I wouldn't worry about it. This was just his weak attempt at diverting the conversation away from how much GM sucks lol. Most Californians are progressive but an old guy from trashy Norco wouldn't want to hear it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I wouldn't worry about it. This was just his weak attempt at diverting the conversation away from how much GM sucks lol. Most Californians are progressive but an old guy from trashy Norco wouldn't want to hear it.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Unfortunately, Toyota is completely delusional on this point. Hydrogen only works as a fuel if people are solely dependent on it. Unless hydrogen has a market outside of vehicles, that is. It's simply unsustainable to generate and transport H2 if it's only being used for ~10-20% of driving.
This is a fact, supported by many studies. You have to have high demand for H2 for it to be commercially viable.
All that Bolt hate and you're driving on gasoline today. Why am I not surprised?
Even though you can get an EV today for under $10,000, you will drive on gasoline.
I'm driving on electricity today, and so are my 2 teen drivers. This has been true for 3 years now.
Snowdog
Member
I don't know, there have been a lot of EV FUD coming from toyota.
Lexus' Anti-EV Ad Lives On
Chief Toyota engineer says electric cars are not practical | News | Geek.com
And little sign that they see both coexisting:
Toyota Sees No Market For Pure Electric Vehicles - Inside EVs
He doesn't have to have an EV. I thought the goal (even Tesla's goal) was to get more people driving EVs. I was just trying to be an EV evangelist and get him to check out the Bolt vs an ICE car. I think he will be pleasantly surprised once he test drives one.
And I suspect you have never driven any of GM's current EV offerings. They are very nice cars, and I am sure the Bolt will be as well. Why don't you consider a Volt instead of the Civic? Get on the EV train now instead of later. You should at least test drive one before you just write them all off as crappy cars.
Your comment speaks for itself.
It's great that you're happy about your shitbox cars but it doesn't make you special and doesn't nearly explain being that big of a douche. You're not impressing anyone but yourself.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I can tell you that if someone is in the market for a Civic, they won't be cross-shopping a Volt, unless there are state incentives to help. The base Volt is $399/lease for the ultra-low mileage option, here.
EDIT: Just saw he's in CA, and I believe the Volt would be comparable there...jealous.
My goal is just to have a great, fun car. Tesla is demonstrating that the best cars coming in the near future will be EVs.... I'm not down with switching to EV at any cost. If I was, I'd be driving one of the current bland offerings.
My point is that GM cars (just like Ford and Dodge) simply don't last. A test drive is experiencing a car at its absolute best, it's kind of hard to mess that up nowadays.
You mean like this car? I'm confused:
Killed a Z06 with a GOOD driver at Carlsbad...
I would not say Mustang drivers are "douches" as lots of my friends run them.
Exactly, aside from my obvious feelings about the big 3 American car companies, that wouldn't make sense at all. A lease in general is a bad idea if you plan to buy. A 2013 civic can be had around here for 10,000-12,000. This equates to $305 per month but oh wait, there's no balloon payment at the end, it's just mine.
On top of that, reliability is on the civics side. The last thing I'd want is my naive daughter having to put up with typical dealership hassle when her volt goes tits up in 5 years.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I was in this position two years ago when I was forced by my wife to replace our 18 year old Subaru for around-town duties. I bought a new $15k Honda Fit that gets 35 - 40 MPG in our hands, and consumes about 100 gallons a year of fuel. There will be a pretty modest depreciation hit when we sell it to buy the M3.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Trust me, I'm every bit as skeptical of H2 as the next guy, but Toyota are not delusional and they are not stupid. They may well be wrong though.
I think most cars last a long time nowadays, even American ones. And the Japanese brands are no longer as rock solid as they used to be. I drove a Lexus IS250 that ended up having to have its engine taken apart for a piston ring issue at 70k miles. And I sold it just before the catalytic converter crapped out at just over 100k miles (it smelled like sulfur). We had a 2004 Honda Accord whose transmission disintegrated at about 75k miles on the freeway. That was fun. Took it to Honda and they said, "yeah, happens at about that many miles on most of those year Accords".
So I took a chance with my Volt, and have been very happy. Lexus and Honda had let us down on prior cars, so why not? Besides, we also own an Audi now so I figure the Volt will be the more reliable vehicle by a long shot.
Oh, and if you are expecting the Tesla to be the most reliable vehicle you have ever owned, you might be disappointed. They tend to use the first production cars sold as beta tests, so it will take a while to iron out the kinks.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I don't think they're stupid, but I do think they're delusional if their PR is an indication of managements' core future business strategy. I'm hopeful it's simply being driven by incentives, both in Japan and elsewhere. Otherwise I can come up with no other explanation for the absurd direction they proclaim to be going.
After all, it's not about personal opinion, the physics speak against them, as does the market.
I think most cars last a long time nowadays, even American ones. And the Japanese brands are no longer as rock solid as they used to be. I drove a Lexus IS250 that ended up having to have its engine taken apart for a piston ring issue at 70k miles. And I sold it just before the catalytic converter crapped out at just over 100k miles (it smelled like sulfur). We had a 2004 Honda Accord whose transmission disintegrated at about 75k miles on the freeway. That was fun. Took it to Honda and they said, "yeah, happens at about that many miles on most of those year Accords".
So I took a chance with my Volt, and have been very happy. Lexus and Honda had let us down on prior cars, so why not? Besides, we also own an Audi now so I figure the Volt will be the more reliable vehicle by a long shot.
Oh, and if you are expecting the Tesla to be the most reliable vehicle you have ever owned, you might be disappointed. They tend to use the first production cars sold as beta tests, so it will take a while to iron out the kinks.
Well it sounds like if I had your experience I'd feel the same way and vice versa. My mustang is a 2006 with only 65,000 miles on it. Bought it used in 2013 and it put me on the side of the road twice within 6 months. (Both times due to something that could not have been caused by the previous owner)
The car I had before that was a 2007 civic bought new. 145,000 miles and the only thing that broke was the passenger sun visor, which Honda fixed for free out of warranty.
Previous vehicles were 1993 cavelier, 1998 s10, 2002 intrepid, 2006 ram, and a 2011 4Runner... All *sugar* except for one. Guess which one? Lol
Don't fall into the trap of equating these. It would be like saying that taking an AK-47 to middle school is no big deal, because last week little Johnny had a slingshot in his pocket.
Honda did not crush their EV+ until the cars were no longer drivable. The leases were extended again and again, until the cars were no longer serviceable. Only then were they recycled.
Others (Toyota and Ford) were also crushing their lease returns, but two big differences: The leases could be extended in most cases, or bought out. And the crushing was *stopped* after the EV1 protests were too late to save those cars, and attention was turned to the other makers.
GM is the only car maker that would never extend the leases, nor allow buy-outs. And crushed (effectively) every car they made. Yes a few stripped units are now at schools and museums.
And no other auto maker led the charge to sue the state of CA with the desired result to stop all EV sales requirements (in the guise of not allowing a state to set fuel economy standards).
Most people assume that I'm a GM hater because I went through the EV1 experience and had my wonderful car taken back and crushed. And I'm not a GM hater. Though I do hate what they did - which set the EV evolution back more than 10 years. I understand the business decision that was made, even if I find it distasteful - it's the way our corporate system is set up. They are not beholden to their customers nor the citizens of the world. They are beholden only to their shareholders. If they were making the Model 3 today (which they could have been were the EV1 program continued instead of buried) I'd be buying the car from them.
GM sold 682 electric cars to the public in 1912. It's is one of the oldest EV makers in the world.
Just for historical reference, the EV1 wasn't the first, second, third, or fourth EV General Motors stopped. The 1964 Electrovair would go up to 80 miles and had up to 127HP. 50 years later, these are still marketable numbers.
The EV1 was singled out for prosecution by the press. The other participants - Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Chrysler were left alone. 5000 EVs were made in this period, but only 1,117 were EV1s. Why was the EV1 singled out? Best guess was that it was the only one that really desirable. It was quicker, faster, and had more range. You could not fault crushing the other efforts, they were terrible. The EV1 was more expensive with better engineering, and was a 100% clean sheet, unlike the others. The "compliance" Chevy was the S10 EV which is still on the road in the hands of the public.
Chevy even advertised the EV1 on the SuperBowl:
This could have been the first Electric Car TV advertisement of all time?
The only component I worked on with the EV1 was the K member. The contract to Hughes Aerospace was $800,000 to produce 100 pieces IIRC. But that part was a work of art and would make a modern fighter jet proud. Superlight, superstrong, and extremely accurate. And don't forget how long it took any EV to usurp the EV1 (Impact) as the fastest EV. At 183mph, it is still considered fast for an EV.
In any case, GM still appears to be more serious than it's larger competitors when it comes to EVs today, just like they were in the 1990's. The Spark EV is arguably the best EV under $30k MSRP. The Volt is the best EREV with no competition in sight. GM is certainly more focused than Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Toyota, VW, Fiat, BMW, MB, Audi.
But the urban legend says GM has done everything possible to destroy the EV. They are a convenient scapegoat for the fact that no company can make an EV today at a profit without government incentives. Our society is our own worst enemy when it comes to EV adoption. We buy into any popular myth, and allow it to become fact. I see the EV1 issue much like the Anti-Vaccine movement. After bad information is out there long enough, it becomes reality.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I agree GM gets more blame than it should (the Volt is indeed a great car, and I expect the Bolt to be too), and most of what you say is true. The Impact concept and the resulting EV-1 caused and defined the early CARB cars. We still look at how hard OEMs are "trying" largely based on whether they produce a dedicated car, and the EV-1 was the only such car of its time.
But saying the other EVs were "terrible" is plain false. I had a 2003 Toyota RAV4-EV and it was a great car. True, not a dedicated platform and not as advanced as the EV-1. But "terrible" does not begin to apply in any sense. That's largely an aside as you can just remove that bit and most of your post still works.
As for why GM got more blame for crushing when others crushed as well, EVNut already spelled out most of it. Plus there's the fact that GM not only didn't warn people that they would not be able to extend their leases, but when asked plainly stated they would NOT crush the cars...and then crushed them. BMW crushed their Minis after a test, but didn't catch flack because they told people that's what they would do BEFORE they started the leases. True the result is the same, but the reaction based on how and when people found out about it is understandably very different. I agree many seem to have forgotten these details and think GM was the only one crushing cars.
GM is doing plenty I don't like now. They are trying to stop Tesla - but that's more because of the direct-sales model than EVs (though the effect is the same). They are outsourcing all EV-specific work for the Bolt, refusing to invest in DC infrastructure that others agree is necessary, and have been happy to Osborne their current offerings by trumpeting the 2nd-gen Volt and the Bolt long before they were available. Much of their marketing has been pot-shots at BEVs rather than pointing out advantages of their product over ICE. They are using PEVs for brand image and conquest, but it is absolutely not a strategic direction for them (which is fine, it doesn't have to be for every company, as much as I would like it to be). But they ARE producing the best PHEV out there (before the Model S, it had the highest satisfaction ratings of any car) and what looks to be a very nice long-range BEV that really pushes the range/price envelope (at least based on likely availability date).
So both good and bad out of GM - like any enormous company.
But saying the other EVs were "terrible" is plain false. I had a 2003 Toyota RAV4-EV and it was a great car. True, not a dedicated platform and not as advanced as the EV-1. But "terrible" does not begin to apply in any sense. That's largely an aside as you can just remove that bit and most of your post still works.
As for why GM got more blame for crushing when others crushed as well, EVNut already spelled out most of it. Plus there's the fact that GM not only didn't warn people that they would not be able to extend their leases, but when asked plainly stated they would NOT crush the cars...and then crushed them. BMW crushed their Minis after a test, but didn't catch flack because they told people that's what they would do BEFORE they started the leases. True the result is the same, but the reaction based on how and when people found out about it is understandably very different. I agree many seem to have forgotten these details and think GM was the only one crushing cars.
GM is doing plenty I don't like now. They are trying to stop Tesla - but that's more because of the direct-sales model than EVs (though the effect is the same). They are outsourcing all EV-specific work for the Bolt, refusing to invest in DC infrastructure that others agree is necessary, and have been happy to Osborne their current offerings by trumpeting the 2nd-gen Volt and the Bolt long before they were available. Much of their marketing has been pot-shots at BEVs rather than pointing out advantages of their product over ICE. They are using PEVs for brand image and conquest, but it is absolutely not a strategic direction for them (which is fine, it doesn't have to be for every company, as much as I would like it to be). But they ARE producing the best PHEV out there (before the Model S, it had the highest satisfaction ratings of any car) and what looks to be a very nice long-range BEV that really pushes the range/price envelope (at least based on likely availability date).
So both good and bad out of GM - like any enormous company.
Last edited:
