a 200% increase in FlexFuel sales. It is also contributing to the fastest growth in ethanol production the world has ever seen from Brazil to Japan from metropolitan Houston to the iislands of the Pacific. Last count has 70 new ethanol facilities being added to the existing 101 by the end of 2007.
GM has a record number of flexfuel vehicles on tap for 2007, it will not hurt to increase that even more. The ethanol ship is coming right from your local farmer.
Hydrogen
Even GM’s critics will acknowledge it is the undisputed leader in this. With each new hydrogen model GM introduces the cost and technology is a big leap closer to production with lower costs and an ever evolving and more practical design.
So all I can say is…
Thank You GM for the cars and energy
Made in the good ‘ole US of A.
Susan
I didn’t read all the comments but the one that really got to me is the one about how the government needs to make more policy. Ha!
(The more we are governed the less we are free!)
Don’t you think that it is time to put the responsibility onto the the consumer. The one item on a vehcile that I like it the instant fuel mileage. This make the consumer aware of the vehicles fuel consumption by the why they drive. If all vehicles were required to have the instant fuel mileage next to the speed, maybe the consumer would realize that they get better mileage when they slow down.
I think it is time to stop blaming the auto manufacturers because they want to provide the customer with what they want. It’s time to stop making govenment policy that blame and punish the manufacturer for providing the customer with what they want.
It is time to put the blame where it really belongs, on the consumer. Educate the consumers on their roles to improve fuel efficiency by the way they drive and not by what they drive.
Susan
The Pontiac Vibe get the same gas mileage as the Yaris. If you buy a front wheel drive, standard transmission Vibe, you can get 40 miles to the gallon. This is the same as the Yaris.
All I ask is that people find what is good by comparing vehicles, do your research instead of having someone tell you what is good.
sheth
The thing I love about GM bashers like Paul is that they never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to slam GM and praise Toyota. I would like to know why people think only GM is in the car business to make money, as if Toyota/Honda aren’t after the same goal. It is not GM’s job to convince people to buy small cars and the fact that GM decided to redesign it’s SUVs does not mean that they have abandoned cars or are “pushing” gas guzzlers. Toyota isnt pushing it’s gas guzzlers because it doesnt want people to notice it makes them and they are not best in class and thus Toyota would be silly to waste marketing dollars on those vehicles.
Whomever said GM is only applying hybrid technology to trucks is incorrect because the Aura and Malibu are also going to feature the system on the Vue Greenline. And that is only what we know about, I’m sure there are more models. If the full size SUV is to survive it is critical that hybrid technology be applied. You cannot consider a Tahoe that gest 27mpg on the highway (25% better than current one) to be environmentally irresponsible. The 300 with a V6 gets the same mileage for comparison.
BTW Paul, you are crazy if you think DOdge is more comitted to small cars than GM. DC doesnt even make a compact sedan nor do they offer a subcompact like the Aveo/Fit/YAris. The mileage on the caliber RT is absolutely terrible, only the weak base engine gets respectable fuel economy. Ford beat GM to the hybrid game but GM is ahead of Chrysler on that front. The only confirmed Chrysler hybrid is the 2008 durango using the two mode system developed by GM. Chrysler has made no announcements about hybrid cars or compact SUVs as of yet.
Aslo, GM did not convince people they needed SUVS, you really need to give consumers more credit. People liked the versatility and ride height of SUVS and thus they became popular. In case you didn’t know, Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Nissan make large SUVs and MB just launched one. Obviously a lot of people thought there was a demand for large SUVs with less than stellar mileage.
Bob
All I can say is I wish you luck at 35mpg highway you should sell about 10 of those things.
Do the people at GM think we cant read? Look at he Prius with the modified Li-Ion pack.
90 to 100 mpg.
Look at the Smart car. Hybrid Technologies all electric LiIon conversions are backordered for months.
How about compressed air assist as a cheap way to
inocrease mileage since most of the energy is wasted making a car take off while only ~ 20hp is needed to sustain highway speeds.
Flex Fuel is nice but whats the CO2 output, fresh air?Worse yet E85 is selling at 4 to $5 per gallon.
How about Diesel?
What I am saying is there is tech pouring out onto the streets and you are talking about 3 plus year plans.
The Vue is not bad buts its a poor offering when comparing it to the current competition.
Bob
R. Titus
I think this is a heartfelt and well-meaning post and I commend that. I will not take issue with the areas of your post where we simply disagree, I’ll leave that to our film to state our beliefs, but I want to set the factual record straight on one matter.
THERE WERE NO ADVANCE SCREENERS GIVEN TO ANYONE IN THE FILM BY THE PRODUCERS. In the interest of preserving editorial integrity, our answer to this quite common request was and continues to be that people should go see the film, I hope that you will do the same.
Best regards
C. Johnson
Some of the comments I’m reading here are “Who’s was hiding on the Grassy Knoll” conspiracy theory material. I don’t want to go through my life thinking that our government and large corporations are hiding behind every rock in my back yard, just waiting jump out and make my life difficult for me. The EV-1 was a flop because the American Public collectively decided it would be a flop. There was no big brother, Grassy Knoll conspiracy here.
Paul
“The Pontiac Vibe get the same gas mileage as the Yaris. If you buy a front wheel drive, standard transmission Vibe, you can get 40 miles to the gallon. This is the same as the Yaris.”
Wrong. EPA estimates on the Vibe are 30/36 for the FWD five speed. EPA estimates for the Yaris are 34/40 for the FWD five speed.
“The thing I love about GM bashers like Paul is that they never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to slam GM and praise Toyota.”
Where in either of my posts was I praising Toyota? Yeah, I said I’d buy a Fit, Yaris or Golf TDI because they’d get better mileage than the Aveo for the size. But that hardly qualifies as “GM bashing.”
If Toyota had a blog, I’d be on there, too. I’d be accusing them of turning hybrid efficiency into just another way to cram more power into already overpowered cars. But this is GM’s blog, so I’m going to point out their flaws.
Ted
I get tired of hearing how great the mileage is on Toyotas and how bad it is on GM cars across the board. There’s more to an engine than gas mileage, and there’s a fundamental difference in engine design philosophy between GM and Honda and Toyota. GM leans towards designing engines that develop their peak torque at a lower rpm and have a broader tourque curve than Honda and Toyota. Case in point; before I bought my G6 GTP Coupe, I drove a top-line Solara and Accord Coupe. This is how the 3 cars engines stack up.
Accord
3.0 Liter 244hp
211lbs/5000 rpm torque
MPG 21/29
Solara
3.3 Liter 210hp
220lbs/3600 rpm torque
MPG 20/29
GTP Coupe
3.9 Liter 240hp
241lbs/2800 rpm torque
MPG 18/26
Its immediately obvious that the GTP gets less EPA gas mileage. The larger the engine, the more fuel it will inherently take. It also seems at first glance that the Accord, with the smaller engine, has more power than the G6. And if you were using your car strictly for road racing at Watkins Glen, you’d be correct. However, the torque figures mean far more in the real world than the horsepower. The GTP’s higher torque at a lower rpm means having much more power available in real world situations, such as pulling out onto a highway or passing. How often does anyone drive their car around revving at 5000 rpm ? The Toyota/Honda numbers look good in print, but don’t work as well in the real world. Those who are skeptical of this should simply go to the dealers and try these cars out, one after the other. In this type of car, I’m willing to sacrifice 2-3 mpg (much less inreal world driving) to have gobs of power at the ready without the need to keep the engine in a narrow power band.
Where I would agree with some detractors of GM is when you compare the Yaris, Fit, and Aveo. These cars are usually bought with gas mileage and price being the major factors. This is how they stack up.
Aveo
1.6 liter 103hp
107lbs/3600 rpm
26/35 or 24/34MPG
Fit
1.5 liter 109hp
105lbs/4800 rpm
31/38 MPG
Yaris
1.5 liter 106hp
130lbs/4200 rpm
34/39
The Aveo does have a slightly larger engine than the other two cars, and develops its torque at a much lower RPM, but loses too much MPG in the process. Although the peak torque is higher on the Fit and Yaris, the Aveo is developing its peak at a lower rpm, so there will be little difference in performance in real world driving situations. Since MPG is so important with these type of cars, GM needs to improve the Aveo’s MPG to compete.Perhaps the 2007 model will close this gap.
Edwin
GM execs,
The EV-1 had an unconventional body style, that was most likel the reason the sales were low. It looked a bit funny.
Why not simply offer the EV-1 powerplant in an Aveo, a Vibe, or a Saturn. Let the customer ask for it. See what happens. They would probably ask for it, but the advertising and public relatsion benefit would outweigh the costs.
Thats what hybrids seemed to do for the competition, they make no money on them, but they create a perception.
This goes back to the much repeated theme, GM should be making the news instead of taking it on the cheek.
GM should continue its turnaround plan, its working.
GM should NOT be a part of any alliance with Renault/Nissan. This is more the taking it on the cheek news that keeps coming out of the wood works. Such news is severly dissappointing to GM loyalists and it will hurt sales, it would drive away your loyal customers. If we had wanted car from a foreign rival, we would have already gotten one.
GM’s base wants a pure GM product without interference from foreign rivals. GM loyalists might like to see the EV-1 powerplant offered again in a conventional body style. It was ahead of its time.
Remember, its GM loyalists, your base customer that support shareholder value. GM customers love new GM cars, we are the driving force for new sales in the community. GM is sold out of the good options on the lots.
Right now the Lucerne and the CTS are at a critical point in the selling year when the popular combos sell out and the new stuff has yet to arrive.
The Lucerne CXS and CXL are practically sold out in the good colors. They only have 2 CXL left and they are both the same color.
People especially want the CXS and CXL in Cashmere, and White Gold Flash. People want leather from the factory, they don’t want after market add-on from dealer as much since after market add-on leather makes the seats too hard. We’re not sure if they just cover up the cloth or what, but its not quite the same as the factory. People prefer the black grille on the CXL and CXS Lucerne, not the chromed grille on the CX.
These are the little things that can make a big difference in sales.
People like the wheel design on the CXL and CXS better than the CX. People visiting Buick dealers are trying to decipher the letter scheme on the Lucerne to find the popular options. You know when people take the time to start reading the letters, they are seeking certain options with certain “looks.”
GM car customers have a higher level of taste, that means we like you.
GM stock will be even higher when more products are unveiled. People are going to buy them, they have already been selling out of what people want.
GM engineers are building and designing beautiful cars, and merchandising seems to misbalance the inventory with too many of the wrong option packages left on the lots. Too many CX, and not enough selection in CXL and CXS on the lots.
Cadillac CTS has ‘too many’ leatherette on the lots, not enough leather, and not enought in light colors. Make a light cream colored leather like some of the foreign competition to complement the popular cashmere color. There too many grey and black color combos in the CTS. Make two tone white gold flash color combos with darker rocker panels down below. Add a cashmere color, watch, people will choose it over silver.
Why is there no cashmere, bronze mist, or white gold flash offered on the CTS. Why are there no light cream colored leathers?
It’s color and seats that are the selling trends on the CTS. People love the car, but go to the lot and don’t quite find the one or two colors that grab them.
What ends up left over on the lot starts to hurt perception for new first time buyers who see their friends Cadillac and go to the lot only to see misbalanced inventory left. The same with Buick.
Let’s see GM have a quicker sell- thru on the not so popular color/seat combinations earlier in the season, and get back in business on the popular ones. Do this and your gross margin will improve by leaps and bounds.
The Lucerne and the CTS are GM’s two most important cars right now with a most important customer base that really wants to see GM excell. These higher taste level customers will drive other sales in the community for you in the right neighborhoods.
Suppose our friends go to look at the CTS, they like the style and they heard it was a hot car, when they get to the lot all they have left is leatherette in black and silver? Are they going to buy today?
Suppose they go to look at Lucernces and there is only one CXL left on the lot, surrounded by the CX with chromed grilles are they going to buy a CXL today?
Don’t make deals with foreign rivals and drive away GM loyalists.
Why not dust of the EV-1 and show it off in a conventional body style? Let people order it.
Joseph Lado
GM had 2 parallel hybrid and a series versions of the EV1 ready for production. It also had a 4 door version. Why did they not produce those and beat Toyota to the punch. GM also had made a bunch of S-1O Electrics, which were S-10 pickup trucks with the EV1 drive train worked into them. Why did they crush these too? The S-10 is the same vehicle underneath as the Chevy Blazer SUV and GMC Jimmy. Since they made a pickup truck with the EV1 drive train why didn’t they produce an SUV? I wanted to buy an EV1 and never got the chance. I have a large group or friends that wanted to buy the EV1 and never got the chance. I know of thousands of other groups like mine across the country who wanted to buy the EV1 but never got the chance. I am sure that there was a market big enough for the EV1 across the country. Why didn’t GM sell the vehicle everywhere? Why? If people objected to the short range of the EV1, I am sure that no one would object to the series hybrid version. Very long range is not a problem for me. The longest I have traveled by car in the last 10 years has been about 150 miles. About the outer range of the EV1. All I would need to do to go 200 miles is to stop for food for about an hour. If so many people wanted a clean electric vehicle across the country why did GM choose to sell it only in California? Why did GM pull the plug on the electic car? Was it the oil companies? Was it consumers? Was it the car look? Was it just a stupid move by a company could have lead the world in alternative and hybrid vehicles? It begs the question. Who Killed the Electric Car? I think I might see the movie to see what all parties involved have to say. Go see the movie. It is not a violation of religion like watching porn or something.
Andy Kim
It’s just remarkable to me how many people would not give GM the benefit of the doubt. Just so that people know, here’s what I believe. GM believes acceptable cars and GM is much better than before. (This is not to say that I think GM products are exceptional.)
I take exception to all the response that GM has made in regards to the various comments about GM’s environmental policy. It certainly acted like a child with a scraped knee when Tom Friedman of New York Times called it a threat to the US security. In response to Friedman and to movies like Who Killed the Electric car, GM has been talking about E85, how many models of cars that they offer with good mileage, work on fuel cells/hydrogen-based energy, etc.
I say “nice try” but it’s not much of anything. E85, etc. Come on. How many people even knew that their cars can take the fuel? If it was such an important feature, how come it was never advertised until now? I think Friedman is on to you guys when he sussed out the fact that it’s done for CAFE reasons.
But more important is that GM really doesn’t have anything comparable to the Prius. Complain if you will but GM hybrid technology (for the retail market) is really not at the current standard of excellence.
I can’t take any more of this talk of fuel cells. Hydrogen-based energy. That’s great. Why not work on cold fusion-based cars? I think corporate R&D is terrific and it should be encouraged. But, please, don’t strut out your decades long (not too successful) research and tell me that that’s the best you got against the Prius. The Toyota hybrid is here and now and making a difference. No amount of sandcastle in the sky is going to change the fact that you don’t have a competing product, today.
Get back to work, stop writing these tone-deaf responses that makes you sound even worse. No amount of talk is going to change the fact that, in today’s environment of $70/barrel oil, your new 2006 models consists basically of totally redesigned SUV’s. Sorry. Not buying much of your story.
Joseph Lado
Way to put it Andy. People keep telling me that I am GM bashing, but I am not. I want GM to get its act together. I want GM to win. GM is not going to win through rhetoric. GM is not going to win by saying, “that’s my story and I am sticking with it.” GM is in trouble. The only way it is going to find its way out of its problems is by facing facts. The world is changed and cheap gasoline is no longer allowing most American’s to choose a big SUV. The world is changing, and Al Gore is talking about Gobal Warming. The question I would be asking myself is, What does GM have to sell to the public in this ever changing world? It is not that GM is too big, it is not that GM doesn’t have the ability to innovate, the EV1 is proof that GM can innovate. The problem with GM is that its culture bad. Really bad. GM needs new leadership, visionary leadership, bold leadership to get out of one of the most difficult problems that companies face, a culture that can not act in the company’s best interests and justifies its action with its own self generated rhetoric. I worked hard to try to save the EV1. I would work just as hard to save GM. GM has with in it the talent and ablility to not just survive its current crisis, but come out on top. I see a series hybrid SUV that can plug-in and use Ethanol. All the technology has been developed by GM. All GM needs to do is put it in a market ready car SOLD and PRICED correctly.
Lisa
The United States is currently facing the possible confluence of the following issues (admittedly debated):
1) peak oil; 2) the world-wide rise of various branches of fundamentalism & associated geopolitical instability/ conflict; 3) global warming; 4) excessive levels of government and consumer debt; and 5) H5N1 or other global flu pandemic.
Any Fortune 500 company that is not performing scenario risk analyses around these factors is simply not being responsive to their shareholders, much less their customers.
There is no economic analysis, in a risk sense, for car companies, that supports much beyond the rapid development of hybrids, particularly plug-in hybrids.
After watching Gore’s film and the film on the electric car, my next car will be a Toyota. At least they had the intelligence to see they made a mistake, looked at the longer term profit window and came out with a very profitable hybrid.
James Rubinstein
Dear Mr. Barthmuss,
I want to lay a proposition out for you… email me.
Interesting how this particular blog has more comments than most of the others combined, isn’t it? Has GM asked themselves why people CARE about a car that died five years ago? The EV1 was vastly ahead of its time, and shows what people (and corporations) CAN do when they put their minds to it.
The worst mistake GM made with the EV1 was letting Michael Shnayerson (I’m sorry if I spelled that incorrectly) document the process of its creation. Why is that a mistake? Because it showed what a cool company GM COULD be, if they wanted to be. Every part of that vehicle flew in the face of conventional wisdom at GM during that time. I think that is why GM was so scared of that car, it showed that even GM had a faster, more efficient way of designing and building cars, cars that could help alleviate America’s dependence on foreign oil. I don’t think ‘big oil’ pressured you into destroying those cars, I think YOU pressured YOURSELVES into it. The only reason the EV1 existed at all was because some enterprising managers at GM TOOK A CHANCE on something very different than what GM has produced before or since. I think that scared a lot of people in GM’s management. They felt they had to get rid of the EV1 lest the evidence of GM’s abilities be discovered.
You cannot pin the destruction of those vehicles on ‘poor demand’. Or ‘poor’ anyhting really. Why didn’t you give the cars away rather than crush them? I understand there is some liabilty to selling cars that don’t have factory support and replacement parts (which was the original story, several years ago). But if the cars were given away with the legal understanding of no liability for GM, then why not do it. It certainly wasn’t a lack of demand, there were at least several hundred people who would have been delighted to keep EV1s from the scrap heap. I was one of them. I even wrote GM corporate an email asking if they’d give one to me instead of crushing it. My answer was of course, “no”. Apparently GM felt the cars needed to be DESTROYED, not just taken off the road.
It really is a shame those cars were destroyed because a public relations dream (the EV1) became a PR nightmare (because a film actually calls you out on it). Frankly, I’m surprised no one made a film like this MUCH sooner.
The EV1 was a landmark piece of engineering. If it were still for sale, how great a PR move would that be…”GM the only car maker who produces super-clean electric vehicles” or “GM tells Osama Bin Laden to kiss America’s (censored by the author), we don’t need your filthy oil”. Ahhh, I can dream can’t I.
What made the Ev1 so great wasn’t that it was an Ev, it was just such a fresh approach to cars (for GM). Small, dedicated engineering teams, working on a project from start to finish, low lag time, short production time, small production runs, and total commitment to a great product are what made the Ev1 great, in fact that sort of thinking is what made the Japanese car makers so great, too.
Incidentally, I haven’t seen the movie you are referring to. I saw it all unfold on the news pages of http://www.evworld.com/ I suggest you check it out.
Also, I’m not some ‘treehugging granola type’. I live my life like everyone else, although I may be a bit more concerned about our environment than most. I don’t drive a import either. I drive a GM minivan and a Ford sedan.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
James Rubinstein
Chris Burrell
I think one relevant historical fact that is being over looked here is that GM was involved in a conspiracy that killed public ‘rail’ transit in favor of busses.
I believe they are doing the same thing with fuel efficient vehicles for the same reson: profit. GM does not care one fig about promoting the public good. GM only cares about profit, and the EV1 was not profitable, as public ‘rail’ transit is not profitable. Expecting GM to champion the public good at the expense of their profit is quite foolish.
The advertising for the EV1 was horrible. It seemed like they were trying to not sell it. As it was not quite profitable, that made sense. they spent just enough to say “we tried, but no one wanted it”. Timing was, also, an issue. The EV1 would garner more interest today than it did when it was produced because of gas prices and because of raised environmental awareness. GM could have clobbered the Prius if they had thought it profitable to do so.
Two weeks ago, my 1994 Honda Accord, that ran beautifully with about 150,000 miles, was wrecked by a careless driver who spun out on the freeway. Currently, I am driving a rental Aveo until the insurance company give me a writeoff check so I can look into buying a Yaris or something. The Aveo is not bad, but it is not as nice as the Yaris I test drove.
What I would like in a car is reliable driving at speeds upto 60-65 mph. Any faster is a waste. I don’t like SUV’s or the sheeple who drive them. SUV’s, like trucks, obstruct driving visibility. Most people don’t need an SUV.
What this country needs is leadership in real beneficial transportation options. Light rail would be worlds better than single person automobiles for intercity transit. Why is it that countries like Germany, Japan, and even France leave the US in the dust when it comes to high speed commuter transit.
GM and the other automakers are living in a world that no longer exists. Literally, it never existed at all, and their pursuit of profit has done much harm to our civilization, and we let them get away with it.
We could have paradise on Earth, but we won’t because it is not profitable.
Gigi
I just viewed the film Who Killed the Electric Car, and I left the theater in a rage!
GM says that there wasn’t any demand for the EV1, yet John Dabels, who was head of their marketing team for the car said that the sort of consumer enthusiasm for that car was something he had never seen before—thousands of people, literally from around the world, were lining up to get information about this innovative new electric car. HOWEVER, GM made it very difficult for consumers to get any information at all about the car. They also forced people to fill out lengthy resumés when applying for a lease - even Mel Gibson had to fill one out! If they were so serious about their commintment to the EV1 they should have GIVEN one to him!!
No interest in the EV1? GM says that is contacted all of the people who were on the waiting list for EV1s, and after telling them the limitations of the car (cost of the lease, short range, etc.) they opted out. DUH! Do you think if Ford told people that their SUVs would rollover when they turned corners that they’d have purchased them? Or what if Ford told customers that their Pintos would explode if they were rear-ended? You think they’d have rushed to the dealerships to buy one?
What about the “award winning” ads that GM talks of? Why is it that no one ever saw these ads? The one I did see - in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” -
looked as though it were advertising an alien invasion!
Most telling of all: what did GM do with their 60% share in Ovonic Battery Company? They sold it to Texaco!! I think there should be a class action suit brought against GM and Texaco, making them pay for the healthcare costs of all of the people in California who have respiratory problems as a direct result of the malicious way in which they’ve conducted their business. After all, GM is responsible for buying up all of the electric trolleys in southern California & replacing them with buses built by them! Can anyone say: SMOG ALERT?
stock holder
I don’t believe it was any kind of diabolical plot, but I do think it was a lack of vision and leadership that led GM away from electric or hybrid technology and towards the financial problems they’re in now. Now they’re playing catch up to Toyota and Honda on the hybrid market when they could have been leading it.
The chase for short term SUV dollars is to blame! I hope GM’s leadership gets their focus back and starts taking the lead back.
Henry Gibson
GM engineers could have taken about a day to figure out how to incorporate a HONDA EU3000IS generator and a five gallon gas tank into their EV1 car and made it into the best Hybrid Car anywhere. Such a car could drive at 45-50 miles per hour for over eight hours after the batteries were discharged. Four-Hundred miles is a good range for people worried about getting home on low batteries. Low speed on remote Nevada freeway might irritate the few people who might have to pass but where in the LA CA area can anyone drive an average of 45 mph for eight hours straight or even fifteen minutes. The even smaller HONDA EU1000 weighs less than 30 pounds, but still puts out enought power to recharge an EV1’s batteries while at work or shopping at the mall, and it is CARB certified. European car makers had 100 mile per charge cars on the public roads in private hands long before EV1 hit the road. Henry Ford knew how to create demand for cars: Sell them cheaper. The ancient saying “If wishes were horses beggars would ride” still applies: More people buy Volkswagens than Merceedes. All of the EV1 cars would have sold for a 100 to a 1000 times the price received for the shredded iron…..
Fritz
The EV1 was never anywhere to be found here in TN. It was mythical car sold (ahem- leased) somewhere else.
It could have served my needs for the past 10 yrs just fine even with the 1990’s technology. I commute about 300 miles a week. I’m never more than 15 miles from home.
I’d like you understand why we aren’t GM customers. We choose to drive two four cylinder vehicles now (’99 CR-V and ‘97 VW Cabrio). The Cabrio b/c I had a successful run with a 200K Rabbit in Italy and this Cabrio is a direct decendant of that car. Proven for 135K miles with me. And I have the skills to repair it. The Honda is Honda #5 for us. 125K miles. Both will see 200K before we get rid of them. Both are on the original engine, no rust, good cold a/c, etc. Cabrio is on tranny #2 replaced at 100K miles because the previous owner was a hard shifter. Ruined the synchronizers I was told. Each has been excellent, the Honda FLAWLESS - maintenance only. Cabrio’s problems have been minor and very inexpensive to repair. Mostly due to previous owner’s neglect.
Any future replacement vehicles will be more frugal than our 26mpg CR-V and the 34 mpg Cabrio. We have chosen to use a method common when I lived in Italy for the first half of the 1990’s (Navy) when gas was $5 a gallon. Two very frugal city cars, 1 nicer car reserved for the weekend travel or out of town travel in the garage. That car might only see 5K miles a year, and will last decades if we want. Will prob be a VW Eurovan Weekender (wish I could get a turbo diesel = 30mpg+) or a turbo diesel Passat wagon (35-40 mpg).
Back to the city cars. They must have a/c and 4 doors. Slow is okay. Hey - an electric would do fine wouldn’t it? A hybrid would do fine too! (and not that idle stop gadget GM is planning to sell but a REAL hybrid in a small car).
The four door Aveo would do just fine but my larger and heavier ‘97 Cabrio gets within 1-2 mpg now with 135K miles and 9 yr-old technology. Hmmm. The motovation to buy an Aveo would be??? For that matter my grandmother’s 2001 Buick Century gets 31-32 mpg with 3 adults and the a/c on. I think the Aveo needs to be getting more like 45 mpg. Somebody needs to start examining why the Aveo gets the miserable mileage it does (all relative). And a Daewoo? No thanks. I require my cars to last 200K miles. All of the Daewoos I see are falling apart. Now is that the cheap owner or the cheap car?
Back to an all-electric car - many, many Americans could drive an all-electric to work and school easily. Make the batteries priced reasonably and none of this 100%+ dealer markups please. That’s why I do my own repairs. Where does the electricity come from? From the same places we get it now, only more of it. If the demand is there the power plants will be built. If the power comapnies are building plants then new ideas will recieve funding. Big oil gets cut from the loop but oh well. Alternative energy? Bring it on! Why should we rely on coal and oil for our energy needs? How much roof footage is in America? Cover 1/2 of each with solar and our demand on the power plants drops to how low??? Add wind power to the places that can support it and how much more does the demand drop? Off-shore wind in Marth’s Vineyard so they can see windmills. The rest of us look at smoke stacks of coal plants… Share the pain you elite bastards!
We have so much technological potential in this country with current technology but we are good sheep and just keep buying and using what is easy and profitable for the big corps. I’ll be adding solar power to our house. It will supplement what we get from TVA to reduce or eliminate our bill. Is it cost effective? Yes. It pays for itself in under 10 yrs. (I have heard reports of systems paying for themselves in 7 yrs in some locations).
I think GM that you folks need to go on a HUGE PR campaign and SHOW America (us current import buyers) that you are committed to the smaller cars like you are commited to the large truck and SUV segments. Change your marketting style. Sell those cars to adults. Make those cars for the adults. Make them nice and pleasing to look at (see the BMW Mini!) and safe. Make them durable.
IF the imports win the truck market then you folks will be in a very, very bad business place. You can only feed off the “made in America” mentality for so long. There will be a day when people will take notice of the foriegn content and foreign assembly lines that their “American” cars come from. I am already noticing a change in people who were previously die-hard buy/drive American ONLY people. They are noticing the nice imports that last, last, last.
We have driven VWs and Hondas first b/c we like them, 2nd because I can work on them (10+ yrs of working on this brand in my garage) and 3rd b/c they come from companies who make an effort to make good small cars sold to adults. You do this too - in Europe. I loved all of the Opels I drove in Europe. I admired the Calibra 16v turbo AWD. I admire the current twin-top Vauxhall/Opel Astra. I’d very much like to have a GOOD small Opel car with a turbo diesel. Take an Opel, get it certified to the USA and don’t change a THING. Quit with the ugly trim and lighting - alright? ( early Saturn Vue for one).
Sell us a GOOD 100% electric. Make it clear that it is suited for short trips in the city. Educate the average unimaginative American driver about how and when to use a small vehicle in your marketting. Yes the Yaris/Aveo/Fit is small, no it can’t tow a boat, and yes it is noisy and underpowered on the highway. DUH! However as a city and short distance runabout it is EXCELLENT. Too many American buyers think they have to buy the largest, fastest, and heaviest vehicle they can afford. Good for your profit margin for sure and I’m sure you like it that way and INDIRECTLY you’ve prob helped train the American auto buyer to be like this.
A full electric like the EV with some GOOD looks would sell faster than you could build them. Imagine an electric Mini with 150 miles of full-electric range. Wow, I’d buy one. Not lease one - understand? That is prob why your EV1 died. And the “resume” hoop. Of course it was probably just a “halo” car like the SSR which was intended to get GM into people’s imagination, but never really intended to sell very well. I’d buy an SSR if they weren’t priced about the same as a Corvette. geez. Oh that’s right - I buy used. Never mind.
One thing is for sure that GM KNOWS how to build a good car and a good truck/SUV but there is obviously NOT much effort put into the small car segment. When I drive a small GM car it certainly feels like I am being punished for being cheap. When I get into a small VW or a small Honda it feels like I’m driving the best car they could make for the money. They took last year’s design and made it just a little better rather than just using the same parts for 15 yrs with a fresh face put on it every 3 yrs. I wouldn’t mind buying a 1985 VW GTI (like you can in South Africa today) if the price reflected the fact that the design was paid for ages ago.
Well, that is enough rambling. GM sells what it wants to sell. You have the imagination and capability to build cars but that is not always what we get. I don’t know if it is the corporate culture stiffling itself, if it is the upper management which has the final decision, if it is the bean counters, the “focus groups” or what but you need to keep building the big trucks b/c you do that well but you need to steal a few engineers from an import company and start building us some good small cars with 4 cylinder engines worth raving about.
And avoid the Renault/Nissan thing. And re-badging. Keep bring Opels over as Saturns. I’m going to look at them next time we go to buy a car. Drop the Saturn name and just call them Opels. And put the Saturn pricing all across your dealer network. And combine your dealers so that all dealers sell all GMs. Ridiculous to have separate dealers when they are all selling GMs.
I’m done now…
Chris in Cookeville, TN
‘78 VW Westfalia with 110HP Corvair and 4 speed tranny
‘65 Beetle 2.0L
‘97 VW Cabrio Highline
‘99 Honda CR-V EX AWD
Maargen B.
For those of you who continue to repeat the party line that there was no demand for the EV1, please tell me how many ads did you see, nationwide, for this product? Then, please tell me how many ads we see, nationwide, for SUVs.
It would seem to me that since the public wants SUVs so much, they dont need much advertising. The advertising dollars could then be spent on the EV1, since a major objective of advertising is to create demand.
Also, why were these cars leased rather than sold from the very beginning? Please let me know what other models of car GM has done this with. Is this standard practice among car companies: to refuse to sell to people merchandise that they want to buy?
GM talks about the high cost of producing the car, then doesn’t want to sell the ones already produced, thereby defraying some of the costs they had already incurred. The customers, since they were lessees, already had experience with the car and knew what they were getting. Did GM ask them to sign a waiver acknowledging that GM would not accept responsibility for the upkeep of the car before deciding to take the cars away and destroy them?
Rather than discuss the EV1, GM changes the subject to hybrids and hydrogen. The EV1 would get better mileage and have lower emmissions that GM hybrids. SELL THE EV1!
Tim
So Dave from GM Communications posts some “facts,” part of which directly contradicts what he said in the movie, and we’re all supposed to believe it? It looks like this is mostly a GM cheerleading board, except for poor Paul who is being called crazy for doubting a PR guy. As we all know, the purpose of PR is to, at best, spin the truth, and if necessary flat-out lie.
Excuse me but I refuse to drink the group Kool-aid. Those refuting conspiracy theories between the government, GM (and other car manufacturers) and big oil simply don’t want to see the facts. And this is happening in far more cases that that of the EV. It happens daily on a number of issues.
Now, feel free to disparage me and call me a conspiracy theorist. I still know a rat when I see one.
Tony
Imagine how many ev-1 electrics GM would sell today.They’d be selling thousands of them.If you went by GM’s logic,about consumers,we’d still be using 8 track cassette players.
I feel a revolution in the air.
Kasia Yechimowicz
There is no acceptable excuse for discontinuing and destroying the EV-1. Everyone wants a cheap, reliable car. Bring them back. Bring them back now!
John
What has happened to the almighty General? The cash strapped, mismanaged company is selling off non core operations faster than it can bring profit generating products to market. Diesel engines were non core, so sell Detroit Diesel, your diesel engine division. Now we will forge an alliance with Fiat to gain diesel engine technology, which we will later decide is not such a great idea and pay Fiat a large sum of money to abandon that partnership. In 1990 we put a for sale sign on Allison, sold the aircraft engine division to Rolls Royce and almost sold transmission division to ZF of Germany, US antitrust did not allow that to happen. Now Allison Division is celebrated for its development of Diesel Electric hybrid drive system for busses. Too bad Detroit Diesel wasn’t in house, then you could sell the coach makers a prime mover for these hybrid transmissions. Maybe also develope some diesel engines for automobiles. Had GM used Detroit Diesel instead of Olds to roll out their diesel engines in the 1980’s perhaps they would not have gained the reputation they had. Now GM sells Electromotive Division - they diesel electric locomotive business. With all the shift to hybrid technology and upsurge in the US railroad industry, do you think this was a wise move. I am a locomotive engineer, I can say from experience that Electromotive locomotives are the best in the industry. Sell Electromotive to help bail out the underfunded retirement pension
Well management blames the unions for all their expenses, however, GM agreeed to all the agreements forged between the company and the union. Why did they agree to the unions terms? Because they were making money back in the heyday of GM, and now they are not, not to mention the absurd salariees paid to the corporate leaders of GM. They continue to milk more money out of the Corp - whether they are pearing off divisions or trying to take back union agreements. I do not work for GM and I do not want to insult the hardworking employees of GM. However, when GM focuses on selling a quality product that sparks pride in ownership, I think their sales slump will end. The question is when or if GM management will do so. GM you were THE industrial giant with some of the best transportation products available - what happened?
How can management sleep at night knowing the sad condition of the company they are leading and yet demand the salaries they take home. I think management’s greed has been the downfall of this company.
Nessie
I would like to start by thanking GM for providing this forum.
In “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, I’m curious why no-one pointed out the most obvious failing of the EV1 television spot. It consisted entirely of still photography. Who the hell sells cars (a product devoted to motion) on TV (a medium devoted to motion) using STILL PHOTOGRAPHY?
The most charitable thing you can say is that it sure is different. These ads were either moronic or intentionally bad. So which is it, GM?
Cory
I currently drive a gasoline powered GM vehicle in Australia and it costs too much to run with todays fuel prices.
After seeing the movie ‘who killed the electric car’ and countless hours on the net researching electric vehicles I have made a decision and so have a few other people I know in Australia.
We are not going to be forced to fill up our cars anymore or are we going to wait for the car companies to design these new hydrogen cars because they aren’t the answer.
We are currently in the process of building up a fully electric car from one which used to run on fuel. This means that you still have the spare parts support and you don’t have to worry about getting it serviced either!!
Once the first car has been converted then a fleet of them will be next to sell to the public. From then on who knows, the sky is the limit.
The car giants like GM probably aren’t scared of one person like myself but they should be.
Sara
Why is it that they have created a vehicle fully powered by electricity that gives you the ability to travel 300 miles per charge and at a speed of 130mph yet instead of the Big Car industry making a full electric car instead of a hybrid? Why don’t they just look at the figures oh wait maybe they all ready have and see that they will lose money in other areas such as parts and supplies for the gas guzzling vehicles they are producing right now. Mabe they should look at it from this stand point, continue to produce gas engines continue to destroy our enviroment and continue to be ok with us dependeing on other countries for their natural resources rather then helping to better the enviroment and become a self reliant country. I guess they would prefer us to continually be in other countries and using up their resources, I for one would prefer our country to be self reliant and stop losing our mothers, sisters, brothers, and fathers in other countries over their oil supplies. Wouldn’t you?
Sara concerned for the future of our country
Lacey
“A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine.” -Dave Barthmuss
What makes GM think we will be fooled into believing hydrogen is the environmentally friendly fuel of the future?
Where does the hydrogen come from? It comes through methods of epilation. This is the separation of bonded element and compounds by passing an electric current through them. What substances might we electrocute to separate their hydrogen molecules?
Maybe water by the process of electrolysis (a method of epilation)?
2H20 = 2H2 + O2
130% energy input= 100% energy in H2 + 30% in energy losses
Or natural gas by reforming? (Sometimes referred to as steam methane reforming (SMR) it is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen)
CH4 + 2H20 = 4H2 + CO2*
110% energy input= 100% energy in H2 + 10% in energy losses
*though at temperature of over 800 degrees Carbon Monoxide is more likely to form then carbon dioxide.
Both of these sources are problematic. If we are using our fresh water for the production of hydrogen fuel, what will we drink and grow our crops with? Fresh water is renewable but finite, and increasingly scarce. It takes 1000 metric tons of water in the form of soil moisture to grow 1 metric ton of grain. Growing the food needed to feed the estimated population in 2025 could require an additional 500 cubic kilometres (a volume roughly equivalent to the annual flow of 28 Colorado Rivers). What happens if our fresh water also begins being used as a fuel source? The same amount of water that went into the system by be released as a by product of the system, but there is no guarantee that it will return to the fresh water system. It may end up in polluted ground water, which is quite likely, and be thusly, not fit for re-use.
Methane as a source is hopeless without my saying so. Another non-renewable resource which produces carbon dioxide as a by-product is certainly not the answer.
Not to mention the fact that 4KJ of electrical energy are needed to produce every 1KJ of hydrogen energy. Therefore it would seem economically reasonable that hydrogen fuel would be at least 4 times more expensive than energy from the grid. This makes hydrogen a bit of a middle-man and electricity its biggest competitor.
What about the simple wheel-to-well carbon dioxide emissions of a fuel cell vehicle? Or any vehicle for that matter? When extraction of the source fuel (eg. coal, crude oil, natural gas), the energy content of its conversion (eg. gas electricity), and its transport for consumer use are taken into account the numbers speak loudly:
(All figure are of a typical vehicle of the stated type and are in grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre driven)
Fuel Cell: 151.7 g/km
Hybrid: 130.4 g/km
Electric Car: 46.1 g/km
Gas engine: 141.7 g/km
Diesel engine: 152.7 g/km
It is more environmentally conscientious to drive a regular gasoline engine vehicle (this figure is for a sedan or compact- not an SUV) than a hydrogen fuel cell.
Hydrogen IS a pipe dream. The EV1 was a leap into the future. Way to be the first to take that big step backwards GM. Good for you.
Dave
Why would someone buy a hydrogen powered car when they still have just as much maintenance cost as a traditional gas powered vehicle? All electric vehicles like my golf cart or the old ev1’s require nothing more than a greasing every couple 100,000 miles. that cost about a dollar a year versus hundreds of dollars a year for a hydrogen car. All I have to say is, I won’t ever buy one. So, don’t ask me, instead just make an electric car before you go bankrupt (again?).
James
Tesla. Hear of it?
Now Toyota and the Chinese will further bankrupt GM. Looks like big oil stabbed GM in the back. Can’t say you didn’t deserve it.
Marcus McInnes
Boy, you can’t tell people what they dont want to hear.
EV1 was a brave move which didn’t work largely because battery technology. The tech heads tell us one needs up to 25kgs of battery to store the same ammount of energy as one litre of petrol, indeed I seem to remember if EV1 carried the same weight of petrol as it caried in batteries then it would have a range of 10,000km.
40 years ago I worked for the Engineer formerly in charge of GM Research into alternative energy power trains. At that time there were nearly 200 engineers in his team. 40 years of international research still hasn’t resolved the major technical challenges of coal power, compressed gases and batteries faced then.
GM leapt into the EV1 program after winning the 1st World Solar Challenge in Australian nearly 20 year ago.
Perhap in hindsite all of this subsequent EV1 activity may have satisfied the intellectual ideals of senior management but it seems to have distracted them from the much needed continuous improvement of conventional the vehicles people want to buy.
Marcus
Vinnie
I loved my 2005 Cadillac Escalade. But when my lease expired, I bought a 2007 Cadillac Escalade. What a mistake. This car was a step backward in many, many ways.
GM sucks and I will never buy another cadillac.
Eddie
As the son of an auto worker and the grandson of an autoworker, I am here to tell you I have bought my last American made vehicle. Gas mileage standards in the US are atrocious, but that is not my only reasoning. The japanese auto makers build better cars that last longer with fewer problems and do it for less money up front. I’ve had more problems with my US cars than any of my friends who own imports. Quality is job one my a**. Have a vehicle roll-over 200k and still run and get 40mpg to boot and I’ll consider buying another US car.
Brilliant but Dull
OK so this may have been said before, but I want all the “GM is evil” people and the “GM tried to save you from yourself!” people to shut up and listen for a second.
The real reason the EV-1 died is not because of any of the reasons people keep blathering on about. It was because the sales model for gasoline would diminish and people and city governments would be upset that people were stealing all their electricity. Think about it… everyne is all like “oh isn’t the electric car revolutionary.. here! Here’s a free electric plug for you to charge with when you’re in my parking garage, etc” when there are 100 of them on the road out of 250,000 cars in a city. Now, what if there are 40,000 of them, all using the city’s electricity? Who starts to pay for this? The city? Private business? You’ll start to have alot of annoyed people, and at best alot of new infrastucure that the city will have to maintain.
You might say to yourself, oh people will plug in at night at home… no they won’t. People will milk the remote stations as much as they can. it’s human nature. Even if they charge for the “pumps”, it will end up costing the tax payer more than it would have had another model been chosen.
Now back to the gas station model… without “instant charge” battery pack replacement, or something similar, the entire consumer gasoline buiness ( those are franchisees in many cases remember) will completely go under. The plug in electric car model simply does not have the ability to support the idea of “filling up” at a station.
Not to mention how muc of a huge freaking backlash you are going to have ( and even hybrid owners are going to have ) when your batteries need replacing. Even the highest quality lithiums still have a limited number of recharges and back in the day of the EV-1, I believe it was something like $8000 worth of NiMH. Certainly the costs would go down in production, but not soon enough to keep people from being so royally pissed that after 40,000 miles they have to basically cough up half the cost of their car.
This is almost certainly a reason they would only lease the EV-1’s back in the day.
I am a huge fan of electric vehicles, and alternative fuels. Even if you think my comments are way off base, at least consider that there can be compelling econimic and social reasons why the EV-1 was killed.
BbD
altfuels
Sorry this post is so many months after the original article; I just stumbled across this webpage, which mirrors the content of a posting on _another_ GM blog. The other blog page (which doesn’t allow comments, by the way) is much easier to find–the original EV1 webpages at gmev.com redirect to it, as does the URL (onlygm.com/electric) printed at the bottom of a full-page ad GM placed in several major newspapers around the time the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” came out.
People talk a lot about the “real reason” GM killed the EV1 and sent all but a few museum or research specimens to the crusher; defenders of GM point to assertions like those at the top of this page and say, duh, it was the lack of consumer interest. But many of us who were involved, or interested from the outside (I don’t lease vehicles), at the time EV1s were actually available know that these assertions are seriously misleading. Rather than clutter this page with eight thousand words, I put together a webpage at
http://www.altfuels.org/misc/onlygm.html
dissecting these statements in detail. (I don’t have advertising, or any other revenue generation, on the website, so I hope you will pardon the “plug”–I’m not pimping to drive up my page views!) Just today I read another set of misleading or outright false statements by GM about the EV1, in the context of their announcement of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in serial hybrid: for example, they criticize the EV1 for having limited interior space–but hey, who decided to make it a two-seater anyway? And they claim it had trouble climbing hills while running the air conditioner–that wasn’t my experience in the EV1s I rented, and I’ve heard a bunch of former EV1 lessees echo the same disbelief.
The reason there is so much noise from “our side” of the issue about GM’s real reasons for killing the EV1 is, however, not merely that we are convinced that the public has been misled by GM in the past; rather, until we hear an open admission from GM that they never made an adequate effort to promote the EV1, and a repudiation of statements like those at the top of this page, we will be unable to trust GM’s promises of future advanced-drivetrain vehicles. Case in point: at the L.A. Auto Show in December, there was a Chevrolet Equinox fuel-cell vehicle on display, with a sign next to it saying that it will be “an important part of Project Driveway,” a test-marketing experiment in the second half of 2007 that will place this vehicle (and others, like the Chevrolet Volt?) in the hands of drivers in several areas for a time in order to explore how they fare in real-world use by real drivers. On reading this, I had a tremendous sense of sadness and deja vu, because in 1994 GM put the predecessor of the EV1, the Impact, out for a public “road test” just like this, the “PrEView Drive.” Ten years later, the EV1s were crushed or in museums; so where will the fuel-cell Equinox be in 2017? Will GM make an honest effort to market it and the Volt (or whatever production vehicles might evolve from them)? Or will we hear “we tried but there was no market” again? (See, I tell you beforehand: if these vehicles are only made available for lease, not for sale, they may be only three years from the crusher.)
Many GM defenders point out that an EV1 wouldn’t serve their driving needs; well, an SUV wouldn’t serve mine, but the last EV1 I rented (with lead-acid batteries, not even the expensive NiMH ones!) gave me 80 miles per full overnight charge, which is far more than most Americans (including me) drive on any but a very few days–and in my typical American two-car family, I can just take the other vehicle on those days. The question is not whether an electric vehicle would serve everybody’s needs–the question is whether it would serve enough people’s needs to make a sustainable market. GM’s claims that it wouldn’t meet this test ring very hollow given the dodgy nature of the statistics they use above to bolster their claim; and as long as they hew to that story, I see no reason to credit any promises they make about other advanced-drivetrain vehicles. Promises are what might lead me to postpone replacing my vehicles until something with a plug or a hydrogen tank is available, so their credibility has practical implications for me; and since the California Air Resources Board backed off the requirement that automakers make electric vehicles in large part because of promises of fuel-cell vehicles someday, the credibility of those promises has practical implications for the quality of the air we breathe. I would love to have a Chevrolet in my garage that I could plug in; between us, my wife and I have owned two Chevies, three Saturns, and a Pontiac (and one Dodge). But with the present attitudes of GM management, I’m not holding my breath.
Tom Paine
Jeff Crew, that supply and demand line is a load of garbage that you’ve been sold.
Fact is, a lot more people would drive electrics if they were on the “market” such as the electric Ford Ranger that one rancher owns.
It’s disturbing that you can’t see that the parts and oil guys had some say in the “market”. You probably think no bids like Halliburton is also “supply and demand” free market.
You’ve got a lot to learn…
altfuels
Apparently my first attempt to post a comment on this blog was rejected as too long, 800-some words. Rather than clog this blog, I hope you’ll let me give a webpage address:
http://www.altfuels.org/misc/onlygm.html
where I spend about ten times that many words detailing why the list of “facts” at the top of this page in fact misrepresents some of the _effects_ of GM’s cancellation of the EV1, instead presenting them as _reasons_ for the cancellation. (I don’t have any advertising or other revenue generation on the website, so I’m not just shilling to boost my page views!)
I also note that, despite the “General Motors electric vehicle” (Chevy Volt) getting so much positive press lately, the URL http://www.gmev.com still redirects to a static (no comments) version of this blog posting. Until GM repudiates its misrepresentation of the reasons the EV1s went to museums or the crusher, we have no reason to believe their promises as embodied in the Volt, the fuel-cell Equinox, or the Triax (remember that?) seven years ago.
JJ
Wow! I never knew the EV1 was for real and it went that fast. Would definitely wait for that car to coem out.Sorry GM, would never buy anything from you.
altfuels
I note that, as of the last day or two, the old EV1 website address of http://www.gmev.com now redirects to the Chevrolet Volt page at http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ rather than to a copy of this blog posting. That’s good; however, I also note that GM’s spokesman is still spreading the same old spin about the reasons for killing and crushing the EV1, for example in an interview at http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/09/detroit-auto-show-autobloggreen-qanda-with-dave-barthmuss/. GM’s promises will have credibility in the future only if they stop misrepresenting their reasons for abandoning the promises of the past.
Ivan Thomson
Look, bring back the EV1 technology and release consumers from the fuel station once and for all.
Secondly, whoever said “Built in the good ol’ USA” must be joking.
Toyota is probably a more domestic car than a GM now.
So not only are they screwing the consumer; they also like to screw the worker, the retiree and the green conscious people as well…then they turn around and blame the consumer, the retiree and the worker.
GM get a grip and come clean and start off on a new slate before you completely screw yourselves.
They won’t give you an EV1 and you’ll be damned if you are lucky enough to get another EV1 if it will be built in the “good ol’ USA”; mre like “good ol’ China”.
Jerome R. Allen
The movie had a great line: “If GM could make money selling a car which ran on pig shit–they would do it.”
SuckyCulture
Well, GM got what they deserved for killing the EV. By the way, did anyone see Roger and Me? Wow, GM has made some astounding mistakes. Too bad that it is really progress, clean air, American workers and the city of Detroit who are paying the price.
Washington Post
April 20, 2005
General Motors lost $1.1 billion during the first three months of the year.
GM missing from Jan2007 top ten selling vehicles:
1. Ford F-Series pickup
2. Chevrolet Silverado pickup
3. Toyota Camry
4. Honda Accord
5. Toyota Corolla
6. Chevrolet Impala
7. Nissan Altima
8. Dodge Ram pickup
9. Dodge Caravan
10. Honda Civic
No GM.
Lastly, how can anyone listen to a rebuttal from a person who has not seen the movie he is responding too?
If the cars weren’t profitable, which I do not believe, why not just let consumers buy them outright? No, GM, with the bad instincts decides to spend money to destroy them and prompts ANOTHER anti-GM movie. Smooth move!
miike c
at one time i liked GM, but after seeing the movie who killed the electric car i wouldnt even think about ever buying another GM car. appearantly GM works hand and hand with the oil companys and they didn’t want the ev1 or any electric car to be sucessful, thats why they never advertised the car to the general public. plus the electric cars motors have very few moving parts, so just think how many parts companys would go out of buisness if the electric car was sucessful, cause the electric car has no exhaust pipes, no oil filters no air filters,no water pumps, no radiators, and all those other lovely internal combustion engine parts that parts companys like ac delco make big bucks off of. need i say anymore!!!
Larry L
I have seen the movie last night and was I mad with rage. The GM spokesperson was lying, they claim that there is no demand, but they made no significant effort to advertise and market the EV-1. How come me and the rest of my friends didn’t hear about it. And how come that whenever there is a potential customer, they make it hard for those people to sign up and they highlight the cons than the pros of leasing those vehicles. I don’t that think they care about the American people, the environment. What GM cares about is the money and profit and shareholders value. I will never ever buy or lease or rent any GM vehicles again! Shame on you GM, an American car company that doesn’t care about Americans but serves the interest of Middle East. I’m going to have a Toyota or Honda as my next car and subsequent ones.
Jakob
Hi here is Jakob from good old Germany.
One reason why the EV died (obviously) are oil companies, car companies and so on because they couldn’t make enough profit out of it.
But it reminds me on some wind-turbines they build in Germany 10-15 years ago. They spent a lot of money and built a very big one and a very small one. And they both weren’t very efficient. So they quoted that you can’t really get enough energy out of the air. These wind-turbines were just built to show that they don’t work.
It also reminds me on a car that wasn’t even sold in the USA.
A “VW 3-Liter TDI Lupo”. It’s a small typical European car (a bit smaller than the New Beetle and just for 4 people).
It has a 1.3 litre (66hp) TDI engine and drives a maximum of 110 mph.
The amazing thing is that you could drive 100 km with 3 litres Diesel (80 mpg) or 50 mpg at top speed (110mph). (And you can get the mileage up to 105 mpg on the Autobahn when you drive at a constant speed of 50 mph right behind a truck)
They don’t sell this car anymore because they didn’t sell enaugh (the weird thing is that you see them everywhere). Instead VW builds a 1001 hp Bugatti that drives a max. speed of over 250 mph (which you can’t even drive on German streets because of the traffic).
There you see that it isn’t a typical GM problem it is a problem in general.
And the major reason is … that most people don’t really care. Humans are lazy. And they won’t change anything unless it is too late (how it already or almost is).
In my opinion it’s the job of a government to protect there people from dangers they don’t see (or don’t want to see) even so they have to take away some freedom.
Kabir
No matter what you say, GM has, over the course of more than 50 years, continued to indulge in tactics that destroy our environment (such as buying local transit railroads and shutting them down to encourage sale of GM buses and cars). GM has never had concern for anyone else.
Even the flex fuel cars were made in response to Congress’ plans to penalize car makers with low gas mileage cars. These standards are relaxed for cars that run on alternative fuels. The reason Japanese carmakers never needed to invest in flex fuel technologies is that they never had cars that got bad gas mileage to begin with. GM is evil - always was.
isabelle cheridant
are you kidding me, thats a bunch of bull.i believed you made those people changed their mind on the ev1 because it wasn’t worth a lot of money,bring back the ev and see if there wont be a high demand, how come the company never tried to publicize it elsewhere instead of just California,and the commercials for the ev was so unappealing,now you all know if it was some car pulling in a lot of money, the commercials would not have been so bad,the movie was correct, gm company ,didn’t want ev to exist and you know it would of happened ,thank to the movie it didn’t ,and not only that but why didn’t you let the people that wanted to keep their lease to keep it ,and why didn’t they let no one buy the car.
Tobias Kaiser
ok… you’ve set YOUR record straight… however you seem to forget that GM purposely gave away EV1s only by some kind of lease that did not allow an individual to buy it out in the end… this way they could make sure every single one of them was going to be destroyed.. what good is that??? And then they wondered why 800 of them went out? if i couldn’t own one i wouldn’t want one either!
So here’s my straight record: Because of GM’s ignorance, I will never again buy a GM vehicle!
Robert Smith
The problem with GM and all us manufacturers is that they are building them to pull tremondous rollingn weight, boats, campers , etc. The could greatly improve highway mileage by implementing a 2 or 3 speed rear end, connected to the cars computer to determine when to shift, and to determine if there is a load attached or is the vehicle simply on a hill. My truck is a dodge, but it has 390 rear ends. Imagine if I had a choice of a couple of highway gears in that rear end. Like a 325 or even better, the rpm would be cut, engine life extended, and gas mileage increased by what, 35 to 40%, and I’d still have the low range gear in the rear end for when I was towing a load. Typically that load would only be present about 1% of the time I was using the vehicle. Why not a multigear rear end????
moro
oooooooooooah…..lots of complain about GMc………but its the prehistoric cars in USA………….its the laeding company which always think about not only their marketing but also the environment……marketing policy is changing day by day.Now a days customers prefer get up more then history.sometimes i feel bad to see it……GMC’s strategic marketing policy is farsighted …………I always happy with my GMC brand & always be………
Mitchell Chaires
I am deeply concerned with the fact that emissions are destroying the climate that humanity exists in. I am 20 years old so I will have to face the consequences of climate change induced by oil companies. I am against what these companies do to the environment and it is morally not right that they make billions off of destroying our world. As such, I demand that EV1 cars remain in production. I would love to give less money and therefore less power to oil companies, for they do not deserve it. I want all electric vehicles.
Mitchell Chaires
Many of you are wondering “who is going to pay for the electricity?” The sun shines for free and therefore solar panels can charge batteries for free. communities can pool money and purchase several solar panels. How cheap would it be to get a solar panel for free if you divide the cost by thousands.
Bob Smith
GM, Ford, and Chrysler have through and industry gruop, engaged a co called A123 to develop their recent advance in lithium ion batteries. This advance will give electric cars a 300 plus mile range, with an 80% recharge in a minute. The ability to extract energy in most temperatures and the ability to perform well through thousands of charge cycles. A stock electric car with the governor taken off would blow the doors off of a gas or diesel burning baby killing, asthma spreading, hunk of iron. We should be pushing government to mandate a day for this advance to be put into cars. As part of the move to lighter cars running on electricity, we should press our legislators to get the semi trucks off the *@#@ road, and back onto trains where it belongs. Maybe then the soccer moms wouldn’t need a giant SUV weighing 6000 pounds plus to feel secure on the road. The move to semi trucks from rail to move freight, was an industry move to avoid paying the higher inventory tax that they paid when they depended on rail. Cancel the d#mn tax,, just get those monsters off the road and watch all fossil fuel prices fall like rain.
robert smith
Compact flourescents use only 25% of the electicity as an incandescent bulb, and diode bulbs use 1/12th the electricity compared to an incandescent. The diodes are coming too, some are available now though expensive. Higher rated energy effeciency for appliances just got mandated a few months back by the courts, in spite of govt attempts at doing nothing. Energy efficiency via the above methods could provide a great deal of what we need to make electric cars work. We should all push for the advanced scrubbers on coal fired power plants, something govt doesn’t want to do. And some manner of carbon sequestration needs to be absolutely accomplished or we will be in a world of hurt. A selfish nation must think of its children to get out of this global warming mess.
Todd Whitesel
I am currently driving my 3rd Saturn (1999 SC2). I have watched how the Saturn division was dragged back down to the status quo of American auto. Perhaps GM could be more proactive in working with unions to oppose government polices that squeeze the working class, so the unions would need fewer concessions to begin with.
For my next car I want an EV1-hybrid combo that gets decent commuting range without requiring any gas whatsoever. I should not have to buy gas if my daily driving does not exceed the electric range. My father’s Prius cannot get out of the driveway without testing the gas tank. What a cop-out.
I refuse to purchase hydrogen-based vehicles unless I can cost-effectively manufacture the hydrogen from solar panels at home. I do not care about preserving the employment of fuel station workers nationwide — if you truly believe in free market economics, you would prefer to see those people more productively employed anyway.
When my current car dies, whoever provides the functionality to truly reduce my dependence on gas will get my business. I am quite prepared to drive used cars until this happens.
Jeff B.
“GM is the ONLY manufacturer to mass produce a pure electric vehicle and market it.”
That’s incorrect. Zap! has sold to date over 95,000 all-electric vehicles. If you’re going to call 800 electric vehicles “mass production,” I just have to laugh at that.
That, and you’d have to put that in past tense. GM ended it’s participation in the electric vehicle world when it dumped the EV1 for Hummers. They have CONCEPT Chevy Volt, but it being a CONCEPT car, they might not produce those.
But they don’t deserve bashing just because they stopped making the most eco-friendly (and wallet-friendly) car of its time. We have a lot of not-well-known-of companies that are churning them out, and have some planned to be released in the very near future.
I can’t wait for Zap! to release their Zap-X Crossover (designed by Lotus), regardless of whatever GM does or doesn’t do.
But you have to admit: GM made a bad move by not allowing those people who protested outside their factory for a month the chance to buy some of the EV1’s before they were crushed. They offered almost $2 million. How much money did GM get from crushing its cars and maybe recycling them? And then the protesters got arrested, for whatever reason (might not have been GM’s fault, but it’s unconstitutional - the Bill of Rights guarantees people the right to peaceably assemble and protest).
Simon I
Hydrogen technology is good but its not that good. It will still be controled by the oil industry (which will switch to hydrogen)which will keep prices up. Plus the technology is years away from being implemented. Electric cars have more advantages and which ever company produces a car like the EV-1, they will make alot of money as fuel prices rise.
Inquirer
What is GM’s justification of not implementing the substantially enhanced batteries that were mentioned in “Who Killed The Electric Car?”
Would that not solve the daily distance limitations of the EV1?
Jeff B.
“What is GM’s justification of not implementing the substantially enhanced batteries that were mentioned in “Who Killed The Electric Car?”"
I’m guessing cost was a factor. Lithium-ion batteries are probably cheaper today than they were back when the EV1 was manufactured. But now there are batteries more powerful than lithium-ions now, anyway.
I just like how most of the all-electric car companies will be releasing at least one car in the same period - about two or three years from now. But most of the ones I’ve heard of will be $49-53,000. That’s not a big incentive for me to purchase an electric car, in my opinion, especially since I can buy a Yaris for $12,500 and get 40 MPG.
Jeffrey B.
“GM missing from Jan2007 top ten selling vehicles:
1. Ford F-Series pickup
2. Chevrolet Silverado pickup
3. Toyota Camry
4. Honda Accord
5. Toyota Corolla
6. Chevrolet Impala
7. Nissan Altima
8. Dodge Ram pickup
9. Dodge Caravan
10. Honda Civic
No GM.”
Excuse me, good sir, but Chevrolet is one of GM’s brands, and Chevrolet is listed twice, in 2nd place for the Chevy Silverado pickup truck, and in 6th place for the Chevy Impala. We should be celebrating that the top two best-selling vehicles are American cars, not fabricating untruths. Thank you.
Morgan Chemis
I think the Chevy Volt might be a great solution to the ensuing oil related issues that will be coming to light in the near future. Lithium Ion technology however remains the major issue that will prevent electric cars form reaching thier full potential.
I have created a site dedicated to the volt here:
http://www.chevy-volt.net
It contains videos, pictures, a forum and more.
Jeffrey Balla
[quote]* GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.[/quote]
Watch the two commercials your company, General Motors, made for the EV1. Tell me they make you interested in purchasing an EV1, or if they make you somewhat knowledgeable about electric cars.
[quote]* Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.[/quote]
What of the countless stories of red tape that people had to go through to acquire an EV1?
[quote]* No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.[/quote]
And just because no one else is doing it, means it’s wrong? Toyota did it, Honda did it, Ford did it, so did many others. Okay, it was because of the C.A.R.B.’s law, but they did. But, “is producing”? Hmm. They’re not major, but Phoenix and Tesla pure electric cars will be for sale next year - not lease-only.
[quote]* A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.[/quote]
See what I asked above about the red tape.
[quote]* 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.[/quote]
Whose fault was the “low” demand for the EV1? What parts needed to be serviced or replaced? The car had an electric motor, and, of course, wheels, a steering wheel, among other things. Unless the EV1 had parts no technician knew how to service or repair, there was no reason to recall the EV1’s and crush them. Nor was there a reason not to sell the EV1’s back to their owners, which would have cost less (might have even fetched a profit) than paying for the EV1’s to be crushed and recycled.
mcstamper
My last two new cars were GM cars (Aztek and Vibe). After seeing “who killed the electric car”, I will never buy another GM (or Ford) car. Crushing these cars instead of allowing their leaseholders to buy them was a disgrace. Charging leaseholders for scratches on cars you intended to crush was practically criminal. GM evidently never had any intention of building a successful electric car. I’ve seen the EV1 ads, which are designed to discourage rather than motivate buyers. The idea that the EV1s could not be sold because GM would have to service them is a joke. Have you ever heard of a liability waiver, which I’m sure the EV1 owners would sign? GM destroyed the cars because they hated them; why does anyone destroy something valuable if hatred is not the motive? GM is a backward, regressive company interested only in preserving the status quo. I used to care about the future of the American auto industry. That’s why I tried to buy American when shopping for a new car. I bought a Taurus, an Aztek, and a Vibe. That’s it, folks. No more subsidizing stupidity, callousness, ignorance, and willful destruction. You can all go bankrupt. You deserve it.
Ronald
You claim Gm made this big attempt to help open the market for electric cars, but the reality is far from it. They designed a product many wouldn’t buy simply because they make too much off of gas powered cars to stop. For example it was said when the electric cars were coming out that in order to have one you needed a place to plug them in. That eliminated a lot of car buyers simply because they had no where to plug in a car. Another thing is why plug them in, there electric cars, cars today use onboard alternators and used to use generators. So why couldn’t a car be designed that could recharge its own power cells, the answer the industry would loose to much since gas and other liquids would no longer be needed, and far less parts would be needed for upkeep.
On the subject of cars and milage. Its supply and demand you push and market any product the right way the public will buy. Look at SUV’s it’s the mainline everyone pushes. Why I wonder, they are hard to park in city areas, get very poor gas mileage, and are far less safe than a standard car is, for starters, but since the companies push these types first, and give out massive rebates to buy them, everyone buys them. In the 1980’s we had cars getting 80 mpg. Why is 30 today considered good, who’s kidding who here that’s really a big step backwards. What happened to the technology invented years ago were you could get 200 mpg. It was bought out so it couldn’t be used. Many other examples come to mind, like alternative fueled cars invented by high school kids, and air ride cars which was invented decades ago but again bought out to prevent their use. The car industry has had the technologies to make better cars for years, they just refuse to for profit, and nobody cares enough to force better standards because everyone including politicians profit to much to change unless a major global catastrophe happens first, it’s sad.
Jeff U'Ren
Just make the Plug-in ZEVs Stupid!
I don’t wany my son to have to go fight the oil wars.
Jeff U'Ren
Just make the Plug-in ZEVs Stupid!
I don’t wany my son to have to go fight the oil wars.
Brock
So…instead of electric car GM decided to make Hummer…that was extremely smart move! Way to go GM! And I heard Toyota bypass you as a largest automaker, well hope GM go bankrupt soon for all their lies and deception!
Kevin
I cant beleave that something that is safe, cool, fast and which is a big deal now GLOBAL WARMING. GM never wanted you buy the EV series. As soon as they bought the biggest gas guzzler (HUMMER) they ended the EV to make a profit that the EV1 would have done. You would think that when you spent 1 BILLION dollars into a car, you would want to sell it but no they leased it and had strict rules when you bought the car. Had to make $100,000 a year. Had to live within 50 miles of the TWO DEALERS they had.GM your doing the same thing with the volt. You gonna cancel that?
Peter
It is obvious the oil companies had most to lose if electric vehicles survived.
Then there is the after market spare parts & servicing industry.
The ‘Reva’ electric car is a poor relation by comparison to the General Motors EV1, but still boasts large numbers on the roads in UK & Europe.
Imagine the savings in carbon emissions around the world the electric car would make.
But for some reason hybrid vehicles which still use oil & require extensive servicing are ok.. doesn’t make sense to me.
Caleb Arnold
After reading all of this, my only question is… Why does GM or any of the other automobile manufacturers still keep producing fossil fuel burning internal combustion vehicles when they know the long term environmental consequences? We don’t need to burn gasoline anymore, there are better technologies. It’s a moral question really, just because you can, and people buy them, doesn’t mean you should… It only takes one to stand up for the many. It’s the difference between making a profit now, or history forever…
Lina Almansa
USA lives under a brain wash conspiracy in wich the goverment and powerd companies such as: mobil, GM, Toyota etc are looking to generate an overall profit. The electric car is the perfect solution for our future.
robin rouby
mr. barthmuss -
i don’t know HOW you sleep at night.
if GM REALLY had nothing to hide,
…then GM had nothing to shred and EV1’s would still be on the road.
you know darn well that the hydrogen fuel cell buys the oil and auto industry another 20 years of profit they are no longer entitled to in terms of maintenance and fuel.
i, for one, am DELIGHTED toyota is now tromping you people - you deserve to crumble for ruining our environment, health and for putting our country’s national security at risk simply to prolong the life of the combustion engine.
i can only PRAY that the coal industry meets the same slow death.
shame on you!!!!
Uncle Sam
General Motors, as well as Ford and every other American auto manufacturers, well they just don’t get it. - and yes, it’s that plain and simple. They don’t get what the American people want, they don’t get current trends in the market place and they certainly don’t get the sales foreign manufactures do. Every single concept designer and marketing employee should be fired. Compare a Ford Focus or a Cobalt to a Honda Civic and it doesn’t take a an rocket scientist to figure out why American auto manufacturers have seen double digit sale declines. The focus looks downright embarassing to drive. All Americans want is a little dignity. As for the electric car, the only way America will see one in the near future is when an American auto manufacturer decides to ‘hit the red button’ so to speak and save themselves from bankruptcy. At this rate, we might actually see one since management at these companies are borderline retarded by most standards.
My grandfather always used to say, ‘we put a man on the moon, we can do anything.’ Maybe he didn’t realize that this isn’t the same country that mass produced Sherman tanks in the 40’s (produced by Ford Motor Company by the way) and had a manufacturing sector that helped win a World War. Imagine the scene if Ford Motor Company refused to build those tanks because of monetary conflict. Well news flash folks, we’re in a war right now and we’re getting out asses kicked by yes, the Japanese.
Maybe it’s time to hit the red button.
Caring Canuck
Hey GM, NEWSFLASH: your passenger cars are junk, stop making them. Cash in on the environmental movement and make sure you market the Volt significantly better than the EV1. Make your short-term bucks on your (still) respectable truck/suv’s but realize that your future wi