3 ms·

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

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.

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.