"Who Killed The Electric Car" The movie..

[neptunebob]

I just heard about a new documentary movie that I plan to see when it comes here about the electric car General Motors made for California. I wonder if anyone here has seen the movie yet, know about this car, GM EV1, or knows anyone who owned the car? After seeing the previews I think I might consider one if a company would only sell them. Seems like this is one group of people who would like the electric car.

The producers say that GM and the oil companies were surprised that people wanted the EV1 and the oil companies didn't want to lose their gasoline business. Also, GM would not make money on parts and service that an engine would have. All the cars ended up crushed, how sad. GM could be making money now on this car, but why shouldn't I be surprised, this isn't the first blunder they have made. This is, after all the company that sold off Frigidaire.

 

[tolivac]

That is sad that the GM EVI cars were destroyed by the incompetent idiots at GM--The other car builders are coming out with innovative vehicle designs-Hybrids,compact cars,etc-but not GM--they still stick to their outdated-badly designed cars-and poorly built-they truely make a disposable vehicle.Drive it for five years--junk it and buy another.In Consumers Reports-their vehicles lead in the "most frequent repairs" list---If GM is to survive-Fire their idiotic managment and design teams-hire some NEW blood-maybe then they will survive-they are an American Icon.But like Maytag and Hoover-they may not survive much longer.And since the EVI cars were LEASED to owners and not purchased--sadly none survive-unless some car collector out there snagged one from the Krusher somehow.I have driven newer GM vehicles-what junk!!!Clunky,clumsy,not very nice,and many strange noises.My mom used to have a GM vehicle-she traded it in for a Lincolin-she was happier.Now she has purchased a Mercury Milan-and is very happy with it.She had the Lincolin for several years.The GM vehicle she used to have was a Chevy Caprice.The much older Buicks she had were VERY GOOD cars.

 

[dalangdon]

A car that didn't need oil, gas or mufflers? Our economy would collapse! ;-)

As long as this country is controlled by the mega-corporations, innovation will suffer, and the products will be as mediocre as you would expect from "focus group" designs.

Speaking of focus groups: I did one for a radio station the other day. You sit around a big hotel ballroom with a bunch of other twits, they play snippets of music and you indicate whether you think a song is "Great", "OK", "Tired" or "Over" by filling in a little hole with a #2 pencil - just like the SATS. (although sometimes they give you a little electronic wheel where you "dial" your feelings about a song on a scale of 0 to 100)

That's why radio is so awful. They've replaced a program director who knows his audience with a bunch of schmucks in a ballroom who are there for the sixty bucks. And even those have gotten cheaper - they used to hold them downtown and give you sodas and cookies. Now they hold 'em out by the airport and give you water.

It's not that American workers are too expensive. It's that American Upper management is too cheap. They have their eye on their stock options and severance packages rather than on running companies.

 

[kenwashesmonday]

Keep in mind that with electric cars and hybrids we will have a heck of a lot of batteries to get rid of when they're finished. Recycling batteries causes pollution, and it's expensive.

As for regular cars, most of the pollution is made when they are manufactured. Manufacturing one new car causes more pollution than a typical 1960s car will emit from it's exhaust during it's lifetime.

As for GM, they don't even build their own small cars, how lame is that!

Ken D.

 

[dalangdon]

Ken, the battery problem is a real one. But if we actually had any innovation and competition in the auto industry (instead of them fighting - in conjunction with the oil companies - to maintain the status quo) it could be tackled.

That's my biggest gripe: Innovation, the "Hallmark of America" is suffering under the current short-term driven investment mentality.

There are other issues, of course, having to do with healthcare, environmental regulations, insufficient funding for basic science and public universities, and organized labor. But those are too often used as scapegoats - particularly enviro and labor - while the underlying problem continues to fester.

I work for a small, publicly traded internet company. We put a lot of money into R&D on our "product", and it's starting to pay off with some lucrative contracts. But our stock price lags because we have made a concious business decision to ignore the Wall Street analysts "projections" for what our revenue should be.

We could accomplish their projection - if we laid off our software development team and foucsed on tired gimmicks like popups and spam - and that would boost the stock price. But it would kill our company in the not-very-long run. No one wants to be involved in a company like that, except for sleazy companies, out to make a quick buck. As it stands now (knock on wood) our future looks stable and lucrative, because we put so much into innovation.

Some might say we're lucky in that we are a young company - at 41, I believe I am the oldest employee - we don't have the pension obligation. But the big ugly secret of GM and many other companies with these expenses is that the standard pension plans are fine - they are well funded, and able to pay their obligations - but when you lump in the ridiculous bonuses and pensions for retired senior executives (which they do) it appears there is a shortfall. They are playing a shell game with people's livelihoods and trying to work us (the general public) for sympathy.

So we are left with a situation where the big companies are (largely) stifling innovation and competition, largely so a few at the very top can reap immense benefit, at the cost of the company, the employees and the consumers. They're letting GM cannablize itself, and it's a real shame.

 

[Cybrvanr]

One of the thing that GM realized after the vehicles hit the streets that the only routine service the vehicles needed were tires! Considering GM does a fair amount of business in parts after the sale repairing their poorly designed vehicles, they didn't want these vehicles on the road that wouldn't break, or even when they were running good, wouldn't need P.M. The GM EV1 used nickel metal hydride batteries which contain materials that are rather benign to the environment, especially if recycled properly. These batteries actually ended up outlasting their expectations and rarely ever needed replacing.

One of the worst things about the EV1 is the fact that it was only sold in California. In big Cally cities, the commutes are long and slow. Electricity is also expensive. If those cars were sold in many of the smaller southeastern cities too, like here in Richmond, Columbia, SC, and many other southern towns (along with many others across the country) they would have taken off like wildfire!!! In these cities, commutes are relatively shorter (<20 miles) and quicker (<30 minutes) Electricity here is also cheap, at only 7.5 cents per KWH. These cars would cost only pennies to run, and could complete several round trips to the office before recharging. Of course, they are charged every evening, so the range is not a big issue (unlike your gasoline powered car thats refuled maybe once a week)

I really wanted one of these cars, and I was sure hoping they would go on sale all over the country. Toyota sold electric versions of their RAV4, but they didn't have quite the range or performance that the EV1 had. To make matters worse, GM is sitting on the patents for the batteries and the motor controllers, so no third party electric vehicle manufacturer can produce them.

In an interesting not here, did anyone catch the news over last week? Nissan and Renault are going to attempt to buy out GM in an attempt to save it, and each other, and become one big conglomerate. A little bit of Nissan inbreeding might just help them out. While their quality was a little shakey back in the late 80's, they produce some pretty tough stuff nowadays. It will be interesting to see if it pans out. Damlier-Benz was a good influence on Chrysler (and at least for a while, got rid of all the Mitsubishi junk ...although I noticed it's returning). What I want to know is what happened to the Toyota-GM parnership that came about in the 80's for making the GEO product line. Toyota should be buying out GM....now that would REALLY get them going!!!

 

[kevinpreston8]

Misc thoughts

GM poured BILLIONS of dollars into the electric car program. There was no conspiracy, or worry about servicing, or anything else. If there were, they'd have saved the money. They also thought that there could be other uses for the technology, with purchasing by state and local governments.

They did not do any of this just to "please the environmentalists". I remember their ad campaign, with all the electric appliances coming out and saluting the car when it went by. GM tried.

The bottom line was, people didn't want it. GM made it easy by offering it only as a lease--that way, after three years the client could get a new one and not worry about replacement batteries or scary service bills. Instead, these units piled up in a storage lot and started to literally rot in the hot sun. This is the reason they were crushed.

These have limited range, as any electric car would. However, the enviro-wienies in San Francisco, who would be using it in the city, failed to step up to the plate also. Toyota, and if I remember Honda, also had their electric cars fail. This was tried in CA first because of the state's mandates on "Zero Emission" car targets, the highest in the country. Of course, the state has failed to reach these targets because the technology is not there.

We have the nutty California Air Resources Board http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm to thank for much of this nonsense.

Hybrids have caught on because they don't have the range considerations. However, they may have peaked, at least for now, because other models beyond the Priusheet have not sold to expectations.

GM Considerations--Merge with Nissan or Renault? I think neither would work. It doesn't help that the CEO of GM, in a recent interview I read with him, comes off as some sort of dreamer. He basically said that the salvation of GM is dependent on China becoming a big buyer of GM cars. WHAT? Fire that guy! I am sure that the president of Toyota is not saying the same thing.

It amazes me that the best selling car in this country is a Camry. My sister has one, and it's not any better in my opinion than anything else. But the sales and marketing guys at Toyota are better than those at GM, plain and simple. Japanese cars are marketed better, and as proof, many people still do believe that Japanese and German cars are better quality, when test after test does not prove that out across the board. I have mentioned before in other threads the huge quality hit Mercedes has taken recently, and that some of the highest quality/rated cars consistently are Buicks!

Americans don't like French cars, about as much as the French don't generally like Americans period. You don't want to marry two weak companies, never works. I don't think Nissan brings anything new to the table either. The Mercedes/Chrysler "Merger" (read takeover) almost failed, and it made the most sense of all. They are only now getting traction with of all things, the nostalgia bit with the Charger and Challenger.

To me, the only way GM can get out from under is to deal with both the unions and the retirement costs. I don't know how one does that, without some exceptional restructuring or limited BK. Merging will not do it.

I don't buy the line that "all GM makes is garbage". Sure, I would not buy a rental-car grade Monte Carlo, but a Corvette, the Cadillac line, the Buicks etc are very good cars. They just don't get the press they should.

 

[petek]

A little bit of history.. it was GM along with Firestone back in the 40's and 50's that engineered the majority demise to street railways (ie streetcars,trams) in almost every city in N.America in order to boost sales of GM buses naturally fitted with Firestone rubber tires. You have to remember that back then hundreds of small to medium sized cities all had streetcars. I can only think of two cities left, SF and Toronto that still have them running regularly.

Kevin, I have to disagree with you, as bland as it is, and I don't even think it's that bland, the Camary is a stellar performer and always has been. It has a near 20 year record now as such. Same with the Accord. And that goes for their whole model line-up. They now have the proven track record. The Big 3 haven't come close yet to matching Toyota or Honda with other than a one-off here or there and they can't even maintain that long enough to cement into anyones memory. Look at it this way... Someone says "Camry" "Corolla" "Accord" and it's an instant (yeah those are great cars, reliable, low depreciation blah blah blah), all true. What does GM, Ford or Chrysler have that would trigger that instant response from the majority of people you ask? Nothing. One reason why they rely so much on JD Powers reports in "initial quality" because once the cars a couple of years old they turn into claptrap. It's fine to wax enthusiastically about what was but even the good old Buicks etc from the 60's and 70's were never as reliable as those first Honda Civics that emerged in the 70's followed by the Corolla.

 

[kevinpreston8]

Pete don't agree....

While everyone's opinion is based on their personal experience, I just don't see the Japanese cars holding up any better than American cars in the long run. The worst cars I have ever ridden in were two of the 90K+ Honda Accords that sales people at the company I worked for had. You can say that sales people are rough on their cars, but geez, two different Accords, different drivers, and the cars literally rattled when driving and the seats no longer had any cushion! I kept looking for the kids toys that must have been rattling around in the back, but didn't find any. That was just the noise of the car. With no rust or salt in California, I can't imagine what was making the clatter. Maybe neither of the owners took them in for service, I don't know.

As far as initial quality is concerned, I totally agree with your point that those types of studies only show part of the picture. Nissan relied on those, and made them a big part of their advertising, for the past 20 years. And you don't see alot of old Nissans on the road, beyond old Nissan pickups with a bunch of lawn mowers in the back.

Here's a report on Buick's Initial AND long term quality:

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/special/powerreport/buick/index.asp

A tidbit of that report states that Buick outperforms the industry average by 30% for LONG TERM dependability. Take a look at the charts and see that in many cases Buick beats out most Japanese brands. In fact, Cadillac and Lincoln do too.

More importantly, when Japanese quality does outrank domestic, it is often by fairly slim margins. As such, the argument that "domestic cars are not nearly as good a quality as Japanese or German cars" is not supported by real numbers and facts.

I think GMs biggest fault is not trumpeting these important quality hallmarks. Instead they give us commercials featuring Tiger Woods (yeah, he drives a LeSabre, right) and that tasteless series featuring the Ghost of Harley Earl. And Cadillac (who is actually doing well so what do I know) with the constant Led Zeppelin soundtrack on their commercials.

Keep in mind that the buying public has been obsessed with SUVs for the past 10 years, and the domestic car companies have serviced that need very well indeed. One does not see alot of complaints against American SUVs and pickups for that matter.

Toyota has done a brilliant job in making people think that their cars are overly superior, when they simply are not. I challenged my own sister to show me where the fit and finish on her Toyota is superior to that on my entry-level, company-provided Ford Taurus. She couldn't.

For the record, I think it's healthy to have a large choice of domestic and imported products to choose from. I just want to get the straight story on the products I buy, and you sure don't get that from general perceptions or, God forbid, the motoring press.

 

[neptunebob]

Oh, good, people answer my thread!
Yes, If I lived in a place that was a bit flatter I would buy the electric car, I just cannot understand why a company like GM would Krush and no longer let people have a product they like. It's not like it would replace every other car, there would still have to be some gasoline cars around, there is no reason electric could not coexist - just like electric lawn mowers coexist with gas ones (although there are only 1-2 electric mowers displayed with 20+ gas ones).

As for GM cars, I have a 1995 Monte Carlo I inherited from my mother and even though it may not start when it is hot (I don't know why it does that and no mechanic can figure that out either), I will keep it because the new cars look almost the same as this one with no change at all.

I think the cars were first leased in California because there was going to be a regulation that 2% of cars in LA had to be zero emission and therefore electric. But if anyone here ever watches the Susie Orman Show, she almost screams "Never, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, LEASE CARS!!!" Anyone here catch that show?

As for the commercials, I saw a clip of the EV1 commercial and it looks like something that would scare little kids. That Harvey Earl Buick commercial is creepy too.

Cadillac and Buick do see well in our area, as we have a lot of seniors.

Oh, and here is a link to the movie I talk about, Anybody see it?

Sony Pictures Classics Presents : Who Killed the Electric Car?

 

[kevinpreston8]

Bob side question

What was the reasons she said not to lease a car?

I started out buying cars because leasing always seemed to me to be a way that you are kept away from really understanding what you are buying. The "sell" of a lease is always that you are only paying for what you use of the car. I always felt that if you were leasing a car that you never really owned anything and that you were just basically renting it.

For an answer, I went to my accountant, who is the best guy I know for numbers (he better be!). His thought was that they were about even in terms of what you really pay for what you get, with a slight edge for leasing if you use your car for business.

I try to look at what I would spend over lets say three years, residual values, etc. I would imagine that if you are going to buy a car to keep, then pay off a loan, if you are turning it in every three years, and want a lower payment, lease. However, that is just a gut feeling.

What was her reason for never doing it? She is the first person I have heard with that advice.

 

[kevinpreston8]

Suze Ormand

I found her article on the web. Basically, she is stating that leases aren't good for a few reasons. 1) Never ending cycle of leasing for the rest of your life 2) Hard to get out of if you have financial difficulties 3) Getting socked when you turn the car in with more mileage than you signed up for.

We have leased three cars before, all my wife's. We do get a tax break, although Orman claims it is not that much. I honestly don't remember what it was. I don't have financial disasters that keep me from making car payments, and BMW allows you to pick how much you want your average mileage to be. I realize that some leasing companies may really want to take advantage of you, but it seems to have worked ok for us.

Her advice is to 1) If you can, pay for your car in cash. (My sister is the only one I know who does this. She literally writes a check for the whole thing. She often buys for cash her ex-husband's low mileage car when he upgrades. Don't ask me why my sister does business with her creepy ex-husband, that's another story.)

if you can't do that then 2) Buy it outright, and drive it for 9 or 10 years.

3) Buy a used car. (Ms. Ormand doesn't explain how everyone would be able to buy a used car, as someone has to buy the new ones first!)

I can say that I did #2. I bought my 1988 Mustang GT for $14,700 off the showroom floor, and put 195,000 miles on it before retiring it for a pleasure drive. After 4 years it was paid for. For the next 6 years I had no payments. Very little service, just gas and oil and occasionally some brakes and maybe a water pump. It was great not having ANY car payment.

However, when we had kids, I didn't want my wife driving around in a 9 year old car. We always got her the new car. That way, she was never in something that was going to break down or conceivably have any other issue, and would be super dependable.

If my company does not provide a car in the years to come, I can see buying something like the new Dodge Challenger or Ford Mustang, going into a 36 month low rate loan, paying it off and driving it for the next 15 years. Not having a car payment is great!

 

[MikeS]

Looking forward to the film

My new "Entertainment Weekly" did a review of the film in this week's issue (it received an "A-" from reviewer Owen Gleiberman). Should be rather interesting.
And on the overall subject of GM's mistakes (of which there are many), there are some GM cars that are worth my hard-earned money. I refer, of course, to Saturn. (GM leased the EV1 through Saturn dealers in California and Arizona; I suspect excellent dealer service was one reason you couldn't get an EV1 from a Chevy or Pontiac dealer.)
My father once owned a Chevy Corvair; it overturned during a hard corner (fortunately he wasn't hurt). My sister's ex-husband owned a 1974 Chevrolet Vega; it was a noisy and cramped little car. When my car was broken, my friend lent me his Pontiac 1000 (aka Chevette). Crude and cheap were the words that best described it; I had to floor the gas to get the sluggish engine and auto transmission to even reach normal speeds.
Flash forward to the new millenium: I owned two Saturns--a 2000 SL1, and my current car, a 2004 Ion. Both have served me very well with few problems; my Ion is comfortable, powerful and feels like a larger car (but I get at least 25 miles to the gallon with automatic). And the center dash is easy to read once you become accustomed to it. Just ask any Toyota Echo or Scion xA/xB owner.
So overall, you can't say all GM cars are crud. Some are certainly better than others. (Ditto for Ford and Chrysler.) And it should be remembered the Japanese and Europeans have brought over their fair share of medicore models, too.

 

[tomturbomatic]

California was the only state that had a law mandating that 2% of a car maker's line had to be zero emissions. The auto makers hated this and when they got enough of our elected officials in their pockets, the state law was reversed by a national law and the cars were taken back. I think the fact that they were only leased showed that GM had no intention of using this technology in the long run. Everyone talks about traffic in LA, but before GM and Firestone conspired to do away with street cars, LA had a very good municipal transit system.

As Dan stated, the workers and unions are always blamed for the financial troubles and asked to make concessions, but not top management.

And, I have to state that I have never had a GM or Chrysler product last as long (14 yrs & over 160K miles) and remain as trouble free as my 1986 Celica. My 2000 Solara seems to be an even better vehicle so far.

 

[petek]

Maybe they should bring back the Baker electric or the Stanley steamer?

Kevin, I guess we have to agree to disagree, do I still get to drive your Fleetwood.. LOL

I've always bought my cars, never leased either because of that just renting feeling and more the fact that I keep my cars from 8-10 years and it's wonderful when those payments are finished with. Providing you have a good reliable car like the Toyota Camry with it's impeccable fit and finish..LOL. My current 99 MB was never a highly rated car in CR for reliability but I must have gotten a good one because 6 years later nothings gone wrong with it and it still drives like a dream. I plan on driving it for another year or two before selling it though I'll never buy another one only for the fact that it's a bit of a nuisance having to take it to an MB only dealer for oil changes etc etc..Speedy lube type places won't touch it at least around here they won't.

 

[neptunebob]

All of SUZE's products have her face on them.

Kevin, Suze will be in your face and whip you with her FICO kit!

This article explains some of why she doesn't like leasing, it gets her as mad as "Whole Life" insurance and Variable Annuities.

I thought leasing a car was a worse rip off than renting an apartment because with most apartments, the landlord takes care of the maintenence. With a car, you still have to pay for any work the car needs. Also, even the smallest nick, you will be charged extra for, sometimes I hear, a lot.

Suze always recommends buying a "New, Used" vehicle becuase "Somebody else's rip off could be your lucky day".

Getting back to the electric vehicle, GM only leasing them gave them a way to get the vehicles back. In the movie previews, some of the celebrities, like Peter Horton of "thirtysomething" said that if they didn't allow the EV1 to be taken away he could face a felony sentence of Grand Theft Auto for stealing GMs car!. I guess he was too scared to spend a night in LA County Men's Central Jail (oh, my, what a gay name for a correctional facility!) so he let the car be towed away.

Speaking of kids, do your kids have any say in what car you buy? I heard that sometimes, at a dealer, the child will point "I want that car" and the parent will buy it. But since kids have to be in the car maybe they should have some say. I was just saying that the EV1 commercial was kind of creepy and might scare kids so when they go with their parents to the dealer, the parents will buy an SUV (now really, unless you're the Crododile Hunter, who needs those?).

http://biz.yahoo.com/pfg/e16buylease/

 

[petek]

As much as I bugged my dad to get a Country Squire or Colony Park he wouldn't. Odd because we did a whole lot of camping, there were 3 kids, mom, our dog, and what ever other pets came along. Funny my mom didn't press him either.

 

[Cybrvanr]

It's fine to wax enthusiastically about what was but even the good old Buicks etc from the 60's and 70's were never as reliable as those first Honda Civics that emerged in the 70's followed by the Corolla.

My parents bought an early 1st generation 1978 Civic that eventually became my car in high school, and it wasn't quite as reliable as you mention. Although it was not too bad of a car, it did have some serious shortcomings, and some engineering deficiencies that made it poor for the American market.

One of the primary reasons why my mom liked it was becauses it was tiny, and she is a rather short person. I'm not all that big myself, at 5ft 8inches tall, and I had to put the seat all the way back to drive it, and my knees still touched the steering column. The seats were miniature! In Japan, I imagine speeds never really got faster than about 55 mph, because this car became really iffy at high speeds. The engine revved up to almost 4 grand at 65 mph, and the steering became twitchy. Mom liked the car too though because her <1 mile commute was easy in this car. She never went over 35 mph on her way to the office.

Many of the design shortfalls of this car had to do with the fact that in Japan, cars are taxed more as they get older, not less, as they are here. This car was an old jealopy after about 7 years of use. The body had rust all over it because of the poor grade metal used, and the cheap paint. The interior was torn to shreds. The McPherson struts were all bad, and couldn't be replaced or rebuilt without an $800 bill. I did a lot of fixing up on this car when I got it, repairing the rust holes, re-doing the interior, etc. Still, I was fighting a loosing battle! The little engine though held out pretty well, and never burned a drop of oil...The quirky carburator though required me to carry a "tweaker" around with me, and it had it's own unique procedure to start it with it's manual choke. The electrical system on that car was a disaster (I found odd, since the Japs had always been good with electronics!) The ignition switch burned out, requiring me to hot-wire it with paper clips to start it up, and whenever I stepped on the brake, the power would short to the power tailgate release, and the tailgate would go flying open!

I contrast this vehicle to the Chevette, which I have also own, and didn't change too much in it's run from 1976 to 1986. To put this on a level playing field, I'll compare my friend's 2nd generation 1984 Civic to my 1985 Chevette that I currently own. My 1985 Chevette has a 4 speed overdrive automatic transmission in it that allows it to cruise at 70 mph comfortably at low RPM's. The Chevette has computer controlled electronic ignition timing and carburator mixture, resulting in one-crank starts and good mileage. The roofline is tall, and the seats big, so even one of mmy 6ft 3in tall friends can ride in it. There's even real shock absorbers all around and a true double wishbone suspension up front. The Chevette even has a welded-box channel frame! At least on my friends 1984 Civic, Honda went to electronic ignition, and an automatic choke, and they also made the car a little bit bigger, but just about all the other issues my 1978 Civic had were still present on his 1984, and they still didn't learn the benefits of computer control. While 1978 Chevettes didn't have the overdrive transmission, or the computer control (they came around in 1981 Chevettes) The Chevette was still a leap forward over the Civic of the same year.

On the mention of streetcars, here in Richmond, we had the FIRST electric streetcar system in the NATION. It was de-comissioned in 1948, and ALL but one streetcar was burned up. That lone streetcar now resides inside the Carter-Ryley-Thomas office. GM gave the city a FREE BUS for every streetcar trolley being destroyed beyond repair. The city filmed 16mm movies of them burning up the streetcars and gave them to GM. Richmond went from being one of the innovators of public transit systems to being one of the worst. It takes over *2* hours to get from the east end to the west end via bus. The same trip can be done in an automobile in less than 30 minutes.

I imagine the primary reason why the EV1's didn't take off was because one could only get them on a lease. Except for many of the showoff yuppies around here that like to change cars when the carpet gets dirty, most people shy away from leases because they put you so deep into a financial hole.

BTW Bob, the EV1 was only a 2 seat car, so I imagine they didn't sell too many of them to families with kids, except as a second car. (which is a great use for them)

Now, for those of you all that think that European quality is not there, I beg to differ...although my experiences have been with the Swedish maker SAAB, with my 1990 900 Turbo (Pre GM). The car has been rock-solid reliable, and looks like it's only a few years old. Every time I do any P.M. or tweaking on it, I find all sorts of ingenious engineering tricks on it. Like self-adjusting V-belts. I also like the fact that they went through the effort to turn all the hose clamps to a servicable position when the car was assembled...now that's going the extra mile!!!

 

[neptunebob]

Cvr, Pittsburgh got rid of their streetcars by the early 60s, I did wonder what was so bad about them. The last streetcar is in the Heinz History Center, all the kids want to go inside it. And yes, our buses are not the greatest either, it takes an hour to go from where I am to downtown but still much less expensive than driving and parking.

In the 80s the PAT Transit had some of the plastic GM buses, remember them? I thought they were kind of junky and it turns out the city didn't have to light them on fire. They were slow going up hills, especially if the bus was full. There were news reports of them overheating and catching on fire, the worst one inside the Liberty Tunnel, scorching the tunnel, and, of course, destroying the bus. Some people had to be treated for smoke inhalation, fortunately there were no worse injuries.

Westinghouse had an electric minivan (more like a Volkswagen bus) in 1967 and was going to manufacture them here, in fact the new building for it is near me and still standing. It might have been good as a service van like appliance repair people would use. But now the only time the public will see it in a parade with the George Westinghouse Museum.

My parents always had Chevrolet, but I'm not impressed with them, especially after Monte Carlo left me stranded in Highspire, PA (versatronic is that near you?). I believe the only reason GM sells well in our area because we have a lot of seniors who liked GM in the 50's. And now since I read about the EV1 I'm really mad at them. But what can I do, I though of Ford Focus as an efficient choice but it's sooooooo Ugly!

Maybe they are actually Geriatric Motors!.