May 11

The EV-1 Wasn’t Killed, it Was Dead on Arrival

 

MotorTrend’s Angus MacKenzie has published a provocative and thoughtful piece on the inadequacies of the EV-1. Many new visitors to GM-Volt.com seem to get here after seeing Who Killed the Electric Car, something I ascertain through many of the emails I get.

In the Motortrend piece it was explained that the EV-1 evolved from an earlier GM electric car concept called the Impact, unveiled at the 1990 auto show. After GM announced they would produce it, California responded with the mandate that 2% of all cars sold there by 1998 would have to be zero emission vehicles (i.e. electric).

Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid batteries which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline. Thus the EV-1 weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries. The resulting range was 90/70 miles hwy/city. To achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a cost of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).

MacKenzie paints the picture of a very unideal car, . He also pens the following remarkable quote; Hughes aircraft VP Howard Wilson, then working for GM after his company was acquired by them said,”What I’d really like to do (for the EV-1) is install a small gas turbine engine that could run at a constant speed to provide the electricity for the motors.” Sound familiar?

The article concludes:

“In the end, though, the price wasn’t an issue. The reality is the EV1 was hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn’t able to do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it could. That’s what killed the electric car.”

Source (MotorTrend)

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS: 170


  1. 1
    Vincent

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vincent
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (8:55 pm)

    Interesting. People rounded up enough money to but the cars from GM. GM crushed them.


  2. 2
    Brad

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brad
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (8:58 pm)

    The later models of the car did not use Lead Acid batteries and that seems to be the only batteries mentioned in the article. The problem today is the fact that the oil companies own the battery patent (GM sold it to them) for the NiMh batteries. They only allow smaller ones to be produced (those are in current hybrids). It would be nice to see NEVs and full size electric cars the ability to use larger NiMh batteries until they can mass produce the Lithium Ion. Regarding Lithium Ion: I find it funny how some people worry about Lithium Ion batteries exploding in cars but don’t worry about it in their cell phone in their pocket or the fact that gasoline can explode very easily. I think 15 gallons of gasoline can make a louder boom then a huge lithium ion battery.


  3. 3
    Ed Fanjoy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ed Fanjoy
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (8:58 pm)

    Oh, really? The fact is the EV1 was getting much better mileage than 90/70 miles hwy/city when the second gneration came out, using Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries. Also, Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries weighed less than the 1175 lbs cited about for the lead-acid pack.

    GM killed the electric car because it was less expensive for them (and other car makers) to bribe the CARB commissioner with a job with the new “Hydrogen Fuel Cell” research board. Hydrogen was a red herring then, as it is now.

    If GM is serious about an EV (and I hope they are, I’m on the Volt waiting list), why don’t they focus on the battery technology and just re-introduce the EV1? Or re-introduce it with the old NMH batteries until the Li-Ions are readys?


  4. 4
    kent beuchert

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kent beuchert
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:02 pm)

    What’s astounding is the fantasy that the EV-1 was a wonder car, beloved by any who drove it. GM got a lot of flack from leasees
    about the lengthy recharge times (about 8 hours) and the short driving range. I was initially interested in an electric car at the time, but after reading abou the details of the EV-1 in the car mags of the day, I realized that the car couldn’t even remotely meet the needs of the average driver. It really was not any appreciable advancement over the Detroit Electric built before WWI. In 90 years, the electric car hadn’t advanced at all. Those nickel metal hydride “wonder” batteries turned out not to be very wonderful. I think they actually made the EV-1 economics worse. I never considered Roger Smith
    particularly talented, and I can’t imagine why he would think that an electric car without practical batteries could ever make any sense.
    Of course, we are talking California, here, where common sense seems very hard to come by, and people think that they can honestly proclaim an electric car a zero emissions vehicle when they cannot provide any zero emission electricity to run it. Only in California.


  5. 5
    Brad

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brad
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:21 pm)

    I read the article and the blogs and really its a horrible article with no good information in it. Not even the oil companies could write a worse article that is filled with crap like this one. Don’t take it with a grain of salt.


  6. 6
    Will Mackin

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Will Mackin
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:27 pm)

    “Common sense” is a phrase used by a person with limited imagination about someone who has done something the speaker deems to be stupid but is not sophisticated enough to articulate what is stupid about it.

    “They don’t do what I would have done, so they must not have ‘common sense.’”

    When you see the phrase common sense, you will find a conclusory argument that is not worth the breath that made it.


  7. 7
    Dave G

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:43 pm)

    Who cares about the EV-1? That’s all water under the bridge now. The guy that made the movie “Who killed the electric car” (Chris Paine), is now working with GM to do a new movie called “Who saved the electric car” (provided the Volt is a success).

    The Volt should be a MUCH better car that the EV-1.

    As many other people have already mentioned on this forum, it takes 3-5 years to design any car (electric or not). Even if GM wanted to resurrect the EV-1, there would probably be so many design changes that it would be a do-over. So anyone that thinks we could have an electric car now if they just used NiMH batteries with a modified EV-1 design is fooling themselves.

    If for any reason GM doesn’t succeed in getting the Volt to sell in reasonable quantities by 2011, then we can all go back to bashing GM, remind them of the EV-1, and Chris Paine will do another sequel that makes GM look really bad. But until that happens (and let’s hope it never does), let’s all just forget about the EV-1. It’s history.


  8. 8
    George K

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George K
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:46 pm)

    To me, killing the electric car wasn’t where the big mistake was. After all, Honda, Ford, and Toyota also made electric cars, but abandoned them when California’s CARB changed the zero pollution requirements.

    The problem was the way GM handled the Public Relations. Toyota had the same reaction from its small group of faithful customers. The thing is, they ended up yielding and letting some of them keep the car. As a foreign company, they were probably more concerned about their US image. Too bad for GM, because that P.R. debacle is still haunting them.


  9. 9
    Grizzly

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Grizzly
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:50 pm)

    Kent #4

    Correct. What most people don’t realize about Roger Smith is that he was the consummate accountant and amateur showman heading what at the time was perhaps the largest publicly held company on earth. He is/was the father of GM’s demise. His intent like all figureheads was to gain publicity with what he thought was an economical “show and tell”. When the “worthless” (Californians know this better than I) CARB saw it they enacted “policy”, and the rest is history. This was “supply side” econ at a time when the demand side wasn’t on for the ride. (Please don’t quote how 5K people were interested…GM doesn’t produce vehicles on that anemic projected scale.) The result was leasing only for something that no one could afford in the hopes that CARB would change their ways and the electric toasters could be recalled. GM WAS NOT ALONE in either leasing or crushing, companies are in business to MAKE MONEY. Proof positive that it’s better to suggest than to mandate.

    Now if anyone who saw a Chris Payne film wants to argue the point, I suggest you find your closest check-out counter, “inquiring minds” meeting place for spirited debate!


  10. 10
    frankyB

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    frankyB
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:56 pm)

    It is sad to see what happen back then, but at the end the market dictate what GM and the others sells. A lot of factors came in to explain the end of the EV1 project and remember, Toyota did that same treatment to their EV. I’m not trying to excuse them, I’m just saying there is not 1 evil, but many bad decisions brought the end to the EV1.

    The market has since evolved, for many reasons, the technology is better today and the oil price put pressure on the market, by 2011, 2012 oil price will force most people to chance their transport behavior and last, people are more environment conscious then before.

    For GM, the good is they can use what they learned from the EV1 and for me, it makes me more confident to go for the Volt version 1.

    Enough negative talk about the EV1, let the past be the past and move on.


  11. 11
    Campy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Campy
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (9:56 pm)

    Lyle, I love ya, but you’re going to find a lot of people that disagree with you on this.


  12. 12
    Bernie Torbik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bernie Torbik
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:02 pm)

    #4 Kent – You really should check your facts about electricity generation in California before making ignorant statements.

    1. Over 30% of the electricty generated by Southern California Edison, which serves much of Southern CA, comes from solar, wind and hydro.
    2. PGE, which services Northern CA, generates slightly more from renewables because of the greater availability of hydro.
    3. These figures will rise by 2010 when a state mandate to generate 20% of electric power from renewables EXCLUDING hydro takes effect. Including hydro, the total will be over one-third of all power generated in CA.
    4. The City of San Francisco’s power is derived almost entirely from geothermal energy.
    5. There are several other projects underway throughout CA to harness new tidal power, geothermal, solar and wind sites. NERL estimates that a small area of the Mojave Desert can provide enough electrical power for the enitre state. The same is true of similar areas in AZ and NV.

    These are but a few examples of clean, zero emission energy already in place in CA, and able to power EVs. I’m proud to call CA home, and of that it has taken a leading role in the development of clean, renewable energy sources that are an example for the entire world.


  13. 13
    Grizzly

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Grizzly
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:07 pm)

    Bernie #12

    Even if your facts are correct, they have nothing to do with the economics of the EV-1.

    Maybe you should concentrate your efforts on writing Rick Wagoner’s next public address. ;)


  14. 14
    Jason M. Hendler

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason M. Hendler
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:09 pm)

    … so in reality, the EV1 was still born. GM overhyped what their tech could do, and CARB mandated that hype – so foolish on both their parts.


  15. 15
    Bernie Torbik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bernie Torbik
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:16 pm)

    Grizzly #13 – The facts concerning the EV-1 aren’t in dispute. Kent’s statement concerning the availability of zero-emission power to charge EVs is in dispute.

    As for writing a Rick Wagoner speech, I’ve already provided you with his real letter to GM’s shareholders in another post :-)


  16. 16
    bruce g

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    bruce g
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:19 pm)

    My goodness,
    These car shows are very overhyped.
    A year ago GM put up a mockup and called it the Chevy Volt.
    It was aerodynamically unsound and for the last eight months they were uncertain as to whether it was possible to produce, they still are unsure about the price range.
    They havent changed much.


  17. 17
    Ziv

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ziv
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:20 pm)

    The EV1 was an overpriced pig that could have found one or two thousand purchasers. It was short legged, the recharging protocol was irritating and it seated only two people. Every other auto manufacturer abandoned their EV program within a few years of the demise of the EV1, have you seen any new electric RAV4′s?
    The Volt, a 4 seat hatchback with nearly unlimited range, will probably sell 10,000 the first 12 months it is on the market, and after that its potential sales will probably be more than we can imagine.
    The EV1 was a dog, the Volt remedies all the shortcomings. There haven’t been any BEV’s since the EV1, with or without lead acid, nimh or LiIon. Because BEV’s don’t work. Talk about Tesla, Mitsubishi, all of the potential BEV’s, they are all talk. The EV1 was a car noone wanted, despite the movie. The Volt is a car that will change the way the world looks at ICE’s and cars in general. If GM has the courage and intelligence to actually build it in numbers sufficient to make a difference….


  18. 18
    Jeff

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:22 pm)

    Hmmm….Folks are still driving the Toyota EVs which were built at the same time as the EV-1. Did the article mention this vehicle?


  19. 19
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:30 pm)

    Attached are some specs and performance data for the EV-1 (from DOE supported tests).

    http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf

    Note the NiMH battery pack weighs in at 481 kg, or 1060 lbs. The lead acid battery pack weighed in at over 1300 lbs.

    Note that although the car could achieve good economy (168 Wh/mile at 60 mph), it required 373 Wh/mile AC due to charging inefficiency (the inductive charging).

    Although 4.3 inches of ground clearance and large battery pack can work in sunny So. California, it wouldn’t cut it in northern climates with cold temps and lots of snow.

    To make automobiles affordable, GM relys on high production volume. In model year 2007, GM built over 40,000 Corvettes, and that would be considered a lower volume production. Was there a market for 40,000 EV-1′s ($.0373 per mile fuel cost per link, and limited range) when in the late ’90′s gasoline was $1.25 per gallon? Much to your dismay, Will Mackin, common sense tells us no.

    Note that some EV-1′s were given to Universities or museums, but only after GM removed the more proprietary equipment, such as the drive system and power electronics. The rest were returned to GM I’m sure for liability reasons, as well as the aforementioned proprietary reasons.

    Note that the EV-1 is really not dead, but actually is transforming into the Chevy Volt and other E-Flex vehicles. See this link for more discussion.

    http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252


  20. 20
    Arch

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Arch
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:30 pm)

    WOW The game gets interesting! I wonder how many are paid to be here?

    Take Care
    Arch


  21. 21
    Ziv

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ziv
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (10:35 pm)

    Jeff, there are people driving them, but they have a 0-60 of about 15 seconds. They can go about 100 miles before their owner is looking for an extension cord, which makes them a nice commuter vehicle, but not a real car with a decent range. People are still driving AMC Pacers, but I wouldn’t want to be one of them.


  22. 22
    Grizzly

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Grizzly
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (11:11 pm)

    Jeff #18

    I’m not going to criticize Toyotya’s decision to finally (reluctantly) sell 300+ or so to the public w/o any support or parts. If anyone had to do it over they’d have made the same choice. 20/20 hind is a beautiful thing no matter how late it comes ;) .

    Please keep in mind that Toyota never made any money off these and wouldn’t have even if they actually sold volumes in multiples of what they did.

    What happened to the rest of the RAV-4 EV’s? They were crushed.
    The problem with “Idiot Box America” is that inquiring minds only watch a film and think it’s history, and think the check out isle is the library. ;)


  23. 23
    Jeff M

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff M
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (11:14 pm)

    Brad is exactly right… the article Lyle references is “crap”. The fact that it mentions only the original lead acid batteries, which were flawed to begin with (GM decided to use their own brand instead of better ones available) is a big hint that the article is biased in the least….

    While I would have rather had a Toyota Rav4-EV instead, the EV-1, with the cobasys NiMH batteries, were ahead of their time.

    It’s a shame we have to keep re-discussing this topic… but of course the cost of each EV-1 was expensive… they were essentialy hand built in small numbers. The Volt, if produced in the same quantity, would be even more expensive per unit.

    And I’ve pointed to it before, but EVWorld.com has taken the page for now… but folks need to be reminded that GM had a prototype EV-1 that was stretched to be a 4 seater, and to make room as they put a turbine engine on as part of the generator set as a “range extender” (GM even used the term “series hybrid” still as they didn’t have marketing dept involved yet). This was back in the late 1990′s folks… not 2008! If California’s ZEV mandate wasn’t gutted this site wouldn’t even exist as EV’s and especially range extended EV’s would have long been common place.

    I know I’ll take heat for it… but Lyle, shame on you! Calling Angus MacKenzie’s article “thoughtful” really says something. Then again, maybe it should be shame on me for thinking a “fan site” would be objective


  24. 24
    Jeff M

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff M
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (11:19 pm)

    googling it looks like the article regarding the late 1990′s prototype stretched EV-1 with a turbine engine powered generator as a range extender is still up… see

    http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm

    and fwiw, being a turbine engine, I believe it was “flex fuel” before the term became hip.


  25. 25
    Dave99

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave99
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (11:24 pm)

    To 1. Vincent – people rounded up money, but do you have any estimate about the cost to maintain and support these cars? if one broke down, where would they get a replacement part? Until you can provide a sound back-of-the-envelope calculation proving that this is feasible, your statements are pure speculation/opinion.

    To all – if these cars were economically feasible, then you’d see them on the market right now in mass quantities. Why would multiple companies literally crush technology that would bring them profits? I don’t see why everyone thinks the EV-1 should have been forced into a market that wouldn’t accept it (although I do think it was a technology milestone). I’m not going to throw my own money down the drain if a much cheaper alternative exists. Would anyone agree with the statement: “Capitalism killed the electric car” ?


  26. 26
    Dave99

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave99
     Says

     

    May 11th, 2008 (11:42 pm)

    To everyone mentioning the battery discrepancy in the article – please throw out some numbers to validate that the improved batteries would have made enough of a difference to Save the Electric Car.

    To 22. Jeff M – GM probably used their own battery formula because it was cheaper (despite a lower performance). If a company can keep a process in-house and manufacture it themselves, it is a lot cheaper than buying from another company. So, that leads to a trade-off: do you use your cheaper technology in hopes of making a lower bottom line, or is another technology worth paying for? Sure they could have used Cobasys batteries, but would the improvement been worth the extra cost to the customer?

    To all (again) – As opinionated as everyone is, no one here has the end-all answer. I bothers me how many people simply “know” the correct answer, “because it is apparent.” It is a balancing act, you can’t make statements like “if they only” without accurately judging the consequences.


  27. 27
    2Snowboard

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    2Snowboard
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:28 am)

    Wow, I figured this article would draw the kooks out, just didn’t realize they would come so quickly.

    Thanks for posting an article saying what I’ve been arguing for a while, while that mindset makes conspiratorial, small minded people feel smart and deductive “figuring out” the nefarious designs of the Big 3 in the 90′s, the truth is that I come here ever day, I’m fascinated by an alternative to ICEs, but if someone offered me an EV1 for free I wouldn’t take it unless I could keep my current car, no middle class person would use these things as primary transportation. Range anxiety is real, as a coworker of mine in CA is fond of saying whenever anyone brings up the EV1, “the only time you would ever see them in LA was when they were on the back of a tow truck after having run out of power”

    The EV1 wasn’t killed, it was a suicide. The world is fortunate it was never mass produced so that the name of “electric car” wasn’t tainted by the stench of its colossal failure. The only problem is we’ve had a decade to suffer these fools hopelessly deluded into thinking it would have overcome its fatal flaw. Its like listening to idiot sport fans yammer on how well their team would have done “if only they had made the playoff” which they missed on account of their own failures.


  28. 28
    Grizzly

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Grizzly
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:58 am)

    Simply put:

    The EV-1 was introduced in “show -boat ” fashion to gain “good will” and market favor in the hopes of selling more cross-badged under developed vehicles by none other than the master Roger Smith.

    A fleeting eye caught this and much to Roger’s chagrin, what he hoped had been “good will” was now reality and a mandate.

    Understanding that companies are in business to make money, the rest is history. Unfortunately a few still view GM as the “Evil of all”. So be it, but lest they understand that befriending these companies and working with them is far more in their interest than antagonism, and confrontation if they ever hope to see their world. :)

    .


  29. 29
    ghost

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ghost
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:29 am)

    blah blah blah

    That’s totally ridiculous points have been pointed out.

    They forget to mention GM sold the battery technology to big oil.
    Gimmie a break – GM had a huge helping hand in killing the electric car – and that rose-coloured view of events doesn’t hold any water with me.

    Produce the volt – and I forgive you Gm.


  30. 30
    Sentinel

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Sentinel
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:34 am)

    Now where is the :popcorn: smiley when you need it???? I need to have a big bag of popcorn to really enjoy todays show…. LOL!!!!!!


  31. 31
    Darius

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Darius
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:19 am)

    Why small gas turbine is out of consideration now for plug-ins? Turbines are much more efficient, lighter and can use variety of fuels.


  32. 32
    Jim I

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim I
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:32 am)

    Lyle:

    What were you thinking? A thread like this is just going to bring out all the GM hating trolls.

    The EV-1 as been discussed to death here, so why do we have to do this again and again?

    You can NEVER change someone’s mind, once it is made up, especially when it is emotion that is the driving force of their decision.

    I really enjoy this site, but rehashing old cars and bad decisions is not what the Volt is all about. What will tomorrow’s thread be – discussing the bad decision making behind the Edsel?

    GM has acknowledged they made very bad decisions in the past. The question to everyone out there is: How long do you want to keep smacking GM in the face about it?

    It is time to let this go and move on……………

    JMHO


  33. 33
    Kevin R

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kevin R
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:48 am)

    Interesting from all sides of the aisle. The fact remains that we need to displace gas as our primary automotive energy source and that is beginning to happen. Many electric cars are slated to be introduced in the first quarter of next year.


  34. 34
    brad

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    brad
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:54 am)

    I believe Lyle was right in posting this article here because it was recently posted on MotorTrend. By having this website’s fans visit MotorTrend’s and post comments on their article we can help to spread the word about the future of automobiles and the GM Volt. I believe that GM will produce the Volt. It will attract mostly men start to get the word about electric cars out. They will move the platform to a malibu shortly afterwards and women as well as men will snatch those up fast.


  35. 35
    Joe

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Joe
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:10 am)

    Isn’t it reasonable to believe that GM crush those cars so they would not get into the competitors hands? After all, GM spent over a billion dollars on those cars and I’m sure the Japanese would have like to put their hands on one of them. I find it not hard to figure out as to why GM acted the way they did.Those 1000 EV1 was like an experiment just like they are doing today with the 100 fuel cell cars ordinary people are driving on the road today. GM knew people would not buy the EV1 mainly because of high price. So, did GM act in a stupid way? No, they did not .Was the whole project a waste of money? No, GM knew the day for electric cars would come and that day is today. That experience gained will pay off today with the Volt!!!!


  36. 36
    Dave B

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave B
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:34 am)

    Kent & Griz,

    GM could have terminated the program without physically crushing the cars…in the view of cameras nonetheless. One of the top ten dumbest PR moves in history. I don’t care if the program was not economically viable; the way it was handled was purely idiotic.


  37. 37
    Vincent

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vincent
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:36 am)

  38. 38
    jabroni

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jabroni
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:37 am)

    Lyle – The history of the EV1 is not ambiguous and happened only a few short years ago, so for someone like this Angus fellow to make such outlandish claims is nothing short of outrageous. It really is not wise to reproduce his mendacities.

    Angus MacKenzie could not be more wrong. The EV1 was sabotaged, never given a change and then crushed like yesterday’s refuse. Has anyone on this board ever watched GM’s advertisements for the EV1? They were scary. Ridiculous.

    The EV1 with Ovonics NiMH batteries could travel 160 miles, which is 4 times further than our Volt.

    There was even a serial hybrid EV1 concept that could have been produced and could have been on the roads for the past 10 years, but no, GM and Big Oil would not allow it. See the concept of the Volt predecessor here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GMEV1serieshybrid.jpg


  39. 39
    Vincent

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vincent
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:48 am)

  40. 40
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:37 am)

    #4 kent beuchert

    “Of course, we are talking California, here, where common sense seems very hard to come by…”,

    That is very bigoted of you.


  41. 41
    Joe

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Joe
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:41 am)

    Would it be idiotic if GM were to let the Japanese get a hold of their new fuel cell cars? Anyone with common sense would say that would be idiotic on a grand scale. I don’t understand how some people think! Kent #35 thinks GM handle it in an idiotic way. Then I ask Kent, how should it have been handle?


  42. 42
    MetrologyFirst

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    MetrologyFirst
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (9:16 am)

    Sentinel @29:

    I actually have some. Don’t you love these discussions by people who get their facts from movies?

    I particularily like the overuse of the term “crush”. It really brings on an emotional image for these folks. Like the cars had souls or something.


  43. 43
    Dr. Science

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dr. Science
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (9:16 am)

    Very interesting.
    Why not utilize existing micro turbine technology as the range extender for the GM-Volt ??

    See it @ http://www.capstoneturbine.com

    A true flex fuel generator


  44. 44
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (9:46 am)

    OK, the batteries are ready NOW and battery technology is getting MORE venture capital and tax redistribution/corporate welfare funding than EVER before so batteries & ultracapacitors will be getting even better VERY quickly.

    The reason for this story is NOT so we can enjoy kicking this dead EV-1 horse yet AGAIN. We must continue to keep the pressure on automakers to build economical Battery EVs both with and without range-extenders and plug-in hybrids.


  45. 45
    Bob

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bob
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (10:04 am)

    Did everyone miss the $80,000.00 price tag? The Gen 1 MSRP was $33,995.00. They weren’t charging anything like what it cost. The NiMH batteries only made it more expensive.

    GM lost money on each and every car. If it had been more “successful” they would have lost *more* money. That kind of success can kill a company.

    The EV1 was a really cool toy. It was a third car for rich people.


  46. 46
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (10:09 am)

    Electric cars have lower maintenance costs, and that hurts the bottomline of GM. Oil changes, exhaust systems, spark plugs, etc. Even brake pads get changed far less frequently because of regenerative braking in both hybrids and electrics.

    There are over 40K low speed electrics on America’s streets today. By and large, they have much shorter ranges than did the EV1. It is ludicrous to believe, with hybrid sales up 38% last year, and car sales overall down 3%, that the public would not buy highway speed capable electric cars.

    Hopefully, the all electric cityZENN, Tesla Whitestar and Bluestar, Phoenix Motors SUV and SUT, ZAP-X, and Think Ox will drive a spike through Detroit’s incestuous relationship with Big Oil.

    Perhaps GM will realize they simply need to mass produce the EV1, stretch it into a 4-door 5-seater, and replace the NiMH batteries with L-Ion and ultracapacitors. With luck Toyota will follow the lead and revive the RAV4 EV.


  47. 47
    OhmExcited

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    OhmExcited
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (10:23 am)

    GM are now saying that the future of cars is electric. The EV1 should have been seen as a loss leader for GM, and they should still be making a few to keep enhancing and perfecting their electric drivetrain technology. The Apple Lisa cost something like $10,000, and that was in 1983 dollars.


  48. 48
    TOM M

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    TOM M
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (10:48 am)

    OK, so lets look at something I found last friday. I think this is just the begining of what may be in store for us. Many of you are so technoloically inclined, Lord knows what ya’ll be driving in ten years.
    At my age I’ll probably not be here to see it. The EV1 is past history let it lay and look to the future.

    Check this sight . . . . . http://www.poulsenhybrid.com
    God Bless America !!!

    Tom


  49. 49
    scott

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    scott
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:05 am)

    Lyle –
    I applaud (yes, applaud) you for posting this article, not because I believe 100% of what Agnus is saying by because it shows good journalism on your part. This is another side of the argument and like it or not we are better for being introduced to it rather than blindly traveling through this site as if our views and opinions are tho only ones that exist. Thank you for puttign it out there and letting us discuss this. There’s so much more to the story that wat was shown in one documentary.

    One thing I have a problem whit in Who Killed the Electric Car is the idea that the NIMH battery being sold to an oil company was what killed any hope of the success of this car. NIM’s are nothing new, and there are a LOT of companies, if asked and given money, could have produced a battery comparable or better than the technology they sold. Toyota had a NIMH as well. GM could have found another supplier in the last 10 yeas if they had wanted to. It was their complacency that killed the electric car.


  50. 50
    noel park

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:07 am)

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) made a ruling that manufacturers had to produce 2% electric cars by a date certain to be allowed to continue selling cars in California. This was an attempt, not unlike all of the “technology forcing” smog regulations it has passed before, to clean up the dirtiest air in the nation.

    Everyone knew that they wouldn’t make money. It was a cost of entry into the largest car market in the country.

    As soon as the auto industry was able to roll up enough lobbyists, lawyers, and political contributions to get the regulation removed, they quit “forcing” this then very expensive technology. Do we see the hand of the oil industry here? Back to the good old way of doing business. More light trucks and SUVs, thank you very much.

    I am old enough to remember the mid-sixties, when the first smog regulations came in. Much wringing of hands, “Oh it’s too expensive”, “Oh no one will buy it”, “Oh we’ll go broke”, etc., etc. Only this time they made it stick.

    Imagine where we would be today if CARB had the courage of its convictions.


  51. 51
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:08 am)

    There were a lot of problems with selling America on the EV1. It looks a lot better in hind sight than it did then. Let’s give GM credit for the work they did on the EV1.

    I was looking at the EV1 fan web-site last week and noticed the striking similarity of the EV1′s frame, engine and battery lay-out with the Volt. It looks like GM just picked up where they left off. Everyone of you should check out the site and visit all the pages.

    http://ev1-club.power.net/

    There is a lot of info on this web-site.

    Thank you GM for the EV1 and the future Volt. I am looking forward to owning one or two. And I want a pick-up truck (small truck, not full sized) to compliment the Volt. Same power train, etc.


  52. 52
    2Snowboard

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    2Snowboard
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:13 am)

    #38 jabroni
    Please cite an example of how GM sabotaged its own product. (No, a movie does not count as a source)

    There was too much of “a change” for the EV1 to prove it was economically viable, as others posted before you, only rich people who can afford to drop 80K on an experimental 3rd car with minimum range would have bought it. Let’s not forget the awful 6 hour charge time!

    Also addressed by others on here is the emotive “crush” you brought up which occurred to keep competitors from reverse engineering it, or worse, pointing out the many flaws in its design when they released their own.

    I do not question your distrust of Big Oil, and I believe they are not above trying to sabotage a method for getting off their monopoly, what I haven’t seen is a direct or indirect connection between them and any automaker. If there is such a document or video, now would be the time to release it as people are rather upset at $4 a gallon. Such a link could put more pressure on that company to bring something viable to market.

    As it is, I think you and everyone else on this thread complaining about how this car should have been mass produced and how evil the American automakers are happen to be full of something similar to crude oil, but with a more solid consistency.


  53. 53
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:21 am)

    Just for fun:

    Electric car climbs Pikes Peak
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgJdey87R2s


  54. 54
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:24 am)

    By the way, I believe from the sticker on the side of it that they had LG Chem / A123 batteries in the car.


  55. 55
    ksuhwail

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ksuhwail
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:27 am)

    I don’t see what the big idea is?

    GM is a company out to make a profit; Not an enviromental group!

    Why would people buy a car like this when gas was $1 a gallon or less? Considering the frame of reference in the mid ’90s (no global warming, high gas prices etc.) give me my Camaro!

    GM DIDN’T KILL THE ELECTRIC CAR!….CONSUMERS DID!

    Now if everyone on here blaming GM grew a pair and owned up to the fact that they were not running to buy one we might be able to move on from the Opra show we have going on here.


  56. 56
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:27 am)

    Venturi Fetish all electric sports car
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEVuwBhTm6Y

    Common, GM!


  57. 57
    ksuhwail

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ksuhwail
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:34 am)

    What I don’t understand is that GM actually made an electric car nobody wanted and gets crucified for it.

    Toyota has been making the Prius since ’97 and hasn’t made an electric version in over a decade of the cars existance. However, they are praised as a green company.

    Why isn’t Toyota crucified for this? GM is making the VOLT (ability to use NO gas)….Toyota makes the Prius (Gas is required). Who is imbedded with the oil companies more?

    Can somebody please explain this hipocracy to me?


  58. 58
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:35 am)

    2007 Toyota Yaris conversion to electric
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fSMIiSIlI8

    GM can do it too….


  59. 59
    Nick

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nick
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:38 am)

    OMG another EV-1 post Lyle?? Why don’t you just call everyone on this site a bunch of rich nerds with no kids…. oh wait…


  60. 60
    Joe

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Joe
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:55 am)

    Have you not heard, Toyota can do no wrong? Oh, those Toyota people are so so great!! That is the kind of mentality many Americans have and I just don’t get it. I find it so bad, it is bordering an anti-American sentiment.


  61. 61
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:56 am)

    Ziv #17 says, “The Volt, a 4 seat hatchback with nearly unlimited range, will probably sell 10,000 the first 12 months it is on the market, and after that its potential sales will probably be more than we can imagine.”

    I doubt it, Ziv. I would say 10,000 units in 12 days, not 12 months.


  62. 62
    eric

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    eric
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:58 am)

    #8 Gm did let some of the s-10 ev out to the public probably because many of the body parts are still being made unlike ev1.


  63. 63
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:07 pm)

    Dave B #36. I agree, but in hindsight. How much money did GM make by crushing those cars? I’m guessing not much. So they could have simply given the cars to the people that wanted them, but with no warranty what-so-ever. Instead, then gained a lot a negative press. But like I said, this is hindsight.


  64. 64
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:12 pm)

    Guys and the 2 percent of you that are women,

    The EV-1 is dead and has been for a while. It is not the present, nor the future. The Volt is. It’s that simple. If GM has learned from past mistakes and corrects them, that is all we can ask. Currently, we can not travel back in time to change things. if we could, I have a laundry list of things I would like to change.


  65. 65
    Steven B

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Steven B
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:20 pm)

    I still don’t understand how people think that an enduring relationship (conspiracy) between big auto and big oil has ever existed. Big auto is in the business of making cars, plain and simple, they have never been oil companies, and while building a big auto/big oil trust would have probably been a good idea from the start, it’s been illegal since the early 20th century. The only place where the interests of big oil and big auto co-exist is in the chambers of Congress. Bad legislation, with the key example being undertaxed fuel that resulted in $1 per gallon gasoline in the 1990′s, has been the problem since the start.

    It sickens me each time I think about the fact that the US has had 30 effing years to resecure American energy sufficiency and price stability. 30 years!!! And people praise Reagan as a good President when mentioning it. All Reagan did was lift the restraints on US oil production so our wells ran dry at a faster rate. Bush 41 continued the same policies and established the precedent of dragging the US into Middle East affairs in order to secure the oil supply. Clinton was the one to establish the Office of FREEDOMCAR and Vehicle Technologies at the Department of Energy and have them develop hybrid cars, plug-ins, and other advanced automotive technologies. But come G. W. Bush and all the good policies that had been made since Carter tried to re-establish American energy security were unraveled. We all know what has happened, and especially our entanglement in Iraq.

    But back to the point, the problem hasn’t been big oil and big auto, it has been bad government. The manipulation of small-minded people into equating big government with bad government has led us to an under-regulated business environment and allowed the market to fail in the exact way it has. We could have used public policy that made gasoline have a stable cost of $3 or $3.50 a gallon for the past thirty years, but now we’re all screwed because we have done nothing to stabilize the cost of gasoline or oil.

    The EV1 was DOA because of the business environment it worked in. Everything that will make the Volt a business success story all worked against the EV1. The ZEV-mandate was the worst over-reaching government policy in recent memory, and the worst thing about it is how the Bush Adminstration sued California to stop it. Government abuses all around. We need big government to protect us from the modern business environment, as well as the challenges we face every day, but we need good government even more. We’ve had bad government for way too long.


  66. 66
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:49 pm)

    All Jimmy Carter did for energy conservation is to tell us to wear an extra sweater when it got cold. Clinton talked a good line, but did not accomplish dip sh*t. Reagan and both Bushes were and are like all the rest of our presidents – in the pockets of special interests. And I mean ALL of them. No party or president is free of the clutching hands of the special interests.

    Let us not get on this band wagon or soap box of blame. There is plenty to go around. What we want to do is to pull together and see the advent of electric vehicles, starting with the Volt. The problem GM has is getting to market before they are submerged by the competition. The other car manufacturers are not sitting still waiting for the Volt to carve out its niche. They intend to do some carving of their own.

    Lt’s get the lead out GM!!!!


  67. 67
    srschrier

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    srschrier
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:52 pm)

    The four passenger Hybrid EV-1 is retro attractive:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GMEV1serieshybrid.jpg

    Was the Hybrid EV-1 fully engineered and was it ever on a test track? If it was engineered and the production design still exists could GM manufacture it today, as well as make the Volt?


  68. 68
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (12:55 pm)

    Steve B

    And who will protect us from YOUR big government? Government can’t get much bigger than it is now. We don’t have all that nice protection you speak of. Government needs to get the hell out of the way and let American industry do what it does best. Find a market that is screaming to be served and serve it. If we wait for BIG government to do something for us we will all freeze in hell. All BIG government is good for is taxing and spending and it doesn’t matter which party is in power. Government is the fastest growing part of our economy. I think a lot of pruning is called for.


  69. 69
    2Snowboard

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    2Snowboard
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (1:36 pm)

    Steven B,
    Your open desire for bigging government should frighten all Americans familiar with the Constitution.

    Incidentally, while you were knighting Carter, wasn’t he the same fellow who stood by while America descended into its only gas crisis? Didn’t he play footsie with the Ayatollah Khomeini before he came to power who stabbed him in the back by taking hostages, creating a culture of hatred of the US, and further emboldened OPEC? Didn’t he create the bumbling, beaurocratic, and hopeless inconsistent Department of Energy to “solve” all these problems with the heavy hand of government?

    Keep your omnipotent Big Government and leave the empty partisanship to other forums.


  70. 70
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (1:52 pm)

    A stable price of $3.00 per gallon! For the past 30 years! Can you even imagine what $3.00 per gallon would have done to our economy for the last 30 years starting in 1978? No one but extremely rich people, politicians and government could have afforded gasoline at $3.00 per gallon in the late 70′s, 80′s or 90′s. Can’t hardly afford it now. Some people have to decide how to spend their paychecks now and sometimes buying gas is not part of the decision.

    It seems as some people think that the only time government is bad, is when it isn’t much bigger than it is and when it isn’t taxing us to death. Raising taxes on the necessities is not the way to go. Government (which means the politicians) will try to control everything it does not understand. Politicians do not want you to use your mind to think. They want to “buy” your vote with all these “free” programs that you get with out having to put out a plug nickel. And that is about what some of them is worth – a plug nickel.

    We do need government. Don’t get me wrong. Government needs to deal with other nations, charge duties on incoming and sometime outgoing goods, monitor exportation of goods that is our national interest to not let fall in the wrong hands and provide for the national defense. Beyond that the Founding Fathers gave little else t the federal government. The bad government we have today is the result of politicians and judges going off on “feel good” policies that have very little justification in reality. We have created a “nanny state” that we can no longer avoid. Government is the do all for everyone these days. We seek no answers until government is apprised of our need. If government has no policy to satisfy our needs, the courts and politicians develops one. Government (again politicians) only want to provide what it takes to keep you voting for their reelection. We have established a new “ruling class” and it is made up of the same good, every day politician that we keep reelecting year after year.

    Sorry, but these earlier comments by Steven B has gotten my dander up. I hope Steven will be happy with the government we elect in the coming years. I hope he is very young and will get to live a very long time so that he will first hand experience with the new world of nanny government. My apologies to you Steven, if I offend you. I do not intend to do so. But you need to have your mind checked. Something is not working properly.


  71. 71
    mien green

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mien green
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:01 pm)

    Commenting on an urban legend, as perpetrated by the documentary and feeding into a popular conspiracy theory, is topical. At this point, perception perseveres over any realities to the contrary. Plus the EV-1 is now perceived as an iconic milestone in the electrification of personal transportation and away from the social influence of the oil producers. And whatever GM’s motives, summarily destroying all these crafted machines of such arching design and production effort remains borderline insane if not asinine.


  72. 72
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:02 pm)

    2Snowboard

    You remember the Carter I remember. And he is still playing footsie with our enemies. Carter is a disgrace more today than ever. He should stick with Habit For Humanity where he was at least recouping some of his reputation.


  73. 73
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:04 pm)

    Steven B #62 says, “We’ve had bad government for way too long.”
    I agree completely.

    Steven B # 62 says, “We need big government to protect us from the modern business environment, as well as the challenges we face every day,…….”

    Well, screw that. I want much smaller but better government.
    The current one we have is simply a collection of useless skin.
    We don’t have dems and reps now. We have idiots. You want bigger?
    The last thing we need are more idiots.


  74. 74
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:09 pm)

    mien green

    I agree. We do not know all the reasons for destroying the EV1. GM must have had some pretty good reasons, but it was still a big mistake. Hindsight is great, isn’t it?

    Even by today’s standards, the EV1 would be truly outstanding. I wish GM had at least kept working on it in private. I don’t think much thought was given to electric vehicles until after 2001. I think 9/11 changed the whole ball game. I honestly believe GM knew then that we had to get off mid-east oil. We are funding the very terrorists who want to kill us. And most of the middle east governments support the terrorist, especially the Saudis.


  75. 75
    Brian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brian
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:12 pm)

    This idea that a fully electric car is not viable is disproved by Tesla Motors.

    http://www.teslamotors.com

    - 0-60 in 3.9 seconds
    - 250 miles per charge

    All GM really has to do is replace the lead-acid batteries with lithium-ion, and use the new high performance electric motor from AC Propulsion which drives the Tesla.

    The AC Propulsion power system (motor + controller) weighs only 170 pounds yet has better performance than a V8 gasoline engine.

    How much does a V8 typically weigh? At least 650 pounds according to what I see on the web.

    Of course the batteries on the Tesla are probably 500 pounds, but still, batteries + power system on the Tesla comes out to the weight of the engine alone on a gasoline car.

    Fully electric is superior.

    If you’re going to have a plug in hybrid, the range extender should be just a portable electric generator mounted in the back, not a V-anything engine. That’s adding unneeded weight.


  76. 76
    ksuhwail

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ksuhwail
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:28 pm)

    At least GM is developing its own technology….

    Check out what Toyota just got caught doing….

    http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/12/toyota-lose-patent-appeal-for-prius/

    Now imagine if Toyota was required to pull every car off the road just like they wanted to do to RIM for the Blackberry issue.


  77. 77
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (2:49 pm)

    OH, the conspiracies!
    sigh
    Let it go
    Build the Volt


  78. 78
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:01 pm)

    Tagamet:

    Amen!


  79. 79
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:08 pm)

    Looking at all the new cars at the New York Auto Show just makes me want the Volt to hurry up and get here. Forget all the talk, the disagreements about this or that, just get the Volt made so we can all start enjoying it.


  80. 80
    2Snowboard

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    2Snowboard
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:21 pm)

    #71 Brian
    “This idea that a fully electric car is not viable is disproved by Tesla Motors.”

    Are you serious? Are they viable because they produced 1 expensive car this year, or because they are on the verge of rolling the 2nd one off the assembly line? The automotive industry shakes under the thunder of this approaching herd!

    Perhaps the term “viable” is tripping you up. A major company like GM has to produce 100s of thousands of cars for a line to be “viable” I see no evidence from what you posted that the EV1 could have EVER approached those numbers. Some people talked about it evolving into a series hybrid, in that case, yes it had potential. that potential will be realized if the Volt can deliver on its specs, which incidentally I have seen no spec that says it will have a V8 engine.

    Full electric is INFERIOR and fatally flawed design. I never want to have my transportation fully dependent on the power grid. That is including the age when batteries become more efficient and we can get 200 miles per charge, no thanks I have a bad feeling about that, I always want the engine in there, preferably biodeisel. You want to design one that can be easily removed and still deliver reasonable power, (no VW buses please) be my guest.


  81. 81
    Storm

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Storm
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:29 pm)

    I drive an electric car. The idea of a battery pack that could give me 100 miles or more leaves me breathless. I only get 35 or so. Even at 35, it is still a practical vehicle. It is no a practical ‘only’, but it strikes me that many families have more than one vehicle. Why is it necessary that all vehicles have the same capabilities?
    http://www.evalbum.com/1059


  82. 82
    Steven B

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Steven B
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:36 pm)

    Plug-in hybrids will always be the ideal design for any EDV. All battery or ultracap always has the same problem: it takes too long to recharge. Putting in a generator and a fuel tank solves the problem, period. That won’t change. It’s called “right-sizing.” Lugging around enough batteries to drive for 200 miles when you only drive a little over half of that, at most, in a normal day is a huge heavy waste. Keeping the engine and gas tank is more efficient.


  83. 83
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:41 pm)

    2Snowboard

    I like the Volt concept because it gives us the best of both worlds. We need the electric side for daily commutes and the gas-to-electric generation side for those longer trips. The Volt will be an all purpose vehicle that will revolutionize the auto world. If GM can get it done….

    Storm

    Congratulations on driving an electric car. The Volt will be a great car for you, too.


  84. 84
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:45 pm)

    Steven B

    At last you make a statement where I find myself in full agreement.

    When you are right, you are right.


  85. 85
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (3:46 pm)

    Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Sometimes you’ve got to dive into something and hope for the best. If it doesn’t work out, dust yourself off, learn from your mistakes, and do better next time. For whatever reasons, factors did not converge to make the EV-1 a success. Give GM credit for trying.

    GM is trying again with the Volt. This Volt project was not a slam dunk when it was initiated. Some faith was involved. There was a risk that the technology could not be successfully applied to an e-rev. So far, so good. Perhaps the timing and the technology is right.

    To all you political Hatfield’s and McCoys: don’t dwell on the past too much. That will only impede today’s progress. Today is a new day. Together, we can strive towards the car we all want.

    p.s., conservatives are !@#$%heads – just kidding.


  86. 86
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (4:29 pm)

    Agreed, except for us conservatives. We do need to move forward and work for the success of the Volt program. All else is just noise.


  87. 87
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (4:36 pm)

    #82 N Riley
    Sorry about the cheap attempt at humor…You and me, buddy!


  88. 88
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (4:44 pm)

    ThombDbthomb

    Hey, that’s not cheap at all. You ought to see cheap.

    Keep up the good commentary…


  89. 89
    Jim I

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim I
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (4:59 pm)

    Just like I said at post #32:

    Re-hashing bad corportate decisions made years ago does nothing to get the Volt on the road as soon as possible…………..

    OK, GM got their spanking for today. Now can they get back to work?


  90. 90
    DaveP

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DaveP
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:13 pm)

    The problem with trying to divine any information from the sales or non-sales of the EV1 is that the market fundamentals were so distorted there is no way to actually read any information from it.
    1) there were no sales. Only leases. How many of you would lease a car let alone with no purchase option?
    2) You can’t even discuss whether it was underpriced, see #1!
    To asses whether or not EV-1 had any demand, they should have priced the thing near to what it cost and just sold them and see what happened. Sure, they probably wouldn’t have sold many but that hasn’t stopped GM, before.
    For example, the Corvette sells a lot, but not all models did. The 1990-1995 Corvette ZR-1 sold 6939 total units. And as an $18k “option” design by Lotus that changed virtually everything (even had it’s own VIN numbers that didn’t sequence with “regular” corvettes) including engines that had to be sand-cast at Mercury Marine; I think it qualifies as a “specialty” vehicle, to say the least. I see no reason GM couldn’t have done what Tesla is doing and just made the car and sold it for what it would sell for to whom it would sell to. THEN we could have had a real discussion about supply /demand/price. As it is, now, we will never know what could have been or what should have been.

    Finally, I note that there is an old saying that goes something like, “the only thing worse than taking something away from somebody is giving it back to them, broken”
    Which is precisely the mistake GM made with the EV-1. Worse, in fact, since GM broke them without even giving them back. :) Should have just let the people keep the EV-1′s and they would have been heroes. Or at least not villans. Ford and Toyota figured that leaving a few token EVs out there would not do them any real damage and I think that has proven true.

    What’s the point of this? GM, if you’re listening, there’s NO WAY IN HADES I will lease a Volt or it’s batteries from you. Just sell me the car, please. Thanks!

    Oh, and plenty of people in CA can provide 100% CO2 free power, thank you very much. I know I do every day.
    But crazy extremists aside :) , compare our California emissions (CO2 and otherwise) to other states and you’ll find we have significantly less:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
    Why? Becuase we pay more for relatively clean energy (eg that doesn’t use coal) so we can keep folks in LA with just slighly brown lungs :) Our mix is about half natural gas and half renewables/nukes/hydro:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05ca.xls
    And the solar portion is going to go up even more as we have mandated 10% from solar by 2010. Just in time for our Volts! :)


  91. 91
    bruce g

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    bruce g
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:22 pm)

    DaveP,
    Yes, and I think that argument applies to the Volt as well.
    GM should sell the Volt for what it is worth based on its production costs and reasonable markups.
    They will sell them all at any price and that will give them a clear view of the advantages/disadvantages of scaling up the production.


  92. 92
    OhmExcited

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    OhmExcited
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:28 pm)

    GM didn’t put their best foot forward on electric vehicles, because they were grudgingly doing it by mandate from California. The big difference with Tesla and now the Volt is that they’re doing it because they want to do it.

    GM and other car makers do have a long history of opposing mandates. They invented the catalytic converter and airbag, but simultaneously resisted laws putting them in the cars. There is no doubt that technological stagnation will be the norm for cash strapped auto makers, unless their board of directors take a risk on a long term strategy to change the game. So GM, car companies in general, get on board with bold technology leadership, the train is leaving.


  93. 93
    Steve

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Steve
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:35 pm)

    I’ll take 2 ev-1′s at 80,000 a piece, seems like a great deal.


  94. 94
    biodieseiljeep

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    biodieseiljeep
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:41 pm)

    To quote my second favorite zen koan:

    zzzzzvoltzzzzzvoltzzzzzzvoltzzzz

    Stil my favorite:

    I’m sorry honey, were you saying something?


  95. 95
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:46 pm)

    #88 Ohm Excited:

    The only risk bigger than bold technology leadership is the risk of technological stagnation, IMHO. When gas hits $6/gal, or wherever it’s going, the current business model will be DOA.


  96. 96
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:49 pm)

    #89 biodieseljeep:

    Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.


  97. 97
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (5:54 pm)

    #88 OhmExcited. Right on! Innovate or die! Be paranoid and always be in front of the competition. Not way behind playing catch-up.

    Noel, I heat my my house and hot water with a boiler system. It uses oil.
    When I moved into my house 4.5 years ago, I paid $1.05 a gallon. Tomorrow I am buying half a tank (about 125 gallons at $4.16 a gallon)
    What a difference 4.5 years makes. If I remember correctly, where you live you don’t need heat. You’re lucky that is one bill you don’t have to worry about. We are expecting to pay $4000 this winter to heat the house. 4.5 years ago, it was under $1000.


  98. 98
    DaveP

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DaveP
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:02 pm)

    #45 OhmExcited

    I actually own an Apple Lisa 2/10 office system. :)

    It’s a good analogy. This computer had a software paradigm which I think is still unequaled, today. However, the hardware was not affordably ready for that level of sophistication as witnessed by the 2MB of memory made up of two HUGE (like 14″ by 20″) boards each contining more chips than entire computers did in that day. And that was just the memory boards.

    Its memory issue was much analogous to our battery woes. However, thanks to continued development, we now have about 2GB of memory costing $50 instead of 2MB costing $5000. Granted battery development doesn’t command nearly the investment that semiconductors do, but increased demand for batteries will increase development will drive down prices, etc. Someday, batteries will no doubt hold their own on all fronts, but in the meantime, the Volt is a pretty good idea (that will probably help that day come, too).


  99. 99
    pete k

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    pete k
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:20 pm)

    N.riley (post 68),

    This thread has gone mental as a result of Lyle’s EV1 grenade so it was inevitable it would become political. However but I’m interested to see you slate Carter for engaging in dialogue with your ‘enemies’? – Do you seriously think America can BEAT them into some sort of submission in the absence of any dialogue?

    We tried to beat IRA terrorists here in the UK, and ultimately only dialogue resolved the problem.

    So… will YOU soon be volunteering to pick up a rifle and go and lose your limbs for a lost cause instead of those poor kids (yours and ours) who signed up to defend their country and got sent away to fight for YOUR petrol?

    As to the rest of this thread…..YAWN……I miss my ‘chats’ with James.


  100. 100
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:45 pm)

    Pete K. #94.
    Agreed.
    No matter what kind of relationship we have, communication is one of the most important things. We should all be talking first and fighting last. Not the other way around. But we must support our troops.
    They are forced to be in harms way by our leaders.


  101. 101
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (6:51 pm)

    #92 Rashiid Amul:

    Well we do have to heat some from about November to April. We also keep the thermostat on 62 during that time, to try to keep it down. We also get by with no AC. Having said that, it’s nothing next to what you are facing. On the other hand, you do not want to know what the houses cost, partly as a result. And as to the traffic and air pollution……… There’s no free lunch, I guess.

    #94 pete k:

    Well said brother.

    Have you heard Bruce Springsteen’s recent song, “Who’ll be the last to die for a mistake?” I guess it is an expression which came out of Viet Nam (remember that?), which Mr. S. has incorporated into a song. Pretty powereful stuff.


  102. 102
    John

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    John
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:00 pm)

    Vincent

    Interesting. People rounded up enough money to but the cars from GM. GM crushed them.

    =====================================================

    Did they “round up” enough money to pay GM for the cars as well as for the warranty and parts support for this car for the required (by law) ten years? Including opportunity costs?

    Another victim of Karl Marx here.


  103. 103
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:04 pm)

    Noel, I paid $268K for my ranch house on 1 acre of land surrounded on 2 sides by many many acres of woods. I live at the end of a cul-de-sac.
    Quiet and peaceful it is. I know about the housing costs where you live, and I feel bad for anyone having to pay so much to live there.
    As you said, no free lunch for anyone. Taxes are high here.
    Electricity is going higher and higher. Seems like I can’t win. I feel sorry for the older group on a fixed income though. There is just no where for them to go.


  104. 104
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:13 pm)

    Rashiid:

    Believe it or not, I am trying to be aware of not going off on political tangents here. Suffice it to say that something has got to change.

    An excellent place to start is by trying to curb our addiction to imported oil, and to keep as many US jobs as possible at home.

    Go Volt!


  105. 105
    RB

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    RB
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:24 pm)

    Every time a discussion of the EV1 comes to pass it becomes contentious and often acrimonious. The corollary is that my enthusiasm for buying a Volt or any other car from GM goes down. I don’t think I am alone. Whatever the historical truth, the EV1 has been an absolute catastrophe for GM’s reputation. If it was indeed true that “The reality is the EV1 was hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn’t able to do ” (Lyle’s quote from MT article) then it was highly unethical to put the EV1 on the market. Now the same people are selling the Volt.


  106. 106
    KT

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    KT
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:29 pm)

    I’m not quite sure what happened to this thread but to reply to the original article I hope everyone that is serious to find out the truth of a real world, purpose built electric car please check out the EV1 USER WEBSITE. http://ev1-club.power.net

    The Motor Trend article mentions 70-90 miles on the original lead-acid batteries. The people that drove EV1s day-in-day out mention 33-80 miles on a charge! DO click on “NiMH Previews.”

    The real world experience of the users of the EV1 should answer all the EV1 questions/issues. And of course raise new ones! I look forward to your comments.


  107. 107
    SM

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    SM
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (7:42 pm)

    Bringing up EV1 on this site is comparable to Abortion or death penalty issues. I don’t think people on either side will ever be convinced otherwise.

    Does anyone know if the Volt will inherit any technology from the Hy-wire concept? With much R&D money spent on colorful dreams, I would hope some of it would trickle down to the game changing car. Although having electric motor for steering would take away battery juice, so it’s probably not a good idea unless the weight of all the steering components would outweigh the energy draw. From earlier posts I recall that mass was not as big of a problem as the drag coefficient. Any thoughts?


  108. 108
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:02 pm)

    PEOPLE!
    Let it go
    Build the Volt
    Buy the Volt
    Time to move forward.


  109. 109
    mien green

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mien green
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:34 pm)

    The b and c parts of that mantra are still speculative.


  110. 110
    mien green

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mien green
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:37 pm)

    Or rather c and d if you consider “letting it go” to be a functional part in that step program.


  111. 111
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:37 pm)

    Not to me


  112. 112
    Grizzly

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Grizzly
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:39 pm)

    Tag # 108

    Amen. Otherwise we’d still be hearing from people who will/would never buy a Ford because of the Edsel. ;) In life we have to let go and move on, it’s a necessary process.


  113. 113
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (8:48 pm)

    Grizzly said:
    …In life we have to let go and move on, it’s a necessary process.

    We do have a choice to live in the past and fester like an open wound, or move on and grow. It’s pretty easy to determine which posters have chosen which.


  114. 114
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (9:43 pm)

    Up until a few years ago, I would put myself in the “casual observer” category regarding the EV-1.

    I read about the “Impact”, the prototype predecessor to the EV-1 in Design New magazine almost 20 years ago, and thought it was a progressive automobile. I knew that GM produced a small number of these vehicles, but living the NorthEast portion of the US, the car did not get much attention (it was only leased in CA and AZ). Once, while on a business trip to CA about 10 years ago, I did see one on the road. That is the only time I ever actually saw one.

    I was unaware that GM had terminated leases and “crushed” a number of the EV-1′s until recently. Now, with the release of the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”, I have read more on the story, but still have not actually seen the movie.

    Even though Ford, Toyota, and others manufactured electric cars, and exited the electric car business just like GM, it seems that GM is the company that receives the negative press. Granted some manufacturers sold their cars to the public, while GM did not, but nonetheless, these were in small numbers; and no manufacturer continued to offer BEV’s for sale.

    I basically see no valid reason why all this hatred would be directed at GM alone, but not at the other manufacturers. Then I thought, does anyone do a movie entitled “Who Killed the Vega”? No, because no one gives a s**t.

    Therefore, as a casual observer, given the fact that no manufacturer continued to offer BEV’s, and that the movie and the negative feelings about the loss of BEV’s seem to be directed at GM, but not their competitors, tells me that the EV-1 must have been an exceptional vehicle that was head and shoulders above the competition.


  115. 115
    mien green

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mien green
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (9:55 pm)

    Tag & Grizzle:

    it’s the “time to move forward” as a people that’s not necessarily a given in my mind.


  116. 116
    mien green

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mien green
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (9:59 pm)

    BillR:
    Read “The Little Car That Could” if you get the chance.


  117. 117
    Grizzly

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Grizzly
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (10:01 pm)

    BillR #114

    Yes, and unlike genocide or the holocaust, no one was killed or hurt. In the real world manufacturers such as Toyota, Nissan and Honda among them crushing a few cars is no big deal. Yes, they all did it. So let’s keep that in perspective and move on. Does anyone remember the mistake Coke made with discontinuing regular Coke for “new Coke”?

    The Volt will be produced, and GM will win. Right now they’ve got some problems, but no one better to manage them than Wagoner. This is *NOT* easy, but GM is doing the right thing and settling in a complete shift in business model as a long term pragmatic plan that needs to be done. There will be growing pains, but planning long term will be a first for a publicly held company like GM.


  118. 118
    john1701a

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    john1701a
     Says

     

    May 12th, 2008 (11:45 pm)

    >> The Volt will be produced, and GM will win.

    Win what?

    The goal is to change the market, not a “best” trophy.

    That means converting their a majority of the product line. Token sales aren’t enough. How long will it be until at least 10 percent are no longer guzzlers?


  119. 119
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (5:17 am)

    Noel, #104 says, “An excellent place to start is by trying to curb our addiction to imported oil, and to keep as many US jobs as possible at home.”

    Agreed. Wholeheartedly.


  120. 120
    RB

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    RB
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (7:33 am)

    #113 Tagamet says ” We do have a choice to live in the past and fester like an open wound, or move on and grow. It’s pretty easy to determine which posters have chosen which.”

    Perhaps you pigeonhole us too quickly, as there are more than two choices. Another choice is to look very carefully at the track record of GM, so as to learn from it, and to make use of that knowledge in the future. In this way we go forward, but smarter than before.

    Perhaps the lesson from the EV1 to be learned for the Volt is for the potential buyer (any one of us) to pay attention very very very carefully to the details of the contract — the price of course, but also the warranty, the warranty’s term, the plan for replacement parts, and every aspect of any rental or lease agreement for the battery. One must always keep in mind that GM may decide to walk away. After scrutiny, one still may wish to go ahead, but we have to remember whom we are dealing with and to be very very very careful to pay close attention.


  121. 121
    Jeff

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (8:25 am)

    118 john1701a

    Correct…even if the VOLT is considered the most advanced vehicle on the market, a limited production of E-FLEX or E-REV is not a game changer. The VOLT would be a “trophy”….I would call it a “space shuttle” or “showroom car”.

    Sure, I have no doubt that GM can build a few thousand E-FLEX vehicles. But can they make a profit on the E-FLEX…you know, the ability to keep a company in business.

    Based on current info, GM will more than likely follow the same old marketing ideas. The VOLT gets potential buyers to the dealerships, but not expand production of E-FLEX to rival the other powertrains. Hopefully I’m wrong…

    If the profit is from the other vehicles sold due to the VOLT attraction…aka “best trophy” car. E-FLEX could remain a powertrain for only the “trophy vehicle”.

    GM or any other large auto company did not become successful by selling vehicles that are not accessible by the masses. Of course, auto loans have made new cars under a certain dollar amount (and somewhere below $35K) available to the masses. But “debt upon debt” is another huge issue for this country.

    GM needs to rethink “blank check” when the first VOLT rolls off the production line. The “blank check” is just catch up money. Other companies will probably have vehicle somewhere between a hybrid and an E-FLEX by 2010. If the price difference is significant, E-FLEX will take longer to “catch on”. Toyota may just let 3rd parties have that business for a few more years…it might make more business sense.


  122. 122
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (8:28 am)

    ksuhwail #53 wrote:

    “Toyota … hasn’t made an electric version in over a decade of the cars [Prius] existence.”

    “GM is making the VOLT (ability to use NO gas)….Toyota makes the Prius (Gas is required).”

    Toyota did make an electric car. Toyota RAV4 EV.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV

    Difference between Toyota and GM is that RAV4 EVs are still on the road in private hands and GM crushed the EV1s.

    Toyota is developing PHEV versions of it’s hybrids, and there are aftermarket companies doing PHEV conversions.

    No hypocrisy. Toyota is clearly doing it better.


  123. 123
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (8:29 am)

    The only thing I see GM winning with the Volt is they buy themselves “CAFE points” to sell more Hummers.


  124. 124
    Guy Incognito

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Guy Incognito
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (12:15 pm)

    Dead on arrival? From the article:
    …Hughes aircraft VP Howard Wilson, then working for GM after his company was acquired by them said,”What I’d really like to do (for the EV-1) is install a small gas turbine engine that could run at a constant speed to provide the electricity for the motor”.

    http://gm-volt.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=24&d=1207938987

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#EV1_series_hybrid


  125. 125
    Guy Incognito

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Guy Incognito
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (12:18 pm)

    No matter how hard I try, I just can’nt seem to post a reply on this topic.
    Go figure.


  126. 126
    TED in Fort MYers

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    TED in Fort MYers
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (1:29 pm)

    Well this was fun. Everyone including the NAY-sayers realize that GM messed up when they discontinued the EV-1. They made an even bigger mistake when they failed to market it in more than two states. Now that we are all over that, come on GM and build the volt and I still would like to help with the mule program here in Florida. 239 410-8826


  127. 127
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (2:44 pm)

    GM will never be “right-side up” to some people, no matter how hard they try because of the EV1, among other things.


  128. 128
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (2:56 pm)

    GM continues to build hollow hybrids and tries to paint itself in a good light despite them having almost no merit. The 2 stage hybrid technology goes first, not into baseline vehicles, but into the fat pig Tahoe. The 2 stage hybrid Vue looks as though it will deliver no better MPG than the Greenline Vue–except at a much higher cost and with a much larger engine.

    I own 2 Saturns, so I’m not a hater of GM at all costs. However, I am exceeding disappointed that Saturn has evolved into another Oldsmobuick line when Saturn would seem to have been the idea platform for GM to launch greener offerings.

    Perhaps the Volt will deliver, but experience to date, from EV1 to almost every decision after it, shows a car company that eschews any semblance of a greener, more fuel efficient product line. If the Volt is ultimately offered for lease only, and not for sale, I’d call it game over for GM.


  129. 129
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (3:19 pm)

    Ken

    I do not know if your thinking is “on target” about GM, or not. I know they have a lot to overcome. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt for now. I agree 100% that the Volt is GM’s last good chance. They have put so much “hype” (if they are the ones doing it and not us) into the Volt that I can not see them backing down. They have never talked about leasing the Volt, that I remember.

    The Saturn is a great line of autos. My son just bought a new Saturn Outlook. It is a beautiful small SUV. Saturn will get the Volt power train with the Flextreme. Just stay with us. Gm will deliver or I agree, they are in deep sh*t.


  130. 130
    mien green

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mien green
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (3:22 pm)

    117 Grizzly:
    That was no mistake. That was a calculated move to change the basic Coke formula by first interjecting a radically different flavored product before going back to a different formula product with a subtle taste difference that would have otherwise been detected en masse if switched to directly.

    Let’s face it: The EV-1 has been martyred.


  131. 131
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (3:23 pm)

    Ken

    As far as putting the hybrid stuff in the large SUV vehicles like GM has done, I have to admit they had to do something. What they have done is better than nothing. I think we will see some advancements in the hybrid systems for the larger vehicles. This is just some first baby steps for GM. I can not believe they expect to sell any where near the level of past year’s SUV sales.

    But, they have started this freight train. Now they’ve got to hang on for dear life or get thrown off and run over.


  132. 132
    bruce g

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    bruce g
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (3:41 pm)

    Jeff,
    Im inclined to agree with you.
    Based on history repeating and leopards not changing their spots, GM would find it very attractive to use the Volt to sell more profitable vehicles using the techniques you describe.

    Of course, they find the EV1 debacle a terrible shame, one debated by us over and over again.
    That may act as a counterforce that makes them overcome their traditions.


  133. 133
    DaveP

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DaveP
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (4:51 pm)

    #128 mien green
    Well, this is terribly off topic, but you’re right about Coke. At first I figured it was a brilliant plan to substitute “new coke” long enough for people to forget what the original formula (with sugar) tasted like so they could switch to High Fructose Corn Syrup without getting noticed. Indeed, after they brought out Classic Coke, I found an old can of original coke in the back of the fridge and the whole family compared them and found the “Classic” tasted entirely different from the original coke. It wasn’t subtle at all. They never could have gotten away with it if it weren’t for New Coke.
    That being said, however, the more I read about it, the more it seems they actually created a New Coke debacle and just opportunistically switched to HFCS as they backed out of it. So, at least they got something out of their original debacle when they backed out of it.

    Which is entirely the opposite of the EV1. Which could have been some kind of (quirky, limited or just public relations) success but instead GM managed to turn it into a complete debacle on all fronts as they backed out of that. Ooops.

    So, the take home lesson here is GM is not good at backing out of things so it’s fortunate that they’re so committed to the Volt so that they won’t back out of it and suffer for that. :)


  134. 134
    2Snowboard

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    2Snowboard
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (6:55 pm)

    #126 Ken Grubb
    I too think the “fat pig” Tahoe was an surprising choice, but the two mode did make a difference, that thing getting 23 mpg is better then my V6 Ford mid size.

    I think you are too pessimistic about what GM is planning to do with Saturn, etc. I think its true of all the car companies, the days of the hot-rod pickup trucks and super SUVs are going the way of the el Cameno car-truck because of gas, CAFE, etc. They’re all getting serious about alternatives and mpg because I really don’t think they have any real ties to the oil companies, and now the handwriting is on the wall that the market wants change.

    From what I’ve read from Voltnation, and devouring what Lutz and Wagoner have publicly said about the Volt, GM is all in for this car, it won’t be leased and it won’t be under-marketed.


  135. 135
    I.B. Waste

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    I.B. Waste
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (8:48 pm)

    I believe CALIFORNIA is still ranked as the MOST POLLUTED STATE in the USA. They can’t cleanup their own mess, so why does anyone even listen to those idiots out there when it concerns environmental issue.


  136. 136
    Jeff

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff
     Says

     

    May 13th, 2008 (10:24 pm)

    135 I.B Waste

    “Necessity is the mother invention”

    CA drivers are required to drive cleaner vehicles than the rest of the country. And the government encourages it with incentives. Also, I would guess more man hours are spent in CA on environmental issues. The rest of the country would be breathing more polluted air without CA’s foresight. No matter what you hear…the auto industry will not fix environmental concerns without outside influence….governement and various other groups. If it would, this website would not exist.

    Another analogy: Toyota is geared more toward smaller vehciles because of necessity. While GM is geared toward large vehicles by a necessity of their business plan…higher profit vehicles. I doubt Toyota could make the LandCruiser their top selling vehicle in Japan.

    Ponder this question…would the American car buyer be better off today if the Japanese auto industry stayed out of the US? Overall, the 1970′s was not a banner decade for the American auto industry….without competition the vehicles would have gotten worse.


  137. 137
    Kyle

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kyle
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (1:23 am)

    It’s astounding to hear people claim that, as a 2-seater, the car isn’t viable. I guess GM should kill the Corvette. Honda had a public relations bonanza with the 2-seater Insight. The EV-1 was a burner for its time.
    The other criticism of the EV-1 in the article has to do with cost. Commenter #47 is correct. The $80k is a red herring. Average cost per unit will always look ridiculously high if you only make a few units. (And, to ensure that there is only demand for a few units, try not distributing them and putting out negative advertising or no advertising). Today’s Tahoe Hybrid won’t make sense either until the Two-Mode is used more commonly across the lineup. Obviously, to make sense, the EV-1 was to be the lead for a whole series of similar cars. The ICE was not perfected in a year or a decade. EV and Hybrid technologies will take time to advance. Even Rick Wagoner has acknowledged that it was a mistake to not capitalize on the EV-1 – they could have been almost 15 years ahead toward building a serial hybrid if they had continued EV-1 development of its serial hybrid version.
    Would EVs be the solution for everyone? Of course not, but let no one doubt that there was a market for this car then as today, if marketed properly. Just watch Tesla today.
    Is the E-REV (ie serial hybrid) a better solution for a larger set of the population. Of course. But, by the way, forget the small gas turbine – that is a maintenance nightmare for an automobile.
    As a driver of GM cars and a former member of its staff (now almost 20 years ago) it just makes me sad to think about what could have (should have) been.
    The only argument that should be advanced here, and one which GM makes repeatedly today, and which happens to be correct, is that mandates on the supply side against the manufacturer make no sense. How can GM tell the consumer what to buy and guarantee a certain percentage of sales will be of a certain type? If policy makers wish to promote zero-emissions driving, then the correct policy is to increase gas taxes. Now, the consumer’s goal (save money) and the manufacturer’s goals (sell lots) are aligned and the market will drive the development of hybrids/electrics/etc.


  138. 138
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (6:17 am)

    #128 Ken Grubb

    “GM continues to build hollow hybrids and tries to paint itself in a good light despite them having almost no merit. The 2 stage hybrid technology goes first, not into baseline vehicles, but into the fat pig Tahoe.”

    Do you think before you post, or just write emotional responses?

    The 4WD Tahoe gets 20/20 city/hwy mpg per EPA. The Toymota Land Cruiser gets 13/18. Perhaps everyone should drive the Prissy?

    Well, let’s look at an example. I’m sure almost every state must have survey crews for highway construction projects (I worked on one during summers while in college), not to mention private survey companies. Let’s take the example where the 4-person crew must travel to a new highway construction site 45 miles from the home base. Besides 4 people, they must carry expensive equipment like transits, theodolites, and electronic distance measuring equipment, but also tripods, picks, shovels, survey rods, axes, machetes, etc. for their daily work. The Tahoe is an excellent vehicle to carry this entire crew with equipment.

    On this day in particular, they must travel to the construction site, travel to the end of the gravel road (highway prior to paving), and then go another half mile on a woods road. Good ground clearance and 4WD is a necessity to travel this last one half mile. They will also tow a trailer with 2400 lbs of square granite stones used to mark the property lines. The Tahoe can make the complete journey to the actual work site. With the trailer, let’s assume the mileage drops from 20 to 18 mpg, so the round trip journey requires 90/18 = 5 gallons of gas.

    This also could be done with several Prissies. But with 4 people and all the gear, it would probably require 2 cars (and that is a stretch). But wait, we also need the granite stones! Well, let’s get another car. See one of our frequent poster’s site for more info on the Prissy.

    http://john1701a.com/

    Also, per Cars.com, the gross vecicle weight rating is 3795 lbs, with a curb weight of 2932 lbs. Therefore, useful load is 863 lbs.

    http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?section=features&crpPage=features.jsp&makeid=47&modelid=2916&year=2007&myid=&acode=&mode=&aff=national&defaultSelection=true

    But since each car needs a driver (about 200 lbs.) the car can carry 663 lbs of cargo. This equates to 4 cars to carry the granite stones.

    So now we need 6 Prissies, 2 to carry the survey equipment, and 4 to carry the granite. But we now need 6 drivers, and only have 4. So we will need two additional crew members for the day.

    So once loaded, the 6 Prissies head to the site. However, since the cars only have 2WD and low ground clearance, they can’t make the last half mile. The 4 man survey crew will have to carry their equipment for the half mile to the site, and the 2 additional crew members will need to find a way to get the 2400 lbs of granite to the site. (probably bribe a contractor to use his 4WD).

    So the end result is 6 vehicles at 45 mpg, or 12 gallons of gas. Two additional crew members are needed, and the crew and equipment must be carried in and out for the last 1/2 mile.

    So in this scenario, the Tahoe gets the crew to the site and back, saves the time required to hike into the site, requires two less crew members, and uses only 42% as much gas.

    Now which vehicle is the “Fat Pig”.


  139. 139
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (8:47 am)

    #138 BillR

    Hybrids can be employed almost anywhere there are wheels and an engine. It’s why there are hybrid buses, trash trucks, Class 8 trucks and locomotives. In April, GE announced they were testing a hybrid haul truck.

    As for your long winded Tahoe scenario, I see a lot of Tahoe’s on the road, and I’ve yet to see even one in use as a crew hauler. That isn’t to say that they aren’t used in that capacity. Just that I see plenty of Tahoes used as single person commuter vehicles. Not to mention all the Escalades and Hummers. I’m just not seeing the hybrid Tahoe marketed to fleets. I’ll be curious to see whether any research data emerges over the next year or so to show who’s buying hybrid Tahoes.

    Maybe you missed the memo, but the Land Cruiser isn’t a hybrid. However, the hybrid Highlander 4wd gets 27/25 and costs less than the Tahoe. The Escape/Mariner/Tribute 4wd gets 29/27. In 2wd it gets 34/30.

    I see you didn’t address GM’s abundance of hollow hybrids. That’s OK. I know you’ve got no answer on that point.


  140. 140
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (10:55 am)

    #139 Ken Grubb

    “Maybe you missed the memo, but the Land Cruiser isn’t a hybrid. However, the hybrid Highlander 4wd gets 27/25 and costs less than the Tahoe. The Escape/Mariner/Tribute 4wd gets 29/27. In 2wd it gets 34/30.”

    Didn’t miss the memo at all, you called the Tahoe a “Fat Pig” and a hollow hybrid. Just wanted to point out the Land Cruiser for comparison purposes.

    The Escape hybrid gets 34/30 mpg in 2wd, and the Saturn Vue in 2wd in the “hollow hybrid” edition gets 25/32.

    You might also want to read this article on the Malibu “hollow hybrid”.

    http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/2008-chevrolet-malibu-hybrid.htm


  141. 141
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (12:10 pm)

    #140 BillR

    Sorry, I didn’t realize you weren’t up to speed on hybrids. But, it’s good that you keep asking questions and reading and learning.

    Most of GM’s hybrids are hollow hybrids. Some refer to them as mild hybrids. Bottomline, they can’t run in EV only. Full hybrids routinely beat EPA city numbers and are but are all but a battery away from PHEV status with upwards of 40 mile EV only running and 100+ MPG averages. Hymotion and others are doing conversions for consumers now in Priuses and Escapes. Soon Highlanders and Camrys. Perhaps even Altimas.

    GM’s 2 stage is supposed to be a full hybrid, and the Tahoe was their premier platform. When they put 2 stage in the Vue, supposedly in late 2008 or early 2009, based on what GM has been saying about it, doesn’t appear it will perform much better than the current Greenline and will cost thousands more. More money for GM and nothing for the consumer.


  142. 142
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (3:05 pm)

    #141 Ken Grubb

    “Sorry, I didn’t realize you weren’t up to speed on hybrids. But, it’s good that you keep asking questions and reading and learning.”

    Note, I didn’t ask any questions in my last post, so I’m not sure what you are talking about. My only question might have been WTF do you mean when you say “hollow” hybrids? My assumption was that you were referring to GM’s Belt Alternator Start (BAS) system (also called a mild hybrid). I am familiar with the working arrangements of some hybrid models, and that includes the BAS systems.

    In fact, to make my point, I referenced 2 BAS models, first, the Saturn Vue hybrid, which gets lower city mpg than an Escape Hybrid, but better highway mpg. Since the BAS is a lower cost system, I’m not sure why you consider this to be “hollow”.

    Also, if you read the attached article in my last post regarding the Malibu hybrid (BAS system), you would have read the following:

    “While its hybrid system isn’t as powerful or as complicated as the one fitted to, say, a Toyota Camry or Nissan Altima, it returns similar fuel economy in real-world driving.”

    “But despite not being as fancy as its major competitors, the Malibu’s hybrid system works just as well, delivering equivalent fuel-economy gains without as substantial a price increase over the conventional four-cylinder version.”

    In addition, a person who posts from time to time on this site has the Saturn Aura hybrid. With 14,500 miles of driving, he has averaged 38 mpg overall. (see #50 Wise Golden in next link)

    Note that at the Geneva Auto Show earlier this year, GM announced they would implement an upgraded BAS system in 2010, that would use Li-Ion batteries, a larger motor/alternator, and improved fuel economy. See more on that system here:

    http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/04/gm-announces-its-next-generation-hybrid-system-includes-lithium-ion-battery/

    In regards to the Saturn Vue 2-mode hybrid, all your talk is based on heresay and conjecture, so none of that is even valid until the real numbers are released.

    Perhaps you need to do your homework before you talk about “hollow” hybrids. I was hoping you might have learned something from my last post, but here is your second chance.


  143. 143
    Branden Shaw

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Branden Shaw
     Says

     

    May 14th, 2008 (9:52 pm)

    I have been a loyal GM customer for many years now but one thing that I have learned is that I take what the vehicle manufacturers say worth a grain of salt. Most if not all manufacturers will say almost anything to get you to believe what they want you to. Unfortunately to them many times the profit is worth more to them than doing what is right or logical. I will add that I am happy to see GM doing the volt concept but I am afraid that it will be too costly and will not fit the roll most of us need in a vehicle.


  144. 144
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 15th, 2008 (10:18 am)

    #142 BillR

    “In regards to the Saturn Vue 2-mode hybrid, all your talk is based on heresay and conjecture”

    It’s based on GM’s own press release and communication with Saturn on the subject. Feel free to check with Saturn yourself.

    http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/greenline/futurevehicles/index.jsp
    “The Vue Green Line 2 Mode will deliver an estimated 50-percent fuel economy increase over the non-hybrid V-6 Vue.”

    08 AWD V6 Vue gets 16/22
    08 FWD V6 Vue gets 16/23
    08 Greenline Vue gets 25/32

    This means the 2 mode Vue would get 24/33 and cost several thousand more than the Greenline Vue. Higher cost. No better fuel economy in the 2 mode Vue. Although if it’s a full hybrid with EV only running, it should beat it’s city EPA and the net in real world driving should mean that it beats the Greenline by at least a couple of MPG.

    “Saturn Vue hybrid, which gets lower city mpg than an Escape Hybrid, but better highway mpg.”

    2WD Escape hybrid gets 34/30. Escape beats the Vue by 9 MPG city. Vue only beats the Escape by 2 MPG. However, full hybrids routinely beat their city EPA numbers. Conversely, my 2005 Relay had EPA numbers of 18 city, 24 highway, 20 combined. Adjusted for 2008, it’s 16 city, 23 highway, 18 combined. We can hit 26 highway, but we routinely average 11-12 because of our mostly short trip city driving. This is where full hybrids excel and all other vehicles generally suck. For me, neither the Greenline nor the 2 mode would even come close to an Escape hybrid’s mileage.

    “a person who posts from time to time on this site has the Saturn Aura hybrid. With 14,500 miles of driving, he has averaged 38 mpg overall.”

    Great news for them, but I’m not terribly impressed with the results I’ve read about on greenhybrid.com or saturnfans.com

    I’m also not overly enthused with GM salespeople in the “selling” of their hybrids. They didn’t seem terribly committed. Could just be a sales culture thing that will have to evolve for GM to succeed. In fairness, I can say the same thing about Ford sales staff with their hybrids. A friend of mine echoed the same experience with Honda. Only Toyota staff, that I’ve encountered, seem to really believe in their products.

    Most salespeople would try to sell ice to Eskimos, so for a salesperson NOT to be sold on their product is a little disconcerting. Memories of EV1.

    “While its hybrid system isn’t as powerful or as complicated as the one fitted to, say, a Toyota Camry or Nissan Altima, it returns similar fuel economy in real-world driving.”

    Bob Lutz ain’t even saying that about the upgraded BAS system. LOL

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120457521368908461.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    So the BAS and advanced BAS are lower cost and less complicated and better. But the 2 mode hybrid is higher cost and more complicated and better. Seems marketing would have a tricky time balancing that one.


  145. 145
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 15th, 2008 (11:14 am)

    #144 Ken Grubb

    GM has not released the mpg numbers for the 2-mode Vue, only an ESTIMATED value. Note that the 50% increase will likely be similar to the Tahoe, where most of the mpg gains were in city driving, with less for hwy driving. So some articles are projecting more like 28/28.

    Note that GM indicates that this will be the most fuel efficient V6 SUV on the market. Yes, this is a V6 engine with direct gasoline injection and probably about 280 hp. So it can tow more than the 4-cyl hybrids and will have better performance (but still better mpg increase than a Lexus 600H).

    And from your last post:

    “a person who posts from time to time on this site has the Saturn Aura hybrid. With 14,500 miles of driving, he has averaged 38 mpg overall.”

    Great news for them, but I’m not terribly impressed with the results I’ve read about on greenhybrid.com or saturnfans.com

    *****
    And of course, we’re not terribly impressed with your personal stories of mileage, dealer sales knowledge, etc.

    As I stated before, you prefer to provide emotional responses instead of facts and data. And when someone provides data (real world mileage data for BAS hybrid vs. Camry hybrid), you apparently cannot accept the facts. Now go to the latest post on this forum, and tell us that the Volt will never make 40 miles AER, its just more GM PR for the environment, or that it will be crushed before it hits the market.

    Now that the Volt is looking like a very strong reality, there seem to be lots of others with your same level of intellect coming out of the woodwork.


  146. 146
    Jason The Saj

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason The Saj
     Says

     

    May 15th, 2008 (11:18 am)

    “GM crushed them.”

    GM crushed them for a variety of reasons:

    a) safety and liability concerns

    b) advanced technology that competitors could have made use of

    “I find it funny how some people worry about Lithium Ion batteries exploding in cars but don’t worry about it in their cell phone in their pocket or the fact that gasoline can explode very easily.”

    Could be that there is a significant difference between having to toss on the ground a flaming cell phone or laptop compared to getting out of a vehicle in flames and also getting your children in the car seat out.

    If you can not see the difference, you are a blithering idiot.

    “I think 15 gallons of gasoline can make a louder boom then a huge lithium ion battery.”

    Yes it can, but seldom does. And does not tend to do so spontaneously.

    “I think 15 gallons of gasoline can make a louder boom then a huge lithium ion battery.”

    > Because the EV1 would not pass the safety tests that today requires.
    > Two seaters are not viable as mainstream cars (see Exhibit H(onda Insight).
    > 8 hour re-charge anyone?

    “I think 15 gallons of gasoline can make a louder boom then a huge lithium ion battery.”

    Probably two…

    Most just are so sick of the stupid people who swalloed “WKTEC” pseudo-doc and have no rational ability to understand manufacturing, economics, or the rear-end.

    ***

    Ah forget it, the comment list is too long, and full of too many idiots to answer everyone of them.


  147. 147
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 15th, 2008 (11:41 am)

    BillR,

    You’re of course always free to choose the facts that fit your preconceived notions. And who appointed you group representative?

    40 miles on electric only? Please. If they can’t do that, hang it up. EVs already can do double or triple that on electric only. They have for years.

    Trick will be in pricing the Volt competitively with Prius PHEVs. People will need to see some real difference in price, features, performance, space, etc. And it will be model year #1 (Volt) against model year #14 (Prius). That’s less of issue today with GM than in the past.

    Might just be a loss leader for the CAFE points, but that just means Hummers and Escalades will help pay for Volts. Doesn’t bother me any.

    Of course, there’s also the issue of whether EVs will garner more interest than PHEVs. As such, GM will need to remain keenly focused on the possibility they may need to evolve the Volt quickly from PHEV to EV. Unless Toyota revives the RAV4 EV, that might also be an area where GM could leap ahead of Toyota.

    All remains to be seen what GM will do.


  148. 148
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 15th, 2008 (12:50 pm)

    Jason the Saj,
    Hi,
    I haven’t noticed you posting a lot on here, so Welcome.
    Point of information though, we **really** do try to avoid name calling in favor of discussion. Obviously, it’s not a “rule”, but it sure helps people actually listen to the points made by others.
    God Bless


  149. 149
    stas peterson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stas peterson
     Says

     

    May 15th, 2008 (11:51 pm)

    Why is it that every liberal is a conspiracy theory nut? Stupidity created the EV-1; Stupidity killed the unready EV-1

    The EV-1 was a car built to government specs. As specified by a bunch of know-nothing government bureaucrats who heard tha an electric car might be… fun.

    It wasn’t their money, and if the auto companies did not kiss their asses, then they could threaten to deny the California marketplace to them,

    So the automakers caved, and wasted the money, even as they knew the stupidity of the task. But the technology just didn’t exist then.

    When the results came in, every electric car, or conversion, from every manufacturer worldwide… sucked. Who in 1996 could afford an $80,000 car MFSP (actual cost probably ten times that) whose battery would have to be replaced every two years?

    The government jackasses who never had any of their own money at risk, backed down, when they considerd what might happen to them if Californians could no longer buy cars. Instead they should have all been fired; but you know we never fire bureacrat nebishes. Its a lifetime job, under civil service. They probably all got promoted for wasting ten billion dollars or so from the world’s auto makers.

    It wasn’t a conspiracy. No automaker succeeeded. It wasn’t an Oil company conspiracy. (Yes the OIlers invested in Cobasys afterwards, and are losing their shirts, in that investment.) They had nothing to do with it.

    Just as the Oilers will quake when the Volt comes and Hugo, Putin, Saud and Ahmadinejahd can all return to eatting camel droppings.


  150. 150
    Will

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Will
     Says

     

    May 16th, 2008 (1:10 am)

    I find it kind of funny that so many people still feel that the EV-1 was actually a marketable car. There were no conspiracies to keep big oil in business or anything else like that. The simple fact was that it was an unmarketable car. Other, better cars have also died because they were not marketable. Check out the Honda Insight. It got better gas mileage than the prius, but where is it today? Honda killed it. Because it didn’t sell. Not many people want to pay 80 grand for a two seater that can only go at best 90 miles before you have to plug it in for what, about 8 hours before you can drive again. How many do people think GM actually would have sold….100…maybe 200….hell, I’ll be generous and even say 5000….they still would have taken a big loss on every EV-1 sold. GM didn’t kill the electric car….WE did, by not buying it.

    The Volt however, is the first electric car that people will be able to buy for a reasonable price without range anxiety, which is a big factor.

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/?14@@.ee92254/23


  151. 151
    Kevin R

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kevin R
     Says

     

    May 16th, 2008 (8:35 am)

    #149 Stas Peterson

    Stop calling people names and painting every person who doesn’t think like you with the same broad, stereotypical paintbrush! It does nothing for your argument and appears closed minded rather than forward thinking. I take offense as do others who are progressive in their thinking but not far left liberal leaning.


  152. 152
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    May 16th, 2008 (8:44 pm)

    Ken Grubb,

    “You’re of course always free to choose the facts that fit your preconceived notions. And who appointed you group representative?”

    ********

    You must be talking about my preconceived notions that the Tahoe Hybrid is a “Fat Pig”, or that the BAS GM hybrids are “hollow”. LOL

    Or maybe its the fact I can’t realize that Canadian Driver magazine and poster Wise Golden certainly must be incorrect, because how can a hollow hybrid be as good as a REAL hybrid. LMAO

    As far as group representative, I took it on as my personal responsibility, representing the rest of the core membership, to help educate you (a difficult task, I might add).

    I see you have taken the bait on my comment regarding the Volt’s 40 mile AER. The Volt is not a hybrid, it is not a PHEV, it is an E-REV. There is a difference, and I will leave it to you to find out. The goal from the onset was for a 40 mile AER, and GM testing indicates they have achieved this milestone.

    Many members on this site are not interested in a $100k Tesla, or a BEV that evokes range anxiety. See Will #150.


  153. 153
    Steve M

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Steve M
     Says

     

    May 17th, 2008 (2:24 am)

    Why didn’t the EV1 work? Because oil was cheap! Gas was less than a $1.00 a gallon.
    Now we have a different market and the first company to produce a car that is a plugin will get a good share of that market. GM needs the Volt to gain market share back from Honda and Toyota(worlds largest). But the Volt has to work great. If it doesn’t, GM will be in worse trouble than they have ever been in.
    We all know that Honda and Toyota will one day produce a plug-in hybrid. GM better hope, it’s not before the Volt comes to market.


  154. 154
    Bill

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    May 18th, 2008 (12:05 pm)

    if they made the ev1 today there would be one in my drive way,I was wating for them to be sold in florida , to buy one as my first new car. but NO GM crushed them so i have refused to buy a new GM or even used GM car (from a GM dealer) untill GM sell’s another car that is electric. GM should bring it back with todays lower cost of production and todays battery’s . even the old range is ok as 70 miles city is more than doubble what i need 99% of the time

    I predict that when the Volt comes out thre will be no Bio-Diesel engine option i hope i am wrong


  155. 155
    Will

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Will
     Says

     

    May 18th, 2008 (1:37 pm)

    154 Bill…..

    You would have paid 80,000 dollars for a car that goes 70 miles and then has to recharge for 8 hours? And it’s only a two seater? You must have a lot more spare cash laying around than I do.

    GM never sold the EV-1 because it was a product for a niche market and literally there are numerous ways to more effectively and efficiently put your dollar to good environmental use.

    People…..the EV-1 was a concept car and a learning experience. It never went into full production, so GM never even had to “kill” it.

    The Honda Insight was in full production for years. They truly did KILL the most fuel efficient mass produced car the US has ever seen. How come nobody demonizes them for it?


  156. 156
    Andrew

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Andrew
     Says

     

    May 18th, 2008 (2:42 pm)

    Kent Beuchert is an insider for the oil / gas companies who has posted hundreds of daily postings to negate every positive article on electric car achievements. Please “google” his name under “news” to see the hundreds of other postings he has quickly replied to with negative incorrect information. I am writing a story to expose his true identity. Please forward any information you may have on him so we can remove him from future postings.


  157. 157
    Douglas B

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Douglas B
     Says

     

    May 18th, 2008 (5:57 pm)

    I truly hope that Chevy is able to make the Volt work and come in at around $35000 on the first generation models. I think that it would be a big hit with today’s gas prices. I have to agree with Steve M. Around the time that the EV1 came out gas was at or under $1 per gallon. It hit a low of 83 cents in early 1999. Nobody cared about electric cars. When you watch “Who Killed The Electric Car”, the EV1 lovers act like there was hundreds of thousands of people were clamoring to buy them. More like barely thousands is the truth.

    I don’t dismiss that GM, U.S government, oil companies, also played a role in the failure. But the main reason is gas was very cheap in the mid-late 90′s and people did not see a need for electric vehicles. Most people if they are honest, don’t care that much about the GREEN factor of cars like the EV1 and possibly the Volt. They only care about their wallets, hence the great demand for a viable alternative now that gas is over $3.50 per gallon.


  158. 158
    Brant

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brant
     Says

     

    May 21st, 2008 (1:18 pm)

    This article is Bull SH&T pure and simple. The first car ever made was electric and if we had put 0.01% the energy over the last century into electric vehicles we wouldn’t have any of these EXCUSES thrown in our face over and over again. Dam it why can’t I buy and electric car. Stop crying about it costing more than $50,000 dollars. Hell i’m canadian half the cars and almost all the SUV’s and trucks are around that price?!? I can just keep hoping that the american auto makers keep loosing more and more money by following the same childish mentality! (all i have to say about that is SSR)


  159. 159
    Arch

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Arch
     Says

     

    May 21st, 2008 (10:35 pm)

    Brant

    I know what you mean.

    Take Care
    Arch


  160. 160
    Jim I

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim I
     Says

     

    May 22nd, 2008 (1:53 pm)

    Hey paul:

    Don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel!!!!!!!!!!

    :)


  161. 161
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 22nd, 2008 (2:08 pm)

    Careful, Jim I. I think paul is already pushing the envelope.
    Tag


  162. 162
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    May 23rd, 2008 (8:43 am)

    If GM can’t match the RAV4 EV, 4-5 person capacity, 120-150 mile range per charge, $42K, then yeah they should quit the EV game ’cause they can’t keep up.


  163. 163
    Kubel

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kubel
     Says

     

    May 27th, 2008 (10:32 pm)

    Auto companies will eventually succeed with EVs and bridge to that era will be PHEVs. Forget the past. The EV1 came during a time when gas was cheap and oil wasn’t being secured with our military. Very few people bought EVs for reasons other than environmentalism.
    Today, we are entangled in a war in the middle east, we are in Peak Oil and gas is outrageously expensive, open technologies are maturing and getting cheaper (particularly, Li-Ion), and people with all views (not just environmentalists) are willing to consider EVs and PHEVs as an alternative to purely gas powered vehicles. These people want to stop war, clean the air, and safe a few bucks.
    I’m for a progressive PHEV plan. The first few years, lets focus on a very low and cheap all-electric range and increase slowly every few years until we can have batteries that provide for 350 mile all-electric range (perhaps that’s many decades in the future, but I see it as the best possible solution).


  164. 164
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    May 27th, 2008 (10:44 pm)

    Kubel,
    I don’t think your suggestion of low AER cars is progressive. I believe that the Volt hits the sweet spot of 40 AER, simply because that 40 miles is all that 3/4ths of Americans drive daily. I don’t think most people will adopt a radical new technology like the EREV without a BIG payoff.
    Just my .02
    Tag


  165. 165
    Riki

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Riki
     Says

     

    Jun 14th, 2008 (5:25 am)

    I saw the movie… Who killed the electric car.. and i think that if we wait until a car company releases an EV car we are being slaves of the AUTO MONOPOLY (auto makers, oil companies, ect.), so instead of crying like a babies, we should take action and do conversions to the gas gulpers.. or for $54,000.00 you can get a brand new EV SUV from phoenixmotorcars.com… or the sporty TESLA… $90,000.00 and way less expensive than a Ferrari… now let’s hope this CLUB of AUTOMAKERS don’t try to get part of the new cake ( ..% of these new companies) just as they did with the NiMH batteries!


  166. 166
    Niel

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Niel
     Says

     

    Jun 24th, 2008 (12:19 am)

    I own a GM built 1998 S10-EV. This vehicle has the same NiMH battery pack and drive system as the EV1 (the parts are interchangeable). I have owned it for about a year and a half, and can report that it is a wonderful vehicle. We do about 85% of all our driving in this vehicle, which operates for about 1/4 the cost of our 20 mpg gas car. (it’s like getting gas for $1/gal).

    This vehicle has a range of 60-80 miles, and charges in about 6 hours (overnight). Contrary to what some people here have said, an electric does not need to have 350 mile range and able to charge in 10 minutes to be very useful. As I said, 85% of our driving is done on the electric. People who say that 350/10 is necessary are thinking of gas station mode. With an electric like the one I have, you plug it in at the end of the day, and the next morning you have a full “tank”. The recharge time, so long as it finishes during the night (and it does), isn’t important in this mode. You don’t go to the gas station.

    Would a 350 mile range and 10 minute charging so you could stop at a “gas” station anywhere and “fill” it be nice? Sure. But is an electric with 60-80 mile range and 4-6 hour recharge a useless vehicle? Not on your life. We use the electric the majority of the time and love it. And no tune ups, no oil changes, no mufflers, no transmission maintenance, in fact no scheduled maintenance. Batteries good for 100,000 miles with reasonable care. Quiet enough to hear the birds chirping when you drive it.

    True, my S10-EV is not an all-purpose vehicle. You can’t drive it across the country to go see grandma. You have to keep one gas car in the family, that you use occasionaly. But it excels for commuting and round town driving, which is the vast majority of our driving and fuel consumption. If your family only has one car, then this isn’t the vehicle for you. If your family has two cars, and one person has a commute that is within the range of an electric, then an electric, even with less range than a tank of gasoline, is still a very useful thing to own.

    I wish everyone here could stop by and test drive it. You’d be amazed.


  167. 167
    alex

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    alex
     Says

     

    Nov 30th, 2008 (9:08 pm)

    Where can I find a video of this car actually running. Also, someone here mentioned that the EV1 battery took too long to charge etc, I can’t verify that but the same commentator left a comment that the Volt should be much better. If it is much better why is it not a purely battery run car and as relevant, why can’t I find a video of it running off battery alone going fast. Any video of the volt shows it driving at such incredible slow speeds?

    I am a skeptic of this vehicle AND it doesn’t look like a family car to me.

    Let’s be honest, an all electric vehicle (that I know this is not) should be made for the family, not a couple. Families are the ones who need the economics that an EV should promise because there are a few more mouths to feed.

    I have a lot more research and the videos of this car showing it really perform a VERY ILLUSIVE thus far.


  168. 168
    Doug Korthof

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Doug Korthof
     Says

     

    Dec 22nd, 2008 (7:40 pm)

    Actually, more big lies. The EV1 didn’t have a problem with range, except with the defective original GM lead batteries!!

    None of the EV1 lessees complained about range after upgrade to PSB lead-acid batteries, which gave over 100 miles range.

    Then in Dec., 1999, CARB finally FORCED GM to release 200 of the NiMH version, which had been kept on the tarmac for 18 months.

    The NiMH version had 140 miles EPA range!! Over 160 in a pinch.

    Learn and don’t lie.


  169. 169
    jose

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jose
     Says

     

    Feb 24th, 2009 (12:00 am)

    um guys dont forget the electromagnetic genius NIKOLA TESLA he also developed an electric car in 1930 , car was donated by Pierce-Arrow and motor by Westinghouse . scroll down to where it says nikola tesla’s electric car. he did not use a battery , since he was the electromagnetic genius he used ether or what we know as the energy of the earth he amplified its magnitude . the positive and negative leads of the engine were out in the air. its sad that his financial backer ASTOR(WALDOR-ASTORIA) hotel owner died in the titanic and Tesla had no choice but to look for funding from the devil scum of JP MORGAN, he even gave Morgan,Rockerfeller and Henry ford a test drive in his electric car. no wonder that car never had a chance (Rockerfeller owner of STANDARD OIL COMPANY) WOULD have never allowed it and neither FORD or MORGAN.

    http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html
    http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_016.htm

    there are many more books and websites dedicated to this genius who has been wronged by our government .


  170. 170
    Catherine

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Catherine
     Says

     

    Feb 23rd, 2010 (6:10 pm)

    I will not drive again untill I can purchace another EV1. I’v done witout a car for six years now and much healthier for it and now can pay cash. Hurry up!