Zap Electric Vehicles: We Won't Get Fooled Again

Donal Fagan
by Donal Fagan

Jim McGreen wanted to make some money in a green business. A craftsman-like mechanic, he had success making and selling electric bicycle kits out of his Alameda garage. Like so many others, he thought electric vehicles (EVs) were the obvious answer to pollution and expensive fossil fuels. In 1992, McGreen founded ZAP (Zero Air Pollution) Power Systems. But he needed more capital.

Gary Starr had started an EV division at Solar Electric Engineering, a struggling solar cell firm later renamed US Electricar. In 1994, Electricar sent Starr packing, but not without plenty of cash to invest. Starr soon found McGreen. ZAP incorporated with McGreen, Starr and their wives as the board of directors.

Two years later, ZAP went public, clearing over $2m. McGreen invented the Zappy upright scooter in 1997. The $650 15 mph two-wheeler caught on with celebrities and public alike. Kevin Spacey rode his on Letterman, and Edward Norton called ZAP, asking them to make his go faster (than Spacey's).

ZAP sold over 2k Zappy scooters in 1998. But even $1.4m in sales wasn't enough to turn a profit. Starr argued that ZAP could cut costs by outsourcing production to Asia. McGreen was committed to quality. Starr, however, had masterminded adding three directors to ZAP's board. Late in 1999, Starr, his wife and his three new board members voted Jim McGreen out as president and CEO, putting Gary Starr in charge.

Under Starr, ZAP attempted to replace McGreen’s production expertise by purchasing Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), successful builders of low speed EVs. Failing there and elsewhere, ZAP's share price plummeted from a peak of $13 to $5.50 by April 2000.

Starr brought in John Dabels, former Marketing Director for the GM EV Program, to manage operations. As President, Dabels managed to double sales, raising annual revenue to $12m, but also resisted outsourcing to Asia. Dabel soon tired of butting heads with Starr and resigned in January 2001. (He later was a suspect in Who Killed the Electric Car?)

Zappy knockoffs drove stock prices under 50 cents a share. So Starr axed 80 of ZAP’s 100 California workers and outsourced to Taiwan. Almost immediately, cheap Asian copies– selling for a quarter of the “real thing”– flooded the market. With annual revenue falling below $5m, ZAP filed for Chapter 11 with a suspended Nasdaq share price of 21 cents.

Somehow, Starr emerged from Chapter 11 as board chairman. He brought in used-car dealer Steve Schneider. Between them, they gained controlling interest of Zap. Issuing stock as payment, ZAP went on a buying spree and learned the power of the press release to impress new investors.

Announcing the $99k fuel-cell Worldcar for 2003 pushed the stock price to $1.85 a share. Announcing their rights to sell smart cars– though later debunked by Daimler– drove it to $2.60. By 2005, ZAP's stock price was back down to 26 cents. A sympathetic USA Today article in 2006 raised ZAP's stock up to $1.23. Eventually, both the Worldcar and the flex-fuel, Italian-built Obvio (announced for 2005) faded into the ether.

ZAP has actually sold an EV: the Xebra, a three-wheeled Chinese EV with a Daktari paint option. As reviewed on TTAC, its lethargic top speed, limited range and cheesy detailing does not impress. The Xebra’s poor reliability also turned out to be the bane of unwary dealers that sank hundreds of thousands of dollars into Starr and Schneider’s promises– only to find themselves selling cheap EVs that had to be repeatedly towed back to the dealership.

And yet ZAP is still attracting investors on the vapors of green PR, promising two "fast, sexy and affordable" EVs within only two years.

For their $32,500 three-wheeled Alias sports EV, ZAP claims 321hp and 156 mph. Albert Lam, chairman of ZAP's joint venture with Chinese coach-builder Youngman said, "I believe we can go into production by the second quarter of 2009."

For the $60K Zap-X CUV EV, ZAP claims 644 hp, 0- 60 in 4.8 seconds and 155 mph, performance comparable to a Porsche Cayenne Turbo. Even less believably, ZAP claims a 350 mile range and a ten-minute recharge.

"This is vaporware," responds auto industry analyst Aaron Bragman, of Global Insight. "The claims they've made just don't jive with the current state of technology."

Despite the long development times seen with the Tesla Roadster and Chevy Volt, Youngman promised China Daily last October that, "the sample vehicles will be finished at the end of this year (2007) or next January" and "two or three months after testing, the electric powered sedan under the Lotus brand (Zap-X) will be the first to go into mass production."

But even the $40m Youngman has invested isn't nearly enough to actually deliver radical new EVs in that time frame. At least we'll know who killed this electric car.

Donal Fagan
Donal Fagan

More by Donal Fagan

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 20 comments
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Thankfully I don't have to deal with GDI issues in my Frontier. These cleaners should do well for me if I win.
  • Theflyersfan Serious answer time...Honda used to stand for excellence in auto engineering. Their first main claim to fame was the CVCC (we don't need a catalytic converter!) engine and it sent from there. Their suspensions, their VTEC engines, slick manual transmissions, even a stowing minivan seat, all theirs. But I think they've been coasting a bit lately. Yes, the Civic Type-R has a powerful small engine, but the Honda of old would have found a way to get more revs out of it and make it feel like an i-VTEC engine of old instead of any old turbo engine that can be found in a multitude of performance small cars. Their 1.5L turbo-4...well...have they ever figured out the oil dilution problems? Very un-Honda-like. Paint issues that still linger. Cheaper feeling interior trim. All things that fly in the face of what Honda once was. The only thing that they seem to have kept have been the sales staff that treat you with utter contempt for daring to walk into their inner sanctum and wanting a deal on something that isn't a bare-bones CR-V. So Honda, beat the rest of your Japanese and Korean rivals, and plug-in hybridize everything. If you want a relatively (in an engineering way) easy way to get ahead of the curve, raise the CAFE score, and have a major point to advertise, and be able to sell to those who can't plug in easily, sell them on something that will get, for example, 35% better mileage, plug in when you get a chance, and drives like a Honda. Bring back some of the engineering skills that Honda once stood for. And then start introducing a portfolio of EVs once people are more comfortable with the idea of plugging in. People seeing that they can easily use an EV for their daily errands with the gas engine never starting will eventually sell them on a future EV because that range anxiety will be lessened. The all EV leap is still a bridge too far, especially as recent sales numbers have shown. Baby steps. That's how you win people over.
  • Theflyersfan If this saves (or delays) an expensive carbon brushing off of the valves down the road, I'll take a case. I understand that can be a very expensive bit of scheduled maintenance.
  • Zipper69 A Mini should have 2 doors and 4 cylinders and tires the size of dinner plates.All else is puffery.
  • Theflyersfan Just in time for the weekend!!! Usual suspects A: All EVs are evil golf carts, spewing nothing but virtue signaling about saving the earth, all the while hacking the limbs off of small kids in Africa, money losing pits of despair that no buyer would ever need and anyone that buys one is a raging moron with no brains and the automakers who make them want to go bankrupt.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Usual suspects B: All EVs are powered by unicorns and lollypops with no pollution, drive like dreams, all drivers don't mind stopping for hours on end, eating trays of fast food at every rest stop waiting for charges, save the world by using no gas and batteries are friendly to everyone, bugs included. Everyone should torch their ICE cars now and buy a Tesla or Bolt post haste.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Or those in the middle: Maybe one of these days, when the charging infrastructure is better, or there are more options that don't cost as much, one will be considered as part of a rational decision based on driving needs, purchasing costs environmental impact, total cost of ownership, and ease of charging.(Source: many on this site who don't jump on TTAC the split second an EV article appears and lives to trash everyone who is a fan of EVs.)
Next