Sound Off: June
GEM Not a Gem; Wobbly Websites; ‘Bag of Tricks’ Fix; Wrong on McWong
AN ELECTRIC ALBATROSS?
The politically correct mantra published in your April issue (“Vacaville Becomes ‘Voltageville’; Davis also Takes up Alternative-Fuel Interest,” Prosper, April 05) regarding the attributes of electric GEM cars sounds warm and fuzzy, but you’re doing your readers an egregious injustice if they run out and waste their money on this albatross.
I work for a nonprofit organization and we’re trying to hold GEM cars together as they fall apart with less than 5,000 miles on them. Parts are cost prohibitive, due to the captive parts market, i.e., shock absorbers on a normal car might cost $30 each, while on a GEM car they’re $125 each. Other parts are no more reasonable, driving our repair costs into the thousands of dollars on each vehicle each year.
Our GEM car was involved in an accident when the bearing sheared the axle and the wheel fell off. GEM customer service was emphatic this was impossible, since there are no bearings in the wheels (even though we had burned bearings all over the ground after the accident).
Many nonprofit organizations have procured the vehicles at bargain basement prices (approximately $3,500) because they didn’t sell on the open market (for $10,000).
While electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles may be in our future, before they can become a credible market force the safety, quality and the cost of operation must be greatly improved. A late-model used conventional auto is clearly less expensive to operate by the mile and much safer for the occupants.
Mike Broaddus
Continued...
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Community Comments