At Witz' End: GM EV1 - The Real Story, Part III
NOTE: If you missed them, you can read parts one and two.High tech development, market launch and retreat
Because its 1,175-pound pack of 27 advanced lead-acid (PbA) batteries - 26 propulsion, one for accessories - held a mere half-gallon of gasoline-equivalent energy, the production EV1 would have to be an incredibly efficient teardrop-shaped two-seater to achieve even barely acceptable range. Stretching it to accommodate four passengers would have reduced its already very modest range some 25 percent due to added weight and aero drag.
"The fundamental variables are mass, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, accessory loads and driveline efficiency," says Bob Purcell, who was our Advanced Technology Vehicles (ATV) Div. Executive Director. "So the exercise was to ensure that we would meet all customer requirements using the least possible energy in each of those areas."
Continue reading after the jump.
Breakthrough technologies
That effort brought breakthrough technologies such as the first heat pump automotive heater/air conditioner, electro-hydraulic power steering and electro-hydraulic, power-blended regenerative braking. "In every way, that car was the ultimate statement of energy efficiency," Purcell asserts, "and many of the benchmarks it established still stand today."
Our tireless ATV engineering team had to rethink and, in many cases, redesign virtually every element of the modern automobile. One major issue was noise. Once you've "drained the swamp" of the entire spectrum of internal combustion propulsion system sounds, a lot of other noises that you never knew were there rise up out of the dramatically lowered level. Every motor, pump and mechanical system had to be significantly hushed, and while the turbine-like whine of the "traction" (drive) motor might be heard as a positive by some, the louder, harsher noise of the step-down gearset definitely would not. It was a major challenge.
Even with standard traction control, cruise control, AM/FM/Cassette/CD premium audio, power anti-lock brakes, tire inflation monitoring (for weight and packaging reasons, EV1 was the first production GM vehicle with no spare tire), power windows, mirrors and steering and dual airbags, EV1's total weight was just 2,970 lb. Its aluminum structure - 162 pieces bonded together with aerospace adhesive, spot welds and rivets - weighed less than 10 percent of that. The exterior body panels were dent-resistant, corrosion-proof SMC and RRIM composites. With a near-perfect aero shape perfected by many hours of wind-tunnel tuning, its drag coefficient was an astounding 0.19, unmatched by any volume vehicle before or since.
Powered by a 137-hp 3-phase AC induction motor through a dual-reduction gearset with an overall ratio of 10.946:1, it was capable of strong, smooth performance (like the Impact, about eight seconds 0-60) and respectable handling on its narrow, 50-psi, low-rolling resistance tires, though its top speed was electronically limited to 80 mph. Gently driven in warm ambient temperatures, it could squeeze out 50-70 miles in city driving, somewhat more on the highway. It could be recharged in 3-4 hours using GM's innovative, all-weather "inductive" charging on its standard 220-volt charger or 12-16 hours on its 110-volt compact convenience charger.
Market acceptance?
Everyone at GM ATV understood that demand for an expensive two-seater with very limited range would not be strong. But we knew from our 1993-94 PrEView Drive, which put EV1 prototypes into daily use with regular folks for three months at a time that people loved the cars and learned to live with their limitations. Market research said that most peoples' daily commutes were well within EV1's range, and it would be most households' second, third or even fourth vehicle. Owners would simply choose a different ride for longer drives. And we knew that GM's customer-friendly Saturn dealers would take excellent care of EV1 owners.We also knew that long-term success would depend absolutely on advancing battery technology. Our '99 EV1's much more expensive available nickel-metal hydride NiMH batteries could hold nearly twice the PbA pack's energy, stretching its range to a still-inadequate 130-140 miles. But the lithium-polymer chemistries being developed by 3M Corp. and others - which promised gasoline-competitive size, weight, cost and range - never panned out.
For several reasons – limited production volume due to component (especially battery), availability, unacceptable cold-weather range and very limited public-charging opportunities offered by cooperative electric utilities – EV1s were marketed at first only in Los Angeles, CA and Phoenix and Tucson, AZ. Two more cities, San Francisco and Sacramento, CA soon followed, but the optional '99-model NiMH batteries were not offered in Arizona because, at that early stage of their development, they performed very poorly in hot weather.
Dismal disappointment
Critics contend that GM didn't try hard enough to publicize EV1s. I thought the ads I saw were pretty good, and I know our PR team worked very hard with media to get the word out and provide test vehicles to auto writers in those areas, because I was heavily involved with that effort. ATV/Saturn's EV1 ad budget may have been limited after the initial launch (lots of other GM products also needed major promotion at the time), but I can't imagine that any potential customers were unaware that EV1s were available at Saturn dealers in those five markets.
Still, the EV1 was a fairly high-priced, low-range two-seater. How many two-passenger non-sports cars have succeeded in America in our lifetimes? Zero. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, only 500 '97 EV1s were built and 400 leased. That dismal performance was followed by about the same numbers of '99 Gen II cars (there were no '98s), some with optional NiMH batteries. At that point, GM gave up and pulled the (ahem) plug. Until a practical, affordable gas-competitive battery technology could be developed, there would be no GM EV2 or EV3.
Not surprisingly, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chrysler and every other automaker with volume EV aspirations also gave up for the same reason, and California was eventually persuaded to give up its ill-considered sales mandate of technology that was nowhere near market ready.
Those aware of serious liability risks with aging 300-plus-volt batteries, and state laws requiring parts and service support for decades after vehicles are sold, should understand why GM chose to lease, not sell, these early technology EVs. And why they had to be recalled and destroyed when their leases were up. As we well know, that necessity made those 800 or so lessees - people who genuinely loved their EV1s and did not want to give them up - extremely unhappy.
But don't let anyone try to tell you that GM wanted that program to fail. You don't table it, revive it, then do everything we did - and invest at least a billion precious development dollars - on a product you don't want to succeed. From CEO Jack Smith down to those of us who worked our proverbial tails off to make it work, everyone at GM desperately wanted it to.
Next time: Lessons learned as applied to hybrid development.
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
john 12:30AM (9/06/2008)
No one is bringing up the point that around that time, the car companies got our congressman to back off on the emission laws for California that would have required a certain percent of zero (and very low) emission vehicles.
When that was no longer required, the EV-1 was no longer needed (or the Rav-4) . The battery technology was sold to Texaco on the Rav-4 (you can imagine why), and Toyota of Japan, not realizing the change in the law, kept developing its Prius.
If the emission laws had not been modified, the EV-1 and the Rav4 would have stayed if for no other reason than to meet the new laws.
Reply
Paul Sallmen 1:13AM (9/06/2008)
"...and Toyota of Japan, not realizing the change in the law, kept developing its Prius."
I guess Toyota got the last laugh.
Matt Lenart 12:56AM (9/06/2008)
Bill said...
GM clearly had technical difficulties moving from lead-acid (almost all of the EV1s) to NiMH packs.
And as the article states, cost was and is also an issue - replacement NiMH packs for the RAV EV are over $25,000 (wikipedia) - you can see why lead-acid was the more attractive option.
i say:
$25,000 in VERY limited production, with ZERO competition from other major automakers, manufactured 10 years ago... the ICE, being as intricate as it is comes off as an incredible bargain these days.
again, you gotta ask yourself why chevron was so keen on acquiring this patent and now sits on it through cobasys until 2014.
also, the original Pb-A batteries had far more serious flaws than the EV-95 NiMH.
check out some clips on youtube of EV1 and RAV4 EV.
the truth is out there scully.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 2:47AM (9/06/2008)
NiMHs were in broad production at the time, being sold in cell phones since 1992. It is unclear that even selling 2,000 cars a year with NiMHs would have made a dent in the price of the batteries.
Cobasys makes batteries currently. Only in your conspiracy theories has it done nothing with the patents.
Bill 11:46AM (9/06/2008)
There's no support for your statement - NiMH batteries for EV applications are still very expensive.
Even in a mass-market vehicle like the Prius the NiMH pack costs $3,000 - for 1/20th the capacity of the RAV EV pack.
Tesla, however, managed to hand-build a lithium pack with double the capacity for what most think is around $25,000.
Clearly, NiMH is a dead technology for future EVs where the battery is the prime mover instead of the ICE.
jake 12:54PM (9/06/2008)
@why not the LS2LS7?
Although you don't recognize this, there's quite a difference in large format batteries and smaller consumer batteries. This is especially true of nimh where they never used the smaller consumer batteries to make a large battery like Tesla did. So board production of smaller nimh batteries do not play a direct role in lowering the cost of large format batteries. You have to actually manufacture the large format batteries in huge numbers before seeing a price reduction from scale. If you look at the hybrid batteries; their costs are coming down with scale. The automakers attribute the price cuts to "improved technology and lower production costs". This should be impossible if your original claim was true.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138808/page/2
Similarly, I expect costs of large format lithium batteries to come down.
In terms of the marketing, assuming this account is true, I can see one reason why it wasn't successful. The advertising was only for the markets it was sold in. This is unlike today where automakers put out ads so the whole country can see it, even if the car is not avaliable everywhere (see Honda's Clarity).
Another thing is just the way it was handled; seems ALL the other automakers were able to reach a compromise with their original leasees: Honda had the Insight to replace their EV+, Toyota sold some of their RAV-4 EVs, Ford let some people buy Ranger EVs at end of lease for $1 and decided to ship their excess Thinks back to Norway, Nissan let fleet users keep their Altra, while GM made it as bitter as possible by crushing their EV-1s under leasee protests with no compromise at all. And GM asks why they were singled out?
About the Altra though, it was the first li-ion EV, seems some are still running strong today; it will be interesting to do a followup story on the Nissan Altra and see how much range they can still get (and so judge battery degradation), given it's been 10 years since they were produced.
jake 1:09PM (9/06/2008)
I also wanted to add another, that Chrysler's GEM program basically was continued. And for Honda, in addition to having the Insight, they also had their FCX program, and EV Pluses in good condition were converted over to hydrogen. So again all the other automakers were able to reach compromises to ease public outrage except for GM.
Ben 1:36PM (9/07/2008)
It always puzzles me why when defending GM's decisions the example of batteries cited in most public articles are the lead batteries. That's slanting facts to favor GM rather than being open and fully truthful. Regarding the NiMH batteries, how are they working so well in the Toyota RAV-EV and a totally failed idea in an American car? Parts an issue? Hmm... my Insight has no new parts made for it, yet I chose it, can go to the junk yard for parts (cause they didn't crush them) and in spite of the listed estimated mileage have gotten 86 miles per gallon without hypermiling on city to city trips. The Volt on pure electric (pre-engine) really doesn't get as far as the EV-1. The EV-1 would have been a far better vehicle for me. For that matter I'd love a RAV ev!!! I have inquired about an i-MiEV instead since the RAV ev's seem to be both taken and the price of a Phoenix SUT. The one thing my science professor got across is in science we strive for objectivity, but science is always shaped by the culture it comes from. There is no science without agenda.
Reply
Matt Lenart 10:40AM (9/06/2008)
in my conspiracy theories:
large format NiMH batteries were never mass produced. when panasonic continued to produce them after chevron acquired controlling shares, cobasys sued them for patent infringement... and won.
cobasys has done nothing with "those" (large format) patents. i understand that they make smaller format batteries for hybrids as do many other companies since the patents aren't as specific... and still lost 70M USD last year... on track to lose 80M this year.
why would an oil giant like chevron hang on to a company like cobasys thats deep in the red for many years now? have they been working "their tails off" for the past 8 years trying to improve on already successful (see RAV4 EV's still on the roads) EV-95 NiMH patented technology only to unveil it in the near future so they can hurt their lucrative oil profits?
i don't think so scully.
Reply
Bill 9:56PM (9/07/2008)
You can't pick up a high-capacity NiMH battery pack in any junkyard.
Going with NiMH instead of lead-acid meant that an already expensive EV1 becomes even more unaffordable.
The RAV4 EV sale program was just as big a giveaway as the EV1 lease or the current fuel cell car lease programs.
They are all technology demonstrator projects which never come close to covering even the variable costs of production.
Nice if you are one of the few to get chosen, but none of them translate into a mass-market production model like the Volt.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 11:24AM (12/18/2008)
Just like the: CORVETTE.
Who funds this "image" machine. There's now way it's low volumes are profitable. Yet, they still make it year after year.
Paul 9:47AM (9/08/2008)
"Those aware of serious liability risks with aging 300-plus-volt batteries, and state laws requiring parts and service support for decades after vehicles are sold, should understand why GM chose to lease, not sell, these early technology EVs. And why they had to be recalled and destroyed when their leases were up."
Need some serious factual reporting and analysis on these two sentences. Some much contradictory blather has been spewed over this gap of information that we really have a public policy need to know more facts. Leaving it for conjecture just plays into the obviously delusional conspiracy theories by making it feel like someone is hiding something.
Can we turn up some GM internal memos? Can we find the state laws mandating parts pipeline? Can we estimate the costs of compliance? It is as least possible that this is a rational business decision (crushing end of lease EVs), but everyone seems more interested in how Elvis and the large-eyed ETs are conspiring with big evil GM/Toyota/whomever to deny treehuggers everywhere the cheap reliable EVs that are apparantly their birthright.
For that matter, did the engineers who sweated liquid lithium to make these EVs work just roll over when the green-eyeshade types dictated the lease and crush plan? There HAD to have been some drama there. Were the engineers signed to a burn before reading confidentiality agreement? What could GM be hiding that could be worse than what the conspiracy theories are doing to their rep? Did the number crunchers at GM fail to put a dollar value on reputation hits from the disappointed nut and berry crowd? Did they, in effect, perform a flawed analysis and render a bad decision? Or would the costs to support to committed EV owners have numerically overwhelmed the costs to reputation of boxing their technology next to Indiana Jones' Ark?
The choice is a) GM is an evil monster, or b) somebody thought they were making a rational decision. Until we thoroughly understand b), even if the pick was hugely flawed, a) remains easy, for some anyway, to swallow.
Come on GM, cough up some info. It is in your best interest.
Reply
virgil 10:36AM (9/08/2008)
As has been stated in the comments previous 2 posts by Mr. Witzenburg, there are several things which just don't add u, and make him look like a half-wit.
First, aerodynamics. Anyone who's ever been in a canoe knows that a 17ft canoe is faster than a 14ft canoe. They're the same width, same frontal area, but the longer boat allows a more shallow angle of attack and tail-off, so is more hydrodynamic. Making a longer EV1 would improve aerodynamic performance, not decrease.
Second, adding 2 passengers does not increase weight that much. Especially since the back-seats (like most coupes) would be small and probably only suitable for children or small adults. So, let's say 200lbs extra - that's not much on a car that already weighs 3000lbs.
Third, don't try and tell me that 3000lbs is a lightweight car! The 1st gen Miata weighed in at 2100lbs, and that's including the acknowledged fact that convertibles weigh more due to all the gubbins associated with the roof mechanism. Even the current one is only 2400lbs and that's including 18 years of increased fed' mandated crash equipment. 3000lbs isn't even trying.
You haven't really addressed the key issue here... The EV1 was crushed because it didn't fit with GM's marketing vogue at the time. It was an embarrassment in an era of bigger-is-better SUVs and muscle cars.
Reply
Holden Miecranc 11:25AM (9/08/2008)
If someone said they had proof that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were pawns in GM's evil plan to make the EV-1 fail, some people around here would believe it- swearing up and down that they had proof of such. Morons.
Reply
Luke 3:06AM (9/09/2008)
"If someone said they had proof that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were pawns in GM's evil plan to make the EV-1 fail, some people around here would believe it- swearing up and down that they had proof of such. Morons."
1. The Easter bunny and Santa ARE under the control of GM.
2. Toyota is ALSO under the control of GM, hence they also stopped making and EV.
Therefore:
3. GM deserves CREDIT for making the most successful hybrid of all time: the Prius. They control Toyota, and Toyota makes the Prius.
Finally....:
4. GM contols the auto industry worldwide, with the exception of a few start-ups. Hence the inability of any major manufacturer to make a EV line in the recent past.
Yours,
The Tooth Fairy
Reply
Chris M 4:40AM (9/16/2008)
"gas equivalent" batteries weren't available then, but they are now, as Tesla Motors has proven. Using the same type of batteries that Tesla used, a revised EV1 could achieve over 300 mile range - and shaved 200 pounds off the weight! Of course, for local commuting use with recharging every night, 300 miles is overkill.
Sorry, but I just don't buy the excuse given for crushing the EV1. No law required the crushing of the EV1. The law does requires that any warranties be honored, which means having sufficient parts to do warranty repairs, but does not require anything post-warranty. GM could have sold the EV1 with a very limited warranty, or even sold them on an "as-is" basis with no warranty (not unheard of for used cars after lease expiration) and would have little or no "service support" requirements at all
Reply
mike 1:08PM (1/14/2009)
in 1942 the russians could run a submarine 8 knots for week on end using battery power
Reply
will 7:54AM (1/20/2009)
You guys are so so dumb.
Simple facts:
GM is here to make a profit.
The GM EV1 had over 440 new patents
Chevron buys 1 NiMH battery patent from GM for $300million
How many EV1's do you have to sell to make $300million?
It is simply better business to sell patents and technolgy to the oil company than to sell cars.
For goodness sake look at the size of the warren tech centre and see how few designs from there ever reach sales production. By the way the first concept EV1 's were made at Warren.
GM is in the business of designing new technolgy and selling it to the highest bidder.
GM had 2 offers for the last 75 cars held before crushing.
GM was offerred $2.7million for the EV1s by the owners.
GM was offered $3.45 million by a Portland Oregon group.
GM would not meet or negotiate with either group.
Gm refused both offers.
Why?
Because the EV1's were already sold to a higher offer of course!!! That is why they had to be recovered from the lesees in the first place!
Wake up.
If the battery patent sold for $300 million how much did the physical cars sell for?
GM was paid $? billion to recover and destroy all the lease cars.
Remember GM is stil part of the group legal action funded by big oil to remove clean air mandates.
Also remember that GM made and sold its first fleet of Electric vehicles in 1912. YES 1912 !!!!
GM has always made electric vehicles - mostly for utility companies or fleet owners in lots of 50 or greater.
Except for NASA. We only made NASA 6 lunar electric cars.
And 3 GM lunar electric cars are still on the moon!
Probably would run too if they had been rechargable batteries.
They weren't.
That is why GM owns Hughes Electric
Hughes Electric supplied GM with 3 phase AC motors and controllers for GM manufactured fleet electric veicles in the 1980's. Yes - fully electric S-10's in 1983 13 years before the EV1. 7 years before the Impact. 4 years before the sunraycer.
Its a business you guys !!
GM made best electric car
The EV1
Then they sold it for the most profit.
To Chevron
Now they cant make them anymore
Becuase Chevron own the patents
and you can be very sure Chevron own more than just the 1 battery patent. Remember there were over 440 patents.
Oh and the $1billion figure. That was part of the government subsidies GM received. GM didn't actually spend their own money to devolp the EV1.
EVERYBODY in MICHIGAN worked dammed hard on the EV1 and loved it like it was their own! A lot left GM when it was discontinued. Like Rick said: Shutting down the EV1 program was a mistake. Not a business mistake. But a terrible morale, marketing and image mistake. The market is probably at best 10,000 units a year.
Electric cars are not the threat Chevron thinks they are. Only a small % of people will want them. And if we dont burn all the oil now, then oil will be worth lots more in the future anyway for making plastics.
Reply
Will 5:48AM (1/28/2009)
Rock on 2012
That will be 10 years from when the Cheron deal was done.
Bet you $100 you wont see a Volt before then.
But the spin doctors excuses will be very believable.
or else Rock on 2014
I think that is when the patents start to expire.
Reply