digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at triplepundit.com

GM Tries to Become "Green Motors"

triplepundit.com — On Thursday, Rick Wagoner, Chairman and CEO of General Motors came to San Francisco to speak about the future of the company and "green" auto technology. It's fascinating to think that not long ago, General Motors was a company beloved by most Americans, a symbol of the innovation, spirit, and the pleasant lifestyle typical of American culture.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BCCStu, on 05/06/2008, -0/+43"Green Motors" now that is a marketer's dream. You can build an entire campaign around that one slogan.
    • neuroelectron2, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4GM desperately needs a reorganization. I know there is still a large following of Mopar, but people need to realize that their cars simply fail on many criteria only one of which is environment impact. GM has the resources to remake itself from the inside out but sadly, this is just another re-branding of the same.
      • ranger45, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5GM does need to reorganize. They need to cut product lines, continue to develop segment leading vehicles like they have as of late, and innovate in technology. Agreed.
        But Mopar = Chrysler.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mopar
      • CedEx, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Another thing, they need to cut down on the amount of offerings in each class. Just have one car for each segment, and do it well, rather than what they are already doing which is competing with themselves.
        • Blandyman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+14 cars on the market, 3 from the same company... that means, that, if we (you know, ***** it a little) 75% of all sales will be GM vehicles, while if its only one per class competing with one other company, its more around 50%.
          Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it's true. GM competing with itself with Buick, Cadillac, Olds, Chrysler, Chevy, Dodge, etc., is dumb to the casual observer, but in actuality, it's great for GM.
          • Spuy767, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Except that Chrysler and Dodge aren't GM. Read a newspaper once in a while.
    • Spuy767, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4'Cept it's true. Over the years, GM has poured more money into development of More fuel efficient and advanced drivetrains than any other company. The problem is that people refuse to buy most of it because either the cost would be too high, or it's not a prius.
    • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Would've believed it when they used to have the EV1, Had they not killed that car we'd be talking about a well developed electric car more popular than the Prius. Now GM is just resorting to cheap marketing tricks since the Japanese have such a head start in that technology.
  • zlatinb, on 05/06/2008, -1/+40Would be nice if they succeed
    • stilesja, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Yeah, but if you read the article the author basically says its more of the same with Wagoner pointing out they have the most cars with over 30mpg of any automaker, but not coming out with anything drastically different anytime soon. This seems like more talk and spin than true action, but I agree if the seeds bear fruit it would be nice.
      • Spuy767, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Electro-Motive Drive system of the Volt is not NEW enough for you? It will have he performance of an electric car, reference the GM EV 2 if you have questions about that, with the mileage of an anemic hybrid.
    • therealkdog, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3It would be nice if GM hadnt tried to kill the electric vehicle years ago think of how much further we could be.

      • Spuy767, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1People didn't want it back then, because battery tech wasn't up to snuff. And GM didn't try to kill it, they practically invented it. Just because you've read the inflammatory title of a book doesn't mean that you know what the ***** you're talking about.
  • LibertyForever, on 05/06/2008, -1/+31The Volt is a revolutionary car, the first one of a series that is likely to turn GM around big time. 2010 sounds like an early launch date for the Volt though? Maybe a limited production series for consumer testing while they work on lithium-ion battery packs?
    • Dysarthria, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15If gas is at $6/gallon in 2010, a reasonably fuel efficient car burning 25 mpg mixed city/hwy will cost nearly $3000 a year to operate with typical driving of 12,000 miles per year. The Volt would probably operate at $1000/yr or less. At that point, any commuter would be a fool not to buy one. Pray it works, if it does expect outstanding electric cars in subsequent generations.
      • Smogtdi, on 05/06/2008, -10/+0"a reasonably fuel efficient car burning 25 mpg mixed city/hwy "

        LOL BIG TIME;

        you are refering to a "reasonably fuel eficient" V8 cadilac

        *****, my toyota pick-up is more fuel efficient than that.
        • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12V8 Cadillacs get 30mpg on the highway and have for some time. The standard Corvette, with 400 hp mind you, gets similar mileage. Don't rip on something you obviously know nothing about.
          • Smogtdi, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3that's exactly what I was saying; 25mpg is NOT a reasonably fuel efficient car (outside of USA, of course)
          • piper999, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Bear in mind a US gallon is a lot smaller than a UK one.
          • willdryden, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0In the UK, gas is sold in liters not gallons. There is 7.4 oz more in 4 liters than 1 US gallon. That's less than a cup.
        • mombassa, on 05/06/2008, -1/+125mpg or less than 10l/100km is quite good for a large car.
    • DrDragun, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9Imagine the possible culture changes. It becomes a realistic perk for your employer to offer free charging tether during the day. No paying for fuel of any kind. I mean, no company is going to go to the trouble of installing gas pumps for employees, but every building is equipped with electricity.

      16 kWh is about $3 for a full charge. I could see employers letting you charge up during the day.
      • Dragular, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Just put outlets in the parking garages. Pay for your electical use along with your parking token.
        • MattB123, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7And put solar panels on the garage roofs to power it all (or at least supplement it).
          • Dragular, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Ehhh... while that would probably be the most cost effective measure, let's build a house before we start planning the dream deck.
      • EricAnderton, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What I want to know is: WTF are us suburban high-rise apartment dwellers supposed to do with a plug-in vehicle?
    • Amazetbm, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Considering it's 40 mile range, in all electric mode...it's not as revolutionary as GM could really make it. Mainly because it doesn't really fit into their planned obsolescence strategy. Hell, the 1st generation EV1 could get 55 to 75 miles on a single charge. They are hoping people have short term memory in hopes that no one will notice that they haven't made any significant progress in electric car technology.
      • drgreenberg, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Longer total range is at odds with all-electric range since you have to chose between more batteries or a gasoline engine and fuel tank. If more people would prefer a 250 mile total electric range but no fuel option over a shorter electric range but a backup, fuel-based plan for longer trips or when there's no time to charge, I'm sure GM would offer that option, too.

        All companies have an obsolescence strategy because this happens whether you want it to or not. Tech-based products are superceded by further development, which automatically makes consumers want to trade in the old for the new. You don't need to create this scenario. In fact, when it comes to vehicles, you're better off designing a product that lasts. The consumer will still want the new for its extra features but the potential for longevity contributes to reputation (which is very important currency in the auto market).
      • Dragular, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I like the 40 mile range. My current GM gets around 15mph (old, old, OLD truck that I can't afford to replace just yet), but my main trips are to work and back, at most five miles. Walking to work isn't an option due to rural Alabama terrain. However, my mom lives 200 miles away and I like to visit her on the weekends occasionally... I could probably get an all-electric vehicle that could make the trip, then recharge for the return trip, but I'd much rather have a gas tank so that I could drive around my old home town while I'm there.
    • Existenz87, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2When I first saw the Volt I knew this could be THE car to really push hybrids into mainstream. I was so happy when I read that GMC was devoting a divison of 50 engineers to work on the project. All the car manufacturers have to do is make a classy looking car body like the Volt's and turn it into a hybrid.
    • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Had GM not killed the EV1 and stopped development of the EV2, we wouldn't even be talking about this gas issue.
  • DeskFlyer, on 05/06/2008, -7/+4This coming from a guy who probably golfs regularly with Rex Tillerson.
  • BrapAllgood, on 05/06/2008, -14/+52Who Killed the Electric Car?
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-720274006 ...

    It's nice that they are willing to go green and all, but it doesn't excuse them from their past.
    • TJ11240, on 05/06/2008, -14/+21I watched that video a year ago in high school economics, and I've had a hatred for GM ever since.
      • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -10/+11That's because you're one of the ignorant fools that movie was designed to piss off. GM didn't kill the electric car, the market did. There was no market for them when the EV1 was out. It was outrageously expensive and wouldn't sell.
        • tnoy, on 05/06/2008, -10/+5Its the ignorant people like you that actually believe the ***** excuses GM uses.
        • SilverBlade2k, on 05/06/2008, -3/+13Yet why were people desperately trying to buy one? Why were people being arrested because they were willing to do anything to keep it? Why did GM only allow people to lease and not BUY??
          • nogami, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Probably because GM found that electric cars deprived them of one of their main revenue streams - spare parts and repairs. Electric vehicles are vastly more reliable than regular internal combustion engine vehicles. They have fewer moving parts, operate with far less heat, all of which lead to a more reliable powertrain.
    • Dysarthria, on 05/06/2008, -14/+14So you're angry at them for building a green car?

      Would you have been happier they never built one at all?

      Do you think its just possible their electric car was a test-bed for future technology?

      Ah, whatever; go ahead and hate them, its a position of ignorance.
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5Nobody wanted them then....let the "green" people run their mouths but unless more than 1% of people want the cars why should they make them? They had limited range,were super ugly and they were only a test car it seems anyways as they were leased for 4 years if I have read correctly. When gas was 1 dollar a gallon or less they were not even worth making as it would take too long to make your money back.
        • Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4explain why they denied the offer to keep one in a museum, especially when they were offered $15 million
          • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Fail.

            Actually, I saw the documentary and there is an EV-1 in a transportation museum, its in the last 10 minutes or so of the film.
          • willdryden, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Yes, but it will not run. They trashed the controller before they gave it to the museum.
        • tnoy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Too many people are far too concerned about the range of the car. Most all of my driving is to and from work, even 90 miles on a charge would be more than enough. The EV1 had all its limitations, yet they managed to lease _EVERY_ one they built.

          I'm also not concerned about the times I'd need more range, just like I dont care that my trunk cant even fit a bag of golf clubs.
          • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4That is you (and more power to you), but you are atypical in this respect.

            The overwhelming majority of car consumers at that time would have rather payed the then-cheap price for gas and not had to worry about any limitations whatsoever.
          • tnoy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2So? then the majority buys the car that works for them. There are cars for niche markets. However, the person who has a 50 mile commute and two cars is not atypical. The only thing that prevented the EV1 from doing very well was marketing.

            Cars like a Caterham and an Ariel Atom exist, and do well, yet they both have significant limitations.
          • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Do well in comparison to what?

            GM rightly decided that it wasn't going to waste its time, money or resources on a vehicle that was going to grab them fractions of a percentage of market share. It makes absolutely no sense for them to spend x-amount of dollars on a niche vehicle (other than a "halo" car) for a minimal return when they could spend the same amount developing a main-stream vehicle for a comparatively large return. Niche companies can fill needs in niche markets (Aptera, Th!nk, Ariel, et al). The big manufacturers aren't going to go for it.

            And you can't compare the development of the Volt (even the possible BEV Volt) with the EV1. The technology is different and the circumstances which precipitated both vehicles is different. The Volt is a main-stream, zero comprimise solution to the current energy situation. The EV1 was an over-priced niche vehicle which demanded heavy comprimises in response to a looming California ZEV law which never materialized. Once the ZEV law was off the table, why in God's name did it make any sense at all for them to continue developing the EV1? Moralistic reasons? Sorry, but try selling that one to the board or the stockholders. It was not only unnecessary to further develop the EV1 at that time, it was wasteful and would have ended up costing them money.

            Look, I'm an EV fan. I drive a Prius and we will be replacing our other car with a 2nd Prius at the end of the summer. I'll be the first one off the lot with a Volt if I can get my hands on one and I'm seriously considering buying an Aptera Mk1e if and when they finally launch. But the EV1 was not the right car at the right time. There were too many more fiscally sensible options at the time both from the production and the consumption sides. Why would anyone in their right mind hassle with the limitations of an EV at a time when an ICE car of comparable quality could be had for less than half the cost and and filled for ~$1.00 a gallon? Marketing you say? No. Common sense. The Volt is a different car for a different market in a different set of circumstances than the EV1. It makes financial sense for GM to move forward with this car right now. It made absolutely NO sense to do the same with the EV1. None.
          • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Its weird to use California laws and then use US national gas averages to use for your argument. Back in the days of the EV1, California gas averages were closer to $2/gal. Toyota released the Prius in Japan and committed to the technology, thats why sadly A Japanese car maker is the #1 car seller in the US , at the same time GM released the EV1, killed it and has been dragging its feet by whining and bitching like little pussies in order to comply with the new standards set by congress. *****, they can put a talking dashboard with a GPS system in a car but can't raise mpg to 35mpg? Who runs GM these days? The guys from Queer Eye? There's a difference between being fuel efficient and pretending to be fuel efficient, and that sir is why today you drive a Prius.
          • elTito, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1In 1997 it was about $1.20/gallon, in 1998 it was about $1.10/gallon, in 1999 it was about $1.20/gallon and it remained below or right around $1.50/gallon up through the last EV1 recalls of 2003/2004.

            http://tonto.eia.doe.gov /dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usw.htm (remove space after .gov)

            Comparing the EV1 to the Prius is apples and oranges for more reasons than I care to list. This should be plainly obvious to you.

            I'm not sure why it is 'wierd' to use both to back my argument. The EV1 was designed in direct response to the looming ZEV mandate in California. The would-be mandate vaporized and, coupled with the inexpensive gas of the time, so did GM's desire to develop the technology. Especially since the gas hog SUVs were being so readily gobbled up by idiot soccer moms and men with small peepees. It was a very, very small segment of the population that had any interest in a tiny little two-seat electric car that had to be plugged into a wall for 6-8 hours when it ran out of 'gas'.

            I'm not saying the EV1 was a bad idea in an abstract sense. But we live in reality. I am saying that it was too far ahead of its time and that the tech was not up to the concept. This equates to a financial loser for a company the size of GM to pursue. I have absolutely no doubt that in the very near future (like by the time my yet-unborn children are starting high school) that EVs will be the main-stream and ICE cars will be relegated to museums and scrap heaps. The Volts and Prius PHEVs of the world will be the stepping stones along the way to that end.
          • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The range was 40 miles or less, depending on traffic. The second generation batteries helped, but not much. That range made the car a poor choice for any commuter who drives 20 minutes or so to work. The Volt is a real solution, the EV-1 was an experiment.
          • willdryden, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0The range with the original Delco batteries was 60 miles. When they switched to the Panasonic lead-acid batteries, the range went to 100 miles. The EPA certified range for the NiMH batteries was 140 miles.
    • legoalert33, on 05/06/2008, -7/+11I don't see anything wrong with killing the electrical car at the time as it was not a major concern of consumers, industry, and businesses.
      • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well then don't see whats wrong with killing the American car industry when it lets foreign companies develop those technology and develop a response to it. The Prius didn't come out of nowhere, it came out just a year before the EV1, and now GM sees how karma can be the biggest bitch in the land.
        • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The American car industry was knocked itself off its pedestal producing poor quality gas burning cars and focusing on the high-profit margin SUV's. The Japanese produced better gas-burning cars (ever hear of the Camry, or the Accord?); the Prius did not make economic sense to buy until the last year or so, and even now much cheaper, just-as-small, cars with efficient gasoline engines give you great mileage for 10 grand cheaper.

          Anyway, that era is over now. Thank god GM is firing people and telling their Unions that the gravy-train is over; they're cutting costs and making better products than I've seen in 30+ years.
    • JlmAWP, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8Hey, give them credit for stepping up and doing the right thing now.
      • fooljoe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0let's refrain from giving them credit until the car is actually at dealerships and available FOR SALE.
      • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+110 years to late, hopefully it doesn't kill them. Oh wait, just blame the factory workers and ship their jobs overseas, I sure that'll make people buy more SUV's
        • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+110 years ago, gas was a buck or less a gallon; and you would have to have been one serious idiot dropping 25 grand on a small car like the Prius to save $400 a year at the pump. Bust on GM's lack of vision when it comes to building fuel efficient vehicles all you want- its true. But that is NOT why they've lost market share.
        • willdryden, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Gas was $1.50/gal in Texas in 1992. Where were you that is was a buck in 1997?
    • DrDragun, on 05/06/2008, -4/+19It is a vaguely plausible conspiracy thoery, I suppose, but I've heard the rebuttal and I believe them. They were banking HEAVILY on California's Zero Emission laws as well as new developments in Ovonic batteries to continue the EV1 program. The vehicle was a commercial failure and even though they were able to EVENTUALLY sell them at a profit, they were not even making a dent in their R&D costs. Because production volume was so low, they could not really benefit from economics of scale.

      The Volt will be different, when they release 10k-60k cars their first year.
      • imightbewrong, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7thank you !
      • FREETHINKER2008, on 05/06/2008, -7/+4Still does'nt explain why you could only lease the EV1, and you had to return it at the end of the lease. Then they crushed all the EV1's.
        • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Um, yes actually, it does.
        • countingthedays, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8Car companies have to keep a certain amount of parts on hand for a number of years( I believe its 15-25 years). Since they leased it and took them all back, no need to produce and keep all those extra parts they would likely never sell.

          This becomes even more of an issue in electric cars, because it would mean continually having to purchase new battery packs as the old ones on the shelf went bad. Huge costs.
          • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Its 10 years, but that was one hell of a great insight. Also, by not letting people own them, the EV-1's stayed GM's property for R&D purposes.
        • willdryden, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0I was turned down at two different dealers because I was only contracting in California at the time. I tried to buy one and again was turned down. If the EV-1 had been offered nation wide as they SAY the Volt will be, your comments would be mute because there would be over 100,000 on the road NOW.
      • jbmcb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Insurance and warranty liability.
      • XZanatos, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Then they should have upped the production so economics of scale would have helped.
    • richmomz, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4I was about to reference that movie myself. A must see for anyone interested in the drama surrounding electric vehicles. It's unbelievable that U.S. automakers have been so slow to transition away from SUV's and trucks while Japanese automakers took the hint from consumers and led the way in hybrid technology.
      • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Look, Japanese car makers sell cars in Japan, where gas is 2-3 times what it is here thanks to high gasoline taxes. Its really no mystery or great insight on the part of the Japanese that they built these cars; they simply benefited from the economics of high gas costs.

        Remember, all Japanese automakers were slow to build SUV's until they saw how much money American automakers were pulling in; then came the Highlander, the Armada, and the Pilot.
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9There wasn't much demand for the EV1 at the time, it was extremely unreliable and dangerous to work on (I have this from a GM mechanic who actually worked on them), it was overpriced, took too long to charge and used lead-acid batteries which were only good for a relative few charge cycles.

      The EV1 was a essentially prototype that was never meant for long term or mass production. Who Killed the Electric Car?, while perhaps well intentioned, is naive and biased almost to the point of ridiculousness. It is rife with misunderstanding, misrepresentation, woefully shallow analysis and, in many cases, downright paranoid conspiracy theory. Not to mention that, at the time, petroleum was sufficiently cheap that if GM had produced the EV1 in earnest it would have been a financial disaster for them. The vast majority of consumers would have laughed at the idea of having to live with its limitations as opposed to a traditional ICE vehicle which, at the time, was relatively cheap to operate.

      The Volt is indeed a revolutionary car, and if you knew anything beyond the superficial in regards to its development, you would know that GM execs have mentioned several times that much of what they learned with the EV1 has been put into practice with its design. You would also know that it was recently hinted that there may be a 100% electric version of the Volt. But sure, continue to hate on GM for a decade old perceived wrong. I'll be sure to laugh at you as I drive off the Chevy lot in my 100+ MPG car in a couple years.
      • cheesehead, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2In a couple of years GM could be toast.
      • starbuxadct, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0::kneels by desk to start praying for this day::

        and I'm not even overly religious. :]
        • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Mmmm, wasn't much demand for some portable music player apple came out with in 2001. It only played on Macs, battery life was crap, everyone complained of scratches, it used an unreliable disk technology and very expensive to consumers... Good thing Apple dropped that silly ipod project... Oh wait...
          • elTito, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Terrible analogy. There was no viable, more convenient alternative to the iPod. It was better than anything else available. The EV1 was not better than anything that was available in any measure which mattered (production cost, convenience, reliability, practicality, purchase price, etc.).
          • Solstice, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Apple didn't lose thousands of dollars on every 1st gen iPod sold in 2001. Each one had a healthy profit margin, in fact. You can build a business on that.
      • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Mmmm, wasn't much demand for some portable music player apple came out with in 2001. It only played on Macs, battery life was crap, everyone complained of scratches, it used an unreliable disk technology and very expensive to consumers... Good thing Apple dropped that silly ipod project... Oh wait...
      • cuco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Mmmm, wasn't much demand for some portable music player apple came out with in 2001. It only played on Macs, battery life was crap, everyone complained of scratches, it used an unreliable disk technology and very expensive to consumers... Good thing Apple dropped that silly ipod project... Oh wait...
      • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'm right behind you brother. The day I can drive to work in my new Chevy, not burn a drop of fuel doing it, AND have the option of driving an additional 500 miles on 12 gallons if needed is the day I waltz into my local dealership and never consider buying Japanese again.
      • willdryden, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0The only thing revolutionary about the Volt is the use of lithium batteries. Anybody can add a small generator to a battery electric and make it the equivalent of a Volt. They have a trailer for the Rav4EV that does that very thing.

        Start with an EV-1, stretch it to seat 4 people (oops that was the non-produced EV-2), and add a 20kW generator and presto - It's a Volt. No it's not. If they had done that, it would get 80 miles all electric with NiMH batteries and get more like 960 miles on 12 gallons of gas. Sounds like they are going backwards.
        • elTito, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Heh...well in that tack the Model T Ford wasn't revolutionary either. In fact, it was nothing special as automobiles went.

          Seriously, the first no-comprimise, affordable, 40-mile EV range, ground-up designed, mass produced, mass marketed, out-of-the-box PHEV and the only thing you can point to as innovative is the fact that it uses Lithium batteries?
          • willdryden, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Like I said, the same prototype was shown in 1999 except it had an 80 mile all electric range and used NiMH batteries. Untill it is in a dealership for sale, the Volt is no better.
    • Schmich, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3A lot of people seem to work for GM here...Love how they call other people ignorant and biased when they're the ones who are. Anyways I'm just glad GM barely exists in Europe. Now, people who believe what a CEO of a greedy company has to say, go ahead, bury me.
      • Riker, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Barely exist? Opel, Vauxhall, Saab ring a bell?
        • Schmich, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1and you see how many GMC cars around? Pretty much none. Also you practically don't see the cars that were copied from the american ones. Eg. Chevrolet cars where they just changed the car's symbol and sticker to Saab. The cars you see on the roads are mainly brand unique ones. There is very little sign of GMC owning these companies if you check what cars are on the roads, the main thing that shows how GMC owns them are the sales figures.

          In any case I mainly meant GMC cars and to some extent Chevrolet. Basically what the article/CEO is talking about.
      • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Wow Schmich, Riker pwoned you completely on that one. Whats it like to be so wrong?
        • Schmich, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1American, I could have guessed. Even though GM owns several car brands in Europe doesn't mean that GM is reflected there. Only a few models are actually copies of the US cars and those cars barely sell. As much as they're one company it's mainly the sale figures that are alike. For example what you read in the article will not reflect on the EU market. Heck I bet a large % of the people in EU haven't ever heard of GM unless they've seen Roger & Me or Who killed the electric car.

          Dysarthria, what's it like being so useless? People who still think large corporations like GM prioritize what's best for the people over making money make me laugh, no wait, I pity them.
          • elTito, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Not sure what point you're trying to make with that last paragraph. Are you implying that the people are forced to buy what a corporation offers? Because that idea would just be ridiculous. At the end of the day the people control the corporations via their pocketbooks. The people decide what is best for them, not the corporation. The corporation can only profit when the people allow it to. Corporations (or, more precisely, what they sell) are merely a reflection of their consumer base if you really think about it.

            It's only since certain social and political philosophies have all but destroyed public education that the corps have been able to run rough-shod over everything. When the schools produce morons the society becomes moronic.
    • Solstice, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3If GM could have made money with the EV1, then they would have continued the program. Unfortunately, they did not. Each lease was highly subsidized by the company. It was a a research project designed to gather both technical knowlege and judge consumer acceptence of an electric vehicle in order to prepare the company for California's eventual EV requirement (which was later killed off). The fact is, people voted with their pocketbooks and did not lease an EV1. Lease rates were below expectations throughout the entire program, as they made a little over 1100 of them. If all of those people that are now screaming "conspiracy!" had actually leased one, GM would likely still be offering electric vehicles.

      As for all of those people protesting outside of GM's Arizona proving grounds, tough. Lessors were required to return their EV1's as part of their contracts. They agreed to it as part of the lease, along with paying for milage overages and wear (just like any other lease). GM had no interest in keeping the EV1s on the road because they were a research project. Had they kept them on the road, GM would have had to maintain a service parts inventory for at least 7 years per California repair law. They would have also had a federal obligation to repair them if recalled. This was judged by the company to be too expensive - especially since the single most expensive part in the vehicle, the battery, was only designed to last 3 years at the most.
    • clockwars, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Those who haven't seen "Who Killed The Electric Car" should definitely check it out!!

      Had GM continued the production of the EV1, other car manufacturers would have followed.. and that was back in 1996!!! it would have made the Electric car the only car on the road today! BASTARDS! :)
      • Dysarthria, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Saw it. Disagree.

        The battery technology just flat-out wasn't there at the time. Lead-acid batteries dude, 150-year-old tech.

        The lesson you should take home as a free-thinker after seeing that movie is that GM spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing an electric car that was expensive with a poor driving range that nobody wanted in a time of buck-a-gallon gas. Surprise, no other manufacturer followed suit.
        • willdryden, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Try 1999 and NiMH batteries. Still working in over 300 Toyota Rav4EVs. You missed the upgrade part of the movie.
          The lesson I took home is that the NiMH batteries used in the GEN-2 EV-1 were fine, GM was very cannibalistic, and should have offered the cars in at least 49 of the 50 states of the US. They should have then started introducing a serial hybrid version just like the Volt except with NiMH batteries.
          • elTito, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Doesn't change the fact that the car wasn't marketable on the scale that they wanted for the cost of investment. 140 miles (I think it was) on NiMH is still ridiculously short as far as Jon Q. Public is concerned. Especially given the recharge time from empty. What if I want to go to grandma's house two states over?

            Additionally, the vast majority of people cannot afford or are just plain unwilling to shell out over $30k (EV1 was a lot more than that) for a non-primary vehicle.
          • Dysarthria, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1NiMH were the second generation batteries, and not in the car when it first came out. Switching to NiMH from lead acid just doesn't give you insane energy density. I think the car got up to what 50 miles? Still pretty awful.

            As for your 49/50 states comment, you missed the part of the movie that explained why zero emmisons laws prompted the sales in CA.
  • benagarr, on 05/06/2008, -7/+27Green Motors... only if the Green means Money.
    They'll do whatever they can to sell cars, if that means being green, then sure. I mean they've been running an 'green' ad campaign for at least a year now, focusing on technologies that don't do much (mild hybrids / E85) or that don't exist (Chevy Volt batteries) or aren't yet marketable (Fuel Cell).

    • nonymous666, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11Well, they're not a non-profit organization ya know. Seems if somebody can sell us some efficiency, then they make some money and we get some, umm, efficiency. Sounds like a win win.
    • utdrew182, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Everyone that's building/developing/researching hybrids and other alternatives for transportation are only doing so because oil has become cost prohibitive. The ability to do one of those things cheaper than a standard internal combustion engine is the payoff here. Everyone didn't suddenly develop a conscience about the environment.

      Please realize that the incredible increase in gas prices is driving alternative transportation development and not concern for the environment (I will not argue philosophically about what our reasons should be). Every time anyone fills up at over $3.00 a gallon you are indirectly helping the argument for alternatives.
    • OffPiste, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12Shocking! A company wanting to make a profit?
    • Mightbiteyou, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2An excellent point, pretty much like every other headline on digg vote with your dollar and stop expecting the government or big companies to do the right thing on their own.
    • flashingcurser, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4If GM isn't making a profit and goes under, that huge amount of R&D capital goes with it. I know GM has done many things in the past I disagree with, that said, if the market is turning toward "green" vehicles then so will GM. Consumers set trends and likewise the profits of a corporation.
    • TalenGTP, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Yea, and I'm sure Al Gore doesn't stand to make a fortune on all this greenwashing...*roll eyes*
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4@benagarr - You're either a troll or a complete ignoramus. The Chevy Volt batteries are under testing as we speak. The story was even front paged on Digg a few weeks ago. I can't find it now for some reason. Where's your hatred of Toyota for researching the same technologies you say aren't useful?
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3"They'll do whatever they can to sell cars, if that means being green, then sure"

      This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've seen on Digg, and that is saying something.
    • AgmLauncher, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Yeah, because Toyota is totally building and SELLING cars for the sake of the environment. Love the biased, hypocritical GM bashing.

      That article stated that GM has 91 hybrid options. How many does Toyota have? That's what I thought.
  • Berkana, on 05/06/2008, -8/+18GM's lobbying efforts and secret deals was actually responsible for the dismantling of the public transit systems of a number of cities. LA used to have a relatively advanced public transit rail system, until Sloan had it dismantled in favor of highway construction.

    http://rapidtransit.com/net/thirdrail/9905/agt4.ht ...

    Quote:
    “By 1949, General Motors had been involved in the replacement of more than 100 electric transit systems with GM buses in 45 cities including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles. In April of that year, a Chicago Federal jury convicted GM of having criminally conspired with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and others to replace electric transportation with gas- or diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transportation companies throughout the country."

    GM has a lot of penance to do before they can claim to be green.
    • mCanada, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6But Ron Paul said the free market would take care of everything! bury me boys!
      • Berkana, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7You fool! The problem was that whenever companies like GM and Microsoft conspire for dominance, they don't play fairly in a free market. What GM did was not the result of a free market; what they did was to make the market less free. Ditto when Microsoft bribes OEMs to avoid Linux, etc.

        Free markets work very well. Once in a rare while, free markets reach equilibrium in a spot bad for consumers, but GM destroying the public transit systems of 45 cities is not an example of this, because it was not the result of free market dynamics. The vast majority of the time, bad market conditions come from manipulations that make it less free.
        • freexe, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Free markets don't work well, monopolies form and then they price gouge and acquire or bank corrupt smaller companies. That's why we ended up with all the rules we have today.

          Sure in a world where everyone plays nicely, free-markets work well, but so would communism. A subtle mix of free-market and government control is what seems to work best. That breaks down when corruption enters the game, but that is where people power becomes important.

          America has increasing curruption problems btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perception ...

        • TTURabble, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3No, a free market and a fair market are two seperate things, they will always be two separate things, they will never be the same. I dislike when people throw around the buzzword "free market" because a free market always eventually acts contrary to the consumer's best interest. In your utopian free market, a dominant player emerges, pushes out the competiton, drops quality, and raises prices.
          You have to force a free market to be fair, it does not happen automagically, dispite what the assumptions you learn in ECON 101 are.
    • petebot, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry Berkana, I think you're mistaken. Judge Doom was behind the dismantling of LA's tpublic transportation system in the 40's.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Doom#Judge_Doom
    • lsatkins, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Actually GM just did what was best for their company given the opportunity. The blame should solely be on the crooked politicians and city workers that allowed themselves to succumb to secret deals and bribes.
    • sfgamergirl, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yes. Here's another link: http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html
  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11Let's stop talking and do things now. Electric cars were viable with the EV1 and they're even moreso. If we can get onto electric all we have to worry about is long distance travel; most people don't travel more than 20 miles a day from home anyway. Hybrids, that run primarily on electricity, are the best current viable option until battery technology comes to age.
    • Nudar, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7We still have to worry about building nuclear, solar and wind plants to produce the electricity that will power these cars.
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7But those are relatively easy, well known, solutions.

        I really don't understand what the issue is with electric cars, and why there seems to be such a blacklash against them?
        • utdrew182, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Have you priced a new nuclear power plant lately. $2,000,000,000 to restart a reactor that was previously 80% complete. This is a huge gamble to increase you production capabilities (as a utility) to predicit a future power use that doesn't have 5000 working units yet. Say you drop 20 billion on new power plants and then fuel cells win instead of recharge electric cars, what are you going to do with all that extra capacity?
          • Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2neclear reactors have a high initial cost but a MUCH MUCH lower running cost, so if you are willing to pay upfront you generate much more eliectricity at a much lower cost.
          • willdryden, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0PG&E claims they can handle 1 million electric cars charging in the 10 PM to 5 AM time frame with NO NEW electric generation. The extra capacity is already there.
          • Nudar, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1And please tell me how you expect to power those fuel cells? Nuclear, wind and solar. There's no natural source of pure hydrogen.
        • willdryden, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0The resistance to electric cars is that they use no fuel that Chevron can deliver, there is very little maintenance work for the car dealers to do, and barring accidents, they will last from 3 to 5 million miles. At 15,000 miles per year, that is 200+ years.
    • Amazetbm, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I'd drive a diesel powered car before drive a hybrid. Better mileage, proven technology extremely longer engine life.
      • ricksite, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Biodiesel, specifically, is also a very safe fuel. B100 is considered non-toxic, non-flammable and biodegradable.
      • timta2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Yeah and how much is a gallon of diesel? Last time I looked it was considerably more than gasoline. I'm all for biodiesel but I can't believe that people would think that driving a diesel vehicle would be so much better than a hybrid.
        • Amazetbm, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Diesel fuel is a 25% mark-up vs regular gas. But if you take a Toyota Prius and compare it to a VW Jetta TDI, you'll see that the TDI gets 50% better mileage...so you're actually saving money. Diesels gets 30% better mileage than a competing gasoline powered offerings...on a bad day.
      • willdryden, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1How about a diesel powered hybrid? The 1 liter turbo gas generator could just as easily be a diesel generator. Electricity is still cheaper per mile driven than any liquid fuel we have.
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It's not if we can get onto electric, but when. The EV1 was the proof of concept. The Prius/HCH et al. are the prototypes, the Volt/Prius PHEV are version 1.0. In 20 years I think the ICE will be a thing of the past. Probably sooner. Especially with the recent prediction that solar could come down to 10 cents a kWh and (possibly) directly compete with current grid power.

      But that's just me.
      • willdryden, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Until the fast charge stations come on-line, this is impractical. The grid operators would be driven nuts trying to balance the changing loads. Drive electric only vehicles within their range and charge at night. For long trips, a serial hybrid (you pick the fuel) is the best current solution.
        • Amazetbm, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Not to mention the "environmental benefits" of electric cars and plug-in hybrids would be negated by increase carbon output at coal fired power plants.
  • stilesja, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11The Aptera http://www.aptera.com looks awesome. A true commuters car, especially the hybrid variant which would likely run without gas on most day to day trips but would still allow for long distance road trips. With a baby on the way the 2+1 seating would work until the little one is a little bigger, but I until there is a true 4 seater I'd still need a second more 'normal' vehicle.
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Aptera has hinted several times that their 2nd offering will be a 4 door sedan with consumption similar to the Mk1.
    • tendonut, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1You see, this is what is wrong with alternative fuel cars (for the most part). Auto makers are obsessed with not only make electric/hybrid cars RUN different, but also LOOK different and that is not always a good thing. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in an electric commuter car, but not if they have to drive around a sperm cell with wheels.
      • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Form follows function with the Aptera. There is good reason for it to look the way it does beyond the asthetic. The entire car has a lower coefficient of drag than the windshield wipers on a conventional vehicle.

        The problem is not with alternative fuel cars, the problem is with people who care more about what their car looks like than how well it is designed and built.
      • stilesja, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2you go above 30mph and that car you are driving starts hitting some serious wind resistance. The reason you can drive a giant brick of an SUV at 90mph is because of the power generated by the engine, which is expending lots of energy and gas to do so. The Aptera is designed to slip through the air not only front to back, but even to let that gust from the 18wheeler that blows by on the interstate to slip over you without throwing the car around. Its partly the reason why small sports cars like the Tesla are more viable, because people expect a sports car to be small and aerodynamic, the Aptera takes that to the next level by refocusing the aero package for efficiency and safety rather than speed.
  • MCA2142, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2All after they ***** up the EV1.

    At least they are on the right track now. I guess...
  • Rotzooi, on 05/06/2008, -16/+7Of course they came to San Francisco. Hippies love this 'green' nonsense. A real American city like Detroit would not stand for this liberal treehugging nonsense.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9Ya boo to clean air. Bad on ya - clean ground.

      Ya asthma, cancer causing exhaust!

      Isn't it time for your nap yet?
    • BeatPunchbeef, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7You mean the real American city whose main economy is being cockpunched by foreign automakers who dont shoehorn "Hemi" engines into already impractical bloated cars?

      Keepin it REAL!

      yeah... real dumb.
      • Antwan718, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Unless you know what you are talking about shut your mouth, the HEMI motor, is a very efficient engine design. The Head that is shaped like a hemisphere allows for more volume of air/fuel to go in and out of the cylinders, yeiliding more power per liter than some 4V DOHC motors, if they were to implement the Hemi head into a 6 cylinder and do something like that you would be surprised at both the efficiency of that as well as the reliability.

        And your claim of Bloated cars, if you were to look at the fame of a Dodge Ford or Chevy truck, then compare it to a Toyota or Nissan truck, you are going to see much more real metal on the American models of those vehicles vs. the feorign one. The added metal results into 2 things a heavier, and safer car.
    • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Environmentalists are a mixed bag (some blatantly stupid, others very intelligent) but the principal of stewardship that underlines the movement isn't bad. A real American would probably be one who doesn't give in to generalization (like tree hugger) and will do what is best for the country regardless of partisanship. The resources are finite, we need to stretch them however we can. Foreign dependence (especially middle east dependence) is not in the interest of America. Remember the 9/11 hi-jackers were mostly Saudi, the Saud's are one of the largest sources of oil to the US (#2 behind Canada). Draw what ever conclusion that may imply but it's definitely not in America's interest to keep funneling money that way.To be a true patriot you'd buy a fuel efficient American car.

      (note I dug you up just cuz)
    • tnoy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I just wanted to let you know that while you may think a fire-breathing v8 will make your penis bigger, your overwhelming ignorance makes us think it is extremely small.
    • AndreiOttawa, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Maybe this explain why the "real American city like Detroit" is in deep-deep *****
  • wukillabee, on 05/06/2008, -10/+3theyve gone from right winged advertising to "green" advertising...

    FAIL!
    • TalenGTP, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2WTF is right winged advertising? You mean liberals don't drive cars? Then why are all these ***** republicans driving around with Clinton and Obama bumperstickers?
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5Actually they are trying. The Chevrolet Volt is penciled in for 2010 and they have a few other designs up their sleeve....might make up for the last 90 years of mega gas guzzlers.
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4You mean the company that makes the most cars that get 30 mpg or more. Stop drinking the Toyota-aid.
      • ricksite, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Vibe
        "The Vibe is currently the most fuel efficient vehicle sold by GM in North America, but this will not be the case with the revised EPA testing procedures in 2008"
        Coincidently, the Vibe is a rebadged Toyota.
      • DaviDaviDaviD, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I'm not, but by European standards US cars are still behind. We have VW's that will do 60 + MPG.
  • redcolumbine, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6Interesting how economic forces have prompted them to at least LOOK like they're trying to clean up their own mess. History will tell the full story.
  • BoonTobias, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1dugg for Muhammad Yunus
  • stevenstclair, on 05/06/2008, -6/+36If they REALLY want to be green, then stop selling the Hummer to 23 year old snooty blonde white chicks with gigantic sunglasses...
    • truthhammer, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2blonde white chicks. Why?
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Erm...they are discontinuing the H1 and H2 in the next 2 or 3 years.
      • RootWebGod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The Hummer H1, (not the newer H2 model), was already discontinued in 2006; where have you been mate? :)
        • elTito, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Under a rock apparently :p. Well the H2 is set to be put out of its misery in either 2011 or 2014 at any rate.
    • tendonut, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2You basically summarized every single person i've ever seen driving a Hummer. That and soccer moms who claim they need a vehicle that big because humanity hasn't been able to move two kids around at the same time before the Hummer came out.
    • opnickc, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2And Toyota wouldn't have developed the FJ-Cruiser.
      I like how everybody points out GM's gas gusslers (which actually aren't as innefficient as most seem to think), but completely ignors Toyota's pushes into the big truck and SUV market. Stop treating other companies as green by default and demand change from everyone.
      PS - GM wouldn't sell Hummers if those 23 year old snooty blonde white chicks with gigantic sunglasses didn't buy them. They're the ones we should be pissed off at - one of the facts of a free market economy; if there's a demand, someone will supply. If GM didn't sell big vehicles, it would just increase big vehicle sales of other companies.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4After losing 3.3 billion dollars this quarter, perhaps you should think about making money.
    GM is more likely to become Enron Motors!
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Most of their loss was on one-time expenditures. Beyond that they were still about $500M in the red, but it's not quite as bad as $3.3B.
  • blakecr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6"Green Washing" is profitable these days.
  • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10The other day I saw a Ford commercial with a woman sitting in a SUV giving a spiel about how being green means more then just fuel efficiency but also re-usable materials... while riding a mostly un-recyclable complex plastic gas guzzling SUV... Sometimes I think marketing departments are full of arts students with IQ's of 5 or less.
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Hey jackass, if you actually paid attention to the commercial they explained how they are using soy to make foam and plastics. Talk about an IQ of 5.
      • SSCrow, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Agreed. I saw that commercial as well.
        Kingmaniac needs to pay more attention and stop trolling.
      • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/ford_devel ...

        40% soy foam and plastic on a car that uses 100% more foam and plastic then a sedan is still a loss. Soy is not free. It does in fact take fertilizer and energy to produce and to convert into a plastic which blunts it's practical impact. It also further inflames the food market problems we're are facing at the moment.
        • ricksite, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2"food market problems" Is soy used to make rice now?
          • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/06/conte ...

            more than just rice.
          • ricksite, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1I think people have this thought that corn is being diverted from people's mouths to the gas tank. The vast majority of corn is feed corn (i.e. people don't directly eat the corn). Livestock feed is also byproduct of ethanol production. If things get really bad, we can just stop eating meat.
      • EricAnderton, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Hey jackass, you forgot the part in kingmanic's post where he mentioned "un-recyclable [...] plastic".

        It doesn't matter where you source the materials from if you just put it in a dump/landfill when you're done with them.
  • jhails, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3Won't happen. America's days as an industrial innovator are over. The Bush Cheney White House has effectively offshored everything except entertainment and weapons. Most of the capital has been drained off into the hands of private contractors who no longer need a national base of operations from which to operate. America and its citizens are redundant.
    • wanderlander, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5We gotta add the Clinton family into that with the NAFTA junk and the Chinese thing. Let's stop pretending Repubs or Dems are so different. They support different companies.
  • JasonCox, on 05/06/2008, -17/+7The only cars I'll ever buy will be made by GM. I guess it's just me, but I'd prefer a quality vehicle compared to some foreign jalopy.
    • Shakermaker, on 05/06/2008, -5/+14Yeah because Honda's and Toyota's have a knack for always breaking down. *rolls eyes*
      • fpcyber, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Maybe you should look up at who had the most recalls in 2006 and 2007...
    • radink360, on 05/06/2008, -6/+11You're kidding right?
    • gnuyen, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9Yeah those damned BMWs and Mercedes are totally jalopies. Yay Ford Focus
      • Tourney3p0, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2BMW isn't so bad, but Mercedes has one of the worst reliability track records in the entire industry. Every vehicle they made was on JD Power's "Do not buy" list last year.
        • mombassa, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2And what are these "reliability problems" that JD Power reports?
          The most auto knowledgeable market is in Europe and Mercedes is considered to be quite reliable there. Though there have been many problems with electrics recently.
    • SSCrow, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7ummmm. Not to bash GM or anything but my GM has had so many god damned problems , I've lost thousands trying to maintain that piece of *****.
    • czeman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You don't have a ***** clue, do you? I'll be the first to admit I haven't taken the best care of my 2000 Honda Civic, and the only thing I've ever had to replace on it was an ignition coil. True, my vehicle was built here in the US, but the parts were manufactured overseas. I'll take foreign parts over domestic parts any day. I think business people in Japan care more about the quality of their companys' products than building the cheapest possible product so they can justify exhorbant salaries.
  • scoot2006, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6I don't really think making different types of cars is going to help. Once they stop making trash (the seeming vast majority of their 91 models), they'll start selling more cars.
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3American brand cars rate higher than the Japaneses brands in quality and longevity. Do some research before repeating FUD.
    • Tourney3p0, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0Are you implying that GM has trouble selling cars right now?

      Do you even pretend to have any idea whatsoever what you're talking about?
  • cplusplus, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5Everyone having a personal car isn't green. Are they going to make (and push) public transit, trains, etc instead of cars?
    • dezertrat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Yes, we need better mass transit, but not everyone lives in the city you know.
    • progpen, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Agree that we need more and better mass transit, but a majority of the country is rural and we need a solution for them as well.
  • removesstains, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3Please, GM has the worse gas wasting vehicle's out there. Anything they do to improve gas mileage is a huge improvement for them.
  • louiebaur, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Ouch this had to hurt The company posted a $3.3 billion first quarter loss
  • Shakermaker, on 05/06/2008, -5/+8At this point with American auto makers selling less and less of their shiatty vehicle, if they went to an all-hybrid, or complete electric car - i'd buy one for sure.
    Make an electric car, you got yourself a customer.
    • radink360, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Has anyone made an all electrical car that can go for long distances?
      • miko555, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3With current available batteries, the EV1 would be able to go 300 miles on one charge running at 70 mph
    • elTito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3They have hinted at a pure EV Volt.
  • radink360, on 05/06/2008, -9/+6Im happy that they are trying, but the fact is, their cars are still garbage.
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6No, they aren't. They actually lead in quality the last few years.
      • radink360, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Drive one for more than 50k miles. That's how i judge quality. all cars are usually decent right off the line. It's in the later miles when cars should be judged.
        • Tourney3p0, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Yeah, drive one of the 08 cars for 50k miles like radink360 here. In fact, he's driven 7 different 2009 models for 75 thousand miles each this year alone. He can tell you all about how even the new ones aren't reliable.
        • Buelldozer, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I have an '01 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP coupe, for those who don't know that means it's a two door touring sedan with a 3.8L Supercharged V6 rated at 240ish HP from the factory. Sunroof, leather, heated seats, onstar, Bose audio...essentially every available option. I've modified the car with a cold air intake, under drive pulley on the supercharger, K&N airfilter, and tuning chip. As modified the car is capable of speeds in the 130ish range.

          With 101,000 miles on the odometer it will do burnouts for as long as you keep your foot in the gas, assuming the traction control system is off. I just finished a 400 mile journey across central Wyoming last week (very hilly and windy) and got a measured *38* Miles per gallon, two way average.

          You're talking out of your ass and it stinks. I've got the proof sitting in the parking lot.
        • timta2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You could have spared us all of the details of your retarded car and just told us how many MPG you CLAIM to get.
    • DrDragun, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3The quality of GM (and to a certain extent Ford also) in the last 5 years or so has improved dramatically.

      Yes, we (engineers and manufacturers) all study the "Six Sigma" and "Continuous Improvement" principles from Toyota. They deserve credit for mastering that stuff in the 70's and 80's. That efficiency has managed to work its way into American auto manufacturing culture recently, and the results are starting to show.

      It will still take years for the recognition to really sink in though with consumers.
      • DrDragun, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Correction: Kaizen and CI are credited to Toyota, 6sigma is credited to Motorola. My typo.
    • Antwan718, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It dosen't matter though, as long as people will assume that American cars have gone to *****, they will sell as that.
  • borez, on 05/06/2008, -7/+6If you really wanted to be green GM, you'd stop making gas guzzling 6.0L monsters.
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+730mpg from a 6.0L V8 is gas guzzling? What planet are you on?
      • borez, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3A 6.0l Hummer gets best 13 Mpg at worst 7.2mpg = gas guzzling monster.

        And we've just gone past peak oil for ***** sake, our children will look back on this period in time and hate us for our pathetic waste of oil.

        • knowitman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5a 6.0L Corvette can get 30+ on the highway easily.
          • borez, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2That's nice to know, but I ain't talking about Corvettes
          • timta2, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0And in addition I can take that 6.0L and put it in my Chevette and get 35 MPG. The Corvette only gets somewhat acceptable gas milage (I can't imagine too many Vette owners doing 55 on the highway to get 30mpg) is because it is so lightweight. Any of those Chevy Trucks get 30 MPG? Didn't think so.
          • knowitman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The Corvette actually gets better gas mileage doing over 70 because of the gearing at the optimal engine speed. Those Chevy trucks get a lot better then most trucks, including the ones from Toyota and Honda.
    • Buelldozer, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3What's the mileage on a full sized Toyota Tundra with the V8 in it? 14 to 16 MPG? Why aren't you bitching at Toyota?
  • Senturion, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6I truly don't understand how these so called "businessmen" don't get it.
    Green tech is THE business opportunity of the next century, yet they still drag their feet.
    The entire western economy is going to have to transform from its petroleum-based foundation to something else entirely, a business opportunity worth trillions, yet these companies spend more time sending their lawyers fight legislation than having their engineers solve the problems that will make them obscenely rich.
  • silkyd, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4The Volt may be one of the worst looking cars I've ever seen. The drive train is interesting, but come on, GM, whose idea was it to make it look like a poorly executed prop from Battlestar Gallactica? Who is this supposed to be marketed towards? Ridiculous.
    • countingthedays, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I don't know... I thought it looked kinda cool.
    • kcpepper111, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1ahahah looks like I am the only one who agrees with you here.
    • tendonut, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2One day car makers will make electric cars that still blend in with internal combustion cars. The day that happens is the day electric cars take over.
  • Paranoidmarvin, on 05/06/2008, -6/+9The funny thing is, they aren't that green.
    European and Japanese car manufacturers are years ahead in fuel consumption
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4No, they aren't. Look at real world mileage especially and you'll see that.
      • Paranoidmarvin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2My Dad's VW Bora gets about 50mpg, on average
        • opnickc, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Try looking at fuel economy of a NEW car. The ever stricter safety regulations in the US have made cars much heavier. You won't find one, from VW or GM, that gets better than 35mpg. Blame the institute for highway safety, not GM.
  • Ghoztt, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5Ah! The wonderful hypocrisy of our greedy automotive companies. www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

    'nuff said.
  • Landlocked, on 05/06/2008, -8/+7Hahaha - GM conspiracy my butt dude. The bottom line is GM knew nobody would by an electric car for $80k and have to recharge it every 30 miles. Do you think all of the lead from the batteries would have helped the environment? What about the coal used generate electricity to charge them? The economics aren't there to make an all electric car attractive. The long-term solution is hydrogen cells.

    All this ethanol "green" bandwagon did was increase food prices. The stuff emits the same amount of pollutants as regular gas.
    • AgmLauncher, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5You're wrong about the batteries. A123 systems are developing battery packs that are going to be thousands of times more cost efficient at storing power than getting it from the whole process of creating, compressing, and transporting hydrogen....

      A123's nano-technology batteries can last up to 15 years, can fully charge in less than an hour, are perfectly tolerant of the weather conditions across 99% of the world, and are 100x more environmentally friendly than lead-acid batteries.

      The long-term solution is every home has its own solar/wind energy generator, and everyone can charge their car using their own "home-made" electricity.
      • willdryden, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1We can only hope they specs on the batteries are correct. There is no data to verify A123's claims.

        The VOLT will, if built, carry 16 kWh of A123 Lithium battery,
        according to the GM legend, but you can only access 8 kWh of that.

        But you pay for 16 kWh.

        So to get 30 usable kWh, equivalent to the 2003 "last run" of the
        Toyota RAV4-EV (last delivered in Sept., 2003) you'd have to
        purchase 60 kWh, using these GM numbers and extending linearly.

        And the 8 kWh weighs, according to GM, 400 lbs.

        Now add that up.

        To get 30 kWh, you need to buy 60 kWh of A123, which would weigh
        about 5 times 400 lbs. or 2000 lbs. That's TWICE what the 30 kWh of
        NiMH on the RAV4-EV weighs.

        And, for A123, you'd need a cooling system.

        Now as for cost: if A123 can lower cost to only $500/kWh (they
        quoted me $2300/kWh when I asked on the phone), that 60 kWh would
        cost $30,000. The 60 kWh of A123 would cost, then, $30,000 and the
        extra weight would slow down a RAV4-EV more than an on-board
        generator.

        LITHIUM: .... PURCHASE 60 KWH TO GET 30 KWH
        COST: .......$30,000 (EST)
        WEIGHT:...... 2000 LBS. (EST)
        LIFETIME:.....UNKNOWN, POSSIBLY LESS THAN 60,000 MILES

        EV-95 TOYOTA/PEVE NIMH: PURCHASE 30 KWH TO GET 30 KWH
        COST: .......UNKNOWN, YOU CAN'T BUY THEM, CHEVRON SUED TOYOTA
        WEIGHT:......LESS THAN 1000 LBS.
        LIFETIME:....WITH CARE, 200,000 MILES OR MORE

        PSB1260 LEAD ACID: PURCHASE 18 KWH TO GET 18 KWH
        COST: .......$3600
        WEIGHT:......1300 LBS.
        LIFETIME:....50,000 MILES OR MORE

        LIFE-CYCLE-COST PER MILE WINNER: LEAD ACID
        WEIGHT WINNER PER KWH OF CAPACITY: NIMH
        BULLS*** WINNER: LITHIUM
    • gnuyen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3The later models of the EV1 could go up to 150 miles with the Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Every EV1 that was produced was leased.
    • fooljoe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3what a moron
      1. $80k? the EV1 was never offered for sale at ANY price
      2. 30 miles? see above. EPA-certified 150 mile range
      3. coal? this has been answered so many times I won't bother
      4. economics of hydrogen? 4-5x as much energy as an EV per mile driven, not to mention the million dollar price tag and 3 year life of the fuel cell itself. brilliant economics.
      5. ethanol? well, at least you got something right...

      how does (*did*, I hope) this guy have positive diggs? makes me think maybe there's something to that GM conspiracy in your butt.
      • progpen, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1From what I've seen so far, it would be a good bet that at least one GM representative has either directly or indirectly put their "spin" on this discussion.
  • gorgalor, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4I can't wait until GM releases a hybrid Hummer with spinners, so I can roll in the hood, bumping out sweet tunes, maintaining my eco cred, and doing all the ghetto hood rats. 18 miles per gallon, here I come!!! Time to save the planet, yo!
  • Smogtdi, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2can't they just stop lying to us saying the battery technology is not available right now.... NiMH would do the trick if it wasn't owned by texaco/chevron

    ..as it was in the electric Toyota Rav4 before Texaco sued Panasonic and Toyota big time
    • fooljoe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1hundreds of those Rav4-EV are still on the roads in private hands, many with over 100,000 miles driven with zero maintenance. interesting how these are still out there in daily use yet GM "had to" reclaim and crush all the EV1. and interesting how they get over 100 miles on a charge even after 100,000 miles but the batteries "just aren't ready" for a 40 mile range Volt.
      http://evnut.com/rav_owner_gallery.htm
  • corbettkroehler, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Those of us in the environmental community have been screaming at GM for years to take a posture like this. It's not easy, I know. Just look at what happened to Bill Ford, Jr. when he tried to take his family's firm in a green direction. I had a chance to meet Mr. Ford briefly and he did not strike me as a titan of industry. Let's keep the pressure on these firms. They have to see what Honda and Toyota are doing.
  • MazdaEric, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Hasn't anyone by now green cars are kind of an oxy-moron?
    • wanderlander, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1yeah what about the kitchen grease cars?
  • HubbertWins, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9I want my Volt!
  • wshwe, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6GM is pretending to be green. While GM pretends Toyota will continue to sell record numbers of hybrids.
  • UmpUmp, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5yeah they lost the game a long time ago. i say give it to the asians..they're better at it anyway.
  • AgmLauncher, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3I'll be trading my Saturn Aura (which is FAR nicer than any CamCord btw) for a Volt as soon as I can.
    • timta2, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Haha, you admitted to owning a Saturn, now everybody knows that you are a fool! A friend of mine told me that Saturn was just as good as my Honda, after renting 2 different Saturns I laughed at him when I got back from Vacation.
  • wanderlander, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Even GM's recent history is a testimony to how callous they really are....who said global warming theory is “a total crock of sh*t” and that hybrid cars “make no economic sense”? Regardless of what you think pollution is doing, it should be obvious that it's destroying the eco system, and the people with the fat bank accounts are in a better position to do something about it than the average person who can't afford even a 10 yr old vehicle. Quotes are from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14979
  • gyronic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+915 years too late GM!
  • demiurgency, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Nice. I was just watching a documentary this weekend on future green technologies and the major automobile manufactures, and was just thinking that taking the lead in environmental technology could be just what GM needs to re-establish America as a respected forerunner in the automobile industry.
  • vwvan, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Who killed the electric car to make SUV's?

    Sorry, I still have a bad taste in my mouth for GM anything...
  • lerch, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Well, the Chevy Volt is supposed to get, I think, 40 miles before a recharge, which is fine for an average Americans commute. Though, it has a small 3 cyl gas engine connected to a generator that will give the Volt enough juice to last for 640 miles. If you travel less than 40 miles between trips, you'll never have to refuel.

    Not 100% gas free, but its a great start.

    Also, the potential with E-Flex. You can pretty much put any kind of engine into it, gas, electric, hydrogen, or combo and it will run this car.
  • Aanidaani, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Selling five hybrid cars does not qualify your company as "green," considering they sell millions of heavily polluting trucks a year.
    • Buelldozer, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1You're talking about Toyota right?
  • TROY7, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7GM sucks.
  • kinerry, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1They are just going to make the claim of being green, and never actually release anything, just like every other company that jumped on the bandwagon.
  • jerryn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6The EV-1 was a winner. mass production would have brought the price down. I wish I was able to buy one. Just think if GM sold that car they would be hotter than toyota right now. Retrofit a small diesel generator in the EV-1 and whamm.. hybrid with the drive motor
    being an electric one. Did you read the specs on the EV-1? It was plenty fast enough. My commute is 100 miles/day
    • BurgerDST, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The EV-1 would still be a winner. Make that car again GM.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.