Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ambush · Aug 8, 2006, 08:13 AM

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/w...lectriccar/hd/

Can't wait to see that one.

Spook E · Aug 8, 2006, 08:31 AM

saw the trailer on here a few months ago, but your right, looks a good film.

mitchell_pgh · Sep 11, 2006, 07:37 PM

I was at the Penn State vs. ND football game this past weekend and had the chance to talk to my GM engineer friend regarding this movie and the car. He basically said the car just didn't make money, and it was as simple as that. He went on to say that GM was not prepared to make a car in such small quantities. They make hundreds of thousands... and they really didn't know how to make a car that sold in the hundreds per year range.

He said that car was actually nice to drive, but had a few drawbacks (like having to recharge, and the crazy price).

Sep 12, 2006, 07:19 AM

Automakers tell the public what they want and should drive. But, unfortunately, eco cars don't help the auto industry bedmates, oil companies, make any more money.

Why don't they just start producing efficient gasoline engines?

wallinbl · Sep 12, 2006, 07:24 AM

Consumers killed them. Like many products, the early adopters have to pay some of the costs of developing a new product (R&D, new plants, etc), but when consumers don't pay up, it's over.

scottiB · Sep 12, 2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I was at the Penn State vs. ND football game this past weekend and had the chance to talk to my GM engineer friend regarding this movie and the car. He basically said the car just didn't make money, and it was as simple as that. He went on to say that GM was not prepared to make a car in such small quantities. They make hundreds of thousands... and they really didn't know how to make a car that sold in the hundreds per year range.

He said that car was actually nice to drive, but had a few drawbacks (like having to recharge, and the crazy price).

That and the car was really not viable in the northern climates. Cold saps batteries, and they could only be driven 5 months out of the year in Detroit.

Eriamjh · Sep 12, 2006, 12:12 PM

It's a good film if you like uninformed propoganda fueling (no pun intended) the BIG OIL conspiracies from keeping electric cars out of the mainstream.

Roger Moore couldn't have done it better.

PS: I work in the auto industry.

Gossamer · Sep 12, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Roger Moore couldn't have done it better.

007 can do anything he wants.
Oh, did you mean Michael?

Gossamer · Sep 12, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Why don't they just start producing efficient gasoline engines?

Take Thermodynamics I and II, Heat Transfer, and Internal Combustion Design, then ask that question again.

TimmyDee51 · Sep 12, 2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Consumers killed them. Like many products, the early adopters have to pay some of the costs of developing a new product (R&D, new plants, etc), but when consumers don't pay up, it's over.

Watch the movie first and then evaluate whether it was just the consumers who killed it. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and thought it was great. It's a very compelling story.

mitchell_pgh · Sep 12, 2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by TimmyDee51

Watch the movie first and then evaluate whether it was just the consumers who killed it. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and thought it was great. It's a very compelling story.

What I'm trying to do is find actual facts first... from various sources before watching the movie. I have a feeling they did a good bit of spin in the film.

TimmyDee51 · Sep 12, 2006, 02:29 PM

True, there is probably some spin in the movie, but I think they do a pretty good job at representing the possible suspects. Few seemed to have escaped their scrutiny.

mitchell_pgh · Sep 12, 2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by TimmyDee51

True, there is probably some spin in the movie, but I think they do a pretty good job at representing the possible suspects. Few seemed to have escaped their scrutiny.

The fact that you say "probably some spin" makes me really question your objectiveness. If GM is evil (practically in bed with big oil), why did they make the car in the first place?

Also, the unsubsidized price of the car was apparently outrageous!

Gossamer · Sep 12, 2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The fact that you say "probably some spin" makes me really question your objectiveness. If GM is evil (practically in bed with big oil), why did they make the car in the first place?

Just to make it seem like they weren't

Sep 12, 2006, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The fact that you say "probably some spin" makes me really question your objectiveness. If GM is evil (practically in bed with big oil), why did they make the car in the first place?

Also, the unsubsidized price of the car was apparently outrageous!

Why not? The U.S. Goverment is.

itai195 · Sep 12, 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I was at the Penn State vs. ND football game this past weekend and had the chance to talk to my GM engineer friend regarding this movie and the car. He basically said the car just didn't make money, and it was as simple as that. He went on to say that GM was not prepared to make a car in such small quantities. They make hundreds of thousands... and they really didn't know how to make a car that sold in the hundreds per year range.

Makes sense, except when you consider that GM and the Bush administration sued California to essentially repeal the zero-emission vehicle law. That being the law that would have made electric cars a viable product. At least 10% of all large vehicles sold in CA after 2003 were supposed to be electric.

I'm not blaming GM, but it does seem fishy to me. That and their reposession and subsequent destruction of all the electric cars they'd made. On the other hand, it's well established that GM is run by a bunch of morons. They missed another opportunity and now are having their asses handed to them again by Toyota and Honda.

pathogen · Sep 12, 2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

What I'm trying to do is find actual facts first... from various sources before watching the movie. I have a feeling they did a good bit of spin in the film.

Consumers can't exactly kill something that..

1. They can't buy (production and price)
2. Has no industry support (infrastructure)
3. Has no media attention (advertising $$$)
4. And no legislative support (lobbying)

production+price+infrastructure+advertising+lobbyi ng=industry

Any industry wants to make money, and the auto industry and the petroleum industry can do it more easily with oil fuel. So, I don't see any spin. It's just logical. They killed the electric car to keep their profits up. Case closed.

torsoboy · Sep 12, 2006, 04:26 PM

I drove one back in the day... it was soooo quiet and nice. There is no way the "consumers killed it". When you only make 1600 and only put them out for lease, I don't think that is really giving them much of a shot.

They proved it could be done and then possibly got bought out.

mitchell_pgh · Sep 12, 2006, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

Makes sense, except when you consider that GM and the Bush administration sued California to essentially repeal the zero-emission vehicle law. That being the law that would have made electric cars a viable product. At least 10% of all large vehicles sold in CA after 2003 were supposed to be electric.

I'm not blaming GM, but it does seem fishy to me. That and their reposession and subsequent destruction of all the electric cars they'd made. On the other hand, it's well established that GM is run by a bunch of morons. They missed another opportunity and now are having their asses handed to them again by Toyota and Honda.

Does the movie address the changes California made to the "ZEV mandate" over the years? It started off as a very strict ZERO emissions mandate and ended up including hybrids.

TimmyDee51 · Sep 12, 2006, 04:49 PM

Yes, the movie includes all of that. My recommendation is see the movie and research what you think may be spin. I found the movie to be quite fair.

Eriamjh · Sep 12, 2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

007 can do anything he wants.
Oh, did you mean Michael?

I did! D'oh!

©öñFü$íóÑ · Sep 12, 2006, 08:35 PM

"...who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Newtonburg a star? We do... WE DOoooo!"

mitchell_pgh · Sep 12, 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

Consumers can't exactly kill something that..

1. They can't buy (production and price)
2. Has no industry support (infrastructure)
3. Has no media attention (advertising $$$)
4. And no legislative support (lobbying)

production+price+infrastructure+advertising+lobbyi ng=industry

Any industry wants to make money, and the auto industry and the petroleum industry can do it more easily with oil fuel. So, I don't see any spin. It's just logical. They killed the electric car to keep their profits up. Case closed.

Sounds more like it just wouldn't have been profitable for GM.

I wonder how many they would have sold if they were $80K?

Also, why focus on GM? Sounds like they were the only ones to actually build an electric car in any quantity. Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler also canceled programs. Are they all in league with the oil companies as well?