Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
#11
06-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
GM's problems are widespread. A few weeks ago there was a half page ad in our local newspaper for the new Saturn Vue (I think..whatever competes with the Equinox and Torrent). The ad, among other claims, was touting how reviewers wrote that it scored so much better than competing Equinox, Torrent, etc. A GM ad bashed other GM products! Interestingly though, the ad appeared a day or two later and that particular quote was removed but the rest of the ad was the same.
I remember reading 2 - 3 years ago how Toyota, for example, would make the Camry or Sienna or Corolla or any new car and would focus on making it better and better. At GM, they build a vehicle, the Equinox for example. Then, rather than work to improve it, they take the R & D money and modify the Equinox just slightly and sell it as a Pontiac Torrent so that they end up with two mediocre products rather than one solid, quality product.
I think, too, that GM is not used to keeping products up-to-date. Buick, for example, comes to mind. Take the interior of a 1983 Buick Century. Put it next to a 1996 Century. No difference. 14 years of a car's life with the same interior and virtually the same exterior. Same with the Cadillac Fleetwood/Brougham...virtually the same from 77 to 92. I guess back then the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" rule still worked. Those days are over.
I remember reading 2 - 3 years ago how Toyota, for example, would make the Camry or Sienna or Corolla or any new car and would focus on making it better and better. At GM, they build a vehicle, the Equinox for example. Then, rather than work to improve it, they take the R & D money and modify the Equinox just slightly and sell it as a Pontiac Torrent so that they end up with two mediocre products rather than one solid, quality product.
I think, too, that GM is not used to keeping products up-to-date. Buick, for example, comes to mind. Take the interior of a 1983 Buick Century. Put it next to a 1996 Century. No difference. 14 years of a car's life with the same interior and virtually the same exterior. Same with the Cadillac Fleetwood/Brougham...virtually the same from 77 to 92. I guess back then the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" rule still worked. Those days are over.
#12
06-10-2008, 01:58 PM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
GM killed their company when they decided to CRUSH the EV1s in 03. They had one of the most advanced machines on the road but they decided to crush the technology and replace it with the HUMMERS!! Not only did they crush the EV1s, they sold the battery rights to Chevron Texaco- how smart was that?
Now that was not only the death of the electric car but the kiss of death for GM. They do not listen to consumers. They are so HEAVILY influenced by BIG OIL that consumers really do not matter. Just look at their lineup--- TRUCKS, TRUCKS, TRUCKS. Oh and designing a Tahoe hybrid- Why even bother?? GM's solution- the VOLT? Let's see, by that the time that hits the road- Nissan will have their electric car out, Honda will have three hybrids to choose from and Toyota will (hopefully) have their plug-in hybrid. So I guess GM has what is coming to them. It is just a shame that EXTREMELY POOR MGMT will put hard working people out of jobs.
Now that was not only the death of the electric car but the kiss of death for GM. They do not listen to consumers. They are so HEAVILY influenced by BIG OIL that consumers really do not matter. Just look at their lineup--- TRUCKS, TRUCKS, TRUCKS. Oh and designing a Tahoe hybrid- Why even bother?? GM's solution- the VOLT? Let's see, by that the time that hits the road- Nissan will have their electric car out, Honda will have three hybrids to choose from and Toyota will (hopefully) have their plug-in hybrid. So I guess GM has what is coming to them. It is just a shame that EXTREMELY POOR MGMT will put hard working people out of jobs.
When the EV1 came out, no one was more surprised than Big Oil. When GM couldn't move them, probably no one was happier than Big Oil. I doubt GM liked throwing half a billion dollars of development cost down the drain.
#13
06-10-2008, 04:54 PM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
There is some other "mis-remembering" going on too!
You failed to mention that in both the Gen I and Gen II releases of the EV-1 the leases were snapped up in a matter of days. In the case of the Gen II cars, the lease releases were controlled to targeted users (many were Gen I upgrades) and a very large waiting list was created that GM never filled.
You failed to mentioned that the cars were never offered outside of Califormia, and further, that leases were selectively granted to "urban" drivers by GM. You also failed to mention that after the intial Gen I publicity campaign, GM did almost no advertising for the EV-1 within California and none in the remainder of the country.
Also not mentioned was the almost unanimous postive feedback from the lessees, and the offer of almost every Gen II lessee to extend their leases further or to purchase the car outright. The loss of the EV-1 for some of these drivers created a culture that still exists today, over ten years later.
Also forgotten is the fact that GM, along with several other American manufacturers opposed the passage of ZEV laws in other states based on the CARB model dispite the liklihood that such legislation would have vastly increased the market. GM could have influenced these mandates to include hybrids or other emerging technologies in the legislation. Instead, GM refused to include emerging technologies as potential mitigations for perceived short-commings of the EV-1 in these markets. Then, having created a popular mandate and market, sued California and CARB to get the legislation reversed and destroyed both the mandate and the market.
The rest is history and after CARB reversed the legislation under the cloud of several questionable circumstances involving CARB officials, GM cancelled the EV-1 program when the last private lease expired in August of 2003. GM handled the vehicle returns with very heavy handedness; charging lessee's for excessive wear, scratches and excessive mileage and insisted on agressively billing for these charges even when the cars were scrapped and scheduled for the crusher and the costs had been written off.
From time to time, one of the universities or technical colleges that received one of the end-of-life EV-1s has resored it to operating condition and demonstrated it as a technical exercise. In every case, GM has responded extremely agressively, threating legal action for violation of the agrement and witholding any further financial or technical assistance to that institution.
GM may have been correct when it claimed that the EV-1 was premature and that the technology was not there in 2003 to support it. But the market was there and GM, along with others that did include big oil, killed it -- and with it thier opporutnity to gain a leadership position. To me, the biggest disappointment is that GM did not push the technology and the lessons learned to futher the development of fuel efficient vehicles, and instead cast it aside as irrelevant for over ten years.
You failed to mention that in both the Gen I and Gen II releases of the EV-1 the leases were snapped up in a matter of days. In the case of the Gen II cars, the lease releases were controlled to targeted users (many were Gen I upgrades) and a very large waiting list was created that GM never filled.
You failed to mentioned that the cars were never offered outside of Califormia, and further, that leases were selectively granted to "urban" drivers by GM. You also failed to mention that after the intial Gen I publicity campaign, GM did almost no advertising for the EV-1 within California and none in the remainder of the country.
Also not mentioned was the almost unanimous postive feedback from the lessees, and the offer of almost every Gen II lessee to extend their leases further or to purchase the car outright. The loss of the EV-1 for some of these drivers created a culture that still exists today, over ten years later.
Also forgotten is the fact that GM, along with several other American manufacturers opposed the passage of ZEV laws in other states based on the CARB model dispite the liklihood that such legislation would have vastly increased the market. GM could have influenced these mandates to include hybrids or other emerging technologies in the legislation. Instead, GM refused to include emerging technologies as potential mitigations for perceived short-commings of the EV-1 in these markets. Then, having created a popular mandate and market, sued California and CARB to get the legislation reversed and destroyed both the mandate and the market.
The rest is history and after CARB reversed the legislation under the cloud of several questionable circumstances involving CARB officials, GM cancelled the EV-1 program when the last private lease expired in August of 2003. GM handled the vehicle returns with very heavy handedness; charging lessee's for excessive wear, scratches and excessive mileage and insisted on agressively billing for these charges even when the cars were scrapped and scheduled for the crusher and the costs had been written off.
From time to time, one of the universities or technical colleges that received one of the end-of-life EV-1s has resored it to operating condition and demonstrated it as a technical exercise. In every case, GM has responded extremely agressively, threating legal action for violation of the agrement and witholding any further financial or technical assistance to that institution.
GM may have been correct when it claimed that the EV-1 was premature and that the technology was not there in 2003 to support it. But the market was there and GM, along with others that did include big oil, killed it -- and with it thier opporutnity to gain a leadership position. To me, the biggest disappointment is that GM did not push the technology and the lessons learned to futher the development of fuel efficient vehicles, and instead cast it aside as irrelevant for over ten years.
Last edited by FastMover; 06-10-2008 at 05:00 PM.
#14
06-10-2008, 05:45 PM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
There is some other "mis-remembering" going on too!
You failed to mention that in both the Gen I and Gen II releases of the EV-1 the leases were snapped up in a matter of days. In the case of the Gen II cars, the lease releases were controlled to targeted users (many were Gen I upgrades) and a very large waiting list was created that GM never filled.
You failed to mentioned that the cars were never offered outside of Califormia, and further, that leases were selectively granted to "urban" drivers by GM. You also failed to mention that after the intial Gen I publicity campaign, GM did almost no advertising for the EV-1 within California and none in the remainder of the country.
Also not mentioned was the almost unanimous postive feedback from the lessees, and the offer of almost every Gen II lessee to extend their leases further or to purchase the car outright. The loss of the EV-1 for some of these drivers created a culture that still exists today, over ten years later.
Also forgotten is the fact that GM, along with several other American manufacturers opposed the passage of ZEV laws in other states based on the CARB model dispite the liklihood that such legislation would have vastly increased the market. GM could have influenced these mandates to include hybrids or other emerging technologies in the legislation. Instead, GM refused to include emerging technologies as potential mitigations for perceived short-commings of the EV-1 in these markets. Then, having created a popular mandate and market, sued California and CARB to get the legislation reversed and destroyed both the mandate and the market.
The rest is history and after CARB reversed the legislation under the cloud of several questionable circumstances involving CARB officials, GM cancelled the EV-1 program when the last private lease expired in August of 2003. GM handled the vehicle returns with very heavy handedness; charging lessee's for excessive wear, scratches and excessive mileage and insisted on agressively billing for these charges even when the cars were scrapped and scheduled for the crusher and the costs had been written off.
From time to time, one of the universities or technical colleges that received one of the end-of-life EV-1s has resored it to operating condition and demonstrated it as a technical exercise. In every case, GM has responded extremely agressively, threating legal action for violation of the agrement and witholding any further financial or technical assistance to that institution.
GM may have been correct when it claimed that the EV-1 was premature and that the technology was not there in 2003 to support it. But the market was there and GM, along with others that did include big oil, killed it -- and with it thier opporutnity to gain a leadership position. To me, the biggest disappointment is that GM did not push the technology and the lessons learned to futher the development of fuel efficient vehicles, and instead cast it aside as irrelevant for over ten years.
You failed to mention that in both the Gen I and Gen II releases of the EV-1 the leases were snapped up in a matter of days. In the case of the Gen II cars, the lease releases were controlled to targeted users (many were Gen I upgrades) and a very large waiting list was created that GM never filled.
You failed to mentioned that the cars were never offered outside of Califormia, and further, that leases were selectively granted to "urban" drivers by GM. You also failed to mention that after the intial Gen I publicity campaign, GM did almost no advertising for the EV-1 within California and none in the remainder of the country.
Also not mentioned was the almost unanimous postive feedback from the lessees, and the offer of almost every Gen II lessee to extend their leases further or to purchase the car outright. The loss of the EV-1 for some of these drivers created a culture that still exists today, over ten years later.
Also forgotten is the fact that GM, along with several other American manufacturers opposed the passage of ZEV laws in other states based on the CARB model dispite the liklihood that such legislation would have vastly increased the market. GM could have influenced these mandates to include hybrids or other emerging technologies in the legislation. Instead, GM refused to include emerging technologies as potential mitigations for perceived short-commings of the EV-1 in these markets. Then, having created a popular mandate and market, sued California and CARB to get the legislation reversed and destroyed both the mandate and the market.
The rest is history and after CARB reversed the legislation under the cloud of several questionable circumstances involving CARB officials, GM cancelled the EV-1 program when the last private lease expired in August of 2003. GM handled the vehicle returns with very heavy handedness; charging lessee's for excessive wear, scratches and excessive mileage and insisted on agressively billing for these charges even when the cars were scrapped and scheduled for the crusher and the costs had been written off.
From time to time, one of the universities or technical colleges that received one of the end-of-life EV-1s has resored it to operating condition and demonstrated it as a technical exercise. In every case, GM has responded extremely agressively, threating legal action for violation of the agrement and witholding any further financial or technical assistance to that institution.
GM may have been correct when it claimed that the EV-1 was premature and that the technology was not there in 2003 to support it. But the market was there and GM, along with others that did include big oil, killed it -- and with it thier opporutnity to gain a leadership position. To me, the biggest disappointment is that GM did not push the technology and the lessons learned to futher the development of fuel efficient vehicles, and instead cast it aside as irrelevant for over ten years.
GM continued with the EV1 program AFTER the mandate had been lifted; in fact the EV1 was not available until the mandate was already gone. Toyota fought the mandate as well, but that I guess is forgiven.
There was no way the batteries (either PbA or NiMH) were going to last an acceptable time. And there was a definite reason the EV leases were only available in warm climes. The performance sucked when the temps were below 40 degrees. It would never have been viable in the other CARB states (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York) that were clamoring for EV's.
http://www.eanet.com/kodama/ev1/diary.htm
Last edited by DesertDog; 06-11-2008 at 10:27 AM.
#15
06-10-2008, 08:28 PM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
I test drove an EV-1 back in the late 90s. Thought it was very cool, but it was completely useless to me because I lived in a condominium at the time, so no way to plug it in. Also because it would only go 80 miles on a charge, which meant that I'd have to have a regular car to take a road trip.
Still, it was fascinating technology, and offered impressive driving performance. I believe that it would have sold (or leased) for premium prices if GM had put the appropriate R&D into it after production began. If they had improved the battery range and interior space, the thing would've been a hit.
I find it more than coincidental that GM scrapped the EV-1 the same year gasoline prices began the surge that has led us to $4 per gallon.
As for the idea that it SHOULD have been scrapped because it wouldn't work for all people in all climates; if that were the operating principle 100 years ago, the automobile itself would not exist. That's because cars didn't work well in the early days -- they were noisy, spewed loads of smelly exhuast, broke down frequently, and scared the horses that were the common mode of transportation back in the day.
They were impractical, and people didn't like them. But cars improved over the years, and so would electric cars ..... if they were given the chance.
Still, it was fascinating technology, and offered impressive driving performance. I believe that it would have sold (or leased) for premium prices if GM had put the appropriate R&D into it after production began. If they had improved the battery range and interior space, the thing would've been a hit.
I find it more than coincidental that GM scrapped the EV-1 the same year gasoline prices began the surge that has led us to $4 per gallon.
As for the idea that it SHOULD have been scrapped because it wouldn't work for all people in all climates; if that were the operating principle 100 years ago, the automobile itself would not exist. That's because cars didn't work well in the early days -- they were noisy, spewed loads of smelly exhuast, broke down frequently, and scared the horses that were the common mode of transportation back in the day.
They were impractical, and people didn't like them. But cars improved over the years, and so would electric cars ..... if they were given the chance.
#16
06-11-2008, 08:04 AM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
Yeah, the Rav4 EVs with NiMH really had a short-lived battery life. Some are still running over 100,000 miles. evnut.com for details.
"Who Killed the electric car" DVD for many other "myths".
It never ceases to amaze me how this is all swept under the carpet. The whole EV1 story is the saddest thing that has become more sad with current energy issues. We as a species just know greed and that's it. Carry on GM, best of luck fighting the image I've attached. I won't let them get away with it, proclaiming the Volt battery is not ready. Not when 10 year-old technology was diposed of.
"Who Killed the electric car" DVD for many other "myths".
It never ceases to amaze me how this is all swept under the carpet. The whole EV1 story is the saddest thing that has become more sad with current energy issues. We as a species just know greed and that's it. Carry on GM, best of luck fighting the image I've attached. I won't let them get away with it, proclaiming the Volt battery is not ready. Not when 10 year-old technology was diposed of.
#17
06-11-2008, 08:13 AM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
I think the EV-1 program cancellation is probably the biggest mistake in the history of GM. They could have kept it going, even on a small scale. They could have been the ones to lead the hybrid research. That program could have developed into more than just plug-in, short range cars.
There were other motivations beyond just demand. They way the program cancellation was carried out was vindictive, odd and hateful in many ways. Very strange. Karma, though. I just hope for the sake of US employees that they quickly get back on track.
There were other motivations beyond just demand. They way the program cancellation was carried out was vindictive, odd and hateful in many ways. Very strange. Karma, though. I just hope for the sake of US employees that they quickly get back on track.
#18
06-11-2008, 10:26 AM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
They were offered in Phoenix (not located in CA, BTW), my company even had fast chargers installed near the entrance (primo parking, no walk across an asphalt parking lot in 115 temps.). The S-10's outnumbered the EV1's by about 3:1. EV1s were available here, I don't recall waiting lists. The lease price was simply too high for me, and even as such GM was losing tons on each vehicle.
GM continued with the EV1 program AFTER the mandate had been lifted; in fact the EV1 was not available until the mandate was already gone.
There was no way the batteries (either PbA or NiMH) were going to last an acceptable time. And there was a definite reason the EV leases were only available in warm climes. The performance sucked when the temps were below 40 degrees. It would never have been viable in the other CARB states (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York) that were clamoring for EV's.
GM continued with the EV1 program AFTER the mandate had been lifted; in fact the EV1 was not available until the mandate was already gone.
There was no way the batteries (either PbA or NiMH) were going to last an acceptable time. And there was a definite reason the EV leases were only available in warm climes. The performance sucked when the temps were below 40 degrees. It would never have been viable in the other CARB states (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York) that were clamoring for EV's.
You are mostly correct, the EV-1 was available (for lease) in California right through the mandate. However, it was not delivered unitl after, mostly with a two to four month wait.
I do not argue that the EV-1, even in the Gen II configuration could have performed to market expectations in cold climates. However, GM was developing EV-1 variants, hybrid, fuel cell and Ethanol that could. If they had used even a fraction of the legal might they used to kill the California mandate to influence these other initiatives (as well as CARB) they could have moved the expectations and retained the market that they created instead of throwing it away.
Regarding the other directions the EV-1 could have gone, most of the early GM research on electric vehicles in the late 1980s and through the 1990s that GM claimed to have paid for was actually done by a small engineering firm in California called AeroVironment, the firm that designed the GM "Impact" prototype that led directly to the EV-1. Several of the Aerovironment principals (MacReady and Brooks) urged GM to move more into hybrids as a way to offset the limited range of the then available battery packs. But Roger Smith wooud have none if it and concentrated on the press attention and hype. Regarding the press, GM claimed the lion's share of the credit for the Impact, and only briefly mentioned an "unnamed" R&D firm that had provided minor assistance.
Later, GM senior executives, like Larry Burns and even Rick Wagoner, himself, admitted that the decisiion to terminate the EV-1 program instead of re-alaigning it into hybrids or alternative fuel vehicle programs was probably one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of GM.
I can only hope that if the first edition of the Volt does not initially live up to expectations, and needs further refining to make a market, that GM will not give up on it so quickly -- and that they will treat the early adapters with more gentility that they have demonstrated in the past.
Last edited by FastMover; 06-11-2008 at 11:58 AM. Reason: Grammer correction
#19
06-11-2008, 11:23 AM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
No, if they said "we're going to go on strike in the summer of 2010......"
Peace,
Martin
#20
06-11-2008, 11:47 AM
Re: Ford and GM plants vs hybrids
GM's problems are widespread. A few weeks ago there was a half page ad in our local newspaper for the new Saturn Vue (I think..whatever competes with the Equinox and Torrent). The ad, among other claims, was touting how reviewers wrote that it scored so much better than competing Equinox, Torrent, etc. A GM ad bashed other GM products! Interestingly though, the ad appeared a day or two later and that particular quote was removed but the rest of the ad was the same.
I remember reading 2 - 3 years ago how Toyota, for example, would make the Camry or Sienna or Corolla or any new car and would focus on making it better and better. At GM, they build a vehicle, the Equinox for example. Then, rather than work to improve it, they take the R & D money and modify the Equinox just slightly and sell it as a Pontiac Torrent so that they end up with two mediocre products rather than one solid, quality product.
- People who shop Pontiac showrooms typically do not shop Chevrolet showrooms, so the two are not necessarily in direct competition (same holds even more true for Chevy & Saturn).
- Pontiac is a stronger brand in Canada than in the US. It makes sense to offer the Torrent in Canada. As long as it's offered in Canada, it's only logical to also offer it in the States.
I think, too, that GM is not used to keeping products up-to-date. Buick, for example, comes to mind. Take the interior of a 1983 Buick Century. Put it next to a 1996 Century. No difference. 14 years of a car's life with the same interior and virtually the same exterior. Same with the Cadillac Fleetwood/Brougham...virtually the same from 77 to 92. I guess back then the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" rule still worked. Those days are over.
2005 - 7 Cadillac STS
2008 Cadillac STS
To your point, for way to long we did not much to provide exciting interiors. Within the past 5 years, GM interior design has been winning styling awards. Actually, our cars in general, both concept and production, have been winning styling awards. Credit Bob Lutz for giving Ed Welburn (GM VP - Design) a large yard to play in.
Peace,
Martin
