GM EV-1

[MarkV]

So, was the EV-1 the car of the future? Had GM progressed on the design, would they have produced a hybrid or battery powered car before Toyota?

[Guest bkazmer]

Battery-powered cars go back to pre WWI - Detroit Electric,etc. I don't think the EV-1's battery technology would really be very competitive. The Leaf and Volt use different batteries, and the range/power/weight/cost/charge time relationship still is weak IMO.

A hybrid is a different beast and I think has its technical roots more in deisel-electric locomotives.

[Rusty_OToole]

They did produce a hybrid electric car, the Volt. You can buy one right now if you want to.

The EV-1 was purely an experimental program. The tipoff for me, was in the movie Who Killed The Electric Car? when they said the production line would turn out 4 cars per day.

That is only 1000 cars per year. General Motors can't make money on any car unless they make at least 100,000 per year maybe more. So it was obvious that GM's reason for making the EV-1 was to find out, first, how would the car work out in the real world? Second, how would it go over with the public?

There is an old saying, one mile on the road is worth 10 on the proving ground. In this respect the EV-1 was a success. Other than some battery troubles, which the cured with a new design of battery, it worked out fine.

Incidentally this is why they leased the cars and did not sell them. They wanted to be able to get them back when the test was over, or if necessary recall them if there was a serious problem. They never had any intention of selling the cars, it was purely an experimental program.

The other question was, would the public accept an electric car? Could they be sold in numbers that would make the venture worth while?

The answer here seemed to be that most of the users loved them, however most of them were enthusiasts who were willing to overlook or work around the drawbacks. Plus, all the cars were leased in California, which has a climate favorable to electric cars. The same cars in Maine in winter with no heaters and batteries working at 40% efficiency might not have seemed like such a good idea.

So, GM took the lessons they learned and developed the Volt hybrid. This seems to be the trend in the industry. Most electrics on the market are hybrids.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Jim Rohn]

GM ALSO made them to get the MPG / emissions credit for the rest of their fleet of cars ...

I remember seeing them all lined up at the Desert Proving Grounds right before they were all scrapped ...

There were already MANY places here in AZ that set up charging stations for them

[nickelroadster]

I know of at least one that was not scrapped.

[MarkV]

Why did they scrap all or most of them, and deactivated others? It seems odd...

[Rusty_OToole]

Why did they scrap all or most of them, and deactivated others? It seems odd...

They were MEANT to be scrapped from the day they were made. It was an experimental program to put electric cars in the hands of the public, for a limited time, for data gathering purposes. They were never meant to be sold, they were all leased.

2 more reasons to take them off the road and scrap them: if they sold them, they would be obliged by law to furnish parts and service for 10 years. And, if any faults EVER cropped up you can bet your boots GM would be sued for millions of $$$$$ bux.

They were the prototype. One stage in the design process that led to the Volt.

[Guest 34ACD]

There's a bit more to it. The Federal government has from the beginning allowed California to set its own manufacturing emission standards and set its own gasoline formulation rules because the state had more restrictive standards than the feds. They still do, which is why we pay more at the pump.

In the mid '90's, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had a requirement for manufacturers selling vehicles in the state to produce a "Zero Emission Vehicle" by a certain date. The EV-1 was GM's response. To their credit GM designed one from scratch rather than putting in a plug-in motor in an existing small vehicle. To their discredit they aggressively lobbied the state to change the rules and when CARB later rescinded the rule, the EV-1 program was scratched. I believe that most if not all of the EV-1's were leased to customers in California for that reason not because the state has weather compatible with battery powered vehicles.

We have an EV-1 in the museum where I am a docent. A lot of visitors have seen the movie and know the story so it is a popular exhibit. The car is sleek and very aerodynamic and the interior is very attractive and well laid-out, almost as if it belongs in the cockpit of a small plane. But it is a 2-seater and is not a merchantable design for a broad market. It's limitations were primarily from the Nimh battery technology of the 1990's.

We get a number of stories about it's cost per unit—everything from $30,000 to over $100,000. I suspect the real figure was something like $80,000 per car so I think that had something to do with the fact that all were leased as well. You can understand why they were all crushed since no manufacturer can make a product that they lose $50,000 per unit on and then have a continuing liability to service and produce parts for.

The EV-1 was a small production, experimental vehicle like previously mentioned and was never intended to be a commercial success. It is probable that GM management never wanted it to be a success of any kind, but the design team, at least, seems to have taken the effort to produce a zero-emission vehicle seriously and it is truly an automotive milestone. If the EV-1 were made today with current Li-Ion technology I think it would sell as a niche vehicle since its styling is still very attractive and it has the caché of being the first of its kind, but it would still be a cramped 2-seater that would not reach a significant market segment. The Chevy Volt may use some of the technology GM developed in the EV-1 program but it would be a mistake to call it the evolutionary product of the EV-1. I wouldn't give GM credit for that kind of long range thinking. The real story is "Can you bring about technological change through government regulations?" and I'm not sure that the EV-1 story shows that you can.

Edited June 2, 2011 by 34ACD (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

"It is probable that GM management never wanted it to be a success of any kind, but the design team, at least, seems to have taken the effort to produce a zero-emission vehicle seriously and it is truly an automotive milestone."

You are too paranoid. If top management did not want it to be a success it would never have seen the light of day.

I keep coming back to the production capacity of 4 per day. This is a typical Detroit prototype or test program. No major car manufacturer would tool up for only 4 cars per day unless it was a test program that was never meant to make a profit.

Let me repeat that, a test program that was never meant to make a profit. But was meant to to generate valuable data that could be gotten no other way, as part of a long term program leading to a perfected electric car that could be sold in large numbers.

That is the Volt.

It may not be what they had in mind at the start, and it may have taken a lot longer to come to market than they planned. But that is how things work out in the real world, when you set out to make something really new. When you start the research process you don't know where it will lead. If you knew all the answers at the start it would not be research.

It is possible to bring about technological change through government regulation but it is a horrendously expensive and inefficient way to do it. A thorough analysis of government regulation of the auto industry since the sixties, would reveal that it did bring about change but nearly destroyed the auto industry and along with it, the American economy.

An experienced automotive journalist and long time critic of Detroit, Tom McCahill, said in 1967 that Congress's efforts to regulate the auto industry reminded him of a convention of drunken plumbers laying down rules and procedures for brain surgeons to follow. What we have seen since, has confirmed this analysis again and again.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

The question of what Detroit can and cannot produce reminds me of a story about the creation of the Mustang. The design team showed the top brass a 4 cylinder, mid engine, 2 seater roadster prototype. When Lee Iacocca saw it he said "we can sell these by the thousands. What we need is a car we can sell by the millions".

Instead they commissioned a restyled Falcon which did indeed sell in the millions.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest 34ACD]

Rusty,

I always love those McCahill similes.

I still think that the EV-1 had more to do with politics than any effort by GM back in the mid-1990's to develop an electric car as a product. If they were just doing a prototype they would never have released it to the public in any form. But they had to look serious for the CARB. That was 15 years ago and was strictly about meeting California air pollution rules. You have to live in California to understand how this state has never hesitated to tell businesses what to do and make it impossible for them not to. They still do but few industries are willing to write-off the biggest state in the union as a market. The only people looking at electric vehicles back then who didn't have to were a few innovators like Corbin's Sparrow car that could never attract enough capital to make it.

GM like all the other car manufacturers was forced to deal with emissions particularly in California long before they began to realize that a business model based solely upon gasoline vehicles was not viable in the long term. The Chevy Volt is a product of that realization as well as the "green" movement of the 21st Century that began to create market demand for alternative fuel vehicles that really didn't exist in 1997 at a level that a conservatively run company would bother with. Now they are hanging their hat on the success of the Volt. Ironic.

[Ron Green]

The later EV-1’s used the NiMh batteries instead of early production lead acid batteries to lessen weight and have better range. Unfortunately they had a major design flaw and would overheat to the point of catching fire especially when charging. GM recommended they be charged outside and not in a garage (not very feasible). GM tried different fixes including cooling fans but nothing worked.

[Rusty_OToole]

Rusty,

I always love those McCahill similes.

I still think that the EV-1 had more to do with politics than any effort by GM back in the mid-1990's to develop an electric car as a product. If they were just doing a prototype they would never have released it to the public in any form. But they had to look serious for the CARB. That was 15 years ago and was strictly about meeting California air pollution rules. You have to live in California to understand how this state has never hesitated to tell businesses what to do and make it impossible for them not to. They still do but few industries are willing to write-off the biggest state in the union as a market. The only people looking at electric vehicles back then who didn't have to were a few innovators like Corbin's Sparrow car that could never attract enough capital to make it.

GM like all the other car manufacturers was forced to deal with emissions particularly in California long before they began to realize that a business model based solely upon gasoline vehicles was not viable in the long term. The Chevy Volt is a product of that realization as well as the "green" movement of the 21st Century that began to create market demand for alternative fuel vehicles that really didn't exist in 1997 at a level that a conservatively run company would bother with. Now they are hanging their hat on the success of the Volt. Ironic.

My impression from the movie WKTEC is that the law was passed after GM introduced the EV-1.

If you know anything about new model development you know they had to have begun development of that car at least 5 years before it was introduced.

The passage of that law must have set back the introduction of zero emissions vehicles by 10 years. Think about it. At that time there was exactly one car company that had a suitable vehicle, General Motors. And they did not consider it ready for prime time. No wonder the industry panicked and put on a campaign to kill the law and hope everyone would forget about it. If that is the result of trying to develop a zero emissions vehicle you would have to be crazy to try it.

Incidentally I hear the new Volt has the same problem of overheating batteries in a few cases. So they have not solved the problem yet.

When you charge a battery too fast that is apt to happen. But how can you charge the battery slow when the public demands the fastest recharge time?

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

The question of what Detroit can and cannot produce reminds me of a story about the creation of the Mustang. The design team showed the top brass a 4 cylinder, mid engine, 2 seater roadster prototype. When Lee Iacocca saw it he said "we can sell these by the thousands. What we need is a car we can sell by the millions".

Instead they commissioned a restyled Falcon which did indeed sell in the millions.

Iacocca knew the market for a 2 seater was limited...

[Guest 34ACD]

Well, I think you make good points Rusty. But the first zero emission target for vehicles sold in California was adopted in 1990 and the the EV-1, at least the surviving example I am familiar with, was manufactured in 1997. The targets for ZEV's have never gone completely away but have been rolled back and modified repeatedly at recently as this year. For most people today a battery operated car seems obvious and they wonder why no one thought of it before. That's why we have our EV-1 sitting next to a 1915 Rauch & Lang Electric.

[MarkV]

Is your ev-1 powered? Can you post pics?

[Amphicar BUYER]

That EV1 must be the one at The Peterson in LA.

[Guest]

So, was the EV-1 the car of the future? Had GM progressed on the design, would they have produced a hybrid or battery powered car before Toyota?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, EV-1, Leaf for the short term and limited range driving. Even shorter term Volt and cars like L1, and even shorter Prius. Volt and especially Prius cost too much in cost/maintenance/testing. Maintaining two power sources and one of them you have to emission test AND change battery packs is not worth the money or more importantly the resources. I don't think they will be showing up at a AACA event when they are fifty years old.

Fifty years from now Hydrogen would be my bet.

[Guest 34ACD]

Is your ev-1 powered? Can you post pics?

The one I am talking about is at the California Auto Museum in Sacramento. The Peterson Museum in LA and another car. I think 5 or 6 were donated to museums by GM.

When the batteries are charged the interior, gauges and other lights all light up. In fact it is pretty cool to see. But GM removed the computer chip that runs the drive train so it is permanently un-drivable.

I don't have any photos of the EV-1 at home but I will take a few shots next time I have a docent shift at the museum and post them. Might be a week or so.

[Guest]

This was a fun car to drive, and looks better than the new Leaf

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Nissan-Rnessa-n30_1997-front.jpg

As a All electric it was called Altra. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Nissan_R%27nessa_EV_001.JPG/800px-Nissan_R%27nessa_EV_001.JPG

Edited June 3, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)