By Michael Posner
July 4, 2008 - 585 views
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.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
More Reviews
July 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
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 …
July 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Thanks to the oil lobby, EV1 was a failure…
July 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
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…..
July 4th, 2008 at 8:53 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am
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).
July 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
limmin:
How fast to do you think people accelerate in typical driving? Probably about twenty seconds to 60.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
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?
July 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
@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.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Are there really more people in gated communities in the US than in the whole of Canada?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am
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/
July 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
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?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:51 am
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
July 4th, 2008 at 11:09 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
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?
July 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
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)
July 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
@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.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
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…
July 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“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?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
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?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
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…
July 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“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.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
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).
July 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
@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.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
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?
July 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
@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.
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.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
@# 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.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
And that’s only because of limited production capacity. Toyota dealers have supposedly been saying all along that they could sell twice that many if they could get the vehicles. That’s quite amazing when one considers the current Prius has been in production essentially unchanged for over five years now.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“The point, though, is that the marketplace has spoken, and it has voted against electrics.”
What happened was, cheap gas and the Ford Model T voted against the electrics. Electric cars has been roughly in the same place developmentwise for the last 90 years, while gas-engined cars has been developed tremendously. And, why not? An electric car is twice the price with half the benefits. And has only been available in the margins of the marketplace, like golf-carts, milk delivery vans and government fleet sales subsidised by green politics. But that equation is not written in stone.
If gas prices rises to the level where it is economically beneficial to develop electric cars, then the marketplace will vote for the electrics. And that’s where we are right now.
The combined development costs for gas engines the last hundred years must have been hundreds and hundred, if not thousands of billions of dollars. Imagine if some of that money had been used to develop other kinds of propulsion further than has been done.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Think it was an article in the NYTimes recently, describing how customers are now aiming straight for compacts and hybrids.
One Toyota dealer declared he would stop Prius owners and make them an offer for their cars, demand was so high.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Crushing those vehicles was just mind-numbingly stupid. They could have given ‘em to the current occupants after forcing them to sign a no-support, no-warranty, no-anything waiver and left ‘em in the wild.
Who know what interesting stuff tinkerers would have come up with.
“chock full of batteries that threatened the environment.”
Why do people keep repeating that nonsense? The vast majority of present automotive batteries are properly recycled (the last stats I saw said 98%) and EV batteries are even more likely to be collected and recycled. Conversely, ICE motor oil recycling rates rarely top 50%. Car tire recycling rates hit 60% on a good day. If you don’t think the current fleet has a major negative impact on the environment then I guess we have nothing to discuss.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Crushing those vehicles was just mind-numbingly stupid. They could have given ‘em to the current occupants after forcing them to sign a no-support, no-warranty, no-anything waiver and left ‘em in the wild.
So when those EV1’s eventually did break, they can go running to the press with their sob stories about being stranded in the middle of the night and got no support from GM, waiver be damned?
July 5th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Something that has to be put to bed all night after only 75 miles is of very limited use to me. I might be willing to pay 3 or 4 thousand dollars for it, I suppose. Could GM price the EV1 at $4,000? I’m guessing not…
BTW, where I lived in 1998, gasoline was about 70 cents a gallon. My car could have easily traveled 900 miles, two tanks or so, for less than $20 at that time!
July 5th, 2008 at 4:31 am
@Kevin :
July 5th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Something that has to be put to bed all night after only 75 miles is of very limited use to me. I might be willing to pay 3 or 4 thousand dollars for it, I suppose. Could GM price the EV1 at $4,000? I’m guessing not…
Where I grew up we get very cold winters, and plugging car or engine heaters to a power outlet is second nature - and makes for both a comfortable and clean start in the morning. It’s quite amazing, a cold engine creates a black exhaust mark against white snow; a warm engine barely makes a mark at all.
Well, we plug our cars in for other reasons, but it takes about ten seconds of my time. If your daily drive is longer than an EV’s safety range, then it’s not for you. But as even the inefficient EVs on the market today have ranges double or quintuple the U.S. average daily drive, there’s clearly a lot of people who could use them.
It’s not really going to be an option. Politicians aren’t talking about much other than the electrification of driving …
July 5th, 2008 at 8:58 am
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?….
Huh? Read what I wrote. I have nothing against “strangers” at all. I do despise gated communities because they are not communities at all. No code, no enter. Who the hell wants to live in a prison, even a gilded one. These places are anti-communities. And yes they are private property and come packed with rules. I certainly am not going to live someplace that hands out citations because you car hood is up. My god, Lovey, a car being worked on!! Next to MY McMansion!! The nerve!! I knew they were nouveau riche trash when I saw that domestic thing in the driveway.. (deep sarcasm here)
The plug-in argument is not really an issue from a convenience point of view. I, too recall plugging in my block heater when I went to college in “snow country”. Made a huge difference in those carb days. After the first drive off with it plugged in, I never drove off with it plugged in again…
July 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Regardless of your feelings on alt propulsion vehicles, a manufacturer the size of GM should always be spending at least some R&D money on alternatives. They were burned in ‘73 and they are burned again in ‘08. What the hell, the workers will lose their jobs, the taxpayers will bail them out, and the backward thinking execs will get their golden parachutes as usual. Lets blame the Japanese and big oil too while we’re at it…
July 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
The market place voted electrics out by the early ’20s. I’m not sure there’s been much of a vote since then
We haven’t had eighty years of pent up, unfulfilled demand, but eighty years of virtually no demand.
Automakers aren’t part of a vast conspiracy, and most of them aren’t stupid. (As we are seeing, some of them are stupid, but certainly not all of them.) If there was money to be made in selling electrics, they would be doing it today.
If anything, if the idea was so great, one of them would have gone out of their way to build one in order to be first to market and gain first-mover advantage. In this case, there is no first-mover advantage, so no one makes the first move.
If the Prius proves anything, it’s that pure electrics don’t yet work. Toyota would have simply built electric cars and not bothered with the Prius if EV’s were viable.
Range and recharge time are problems because consumers don’t like it. Anything consumers don’t like is going to hurt sales.
The customer is always right, and needs to be heeded. Telling them a short-range, slow-refill vehicle is acceptable when they have already rejected it is a sure ticket to business failure.
My guess is that consumers don’t like it because it creates uncertainty with the purchase. You don’t know day to day whether your car will have the ability to get you where you need to go, given these limitations. Consumers do not want a car that is going to clip their wings like that.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
How can we criticize GM for not continuing to develop the EV1, while we laugh at Tesla for trying to bring their electric car to the market?
I have to look at the follies that is Tesla motors and wonder why it would be any different for GM? Certainly Tesla had the backing of customers, investors, and anyone else dying to be driven by something other than the internal combustion engine, and yet Tesla stumbles and bumbles.
So, for all of those who criticize GM for pulling the plug on this project, convince me how GM could’ve done a better job than what Tesla’s doing now in the world of electric cars.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
quasimondo :
So, for all of those who criticize GM for pulling the plug on this project, convince me how GM could’ve done a better job than what Tesla’s doing now in the world of electric cars.
That is a genuinely scary proposition, to which I have no answer.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
who was laughing at Tesla? I must have missed it.
The crazy part here is hearing from all the non-EV drivers talk about how it is. How if an EV won’t work for them, then it won’t work for anybody. We hear about the inconveniences of driving an EV, and don’t hear a thing about paying $5 for gas, or taking the car in for oil changes or tuneups. We ignore the huge inconvenience of driving out of our way to fill up with gas while we stand there in the wind/rain/sun/snow on the greasy pavement while the car fills up so conveniently fast. We ignore our economy going to hell while we send BILLIONS of dollars outside of our economy to keep our oil supply coming.
Ah well. This is America where oil is our birthright. :Help:
July 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“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.”
I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but here goes. Considering that even though we probably have a lot of the stuff, “unlimited” oil is not a possibility… what happens to your great America when we run out of it and there is no alternative transportation because everybody thinks like you, true patriot? Does your vision of a great America include world war, famine, anarchy, and chaos? Billions of starving, poor, and eventually dead Americans? Because that’s what it will be. America as you see it today was built on a foundation of cheap gas and transportation for everyone. When that is gone and there is no alternative this will not be America anymore. So if you’re a true patriot, I suggest you start rooting for the underdogs.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
We haven’t had eighty years of pent up, unfulfilled demand, but eighty years of virtually no demand.
That’s true, up until 2001. Since then people have shown that they want a Prius, which is an electric vehicle, albeit with hybrid drive. The appeal is that it’s an electric car most of the time, not that it’s an electric car once in a blue moon.
If you want to say hybrids will probably always sell better than pure electrics, I couldn’t agree more. But the statement you made pages ago was something to the effect that PEVs are doomed to fail. I don’t think they are. They would suit the needs of literally millions of drivers. Maybe not you, or a lot of people, but literally millions who have different needs to yours.
>b> Automakers aren’t part of a vast conspiracy, and most of them aren’t stupid. (As we are seeing, some of them are stupid, but certainly not all of them.) If there was money to be made in selling electrics, they would be doing it today.
I never suggested any sort of conspiracy. Only short sightedness. Toyota will probably beat GM to market with a PEV because most of the technology already exists and has been refined in the Prius. Some of us aren’t going to drive enough in one day to have to worry about ICE backup. We know that. Would the Prius be cheaper without the ICE? Smaller? Lighter? Might these be advantages for some consumers? Are you sure there’s no market? There wasn’t millions of years of pent up demand for the automobile either, and in fact most considered it a toy that would never catch on. Times change, needs change, priorities change.
If anything, if the idea was so great, one of them would have gone out of their way to build one in order to be first to market and gain first-mover advantage. In this case, there is no first-mover advantage, so no one makes the first move.
Again, if we look at the Prius as primarily an electric car with the ICE serving only as a backup and recharging system, then Toyota definitely has a first mover advantage. No other manufacturer has as much experience with electric propulsion. This is an advantage, even if the Prius is never offered in PEV form.
If the Prius proves anything, it’s that pure electrics don’t yet work. Toyota would have simply built electric cars and not bothered with the Prius if EV’s were viable.
Again, the viability argument seems week to me, given that the average daily mileage is around 30, and most PEVs have at least double that range already. There is a bigger market for hybrids, but does that mean the PEV market isn’t viable?
As I mentioned previously, if Toyota puts an on-board charger in a Prius, that can be plugged into the wall, it allows the car to be used in PEV mode and this mode will serve many customers most of the time.
Range and recharge time are problems because consumers don’t like it. Anything consumers don’t like is going to hurt sales.
Looking at the posts on this thread, it seems obvious that your statement is too general. Some consumers don’t like it, some are fine with it. Not everyone is miffed by the idea that we can’t drive to Kansas and back on the spur of the moment.
The customer is always right, and needs to be heeded. Telling them a short-range, slow-refill vehicle is acceptable when they have already rejected it is a sure ticket to business failure.
But they haven’t rejected it. We know the statistics, so we know that many Pirus owners aren’t driving far enough each day to run down the battery pack. We know then that a Prius with a cord on it could be used in PEV mode much of the time. How many owners would want a PEV? I don’t know, but your conclusion that hardly any would doesn’t seem to me to be based on anything.
Another factor in demand is who can we buy from? I’m not buying a car (with any propulsion system) from some little start-up company being run out of someone’s garage. Toyota I trust. Honda I trust. Even Ford I trust. Tesla I don’t trust. GreenHippieCommune Electric vehicle company I don’t trust.
Also look at the comments of the people who leased the EV-1. The majority seemed to have liked the car. That suggests to me that others would like it as well. It’s possible then that there is a market for it.
My guess is that consumers don’t like it because it creates uncertainty with the purchase. You don’t know day to day whether your car will have the ability to get you where you need to go, given these limitations. Consumers do not want a car that is going to clip their wings like that.
Again, this is true for some consumers, probably a majority, but not all consumers. For many the range of the EV-1 would leave us with no uncertainty. That range is quite adequate for literally millions of drivers.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Again, the viability argument seems week to me, given that the average daily mileage is around 30, and most PEVs have at least double that range already.
That apparently isn’t good enough, because people aren’t buying them.
To believe that electric vehicles have a future in their present form, you have to accept at least one of these notions:
-There is a vast conspiracy
-People who run auto companies are morons
Now, we can probably agree that Rick Wagoner could be a bit, well, you know…
But the guys who run Toyota are pretty bright, as are those at Honda and BMW. All of them are perfectly capable of making mass market electric vehicles if they want to. But they don’t. Obviously, they don’t see a market for them, given the range, recharge and cost issues.
If they are wrong, then they’ve blown it big time and someone else who does it first will make gazillions of dollars profiting from their mistake.
The fact that this fantastically successful electric car company does not exist after eight decades of opportunity strongly suggests that the idea is not ready for prime time. Tesla is trying, and the only way for them to get there is to have a price point of about $100,000 per car.
My guess is that Tesla will fail, because even a price tag of $100,000 won’t be enough to hurdle the costs. Obviously, if we can’t fix the recharge and refueling problems with a six-figure vehicle, it ain’t gonna happen for an MSRP of about $25,000, which is where it needs to be to serve the masses.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
We should rewind a touch. Rare is the one-car American family — the issue would be whether, for a variety of reasons, families would want to swap one of their 3+ vehicles for an EV or hybrid.
Said family could diversify mightily, and have a huge hauler/truck/pickuppy thing for those two times a year when the boat needs to be taken to the lake and back.
It could have a mid-range multi-seater.
And the (P)HEV for the shorter range trips.
If the experience others have made holds true, said family will rid itself of the humongous vehicle, and end up with two (P)HEVs.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
To believe that electric vehicles have a future in their present form, you have to accept at least one of these notions:
-There is a vast conspiracy
-People who run auto companies are morons
You’ve left out the actual notion that is not a conspiracy, nor reliant on anybody being a moron:
That car companies are concerned with little more than shareholder value, or profit. And that’s just good business. Gas cars make money right now. EVs do not. Car companies have most of their capital tied up in building gasoline engines. Car companies don’t make EV motors, nor do they make EV batteries. It is simply good buisiness (in the short term) for car makers to continue making gas cars.
The future of EVs is bright because finally the shareholders and customers alike are demanding that the car makers give them something else beyond Titanic life boats.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
That car companies are concerned with little more than shareholder value, or profit.
That was my point. Car companies, like every other business, are supposed to make money. If they don’t make money long enough, they eventually stop operating, make no products and employ no people.
It is not possible to make money with electric cars. Why? Because we don’t want them!
There is inadequate demand to sustain a market of vehicles with minimal range and long refueling times. If we wanted them, they would make them and happily take the profits.
There has been hype about electric cars for decades. The hype has never materialized into a workable, mass market product. You do know the term used to describe those who keep repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Again, the viability argument seems week to me, given that the average daily mileage is around 30, and most PEVs have at least double that range already.
That apparently isn’t good enough, because people aren’t buying them.
If this logic were followed in 1901, the car would have been dismissed because people were still buying more horses than cars.
The fact that wagon making didn’t cease the day after the Duryea brothers tested their first car didn’t mean that there was no future for the horseless carriage.
The fact is that people are buying small numbers of PEVs and others are converting cars to PEV. No major manufacturer yet makes a PEV, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. We don’t know what the demand would be if they were widely available by major (reputable) manufacturers.
Toyota is a battery charger and an extension cord away from having a PEV right now. In fact there are after market conversions to make it possible to recharge the Prius by plugging into the wall.
There are somewhere around 16 electric car start-ups right now. GM is also trying to come out with a PEV. Most of the small companies will fail because making cars requires huge amounts of capital (not to mention experience) and costs can only become reasonable if sales are sufficient. That doesn’t mean the big companies can’t do it.
To believe that electric vehicles have a future in their present form, you have to accept at least one of these notions:
-There is a vast conspiracy
-People who run auto companies are morons
Faulty logic. I don’t have to accept either premise to believe there is a substantial market for PEVs.
I listen to the people who had an EV-1, (they like them) I note that demand for the EV-1 greatly exceeded supply. I look at the statistics that tell me electrics in current form have more than double the range that the average person would need on a daily basis, I see people converting their Prius for plug in recharging, and I conclude that there may be a market for PEVs.
But the guys who run Toyota are pretty bright, as are those at Honda and BMW. All of them are perfectly capable of making mass market electric vehicles if they want to. But they don’t. Obviously, they don’t see a market for them, given the range, recharge and cost issues.
How do we know they aren’t planning to do so? It wouldn’t be hard to convert a Prius to a PEV. For marketing reasons they might prefer to have a different model name, but the technology isn’t a big challenge. We know GM is trying to make a PEV. It’s a shame they’ve squandered their resources and don’t have much for R&D, and it’s a shame that they took 10 years off from electric car development (and the EV-1 could easily have been a springboard to a gas/electric hybrid) but they are still a major company planning to build an electric car (again).
If they are wrong, then they’ve blown it big time and someone else who does it first will make gazillions of dollars profiting from their mistake.
Well Toyota won’t have blown it. They already have substantial real world market based knowledge with electric drive. It wouldn’t be hard for them to come out with a PEV. Honda will also be in pretty good shape. Even the General won’t have blown it - since they are trying to bring out the Volt.
The fact that this fantastically successful electric car company does not exist after eight decades of opportunity strongly suggests that the idea is not ready for prime time. Tesla is trying, and the only way for them to get there is to have a price point of about $100,000 per car.
But it isn’t 8 decades of opportunity. There was no demand 30 years ago because environmental concerns were fewer and gas was dirt cheap. Conditions change.
Tesla has a price point of 100k per unit because they are only going to be able to build a dozen or two dozen per year. Toyota and Honda would not have the same price point.
My guess is that Tesla will fail, because even a price tag of $100,000 won’t be enough to hurdle the costs. Obviously, if we can’t fix the recharge and refueling problems with a six-figure vehicle, it ain’t gonna happen for an MSRP of about $25,000, which is where it needs to be to serve the masses.
You’re still insisting that range and recharge are problems, but they aren’t problems for everyone. I guess there isn’t much point repeating this - as you don’t want to take account of it - but the average daily mileage on a car is 30 miles. That means there are literally millions of people for whom a PEV would be useful. Some will still reject the PEV on the theory that they might suddenly decide they need to drive 500 miles away after work. But there is no reason to insist that no one would accept the “limitations” that are already double the average daily need.
As for price, the Prius is already there. Yank the ICE and put in a battery charger. Better yet, just put in the batter charger and and a switch that can prevent the ICE from kicking in, and suddenly people have a choice to run the car in PEV mode or Hybrid mode. If Toyota does this (and they will) they’ll be able to get info from customers on how often they use the car in PEV mode. (the on board computer might keep track so they’ll get verifiable info) Then they can start putting some numbers to the demand for PEVs.
You’ve presented a logical fallacy - namely that if there were ever going to be a market for electrics there would already be a market for electrics. Since they aren’t being sold in large numbers now, they are doomed in the marketplace. This was wrong for autos in the early 20th century, it was wrong for personal computers, and it may be wrong for PEVs.
If I were running a car company I’d certainly want a PEV project going on, probably in conjunction with a hybrid project. If it turns out there is no substantial market, most of the R&D is well spent in that it’s useful to the hybrid project. If it turns out there is a market, then opportunity isn’t missed.
I’m not going to keep the argument running. I suspect we (or at least me) are boring everyone with our back and forth. I’ve always had a lot of respect for your opinions on auto related matters. I still do. I just think the market might be bigger than you’re allowing for. The fact that major auto makers are not -yet- making pure electrics (well, except of course for GM) dose not suggest to me that there is no potential market. It wouldn’t be the first time the smartest guys in the room missed a new trend.
(Hell, I even know of a case where the smartest guys in the room bought Chrysler).
July 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Pch101
Just out of curiosity: GM has now been losing money for years, on every single car they make for sale in the U.S. In fact, to get rid of its cars - the absolute majority of which are ICE powered - GM has offered insane incentives, 0% financing and anything-with-a-pulse credit clearance.
You write: Car companies, like very other business, are supposed to make money.
How is GM excempted here? For how long? You’re driving the profitability issue pretty hard here, as you undercut EVs, but how come GM gets a pass?
July 5th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Gas prices, and what people are/will be driving.
A pretty hard edged article in the NYTimes today about the changing habits of people. When Hummer ownrs stop driving them to meets and use their bikes you know something’s going on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/business/06tank.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Mark R. Price, founder of the Illiana Hummer Club in the Chicago area, owns three Hummer H1s, which get about eight miles per gallon. “A lot of our members won’t travel 70 miles just to support a parade anymore,” Mr. Price said. “People wait for something a little closer.”
Families that were accustomed to the convenience of sport utility vehicles are having to cut back as well. Colleen Hammond of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, loves packing her three kids and all their soccer gear into her 2000 GMC Yukon XL. But she hates paying $160 to fill the 38.5-gallon tank. Last month, she parked the Yukon in her driveway and borrowed her friend’s Toyota Land Cruiser.
“I don’t know if it gets better gas mileage, but I like her car because it costs $100 to fill it,” said Ms. Hammond, 40. “I think $100 for a tank of gas is cheap now.”
Steve Burtch bought a Dodge Ram truck last year, when gas cost $3.75, because he thought gas prices had peaked and would start coming down. Instead, he pumped his first $100 tank in June. “I don’t know how much longer I’m going to be able to keep this up,” said Mr. Burtch, 43, who lives in Marion, Ohio.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
It is not possible to make money with electric cars. Why? Because we don’t want them!
Well, you say your point was different from what you stated (and I quoted) earlier. And now you say EVs don’t make money because we don’t want them. MY point, that you said is the same as your own now (?), is that car companies are totally invested in gasoline engines. They own the companies that make all the precision parts for ICEs. Switching gears to EVs is not painless nor cheap. To sell an EV on its merits, you have to demonstrate how silly gasoline cars are. And it has very little to do with “what we want.”
As a data point, I am one of the past EV1 drivers. And I’m a current Rav4EV driver. Have you noticed that the people who tell us that “we don’t want them” are the people who have never driven or lived with one? I’ll bet there were plenty of horse-drawn wagon drivers that were thinking “we don’t want them” when the automobile was introduced. And after a very rocky, ugly start, the automobile finally caught on. One of the main reasons people finally abandonded the horse was due to the steaming pollution they piled in the streets of the towns.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
And now you say EVs don’t make money because we don’t want them.
I have stated this lack of demand consistently throughout this thread. The market is always ultimately a demand driven animal.
There is no substantial demand for cars with limited range and long recharge times. If there was, they would exist.
The EV1 was a low-volume car built to get CARB off the backs of the automakers. As soon as CARB relented, the program got canned. Honda sells as many Accords in a single day as GM was able to lease EV1’s.
How is GM excempted here?
They aren’t. As it turns out, GM is not alone in rejecting this approach. The smart automakers also avoid these cars.
Unless you think that Toyota, Honda, BMW or the other successful car makers are run by idiots, ask yourself why they haven’t jumped into this electric car concept with both feet if it’s such a fantastic idea, or why some entrepreneur hasn’t figured out how to grab this market and make a killing from it.
Free market economics would suggest that 110+ years is more than enough time to encourage somebody to take a lucrative, workable idea and to profit from it.
If this logic were followed in 1901, the car would have been dismissed because people were still buying more horses than cars.
Sorry, but that’s an awful analogy. The industry has had over a century to sort this out. Electric cars are a mature technology. The business is filled with well capitalized companies that compete with each another enough to look for advantages when available.
Electric cars do not compare favorably to the alternatives. The realists in the business know all about the flaws; that’s why they’ve passed on these cars as being anything more than just dabbling experiments.
The problem with the current model is that the batteries remain a weak point. Until the battery technology is improved, it’s a non-starter. Better yet, they need to find a way to get away from batteries in order to store power. Batteries are highly inefficient and there doesn’t seem to be much that anyone can do to improve their efficiency.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The EV1 was a low-volume car built to get CARB off the backs of the automakers
You are incorrect. the EV1 was introduced before the ZEV mandate was born. In fact it was the proven viability of the EV1 that prompted CARB to act.
There is no substantial demand for cars with limited range and long recharge times. If there was, they would exist.
And as long as you continue to ignore the other compelling reasons that production EVs aren’t available today (I refuse to say that they don’t exist, as I’ve been driving one for seven years as our main vehicle), these reasons are as good as any. Did you read the part about all auto companies being so heavily invested in ICEs that there is no cheap/easy way to divest? It appears that you are missing that one each time.
Batteries are highly inefficient and there doesn’t seem to be much that anyone can do to improve their efficiency.
Also incorrect. Batteries are an amazingly efficient storage device. And of course EVs as a sytem are the most efficient viable private transportation solution we’ve ever demonstrated. while gas cars might put 15% of the stored power to the pavement, EVs put about 90% to the pavement.
I must have misunderstood what you meant by “Batteries are highly inefficient.” My guess is that you meant that they are less energy dense which is a different situation.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Did you read the part about all auto companies being so heavily invested in ICEs that there is no cheap/easy way to divest?
I didn’t. Sorry, but it’s not an accurate observation.
Once again — Toyota et. al. aren’t doing this for a reason. If the idea was so fantastic that it could elevate them ahead of their competition, they would do it in a heartbeat. Well managed companies like these seek out competitive advantage whereever possible.
As it turns out, it’s not such a great idea. 110 years, no dice. This is a highly competitive economy, great ideas eventually rise to the top, bad ones sink to the bottom. The well-established sinking of the electric vehicle is a hint; take heed.
If electric vehicles were new, barely tried technology, you’d have a point. But they are not new at all, so there are few mysteries here.
I realize that some are in love with their technological magic bullets, even if they never hit their targets, but markets are ultimately customer driven. Customers vote with their money. Obviously, the EV election has low turnout and not much interest. Your enthusiasm won’t make up for the absence of a market.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I didn’t. Sorry, but it’s not an accurate observation.
Your sorrow sounds somehow gleeful. I still can’t figure out what you are afraid of. If EVs are never going to happen, then just sit back and watch. Save your energy for something that needs stomping out.
For the record, it is not just an observation, but a fact. The accuracy this (and any) fact isn’t even debatable. Auto makers are fully invested in ICEs.
Toyota et. al. aren’t doing this for a reason.
Of course they are doing it for a reason. I have given you one of the biggest reasons, and you choose to both ignore it, and explain around it. I realize that my enthusiasm is of no significance in the big picture. Your mistake is assuming that the general public “customers” know what they’re voting on. Or to say it differently, you assume that people who have always bought gasoline vehicles know what an EV is and what its advantages are. Heck, most people still think that plugging in is an inconvenience when one of the most favorable features of EV driving (according to polls of owners) is the convenience of plugging in! Those of us who ARE EV customers vote directly in oppostion to what you say we vote. Those of us who have driven EVs for many years are begging for more of these cars and are demonstrating that we use them every day for our driving needs. Those who have not driven EVsoften say the cars will never be viable. Do we listen to experience or ignorance? The EV customer votes aren’t counted because we’re so few and insignificant, apparently. We had no choice. Our numbers were determined by the few cars that were ever available.
How does one determine a market for anything that hasn’t been marketed in 100 years? No conclu