Cranky Customer

Hanlon’s Razor says, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. It’s no great revelation that GM has been stuck in stupid for a long time.

A large part of the problem is that GM, like Ford & Chrysler, is convinced they cannot make money in small cars and have surrendered the market to companies that can rather than make the effort to become competitive again. The EV-1 was a small car. Ergo, GM believes they cannot make money building EV-1s. Unless there is serious change, I suspect we are looking at the last years of General Motors and possibly Ford.

It’s also entirely possible that there was such dysfunctional communication within GM that upper management had no clue whatsoever that they had a winner. I’ve seen a number of other companies discontinue successful products under similar circumstances.

As I recall, the EV1 was created to meet a government mandate to ‘test’ an all electric vehicle. GM did just that and nothing more. At the time, this was considered a government boondoggle. It would appear the critics were right.

The plug-in hybrid and the all electric vehicle may be practical. Companies like AC Propulsion, Amectran, Tesla Motors and others will have to lead the way. If it is possible and if it is practical and if it is economically sound, it will happen. I just believe it’s asking too much to expect a company like GM or Ford to do it. Neither has the intellectual or creative horsepower anymore.

The damage claim from GMAC is despicable. I’d go to small claims court or, if required, mediation, ask them to produce the car and show the damage. Not pictures. Not another car showing similar damage. ‘My’ car! Could this be considered a form of habeous carpous?

Ask GMAC what percentage of EV-1 owners have received such damage claims and if this is typical of other GM vehicles. This might even have the basis for a class action lawsuit if enough former EV-1 leasees are involved.

GM & GMAC can’t have it both ways. If this was a prototype vehicle test program as GM claims, GMAC has little basis for claiming unusual damage. Prototypes are not production vehicles and are intended to find such problems. GM is liable. If this was a production vehicle as GMAC claims then GM is still liable on the basis of inadequate design and this opens up other problems for GM.

Looking at this account, I’d be upset that GM leased a wonderful car to me then took it away. I’d be upset with GMAC for trying to gouge me after GM took the car back against my wishes. This is not the way to treat customers one expects future business from.

In response to Mark [ July 29, 2006 01:01 AM ]

Even if the electricity used by electric vehicles were generated by burning gasoline in power plants, it would still be more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly than gas-powered cars, due to basic economies of scale -- as a small example, the emissions scrubbers on a single big smokestack can be MUCH more powerful and cost-effective than equipping thousands of individual internal-combustion engines with exhaust scrubbers.

(Yes, there's energy loss in transmitting electricity over long-distance wires... but there's also energy loss in trucking fuel to hundreds of thousands of corner gas stations...)

Electric cars actually produce more polution than gas cars. Where does the electricity come from?

Coal.

Hydrogen cars have the same problem. There is no renewable source of hydrogen. We need something like Bio Diesel that is grown.

Electric cars are not the answer to the world's problems. Haven't you folks read either of Vice-president Al Gore's books, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit" or "An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It"?

Wake up! We are living in a time of planetary emergency. And the only way to solve the problem is to drastically reduce the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Such token efforts as switching from incandescent to fluorescent lamps will not solve the problem. Nor will using hybrid or electric vehicles. The problem is too big.

That means that the whole concept of the automobile must be eradicated. Whether they are gasoline, electric or steam powered, automobiles must be outlawed. And the same must be done with public jet travel, lawnmowers and other polluting devices. If we don't do so it is the end of the world.

Mr. Gore tells us we have no more than 10 years to take action to avert this catastrophe. I urge you to write your congressman, your senator, the President and every other elected official you can think of to tell them that you demand that they outlaw the automobile, the lawnmower and mass public air travel. Write them today. There is no time to waste.

And, in 2008 vote a straight Democrat ticket to ensure that environmentally aware people are elected to office. Gaia willing, Mr. Gore will be the next President of the United States of America and we will be saved.

Support the environment. Think green!

Finally, think globally but act locally!

---

Changing light bulbs isn't enough, so don't bother? What a pathetic response. If you still drive a car, or ever even ride in one, you're a hypocrite. But hey: you're online! That makes you a hypocrite too. Even if your entire electrical needs are generated with renewable power, that's just a drop in the bucket and, according to you, not enough to bother with. You just convinced people that there's no problem, rather than make it clear action is needed. Nice job. -rc

To Mark/Aliza: yes, there is fuel efficiency loss and pollution resulting from the production of electricity, but think about it, if you drive a gasoline powered car, you are only adding to the pollution, because your house is running off those same plants - plus the emissions from 1. refining crude oil into gasoline, 2. shipping gas - whether it be from the middle east, or from local production sites, to gas stations. and then 3. your car and the millions-billions of other gasoline-powered cars on the roads.

now think; if everyone (or at least a majority) drove electric cars, you would only have pollution from electric plants (plus other forms of shipping, which could, theoretically also run off electricity) thus, reduced emissions.

To Paul: what are you? a democrat campaign worker? if you research global warming, you will find out that (surprise!) former vice president Al Gore LIED. the world is not headed for destruction, in fact, only a few years ago the big catastrophe was (drum roll please...) global cooling. yes, global cooling, the arctic waters are going to freeze, and then the earth will become a big ball of ice.

and if you wonder why i sound like a 14-year-old, its because I AM.

I have a hunch Mr. "Automobiles Must Be Outlawed" knows that what he's saying is nonsense -- I think he's deliberately putting words (stupid ones) into his political opponents' mouths. Concluding with "vote a straight Democrat[ic] ticket" smells suspiciously like a Republican scare tactic (i.e. telling us the Dems will outlaw our cars and thereby our freedom... oh, and they'll outlaw the Bible too). Ridiculous.

I'll continue to vote for whoever I think is likely to do a better job -- which is usually the Democrat, but not always -- and to get back to the subject at hand, someday I hope to drive an electric car! I dream of this for all the reasons people have mentioned, both environmental and pleasure-based (I want that fast, smooth, quiet ride). And I hope the first affordable, easily-available one is NOT made by GM, because after how they treated their EV1 drivers, I really don't want to give them my business.

I have, in fact, checked out the figures in Mr. Gore's latest opus. A friend e-mailed me about it in that "the world is going to hell tomorrow" mode after she went to see "An Inconvenient Truth".

My usual response to semi-panic appeals for action is to do a little fact checking. So I did. My conclusion is that Mr. Gore is either culpably ignorant (the actual facts are, after all, readily available even to a layperson like me) or a liar. I lean toward culpably ignorant; I rather doubt Mr. Gore does his own "research". But according to the studies he cites, his "inconvenient truth" is ridiculously inaccurate, and at least one of the studies is demonstrably so flawed in its methodology that the flaw is obvious even to laymen such as my cousin the kindergarten teacher if they actually look at the study, not just the chart.

The world is NOT going to melt down any time soon. There is ongoing notable controversy among professional climatologists and such as to how much human activities have affected global warming.

There really ARE scientists who have been doing research projects on global warming and pollution and such for decades who claim, with supporting facts and documentation, that not only is the current trend of global warming a purely natural cycle that has happened before, but also, since it's caused by the interaction of our planet's atmosphere and surface with solar cycles, that there is nothing that the human race can do at our current level of technology to stop it.

Even the panic-mongers have to acknowlege that drastic human action to reduce pollution will have little effect on global warming. It'll slow, stop and reverse when the solar cycle peaks and starts to cool again.

There are many "experts" (mostly not actual scientists in any relevant-to-climatology discipline, and Mr. Gore is one such) who refer to the various studies that have been done but tie those references to conclusions that are not consistent with the conclusions reached by the scientists that did the studies and are not even close to justified by the facts.

Science is about studying reality. Political rants are not scientific in the hard-science meaning of the word.

I do care about keeping my environmental "footprint" as minimal as can reasonably be done. Our city has recycling, and we recycle. My husband and I use CF bulbs, not incandescent; we keep our vehicles (with their anti-pollution equipment) well maintained so that lack of maintenance won't cause them to pollute unnecessarily. I use public transit whenever possible. My disabled husband uses a walker, not a scooter. Our house is insulated to minimize the therms needed in cold weather and we keep the thermostat set at 68 degrees, our furnace and water heater are natural gas, etc, etc.

But there is no need to panic; the current panic-mongering regarding global warming appears to be based on lies and egregious exaggerations. For Mr. Gore and other such "experts" to preach panic for political advantage, when they personally do little or nothing to minimize their own pollution output, is a disgustingly hypocritical fraud. I'll believe they care when they tell the truth, when they stop travelling in pollution-spewing airplanes for recreational destinations, that sort of thing.

Chris: My husband and I both leased GM EV1s from 2000-2003, and loved them for all the reasons you describe. We also offered to buy ours, were very peeved when they were recalled by GM, and CBS Evening News filmed the return of my car to the dealership and interview both of us about what a travesty it was for GM to destroy the cars.

I was also charged $428 by GMAC for a supposed crack under the front bumper several weeks after I returned the car. No crack was visible when I returned the car, which was accepted by the dealership as in good condition. I immediately and repeatedly called and wrote GMAC, insisting that they show me the crack under the bumper of the car I leased. I believe a consumer has the right to be shown alleged damage for which they are being held responsible.

GMAC ignored my requests, sent me irrelevant form letters, would not return my phone calls, and would not offer or engage in any process of dispute resolution.

A few months ago, I come to find out that GMAC had put a negative item on my credit report - which is otherwise perfect - about my delay in paying this charge, while I attempted to get adequate verification of it from them. I am now fighting to get this removed from my credit report!

This set me wondering whether others had the same experience I did, so I web-searched, and found your comments. If my fascia plate was actually cracked, and if so many of the EV1 lessors had the same experience with the fascia cracking with normal use, this may mean that there was a design flaw in the EV1 that caused the same problem for a whole class of consumers. I wonder if there is any recourse on that basis?

And doesn't a company leasing a product have an obligation to provide evidence to consumers if they are claiming that the product had been damaged, before charging them for damage and then reporting them to credit bureaus? This is not to mention that all the cars were destroyed soon after, not leased to other customers, so they were obviously not repaired.

This situation has added another level of distaste to the whole EV1 issue for me, and I would like to find some method of holding GMAC more accountable. Please let me know if you have any ideas.

Gloria Duffy, Ph.D.
(President and CEO
The Commonwealth Club of California)

I know I'm a little late coming into this conversation, I just now happened upon it. Firstly, I, too, am appalled at GM's behavior. I saw the movie and was outraged. That said, there are two comments I'd like to add that nobody else has touched upon, but adds 'fuel' to the fire: 1) another use of oil that the electric vehicle does not require: how often do we have to change the "oil" in a gasoline engine? Usually more than a gallon of oil consumption and waste every 3 months! 2) Another likely reason for not going full-scale production on them, and probably a reason for the unreasonable delay in getting the EV's to market today is that service shops wouldn't have much to do to maintain or repair EV's. Gasoline engines provide a plethora of things that could go wrong, so if they make hybrids - with gasoline engines - they're still in business. There are also the manufacturers of gasoline engines who would lose out. I believe there is sinister behavior behind this, and that lobbyists figure prominently.