A surviving EV1!!!!

http://jalopnik.com/why-is-this-500-000-electric-car-collecting-dust-in-ro-875060713

(..and before you ask, no, I was not reading jalopnik. I was reading io9, and it was linked.)

There's one in the LeMay museum in Tacoma..

Uuhhhgg. Kill it with fire, and extinguish it with piss.

Their front looked good. An insight-like rear end could have made them more marketable to the public

The rear of that had an ass only a Seuss could love.

Appleseed wrote: The rear of that had an ass only a Seuss could love.

Or a wind tunnel...

There's one at the Peterson museum, too. GM mandated that any not crushed be made inoperable. If anyone hasn't seen the documentary "who killed the electric car" I very highly recommend it.

In reply to BoostedBrandon:

We're GRM. How many guys here are into electrons? Seems to be quite a few.

BoostedBrandon wrote: There's one at the Peterson museum, too. GM mandated that any not crushed be made inoperable. If anyone hasn't seen the documentary "who killed the electric car" I very highly recommend it.

If you liked that, you should watch Paine's 2011 sequel Revenge of the Electric Car. It ought to have been subtitled, "Oops! My Bad...."

It is fun to see the same group of people who originally portrayed GM as one of a cast of villains turn around and treat them and the volt project like a plucky upstart. Naturally, the second film didn't do as well as the first one.....it is much easier to sell the public on the supposed evils of a large corporation than it is to engage in boosterism.

Yeah I've seen the sequel. I am convinced Elon Musk is a bond villain.

BoostedBrandon wrote: Yeah I've seen the sequel. I am convinced Elon Musk is a bond villain.

You just made me giggle....that seems like it might be a little too close to the truth.

I kinda like the way it looks.

There is one at Mott College , Flint MI. It is a green one.

Am I the only one who envisions a 455 Toronado drivetrain wedged into the back?

JoeyM wrote:

BoostedBrandon wrote: Yeah I've seen the sequel. I am convinced Elon Musk is a bond villain.

You just made me giggle....that seems like it might be a little too close to the truth.

Never thought of him that way before, but if he starts building his next mansion underground in Costa Rica, we'd better watch out.

You know if you took an Oldsmobile aurora and made it in to a electric vehicle and did a couple minor mods to the bodywork you would have a really good facsimile of an EV1

Yeah, the back end is the same, but the bigger four door body probably adds a lot of weight....OTOH, more room for batteries.

JoeyM wrote:

BoostedBrandon wrote: There's one at the Peterson museum, too. GM mandated that any not crushed be made inoperable. If anyone hasn't seen the documentary "who killed the electric car" I very highly recommend it.

If you liked that, you should watch Paine's 2011 sequel Revenge of the Electric Car. It ought to have been subtitled, "Oops! My Bad...."

You'll need one of these when watching either:

What is that?

dean1484 wrote: You know if you took an Oldsmobile aurora and made it in to a electric vehicle and did a couple minor mods to the bodywork you would have a really good facsimile of an EV1

You're right. Which is odd, because whereas the EV1 is somewhat of an ugly Saturn crossed with an Insight, the Aurora is one of the better looking sedans of all time IMHO.

Enyar wrote: What is that?

Enyar wrote: What is that?

It's a really bug hunk of rock salt; i.e. you need to watch them with more than just "a grain of salt".

FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly. GM is just a corporation, and thus neither as evil as portrayed in the first film or as benevolent as depicted in the second one. Documentary film makers want to engage their audience, so the films tend to have an Evil Overlord or a Plucky Hero......regardless of the fact that the truth is usually somewhere between the two.

Generally speaking, a nuanced treatment of the subject of a film is frowned upon.....film makers tend to think that a more accurate, multifaceted portrayal of the subject will mess up their sweeping narrative, and make it difficult for the audience to follow. (...and thus, they sweep important details and analysis under the rug as though they are unimportant)

I have not yet determined if the documentary filmmakers are under - or over - estimating their audience.

JoeyM wrote:

Enyar wrote: What is that?

It's a really bug hunk of rock salt; i.e. you need to watch them with more than just "a grain of salt". FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly. GM is just a corporation, and thus neither as evil as portrayed in the first film or as benevolent as depicted in the second one. Documentary film makers want to engage their audience, so the films tend to have an Evil Overlord or a Plucky Hero......regardless of the fact that the truth is usually somewhere between the two. Generally speaking, a nuanced treatment of the subject of a film is frowned upon.....film makers tend to think that a more accurate, multifaceted portrayal of the subject will mess up their sweeping narrative, and make it difficult for the audience to follow. (...and thus, they sweep important details and analysis under the rug as though they are unimportant) I have not yet determined if the documentary filmmakers are under - or over - estimating their audience.

I'll say that Ken Burns, whatever your opinion of him and his films, gets it right. Or at least he did in the Civil War and The War. Of course, those are much different subject matters, and I have taken us on a big tangent.

Why don't people get equally up in arms about the Citicar?

The citicar was not leased to hollywood types, who fell in love with the car, only then to have the lease ended. What do you think angry movie producers do? Movie people who treat a business decision like it is a personal attack are going to .....make movies?