Don't Call it a Comeback: The EV1 Electric Car

GM's EV1 became a movie star in filmmaker Chris Paine's "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The film documented the debut of the all-electric car that could get 70 miles on a single charge, as well as the battle GM went through to scrap every last vehicle.

When GM first leased the EV1 to 1,000 people in 1996, gas cost approximately a dollar per gallon. Now that we're in the age of $4 gas, the EV1 has begun to make more sense, and some — including automotive journalist John McElroy — have called for its return. McElroy says GM could put it into production in an underutilized factory and cash-strapped drivers would hurtle themselves at the car as soon as it hit dealerships.

GM has made it clear that, due to logistical challenges, this is a complete non-starter. First of all, the EV1 would not meet today's safety specifications; it would cost GM a lot of money it doesn't really have (the company lost a large, if unknown, chunk of money on the EV1 in the '90s); and some of the specialized parts used in the vehicle are no longer being produced.

Also, when it comes to revolutionary vehicles, GM has already gone all-in on the 100 mpg — theoretically — Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid, due in 2010. The EV1 will surely remain a part of automotive history; the technology and overall concept were important in paving the way for the Volt and other fuel-efficient cars that will follow (even if it took automakers awhile to catch on). It’s no coincidence that Paine's next movie, due next year, is titled "Revenge of the Electric Car."

A Suggestion to Revive the EV1, and with it GM's Credibility (Detroit Free Press)

Comments

[LM]

Just a sad reminder of what GM could have done if they had stuck to their guns and continued refining the concept. Jackasses.

[Dave T.]

I read somewhere that each EV1 cost GM about $80K to produce and the retail cost would've been between $35-$45K (they were leased). In 1996 I don't think too many people would have lined up for a tiny electric vehicle at those prices. That's roughly what a new 1996 BMW M3 would've cost.

[ziggy]

The situation was very similar with hybrid technology. Toyota spend millions producing and refining the technology while taking a loss. They stuck with it and it's now profitable. I read somewhere that it took 10 years before they reached a break even point.

[Dave T.]

Ziggy,
As I'm sure a few people will point out former Toyota exec Jim Press stated 100% of Prius development was subsidized by the Japanese govt. A claim Toyota denies. However the Japanese govt does often give grants to private companies for green development.

[ziggy]

It's a shame that our gov't doesn't do that. Oh wait... they do. They spend 3 trillion dollars a year subsidizing the ethanol industry not to mention the subsidies to the oil and coal industries.

[LM]

The Fed also subsidized the 80mpg car program in the 90s, which W canceled on Day 2 of his administration to focus on hydrogen. The 80mpg car program involved Federal money to car makers. The Big 3 lobbied to have the Japanese companies excluded, so they went their own way (and we see what happened with that!).

This was all 1993 or so. Go BIG 3! (note sarcasm)

[Dave T.]

Ziggy,
I believe you mean $3 billion in ethanol subsidies.

[Keith]

If you want to assign blame, assign it to CARB. They demanded that manufacturers meet their EV mandate or else not be allowed to sell any cars in California. So GM took the initiative (using their own money) to develop and produce a commercially-viable EV only to have CARB burn them by rescinding their EV mandate.

[Lil'Tom]

"a sad reminder of what GM could have done if they had stuck to their guns and continued refining the concept"

You mean go bankrupt?

Yes GM is definitely a bunch of jackasses, but remember Toyota did the same thing with the Rav4EV - and that was built on an existing and profitable platform. Toyota fought to kill the zero emission vehicle mandate and started collecting and crushing their the RAV4EVs the day after CARB removed the mandate. The numbers just didn't add up, if they did one of the more competent companies would have an electric vehicle by now.

[ziggy]

Dave - ur right that should be billions. It's the trillions that were wasted on the war. Sorry.

[Valero]

EVs just move the smoke from the tail pipe to the power plant.

California can't provide enough power as it is, what's going to happen when hundreds of thousands of EVs start plugging in?

[Bloke]

Right, but emissions are much easier to control from those pipes. And when the demand goes higher, the prices go higher and subsequently it will pay for electric companies to build more generation there.

[LM]

There is also plenty of excess capacity overnight, when everyone is asleep...when cars would be plugged in. This is the least worry.

And CA's energy shortage was the work of Enron.

As far as the RAV EV, I was driving those around Boston well into the mid part of this decade. Toyota was not as quick to smash those.

CARB was rescinded due to pressure from the industry - NOT because the cars weren't feasible. Demand from the market existed. Watch Who Killed the Electric Car.

[Keith]

LM,
CARB is an agency, not the legislation. I don't know what it was officially called but in effect it was an EV mandate, that 2% of all vehicles sold by a given manufacturer in California had to be zero emission. And who was demanding electric vehicles to create a market for them other than high-profile environmentalists? CARB was forcing EV's on the market at the expense of the manufacturers. The movie is one person's viewpoint and should be treated as such.

[Keith]

LM,
CARB is an agency, not the legislation. I don't know what it was officially called but in effect it was an EV mandate, that 2% of all vehicles sold by a given manufacturer in California had to be zero emission. And who was demanding electric vehicles to create a market for them other than high-profile environmentalists? CARB was forcing EV's on the market at the expense of the manufacturers. The movie is one person's viewpoint and should be treated as such.

[Lil'Tom]

Some demand did exist, but "Who Killed the Electric Car" was a little misleading. They asserted that 5000 people wanted an EV1. Which is true in that 5000 people expressed interest but when GM explained the EV1's limitations and gave the lease terms there weren't many takers.

Toyota certainly wasn't as quick to smash the REV4s. Dontcrush.com successfully petitioned Toyota to preserve the RAV4s that were scheduled to be destroyed. The difference between the RAV4 and the EV1 is that the Toyota has to produce parts for the gas versions of the RAV4 which work with the EV version. So it's not nearly as hard to keep the electric RAV4s on the road as it would have been to keep the EV1s running. Plus the RAV4s were probably better made anyway.

[Doug Korthof]

GM has no intention of producing an EV...

The fact that Lutz, a battery ignoramus, makes up bogus "reasons" why GM can't make the EV1 again, just shows that GM is a complete liar about the EV1 -- and indicates it's lying about the VOLT.

GM is right now forbidding volunteer engineers from restoring museum versions of the EV1 at no cost to GM. One was already restored, and GM "reminded" WWU of the conditions it laid down: no restoration of the EV1 to a full electric car.

So GM is suppressing ALL reconstruction of the EV1, even at no cost to GM!

Thus, Lutz' argument of "excessive cost" or "parts not available" is NOT THE REAL REASON GM is still killing and suppressing the EV1.

You can see GM suppressing the fully restored EV1 on Youtube, where it drove into the RenewableLA exhibit, and GM then squashed it, forbidding it to be shown any more.

So the real reason GM hates Electric cars is something Lutz is lying about, and the same rationale will stop any future GM electric car.

GM is just a liar.

[Doug Korthof]

To correct one lie: Toyota VOLUNTARILY sold the RAV4-EV instead of crushing it. The "dont crush" campaign was to save the FLEET LEASE RAV4-EV, not the 328 that were sold to the public.

[Doug Korthof]

We prove that ELECTRIC CARS can be powered by ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS

No gasoline needed for the daily grind; over 600,000 miles driven without gasoline (we do have one gas car which we used for occasional long trips).

The money we saved from NOT buying gasoline paid for our solar rooftop system.

The only reason you can't do so is that you can't buy a plug-in car. And GM will not allow you to do so, if the past is a guide to the future.

[Keith]

Doug, what exactly is your point? GM is developing their Volt and then will refuse to sell it because they don't want anyone having a plug-in car? Museums are deprived of a fully working EV because GM has a conspiracy theory against working EV's? People are deprived of spending a ton of money on a car which reeks of 12-year-old technology?

[Doug Korthof]

Keith,
The question is: Why is GM still suppressing the EV1, even when it doesn't cost them a thing to let it drive on the streets?

But you know that's the point.

Should anyone believe GM about the VOLT?

After all GM's lies about the EV1, how credible are they about the supposed VOLT?

[Doug Korthof]

Keith,
CARB is the "California Air Resources Board" and the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate required 10% of all cars sold in California to be zero-emission by 2003.

The American Auto Mfg. Assn. fought this, with the help of Western States Petroleum, tooth and claw, even hiring "sock puppets" to write bogus letters and Joe Cerrell to run a disinformation campaign.

CARB's ZEV mandate was watered down to just be a demonstration program, with the tacit assumption that AAMA would make a "good faith" effort to market the EVs (HondaEV, EV1, RangerEV, Rav4-EV, Altera, and other lesser
EVs).

Finally, in 1999, the AAMA was disbanded, reconstituting itself as the Alliance of Auto Mfg. (including Toyota). In 2000, AAM sprang its trap, that they were only required (by the MOA) to "place" a certain number of EVs on the road for a certain number of months.

The movie is pretty accurate, it's not "one person's opinion", and inaccuracies are mostly sequences and stylistic.

There's a lot more dirty deals and aspects to the killing of the EV than would fit into the movie.

[Lil'Tom]

Why would GM, in the pathetic state they're in, dedicate resources - and a LOT of hype - to the Volt if they have no plans to produce it. Killing the Volt would just make them look bad. They already received a lot of negative attention regarding the EV1, and I don't think they want any more.

GM never actually wanted to produce the EV1 they just had to comply with the ZEV mandate which they fought hard to kill from day one. There's no such mandate behind the Volt. GM created the Volt program of their own volition without government incentives (like they get for their worthless hydrogen vehicles).

GM is stupid, but I don't believe they're that stupid.

[Doug Korthof]

lil'Tom, GM's stupidity knows no bounds.

Imagine, putting a proven battery LOSER in charge of the VOLT?

Lutz' last job was as CEO of Exide Battery, which he saddled with excessive debt through his fundamental failure to understand the battery business (bought GNB to reduce global capacity??). Lutz fled to GM, and Exide filed for Chapt. 11.

An Electric or Plug-in car IS really the battery; the motor-controller and ergonomics are much easier, cheaper and known. The real difficulty is in the BATTERY.

But Lutz is fundamentally ignorant of batteries as used in an Electric car, as he's shown in some really embarrassing episodes. An EV needs high power (for acceleration without a gas engine), high cycle life (more than 1000, preferrably 2000) and deep cycles (more than 25 kWh, or enough to go 100 miles). And there's the issue of amortizing the higher cost of Lithium over fewer miles and shorter shelf-life.

Lutz once joked that Lithium was non-toxic, and you could chew on it (Li is used for bipolar disorder), while falsely claiming that NiMH was toxic (it's NiCd that's toxic).

Lutz knows little of life-cycle costing for an EV; if the VOLT is less than a disaster, it won't be due to the guy running the program.

Lutz claimed that NiMH was too heavy; but the 8 retrievable kWh in the VOLT require 16 kWh of A123, and weigh 400 lbs.; 12 kWh of NiMH would be fully-useable, and weigh less than 400 lbs. So it's too complicated for someone like Lutz to really understand.

At best, even if Lutz is honestly trying to build the VOLT, he's a latter-day convert to the idea of energy-efficiency, and he's gonna have a long learning curve. But this would be inconsistent with Lutz' proven disdain for eco-crap. It's much easier to believe that Lutz's jet planes and profligate energy usage are more what he really is all about.

So don't discount the "stupidity" factor, it's huge.

[Keith]

Doug,
If you are so dissatisfied with the state of EV development then why don't you just start designing, building and selling your own EV's since you obviously know more about them than anyone else out there. Then you won't have to worry about all the lies and deceit supposedly spewing forth from the ignorant Bob Lutz any more.