Wow. That's quite a history lesson!
After reading all that you wrote, I can't quite tell what your main point is? Is it that GM received undeserved criticism for terminating it's EV program when - implied by you - all other car makers went about it the same way? ChadS has done a stellar job of filling in some of the details that describes some of the differences. And there are many more. I didn't read about this process. I lived it.
Or is your point that *I* am guilty of spreading this "bad information" that you mention, because I failed to include a complete history of the auto industry in my previous post?
Yes, the GM Impact (modified for the high speed run, and never offered as a production version) went really fast for a few recorded runs. And the engineers involved in designing/building that car were (and are!) fantastic people who have some of their fingerprints in the Tesla DNA today. And I loved my EV1 - as much for what it should have represented as for the experience of "owning" and driving it for a couple of years as our main vehicle.
In your history of GM's unwavering support for EVs, you left out the big parts where their spokespeople proudly told the public (after the EV1 program was terminated) that American drivers don't want hybrids are EVs. They want real cars. And then when the Volt came out (oops, a bit hard to explain), the advertising push was to show how bad BEVs were because of range anxiety that a gasoline-backed Volt didn't have. And now the Bolt... I'm convinced that this car would not be here without Tesla in the mix. And again... that tricky explanation of why BEVs are OK now. The Volt is a good car too, in it's own right. And I all but gushed about it in a public review that was republished by GM before the car's initial release. GM can build cars that people want.... at least when there aren't others in the market.
I realize that by refuting your overly positive painting of GM's actions regarding their EV programs that I again start to sound like a hater. But I'll mention again that I am not. I'm just a guy who has some direct experience with how all of these big companies have dealt with EVs in modern times. They've all taken missteps, of course. GM's were by far the most harmful to the transition to electrification of our transportation... directly after GM was the "first and best" - at the forefront of the movement where they could have remained.
Indeed they are one of the oldest. Along with every other company that was building cars at the time. But that doesn't help GM today, nor does it help us today. Only part that matters is what they've done in modern times.
And.... it is documented and undisputed that GM did exactly that. They spent a ton of money and effort in a concerted (and successful!) effort to stop the CA mandate that the EV1 was responsible for creating. This is as much "urban legend" as Reagan taking the solar collectors off the white house.
After reading all that you wrote, I can't quite tell what your main point is? Is it that GM received undeserved criticism for terminating it's EV program when - implied by you - all other car makers went about it the same way? ChadS has done a stellar job of filling in some of the details that describes some of the differences. And there are many more. I didn't read about this process. I lived it.
Or is your point that *I* am guilty of spreading this "bad information" that you mention, because I failed to include a complete history of the auto industry in my previous post?
Yes, the GM Impact (modified for the high speed run, and never offered as a production version) went really fast for a few recorded runs. And the engineers involved in designing/building that car were (and are!) fantastic people who have some of their fingerprints in the Tesla DNA today. And I loved my EV1 - as much for what it should have represented as for the experience of "owning" and driving it for a couple of years as our main vehicle.
In your history of GM's unwavering support for EVs, you left out the big parts where their spokespeople proudly told the public (after the EV1 program was terminated) that American drivers don't want hybrids are EVs. They want real cars. And then when the Volt came out (oops, a bit hard to explain), the advertising push was to show how bad BEVs were because of range anxiety that a gasoline-backed Volt didn't have. And now the Bolt... I'm convinced that this car would not be here without Tesla in the mix. And again... that tricky explanation of why BEVs are OK now. The Volt is a good car too, in it's own right. And I all but gushed about it in a public review that was republished by GM before the car's initial release. GM can build cars that people want.... at least when there aren't others in the market.
I realize that by refuting your overly positive painting of GM's actions regarding their EV programs that I again start to sound like a hater. But I'll mention again that I am not. I'm just a guy who has some direct experience with how all of these big companies have dealt with EVs in modern times. They've all taken missteps, of course. GM's were by far the most harmful to the transition to electrification of our transportation... directly after GM was the "first and best" - at the forefront of the movement where they could have remained.
Last edited:
