Views from President on GM re:what's holding up EVs

Views from President on GM re:what's holding up EVs

Just read a short article on three things holding up converting to EVs. My view: spoken from someone who hasn't owned an EV and seriously wrong.

He claims three items need to improve before lots of people will buy EVs in the US: range, number of public charging stations, and cost. I have a LR M3. Range is never an issue in daily driving. It only comes up in long trips, like the one I did from Washington, DC, to Nashville. 1,613 miles round trip. Hopping from one supercharger to the next was easy. Except the trip probably took one hour extra each way. More than 90 percent of my charging has been at home, overnight. No stops at gas stations. No quest to find cheap gas. No standing on line at Costco for cheap gas. Even without a M3, range is not a daily problem. Ever.

Public charging stations. There are plenty. Only need them for long trips. But I do plug in at my local grocery story. Because it has free charging while you shop. Yesterday all five chargers were full when I was there. I have never had to wait in line at a supercharger, though. That should be eliminated when V3 chargers come on line throughout the system. Seventy-sever percent of all Americans line in a house and could install a 240 volt charging circuit just like me. So 3/4 of all Americans really don't need more public charging systems.

Finally cost. While I agree that electric cars are more expensive to buy initially, they are not if you use life cycle costing.

So I need to ask myself, why would the President of GM write this piece? He's not dumb or uninformed. I conclude that he's just trying to sell more ICE cars until GM can push out EVs.

SamO | 27 november 2019

EA will never equal Tesla Superchsrging. Not density. Not countries covered. Not stalls per locations. Not locations.

If you disagree, bring numbers not press releases.

Dude is a disinformation factory and anyone relying upon his b.s. is in for a world of hurt.

Bighorn | 27 november 2019

His VW DNA is showing. Can’t polish a turd.

jimglas | 27 november 2019

Fish, wrong as usual

FISHEV | 27 november 2019

“If you disagree, bring numbers not press releases.?”

Vancouver EA 8 x 150kW CCS
PDX EA 2 x 4 x 150kW CCS

16 total 150kW CCS chargers.

Tesla SC Vancouver 12 x 150kW Tesla
Tesla Tigard 10 x 150kW Tesla

22 Total 150kW Tesla Chargers

Those kind of numbers?

And EA is just starting and building out fast. Tesla has no other SC installs in the works for PDX metro.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17 februar 2020

Hi, guys!

Interesting thread with good information. Excellent viewpoints, from all but FEESHICE, whose posts I customarily skipped entirely, of course. I just watched a nice video that I'd like to share that covers similar ground from a British point of view...

James Cooke | Can we BAN new ICE cars from 2035? (19:36)

I have not yet read the article highlighted in the OP. I'll return with my insights when I'm done doing that. Until then?

Take care, happy driving, enjoy life!

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17 februar 2020


Wow. That was... really bad. Starting with the title...

GM president: Electric cars won't go mainstream until we fix these problems

Idunno. Maybe this is what people call 'passive aggressive' all the time. Generally speaking, I would rather someone was not either opposite, 'Active Aggressive' or 'Passive Submissive', depending on your point of view. Yet, I find this statement... offensive.

'Electric cars won't go mainstream' -- I get the impression he wanted to stop right there, and would have, if not 'helped' by others. Just a flat denial that electric vehicles can ever be viable in any way. The first point of traditional conventional legacy ICE automobile manufacturers.

'...until we fix these problems' -- And this is the second component of anti-EV strategy as employed by Detroit and ICE OEMs the world over. An open ended non-expiring non-commital eternal delay that lasts until some amorphous ever-changing imaginary point in... 'The FUTURE!' Apparently meant to occur after the end of the speaker's career. And not one moment before.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17 februar 2020


Mark Reuss opens with...

"The automotive industry is hurtling toward a future that will change transportation the same way electricity changed how we light the world. Electric and self-driving vehicles will alter the automotive landscape forever — it's only a question of how soon."

Really? Damn. Talk about stating the [GOLDURNED] obvious. Geez.

As for 'how soon'...? I remind you all of GM's presentation illustrating their plans for... 'The FUTURE!' from over six DECADES ago (when my Mom & Dad turned ten)...

GM Motorama Exhibit 1956 (8:45)

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17 februar 2020


Two things to take note of:
1) GM NEVER released a high performance long range fuel efficient gas turbine driven car en masse since that display -- I strongly expect they have the exact same timeline in mind for 'electric propulsion'; and

2) GM NEVER released a self driving system for wide use throughout their fleet for public consumption -- there is a lot of criticism for Tesla being late with Autopilot, but none for the 44-years-late 'AUTO PILOT' that was previewed by GM sixty-four years ago.

Thus...? I think it is fair and accurate at this point to determine that in GM's corporate culture the answer to the, "How soon?" query is simply... "NEVER!!!"

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17 februar 2020


GM has no plans whatsoever to actually REACH... 'The FUTURE!' they are trying to sell. They convince themselves it is 'just marketing' and thereby 'doesn't really matter'. To them, it is just words. No action required. Just a way of doing business.

The longer they can defer the action of spending money, making progress, having research & development costs or production expenses hit their books in quarterly reports, the better. Thus completes the alliteration. Deny, Delay, Defer... So as to prevent the coming DOOM of giving up the guaranteed revenue from ICE just... one... more... time.

From one quarter to the next, ever since they unveiled the GM IMPACT show car thirty years ago. Back in the good ole days, when they could get away with filing the research for 'alternative fuel vehicles' as part of the mostly ignored marketing budget instead of within costs associated with production -- because none were meant for production, ever. Marketing that didn't exactly lie, but made sure not to discourage the notion that the IMPACT was a representation of GM's intellectual and technological superiority over all other major automotive OEMs. Marketing that said GM was so far ahead of everyone else and specified what they, and only they, could do with fully electric drive TODAY. Marketing that was, to GM's great dismay, actually believed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) who immediately placed mandates that major automotive OEMs must offer zero emissions vehicles at a minimum percentage of their fleets of new cars deployed within the Great State of California prior to 2000.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 17 februar 2020


Imagination, Ingenuity, Innovation, Invention. Words that mean nothing within GM and the vast quantity of other traditional conventional legacy ICE automotive OEMs within the industry, both foreign and domestic. They are at most marketing terms that are used to draw in customers for whom such words do matter. A rick of prose or advertising copy meant to grab and hold attention. It doesn't always work, but when it does, it is immediately copied by multiple competitors. Something seen as a 'WIN' if such words can become associated with a brand by osmosis and little actual effort to become sales.

GM released the EV1 reluctantly. Then aggressively sought its death for at least six years. They made excuses, it cost too much, they never specified but intimated billions were spent in development, they didn't point out some of that money had been spent (wasted) attempting to come up with alternatives to pure electric drive that didn't work, like CNG, LPG, DIESEL, or Hydrogen versions that all sucked. GM even gimped the initial release by specifying POS lead acid batteries from AC●DELCO rather than the NiMH batteries recommended by their own engineers. They wanted the GM EV1 to be good... but not TOO good. That resulted in a disastrous recall with the battery packs being replaced by NiMH and production being switched over to NiMH for the duration within two years of initial release.

GM backpedaled a lot while suing CARB. They eventually 'won' the right not to build the EV1 in mandated quantities at all. They immediately halted assembly of EV1 and any further research into EVs, fired everyone involved with the project, repossesed as many of the EV1 as they could, destroyed them all (a handful survived as nin operational vehicles on college campuses or overseas), sold the NiMH battery technology and patents to CHEVRON (who were subsequently bought by EXXON), bought AM General, rebranded them as HUMMER, then went bankrupt less than a decade later.

Yeah, I could write a bunch more on this, and probably will. But I am getting a bit tired at this point. Take care, all!