Open Access Article Originally Published: November 24, 2002
A couple of months ago I decided to investigate a bit more thoroughly
the question of why GM was recalling (not renewing the leases of) and
destroying its EV1 electric vehicles and apparently its S-10 electric
trucks.
Why not just ask them?
I did call and spoke to two or three folks who were either in their
media relations area or who had worked on the EV1 program. All of
them were helpful and polite and followed up on my questions as best
they could.
I verified the basics with Dave Barthmuss of GM's Communications
Department, who checked with Ken Stewart and stated the following:
"There were roughly 1000 EV1's built. There was a portion of the
first generation EV1's that were refurbished and re-leased. However,
there are no more re-leases being offered, and we are no longer
refurbishing any EV1s when they come out of service. We are either
donating them to colleges and Universities, we are recycling them or
we are using them for our own engineering purposes to advance the
development of hybrids and fuel cells. Mainly they go to Colleges and
Universities or they're recycled."
This verified what was happening, but it did not get at why?
I spoke to several other people. Some of the answers I got didn't
seem to provide a coherent picture for me, or seemed diffuse and one
or two of the media specialists were not experts on the EV1 program.
After reviewing my notes and growing a bit weary, I let the project
lie dormant.
However, one person - - speaking on condition of anonymity) had given me an extensive but speculative answer that did seem to help me understand a little of what was going on. The person was not a lawyer, and the answer was one person's educated speculation and not an official GM stance, so at the time I chose to let it lie until I could get a better idea of things.
Recently I saw that answer repeated almost identically, on an internet
discussion forum, by a totally different person, in relation to the
demise of a different EV program. Claire Bell, who has emerged on
Evworld.com and elsewhere as a very outspoken and knowledgeable EV advocate, mentioned that she'd seen the demise of Pivco EVs (the
predecessors of the Ford Th!nk City) and why it had happened.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 7658 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
9 comments so far...
15-Mar-2005
6572
| |
LIES. If any of it were true why would they crush the S10 version if it's the exotic new car design ? Why wouldn't they recall the Corvair and crush it too since it's very unstable not to mention SUV's that flip.
There has to be other reasons they won't tell.
They also could have sold the batteries, wheels all but then scary electronics but they didn't.
Jim"
Posted by: Jim Stack
|
|
25-Nov-2002
735
| |
Bill
I have mentioned to you many times the reason GM leased EV rather than sell is liability. Product Liability has become an enormously expensive burden in this country.
However, there is one point to your article that is not valid.
There is no Implied Warranty law in the US. There are Fitness For Purpose laws, and some states have Buyers Remorse laws, but there is no Federal law requiring parts and service for ten years. The only parts and service requirements on the manufacturer are the terms of their own Warranty.
The ten year thing came from Billie Durant when he set up GM. His reasoning was GM could make a profit from parts and service on the cars they sold for ten years. However, it was an arbitrary thing, and was never a promise of parts and service for any period of time. In general, the auto industry as a whole adopted the GM model.
Some years ago a well known offshore manufacturer was being sued for selling a limited production vehicle in the US, because they were not providing parts and service to the vehicle owners. The manufacturer asked me about the Ten Year Law. I researched the issue, and found there is no such Law, just the general philosphy originating with Billie Durant. They won their case.
Russ
Posted by: Russ Shreve
|
|
25-Nov-2002
737
| |
If what I'am hearing is the reason we no longer have an EV-1 is becuase GM could not get over the product liability hurdle; and or could not make the cars safe enough that they won't catch fire while charging; I can only say to GM (and whoever else it applies to) that I AM NOT IMPRESSED. Other companies in other industries have these same hurdles. Are you a car company or are you not? Are you in the busness of destroying cars as well as making them? We need technology put into cars that can meet the new needs of our new century. Why aren't the RAV4 EV's catching fire? Either meet the world's transportation needs or get out of the car busness and make room for those who can. As you can see, I'am frustrated and tired of hearing excuses.
Posted by: Tullio Falini Jr.
|
|
26-Nov-2002
739
| |
GM's public rationale is ludicrous. Just compare the EV1 with the Hummer. How many Hummers are there, versus the number of EV1's that were leased? Given that you don't have to go through an inordinate number of hoops to _buy_ a Hummer, if the artificially high bar to driving an EV1 was lowered, they'd easily outsell the Hummer. GM's reasons are just more corpspeak from a dead industry that will be begging for a government bailout sooner than later.
Posted by: Derek Dexheimer
|
|
27-Nov-2002
743
| |
On the subject of product liability... How long will it be before GM (and other auto makers) start applying this logic to all of their products. Simply refuse to sell any cars at all. Only offer a 3 to 5 year lease, then destroy the cars. Pull the cars from the road before they can offer any trouble, or before defects can be detected, and require that a new vehicle be leased. Leasing would prevent drivers from modifying their cars with aftermarket parts. It would prevent us from continuing to drive a car after it's paid off, and would ensure that they have a constant demand and flow of lease payments. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I can easily see this happening in 10 to 15 years.
Posted by: Dave Davidson
|
|
27-Nov-2002
745
| |
There are 2 types of companies. 1) When the going gets tough, get scared of being sued, and stop making the product, ignoring the societies needs. After all, so what as long as the people making these decisions make thier million personally. 2) Rise to the occassion, step up to the plate, and show a strong commitment to meeting the societies needs, no matter how tough it gets, stick with it until you succeed (a policy which made America). I invite Ford & GM to embrace the latter. Please! You know if we have another 100 years of the Internal Combustion Engine, polluting the air we breath; history will look back and judge this very harshly. I just hope future generations pause from laughing at ours, and see that at least there were some of us trying to persuade our big corporations to show some concern for the future. Yes we do have a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving; but also a lot of work ahead of us.
Posted by: Tullio Falini Jr.
|
|
29-Nov-2002
749
| |
After renting an EV1 for four days in Y2K, I've tried to Get GM to sell me one for the last two years. I've gathered almost 1500 Americans' signatures on EV1 petitions and let GM know about that too; now I'm about to buy a hybrid Honda, so I sent this parting comment to the GM AFV folks (GMEV quit taking comments a year ago):
------------------------------------------------
I have tried for two years to buy a GM EV1-. I have over a thousand petition signatures asking GM to sell the EV1 at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/541959067?ts=1027113999
I am about to buy a foreign electric automobile because GM will not sell the EV1.
See you in court.
-------------------------------------------------
I worked in a hospital for 14 years and saw what the insurance industry has done to ruin health care, so now I'm going to attack them for sabotaging EVs. I'm just getting warmed up, folks!
Posted by: Hugh Webber
|
|
29-Nov-2002
750
| |
It's a shame that (as Hugh Webber pointed out), our health care system is in bad shape. We need a good health care system to treat all the ashma, emphazemia, and other lung diseases that the auto poluttion is contributing to. Just as sad, GM and Ford still can't seem to get an electric car into the hands of the masses. Come on now GM & Ford, if Sebring Vanguard could do it back the seventies, you surely can in our new millenium! Or can you? Keep trying, your almost there.
Posted by: Tullio Falini Jr.
|
|
01-Dec-2002
754
| |
I thought these were good responses. I also received some others via email.
I have collected some and posted them and some remarks in a post on our new discussion forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evworld/message/38
The best way to access this forum in the long run is, I think, via email, but for these purposes I am just posting a web link.
jl
Posted by: josh l
|
|
