FWIW Escalades bother me much more than Hummers, and they used to run larger engines with worse mileage. Not sure how that sits since the 07 re-model.

 

GM's EV1 project was a publicity stunt, political posturing, and an engineering beta test, in that order of priority. The vehicles weren't economically viable, supportable, or profitable to produce. The battery technology used had poor life span, the chassis was more a toy than a realistic transportation module. Honda's doing much the same with the Clarity fuel cell vehicle (Beta test of brand-new technology, not yet ready for prime time), and I'd wager that they'll follow up with vehicles they can make money on.

Now, we can fault GM management for not following through with a realistic vehicle based on the lessons expensively purchased from the EV1 experiment, but that's another rant.

FWIW, the Hummer line was not originated at GM. H1 was a derivative of a design developed in the 70's by AM General, a subsidiary of American Motors at the behest of the Pentagon. AM general was divested when AMC was purchased by Renault because of Pentagon contractor regulations. GM purchased the rights to the brand, and the H2 and H3 designs are variations on their truck chassis. The vehicles are hairy-chested off-roaders, and in that application, they are quite capable. The market that actually uses the off-road capability is small, and the market that is willing to pay the $$$$ premium for a luxury hairy-chested off-roader is smaller still. The poseurs that drive H2's on 24's where the truck never sees anything more challenging than a grassy parking area are ones worth condemning. The folks that actually use a fair percentage of the vehicles' strengths (extreme off-road capability, heavy tow ability) unfortunately get tarred by the same brush as the Rambo wanna-bes.

Now, some of the 'loony left' folks that want to dictate what everyone else should drive ('cause, by god, they've got the answer for and anyone else is wrong) need to go back to the padded cell next door to the 'loony right' neo-**** survivalists. The 2 groups deserve each other.

 

Never said GM management does anything in my or any consumers' best interest, just in THEIR best interest (or what their "rarefied air" makes them think is their best interest). Given any number of their recent decisions, the upper management ranks seem to be populated by the clueless leading the ignorant, suppressing the folks that actually could build decent cars, given a chance.

Also, my point was that the EV1 in its deployed guise wasn't profitable for GM to produce. And if you can't make the cost case on a product, it won't get produced in any volume; no company will survive in the long run losing money on products. You may get a 'demo product' amortized as a 'goodwill builder', but not one deployed in any volume.

As to the EV1 being a technological dead-end: that's not my opinion, it's an assessment developed by a number of engineering analysis. The car used lead/acid battery technology that doesn't support decent life span p charge/discharge cycles or very good power density levels. The cost of the chassis production was such that the only way they could make money on the car was at a price point far from affordability of 'mere mortals'. As a 2-seater, the market segment is limited to 'true believers' or 'hobbyists'. Be realistic enough to realize a 2-seater at $50K+ and hard limitations on range won't ever sell in any meaningful volume. Now, they could have used the learnings of the control systems and production techniques of the various subassemblies to produce viable vehicles based on derivatives of that technology, with both follow-on battery technology and a chemical-fueled hybrid. Also, with the recent run-up in electricity rates (which will zoom right up if Pelosi and her cohorts do the 'cap and trade' fraud), the cost points from a plug-in EV will keep going up in concert with the rates.

The "plug-in" hybrids will remain a very small niche market unless the battery technology improves considerably in cost, power density, and durability. You're right about the ability of the vehicle to take short trips under battery-only is A GOOD THING. However, unless it becomes cost-effective (costs in operating expenses are sufficiently lower to pay for the marginal purchase price), they'll remain the province of 'true believers'.

As to the 'electric bus vs Diesel' argument - the issue, like with electric cars, was one of route flexibility vs build-out and maintenance costs. The electric trolleys have several notable drawbacks, the most significant of which is the overhead wires. Steel track trolleys also have the build-out drawbacks of all rail vehicles. The overhead wires have problems of safety, maintenance, and aesthetics. Now, you may well argue about the validity of the drawbacks - the aesthetics in particular, but don't go into the 'conspiracy theory never-never-land' to make the point. In most cities, the lack of direct emissions is a strong advantage of the trolleys and electric buses that has been ignored. I would suggest that the safety and build-out could be managed, and with high oil prices the cost differences in cost could well go the other way.

 

Wow. Sorry you asked yet?

It appears the problem will soon be self corrected. GM will either sell the div. or shut it down. Unless they themselves go bankrupt first.

 

It's all simple supply and demand guys. If people are willing to purchase Hummers, and GM can make money off of them.. why WOULDN'T they sell them? When the time comes that it is no longer profitable for GM, they will either close or sell the division, plain and simple.

EV1's were leased. GM knew this was a 'publicity' stunt from the get-go, and they only produced them because they were required to do so by California law. This was done in 'good faith' to keep the California Government happy, even though it meant huge losses by doing so.

When the zero-emissions laws were repealed, I'm sure GM recalled and destroyed them partly in spite, but also because of liability issues. They knew the batteries were junk (really the technology wasn't in place for them not to be junk), and because of the lack of maintenance of the charging stations at this point... well there was just too much liability on their part. Being these vehicles were leased, and not owned, GM (and the other EV automakers) did nothing wrong by doing what they did.

People tend to do very shallow things these days... higher income and celebrities as much so. I wouldn't have been surprised to see lawsuits being filed because of broken down cars that GM no longer produced replacement parts for. Think about it.. you buy a car.. it breaks down... you find out that it can't be fixed (even if it's only a couple of years old) because you can't get anyone to fix it, and because you can't obtain replacement parts... hrmm lawyer anybody?

I wouldn't expect GM (or any company for that matter) to keep taking a loss on something, ESPECIALLY when it's no longer mandated by the government....

No I don't blame them one bit for doing what they did...

 

Indy....

You make some good arguments, but they tend to get lost in the method you present them. You are always on a rant, and it appears (sitting here on the fence) that you would never actually consider a valid argument from someone with another point of view.

IMO, you don't debate a subject using lines like "HA HA HA HA!" You lose all credibility.

 

Valerie, it is Indy who is being EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL Adding text in red bold is shouting, right or wrong it is shouting over anyone else’s opinion to be heard, quoting and inserting is, to me considered interrupting and the context is sarcastic as in hahaha....or my translation is Indy genius, you moron.

I don't claim to know or have all the facts regarding the EV-1, I doubt at this point people at GM remember all the facts. The movie who killed the electric car, puts together the facts as the producer wants you to see them....I am not saying they are not accurate, but would not be much of a movie if it did not support its premise.

The point is GM made a cool car, it was an experiment, they decided for whatever reason to recall it and end it. THAT is the bottom line. Since it was a lease created directly from GM, they retained control over the car.
I wish they had continued and it was in version 8 or 9 and as common as a Prius.

A leased Hummer is a sold Hummer, GM does not retain control the bank does, therefore GM could not recall and crush the Hummer without buying them back from the purchaser be it bank or individual.
Was it a good decision, I don't think so with what I know, but as stated I don't know all the facts

One last question, Indy, why are you laughing all the way to the bank, is it to pay for the cost of converting your Prius to a plug in which, from what I have seen is what $5,000- $10,000 more than the car cost in the first place?

I frankly do not appreciate your rants right or wrong and well, you make the 2nd person blocked.

 

No. I am not for class envy. If environment is the crusade then perhaps a against single occupant no cargo diesel pickup trucks would be more appropriate, given the comparative small Hummer fleet. If your issue is fuel consumption then perhaps picket against all Mfg SUV's?

Hummer is a status symbol, and a person should be able to buy what ever they want including:

a. Mansions
b. Yachts
c. Hummers (all variations)
d. Hybrid cars
e. Politicians (Well scratch that one)

However it is extremely irritating when they buy something:

1. They can't afford and expect a taxpayer (me) bailout
2. Complain to me about their payments or operational cost
3. Try to tell me how to live my own life (IE: Telling me to buy a small house while they go home to their sprawling mansion, drive faster/slower etc)

 

Valerie, you miss the point entirely. If you want to raise peoples awareness on an issue, IMO you must first learn to present your argument in a way that does not immediately irritate the other side. After all, isn't it the other side that you are trying to convince? If you are just here to preach to the choir , by all means carry on.

 

Bobs Metallic Pearl makes an excellent point about "Who killed the electric car" and I whole heartedly agree with. I think a lot of folks don't consider the pointed view when watching most "Documentaries".

Yes, I am one who can get really upset at GM for dropping the EV program. No, I'm not going to just jump into conspiracy but the fact remains they had a wonderful product well before it's time- and probably well ahead of any competition if the program would have been allowed to continue, even on an experimental level.

Would I consider buying a Volt should it hit the market? Sure.
Would I buy an electric car today? Definitely. It would replace our 2001 Grand Caravan which is now parked 90% of the time.

I am even considering building an electric car from kit.

Indy, if fuel was $10/g, almost nobody would be able to afford anything.