3 ms·

>>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 popula

>>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?
  - jonknee 16y ago
    I haven't read the contract, but what do you want to bet the paperwork people had to sign to get one of the EV1's excused GM from liability in the event the experimental car did something unexpected (say electrocution or a fire)? The last thing GM would have wanted is a couple hundred of its test fleet to get in the hands of the public. There was a known cost to destroying the failed product line and an unknown cost to support it going forward (not just liability but parts and service). They went down the fiscally sound path.
  - phreanix 16y ago
    To give it some credibility, here's mazda doing something similar. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942873506551291.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942873506551291.html
krschultz 16y ago
Ancedotes != evidence. From my experience the quality of a Ford beats that of a Japanese car in the show room. Maitenance is probably a wash. I have 0 experience with GM so I don't know, but I've owned a Ford for the last 10 years with >150k miles on it and have had very few issues. I also own a Subaru and it has had more issues and the quality is noticeably lower. My finance owns a Corolla from the same year as my Subaru with the same miles and it has had fewer issues, but still more than the Ford and the Ford is way older. I have some issues with it right now actually. Plus the Toyota totally sucks. 0 fun, crappy interior, tiny, horrific in the snow. We're never buying a Toyota ever again.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Is it a Ford car or truck?

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?
- jonknee 16y ago
  I haven't read the contract, but what do you want to bet the paperwork people had to sign to get one of the EV1's excused GM from liability in the event the experimental car did something unexpected (say electrocution or a fire)? The last thing GM would have wanted is a couple hundred of its test fleet to get in the hands of the public. There was a known cost to destroying the failed product line and an unknown cost to support it going forward (not just liability but parts and service). They went down the fiscally sound path.
- phreanix 16y ago
  To give it some credibility, here's mazda doing something similar. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942873506551291.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942873506551291.html

krschultz 16y ago

Ancedotes != evidence. From my experience the quality of a Ford beats that of a Japanese car in the show room. Maitenance is probably a wash. I have 0 experience with GM so I don't know, but I've owned a Ford for the last 10 years with >150k miles on it and have had very few issues. I also own a Subaru and it has had more issues and the quality is noticeably lower. My finance owns a Corolla from the same year as my Subaru with the same miles and it has had fewer issues, but still more than the Ford and the Ford is way older. I have some issues with it right now actually. Plus the Toyota totally sucks. 0 fun, crappy interior, tiny, horrific in the snow. We're never buying a Toyota ever again.

philwelch 16y ago
Is it a Ford car or truck?