GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know it's old, but I just watched it today and have a couple questions.

1: Toyota, Ford and Honda all had electric cars, and all did what GM did, how come the movie only focused on how evil GM was?

2: How come during all the save the world BS all these geniuses failed to realize that their super duper clean electric cars did in fact have exhausts, they were just moved to a coal burning power station?

3: Not one of the people whining about having their babies taken back seemed to realize that the price they pay to lease the cars was nowhere near the cost? Those cars probably cost 75 grand, but they all thought they should just let them keep them for whatever tiny lease payments they had.

4: Some guy in a stupid hat said it was a good car for 90% of the people...90% of the people where? Maybe 10%....It was tiny, slow and had 2 seats.

5: They complain that hydrogen is a waste of money because they can't have it RIGHT NOW.... there are no filling stations RIGHT NOW, OMG.....well how many frickin EV1 outlets were there at the time?

Everything about that movie was falsified with some horrible anti GM BS.

Unfortunately I had my little brother at my house for the afternoon and had to explain the hippie talk to him. Thankfully I trained him well before I moved away, and he already hates Toyota, loves his pellet gun and rides motorcycles... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,478 Posts
I know it's old, but I just watched it today and have a couple questions.

1: Toyota, Ford and Honda all had electric cars, and all did what GM did, how come the movie only focused on how evil GM was?

2: How come during all the save the world BS all these geniuses failed to realize that their super duper clean electric cars did in fact have exhausts, they were just moved to a coal burning power station?

3: Not one of the people whining about having their babies taken back seemed to realize that the price they pay to lease the cars was nowhere near the cost? Those cars probably cost 75 grand, but they all thought they should just let them keep them for whatever tiny lease payments they had.

4: Some guy in a stupid hat said it was a good car for 90% of the people...90% of the people where? Maybe 10%....It was tiny, slow and had 2 seats.

5: They complain that hydrogen is a waste of money because they can't have it RIGHT NOW.... there are no filling stations RIGHT NOW, OMG.....well how many frickin EV1 outlets were there at the time?

Everything about that movie was falsified with some horrible anti GM BS.
1. I haven't watched the whole thing, and it was a long time ago, but I remember them showing some people chasing a truck carrying Rav4 EV's and being pretty upset about it.

2. Because the electricity and hence pollution would be produced anyway.

3. They took away the cars and just crushed them, so it's not like GM resold them and made any money. The whole reason they were vilified is that they took them away just so they could crush them, instead of letting the owners buy them out.

4. It had enough range for an average commute, and more than enough power to drive on the freeway, thus meeting most peoples needs.

5. There were plenty in every house.

None of it was falsified, it was just cherry-picked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
1. I haven't watched the whole thing, and it was a long time ago, but I remember them showing some people chasing a truck carrying Rav4 EV's and being pretty upset about it.

2. Because the electricity and hence pollution would be produced anyway.

3. They took away the cars and just crushed them, so it's not like GM resold them and made any money. The whole reason they were vilified is that they took them away just so they could crush them, instead of letting the owners buy them out.

4. It had enough range for an average commute, and more than enough power to drive on the freeway, thus meeting most peoples needs.

5. There were plenty in every house.

None of it was falsified, it was just cherry-picked.
Well yes, but why is coal any better than gas?

I will give you the reselling thing, does seem weird, but then if Toyota Ford and Honda crushed them too, there must be some other reason for it, not every company would just say "hey, lets crush our cars or the hell of it"

They did show them chasing a Toyota truck, but 95% was about GM, and if you read the description to the movie on the guide, it only mentions GM...so again, it seems like it was designed to make GM look as bad as possible.

You can't plug it into a normal outlet either AFAIK, you needed some sort of fancy pants system built in. A 110 outlet would take days to charge it.

I'm sure it was a nice car, and the more I read about it, I think it would be fun to have, but I'm still annoyed at the anti GM bias in the movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,274 Posts
Everyone who makes a "documentary" has a reason for making it, and an agenda attached to that.

Now ask yourself who made that movie, and the answer will remove all doubt from your mind on why GM was singled out. GM could have been saving starving orphans and that particular filmmaker would find a way to whine about it, because he's a waste of skin.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,557 Posts
Because GM had a really good opportunity to make something out of the EV, but instead they chose to crush them in favor of SUVs, which suck gas and thus lead me to believe the oil companies had something to do with the whole thing as well. Where toyota/honda (which aren't guilt free in this) went towards developing hybrids instead, GM popularized the suburban. Note that honda currently does not sell any V8s, and toyota sells only a fraction of big trucks and SUVs that GM sells, so naturally out of the 3 the culprit would be GM if you are to make a movie about inefficient auto companies. I haven't seen the movie btw.

Everyone who makes a "documentary" has a reason for making it, and an agenda attached to that.

Now ask yourself who made that movie, and the answer will remove all doubt from your mind on why GM was singled out. GM could have been saving starving orphans and that particular filmmaker would find a way to whine about it, because he's a waste of skin.
could you have an agenda for saying that :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,019 Posts
Well yes, but why is coal any better than gas?

Well the obvious answer is that it's abundant in the U.S. Imagine billions upon billions of dollars staying in America rather than going to Saudi Arabia and the rest.

Second, pollution is easier to control if it comes from a few thousand power plants instead of millions of cars.

Third, there can be a relatively seamless transition to wind, solar, etc. when those sources can economically replace coal (because the electricity coming out of the wall is the same no matter how it is made). Gas can be replaced with biofuels, but IMO electricity is the way to go. The reality is there will be a mix of solutions.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,962 Posts
I have always and still say that "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a bunch of anti-GM bullsh*t. I have to watch it next year in Economics and I will fight to the death with my Economics teacher that GM is not a big evil corporation as depicted in that BS movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,181 Posts
$0.99 gas killed the electric car. That and California backing out of their 2% of all cars must be electric requirement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
I know it's old, but I just watched it today and have a couple questions.

1: Toyota, Ford and Honda all had electric cars, and all did what GM did, how come the movie only focused on how evil GM was?

2: How come during all the save the world BS all these geniuses failed to realize that their super duper clean electric cars did in fact have exhausts, they were just moved to a coal burning power station?

3: Not one of the people whining about having their babies taken back seemed to realize that the price they pay to lease the cars was nowhere near the cost? Those cars probably cost 75 grand, but they all thought they should just let them keep them for whatever tiny lease payments they had.

4: Some guy in a stupid hat said it was a good car for 90% of the people...90% of the people where? Maybe 10%....It was tiny, slow and had 2 seats.

5: They complain that hydrogen is a waste of money because they can't have it RIGHT NOW.... there are no filling stations RIGHT NOW, OMG.....well how many frickin EV1 outlets were there at the time?

Everything about that movie was falsified with some horrible anti GM BS.

Unfortunately I had my little brother at my house for the afternoon and had to explain the hippie talk to him. Thankfully I trained him well before I moved away, and he already hates Toyota, loves his pellet gun and rides motorcycles... :D
While your answers may be a bit oversimplified, they're mostly in the right vein. Excpet for 4 and 5.

Number 4 - How long is the commute of 90% of Americans? How many times during that commute do you carry more than yourself? And just how slow is the EV1 compared to how fast you drive during your commute? I, personally, drove a GM Impact (the test version of the EV1) and found it to be exactly what I (and most people I know of) would need for their daily use. Sure, it would be a pain if you drove 200 miles or more, but on a daily use of 120 miles or less, it's perfectly fine.

Number 5 - Hydrogen is expensive and won't be less expensive anytime soon. The EV1 can be recharged many more places than you can find hydrogen to refuel. I believe there was even a 110v converter available for the EV1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
The movie was a very anti-GM slanted piece, no doubt about it. It only villified GM, where as myself living near the Toyota and Honda North American head quarters, I saw back when Toytoa took back the leased RAV4s the people were complaining, did that make the movie in force of the EVIL GM. Toyota did it before GM did, but GM is the evil wicked devil in sheeps clothing.


".......Because GM had a really good opportunity to make something out of the EV, but instead they chose to crush them in favor of SUVs, which suck gas and thus lead me to believe the oil companies had something to do with the whole thing as well. Where toyota/honda (which aren't guilt free in this) went towards developing hybrids instead, GM popularized the suburban. Note that honda currently does not sell any V8s, and toyota sells only a fraction of big trucks and SUVs that GM sells, so naturally out of the 3 the culprit would be GM if you are to make a movie about inefficient auto companies. I haven't seen the movie btw. ..."

This is BS too, GM built SUVs cause that is what the american buying public wanted!!!! Then why did Toyota move to larger V8 powered SUVs and trucks, and why aren't they evil??? GM has worked on Hybird tech longer than any of the other manufactures out there, they built and tested them on the streets of America for a few years, if you want to see one ride a city bus. GM has worked in a better more efficent dual mode Hybrid system rather than running to market a lower efficent hybrid system, and sells it to other companies like BMW but GM is the evil empire that forces you to buy big V8 SUVs. I'm sorry to cloud the issue with facts.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,215 Posts
Personally, I think video did it. I mean it killed the radio star, who's to say it was going to stop there? Video is a menace and must be brought to justice!


I KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR


Ok, Lets get over it now.
OMG! You killed the Electric Car...you *******!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,181 Posts
I KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR
You may have killed it, but I melted it down, cast it into a Cat 3208 block, assembled a bulldozer around it and destryed a rain forest with it. Then I built a coal fired power plant where the rain forest used to be.

But that's me. That's how I roll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
The movie was a very anti-GM slanted piece...
I fully agree. The movie was a puff piece for someone's personal agenda.

However, GM did have the best electric vehicle on the market at the time...if you were to pick on one manufacturer, GM should have been the focus. The RAV4 EV, EV-Plus, Caravan Epic, Ranger EV, Altra EV, and the rest of them weren't nearly as good as the EV1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,181 Posts
What Hudson says is dead on. If ever an electric car was made that could succeed in the marketplace, the EV-1 was it. However, the market responded with a deafening silence, outside of a very few vocal supporters. If it had been released today, the result may have been quite different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,751 Posts
I KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR


Ok, Lets get over it now.
/discussion

One of the mods should move this to the snake pit so that it doesn't take up space from threads that are actually about something that wasn't already discussed to death. You know, just throwing it out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
What Hudson says is dead on. If ever an electric car was made that could succeed in the marketplace, the EV-1 was it. However, the market responded with a deafening silence, outside of a very few vocal supporters. If it had been released today, the result may have been quite different.
The Market? So California and Arizona is/are The Market? That car wasn't advertised outside of those 2 States, you had to make in excess of $100K to have the opportunity to LEASE one, you had to take a test to get one, you had to live within a certain radius of the few (very few at the time) Saturn retailers where the EV1 was leased from. There were a lot of reasons the car fell out of favor, but 'deafening silence' from The Market wasn't one of them.

$1.00 per gallon gas didn't help, the acquisition of high-profit Hummer didn't help and the CARB EV/ZEV mandate being dropped was the death knell. The EV1 cost about $85K to produce, with millions of subsidies baked right in, and when given the chance to stop losing money on it, GM pulled the plug. And rightly so.

Battery technology, the Government and the Consumer all placed highly on the Blame List in that movie as well....why no mention of that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,215 Posts
$80,000. 100 mile range. Seats two.

Sounds a lot like the Tesla roadster. Lets just see how successful that is.
The Tesla has more than double the range and it's being marketed as a sports car, supposedly with the "oomph" to back that up too. The EV1 was a commuter car and the performance was dismal at best. Also gas cost less than 1/3 what it does today, and it wasn't "cool" to be environmentally friendly like it is today. And the EV1 cost that much just to produce, the Tesla is being sold at a profit to raise funds to further the brand and expand. I think it's gonna take-off, and considering they've already sold their entire first year production run without even building one yet, and are scrambling for ways to boost production, I think it's doing pretty good. (As long as they do deliver what is promised)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,274 Posts
could you have an agenda for saying that :D
What documentary did I produce? :D

This is BS too, GM built SUVs cause that is what the american buying public wanted!!!! Then why did Toyota move to larger V8 powered SUVs and trucks, and why aren't they evil??? GM has worked on Hybird tech longer than any of the other manufactures out there, they built and tested them on the streets of America for a few years, if you want to see one ride a city bus. GM has worked in a better more efficent dual mode Hybrid system rather than running to market a lower efficent hybrid system, and sells it to other companies like BMW but GM is the evil empire that forces you to buy big V8 SUVs. I'm sorry to cloud the issue with facts.....
You should be ashamed of yourself, stating fact like that. Go to your room, right now.

Burnsy doesn't like GM, its products, or anyone that buys, drives or rides in them. That doesn't stop him from being here, though. :)
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top