Comments on: GM debunks “Who Killed the Electric Car?” film

By: IntelliQ

IntelliQ — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:23:57 +0000

They may have crushed them due to a liabiliy issue. The electrical systems were dangerous.

That said, crushing them doesnt match up with the logica behind one of the GM reps in the movie who stated after they were crushed “we will dismantle and recycle every part and use them somewhere else”

That’s pretty hard to do after you squished the car to half it’s regular size.

By: Gus Reiter

Gus Reiter — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:38:45 +0000

The question comes to mind though, why did they crush the entire lot of ev1’s instead of selling them (make profit) to the people lobbying to keep the ev1’s ?

By: JMa

JMa — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:45:50 +0000

I think this car speaks less about the viability of electric cars and more about GM’s engineering department.

$2 billion + GM engineers = lemon

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:32:58 +0000

Funny… I see the C6 as an trimmed up C5 which was a welcome evolution of the C4 which was a good jump from the C3.

considering that after 65+ years they have done a spectacular job with the ‘Vette. What that has to do with the EV1 is beyond me.

GM said from the jump that they would be lease-only vehicles in select markets and that there would be no follow up.

GM is a business. They are in business to make $$$. If they could not make a business case to proceed with the electric only vehicles, that is their decision, and they have that right.

People need to pull the granola out of their asses and the hemp from their eyes. Every person in this world does not have to see things the same as you… and the top companies on the fortune 100 list do not have to blow another billion dollars because you are too stupid to realize that business will always function in its self interest.

By: Tim_s

Tim_s — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:10:27 +0000

bhanson is a GM fanboy. In his eyes, nothing GM does is wrong. Sadly, there are too many people that think that way. It’s one of the reasons GM is in crisis right now. Too many fanboys making decisions at GM.

If you buy American just to buy American then you’re doing a disservice to Americans. Auto makers need to know when their vehicles suck. GM needs to realize that most of their product line sucks. They need to start making cars that people can “feel” are good as well as being made well. There is absolutely no soul to any of their cars.

On the surface, the C6 is a poor imatation of the Ferrari 575. Under the skin, it’s one helluva car, but the body lacks feeling. Something the C5 absolutely dripped. That carries over to the entire product line. They seem to be built well, but they’re all blah in styling.

By: bhanson

bhanson — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:59:58 +0000

i think that everyone needs to stop being so god damn cheap. does no one learn that fossil fuels are more superior to anything that we have. drive a american vehicle that gets 8 miles to the gallon, pollute the earth (we’ll all be dead by the time its so bad that you can’t live on it anymore!). some of you people need to learn that this is a capitalist country and everything is about making money, its a vicious cycle. I stand behind General Motors Corporation 110% and i always will. support Americans by buying an american vehicle, its that simple.

By: stealth

stealth — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:53:30 +0000

Dave Bartmuss is full of crap…

It’s all about money in general, and oil money in particular..

People, watch out and take care of yourselves, because don’t count on General Motors or the Oil Companies to lookk out for your interests….

By: Tim_s

Tim_s — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:37:11 +0000

Hey, Madcrapp. Why don’t you eat **** and live. Then write a report about it on wikipedia.

I actually did think before I typed, something you probably have difficulty doing with all that tinfoil on your head. You should prabably read before you reply. I never said that the info about AGM batteries on wiki was incorrect, just that using wiki as a source is. Also, the creator of wikipedia says not to use it as a source.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:20:26 +0000

Did anyone actually see the movie? I did this past Sunday and the story is a little deeper than that. People who defend GM and “buy American” are idiots if they believe that there was no conspiracy on the part of GM, the oil companies and the Federal Govt. GM has sold crap for well over 20 years and now they are paying for it. There products are BS and they will always be behind the Japanese in technology and reliability

By: Yozzie

Yozzie — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:48:46 +0000

GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss told the Detroit News: “We lost well over $1 billion on the project. There is no conspiracy. If we could make a vehicle that could run on cow manure, we would do it if we could make money on it.”

That’s funny, ‘cos most of their current cars are bull****…

By: Jon'O

Jon'O — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:43:51 +0000

Wikipedia is fine. Most of the dubious articles are easily recognized. I’ve written articles for them and I think most people who do take the task very seriously.

And GM certainly could have INVESTED more money in electric cars. Your not supposed to get your money back right away, that’s why it’s an INVESTMENT. Though my money is on sloth and a lack of foresight rather than a conspiracy.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:43:28 +0000

I purchased my first car in June 2003. An 88 Honda Accord lx. Gas was priced at 80-95 cents in Missouri during that time. Life was grand.

I think that we are missing the forest for the trees. The ECV1 program may have cost GM money on the sale of ECV1s but it made up for it on the overall MPG per fleet law that was in effect at the time. When the law was changed GM no longer needed a car to help raise its fleet mpg numbers. So is GM to blame for the law change too? Maybe, you never know what the lobbyists are doing or were doing for GM at the time.

IMO GM gives up on technology too fast to really ever make money off of their investments. GM suffers the same ailments that most American companies do – short-term profits. Shareholders love Short Term Profits but it is in the company’s and this case GM’s best interest to look at the long term effect. Cylinder Deactivation anyone? GM came out ith this in the 80’s. Yes it was crap and yes GM suffered for it but it was a great idea. 20 years later Chrysler is using it to great effect and everyone forgot that GM had it
first.

GM is not the devil in this case but neither are they totally clean on this either.

By: James

James — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:18:36 +0000

When will people learn thermodyamics, cycles, and the fact that business’s need to make money?

stupid hippies

By: Joooooel

Joooooel — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:33:37 +0000

It’s inevitable really that batteries won’t make jumps and leaps in the coming years.

Batteries really are the only thing holding us up.

By: Joooooel

Joooooel — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:33:36 +0000

It’s inevitable really that batteries won’t make jumps and leaps in the coming years.

Batteries really are the only thing holding us up.

By: Beano

Beano — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:11:34 +0000

I filled up the tank on my Mustang on a trip back from Georgia for $.90 a gallon (for regular) as late as December of 2001.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:02:11 +0000

Fine ya retard, you don’t like Wikipedia, type AGM batteries into Google, You’ll learn the same thing. You oughta think before for type next time.

By: Thing2

Thing2 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:59:18 +0000

Madcapp, wikipedia is the worst source for information. Any asshole such as those like the notorious Anonymous can submit whatever they want and then little school children writing their reports fail because they got the wrong information. Not that this is always the case with all of the content on wikipedia, but the site has no credibility.

Atomicbri, saying that GM should become eco-friendly and spend tons of money on a rather weak business case is easier said then done. I do beleive alternative fuels need to be sought but electricity is not made out of thin air. Currently we use fossil fuels to make most of our electricity, and until we find other ways of making electricity, electric cars still pollute and then we’ve only transfered the problem and spent a great deal of time and resources to do so.

By: Atomicbri

Atomicbri — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:03:14 +0000

Gas was $0.84 a gallon regular unleaded in Atlanta, GA in 1993 cause I was in high school and remember it well. I still have some of the receipts I recently found in a box of old things I had SO yes #6 it was that much…..As for GM, I believe it did cost them a fortune and I can see the trouble with live batteries and repairs. However maybe they should have continued the research, maybe they would have found better ways of improving it and thus could have had a break through in car tech. However they stopped and still continue with things like gas guzzling Tahoes and Escalades….no wonder they are looking for a partner now.

By: The Stig

The Stig — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:59:15 +0000

If the movie was called “Who Killed this Electric Car?” then there’d be far less hype because the answer would be “who cares.” The technology was dated and as GM correctly states, not a viable alternative.

By: British_Rover

British_Rover — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:58:47 +0000

When I first started driving back in the early 90s I remember gas dipping down as low as the upper 70 cent range on occasion. Granted that was in Virgnia where gas prices tend to be a bit cheaper but still. Kind of blows your gas was never 87 cents theory. Maybe in Hawaii.

By: zerome

zerome — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:56:05 +0000

I live in calli too and I remember paying less thana 90 cents too.
I second that Ahk-Med

I’m talking about regular gas not premium.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:55:55 +0000

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

Price/Gallon averages back to 90ish…enjoy

By: Ahk-Med

Ahk-Med — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:41:39 +0000

I live in SoCal were gas prices are way above national average and I remember paying less that 90 cents a gallon during the early 90’s.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:32:40 +0000

Back when I bought a new 97 Accord as a college student, I’d take $15 to the gas station and get $1.50 back on a fill up because gas was regularly less than $0.90.

You’re obviously just a paid plant from somewhere to attempt to undermine the truth. Of course Wikipedia is a bunch of lies, of course gas was never in the 87 cent range, its all my imagination. You have a thing about facts alright, you like to ignore them.

By: Tim_s

Tim_s — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:25:43 +0000

Madcapp. Where was gasoline 87 cents per gallon during the Clinton era? Average gas prices during that time never dropped below $1, and steadily increased over the 90’s.

Also, wikipedia is not a reliable source. I’m not saying what is written about AGM batteries is wrong, just that anything on wikipedia is suspect. And that’s what the creator of wikipedia said.

Sorry to bust in with something slightly off topic there. I have a thing about facts.

By: Michael Spadaro

Michael Spadaro — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:11:43 +0000

The electric car didn’t make sense then, and it doesn’t make sense now.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:52:48 +0000

I wonder how many technological advancements over the last 10 hears have overcome many of these technological problems. MiMH battery technology has dramatically improved over the last 10 years, look at your cordless power tools to get an indication of what 10 years has done. Then there’s alternate battery technologies like AGM (absorbed glass mat) batteries which charge much more rapidly then conventional lead acid batteries. The Mazda Miata uses a AGM battery. And now that gasoline is $3+ a gallon instaed of the Clinton era $0.87 a gallon, you’d rather use electric.

Here’s the AGM battery info from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbed_glass_mat

By: Zan

Zan — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:15:28 +0000

I do believe that GM would continue if they could have made a profit. Its easy enough for us to say they shuld keep developing electric cars when its GM’s money we are spending.

I dont care what my car runs on as long as I can get at least 200HP out of it.

By: ss

ss — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:51:20 +0000

if they continued to use the logic of killing a product after it has lost a billion dollars all we would be left with is a Corvette and maybe a Hummer or 2…if devlopment would have continued on this car by now it would have been profitable and very useful. Though in this case i beleive GM.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:40:36 +0000

ah, GM speaks logic.

Where are all the leftist conspiracy theorists on this board? Its about time for another no-blood-for-oil GM is the devil circle jerk…