At Witz' End: GM EV1 - The Real Story, Q&A III
Editor's Note: If you missed Gary's previous articles on the history of GM's EV1, please start here. This post is the third of three posts where he answers reader questions that the EV1 series raised. Part I is here and Part II is here. Once again, questions may have been edited for space. Honest answers to more probing questions.
You brush off the important facts that led many people to believe in a conspiracy theory. For example, you say, 'For whatever reason...only 500 EV1's were built.' What is the reason? As you mentioned, the EV1 wasn't marketed or meant to be the only car a family/individual would have, so 130-140 miles of range is PLENTY if the car is a COMMUTER car. -- cazancoz
The reason should be crystal clear. We built about 1,000 EV1s over two model years, and Saturn dealers in five CA and AZ cities managed to lease just 80 percent of them. Contrary to what some believe, you can't market/advertise your way to healthy sales of something most people simply don't want -- even with the higher-energy optional '99-model NiMH battery that could stretch the range to more than 100 miles. Like you, we thought that would be enough for a commuter car in a time of $1.40 gas. Like you, we were wrong.
Yeah, right! GM really wanted the EV1 to be a success. That's why lessees had to be able to comply with a long list of conditions BEFORE they were allowed to lease an EV1, like you had to have a garage and park your car in it every night. It was exceedingly difficult to lease an EV1. The process and delays put many people off. Rules that were applied to an EV1 were NEVER applied to any other GM car. -- Randy C.
The answer, and more, after the jump.
Without a garage, where would they put the 240V charger that was part of the deal? No one would be happy running an extension cord to 120V house current every night. We wanted no dissatisfied customers, no "buyer's remorse." We wanted to be sure lessees fully understood what they were getting into before committing to a three-year lease on a limited-range two-seat battery EV, so the screening process was intentionally tough. They had to understand the car's range limitation and be able to operate within it every day. They couldn't go get a can of volts to carry back if they ran out somewhere they didn't want to be.
What about the S10 EVs? Those are still out there. Why hasn't GM recalled and destroyed those? – Kevin M
They are? I don't know – I haven't worked there for eight years. But if some still are, they're probably in commercial fleets, not privately owned. Also, like Toyota's RAV4s, they're simple conversions, not complex purpose-built EVs. Anyone know for sure?
I've had high hopes for this series in terms of getting some insight into the story behind the EV1. However, I find little of value between discussions of least-relevant reader comments and refusal to elaborate on the most critical decisions: 1) planning of low production, then using it as indicator of poor sales performance and reason for cancellation; 2) closing the EV1 plant despite Gen II's improved performance with NiMH batteries; 3) not exploring EV1 PHEV beyond the prototype stage; 4) sale of stake in GM Ovonics Battery Systems to Texaco, effectively closing the door on use of NiMH tech for automotive applications. BTW, Tesla Motors has disproved Witzenburg's opinion expressed in the last paragraph. -- Serge
- Production of '97- and '99 EV1s turned out 25 percent higher than demand. We could have built plenty more had demand been there, but it was not;
- Gen II EV1 range with optional NiMH packs was nearly twice the PbA cars', but demand for them did not increase;
- Our stretched EV1 (4-seat) hybrid prototypes, both series and parallel, proved far too costly for production consideration, but the learnings from them were carried forward to the experimental PNGV Precept and eventually to today's advanced 2-Mode hybrids and the E-Flex/Volt;
- Ovonics, now part of Energy Conversion Devices, has been building NiMH batteries for GM and other customers ever since those early '99 EV1 packs. Who said that "door" was closed? And Tesla has proven only that there's a market for tiny numbers of very expensive high-performance EV sports cars for wealthy people? Wait'll they have to service those computer-battery packs.
It is interesting to note that EV1 was canceled AFTER high-energy Li-Ion batteries went into mass production and were starting to show up in consumer products. GM appeared to be in a hurry to get the program canceled and all the leased cars returned and crushed before someone pointed out the obvious: batteries that could give the EV1 over 240 miles per charge are now available! Oh, I suppose it is possible that the entire GM team of engineers and executives were, until recently, unaware of Li-ion battery technology. -- Chris M
If Li-ion batteries were in "mass" production in 1999, we never heard of them. The initially promising lithium-polymer chemistry that some were developing at that time - upon which long-term success of the entire $1B-plus GM EV program depended - never panned out, and I don't think Li-ion was available for computer/phone applications until several years later. In any case, there's an ENORMOUS difference between those small batteries and safe, practical, semi-affordable vehicle-size packs. And if anyone could have had them ready before now, why haven't they? GM and many others are counting on them being ready in the next year or two.
I think by now we've beaten the EV1 to death. Let's move on to more current and relevant topics such as plug-in hybrids, CAFE and the very survivability of our long-suffering U.S. automakers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
stevejust 9:15PM (11/04/2008)
Stop being a wuss, man up and take my bet in part II of this series.
Or name your terms. How many people would need to be on the Mini EV wait-list to extrapolate backwards to 2003?
Reply
Yanquetino 9:16PM (11/04/2008)
Darn...! Didn't answer my questions from Q&A II. Too bad, because nobody has yet.
Reply
Luke 11:56PM (11/04/2008)
Those who drank the kool aid will blame an hate GM regardless. They can't be reasoned with. I'm looking foreward to the Volt, and the cars that employ the technology that spin off from it.
Reply
kert 3:46AM (11/05/2008)
::Our stretched EV1 (4-seat) hybrid prototypes, both series and parallel, proved far too costly for production consideration,
Uh, so whats so different in 2011 for Volt compared to EV1 series hybrid ? What has changed, why isnt it costly now ?
How come you just sat on this concept for about ten years ?
Reply
DasBoese 10:58AM (11/05/2008)
It IS costly. Why do you think GM has been lobbying for PHEV tax breaks?
The Volt is still kind of affordable because it's built on an existing platform with proven technology (except the battery of course). The EV1 on the other hand incorporated many novel technologies, which made it expensive to produce.
AMcA 12:27AM (11/06/2008)
And what's more, the premise that the Volt is just a design that sat on the shelf the last decade, is just plain goofy.
Technology has changed a little in that time, boys.
The true-believers on here don't seem to have any clue what a complex undertaking building a whole new type of car is.
"We want it done, you people haven't done it for us yet, and it's because you're lazy and corrupt. We know full well it's an easy task and you're just holding out on us" seems to be the operative premise here.
Talk about a sense of entitlement.
Twonius 8:38AM (11/05/2008)
Yeah.. and if this was such a good idea how did you keep Honda/Toyota/ DCX / Ford/ Nissan/ BMW/ etc. etc. Out of the game?!
Oh wait.. i'm sure they looked at it and decided to go another route because they would've had the same problems.
EV1 was definately a milestone. They poured some serious money into it but the technology just wasn't there (yet). Its just too bad that that didn't translate into leadership in hybrids.
Reply
Luke 8:48PM (11/05/2008)
+1
Amtoro 9:08AM (11/05/2008)
Advanced 2-mode hybrids??? for real? there is nothing advanced in GM's hybrids except their unnecessary complexity. In 1998, before GM bought Daewoo, they had a hybrid Nubira (real hybrid), fully electric with a 800cc Daewoo Tico engine under the trunk for recharging the Ni-MH batteries. After GM took control of Daewoo, all that disappeared.
Now, all the fuzz about the Volt and how complicated and difficult to build it is... GM will pull the same trick again and cancel it under another stupid excuse.
BTW... I run an extension cord every night to recharge my EV (a 1994 Saturn SL conversion) from the car to the outlet on a light pole at my apartment complex. YES, I have an EV and live in an apartment complex!!!
Reply
Julius 9:55AM (11/05/2008)
Amtoro - the problem is, GM would face enormous liability issues if someone doing just that (using an extension cord to charge their vehicle) caused a short somehow and started a house fire. This is why they had a specific, professionally installed 240V setup and an inductive paddle charging system, rather than a patch-cable electrical plug one.
Reply
Amtoro 11:16AM (11/05/2008)
I think what you mean is these two (or three) words... "lawsuit-happy country"...
I agree, but even the management of where I live would let me install an outdoor inductive charger off my meter as long as it does not change anything on the building.
What I mean is that if you are willing to make a change, the resources are out there, but big companies are too narrow-minded for many things, that's why we had to wait for entrepreneurs like Tesla (thanks to all the .com money) to push for electric vehicles.
Richard 12:56PM (11/05/2008)
My dryer has that plug, and let me tell you, no fire. I'm pretty sure other people have the same setup, and, no fire...that's just BS.
Throwback 11:04AM (11/05/2008)
For you conspiracy theorists there is one question YOU have not answered. If all of this technology was readily available 10 years ago, and there were plenty (pick any number) of buyers waiting breathlessly to buy, why didn't any other major car company make an EV until now? Why didn't some entrepreneur make an EV until Tesla? Are you suggesting GM forced Toyota, Honda, Nissan, all the Europeans etc. to not make EVs? Even saintly Toyota decided EVs where not profitable and went with hybrids instead.
Reply
virgil 11:58AM (11/05/2008)
The reason they didn't do it, is they were too busy making $$$ off of SUVs, and they all lobbied strongly for increased safety standards which would require competitors (European manufacturers and EV makers) to retrofit their vehicles. Why do you think the Smart car didn't make it to the US until now? Because the biggest car company in the world didn't want to deal with all the hassle of federalizing it! Thanks to the stupid federal crash test system (which, BTW, almost killed Tesla), we will be very very lucky to see any lightweight EVs make it to the marketplace by the end of the next decade.
Richard 1:01PM (11/05/2008)
That's a fallacy. Tesla was a risk taker. Just like many other inventors. The problem was that all EV's offered back then weren't high end cars. They were normal cars with expensive electric propulsion systems. Nobody wants to pay too much for that. But I have to mention that I never heard of the EV1 and Rav4EV until a few years ago. I would have loved to have one even then. In addition, I'd like to mention, that despite the low sales volume of SUV these days, I counted 4 commercials for Cadillac Escalade SUV's last night during one show. Not one economy car commercial. Explain that!
Throwback 12:23PM (11/05/2008)
Us automakers have fought virtually every increase in safety regs from airbags to ABS brakes. The idea that they lobbied for stricter crash standards to keep EVs out of the US is laughable. DCX was not, nor has ever been, the largest car company in the world. The reason Smart only now came to the US is because the company has never made a profit. This is a last ditch attempt to make a profit. Daimler tried to sell Smart before they decided on this strategy and found no buyers. If EVs are in such demand why wouldn't a European of Japanese company sell them in Europe where gas prices are the highest in the world?
Reply
Serge 1:09PM (11/05/2008)
It all comes to one thing: leadership. Successful companies, who are leaders in their field do not wait for technologies and other opportunities to maintain their leadership position to become "magically" available. They work hard at it.
Roger Smith had the vision and resolve to spearhead the effort to build the electric vehicle. Impact / EV1 was born because of enormous commitment of resources and dedication of many at GM and affiliated organizations. EV1 lit the torch, which needed to be carried through. Only the powers that be (or were) know why it was extinguished instead.
I think it is instructive to look in the past to see what went wrong, so mistakes are not repeated. I think that GM has some soul searching to do. I hope that lessons have been learned, because we have a lot of work ahead of us all. A lot of time has been lost already and we cannot afford to fail. It is time for a new conversation.
Reply
Sean 2:31PM (11/05/2008)
So when you say: "Production of '97- and '99 EV1s turned out 25 percent higher than demand. We could have built plenty more had demand been there, but it was not" what you actually mean is that demand vastly exceeded supply and you hand to turn away large numbers of customers trying to hand you money.
Just because you refused to sell the cars does not mean there was any less demand. Try a little honesty next time.
Reply
Matt Lenart 3:00PM (11/05/2008)
http://www.2405.com/press-library/Hummer-H2H-Concept-2004/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-and-Hummer-H2H-Concept-2.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
please read. thank you.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 12:16AM (11/06/2008)
All I can say is Toyota and Honda now make an affordable Hybrid. I hope GM can drive down the cost of the batteries FAST to compete.
Reply