Departure of electric cars stalled

At first, I thought Passadena was trying to remove the EV cars and prevent them from coming to the US..... then as I read on, I saw otherwise. I hope Passadena is successful in keeping the cars! We need more EV vehicles, badly.

 

Attention, all Wee Prii drivers! Please report to Pasadena immediately, and ensure these Nissans go missin'.

 

nice so your promoting helping a city violate the terms of a legla contract because they don't like Nissan's decision...if Nissan says sure you can keep them then the city will be up in arms in a few months because they don't work.

There nissan's cars...playing ehippie doesn't change the law

 

Is this part of the GM-Nissan merger?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Porridge @ Aug 9 2006, 08:02 PM) [snapback]300593[/snapback]</div>

What's being explored is not a merger, rather an alliance where Nissan might buy a large (~$3) stake in GM.

To one of the other posters, I don't find the Nissan EVs to be that cute. The Nissan March (http://www2.nissan.co.jp/MARCH) is "cuter". I kinda wonder why Nissan hasn't brought this over the US market. It might actually do well against the VW Bug.

 

If Toyota managed for find a way to sell their Rav4s without liability, I'm sure Nissan can find a way to sell these cars to the City of Pasadena without liability. Probably a lot easier to sell them to a city than to an individual. It's also easier for the City to prove them can maintain them and have the resources to back that up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 10 2006, 03:09 AM) [snapback]300708[/snapback]</div>

Actually Toyota did NOT figure out how to sell the cars without liability. Toyota is responsible for those cars like every other car they make. Anyone can sue them for any reason just like any other car.

Now just how much liabilty exists is the real question. I think the benifits of good will and experience with the cars outway the liability and would have also with GM. The costs of crushing/destroying them <which is not free> compared to the 25k per used car also needs to be considered. For the GM EV1 the 25 million they gave up by not selling them would cover a few real world lawsuits and the cost of managing spare parts.

Companies are required to sell spare parts for nearly a decade and cannot get out of the duty by making a person sign a contract. Sounds like a problem but its not if managed right.

You can charge almost anything for the parts, reasonable or not. Take 10% of the cars and use em as parts cars, make the parts expensive and allow a smaller company to help manage and even make new parts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Aug 11 2006, 01:23 AM) [snapback]301380[/snapback]</div>

Whoops! I meant $3 BILLION stake. Not $3!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hampdenwireless @ Aug 10 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]301289[/snapback]</div>

So, Toyota is REQUIRED BY LAW to make all of the parts for my 1998 Celica?

Hmm, can you point me to a website that proves this to be true?

When I worked at Fisher Body, we made a few hundred extra panels for resale to body shops, etc., but I doubt that we made enough to cover all of the Chevrolets that we built in one year...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Aug 11 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]301392[/snapback]</div>

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=ar...t=6073&end=6072

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1

"Over a hundred people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive such liability as they were able, but GM refused. GM more recently stated that they would be subject to product liability and that the policies would require them to provide service and replacement parts for ten years."
-----
Also car companies must make emmision related parts for 8 years, in an electric car that could mean the entire powertrain. Thats nearly a decade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hampdenwireless @ Aug 11 2006, 05:45 AM) [snapback]301418[/snapback]</div>

Those seem more like opinion wrapped in political banter than legal citations. I am asking for the specific Federal law (similar to the smog and safety laws) that REQUIRE manufacturers to basically continue to provide parts for 10 years.

Those ALLUDE to liablity laws, but fall short of citing the spare parts requirement..

 

Nissan reclaims electric vehicles

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Aug 11 2006, 06:16 AM) [snapback]301423[/snapback]</div>

Correct! There is no law that anybody has been able to point to yet. I'm still waiting for that pesky law! GM has played this card since the EV1 fiasco, and others have taken it up as fact. Grrr.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 30 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]311765[/snapback]</div>

Sucks. Since the EV1, this is the first one that we've lost.