The electric car Died!!!
11-24-2006, 07:34 PM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I am a leaf in the wind...
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The electric car Died!!!
And I just found out it had lived at all!
I just watched this movieWho killed the electric car? I found it at walmart for $19 and thought "Car related, what the hell, it might be interesting" HOLY SHIITE, I never knew this existed! even though it was a little funny looking from certin angles, the GM EV-1 (leased by Saturn dealers) was a very interesting car that met a very untimely demise under extremely suspicious circumstances.
I like my gasoline powered renesis, but am baffled as to why GM would destroy such a neat little piece of tecnology
hereis some more info about it as well EV lobying Site
Please discuss!!
I just watched this movieWho killed the electric car? I found it at walmart for $19 and thought "Car related, what the hell, it might be interesting" HOLY SHIITE, I never knew this existed! even though it was a little funny looking from certin angles, the GM EV-1 (leased by Saturn dealers) was a very interesting car that met a very untimely demise under extremely suspicious circumstances.
I like my gasoline powered renesis, but am baffled as to why GM would destroy such a neat little piece of tecnology
hereis some more info about it as well EV lobying Site
Please discuss!!
In 1996 GM introduced the EV1, the first modern all-electric automobile. Spurred-on by worsening air quality in the Los Angeles area, California regulators created the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate, which required that major auto manufacturers offer zero emissions automobile for a small portion of their overall fleet. GM built a small number of vehicles to meet their initial obligations under the ZEV Mandate, however has focused much more energy on lobbying and legislation to undermine the regulation.
Just over 1100 EV1s were built by GM in two runs of production during 1997 and 1999. About 800 of these were leased to fleets and individuals in California and Arizona who were willing to wait months of sometimes years to take delivery of a vehicle. At the end of the 3 year leases, GM removed the vehicles from the road, over the pleas of many drivers, who offered to continue the lease or buy the vehicles. Most of these working zero emission vehicles, funded by up to $13,000 in direct state and federal subsidies, were unceremoniously crushed. A few have made it to New York and Massachusetts where, under the guise of test program, they are double dipping – receiving credit against both California and New York ZEV mandate programs.
78 EV1s remain(ed circa may 2005, since destroyed) on a lot in Burbank, awaiting transport to GMs test grounds in Mesa, Arizona, where they too will be crushed. These vehicles are all in working order, and in fact are regularly charged and moved around the GM parking lot.
Just over 1100 EV1s were built by GM in two runs of production during 1997 and 1999. About 800 of these were leased to fleets and individuals in California and Arizona who were willing to wait months of sometimes years to take delivery of a vehicle. At the end of the 3 year leases, GM removed the vehicles from the road, over the pleas of many drivers, who offered to continue the lease or buy the vehicles. Most of these working zero emission vehicles, funded by up to $13,000 in direct state and federal subsidies, were unceremoniously crushed. A few have made it to New York and Massachusetts where, under the guise of test program, they are double dipping – receiving credit against both California and New York ZEV mandate programs.
78 EV1s remain(ed circa may 2005, since destroyed) on a lot in Burbank, awaiting transport to GMs test grounds in Mesa, Arizona, where they too will be crushed. These vehicles are all in working order, and in fact are regularly charged and moved around the GM parking lot.
11-24-2006, 08:48 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check here for some of the facts. Go down to the section that says:
Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?
http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1
Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?
http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1
Last edited by hoosier; 11-24-2006 at 08:50 PM.
11-24-2006, 10:01 PM
#3
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I am a leaf in the wind...
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, read it, here are my comments italized
Yep read it, some of their comments don't hold much water except from a purely economic standpoint though which is exactly the point of the movie.
Then why did they crush most of them, and the ones they didn't, they disabled before sending to a couple of museums?
What about the Toyota Rav4 EV, The Ford Ranger electric and the Ford Think?
Here is the truth of the matter, the car was not commercially viable because it wouldn't generate the need for an oil based infracstructure after the sale (oil changes, filters, tune ups etc) plus training the tecnicians for maintenance on this type of vehicle would be costly and time consuming, not to mention a skill that wouldn't be used often
Not true, the Saturn VUE Green line derived it's drivetrain off of Toyota's Hybryd synergy system as used on their Prius, and still, its a hybrid, not a full electric like the EV-1
Another hybrid, and also derived from Toyota's system it also includes the utility of having 110 and 220 volt AC plugs in the bed, so it acts as a portable generator as well, I've done the research
(meaning that you will have a viable infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles and a product ready to sell when???? )
(on this point I'll concede ehanol and AFM are good ideas, but still dependent on POL, and have nothing to do withthe demise of the electric car)
(meaning every single one offered, and still people were on the waiting lists)
Not in the US, but check europe, the Think is still being made there, also keep in mind toyota, Honda and Ford also tried to crush evry electric car they had sold
After being told they would have to wait an indeterminate ammount of time (possibly several years) for the car, and a "pre-screening" interview akin to the scare tactics the union teamsters of old used to use, make the purchase/lease process painfull enough and even a BJ sounds unattractive
(Actuallly giving GM a practical monopoly on the repair/ maintenance of such cars, but for suppliers they actually mean THEY stopped making parts for them...hmmm)
(The EV enthusiasts were willing to outright buy the cars, and waive the maintenance/parts/safety responsability aspect for GM, still you refused, you could have proved them wrong just by letting them have the darned cars, and them having them choke on them when the cars failed, instead they chose to sweep them under the rug like a dirty little secret, which gives the conspiracy theorists the argument that the car wouldn't have failed and that the car being too good was what prompted it's demise)
Although that's only my opinion, I'd like to hear other's take on it...
Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?
By Dave Barthmuss GM Communications
The film EV Confidential: Who Killed the Electric Car? showcased the intense passion for GM's out-of-production EV1 electric vehicle. I understand why. It was great technology for its day, a great concept and a great car.
By Dave Barthmuss GM Communications
The film EV Confidential: Who Killed the Electric Car? showcased the intense passion for GM's out-of-production EV1 electric vehicle. I understand why. It was great technology for its day, a great concept and a great car.
GM was and is proud to have brought the electric vehicle concept as far as it did and further than any other electric vehicle project attempted by any other automaker around the globe.
Sadly, despite the substantial investment of money and the enthusiastic fervor of a relatively small number of EV1 drivers - including the filmmaker - the EV1 proved far from a viable commercial success.
But the story for GM does not end with the final credits on the movie. ... ...The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed (the ones not layed off as part of the demise of the EV-1 you mean) it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road (name one...), in development or just coming off the production line. (still waiting) For example:
GM's two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.
The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.
GM's two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.
The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.
GM is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group a new two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles. This new two-mode hybrid technology will debut next year in a Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV, which will offer a 25 percent improvement in combined city and highway fuel economy when joined with other GM fuel-saving technologies. Technology born in the EV1 is incorporated into this new two-mode hybrid system.
GM's fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today's HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010
that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.
Add to all this GM's leadership in flex-fuel vehicles that run on clean-burning bio fuels such as corn-based ethanol and our new "active fuel management" system that shuts down half the engine's pistons at highway speeds to improve fuel economy, and we feel we are doing more than any other automaker to address the issues of oil dependence, fuel economy, and emissions from vehicles. And we are committed to do more.
Add to all this GM's leadership in flex-fuel vehicles that run on clean-burning bio fuels such as corn-based ethanol and our new "active fuel management" system that shuts down half the engine's pistons at highway speeds to improve fuel economy, and we feel we are doing more than any other automaker to address the issues of oil dependence, fuel economy, and emissions from vehicles. And we are committed to do more.
Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:
GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.
Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.
Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.
A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.
Because of low demand ( arguably created by the low supply of them in the first place) for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.
Could GM have handled its decision to say "no" to offers to buy EV1s upon natural lease expirations better than it did? Sure. ... ...We did what we felt was right in discontinuing a vehicle that we could no longer guarantee could be operated safely over the long term or that we would be able to repair.
Although that's only my opinion, I'd like to hear other's take on it...
Last edited by WhiteDealershipRice; 11-24-2006 at 10:35 PM.
11-25-2006, 02:50 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WhiteDealershipRice
Not true, the Saturn VUE Green line derived it's drivetrain off of Toyota's Hybryd synergy system as used on their Prius, and still, its a hybrid, not a full electric like the EV-1
Another hybrid, and also derived from Toyota's system it also includes the utility of having 110 and 220 volt AC plugs in the bed, so it acts as a portable generator as well, I've done the research
Another hybrid, and also derived from Toyota's system it also includes the utility of having 110 and 220 volt AC plugs in the bed, so it acts as a portable generator as well, I've done the research
Other than that little nitpick, I feel the same way you do for most of the comments. IMO, GM should have either continued development of the EV vehicles or have released reasons why it did not backed up with number. However, with the cheap price of gas back then as well as the state of the technology in those cars, it does seem that there's no way they could have ever made the EV1 economically viable.
Personally, I'm not too big a fan of electric cars. You can obtain similar efficiencies from specially designed gasoline engines or diesel engines and not have to worry about replacing expensive, toxic batteries after years of use. As power plants become more efficient and as alternative, emissions-free sources of energy become more plentiful, the electric car will look better and better from an emissions standpoint, but for now you don't make out any better than you would driving a normal fuel efficient car. It doesn't seem to make too much sense to buy a "zero-emissions" vehicle with the aim of saving the environment when you're producing just as much waste as a normal Civic or Corolla does, even if that waste is hidden from your direct view.
11-25-2006, 10:31 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a program with graphs of cost efficiencies for different fuels, oil, coal, electricity, etc. and oil still provides the lowest cost. Since all of these companies are in business to make money, they will not automatically start producing a vehicle that will cost the consumer more unless there is a demand. Right now, there is a demand; although, maybe smaller than you think, for green autos. Mfgs want to provide a hassle free vehicle, or it will not sell as well, like the decision of Mazda to use crankcase oil in the 8, instead of a separate bottle for a better oil for lube knowing that average buying customer probably wouldn't want to deal with it. So the demand is not huge for green cars, but the companies have to also deal with cafe standards so with the small demand, growing fuel prices, and government intervention, they are developing more fuel efficient vehicles.
Sort of like the problem of re-cycling garbage. In my town, I used to argue that it was not going to work well and my friends would argue the opposite. They lived in more upscale areas and had re-cycling. I lived in a lower middle class neighborhood and did not have re-cycling. Re-cycling cost more than it makes so it is not a viable economic model and has eventually sort of failed here. They paid extra for the re-cycling and in my area, I knew no one would pay. I just don't see car makers going for low return on investment vehicles unless they are forced to.
I think with the advances in electric motors, fuel cells, and growing demand, you will see more green cars on the road but you have to realize that a whole new infrastructure will have to be developed for them. I watched a program talking about just this and the speculation was that it would take 10 years or more just to support this.
Yes, I have always wondered what happens to all of those old electric car batteries when they die.
In the 70's, when I was in the service, I remember standing outside one evening and seeing headlights coming down the road. The car passed with no sound, it was electric. A small two seater. I always wondered what happened to those.
This is just my opinion.
Sort of like the problem of re-cycling garbage. In my town, I used to argue that it was not going to work well and my friends would argue the opposite. They lived in more upscale areas and had re-cycling. I lived in a lower middle class neighborhood and did not have re-cycling. Re-cycling cost more than it makes so it is not a viable economic model and has eventually sort of failed here. They paid extra for the re-cycling and in my area, I knew no one would pay. I just don't see car makers going for low return on investment vehicles unless they are forced to.
I think with the advances in electric motors, fuel cells, and growing demand, you will see more green cars on the road but you have to realize that a whole new infrastructure will have to be developed for them. I watched a program talking about just this and the speculation was that it would take 10 years or more just to support this.
Yes, I have always wondered what happens to all of those old electric car batteries when they die.
In the 70's, when I was in the service, I remember standing outside one evening and seeing headlights coming down the road. The car passed with no sound, it was electric. A small two seater. I always wondered what happened to those.
This is just my opinion.
11-25-2006, 12:07 PM
#6
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I am a leaf in the wind...
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I guess the point that gets me upset about this is the way that GM went genocidal on a car that the enthusiasts were willing to buy and release the manufacturer from any further responsibility for even parts availability. I know right now oil is the most cost effective option. if it wasn't we would be driving the better alternative since the manufacturers will oviously build whatever makes them the most profit.
Although we might not know all the reasons for its demise for a while if at all.
For example:
In the 1950's Canada was building one of the most advanced jet fighters of it's time, the Avro Arrow. It blew away anything produced or that would be produced for the next 10 years. But shortly after the plane's maiden flight, and before it's advanced engines ever flew. the project was scrapped, evry employee layed off and the plans and tools for the jet destroyed. No explanations whatsoever. Now 60 years later we learn that the KGB had infiltrated the plant and were taking the technology developed for the Arrow back to Mother Russia to develop their own advanced fighter. (Most of the MiG 25 Foxbat's advances were direct decendants of the Avro Arrow's technology)
Maybe eventually we'll learn that something similar was happening with the EV-1
Maybe eventually we'll learn that there was a very good readon to exterminate evry last specimen of this car.
Or maybe it GM was telling the truth, it was a sh!tty car and theese peoplle were just blinded by their enthusiasm for it. There are, afterall still Yugo enthusiasts arround, and we all know what great car that was...
But that's what I wanted when I started this thread, to hear evryone's take on this, since I find different points of view facinating, and this is avery cool and interesting topic IMO so I wanted to share
Although we might not know all the reasons for its demise for a while if at all.
For example:
In the 1950's Canada was building one of the most advanced jet fighters of it's time, the Avro Arrow. It blew away anything produced or that would be produced for the next 10 years. But shortly after the plane's maiden flight, and before it's advanced engines ever flew. the project was scrapped, evry employee layed off and the plans and tools for the jet destroyed. No explanations whatsoever. Now 60 years later we learn that the KGB had infiltrated the plant and were taking the technology developed for the Arrow back to Mother Russia to develop their own advanced fighter. (Most of the MiG 25 Foxbat's advances were direct decendants of the Avro Arrow's technology)
Maybe eventually we'll learn that something similar was happening with the EV-1
Maybe eventually we'll learn that there was a very good readon to exterminate evry last specimen of this car.
Or maybe it GM was telling the truth, it was a sh!tty car and theese peoplle were just blinded by their enthusiasm for it. There are, afterall still Yugo enthusiasts arround, and we all know what great car that was...
But that's what I wanted when I started this thread, to hear evryone's take on this, since I find different points of view facinating, and this is avery cool and interesting topic IMO so I wanted to share
11-25-2006, 12:40 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric car will not work with today's technology. There are just way too many flaws and issues. EV1 (and other earlier electric cars as well) blows. Almost all of those are 2 seater, no interior, no a/c, top speed around 40MPH, and requires long recharge time every 150-250 miles. On top of these, we have high MSRP, not available anywhere (only see the car once in the dealer showroom & no test drive), no information anywhere (no ads, no information - not even from local dealers).
And I love how people think electric car will solve the issue. Using electric car does cut down pollution issue from the car. But how about the toxic waste from old batteries and powerplants (coal, gas, oil, nuclear)?
And I love how people think electric car will solve the issue. Using electric car does cut down pollution issue from the car. But how about the toxic waste from old batteries and powerplants (coal, gas, oil, nuclear)?
11-25-2006, 12:51 PM
#8
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to get mad, get mad at the government, for having requirements that carmakers are required to provide spare parts for a vehicle for like, 10 years after it's been discontinued. Also it was government that made carmakers roll out battery electrics before they are ready, wasting money and building negative public awareness which will last for a good while (think: diesels in the 70's). And now they're doing the same things with ethanol and hydrogen, both of which are a pipe dream.
The EV1 was never a real, practical car to begin with. They were stuck with pitiful lead-acid technology at first (Ni-Mh later), so to compensate they make a car out of exotic lightweight materials which would never work for mass production to extend range. Then they aggressively warn customers about the severe limitations of a lead-acid powered golf ca--er, car. If they hadn't, people would be bitching and moaning and suing (again, thanks government).
But the battery powered car is not dead! Look at the Tesla sports car. Or the converted truck shown here. 135 mile range from a regular truck. No exotic materials, it has terrible aerodynamics, it's full size. Charges up under 10 minutes potentially, batteries will not melt like laptop lithiums, and retains 85% storage capacity after 15,000 charge/discharge cycles, and projected to cost $45k. That's still higher than a regular truck, but you could run the damn thing for a couple decades with almost no maintenance. And then Mitsubishi is coming out with electric cars of their own, etc.
Car batteries are already widely recycled, and pollution is far easier to control from one central source. The power company has a full time staff 24/7 dedicated to making sure things run smoothly, plus powerplants do not have to worry about the weight and bulk of their pollution controls. They can also achieve efficiencies a good bit above any car or even diesel truck, which is why grid power is so cheap per mile.
The EV1 was never a real, practical car to begin with. They were stuck with pitiful lead-acid technology at first (Ni-Mh later), so to compensate they make a car out of exotic lightweight materials which would never work for mass production to extend range. Then they aggressively warn customers about the severe limitations of a lead-acid powered golf ca--er, car. If they hadn't, people would be bitching and moaning and suing (again, thanks government).
But the battery powered car is not dead! Look at the Tesla sports car. Or the converted truck shown here. 135 mile range from a regular truck. No exotic materials, it has terrible aerodynamics, it's full size. Charges up under 10 minutes potentially, batteries will not melt like laptop lithiums, and retains 85% storage capacity after 15,000 charge/discharge cycles, and projected to cost $45k. That's still higher than a regular truck, but you could run the damn thing for a couple decades with almost no maintenance. And then Mitsubishi is coming out with electric cars of their own, etc.
Originally Posted by KoHC
And I love how people think electric car will solve the issue. Using electric car does cut down pollution issue from the car. But how about the toxic waste from old batteries and powerplants (coal, gas, oil, nuclear)?
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 11-25-2006 at 12:56 PM.
11-25-2006, 12:54 PM
#9
The King Of Kings.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the avro arrow, boy... many considered it a loss, I did not, after all it came from the same anus-wipe that made the "avro car" .... but I guess I see that maybe canada would be better off making their own stuff.
now that ev-1... I have this film, unbeknownst to most people here, I was involved with someone who leased one in 1997, she loved it, I loved it, reason why I always snicker when someone says something akin to "electric slow car"
electric cars are speed demons, and since I hate GM, I can say that they most likely killed it due to their own greed, money may have been paid to top execs, bob lutz is a crook, in my opinion GM needs a turn around, and a lot of top brass needs to be executed, although some concepts have turned out to be fantastic, (camaro) some things they have pushed in the last decade (Ie: grand am/alero, aztec) have been some seriously flawed heaps, there is nothing worst than a 1999 grand am, sure it does the job, but being front drive takes away from what it could have been if the same 3.4L v6 was mated to a rear pumpkin... I have read that this was not done only because the car would achieve too much MPG... and that pisses me off,
the aztec was a horrid car, all in all GM fits the bill to have been maliciously tempted to kill their own creation...
what happened to GM? where is that company that gave us the fiero? that scared mustangs with the GTO judge?
why are they making bigger and bigger SUVs?
now that ev-1... I have this film, unbeknownst to most people here, I was involved with someone who leased one in 1997, she loved it, I loved it, reason why I always snicker when someone says something akin to "electric slow car"
electric cars are speed demons, and since I hate GM, I can say that they most likely killed it due to their own greed, money may have been paid to top execs, bob lutz is a crook, in my opinion GM needs a turn around, and a lot of top brass needs to be executed, although some concepts have turned out to be fantastic, (camaro) some things they have pushed in the last decade (Ie: grand am/alero, aztec) have been some seriously flawed heaps, there is nothing worst than a 1999 grand am, sure it does the job, but being front drive takes away from what it could have been if the same 3.4L v6 was mated to a rear pumpkin... I have read that this was not done only because the car would achieve too much MPG... and that pisses me off, the aztec was a horrid car, all in all GM fits the bill to have been maliciously tempted to kill their own creation...
what happened to GM? where is that company that gave us the fiero? that scared mustangs with the GTO judge?
why are they making bigger and bigger SUVs?
11-25-2006, 01:18 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fearsomefatman
...some things they have pushed in the last decade (Ie: grand am/alero, aztec) have been some seriously flawed heaps, there is nothing worst than a 1999 grand am, sure it does the job, but being front drive takes away from what it could have been if the same 3.4L v6 was mated to a rear pumpkin... I have read that this was not done only because the car would achieve too much MPG... and that pisses me off...
11-25-2006, 01:26 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EV's haven't really died, they just haven't been developed as a species that survives past birth - yet.
The first ones I came in contact with were the Chrysler Mini vans in the early 90's. Slow, heavy, short range, handled like a pig, took forever to recharge. Not to mention the Pb-acid batteries only had about 200 usable charge cycles before dropping capacity like a rock. As a daily driver the battery retrofits every 2 years would cost about $4000. Not exactly economical even at $5 a gallon.
Electrical storage has and will continue to be the major issue with EV's, although a lot of progress has been made - more in the last 5 years then the previous 50, and no thanks to GM.
I think Li batteries will eventually prove to be suitable, as will methane fuel cells. Phosphoric acid based Methane fuel cells operate at 70% conversion efficiency and an AC Asynchronous motor operats at 94% - that yields a net efficiency of 66% - even the best diesel power generation motors from DDC are only getting about 34%. Methane is fairly easy to synthesize from coal and oil stocks, as well as many agricultural products. It's a bitch to store just like hydrogen is.
The cost of electronics has dropped to point where the powertrains and controllers are feasible, even very competitive to any internal combustion motor.
It boggles the mind why the feds aren't investing in assisting the big 3 with developing Methane Fuel cell technology. Umm wait a minute, considering that Exxon owns Washington right now, well that explains it. Maybe in a few months when we begin to pull out of the civil war in Iraq the new congress will take a look at programs like that.....
The first ones I came in contact with were the Chrysler Mini vans in the early 90's. Slow, heavy, short range, handled like a pig, took forever to recharge. Not to mention the Pb-acid batteries only had about 200 usable charge cycles before dropping capacity like a rock. As a daily driver the battery retrofits every 2 years would cost about $4000. Not exactly economical even at $5 a gallon.
Electrical storage has and will continue to be the major issue with EV's, although a lot of progress has been made - more in the last 5 years then the previous 50, and no thanks to GM.
I think Li batteries will eventually prove to be suitable, as will methane fuel cells. Phosphoric acid based Methane fuel cells operate at 70% conversion efficiency and an AC Asynchronous motor operats at 94% - that yields a net efficiency of 66% - even the best diesel power generation motors from DDC are only getting about 34%. Methane is fairly easy to synthesize from coal and oil stocks, as well as many agricultural products. It's a bitch to store just like hydrogen is.
The cost of electronics has dropped to point where the powertrains and controllers are feasible, even very competitive to any internal combustion motor.
It boggles the mind why the feds aren't investing in assisting the big 3 with developing Methane Fuel cell technology. Umm wait a minute, considering that Exxon owns Washington right now, well that explains it. Maybe in a few months when we begin to pull out of the civil war in Iraq the new congress will take a look at programs like that.....
11-25-2006, 01:49 PM
#12
The King Of Kings.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoorCollegeKid
As it should, if that were true. What I can't wrap my head around is how is it possible that simply making the car RWD improve gas mileage by a significant amount?
this is what me and my co-workers had talked about as I did not realy get it either, according to an engineer, if GM had made the cars (grand am/alero) RWD, the weight would have been considerably less, as well as way more balanced, a prototype Alero even had RWD, not only that but it actualy had the 3800SFI v6 that was then used in the camaro/firebird 6cyl models, not only was the car much quicker, but much lighter, therefore achieveing a great percentage of MPG over the front drive, the thing was that in order to make a quick buck (not changing the plant process to make the new rear drive) as they had been churning out the previous gen GA/AL in FWD form for 7 yrs, if you look for this car outside USA, you'll see that it was not sold, I believe the pontiac 100, stopped selling in europe in 1995ish
I was misfortunate enough to buy a grand am, because of being a broke college student, it had nothing but problems, I returned it and traded (with upside down equity) in a year for a FD in 1994, never looked back at front drive or GM since
electric cars are cool, if I could afford it, I'd buy a tesla
11-25-2006, 03:06 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fearsomefatman
this is what me and my co-workers had talked about as I did not realy get it either, according to an engineer, if GM had made the cars (grand am/alero) RWD, the weight would have been considerably less, as well as way more balanced, a prototype Alero even had RWD, not only that but it actualy had the 3800SFI v6 that was then used in the camaro/firebird 6cyl models, not only was the car much quicker, but much lighter, therefore achieveing a great percentage of MPG over the front drive, the thing was that in order to make a quick buck (not changing the plant process to make the new rear drive) as they had been churning out the previous gen GA/AL in FWD form for 7 yrs, if you look for this car outside USA, you'll see that it was not sold, I believe the pontiac 100, stopped selling in europe in 1995ish
11-26-2006, 11:49 AM
#15
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite on topic, but it is interesting to note that the very first 6 land speed records were achieved with electric cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record
11-26-2006, 12:32 PM
#16
I like rusty spoons
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KoHC
Electric car will not work with today's technology. There are just way too many flaws and issues. EV1 (and other earlier electric cars as well) blows. Almost all of those are 2 seater, no interior, no a/c, top speed around 40MPH, and requires long recharge time every 150-250 miles. On top of these, we have high MSRP, not available anywhere (only see the car once in the dealer showroom & no test drive), no information anywhere (no ads, no information - not even from local dealers).
And I love how people think electric car will solve the issue. Using electric car does cut down pollution issue from the car. But how about the toxic waste from old batteries and powerplants (coal, gas, oil, nuclear)?
And I love how people think electric car will solve the issue. Using electric car does cut down pollution issue from the car. But how about the toxic waste from old batteries and powerplants (coal, gas, oil, nuclear)?
11-26-2006, 02:21 PM
#17
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I am a leaf in the wind...
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by khtm
Where do you get your info from? The EV1 had a top speed of twice what you wrote. Please stop posting **** that just isn't true. Do you work for GM or something?
Now now KHTM, just because he is incorrect doesn't mean we have to bash him up on the head, let's review the facts AS PER GM's WEBSITE WHILE THEY LEASED IT The EV-1, and Toyota's Rav4 EV, and Ford's Ranger Electric, and Ford's Th!nk electric car...
1. All fearured fully finished interiors.
2. all featured A/C and Heater
3. All featured AM/FM/CD stereos (or the option to have installedat the dealer)
4. All had a range of 80+ miles per charge (some up to 170 miles)
5. All had power windows/locks/mirrors
6. All had a 0-60 MPH of between 4-6 seconds (the EV-1 even beating a stock 1995 Miata 0-60 AND 1/4 mile)
7. The EV-1 even featured keyless entry/start (back in 1993!)
so no I don't think the comment on the cars not being ready and getting a bad rep (and being evicerated shells that only a tree hugger would love) holds much water.
And bad rep? most people never had the chance to find out they even existed, so they can't have a bad rep if nobody knows about them. I think Kohc's logic is failed
11-26-2006, 02:28 PM
#18
I think a car with a 100 mile radius between charges would suit most americans well, though it's cutting it close. A range of about 150 miles on a charge would be excellent. While it wouldn't work for cross country trips (until such time that we have mainstream batts that can recharge in under 5 minutes to 90% capacity), it would be great getting to work and back, or shopping trips. Come home, plug it into the wall and you're done.
I think the problem has always been batteries. There has been little advancement and so it's always been about weight, lifespan and cost.
I think the problem has always been batteries. There has been little advancement and so it's always been about weight, lifespan and cost.
11-26-2006, 02:33 PM
#19
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I am a leaf in the wind...
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Actually the battery technology exists. Texaco bought the patents and are sitting on them They forbade the inventor who came up with it from producing it.
(at least according to the movie)
(at least according to the movie)
11-26-2006, 03:28 PM
#21
Backup is coming.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fearsomefatman
this is what me and my co-workers had talked about as I did not realy get it either, according to an engineer, if GM had made the cars (grand am/alero) RWD, the weight would have been considerably less, as well as way more balanced, a prototype Alero even had RWD, not only that but it actualy had the 3800SFI v6 that was then used in the camaro/firebird 6cyl models, not only was the car much quicker, but much lighter, therefore achieveing a great percentage of MPG over the front drive, the thing was that in order to make a quick buck (not changing the plant process to make the new rear drive) as they had been churning out the previous gen GA/AL in FWD form for 7 yrs, if you look for this car outside USA, you'll see that it was not sold, I believe the pontiac 100, stopped selling in europe in 1995ish
I was misfortunate enough to buy a grand am, because of being a broke college student, it had nothing but problems, I returned it and traded (with upside down equity) in a year for a FD in 1994, never looked back at front drive or GM since
electric cars are cool, if I could afford it, I'd buy a tesla
I was misfortunate enough to buy a grand am, because of being a broke college student, it had nothing but problems, I returned it and traded (with upside down equity) in a year for a FD in 1994, never looked back at front drive or GM since
electric cars are cool, if I could afford it, I'd buy a tesla
Grand Am / Alero were never meant to be rear-wheel drive. From the beginning they were to be built on the front-wheel drive n-body platform. All previous Grand Ams / Aleros (Achieva) were FWD and Oldsmobile offered only FWD cars at the time, so it wouldn't make sense to all of a sudden make the new gen RWD.
Aleros were sold in some European countries including France and Poland.
My 2001 4 cyl. 5-speed Alero has been enjoyable to own and has thus far been problem-free. It also gets nearly 30 MPG combined driving.
11-26-2006, 05:26 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Death of the Electric
Well, those of you who have been genuflecting to King George the last six years, just consider this: Even as mammoth and as screwed-up a company as GM would not spend all that time and money lobbying without a signal that their efforts would be rewarded. Think about it. 
Last edited by rotorhead335; 11-26-2006 at 05:30 PM.
11-26-2006, 07:26 PM
#23
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I am a leaf in the wind...
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
^^ Your logic is a case of the tail wagging the dog...
The Government passed a law that mandated the creation of the Zero Emissions Vehicle first. Then the Oil/Car companies put in their considerable Lobbying muscle into changing/repealing that law. The government does not entice Lobyists (in that case when the government initiates the approach those are called independent commissions/comitees) Lobyists go to the government to try to influence law in their favor on behalf of their constituents.
Your train of thought is as backwards as saying that the criminal does the crime just for the sole purpose that he can have the chance to defend himself in court
The action dictates the reaction, not the other way around
The Government passed a law that mandated the creation of the Zero Emissions Vehicle first. Then the Oil/Car companies put in their considerable Lobbying muscle into changing/repealing that law. The government does not entice Lobyists (in that case when the government initiates the approach those are called independent commissions/comitees) Lobyists go to the government to try to influence law in their favor on behalf of their constituents.
Your train of thought is as backwards as saying that the criminal does the crime just for the sole purpose that he can have the chance to defend himself in court
The action dictates the reaction, not the other way around
11-26-2006, 08:49 PM
#24
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They used to have some electric cars on the military base - sort of glorified golf carts that could be checked out to run around the air strips and there were little stands where you could park them and recharge them- I Can't remember seeing one in the last year or so - saw the little gas carts and some trucks... they seem to have just been a kind of fad - I bet if gas goes to $7 a gallon we will see them again!
11-26-2006, 09:41 PM
#25
I remember we had some trucks in the military that ran on propane or something about 6 yrs ago. I think the experiment died. They had a big tank behind the cab. I believe the technology is there, or close to it, to take fossil fuels and electric cars out out of the picture but it's going to take time. Maybe 15-20 years.