7 ms·

You really managed to fit it all in there. >Given that G.M. destroyed their first electric car of this decade why would anyone trust them to build a new one B

by ergo98 16y ago

You really managed to fit it all in there. >Given that G.M. destroyed their first electric car of this decade why would anyone trust them to build a new one Because they had the experience of building an electric car, knowing it wasn't viable, and going back to the drawing board until the technology was refined? >I've never heard of a company purposefully destroying capital in the way G.M. did. That's because your analysis of it is hipster, populist garbage. Sorry to be impolite about it, but the whole "who killed the electric car" movement is populated by people proud of their ignorance. >The Volt will likely fail because of its massive price Since when did $41K (really $33.5) get classed as a "massive price"? That is an absolutely typical mid-level sedan price, and apparently the volt is fairly well equipped. >At least with the Prius you'd be getting a quality car made by a quality company. The number of problems with the Prius have been legendary. Toyota's quality lead over GM has shrunk to almost a rounding error, yet we'll forever hear the "angry at GM guy" railing his 1980s argument.

barkingcat 16y ago
I think the problem was that they didn't learn anything from that experience. It was undermined by internal political processes, and the party line for most of the 2000's was that GM was never going to build hybrid cars because the GM execs decided batteries didn't appeal to their egos. It's got nothing to do with profitability, viability, maturity of technology, etc. I mean, GM built, marketed, and invested millions into some of the MOST unviable cars out there you can find. At one point, almost every single car they sold was at a loss - they were paying people to drive them off the lots. You can't get more "unviable" than that. And I don't think the argument is "who killed the electric car" - the real story is "who killed GM" - the entire company is an exercise in producing a black hole for money, not in manufacturing or car making.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >It's got nothing to do with profitability, viability, maturity of technology, etc. So had the rest of the industry moved to electric vehicles, eating GM's lunch? Surely they must have given that GM was in bed with big oil and was turning a blind eye to this great technology. Of course they didn't. Honda and Toyota did some minor initiatives in marginally hybrid vehicles (which they sold at a loss primarily for image, while at the same time ramping up their own mega-SUV land yacht efforts). Everyone else just ignored it. Worse the entire industry didn't even know what "future" was the best future. Hydrogen fuel? Electric? Flex fuels? Was some sort of ultra-capacitor going to come and change the entire industry? The improvements in battery technology over just the past couple of years have been incredible. Everything relies upon battery technology, and the entire worldwide automotive industry is essentially working together on this. GM in no way had it mastered over a decade ago. >At one point, almost every single car they sold was at a loss - they were paying people to drive them off the lots. Any year that any company has a loss you could claim that they "lost money on every single unit sold", but of course that would be facile. GM's trouble centered on a long accumulated pile of debt while they did a worldwide expansion, coupled with massive liabilities to the union in the US.
jswinghammer 16y ago
>>That's because your analysis of it is hipster, populist garbage. Sorry to be impolite about it, but the whole "who killed the electric car" movement is populated by people proud of their ignorance. I don't understand what you mean here? They destroyed the engines? Why would you destroy your capital? It's their right I guess but that seems irrational. >>Toyota's quality lead over GM has shrunk to almost a rounding error, yet we'll forever hear the "angry at GM guy" railing his 1980s argument. Rounding error? Every car that my parents have owned from GM in the last 30 thirty years has cost them fortunes to maintain. My Corolla costs me virtually nothing to maintain after 10 years on the road and living on the streets of Boston.
- barkingcat 16y ago
  I believe they took all the EV1's and shredded them. So yes, they did destroy the engines, the chassis, and the spare parts so no one could maintain them outside of GM even if they wanted to.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    They also removed the engines from the cars in their showroom. Where's the logic in that move? Is someone going to break in and steal the car?
- ergo98 16y ago
  >Why would you destroy your capital? They were trial products, and represented a significant liability to the corporation for no benefit. The automobile industry is pretty much the most litigious industry going, so eliminating what wasn't commercially viable was a very, very fiscally prudent move.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    You'll have to explain that to me. What was the liability? Government regulation? Why was the trial considered a failure anyway?
barkingcat 16y ago
"Since when did $41K (really $33.5) get classed as a "massive price"? That is an absolutely typical mid-level sedan price, and apparently the volt is fairly well equipped." Since the economic crisis happened. I'm not even on my way to saving for my first car, and I'm already looking for cars under $10,000. Most families that are not well off usually look for cars in the $20-30 grand range. So 41K is a lot - in today's terms.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >Since the economic crisis happened. I'm not even on my way to saving for my first car, and I'm already looking for cars under $10,000. I'm not sure if the economic crisis has anything to do with that. I haven't seen any major slashing of prices. Quite the opposite, in fact: Incentives and deals have disappeared, and the net cost has increased. >Most families that are not well off usually look for cars in the $20-30 grand range. So 41K is a lot - in today's terms. I don't think it's intending to compete with standard family vehicles. This is a very low quantity run, targeted at the sort of (young professionals) people who would likely have bought a VW TDI or something, where the price range isn't all that different.
theBobMcCormick 16y ago
Isn't $41K right in line with what people were paying for Hummers? People didn't seem to think that was a "massive price", and Hummers were ridiculously impracticable and ridiculously expensive to own/run.

by ergo98 16y ago

barkingcat 16y ago

I think the problem was that they didn't learn anything from that experience. It was undermined by internal political processes, and the party line for most of the 2000's was that GM was never going to build hybrid cars because the GM execs decided batteries didn't appeal to their egos. It's got nothing to do with profitability, viability, maturity of technology, etc. I mean, GM built, marketed, and invested millions into some of the MOST unviable cars out there you can find. At one point, almost every single car they sold was at a loss - they were paying people to drive them off the lots. You can't get more "unviable" than that. And I don't think the argument is "who killed the electric car" - the real story is "who killed GM" - the entire company is an exercise in producing a black hole for money, not in manufacturing or car making.

ergo98 16y ago
>It's got nothing to do with profitability, viability, maturity of technology, etc. So had the rest of the industry moved to electric vehicles, eating GM's lunch? Surely they must have given that GM was in bed with big oil and was turning a blind eye to this great technology. Of course they didn't. Honda and Toyota did some minor initiatives in marginally hybrid vehicles (which they sold at a loss primarily for image, while at the same time ramping up their own mega-SUV land yacht efforts). Everyone else just ignored it. Worse the entire industry didn't even know what "future" was the best future. Hydrogen fuel? Electric? Flex fuels? Was some sort of ultra-capacitor going to come and change the entire industry? The improvements in battery technology over just the past couple of years have been incredible. Everything relies upon battery technology, and the entire worldwide automotive industry is essentially working together on this. GM in no way had it mastered over a decade ago. >At one point, almost every single car they sold was at a loss - they were paying people to drive them off the lots. Any year that any company has a loss you could claim that they "lost money on every single unit sold", but of course that would be facile. GM's trouble centered on a long accumulated pile of debt while they did a worldwide expansion, coupled with massive liabilities to the union in the US.

jswinghammer 16y ago

>>That's because your analysis of it is hipster, populist garbage. Sorry to be impolite about it, but the whole "who killed the electric car" movement is populated by people proud of their ignorance. I don't understand what you mean here? They destroyed the engines? Why would you destroy your capital? It's their right I guess but that seems irrational. >>Toyota's quality lead over GM has shrunk to almost a rounding error, yet we'll forever hear the "angry at GM guy" railing his 1980s argument. Rounding error? Every car that my parents have owned from GM in the last 30 thirty years has cost them fortunes to maintain. My Corolla costs me virtually nothing to maintain after 10 years on the road and living on the streets of Boston.

barkingcat 16y ago
I believe they took all the EV1's and shredded them. So yes, they did destroy the engines, the chassis, and the spare parts so no one could maintain them outside of GM even if they wanted to.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  They also removed the engines from the cars in their showroom. Where's the logic in that move? Is someone going to break in and steal the car?
ergo98 16y ago
>Why would you destroy your capital? They were trial products, and represented a significant liability to the corporation for no benefit. The automobile industry is pretty much the most litigious industry going, so eliminating what wasn't commercially viable was a very, very fiscally prudent move.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  You'll have to explain that to me. What was the liability? Government regulation? Why was the trial considered a failure anyway?

barkingcat 16y ago

"Since when did $41K (really $33.5) get classed as a "massive price"? That is an absolutely typical mid-level sedan price, and apparently the volt is fairly well equipped." Since the economic crisis happened. I'm not even on my way to saving for my first car, and I'm already looking for cars under $10,000. Most families that are not well off usually look for cars in the $20-30 grand range. So 41K is a lot - in today's terms.

ergo98 16y ago
>Since the economic crisis happened. I'm not even on my way to saving for my first car, and I'm already looking for cars under $10,000. I'm not sure if the economic crisis has anything to do with that. I haven't seen any major slashing of prices. Quite the opposite, in fact: Incentives and deals have disappeared, and the net cost has increased. >Most families that are not well off usually look for cars in the $20-30 grand range. So 41K is a lot - in today's terms. I don't think it's intending to compete with standard family vehicles. This is a very low quantity run, targeted at the sort of (young professionals) people who would likely have bought a VW TDI or something, where the price range isn't all that different.

theBobMcCormick 16y ago

Isn't $41K right in line with what people were paying for Hummers? People didn't seem to think that was a "massive price", and Hummers were ridiculously impracticable and ridiculously expensive to own/run.