At Witz' End: GM EV1 - The Real Story, Q&A II
Editor's Note: If you missed Gary's previous articles on the history of GM's EV1, please start here. This post is the second of three posts where he answers reader questions that the EV1 series raised. Part I is here and Part III will run tomorrow. Gary's promised to move on to current and relevant topics after we finish with Part III. Once again, questions may have been edited for space. To read the full questions and see the discussion threads they were a part of, click on the questioner's name.Honest answers to more of your probing questions.
Please mention the RAV4 EV, acknowledge its existence! What did Toyota do that was so much better than the miserable EV1 failure when designing their RAV4 EV on an existing drivetrain? Are the ones still being driven every day a giant fluke? Let's get some serious discussion going instead of earning those GM dollars. I understand they're paying for ad-space and subsidizing your "professional opinion." The only thing Toyota did differently was not crush all their electric cars, 'cause they knew they weren't bad cars. Now those very cars are disputing every "fact" you try to fool readers with as an "unbiased" journalist. – Matt Lenart
Let's have an agreement, Matt: I won't insult your intelligence, you don't question my integrity. I have been telling the true EV1 story as I lived and observed it. Is Toyota paying you?
Regarding those RAV4 EVs, here are the facts straight from Toyota Safety and Quality Communications Manager Brian Lyons: They built and marketed 1,485 of them between 1998 and 2003 -- 80 percent leased to commercial fleets and 20 percent (about 300) sold, all in California. All the early 1998 and '99 models have been "retired," while 95 percent of the 811 still in service are '02 and '03 models with longer-range NiMH packs. Of those, 434 are in fleet operations (utilities, etc...), 104 are in public-service, philanthropic and TMS (Toyota Motor Sales) operations and just 273 are privately owned.
Lyons says their range when new was 80-100 miles, and "many" - depending on usage, environment, and charge/discharge cycles - still achieve 95 percent of their initial performance with their original battery packs. Their drive motor is a 50kW (67 hp) unit good for 140 lb-ft of torque, and their packs are 24 sealed NiMH batteries totaling 288 volts. Service support is "the same as for all Toyota vehicles, with specialists available for difficult cases." The retired vehicles "had all the viable/critical/unique parts removed and are warehoused by [an unnamed] company contracted by Toyota," which also stores and maintains the recovered battery packs.
This post continues after the jump.
Why was the program discontinued? "[It] demonstrated that Toyota was very interested in determining the market potential of EVs," Lyons says. "A comprehensive marketing program with strong dealer support and attractive pricing provided the best opportunity for success of this candidate transportation technology. Unfortunately, consumer interest and sales fell well below expectations, although we learned a great deal and applied many of the lessons learned into our HEV programs. As a result of this real-world business venture, and the expanding acceptance of hybrid vehicles, Toyota decided to retreat from the Electric Vehicle market for the time being, in favor of other more consumer acceptable products."
Sound familiar? The primary difference is that Toyota chose to go a much cheaper route with small numbers of simple conversion vehicles, while GM invested the effort and capital to design/develop a purpose-built, ultra-efficient EV to showcase the technology and squeeze the most possible range out of whatever batter technology would be available. Both ultimately failed for the same reason -- low customer acceptance. Toyota chose to risk leaving most of its later-model RAV4 EVs in service, while GM chose to "retire" its highly complex EV1s.
Why do you have a picture of yourself on all your posts? -- Jude Brown
I don't put it there, ABG does. Whose picture would you prefer? [Ed. note: it's true, we decided to run Gary's picture with each post, the same way that Autoblog does with the editorials of John McElroy]
I can see that the liability would play into the terms of use, but not the recall or destruction. There are other options that limit liability. That's why suspicions of a bigger political motive abound. Give a better, broader explanation of how liability necessitated total destruction, and you'll win over a bigger audience. – zaedrus
Suing U.S. automakers has been a national sport for decades. That's why a significant portion (at least $1,000 per car) of their business-cost disadvantage vs. off-shore competitors is litigation expense - the cost of defending, and sometimes paying, lawsuits. What do you think would happen when the first backyard mechanic got zapped, or when the first serious accident was blamed on controller failure? Toyota had a much simpler vehicle and far less lawsuit risk. Ever try to sue a Japan-based company?
As hard as it was, GM did it. The only thing missing was mass production, and the improvement in batteries. But the car worked. Had it been built to be sold nationwide, and not trashed in the car magazine industry, it could have been a great success. -- Mike!!ekiM
I read every EV1 magazine (and newspaper) review I could find and can't recall many negative ones. Virtually every writer who experienced the car loved it...though not its very limited range. And much of what little range it had went away in cold temperatures due to sluggish batteries, higher tire rolling resistance, cold seals and lubricants and higher aerodynamic drag. Add the energy lost to running the heater, lights and windshield wipers and slogging through slush or snow, and the PbA EV1's 50-70-mile warm-weather range would be half that, or less, in winter conditions. That is one major reason why, lacking higher-energy batteries, EV1 was leased only in California and Arizona. Another was partnerships with cooperative electric utilities.
Because so many good (and less good) questions have been asked, I'll devote one more installment to answering them. Then, on to more current and relevant topics such as plug-in hybrids, CAFE regulations and the very survivability of our long-suffering U.S. automakers.
Note: Award-winning automotive writer Gary Witzenburg has been writing about automobiles, auto people and the auto industry for 20 years. A former auto engineer, race driver and advanced technology vehicle development manager, he has been a regular contributor to a wide variety of national magazines including Playboy, The Robb Report, Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Autoweek and Automobile Quarterly and has authored eight automotive books. He is currently a Contributing Editor or Contributing Writer for AutoMedia.com, Kelley Blue Book, Automobilemag.com and TheCarConnection.com, Design Editor for Automotive Traveler and a North American Car and Truck of the Year Juror.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Justin Coffey 6:46PM (11/03/2008)
Dear Mr. Witz,
I think you're skirting the Toyota RAV4 EV comparison. I won't impugn your professional integrity like the other questioner, however, I think he has a point, albeit buried in some vitriolic "prose."
The interesting difference to me between the GM EV1 and the Toyota RAV4 EV is based off of your statement:
"The primary difference is that Toyota chose to go a much cheaper route with small numbers of simple conversion vehicles, while GM invested the effort and capital to design/develop a purpose-built, ultra-efficient EV to showcase the technology and squeeze the most possible range out of whatever batter technology would be available."
How is it then that such a "purpose-built, ultra-efficient EV" can only manage 50-70 miles while a "cheaper ... simple conversion" of a much heavier vehicle has an 80-100 mile range?
I think this is the most interesting question, and I think this applies directly to what's been going on in the automotive market today.
If Toyota of 10 years ago can perform a quick and dirty conversion of a vehicle and get that kind of range, what's preventing GM from doing so today? I know they're investing billions in the Volt, and I applaud them for it, but it seems like they could have gone a simpler route by converting a four door Cobalt or Malibu into a decent range EV vehicle. Even if just for a publicity stunt or for highly controlled fleet sales, it would have garnered positive press.
Further, the about-to-be-released Ford Fusion Hybrid has to be a slap in the face to GM.
Sincerely,
Justin
Reply
Bill 8:30PM (11/03/2008)
27 kWh NiMH vs. 18 kWh lead-acid battery pack.
depth of discharge (usable energy) usually much less for lead-acid compared to NiMH
3000 lb. curb weight ev1, 3400 lb. curb weight rav4 ev. - is 13% a huge difference?
tankd0g 10:53PM (11/03/2008)
The later versions of the EV1 with the NiHM pack *supposedly* got up to 160miles out of it. There's a lot of wishful revisionist history going on with the EV1 these days so I don't know if that range is true.
The thing is, I have the same Rav4 body style as the Rav4 EV, and it gets admittedly bad milage on the highway (25mpg best case). GMs slicker than snot bullet on wheels supposedly got 150-160 miles with the same battery capacity (27 kWh) that the heavier 4 door and shaped like a brick Rav4 got 120 miles out of. Kinda makes me think Toyota could have taken a 7th gen Celica shell and pulled over 200 miles out of the same battery.
Craig 9:07PM (11/03/2008)
Regarding the problem of potential product liability law suits as a reason to crush electric cars, this is not really up the alley of an engineer. Let’s look at the two assertions.
First, the response assumes electric vehicles are *marginally* more dangerous than the thousands of gasoline vehicles, i.e. the lawyers said to get theses cars off the road because they are more dangerous than other cars sold. All cars carry some potential product defect liability. Why would an electric car be more dangerous to a backyard mechanic who is severely injured by a fan belt or any one of the many moving parts of an internal combustion engine? In the same way it seems no more dangerous to roll around with a controller that might fail, compared to rolling around with many gallons of highly combustible gasoline often results in deaths.
The second reason offered, that it is hard to sue an overseas company, doesn’t come with analysis either. What protection do Japanese auto makers have? Companies that operate in the United States may be sued here. It takes only a quick web search to see that dozens of U.S. law firms tout their representation of Japanese auto makers in product liability cases. Toyota crushed some cars then stopped, which you certainly would not want to do if you had a real product liability concern. I doubt this has anything to with why cars were crushed.
I don't mean to dig in on this, but as an attorney, some of these claims seem outlandish to me. Thanks,
Craig
Reply
tankd0g 10:53PM (11/03/2008)
The Rav4 was a production vehicle with some modifications, afaik, none of them structural. The EV1 was starting from scratch, it would have had to go through all the same hoops that any new car does, I don't think GM say any point in that when gas was practically free in the 90s.
Mike!!ekiM 9:50PM (11/03/2008)
It comes down to Commitment. The cars were and are now viable. The EV1 should be reintroduced. But, it would take a commitment from upper management. Is global warming real? Is Peak Oil here now, or next year? Is air pollution a real problem? GM would have had to admit to the "externalities of production", the delusion bubble would have to pop.
Look at current management, still denying Global Climate Change we can see with our own eyes. Still can't correlate the carbon increase and human population explosion.
Reply
Yanquetino 10:24PM (11/03/2008)
Okay. Here are some questions that I haven't seen answered yet:
* Why did GM allow Toyota to leapfrog the EV1 by installing NIMH first in the RAV4-EV, when GM actually owned the worldwide patent on NiMH? Did GM license it to Toyota? If so, for how much?
* How much did Texaco/Chevron pay GM for those NIMH patents? Besides the exchange of patents-for-payment, what other stipulations were specified in that sales agreement?
* Where can we see the actual hard data from GM's study, survey, poll, questionnaire that concluded there was "low customer acceptance"?
Reply
Yanquetino 2:46PM (11/04/2008)
Ah... one more question for my list:
* Why did GM have to disable the EV1s donated to museums or universities? My impression is that museums pride themselves on having cars in their collections that are in good, working order. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why GM would only donate inoperable EV1s to those museums. What would it have hurt to give them fully functional vehicles?
kert 4:12AM (11/04/2008)
Once again, can you talk a bit more about the later EV1 powertrain prototypes, especially the series hybrid one ? It has been very scarcely covered, but it did exist.
What makes Volt different from what was shown in 1998 ? ( except for the gas-turbine APU of course ) And why wasnt the series hybrid concept taken forward back then ? "Expensive" isnt really an answer while teams kept working on hydrogen fuel cells in parallel ...
Reply
Stan-O 6:22AM (11/04/2008)
Also interested in the base for "low customer interest" statement. What's the average time to purchase/lease (from the production) on the current GM vehicles and what was it for the EV1? Ideally, that data should exclude fleet sales.
Any other statistics to prove us, faithful "EV1 was a desired car" believers wrong?
Thanks Gary!
Reply
Harry Ariola 9:53AM (11/04/2008)
My God people, just accept that the EV-1 wasn't a viable mass market vehicle. If all of the 'experts' who want criticize GM's engineering on the EV-1 are so brilliant, build your own friggin' EV for the masses. Otherwise, get over it and STFU.
Reply
Mike T. 11:19AM (11/04/2008)
Can you explain to me why the car manufacturers could build an EV that seats 4-5 people and got 80-100 miles in 2002 (specifically in the RAV4EV), but cannot build that now, especially with Li-ion batteries? It seems like they are taking a step backwards to produce a vehicle (the Volt) that will only get 40 miles using electric only.
If Toyota just retrofitted the RAV4 for their EV, why can't GM retrofit the HHR, Vue, Torrent, Equinox, or other compact SUV to get a superior electric only vehicle? I bet they would fly off of the lot.
Reply
Richard 12:46PM (11/04/2008)
Finally somebody that asked the very question I've been asking myself. How come Toyota can do a cheap, quick and dirty conversion in '98, but can't seam to find a good reason to do it today? Heck if Lithium batteries aren't yet viable, let use NiMh! And why does GM always have to start from scratch? I mean, who authorizes these decisions? They should be fired! If Toyota can make a great car from an existing model, there's no reason GM, Ford, Nor Chrysler couldn't do it. That's just a shame. A darn same.
Randy C. 10:20AM (11/04/2008)
One question I would like to ask this gentleman is: Why were the EV1 customers treated so badly?
They had to jump through hoops, they had to nag the dealerships to get the cars. While they had the EV1 they were not encouraged to keep it. When the cars were turned in the customers were charged and or sued for expensive paint repairs on cars that were never fixed and eventually destroyed. These were not from accidents just the normal dings and dents every car gets just by being parked in a public lot. There are even reports that when an EV1 came in for a rare mechanical failure the customers are informed the lease is canceled "we're taking the car back" with no consideration of the customer's needs. These people were willing to eat dirt to keep the EV1. Is this a way to project a prosperous company?
Reply
Matt Lenart 12:57PM (11/04/2008)
first off i wanna apologize for questioning your integrity... my emotions often get the best of me, especially when i don't see the whole story being told. your acknowledgement of the RAV4 EV is HUGE and opens up discussions for understanding/learning from past EV hits and misses.
i got one more if you don't mind:
as an engineer, do you think the considerable budget alloted to the EV1 project could have been better spent on addressing the few problems remaining on the much cheaper RAV4 EV project? in hindsight, could the research dollars from lutz' and schwarzenegger's hydrogen hummer been better allocated in preparing a viable alternative for the future?
that was actually two, but i promise not to "contribute" any more negative comments to your editorials.
i have added some very handsome and meticulously-drawn testacles (you earned them) to my "witz" dartboard and retired it in the garage.
seriously though. thank you and keep on writing!
sincerely,
Matt Lenart
Reply
stevejust 2:36PM (11/04/2008)
I have read the attempted response to Matt Lenart's question, and I for one will continue to impugn your professional integrity based on what I read because your main point is that there was allegedly low consumer acceptance, and that argument is so preposterous it disgusts me. But I will readily admit this could be leftover disdain from your absurd articles about how global climate change has no anthropogenic root.
To begin with, you still promote the idea of "low consumer acceptance" when those 260 or so RAV 4 EVs regularly sell on E-bay for > $50,000; the waiting list for a $109,000 Tesla Roadster has thousands of people on it, as does the Fisker Karma (full disclosure: I put a deposit on the Fisker). I am willing to bet you $1,000 right now, today, that the new Electric Mini that will debut in Los Angeles this November will have 1,000s more people trying to lease one than the 500 they plan to make. I will bet they have at least 2,000 people willing to pay whatever price they come up with for that one-year lease they're offering. Do you want to take me up on that wager and put your money where your mouth is?
Okay you say. Times are now different today than they were when the EV-1 was killed. So let's talk about lawsuits and then and come back to the consumer acceptance issue, since that seems to be the only argument GM could come up with to justify the destruction of the EV-1.
When the EV-1s were destroyed, people tried to present GM with money to buy them. So for the ones that existed, GM was offered money. Had I owned GM stock at that time, I personally would have filed a lawsuit against GM for breaching their fiduciary duty to me. They had a product that people were offering money to buy, and they didn't sell. it That did not maximize their profits as they are basically required to do as a publicly traded company. That was at least as big a litigation threat as selling the cars to a bunch of hippie environmentalists when GM was widely WARNING people about their lack of safety. There was no law I know of preventing them from selling the off-leased vehicles that were already in existence that didn't meet new NHTSA standards. Moreover, motorcycles are "unsafe," and they get sold all the time! There are ways to sell unsafe products and not get sued for it. There's no reason there couldn't have been a consent to waive any implied warranty of merchantability on the EV-1 for the people who wanted to buy the car. You sir, need to stay out of opining about the legal issues, or get some help from a GM attorney, because you don't know what you are talking about. Quite frankly, the Japanese don't face as many product liability suits as the Big 3 do because they have safer engineering. It has nothing to do with a alleged competitive advantage.
If I were you, I would try to shift people's anger to Toyota, since they've abandoned the pure EV in lieu of the hybrid synergy drive. Oh wait... the hybird synergy drive is basically the principle reason GM had to go with its tail between its legs to congress and ask for $25 billion of my tax dollars, isn't it? And the reason why GM is getting their ass kicked and they need a bailout? Because they employ people like you instead of people like me.
If your judgment isn't compromised because as Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it" then your judgment is "impaired" because you're just not that smart. Either way, I want my damn tax money back, and I'll start by hoping you'll take me up on my wager.
Reply
Harry Ariola 4:59PM (11/04/2008)
stevejust,
Are you seriously trying to compare consumer interest in 2008 to that of the mid 90's? That's like saying Tandy shouldn't have stopped producing the TRS-80, because basically every home in America has a computer today.
Are you also seriously trying to compare an $80,000+ Fisker Karma to an EV-1?
GM leased a grand total of 800 EV-1's, which meant that 200 units went unleased. GM couldn't find takers for 20% of the EV-1s produced and yet you claim there was tremendous demand.
Instead of basing your opinion and ensuing arrogance on the information you cultivate in your enviro-utopian existence, why don't you base it on fact. Maybe that way people could take you seriously instead at laughing at your utter stupidity.
Just out of curiosity, since you claim GM should have hired you instead of Mr. Witz, why haven't you brought an electric vehicle to market? Effing moron.
Reply
stevejust 8:57PM (11/04/2008)
Mr. Ariola:
Q) When were the EV-1s taken off the road?
A) 2003. Not the mid-90s. And yes, the demand was there in 2003, as demonstrated by the fact that PEOPLE WROTE GM A CHECK TO BUY THE DAMN CARS AND GM DID NOT ACCEPT IT.
Q) How many states did GM lease the EV-1?
A) 2.5: California, Arizona and Georgia (sort of). If they'd have just marketed (and provided dealer support for them) in NYC, DC, Chicago they would have had no problem moving any alleged "unleasable" EV-1s. Unfortunately for you, I checked the wikipedia page and it said all the EV-1s were leased. So check your facts, or cite me to why you say they had a problem with these leases. Otherwise, it's pretty clear you're making up this crap and calling me stupid.
Q) Do you want to put your money where your mouth is on my consumer demand challenge? How many thousands of people would you require to sign up for the Mini EV in 2008 to compare the interest in EVs to 2003 when the EV-1 program was officially discontinued?
As for bringing an electric car to market, why would I try to do that when there was an EV-1 and EV-Plus a RAV4 EV and electric Rangers in development back in 1996? I didn't know there'd be a need for me to do anything. I don't even know what kind of latin term applies to such an asinine line of argumentation.
This is from the wikipedia page:
"GM never offered the EV1 for public sale. It was only available to consumers under a lease program that had a "no purchase" clause disallowing the vehicle's re-purchase at the conclusion of the lease. 660 Generation One EV1s were produced for the 1997 model year,[2] using lead acid batteries;[3]and each found a lessee.
In December 1999, GM released approximately 200 of the new Generation Two 1999 EV1s with the new nickel metal hydride battery. Over the next 8 months, the remaining 257 Generation Two EV1s were released to certain selected lessees which initiated a lengthy waiting list.[4] In mid 2000, GM closed the EV1 plant. A total of 457 Generation Two EV1s were produced and all were eventually leased."
Harry Ariola 12:30AM (11/05/2008)
Steve,
First off, when you use Wikipedia as the source of your information, you're in trouble, as anyone can post whatever they want on a thread, it doesn't have to be true.
Now to clarify for you, EV1 production started in 1996, hence my mid-90's reference. Updates were to the ' 97 and '99 models via recalls thereafter. 2003 was the last year of the lease agreements, not the last year the vehicle was available for new leasees. According to Part III Of Mr. Witzenburgs' article, "500 ‘97 EV1s were built and 400 [were] leased". This directly refutes the 660 production figure someone placed on Wikipedia. As Mr. Witzenburg also stated, "about 1,000 EV1s [were produced] over two model years, and Saturn dealers in five CA and AZ cities managed to lease just 80 percent of them."
You said "PEOPLE WROTE GM A CHECK TO BUY THE DAMN CARS AND GM DID NOT ACCEPT IT." Please quantify for me exactly how many people actually offered GM money for EV1s and how many EV1s GM would have had to build for it to be economically feasible to do so. Also include what the liability cost would have been for GM to accept monies for these vehicles. You see, in the business world, even if 5,000 people offer you money for a product, it does you no good if you need 20,000 willing consumers for the product just to break even. (Hypothetical numbes, by the way.) Saying people were willing to give GM money for them is great rhetoric, but nothing more. Substantiate your argument with quanitfiable numbers, please.
As far as GM making the vehicle available in cold weather states, had you actually taken the time to read the article, you would know that GM didn't offer EV1s in cold weather states because, as Mr. Witzenburg wrote, "much of what little range it had went away in cold temperatures due to sluggish batteries, higher tire rolling resistance, cold seals and lubricants and higher aerodynamic drag. Add the energy lost to running the heater, lights and windshield wipers and slogging through slush or snow, and the PbA EV1's 50-70-mile warm-weather range would be half that, or less, in winter conditions. That is one major reason why, lacking higher-energy batteries, EV1 was leased only in California and Arizona. Another was partnerships with cooperative electric utilities." See, if you take the time to actually read before you start bashing the writer, you won't make yourself look so foolish. By the way, this explanation also refutes your great business plan of selling the EV1 in NYC, DC and Chicago as a way to make it viable to the masses.
My suggestion that you bring an electric car to market was in response to your claim that you are, in your humble opinion, much smarter than Mr. Witzenburg. Your posts clearly illustrate your exceptional reading comprehension, as evidenced by your complete disregard of the EV1s' cold weather short comings. Your notion of marketing such a vehicle to the cities of NY, Chicago and DC, also suggest your business acumen is unchallenged, not to mention the fact that you seem to believe that having only a few people actually interested in your vehicle is enough to warrant continual financial losses.
You also stated "Otherwise, it's pretty clear you're making up this crap and calling me stupid." Your only half right. I'm not making this crap up.
By the way, here's what Time Magazine said about the EV1 in it's "50 Worst Cars Of All Time" article:
The EV1 was a marvel of engineering, absolutely the best electric vehicle anyone had ever seen. Built by GM to comply with California's zero-emissions-vehicle mandate, the EV1 was quick, fun, and reliable. It held out the promise that soon electric cars — charged from the grid with all sorts of groovy power sources, like wind and solar — could replace the smelly old internal-combustion vehicle. And therein lies the problem: the promise. In fact, battery technology at the time was nowhere near ready to replace the piston-powered engine. The early car's lead-acid bats, and even the later nickel-metal hydride batteries, couldn't supply the range or durability required by the mass market. The car itself was a tiny, super-light two-seater, not exactly what American consumers were looking for. And the EV1 was horrifically expensive to build, which was why GM's execs terminated the program — handing detractors yet another stick to beat them with. GM, the company that had done more to advance EV technology than any other, became the company that "killed the electric car."
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658544_1658535,00.html
Just out of curiosity, what is that you do that affords you the income to purchase an $80,000 Fisker? My dog has just updated his resume and I'd like to know where he should send it.
Dr Mark 3:48PM (11/07/2008)
Mr Witz,
Why did GM start from scratch on the Volt when they had a 40-mile series hybrid they showed at the 1998 Detroit auto show. I can appreciate that the 120-mile NiMH battery pack would make the car expensive, but a 40-mile pack should be 1/3rd the price. So why wasn't this marketed?
Whatever the economics of 2002 were is a moot point today. Sending $600 Billion a year out of the country for oil is killing us in 2008, so we could really use that 1998 concept car.
Dr Mark
Reply