# GM still doesnt want to really sell ev`s?



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

Hi everybody,

yesterday I was at the http://www.auto-zuerich.ch/, a car show in Zürich. I wanted to see whats there going on in the EV section. First I had some nice conversations with staff from Tesla and Fisker, they both seemed very entusistaic about their product and answered all sorts of questions.... Then, I went on to find an EV/HEV from Chevrolet and I asked the person standing aside it whetther I could ask a few questions about the car (I was the only person in the ford "section"). Our conversation went as follows (translated from german):

me: Hello, can I ask a few questions about that car? (pointing at the car)

chevy: Sure!

me: Is this an electric vehicle?

chevy: Yes.

me: That is nice, after all, most of the vehicles I was checking turned out to be hybrids in the end.

chevy: This is all electric!

me: how far does it go?

chevy: 500 km.

me: wow, thats more than I need. Are there different battery options like for tesla cars? I mean, why should I pay for a 500km battery if I need only 100km?

chevy: The battery alone is only good for 80km... You get the range from the ICE.

me: I thought that this was an electric car and not a hybrid!

chevy: This is NOT a hybrid.

me: well there is a ICE in it...

chevy: It is not a hybrid, it can be driven purely electric.

me: Isn`t that what people call plug in hybrid (this was a honest question as I dont know the exact "definitions")

chevy: No, as I said it is NOT a hybrid (he seemed a bit angry at the point)

me: but it has an ICE.

chevy: look, if you dont need the range, u can drive it completely electric..

me: but then I have to carry around and maintain a useless ICE, where more batteries could be..

chevy: It is not useless...

me: ..well, are you planning to build a real EV?

chevy: No, at the time, EV that only have batteries are not viable. Maybe what you want will be available in the future, but meanwhile you might also have a look at our other cars, the are very.....blabla....


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Ford or GM?

The only reason the big boys like EVs is to greenify their image, and they want to push things like the Volt because they are MORE complex than either an EV or an ICE, which will ensure business for the dealer down the road.

They really don't like true EVs, as evidenced by the plan to build 1-2k Sparks, just enough to clear their ZEV mandate, but not enough to accomplish anything, including paying for the tools to build a production run.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Agreed, but you need to clarify. The Ford Focus EV is truely electric only. NO ICE. It sounds as if you were talking to a GM rep about the Chevy Volt. 

Remember the major auto companies will lose money if they start selling electric cars that will last 14 years or so with little or no maintenance.


----------



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

Oh, SORRY FORD...of course I meant Chevrolet...I will edit the original post


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Good investigative reporting - Ausgeseichnet!


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I swore off GM some time ago. All they're in it for is to make a buck, as all businesses want to do. Their downfall though is they use cheap, inferior components that fail early. My home built electric now has over 10000 miles and is doing quite well and never left me stranded until recently and that was the fault of someone else. 

Gotta make a trip tomorrow of about 88 miles round trip. Gonna have to take it easy until I'm sure I can make it back safely as I'm not taking a cord along!


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi.

"EV that only have batteries are not viable." as you just finished talking to Tesla and Fisker  Furthermore, as you pointed out, if it has an ICE on-board it's *not* an EV.

GM is so wrong on this one that they've poured millions of advertising dollars to convince the public the Volt is an EV. You might have seen the recent "I thought this was an electric" ads on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDyZu6zOC6Y

JR


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Ooohhhh...I hate those ads...please let the pain stop.

Since he clearly never uses gas, that means he's never more than 10 miles from home or work. What kind of little girl is he that he can't hold it for that long?


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

I can't believe the cynicism on this post. GM, like all companies, are not charities they are a business. You act surprised when companies just barely comply with green legislation... what do you expect? Technology has only recently even gotten close to bring up volumes and bring down costs for batteries. Even some on this forum are waiting for the prices to go down further. Yet you expect GM (or any other car company including precious Toyota) to pump out more than the minimum Zap cars or whatever? They're not idiots. Each of those cars comes at a loss.

And also to think that it's all some giant conspiracy that they want us to have more breakdowns so we need repairs? Get real. Talk to Toyota right now who just recalled another half-million cars. Reliability is the goal - they all strive to top those lists. They probably love electric cars for their reliability, and they don't make a single cent when you change your oil at your local Grease Monkey. I've also heard they're in bed with big oil.. it's just silly. 

The reason they have not pushed EV for a long time is they cost too much still. I think the Volt is a great idea because it's a stepping stone for the 99.99999999% of the country that isn't a member of this forum and wants to be able to go farther than 40 miles IF THEY NEED TO. If enough people start buying them, costs will come down and the Big 3 and others will gladly kill the ICE.

For those that never go farther than 40 miles, it is a pure electric. You can't be just opposed to an ICE in a car that isn't doing anything. If you'd rather that space was used for batteries and a 100mile range works for you, then buy a Leaf. 

Sometimes I just think we can get really shortsighted on this forum and instead of championing the new EVs being released, we all have to complain how they're not like our conversions and such and such and at the end of the day we make them unappealing. The result? If people don't start buying EVs the concept will die again, who knows when to be revived.

Who knows, maybe then in the 2020's when the companies give electric its third try, will you be ready to support it then?


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

I don't think electrics will die again. They are here to stay. I have watched the R and D of battery tech for a long time and I promise you within 10 years you will see a thousand mile range electric car. LiFe batteries have come down in price by the tens of thousands in the past 10 years. The Tesla Model S will have a range of 300 miles for the premium car. Thats 50 more than the roadster in only a few years.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi! We might end up in the chit-chat section soon.

Ok I think the general discontent is with the lame attempt to call the Volt an EV. I wrote on another forum that it should have been called the "Fume". Two important factors separate it from being called an electric vehicle: 1. it has an ICE in it and 2. At 70 MPH the ICE is directly coupled to the gearbox. It's a hybrid.

I, Mr Joe Blow, with no clout or buying power, can convert a brand new, retail bought, 2012 GM car to electric and have it have a 100 miles range for <$35K. You mean to tell me that General Motors cannot best me on that?

It took an act of Congress (1975), to FORCE vehicle manufacturers to allow owners to change their car's oil at other facilities than the dealer and still retain their warranty. Still, if you change your oil anywhere else, prepare to justify your betrayal with black and white documentation or else... My friendly Ford dealer wanted $7500 for a new engine on my Expedition because I dared change the oil at a local mechanic's shop and somehow that had caused the engine to melt in. (BTW, $120 later, I had fixed the SUV myself).

The EV-1 was product of a law requirement in CA. The Volt was not. With the EV-1 experience, GM was well poised to make a killer electric car (no pun intended). I can only guess that they started the project that way but quickly realized they wouldn't be making any money in spare parts and tune-ups so they threw in the equivalent of automotive crack - an ICE. Once they got you hooked on one of those, you can't quit.

We don't have to wait until 2020 for an electric car. Granted, they're hard to come by, but the Nissan Leaf is fully electric and available now. Or convert one.

JR


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> For those that never go farther than 40 miles, it is a pure electric. You can't be just opposed to an ICE in a car that isn't doing anything. If you'd rather that space was used for batteries and a 100mile range works for you, then buy a Leaf.


 I'm not opposed - if you will pay for it, and the additional complications in the drive train for me. Then I could put the money toward batteries and have much longer range than a Leaf. 

If it is pure electric, why is the ICE in it? Sure you can use only electric for short trips, and that was the definition of a plug-in hybrid before GM produced the Volt. "Electric" was used only for vehicles with no ice. GM is trying to change definitions after the fact by repeating a story over and over until it becomes "common sense" to many. If they are successful, how do we differentiate between an electric vehicle and a plug-in? They are the same by GM's definition. Note the sales person did not say the higher range could only be obtained using the ice. He only said that after the person asked about the battery pack size. He said it was electric, and said it had 400 km range, period. Oh, did I forget to tell you it uses gas to do that? Oh silly me!


----------



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

disclaimer: English is not my native language. 

I don't think that companies are (nor that they should be) some kind of charity organizations...
No offense intended, but I think that your line of argumentation is flawed in several aspects, that I try to display in the following.



> And also to think that it's all some giant conspiracy that they want us to have more breakdowns so we need repairs? Get real. Talk to Toyota right now who just recalled another half-million cars. Reliability is the goal - they all strive to top those lists.


It is not a conspiracy, it is business, just as you said. The best thing for a car manufacturing company to happen is actually that cars in general, break down often while the cars build by the company break down just a little less often than most of the others do. The brand is still up the list but the nice things that come along with regular breakdowns are still there (see next^2 comment). So, for those companies it is good if the technology at use is complex and fragile in general, a perfect match with ICE technology. 



> They probably love electric cars for their reliability,...


The big car manufacturers have absolutely no interest in a shift of the prevalent technology. They invested huge $ in R&D for making ICE more powerful, reliable, cheap (as to crank up in those lists you mentioned).... and they sure want to profit from those investments as long as possible. Those companies have no reason to love the electric car other than to use it once in a while as a "proof of principle" that EV technology is still not ready and the way to go is ICE for just another couple of decades. It is no coincidence that there is no (or extremely few) new companies (that produce their own engine) that have entered the car manufacturing business for decades. The technological advance of the resident manufacturers is just beyond reach for new companies. It is silly to assume that the big companies would not try everything to keep it that way and therefore prevent the industry from changing paradigm and take away (parts of) their technological headstart over potential new companies, that could try to penetrate the market when technology is "reset". Of course, this is also why they love hybrids, since there you still need all the ICE technology and knowhow.



> and they don't make a single cent when you change your oil at your local Grease Monkey. I've also heard they're in bed with big oil.. it's just silly.


They do! directly and indirectly. Directly by selling the parts that need to be replaced. Indirectly, and that is much more important, that is how they fund their sales network (at least thats how it works in Europe afaik).
I dont know what you mean by " they're in bed with big oil", but I do know that oil companies are no charity as well, they are businesses. Oil companies want to sell...well oil and its derivatives, so they have an interest that IC engines run cars. The rational thing for them to do, is to support that part of the car industry that has the same interests. No conspiracy, just logic, plain and simple.



> The reason they have not pushed EV for a long time is they cost too much still


Have you evidence for that claim? If some members in this forum can build good EV conversions (some of them having also good range) for quite little money, than GM should be able too. Also, I think, the upcoming TESLA S is well priced for it is a high standard car.




> I think the Volt is a great idea because it's a stepping stone for the 99.99999999% of the country that isn't a member of this forum and wants to be able to go farther than 40 miles IF THEY NEED TO. If enough people start buying them, costs will come down and the Big 3 and others will gladly kill the ICE.


I never advocated building EV with a range of 40 miles. But maybe 80% of the people would be happy with 150 miles of range. Problem is that GM will work hard on convincing the crowd that they need 400miles of range, because thats the only edge their PHEV,..erm sorry EV has over any other production EV. Since GM can afford big time advertising, and since advertising works at creating demands out of thin air, we might end up with more people thinking that they need 400miles of range than actually do. I short, GM building and advertising the volt ends up in slowing down the transition from ICE to EV! (btw, GM insisting to call its PHEV a pure EV goes well together with that strategy).



> Sometimes I just think we can get really shortsighted on this forum and instead of championing the new EVs being released, we all have to complain how they're not like our conversions and such and such and at the end of the day we make them unappealing. The result? If people don't start buying EVs the concept will die again, who knows when to be revived.


I agree (for EV)

Best,
sokon


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

I don't really care what a Volt is called, or if it's an EV or not. It's fine with me if you don't consider it an EV and I'm not even sure I'd argue with you on that. My point is simply that it is a good stepping stone for the consumers to ease into going fully-electric.

Personal example: I first hated the Leaf cause it meant most Americans still needed a gas car, which they then drive even on short distances, whereas with the Volt then gas is only needed for road trips or vacations. But then I realized that it is a good choice for some people who don't need that, and if it gets a few people into EVs then I support that. I've since stopped badmouthing the Leaf. I know at my work and my social sphere that I have a lot of influence on how others perceive the Volt and the Leaf simply because they know I am converting my own car. Our words carry a lot of weight and so I choose to support whatever hybrid/EV is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Like I've said before, it is a stepping stone.

Public perception is the key to consumer behavior. Ask Apple. Their products don't have the superior underlying technology of smartphones by far but they dominate the market due to public perception.

For those that say the electric car is here to stay, I sure hope you are right. But only time will tell and I choose to do what I can to ensure that.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

O.K. a couple of points.

First. The Leaf is more practical for me because I have 4 kids. I can put them all in a Leaf, I can't in a Volt.

Second. It is possible the car companies do have an unwritten partnership with the oil companies. Remember, they did conspire with tire companies in the early part of the 20th century to buy up and retire all the street cars.

Third. I saw a statistic not to long ago which stated that a car dealership makes most of its profit, not on the sale of new and used cars, but from the service department.

And lastly, the reason the auto companies don't want to sell you an EV, other than for the above mentioned reasons, is simple. They have large amounts of money in factories that build I.C.E. parts. They do not want to spend billions of dollars to retool the entire lineup.


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

Jason Lattimer said:


> And lastly, the reason the auto companies don't want to sell you an EV, other than for the above mentioned reasons, is simple. They have large amounts of money in factories that build I.C.E. parts. They do not want to spend billions of dollars to retool the entire lineup.


as my 9 year old daughter just said to me last night, "change is hard. I don't like it."


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

Jason Lattimer said:


> First. The Leaf is more practical for me because I have 4 kids. I can put them all in a Leaf, I can't in a Volt.


This is interesting - first time I heard this. Isn't the Volt a four-seater sedan? The Leaf I saw in person was. Or is it just too small?



Jason Lattimer said:


> Third. I saw a statistic not to long ago which stated that a car dealership makes most of its profit, not on the sale of new and used cars, but from the service department.


I thought we were talking about manufacturers, not dealerships. Most dealerships are privately owned subsidiaries that may get discounts on the actual vehicles but I don't think the manufacturer shares in their profits. And I've also heard Service is a big moneymaker but I think the biggest is Financing.



Jason Lattimer said:


> And lastly, the reason the auto companies don't want to sell you an EV, other than for the above mentioned reasons, is simple. They have large amounts of money in factories that build I.C.E. parts. They do not want to spend billions of dollars to retool the entire lineup.


Agreed, and this was my original statement - that manufacturers aren't thrilled about EVs because of the COST. It's a business decision, not a conspiracy. But I'm pretty sure I'm alone in that thought so w/e...


----------



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

> I thought we were talking about manufacturers, not dealerships. Most dealerships are privately owned subsidiaries that may get discounts on the actual vehicles but I don't think the manufacturer shares in their profits. And I've also heard Service is a big moneymaker but I think the biggest is Financing.


we are indeed. The fact that dealers can make lots of money with maintaining these cars means that they are willing to sell those cars with only a small profit on the sale (because they know that some of the people that buy that car will be coming back to let this car repair/service and give them big profit this way). This is why I said that this way they fund their sales network! This would be expensive for manufactueres otherwise. Avoided costs are also a profit!



> It's a business decision, not a conspiracy. But I'm pretty sure I'm alone in that thought so w/e...


I made my point very clear in my previous post (which you obviousely didn`t read carefully enough), I was talking about business and nothing else. I would apreciate it if you didnt try to put me in the "conspiracy theorist corner" and instead focus on arguments.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

notailpipe said:


> It's a business decision, not a conspiracy. But I'm pretty sure I'm alone in that thought so w/e...


Most conspiracies are business decisions. All a conspiracy implies is more than one person or group working together for their own benefit without giving everyone else all the facts. In business it's often called collusion or price fixing; several groups have been fined for it in the last year including lcd manufacturers and automotive wiring harness providers. OPEC is probably the most profitable price fixing organization in the history of the world. I'm sure they've never had a business discussion in private with anyone in the auto industry, and no money has ever changed hands except that which is open and above the board though, so no conspiracies here...


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I gave a presentation on converting cars to electric last night and someone ask me afterwards what I thought of the Volt. I said “Well, you can drive it for 30 to 40 miles in all electric depending on speed, and also use it for longer trips with the gas engine, so you only need one car.” He said that was why he was interesting in it rather than all electric, and I agreed that if you need to take longer trips fairly often then the Volt is a good choice.

I am not against the Volt. I am against dishonesty. It is a plug-in hybrid so call it that, don’t call it electric. If someone has a need like that person above and only wants to own one car, a phev fits their needs, electric doesn’t, and won’t for probably at least another 10-15 years. Just call it what it is and don’t deliberately misrepresent. Renting an ice car works fine for me for less frequent longer trips.

I certainly agree that the main reason car manufacturers may resist electric vehicles is likely because of the huge investment in knowledge and dollars they have in current ice technology. It has taken them over 100 years to get to this point, and they are reluctant to give all that up and switch to an unknown technology. Most ice vehicles are highly reliable now compared to even 30 years ago. It is very hard to give up all that learning and go to something new, not to mention all the re-training of engineers, service people, etc...that doesn't mean that it isn't the wiser thing to do. I think that in the longer term we have no choice other than to do so, and that transition can be made less painfully by starting now and phasing it in.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I don't think it's much about the learning and developing. The ICE hasn't really changed that much in decades. How many recalls do you see for engine malfunctions? Most R&D goes into control, braking, comfort and other auxilliary functions. Those will all still be needed in evs, so no IP being thrown away there.


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

sokon said:


> I made my point very clear in my previous post (which you obviousely didn`t read carefully enough), I was talking about business and nothing else. I would apreciate it if you didnt try to put me in the "conspiracy theorist corner" and instead focus on arguments.


Hi Sokon. My reply was to Jason, not to you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

@Tomofreno: I couldn't have (and apparently didn't) said it better. I think a lot of the frustration here from others is just what GM is calling it. Technically, I agree with all of you that it's not a true electric car but a plug-in hybrid. Why Chevy insists on calling it an EV is a marketing thing I'm sure.


----------



## sokon (Sep 15, 2011)

notailpipe: Sorry for my harsh posting. I might be a little bullish today since I caught the damned flu -.-


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

sokon said:


> notailpipe: Sorry for my harsh posting. I might be a little bullish today since I caught the damned flu -.-


No worries. We're all on the same (EV) team.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

tomofreno said:


> I am not against the Volt. I am against dishonesty. It is a plug-in hybrid so call it that, don’t call it electric.


That annoys me too. Whats worse is automotive journalists generally function as cheerleaders for the industry instead of being critical and asking the real questions. 

When GM first started their attempt to redefine what an electric car is, no one bothered to call them out on it. The only thing worse then that is cost equivalent MPG ratings. Many people don't realize that the 100MPG and up numbers being thrown around are fictitious figures.

In my view the volt's worst enemy is the chevy cruz, but time will tell.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

david85 said:


> In my view the volt's worst enemy is the chevy cruz, but time will tell.


It's also up against the Prius (and other hybrids) and soon the plug-in prius. That's the whole reason they refuse to call it a hybrid. That would make them compare it to other hybrids by price and MPG, where it doesn't stack up so well.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

And then the Volt meets fiery death...twice.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rompt-u-s-probe-into-electric-car-safety.html

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/29687054/detail.html


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

notailpipe said:


> This is interesting - first time I heard this. Isn't the Volt a four-seater sedan? The Leaf I saw in person was. Or is it just too small?


The Volt is a four seater, I cannot fit myself and four kids in the Volt. The Leaf I drove has a bigger back seat than my Toyota Yaris. I could easily fit 3 of my 4 kids back there. The Volt will leave somebody walking.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> And then the Volt meets fiery death...twice.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rompt-u-s-probe-into-electric-car-safety.html
> 
> http://www.wsoctv.com/news/29687054/detail.html


That is scary. I hope this will not scare people away from EVs because of an irrational fear of something they don't understand.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Well, it does help if the engineers can understand it. That's a problem with crash tests, if some condition can happen 1 in 100 times it's nearly impossible to reproduce, and if you can't reproduce it it's nearly impossible to identify the cause.

At least the house fire should be much easier to understand once they have some time.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Well, it does help if the engineers can understand it. That's a problem with crash tests, if some condition can happen 1 in 100 times it's nearly impossible to reproduce, and if you can't reproduce it it's nearly impossible to identify the cause.
> 
> At least the house fire should be much easier to understand once they have some time.


Yes, but the problem is with these batteries. There have been several lithium based fires in the recent past due to BMS systems that fail and cause a runaway thermal event due to overcharging. This is a problem that needs to be addressed or people will shy away from EVs because they are afraid of the house catching fire in the middle of the night. I have to admit the recent rash of 2am charger fires scares even me from charging at night, so you can imagine what happens when the general public gets ahold of this information.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

notailpipe said:


> I can't believe the cynicism on this post. GM, like all companies, are not charities they are a business. You act surprised when companies just barely comply with green legislation... what do you expect? Technology has only recently even gotten close to bring up volumes and bring down costs for batteries. Even some on this forum are waiting for the prices to go down further. Yet you expect GM (or any other car company including precious Toyota) to pump out more than the minimum Zap cars or whatever? They're not idiots. Each of those cars comes at a loss.
> 
> And also to think that it's all some giant conspiracy that they want us to have more breakdowns so we need repairs? Get real. Talk to Toyota right now who just recalled another half-million cars. Reliability is the goal - they all strive to top those lists. They probably love electric cars for their reliability, and they don't make a single cent when you change your oil at your local Grease Monkey. I've also heard they're in bed with big oil.. it's just silly.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

You need to go read about planned obsolescence then.


----------

