I can't work that one out.
Why was GM so vindictive, to the point of rounding up each and every car and crushing them and not even letting people who could buy their car keep their car?
I can't get over how vindictive that was.
I don't know how vindictive it was. I just know that while watching the movie I got the impression that they were trying to dispose of the evidence.
Misspelling words on purpose does not make you cool.
I got the impression that they were trying to dispose of the evidence.
Government regulations stipulate that you must provide product support for so many years after the car is manufactured (five or something). Since there were barely any on the road, it would have cost them a butt-load to have staff and repair shops outfitted to service these cars and keep manufacturing replacement parts. Instead they did the smart thing, which is to claim them back (they were leased after all).
GM didn't do anything wrong. It was their property to deal with as they wanted. This was just an unintended side effect of a stupid government regulation.
...Government regulations stipulate that you must provide product support for so many years after the car is manufactured (five or something). Since there were barely any on the road, it would have cost them a butt-load to have staff and repair shops outfitted to service these cars and keep manufacturing replacement parts.
That's just GM PR spin. Why this reasoning doesn't work: Ford solved this same problem with their electric Rangers by outsourcing service to a third party. The low volume problem was solved by charging a boatload for service and parts. Look, as long as people are willing to pay enough for service, there is a way to provide parts, even if you have to machine each one.
And GM had parts on hand when the program was scrapped - remember they were actively producing these cars at the time to catch up with a backlog of 5000 people on a waiting list.
And even if this doesn't convince you, many the cars that GM repossessed or had on hand could have been used as parts donors for the ones left on the road.
Bottom line, the problem is solvable, as Ford and Toyota solved it for their EVs. And if GM doesn't want the headache, outsource it like Ford did.
...GM didn't do anything wrong. It was their property to deal with as they wanted.
Actually, I agree with this. It's just that I want people to know the truth about what happened and why, so they can make their own decision about whether they want to deal with GM again or not.
That's just GM PR spin.
Your armchair quarterbacking about "GM could have done this or GM could have done that" is ignorance followed with speculation backed up by not a lot of real world experience on these matters.
On the contrary, I did give examples (Ford, Toyota) of how the parts and service problem has been handled "in the real world" for other EVs.
Where is your "real world" evidence for your opinion? All I saw in your reply were some very frustrated-sounding insults.
I also am a "real world" businessman myself with "real world" business experience.
I'm also an expert on electric vehicles, drive one myself, and I am active in my local EV club chapter.
So to whom, exactly, should the terms "ignorance" and "armchair quarterback" be applied to?
So then you've run a car company?
share...So then you've run a car company?
I have done PR work for auto companies (I will link to my full resume if you need to see it.) How about you? What car company do you own? Because, clearly you're not qualified to participate in this discussion unless you are an automotive CEO.
Or maybe -- this is just a discussion board where people express their opinions?
Instead of attacking me, how about the facts and reasoning I put forward? Have you no rebuttal other than calling me 'ignorant'? Cause it sure looks like you haven't.
Instead of attacking me, how about the facts and reasoning I put forward? Have you no rebuttal other than calling me 'ignorant'? Cause it sure looks like you haven't.
People come here regularly with facts and figures, and lo and behold, you seem to think they are wrong about everything each and every time!
What you are complaining about is simply the essence of a debate. If my debate opponent cites facts and figures that are flawed, my job is to show exactly why they are flawed, or post a counter argument, hopefully with my own facts and figures. My opponent, then, if he can, will poke holes in my data or reasoning, and present fresh evidence of his own. The debater that makes the best case - with correct facts and references, and sound logic, should convince the greatest number of viewers, and win the debate.
Of course, there's another kind of debate, perhaps we could call it the "big time wrestling" style, or the "Bill O'Reilly" style, where the object is to intimidate and toss the most withering insults and put-downs. Of course, nobody "wins" this kind of fact-free argument, or learns anything truthful or useful.
So again, do you have any rebuttals to my actual arguments?
You, for whatever strange reason, have fetishised...(etc, etc)
Or would you perhaps prefer to rant a few more pages of insults at me? Gosh, if only there were debate points for frustration, you would have this locked up.
Lol! Okay, so I factually state the money-losing situation for GM of continuing to lease out the vehicles/sell them. I've even previously posted an article here before showing the numbers. (Kind of ironic how you say your opponents here aren't using facts and figures.) They may have had other reason's your not even aware of, such as realizing the electric car's day will come one day, the market/tech just wasn't ready at that time, but in the meantime they don't want a smaller competitor to get too good a look at the technology in the test group. In other words, there are any number of business factors you just aren't aware of for the decision.
You come back with your "facts and figures" and say that's just PR spin. Nice try. It is business reality. The object of a business is not to squander resources. The object of the game is to remain efficient and competitive, otherwise your customers will drop like flies because you aren't satisfying the needs of people.
I factually state the money-losing situation for GM of continuing to lease out the vehicles/sell them.
LOL! So when I write, it's 'speculation'. When you write it's 'factually state'?
I don't think so. Try presenting some evidence for your positions.
I've even previously posted an article here before showing the numbers.
I appreciate when you do present evidence. But you have to understand what the numbers mean. If you don't, I'll tear you apart (hey, just doing my job.)
In other words, there are any number of business factors you just aren't aware of for the decision.
Of course speculation is taking place. That doesn't mean your speculation is better than mine. That's why I endeavor to show my reasoning, and present facts to support my position. That's what I am challenging you to do as well.
The object of a business is not to squander resources.
Agreed, the object is to generate profit. Ford, when they outsourced service/parts on their Electric Ranger, definitely set up their program to generate a profit, by charging very high prices. This is what GM could have done as well. Did you see how rabid those EV1 drivers were? They would have paid anything for parts and service.
[deleted]
G.M. like most multinational corporations only thinks of the bottom line, when they say they are doing something for the public, they really mean they are doing it for their shareholders.
Crushing those cars was a financial decision, but not just to save money on those cars but the longterm development of the EV was obviously something they didn't want to go on with at that time.
Maybe pressure from oil companies, spare parts division, or ongoing costs, we don't know all the reasons but if it looks like a duck.......