Here is What The Last Government-Mandated Car Looked Like - It Doesn’t Exist Anymore

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 11-27-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

As a condition of bailing out the Big 3 Automakers, the Democrats want to control what kind of cars are made.

Quote:

A House plan crafted by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank requires automakers to submit operating and restructuring plans and describe how the loan money would be used. Under Frank’s bill, taxpayers would be reimbursed, with interest. It also bans “golden parachutes” and prohibits dividend payments over the life of the loans.

“We think it is essential that loans be linked to significant progress in the ability of the companies to eventually market energy efficient cars with broad public appeal,” Frank said in a statement on Monday.

Charles Krauthammer peels away the liberal double-talk and gets to the heart of the matter.

Quote:

Democrats are suggesting, however, an even more ambitious reason to nationalize. Once the government owns Detroit, it can remake it. The euphemism here is “retool” Detroit to make cars for the coming green economy.

Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it.

In World War II, government had the auto companies turning out tanks. Now they would be made to turn out hybrids. The difference is that, in the middle of a world war, tanks have a buyer. Will hybrids? One of the reasons Detroit is in such difficulty is that consumers have been resisting the smaller, less powerful, less safe cars forced on the industry by fuel-efficiency mandates. Now Detroit would be forced to make even more of them.

A few years ago the State of California, in its infinitesimal wisdom, told the car companies they had to make a car with no emissions. This was GM’s offering, the EV1.

And here is how that whole thing worked out.

Quote:

Even today, the two-seat GM EV1 remains one of the best-engineered, best-working pure electric vehicles ever released to the public. With clever engineering throughout its aluminum structure, an incredibly aerodynamic body and a whole bunch of lead-acid batteries, the first-generation EV1 was able to go maybe 75 miles if driven with extreme care. The second-generation EV1 with nickel-metal-hydride batteries upped that range to about 150 miles.

The problem with the EV1 was that it was almost impossible to drive in traffic with anything approaching the ideal technique the car needed to stretch its range. So its real world range was often down around 40 miles and driving it was often a white-knuckle thrill ride as the driver tried to stretch out every last electron to make it to a charging station.

GM built the EV1 to satisfy a mandate from the state of California that 2 percent of a manufacturer’s fleet sold there be zero-emissions vehicles (that number would rise to 10 percent by 2003). However, the EV1 and electric vehicles built by other manufacturers finally convinced the California Air Resources Board that the zero-emissions mandates weren’t achievable by then-current technology. This led to the cancellation of the mandate.

A complete and utter boondoggle as a direct result of a smarter-than-everyone-else government mandate to produce politically correct vehicles. It is a classic example of a Socialist, central-planning mentality, which has failed every time it has been tried. Just ask the Soviet Union.

So what did GM do with the EV1?

Quote:

So GM canceled the EV1, and when the leases on the 1117 it had produced ran out, GM took them back and crushed them.

This all happened less than 10 years ago. While it may be difficult to learn lessons from history, surely we can remember disasters from the last decade and avoid making the mistake again.

With Democrats in charge, somehow I don’t think that will happen.

Stupid history repeating itself...

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 11-27-2008, 06:32 AM

I don't know if this is the same one or not, but not too long ago I heard some people from California talking about whatever happened to some kind of electric car. I am not from California, and I didn't know what the heck they were talking about at the time. But one of them said there was this car that only a few people tested (as lease vehicles maybe?) And the couple of people who had had the cars bragged about them. Said the cars were picked up one day and that was the end of that.
Then I heard something similar on a radio call in talk show. A couple of previous drivers of these cars said they loved the car, wanted another one, and were told it was discontinued.
Like I said, I don't know if it was the same car, but it sure sounds similar.
I personally have always assumed GM got some sort of kick back from oil companies. Be it through individual bonuses or some other means.

I mean look at it logically. With people crying for green green doesn't it seem odd they're not just promoting the heck out of electric cars? Especially in California for goodness sake.
And what? Instead people across the country aren't even aware California even had electric cars. Lousy advertising job there. Don't ya think?
No if GM had wanted to be in the electric car business, I guarantee you they would have shoved some red white and blue bathing suits on the beach, promotional crap up our butts till every red blooded SUV driver would think it was just un-American not to own one.

Mikeyy · #3 (**permalink**) 11-27-2008, 09:10 AM

I don't know where that story came from but the people who drove the EV1 liked it from what I saw on a television report. I don't think that congress should design cars. But I don't think the management at the big 3 know how to either. I think I already pointed out that they are still building hummers.If we are going to use taxpayer money to bail them out we should put some directives on the money. Henry Ford knew that you had to build a car for the masses. Today the management has no idea about cars. Its all about stock options and executive perks.

Here is a fact that I pointed to before. Why do the automakers refuse to build fuel efficiant cars? My diesel truck gets 12 MPG. If I put an after market Computer chip in it I can get 20MPG. But if I do Ford will void my warranty. Why? Why doesn't Ford put the chip in themselves? This is a scam. And as usual the powers that be know how to get us all up in arms at the wrong people. Just like this thread. We will blame the politicians for wanting better cars. Rather then blame a bunch of faceless execs.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
tristanrobin

The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos