Ten years ago, my local electric company invited me to participate in a two-week test of the then-new General Motors EV-1 electric car. After some detailed vetting, including a ten page questionnaire and a long focus group (with the de rigueur one-way mirror), I was selected to receive an electric-powered GM two-seater. For those of you who wonder who killed the electric car, it was me.
The EV-1 looked as futuristic as its plug-in powerplant. Even today, its wind-tunnel sheet molded exterior has an appealing modernity– despite (because of?) the rear wheel spats. Inside, the EV-1 was a roomy two-seat vehicle– albeit one with a huge center tunnel (concealing a storage area for the batteries).
The lack of rear seats befit the nature of the car, keeping weight and size down. In [partial] compensation, the EV-1 had a large trunk, capable of holding a number of suitcases, a brace of golf bags or other luggage. The conventional notchback coupe-based design offered a trunk that opened on gooseneck hinges, providing a flat cargo area with a netted divider to keep loose items from flying about.
GM's boffins located the control panel for the EV-1's operational functions– radio, AC, four-digit keypad ignition, etc– to the right of the driver's side. The gearshift lever blocked access to some of the key functions. The EV-1's dashboard doesn't sport any traditional gauges or instrumentation. A central control "hump" contained the a speedometer/odometer and the all-important digital battery power readout: teeny-tiny horizontally-stacked ice blue bars signifying the amount of charge left in the batteries.
The same display could also show the amount of load on the batteries. Coasting on flat Florida lands, the bar graph racked-up two or three bars. With a heavy right foot and the AC blasting, it was one of Hef's Girls Next Door on a bender (nine out of ten bars).
The bar display frequently disagreed with the amount of miles left display. This was, in part, due to the different methods of calculating the amount of charge. The bar display was more closely related to actual state of charge of the batteries while the amount of miles left display attempts to come up with an average mileage available left based on previous driving habits. On at least one occasion, with twelve miles left on the display, the vehicle ran out of juice, leaving me hunting for a 110 plug.
That said, driving the torquetastic EV-1 was a pleasant experience, roughly equivalent to helming an ICE-powered V6 coupe. I could hit sixty in about eight seconds. The EV-1's rack-and-pinion steering made the car a joy to toss around on twisty roads, and easy to park. Noise was a problem; the whine was not unlike listening to a Singer sewing machine.
My daily commute was thirty-seven miles one way. With a 75-mile range, every trip was loaded with drama. If I went to lunch, I gave up a few precious miles. That could mean disaster (we're talking southern Florida here). I started driving the EV-1 home with the AC and radio off. I once coasted into my driveway, and pushed her into the garage.
In my two week test, I drove more than nine hundred miles. My total electrical consumption: approximately $12. This is equivalent to eight gallons of gasoline at $1.50 per gallon (can you imagine?). And that means that "my" EV-1 averaged a little more than 100 miles per equivalent gallon of fuel. This dramatic cost savings is one of the EV-1's shining points. Of course, the EV-1 was also clean as a whistle– at the [non-existent] tailpipe. That doesn't factor-in the carbon expended at the electricity at the coal or oil-powered powerplant, or the risks imposed by nuclear power.
As we all now know, GM scrapped the program and crushed all of the EV-1s. And now GM is mounting an alt power comeback with the plug-in electric – gas Volt. While I'm all in favor of start-stop engine technology, I have to wonder what might have been if the EV-1 had continued its evolution. All I know is this: the EV-1 may have been IT. But it wasn't it.
Tagged as
149 Comments on “1997 General Motors EV-1 Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Thanks Michael – we would have been 10 years on the way to true alternative drivetrain development, across a range of car brands, if the car majors hadn’t gone clueless in 2001.
The repeal of the CA ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) ruling is coming back to haunt GM and Ford.
I couldn’t believe that they’d pass up this opportunity, but they did. Another hobby horse of mine: there are 35 million Americans living in private or gated communities. Why? Because they want peace and quiet. What do they drive inside their communities? Golf carts – and they would like to have proper EVs, with air conditioning and comfort.
A huge market, that no one has exploited properly. A few years ago, when property development was still roaring along, I got in touch with a few developers, with a proposal outlining a range of vehicles – from service vehicles up to personal transport solutions – all EV. They were ecstatic. But getting manufacturers to bite was nothing but trouble …
I am just learning more about EV,s I do know that electric cars would be the way to go less gas used the better off we would all be. I drive a older chevy pickup back and forth to work and I would love to have a EV to go to work but at this time just can’t afford one. If anyone has an Idiea on were to get one for a reasonable price let me know. We all need to wake up and start saving the world we live in.
Stein, I agree, the auto industry missed a huge opportunity. As the review pointed out, it seems another reason why the EV died is because the consumer has a mindset about the range of an EV. We are used to gassing up going 300 to 400 miles without refueling while the EV needs to be plugged in. To bad we could not escape that wall.
After I saw “Who killed the electric car” I was angry and thought GM woes are well deserved, but it was other companies that rolled over as well.
As for big companies in general, they pretend the are all about change and new ideas, but based on my personal experience, that is not the case.
I used to work for small high-tech company. It was fun. Then my company got bought by a huge famous high tech company. They treated us ok, but a steady stream of senior exes got pushed out, and other left. There where a couple of hold-outs. I know one of the marketing folks. He told me that one of the main reasons why he left is because if an had an idea, it would have to go through 10 layers of management for , approval by then the “new” idea was already old. While the big company was getting our “process down. Our product was falling behind. Now 18 months later, they realize that we are behind, and after laying off some engineers from one group, they now realize they have to hire more people from the department that suffered lay-offs a few months ago.
Thanks to the oil lobby, EV1 was a failure…
Thanks, this was a review of an interesting car. Too bad GM put more effort into fighting CARB than refining their PEV.
The EV-1 would be perfect for me, as I only commute 12 miles, round trip. I wouldn’t even have to plug in every night, and I could play the radio and run the AC w/o worry. Of course, my old Raleigh is even more economical.
Good riddance to the EV-1.
Completely impractical range and chock full of batteries that threatened the environment. GM simply had to crush the things to shield itself from future liability.
I, too, saw the nonsensical “Who Kill the Electric Car”. That movie would’ve been more valid if its main EV-1 proponent wasn’t a disgruntled former GM employee.
As for author’s use:
An inaccurate fuel gauge? Barely coasting into one’s driveway? Is this a safe vehicle? And the 0-60 time of 8 seconds is do-able…once or twice. I’ll bet it killed the range, however. 15 seconds is more realistic, at which time you’d be flattened by a semi.
Sure, the EV-1 should’ve progressed to the world’s first hybrid. Then again, GM didn’t have billions to develop that tech. The Japanese govt financed the Prius. Not that hard when you’re given a blank check…..
I disagree, limmin.
The EV1 was an excellent starting step – they were also perfectly aware that they had to consider creating a four-seater, and that they might need hybrid solutions, given the limitations of battery technology then. Enormous strides have been made in the latter.
You should have seen the gas turbine version they had in development — battery/turbine hybrid. Would have parked the Prius.
While they were busy killing the EV1, Toyota launched the Prius. GM went into defensive “will never work and is impractical” mode – now look who’s laughing.
Ford actually had the better car, in the Think City, but they killed that. But the EV1 was an excellent concept and try-out vehicle – after gathering realworld feedback they should have launched a modified and improved version – and then, today, we would have seen the next generation vehicles we really need, on our roads.
Instead, GM is reduced to trying to create something out of thin air with the VOLT, while the company is woefully out of funds and fresh ideas.
BTW – for what it’s worth. The average daily trip covered with a car in the U.S. is just over 30 miles — which means that literally tens of millions of vehicles (I’m being conservative in my estimate) don’t need greater ranges.
And even with increased electricity prices the equation still favors the vastly more efficient electrical motors over ICE.
Stein, a hybrid turbine? Would like to have seen that one. Makes a sense as the turbine could be designed to burn just about anything, and function only as a generator. With Honda’s experience building turbines with GE I keep hoping they will be the one to take the step.
I was in Basel (Switzerland) the other week; the Hilton Hotel is one of several places that offer recharging facilities for electric cars. Yes, there were several Fiat Panda Elettricas and Renault Twingo Elettricas to be seen. Progress marches on, with or without GM (I say this without irony).
It is extra disappointing to see that GM was actually close to being on the cutting edge of something, albeit an edge with some glaring flaws. Just think of what could have come of this if it received continual development instead of the crusher. Back then, GM’s cash cows were on overtime pumping profits into the bank. They could have easily continued to refine this beast. Just think of the payoff today? Anybody recall the early ads for the Olds Quad Four? An engine was being held in the air by a racially diverse group of UAW members and the tag line was “The Vision is Paying Off.” We all know how that vision went, but the EV-1 could have been a great part of a balanced portfolio of products.
BTW, Stein X, a “gated community” is not a community once access is limited to a select few. When I go to my folks to visit I have to punch a code to be allowed the privilege to enter the land of lawn, lights, water fountains and manicured living. How revolting. I’ll put up with the occasional stranger any day.
limmin:
How fast to do you think people accelerate in typical driving? Probably about twenty seconds to 60.
Anyone remember this article?
“The Insight failed because it only had two seats.”
“The Honda Insight came to market first…but aside from city commuting it was worthless as a daily driver.”
“…the Insight wasn’t practical at all. It was a technology exercise.”
So what does the Insight have to do with the EV1? A couple of things, the EV1 is a two-seater just like the Insight. The EV1 also has minimal cargo carrying capacity like the Insight. But unlike the Insight, the EV1 was beset by extended charging times and a limited range, and it was expensive as hell.
The Insight was deemed unsuccessful despite it’s insanely high mileage because it was declared impractical. Wouldn’t these be the same problems that kill the EV1 had GM decided to put this car into production?
@golden2husky
I share Walter Kulash’ view when it comes to developing alternative cars: they should be made to work in real environments. He, too, finds the gated communities anathema – and he has instead dedicated himself to creating liveable environments out of the tarmac we’ve dedicated to monster cars, at the expense of sensible pedestrian habitats mixed with cars sized to interact with pedestrians.
That said. If the future of “my” car platform hinges on my finding a market where I can develop it, and no other car manufacturer is delivering solutions specific to a market comprising 35 million people, then I’d go for it.
The average number of cars owned by those living inside such communities is (was) 3.7. Just make one of those an EV and you have a multi-billion dollar market going.
We’ll be flex-driving in the future. A lot will solve their multi-car needs through car-sharing (check out Philly CarShare, for instance. Growing with 4000 new members/month.)
Others will have a small, handy and energy-lean vehicle on hand for most of their motoring. And a larger vehicle for those rare occasions where one is really needed (and they are rare – tradesmen and women excepted. I’m discussing private motoring.)
Detroit did their customers and themselves a great disservice with the inane focus on large margin top spec’d vehicles. And let’s not just blame Detroit – in the end everyone got in on the game, even Audi, which already had 4×4 wagons, what did they have to make the Q7 for?
Water under the bridge – everything’s changing now.
Are there really more people in gated communities in the US than in the whole of Canada?
The definition of private/gated communities also extends to exclusive suburban areas. Don’t have the exact statistics here now, but going by the value of the homes in 2005, that was the number – and projected to grow to plus 50 million by 2020. (That may change with the downturn in building activity now.)
@ quasimondo
The EV1 was never for sale. It was leased to customers, and remained the property of GM. It was a test vehicle, created in order to collect real world data that would be used to develop a range of vehicles that would be sold to customers.
The SmartForTwo doesn’t seem to suffer much from being a two-seater? But I will admit that people are more willing to drive with the number of seats they actually use today! :-) (75% of all trips in a car, in the U.S., are with a single occupant in the vehicle.)
http://www.smartusa.com/
It’s very simple, really. Until someone figures out how to make electric cars that can be recharged in less than five minutes, they are doomed to fail.
A car that cannot be refueled on the fly is impractical for the average consumer. As nasty and evil and dirty as oil is, it has the advantage of being easy to transport and store, which makes it an ideal fuel for the masses until we choke to death on it, run out of it or find something better.
The Volt concept may have some potential. I’d feel better about its prospects if someone else was making it.
lemmin said:
“Then again, GM didn’t have billions to develop that tech. The Japanese govt financed the Prius. Not that hard when you’re given a blank check…..”
Not true, and not true. The Japanese gov’t didn’t finance the Prius. And guess what? GM DID have billions to develop it. Do you not remember how much money GM, Ford, and even Chrysler made in 2000-2005? Billions, selling trucks and SUVs for $5-10K over cost. Even lowly Chrysler was wallowing in cash and profits. So where did all this money go? The Harvard Business School graduates “invested” it in more truck and SUV development, because that’s where the profits were right then.
And explain this to me again… How exactly does Rick Waggoner still have his job?
The author responds:
An inaccurate fuel gauge? Like most of today’s cars, the miles left calculation is always and estimate. However with short range it was more important to be accurate, something that the vehicle lacked to a degere.
Barely coasting into one’s driveway? Only on one occasion. My commute was longer than average and with a longer lunch that day…
Is this a safe vehicle? As best I could tell, yes.
And the 0-60 time of 8 seconds is do-able…once or twice. No it was easily repeatable. Unique thing about electric cars is that they have a flat full on torque curve from stand still. Each drag race costs an extra 5 miles or so of range. What week-ends are made for.
I was thinking the other night about electric cars (EV1 and perhaps someday the Volt) and I realized that we now have some tech that we didn’t have in EV1 days which could really help make them work smarter.
If they implemented a GPS navigation system, and you told the car where you are going, a computer could calculate a reasonable estimate on how far it needs to go. Modern nav systems even know the elevation of the path so it can factor in hills.
A nav system could also know where charging stations are, should the car run low on power and need to be topped up.
It could measure the outside temperature and estimate how much heat or cooling would be desired.
If the nav system were coupled with a comm system (even a low bandwidth data cellular network like the new 3G iPhone uses), then the nav system could ask for and receive real time traffic conditions, and weather predictions.
The last item would be a scale that measures the weight of the vehicle. This can be measured at the suspension system.
With all this information, the car could better strike a balance between comfort and distance. It could tell if it had enough power to go where you wanted.
The reviewer mention how he had to do all this calculations in his head. With a good nav system, the car can do all of this. I think such a feature would go a long ways towards alleviating the fears people have of getting stranded by one.
None of this is revolutionary.. it all exists today. Nor is it super expensive. It only needs to be brought together to make a smarter car.
As someone who commutes 28 miles round trip for work, in a vehicle that takes probably that “slow” 15 seconds to get to 60 and hasn’t been flattened yet, I’d like an electric car that; like the EV1; represents something more substantial than a golf car.
Charging-up every other day would not be a problem, nor would topping-off every day in winter, to compensate for heating use.
Many people in my area have engine heaters for winter, so they already have the handy outlets and extension cords needed to plug a car in every night.
BTW, on the subject of attempted flattenings, semi drivers are business-like enough to not want to risk screwing up their delivery schedule. I fear the Urban Cowboy/Cowgirl with his/her oversized penis substitute/penis-envy statement far more.
Interesting review. I didn’t know there was to have been a turbine-powered serial hybrid version. That would have been a winner, if only they have kept developing it.
I tend to agree with Pch101 – it’s the refueling time that’s going to hurt a pure EV as a mass-market vehicle. That’s why I think a serial hybrid (engine to charge the batteries, and if big enough, power the car while charging) is a good way to go. You get the advantages of an EV for short trips, with the range of a normal gas car if you want.
-S5
Here’s a thought.
The companies that make the cars don’t drill for oil or ship gasoline.
They focus on building cars.
And then us car owners drive to the gas stations to refill.
Why the heck can’t we think in the same manner when it comes to EV vehicles? And have the manufacturers accept a standard battery pack?
Said pack would then be easily replaced at the recharging stations.
I would think the company that sets this up will own EV motoring.
Replacing the pack would take a few minutes.
However, as one who has a neighbor with a THINK City vehicle, I don’t see them having any trouble at all. They recharge every evening and take quite long drives with their car.
Battery-electric vehicles will always suffer from two very significant handicaps: refueling time and range. This isn’t just because of immature technologies or slow development, it’s down to laws of physics:
1) Range
The very best batteries currently in theoretical development have 1/18 the energy density of gasoline, and the best commercially available batteries have only 1/86 the energy density of gasoline. This means that for a given weight of ‘fuel’ there has to be a penalty in range and/or performance equal to this ratio. It’s not like this development is being hampered by our dependence on oil, either, because it’s not just cars that would benefit from better batteries – laptops, mobile phones, MP3 players, and hundreds of other technologies are already driving this development.
2) Refueling Time
If we ignore battery technology and assume we have created an electric car most drivers would accept, refueling time is still going to be an issue. Recharge time is currently limited by the batteries, but the bottleneck will very quickly shift to electricity delivery. Assume you were to develop an electric car with approximately 100 hp and a 300-mile range, and you were willing to wait 10 minutes for a charge-up at a gas station. Delivering electricity at that rate would require each filling station to have its own electrical substation. You would connect not a wire but a 6-inch bus bar to your car, then step back to a safe distance in case anything exploded. It’s difficult for most people to comprehend how much energy a pipe full of gasoline carries, but if you tried to match that with electricity, any reasonable wires would just melt.
I believe electric cars are the future, but not battery-electrics. Neither are hybrids, as they don’t solve our gasoline problems so much as delay them. No, the future will be hydrogen fuel cell-powered electric cars, which suffer from neither of the above drawbacks. Yes, fuel cells have some problems, but none which are insurmountable.
Back in 1996, I was seriously considering a DIY EV using a small Ford Ranger 2WD pick-up. The advantages of a small pick-up for the conversion is that the battery pack can be installed under the bed between the frame rails. This leaves the cab and bed as original. The plan was to use deep-cycle lead acid marine batteries. After doing all the calculations, this EV conversion would have had a range of about 70 miles @ 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Manual trans, no a/c, no power anything except for lights, radio and cabin fan. What stopped me was the battery life. The battery pack would have cost about $2,500 and lasted for 15,000 at best — the vehicle range would steadily decrease as the batteries got older. Than I would have needed another battery pack @ $2,500.
Here are my minimum requires for EV:
Cost equal to comparable gas powered car.
Range of at least 100 miles in mixed driving.
Recharge of of more than 4 hours.
Battaries that last 100,000 miles before they need replacing.
I don’t see the above happening anytime soon.
Crazybob hit the nail on the head.
The electic development is all well and good, but as a practical matter who is going to provide right of way for new power plants and transmission lines to be run with in view of their homes?
Also, I wonder who will indemnify the “evil electric companies” for the ration of careless/foolish who ZOT! themselves?
It’s very simple, really. Until someone figures out how to make electric cars that can be recharged in less than five minutes, they are doomed to fail.
Maybe not. They just won’t be for everyone. I could commute back and forth to work M-F w/o ever recharging (assuming 75 mile range). Even if I had to recharge one night a week, what’s the problem plugging in before I go to bed and unplugging when I go to work ? Why does this need to be reduced to 5 minutes?
Granted, if you can’t do your daily driving and get home before the batteries run down you’re screwed, and therefore not going to buy a PEV. But this doesn’t mean no one can make use of them.
Even if I had to recharge one night a week, what’s the problem plugging in before I go to bed and unplugging when I go to work ?
The electric car has existed since the 1890’s. If these sorts of challenges didn’t pose a problem, we would have been selling them in large numbers over the last 110 years.
If cars cost $29.95 and could be folded into something the size of a cardboard box, it wouldn’t matter — you could stack a pile of them in the garage and grab whatever one was handy as you needed it. But cars are the second most expensive item people will buy and they consume a lot of space, so it is important for most people to have a vehicle that serves most of their needs.
Gasoline sets the benchmark — you can obtain it in about the same amount of time that it takes to get a quart of milk at a convenience store. When a car needs hours to refuel, that’s a problem because it compares quite poorly to gasoline in this respect.
There are sound reasons why the market has not taken to them, despite talk for decades about how wonderful they are. When companies don’t listen to their customers, they tend to lose money. Recharge time matters; nobody wants to make a habit of coasting into their driveway and sweating buckets on the drive home just because he decided to go out for lunch.
Supercapacitors, not batteries, are the future of pure-electrics and hybrids. “Our analysis shows that the utilization of a matrix of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes as electrode structure, can lead to an ultracapacitor characterized by a power density greater than 100kW/kg (three orders of magnitude higher than batteries), a lifetime longer than 300,000 cycles, and an energy density higher than 60Wh/kg.” (MIT Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems)
@Pch101
Gasoline is a vastly better method of storing energy for automotion; however, the price of gasoline is being adjusted, and people are looking into an alternative. With improved battery technology, the better power to work ratio of electric motors may become a contender. An ICE engine wastes enormous amounts of energy compared to the work it delivers in moving a vehicle along a surface. (Though there’s lots of room for improvement.
@ factotum
BMW has struggled with supercapacitors for years – thinking they needed them to deliver the boost of force people associate with BMWs. But recharging supercapacitors is a challenge — though as your link points out, this may be improved.
An ICE engine wastes enormous amounts of energy compared to the work it delivers in moving a vehicle along a surface.
From the consumer’s standpoint, the wastefulness isn’t terribly relevant, just so long as it is cost effective and the efficiency is adequate enough to make the product useful.
Take an apple. For its weight and volume, it contains far less energy (calories) than a nutrition bar. Yet we still eat apples, not just because we like them, but also because they contain enough energy to serve our need for calories. The fact that apples aren’t the most efficient delivery mechanism of energy doesn’t matter, just so long as they provide enough of it.
True, most of an internal combustion engine’s energy is wasted and expelled as heat. Yet it is quite easy to build a vehicle that can travel between 200 and 600 miles, depending upon what it is, and that can be refueled very quickly.
Therefore, from the end-user’s standpoint, the inefficiency of the ICE poses no burden; the output as it stands now is more than adequate. The greater issue of inefficiency is the factor of time involved in refueling.
People don’t mind giving out some heat, but they terribly mind committing hours of time to something that can be done quite quickly otherwise. The whole point of the automobile is to allow us to move more quickly; long refueling times are antithetical to the core motivation for having them in the first place.
I was just looking at one of the remaining EV1s in the Petersen Auto Museum off Wilshire in West LA. This car would have been extremely practical for my commutes. My old commute was about 8 miles each way. Augment that with something that has more range, like a Prius, pickup or 350Z, and it would certainly work out well.
I’d love to see a PEV with a modular, easy-to-access battery pack with its drivetrain interface cleaned up. Worried about range on a long trip? Pack a spare. When you run out of juice, wrestle in the topped-up one.
PJ: The battery pack is over a hundred pounds on a Prius. And any future pack is likely to be the same or larger, as we go for higher ranges, offsetting any increase in energy density. So it’s not gonna be easy without a handcart regardless…
golden2husky wrote:
When I go to my folks to visit I have to punch a code to be allowed the privilege to enter the land of lawn, lights, water fountains and manicured living. How revolting. I’ll put up with the occasional stranger any day.
Huh? It’s a private property. Do you lock your home and your backyard when you go to work? How dare you? You have something against strangers?
As for the EV-1, it was a combination of range and recharge time that killed it.
I still think there is no escaping the future of electric cars. That is the only realistic way to clean up the environment and cut ourselves off from the ME. And yes, I believe some form of a supercapacitor or a hybrid thereof will likely lead us there.
If there’s room in the car for an extra battery pack, then you can engage it with a simple switch, I should think … and it would probably be best to just be drawing off both.
A modular pack, standardized, that could be switched at stations en route is being suggested by various parties — but getting the car makers to conform to a standard is just about impossible.
Still, there’s a disconnect here (pun intended). We let other companies supply our gasoline — the carmakers should collaborate on standardizing battery packs. Makes more sense than spending zillions on hydrogen stations.
I’m really growing weary of the old mantra: “The average commute is less than blah-blah miles, so an electric car is all anyone needs….”
That’s how people have been justifying these outlandish electric or hydrogen cars.
Such a conception just stinks of socialism: each according to his/her need.
If my commute were a mile, would a bicycle be “all I need” ???
My commute is 11 miles or so. But since I live in America, and since I believe that unlimited oil is my birthright, my commute is ANY length I want it to be.
The toyota hybrids are a success because they allow a (figurative) unlimited commute. There are no compromises. The EV-1 was all about compromises. The EV-1 was all about advanced trip planning. This is enjoying life?????
The EV-1 lost not because of a secret GM conspiracy. It lost because it didn’t tap into the true spirit of America: that the greatest privilege in this country is the potentially unlimited commute. The side-trip to McDonalds to or from work, the extended shopping lunch, the multiple errands after work at a shopping mall 30 miles away.
America isn’t about going to work and coming home. America is about going to anywhere, and coming home at anytime. America isn’t about where you go, it’s about where you want to go.
I firmly believe that Toyota had govt help in developing hybrids. I also firmly believe that Toyota dumped and is dumping the car on our shores, at below cost.
But at least the Prius grasps what it truly means to live here. The EV-1 could never figure that out. Shred them all. Shred that dumb movie too.
“I firmly believe that Toyota had govt help in developing hybrids. I also firmly believe that Toyota dumped and is dumping the car on our shores, at below cost.”
Where is the proof? And don’t forget that GM actually did get government incentives to develop hybrids through the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
“But since I live in America, and since I believe that unlimited oil is my birthright, my commute is ANY length I want it to be.”
Scary. Would you support attacking other countries to obtain more oil?
The electric car has existed since the 1890’s. If these sorts of challenges didn’t pose a problem, we would have been selling them in large numbers over the last 110 years.
Actually they were quite functional, and sold into the 1920s. They were actually preferred by many people who lived in cities. But, if the average person had to choose between an electric at double their yearly salary, or a Model-T at 1/4 their yearly salary, it became a very obvious choice. This is still a problem with electrics – too expensive – though the Prius hybrid is showing that they needn’t necessarily be. But my point is simply that the range isn’t a problem for a lot of people. More hybrids will be sold, (and more ICE only cars) because they meet the needs of more people, but that doesn’t mean a PEV can’t be useful too.
Additionally, most people didn’t have multiple cars in the early 1900s. Today most families do, and for many a PEV might be a very reasonable 2nd car.
There are sound reasons why the market has not taken to them, despite talk for decades about how wonderful they are. When companies don’t listen to their customers, they tend to lose money. Recharge time matters; nobody wants to make a habit of coasting into their driveway and sweating buckets on the drive home just because he decided to go out for lunch.
But not everyone is going to need a lot of range, and quick recharge, just as not everyone needs an SUV.
I could go to work, run a couple errands after work, drive to the next town to check on my elderly mother, stop at the pub on the way home, and never come close to draining the batteries. At that point an overnight recharge wouldn’t be a problem for me.
OTOH, when driving to the Air Guard base once a month, I couldn’t even make it on one charge. It just depends on what one’s needs are.
I’m really growing weary of the old mantra: “The average commute is less than blah-blah miles, so an electric car is all anyone needs….”
That’s how people have been justifying these outlandish electric or hydrogen cars.
Such a conception just stinks of socialism: each according to his/her need.
This doesn’t make sense. How does it stink of socialism to recognize that different people have different needs? No one has said that a PEV is all ANYONE needs, just that it fits the needs of many people.
America isn’t about going to work and coming home. America is about going to anywhere, and coming home at anytime. America isn’t about where you go, it’s about where you want to go.
As an American, am I allowed to decide what America means to me? Am I allowed to decide for myself what meets my needs, or have you appointed yourself the arbiter of all American’s driving needs?
pch101:
you make a valid point about the waste energy from an ice. Today, tomorrow, and for the past 100 years, this was/is a moot point.
however, if projections on oil demand along with a diminishing supply hold true, this point will become significantly important. Imagine if you could burn your gasoline and get double or triple the driving range – would be a pretty good thing…
I imagine that if people could adapt a technology that would cut their fuel bills in half (or more), it would be adapted…
of course, the benefits ‘must’ outweigh the ‘costs’, more/less for large market adaptation…
Most people will likely interpret such a statement as being written either tongue-in-cheek or head-up-ass. I sincerely hope it’s the former, and not the latter.
This was an excellent review, particularly since the car hasn’t been driven in many years. It made me miss my EV1 (I’m pretty sure it’s one of the green ones in the left stack).
It’s a shame the author didn’t have access to the NiMH EV1. The second-gen car had a dramatic range improvement, upwards of 200 miles if one was careful. A day of drag racing would still get you close to 100 miles. The new batteries took the car from being a science project to something you could use in your daily drives without fear. The “long lunch” worry evaporated, for example.
And as for fill-ups, I found the EV1 far more convenient than my gas car. I came home, plugged in the car, and went about my evening activities. The car had a full “tank” every morning, which actually reduced my time spent fueling vehicles. My gas car sat most of the time.
The EV1, despite its GM-grade assembly quality (too many poor materials and defects to list), was a wonderful car. It was quick, smooth, sporty, head-turning, and a pleasure to get into every morning. I miss mine terribly.
“Most people will likely interpret such a statement as being written either tongue-in-cheek or head-up-ass. I sincerely hope it’s the former, and not the latter.”
It’s neither. It’s merely the truth.
Limmin wrote: “I also firmly believe that Toyota dumped and is dumping the car on our shores, at below cost.”
How cool of Toyota to provide subsidized transportation to us North Americans. And to think that I once believed they were a profit seeking corporation.
Dynamic88:
Regarding early electrics, check Jay Leno’s garage where he reviews his Baker electric. Leno mentioned the big attraction of such cars was no need to start an engine. This was a big concern until the invention/adaptation of the electric starter. I believe he mentioned the largest market for the Baker was women who couldn’t start or didn’t want to risk injury cranking an internal combustion engine.
At $4 per gallon gasoline, I would be interested in how the market would now view the limitations vs advantages of the EV-1 (esp. given current technology).
@limmin
It’s a nice cushion for the numbskulls in Detroit who didn’t clue into what Honda and Toyota saw: they had gov’t support.
They didn’t.
Toyota developed the Hybrid Synergy Drive and the algorithm behind the energy distribution between battery and ICE all on their own. In fact, it’s the algorithm that’s the big secret. Other carmakers have not been able to come up with anything as efficient, and have ended up with huge battery drains. (That’s why Honda’s hybrid didn’t get the silent start, for instance; and why Ford leased Toyota’s algorithm.)
And if you’ve been paying attention, both Fields of Ford and Lutz of Klutz have made serious noises about the need for some gummint money, pleeeeaaase, to help them get out of the corner they’ve backed themselves into.
As to it being your birthright to consume as much oil as you damn well please – absolutely. Though your statement also leads me to believe you’re a patriot through-and-through — particularly appropriate today.
Since the U.S. has 4% of the world’s known oil reserves, and consumes 25% of the world’s oil production — the kind of attitude on display from you actually contributes to a serious, strategic weakness for the U.S. A weakness that is increasingly apparent now that oil prices are skyrocketing.
You’d do your nation a favor if you took a long, hard look at the oil and birthright equation.
But not everyone is going to need a lot of range, and quick recharge, just as not everyone needs an SUV.
The point, though, is that the marketplace has spoken, and it has voted against electrics. If it wanted them in their present form, it would be clamoring for them and the automakers would be providing them to fulfill the demand.
You may personally not believe that range matters, or that recharge time matters. I’m sure that there are a few people who agree with you.
However, there are not enough such people who agree with you to make it happen. If they can’t sell at least 50,000-100,000 of them every year at middle-class prices, it isn’t worth the money and effort to build it.
If the domestic automakers teach us anything, it’s that ignoring the customer leads to losses and brand destruction. If consumers don’t want it, they don’t want it, and there’s no point in hoping that they change.
if projections on oil demand along with a diminishing supply hold true, this point will become significantly important. Imagine if you could burn your gasoline and get double or triple the driving range – would be a pretty good thing
The cost would have to be disproportionately high in order for the market to accept the trade offs and range. I doubt that we’re anywhere near that threshold just yet.
That’s why Honda’s hybrid didn’t get the silent start, for instance; and why Ford leased Toyota’s algorithm.
I would love to see the source for your statement that Ford leased Toyota’s algorithm. According to both companies, Ford’s hybrid system was developed totally independent from Toyota’s. They just happened to infringe on some of Toyota’s patents. To resolve the issue Ford licensed the patents in return for providing Toyota a license on some of Ford’s diesel patents.
The point, though, is that the marketplace has spoken, and it has voted against electrics. If it wanted them in their present form, it would be clamoring for them and the automakers would be providing them to fulfill the demand.
The market place voted electrics out by the early ’20s. I’m not sure there’s been much of a vote since then, unless you consider the Prius to be an electric car, which it is in large part – and in that case you’d have to say the market is voting for it. When Toyota offers a plug in recharge option, many owners will be able to use it as a PEV w/o using the engine – much of the time.
You may personally not believe that range matters, or that recharge time matters. I’m sure that there are a few people who agree with you.
Probably more than a few. If the average daily driving adds up to around 30 miles, that means most people could get by with the range of the original EV-1 most of the time. As someone else pointed out, an upgraded version had a range of 200 miles, which shouldn’t deter anyone from going out to lunch. Most people have their car sitting in the garage all night, so I still don’t see the problem with overnight “refueling”.
However, there are not enough such people who agree with you to make it happen. If they can’t sell at least 50,000-100,000 of them every year at middle-class prices, it isn’t worth the money and effort to build it.
Your point is well taken – if the market is too small, it won’t be served – at least not at a price most people can accept. It might be people would prefer a hybrid, just so they could always use the car whenever they liked. We might very well have PEHVs instead of PEVs. But even if we just look at PEVs, I’d think 100K units per year would be quite easy. There must be literally millions of us who know full well that 75 mile range would be more than enough for our daily needs and that our car will be in the garage all night, regardless of how it’s powered.
If the domestic automakers teach us anything, it’s that ignoring the customer leads to losses and brand destruction. If consumers don’t want it, they don’t want it, and there’s no point in hoping that they change.
But please note that Toyota and to a lesser extent Honda, figured there was a market for electrically powered cars – albeit with hybrid drive. GM and Ford figured that when CARB relaxed the rules in CA, they didn’t need to bother anymore. Toyota now sells what – 250K Prius per year?
@trk2
There are various versions. Wired described it thus:
One reason carmakers like to focus on horsepower is that it’s damn hard to develop an algorithm that manages a hybrid power train. No company has been able to come up with a formula that beats Toyota’s. Ford developed its own algorithm only to realize it was very similar to the Toyota approach; in order to avoid a lawsuit, it ended up purchasing a license rather than pursuing a patent. Mercedes was stunned to discover that its vaunted F 500 Mind concept car, a diesel-electric hybrid, actually got worse mileage on the highway than a gas-only version. Nissan just threw up its arms and licensed nearly all of Toyota’s hybrid technology.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/hybrid.html?pg=3&topic=hybrid&topic_set=
I also had a chance to meet with the chief engineer and his crew on the 400h effort by Toyota a few years ago.
At $4 per gallon gasoline, I would be interested in how the market would now view the limitations vs advantages of the EV-1 (esp. given current technology).
The limitations would still be the same. My landlord still doesn’t allow me to run an extension cord out my window.
@# quasimondo :
July 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
At $4 per gallon gasoline, I would be interested in how the market would now view the limitations vs advantages of the EV-1 (esp. given current technology).
The limitations would still be the same. My landlord still doesn’t allow me to run an extension cord out my window.
Which is a point. Top Gear put it bluntly – “imagine walking down the sidewalk, with power chords running across from all the houses!”
But you’d be surprised by the speed with which charging stations are popping up. Paris is buying 4000 EVs, to be placed about the city, and to be used in the same way that their “free” bicycles are used. Charging stations galore.