Trying to kill the electric car... AGAIN?

[RegGuheert]

I think that we are entering a conversation about oil. Maybe we need to start a topic about the reason we are all getting the Leaf... For me it's the idea of "Peak Oil", and the devastating ecological effect that most people don't even address regarding the "Tar Sands" method of getting oil. For me we should not be using Tar Sand petroleum (at any price) because it destroys the environment irrevocably, and also shows us that we have run out of "easy to get" oil... Wake up world! (we EV people are cool).

Agreed! I also have a large PV array on my roof and in my field because of the similar damage done to the environment to extract coal for electricity production.

In case you are interested, we did have a thread where we discussed why we purchased the LEAF, along with other characteristics of LEAF owners.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Regardless, the way for EVs to "win" is to become unquestionably superior. It's all about the batteries. And some big changes are already on the horizon.

Slight adjustment: it's all about range - which is partly about batteries - and partly about the efficiency of the car. If the car itself was more efficient, then any given battery pack capacity - will go farther.

This means more range with lower costs and less weight, and more space in the car.

 

[lionsfan54]

GM didn't kill the electric car. They leased them at a huge loss and decided to stop losing money. Nothing more.

 

[user 10599]

The car production was a sunk cost. By not renewing leases, GM increased its losses by cutting short the revenue stream.

One could say they stopped producing the EV1 to cut losses, but one cannot claim that the decision to not allow continued lease payments was to cut losses. :ugeek:

 

[rcm4453]

GM didn't kill the electric car. They leased them at a huge loss and decided to stop losing money. Nothing more.

Why not lease them longer and continue making money? The cars were already produced why crush them? I'm sure they lost a lot of money on producing the Volt too, Toyota did with the Prius in the beginning. It's not a valid reason to do what they did, there has to be more to it then that. People were getting 160 mile range when they started putting NiMH batteries in the EV1. Here it is all these years later and we aren't even getting that range with any EV except a Tesla. Too bad they didn't stick with EVs back then, imagine where EVs would be today if they had.

 

[lionsfan54]

GM didn't kill the electric car. They leased them at a huge loss and decided to stop losing money. Nothing more.

Why not lease them longer and continue making money? The cars were already produced why crush them? I'm sure they lost a lot of money on producing the Volt too, Toyota did with the Prius in the beginning. It's not a valid reason to do what they did, there has to be more to it then that. People were getting 160 mile range when they started putting NiMH batteries in the EV1. Here it is all these years later and we aren't even getting that range with any EV except a Tesla. Too bad they didn't stick with EVs back then, imagine where EVs would be today if they had.

They were never going to make money on them. Their engineers probably said that after a certain amount of time that catastrophic failures were more likely. They only made them because CARB essentially forced them to. They complied.

Only one Tesla really gets that range (Model S and X share components).

So, it's all a conspiracy? Nissan, Honda, Toyota, they all got together to kill the electric car? And, no one entered the space for 20+ years, just because? Dear god man... EVs are REALLY hard to make and have huge range for under six figures. That's just how physics works, sorry.

 

[lionsfan54]

The car production was a sunk cost. By not renewing leases, GM increased its losses by cutting short the revenue stream.

One could say they stopped producing the EV1 to cut losses, but one cannot claim that the decision to not allow continued lease payments was to cut losses. :ugeek:

Unless, knowing that the mandate was only for a short term, they engineered them to not last 100,000 miles in an effort to save costs... Then you need them back before they start bursting into flames or crapping out on busy highways, etc

 

[finman100]

GM is STILL killing the electric car. C'mon. Really? Why no charging infrastructure, Ms. Barry? The Dolt is not gonna fly off dealer lots. They don't want to sell them. Not enough maintenance/upselling needed. ($$$) They didn't want to sell the Volt, they have no clue about the Spark, and the Dolt will be a non-starter as well. So much for GMs future.

Nissan would do well to not follow this company. So far, they don't have a real charging infrastructure plan either, so...who does??

 

[GetOffYourGas]

As great as Tesla's supercharging network is, let's be honest, it is 100% necessary for the survival of the company.

As for the existing OEMs, I'm not convinced that building infrastructure is the best measure of commitment. I mean what if GM did go ahead and build out a killer CCS network? It would benefit them a little, but it would also benefit their competitors. It's not like people will buy a Bolt over some other comparable EV just because it was GM who built the chargers. Why? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Consumers don't think that way. If they did buy for the greater good, we'd see far fewer extended cab pickups, and far more plug-ins on the road today.

So as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof here is on you. You cannot simply claim that GM is trying to kill the EV because they aren't building a CCS version of the supercharging network.

 

[finman100]

really? interesting...maybe time will tell. and 276000 reservations say something, too. maybe. just maybe.

It is something drivers want to know RIGHT away: where can i fuel this electric vehicle. "Oh? I can't on longer trips very easily? Or very fast? Hmmm, maybe another GM car will do that trick." See how gas cars will ALWAYS be GMs bread and butter?

'till the bitter end. and they by no means want the oil age to go away.

some of us will have no problem with the transition away from dino-goo.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

and they by no means want the oil age to go away.

You seem to be creating a false dichotomy. So either we have to have all "dino-goo" cars, or all EVs? If the company is not all-in on a complete transformation, then they are trying to kill the EV? Even if GM thinks that they will be building ICEVs forever, why does that mean there is no room in the showroom for EVs?

 

[finman100]

it's a start.

 

[Dyefrog]

GM didn't kill the electric car. They leased them at a huge loss and decided to stop losing money. Nothing more.

Why not lease them longer and continue making money? The cars were already produced why crush them? I'm sure they lost a lot of money on producing the Volt too, Toyota did with the Prius in the beginning. It's not a valid reason to do what they did, there has to be more to it then that. People were getting 160 mile range when they started putting NiMH batteries in the EV1. Here it is all these years later and we aren't even getting that range with any EV except a Tesla. Too bad they didn't stick with EVs back then, imagine where EVs would be today if they had.

They were never going to make money on them. Their engineers probably said that after a certain amount of time that catastrophic failures were more likely. They only made them because CARB essentially forced them to. They complied.

Only one Tesla really gets that range (Model S and X share components).

So, it's all a conspiracy? Nissan, Honda, Toyota, they all got together to kill the electric car? And, no one entered the space for 20+ years, just because? Dear god man... EVs are REALLY hard to make and have huge range for under six figures. That's just how physics works, sorry.

What's your definition of "huge range"? Have you been unplugged all week. Tesla showed in flesh and blood, a long range(relatively for EV's) EV for well under six figures. In fact, they will hold the price for 2 years. No ICE car can do that. You aren't taking into account Moore's Law which applies to the high tech of the EV much more than the mechanics of the ICE. The value will only improve. New Leaf and Bolt will spec out similarly. Unless of course you are saying that Tesla/GM/Nissan are loosing $65k/car. Doubt it.

 

[powersurge]

I lived through the evolution of the computer from the times of paper tape and key punch cards. Moore's Law will never apply to EVs. The idea of smaller, faster, better may work with technology, because advancement in these fields come from improvement in re-design efficiency in its "function". A car is made of steel, and "functions" in the real, physical world. We will never need to travel 1000 miles per hour, have a range of 10,000 miles, and carry 100 people in in our cars.

Improvements will come in batteries, range, and power. Cars will not change in their size, speed, or any other physical quality in the next 50 years because it costs the same to make a steel car, with rubber tires, and cloth seats, regardless on how good the EV components are. So, an EV car that is useful to you today, will still be useful and current in 20-30 years (as long as you can get replacement parts). People don't seem to see the value of an EV TODAY, and think it will be worthless "when the newer ones come out". IMO, a good hammer today will still be a good hammer in 50 years......