Archives

Chuck Thomas - CleanMPG (www.CleanMPG.com) - August 4, 2006

Section I - Specs.
Section II - EV1’s today.

Section I - Features and Specifications

The EV1

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/EV-1_at_rest.jpg

Standard Features:

Cruise Control
Dual Airbags
Power Steering
Traction Control
Daytime Running Lamps
Power Windows, Mirrors & Door Locks
AM/FM Stereo w/Cassette and CD Player
Regenerative Braking with Coast down
Electro-Hydraulic Braking with ABS
Electro Windshield Defogger & De-Icer
Lightweight Bonded Aluminum Structure
Check Tire Pressure System
High Voltage Isolation Assurance
Heat Pump Climate Control System w/Pre-Conditioning Feature
Electronic Key Pad Entry/Activation

EV1 Colors available … when it was available.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/EV1_Colors.jpg

Inside the EV1 Cabin

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/Drivers_side_view_of_EV1_Cabin.jpghttp://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/GM_EV1_cabin.jpg
Drivers Controls - Interior Cabin

EV1 Renderings

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/Resize_of_GM_EV1_Opaque_View.jpghttp://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/Resize_of_GM_EV1_Propulsion_Drawing.jpg
General Features plus Chassis and Propulsion detail

The EV1 was designed with a strong sense of environmental stewardship.

EV1 is a ZEV (Zero Emissions Vehicle)
Batteries are 98% recyclable
Body Panels and Frame are 100% recyclable
Power Plant load leveling due to nighttime EV charging
97% fewer emissions then a conventional gasoline engine including the electricity generated from a coal powered power plant.

GM EV1 - General Specifications

Model|1997 EV1 Gen-I|1999 EV1 Gen-II
||
|Pricing|
||
MSRP|$33,995 speculated|$43,995 speculated
Lease|$399 per month|$499 per month
||
|BATTERY|
||
Manufacturer|Delphi|Ovonic Energy Products
Type:|Valve Regulated Lead Acid|Nickel Metal Hydride
Number of Modules:|26|26
Weight of Module:|18.8 kg|18.3 kg
Weight of Pack(s):|1175 kg|481 kg
Pack Locations:|T-Pack Integral|Integral T-Pack
Nominal Module Voltage:|12 V|13.2 V
Nominal System Voltage:|312 V|343 V
Nominal Capacity (C/2):|53 Ah|85 A/H
||
|WEIGHTS|
||
Design Curb Weight:|2970 lbs|2970 lbs
Delivered Curb Weight:|3086 lbs|2908 lbs
Distribution F/R:|53/47 %|53/47 %
GVWR:|3410 lbs|3410 lbs
GAWR F/R:|1705/1705 lbs|1705/1705 lbs
Payload:|440 lbs|440 lbs
Performance Goal:|400 lbs|400 lbs
||
|DIMENSIONS|
||
Wheelbase:|98.9 inches|98.9 inches
Track F/R:|57.9/49.0 inches|57.9/49.0 inches
Length:|169.7 inches|169.7 inches
Width:|69.5 inches|69.5 inches
Height:|50.5 inches|50.5 inches
Ground Clearance:|5.0 inches|5.0 inches
Ground Clearance:|4.2 inches at GVWR|4.3 inches at GVWR
Head Room:|37.6 inches|37.6 inches
Shoulder room:|54.4 inches|54.4 inches
Hip Room:|22.5 inches|22.5 inches
Leg room:|42.6 inches|42.6 inches
EPA Passenger Capacity:|50.4 cu.ft.|50.4 cu. ft.
EPA Cargo Capacity:|9.7 cu.ft.|9.7 cu.ft.
||
|CHARGER|
||
Location:|Off-Board|Off-Board
Type:| Delco Electronics Inductive 6.6 kW|Magne Charge Inductive 6.6 kW
Input Voltages:|156 to 260 VAC|191 - 256 VAC
||
|TIRES|
||
Tire Mfg:|Michelin|Michelin
Tire Model:|Proxima RR™ Radial|Proxima RR™ Radial
Tire Size:|P175/65R14|P175/65R14
Tire Pressure F/R:|50/50 psi|50/50 psi
Spare Installed:|No; Self Sealing Tires|No; Self Sealing Tires

PERFORMANCE STATISTICS

|ACCELERATION 0-50 mph|
||
At 100% SOC:|6.3 sec|6.3 sec
At 50% SOC:|6.7 sec|6.5 sec
Max. Power:|116.4 kW|104.0 kW
Performance Goal:|13.5 sec. at 50% SoC|13.5 sec. at 50% SoC
||
|MAXIMUM SPEED @ 50% SOC|
||
At 1/4 Mile:|78.9 mph|78.3 mph
At 1 Mile:|80.4 mph|79.6 mph
Performance Goal:|70 mph in One Mile|70 mph in One Mile
||
|CONSTANT SPEED RANGE @ 45 mph|
||
Range:|135.2 miles|220.7 miles
Energy Used:|15.58 kWh|28.15 kWh
Average Power:|5.19 kW|5.81 kW
Efficiency:|115 Wh/mile|127 Wh/mile
Specific Energy:|31.9 Wh/kg|58.5 Wh/kg
||
|CONSTANT SPEED RANGE @ 60 mph|
||
Range:|89.1 miles|160.6 miles
Energy Used:|14.58 kWh|27.04 kWh
Average Power:|9.79 kW |10.28 kW
Efficiency:|164 Wh/mile|168 Wh/mile
Specific Energy:|29.8 Wh/kg |56.2 Wh/kg
||
|DRIVING CYCLE RANGE|
||
Range per SAE J1634:|78.2 miles|140.3 miles
Energy Used:|12.84 kWh|25.14 kWh
Average Power:|4.06 kW|5.28 kW
Efficiency:|164 Wh/mile|179 Wh/mile
Specific Energy:|26.3 Wh/kg|52.3 Wh/kg
Performance Goal:|60 miles|60 miles
||
|BRAKING FROM 60 mph|
||
Controlled Dry:|171.0 feet|160.0 feet
Controlled Wet:|214.8 feet|158.4 feet
Panic Wet:|211.9 feet|172.4 feet
Course Deviation:|0.0 feet|0.0 feet
||
|HANDLING|
||
Avg Time @ 90% SOC:|55.8 sec|55.1 sec
Avg Time @ 50% SOC:|55.4 sec|54.4 sec
Avg Time @ 20% SOC:|55.4 sec|54.3 sec
Avg Dodge Neon Time:|54.62 sec|54.6 sec
||
|GRADEABILITY (Calculated)|
||
Maximum Speed @ 3%:|79.0 mph|78.8 mph
Maximum Speed @ 6%:|78.2 mph|78.3 mph
Maximum Grade:|53.2%|56.9%
Time on 3% Grade:|28 min 57 sec|32 min 25 sec4
Performance Goal:|15 min from 50% SOC|15 min from 50% SOC
||
|CHARGING EFFICIENCY|
||
Efficiency:|248 Wh-AC/mile|373 Wh-AC/mile
Energy Cost@10 ¢/kWh:|2.48 ¢/mile|3.73 ¢/mile
||
|CHARGER|
||
Max Charger Ground Current:| <0.01 mA |<0.01 mA
Max Battery Leakage Current:|<0.01 MIU |<0.01 MIU
Max DC Charge Current:|16.83 Amps|13.75 Amps
Max AC Charge Current:|28.96 Amps|31.86 Amps
Pwr Factor @ Max Current:|1.0|0.998
THD(I) @ Max Current:|4.8%|5.32%
Peak Demand:|5.93 kW|6.7 kW
Time to Recharge:|5 Hrs 18 min|6 Hrs 58 min
Performance Goal:|8 hours|8 hours

TEST NOTES:

1. At test termination vehicle was still able to maintain required drive schedule.
2. Testing was terminated upon illumination of the Service Now TellTale.
3. As detailed in the Owners Manual, the Battery Life, Reduced Performance, Service Soon and Service Now telltales illuminated during the drive schedules.
4. On 3% Grade, this vehicle completed 67 minutes 9 seconds from 100% SOC.
5. Standing water test was conducted in 6" versus 8" identified in procedure.
6. General Motors provided instrumentation connections, including a 100:1 voltage divider and battery pack thermocouple.
7. Vehicle was removed from Test Program for one 24-hour repair period to replace a battery module.

The EV1 met the minimum EV-America requirements including all of the following:

1. Vehicle has a payload of at least 400 pounds.
2. The OEM GVWR has not been increased.
3. The OEM GAWRs have not been increased.
4. Seating capacity is a minimum of (2) occupants.
5. A battery recycling plan has been submitted.
6. The OEM passenger space has not been intruded upon by the electrical conversion materials.
7. The vehicle has a parking mechanism or parking brake as required by 49 CFR 571.105.
8. The vehicle has a minimum range between charges of at least 50 miles when loaded with two 166-pound occupants and operated at a constant 45 mph.
9. The vehicle manufacturer has certified that this vehicle complies with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable on the date of manufacture.
10. The vehicle manufacturer has certified the batteries and battery enclosures comply with SAE J1766 and 49 CFR 571.301.
11. Batteries comply with requirements of SAE J1718 and NEC 625 for charging in enclosed spaces without vent fans.
12. The vehicle manufacturer has certified concentrations of explosive gases in the battery box do not exceed 25% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) during and following normal or abnormal charging and operation of the vehicle.
13. The battery charger is capable of recharging the main propulsion batteries to a state of full charge from any state of discharge in less than 12 hours.
14. The vehicle manufacturer has certified the charger is capable of accepting input voltages of 208V and 240V single phase 60 Hertz alternating current service, with a tolerance of 10% of rated voltage. Charger input current is compatible with the requirements for Level II chargers and complies with the requirements of SAE J1772. Personnel protection systems are in accordance with UL Proposed Standards 2231-1 and 2231-2.
15. The charger has a true power factor of .95 or greater and a harmonic distortion rated at <= 20% (current at rated load).
16. The charger is fully automatic, determining when "end of charge" conditions are met and transitioning into a mode that maintains the main propulsion battery at a full state of charge while not overcharging it, if continuously left on charge.
17. The vehicle does not contain exposed conductors, terminals, contact blocks or devices of any type that create the potential for personnel to be exposed to 50 volts or greater.
18. The vehicle is accompanied by non-proprietary manuals for parts, service, operation and maintenance, interconnection wiring diagrams and schematics.
19. The vehicle has a state of charge indicator for the main propulsion batteries.
20. Propulsion power is isolated from the vehicle chassis and battery leakage current is less than 0.5 MIU under static conditions.
21. Charging circuits are isolated from the vehicle chassis such that ground current from the grounded chassis any time the vehicle is connected to a charger does not exceed 5 mA in accordance with UL Proposed Standards 2231-1 and 2231-2.
22. Replacement tires are commercially available to the end user.
23. The vehicle is interlocked such that:
The controller does not energize to move the vehicle with the gear selector in any position other than Park" or "Neutral".
The start key is removable only when the "ignition key" is in the "Off" position, with the drive selector in "Park"
The controller does not initially energize or excite with a pre-existing accelerator input, such that the vehicle can be moved under its own power from this condition.
24. The vehicle manufacturer has certified that the vehicle complies with the FCC requirements for unintentional emitted electromagnetic radiation, as identified in 47 CFR 15, Subpart B, "Unintentional Radiators."
25. The vehicle manufacturer has certified failure of a battery or battery pack has deemed to have occurred if the actual battery capacity is not at least 80% of the nominal ampere hour capacity.
26. The vehicle is equipped with an automatic disconnect and a manual service disconnect.
27. The charging system is compatible with the Personnel Protection requirements of SAE J1772.
28. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) have been supplied for all on-board batteries.
29. The level of charge below which the batteries should not be discharged and how the controller automatically limits battery discharge below this level have been identified by the manufacturer.
30. The vehicle manufacturer has verified that the methods(s) of charging the propulsion batteries and the charging algorithm have be reviewed and approved by the battery manufacturer.
31. The charger is capable of meeting the requirements of Section 625 of the National Electric Code(NEC).
32. The vehicle complies with the requirements of 49 CFR 571.301 for fuel fired heaters.
33. The vehicle has an on-board Battery Energy Management System(BMS).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II - EV1’s today.

EV1’s on the road

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/GM_EV1_on_the_road.jpghttp://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/EV1_on_the_road_2.jpg

Where are they now?

Of the few EV1’s that are still in Private and Public institutions hands, the OEM internal propulsion unit, controller(s), pack modules, and propulsion instrumentation has been removed or disabled. Rumors abound that there are still a few intact EV1’s at a GM test center in upstate New York although this has not been confirmed that I know of? Fortunately, at least one EV1 that we do know of has become an EV again although with the loss of much of what made the EV1 what it was in its day. Here is that story …

Inside Story on University of Wisconsin at Madison’s - EV1

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/525/UW_Madison_-_GM_EV-1.jpg
University of Wisconsin EV1 at HybridFest 2006

EV1 Video: EV-1 heading out of HybridFest 2006 (http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/1027/cat/507)

By: Glenn Bower

What do you do with 50 undergraduate students in the first year of a vehicle competition that is strictly modeling? Find a vehicle for them to work on! Wisconsin received an EV1 from General Motors (GM) when they were in the process of dismantling and recycling them at the end of the EV1 lease program. GM generously donated disabled EV1's to any university that requested one. In addition to removing the high voltage batteries, GM had removed the main drive controller, the power steering pump controller, the brake controller and the body controller - they intended the vehicles to be looked at and studied, but never driven.

So in a year when most Madison students would have turned their interest to a favorite Wisconsin pastime - beer, a special group of engineering students took on the challenge of reincarnating our bright red EV1.This task would be as difficult as building a hybrid while offering new challenges to the students. This would be the first time they would be working on a charge-depleting vehicle - let alone a fully electric one.

Several veteran hybrid team members started the project in September of 2004. With no place to store or display the EV1, the rally cry was "fix it or scrap it". The first feat was creating a 380-volt battery pack. The original battery pack mounted between and behind the two seats creating a large T-shaped battery box. Removing the battery tray the first time was easy since the batteries had been removed before delivery. Upon inspection of the battery tray, one of our students had an idea. They proceeded to the battery room and retrieved a nickel metal hybrid battery originally used in the electric Ranger project that had since been donated to our university by Ford Motor Company. - The batteries fit! - General Motors had actually used an industry standard battery casing. With much anticipation, all of the batteries were uncrated and hauled from the battery room to the garage. This took awhile, as each battery weighed approximately 80 lbs. But wait, we were six batteries short - now what? Could we order them? Sure, but they were $2800 each and you have to order a minimum of 26. That's $72,800 - ouch!! After a significant amount of brainstorming, Wisconsin contacted our counterparts at the University of West Virginia (they were one of about 6 universities to have received the batteries through the Ford donation) to see if we could purchase six precious batteries from them. To our surprise, the Volunteers (West Virginia school mascot) donated the batteries to the Wisconsin reincarnation project. Now we had a complete 95 amp-hr nickel metal hydride pack - this equaled the capacity of the best EV1 that General Motors had produced.

The next major component that needed to be replaced was the motor controller. Wisconsin had a spare Solectria DMOC 445,the same controller that is utilized in our 2004 FutureTruck to drive an identical EV1 motor. The only drawback was that the Solectria was rated for 78 kW and the motor was rated for 105 kW - Tim Taylor (of Home Improvement fame) would not be happy, but Wisconsin decided that it was our only alternative. After mounting the controller and adding the appropriate speed pick-up to the original motor in the EV1, we were abruptly disappointed as the controller only made the motor hum and shake. Upon contacting Solectria and giving them the model number of both controllers, we were informed that the control boards were 4 revisions apart and that they did not know how to convert the calibration parameters from our FutureTruck controller into the one in our EV1. Frustrated and in disbelief, the team was forced to put the EV1 project on hold. Without a motor controller, the EV1 reincarnation was stalled. Then, while working with Ballard Power Systems to arrange for the purchase of an IPT (Integrated Powertrain) for our Challenge X program, Ballard graciously offered another Integrated Powertrain to Wisconsin as heart transplant for our EV1. This was a great first step as it was the same unit that would ultimately be hybridizing Wisconsin's Challenge X vehicle.

However, using the Ballard unit posed one large mechanical hurdle - the suspension/motor subframe had to be drastically modified. The original EV1 power train mounted the motor above the subframe and used an inline gear reduction to transfer the torque below the motor where the axle shafts connected. Since the Ballard unit utilizes a hollow shaft motor with planetary gear reduction and differential, the subframe would have to be widened so both would fit inside.

The Wisconsin Hybrid team had experience in aluminum structures as they have created 3 different aluminum truck frames in the last 5 years. Using stiff, heavy pieces of steel, the students created a welding jig that bolted to all the subframes critical mounting points. Next, they took a perfectly good sub-frame and cut it into 3 pieces! The new design lowered the subframes axial members to be below the main A-arm mounting point while the cross member that holds the steering rack was left in its original location. After adding several stiffeners and adding towing points to the subframe, the IPT was lowered into place.

Meanwhile, the controls group was rewiring the vehicle and reengineering the logic for the controllers that had been removed before delivery. In particular, the rear brakes are activated using a ball-screw actuator. Besides having to engineer the H-bridge driver for the motors, calibration between brake pedal position and braking resistance had to be correlated. They also programmed a PIC micro-controller to control the dash, security and HVAC. After the IPT was installed, a Freescale MPC 555 was integrated into the vehicle as the interface between the driver's request and the IPT.

With everything checked and double-checked; it was time to try to spin the wheels!!! To our dismay, we couldn't get the IPT to 'wake-up'. Although Ballard had been overly helpful in answering all of our technical questions in a timely manner, this problem could not be solved via email or phone calls. After trying for several days, it was time for a road trip. We loaded the EV1 into our rig and headed to Ballard Power Systems Inc. located in Dearborn, Michigan. The trip had a double purpose as we were also attending SAE International Congress. While at Ballard, we discovered that we had installed the IPT backwards! Since the IPT utilizes a mechanical oil pump (no lubrication while spinning in reverse), it wasn't as simple as reversing the control logic. A quick look on the CAN bus revealed an incorrect software version on the IPT controller and a record length error on a CAN message. After a couple of memory stick file exchanges, an IPT reflash, and a quick update on the EV-1 code, the unit was up and running. The EV1 moved under its own power and the reincarnation was almost complete.

We returned to Madison with a bittersweet victory: the EV1 lived but required the reversal of the IPT. During April and May, the team worked hard to correct the orientation of the IPT, incorporated some suggestions provided by Ballard and finalized the wiring and EV1 controls.

In August of 2005 Wisconsin's Hybrid Team returned to Ballard Power Systems for a final checkup. After several hours of testing and diagnosis, the EV1 was given a clean bill of health. Since then, it has operated flawlessly providing invaluable data to the Wisconsin Hybrid Team while educating our next generation engineers. The EV1 project is another example of the dedication and creativity of the young engineer's mind. This small group of undergraduate students has and will continue to make important contributions to the advancement of personal mobility.

GM’s Final Solution - EV1 Graveyard at the GM Proving Grounds in Mesa, Arizona

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/Resize_of_EV-1_Crushed.jpghttp://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/506/Resize_of_EV-1_Crushed_2.jpg

Hi Delta Flyer,

'Great article on a remarkable vehicle!
It's heartbreaking to see these get destroyed. :confused:

As of September 2005, at least one EV1 had eluded the crusher.
This one is owned by the city of Medford, MA, and was proudly displayed at the Altwheels Festival.
http://static.flickr.com/73/208170913_2c6db2bf7a_o.jpg

The organizers of the event were requesting that GM should disable the vehicle and allow it to be displayed in the transportation museum as an alternative to the crusher. Perhaps not likely, as that would preserve tangible evidence of its existance.

I'm hoping to see it again next month at Altwheels.
-Brian

If GM hadn't sold its soul to SUVs, imagine what kind of EVs that COULD be making by now? Imagine an EV Aevo or an EV Cobalt? But alas, GM is going down the tubes because few people want 9 MPG land hulks anymore -- but that's all GM really knows how to build!

So sad to see those smashed hulks piled up. :(

The only flaw I can see is battery capacity/weight and these 7 year old specifications only show how things have improved.
Look, they reduced battery weight by almost 2/3 and gained performance to boot!
I don't see how any commuter could be turned off by its 6 second 0-50MPH and 160 mile range, even a longer range commuter like myself.

I think the future of automotive is very bright, and I'd bet those piles of cars are saying:
"I'll be back" (Sorry Arnold)

Thanks for that info. It is very much appreciated.
-Steve

good stats and history, i thought i knew all the basics, but this was the icing on the cake ;)

Go rent the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". Pretty good. ton of EV1 info

Wow-only 160 watt hrs used per mile at 60 mph.It would cost about 2 cents per mile at 60 mph!!Not bad,the Prius cost 7 cents per mile for fuel(50 mpg-$3.50 gas).


Well,the Volt should be able to match those numbers-no reason it would have more drag of RR.

GM could actually leapforg Toyota if they can sell it for $35000 or so,and if we get a decent TC.
Charlie

That happens to be sitting on top of my TV in its red Netflix envelope right now. I've been meaning to get it for ages. The missed opportunity viewed from today's perspective really is sickening. Not quite criminal, but that will be re-evaluated when we see the Volt in the flesh.

Go rent the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". Pretty good. ton of EV1 info

The problem with that movie is that its wrong. The EV1, like the Insight, is not a practical car for most people. The GM guy even says it straight out- 4 people, 300 miles, and a trunk is the gold standard. Add a somewhat quick recharge capability and 10s 0-60 and most people will buy it. This will cover running errands or daytrips without totally draining the pack and make it a primary car.

That having been said, the EV1 and Insight were great Bridge cars. They should have been sold as low-volume, specialized vehicles and had engineers use them to prove the next generation as true production EVs/hybrids.

The problem with that movie is that its wrong.So those events did not happen? Automakers were making a good faith effort to make zero emissions vehicles work? Where are your sources?

The EV1 is not an Impala, but you have to start somewhere...Toyota and Honda responded to the EV1 with their hybrids - GM is just starting a decade later.

GM also showed the "Precept" as its outcome from PNGV. Never tried to sell any AFAIK.

Perhaps we could broaden the discussion to include clean, efficient vehicles that were 'dangled' but never delivered. Or would that be too depressing?

DAS

The problem with that movie is that its wrong. The EV1, like the Insight, is not a practical car for most people. The GM guy even says it straight out- 4 people, 300 miles, and a trunk is the gold standard. Add a somewhat quick recharge capability and 10s 0-60 and most people will buy it. This will cover running errands or daytrips without totally draining the pack and make it a primary car.

That having been said, the EV1 and Insight were great Bridge cars. They should have been sold as low-volume, specialized vehicles and had engineers use them to prove the next generation as true production EVs/hybrids.

Apparently you missed the part that stated that the average daily commute is less than 30 miles, and that the EV-1 could meet the daily commuting needs of 90% of Americans. Most people do not drive 150 miles just to shop or go to work. The 300 mile range "need" is a bit of a misnomer.

The EV-1 was never intended to be a primary, big-trip car. It was meant to be an around-town car. It's perfect for daily commutes and community cars. A four-seater model would have been great, but the EV-1 would have been a perfect car for the great majority of driving situations.

Apparently you missed the part that stated that the average daily commute is less than 30 miles, and that the EV-1 could meet the daily commuting needs of 90% of Americans. Most people do not drive 150 miles just to shop or go to work. The 300 mile range "need" is a bit of a misnomer.

Bzzz. wrong. Look at transportation stats. The 90% percentile of trips is in the day trip category.

Saying that a car is practical because it can go 50 miles before tanking and the average commute is 30 is asking for disaster. What about errands, running the kids to school, or just plain not running on Empty all the time?

The definition of a practical car is a common consensus item. How do I know that 90% of trips are over 30 miles and under 300? My senior paper was on creating a practical electric car. Time after time, design criteria and traffic stats agreed, 300 miles covers 95% of trips. 30 miles covers maybe 40%.

The movie is skewed. Its put together by EV proponents, that fine, I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. however, its not an objective look at the problem.

Again, I'm not knocking the EV1, I'm saying that it wasn't the end solution. It was the first step.

If we had built off the EV1, the electric car could have been where hybrids are now.

I'm glad we have a consensus that the EV1 was a first step...getting a niche EV on the roads is a step forward and California was planning to get zero emissions vehicles on a sliding scale to only 5% of total sales. Also consider that it takes at least ten years of new sales to replace what the public is driving. An EV1 would meet the needs of a niche population.

Who Killed the Electric Car? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F) was a documentary with a pro EV POV, but it should be noted that Frank Gaffney, Mel Gibson, and James Woolsey are hardly who comes to mind as an "enviro wacko". ;)

The movie accurately portrayed the automakers (all of them) as trying to sabotage the zero-emissions requirements. I'm not denying the limitations of the EVs, but it seems clear that the automakers were set to make this fail. It's consistant with their long history of opposing seat belts, cataylitic converters, etc, becuase if they are made to do it - "We'll all be riding tricycles" as Click and Clack recently commented.

Back in the day--when I was a teacher, one of the other teachers' husbands was an electrical engineer who worked on the EV1--in fact they brought a test version (I'm thinking it was 1992??--about a year before they introduced it to California) to a party at the principal's house (they had to plug it in with a long extension cord!)--but we were all able to take a short ride in it--one by one! It was a very nice ride, quiet! and great acceleration. (kind of like my Prius)

Later after "Weekly Reader" had an article on the EV-1, I was able to help arrange a "visit" by the EV-1 to the school so that the kids could see the car. I remember that the engineers were all thrilled to have their car in "Weekly Reader".

There is an EV-1 in the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn Michigan. It sits there alone and I want to cry every time I see it for what could have been.

"Who Killed The Electric Car" is an old video which tells the complete story of this car, how it was distroyed and why...Arnold CA's gov is in it along with the current, and soon to be X-President of US....made my stomach turn!

Yes, and the sad thing about the EV1, produced in the late '90s, was that it was far more advanced than the Chevy Volt - which MIGHT be produced by 2012 at a cost now predicted to be over $40,000.

...it was far more advanced than the Chevy Volt..

Jimmy, I had not heard this. In what way is is more advanced? I know the range was quite a bit larger, but beyond that?

The EV1 worked. It had highway speed capability and good range. It would not have been priced like the $40,000 PLUS Volt if it had ever become a vehicle that could be purchased rather than just leased. It was all-electric (zero emissions, no gasoline needed) vehicle. It was ahead of its time!

What did the executives at GM decide to do with the EV1? Destroy them all!

Now GM stock is hovering around $10 per share. Wonder why?

Uh, examining the price table in the article itself, the second Gen absolutely would have been $40K+ -- and that is pre-inflation?

I'm still curious about why you think the Volt is inferior or the EV1 was "far more advanced?" As I understand it, the Volt is a direct ancestor of the EV1 with updated electronics and though a shorter range, 4 seats and a range extending generator. It is an update of an early model EV1 with a motorcycle engine tacked on for generating capability IIRC? As such, though it isn't fully EV anymore, doesn't that make the Volt essentially EV1 generation 3?

For one thing, the EV1 did not burn a drop of gasoline. That is an advanced capability that the Volt does not have.

Well, the Volt won't burn any either as long as you stay within its AER.

I still don't see how that makes it less advanced. It has a shorter range to keep the cost down. I still think that if it delivers an honest 40mi AER for the average driver I'll be able to squeeze pretty close to 60mi out of it in ideal circumstances. That means I could go weeks or even months without ever having to add a drop of gas.

As I said, the EV1 did not burn a drop of gasoline. The Volt does (or will if it ever gets produced).

I agree with Sean here, the ability to go completely electric in addition to having a generator to extend its range is not a loss of an advanced capability. Electricity storage is not yet advanced enough to give the range most consumers need at a price most consumers can afford. This is the solution. The EV range of vehicles will improve as energy storage mediums improve.

Kirk

Although the Roswell/Elvis/sasquatch/HR Haldemann-type conspiracy theories have merit, killing the EV1 might just have been an everyday business decision, badly timed.

A couple of 'minor' knocks against the EV1 might be:

- Oil was $16-$30/barrel between 1998-2003
- $43,000 price
- 2 seats
- It's ugly

Sure, it could have sold on the fringe, like the Insight (and Prius until last year) but Honda, taking a more conservative, inexpensive approach, sold only 18,000 worldwide over 8 years (only with GM-like timing to cancel it on the eve of $4 gasoline!).

That sort of production volume doesn't carry any appeal with large corporations that measure in 100,000s per year.

Toyota brought out a less technical solution, but with greater real world practicality and stuck it out to gather the laurels.

With 20/20 hindsight, the program should have shifted to a more practical 'next gen' that both Honda and GM are scrambling to build today. The lesson in it is to leave 'proof of concept' cars at the proving grounds and focus of meeting your immediate market needs.

According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, the worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."

"GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'"


That all said, we now know that aliens are uncrushing EV1s and driving them around English fields to create crop circles.

Hi Flatty,

Ugly Smugly !!!

I hear this old canard all the time with respect to the Prius.

There is a certain beuty to the functional. Anything that makes a car have a CD of .19 in my eyes is beutiful. Because the whole reason for a car is to move people around, and anything that moves people farther on less is ideally car.

You are looking at things with a cultural history, not with a designer's eye. People get used to shapes from their cultural experience. Its the designer that has to reconcile what works with what is to become. And over time, what works becomes culturally beutiful. For example - the Ford Trimotor versus the Douglas DC-3. Look at stuff from the twenties, and you will se the Trimotor, but by the thirties the DC-1,2,3 had become the new symbol of Art Nouveau.

To bad GM did not get better at what they tried to achieve. They would have had them perfected by now? H

Brief aside on Major League Baseball history (and I don't know much and some of you already know the story).

In 1919, an owner short on money sold a number of his best players to finance a Broadway play....might as well been Damn Yankees as the Red Sox sent Babe Ruth to the Yankees, who would proceed to win 26 World Series before the Red Sox would win their next one.

My point is the EV1 project is GM's curse of the Bambino - they had this technology, forgot it, even sold the rights to the NiMH batteries to Chevron (?). I'll conceed at the time getting an EV1 in 1996 (if allowed) might have been like getting a Tesla today, but GM could have actively continued R&D. Fleets for city,state, local governements, and US Mail could have been test beds for EV and hybrid technology. GM buries it, arrogantly thinking the 1990's of cheap credit and gas will never end.

I got to sit in one in '97 at Disney World. I wish now that I had studied it more and taken some pictures.:(

It's GONE!!

We went to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn on Jan 4, 2009 and the EV-1 is gone!!!:mad:

Tried to find out info and the guards said that GM came and got it. It was on loan from them.

I wonder if they smashed it.:confused:

Prius Prime

Probably needed it back as a mule

Well, now the ev1 is in perfect position to bite gm in the rear quarter panel.

I know where an EV1 is sitting right now. It's in the parking lot at the Virginia Tech school of Engineering, with a current Va state license plate still on the car.

I saw it there the last time I visited the class at Tech for their final report on the design we had been working on. This was one month ago.

Wish I had taken a photo, maybe on the next trip.

regards
gary

I know where an EV1 is sitting right now. It's in the parking lot at the Virginia Tech school of Engineering, with a current Va state license plate still on the car.

I saw it there the last time I visited the class at Tech for their final report on the design we had been working on. This was one month ago.

Wish I had taken a photo, maybe on the next trip.

regards
gary

Does it have an engine? I have heard that the EV1s don't have engines inside. (Maybe from "Who killed the electric car?"
Maybe it should have been called "What killed GM?"

--des

Hi All:

___I had the fortunate luck to meet the advanced technology vehicle development manager for the EV1, Gary Witzenburg, while attending the HS 250h short lead yesterday. In doing so, I came away from the experience shaking my head as to his ideas and our realities... He has written numerous articles as to the details of the EV1's rise, fall and current comeback of sorts in the form of the Volt concept.

___A lightening rod of sorts both inside and out of our community, what he has written sometimes makes perfect sense...
…you have rolled out the red carpet to predatory, low-cost foreign competitors who come here to take our market and pump hundreds of millions more dollars out of this country.
___And at other times, he appears to be just another journalist writing to the whims of the next paycheck?
It's been rough and rocky sailing since, but – contrary to what many believe – GM leadership under current CEO Rick Wagoner has been outstanding.
___I rode along with him during his preview drive of the HS 250h and one comment that struck me particularly strident from someone that had worked on what at one time was an answer to today’s worst problems was the following:
My time is unrecoverable so fuel economy doesn’t matter.
___Similarly he said, “The Lexus HS 250h would never be in my garage” because it supposedly did not have the performance and size he craved in an automobile. Even with $3.00 gas knocking on our door let alone the $4.00 per we were all paying last summer, he must be one of those that still pay homage to the "Go" pedal or heaven forbid the world will come to an end for some reason?

___Comments like the above from a very highly placed individual behind the machine known as the EV1 leads me to believe there were two very different mindsets that must have accompanied its development no matter the countless hours expended on making the EV1 the best BEV ever made up to that point in time.

___He finished his drive at 33.0 mpg while my own ended at 57.9 mpg. Obviously the 5 to 6-minutes of time he saved while at 10 + mph over the limits in some areas was far more valuable than the almost halving of fuel consumed during my own period behind the wheel? I sometimes believe Automobile Journalists hate being in the vehicles we are so privileged to drive because they are always in such a damned hurry to get out of them for some reason :D

___If you would like more details from a GM insider as to the rise and fall of GM’s EV1 program, I suggest you do a google on his past write-ups for yet another take on why GM is where it is at today.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Gary_Witzenburg_in_front_of_the_HS_250h.jpg
Gary Witzenburg - EV1 development manager in front of the formidable but probably very slow selling 2010 Lexus HS 250h.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

___Similarly he said, “The Lexus HS 250h would never be in my garage” because it supposedly did not have the performance and size he craved in an automobile. Even with $3.00 gas knocking on our door let alone the $4.00 per we were all paying last summer, he must be one of those that still pay homage to the "Go" pedal or heaven forbid the world will come to an end for some reason?

___Comments like the above from a very highly placed individual behind the machine known as the EV1 leads me to believe there were two very different mindsets that must have accompanied its development no matter the countless hours expended on making the EV1 the best BEV ever made up to that point in time.


I suspect he isn't the only automotive engineer that doesn't like to to drive slowly. Might be a little self-selection there? ;)

I'd like one even today. I think the 30 miles is completely functional. I think its cute (what is that ugly cr**-- this is without knowledge that form should follow function. You get these car designs in which form doesn't follow function hence when it does, people think its ugly.) Anyway the price tag would be too much, it certainly was back then and the Volt, should it ever come out would be too. But it still is a good idea, even if niche. Much like the Tesla.

--des

I'd like one even today. I think the 30 miles is completely functional. I think its cuteCome to think about it: the EV1 looks like the original Honda Insight with a boatail. ;)

A cute little link, I don't know if you could necessarily rely on the info-- seems a little to the fringe of "who killed the electric car?"
http://www.ev1.org/

But the title did grab me-- GM crushed the electric car, now GM is crushed.
--des

I really hope you like this new challenge! Best of luck, everyone!

pret auto (http://pret-auto.org)

Not sure which challenge-- the challenge of GM going under? Losing the American industrial base? Getting GM to pick up the EV1 again (no chance).

--des

There is another EV-1 in OHIO...I have seen it there.
GM went to SUV's ...
Hummers for government military contracts...for the up coming wars.
had o make them consume gasoline...(stated later why)
It is a fact of life...oil rules the world...
All this electric hybird research is to justify the nuke plants and windmill farms.
Which most are being installed on land with political "preferences".
Automakers have no such thing... as 'good faith' policies.
Tucker was the last loner to try that out...
Delorean...after that.
only hype and dis -information.
as Ron White, the comedian,states...

"You can't fix stupid! "
100 mpg V-8's existed in the 1970's...carbed...
Little known fact of economics...
For every gallon of diesel consumed....
2 gallons of gasoline has to be consumed...(it is a waste product)
that is world economics.
Strange... that I had to consult...
with a Proffessor of Quantum Economics to find that information.
You just have to ask the correct questions.

Robert

Quantum economics?? :confused:

Hi Robert:

You are stretching the rubber band a bit yourself with some of the above... 1 gallon of diesel for every two gallons of gasoline. Yes and what is the problem with that? Right now, the crack spread is a bit higher than that favoring gasoline and we all know how much a gas engine sucks vs. a diesel ;)

100 mpg carburetors? Yeah right, I rode a Honda CRF230L and a Kawasaki KLX250SF that achieved 100 + mpg on carbs but to push a car down the road, I doubt it... There is only so much chemical energy in a gallon of fuel. Maybe a vaporization method diesel's are practically vaporized diesel fuel at 28,000 psi + anyway :rolleyes:

And what the heck is quantum economics?

Back to the story at hand… The EV1 will come around again as it Is already built in the form of a 100-mile AER Cruze in Korea. It all depends on gasoline pricing to make it viable here or not.

Wayne

Hello! I hope I'm not infringing on any copyright law by posting this link about the "Who Killed The Electric Car?" documentary film.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/

One of the stars of the movie is a member here. Her latest blog is on the news page. Misplaced modesty? (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37675)

Thanks for the heads up! I just read the blog. I watched Obama's State of the Nation address and really got excited by the goal of 1M EV cars by 2015. I hope this will also spur the introduction of EV cars in my country.

Is the blog writer among the early salespersons of EV1 cars?

Yes, that was her job and her first connection to EV's.