i dont need a theory, GM has been convicted of conspiracy in the past.
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm there is a brief summary, go get the book internal combustion for more information.

If you think GM isnt capable or has not engaged in elaborate conspiracies you are being fooled. Look at their concept car track record. Can you point to a technology demonstrating concept car they have brought to market?

as for the EV1, it was used to destroy a carb regulation. It kept them from having to make short term investments they didnt want to make. They were being held to account for the pollution their cars produce and by making it appear as though there was no market for the EV1 they convinced the regulators to drop the regulations. The ev1 was a nice car. I actually got to drive one in Indiana. It was fast, quiet and affordable on a TCO basis.

You claim that the market solves all problems is naive. There is a bigger picture than the profits GM makes on one model of car.

The volt is a similar scam to the one they pulled with the EV1, and the fuel cell is another.
I would love GM to prove me wrong, but the volt is a distraction, not a solution.

 

"Toyota, too, has been working with nano-phosphate as a hedge, but on a slower track than its cobalt-oxide program, which was in a joint-development project with Panasonic (MC). And GM is working with cobalt-oxide on a slower track for the same reason. But GM's nano-phosphate development is, according to supplier company sources working with Toyota, at least a year ahead of Toyota's. "All hell has been breaking loose at Toyota on its plug-in program for the last three months as it changes horses," says one supplier company executive working with Toyota."

Toyota are also finally making the scramble towards lithium-phosphate batteries. This is the big technology enabler of PHEVs and without it, GM are way ahead of them.

 

can you cite any sources for this information or is it all hearsay? Sounds like some interesting insights, but I dont know how serious to take them.

 

Did you actually read the article you posted a link for? It proves MY point. It states that GM defined a policy to "...expand auto sales and maximize profits." Sound familiar?

So, you are telling me that the billion dollars GM lost on the EV1 was part of a calculated 'plot' to avoid investment? BRILLIANT! They determined that there was a niche market for a $30k EV, unfortunately the EV1 cost GM $80k to build. I can certainly see why they cut their loses and killed the program. In hindsight it may have been a short sighted decision, but the rationale can be defended based on profit/loss motives. (BTW, GM has since said it was the wrong decision. Even the Board of Directors of one of the largest companies in the world can be wrong sometimes.)

I'm still waiting to hear your theory for what the 'real' motive is for the so called 'rouse' they are portraying as Volt development. If it is not real and for profit, what is it for? I suggest you double up on your medication and wise up - Dr. Evil is not lurking in the GM board room plotting world domination - it is simply a bunch of rich business men trying to make as much money as they can.

 

please go read the book internal combustion. Then I would like to hear your comments about how GM cant afford to dump 1B USD into something they know wont be profitable. There is a bigger picture here than the cars they make now and the profits for the year. There are people looking longer term than the current engineering generation.

I urge you to read some history about this company and how they operate it may open your eyes.

gm has an interest in keeping the system static, cars that need maintenance and parts. Electric cars dont need that, they have very few moving parts. There is no residual profit in them. Now this is but a tiny sliver of the reason GM would want them to go away, while at the same time placating the public by flaunting "upcoming" tech to keep people thinking they are moving forward.

 

Here's another interesting article on the whole streetcar thing. Note that this article refers to Bradford Snell, who was the author of the article linked earlier in this post. It looks like this one may give a slightly broader perspective than the Snell article.

http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives...conspiracy.htm

Agreed. It doesn't seem that there would be any incentive for GM, or any of the other major auto manufacturers to develop and produce electric vehicles. - Unless it was mandated. - Or, unless another company was going to do it first. The auto industry needs a "game changer" to enter the arena. - Perhaps a little competition from a company that didn't have anything to lose by producing an electric vehicle. So, how is Tesla Motors doing... anyway?

 

teslas cars cost about 100k. They are not for the masses. There needs to be a sub 35k electric car to really get people excited.

I for one will be buying the first car i can charge at home no matter who makes it. I will then promptly use my utility subsidy, the federal and local subsidies to place a PV array on my roof. I will then have mostly separated from the need for oil.

 

It's a little hard to understand this logic. GM makes money selling new cars, not repairing old cars. They would probably completely abandon the parts business if they could without a customer backlash. Third party manufacturers own that market after a few years.

How many fewer parts does an electric car have? None if it's a plug in hybrid which is the more likely short term solution. Electric cars still have to have a drive train, controls, suspension, etc. All the auto companies have the same basic goal - to make money by making cars, not making cool cars that might make money. They have to make decisions on how to do that. Toyota has chosen to build a reasonable number of hybrids while maximizing profits on large trucks and SUVs. GM, in a catch up position, is crowing about an electric car they may or may not be able to produce while they try to keep the truck/SUV profits coming in. Ultimately the consumer will have to choose.

 

Now here's a guy who gets it. Conspiracy theories are sexier. The truth is boring.

Peace,

Martin

 

Not too tough to understand this, actually. Let's see... for purposes of this argument... GM... Toyota... they're all the same. They're all major auto makers. For my Prius my Toyota dealership wants me to come in and spend ~$100 every 5k miles primarily for oil changes and other little peripheral stuff. They also want me to come in and spend ~ $500 every 30k miles for other regularly scheduled preventative maintenance. Over 100k miles this comes to about $3200 (not including "non-scheduled" service) which represents roughly 12-13% of the cost of the vehicle. And that's only for regularly scheduled preventative maintenance, assuming you keep the vehicle for 100k miles. Any non-scheduled service, or maintaining the vehicle beyond 100k miles increases that percentage. This suggests the revenue stream from service is significant.

Now, we go online and do a little research to see what the experts say about the revenue auto dealerships generate from service. 30 seconds of searching on "dealership revenue" brings the following article which supports the argument in question:
http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/april98/mech.htm
The article states:
"Although service and parts revenue accounted for only 12.4 percent of the average dealership's total revenue in 1996, profits from service and parts departments represented 53 percent of a dealership's total profit."

Read the article for the details.

So, GM (and the other major auto manufacturers) (or at least their dealerships) do indeed generate quite a bit of revenue "repairing old cars" (and relatively new ones, for that matter).

You have to talk true EV here. Hybrids (or PHEV's) aren't part of this argument. Since they have an internal combustion engine, they get all the same service an ordinary vehicle gets. Therefore, the major automanufacturers don't have a problem selling them to you, because they don't threaten this revenue stream. It's probably not a coincidence that this is why you can buy a Prius from Toyota, but you can't buy a RAV4-EV.

So now, back to the question - how much service does an EV get?
Well, as a little exercise, go back through your car's service records. You'll probably find most service visits were for:
- oil changes (not req'd for EV)
- muffler/exhaust system (not req'd for EV)
- engine tune ups (not req'd or likely simplified for EV)
- radiator/cooling system/water pump (not req'd or likely simplified for
EV)
- fuel delivery system (not req'd for EV)
- brakes (service requirements greatly reduced w/ regnerative breaking)
- transmission/clutch/etc. (not req'd or likely simplified for EV)
- tires (yup-same for EV as for ordinary car)
- shocks/struts/suspension (yup-same for EV as for ordinary car)

So, it's safe to conclude that the service requirements for an EV would be very significantly reduced from that of current product provided by the major auto manufacturers.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the GM or Toyota executive who has to decide whether to pursue the EV program that you know is going to threaten the 12.4% of revenue that generated 53% of the profits at your dealerships in 1996. Of course you kill it! The only reason you pursue it is if you are mandated (for example by the state of CA in the 90's), or if you think you need to in order to protect future markets from competitors who you know are going to introduce EV's competitive with your major product lines (hasn't happened yet).

I have to admit that I don't really understand the relationship between the revenue generated by the dealerships and the revenue generated by the mother corporation. But working on the assumption that the corporations revenues and profits are pretty much linked to those of the dealerships, it doesn't seem like conspiracy theory to me. - Seems kind of like common sense.