Quote:

Quote:


My only beef with GM is about their new electric car - they had an excellent start ten years ago, and killed it. Now they are pretending to be virtuous by developing an electric which isn't even a fully electric - it's a hybrid.



Jeez - they built the car. To replace the batteries would have cost more than the car was worth. They killed it because there was not a business case to continue it. I drove the EV-1 two different occasions. It was a joy to drive, but the batteries just wouldn't last.





They built a car in which to replace the energy source would have cost more than the car? I am an engineer, and if I designed things that cost more to service and/or fix than to replace, I'd be out of business too.

I'm only wondering why they didn't stay with the program. Surely battery technology is/was improving. I'd also like to know why the battery company GM invested in was sold to another company and then folded. I know what happened to the electric trolley busses. There does appear to be a credibility gap around the former big three.

There may not have been a business case at the time, but then one wonders about their foresight. I have a friend who is a chartered accountant - he says that when it comes to technlogy, put the engineers in charge, not the bean-counters - because bean-counters don't see the possibilities in a technology - they only see a bottom line. Strangely, Mr. Bean-counter Waggoner didn't even get that right.

It all comes down to this - Ford, GM and Chrysler had a huge head-start in North America, certainly over the Japanese. They had everything going their way - and it's hard to not think they blew it. GM went from No.1 in the world to bankruptcy - this is a clear sign of mismanagement - not bad luck. I know darn well that our engineers in the US and Canada can compete with the world's best, but it doesn't look like they were given a chance - management faulted on this.