GM is closing its cold weather testing facility in Kapuskasing, Ontario, Canada after half a century of operation. The announcement has left the town of Kapuskasing reeling amid questions over the potential effect that the closure will have on residents and the local economy. Meanwhile, General Motors states that its testing and validation processes have “evolved.”
“GM will begin winding down operations at Kapuskasing Proving Grounds, which has made significant contributions to GM’s North American cold weather testing for over 50 years,” General Motors states, per a report from CBC. “Our testing and validation processes prioritize continuous improvement, and we have evolved our testing capability to validate our technology at the component, system, and vehicle level.”
In a company email, General Motors said that operations have officially ceased at the Kapuskasing test facility as of October 18th, 2024 as “part of a larger strategic initiative and will impact all staff at this location.” The automaker also states that facility assets and property “will be disposed of.” It’s estimated that the facility is staffed by roughly 25 seasonal employees. General Motors says that it will work with Canadian labor union Unifor to determine an appropriate closure package for affected staff.
Nevertheless, the surprise announcement has left the local community with questions over the future of Kapuskasing.
“It leaves me in limbo,” said Kapuskasing Proving Grounds Frank Siebert, per CBC. “You know, you have a job and even though it’s seasonal, you’re still expecting that you can have plans. The short notice doesn’t make it easy as far as I’m concerned, but some of the employees are a lot worse off than I am, and those are the ones that I’m most sad for.”
According to Kapuskasing mayor Dave Plourde, the facility’s closure was a surprise, with the mayor learning of General Motors’ plans to shutter the facility just days before employees were officially notified. Plourde told CBC that he was not provided with any avenue to negotiate with General Motors on the decision. It’s estimated that General Motors pays roughly $100,000 in local taxes annually. What’s more, many local businesses depend on the facility, including suppliers, hotels, and restaurants.
Comments
Understandable as EV are not viable in extreme cold. I do feel for the workers who are affected by Barra’s myopia.
Myopia lol. Ironic, considering that ICE powertrains also have a reduction in fuel economy in extreme temperatures. My 3 shaves about 10-15 miles off my full charge in the winter. Not sure how that makes my EV not “viable” lol.
And in the summer I use more energy blasting my A/C too, just like you’d use more gas.
If you’re going to bash EVs, bash them for something that ICE cars don’t have problems with, like change times vs a quick fill up, which is by far the biggest issue with my 3 on long drives.
Towing range? Lack of charging infrastructure? Child and slave labor at lithium mines? Exploding batteries? Can’t get insurance? Toxic battery chemistry that makes any vehicle accident look like a Superfund site?
lol I hate to say two wrongs make a right, but I guarantee all that china garbage in your car (i.e touch screens, chips, etc etc etc) had some slave labor in there too. It’s an industry wide problem that isn’t just isolated to EVs.
I’ve never not had a charger within a minutes range, ICE engines catch on fire too. My insurance is cheaper with State Farm than my old ICE car was. Engines spewing coolant, oil and all sorts of other garbage isn’t exactly clean either.
What else you got?
I love how none of the downvoters responded to my question about what else they’ve got. Clearly nothing, and it’s easier to just put your fingers in your ears and attack EVs for the same shortcomings that ICE models have. Typical. You guys really won that one. lol
Most people don’t tow anything, most people would charge at home and commute their 40 miles a day easily (if your commute is 200 miles each way, consider a career change), child labor affects the entire auto industry (and many others), gas cars catch fire at a much higher rate than EVs (source: NTSB), fossil-powered cars are unarguably worse for the environment unless you’re literally powering the EVs with coal peaker plants exclusively (most grids have a solid mix of electricity production). Insurance prices do suck though….
Traction control and brake systems are not dependent on the propulsive source of the vehicle being tested and still require vehicle level validation in all environmental conditions.
That makes no logical sense. If EV’s aren’t efficient in the cold, why on earth would a company that is on track to transitioning to a full-EV lineup, stop cold-weather testing to improve efficiency? Let’s use critical thinking here.
From a GMA article posted March 16,2021: “General Motors performs the majority of its cold-weather testing at a little-known facility located north of border in a small Ontario town called Kapuskasing. It’s here where the automaker ensures vehicles intended for the North American market will perform as-expected in the winter, and with electric vehicles often struggling in cold conditions, Kapuskasing is set to become an even more important site for GM.” Clearly not.
For gm, it’s cost cutting above all else.
GM isn’t stopping cold weather testing.
GM has climactic wind tunnel facilities and cold boxes for extreme temperature testing.
GM does other cold and traction testing in Michigan at it’s Milford proving grounds.
Also with changes to our climate Kapuskasing isn’t as cold as it used to be.
So between cold boxes, climactic wind tunnels and Milford is Kap needed? GM doesn’t seem to think so.
Personally I’m sad to see the Kap go.
Also those that are making comments about EV’s …. this has nothing to do with or without EV’s and trying to make it about something it’s not is just someone trying to push and agenda.
Ditto for the EV part; they tested everything in Kap, EVs included. They even tested Hydrogen vehicles at some point.
Don’t agree on the climate part through. Summers are warmer, but winters are colder, except during el-nino years. If it is warmer there, it’s warmer at other proving grounds as well. Besides, temperature tests were done in climate controlled boxes, the track and road tests don’t require frigid temperatures, just temperatures below your average American climate.
I think the real appeal of the Kapuskasing facility was its remoteness. Go look it up on a map. If reporters/corporate spies wanted to go there for photos, there’s no way they could make a quick trip out of it.
This reminds me of the decision GM made when closing the Desert Proving Ground in Mesa AZ. At first GM thought they could do without it, then GM tried making one in Mexico (but got shaken down by the locals), then GM had to build a brand new Proving Ground in Tempe AZ. Of course testing of vehicles was limited and quality dropped while GM pondered options.
I meant Yuma, not Tempe
to blazes with GM, turn it into a racetrack. Spa-Francorchamps Nord.
Sad that GM moves to eliminate more physical testing. Cold box tests may do some good, but it’s not like putting a vehicle on the track in all kinds of weather. I’ve worked in GM for over 46 years in testing. Physical testing uncovers defects of both design and manufacturing. Yes, it costs money, but so will be recalls if underlying problems are not found and resolved. Would you want your wife or daughter to experience a failure in their vehicle? Computer analysis has some good points, but will not catch all flaws. Here’s an example: my neighbor asked for help when her Trax radiator fan would not turn off. If she didn’t hear it and call me to disconnect the battery, the battery would be dead. Go search for that problem and look what you find. How come computer analysis didn’t catch that one?