Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [evworld] GM Form Letter & Reply

Expand Messages
  • Darell Dickey
    Yeah, I m afraid that s a form letter. I got the same one in response for my input as well. -= Darell =-
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Yeah, I'm afraid that's a form letter. I got the same one in response for
      my input as well.

      -= Darell =-



      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Hugh Webber [mailto:hewman1@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:58 PM
      > To: evworld@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [evworld] GM Form Letter & Reply
      >
      >
      > I got this form letter from GM after writing about GM's waste
      > of US tax
      > dollars:
      >
      > ______________________________________________________________
      > ________________
      >
      > Kenneth C. Stewart
      > Marketing Director, [GM]
      > New Ventures
      >
      >
      > General Motors Corporation
      > Public Policy Center
      > 482-C27-B76
      > 300 Renaissance Center
      > Detroit, MI 482665-3000
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > March 21, 2005
      >
      >
      >
      > Mr. Hugh Webber
      > 1912 Azalea Avenue
      > Winter Park, FL 32792
      >
      > Dear Mr. Webber:
      >
      > Your letter regarding the EV1 has been referred to me for a
      > response. We appreciate your enthusiasm for the EV1 and we
      > agree that the vehicle set a standard for automotive
      > technology and efficiency. Unfortunately, many EV1 suppliers
      > have discontinued production and support, resulting in a lack
      > of replacement parts for any usage of EV1s beyond the current
      > program. This absence of a complete supplier base was one of
      > the reasons General Motors decided to cease its EV1
      > operations when the leases expired. It is also a major
      > impediment to selling the vehicles outright today.
      >
      > Although you and others have offered to waive warranty parts
      > and service and roadside assistance in order to purchase a
      > used vehicle, we cannot support that approach. We believe
      > that it would be irresponsible, if not unlawful, for GM to
      > sell products that we would not be in a position to support
      > by making parts and service available. The remaining EV1s
      > will be earmarked and deployed for college and university
      > donations, museum donations, cold-weather engineering
      > testing, and/or recycling, which we believe are more
      > appropriate and responsible alternatives, given the circumstances.
      >
      > It is important to address the misconception that there has
      > been an extensive waiting list of individuals who wanted to
      > purchase or lease an EV1. As part of our comprehensive
      > relationship marketing program, GM had generated and
      > maintained a list of over 4,000 individuals who had expressed
      > an interest in the vehicles. After the initial three-year
      > lease on the first generation EV1, GM voluntarily refurbished
      > and upgraded the battery technology in many of those vehicles
      > in order to offer a subsequent lease program to existing and
      > new customers. A warranty on the vehicle and its components
      > was offered since sufficient parts were available at the time.
      > After individually contacting each of these prospective
      > customers to review lease information, however, less than 50
      > customers on its list of over 4000 were actually willing to
      > lease a vehicle. We accommodated those few individuals, and
      > the last of those leases expired in the fall of last year.
      >
      > We also feel it is important to correct your impression of
      > the tax dollars directed toward the EV1 program. The State of
      > California and various of its air districts provided tax
      > incentives to California taxpayers to assist them in "buying
      > down" the cost of the lease. Without those incentives, there
      > certainly would have been fewer EV1s leased than the less
      > than 800 that occurred during the first three years of the
      > program. GM did not receive any state taxpayer money to
      > develop the EV1, and did not receive any state taxpayer money
      > to develop the charging infrastructure.
      >
      > We are moving toward a future of advanced technologies. And
      > many of the technologies that were developed and implemented
      > on the EV1 have been and will be integrated into other GM
      > products including hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
      > However, as our experience with electric vehicles has
      > demonstrated, advanced technology vehicles - no matter how
      > good - must be embraced by a mass market of consumers to
      > generate high volume solutions if they are to have an impact
      > and be successful. GM is committed to achieving this goal by
      > providing its customers great cars and trucks that satisfy
      > their needs while reducing emissions and improving fuel economy.
      >
      >
      > Sincerely,
      >
      > (signed) Kenneth C. Stewart
      >
      >
      > ______________________________________________________________
      > _________________Today
      > I replied:
      >
      >
      > 3/31/05
      >
      > Mr. Stewart:
      >
      > Thank you for your reply to my letter to GM regarding
      > its crushing of
      > EV1s. I do not envy you your task: a marketer, burying a GM
      > product. I
      > assume that you did not see my letter, since yours answered
      > arguments that I
      > did not make and did not address ones that I did.
      > You acknowledge that the EV1 set new technical and efficiency
      > standards. However, your job apparently requires you to blame
      > anyone but GM
      > for killing the EV1. You should read Shnayerson's book on the
      > EV1, "The Car
      > that Could." I drove one; it can! It's GM that can't, for
      > various reasons,
      > sell its own product.
      > Your point that suppliers quit production seems to imply
      > that they were
      > not responding to GM's wishes; I find that idea humorous. GM stopped
      > production of the EV1 in 1999; of course the suppliers also
      > stopped. When GM
      > begins EV production again, suppliers will again respond to orders.
      > Both Honda and Ford have allowed customers to keep their
      > EVs without
      > warranty, service or assistance; Ford sold Ranger EVs, and is
      > allowing
      > lessees to buy them for a dollar. Toyota actually sold
      > hundreds of new EVs.
      > GM has repossessed nearly all of its thousand-plus EV1s and
      > now has crushed
      > most of them. Your expressed concerns that allowing
      > consumers to have
      > your EVs would be "irresponsible, if not unlawful" ring
      > hollow, considering
      > that GM may have spent more money on anti-EV PR, lobbying and
      > fighting
      > requirements to produce EVs than it did in developing and
      > building them.
      > As to the waiting list, several people in your test
      > market area who had
      > managed to get onto the lists never heard from GM again
      > regarding their wish
      > to obtain an EV1. Their testimony appears again and again on
      > the EV lists
      > online. GM inflicted a tortuous qualifying process to lease
      > an EV1; many
      > hopeful buyers never obtained their cars. EV1 promotion was severely
      > limited and only those who knew of the car's availability,
      > acted quickly and
      > persistently and were able (in some cases) to take delivery
      > with only a few
      > hours' notice were able to lease a car that should have been
      > in a showroom
      > for sale (if GM was sincere about its EV test-marketing.)
      > I did not accuse GM of misusing California tax dollars;
      > I don't live in
      > that state. US government grants to GM under the USABC and
      > PNGV should have
      > been applied to the GMEV program; crushing usable vehicles
      > subsidized by
      > Americans' tax dollars is quite possibly actionable at law.
      > As you state, we are moving toward a future of advanced
      > technologies;
      > the EV1 has helped GM improve its products. Then you misstate
      > the facts. The
      > number of EVs produced by your company was inadequate even to
      > the limited
      > test market, so to say that these vehicles were not "embraced
      > by a mass
      > market" is disingenuous. How could restrictively leasing fewer than a
      > thousand EV1s (all taken, with thousands waiting) be anything
      > but a sham
      > "test" of an under-promoted product that was not offered for sale?
      > Mr. Stewart, you're in marketing; given the lack of
      > product, was not
      > the entire EV1 test-marketing project destined to fail?
      > Marketing means
      > selling, and GM never tried to sell one EV1. Respected auto
      > market research
      > firm Dohring in 2000 gave numbers supporting a projection of
      > 200,000 yearly
      > EV sales five years after (normal promotion and) introduction.
      > Considering the able talent that continues to go into
      > misrepresenting
      > and denigrating demand for these cars of the future (now
      > being crushed by
      > GM,) I wish that your company would direct more energy to tending to
      > business: building your proven zero-emission vehicles and
      > allowing your
      > customers to learn about and buy them. Millions of consumers
      > like me will
      > buy electric vehicles; will GM be selling them?
      >
      > Hugh E Webber
      > Secretary, Florida Electric Auto Association
      >
      > Hugh E Webber
      > 1912 Azalea Av
      > Winter Park, FL 32792-1008
      > Hewman1@...
      >
      >
      > PS: If you think me harsh, I include some pointed comments
      > from the EV World
      > Yahoo Group list online.
      >
      > --------------------------------------------------------------
      > --------------------------------------------------------------
      > -------------
      >
      > http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/30/news/fortune500/gm_fuelcell.re
      > ut/index.htm?cnn=yes
      >
      > GM in fuel cell deal with government
      >
      > Auto manufacturer says it has inked $88M pact to build fleet of
      > hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2009.
      >
      >
      > From: murdoch@...
      >
      > To: evworld@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Wednesday, March 30, 2005
      >
      > [Referring to US Gov't $44,000,000 giveaway to GM for 40 Fool Sell
      > vehicles]
      >
      >
      > Yes, and the "someone" throwing money at them is you and me and every
      > other taxpayer, whether we like it or not. That $1.8 million we had
      > earmarked for nearly twice as many BEVs? $25k per already-built car?
      > Not good enough, apparently. GM wants $1.1 million taxpayer donation
      > per advanced vehicle or nothing, and then they will allegedly spend
      > $44M of their own money. Where do they get these numbers,
      > $2.2M per car?
      >
      > Boy, if I wasn't motivated before, I sure am now. I mean, if I don't
      > pay my taxes, what will become of GM? If we all don't
      > continue to make
      > sure there is a steady stream of taxpayer donations to this unworthy
      > cause, they might be forced to engage in the car business, or
      > something.
      >
      > After I finish my taxes, I will try to remember to keep the
      > radio in my car turned off, else I might have to listen to some talk
      > show host lecturing me about "free markets" solving the energy crisis
      > and how "free markets" are what a "Capitalistic profit-seeking
      > non-socialist" enterprise like GM is all about, and how "Free Markets"
      > are a matter of principle. In fact, GM and its defenders wouldn't
      > know a free competitive non-taxpayer-subsidized market if it crashed
      > into them.
      >
      >
      > ______________________________________________________________
      > ________________
      >
      >
      >
      > Breathe free,
      > H E Webber
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > --------------------~-->
      > Give the gift of life to a sick child.
      > Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/5HYslB/TM
      > --------------------------------------------------------------
      > ------~->
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Steve Erlsten
      The EV1 was separate from PNGV. I m not sure how much money was wasted on the traditionally American automakers in that exercise. ... From: Hugh Webber
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The EV1 was separate from PNGV. I'm not sure how much money was wasted on the traditionally American automakers in that exercise.



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Hugh Webber <hewman1@...>
        Sent: Mar 31, 2005 11:57 PM
        To: evworld@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [evworld] GM Form Letter & Reply


        I got this form letter from GM after writing about GM's waste of US tax
        dollars:

        ______________________________________________________________________________

        Kenneth C. Stewart
        Marketing Director, [GM]
        New Ventures


        General Motors Corporation
        Public Policy Center
        482-C27-B76
        300 Renaissance Center
        Detroit, MI 482665-3000




        March 21, 2005



        Mr. Hugh Webber
        1912 Azalea Avenue
        Winter Park, FL 32792

        Dear Mr. Webber:

        Your letter regarding the EV1 has been referred to me for a response. We
        appreciate your enthusiasm for the EV1 and we agree that the vehicle set a
        standard for automotive technology and efficiency. Unfortunately, many EV1
        suppliers have discontinued production and support, resulting in a lack of
        replacement parts for any usage of EV1s beyond the current program. This
        absence of a complete supplier base was one of the reasons General Motors
        decided to cease its EV1 operations when the leases expired. It is also a
        major impediment to selling the vehicles outright today.

        Although you and others have offered to waive warranty parts and service and
        roadside assistance in order to purchase a used vehicle, we cannot support
        that approach. We believe that it would be irresponsible, if not unlawful,
        for GM to sell products that we would not be in a position to support by
        making parts and service available. The remaining EV1s will be earmarked and
        deployed for college and university donations, museum donations,
        cold-weather engineering testing, and/or recycling, which we believe are
        more appropriate and responsible alternatives, given the circumstances.

        It is important to address the misconception that there has been an
        extensive waiting list of individuals who wanted to purchase or lease an
        EV1. As part of our comprehensive relationship marketing program, GM had
        generated and maintained a list of over 4,000 individuals who had expressed
        an interest in the vehicles. After the initial three-year lease on the first
        generation EV1, GM voluntarily refurbished and upgraded the battery
        technology in many of those vehicles in order to offer a subsequent lease
        program to existing and new customers. A warranty on the vehicle and its
        components was offered since sufficient parts were available at the time.
        After individually contacting each of these prospective customers to review
        lease information, however, less than 50 customers on its list of over 4000
        were actually willing to lease a vehicle. We accommodated those few
        individuals, and the last of those leases expired in the fall of last year.

        We also feel it is important to correct your impression of the tax dollars
        directed toward the EV1 program. The State of California and various of its
        air districts provided tax incentives to California taxpayers to assist them
        in “buying down” the cost of the lease. Without those incentives, there
        certainly would have been fewer EV1s leased than the less than 800 that
        occurred during the first three years of the program. GM did not receive any
        state taxpayer money to develop the EV1, and did not receive any state
        taxpayer money to develop the charging infrastructure.

        We are moving toward a future of advanced technologies. And many of the
        technologies that were developed and implemented on the EV1 have been and
        will be integrated into other GM products including hybrids and hydrogen
        fuel cell vehicles. However, as our experience with electric vehicles has
        demonstrated, advanced technology vehicles – no matter how good – must be
        embraced by a mass market of consumers to generate high volume solutions if
        they are to have an impact and be successful. GM is committed to achieving
        this goal by providing its customers great cars and trucks that satisfy
        their needs while reducing emissions and improving fuel economy.


        Sincerely,

        (signed) Kenneth C. Stewart


        _______________________________________________________________________________Today
        I replied:


        3/31/05

        Mr. Stewart:

        Thank you for your reply to my letter to GM regarding its crushing of
        EV1s. I do not envy you your task: a marketer, burying a GM product. I
        assume that you did not see my letter, since yours answered arguments that I
        did not make and did not address ones that I did.
        You acknowledge that the EV1 set new technical and efficiency
        standards. However, your job apparently requires you to blame anyone but GM
        for killing the EV1. You should read Shnayerson’s book on the EV1, “The Car
        that Could.” I drove one; it can! It’s GM that can’t, for various reasons,
        sell its own product.
        Your point that suppliers quit production seems to imply that they were
        not responding to GM’s wishes; I find that idea humorous. GM stopped
        production of the EV1 in 1999; of course the suppliers also stopped. When GM
        begins EV production again, suppliers will again respond to orders.
        Both Honda and Ford have allowed customers to keep their EVs without
        warranty, service or assistance; Ford sold Ranger EVs, and is allowing
        lessees to buy them for a dollar. Toyota actually sold hundreds of new EVs.
        GM has repossessed nearly all of its thousand-plus EV1s and now has crushed
        most of them. Your expressed concerns that allowing consumers to have
        your EVs would be “irresponsible, if not unlawful” ring hollow, considering
        that GM may have spent more money on anti-EV PR, lobbying and fighting
        requirements to produce EVs than it did in developing and building them.
        As to the waiting list, several people in your test market area who had
        managed to get onto the lists never heard from GM again regarding their wish
        to obtain an EV1. Their testimony appears again and again on the EV lists
        online. GM inflicted a tortuous qualifying process to lease an EV1; many
        hopeful buyers never obtained their cars. EV1 promotion was severely
        limited and only those who knew of the car’s availability, acted quickly and
        persistently and were able (in some cases) to take delivery with only a few
        hours’ notice were able to lease a car that should have been in a showroom
        for sale (if GM was sincere about its EV test-marketing.)
        I did not accuse GM of misusing California tax dollars; I don’t live in
        that state. US government grants to GM under the USABC and PNGV should have
        been applied to the GMEV program; crushing usable vehicles subsidized by
        Americans’ tax dollars is quite possibly actionable at law.
        As you state, we are moving toward a future of advanced technologies;
        the EV1 has helped GM improve its products. Then you misstate the facts. The
        number of EVs produced by your company was inadequate even to the limited
        test market, so to say that these vehicles were not “embraced by a mass
        market” is disingenuous. How could restrictively leasing fewer than a
        thousand EV1s (all taken, with thousands waiting) be anything but a sham
        “test” of an under-promoted product that was not offered for sale?
        Mr. Stewart, you’re in marketing; given the lack of product, was not
        the entire EV1 test-marketing project destined to fail? Marketing means
        selling, and GM never tried to sell one EV1. Respected auto market research
        firm Dohring in 2000 gave numbers supporting a projection of 200,000 yearly
        EV sales five years after (normal promotion and) introduction.
        Considering the able talent that continues to go into misrepresenting
        and denigrating demand for these cars of the future (now being crushed by
        GM,) I wish that your company would direct more energy to tending to
        business: building your proven zero-emission vehicles and allowing your
        customers to learn about and buy them. Millions of consumers like me will
        buy electric vehicles; will GM be selling them?

        Hugh E Webber
        Secretary, Florida Electric Auto Association

        Hugh E Webber
        1912 Azalea Av
        Winter Park, FL 32792-1008
        Hewman1@...


        PS: If you think me harsh, I include some pointed comments from the EV World
        Yahoo Group list online.

        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/30/news/fortune500/gm_fuelcell.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

        GM in fuel cell deal with government

        Auto manufacturer says it has inked $88M pact to build fleet of
        hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2009.


        From: murdoch@...

        To: evworld@yahoogroups.com

        Wednesday, March 30, 2005

        [Referring to US Gov’t $44,000,000 giveaway to GM for 40 Fool Sell
        vehicles]


        Yes, and the "someone" throwing money at them is you and me and every
        other taxpayer, whether we like it or not. That $1.8 million we had
        earmarked for nearly twice as many BEVs? $25k per already-built car?
        Not good enough, apparently. GM wants $1.1 million taxpayer donation
        per advanced vehicle or nothing, and then they will allegedly spend
        $44M of their own money. Where do they get these numbers, $2.2M per car?

        Boy, if I wasn't motivated before, I sure am now. I mean, if I don't
        pay my taxes, what will become of GM? If we all don't continue to make
        sure there is a steady stream of taxpayer donations to this unworthy
        cause, they might be forced to engage in the car business, or something.

        After I finish my taxes, I will try to remember to keep the
        radio in my car turned off, else I might have to listen to some talk
        show host lecturing me about "free markets" solving the energy crisis
        and how "free markets" are what a "Capitalistic profit-seeking
        non-socialist" enterprise like GM is all about, and how "Free Markets"
        are a matter of principle. In fact, GM and its defenders wouldn't
        know a free competitive non-taxpayer-subsidized market if it crashed
        into them.


        ______________________________________________________________________________



        Breathe free,
        H E Webber






        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • murdoch_1998
        Interesting response from Mr. Stewart. I think during the controversy it was mentioned that the CEO of GM, Mr. Rick Wagoner, makes quite a bit of money per
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Interesting response from Mr. Stewart.

          I think during the controversy it was mentioned that the CEO of GM,
          Mr. Rick Wagoner, makes quite a bit of money per hour.... that the
          $25k per car that was offered would not seem like that much to him.

          I am worried that Semi-Welfare Recipient Corporation: GM, and the
          Chief GM Employee drinking deep at that river of Mixed Revenues and
          Welfare, Mr. Wagoner, may not be making enough money. Perhaps Mr.
          Wagoner will not make enough to belong to the very best Golf Clubs and
          keep up appearances when experiencing those challenging moments of
          mixing socializing with important business-dealings (even as he so
          intensely avoids doing business that would satisfy other GM customers?)

          I noticed on Turbotax.com, when doing my taxes, that there are some
          fields for making charitable donations. I'm not sure, but there may
          be write-in areas where you do not have to choose a charity of their
          choice but can write in their own? If so, I will contemplate putting
          in a dollar or two for him or for GM. Maybe others should do the same?

          As has been pointed out, they are now close to being a not-for-profit
          enterprise.

          Perhaps this would be more worthy than putting it in for funding
          another "election", something they also ask me to do.

          I guess we just weren't listening to Mr. Wagoner, just as he was
          blithely ignoring us. We just didn't understand that our offer was
          too meager for him and too honest. He doesn't want to do business and
          sell a few cars for a few million dollars.

          He wants to make "demonstration" fleets for dozens of millions in
          handouts. He doesn't want $1.8M (or whatever it was) for 77 or so
          cars. He wants $1.2M *PER CAR* from the government. Brilliant. I am
          starting to see why they hired this guy.

          Ok, so now we know what they want.

          How much did Leno offer years ago for an EV1? It was pretty far up
          there wasn't it?


          --- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Webber" <hewman1@h...> wrote:
          > I got this form letter from GM after writing about GM's waste of US tax
          > dollars:
          >
          >
          ______________________________________________________________________________
          >
          > Kenneth C. Stewart
          > Marketing Director, [GM]
          > New Ventures
          >
          >
          > General Motors Corporation
          > Public Policy Center
          > 482-C27-B76
          > 300 Renaissance Center
          > Detroit, MI 482665-3000
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > March 21, 2005
          >
          >
          >
          > Mr. Hugh Webber
          > 1912 Azalea Avenue
          > Winter Park, FL 32792
          >
          > Dear Mr. Webber:
          >
          > Your letter regarding the EV1 has been referred to me for a
          response. We
          > appreciate your enthusiasm for the EV1 and we agree that the vehicle
          set a
          > standard for automotive technology and efficiency. Unfortunately,
          many EV1
          > suppliers have discontinued production and support, resulting in a
          lack of
          > replacement parts for any usage of EV1s beyond the current program.
          This
          > absence of a complete supplier base was one of the reasons General
          Motors
          > decided to cease its EV1 operations when the leases expired. It is
          also a
          > major impediment to selling the vehicles outright today.
          >
          > Although you and others have offered to waive warranty parts and
          service and
          > roadside assistance in order to purchase a used vehicle, we cannot
          support
          > that approach. We believe that it would be irresponsible, if not
          unlawful,
          > for GM to sell products that we would not be in a position to
          support by
          > making parts and service available. The remaining EV1s will be
          earmarked and
          > deployed for college and university donations, museum donations,
          > cold-weather engineering testing, and/or recycling, which we believe
          are
          > more appropriate and responsible alternatives, given the circumstances.
          >
          > It is important to address the misconception that there has been an
          > extensive waiting list of individuals who wanted to purchase or
          lease an
          > EV1. As part of our comprehensive relationship marketing program, GM
          had
          > generated and maintained a list of over 4,000 individuals who had
          expressed
          > an interest in the vehicles. After the initial three-year lease on
          the first
          > generation EV1, GM voluntarily refurbished and upgraded the battery
          > technology in many of those vehicles in order to offer a subsequent
          lease
          > program to existing and new customers. A warranty on the vehicle and
          its
          > components was offered since sufficient parts were available at the
          time.
          > After individually contacting each of these prospective customers to
          review
          > lease information, however, less than 50 customers on its list of
          over 4000
          > were actually willing to lease a vehicle. We accommodated those few
          > individuals, and the last of those leases expired in the fall of
          last year.
          >
          > We also feel it is important to correct your impression of the tax
          dollars
          > directed toward the EV1 program. The State of California and various
          of its
          > air districts provided tax incentives to California taxpayers to
          assist them
          > in "buying down" the cost of the lease. Without those incentives, there
          > certainly would have been fewer EV1s leased than the less than 800 that
          > occurred during the first three years of the program. GM did not
          receive any
          > state taxpayer money to develop the EV1, and did not receive any state
          > taxpayer money to develop the charging infrastructure.
          >
          > We are moving toward a future of advanced technologies. And many of the
          > technologies that were developed and implemented on the EV1 have
          been and
          > will be integrated into other GM products including hybrids and
          hydrogen
          > fuel cell vehicles. However, as our experience with electric
          vehicles has
          > demonstrated, advanced technology vehicles – no matter how good –
          must be
          > embraced by a mass market of consumers to generate high volume
          solutions if
          > they are to have an impact and be successful. GM is committed to
          achieving
          > this goal by providing its customers great cars and trucks that satisfy
          > their needs while reducing emissions and improving fuel economy.
          >
          >
          > Sincerely,
          >
          > (signed) Kenneth C. Stewart
          >
          >
          >
          _______________________________________________________________________________Today

          > I replied:
          >
          >
          > 3/31/05
          >
          > Mr. Stewart:
          >
          > Thank you for your reply to my letter to GM regarding its
          crushing of
          > EV1s. I do not envy you your task: a marketer, burying a GM product. I
          > assume that you did not see my letter, since yours answered
          arguments that I
          > did not make and did not address ones that I did.
          > You acknowledge that the EV1 set new technical and efficiency
          > standards. However, your job apparently requires you to blame anyone
          but GM
          > for killing the EV1. You should read Shnayerson's book on the EV1,
          "The Car
          > that Could." I drove one; it can! It's GM that can't, for various
          reasons,
          > sell its own product.
          > Your point that suppliers quit production seems to imply that
          they were
          > not responding to GM's wishes; I find that idea humorous. GM stopped
          > production of the EV1 in 1999; of course the suppliers also stopped.
          When GM
          > begins EV production again, suppliers will again respond to orders.
          > Both Honda and Ford have allowed customers to keep their EVs
          without
          > warranty, service or assistance; Ford sold Ranger EVs, and is allowing
          > lessees to buy them for a dollar. Toyota actually sold hundreds of
          new EVs.
          > GM has repossessed nearly all of its thousand-plus EV1s and now has
          crushed
          > most of them. Your expressed concerns that allowing consumers to
          have
          > your EVs would be "irresponsible, if not unlawful" ring hollow,
          considering
          > that GM may have spent more money on anti-EV PR, lobbying and fighting
          > requirements to produce EVs than it did in developing and building them.
          > As to the waiting list, several people in your test market area
          who had
          > managed to get onto the lists never heard from GM again regarding
          their wish
          > to obtain an EV1. Their testimony appears again and again on the EV
          lists
          > online. GM inflicted a tortuous qualifying process to lease an EV1;
          many
          > hopeful buyers never obtained their cars. EV1 promotion was severely
          > limited and only those who knew of the car's availability, acted
          quickly and
          > persistently and were able (in some cases) to take delivery with
          only a few
          > hours' notice were able to lease a car that should have been in a
          showroom
          > for sale (if GM was sincere about its EV test-marketing.)
          > I did not accuse GM of misusing California tax dollars; I don't
          live in
          > that state. US government grants to GM under the USABC and PNGV
          should have
          > been applied to the GMEV program; crushing usable vehicles
          subsidized by
          > Americans' tax dollars is quite possibly actionable at law.
          > As you state, we are moving toward a future of advanced
          technologies;
          > the EV1 has helped GM improve its products. Then you misstate the
          facts. The
          > number of EVs produced by your company was inadequate even to the
          limited
          > test market, so to say that these vehicles were not "embraced by a mass
          > market" is disingenuous. How could restrictively leasing fewer than a
          > thousand EV1s (all taken, with thousands waiting) be anything but a
          sham
          > "test" of an under-promoted product that was not offered for sale?
          > Mr. Stewart, you're in marketing; given the lack of product,
          was not
          > the entire EV1 test-marketing project destined to fail? Marketing means
          > selling, and GM never tried to sell one EV1. Respected auto market
          research
          > firm Dohring in 2000 gave numbers supporting a projection of
          200,000 yearly
          > EV sales five years after (normal promotion and) introduction.
          > Considering the able talent that continues to go into
          misrepresenting
          > and denigrating demand for these cars of the future (now being
          crushed by
          > GM,) I wish that your company would direct more energy to tending to
          > business: building your proven zero-emission vehicles and allowing your
          > customers to learn about and buy them. Millions of consumers like
          me will
          > buy electric vehicles; will GM be selling them?
          >
          > Hugh E Webber
          > Secretary, Florida Electric Auto Association
          >
          > Hugh E Webber
          > 1912 Azalea Av
          > Winter Park, FL 32792-1008
          > Hewman1@n...
          >
          >
          > PS: If you think me harsh, I include some pointed comments from the
          EV World
          > Yahoo Group list online.
          >
          >
          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
          http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/30/news/fortune500/gm_fuelcell.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
          >
          > GM in fuel cell deal with government
          >
          > Auto manufacturer says it has inked $88M pact to build fleet of
          > hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2009.
          >
          >
          > From: murdoch@h...
          >
          > To: evworld@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Wednesday, March 30, 2005
          >
          > [Referring to US Gov't $44,000,000 giveaway to GM for 40 Fool Sell
          > vehicles]
          >
          >
          > Yes, and the "someone" throwing money at them is you and me and every
          > other taxpayer, whether we like it or not. That $1.8 million we had
          > earmarked for nearly twice as many BEVs? $25k per already-built car?
          > Not good enough, apparently. GM wants $1.1 million taxpayer donation
          > per advanced vehicle or nothing, and then they will allegedly spend
          > $44M of their own money. Where do they get these numbers, $2.2M per car?
          >
          > Boy, if I wasn't motivated before, I sure am now. I mean, if I don't
          > pay my taxes, what will become of GM? If we all don't continue to make
          > sure there is a steady stream of taxpayer donations to this unworthy
          > cause, they might be forced to engage in the car business, or something.
          >
          > After I finish my taxes, I will try to remember to keep the
          > radio in my car turned off, else I might have to listen to some talk
          > show host lecturing me about "free markets" solving the energy crisis
          > and how "free markets" are what a "Capitalistic profit-seeking
          > non-socialist" enterprise like GM is all about, and how "Free Markets"
          > are a matter of principle. In fact, GM and its defenders wouldn't
          > know a free competitive non-taxpayer-subsidized market if it crashed
          > into them.
          >
          >
          >
          ______________________________________________________________________________
          >
          >
          >
          > Breathe free,
          > H E Webber
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.