Talk:General Motors

Electric Vehicles

It does seem as if some of GM's PR agents were writing some of this page. GM's EV1 was a significant car, but it wasn't the only production electric car from a major car company (and the sentence about this is awful). Ford sold the Ranger EV, Chrysler had the Dodge Caravan EPIC, Fiat offered the Cinquecento electric, PSA offered the Peugeot 106 electric, and the article is TRYING to describe the EV1 as a dedicated electric vehicle, Nissan offered the Altra EV and the Hypermini...both designed from the ground up as electrics.

Would anyone be offened if I removed said line from the article?

GM also saves kittens from trees

holy christ, who wrote this tripe? GM cares about fuel efficiency? What a fucking joke. this article is awful.

This is not the kind of language you would want to see in an encyclopedia. If you wish to dispute something within the article, please let us know by using appropriate language. Thanks!

And since this is an encyclopedia, you should also try to keep to facts instead of jumping all over articles, bashing them with your own opinions. Your claim that GM doesn't care about fuel efficiency seems somewhat flawed to me though, as the auto market increasingly demands it.

GM is no different than other successful corporations. They must manufacture what people want to purchase. Customers are buying large vehicles, SUVs and trucks. People are not or are only temperarily interest in fuel economy. It is not fair to blame a corporation for giving people what they want.

• in a strange side note, there are some kittens living in the second floor of the gm assembly plant in arlington texas. weird, eh? :þ clsours ¡Æ! 07:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

General Motors has recently announced they plan to be the world leader in fuel economy by 2010.

Continuity error

It says that the chinese currnecy is pegged to the dollar, still. Elfuegocaliente 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims and Lawsuits

California has filed lawsuits against six car companies, including GM, for gas emissions leading to global warming. I think this should be added soon if it proves to pan out in the next few days.Jeremyburkhart 05:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy I don't see how that lawsuit will hold up in court. In order for GM or any other auto company to be sued there would have to be overwhelming evidence that their vehicles were causing a purposeful detriment to the enviroment beyond what could be considered normal. Also the people who filed the lawsuit left out coal burning powerplants which pollute in much higher volumes than do passenger cars.91z4me 11:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that. I also noticed that the other car companies' pages don't have any mention of the lawsuit, so it probably wouldn't make sense to put it here either. Jeremyburkhart 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversey

General Motors Corporation has been accused by a variety of consumer advocates, activists, commentators, journalists, and documentary makers of deliberately sabotaging their companies' zero emmision electric vehicle efforts through several methods: failing to market, failing to produce appropriate vehicles, failing to satisfy demand, and using lease-only programs with prohibitions against end of lease purchase. By these actions they have managed to terminate their electric vehicle development and marketing programs despite operators' offers of purchase and assumption of maintenance liabilities.

The process of obtaining GM's first electric vehicle the EV1 was difficult. The vehicle could not be purchased outright. Instead, General Motors offered a closed-end lease for three years, with no renewal or residual purchase options. The EV1 was only available from specialist Saturn dealerships, and only in California.

Before reviewing leasing options, a potential lessee would be taken through a 'pre-qualification' process in order to learn how the EV1 was different from other vehicles. Next came a waiting list with no scheduled delivery date.

A documentary about the demise of the EV1 and other electric vehicles entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? debuted on June 30, 2006. Several weeks before the debut of the movie, the Smithsonian Institution announced that its EV1 display was being permanently removed and the EV1 car put into storage. GM is a major financial contributor to the museum, and both parties denied that this fact contributed to the removal of the display.

According to the interview with Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner in the June 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine, the cancellation of the EV1 proggram has been one of the worst decision he has ever made.[1]

First of all, please make sure to sign your discussions so we know who is speaking. Secondly, I want to remove your added content for a complete lack of citation... The movie you referenced unfortunately pulled a lot of hype and controversy that frankly didn't exist until the editors made it up. I encourage you to read the blogged response by a GM Editor directly to the film found at http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1

Lastly, please be sure to include some quotes from the source I mentioned to you, the section you posted without sources throws off our NPOV we're striving for in this article. --Lucavious 17:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So many unbalanced views...

"Cadillac is number one seller of vehicles over $40,000, proving that GM has the vehicles that real luxury consumers want." So... that's a neutral sentence of encyclopedia-quality these days? Bobbo008 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does nearly the whole article read like it was written by a UAW-card-carrying GM employee? Except for the "Controversy" bit, which looks, as another commenter has stated, like an advertisement for the movie about electric vehicles. I came to this article looking for a broader POV than what I found -- for example, has any proper research been conducted into why Honda and Toyota sedans outsell GM ones in GM's home market, the US? Anonymous 15:19, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

ROFL!!!! no no no. UAW would never write anything like this page. you guys are just too funny. #1 The word UAW does not appear before the word GM, which it would if this were written by UAW. :þ clsours ¡Æ! 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is an embarassment, honestly. I actually went ahead and researched all the POV stuff, and most of it is severely exaggerated. Frankly, this page needs to be deleted and remade. You can see all the mistakes I found here:

http://www.ordisante.com/2006/09/08/8-things-wrong-with-gm-article-at-wikipedia-2.html

---

Would anyone scream bloody murder if many of the paragraphs were removed from the mid to lower portions? Why are we bragging about GM's accomplishments over Saturn in quality or the inflation of ratings by their competitors? Lucavious 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone has taken care of the GM horn tooting, is there a need for the neutral tag stuck on the article at this point? I am going to go ahead and remove it as there doesn't appear to be anymore traces of imbalance, though anyone who disgrees can add it again easily enough.Lucavious 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The infobox says GM was founded in 1908, but the text says 1902 -- anybody know which is correct? Bananafish 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1908. Here's the quote from GM's heritage page (http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1900.html):

"Under Billy Durant's leadership, General Motors Company is organized in 1908 (Sept 16), incorporating the Buick Motor Company."

I didn't know that Oldsmobile joined GM second. My mom thinks that they were independent up until the 60s and THEN GM basically bought and killed them.

--Plasmax000 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Doesn't GM also own Holden and Opel? And perhaps we could flesh out the history more... it sounds kinda biased....

---

Paragraph 3 discusses an urban legend based on Bradford Snell's work about tram lines but then further paragraph report as truth GM WWII involvement also based on work by the same Bradford Snell. What gives? Rmhermen 15:22 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

This seems a little non-NPOV about the WWII involvement. Implied is that GM's American management willfully supported the Nazi regime AFTER the start of hostilities, which I believe not to be the case. Accounts I've read squarely put the German government in control of German GM subsidiaries during the war years. Anyone got cites pro/con? --Morven 21:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't Hughes spun off as an independent company a few years ago?

Wasn't Hughes spun off as an independent company a few years ago? Mkweise 06:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I do have issues with that paragraph the anon removed, though -- I don't like 'alleged' in an article without a source for the allegation. —Morven 10:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removal / reinsertion of controversial topics

I support the reversion of the anon's complete removal of these topics, but I do believe that these sections are POV, lack any cites, and should be done better.

For the first paragraph (streetcar conspiracy) we should mention only SOME believe it; I'll edit the article to say so.

For the second, I note the paragraph contains many words on GM's guilt and then one final line saying that GM disclaims responsibility because the factories were seized during the war. That's not really balanced. —Morven 20:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

since when have conspiracy theories been encylopediac in relating to the main entry? Are we going to start having area 51 be and rosewell be in the cia/fbi/us government sections? if you want to talk about conspiracy theroies they need to be on a different page. Or give reasons why this isn't a conspiracy theory(and even if it is on a conspiracy theory page, those edits need to be made to be more npov, they make it seem like america was helping both sides when we were at war, which is entirly untrue.

To deny that there such conspiracy theories are commonly believed by many is unencyclopedic. If you feel the statements contain factual errors, then correct them. If you feel the phrasing is unfairly biased, then revise the material. But wholessale deletion is not acceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete For the record, I quite agree that this section very much needs attention, but I very much disagree with wholesale deletion simply because you don't like it. older≠wiser 15:58, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

yes but they don't belong in the main article about that comany. taking up 1/2th of the history, Unless that company for some reason is known only for that conspiracy theory or that comes to mind when people think of them, which really isn't the case for General motors. I notice that under moon landing, the fact that it never happened(which a large section of people belive) has been moved to a sepeate section because the general consenus there was that conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article

I'd have no problem with addressing this conspiracy theory stuff in separate articles and linking to it in the See Also section. older≠wiser 16:14, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Okay good stuff that's fine... if you do that I'll clean up the dislogic a bit(it was trying to make you belive that general motors was helping during ww2, which just wasn't the case at all).

Bkonrad is right, am happy with that solution but will revert any anonymous user's change if not defended in detail on this page. Lukewilson 23:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the following paragraph wich originally read:

"GM has extensively touted its research and prototype development of hydrogen powered vehicles, to be produced at some unspecified future time and using a support infrastructure yet to be built. The economic feasibility of the technically challenging hydrogen car, and the low-cost production of hydrogen to fuel it. is controversial, particularly when compared to the hybrid vehicles already produced by competitors."

And changed it to:

"GM has prided its research and prototype development of hydrogen powered vehicles, to be produced in early 2010, using a support infrastructure still in a prototype state. The economic feasibility of the technically challenging hydrogen car, and the low-cost production of hydrogen to fuel it, has also been discussed by other automobile manufacturers such as Ford and Chrysler."

The original paragraph seemed to have an odd point of view, plus the second sentence was fragment. Also, most of the claims have since changed. For instance, GM has already sold hydrogen vehicles to the US military. And a consumer date has been made for 2010 vehicle models (which would be released in late 2009 or early 2010).

Sources: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060920/AUTO02/609200354/1148/AUTO01 Jeremyburkhart 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Financial challenges for GM: Why is this being deleted?

It's no secret that GM has financial challenges ahead, there was a reasonable section with reliable sources that anonymous users have deleted a few times. It is not obvious why. Perhaps there could be some explanation from the anonymous users... MunchieRonnie 16:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I don't know and don't really much care, but I have protected this page due to excessive reversion activity. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The financial information on GM should stay unless there's a good reason. NihonGo 21:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

why are you posting agreeing with yourself? that's kinda strange anonymous

Does anyone believe the financial info on GM should be deleted?

I think Keep. Reithy 07:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ha, funny there is a discussion about absence of the company's financial problems. It seem the person editing it out is not alone. Here is an article about the company withdrawing advertisement from a paper, apparently because the paper featured a critical article. [2] The thing is, editing it out is pointless. The company is heading into a very troubled time if oil continue selling at the current price and the problem will become so had to cover up. I feel for those affected, but then again, these are the same companies that were previously lobbing against law that discouraged gas guzzlers. Go lobby the oil market now GM

Oddly enough, oil prices are dropping more than their normal for the time of the year. GM's stocks have made a huge comeback since late summer.Jeremyburkhart 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Chinese government's extensive purchase of U.S. government debt in the form of bonds." This is an overexageration. The Chinese do NOT own a significant part of the US dept. It's large but by no means unusual or worth mentioning. Here is a chart to prove it. here

they are the 4th largest holder, 2nd largest foreign holder, also their share is continually increasing, not fluctuating. that is significant, especially when juxtaposed with the trade imbalance and the dynamics of Chinese industry :þ clsours ¡Æ! 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, probably because some PR flacks have discovered wikipedia is a 'liability' and pay some newly minted college PR flunkie to come here and erase anything 'controversial', hiding behind wikipedias 'NPV'. so neutral you might as well not have an article in the first place.

Mis-quote of Wilson

Off the topic that others have been speaking about, I wonder why people keep making errors about Pres. Wilson's comments before the congressional committee. He actually said "What is good for the country is good for General Motors and what is good for General Motors is good for the country". This seems both a harmless and not very important statement; it is obviously a simple statement of fact. It does not make GM, and Wilson, look like Military Industrial Complex monsters, which the use of only the second half of his statement might seem to imply. This twisting of meaning of the quote, derived by omotting its first half, is a simple propaganda trick, and the Left has been beating Capitalism with it since it was first made. And it shows up even here, in this site. "Give us this day and our daily illusion"--it doesn't take much to keep people happy.

'what is good for corporation xyz is good for the country' is not a simple statement of fact, nor is it obvious. there are hundreds of examples through history in which what is considered 'good' by some people for a corporation are not considered 'good' by many people for a country as a whole. and who does the deciding for whoom is very important. it goes back to the very simple principle of 'special interests' controlling the government, which has been talked about for centuries before there was a 'left', 'right' or anything called communism. that is why we have a democratic system of government, not a corporateocratic or money-o-cratic system of government. the people as a whole decide what is good for the country, not any small group that has gained power for whatever reason.

So what part of all that justifies mis-quotation? What Wilson said was "What is good for the country is good for General Motors and vice versa." He actually said "vice versa," so the phrase usually quoted as if it came out of his mouth didn't, although it was implied. And the emphasis of his original statement was quite the opposite of what it has often been made out to be. The emphasis was that, as a public official, he would start with the good for the country, and simply expect that this would work out well for GM as well. He may have been wrong about that, but if so the wrongness is of a conventionally liberal, harmony-of-long-term-interests sort. If you disagree with somebody, you ought to be especially scrupulous about quoting them accurately. Otherwise you're just disagreeing with a boogyman of your own creation. --Christofurio 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

US government subsidizing import?

Does anyone know whether this is true? "Government has also contributed to the industry's structural problems. By one estimate, state governments subsidize foreign transplants such as BMW and Honda plants to the tune of $1,000 per car. And state franchise laws make it prohibitively expensive to rationalize dealer networks and nameplates. Worst of all are clean-air rules that essentially require companies to produce and sell low-pollution passenger cars at a loss, just to offset the environmental damage done by all their trucks and SUVs." [3] I really don't understand how US government can be able to subsidize foreign import when US car manufactures have such a powerful lobby.

Oldsmobile

I know Oldsmobile is now dead and gone, but shouldn't it get a mention at least? -james_anatidae 06:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's listed on the world's largest automaker as being defunct, but I think it's worthy of being listed here too.Jeremyburkhart 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some insightful writing about why GM got in the health quigmire

Ha, it looks like GM had been paying lightly as employees seemed to have preffered a health security more than a fat monthly cheque. The sad thing is they may end up loosing on health care, even though they took a lean monthly cheque. [4]

I'm disgusted at the Canada comment in this article: "A VEILED EXCUSE", that seems a little biased.

GM doesn't produce hybrids?

I belive this line from the article is inaccurate, but I'm not 100%:

"Toyota and Honda have also introduced gasoline/electric or diesel/electric hybrid vehicles into their product mix whereas, as of October of 2005, General Motors has not."

This page lists a Chevy and a GMC truck that are hybrids: http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybrid/

I'm not sure when these hybrid truck lines came out, but I thought it was before Oct. 2005. Am I wrong about this? ~~

The Silverado Hybrid and the Sierra Hybrid were introduced before October 2005, but they were only sold to select markets before they went nationwide. --ApolloBoy 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that GM made the first hybrid bus, too.

Porshe was the first to experiment with hybrid technology, followed by GM who was first to build on the concept, then Toyota, followed by Honda.Jeremyburkhart 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The large suv plants are gearing up to produce hybrids beginning in late 2007 :þ clsours ¡Æ! 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bottom section

What's with the section that ends with "By John Gleeson" at the bottom of the article? It seems to have been pasted there completely out of context. --Closeapple 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if this is the John Gleeson that works at the Oshawa Truck Assmembly Plant ...

We are currently in the process of running 'test' hybrid vehicles at Oshawa that run on Ethanol.

bespoke ???

I noticed that "bespoke" is used twice in this article. This word is incredibly uncommon in the US. I looked up the word on m-w.com, and it seems "custom" or "custom-made" might be more easily understood by the typical US reader, though I'm not 100% sure these words capture the same meaning the author is trying to convey. Thoughts?

I fixed it. it's a British term, used for custom tailored suits. Rjensen 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of pension/ health care problems?

Does anyone know a clear, NPOV explanation of GM's pension/ health care problems that we can incorporate into the article? Someone gave a link above which kind of skims over it, but seems to over simplify. Did workers really demand, and GM really agree to, paying unfunded benefits that it seriously hoped would come out of future earnings? MrVoluntarist 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Due to its highly compensated workforce GM has the highest health care and labor costs in the industry, and some analysts have criticized the company for this."

This seems to be a POV and at least requires a citation (perhaps several), doesn't it? 71.131.209.192 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

POV? It doesn't make much sense to bgein with, or at least is poorly phrased. It should't be hard to find a source. But as of now I have a hard time even knowing what to add for reasons above. Every criticism I've read makes it sound like he unions made stupid demands. Not excessive demands; rather, demands which if satisfied would have made them worse off. MrVoluntarist 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this gets into complex discussions of how our economy runs and how people pay for mistakes. I feel that almost all discussions have a POV slanted toward the company, for instance, any discussion that uses words like "excessive" to discuss employee pay is slanted, since this pay was granted by the company. You can weasel all you want about the union holding the company hostage, but in the end you executives are paid big bucks to look after the company.

One also almost never hears how the failure of GM management - the colossal, decades long failure, evidenced by their slide in market share - never gets blamed. why is this ?

Commentary not suitable for article

Came across this Jeremy Clarkson commentary. Too sarcastic/opinionated for the article, but funny nontheless. Clarkson is lamenting the effect GM has had on its Vauxhall subsidiary:

"...Vauxhall’s a part of General Motors which, so far as I can tell... seems to concentrate mainly on pensions and healthcare and for as long as I can remember has seen the car making side of the business as an expensive loss-making nuisance. This explains the [old] Vectra. They gave it some seats, a pair of windscreen wipers and a roof, and, just before the morning coffee break, with a sigh of relief, went back to their Medicare and pension plans." [5] --Mark83 13:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Live Green Go Yellow

Shouldn't this article mention how gm is supporting Ethanol with it's Live Green go Yellow campaign? Mathiastck 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but also note that this is mainly a way for GM to gain CAFE mileage credits at minimal cost, resulting in greater fuel consumption within the fleet - and that is gasoline, owing to the unavailablity of E85 at the pump. Also, E85 will be a non-starter without extensive subsidies and/or cost reduction, owing to 20 to 25 percent lower enegery content by volume and consequent poorer milage. Note that imported ethanol faces a 100 percent tariff to protect ADM and other maize-based domestic US ethanol producers.

Perhaps a little off the subject, isn't E85 a worse solution than Brazil's 100% sugarcane ethanol solution? Why is America including the 15% gas inclusion? Lucavious 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the off topic movement, in general. Sugarcane ethanol is better then corn ethanol, right? The US seems to have a strong corn ethanol lobby, despite it's seeming inefficiency. Mathiastck 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

cellulose ethanol is better than both of those, and reduction of consumption is better than anything else. btw, i have one of those flexfuel tags on my lappy. brought it home from work. :þ clsours ¡Æ! 07:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Event Boilerplate Text?

personally I would describe "General Motors" as a current event. Yes it changes rapidly, but i dont see the relevance of it changing "as the event progresses"

this doesnt quite make sense

GM's variable valve timing system VVT would operate throughout the entire RPM range provide superior performance. Japanese automakers reacted by adding i for intelligence, to do what GM's system had already been doing

Neutrality

Did anyone read this article. It smells of GM friendly bias. Compare this article to ones on other automakers like Toyota, Ford, or Honda.

For example, take a look at the hybrid section.

"GM delivered the first commercial hybrid vehicle and was early innovator in hybrid vehicle development, building Diesel-electric trains since the 1930s and buses since the 1990s (but without stored energy recovery)."

That sentence makes it sound like GM delivered the first commercial passenger car. Also, I'm not exactly sure what a Disel-electric train without stored energy recovery is supposed to say about hybrid.

The article has also had several questionable revisions, such as the removal of Gm's financial troubles. The marketting section is especially suspect, considering how it singles out pro GM articles.

The article also states "Ford was moralistically opposed to credit." while Ford did have a line of credit in that time period.

I believe they mean dynamic brakes when they say no energy recovery. It isn't particularly relevent, I don't think, although the technology is similar to what hybrids use. TastyCakes 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Marketing (GM flack edits?)

Marketing problems section was gutted and is now Marketing trends, removing historical quality problems and now it is looking like a corporate puff piece due to IP edits. Looks like GM flack has been here. - Leonard G. 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the article being vandalized?

The bias seems pretty severe to me. For example, the marketing section seems to be almost an advertisment for GM, citing statistics and polls that trumpet GM's quality, while disparaging competitors by name.

I agree, some of this section is ridiculous, here's why:

Removed:

"Foreign automakers and their media allies regrouped, and the marketing competition resumed. Foreign automakers tried a different marketing tactic focusing on technology. Once again, foreign automakers were just trying to create perception. Honda valve systems even lacked hydraulic lifters, and Japanese automakers were mostly using rubber timing belts. In the 1980s, Japanese automakers still had a long way to go."

• Why does Honda need to be singled out as a competitor to GM? Many Honda valve systems lack hydraulic lash adjusters because they can be problematic in overhead cam engines. Also many Honda engines generally only need to have the valves adjusted once throughout the operating life of the engine, the reduced complexity and cost is pretty well justified. Belt driven cams have been used or are currently used by just about every major auto manufacturer. American manufacturers, including GM did not begin to widely use overhead cam engines until the 1990s and when they did begin to adopt the overhead cam configuration many of them were also driven by belts. The advantages timing belts have made them popular choice. Belts are quieter in their operation, less expensive and are mechanically more efficient than chains, the draw back being that they require routine maintenance that can often be difficult to perform. IJB TA 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"In 1989, Acura began showing the NSX, which had a variable valve timing system to create the perception that Japan had technology and 'tolerances'. However, in September of 1975, GM had already patented the first Smart Value, the progenitor of today's many versions of variable valve timing."

• Again, why is Honda alone important to GM's marketing strategy? The variable valve timing systems GM had been researching the 1970s were never produced because of problems encountered during development. They did not inspire any future variable valve timing devices. IJB TA 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"GM's variable valve timing system VVT would operate throughout the entire RPM range providing superior performance. Japanese automakers reacted by adding i for intelligence, in a band aid approach to lift the valves to do what GM's more advanced cam timing system had already been doing. On efficiency, the Japanese marketing failed again, GM V-6 and V-8 models lead in their respective class for fuel economy."

• Inaccurate information.

Controversy section

The stuff about the electric car doesn't seem notable enough to have such a big section, and it seems more like a plug for the "who killed the electric car" book than anything. Of course I may be biased - I have a hard time swallowing the claim that GM didn't want its electric car program to work in order to support oil companies. How about a little dose of reality - GM doesn't care if oil companies like them. I think they just decided electric cars were a dead end and instead focussed on fuel cells and (later) hybrids. All the rest of this issue smells of hugely POV speculation and conspiracy theory. TastyCakes 22:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. It looks to me like someone saw the movie and felt like they needed to go on a crusade to promote electric vehicles... Another reality check: They cost A LOT of money (The price of small house). 50,000 people signed up to lease one but as little as 50 ever bothered to get it when the chance arose. --Lucavious 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Seattle EV Association was formed over 24 years ago by a small group of visionaries dedicated to the proposition that “ If Detroit won’t build affordable electric cars for us, we should do it ourselves.” and help anyone else who would like to do the same. Through public education, demonstration, and proliferation of EVs of all kinds, be they electric cars, trucks, boats, or bikes. They have MONTHLY meetings. For time and place, check their web site [6], or call the information line.

Essentially the most common EV consists of a small compact (donor) car with stick shift, where all gas or diesel components are taken out, and replaced with batteries, electric motor, charger, relays, speed control, and gauges. The hardware usually costs around $8000. and the labor to put it all together, if one cannot do it ones self is approximately $2000. These are AVERAGES. More speed, more performance, more range…. costs more. Performance of such an average car, would be highway speeds up to 70 mph, and range at more modest speeds of up to 50 miles on a single charge. Might not sound like much, but it could replace HALF of all GAS and Diesel cars which start up their engines each and every day here in North America. And every one would get to work on time, and no one would run short of charge before returning home at night. Charging would cost ONE FIFTH of what the average car owner pays for GAS for the same average daily commute ! [7]

Below is a partial list of Web Sites dealing with aspects of Electric Cars in the Northwest, and the US.

ORGANIZATIONS

Seattle EV Association: http://www.seattleeva.org/ Electric Auto Association of the US: http://www.eaaev.org Oregon Electric Vehicle Association http://www.oeva.org/ National Electric Drag Racing Assoc. http://www.nedra.com/ EV BUSINESSES

Electric Vehicles Northwest Inc. http://www.electricbikes.bigstep.com/ EV Parts of Pt. Townsand http://www.EVParts.com/ The Electric Boat Company http://www.theelectricboatco.com Cloud Electric Vehicles- Kent Wa. http://cloudelectric.com The Green Car Company http://www.greencarco.com OTHER EV RE-Sources

Alt Fuel Vehicle Directory: http://www.vwc.edu/~gnoe/avd.htm EV Discussion List Photo Album http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/

If you're so hell bent on promoting electric vehicles make a seperate article on it and stop fudging up this one. --Lucavious 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This is a perfect example of GM at work - the whole article stinks of a GM advertising plot to hijack this article to praise themselves.

You drop in, don't cite any reasons, don't even SIGN your discussion post and mark the article imbalanced? No. --Lucavious 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not a hijack, but this article does seem inbalanced to me.

GM largest foreign automaker in China?

Not according to the wiki on VW group. Anyone care to check this? Just noticed this discrepentcy.

Deletion?

There's not even a project page for the deletion request, nor has there been ANY discussion concerning the revising or removal of it. Therefore whoever put it up can do their homework before destroying the credibility of this article. --Lucavious 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese import limitations in Germany?

Although some commentators have claimed that European manufactures are somewhat disadvantaged by over-regulation, Germany places market share limits on Japanese imports, controlling Japan's ability to manipulate the market.

As a German, I hear this for the first time, and additionally, Toyota sales are soaring in Germany. The statement seems untrue to me and doesn't state a source. I placed behind the phrase, but if it turns out to be untrue, I'd like to delete it - comments? -- Philipp Krebs 01:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Market share

"In 1962 half the cars sold in America were made by GM. Now its market share is roughly 25 percent" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901385.html Shouldn't a decline like this get a mention?

Electric Automobiles

The electric car controversy should not appear under GM's main page, it should be relegated to the page under the EV1 automobile. The fact that this controversy stems from a movie that has been in theaters for almost three months and is distributed by SONY has earned under $1.5 million dollars doesn't justify it being on GM's main page when in earned $192.604 Billion last year. Why isn't the controversy on Honda Motor Company or Toyota's main page, they were involved in this so called "conspiracy".

The fact of the failure of the electric car is that for ANY automaker to be succesful they must be able to sell to the average American. The average American 10 years ago only earned $30,000 a year and the lease price was $300 for a car that you could not drive long distance. Many Americans needed a vehicle that could drive long distances because discount airlines were not prevelant 10 years ago and flying was expensive. You must look at the economics of it to understand why the concept failed, to many editors don't understand economics and just see it as GM being a big bully.

This is merely anti-GM sentiment, if you don't want to buy a GM vehicle that is fine, there are plenty of other high caliber automakers that make great vehciles. But it is completely unfair to hold GM responsible for the failure of electric automobiles.

Well, that's your respectable opinion, but opinion nonetheless. The criticism section serves to counter perceived anti-GM bias by promoting pro-GM bias, and it uses a fairly specious argument to do so. The financial success of documentaries have no bearing on the veracity of their claims. Documentaries typically don't make a lot of money, but don't cost a lot to produce, but that is neither here nor there. Whether or not public opinion supports the claim that GM purposefully set the EV1 up to fail, it has no bearing on the truth or falseness of the statement.

I don't particularly care whether GM "killed the electric car" or not. But, in an encyclopedia, we can't substitute poor logic and personal opinion for verifiable facts. Take a look at the page for Who Killed the Electric Car?; it balances pro- and anti- arguments, and criticises the movie using more fact-based angles. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

POV problems

A lot of the article, esp. the history, seems to read it like it was taken from the PR department. This is a notification that I will be making a lot of changes soon to remove what I believe to be POV violations and make the information more neutral. Current version as of this post is [8]. I'm not going to put a POV tag on it yet because I don't think it's fair to do so until I have the time to document the problems on the talk page. MrVoluntarist 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please change away. I think a GM marketroid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H salesman has been hard at work here. I excised some of the more egregious statements, but there are other POV bits that remain. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes thus far

Here is the comparison of some changes I made: [9]

Justification of changes: I mentioned the role of their historic pension underfunding in the pension crisis. The article blamed the pension crisis in part on rate hikes, but those would help the pension fund, though it is correct they would possibly hurt GM's ability to do business. I clarified that the GM hybrid advantages were based on their estimates and not independently confirmed. I removed the part about health care moving their business to Canada. That claim is so far only supported by people of one ideology, and such a person was the only source for the claim. It should only be re-included if both sides can be explained, as well as why foreign competitors don't prefer Canada for that reason. The article also mentioned exchange rates, and I clarified that this only applied to imports, and not competitors who manufactured in America. MrVoluntarist 09:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited the article

Minor Edit to the article concerning some bias:

One, the part about Germany restricting imports has had no citation for quite some time, and was removed. Two, in the same section of the article, the claim that foreign automakers "transplant" their workers into America create the illusion that the cars were "american made" is false and was deleted. It has no citation and in fact foreign Automakers do use American workers at their plants, who do not receive foreign health benefits. Also deleted was the statement that the fictional transplants were "less skilled" and lower paid that Union Workers. "Less Skilled" is an subjective statement and no citations were made to prove it anyway.

I revised the part about foreign workers and healthcare to say "Also, foreign automakers have health-care costs paid for by their respective governments." It then leads into the Canada portion of the section, and is now much less POV.

Oh uh, those edits were made by me, Scryer360. Dont have an signature lined up yet so....

Removed section

I removed a section that claimed GM cars of the 80's had better quality than imports of the era. I'm sorry, but go look on every other quality study of the time period and you'll see that GM is far, FAR behind Toyota, Honda and others in reliablity. The section that claimed one, ONE researcher claimed GM cars were better is non-conclusive considering 99% of studies in this field go against his results. If that section bears mentioning, then I think it's fair to include the ones that say GM was far behind in quality at that time.

Needs financial info

The article lacks basic financial info: Assets, liabilities, who owns the shares (and thus the company), how many shares are outstanding, etc. At least, there should be a link to this information.

I came to the article looking for a list of GM's largest shareholders.

Corporate Issues

This article reads like a promotional advertisement for General Motors, which is, of course, ridiculous. Particularly the "Corporate Issues" section is far too kind. I personally will remove that section if no one does anything to change it to a neutral point of view. Nicholasink 19:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

GM Builds Trains Too

I fee lit should be noted somewhere here that the electromotive devision of General Motors builds trains, in particular the highly successful [[[British Rail Class 66]]. User:Tom walker 21:55 GMT 1 October 2006

GM in China

I can't find a source for the figures at the moment, but I've read repeatedly over the years in publications such as "The Wall Street Journal" that Volkswagen, not GM, is the top foreign automaker in China.

I'd second that, I think there is a good source in the VW group article.

GM Being the Number One Automaker in the World

Wouldn't DaimlerChryler AG actually be the number 1 in the world since it makes 149.78 billion euros, which would make their revenue about 6 billion more than GMs? GMs revenue is only 192 billion, putting them behind the 198 billion that DaimlerChrysler gets because of Currency Conversion. Zodia 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No no, No.1 Automaker status determined by number of cars sold, not nessicarily profit made. GM sold more cars, even though it made much less money (for any number of reasons, take your pick). So you are correct, DaimlerChrysler pulled in a hell of a lot more money, but it still did not sell as many cars.

Think margins. *****

Technology leadership in the 1950s

I was under the impression that in the 1950s, GM was actually an innovative technology leader - can anyone supply some refs to back this up ? I was also under the impression tha the northstar V8 was actually a technology powerhouse (I am def NOT pro GM - just credit where it is due).

     (Start of new comment) I do not have sources for you but 50 years ago yes, GM vehicles were on par if not a little more advanced than competitors, as they had stopped making flathead engines and started with half-circle combustion chambers, pushrods, later I think they are called "Pentroof" combustion chambers, and hydraulic lifters. All were, back then, huge tech advancements.

But you are wrong about the Northstar V8. When it first premiered, it was considered something special, but not now. The reason it was considered special was because GM had (finally) started making Dual-Overhead-Cam V8s, something Japan and Germany had done for years.

Today however, DOHC is nothing spectacular. In fact most foreign competitors engines are DOHC, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, they all use DOHC. Even Nissans big Titan pickup uses a DOHC design.

And DOHC is not even considered an achievement anymore: Bugatti's Veyron is technically quad-overhead-cam, and Ferrari and Lambo are using triple-overhead-cam designs in V8 and V10 engines.

Also, cylinder deactivation, something GM is just now touting as something new, has been standard on the Honda Civic for years. Just ask Honda or even better pry open one of those engines (the ones I did were a 99 and a 97 Civic, one an Si and one a DX I think)(the models of the car, not the engines themselves, I dont know Honda's engine names).

Signed by Scryer_360, who forgets how to use the sig creator thingy.

Current Fuel Economy Leader?

This article, near a mentioning about GM trucks, claims the current fuel economy leader is Toyota.

This is wrong, Toyota is perceived as having good fuel economy but the fleet average for best fuel economy is Honda, do some math.

Scryer_360 03:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Crushed EV1's caption

bsd
This image had a tagging error, which caused the caption not to appear, and i corrected it. But it stated something I found dubious: "EV1s crushed by General Motors shortly after production". Any thoughts?--Benstown 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)