Well, you are central to the "story" so are in a position to know more than almost anyone, but also so involved that it may be a bit harder for you to know how others view what has transpired. To me, WKtEC was a story of how GM made a mistake, and RotEC is a story of attempted redemption. Perhaps if the EV1 wasn't a purpose built vehicle, with such a loyal following, it wouldn't have drawn so much more ire to GM as compared to the other manufacturers that you keep reminding us about. Also, it seems GM did a more thorough job of "erasing" the EV1 which makes people point it out, unlike the Rav4EV and RangerEV (for instance) which still have examples running here and there. The whole story could have been different if, for instance, Toyota started first, got rid of ALL of the Rav4EVs, and the protesters stopped many EV1s from going to the crusher. GM gets the lions share of the scorn for being first, and more thorough to "erase" their EV, and more-so because it was the most unique of the group.
Maybe the general press was more responsible for giving the impression that the Volt was EV1 reborn than GM itself, but it still came across that way to me.
Heck, look what I see on the pluginamerica:
http://images.pluginamerica.org/NationalPost-8jan08.pdf
Oh, I totally get why the public sees it as they do. Why they were pissed in the first place, (that's probably as much my fault as anyone's!), that the media has portrayed it as atoning for the EV1, and the advocates and grassroots folks have taken (probably somewhat rightfully) some credit for "getting" them to do the Volt. The media and advocates even have a vested interest in furthering that portrayal. I just don't think
GM sees it as directly admitting that mistake; even as it's not the EV many wanted, that assumption of atonement gives them more credit than I think is due on that particular point. Most of the employees still say it was the right thing to do, though most weren't there at the time so have been fed only company lore. There are a few who have said it was a mistake, but only from a PR perspective. They don't necessarily think it shouldn't have ended, just not that way.
And the "admitted strategic blunder" was a reference to Rick Wagoner's quote that killing the EV1 was
his biggest mistake during his tenure. But he too, said that he felt that way for PR reasons more than anything, and he didn't frame it as the company's mistake. Obviously some- though not all- of my former colleagues still believe it was the wrong thing to do. But the closest thing I have heard from any high-level folks to regret based on anything substantive was Larry Burns's remark that killing it was wrong not just for PR reasons, but that they'd had, and lost, a 10-year lead. But he was speaking as an individual, not on behalf of the company.
In fact, while I give the company credit for getting behind the Volt, and think it turned out to be a good PHEV, that they chose to do a PHEV at all could be read as an attempt to prove they were
right about the EV1. As in, "see, we told you no one wanted an EV then, and we
still don't think people want one." I've also heard several interesting stories from inside the company about that general unveiling period: both that Lutz ordered them not to show it in the first place if they weren't willing to build it, as even he knew that GM would never live down "killing" another vehicle with a plug of any kind. It was, after all, his direct email address I gave out for a few years. At the same time, I've had several employees tell me that they were totally caught off guard by the enthusiasm from the public for the concept, which suggests they weren't entirely convinced that the public would even want a PHEV- or at least, not one from them. They stepped up, but I don't know that they were entirely committed to it at first.
I hear you on mentioning the other automakers, really. And I agree that the passion over the EV1 was a main factor; I loved that little car like anyone else. GM also took the heat because they were so blunt about it, basically going from treating their drivers like gold for five years to giving them the finger. It was quite the bi-polar experience, I think. Ironically, when we were still employed, we acknowledged that the company was clearly bent on ending the program, but implored management to let us help them end it with some amount of grace. The gist of the response was "piss off, we know what we're doing."
So I get why people hate GM; it's just that I don't think Toyota is as innocent as they get credit for. Where GM was blunt, Toyota was sneaky- but they've been just as bad in different ways. They started the "you don't have to plug it in" campaign
while the RAV EV was still on the market, marginalizing not just competitors' products, but their own. They tried just as hard to bury the RAV at first, they just got called on it. And while I initially gave them credit for giving in to PIA, I sat through several years of meetings where they were clearly there just for pacification purposes, and making comments about what a pain their own drivers are. I was even initially banned from those meetings, and after another PIA person pressed and pressed for a reason, he was told "well, she's from the industry; she knows when we're lying." I had called them out for exactly that in the meeting before I was banned. For five years after GM finished crushing their cars and Toyota had committed to keep the RAVs, they've continued to siphon working ones behind PIA's back and crush them at a different location on the east coast. They're doing the RAV now- and I hope they're committed, but my interaction so far suggests it's more begrudging compliance. And Bill Reinert, the head of ATV for Toyota (and the guy who takes single-handed credit for killing the first RAV) continues to run around bashing EVs, even as they're building one. Even on the new cars, Toyota has mostly been given a pass for leading with the least-electrified plug-in that's been announced to date, even with more of a lead on that technology than anyone, and before they announced the RAV. In my mind, they are to hybrids what GM was to EVs- they're just better at marketing.
So the frustration is more based on both automakers behaving contemptibly, but one never being called out on it. And I realize that many don't know the details of the Toyota story, but there are many who do, and don't care. Hence the reference to a double standard. The other automakers I'm less worried about with respect to their last programs, though Ford was no angel either. The only one I believe was remotely straightforward was Honda, who basically said from the beginning, "we're making a few hundred cars because we have to, and when the lease is over we're taking them back." Would have been nice if the motivation was better, but at least they didn't try to hide it.
