Slashdot Mirror


GM To Idle Five Factories In North America, Cut More Than 14,000 Jobs As It Focuses On Autonomous, Electric Vehicles (chicagotribune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Chicago Tribune: General Motors will cut up to 14,000 workers in North America and put five plants up for possible closure as it abandons many of its car models and restructures to cut costs and focus more on autonomous and electric vehicles. The reduction includes about 8,000 white-collar employees, or 15 percent of GM's North American white-collar workforce. Some will take buyouts while others will be laid off. Four factories in the U.S. and one in Canada could be shuttered by the end of 2019 if the automaker and its unions don't come up with an agreement to allocate more work to those facilities, GM said in a statement Monday. Another two will close outside North America. The company has marked a sedan plant in Detroit, a compact car plant in Ohio, and another assembly plant outside Toronto for possible closure. Also at risk are two transmission plants, one outside Detroit and another in Baltimore. GM CEO Mary Barra said the company is "still hiring people with expertise in software and electric and autonomous vehicles, and many of those who will lose their jobs are now working on conventional cars with internal combustion engines," reports Dallas News. "Barra said the industry is changing rapidly and moving toward electric propulsion, autonomous vehicles and ride-sharing, and GM must adjust with it."

The restructuring comes as the U.S. and North American auto markets are shifting away from cars toward SUVs and trucks. "In October, almost 65 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were trucks or SUVs," reports Chicago Tribune. "It was about 50 percent cars just five years ago."

53 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Trump 2020! by Huge_UID · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm torn between feeling sorry for and laughing at the folks that voted for Trump because of his promises to keep factories open.

    1. Re:Trump 2020! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I blame Trump for many things, but awful GM cars is not one of them. People aren't buying GM cars because they just are simply inferior to other brands. If you have money you buy Euro or Japanese. Those with less money are buying Korean.

    2. Re: Trump 2020! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm still fully proud of my vote for Trump. I will vote for him every time he shows up on a ticket.

    3. Re:Trump 2020! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Riiight because the better choice was someone smashing their phones with a hammer and wiping their server with DoD software like a pedo with the FBI outside their door with a warrant?

      Protip...a LOT of the votes that Trump got were not FOR Trump but AGAINST Shillary the crooked bankster bitch, and if the DNC had sold itself to the most crooked insider since Nixon you'd have President Bernie. So next time you want to bitch about the current state of affairs direct that anger where its warranted, to the DNC that sold the country for 30 pieces of silver. Hell its because of Shillary that Trump won the GOP nomination, or did you forget her ordering her lickspittles in the MSM to push Trump in the "Pied Piper Strategy" because even she knew she was such a walking piece of offal that the only chance she had was against Trump? Kinda fucking sad that the left allowed their party to become such a corrupt cabal of insiders that their candidate couldn't even beat a reality TV star that believes damn near every conspiracy theory, huh?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re: Trump 2020! by fortfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While what you say is generally true, trump is different. Not only did he go to great pains to hold himself out as different, he made different kinds of promises. Which was refreshing in a way. But many of us recognized his promises, while different, were still built on the same kind of bs as the worst politicians.

    5. Re: Trump 2020! by FuzzyDaddy2 · · Score: 2

      Trump promised to keep factory jobs from going away. He is not to blame for causing it, but he sure is to blame for promising to keep it from happening and failing.

    6. Re:Trump 2020! by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Trump promised coal would miraculously become a viable energy product that didn't harm the environment and tastes great after coffee. Trump lied.

      And I'm not arguing otherwise. But what does Trump's promises and phenomenal misunderstanding of coal have to do with US factory jobs? nothing.

      Trump is a proven liar, but don't get distracted by his nonsense. He promised things and failed to deliver. Hillary didn't even promise things. If people were really serious about keeping their factory job, I totally understand why they'd go for Trump's lies and hope he's not lying this time. Versus going for zero promises on this issue from Hillary.

      But you need to stop falsely equivocating his lies as if normal. They are beyond even the abysmal norm we had before.

      How is a politician over promising and under delivering not perfectly normal? It's probably the only normal thing Trump has done.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    7. Re:Trump 2020! by ranton · · Score: 2

      I'm torn between feeling sorry for and laughing at the folks that voted for Trump because of his promises to keep factories open

      As opposed to someone who didn't...how would you be torn about an obvious calculated risk, despite the outcome?

      Listening to a populist con man is not a calculated risk. It is like playing the lottery ... in a state with a long track record of never announcing a winner.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Trump 2020! by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because Trump was the only casino that couldn't turn a profit during the Atlantic City boom. He crowed about being the junk bond king just in time for the bottom to fall out of the market. He regularly restructures businesses such that small contractors and workers get stiffed.

      The Trump apparel he wore while campaigning is made just about everywhere but America.

      The Great Pumpkin would be a better risk.>/p>

    9. Re:Trump 2020! by sjames · · Score: 2

      They usually manage to deliver on at least a small percentage of their promises.

    10. Re:Trump 2020! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Someone explain to me how Bernie was going to win the presidency when he couldn't even win a Dem primary. Bonus points if you can do it without using anecdotes.

      The polls said that Sanders could defeat Trump, and that Clinton couldn't. And that's precisely what happened. QED, Sanders could have beat Trump if the DNC had chosen to run him. They didn't even though the majority of democratic party members clearly wanted them to. We know this because he would have won the primary if not for the "superdelegates", whose privileges were designed to subvert the democratic process, just as the electoral college was designed to subvert the democratic process at the federal level.

      We know that many people who voted for Trump wanted to vote for Sanders, because they have told us. And we know that people came out to vote for Trump specifically to oppose Clinton, because they also have told us. That's how Sanders could have beaten Trump — Trump would have had less votes, not just than Sanders, but than he got running against Clinton.

      Now, ask a hard one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: Trump 2020! by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democrats consistently promise a much more sensible, viable and believable alternative of job training, reduced cost education, healthcare reform (which would increase career mobility) etc.

      Trump voters like my Dad, uncles, older blue collar neighbors, etc. don't want to be retrained for a new job. They want the world to remain the same, so they can continue working the same job they've been at since the 1970's.

      Hillary voters like my Mom, aunts, and retired neighbors want health care reform and want the next generation to have a shot at a good education that doesn't saddle young people with debt.

      Given the chance, Democrats may deliver on some, all or none of these.

      Oh I personally agree with that. I usually vote for the one offering something sane, even if they aren't likely to deliver everything. Some people voted for something insane because they were against any sort of "hope & change" party, especially the change part.

      So on the one hand you have Trump promising with no evidence to restore an economic model that is a proven failure.

      Remember, Trump voters view him as a successful person (rich) and he's been a household name for decades (famous). I don't know what the fallacy is called where a person ignores any evidence contrary to their own position, but it makes it impossible to have a rational debate with people who have drank the Kool-aid.

      Proven failure? Or Possible success? I know which one I would choose, and which one I would expect a bunch of idiot Trump trash voters to chose.

      Trump reflects America better than any politician of this century. He is confident in his superiority and importance, despite numerous failures and limited success. He is quite racist in speech and in action, but denies being so (just like America). He pines for a era that never really exists (he managed to tapped into the minds of middle aged white men that believe they've been disenfranchised, hoping to bring about an era where every man is a king of his castle). He blames everyone but himself for failures, usually the media, the immigrants, wall street (the jews), and sometimes "crooked" Hillary.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  2. Bullshit by Luthair · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its due to falling sales. If they were successfully focusing on electric they'd still need production capacity. Note part of their 'focus on electric' involves cancelling the Volt, probably their best selling vehicle with electric as the primary power source.

    1. Re:Bullshit by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do with electric. It has to do with the fact that no one is buying cars. Electric cars are a miniscule fraction of the total market.

    2. Re:Bullshit by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At this time, probably. In the future, however, electric cars are a lot easier to build than conventional ones and need a lot fewer workers to build them, because they are much simpler mechanically.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Bullshit by toonces33 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Volt was transitional. They are keeping the Bolt.

    4. Re:Bullshit by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      That's really unfortunate, the volt is pretty damn cool idea for a power-train.

    5. Re:Bullshit by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      Its due to falling sales.

      They are making a whole lot of money:
      https://www.nasdaq.com/earning...

      while sales are doing OK
      http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm...

      So it's probably not sales.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    6. Re:Bullshit by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      Which is stupid because the Volt's medium distance hybrid tech should have been baked into every single vehicle that Chevy and GM made. All of the benefits of electric commute with no range anxiety and a much cheaper battery pack. So of course they axe it.

      The ICE to battery transition period is going to stretch out into decades.

    7. Re:Bullshit by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Tesla appears to be doing very well at price point.

      GM is trying to not be Kodak, clinging to their old products rather than trying to shift with the market.

      I'm not sure GM is doing the correct thing, but it wouldn't shock me. The risk I see them taking is that as price points get lower, the likelihood of overnight charging being an option go down (requires a driveway), but GM wants to beat Tesla to affordable long range EVs, on the assumption that the market really wants long range EVs over gasoline.

      GM does appear to get EVs with the Volt, Bolt, and Spark EV not feeling under powered.

      Random article on Tesla sales, I'm not sure they can keep it up, but if I didn't have a good electric plan in place as a manufacturer, I would be concerned. Long range EVs are dominating the pricepoints they are available in (check July and August).

      (biased source obviously, but I trust that the numbers are true, it may not hold in monthly sales going forward).

      https://cleantechnica.com/2018...

      I hope that GM does something similar to a Spark EV again, but purpose built, that's a fun little car.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:Bullshit by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cars simply last longer now than they used to.

      I bought a BMW i3 (it's the cheapest car based on TCO in Norway right now by my calculation) and part of my purchasing decision was evaluating how it was built. With the exception of computers which are likely to fail because BMW is really bad at electronics, the physical build of the car should last about 30 years.

      I expect :
        - New tires every three years
        - New windshield wipers once a year
        - New brakes every three to five years
        - Refurbished battery once every 8-10 years (though newer batteries may last longer)
        - New motors every 15-20 years
        - New computers... not sure how often.

      This vehicle is built to last 30 years at substantially lower prices than replacing it. I will replace it when self-driving becomes a real option since I have no interest in driving.

      That said, here in Norway, we used to buy a lot of GM cars... now we don't. Now we buy primarily Tesla, BMW i series, Nissan Leafs, Kia electrics. In fact as of October this year, 45% of all new car sales in Norway are electric and we're also buying a bunch of fuel cell cars.

      We are ahead of the rest of the world on this because... well... we're western oil country and can afford it. It seems almost humorous that the massive amount of money we spent getting rid of internal combustion engine vehicles was paid for using oil money.

      But, you're absolutely right... car sales are on a massive decline.

      A few years back, I read an interview with the CEO of Ford at the time who said they need to learn to adapt to a market where instead of their biggest competition being other car companies, it was actually Apple. 18 year old American kids don't have the credit ratings needed to buy their own cars, after school jobs don't pay enough to buy one either. Kids these days would rather have an iPhone and either make their moms drive them or use Uber. They don't want to buy a brand new planet killing Mustang.

      I think the market has shifted quite a bit. I've seen more and more one-car households over the years. If kids buy vehicles, they get hoverboards or electric kick bikes. They simply don't need or want the cost or hassle of owning a car. And unlike back in the 80's when I was young, you can't buy a used car and fix it up yourself like we used to. Back then, all you needed to fix a car could fit into a toolbox you kept in the trunk. These days, aftermarket service manuals for cars are borderline useless.

      If GM shifts their business towards catering to large volume orders from companies like Uber who hope to run fleets of self driving taxis, it would make a great deal of sense.

      Now... if GM would make a yellow, self-driving, electric Camaro with racing stripes... I'll actually consider buying a GM vehicle. But I won't buy the fucking thing if they write the software. I simply don't trust car companies to know how to run programming teams.

    9. Re:Bullshit by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      There is a Model S that has done 400,000 miles in 3 years. It's had two battery replacements during that time (under warranty), but the maintenance cost for the vehicle is a fraction of the cost of an equivalent luxury sedan.

      One of those battery replacements was due to always charging to 100%.

      https://electrek.co/2018/07/17...

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Bullshit by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      Like many things the auto industry does this is smart short-term, but likely disastrous long-term. If gas prices stay low nobody wants cars because trucks have lower gas mileage requirements. The second gas gets into the $3-4 range? Everybody will want to trade in that 19 MPG F-150 for a Volt, and they have no Volts to sell.

      They have a very long tradition of this. Frequently they're actually make this exact mistake. In the late 70s gas prices went up and everyone wanted Accords, but they had no Accord competitor. Everyone survived survived, after it got some givebacks from the UAW, but Chrysler has not been the same since. Then in the '08 period gas prices went up (again), they had no Accord equivalent (again) and everyone except Ford went bankrupt.

      So Wall Street will love this because it will result in short-term profits, and the short-term profits wil be used to buy back shares, but everyone else should fucking hate this.

    11. Re:Bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That article illustrates why they brought in the reduced charge speed for heavy users. Something to watch for when buying second hand, because once it's active it can't be deactivated, and is a sign that the previous owner was pushing the vehicle hard.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Re: Cars are dead by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I don't get it myself. But that is what is happening. Better profit margin on trucks and SUVs.

  4. Re:Cars are dead by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    People are buying lots of cars, just not from US companies. Subaru, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Audi...

  5. Thanks, Trump! by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Steel and aluminum tariffs couldn't possibly affect GM profitability, now could they?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Thanks, Trump! by hwihyw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Art of the Deal - trading car manufacturing jobs for steel manufacturing jobs.

  6. Re:Cars are dead by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CAFE requirements killed them. Nobody wants a 50 mpg car, they suck, no fun. But rules lawyers to the rescue.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Then why not repurpose the factories? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    it's not exactly rocket science to retool a factory in 2018. Or put another way, why don't they have to retool the factories to keep up with demand? They're cutting 15,000 jobs. If they were just shifting product lines there'd be no job losses.

    You won't see a lot of talk about jobs being automated away though because, well, the folks running the pro-corporate media aren't allowed to cover those stories too often; if at all. They're all owned by the same folks (everybody sits on everybody else's board of directors at that level) and as a rule you do not piss off your boss.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:Cars are dead by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

    Most SUVs are just cars with the unibody frame shaped like a bus, otherwise known as station wagons.. but ssh don't tell anyone they drive a station wagon or they will throw a fit. It makes sense really, why have a car with limited cargo space when you can make that car with cargo space for almost the same manufacturing cost and sell it at a higher price.

  9. Re:Cars are dead by Streetlight · · Score: 2

    My Prius Hybrid is fun to drive and I get 54 MPG city and highway. It's not an SUV but a hatchback, which seem to be popular these days. Toyota also has the Rav 4, a small SUV, that comes as a hybrid, but not sure its MPG.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  10. Re:Cars are dead by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    Haha yeah. Most SUVs are truck bodies, but don't tell any suburbanite they are driving a truck either.

  11. Incipient recession? by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether Trump is to blame or not, this news coupled with Ford's troubles have me wondering if a recession is nigh and how bad it'll be.
    If it happens I'm sure Agolf Twitler and his sycophants will try to blame Obama.
    And they won't have a clue what to do.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:Incipient recession? by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether Trump is to blame or not,

      Trump is not to blame for the closures. But he is to blame for making so many promises he could not keep.
      Not that he is the first politician guilty of this.

      The sad thing is that so many people chose to believe Trump could reverse the tides of automation, and reopen coal mines with pick and shovel instead of 10,000 ton excavators.
      Trump voters are definitely not idiots, but they want to believe so much that there are easy answers. That Trump won with such promises says a lot about how bad his opponents were, from both parties.

    2. Re:Incipient recession? by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Trump voters are definitely not idiots, but they want to believe so much that there are easy answers." - the first half of your sentence is disproved by the second half, thats the problem when you "believe" over "common sense". Prayers don't work.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:Incipient recession? by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      Trump is not to blame for the closures...

      He only slapped a 25% tariff on steel, which is a significant input for each of these automakers and which has cost both of them more than $1B per year, but he's "not to blame."

      Yes, he is to blame.

    4. Re:Incipient recession? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump is not to blame for the closures

      Trump's moronic trade policy has greatly increased the cost of steel, which has cost GM $1billion. Retaliatory tariffs have also increased the price of cars built in the US. That caused GM close these plants instead of retooling them for more popular cars. Instead, GM's going to build more in Mexico which is not subject to retaliatory tariffs.

      So yes, this is on Trump.

  12. Re:Cars are dead by dj245 · · Score: 2

    I've driven a pius, they suck.

    I have a Lexus CT, aka the Prius Deluxe. It isn't terribly fast. . I thought the CVT would be a downer, but it is very responsive and the electric motor makes a sound similar to a turbocharger during hard accelerations. Cornering is tight and the car has boatloads of grip. It's one of the more fun cars I have owned, despite getting a big "meh" from most auto critics.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  13. Hopefully, Tesla will buy a plant by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, like NUMMA, it would be useful to buy one of these plants with equipment that works. They could get MY, Semi, and perhaps Roadster up quickly. Nevada is supposed to gear up to 105 GW worth of Li-ion batteries.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. REPUBLICAN LIAR DEBUNKED *(AGAIN?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "If you want to talk about spiraling debt, you should have seen it explode during the eight years of 0bama!" -Dishonest Republican problems again?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-stock-market-national-debt-fact-check.html
    https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

  15. Re:The Canadian Plant is Closing by LostOne · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I don't get what legal theory the union thinks they can use to prevent the plant closure. Nothing in Canadian law requires a company to continue unprofitable operations. And even if it did, it's still not going to happen unless someone pays for it.

    Quite frankly, the union can STFU. They should be talking to GM about what happens to their members, not the media. And the various levels of government shouldn't be doing anything about this either beyond the already existing social programs available to everyone.

    --

    If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
  16. This is how companies die ... by kbahey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is an example of how companies die, often a slow and protracted death ...

    GM (and Ford) say: people are not buying sedans, so we will be focusing on autonomous cars that are rented, ...etc.

    Meanwhile, Tesla is making a killing selling sedans, and there is a long waiting list for its cars!

    GM, Ford and Chrysler have the plants that can produce the majority of what goes into a car: chassis, assembly line, ...etc. An electric motor is not a big deal to make. Batteries are the challenge, but there are Japanese companies willing to sell them.

    The conventional car companies are like BlackBerry a decade ago: they saw Apple launch the iPhone in 2007 and ignored it. They said no one wants touch screen, everyone wants a 5 day batter, everyone wants a keyboard, ...etc. Then they watched Google do the exact same thing in 2008, and ignored it. They were complacent, they were arrogant, they were incompetent.

    Same thing happens in the auto sector now ...

    1. Re:This is how companies die ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      No Tesla losses money on every car they make. Itâ(TM)s only fraudulent accounting which makes them claim a profit.

      If you count R&D and capex then yeah, they lose money on every car they make. But that's not what people mean when they say that they make money when they sell something. They mean that they get more money after building and selling the car than they did before they built it, or at least, less debt. The Munro and Associates report claims that Tesla is making a substantial profit on each sale, which is helping them recoup their costs. They are the trusted industry leaders in third-party automotive cost analysis, so there is no reason to distrust their figures here. QED, the more cars Tesla sells, the better for Tesla.

      If you disagree with any of this, then by all means, disagree with specifics instead of waving your hands and making nonspecific claims.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This is how companies die ... by kbahey · · Score: 2

      We have been hearing about them embracing electric for years. There is even the Chevy Bolt, which someone who works there says it is an electric that predates the Tesla.

      But in the small city that I live (~ 300,000 in a twin city, around ~ 500,000 with a third city), I see many Teslas, belonging to at least 3 models! Compare that to me not seeing a single Bolt, although it has been officially available in Canada since the start of 2017. This is from a company that has a very high price and a long waiting list. Someone who offers an alternative is bound to capture some of the market.

      When I see TV ads for cars, they are the usual stuff. Only Mitsubishi put an ad for its plug in hybrid SUV. Don't see any ads on electric or hybrid from any other manufacturer.

      So, I am not sure what it is: it is as if they are reluctant to do electric at all, or just only talking about it (lip service), and not actually doing much about it.

      So this announcement leaves me skeptical: will they really produce more electric stuff? Or are they just appeasing Wall Street for now? Time will tell ..

  17. Some kind of shit, definitely by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Electric car research is how you get investors excited and stock prices up. Perhaps some executives at GM are looking to cash out!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Some kind of shit, definitely by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Informative

      GM stock went up 5% after announcing the layoffs.

  18. SUVs Are Cheating? by kackle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or as I like to call them, "tall station wagons".

    Does anyone know whether SUVs are exempted from the gas mileage requirements? If so, then that means they can "unfairly" be "better" than cars, in the eyes of the consumers.

  19. Re:Cars are dead by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    I want a 50mpg truck.

    That's probably not a reasonable request at this time. I think the best right now are the mid-sized turbo-diesel trucks at around 25 mpg. By 2025 we'll probably see lots of 50 mpg+ hybrid trucks, if you're willing to wait several years. Expect to pay through the nose for one.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  20. Re: Cars are dead by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    'Mall utility vehicles' are basically at standard height. Slow station wagons with offroad badging and decal packs.

    Useful 4x4s are still what they've always been. Shitty commuters, generally worse work vehicles than their 2WD counterparts.

    But good news for mountain fun, it's a golden age of used (trucks/jeeps/land cruisers) out there, many without a scratch, never wheeled.

    Get over the need for security. It's an illusion at best. But buy a solid axle 4x4 for the weekends.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  21. After developing/killing the EV1 I love the irony by Biogoly · · Score: 5, Informative

    GM invested millions of dollars into the EV1 program for their electric car in the 90s. They were positioned to be a global leader in EV technology...until those far sighted C-Suite geniuses at GM killed it.

  22. How GM pursues Electric cars... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It went after the electric cars in 1999. It took back every EV1 it leased to the customers, who begged and pleaded to keep them. With dogged determination it went after the electric cars, took back every last one of them and crushed it in the junk yard. Hobbyists and users were rebuffed.

    That is how GM pursues electric cars.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:How GM pursues Electric cars... by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      The EV1 project was cancelled because the EV1 wasn't very good. The later version had a 25 kWh NiMH battery pack for 100-140 miles of range when new, only 2 seats. The technology wasn't ready for widespread adoption at the time.

      Waiting until the next generation of battery tech had matured (Li-ion) was the right call to make. Put the EV1 next to a Tesla model S and the EV1 looks like a T-Ford.

      Allowing the cars to remain in circulation would have been a drain on resources and a potential PR nightmare as the batteries degraded (remember NiMH, its memory effects and limited recharge cycles?).