I rented and drove an original GM EV1 in early 2000 and have been trying to buy one ever since. They've been crushed, and I've become an EVangel.

The Volt will be beaten to the US market by at least five highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs.) The first production Tesla was just delivered and Commuter Cars continues to crank out Tango EVs. Subaru and Mitsubishi EVs go on sale within two years. Fortune-CNN Money recently reported on another half-dozen new companies planning to sell EVs to Americans within two years.

General Motors' past performance with EVs has been shameful, and GM continues to lobby against mandated auto-emissions reductions by State governments. I see the record corporate loss just reported as the fruits of pushing HumVees while crushing zero-emission vehicles.

I hope that the Volt or other range-extended EV comes to showrooms nationwide. The EV1 never did, or past GM EV prototypes such as the 1976 Electrovette or the 1966 Electrovair concepts.

Typical liberal, never satisfied until you've got your pound of flesh.

GM's losses were the result of a write down in assets whose values have plummeted, not operating losses. Operationally, GM broke even, and their overseas operations are pulling in big money.

American and foreign automakers shouldn't be forced to jump through hoops every time a liberal state legislature manages to foist tougher regulations on its people. The purpose of the federal government is to regulate international and interstate commerce, and did so by passing tougher CAFE standards late last year, so CA got most of what it wanted.

Even if automakers targeted the toughest regs and built to that specification, another state would come along and pass tougher ones before their designs were complete. Further, if automakers started responding to every state's latest regulations, it would only encourage more states to jump on the bandwagon and out-do each other with tougher and tougher regs.

What is getting lost in all this one upsmanship are the needs of consumers. If states got their way, and passed 50 different standards, vehicle costs would go through the roof, and the market for used cars, which are grandfathered under such standards, would undermine the new car market. You would be hurting your own efforts to get better vehicles on the road.

The Volt will be beaten to the US market by at least five highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs.) The first production Tesla was just delivered and Commuter Cars continues to crank out Tango EVs. Subaru and Mitsubishi EVs go on sale within two years. Fortune-CNN Money recently reported on another half-dozen new companies planning to sell EVs to Americans within two years.

You are mixing apples and oranges! Not one of the EV's you've mentioned has the same concept as the Volt; an Extended Range Electric Vehicle.

I guess there is always hope that you will someday garner enough information to know what you are talking about. Until then, the rest of us will be subjected to your nonsense!

The Volt is now being re-designed to look more like the late and lamented EV1 (which had a coefficient of drag 25% lower than any other production vehicle.) It includes unnecessary internal combustion engine (ICE) gear (the Tesla goes 250 miles on a charge, using 6180 laptop batteries) to continue its delays in producing battery EVs.
<P>Politics aside, this is GM's EV history:
<P>1/3/90: "Impact" EV concept debuted at LA Auto Show. GM President promises EV sales.
<P>9/25/90: California Air Resources Board (CARB) calls GM's bluff, mandates California sales of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by major OEMs starting in 1998.
<P> 1993: Western States Petroleum Association hires a high-powered PR firm to reverse the "growing public acceptance of electric vehicles."
<P>1994: GMEV engineer heard to state that the GM Board of Directors " isn't afraid that EVs won't sell, it fears they will." -from "The Car that Could", a book about the EV1 by Vanity Fair columnist Michael Shnayerson.
1997: Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV, Honda EV Plus, GM EV1 and S10 EV, Nissan Altra and Toyota RAV4 EV made available to qualified CA, AZ and NM homeowners only by closed-end leasing. Sparse ads appear in CA for the EV1, with post-nuclear lighting and no human figures. An LA media person produces a much better ad, airs it and gives it to GM: it is buried. This was OEM EV "test-marketing", complete with anti-EV full-page ads nationwide and planted op-eds in national newspapers and magazines, repeating anti-EV myths.
<P>January 2000: I rented and drove a lead-acid battery EV1 in Los Angeles; the vehicle was fast, attractive, nimble and well-equipped. Charging stations were readily available all over Los Angeles, enabling visits to every corner of the sprawling city. Later purchase inquiries on the GMEV site yielded excuses rather than assistance or any offer even to lease me an EV1 in Florida.
<P> 6/2000: Green Car study, based on Dohring automotive market data, projects EV sales passing 200,000 in five years. The study concludes: "A market awaits..."
<P> Gen II EV1 offered for leasing with optional NiMH battery pack. Range: 125 miles on a full charge. GM later halts EV1 production at 1150, citing a "lack of demand" despite thousands of interested customers on (GM's unofficial and secret) waiting lists.
<P>2002: Chrysler, GM and CA GM dealers sue in Federal court to evade the CARB zero emission vehicle mandate.
<P>2003: CARB caves in to massive oil and auto industry lobbying and anti-EV PR campaign, signs MOU allowing automakers to determine EV demand. OEMs stop leasing EVs, refuse renewal and purchase offers and begin repossessing EVs from lessees. The EVs are destroyed (see Plug In America web site for links to photos.)
2004: Upset lessees being deprived of their EV1s hold an "EV1 Funeral" at Hollywood Forever cemetery, as shown in the later EV documentary.
<P>2006: The documentary film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" wins awards, then becomes a Top Ten documentary for the year. In central Florida, we had three battery EVs on display in front of the theater on our July opening weekend.
<P>January, 2007: GM announces the Volt, pending development of suitable lithium-based batteries. After further GM waffling,EV groups suspect a GM return to EV-crushing form.
<P>January, 2008: A year later, despite twenty other EV makers going forward with lithium-battery EVs, GM still cannot seem to set a production date (the earliest sales won't be until next decade.)

<P>Estero: it's range-extended EV. Not a hybrid; that cat has escaped the Auto-Oil bag. GM may sell an EV with baggage, years after others sell battery EVs.


<P>Jason: American consumers shouldn't be forced to jump through hoops to lease an EV (see the movie for first-hand accounts.) OEMs don't provide the vehicle choices that consumers have been demanding for a decade; only Toyota has been honorable enough to actually sell a few hundred RAV4 EVs. I've heard all the makers' excuses and lies so many times that I maintain a guest blog on EVWorld.com to refute such gullible folk as (you, who) parrot the corporate Party Line.

<P>I am a member of the Electric Auto Association and have been publicly advocating EV sales for over eight years. I've driven the GM EV1, the Toyota RAV4 EV and the new eBox (AC Propulsion-converted Scion xB.) I may just know a bit more about EVs than my detractors. See Electrifying Times Magazine and Plug In America online and EVWorld.com for more (correct) information.

Hey Hugh,

Get a grip!!

I notice that you pointed out that the EV-1 had an extremely low drag coefficient. Perhaps you may or may not know that it also had a high efficiency electric drive system. A company in Southern CA that was involved with the design of the Albatross (first human powered aircraft) was employed to help with the design concept of the Impact (EV-1). But of course, what do those dubs at GM know, anyway.

If you want to advocate for electric vehicles, that is fine with us (how do you advocate, by the way, are you like Innovation Man on those IBM commercials). I think electric vehicles are great! However, with the current technology, they are not for everyone.

Thus comes the Chevy Volt. It is an electric vehicle, however, it trades off extened range and the high cost of large battery packs for a range extenging ICE (or fuel cell). For most people, this provides the day-to-day electric range required, but if we want to take a vacation for a week, we don't have to find a motel after 250 miles of travel so that we can plug-in for the night. It also will be much less expensive than a Tesla, not to mention offer more passenger space and utility.

Note that when battery technology advances, such that longer ranges and shorter charging times are required (see EEStor technology), then there may be no need for the on-board ICE.

I suggest that you spend more time advocating for electric vehicles, and less time bashing GM. It will help you to achieve your goals in a more timely manner. Perhaps you could become a Tesla dealer, get funding from a venture capital firm and build your own EV (you are much smarter than GM, correct), or perhaps go to work for one of the other OEM's who will beat GM to market.

All these aforementioned tasks will be far more effective at EV "advocating" than bi*ching about GM and the Chevy Volt on this forum, as we see the Volt as a cost effective solution that has little or no compromise, and if produced at volume with good pricing, will get the public into EV's far sooner than the ~$100k Tesla's will.

Keep Breathing

Bill

Hugh,

To better educate yourself on GM's Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) product plans, flip through this presentation:

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf

You will see that the E-Flex platform allows the typical driver to use 80% less petroleum, while allowing them unlimited range through rapid refill of fuel (gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, etc.).

I, like everyone else, has seen Who Killed the Electric Car, and having worked in the auto industry (as opposed to buying and driving a couple electric cars - big whoop) can tell you that the California Air Resources Board killed the EV1 by mandating EV's before GM had the opportunity to test market/drive the vehicles. I am glad GM and oil companies shoved their policy right back up their butts.

I have followed EV development for over two decades, and am conversant with GM's latest program. I am aware that EVs once outsold gas cars and that electric taxis successfully operated in NewYork and other US cities almost a century ago.

I am not bashing anyone; see GM's own history web site for its 1966, 1974 and 1990 EV concept debuts. The company said each time that it would sell EVs, but GM never has, and it has repossessed and crushed almost every EV it ever made. These are facts, not allegations.

I am a member of the Electric Auto Association and have had letters about EVs published in USA Today, US News & World Report and local newspapers.

Any more advice that I have already taken?

Hugh, do you know what you are saying? Let's review your posts.

Latest Post - "I am not bashing anyone".

Yet, in your first post, you say:

"General Motors' past performance with EVs has been shameful" and

"I see the record corporate loss just reported as the fruits of pushing HumVees while crushing zero-emission vehicles."

Of course, there is no editorializing in this, it's just the facts, correct?

In your 2nd post, you include the following:

"The Volt is now being re-designed to look more like the late and lamented EV1"

"It includes unnecessary internal combustion engine (ICE) gear (the Tesla goes 250 miles on a charge, using 6180 laptop batteries) to continue its delays in producing battery EVs."

"January, 2007: GM announces the Volt, pending development of suitable lithium-based batteries. After further GM waffling,EV groups suspect a GM return to EV-crushing form."

"January, 2008: A year later, despite twenty other EV makers going forward with lithium-battery EVs, GM still cannot seem to set a production date (the earliest sales won't be until next decade.)"

Let's see, besides bitching about GM's history with EV's, you accuse them of waffling, delaying production of the Volt, feel that their design should not include the range extending engine, and call them shameful and deserving of large corporate losses. But, of course, this isn't bashing, it's just the facts. :rolleyes:

I see your major accomplishments include letters (not articles or technical papers) published in various newspapers, magazines, etc.

So what else have you done? The public wants an answer to high oil prices, pollution, and our dependency on foreign oil. And all you have to offer is letters!! :eek:

As I previously mentioned, a genius like you should be managing a factory that is pumping out affordable EV's by the thousands so that people will have the answers they so desperately seek.

But keep on writing those letters!! It will help to sell your all your EV's before GM can get the Volt to market (ah hell, they'll just crush 'em anyway).

However, if you don't think you're up to the task, maybe you will have to let GM do it for you. :D

Breathe Deep

Bill

BillR:
I misspoke. I am bashing GM. Why? GM got a wonderful prototype from AeroVironment and developed an excellent electric vehicle, which it showed off in 1990 and promised to sell. GM never did. Further, it resisted the California mandate to sell zero emission vehicles, pushed fuel-cell cars and is now hoist on its own petard, trying to get out of mass-producing fuel cell vehicles, too.
<P>I have followed GM's evasive action on EVs for a decade now; in "The Car that Could," a book written about the EV1, a GMEV Team engineer is quoted, saying in 1994 that GM's Board of Directors feared, not that the EV1 would fail, but that it would sell.
<P>I know how good the EV1 was: I drove one for several days while in Los Angeles., tried to buy (or lease) one back home in Florida, and got lame excuses about "lack of infrastructure" instead of the truth. I started bashing GM then, continued through its abortive and weird "promotion" (without offers to sell) and "test-marketing" (by closed-end lease only, for a few years in three states) of the EV1 and through its repossession and crushing of all privately-leased EV1s.
<P>I make no claims to be rich, an industry power or an automotive entrepreneur. I own and operate a bicycle cab service, and like to breathe clean air. I simply wanted the choice to buy an EV1, and GM sued to evade producing the car. GM still bashes their own crushed product, which its own President John Smale said (in 1994) might be sold profitably.
<P>Since you think that correcting the oil- and auto-industry Party Line on EVs in national media is not effective, you must be producing and selling some marvelous automotive product yourself, right?
<P> I have also debated several auto-industry and oil shills who bashed EVs online. This may have had no effect. But three companies now sell highway-capable EVs and a dozen more plan sales within a few years.
<P>I'll be able to go into a major automaker's showroom and buy an EV soon. That's all I ever wanted.

Well, Hugh, I'm pleased with your latest reply.

So you admit that you bash GM. Okay, it's a free country, that's your prerogative. You just might not find many others on this forum who will agree with your stand.

I think we all will agree that GM has not always made the best decisions. I think I recently saw an interview with Rick Wagoner where he admitted that their products in the '80's left a lot to be desired.

However, if you have ever worked for a large corporation like I have, you would understand that they are very conscious of potential litigation. How many hundred million dollars do you suppose GM paid out as a result of fuel tank placement issues on their '80's pick-up trucks? I'm sure experiences like these drive them to do some of the things they do.

If I recall correctly, the EV-1 had about 800 lbs of lead acid batteries on board. Think of the liability that these might pose if the cars were sold to the public. In addition, I believe that GM spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the EV-1. If these cars were sold to the public, it means that GM's competition would have the opportunity to copy their work. Probably not a good business decision.

Ultimately, to be competitive, cars must be produced in high volume. With $1.25 a gallon gas, a limited range EV has a difficult time to find its way into the mainstream. More than likely, GM couldn't make a good business case for an EV ten years ago (note, I didn't see the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", I'm just applying common economic sense to the situation).

Of course now, times are different. Oil prices have tripled in less than 6 years, and no one knows when or if the prices will ever stabilize. The consumers are ready for change. Issues such as global warming also contribute to the desire for an EV.

As you have mentioned, there are numerous companies working on EV's. The Chevy Volt is also an EV, only with a range extending engine onboard.

Now I know you might want everyone to trade in their old ICE driven car for an EV tomorrow, but if you look at technological changes, they usually take time before they become widely accepted. When automobiles first took to the roads, there were few paved roads, the cars were noisy and troublesome, and they weren't great in inclement weather. The public didn't rush out to trade in their horses for the automobile. Obviously, with time and improvement, cars have become mainstream.

I expect a similar situation for EV's. For now, the range extending engine is a must, unless we have a 2nd vehicle with an ICE for long trips, and just use the EV locally. However, with time, as batteries/electrical storage becomes better, and the prices come down, pure BEV's may be all that we need.

I hope that you can see, that despite not being perfect, GM has the resources, the talent, and the facilities to mass produce something like the Chevy Volt. They have a great deal of experience that they have accumulated from the EV-1, and hopefully can make an EV-REV that is a bridge to the future where the ICE is no longer necessary.

Although GM's history with EV's may not meet your ideal, I believe that times are different. The public wants to reduce oil consumption, wants to reduce dependency on foreign oil, and wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GM is not fat, dumb, and happy at this juncture, but is desperately trying to get back to profitability. I believe the Volt is getting serious attention at GM, not to mention millions of dollars in development funds.

I think it is time to forgo the GM bashing and perhaps take the time to see what is happening at GM, on this website, and with the development of the Chevy Volt. I think most of us have a positive attitude towards GM, their commitment to the Volt program, and what they are trying to accomplish. I'm sure they would appreciate your support as well.

You just might be watching history in the making.

Bill

BillR:

GM showed off EV concepts in 1966, 1973 & 1990, promising each time to develop and sell EVs: none were ever offered for sale. Not ideal, or reasonable to the average observer.

Liability concerns, by your argument, should have prevented GM from selling the Corvair (or Ford the Pinto, for which that company was nearly charged with murder.)

Ten thousand lead-acid powered EVs have been sold by various makers over the last thirty years without serious liability losses, which undermines your speculations in that regard.

No, GM's extinction of its own production EV1 did not meet my ideals, or standards of reasonable business practice (as Bob Lutz noted a year ago.) The EV1 was repossessed from lessees (including those paying to renew) and crushed.

You say, "GM spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the EV-1. If these cars were sold to the public, it means that GM's competition would have the opportunity to copy their work."

GM donated hundreds of disabled EV1s to museums and colleges (on the condition that the cars never be put back on the street.) Why would selling EVs be more dangerous than turning engineering students loose on them?

GM's history with electric traction includes being fined for buying up and closing down municipal electric trolley systems in the '30s in order to sell diesel buses to city transit departments. Again, not up to my (or the law's) starry-eyed standards.

Perhaps we should stop bashing liars, crooks and murderers, too. GM sued in Federal Court in 2002 to avoid selling EVs in California, thereby advancing the wider spread of respiratory disease (and al Qaeda.)
I have never been one to go quietly, sell our children's lungs cheaply, or help pay for both sides of a long war.

I have worked for large companies and government as well as universities and small businesses. I am self-employed, and have never worked for General Motors. You?

President Bush last week urged the widespread adoption of EVs (as I have since before his first selection.) GM and Toyota announced last week that EVs are the best, most practical alt-fuel vehicles and that they will develop, build and sell (in GM's case, range-extended) EVs. I'm ready to buy a pure EV, along with a hundred thousand other Americans.

I continue to correspond with hundreds of EV drivers (Toyota did actually sell a couple hundred RAV4 EVs - and hasn't been sued once, that I know of.) An EV market study (based on Dohring data) published in 2000 projected EV sales reaching 200,000 annually, five years after introduction. By your logic, the Corvette should never have lasted the thirty years that it took to sell a million.

I have been intensively advocating these last eight years to jump-start the historic change (some call it a cultural revolution) that you suggest that I may now be watching. I might be just a bit ahead of you on this.

I am late to this show.....

I guess the real question to Hugh is:

What will it take to convince you that GM is serious about producing the Volt?

The fact that they have prototype battery packs in their possession from two different manufacturers for testing does not impress you.

The fact that they have over 600 people on this project does not impress you.

The fact that they have been more open about the development of this model than any other vehicle produced does not impress you.

The fact they most of the top people of the development team are going to meet with 300 people from this forum this month to discuss the Volt and answer pointed questions does not impress you.

The only thing you seem to be concerned with is the past mistakes made by GM. So because of that, it is your opinion that GM can NEVER go forward with another alternative fuel vehicle.

Sorry, but that is just an absurd position.

Have you ever made a bad decision in your life, that you wish you could go back and change? I know I sure have.....

And I look forward to owning a GM produced Chevy Volt!!!

Guys, trying to change Hugh's mind is like walking on water. Impossible. He doesn't realize that there are no successful (huge production numbers) EVs on the road by ANY major manufacturer. Ford also cut it's loses with Think and Toyota as well. Hugh is a bitter man who's almost-to-be wife left him at the alter. I'm sorry for your bitterness Hugh but grow a pair and get over it. The only way to stop the electrification of the auto would be to find 10 new giant oil fields. Not going to happen. Why don't you just take a deep breath and wait until 2010. If GM totally backs out and says the electrification of the automobile was a waste of time then I will grab my soapbox and join you. Deal? Yes, people made mistakes in the past but don't forget that the batteries just sucked. Yes, I said it. Too darn expensive and inconvenient compared to how cheap oil was at the time.

Texas:

I agree, and I even said just about the same thing after my Statik war.

But sometimes you just have to respond when someone is so off the path of reality....

Texas:

I agree, and I even said just about the same thing after my Statik war.

But sometimes you just have to respond when someone is so off the path of reality....

The war shall never die! Rawr! Hehe! I layed low, but I get a free pass to post this for you!

Here is billboard for ya! STREAMING VIDEO BABY! Yeah!

http://66.134.238.114/axis-cgi/mjpg/video.swf?resolution=640x480&camera=1

Wait for it! NEW PRIUS --> $19,699 Brand new!

hehe

I'll add a pic incase the roadside ad changes:

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/8133/prius19699numba2iy1.png

"sometimes you just have to respond when someone is so off the path of reality...."

To nearly everyone posting here:


Sometimes you just have to respond when people (sheeple?) are so far from recognizing documented facts.

I am now convinced (by the President, GM and Toyota all reported on the same day as announcing that electric vehicles (EVs) must be mass-produced quickly) that General Motors will indeed produce a range-extended EV with 40 miles of all-electric range and sell it for $40,000 or less in 2010.

I can buy a used pure EV now, the RAV4 EV with a 125-mile range, for that. Dozens of them have rolled over 100,000 miles without serious range losses, using decade-old nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries (rights to make which were sold by GM to a major oil company-controlled firm, which will not sell them to small customers.) I will be able to buy perhaps six different highway-capable battery EVs (all with far better EV range than the Volt) for $40,000 by then.

All of the facts that I've cited (which several of you cannot seem to accept) are well-documented by impartial and scholarly research. I suggest a visit to Electrifying Times Magazine online or to EVWorld.com for those of you whose opinions can be influenced by hard data.

I look forward to passing you all in your gas-dependent Volts; I'll be in my 2010 Tesla 'White Star' or other fast $40,000 EV.

Battery EVs can reduce US air pollution by a third, free us from dictators' oil and allow us to drive trouble free for a nickel per mile.

Breathe free - Drive EV!

Statik, Statik, Statik............

The term for that is called "teaser" pricing on a single unit to get people on the lot. Did you notice the Vin# on the ad? If you go in to that dealer and ask to take that one for a ride, you will be told that it is either already sold, or out on a test drive, and there are ten other people in line in front of you. And then the term is "bait and switch" to get the sucker, excuse me, customer into a more profitable item for sale..........

But thanks for the laugh!

So do I need to holster the .45's for a flare up in the war, or are we just playing now?

:)

Statik, Statik, Statik............

The term for that is called "teaser" pricing on a single unit to get people on the lot. Did you notice the Vin# on the ad? If you go in to that dealer and ask to take that one for a ride, you will be told that it is either already sold, or out on a test drive, and there are ten other people in line in front of you. And then the term is "bait and switch" to get the sucker, excuse me, customer into a more profitable item for sale..........

But thanks for the laugh!

So do I need to holster the .45's for a flare up in the war, or are we just playing now?

:)

I've been sitting on that, because we had a deal. I gave you the last word.

If the tables were turned, and I brought you up first in this thread, then said, "But sometimes you just have to respond when someone is so off the path of reality.... " certainly I assume you would retort.

Two questions for you...and you can decide if we are going to dog each other again.

1.) Did we have a deal to stay out of each other's way?

2.) Did you bring me into this unprovoked after I gave you the last word?

If you answer them both, without the hoopla, I will 'virtually' shake your hand again on this deal, and this can sink into the annals of this lovely new forum....and we can stay out of each other's way again.

Hugh,

Well, I guess we'll just have to keep listening to your stories of GM's history with EV's (snore). For me, I'm moving onward to vehicles like the Volt. By the way, I have never worked for GM, its subsidiaries, or suppliers.

To Jim I and Texas, thank you for your support, but I have to agree with your assessment, Hugh cannot see the positive aspects of the Volt nor the commitment GM is making to this vehicle, only his negative perceptions of GM's past.

To Jim I, I haven't followed the war you are having with Static (more appropriate name, I think), but from what I can see, with the Volt coming to market, they apparently can't give those Prissy's away.

Hugh had a comment that applies even more to Static, "I look forward to passing you all in your gas-dependent .... Prius's"

Statik:

1. Yes we had a deal.
2. The comment to which you refer was in reference to Hugh, not you.

I am ready for a handshake.

:)

Ok. Deal back on...lets just not mention each other at all, live in oblivion and all that.

(Just to be clear to Billl - we were debating the actual price of the Prius...endlessly, lol. I was was the lower, Jim was the higher)

BillR:

For people filled with enthusiasm for GM's range-extended electric vehicle (REEV,) most of you seem remarkably incurious about the last electric car promised by GM. Some seem unwilling to hear (let alone learn from) EV history. No one is forcing you to read my posts, folks. Hey, no one will force you to breathe!

I also participated in the 2000 GMEV web site puffery, although I continued asking GM to sell (or at least lease) me an EV1 until the "Ask GM" facility was taken down. The site itself disappeared a year or so later.

I then began participating in the GM EV1 Club web discussion list; when GM closed that, I joined several other EV-drivers discussion lists. Thousands of people tried to stop the repossession and crushing of the EV1, the Honda EV Plus and many of the Toyota RAV4 EV battery electric vehicles (EVs.) Nissan's lithium-battery Altra EV was never even leased to individuals. Ford dumped batteries into Rangers to make slow electric tractors of them, and priced them at $40,000 (double the gas Ranger's base price.) Ford also acquired Th!nk and promised to sell its Norway-built City EVs in the US; two months ahead of the City sales debut, Ford canceled its plan and dumped Th!nk.

Including RAV4 EVs, Ford Ranger EVs, GM S10 EVs, Tangoes, Teslas and home- or small shop-converted EVs, at least five thousand highway-capable EVs are on US streets today.

With the simultaneous reports last week covering GW Bush, GM and Toyota all announcing that EVs need to be mass-produced, I now believe that GM will produce and sell something similar to the Chevrolet Volt range-extended electric vehicle (REEV.)

I'll be able to buy any of perhaps six faster highway-capable battery EVs by 2010 for $40,000 or less. Miles or Tesla will likely get my business, since their follow-on EVs will go over 150 miles on batteries alone and won't drag around an internal combustion engine (ICE) like the Volt.

The production Volt will reduce oil consumption considerably and slow the rise in automotive air pollution. I prefer zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs,) which eliminate both and have superior performance and reliability. Periodic maintenance for the production EV1 consisted of rotating the tires and filling the windshield washer, according to one EV1 technician.

The EV1, according to a GM executive, was "the most efficient production vehicle in automotive history." I know that it beat everything out of stoplights in car-crazy Los Angeles' muscle-car heaven Marina Del Rey, because I did it myself, in a rented lead-acid battery 1996 EV1 in early 2000.

I will consider buying any pure EV that GM might choose to build in the future. Make it so, Number One!

Highway-capable battery EVs will cut US air pollution by a third, free us from dependency on dictators' oil and allow us to drive trouble-free for a nickel per mile.

I, like everyone else, has seen Who Killed the Electric Car, and having worked in the auto industry (as opposed to buying and driving a couple electric cars - big whoop) can tell you that the California Air Resources Board killed the EV1 by mandating EV's before GM had the opportunity to test market/drive the vehicles. I am glad GM and oil companies shoved their policy right back up their butts.

What do you say to the people GM had arrested for wanting to buy the last 78 EV1s in existance? What do you say to the rest of the country that was never given the chance to even SEE an EV1 on the road? What do you say to the people that were turned down for a lease because GM made less than 1200 EV1s?

If I recall correctly, the EV-1 had about 800 lbs of lead acid batteries on board. Think of the liability that these might pose if the cars were sold to the public. In addition, I believe that GM spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the EV-1. If these cars were sold to the public, it means that GM's competition would have the opportunity to copy their work. Probably not a good business decision.

You don't. The 1997 EV1s had 1300 lb of lead acid batteries. The 1999 EV1s had 1000 lb of NiMH batteries. Oops, no 1998 version. Imagine that. As the 1997 EV1s came back from the first lease, they were retrofitted with NiMH batteries and leased again.

Since noone was producing BEVs at the time, having someone copy it was not a problem. Even if they had wanted to, GM sold the battery rights to Texaco.




Ultimately, to be competitive, cars must be produced in high volume. With $1.25 a gallon gas, a limited range EV has a difficult time to find its way into the mainstream. More than likely, GM couldn't make a good business case for an EV ten years ago (note, I didn't see the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", I'm just applying common economic sense to the situation).

You are correct only one out of every two cars sold could have been a BEV. That is the same ratio as it is now.

You should watch the movie. There were a lot more willing buyers than there were cars.



Of course now, times are different. Oil prices have tripled in less than 6 years, and no one knows when or if the prices will ever stabilize. The consumers are ready for change. Issues such as global warming also contribute to the desire for an EV.

As you have mentioned, there are numerous companies working on EV's. The Chevy Volt is also an EV, only with a range extending engine onboard.

Very few care about the environment. They care about their pocketbooks. I wanted an EV in 1980, but there was none offered for sale.

The Volt is NOT an EV. It is a serial hybrid. The fact that it has a means of generating electricity on board makes it a hybrid regardless of what anyone wants to call it.



Now I know you might want everyone to trade in their old ICE driven car for an EV tomorrow, but if you look at technological changes, they usually take time before they become widely accepted. When automobiles first took to the roads, there were few paved roads, the cars were noisy and troublesome, and they weren't great in inclement weather. The public didn't rush out to trade in their horses for the automobile. Obviously, with time and improvement, cars have become mainstream.

I expect a similar situation for EV's. For now, the range extending engine is a must, unless we have a 2nd vehicle with an ICE for long trips, and just use the EV locally. However, with time, as batteries/electrical storage becomes better, and the prices come down, pure BEV's may be all that we need.

Yes it takes time for BEVs to be accepted and we have wasted 10 years.

There is a lot of difference between a horse vs a car on no road and a BEV vs an ICE car on a good road. You can't get stuck in the mud with a horse.

There will never be a time when every car is a BEV. One BEV and one serial hybrid for two car families. Trying to fast charge 100 56kWh BEVs would take too much on-site storage or be too disruptive to the grid. Everyone would complain about the cost of the fast charge as well.



I hope that you can see, that despite not being perfect, GM has the resources, the talent, and the facilities to mass produce something like the Chevy Volt. They have a great deal of experience that they have accumulated from the EV-1, and hopefully can make an EV-REV that is a bridge to the future where the ICE is no longer necessary.

Although GM's history with EV's may not meet your ideal, I believe that times are different. The public wants to reduce oil consumption, wants to reduce dependency on foreign oil, and wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GM is not fat, dumb, and happy at this juncture, but is desperately trying to get back to profitability. I believe the Volt is getting serious attention at GM, not to mention millions of dollars in development funds.

I think it is time to forgo the GM bashing and perhaps take the time to see what is happening at GM, on this website, and with the development of the Chevy Volt. I think most of us have a positive attitude towards GM, their commitment to the Volt program, and what they are trying to accomplish. I'm sure they would appreciate your support as well.

You just might be watching history in the making.

Bill
I'm not sure GM has the resources any more. They can't continue to bleed cash and stay in business very long.

The problem is a lot of us believe we are seeing a repeat of the EV1 history. Until it is in the showrooms, for sale not lease, this is a repeat of the EV1 history.

I am now convinced (by the President, GM and Toyota all reported on the same day as announcing that electric vehicles (EVs) must be mass-produced quickly) that General Motors will indeed produce a range-extended EV with 40 miles of all-electric range and sell it for $40,000 or less in 2010.

I can buy a used pure EV now, the RAV4 EV with a 125-mile range, for that. Dozens of them have rolled over 100,000 miles without serious range losses, using decade-old nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries (rights to make which were sold by GM to a major oil company-controlled firm, which will not sell them to small customers.)

No you can't. The last Rav4EV I saw on Ebay went for $67,000. The new cost of the Rav4EV was $41,000.

The Volt is now being re-designed to look more like the late and lamented EV1 (which had a coefficient of drag 25% lower than any other production vehicle.) It includes unnecessary internal combustion engine (ICE) gear (the Tesla goes 250 miles on a charge, using 6180 laptop batteries) to continue its delays in producing battery EVs.
<P>Politics aside, this is GM's EV history:
<P>1/3/90: "Impact" EV concept debuted at LA Auto Show. GM President promises EV sales.
<P>9/25/90: California Air Resources Board (CARB) calls GM's bluff, mandates California sales of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by major OEMs starting in 1998.
<P> 1993: Western States Petroleum Association hires a high-powered PR firm to reverse the "growing public acceptance of electric vehicles."
<P>1994: GMEV engineer heard to state that the GM Board of Directors " isn't afraid that EVs won't sell, it fears they will." -from "The Car that Could", a book about the EV1 by Vanity Fair columnist Michael Shnayerson.
1997: Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV, Honda EV Plus, GM EV1 and S10 EV, Nissan Altra and Toyota RAV4 EV made available to qualified CA, AZ and NM homeowners only by closed-end leasing. Sparse ads appear in CA for the EV1, with post-nuclear lighting and no human figures. An LA media person produces a much better ad, airs it and gives it to GM: it is buried. This was OEM EV "test-marketing", complete with anti-EV full-page ads nationwide and planted op-eds in national newspapers and magazines, repeating anti-EV myths.
<P>January 2000: I rented and drove a lead-acid battery EV1 in Los Angeles; the vehicle was fast, attractive, nimble and well-equipped. Charging stations were readily available all over Los Angeles, enabling visits to every corner of the sprawling city. Later purchase inquiries on the GMEV site yielded excuses rather than assistance or any offer even to lease me an EV1 in Florida.
<P> 6/2000: Green Car study, based on Dohring automotive market data, projects EV sales passing 200,000 in five years. The study concludes: "A market awaits..."
<P> Gen II EV1 offered for leasing with optional NiMH battery pack. Range: 125 miles on a full charge. GM later halts EV1 production at 1150, citing a "lack of demand" despite thousands of interested customers on (GM's unofficial and secret) waiting lists.
<P>2002: Chrysler, GM and CA GM dealers sue in Federal court to evade the CARB zero emission vehicle mandate.
<P>2003: CARB caves in to massive oil and auto industry lobbying and anti-EV PR campaign, signs MOU allowing automakers to determine EV demand. OEMs stop leasing EVs, refuse renewal and purchase offers and begin repossessing EVs from lessees. The EVs are destroyed (see Plug In America web site for links to photos.)
2004: Upset lessees being deprived of their EV1s hold an "EV1 Funeral" at Hollywood Forever cemetery, as shown in the later EV documentary.
<P>2006: The documentary film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" wins awards, then becomes a Top Ten documentary for the year. In central Florida, we had three battery EVs on display in front of the theater on our July opening weekend.
<P>January, 2007: GM announces the Volt, pending development of suitable lithium-based batteries. After further GM waffling,EV groups suspect a GM return to EV-crushing form.
<P>January, 2008: A year later, despite twenty other EV makers going forward with lithium-battery EVs, GM still cannot seem to set a production date (the earliest sales won't be until next decade.)

<P>Estero: it's range-extended EV. Not a hybrid; that cat has escaped the Auto-Oil bag. GM may sell an EV with baggage, years after others sell battery EVs.


<P>Jason: American consumers shouldn't be forced to jump through hoops to lease an EV (see the movie for first-hand accounts.) OEMs don't provide the vehicle choices that consumers have been demanding for a decade; only Toyota has been honorable enough to actually sell a few hundred RAV4 EVs. I've heard all the makers' excuses and lies so many times that I maintain a guest blog on EVWorld.com to refute such gullible folk as (you, who) parrot the corporate Party Line.

<P>I am a member of the Electric Auto Association and have been publicly advocating EV sales for over eight years. I've driven the GM EV1, the Toyota RAV4 EV and the new eBox (AC Propulsion-converted Scion xB.) I may just know a bit more about EVs than my detractors. See Electrifying Times Magazine and Plug In America online and EVWorld.com for more (correct) information.

Give me a vehicle that can:
1. Drive across the United States
2. Recharge or Refuel in less then 5 minutes
3. Cost under $30,000
4. Meet all NHTSA standards
5. Meet all Federal Regulations
6. Tested to 500,000 miles
7. Backed by a 3 year/36,000 mile waranty
8. Include a fully functioning AC and Radio
9. and not look like a spaceship...

Those vehicles are designed for 5% of the market, making it impossible for the other 95% of the population that want a vehicle that meets those standards to buy one.

http://whiteafrican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/consumer_mapping003-001.jpg

The reason 99% of products never make it mainstream is because what a Innovator or Early Adopter is looking for is completely different from the needs of a Pragmatist. None of those vehicles you mentioned meet those standards, therefore it's out of the reach of 95% of the population.

For those in the lower-income brackets that actually need a vehicle that costs $10,000 or $15,000 they are stuck with a Fit, Aveo, Yaris, or used small car, while Elon Musk, Eberhard, Rockstars, Gov. Schwarzenagger, and others who can afford it, can purchase a Tesla Roadster.

Theres something fundamentally wrong when the only people that can afford these cars are 1% of the population yet, are the same people claiming they are saving the world while ignoring 99% of the automotive market.

Only the Volt and Fisker Roadster (not Tesla) meet 8 out of 9 of those claims.

The Ebox costs over $60,000 for a ScionB and voids the factory warranty. Not to mention you can't drive it to Tahoe and back, because theres no outlets in Tahoe.

Hugh,

Why did you come here and start this thread? What was the purpose?

The OP is from February. :)

The OP is from February. :)

You know, I never even noticed that. I thought this thread was all current. Oh well, I guess I'll never know Hugh's motivations for this thread.:rolleyes:

Get a grip and you say would have paid for it and yet you don't even seem to have one of those ebox EV. You would have paid for it? 80K$ back then, over 100K$ in todays dollars, what are you waiting for to buy a Telsla? The answer to this question is no, you would pay 80K$ for the EV1. GM is selling mass market and is not a boutique car maker like Telsla or Fisker, and still you would still have to wait 2 years with those car maker... GET A GRIP. Go troll somewhere else.

GM is very open about the Volt program, the thing we know and learn 2 years prior to its launch is something rarely seen in the auto industry, bravo to GM on this one.

GM is very open about the Volt program, the thing we know and learn 2 years prior to its launch is something rarely seen in the auto industry, bravo to GM on this one.

They're serious about the volt because they're desperate. GM knows it made a big mistake selling its future to oil men a decade ago.

let me ask you a q do you think hydrogen fuel cell cars are a good bet or another back pocket money maker !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know i have bought gm cars all along but will NEVER BUY ANOTHER AS LONG AS I LIVE!! I know the real reason the ev1 was killed and you seem like a intelligent person why dont you tell me why they pulled all the ev1,s off the road like it was a bad infection spreading that the CDC couldnt control!!

Get a grip and you say would have paid for it and yet you don't even seem to have one of those ebox EV. You would have paid for it? 80K$ back then, over 100K$ in todays dollars, what are you waiting for to buy a Telsla? The answer to this question is no, you would pay 80K$ for the EV1. GM is selling mass market and is not a boutique car maker like Telsla or Fisker, and still you would still have to wait 2 years with those car maker... GET A GRIP. Go troll somewhere else.

GM is very open about the Volt program, the thing we know and learn 2 years prior to its launch is something rarely seen in the auto industry, bravo to GM on this one.

Please remember that the $80,000 figure includes supposedly $500,000,000. in R&D and $50,000,000. worth of the worst commercials I have ever seen spread over 1150 vehicles. That was a fixed cost that would have decreased as more vehicles were built. The other thing that no one thinks about is that those 1150 vehicles were hand built. There was no assembly line set up to produce those vehicles. The third point that everybody wants to ignore is that the $25,000 NiMH battery that went into the EV-1 would have dropped to $5,000. with guaranteed sales of 20,000 units per year.

The questions GM never wants to answer is: What was the actual production cost of the EV-1 per vehicle without factoring in all the R&D? If it had been put on a production line, how much would that have dropped? We know the battery would have dropped $20,000.

The questions GM never wants to answer is: What was the actual production cost of the EV-1 per vehicle without factoring in all the R&D? If it had been put on a production line, how much would that have dropped? We know the battery would have dropped $20,000.

Battery? Nah that doesn't exist, those batteries only go 50 miles and die after 2 years. Everyone knows electric cars aren't real. ;) And don't forget the RANGE ANXIETY that all these worried consumers have warned GM about! There's no way these things could ever sell!!!

But seriously, where did you get your $5,000 figure? I don't doubt you but I'd love some kind of source to show people.

Battery? Nah that doesn't exist, those batteries only go 50 miles and die after 2 years. Everyone knows electric cars aren't real. ;) And don't forget the RANGE ANXIETY that all these worried consumers have warned GM about! There's no way these things could ever sell!!!

But seriously, where did you get your $5,000 figure? I don't doubt you but I'd love some kind of source to show people.

The original Delco batteries ran 60-70 miles and the failure rate was more like every month or two. That was GMs failure for putting starting batteries into a deep cycle environment. They were replaced with Panasonic EV-FC1260 batteries and the range went to 110 miles. When CARB forced GM to release the vehicle with the NiMH batteries, the EPA certified range was 140 miles. These same NiMH batteries are still working after 6 years in some S10 PUs GM let get away. These S10s have the same power train as the EV-1.

The $5,000 figure was from a video of one of the CARB meetings I saw as an RSS feed. I wish I could have saved it, but I did not know how at the time. The speeker was the CEO of PEVE - the joint venture of Toyota and Panasonic for the development of NiMH batteries before the GM/Texaco-Chevron lawsuit.

Range anxiety was not a problem for the people that received the vehicles. In fact, range anxiety is a manufactured problem created by GM, Chevron and Alan Lloyd (chairman of CARB when the battery component of the ZEV mandate was killed.)

Range anxiety was not a problem for the people that received the vehicles.

This is true. The other 14,999,617 car buyers that year said, "Umm... Thanks GM, but no thanks."


In fact, range anxiety is a manufactured problem created by GM, Chevron and Alan Lloyd (chairman of CARB when the battery component of the ZEV mandate was killed.)

Yeah, what new car buyer would ever want to go more than a hundred miles in their new car? (Clearly no one, since everyone here on the forum was just fine with GM reducing the size of the gas tank for the ICE on the Volt.) After all, if the battery ever gets too low, you just have to beg somebody for an electric outlet like a homeless person, and then it only takes a couple of hours before you can limp your way back home. What new car buyer would ever have anxiety about this scenario?

There should really be a law against conspiracies. Ever since JFK, it's been out of control. Seems like there's a conspiracy for everything these days!:rolleyes:

It's funny when GM fans hear the facts about the EV1, they just can't take it. It's also pretty frustrating that so many people bought into their bull****.

This is true. The other 14,999,617 car buyers that year said, "Umm... Thanks GM, but no thanks."
14,999,617 car buyers eh? You think that many people buy new cars every year? With only certain Saturn dealers offering the cars, you also have to consider availability. The "Thanks GM, but no thanks" was more for the wait 6 months to get the car. I once had a friend with a SCUBA store. His favorite comment was "You can sell from an empty wagon." There were 3 problems with the EV-1 that kept many people from getting one.

1. They did not want to wait 6 months or more to get a car. GMs problem not the EV-1s.

2. They could not use a 2 seat car. This is an EV-1 problem, but it is also a Corvette problem. I do not see GM rounding up all the Corvettes and crushing them. In fact the Corvette is still in production.

3. The people looking for a new car had never heard of the EV-1 and did not know they were available. This is a GM and their advertisers problem not the EV-1s problem.





Yeah, what new car buyer would ever want to go more than a hundred miles in their new car? (Clearly no one, since everyone here on the forum was just fine with GM reducing the size of the gas tank for the ICE on the Volt.) After all, if the battery ever gets too low, you just have to beg somebody for an electric outlet like a homeless person, and then it only takes a couple of hours before you can limp your way back home. What new car buyer would ever have anxiety about this scenario?

There should really be a law against conspiracies. Ever since JFK, it's been out of control. Seems like there's a conspiracy for everything these days!:rolleyes:

I have an Ebike with a range of 25 miles. Never had a range problem. I know how far I can go on it and if it's too far, I take the other car.

How many cars do you have in your driveway? Why isn't one of them a battery electric?

14,999,617 car buyers eh? You think that many people buy new cars every year?

No, actually they useuslly buy more these days. I was being conservative because the EV-1 was in the past. We average around 16-17 million cars sold in this country every year. Here's an article from UPI about how sales were down last year.
www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/01/04/2007_US_car_sales_lowest_level_in_decade/UPI-91471199456098/


The "Thanks GM, but no thanks" was more for the wait 6 months to get the car.

So this wonderful new car that cost almost nothing to run and had zero emmisions wasn't worth waiting six months for? These buyers just said " Oh well, I guess I'll get a Civic."? What other significant EV would these prospective buyers gone to? Not too many out there then. This tells me that what the EV-1 had to offer wasn't all that great in the eyes of the consumer.


2. They could not use a 2 seat car. This is an EV-1 problem, but it is also a Corvette problem. I do not see GM rounding up all the Corvettes and crushing them. In fact the Corvette is still in production.

It's true that only two seat turns away a lot of buyers. So again, what the EV-1 had to offer wasn't that great in the eyes of consumers of the time. The second half of this point I can't even understand. GM did not round up the EV-1s and recycle them because they were two seaters and nobody I know of ever claimed they did.


3. The people looking for a new car had never heard of the EV-1 and did not know they were available. This is a GM and their advertisers problem not the EV-1s problem.


Wasn't it you that posted earlier that GM spent $50,000,000 on advertising for the EV-1? Sounds like they tried to make people aware. I know I was. In 1996 I was one of those 15 million new car buyers and being in the California market, I was well aware of the EV-1 and it's cost and performance. I was one of those "Thanks, but no thanks" people.


How many cars do you have in your driveway? Why isn't one of them a battery electric?

I've got two in the driveway, one at my shop and two in storage. I don't have an electric car for the same reason almost everyone else in the world doesn't; they have yet to build an affordable one that's worth buying.

I've got two in the driveway, one at my shop and two in storage. I don't have an electric car for the same reason almost everyone else in the world doesn't; they have yet to build an affordable one that's worth buying.

Ask yourself why there are no affordable electric cars. Better yet re-read the previous page of the thread.

No, actually they useuslly buy more these days. I was being conservative because the EV-1 was in the past. We average around 16-17 million cars sold in this country every year. Here's an article from UPI about how sales were down last year.
www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/01/04/2007_US_car_sales_lowest_level_in_decade/UPI-91471199456098/.

But the EV-1 was only available in California and parts of Arizona. What does that do to your 15,000,000 figure?




So this wonderful new car that cost almost nothing to run and had zero emmisions wasn't worth waiting six months for? These buyers just said " Oh well, I guess I'll get a Civic."? What other significant EV would these prospective buyers gone to? Not too many out there then. This tells me that what the EV-1 had to offer wasn't all that great in the eyes of the consumer.
Most people who I know wait until they need a car. Sometimes 2 weeks is too long.




It's true that only two seat turns away a lot of buyers. So again, what the EV-1 had to offer wasn't that great in the eyes of consumers of the time. The second half of this point I can't even understand. GM did not round up the EV-1s and recycle them because they were two seaters and nobody I know of ever claimed they did.
Please be more specific. You should have said "some consumers". It does not apply to all consumers. It is not just then either. That is why they plan the Volt as a 4 seater. My point is that GM narrowed their potential purchasers by making it a 2 seater. The other point is that there was no reason to round up all the cars and crush them. They have never bothered to do that with any other vehicle they have ever made.

.





Wasn't it you that posted earlier that GM spent $50,000,000 on advertising for the EV-1? Sounds like they tried to make people aware. I know I was. In 1996 I was one of those 15 million new car buyers and being in the California market, I was well aware of the EV-1 and it's cost and performance. I was one of those "Thanks, but no thanks" people.
That was what GM claimed they spent on the ads. I never saw one of the ads until 2006. I was in California from 2000 to 2002. I was turned down for a lease because I was from Texas. I even had someone from the company I was working for try to get one for me. They came back with a Toyota Rav4-EV. What I got from the GM salesman was "You do not want that car. You can't carry anything in it and it will leave you stranded because of the battery." I bet that is where your range anxiety came from.




I've got two in the driveway, one at my shop and two in storage. I don't have an electric car for the same reason almost everyone else in the world doesn't; they have yet to build an affordable one that's worth buying.

GM EV-1
Toyota Rav4-EV
Honda EV+

All the other EVs were fleet only. I wish I could have kept the Rav4EV, but it was still on lease and I could not bring it back to Texas at the end of my contract.

I read some of the negative posts towards GM in this thread. Some are genuine, some are not.

But now, the economy has changed from the 90's. The game has changed completely. People are dumping SUV's and Hummers in favor of fuel efficient vehicles - most likely the Prius. The Big 3 are reporting huge losses every quarter because of this rapid change from SUV to small vehicles. Now, the Big 3 are scrambling to get fuel efficient vehicles on the road before it is too late.

I don't think that GM can afford to be lazy and avoid electric cars anymore. They can see people are buying more and more Prius's then anything. If they don't produce the Volt, or skirt the issue like they did with the Impact and EV-1, then they are literally committing suicide.

GM can't afford to lose more customers at this point. They know the stakes now: Volt or bankruptcy. If they don't release the Volt, no one will trust them again (I wouldn't). If they don't release it, then it's a shot in the foot.

I don't think that GM can afford to be lazy and avoid electric cars anymore.

I don't think it's a matter of GM being lazy or avoiding EVs. In the 1990's California told the auto industry that they would have to sell a percentage of cars as EVs in California if they wanted to continued to business there. So, GM, Toyota, Honda and Ford put some cars out there for consumers to use. The rest of the manufacturers must have considered California not worth the investment. Predictably, very few consumers showed interest in the expensive, low performing vehicles. The evidence convinced California that the time was too soon for EVs on a mass scale, so they removed their EV requirement. Immediately, all four manufacturers stopped production and set about recalling cars.

Since this time and until this year, nobody has produced an EV for sale in this country and only Toyota took the initiative to produce an electrically assisted car. Honda and others including GM soon followed, but these were not real electric vehicles. If GM was lazy and avoided EVs, then so was Nissan and so was Mitsubishi, and so was Suzuki and so was Izusu and so was Subaru and so was Mazda and so was BMW and so was Mercedes and so was VW and so was Audi and so was Porsche and so was Volvo and so was SAAB and so was Hyundai and so was Kia and so was Ford and so was Chrysler. In addition to this list you could add a list of all the minor specialty brands like Ferrari and Bentley and oh yeah, every other car manufacturer world wide that we don't get here in the US like Citroen, Fiat, Lada, Tata, etc.

It's not that GM was lazy, it's that they were practical. GM knew what everybody else knew, EVs were expensive to develop and very few people wanted them... until gas shot up to $4 a gallon. Now there is a mad scramble by everybody to get EVs in the showroom and GM's actually at the front of that pack. Even now it's hard to tell how many people really want them. Even on this forum, everybody wants one, but as soon as the price goes over $30k they start dropping off the higher the price goes. So they don't want them that bad. New tech costs money, a lot of money, and the resulting product then has a high price tag. This is why GM and everybody else, has been very hesitant for years to build EVs.

A bunch of BS

How many times to I have to repeat myself? How can I get through to you?

The key component of an electric car is the battery, it's what everything rides on. GM bought the rights to NiMH batteries (the only kind of battery at the time suitable for electric vehicles) and then sat on it, all the while claiming their EV1 wasn't good enough for market. Then the california air resources board forced GM to put NiMH batteries in the EV1. Then GM, along with the federal government, sued CARB into submission and crushed all the EV1s. Then they sold the battery rights to Chevron. Toyota was still making RAV4EVs until Chevron sued them.

The nonexistence of electric cars has absolutely nothing to do with their practicability or a lack of demand. It has everything to do with car companies making a killing on their unreliable mechanical engines and all the parts that go into keeping them running. That and oil companies desperately trying to keep their monopoly on transportation.

...

The nonexistence of electric cars has absolutely nothing to do with their practicability or a lack of demand. It has everything to do with car companies making a killing on their unreliable mechanical engines and all the parts that go into keeping them running. That and oil companies desperately trying to keep their monopoly on transportation.

So what are the oil companies doing to destroy the Volt and the Prius and the entire Tesla company?

So what are the oil companies doing to destroy the Volt and the Prius and the entire Tesla company?

I'm sure some of them would like to but there's not much they can do about it. Chevron fortunately has no control over lithium battery technology.

As a matter of fact, Chevron definitely has a role in holding back the plug-in prius. Hybrids today use very small NiMH batteries but the plug-in prius will use Lithium. Chevron has this thing against plug-in cars you see.

I'm being prevented from posting replies until my posts are "approved" by a moderator. (In the Introductions forum.)

I posed some simple questions about why GM is still not making a true electric car (the Volt is still a hybrid), why they discontinued their previous true electric car, and questioning why they are posting Lehman Bros. reports on this home page suggesting oil may become cheap again.

Perhaps not so surprisingly, these forums are being monitored and possibly censored.

Remember the purpose of these forums is to promote GM.

I'm being prevented from posting replies until my posts are "approved" by a moderator. (In the Introductions forum.)

I posed some simple questions about why GM is still not making a true electric car (the Volt is still a hybrid), why they discontinued their previous true electric car, and questioning why they are posting Lehman Bros. reports on this home page suggesting oil may become cheap again.

Perhaps not so surprisingly, these forums are being monitored and possibly censored.

Remember the purpose of these forums is to promote GM.

Relax, these forums aren't tightly moderated. There are a few GM fans here though, people who jump in to defend them.

I don't think it's a matter of GM being lazy or avoiding EVs. In the 1990's California told the auto industry that they would have to sell a percentage of cars as EVs in California if they wanted to continued to business there. So, GM, Toyota, Honda and Ford put some cars out there for consumers to use. The rest of the manufacturers must have considered California not worth the investment. Predictably, very few consumers showed interest in the expensive, low performing vehicles. The evidence convinced California that the time was too soon for EVs on a mass scale, so they removed their EV requirement. Immediately, all four manufacturers stopped production and set about recalling cars.

Since this time and until this year, nobody has produced an EV for sale in this country and only Toyota took the initiative to produce an electrically assisted car. Honda and others including GM soon followed, but these were not real electric vehicles. If GM was lazy and avoided EVs, then so was Nissan and so was Mitsubishi, and so was Suzuki and so was Izusu and so was Subaru and so was Mazda and so was BMW and so was Mercedes and so was VW and so was Audi and so was Porsche and so was Volvo and so was SAAB and so was Hyundai and so was Kia and so was Ford and so was Chrysler. In addition to this list you could add a list of all the minor specialty brands like Ferrari and Bentley and oh yeah, every other car manufacturer world wide that we don't get here in the US like Citroen, Fiat, Lada, Tata, etc.

It's not that GM was lazy, it's that they were practical. GM knew what everybody else knew, EVs were expensive to develop and very few people wanted them... until gas shot up to $4 a gallon. Now there is a mad scramble by everybody to get EVs in the showroom and GM's actually at the front of that pack. Even now it's hard to tell how many people really want them. Even on this forum, everybody wants one, but as soon as the price goes over $30k they start dropping off the higher the price goes. So they don't want them that bad. New tech costs money, a lot of money, and the resulting product then has a high price tag. This is why GM and everybody else, has been very hesitant for years to build EVs.

Check your facts.

Chrysler Epic Minivan NiMH
Nissan Altra miniwagon Lithium

I know that Mazda and Mitsubishi had them too. I just can not remember what they were called.