Featured GM could have led the electric revolution with the EV1

Same as Chrysler did with the turbine car.

IMHO - GM could have been a big player in the EV or hybrid market - if it wanted to. Which is to say - if the American car-buying public was interested, and thus, GM could be assured of at least making it's money back.

It's probably the same reason the consumer electronics market was lost to Japan: American manufacturing companies were too smug about being the big kid on the block and never stopped to think that people wouldn't always be buying vacuum-tube CRT televisions that weigh 150 pounds and draw 120 watts.

 

The EV1 probably would have lasted longer, if there would have been a lot more interest and leases to support it.

 

To give kudos to Toyota, they didn't crush all of the gen 1's. After much public negativity, Toyota recanted on their original decision to crush 'em all, & allowed a few hundred to be bought out right. Giving real credibility to the nickel metal hydride chemistry they used, a handful are still running around the landscape.
One has even been converted to the new lithium chemistry!
.

 

So driving either our Tesla Model 3 or BMW i3, I don’t see anything from GM but a rebadged Korean EV and promised Hummer. Neither appeals to me. Heck the EV F150 looks better.

Bob Wilson

 

Kind of reminds me when GM was caught with their pants down during the original gas crisis. The next thing you know - GM "created" the Chevy LUV pickup (thanks to a Little Help from Japanl).
.

 

People forget that the lease prices for the EV-1 were equivalent to those found on a $30,000 - $40,000 car....and that much money bought a lot more car back in 1996 than it does in 2021.
Leaving aside non-recurring developmental costs and logistics - which were largely paid for by dot.gov, IF people were standing in blocks long lines to get a lease, then GM would kept building them.
They didn't, so they didn't.

If there were a 'yuuuge' pent up demand for BEVs back then somebody else would have stepped in the way of that bus.
There was SOME demand so somebody (Eberhard and Tarpenning) DID.
Tesla has been around since 2003 and they're just now getting to the point where they can sell enough cars to stay alive without tax kickbacks for their buyers - after 17 years and enough drama on the street to inspire some SEC love.

Put in perspective, that same 25 years brought FoMoCo from it's first car (The model A in 1903) all the way through the 15-million unit production run of it's Model-T in the late 20s.
100 years later the Tin Lizzie is still in the top 10 list of the most sold car units of all time.

One might argue about tax kickbacks, dot.com greed, labour, or any of a number of fertilizers for production and demand but revolutions are rarely successful until you get the rest of the 99-percent onboard for the ride.

 

An interesting read on the EV1.
The True Story of GM's Electric Car of the 1990's, the EV1 (sjsu.edu)

 

If your talking interest on a loan yes.

If your talking interest in the car, 9 out 10 folks who tried to “lease” one were rejected

You had to fill out a 30 page form trying to prove your worthiness to own and even got interviewed

 

And don't forget that Chevron owned the NiMH battery monopoly in the late 90s, early 2000s and sued the pants off of anyone using their license to power cars. I know that the settlement with Toyota restricted their use in hybrids to small batteries and was covered by a non disclosure agreement AND sealed by court order. No telling what all the others (ford, gm, etc) ran into.

It seems odd that so many different companies decided at the same time to crush perfectly usable cars just because California no longer required them to be made. It does not seem to be coincident.

 

Toyota was once picky about who got a Mirai, and I do think they are trying to make it a success.

Without screening, nearly 40% of the people that got a plug in didn't have access to home charging. Which has led to some going back to a non-plug car. That high lights the issues for some to get a plug-in, but I don't think we actually needed people that couldn't charge at home to get a car to realize that.

I don't think GM wanted to make the EV1, but as a whole, the US public really isn't interested in small cars and fuel economy. The gen1 Prius didn't sell well here for the same reasons. Getting a big size increase, and rising fuel costs, is why the gen2 was much more successful.

 

I suspect that you weren't part of the new car market in 1996. Yes, gas was a buck and a quarter in 1996, and destined to climb in future years. But there were a LOT of EV enthusiasts who wanted an EV1, and most of those who had them were quite happy with them.

California buyers in the late 1990s remembered the embargo of 1974 that led to gas prices almost doubling in one year. A car that freed us from the tyranny of gas was very attractive. Did they want small cars? Sure they did. Every manufacturer had a "best selling" small car, from the Mazda Miata to the Geo Metro. The Justy from Subaru was a dinky little AWD "station wagon". The Z series (240Z on up) from Nissan were sought after.

I've heard every excuse in the book for why the EV1 was crushed. One theory was that they did not want to have to provide spare parts as required by law. Another was that they wanted to avoid law suits when the batteries failed. Still another was that the oil companies paid to have the project declared a failure, and that's hard to do when every one that was built was in customer hands.

As for early Prius sales, they were constrained by limits on production. I Know. I was at the lot trying to find one with less than a 6 month long waiting list. In 2002 I finally lucked out and found a nearby Prius that the customer never picked up. They lost their deposit and I was able to swoop in with cash and take it home that day. That was the ONLY available Prius in all the dealers for San Francisco Bay area. Later that year production increased and they became more readily available.

 

My father wanted a Prius in the early days, the only way to make it work would be to fly out and drive it back, too hard to find one and make it work and ended up with a lousy TDI, least reliable turd ever

 

GM shut down the production line after just 1117 were made.

Leases were available only in CA and AZ. After production stopped, GM notified lessees that it would not be renewing the leases, and would be removing the cars from the road.

GM certainly didn't try to meet the demand.

 

They were also offered in Georgia.

 

For 6 months

 

And?

 

Any major manufacturer could have led the EV revolution.
For various reasons, none did.

GM & Toyota are, IMO, the most obvious manufacturers that could have led the EV revolution.

Any company can lead a new product revolution by making a revolutionary product that is attractive to buyers.
Either of those companies had the capability to usher in the EV era, but neither had the drive to do so.

 

They were too busy out sourcing compliance vehicles to piss off early adopters who '1 of 5' reverted to ICE vehicles later.

Bob Wilson

 

It wasn't just the ev1 that could have done GM right .... imo - an even greater impact for GM would have been their hybrid that never came to be, the "Impact"



That was back when GM ruled the world. But times change. The Portuguese used rule the seas. Britain ruled the seas. Then the u.s. ruled the Seas. Auto makers that once ruled the markets - once seeing glory days become has been's.
Maybe China is the next king of the hill? Their Nio EV sure eats up the track;

NIO Sets a New Record for the Fastest Autonomous Car in the World | Business Wire
.

 

Nice car but does it seat five? Perhaps it is waiting for the Tesla Roadster.

Bob Wilson