Martin,

I would contest this part of your argument.

You say that the ev-1 was a project of defined term, not by GM it wasn't.
Had CARB kept the 0 emissions mandate in place, the ev-1 (a VERY improved version) would still be here today.
It wasn't a project of defined term, it was a project forced upon by the CARB.

When the mandate was lifted, GM decided to scratch the vehicle that would cost them millions, not only in production, but also in MAINTENANCE profits, and scratch it completely they did.

Instead they decided to invest in huge, gas guzzling suburbans, pick ups and Hum V's, because this is where they thought the profits were...They were right!!
However, they put themselves (and us) behind by many years by not continuing the hybrid and or EV products.

A classic example of old school thinking and the inability to adapt and change.

Sales hint 101, never take a product BACK after you sold or leased it and the CUSTOMER WANTS TO KEEP IT..

Spinner, you say this is old news or spilled milk, but this is CURRENT news, this is today that GM is again, trying to catch up with the times, again off track with the WRONG product and trying to adapt.

I AM an American car purchaser and SUPPORTER...but let's not shift the blame to anyone OTHER than the company that came and picked up the cars.

TRUE, it was a California project only, but where would it be today if they had continued to offer ANY spin off from the ev-1... What if they offered a Saturn hybrid and/or ev vehicle?
The truth of the matter is they would have had ALL this time to test, improve, and learn.
THAT would have put GM in FRONT of, or at least equal to, the competition without the BIG RUSH to be first to market, which is costing GM and us millions more.

08feh

 

I can continue harping the EV1 issues as long as GM can spin it's 'news'. No problem there. I want ALL Americans to know the EV1 story. Why is there no "special" on ANY channel out there to give GMs side of the EV1 story...the good parts only they remember?

Ev1, Precept, and Volt. Wow. What a (vapor) lineup. I received no thank-yous in the mail for using my taxes to pay for those. Again...how many of those cars did i get to experience?

cobalt, malibu-hybrid, tahoe-hybrid. How's that line-up doing versus the competition?

Yes, this IS an emotional issue, as is anything related to car-buying. My emotions are my own and they cetainly don't cut GM any slack for the past. Or present, for that matter.

And I can admit, as an auto-world 'outsider' that I could be way off-base. Sure, it's possible, but, look at all the compelling evidence to the contrary. It's out there , hidden from a majority of the public. Who Killed the electric car is just the tip.

Insider stories are great, but what's on the showroom floor is critical.

 

How many EV-1 complainers actually leased one when they had the chance to?

Be honest, how many folks out there would have paid $25000-$30,000 for a compact car with very limited range? ZERO !! Gas was 89 cents then.

None of you would have bought the EV-1, so why complain about GM pulling them? If they-GM- sold them they would have been required to service them for the next 15 years , losing money the whole time.

No conspiracy- just $$.
Charlie

 

I will admit to splitting hairs in the meaning of terms. I am, after all, looking at this through an auto industry lens. The EV1 was a limited term program with a finite number of vehicles planned and a commitment to bring those vehicles back at the end of their lease. In automotive lingo, that is definitely a finite product life-cycle. What had not been determined at the launch of the vehicle was whether or not there would be an EV2 or whether EV of any vintage would ever be a high volume product. The fact that the vehicle was made in the Lansing Craft Center was further evidence of its finite life cycle. It had not yet been assigned to a high volume vehicle plant. For comparison, other production vehicles that were produced at the Lansing Craft Center were the Buick Reatta Convertible (low volume, finite life cycle) and the SSR Sport Truck (low volume, finite life cycle)

Given that the mandate was MODIFIED not LIFTED before the first leased vehicle was delivered, it would have made sense to not do a Gen 2 version. But there was a Gen 2 version with an improved battery. By the way, the fast evolution of the battery technology and the limited availability of recharging resources were the reasons why the program was executed as a closed end lease.

Two coincident yet completely unrelated decisions.

Keep that thought in mind when Honda reclaims the Clarity Fuel Cell Vehicles it is currently introducing into the market. And I am not saying that as a criticism of Honda. It is the right thing to do in this particular case.

Peace,

Martin

 

The only reason that no one else but GM "is responsible for not letting the people that already had the ev-1's keep them. Period.", is because no one but GM designed and built the ev-1 in the first place.

Other car makers did exactly the same thing as GM (crushed EVs).

I'm with spinner, give it a rest.

What is important is new stuff like the Plug in Prius and the Volt. The EV-1 is water under the bridge.

 

Hi Martin:
Yes, GM did the quoted. But only after they completely removed about every hint that the empty shell had ever been an electric.
Heck they could have just delivered stripped Subaru's. No difference other than an oversize trunk and "EV1" side emblem.

How about letting their satisfied drivers drive them, instead of posing for pictures?
This is the only time I'd heard of a company spending that much $$ in R&D, production and marketing knowing full well the product will be shreded in only a tiny fraction of its useful life, considering they had an active market.

If you ever get the chance to see what the University of Wisconsin did with theirs - trying to redo what GM undid, you'd be proud of their efforts. I've seen it, and I am.

I'm also for moving past the dated EV1, but also inclined to include additional info like delivering stripped shelled cars.

I didn't have a chance to read the entire Volt article. How much will this car cost?
Smaller car companies are producing hybrids with greater battery range that get twice the mileage for under $30K.

-Steve

 

I just read the whole article, thank you for that Martin.

I hope GM can pull it off.

-Steve

 

The rest of the country never followed suit by enacting a zero-emissions fleet quota. California was either right or wrong to do so. But in the scope of the larger domain, they were the radical state that created an inequity and placed unfair demands on car manufacturers. Their ideas are good, but they should have buy-in from the majority of the rest of the country, where the scale of the market would have made a significant shift in priorities more feasible and pragmatic. Whether it be States or Provinces, none of these in a union should act with such absolute self-interest.

 

That argument might stand if several states (Mass included) hadn't already adopted the CARB Ultra low vehicle emissions mandates in effect today...

Had CARB kept the zero emissions mandate, several states may have followed that as well...

CARB was enacting such changes due to the lung damaging smog they were (are) experiencing.

Do some research and you will find that California emission standards are more stringent than most other states, but several have followed suit and mandated the same strict guidelines.

The manufacturers complied with those hands down.. as they did with the zero emissions mandate until it was lifted.

Stop making the manufacturers out to be a victim here, that sir is laughable to me...

08feh

 

This is my first post on this forum, and so I have some reservations with just launching into a somewhat heated discussion, but oh well, here we go… My understanding is that Chevy is depending on state and federal assistance to make the cost of the Volt palatable to the mass market. Personally I just don’t think the time is quite right, the costs and range limitations are just going to be too high for most people to realistically consider. At the current rate of developments I think EV vehicles should be ready for the mass markets around 2015 - 2020. It will take a while for Americans to warm to the idea of limited range in exchange for reduced costs, (assuming the grid can take the strain, and the cost of coal does not dramatically escalate) and it will take a little longer for people to trust the vehicles. If automakers rush a car to market that is too much of a prototype it could kill the whole movement by attaching a social stigma to electric vehicles. (Something oil companies I assure you would certainly capitalize on.)
In general I am not sure what to think about the Volt. In a nation where the average cost of a new car is $28,400, (which seems ridiculously high to me) convincing people to pay $30,000 for a car that is not viable for the average family, has unproven technology, and is encumbered with a limited range seems like a bit of a stretch to me. It could be argued that the volt is a halo vehicle similar to the insight, but given the press and talk it seems like Chevy wants it to be mass produced. On top of that I am personally leery of Chevy, or any American automaker for that matter, pioneering this area of development as they are not very good at efficiently producing thing like cars and trucks; especially well built compact cars. I think that in general Toyota has the right idea with a phased introduction of EV through the use of hybrids. Over time as the technology develops the costs will drop and then full EV will be more of real option. Plus with hybrids consumers do not have the concerns with astronomical costs or limited ranges. (I just hope that American automakers will quit lobbying and receiving taxpayer money to assist in the cost of research for PHEVs; as I really don’t like having my tax dollars wasted on companies that dug their own graves by overly specializing in gas guzzlers.)
I am obviously not a fan of the American auto making industry, but I think of the three Ford seems to be on the right track. Instead of heavily promoting gimmicks like ethanol , producing vehicles that give hybrids a bad name, or doing almost anything as a publicity stunt to seem green, they have simply shifted towards making more fuel efficient vehicles (what an amazing concept) with proven designs from their foreign markets. (If they had only invested some of those gas guzzler revenues into lean manufacturing processes think where they would be.) Given the recent trend of rising vehicle costs,the constant concern Americans have over the economy, and the fact people are already hurting financially over gas price; I would have to say this is the much smarter approach for both their company and the environment.