Toyota exec defends GM in case of who killed the electric car
Many people who have seen the controversial documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? have noticed the conspicuous absence of Toyota in the crosshairs of director Chris Paine's magnum opus about failed EVs in the marketplace. Toyota was leasing the RAV4-EV, a version of the RAV4 cute ute converter to run on batteries, at the same time General Motors was offering the EV1. Detroit Free Press columnist Mark Phelan was told by Ernest Bastien, Toyota's VP of Vehicle Operations, that the movie, "was terribly one-sided." The Toyota exec went on to say, "It was not balanced at all." Paine freely admits the movie lets Toyota off the hook, mainly because GM was a much higher profile target. There are other reasons, as well, including the fact that GM had invested much more money in developing the EV1 from the ground up, whereas Toyota merely converted its standard RAV4. For its part, GM makes itself such a willing target, too. In one instance, the filmmakers captured protestors being hosed outside of GM offices when the sprinkler system turned on. GM claims it was on a timer, but Paine disaggrees. Toyota, meanwhile, greeted protestors outside its offices with bottled water and keychains.
The story here, however, is that GM's main market rival is coming to its defense on the matter, and supporting the General's assertion that there was no market demand for EVs at the time, and that's what ultimately killed the electric car. In essence, Toyota has stepped up as a character witness for GM in the case. Does it sway Paine and his supporters? Not so much. EV advocates still claim neither company properly marketed the vehicles, and in Toyota's case, the hyped-up Prius hybrid was clearly the company's priority over the RAV4-EV.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
mark 12:32PM (12/20/2006)
So how many of you are going to defend Toyota now? When it is simply one-sided attacks against GM, but Toyota gets nothing? Either Toyota is supporting the attacks against GM. Or the media is extremely biased.
Toyota does the same exact thing GM does and nothing happens. No complaints. Yet GM gets crucified when they cut the electric cars. And no one thinks this is strange?
Reply
Ed 12:39PM (12/20/2006)
The electric RAV4 is indeed discussed in the film, and one segment of it features a camera crew following some electric RAV4s to a toyota facility for demolition.
Have these people actually seen the movie???
Reply
Glenn 12:42PM (12/20/2006)
It always amazed me that GM and Ford treated these protesters as enemies for some reason.
When I was younger I wrote Hasbro to complain about their plans to stop (or change) their GI Joe toys. I thought their current product was vastly superior to the direction they were going. They wrote a very nice letter back -- basically saying their sales were declining and they were being forced to make changes as per what the market seemed to be telling them. I think they said plastic was actually an very expensive component, so "smaller" made a big difference in making their product competitively affordable.
Toyota -- I complain about them -- but they sure do understand their market place well.
Reply
Ed 12:41PM (12/20/2006)
PS - "The media" didn't make this film. One person did. It represents the director's viewpoint. I thought that pretty much anyone with the intelligence of a 6th-grader would know that.
Reply
scooter 12:50PM (12/20/2006)
Ed is correct. GM is the main character and Toyota plays the supporting role in the movie. GM's involvement with EV1 was far more intensive than Toyota's with the RAV4-EV.
The movie also, ultimately, points to the Calif. Air Resources board as the third villain.
Reply
Steve2 12:46PM (12/20/2006)
I agree with both GM and with Toyota.
And I agree with the guy in the film from Ford's Th!nk division who said that people said they wanted an electric car but once they got done explaining what it did and what it cost, they didn't want it anymore. For the price they were going to pay, they expected it would have longer range, more performance, more space, etc.
GM, Toyota and Ford all faught the same problem and lost.
GM oddly takes most of the brunt in the movie, despite actually making an electric car, and most say the best one. Why does GM get hit so hard for trying and other companies that didn't even attempt to make electric cars get off scott-free? Mainly I think it's just because they had the footage of people picketing GM and such. Ultimately, you can only make the movie you have the footage for.
I'm sure that Paine is a big fan of the Tesla. He was at the unveiling, I'm sure. But there just aren't enough Ed Begley, Jr.s in this country to sell a lot of minuscule two seat electric cars with $50,000 worth of batteries in them. Even if the price of the car came down to $60K from $90K, it would still be a niche item.
Look at Ed Begley, Jr. as an example. In the 90s he owned only electric cars, despite them being rather unviable at that time. He was proud he didn't buy gasoline for 10 years. What did he do in the new century? He bought an Insight, a gas-powered car. He then bragged he could drive from LA to SF and back on one tank of gas. Even Ed Begley, Jr's needs (to drive even one direction) were not fulfilled by an electric car. A man who had principles of not buying gas broke down and did.
How much sacrifice is the population in general ready to make to get into an electric car? Not as even as much as Ed Begley, Jr.
I think the electric car is important and the future. We can generate electricity from many sources, so we break our dependence on not just foreign oil, but any particular form of energy. But the electric car is not going to be a success (meaning replace the internal combustion car) by providing two seats and 3 cubic feet of trunk for $90,000. Not even for $60,000.
The main problem is the price of batteries,. And selling these cars for $90K isn't going to raise the demand for batteries enough to cause an appreciable drop in price or rise in capacity to make it viable. Cell phones drive that market a lot more than a few electric cars do.
Reply
Chris 1:02PM (12/20/2006)
Crucifying GM is a favorite past time of the leftist mainstream media. Those traitors always give Toyota a free pass, though it is clear that GM that is more committed to ethanol and fuel-cell technologies long before Toyota even showed an interest in alternative fuels and drive trains. All Toyota did was steal hybrid technologies from American and European companies to make their Prius and win accolades from leftist environMENTAList groups for being to the game relatively late in the game, whereas GM garners nothing but scorn. Toyota probably created this tempest in a teacup to malign GM and gain market share at the domestics' expense. Those sneaky bastards even colluded with anti-American and anti-capitalist forces in their bid to destroy America's auto industry whilst looking like a responsible corporate steward of the environment. Absolutely sickening.
Reply
Richard Warren 3:02PM (12/20/2006)
Actually----WHO CARES? It's one persons movie and point of view.
On the sprinkler front, get a fucking life, sprinklers in most big business is on a timer, including malls. Hey, you want to protest fine, we want to sprinkle that's fine too, one way bastards.
We are nowhere near an electic vehicle being near mainstream yet.
#4 and 5 right on target with your comments. People THINK they know what they want until they find out, well, it just does not work quite the way they thought.
Reply
ogmios 1:16PM (12/20/2006)
The problem is motivation. No one is motivated to build electric cars as long as there is a steady flow of gasoline. This won't be the case forever. I don't believe that GM's products reflect the public's current state of mind at this point. At one point in the 80's GM was building full size cars that got 30mpg EPA Highway. People were buying those cars. Now it seems like such a struggle to shift and the oil situation is worse this time around than it was last. Check out fueleconomy.gov and see the nose dive in fueleconomy since the 80's. GM had best start slapping electric and more fuel efficient cars together and stop worrying about profits for the short term. The share holders make their decisions based on how much they pocket and not on long term consumer need. GM has to realize they are supposed to be here for the consumer and not the shareholder. Profits will happen when they sell vehicles the consumer demands. Why is GM being picked on? GM's failures are seen as a threat to the American Dream.
Reply
kballs 1:37PM (12/20/2006)
If the car companies marketed SUVs like they marketed electric cars it would go something like this:
"Well it's big and hard to park, it guzzles gas so you'll pay hundreds of dollars/month, some people will hate and chastise you for driving such a wasteful vehicle, and it has a huge impact on the environment... so you probably won't be happy with it."
Seriously. The electric car ads on TV and in magazines were similar to other car ads, but once you got into the showroom the "salesman" would try to convince you that you didn't want an EV because of its limitations.
"It can only go 50-60 miles on a charge, and there are very few places to charge it when you're not home, it takes several hours to charge, and it doesn't have much room inside compared to a Cadillac."
Nobody sells cars of any type by covering the limitations at the get-go!
They never tried to market the fact that even with a 60 mile range an EV would still work for your daily driving (American average is 31 miles/day) as long as you retained an ICE vehicle in your household for long trips. They never explained that the cars would need very little maintenance other than tires/rotations.
Now the car companies are trying to develop hydrogen cars, which is generally more of a greenwashing tactic to make them look good even though they have no plans to release mass market products (small leased fleets don't count). The oil companies see hydrogen as a possible way to maintain control of the $$$ if consumers ever jump out of gasoline cars (like they couldn't also make money with quick charging ports at their gas stations). They also try to make EVs or PHEVs look like a conspiracy by the electric utilities (how can having a choice be a scam?)
Reply
Lithous 2:00PM (12/20/2006)
"GM's failures are seen as a threat to the American Dream."
LMAO. So what are Polaroid, Kodak, Hamilton Watch Co, RCA, Zenith, etc. etc. failures seen as? These companies (and nearly all American manufacturing companies, remember Prouldy made in Bangor, Maine from Saucony shoes?) have failed, been bought out, declared bankruptcy and are shells of their past. Kodak digital cameras have "Designed in Japan Made in China" on them, couldn't they, the world's largest camera manufacturer at one time at least design it in America?
GM is still #1 in sales in the world and will be #1 in U.S. sales for at least a while longer. To write of their failures as a threat to the American dream is almost criminal. Oh, yeah, IBM computer manufacturing sold to the Chinese Lenovo company, remember how they won the war so that most computers would be IBM compatible? I guess that didn't work out.
Ignore the real failures (that's called denial, denial that our manufacturing is going faster than you can sneeze) and piss on the real successes. Our education system is failing, it is failing to teach reality along with theory and that goes for both private and public schools.
When an American company designs in Japan and builds in China it simply states, "We have nothing special to offer you our customer". With a little cash you and I could hire someone from Japan to design us a product and with a little more it would be built in Japan.
I don't even think Kodak will ever attempt to be a legit #1 camera company ever again from what I can tell. People just don't get it.
Reply
Araemo 2:03PM (12/20/2006)
Steve2, you seem to be under the impression that the tesla roadster is a straw man.
It was never meant to be high volume, it's as much a proof of concept as a real product. The company just wants to sell enough of those to stay above water and attract investors, and they already have their next 2 or 3 major products(and a hint: they're FAR more affordable) planned and mostly if not entirely designed.
Will they be able to bring down costs as much as they plan to? Who knows, I don't think you have any way to know unless you've already tried it, so at least give them the few years they need to ramp up production and models.
Reply
sp 3:28PM (12/20/2006)
how can you compare GM and Toyota, when Toyota sold over half a million of hybrids up to date?
Reason they are crucifying GM is that they completly abandoned the effort... it is hard to do the same with company that sells 300,000 hybrids per year now...
Reply
ssgtakeo 2:46PM (12/20/2006)
" All Toyota did was steal hybrid technologies from American and European companies to make their Prius and win accolades from leftist environMENTAList groups for being to the game relatively late in the game, whereas GM garners nothing but scorn. "
You're delusional Chris. While the concept for a Hybrid ( in the sense of a vehicle having two different powerplants) is not new, the computer controls, software, compact brushless motors and durable battery packs certainly saw pioneering use in cars by Toyota. The idea for a hybrid car came out in the 60's by GM, but they didn't act on it. Why? Because it didn't fit their vision of the immediate future and saw no incentive to develop the technology.
It's the same short-term thinking that robbed Xerox of the proceeds from Graphical User Interfaces.
Pull your head out of your ass Chris.
Reply
ssgtakeo 2:45PM (12/20/2006)
In this sense I have to agree with Lithous, scores of American companies have pissed away the advantages they had in the world market because of incompetent management.
To Lithous's list I add Colt Firearms, Winchester Repeating Arms Company and the privatized Springfield Armory. Certainly all of the companies above (except in the case of Springfield, which was a government armory) were leaders in firearms technology before Fabrique Nationale (whose leadership shut Winchester down) was a twinkle in a government official's eye.
It's short-term, quarter-to-quarter thinking that's been the undoing of American manufacturing.
Reply
Steve2 2:49PM (12/20/2006)
Arameo, I've already had these arguments on here with the CEO (or something) of Tesla under the name "it's doable...". He wasn't able to convince me otherwise, you don't stand a chance.
I know the issues, and I know what it takes to make it affordable. The tradeoffs for smaller battery packs or cheaper battery packs aren't very palatable either. Again, I don't feel that the electric car is done much service with the public in general by pushing cars that are either gimped, overpriced or both.
As to your comments about the salespeople, I personally don't like it when salesman try to make the sale "at any cost". Being honest with a customer is not a sin. And I think people also completely misread this. The friend I saw "Who killed the electric car?" with said he wanted to get one at the time. I mentioned he lived in a condo where his garage was detached and he couldn't get a 220V charger in his garage. He could charge it at work, maybe, but who wants to go home Friday night and know they can't drive their car much on the weekend because they can't charge it until Monday?
I find it very likely that as GM said, they would call people on the waiting list and the people would end up not getting one. Some might change their mind, others simply couldn't do what was necessary (either in changing their driving habits, admitting their driving habits would be satisfied without change or putting in a charger at their house).
To be honest, it goes like this:
Most people wouldn't put up with the limitations. Yes, it would satisfy people's driving needs 99% of the time. That's another way of saying you'll be unsatisfied 1% of the time. Who buys a car that's only good 360 days a year? People want something that meets all their needs, not most of them. You've got people buying SUVs who only drive on snow 2 days a year (here in California). You've got people in Florida buying SUVs despite there being neither snow nor hills in their state. People will only buy a car that fits their perceived needs (even if their perception is wrong). This is not the fault of GM. And before you talk about GM running ads, I watched the Sunday night ABC lineup (very popular) a couple weeks ago and every ad for an automobile (a lot of them) was for Honda and Lexus SUVs. No actual car ads, no domestic auto ads. Only ads from our "enviromentally conscious" Honda and Toyota flogging gas guzzlers (and Honda didn't even mention the Element, mostly the big stuff!).
So really you're looking at people who have two cars, so they can drive the other those few days. That's mostly families. What use do families have for a 2-seat car? You've severely restricted your market there.
And of the younger, more hip people who might take a chance on this, many of them live in apartments (some more in condos with detached garages) and cannot put a charger in at home.
There were a lot more people who liked the idea of owning them but wouldn't actually buy one in the end, regardless of the sales pitch given.
I don't have a problem with Tesla selling to the limited market that exists, the Ed Begley, Jrs. of the world (and maybe even myself, as I am a fan of the electric car). But the Tesla only reinforces the stereotype of the electric car (the short range, expensive one, not the golf cart one) and will I feel turn more people off to electric cars that it will turn on.
I agree CARB dropping the ZEV mandate was a huge blow to the electric car, probably the biggest factor. I agree with most of the actual facts in "Who killed the electric car?" except for at the end exonerating battery technology. Just because you can get a glorified motorcycle to go 250 miles on a charge with $50,000 worth of batteries doesn't mean that battery technology is good enough. We need non-toy cars and lower prices. And we need some kind of way to solve the road-trip problem that batteries present so that people can know that their one car will handle their needs 100% of the time.
Reply
Big Rocket 3:09PM (12/20/2006)
#7 (Chris): "All Toyota did was steal hybrid technologies from American and European companies to make their Prius..."
Verbatim quote from my post in another thread: "Which communist, fascist, or totalitarian dictatorship do you come from? In my country, the United States of America, our court system operates under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty."
#7 (Chris): "Toyota probably created this tempest in a teacup to malign GM..."
Did you even read what was written in the Autoblog story, or were you just too hasty to bash the Japanese? "The story here, however, is that GM's main market rival is coming to its defense on the matter, and supporting the General..." Since when is it the same thing to malign, and to support?
#7 (Chris): "Those sneaky bastards even colluded with anti-American and anti-capitalist forces..."
More of your usual Japanese bashing, short on facts, long on name calling: "bastards", "midgets", "Jap", ad nauseum. Whilst trying to look like a responsible patriot of the United States. Absolutely sickening.
Sources:
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/27/toyota-hybrid-exec-perishes-in-plane-crash/#c2795687
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/22/toyota-tundra-production-begins/#c2746217
Reply
Justin 4:33PM (12/20/2006)
"They never tried to market the fact that even with a 60 mile range an EV would still work for your daily driving (American average is 31 miles/day) as long as you retained an ICE vehicle in your household for long trips. They never explained that the cars would need very little maintenance other than tires/rotations."
Part of the problem with this statement is that not everyone can afford 2 cars. Also, that 60 mile range is unencumbered, you start dealing with traffic, the range takes a nosedive. Unless you aren't listening to the radio or using the A/C.
Reply
Stephen Lang 6:03PM (12/20/2006)
I don't know about Ford and GM, but I think there should be a photograph of Ed Beguely Jr. for 'electric car' in the dictionary. Because it seems like you can't talk about one without the other being brought up. It's one of the more peculiar memes around, even weirder than say the fact that Paris Hilton is actually a celebrity.
Heck, I think Ed Beguely Jr. should start an electric car company of his own. He's got the brand recognition already.
Reply
kballs 6:25PM (12/20/2006)
Electric cars lose very little range in traffic because they aren't sitting there idling away gas, there efficiency doesn't fall off at low speeds like an ICE car, and they use regenerative breaking.
Not everyone can afford 2 cars, but most families have at least 2 cars (only 1 of which they drive on long trips). The size argument doesn't work because not all electric cars were the EV1 2-seater, they also had family-friendly 4 seaters (RAV4-EV, etc.), not to mention companies like Tesla are developing 4-seater sedans and maybe a wagon/van/SUV after that.
Most people want a car that meets 100% of their needs... so instead of being great 360 days/year they get a car that's mediocre 365 days/year and whine about how expensive gas is. PSHEVs would fit the bill quite well here, and the car companies could easily replace the fuel cell and hydrogen tank in their beautiful green fuel cell vehicles with a gas tank and ICE electric generator.
I think the real issue here is profit margin. Car companies make a 300-600% profit on every ICE car sold (a bit less once they pay their extortionate CEO salaries). With a PSHEV or EV their profit margin would likely shrink because they'd need to pay off the R&D costs which would be higher than just tweaking existing ICEs and transmissions. They wouldn't have made any EVs at all if CARB hadn't forced them to... once they got the rule changed they dumped them quick and even tried to erase them from history.
Reply