Originally Posted by smasheromalley
The EV1 was "subsidized" because it was small scale. You are assuming it would have lost money in mass production. The car was created AND discontinued because of the political climate of the time. Think really really hard about the cost difference between a gasoline powertrain and an electric one
Think really really hard about the cost/weight/energy density difference of electric vs. gasoline back in the EV1's day.
The car was NOT discontinued for any political reason; the car was a lease and was expected to be returned at the end. It was also heavilly subsidized by GM - the drivers were driving a $100K ev for a tiny monthly payment.
Fact of the matter is this: the EV1 was designed to have a limited lifespan, reflected by the lease. GM brought back the cars and destroyed them because there was no merit in keeping them going. Also, if GM would've let the owners keep their EV1's, there is a very good chance GM would be sued when a EV1 (not being properly maintained) hurt someone.
Not worth the risk.
What I find incredibly frustrating and funny at the same time is that GM is still viewed as some giant corporate monster only interested in making a profit. Last time I checked, that was the main reason most businesses are still in business.
"Who killed the electric car" is just a propaganda film by a bunch of whiny liberals that were pissed GM took away their toys and their ability to be smug with owning an EV.
Moreso, GM is close to having a plug-in hybrid in production. This is a vehicle that can give you 40 miles of EV-only operation AND
a gasoline engine to extend your range, or save your ass if you aren't able to get a full battery charge while plugged in. The best of both worlds, but most people are too stubborn to concede GM the point.
Amazing also taht after GM stated they would produce a plug-in hybid, LORDGODKINGtoyota quickly rushed to press with a similar "US TOO!" announcement.
Amazing what some poeple think left to their own little world.