Just one question...
If the demand was so high why wouldn't the other car companies keep making their EV's?? I think what GM meant by not being enough demand was that there was not enough demand to make the car profitable. Time and time again GM will release a vehicle and not expect a return for a year or two after its release. Mainly its based on amount of vehicles sold... i know this is common sense sorry for stating it but i just think that for the original EV1 to be profitable it would have needed to have a much higher demand that would have driven them to figure out all of the problems with the car. I mean they did have to call it back for overheating defects and they just thought that it wasnt the right time for the car. Im not arguing or fighting im just saying you cant always believe what you see on TV sometimes you have to open your mind a bit....
Im not arguing or fighting im just saying you cant always believe what you see on TV sometimes you have to open your mind a bit....
Have you seen the movie?
The movie WKTEC is a foundation for any investigation into why we do not have electric cars. Assuming you have seen the movie and are still polarized on the idea that GM took the car off the road due to poor demand. We must then argue about battery technology and the weaknesses in the first generation of electric car, the "EV1" generation. I am a battery research engineer who has proven that in just six months worth of work, a team of two electricians can create an efficient battery charger.
Why does this matter? Because, GM released a battery charger that overheated the lead acid batteries (first batteries in the car) in the EV1. GM's engineering staff could have and should have discovered this problem in the lab before releasing the car. While, I am not touting conspiracy, I am still saying that something smells at GM corporate because they let such an obvious and fixable design flaw reach the market.
Today, you can recharge an electric vehicle using a standard 120V 15AMP wall outlet in about 10 hours. Battery monitoring which consists of temperature probes on each battery will throttle back the charge to protect the cells.
People who research the content in the movie WKTEC, quickly come to the conclusion that GM is pushing a veil over the public's eyes. That is why I this argument between us should continue. Please prove me wrong, because right now, I would welcome the ability to have more faith in GM.
If it was such an easy flaw than the question remains why did no other car company recognize that and build off what GM developed? GM probably realized how to fix the problem but just like every other car company it figured it was not profitable to mass produce the EV1. Like it or not GM still leased out 800 EV1's first, thus making them a benchmark to what we see today.
Also I am glad to hear you figured out how to create a battery charger, but the technology was not the same ten years ago when GM first began the electric car.
Agreed. At the end of the day no one else tried to help woth the electric car. GM did. GM did their best but as they said the timing just wasnt right. I mean they could mean demand but also the technology was still not up to par for what america wanted. Those old batteries are very heavy and ineficient compared to todays.
Also about the battery charger GM has developed one for the new Volt that can charge the car in six hours on a standard 120V and 3 hours if you get the 220V
did u not read the post? Gm wasn't the only company. Toyota, ford and honda all had ev's at the same time as the ev1. the only real diff. is that ev1s were more numerous.(easy for the at the time the biggest car company in the world)2 the were lease. the others if i remember correctly u could buy. thats why there are still Rav4 evs and Ranger Evs still going. there no argument on battery tech gets better. i'm glad. but the fact is, GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda were paid off. Gm focused all $$$ from the ev1 project into the Hummer h2. look how well they're selling now and where the demand is once again. I can't wait to buy an ev, don't really care from who because thats were cars need to go now. and i know and others know the time is soon. here in KY they passed a huge law to build a larger ZAP electric car manu. plant. making the same amount of ev's per day has toyota. and they are building recharging stations as well.
"But Doc, we dont' have enough road to get it up to 88 miles per hour"
Unlike the EV1, of the 492 S-10EVs assembled about 60 were sold to fleet customers, rather than just leased through restrictive programs, mostly due to the prior Department of Transportation crash-worthiness evaluations done on stock S-10 pickups.
Toyota Production RAV 4 EV
RAV4 Production by Year (est.) 1997 69 (fleet lease only)
1998 359 (fleet lease only)
1999 255 (fleet lease only)
2000 106 (fleet lease only)
2001 160 (fleet lease only)
2002 - 1st half 218 (fleet lease) plus 147 (sold/lease-purchase)
2002 - 2nd half 82* (fleet lease) plus 153 (sold/lease-purchase)
2003 - 1st half 28 (sold/lease-purchase)
I found something on another site that is a very good argument to make why GM ended their EV1 project. Below is the argument made. It is what i have been trying to say and this guy says it perfectly.
GM took a loss on every EV-1 they made, which means they would have had to raise the purchase price, which surely would have limited interest in the vehicle even further. People today act is there were a quarter million buyers standing at GM's door, waving money and saying please take our cash, we want EV-1's. It just wasn't the case.
I would like you (or any of the other EV-1 disciples) to present the business plan that shows the EV-1 to have been a viable product for GM to continue. Please show the cost of continuing to bring the vehicle to market, what the sales requirements would be to reach profitability and at what pricepoint. Also include the cost for GM to maintain these vehicles during their warranty period and what the expected maintenance costs would be beyond that time-frame. It's real easy to look back over a decade later and say that someone should have done somthing differently without substantiating ones argument. I'm waiting.
Throughout 2001, GM had leasees asking OUT of their leases early, as they stated in their letter to leasees on 02/07/02. People loving their EV-1's so much that they wanted out of the lease early, "coupled with the increased costs to maintain these vehicles on the road" was why GM reconsidered the project. The EV-1 was a test that showed some positives, but not enough to warrant continuing the test.
As far as the cost of the vehicle is concerned, it was leased with an MSRP of $33,995.00. In constant dollars, that equals $47,409.92 in 2008. The original down payment required was $2900 or $4,044.38 in 2008 dollars. The monthly lease payment was $399 - 549, depending on whether you leased in the car in AZ or CA. Those monthly lease payments are equivalent to paying $556.45 - 946.94 per month in 2008. I'm sorry I confused you when I previously said the monthly lease payment was about $700 in constant dollars.
I have been busy getting my house ready for Hurricane Ike. Currently, I am fearing the next wave approaching which contains 85Mph sustained winds and 100+ Mph gusts.
However, the day has given me time to think about one thing... how come we Americans pay so much for our vehicles when they are new and then wind up trading them in for sometimes less than 20% of their original value?
I bring this up because I have never seen the "estimated" actual buyer costs of the 1996 crop of EV's. I hope my co-debator will continue the discussion while I bring my house back on the grid for the next few days.
Oh, and yes, I do own an electric, cordless lawn mower. While my neighbors struggle to find gas the next few days for their generators, I have topped off the "tank" and can't wait to get mowin da lawn .