Who killed the electric car? Who cares?

Damn. Where to start?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jun 16 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]463148[/snapback]</div>

The assembly line is in mothballs. It was built to be portable. It was folded up and put away. It still exists as far as I know.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusFTW @ Jun 17 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]463580[/snapback]</div>

Toyota says they heavily marketed the car as well. Toyota also used the same GM line that they could only sell X number of cars. That number X was exactly how many each made.... that part isn't mentioned.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 18 2007, 06:21 AM) [snapback]463913[/snapback]</div>

Oh boy. Must we go through this every time? Can't we just enjoy hating GM when this stuff comes up, and hating Toyota when the subject is about them? This is a thread about a GM car. GM did some stupid things. Talking about those stupid things does NOT mean that Toyota doesn't also do stupid things - it just isn't today's topic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hampdenwireless @ Jun 18 2007, 08:16 AM) [snapback]463972[/snapback]</div>

Sticks hand in air.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtmhog @ Jun 18 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]464133[/snapback]</div>

Right. Because short-term profits would suffer. Surprisingly, we still hear that all the car companies (GM is famous for this especially in defence of large, truck-based vehicles) just make the cars we want to buy. These two ideas seem to be at odds. They make the cars that make the most profits. The consumer has a choice of exactly what is offered... maybe not what they (I) want.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 18 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]464169[/snapback]</div>

You don't really need to ask as we've been through this countless times. Just because GM is evil and Lutz is a liar does not also mean that EVs were fantastically profitable. GM spent more money killing the program than it did developing the program. None of the other car makers did that. They all jumped out when the jumping was good. Nobody wants to be holding the short stick.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 18 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]464351[/snapback]</div>

There are still tires and brakes (lasting much longer) and wipers and light bulbs, and power windows, and AC, and some coolant. But honestly - yes, it really does lower mainenance costs. No oil changes. No tuneups. No injectors. No "bad gas." No muffler. No transmission. There just isn't much to do until the tires need rotating. In 75,000 miles of pure electric driving, I've now spent $59 total on maintenance. And since my fuel is free... well, it has been somewhat economical for me to drive those miles. EVs aren't perfect... but they certainly do have some advantages! I spend MUCH more on bicycle maintenance than I do on EV maintenance. Of course I also ride more than I drive...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Jun 19 2007, 04:21 PM) [snapback]464944[/snapback]</div>

We now have a private owner with 160k miles. That is in under five years. In a care that "only" has 100 miles of range. Original batteries, and still gets better than 100 miles range.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawaiiguide @ Sep 25 2007, 08:09 PM) [snapback]517738[/snapback]</div>

*cough*BS*cough* Where do people get this stuff? You got pretty close on the weight, and the original chemistry. But where do you get the part about three year mandatory replacement of the entire pack? Just didn't happen! And just because the batteries were heavy doesn't mean much. The glider weighed almost nothing. The whole car certainly weighed tons less (literally) than any full-size SUV on the road... and we keep on selling those, don't we? And those things need hundreds of dollars of replacement gasoline like every week!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 26 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]517926[/snapback]</div>

So electric cars are mired in the very first generation? No incremental improvements? Might as well compare those first EVs to the Ford Model A and see how things look. The first gas cars had no gas stations! Couldn't drive faster than about 25mph. Had zero safety equipment. Had to be hand-cranked to start. That sucks. Who'd ever want to do that? But I digress...

Who drives 300 miles on a normal day? Who lives in a town where the commute is 100 miles "in-town"? Our EV commutes 40 miles/day (this spans about four towns on the highway) - and that's a much longer-than-average commute in the US. And commuting is where most of our miles (and pollution and gasoline consumption) come from. If we can replace just the commute vehicles with EVs (hey, or how about bicycles!?) then we've fixed a bunch of problems. Don't make it sound like commute miles are insignificant! We own the EV and the Prius. The Prius is driven about 2x per month. The EV is driven seven days/week. By choice. Because it is the more convenient of the two vehicles. My wife spends 8,000 miles/year just commuting. In seven years she's never been to the gas station. Seriously. Seven years of driving.

 

Wow, 7 years w/o going to the gas station...

I wish I had an EV

 

The only problem with your assertion is that electric cars have been around about as long as internal combustion cars. Internal combustion has made huge improvements, electric cars????????

We drive the interstates often enough that we want to have a reasonable range--800 miles in a day is not uncommon. There is no electric vehicle that even in your wildest dream can do anything close to that.
Exchanging batteries? It would cost more for an exchange than to fill up a Prius just to pay for the infrastructure!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 27 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]518519[/snapback]</div>

Yes, electric cars have been around as long as the ICE car. However, in the early 20th century the automakers decided to back the ICE car and have since spend TRILLIONS of dollars in order to achieve the huge improvements in ICE technology you mention. The electric car was ignored until the 1990's when the CARB mandate forced automakers to do some development.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 27 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]518519[/snapback]</div>

Your correct, electric cars cannot go 800 miles in a day. They don't need to. 99.9% of Americans don't do that. The average car only travels 24 miles per day. You need to stop looking for one vehicle that can do everything that you may possible need to do. If a owner of a EV needed to go on a long drive, he would most likely rent a vehicle or choose some type of mass transit (Bus, Plane, Train). Just like how in the past 5 years since I sold my truck I have only had to rent or borrow a truck 4 times.

What do you do that it is not uncommon for you to drive 800 miles per day? I drive 650 miles in a day to visit my family in Michigan but I only do that drive at the most twice a year. Why would I purchase a vehicle based on a drive I do 4/365 days per year?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 27 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]518519[/snapback]</div>

Yes the infrastructure for a battery exchange system would cost money. Just like the infrastructure to drill, transport, refine, distribute, store, and dispense liquid fuels cost money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Sep 26 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]518214[/snapback]</div>

- this would only work if every manufacturer agreed to use a single battery
format in their designs. Or at most a handful of different formats. Seems
unlikely to me.

- who is going to drive into a service station in their shiny new car with
its pristine battery and have it swapped out for some old grungy battery
of unknown origin and uncertain ability to hold a charge? Or cars would
have to come without their own batteries and you get your first set from
the dealer. Kinda like your first tank of gas.

- a different solution would be to have the service station vend a smaller
battery pack. Something akin to 1 gallon gas can with an extension cord
Each auto manufacturer would need to provide a standardized plug for an
external battery. You put a deposit down on the pack which can be refunded
at station which deals in said packs. This would be for batteries what the
emergency spare is for tires, not a general recharging scheme. Enough to get
you home to where you can recharge normally.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 27 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]518519[/snapback]</div>

Most households in the US have TWO cars. (yes, or more!)

Keep a decent ICE based vehicle as one car. Use it for visiting Grandma. Replace the "commuter" vehicle with an EV. No problem!

 

This is a concept I've liked the feel of for a while...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Acelin @ Sep 27 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]518671[/snapback]</div>

Actually, since there really aren't any high-volume EVs being sold at the moment, now is the perfect time to come up with an automotive battery standard. There may be issues of will and cooperation, but it should be possible yet, since nothing really has to be retooled. The specifications can be made to allow for improvements in chemistry or other internal design; i.e. define an output voltage and current as well as a size and connector, (and possibly a charging regime), and let the internals be more flexible (density, charge capacity, temperature management) so there's room for improvement. Maybe set down several battery types now, including some that are unreasonably optimistic given current technology, but which might be met somewhere down the road...

It might be an issue, but I don't think it's insurmountable. AFAIK, many BBQ propane tank exchange systems work this way, and if a tank is turned in that's unacceptable, it's removed from circulation (never happened to me, so I'm not sure if the "owner" of that tank gets charged, or if there's a cost for replacement/insurance built into the rental fee and the station owner just quietly buys a replacement).

It might be the Canadian in me speaking, but why not just have the government (or nearly equivalently, a Crown corporation) "own" the batteries, and have you pay a rental/charging fee? Then any substandard packs can be replaced without liability to individuals, and if significant advancements in battery technology are made, they can also buffer the cost and manage country-wide upgrades.

There are challenges, sure: a system like this could run into problems when there are separate networks of pack charging/swaping stations. If the Canadian government owned all the packs in Canada, how would one cross the border and get a freshly charged one to continue driving beyond whatever the range ends up being (200 km, for example)? Expertise from the banking industry in terms of cheque-clearing may apply here...

Infrastructure may be costly to widely install, particularly before the electric cars that would use these packs are on the roads in great numbers (again, a reason for the government to undertake it -- public money may be able to break the catch-22 of no fleet without infrastructure...). But, at least the electricity distribution infrastructure is already in place, so it's just one additional step. Some alternative future fuels (e.g.: Hydrogen) would need even more intensive infrastructure development.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 27 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]518519[/snapback]</div>

Would be funny if it weren't so sad. EVs have improved every bit as much as gasoline cars. The difference is that gas cars have 100 years of development in them, and EVs have about... oh... ten. Gas cars are to light bulbs what EVs are to LEDs.

Fist off, it may startle you hear some of my dreams. Please don't for a minute think that you know what they might be!

What we want, and what society is going to be able to "afford" are often at odds. There's no reason to dump on EVs or my support of them. I'm not saying that they're perfect or THE solution. They're one part of the puzzle. And if we can get even *some* of the hundreds of millions of cars that do nothing but commute every day to switch to EV... we're on the right track.

My comments above were simply meant to counter some of the common misconceptions of EVs.

Here's the deal. When we started driving gasoline cars 100 years ago, there were no gas stations. You couldn't drive 800 miles. Not even close. Hell, the cars wouldn't go that long without a major overhaul.... much less gasoline. Electric cars were easier to drive, but they didn't go very far either. Should we have stuck with the horses?

Now ten years ago, we had the technology to fast-charge EVs. Today we have cars that can go 300 miles on a charge. So if we had spent some of that ICE development money and time on EVs and their infrastructure, here's where we'd be today for your 800 mile EV drive: You'd drive 300 miles, stop for 15 minutes to recharge, and drive another 300 miles, repeat. I don't know about anybody else, but after five hours of driving, I can certainly use 15 minutes of rest. Honestly, there's just no way in hell I can drive five hours without several breaks...much less the 13 hours that you are talking about. Don't you even have to eat or pee? OK... so that's what we can manage today. Now let's add 100 years and untold billions of dollars of public money to the program (like the ICE infrastructure has enjoyed)... and see where we might be with EVs.

You aren't granting EVs a level playing field. We already know that gasoline cars are more popular and are WAY more supported today. No surprise there! But it didn't have to be like that. And it doesn't have to be like that in the future... unless all we can talk about is how bad EVs suck, and how they can never work for "normal" 800-mile drives.

I wonder what percentage of the population has ever driven 800 miles in one day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Sep 27 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]518519[/snapback]</div>

Not uncommon for you, but very uncommon for the vast majority of commuters. If the average US commute is 24 minutes, at most you are talking about 30 miles of interstate each way. So roundrip you are talking a max 60 miles for the average commute. Or about 15K per year. If an EV could take care of 10-15K of most people's commute, that would be a huge amount of oil saved. Just as an EV wouldn't work for everyone's commute, neither does a Prius. One vehicle, even one class of vehicle isn't going to meet every single person's needs day in day out. An EV with a 100-200 mile range would work for most though.

Plus, it makes sense to try and use a vehicle like an EV which could get it's power from clean sources (like solar, wind, or other such types of renewable sources). Even it is from coal, it would be a lot easier to control pollution at just a thousand (assuming there are that many power plants) rather than million.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 27 2007, 08:12 PM) [snapback]518755[/snapback]</div>

I liked that analogy....it's accurate.

The thread is working one aspect of EV's over pretty good...the technology.

The other aspect is individual education. First the bad news: The "EV generation" has been raised on ICE vehicles and it will take some time to start the widespread adoption. Now the good news: Enough pioneers have proven (not claimed, but proven) that the existing technology can work now. Now for the even better news: The pioneers continued to move to solar power without blinking an eye.

So now while many debate abstracts, I have two real problems. No electric cars on the dealer lots....and oak trees.

 

Dreams are great--withoout dreams (and Werner von Braun) we would not have gotte to the moon.

EVs may work for some, however, nothing I have seen or heard about is anywhere close to practical for us. What could easily be practical, would be a PHEV. Give me even a 20-mile electric range and I can live with that. Get peoiple used to the idea of plugging in, and you will have made the first step towards EVs--I always thought the ads from Toyota and Honda were stupid saying "you don't have to plug it in"--as if that was a benefit!
Asking how many people go 800 miles in a day is like asking how many people need an SUV!! Just daily driving we often do more than 100 miles in a day. What EV can you point us to that can do that in the price class of a Prius, and carry at least four passengers?

 

Series 1 Prius didn't exactly walk off the showroom floor either but now they have sold over 700,000 Prius worldwide!
We're not talking about a shirt that changes colour here, a car is a big investment and some people won't buy a first generation anything. Still Toyota didn't have any RAV4 EVs left on the show room floor and GM didn't offer 1 EV for sale anywhere in the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 16 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]463155[/snapback]</div>

GM never really liked the idea of an all electric car... it has only about 25% of the number of components a regular car. Not enough replacement parts to sell you... This despite GM's willingness to put overly complicated components like the heat pump system.

There was no short sightedness, GM knows that 80% of their profit comes from replacement parts. It's the reason why chop shops make money from stolen cars. GM had perfect 20/20 vision when they cancelled the EV1 and crushed perfectly working cars. The costs were NOT prohibitive. And there was a lot of new technology that even today is still considered advanced, such as the IGBT motor controller and the use of an AC synchronous motor. Demand for the EV1 was really high, however, GM has a hokey leasing program where they would evaluate your needs vs. the EV1. If your needs didn't match the EV1's characteristics, you were given the bad news: you were told you didn't really want an EV1, so you don't count as demand for the car. All of them were leased, despite a great desire for people to buy the cars.

As far as the movie is concerned, the only theory that holds water is the theory that the auto makers stand to lose money on replacement parts. GM can't give a rats nice person over the oil companies... None of the auto makers care about the oil companies. As far as they concerned the less money you spend on oil the more you can spend on their cars....

Most Canadians watching that video are reminded of the avro arrow... really sad...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 1 2007, 06:58 AM) [snapback]519762[/snapback]</div>

This article says it's over 1 million worldwide!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=12523027

 

Oops, sorry I must have refered to an old page.

Evilshin,
I think the heat pump was a good idea. Was it really complex or was it just reverse cycle refrigerated air conditioning?

The EV1 was always planned to be crushed or at least taken back. I believe that's why the EV1 had a keypad lock not a key lock. GM knew the code for every car so if someone refused to return the car they could take it easily without keys. If you had parked your EV1 anywhere and GM wanted it they could just take it. They could even drive it onto the truck.

Look I could be wrong, I was wrong once before.
Well I thought I was wrong but as it turned out I was right so I was wrong about that, wasn't I?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Sep 27 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]518542[/snapback]</div>

here is exactly my problem with EV’s my commute is 28 miles one way. I know an EV could do easy a 60 mile commute (round trip). I wonder though when its cold outside and I turn on the heat and get stuck in traffic then what. oh and no way im sitting in stop and go traffic in 90+ degree weather with 100% humidity with no ac. I have seen how fast my ac kills the batteries and even set at 76 its not all that great. I prefer 74. so if im stuck in traffic for lets say an hour. stop and go, ac on will I get to work? will i get home? I don’t care if the car can go 200 miles with no ac/heat, light, radio, or anything else on for that mater I care what it can do with oh at least ac/heat. now power steering and all that would be nice but again commuter car so its just nice to have.

so give me an EV that can sit in traffic in real weather for an hour in the morning and again an hour in the evening and I can get to and from work (cant charge at work). oh and the it needs to cost me well what my prius cost me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 14 2007, 03:35 AM) [snapback]525381[/snapback]</div>

I believe the heat pump added about 20% more components to the engine compartment, compared to just an air conditioner would have. Despite this the EV1 was still very simple compared to a typical car.

The prius, hugely simplifies the drive train by NOT having a clutch, a torque converter or a regular automatic transmission. GM would never accept a car like the Prius for production. The Volt is also much more complicated than it needs to be. The purpose is to sell you parts that are designed to break. GM makes about 500% of the profit made on new cars from selling parts.

The issue isn't whether GM could have stolen their own cars, its about why they would destroy perfectly working cars.... Like I said, for Canadians, the story reminded us all of the Avro Arrow. If you are not familiar of the story, I would suggest you look it up... It is a prime example of how our society subverts the public to achieve hidden agendas...

 

As mentioned, the reason the EV program was ended was for two reasons;

1. Less replacement parts for GM to sell.
2. Less service revenue for the dealers.

It is pretty common knowledge that most of a dealers profit comes from the service department. An EV car has drastically fewer service requirements than a regular car. The dealers do not like EV cars.

Imagine that you owned a car dealer, and the manufacturer asked you to start selling a car that required very little maintenance. Would you be happy?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Oct 1 2007, 03:47 AM) [snapback]519750[/snapback]</div>

I've got lots to say about this... but this isn't the place. I'll briefly summarize - I agree that we need to get off of NG, coal and oil. Nuclear power is NOT the savior here however. There's nothing that nuclear power can do that safer and cleaner energy can't do better. We'll leave the rest for another thread.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Oct 14 2007, 07:05 PM) [snapback]525650[/snapback]</div>

Well, it sounds like you aren't asking for an answer, but that you already know the tragedies that will befall you. It is because of questions like this that I created a whole new page on "EVs Won't Work Because..." Please find it here: http://evnut.com/docs/evs-wont_wok.doc

Specifically for this question see items #40 and #42

Why the hell would you, and why the hell would you assume you'd need to in an EV? I live in an area that gets to 110. This EV is our car of choice regardless of the weather.

You're comparing "killing your battery" in the Prius to amount of energy you'd have in an EV pack?! That's like saying you wouldn't want to use a flame for heat because you once tried heating your home with a candle.

You apparently think not, for reasons that I can only attribute to ignorance in this matter.

Again, please read my list. You can skip forward to #40 and go from there. You think that EVs don't have power steering? I just REALLY don't understand how so many people think that EVs suck... and don't seem to know the first thing about them. You guys realize that this is what other ignorat people think of the Prius, right? That it doesn't have any power. That it lacks the ammenities. That you'll be stuck with a dead battery. :sigh:

Well, surprise. This is what I'm working toward. Propagating untruths about EV isn't going to get us there, however. They were available 12 years ago. All we have to do is get people to realize what we've had and lost. Maybe we'll find a way to make them again.

Can I guess that you meant that the EV will have to cost you well *below* what your Prius cost? Please see #66. I'll paste that one here for your convenience.

66. I will buy an EV when "they" make one that is faster, safer, with longer range, and cheaper than my gas car.

• I hear this one a lot, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why a consumer would think that an EV has to be “better†and cheaper in EVERY WAY to be a viable alternative to a gasoline car. The perfect is the enemy of the good. We cannot make perfect EVs in one leap. It will take some generations of improvement to get where we need to go. Imagine if nobody bought computers until they were as powerful as they are today. We don’t get anywhere without sales today. Continuing to buy gasoline cars today sends the message, "We're fine with what you're making."