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)
Popularity: 42%
(12 votes, average: 3.17 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Interesting. People rounded up enough money to but the cars from GM. GM crushed them.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Lyle, I love ya, but you’re going to find a lot of people that disagree with you on this.
#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.
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.
… 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.
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
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.
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….
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?
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
WOW The game gets interesting! I wonder how many are paid to be here?
Take Care
Arch
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.
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.
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
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.
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” ?
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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!!!!!!
Why small gas turbine is out of consideration now for plug-ins? Turbines are much more efficient, lighter and can use variety of fuels.
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
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ldmWebflUU
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsz5MATKlWM&feature=related
#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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
#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.
Just for fun:
Electric car climbs Pikes Peak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgJdey87R2s
By the way, I believe from the sticker on the side of it that they had LG Chem / A123 batteries in the car.
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.
Venturi Fetish all electric sports car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEVuwBhTm6Y
Common, GM!
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?
2007 Toyota Yaris conversion to electric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fSMIiSIlI8
GM can do it too….
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…
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OH, the conspiracies!
sigh
Let it go
Build the Volt
Tagamet:
Amen!
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.
#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.
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
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.
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.
Steven B
At last you make a statement where I find myself in full agreement.
When you are right, you are right.
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.
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.
#82 N Riley
Sorry about the cheap attempt at humor…You and me, buddy!
ThombDbthomb
Hey, that’s not cheap at all. You ought to see cheap.
Keep up the good commentary…
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?
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”
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.
Which is precisely the mistake GM made with the EV-1. Worse, in fact, since GM broke them without even giving them back.
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.
Our mix is about half natural gas and half renewables/nukes/hydro:
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
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!
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.
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.
I’ll take 2 ev-1’s at 80,000 a piece, seems like a great deal.
To quote my second favorite zen koan:
zzzzzvoltzzzzzvoltzzzzzzvoltzzzz
Stil my favorite:
I’m sorry honey, were you saying something?
#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.
#89 biodieseljeep:
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.
#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.
#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).
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
PEOPLE!
Let it go
Build the Volt
Buy the Volt
Time to move forward.
The b and c parts of that mantra are still speculative.
Or rather c and d if you consider “letting it go” to be a functional part in that step program.
Not to me
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.
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.
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.
Tag & Grizzle:
it’s the “time to move forward” as a people that’s not necessarily a given in my mind.
BillR:
Read “The Little Car That Could” if you get the chance.
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.
>> 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?
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.
#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.
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.
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.
The only thing I see GM winning with the Volt is they buy themselves “CAFE points” to sell more Hummers.
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
No matter how hard I try, I just can’nt seem to post a reply on this topic.
Go figure.
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
GM will never be “right-side up” to some people, no matter how hard they try because of the EV1, among other things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 trad