I just finished watching "Who Killed the Electric Car."

[Renew Deal]

It's a great documentary for anyone who drives, breathes, or lives within 1000 miles of a hurricane zone. I have to say, I'd love to see GM go down after watching the movie. They released an electric car because of a law change in California. They advertised for it with dark, negative ads. They refused to sell it. It was available by lease only. Then they refused to renew any leases. They intentionally failed to meet demand. In the end they claimed it failed because of demand. GM's behavior is absolutely dreadful. I'd have a hard time shedding a tear for their management if they failed. Obviously it's more complicated than that. I don't want to see 3.5 million people lose their jobs because of shitty management, but I do want to see management changed. They are scum.

[valerief]

1. GM = oil, so, of course, they don't want electric cars. Good flick. nt

[ContinentalOp]

27. I'm not sure that's true.

That was my feeling for years, particularly after watching WKTEC, but now I really suspect that it has to do more with maintenance. Parts and service are a huge moneymaker for the auto industry, and I wonder if the big shocking lesson that GM learned with the EV-1 experiment was the fact that electric cars require very little maintenance. It's kind of like building the light bulb that never burns out. No corporate accountant is going to let a company make that "mistake."

[valerief]

93. Well, they killed the electric car at the start of the 20th century for oil. nt

[NYC_SKP]

2. It was criminal, and how the Cal Air Rescources Board caved is a crime

At least I think it was them who caved.

Toyota had an all electric Rav4, I know a person who was able to keep theirs, but not the GM car they also had back then.

[Renew Deal]

8. That guy Lloyd was a plant.

And in the end he said he'd do the same thing. What a jerk. But I'm sure he's a well compensated jerk.

[Skink]

3. How were production costs?

Would they have lost money per car if they kept making it?

[Renew Deal]

9. It never said anything either way.

[TheWraith]

41. They would have lost about $40,000 per car.

The EV1s cost about $80k to make, and they leased them for $39k and change.

[ContinentalOp]

49. They only made about 1000.

If they had actually mass produced the cars surely they would have been cheaper. What part of the EV1 do you think would account for an $80k price tag if it had actually gone into production?

[TheWraith]

53. The EV1 used a completely unique drivetrain.

Unique means new parts, new assembly lines, new problems, and no opportunity to defray the cost across product lines. Also, sufficient battery capacity would probably be a notable percentage of the pricetag. Yes, it probably would have come down if you built ten million of them. But even if you cut the cost in half--rather a stretch--you're still talking a car double the price of a Prius, and well outside most buyers' range.

[ContinentalOp]

60. What part of the EV1 was so expensive?

The lead acid battery? :shrug:

[IDemo]

65. Likely the battery management system

Few people are aware of it, but the EV1 and the Tesla share a common ancestry. Alan Coccini, the designer of the drive system for EV1 prototype, the Impact, later founded AC Propulsion, which licensed the AC-150 technology to Tesla Motors.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/index.php

[TheWraith]

67. Like I said, it had a unique drivetrain.

One built from the ground up for an electric-motor vehicle, which meant a whole hell of a lot of engineering and testing had to go into each one, since they were an unproven technology. It was originally built that way on the assumption that the technology used could be adapted for use on a wide range of next-generation vehicles, ranging from fuel cells to hybrids (or more properly, range-extended EVs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#EV1_drivetrain_prototypes

In essence, the EV1 was a loss-leader, intended from the outset to be a learning experience, rather than to necessarily be a mass-market model in and of itself. That's the condition under which it was leased to users, as a matter of fact: that they were participating in a trial program, in which they provided feedback to GM.

However, the interest wasn't there for next-gen cars, either from the public or the manufacturers, so things were shelved.

Also, high-horsepower AC motors aren't exactly dirt cheap, nor are controllers to carefully balance the charging and discharging of large banks of lead-acid batteries. Each one can run into the thousands of dollars depending on your specifications, even today.

[ContinentalOp]

74. Yeah, all of those massive engineering and testing expenses are kind of a waste...

if you don't actually put the car into production. How much would ANY totally new, designed from the ground up car cost if you only built 1000 and then scrapped the project?

[Skink]

66. In that case the Government has to fianance it to profitability.

[SharonRB]

4. I was so angry after I saw it.

To think we could have been well on our way to getting off of foreign oil years ago. And then they sold the technology to Chevron (I think), who, of course, didn't want to do anything with it. They just wanted to prevent GM from building the cars.

[TheWraith]

42. Regarding Chevron

A company that Chevron owns a majority stake of bought from another company the patent for certain kinds of Nickel-Metal Hydride rechargable batteries, which have been used in some types of electric vehicles. However, for years now Lithium Ion has been by far the better choice on a performance per watt basis, so the patents aren't really a hinderence.

[Statistical]

72. Actually it was/is a hinderence.

Actually it was/is a hinderence. Lithium-Ion costs about 3x as much (easily raising car cost by $10K-$20K). Oh and it tends to explode if it gets wet.

Every single hybrid except the Chevy Volt use Nm batteries.

Only now is the cost of Lithium-Ion coming down plus the tech to prevent that whole exploding thing.
Even so the choice of L-Ion in the Volt adds about $8,000 to the pricetag.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. I drove those cars when I worked for UCSD in San Diego, they

were simple mid-sized sedans, had sound systems, A/C and were not high tech (Lead acid batteries), they were quick, drove and handled well, went about 70 miles on a charge. G M could have sold millions of them, but it was all about the oil and still is.

[Greyhound]

34. More than oil, after sale maintenance and service. The cars were too good,

meaning that after it was leased there was basically no more money in it for them.

That is still why we are not permitted to have them.

[ContinentalOp]

37. That's what I think too.

I thought it was about the oil for years, but never really saw the concrete connection between the Big 3 and the oil industry. But if you look at the kind of profits they make from parts and service, you start to get a hint as to why they really killed the electric car.

[nxylas]

6. I still haven't forgiven them for killing the streetcars

And I wasn't even born then. Bastards.

[TheFarseer]

14. Have you ever read Internal Combustion?

Great book on that subject.

[nxylas]

15. No I haven't

But I know how it ends.

[Sal Minella]

19. Think it was Standard Oil and Firestone Tire that bought up the streetcar lines and destroyed the

"competition" for their products.

[Greyhound]

35. and GM. n/t

[Idealism]

7. Gotta see things from both perspectives

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wagoner">Wikipedia.

In an interview,<3><4> Wagoner stated that the worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."

He became president and chief executive officer in June 2000 and was elected chairman on May 1, 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1">Ev1-Wikipedia

Introduced in 1996, The EV1 electric cars were available in California and Arizona in a limited (3 year/30,000 mile) "lease only" agreement.<1> This was due to the fact that the EV1 and its leasee were to be participants in a "real-world" engineering evaluation created by General Motors Advanced Technology Vehicles group, as well as market analysis and study into the feasibility of producing and marketing a commuter electric vehicle in select U.S. markets.<2><3>

The EV1 was started before Wagoner got to GM, although his was the final decision to eliminate the program, at other top-managements urgings.

One thing we have to realize, at around 2000 (when the EV1 project was getting ramped up thanks to tech breakthroughs), gas was less than $2/gallon. The cost effectiveness wasn't yet there for GM. The only reason Toyota chose to develop fuel-cell technology to the extent they did was because their government gave them numerous subsidies to. Perhaps if our government backed GM like Japan backed Toyota the EV1 program would've came to fruition.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. It was and still is about the oil.

[Idealism]

12. Historical amnesia much?

Again, oil was less than $2/gallon at the apex of the program. The economy was healthy (before the 2001 recession). People weren't interested in fuel efficient vehicles in 2000 like they are now (or like they were 6 months ago).

Prius Sales:
By 2001 sales in the US totaled 15,556 (not even close to profitable considering the billions Toyota spent on their fuel-cell programs).

Perhaps GM should have looked towards the future, but without government subsidies to offset the costs of such technological innovations and without substantial public interest in such a project (at the time), they made a business decision. Obviously hindsight is 20/20; who knew oil would reach $147/barrel when they were around $40 back then?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

13. I say again, G M would have sold millions.

[Idealism]

17. Depends

The Prius has yet to sell a million, I doubt GM would have. Depends on the current price of gas, depends on the price tag. There are many factors to look at

[ContinentalOp]

29. Prius sales passed a million this April.

http://www.toyota.com/about/news/product/2008/05/15-1-prius.html

[Idealism]

30. Not in the United States

Which this discussion is about :)

[ContinentalOp]

33. The Big 3 don't sell their cars overseas?

:shrug:

Besides, the top selling cars in the U.S. are all models that have been around for decades. The Ford F-Series, Toyota Camry, Honda Civic & Accord, etc. How can you compare the sales over the lifetime of a model like that? It's totally meaningless.

[TheWraith]

43. The Prius has a rated price of around $23,000. The sticker price of the EV1 was $39,000.

And the unit cost to actually produce the EV1 was around $80,000.

[ContinentalOp]

47. There wasn't really a "sticker price" on an EV1, as it was never available for sale.

But at any rate, it's not exactly fair to compare a car that is being mass produced to a car where only 1000 or so were produced. I'm sure if you only made about 1000 Priuses they would be incredibly expensive too. Have you ever heard of this little thing called economies of scale?

[TheWraith]

54. The EV1 had a rated price of around $39,000 for lease calculation purposes.

And yes, I know quite a lot about of economies of scale. However, that doesn't compensate for the underlying costs of maintaining a completely seperate production model and the high price of parts.

It probably would have been a lot cheaper for GM to build if they'd simply slapped an electric motor into a standard GM car, replaced the gas tank with a battery pack, and called it an electric vehicle. But that would have created a beast which would have had worse performance and much higher maintainence needs. Instead they actually did it right, even though it was expensive.

From a simple economic point of view at the time, GM did the logical thing in ditching the EV1. It was expensive to them, and they couldn't make that model profitable. Sure, in hindsight it would make more sense to use it as a learning experience and keep improving, allowing them to have something like the Volt or the Tesla Model S at least a few years earlier. But expecting the long-term view out of any big business is a losing bet.

[ContinentalOp]

56. "expecting the long-term view out of any big business is a losing bet"

If you're talking about American businesses, sure. But that's not exactly true for Japanese corporations. That's the whole crux of the problem the Big 3 are currently in, is it not?

[dysfunctional press]

46. it cost $80K to build almost 10 years ago...

and people today are balking at the projected cost of $40K+ for the volt.

i don't think that they would have been able to sell millions at the price they would have had to charge.

[ContinentalOp]

48. But it was never put into production.

Of course if you only make a limited run of slightly over 1000 cars, it's going to be incredibly expensive. It wouldn't have cost that much if the car had actual gone into production though. What part of the EV1 do you think would have made it so expensive? The oh so cutting edge lead acid battery? :shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

51. the bottom line is the bottom line- it couldn't be made for a price that would be profitable.

that's what it boiled and boils down to.

it always does.

[ContinentalOp]

57. So what? The Prius was not profitable at first either.

The Big 3's problems are solely due to lack of foresight and poor management. Further proof that it's bad business to focus on this quarter's bottom line at the expense of all else.

[dysfunctional press]

63. foresight?

they were supposed to foresee rampant speculation in the oil market pushing the price to unreasonable levels? :shrug:

and the economic slowdown grinding to a halt?

btw- the big three haven't lost market share in this recent dearth of car-buying by the american public- NOBODY is buying cars from ANYBODY right now. even your highly vaunted imports...so much for your "further proof" :eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

75. Yes, foresight.

I'm talking about the 20, 50, 100 year view. Not this quarter. That's something corporate America will never understand. The internal combustion engine is a dying technology and electric cars are only a matter of time. The company with a bit of vision who sees this and works toward that goal is going to lead us into the future. Dinosaurs like GM may disappear if they can't keep up. Actively trying to impede that march of progress is just unfathomably stupid and short sighted.

[dysfunctional press]

86. that doesn't really work...

makers of expensive consumer goods who try to base their business plan on a 100, 50, or even 20 year view are likely to have problems...technological advances, sociological/political changes, even natural events(especially the kind of things nobody foresaw and/or planned for) tend to make those kinds of plans obsolete faily quickly.

10 years or more ago- the next big thing was fuel-cell cars...hybrids weren't even a consideration.

[ContinentalOp]

87. Really? I don't recall anybody talking about fuel cells until Bush and Co. decided...

that it was the excuse du jour for moving the goalposts further away. I mean, the Chevy Volt was an idea that came about by towing a gas generator behind the EV1 so that idea is at least a decade old. If the long term planning of the Japanese doesn't work, then why is this current economic crisis driving GM into bankruptcy while Toyota has posted their first loss in decades?

[dysfunctional press]

90. then you obviously don't know shit.

they started talking about fuel cell cars not too long after the shuttle program started up. i remember taking my nephew to the museum of science and industry, where they had a big display about the future of fuel cells in cars.

btw- what worked for toyota was the fact that the japanese have been paying a lot more for gas than us, and have less space for big cars. their cars were initially designed for the japanese market, not the american market.

[LeftyMom]

85. You're assuming the car would only be sold domestically.

Likely it would have sold better in Europe and Japan than the US initially, if marketed globally, due to greater demand for fuel efficiency, more interest in smaller cars generally and less suspicion of new technology.

[ContinentalOp]

28. I don't think it's entirely about the oil.

I think GM realized that it wasn't in the best interest of their bottom line to build a car that requires very little maintenance. The old obsolete internal combustion engine is a major cash cow for the automakers in terms of parts and service. I think this is part of the hidden story behind the death of the electric car.

[Renew Deal]

11. The funny thing is that the price of gas has probably dropped for the same reason.

The movie said that the price of gas "collapsed" in the 80's when people were starting to talk about alternatives. I think the same thing is happening now.

[Idealism]

16. OPEC's control has waned since the gas shocks of the 70s and 80s.

It was more speculation that bid up the price of oil, the reason given was "new demand from Chinese and Indian emerging markets" but we know this to be just a drop in the total consumed. Speculators have fled oil, hedge funds that used to heavily invest in energy stocks have also pulled out. The true price of oil should be around $50/barrel in my estimate

[Terry_M]

23. Subsidies or not...

The US has pretty much the lowest fuel efficiency standards world wide. With today's fuel efficiency standards, in Japan, you pretty much HAVE to sell hybrids and Europe will probably catch up to that pretty soon. GM/Ford/Chrysler are the only reason we have the lowest fuel efficiency standards (as can be told by all the whining and lawsuits started up every time we try to change them), and they've been doing that for the sole purpose of avoiding having to do the necessary R&D. The Japanese companies had no choice but to do the R&D or they wouldn't be allowed to sell in their domestic market. Whether that was a failure of our government (for caving in) or the companies (for putting tremendous lobbying pressure) can be debatable...

[Idealism]

26. Thats common knowledge, but

common knowledge is usually wrong. In this case it is no exception.

Ford, GM, and Chrysler's light trucks all have higher mpg EPA ratings than any Japanese automaker.

Ford's most efficient Focus has a higher mpg EPA rating than the most efficient Honda Civic.
GM's Malibu Hybrid has a higher mpg EPA rating than the Toyota Camry Hybrid.

Those are just off the top of my head, I can find you more if you'd like.

[ContinentalOp]

32. You are dead wrong. Where are you getting your info?

The 2009 Focus manual gets a combined 28mpg. The automatic gets 27mpg. The automatic Civic gets a combined 29mpg, beating both versions of the Focus. The Civic hybrid gets a combined 42, pretty much blowing any American made car out of the water in terms of fuel efficiency.

Similarly, the 2009 Malibu Hybrid gets only 29mpg combined, while the Camry Hybrid gets 34mpg combined.

Your conclusions are totally backwards. I hesitate to accuse you of intentionally lying but I've seen similar "inaccuracies" in so many of these threads that I'm starting to get suspicious.

I didn't bother to look up the trucks because I thought it was pretty nonsensical to bring one of the least fuel efficient types of vehicles into a discussion about fuel efficiency.

[ellie]

91. My husband's

1994 Honda Civic five-speed gets 39 mpg in the city. It makes my 29 mpg Toyota look like a Hummer in gas guzzling terms.

[Terry_M]

68. Besides ContinentalOp's response contradicting your statements,

What is my choice if I am ok with getting a compact? The Prius gives me 45-48mpg, what choices do I have between GM/Chrysler/Ford?

[ContinentalOp]

71. How unamerican of you!

Don't you know it's your patriotic duty to buy the biggest rolling hunk of steel and glass that Detroit offers? :P

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. You are quite wrong about that.

'Cost effectiveness' is in the eye of the buyer - and people were willing to buy those cars from GM, even offering substantially more than they were logically worth. They didn't want them because of the price of gas - they wanted them because they were green, and were more than willing to pay premium prices.

Once they were out there, and people were buying them in ever greater quantities, the price WOULD go down - regardless of the cost of a barrel of oil. GM could have produced those vehicles and people WOULD have bought them, allowing GM the same profit margin they made on any other vehicle they made, even if the cost per vehicle was #6-10,000 more than other vehicles of that class.

The market WAS there. And the recent and yet impending oil shocks guarantee it will remain and grow stronger. And that was for a car that really wasn't all that great - with limited range and virtually no infrastructure support.

[Idealism]

25. You are quite wrong about all of that.

Toyota, even after a decade of Prius development, still loses an estimated $2500 (even after Japanese subsidies) on each Prius sold. The technology is very expensive, and contrary to your belief, it hasn't substantially come down in price since its inception.

At the height of the EV1 project (1999-2001), oil prices were below $1.50/gallon. Not to mention the initial capacity of the car was quite limited (cold weather distance problems, couldn't hold charge) because the technology just wasn't advanced enough. You can argue as to who is at fault for that, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is by no means cheap to produce an electric car, and if gas is as low as it was during the time, the demand wouldn't have been there.

The recent and impending oil shocks weren't forseen when gas was under $40/barell. But then again, neither was the Iraq War (by most people).

[ContinentalOp]

36. That's a bunch of nonsense by "analysts".

You really believe that Toyota lost $2.5 billion on the first million Priuses they sold? According to this article, "Toyota officials recently told Bloomberg News that Prius is turning a small per-unit profit after some 75,000 worldwide sales as of late December 2001." http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2002-toyota-prius.htm

But even if they are taking a loss on every Prius, SO WHAT? You mean to tell me that the U.S. automakers can't even compete with a company that's selling cars at a $2500 loss!? They can afford to do that and still not be on the brink of bankruptcy like GM? And you think the big 3's problems have to do with anything but bad management? Give me a break.

[Radical Activist]

62. There were subsidies for research under Clinton.

It's hard to buy that as an excuse when companies are even fighting regulations that would make them use already existing technology to improve fuel economy.

[proud patriot]

18. We need to get the EV1 on the road again

IMHO

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Did you notice the part about how both...

Toyota and Honda dropped their electric cars, too? Ever wonder why NOT ONE major car manufacturer anywhere in the world has EVER had a serious electric car out there in the showrooms. (BTW, how's Tesla doing-- they got their financing in order or are they belly up now?)

And the Ford guy who talked about how a list of 50,000 or so interested people got winnowed down to 40 when they found out what the Ford electric car would do and what it would cost? Was he bullshitting, or would people really pay 30 grand or so for a car that you didn't dare drive in a rainstorm or your batteries would crap out halfway to the doctor's office?

Yeah, they'll sell millions of them around here where we have winters and batteries hold maybe 40% of their charge in cold weather-- just when you need the electric heater on. And the lights and windshield wipers.

Maybe GM didn't handle ending the program in the best way they could have, but it was a niche car with a very small niche and a financial loser for GM. Just as it was for Toyota and Honda-- even with Japanese government financing and support.

But, hey, why not blame GM and the evil suits in management? Make up some bullshit about how GM is owned by the oil companies and everyone goes away sanctimonious and satistfied.

(Even if the movie made the point that they were far from the only reason the EV-1 died.)

[ContinentalOp]

38. So wait a minute...

How come we have to be all rah-rah-rah... U..S..A...Number One... when it comes to buying a car, but we're not allowed to criticize our domestic auto industry when they fail us? I don't give a shit if Honda and Toyota killed their electric cars. I want American companies to offer electric cars and I want them to honor American laws, not lobby heavily to undo those laws. The fact that Honda and Toyota are years ahead of the Big 3 with their hybrids is just embarrassing to the U.S. auto industry and saying "well you can't buy an electric Rav 4 anymore" isn't going to cover that up.

[TheWraith]

45. Tesla's still kicking, though they're in less than great shape.

Their next model, the luxury sedan, is pretty much on indefinite hold, and they're focusing on building and selling Roadsters for the time being.

[blue_onyx]

21. I was so upset with GM when I saw the movie too

Obviously, as the movie points out, it wasn't just GM. The law requiring no emission vehicles didn't go away on its own. It's sad to think of what might have been had they not killed the electric car. The company could have been doing great in recent years and could have prevented a lot of pain for Michigan/Detroit.

[KT2000]

22. That movie changed me

GM advertises itself as a car manufacturer but they are really place holders for the status quo.
They saw how the balance of power could shift with this new technology and took it out of existence - or sold the technology so it could be locked away. They had a lot of help doing it too.

America is in the throes of cannibalsim - the last gasp of capitalism.

[tammywammy]

31. So, do you feel the same about Honda & Toyota, I mean they dropped going electric too. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

39. Yes, I'm so ashamed of Honda and Toyota...

Those great American institutions... oh wait. So when it's time to buy a car we're supposed to turn off the critical thinking, open up our wallets and buy American, but we're not allowed to hold our domestic industry to higher standards? Were Toyota and Honda the ones lobbying CA to undo their zero-emissions legislation? If all of these companies are equally complicit, why were the Japanese automakers so ahead of the game when it came to hybrid cars?

[KT2000]

58. I would if

they also developed an electric car that had a waiting list for buyers; lied and said that there was no customer interest in the cars; influenced state environmental boards to abandon efforts to reduce oil usage; lied to customers about the status of the cars; took back the cars that people were satisfied with, refusing to renew their leases; took the cars to an out of the way junk yard where they were crushed.

[ContinentalOp]

61. You forgot the part where they finally started producing hybrid vehicles...

a decade later, and 8 years after the competition had started mass manufacturing hybrids.

[TheWraith]

40. Okay, please don't take that movie too seriously. It pushes an opinion, not facts.

There's a lot of things they deliberately left out. Like the fact that they only leased it because to sell it, they'd have to price it north of $80,000, which was the per-unit price of making the thing. They did NOT fail to meet demand--in fact, they exceeded demand. Out of those 5,000 people the movie says were interested, very few of them were willing to actually lay down their money once they knew the limitations on range and recharging. And they didn't renew the leases because they were discontinuing the car and didn't want to be liable for repairs and parts for X years, as is the law.

GM has plenty of bad qualities, but "Who Killed The Electric Car?" is not an even-handed and accurate portrayal of the facts.

[ContinentalOp]

44. The only facts that matter:

- Electric cars were successfully manufactured and put on the road, thanks to a California law.
- Automakers lobbied to undo that law.
- When they successfully killed the law, the manufacturers destroyed all of the electric cars.
- Japanese automakers were the first to sell hybrid vehicles in the U.S. while the Big 3 were still focusing on large SUVs.

Are any of those statements inaccurate? Given those facts, how can I in good conscience support the American automakers if I care about the environment and the future of alternative fuel vehicles?

[dysfunctional press]

50. the only fact that matters is that the car would not have been profitable to build.

that's how companies make decisions.

people are balking at the projected cost of the volt- which will cost half as much as the ev-1 did to build, 10 years later.

the reason the big 3- as well as ALL of the foreign automakers, including Porsche were focused on suv's in the u.s. market is because that is where consumer demand was.
hybrid technology wasn't originally developed for the u.s. market- it was for the japanese market where gas costs have always been higher, and space more limited(higher percentage of people making shorter trips), etc...

believe it or not- most companies make decisions based on profitability.

[ContinentalOp]

55. Well, they can claim that but we don't really know do we?

The Prius was not profitable for a while and now it is. I don't really care if the cars were profitable to build or not. Automakers had a simple choice: make 2% of the cars that you sell in CA be zero emissions vehicles or pay a fine. Unfortunately they chose the typical corporate solution instead: lobby the regulation out of existence.

[dysfunctional press]

64. car companies are in business to make a profit- like every other company.

if they felt that they could have made a profit on the ev-1, they would have made a lot more of them.

but- the american people wanted big suv's that were profitable to manufacture. that's why every foreign manufacturer got into building them too- for the american market.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. As if a billion dollars in advertising had nothing to do with CREATING that demand. nt

[dysfunctional press]

76. people don't plunk that kind of money down on something they don't really like.

advertising may get people in the showroom- but unless they like the vehicle, people won't buy it.
and the fact is- LOTS of people like suv's.

[ContinentalOp]

81. Advertising doesn't just get them in the showroom.

It convinces them that SUVs are safer and all sorts of other lies. Advertising convinces people who go skiing one weekend out of the year that they "need" SUVs for their "active" lifestyle. Of course people like what they buy. It takes a pretty damn terrible vehicle to bring about buyer's remorse. Most people when they pay $30,000 for something will defend their purchase to the death. And hell, what's not to like about a 100% tax credit for small business owners who buy heavy trucks like the Hummer? If you don't think SUV craze was manufactured where do you think it came from? Why didn't the majority of Americans need SUVs before the past couple of decades? After all, families are shrinking on average aren't they?

[dysfunctional press]

82. the suv evolved from people customizing vans and pick-up trucks.

because people did start having more active lifestyles in many ways- and in the typical vehicle accidents, suv's ARE safer than smaller cars.

but you believe whatever you want, and whoever tells you what you want to be true...it's a free country.

[ContinentalOp]

83. I thought they evolved from station wagons and minivans.

I've got no problem with the minority of people who go off-roading or haul heavy equipment and genuinetly need a "sports utility vehicle". But let's be honest: the vast majority of SUVs were replacements for the minivans of the 80s and the station wagons of the 70s. It's a fashion trend for soccer moms who need to haul a few kids to their lessons and put a few bags of groceries in the back. Ignoring the rollovers and other safety issues, SUVs are only "safer" from a totally selfish point of view, which is why I put it in quotes. If your idea of safety is to make the roads more dangerous for everybody else then yeah, SUVs are safer.

[dysfunctional press]

84. when people buy cars- they're generally going to be more worried about their own safety...

than that of someone that collides with them.

if you feel that it's "totally selfish" to want to avoid dying a collision, you've got a pretty twisted outlook on life.

and however they evolved- people liked them and wanted them- which is why every manufacturer got into the market.

[ContinentalOp]

88. OMG, forgive me for thinking about the common good.

I got confused there for a minute and thought I posting on some kind of progressive website like DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. :wtf:

[dysfunctional press]

94. we're talking about the buying public, and the choices they make- not you.

:eyes:
sheesh...

btw- if someone ran into you, are you honestly saying that you'd prefer to die in the accident?

[TheWraith]

52. They are inaccurate, yes.

- Electric cars were successfully manufactured and put on the road, thanks to a California law.

You can successfully manufacture a rocketship too, but I can't take a vacation on the moon. There's a big and important difference between being able to do something, and being able to do it economically. Think about 1996 technology in terms of batteries, electronics, microcomputers, et al. Now compare that to 12 years later. Think a modern EV would be better and more efficient?

- Automakers lobbied to undo that law.
- When they successfully killed the law, the manufacturers destroyed all of the electric cars.

No. The Cali Air Resources Board expanded the definition of "zero emission vehicles" to include internal-combustion cars that produced clean exhaust. Using the technology available in 1990 when the mandate was first created, the only way to do "zero emissions" was using electric vehicles. And after the definition was expanded and EVs were no longer legally required, GM kept the program going for a further 3 years.

- Japanese automakers were the first to sell hybrid vehicles in the U.S. while the Big 3 were still focusing on large SUVs.

The Big 3 were "focusing" on SUVs because that's what Americans were buying. They've built the things since the 1980s, but it wasn't until then that they became all the rage.

Look, I'm as big a proponent as anybody of electric vehicles, but the fact is that the story that's been built up around the EV1 is mostly an urban legend, appealing to that old paranoia that there's really some kind of free energy, get rich quick, lose weight without diet or exercise "truth" out there that the Big Bad Guys are suppressing. The EV1 was no doubt a nice vehicle for its time, but the battery technology simply wasn't there. Now we've got better batteries in the form of Lithium Ion, and hopefully in the next 5 years or so Li Ion Nanowire, which will yield a lot more capacity for the same weight.

[ContinentalOp]

59. Again, what part of the EV1 cost $80,000?

The lead acid battery?

Are you arguing that the automakers didn't lobby to make changes to CARB? CARB's zero emissions vehicle mandate was repealed in 1996, so I don't know what you're talking about. I guess you're talking about Ultra Low Emission Vehicles, since no ICE can ever be a true ZEV.

And do you really want to argue that the Big 3 didn't miss the boat on hybrid vehicles? To me that's the smoking gun that proves they didn't really have any interest in efficient vehicles at all. During the development of the EV1 they realized that including a gas powered generator would give the car a much better range, and yet they didn't release a hybrid vehicle until 2005, 8 years behind Toyota, and almost a decade after the EV1.

[gravity]

78. If the EV1 is so cheap to make, start your own company

If there is a profit opportunity there, someone would be jumping all over that.

[ContinentalOp]

80. Brilliant!

:rofl: I never thought of that. You sure put me in my place. Wow, all of these decades and nobody else ever thought to start a new car company to challenge the Big 3 monopoly?

The bottom line is that they say this about every revolutionary product. Hell there are still people right here on DU trying to convince us that hybrids are impractical and unprofitable. Just like there were people who said you can't put a touchscreen on a cellphone and anyway, nobody will pay $300 for it.

[KakistocracyHater]

70. Wrong! The battery technology WAS THERE

did you not see the end of "Who Killed the Electric Car"? That older man had already invented a better battery. & suvs were shown to rollover-but advertisers made them desirable via pr, & drink holders seemed to matter more, as well as being 'above' everyone else.

Every new invention starts out in the red, it requires intelligence & patience to stick with it & let it become profitable over a period of time. The various excuses in the thread sound like the horse-&-buggy crowd; like Detroit claiming seatbelts would ruin & bankrupt them, wrong then, wrong now.

[ContinentalOp]

73. Yeah, the battery argument is such a joke.

So nobody manufactures a suitable battery for electric cars? Those electric cars that DON'T EXIST? What kind of laptop batteries do you think existed before laptops were made? How about cellphone batteries or ipod batteries? Did companies decide not to build those devices because the batteries didn't exist yet? No, they built them anyway, built the demand for the product, and then the battery technology followed along. If we had built electric cars 30 years ago, the battery technology would be there now, but certainly no company is going to just develop that battery technology for the hell of it if no carmaker has plans to make millions of electric vehicles. It's a chicken and egg situation.

[Statistical]

77. The battery problem still exists and is VERY real.

The battery pack in Chevy Volt is about $8,000 and some analyst say Chevy is lowballing the price and the reality is closer to $10,000.

Remember the Chevy Volt can ONLY go 40 miles before generator kicks on so a 100% electric car the battery would cost closer to $16,000 - $20,000 (unless you want a max range of 40 miles round trip).

GM spent 4 years and million of dollars developing and trying to bring cost of the Volt powerpack down. They also contracted with the 2 best companies in the world when it comes to L-Ion technology and had them compete against each other.

In 97 the battery was no where near commerical reality. Even today many think battery will be a dead end.

Take a car put a 100% electric motor in it.
You have three options

a) battery pack -> motor
b) gasoline (or natural gas) -> generator -> motor
c) H2 fuel tank -> H2 fuel cell -> motor

All three cars run on electricity.

A is the most efficient. A H2 car will NEVER be as efficent as an electric car because of the H2 loop (electricity -> H2 then H2-> electricity).
The problem is battery tech hasn't heat a breakthrough despite the demand for cellphones, laptop etc.

There already is a market for a 10x battery. Imagine a cellphone battery that lasts a year, or a laptop battery that lasts 24 hours. If someone could invent it they would make a billion (forget millions). Nobody has figured it out. Some are doubting that it will ever happen.

Likely H2 is going to be the better solution simply because batteries are heavy, expensive, and need to be replaced. Think of H2 nothing more than a "liquid battery".

[ContinentalOp]

79. I think of H2 as nothing more than a way to move the goalposts farther off into the distance.

And keep the whole refueling station paradigm so we can't all get free energy from solar panels on our roofs.

[Statistical]

89. Why can't you use solar power to electrolys H20 into H2?

The equipment to safely produce & store H2 at home fit in the space of a how water heater.

Nice thing is you add a H2 fuel cell at home you now have a liquid battery and your own power station at home. Keep a week of H2 on hand and if the power goes out you have a week long "liquid battery" to keep the lights (and heat) on. Try calculating the amount of batteries needed to maintain a weeks reserve in middle of winter.

One major con for H2
The car is still electric. H2 is just a battery. An H2 car is going to be about 40%-50% less efficient than an all electric car.

Two pros for H2
H2 + fuel tank = range that is easily double a battery
H2 + fuel tank + H2 stations = unlimited range.

Try taking an electric car on a road trip to Florida, or try running an 18 wheeler on electric battery.
Even vehicles like a personal pickup would not work well as electric vehicle due to weight vs range issue.

[EstimatedProphet]

92. Good documentary

I really would have liked to have owned one of those.