Punishing GM for killing electric car

[Bret Ludwig]

Wouldn't be that hard.

The State of California could concoct some law whose real effect would be to punish GM for its perceived perfidy. When the Governator goes, it will become politically feasible.

 

[BläBlä]

[drivel snipped]

Begone troll.

 

[Bert Hyman]

In "Bret Ludwig"

Wouldn't be that hard.

But would be really stupid.

 

[SnoMan]

In "Bret Ludwig"

But would be really stupid.

I do not blame GM because they were responding to "political" pressure when they did it. The oil companies still do not want to see this happen and they run the government more or less. This is why they (Big Oil) see hydrogen cars because they can make, transport and sell that too. (today most hydrogen fuel comes from oil processing because there is not other easy way to do it.

 

[Bret Ludwig]

In "Bret Ludwig"

But would be really stupid.

No, it would be smart.

 

[Bret Ludwig]

I do not blame GM because they were responding to "political" pressure when they did it. The oil companies still do not want to see this happen and they run the government more or less. This is why they (Big Oil) see hydrogen cars because they can make, transport and sell that too. (today most hydrogen fuel comes from oil processing because there is not other easy way to do it.

How are the oil companies going to punish GM? They should fear the government, even the state government, a lot more than Big Oil. California could easily figure out some way to **** with GM's profits or marketing in California.

 

[SnoMan]

How are the oil companies going to punish GM? They should fear the government, even the state government, a lot more than Big Oil. California could easily figure out some way to **** with GM's profits

It is not about them (Big Oil) punishing GM. It is about trying to punish GM for something that was being influanced on them so it is not really their fault.

 

[Bret Ludwig]

It is not about them (Big Oil) punishing GM. It is about trying to punish GM for something that was being influanced on them so it is not really their fault.

Nuremberg said differently.

 

[SnoMan]

Nuremberg said differently.

Not a valid comparision and a poor answer. GM is no saint but they too are subject to someone pulling their strings too. GM was the messanger here not the real cause behind its death. John Q. Public and techology in general was not ready for a electric car then and not really now either because of its current limitations. They have some more way to go before they are seriously viable. BTW, GM was playing with electric S10 in the 90's. I know because I saw a few on them and did some contract work on the machine the tested the motors for them. Same problem though, limited range and cost/weight of batteries.

 

[Bret Ludwig]

Not a valid comparision and a poor answer. GM is no saint but they too are subject to someone pulling their strings too. GM was the messanger here not the real cause behind its death. John Q. Public and techology in general was not ready for a electric car then and not really now either because of its current limitations. They have some more way to go before they are seriously viable. BTW, GM was playing with electric S10 in the 90's. I know because I saw a few on them and did some contract work on the machine the tested the motors for them. Same problem though, limited range and cost/weight of batteries.

In this case you had a product that already existed and a number of people (like 500) that were offering cash for them.

Electric cars are not for everyone but there is no question some people want and can benefit from them.

 

[SnoMan]

In this case you had a product that already existed and a number of people (like 500) that were offering cash for them.

500 is not worth the trouble in the scheme of things for GM, it needs to be in the tens of thousands and then some to even begin about being profitable one day.

 

[satyr]

500 is not worth the trouble in the scheme of things for GM, it needs to be in the tens of thousands and then some to even begin about being profitable one day.

I think that GM had some nifty technology but it was too expensive. They saw that they would be forced to keep building these cars and selling (leasing) them at a loss while they drew sales away form profitable car lines and cast the rest of their business in a bad light.

Ironically, GM is being punished for their short term mentality. Punished not by the government or consumer activists but by the market. Huge, fuel-guzzling vehicles have a large profit margin, until the day comes when they start sucking the wells dry. GM walked away from electric technology which could have formed the basis for successful, cost effective hybrid vehicles. Instead, GM spent money redesigning their huge, truck-frame SUVs which rolled out just in time for $78 oil.

For the record, I don't think pure battery powered road cars are economically viable with any foreseeable technology. The high price and operational limitations can not be overcome in the near future. Hybrids OTOH, are economically viable now (barely) and give up little in utility.

 

[Bret Ludwig]

I think that GM had some nifty technology but it was too expensive. They saw that they would be forced to keep building these cars and selling (leasing) them at a loss while they drew sales away form profitable car lines and cast the rest of their business in a bad light.

Ironically, GM is being punished for their short term mentality. Punished not by the government or consumer activists but by the market. Huge, fuel-guzzling vehicles have a large profit margin, until the day comes when they start sucking the wells dry. GM walked away from electric technology which could have formed the basis for successful, cost effective hybrid vehicles. Instead, GM spent money redesigning their huge, truck-frame SUVs which rolled out just in time for $78 oil.

Bullshit.

Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but definite market to exist. Is a Ferrari cost-effective? My guess is there is a market for a $100,000 electric car in Hollywood and the Hamptons. Especially if there were a hybrid gen set module that could be swapped out for some battery storage.

GM was being jerky and they should fear the legislature.

 

[SnoMan]

I think that GM had some nifty technology but it was too expensive. They saw that they would be forced to keep building these cars and selling (leasing) them at a loss while they drew sales away form profitable car lines and cast the rest of their business in a bad light.

Ironically, GM is being punished for their short term mentality. Punished not by the government or consumer activists but by the market. Huge, fuel-guzzling vehicles have a large profit margin, until the day comes when they start sucking the wells dry. GM walked away from electric technology which could have formed the basis for successful, cost effective hybrid vehicles. Instead, GM spent money redesigning their huge, truck-frame SUVs which rolled out just in time for $78 oil.

For the record, I don't think pure battery powered road cars are economically viable with any foreseeable technology. The high price and operational limitations can not be overcome in the near future. Hybrids OTOH, are economically viable now (barely) and give up little in utility.

Nice thoughful comment

 

[SnoMan]

Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but definite market to exist.

This is where you are dead wrong because they have to be profitable to produce as GM is a mass producer and it is not profitable to make a small quanity of them. Do not compare them to a hand built car market manufacture because this is like trying to compare apple and oranges.

 

[Steve B.]

Electric cars do not have to be truly cost-effective for a modest but definite market to exist. Is a Ferrari cost-effective? My guess is there is a market for a $100,000 electric car in Hollywood and the Hamptons. Especially if there were a hybrid gen set module that could be swapped out for some battery storage.

GM was being jerky and they should fear the legislature.

Big difference. A 100lk Ferrari doesn't cost the manufacturer anywhere near 100k to produce and their whole company premise is to sell very few and very expensive cars. The electrics cost GM 100k to produce so they had no profit and GM is set up to sell a bunch of moderately priced cars. If you think this market exist why aren't you out raising capital and building it yourself?

Steve B.

 

[NapalmHeart]

No, it would be smart.

Smart to those with a collectivist orientation.

 

[RK Henry]

GM can't "kill" the electric car. Any fool who wants to attempt that business is free to try. There are already several vendors, though most are little more than garage customizations or fancy golf carts..

Remember back to the early 1970s when the U.S. Department of Justice was proposing to break up GM into its constituent parts because it was "Monopolizing the auto industry." So if GM is a monopoly, then if GM had continued to sell its electric car at a loss, it might have been construed as a violation of antitrust legislation, selling at a loss to force out smaller electric car companies. GM would be tarred as abusing its "monopoly" power, selling at a loss to run other electric car companies out of business.

GM can't win. They're condemned when they screw up, and they're condemned when they succeed.

RK Henry

 

[Bret Ludwig]

Big difference. A 100lk Ferrari doesn't cost the manufacturer anywhere near 100k to produce and their whole company premise is to sell very few and very expensive cars. The electrics cost GM 100k to produce so they had no profit and GM is set up to sell a bunch of moderately priced cars. If you think this market exist why aren't you out raising capital and building it yourself?

You are very very very naive. Each car cost much less than 100k to produce. The total R&D amortized out per vehicle may have been that, but since over 1000 vehicles were produced, that would put the program cost at $100,000,000. I seriously doubt GM spent that much.

The fact is that GM was offered a huge sum for all of the already-produced cars at the end and showed their ass to this offer.

Ferrari is owned by Fiat and in fact is subsidized as far as their car production goes. Where Ferrari makes a profit is their extremely high tech light nonferrous foundry program, but the cars lose money. My guess is Corvette is a net-net loser too. But they make it up on the logo program.

 

[SnoMan]

You are very very very naive. Each car cost much less than 100k to produce. The total R&D amortized out per vehicle may have been that, but since over 1000 vehicles were produced, that would put the program cost at $100,000,000. I seriously doubt GM spent that much.

Your are the one nieve. It cost atleast 100K a car to make them back them and likley more as that stuff was pricey then to build with. If it had been possible to make a profit, GM would have built them but the timing and costs were all wrong. Today, 70% of the cost of building of a new vehicle is labor costs with health insurance along adding about 1500 a car and climbing. No way you could build a cheap all electric one today either. (not at GM's labor costs)