GM killed the Electric Car? Don't blame GM says Toyota Exec

[Lewie]

I thought this was REALLY interesting...At the point that you have your biggest competitor in the industry siding with you and making points on your behalf, you kinda have to wonder why others don't see the "biasness" out there. Even Carlos Goshn -- years before he had designs on GM -- said that our media/press-types are overly critical of US automakers. It's something else, but this just blew me away. <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">MARK PHELAN: Electric car killer? Don't blame GM, Toyota exec says December 20, 2006 BY MARK PHELAN "Who Killed the Electric Car?" caused a furor when it was released this year. The movie hammers away at GM and its EV1 electric car. GM got a raw deal. It's the kind of thing you hear over dinner every week in Detroit, but it comes as a surprise when a top executive with Toyota leans across the table to make the point. "The movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' was terribly one-sided," Ernest Bastien, Toyota Motor Sales vice president for vehicle operations, said intensely. "It was not balanced at all." We were talking in Charlotte, N.C., a couple of weeks ago. I was there to drive Toyota's new 2007 Tundra pickup, and the change in topic was completely unexpected. If it's not surprising enough to hear Toyota defending GM, try this on for size: The film's director pretty much agrees. "We let Toyota off the hook for how they subverted the program" to sell electric cars because GM had a higher profile, director Chris Paine told me over the phone Sunday. The automakers, of course, don't think they subverted anything. GM's Saturn EV1 electric car and Toyota's RAV4-EV electric SUV failed for the same reason -- customers didn't want them -- said Bastien, who was point man for Toyota's short-lived effort to sell the RAV4-EV in California. GM delivered about 800 EV1s to customers from 1996 through 2000, while Toyota delivered 342 RAV4-EVs in 2002-03. The film, which suggested GM sabotaged a promising technology that could reduce fuel consumption and pollution, caused a furor when it was released earlier this year. The movie also intentionally ignored Toyota's experience to make its case, Bastien said. "We shared all our experience with the RAV4-EV," but the filmmakers intentionally omitted it, he said. He said the movie's suggestion that GM "chose not to make money on a car people wanted to buy in California" is ridiculous. "They spent a huge amount of money advertising that car in California," Bastien said. "People wouldn't buy them." Toyota did everything it could to attract buyers to the RAV4-EV, too. It subsidized the price, so customers paid $279 a month -- the same price as the company's hit Prius hybrid. The price included an expensive home charging station. Toyota used the same savvy Internet-intensive marketing model that fueled the Prius craze. It even gave its dealers a sweetheart deal so they could make twice as much selling a RAV4-EV as a Prius. To no avail. Toyota sold about 300 RAV4-EVs in 2002, compared with 20,119 Priuses. Buyers waited in line for the hybrid. They avoided the electric car like it was a downed power line and Toyota, like GM, pulled the plug on the project. "Customers are not willing to compromise on things they need," Bastien said. "They need cruising range. They don't want to worry about running out of fuel, and they don't want to wait five hours to recharge. The movie didn't give any consideration to that fact." Filmmaker Paine bought a RAV4-EV, but he's not buying Toyota's explanation. "I don't agree that they made a good-faith effort to sell the car," he said. "Their priority was the Prius. The EV1 and RAV4-EV were never properly marketed. "Toyota was no better than GM." Which brings us back to the original question: Why was the movie so much harder on GM? It made a better target. "GM handled it so poorly," Paine said. His crew filmed protesters outside Toyota's offices, but the company's security guards came out and gave them bottled water and Toyota key chains. GM, Paine said, turned the water sprinklers on protesters. GM insists they were timed sprinklers, and the protesters just happened to be there at the wrong moment. Whatever the case, the GM footage was more dramatic, entertaining video. It made it into the movie. Toyota wound up on the cutting-room floor."I don't want to say that we picked on GM," Paine said. "The EV1 was the iconic electric vehicle. That's why we focused on GM."</TD></TR></TABLE> In other words: Because GM was revolutionary they got unfairly targeted. Full Article: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.../1014

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Honda-Tech!

[TEXN3]

I blame Toyota. J/K I agree with Goshn, the automaker execs can't even take a crap without it making news.

"Bill Ford took massive dump and flushes toilet, is Ford going down the same hole".

[Phil B]

Very interesting. I'm a proud, card-carrying tree-hugger and I thought even from the previews that that movie looked a little biased. (I can't believe I haven't seen it yet, better add it to the Netflix queue.)

[Ministry]

Originally Posted by TEXNTHREE

"Bill Ford took massive dump and flushes toilet, is Ford going down the same hole".

LOL

Originally Posted by Phil B

Very interesting. I'm a proud, card-carrying tree-hugger

wait what? don't you drive an LS1 powered car?

[Prodigal Son]

Wow, I didn't know they made a movie about this, but it's not a new subject. I'm amazed every time the argument comes up that GM killed the electric car. It was possibly the only time in the company's history that they were trying to do the right thing environmentally. They invested the better part of a billion dollars over ten years in the program, lost all of it, and just to rub salt in the wounds, the hippies shit on them.

The EV1 was a massive step in the right direction for the company that was railing against emisions controls in the 70's. It was an earnest effort, but it wasn't enough. If people don't buy them, you can't sell them.

It reminds me of the hippies who protest animal kill shelters, but won't go adopt an animal

[jond]

Why do people assume electric cars are better for the environment?

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by jond

Why do people assume electric cars are better for the environment?

Because they don't understand what well-to-wheel costs are

[Phil B]

Originally Posted by dreamer

wait what? don't you drive an LS1 powered car?

nope. EP3.

Originally Posted by jond

Why do people assume electric cars are better for the environment?

That's what I don't get, too. People say, "Look it has zero emissions!" Well, unless you're charging it with wind or solar power, you're just exchanging your auto emissions for power-plant emissions, which are most likely more polluting than a normal car would be.

[Knightsport]

That makes me proud that Toyota would do that.

It's just that simple, people won't buy them.

[Lewie]

I wonder what it would do to your electric bill, if you had to charge it twice a week...or more. I wonder what the cost is per mile compared to gas.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Phil B

That's what I don't get, too. People say, "Look it has zero emissions!" Well, unless you're charging it with wind or solar power, you're just exchanging your auto emissions for power-plant emissions, which are most likely more polluting than a normal car would be.

On top of that you need to look at when those cars are junked, what happens with the battery? They are extremely toxic and I wouldn't want those sitting in junkyards.

[Knightsport]

Originally Posted by Lewie

I wonder what it would do to your electric bill, if you had to charge it twice a week...or more. I wonder what the cost is per mile compared to gas.

I know unless you are being fed by Nuclear power or some other form of clean power you are better off just filling up on Dino guts.

[wilsel]

Originally Posted by Phil B

People say, "Look it has zero emissions!" Well, unless you're charging it with wind or solar power, you're just exchanging your auto emissions for power-plant emissions, which are most likely more polluting than a normal car would be.

Exactly!!!!

[rjay8604]

Originally Posted by Knightsport

That makes me proud that Toyota would do that.

Agreed.

If there is something you can appreciate about the japanese auto companies, whether or not you like their cars, they are very responsible worldly companies.

I don't like Honda because they make the fastest cars (they don't). I like them because they are a great company that is always trying to improve everything about themselves.

[BluLude]

to Toyota, that would be the last thing I would expect from a company these days, to stand up for another company instead of trying to damage them more

[GoodEyeSniper]

never heard of that movie. but to toyota and gm both.

[cheap2]

the noob thinks no one kill the electric car,they (the companies)just put it into sleep because the technology is so new that dumb people will get freak with the idea,but now people is changing their minds because of the price of the oil and they will don't get freak with a technology like that,they(the dumb people) will love it in order to save money,that what the noob thinks,i am the noob


Modified by cheap2 at 6:55 PM 9/21/2007

[GDD Hoar]

wtf?

[Kookz]

Originally Posted by Knightsport

I know unless you are being fed by Nuclear power or some other form of clean power you are better off just filling up on Dino guts.

Not if you're charging at night. The electricity is basically just burned off as heat at night when the demand on the grid is lower.

Not to mention that even coal plants are 2-3 times more efficient than the ICE in your car.

[goldenpine]

Just my thoughts...

GM's EV1 I believe was only leased out to users. So even those who wanted to keep them couldn't keep them.

Hopefully with hybrids, consumers and manufactures will see gas/electric with a different view than EV1 or RAV4-EV. Maybe the change from gas to electric was too big for consumers and manufactures. In few years, maybe all electric car will come back with longer drive range.

[Lewie]

GM has all intentions of releasing a $20k car that can go 40 miles on a single charge, and would have a 3cyl turbo gas engine to recharge the batteries if your commute is farther. They are hoping to get the price of the batteries down, but if they can't they are going to lease them to customers.

[Danziver]

Originally Posted by Lewie

GM has all intentions of releasing a $20k car that can go 40 miles on a single charge, and would have a 3cyl turbo gas engine to recharge the batteries if your commute is farther. They are hoping to get the price of the batteries down, but if they can't they are going to lease them to customers.

Sounds good, but i doubt i would buy one.

[BigMoose]

Originally Posted by goldenpine

Just my thoughts...

GM's EV1 I believe was only leased out to users. So even those who wanted to keep them couldn't keep them.

Yes you are spot on. EV1 was only leasable. When GM called them in, there were leasees that were willing to sell their children to buy the EV1 and do you know what GM did with EVERY EV1?

Crushed them! Now that is a VERY fishy ending to the story. Why did GM destroy every EV1 made?

[Lewie]

Originally Posted by BigMoose

Crushed them! Now that is a VERY fishy ending to the story. Why did GM destroy every EV1 made?

No, you still have on your tin hat after watching "Who killed the Electric Car?"

Does it really make sense for GM to leave roughly 1000 vehicles on the road that require battery packs every 25-30k miles? Not only that but the vehicle had a fire danger in the initial 6-700 vehicles. It would require their suppliers, who had already stopped making parts for the vehicles, to continue supplying them with expensive, one-off parts and they would still offer service. They would have to make sure that their dealerships had techs that were knowledgeable about the EV1.

GM did what they set out to do, show that an electric vehicle was possible and saved money for the customer over the regular petrol vehicle. However, it cost GM almost $75-80k per vehicle (research and development included) and they only received somewhere b/tw $30-40k per vehicle through lease agreements.

They clearly only had one option, crush the cars and wait until battery technology was safer, cheaper, mass produced, and when the US public actually wanted it.

[MonkeyMagic]

Originally Posted by Lewie

Which brings us back to the original question: Why was the movie so much harder on GM?

It made a better target.

"GM handled it so poorly," Paine said.

His crew filmed protesters outside Toyota's offices, but the company's security guards came out and gave them bottled water and Toyota key chains.
GM, Paine said, turned the water sprinklers on protesters. GM insists they were timed sprinklers, and the protesters just happened to be there at the wrong moment.

Whatever the case, the GM footage was more dramatic, entertaining video. It made it into the movie. Toyota wound up on the cutting-room floor."I don't want to say that we picked on GM," Paine said. "The EV1 was the iconic electric vehicle. That's why we focused on GM."

LOL