Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place. They were forced to, lost a bunch of money on it that they saw no way of recovering and did everything they could to kill it.
The fact that a much later product from another company worked better is irrelevant to the discussion, as is the fact that GM didn't support a 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement. GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were viable products, they wouldn't have killed it. Part of the issue is that unless battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception). Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade weather. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > re: who killed the electric car > > I don't want to get into all the bullshit that GM spews about the > EV-1. Saying "lawsuits" is ridiculous. Saying they were too expensive > to make and didn't meet enough market need despite heavy advertising > is bullshit ... if you tried to buy an EV-1 (I did ...) you were met > with barrier after barrier, filled out a barrage of paperwork, and > then the bastards said "No!" 9 times out of 10. Hell of an > "aggressive marketing plan". > > And when they would let you have one because you were a celebrity or > whatever, they would lease it and not allow any option to renew or > extend the lease, buy it out, etc. They quashed the makers of the > batteries that would have given the car a 300 mile range. > > And let's imagine that there were real, sensible, intelligent reasons > why the cars were not viable for use. Sure, collect them post-leasing > and dispose of the ones that you don't otherwise put to good use for > further research and development. Leave a few around in museums and > such for historical purposes ... which they did ... > > But why destroy the control system that would allow them ever to be > run again? That's what they did. It's like Ford saying "Well, > Smithsonian Institute, you can have the very last Model T for > posterity but we're taking out the camshaft and connecting rods > because you should never be able to demonstrate it." > > And they were not alone in this heinous behavior. I don't blame GM > alone, although they were the worst offenders. > > BTW: The City of Sunnyvale and City of San Jose both operate still a > fleet of Toyota RAV4 EVs. They're nearing the end of their five year > lease and will likely be collected up and crushed soon. I know > several of the folks that use them daily. With the third generation > battery they were fitted with about a year after they were leased, > they're getting 250 miles per charge. Not a single one has required > any maintenance other than tires and brake pads, in 70,000 plus miles > of service. The people who use them love them. For an 11 month > period, Toyota offered a buy out option on the lease which many > people who had one took advantage of. I know three of those people. > The cars are running beautifully, with 90,000 plus miles on the clock > on average, and still have only required tires and brakes, a couple > of normal suspension components. Yeah, they'll crush and shred them, > the manufacturers don't want people to know how good these vehicles > are ... they don't make enough money on service with them, that's the > real problem. > > I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me > angry once again. > > I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better > concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time. > I think it has good legs ... the future possibilities of plug-in > recharging, alternative fuel ICEs to mate with the electrics, etc > pose a viable way forward. The Prius has, in my opinion, validated > this drive system concept very satisfactorily, and we're happily > still in the early infancy of its deployment. Innovation can still > make a difference... > > Godfrey > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
