The Precept was never intended to go into production. Typically there are two types of "concept vehicles" on the auto show circuit. Some are showcases of potential design directions or potential technology directions. The Buick Bengal shown at the 2003 North American International Auto Show is an example of a concept vehicle that was never really intended for production, but which signalled styling cues for where Buick, as a brand might be going.

The Precept shown in 2000 was also never really considered for production, but was more of a learning vehicle to understand what it took to design, engineer, develop, and manufacture a hybrid vehicle. Much of what was learned from building this show car has been injected into the development of hybrid vehicles that will see production.

The second type of "concept vehicle" are those that are actually targeted for production, such as the 2002 Pontiac Solstice concept Even in the case of "production intent" concepts, there are usually changes made from the original concept to facilitate manufacturing or to reduce the overall cost at production volumes, or to take advantage of changes in design thought or technical content that can occur from concept (2002 for Solstice) to production (2005).

So when you see a "concept vehicle" at an auto show, how do you know it is planned for production? You don't unless someone in a leadership capacity announces that it will (for example, Rick Wagoner announcing the Saturn VUE Plug-In). An indicator that it is at least being considered for production is if the concept vehicle appears in multiple years with evolutionary changes. Here's the 2003 Solstice concept. A lot closer to the actual car available today.


Peace,

Martin

 

I normally tend to stay out of EV1 conversations, because of
a) the amount of mis-information and DIS-INFORMATION (defined as intentionally erroneous statements designed to confuse and/or anger) floating around.
and
b) my knowledge of what many of the facts truly are could make this a really tiresome and endless debate over who shot John. I would not be the same rational, logical, ocassionally humorous guy you've all come to know and love (spelled l-o-a-t-h-e?) in such a discussion.

For those who believe the EV1 was the end all be all of automotive responsibility, I ask you one question. If you had an EV1 today, how would you recharge it?

There are reasons the program was restricted to California and Arizona and eventually New York and why the vehicles were required to be returned to GM at the end of the lease period. The SAME REASON some people say E85 and diesel won't work (infra-structure availability for re-fueling) is a PRIMARY reason the EV1 program never went any further.

For what it's worth, the Chevette was not a viable product to continue forward as a competitor for Civic, Corolla, etc. It was a very inexpensive car with really good fuel economy. On other metrics it is not competitive with vehicles available today in the subcompact class and was therefore replaced by vehicles better equipped to compete in that class (Geo / Chevy Metro, Saturn SL1, Chevy Aveo).

To say that GM abandoned the Precept is to either assume that it was ever intended for production or to assume that the technologies included in that concept vehicle were never developed further and included in other vehicle programs. See my post above for MY OPINION on that.

To say that labor costs do not matter is like saying bread doesn't matter when making a sandwich. It's one of the fundamental elements of understanding cost when developing a vehicle program. It doesn't and shouldn't matter to the person BUYING the car. The buyer has a set range that vehicles they consider for purchase should fall within. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to them what it cost to make it. The manufacturer, on the other hand HAS TO consider cost, because it defines the ability of the product they produce being capable of being priced within the range the consumer is willing to pay for it.

Peace,

Martin

 

Hi Martin,

I was surprised by the "Precept" in a way that really rubbed me the wrong way. But I've had a busy, good day, a chance to sip some coffee so I'll leave it this way:
Any new idea or technology has to go through at least three generations before "we get it right." Toyota started that path with the NHW10 in 1997, NHW11 in 2001, NHW20 in 2004 and next year, will have a 10 year lead in manufacturing serious hybrids. Honda is lagging a year or two behind.

The rest of the industry has yet to match and learn what Toyota and Honda have been doing for nine years. But bemoaning lost opportunities just doesn't do any good unless it leads to reform and GM had plenty of company in past policy decisions. So all I can do is vote with my wallet.

I'll go back to what I can do, performance tuning my 2nd generation NHW11 Prius, and stop worring about the hole others have dug for themselves. Reality, the market place, eventually exerts the irresitable, corrective force and my lament is unimportant.

Peace back at 'cha,
Bob Wilson