4 ms·
>Why would you destroy your capital? They were trial products, and represented a significant liability to the corporation for no benefit. The automobile indust
by 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 agoYou'll have to explain that to me. What was the liability? Government regulation? Why was the trial considered a failure anyway?
- jonknee 16y agoI 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 agoTo give it some credibility, here's mazda doing something similar. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942873506551291.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942873506551291.html