The Volt will kick EV1 ass
Let's get real folksI've pretty much had it with the EV1, GM killed the electric car, folks.
Did GM kill the electric car? Shut up.
Every automaker is working on an electric car today. No one killed the electric car. Cheap gas, however, delayed the emergence of the electric car.
Did GM screw up the EV1 program? Absolutely, but without much higher gas prices, how many EV1's could GM really have sold, especially if they sold them at real world cost? Honestly, 5 years ago, how many would have paid $40,000+ for a two-seat vehicle with 100 mile range and 6 hour charge requirements?
Certainly, some would have, but the EV1 would never have achieved the economies of scale to achieve profitability. NEVER. And, for GM haters, even Toyota has publicly stated that it could never achieve profitability on NiMH-powered EVs.
Nonetheless, could GM have parlayed the EV1 into 10,000 units a year and lots of positive green press? Yes. But, what would that have really changed? Ultimately, it would have just greenwashed the fact that gas-guzzlers were still GM's bread and butter.
If GM made a big mistake, in my opinion, it was that it didn't convert its EV1 experience into a Prius-like hybrid to help further develop battery technology while addressing fuel economy immediately. Yet, how much would a Prius-like hybrid have really helped GM? After 10 years of Prius production, it is unlikely that Toyota has yet recovered its total Prius investment.
Does that absolve GM's mistakes? Hell no, but let's keep some perspective people.
And, most important, the EV1 DOES NOT prove that NiMH batteries could now be powering the Chevy Volt. The EV1 had 100 miles of range, then required a 6 hour charge. The Chevy Volt, when not powered by grid electricity, uses electricity created by on-board generator. That means the Volt might go 500 miles without stopping, plugging into the grid, etc. Yet, for that entire 500 miles, the Volt will be relying on its battery pack as electricity always powers the Volt.
When did the EV1 ever go 500 miles without multiple charges? That's right, never. Not even close.
Inevitably, the battery requirements of the Volt and the EV1 are vastly different - it's apples to oranges - especially when you're going to offer a 10 year warranty on the battery pack.
Furthermore, as a consumer, if you could buy a 100 mile range EV1 for the same price as a Volt with unlimited range, which would you buy?
Yet, if gas prices are below $3.00, even the Volt won't really help GM much, and full electrification will still be decades away. So, if you want to get angry about the killing of the electric car, get mad at GM's lobbyists. Get made at your Congressperson. And, if you want to get really crazy, tell your representatives in Washington that you want higher gas taxes.
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, electric cars, gas tax, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:15 AM
13 Comments:
Had GM continued to build the Volt, it would have helped consumers realized the benefits of EVs. It would also help them understand that 100 mile range is more than enough for 90-some percent of all commutes.
It was a huge mistake for GM not to continue the Volt. It didn't have to be either or.
I don't disagree, and I never said it wasn't a mistake to discontinue the program. Still, the real world costs of the EV1 would not be recovered via the electricity v. gas savings. And for "90-some percent" of customers, that's critical.
A number of studies have demonstrated that high gas prices opened consumer minds about the benefits of hybrid cars, yet those same studies indicated that consumers didn't want to have to pay extra for hybrids, at least not much extra.
People are open to the technology. They are just not ready to pay extra for the technology, even if there is a long term gain.
Until that issue is resolved, EVs and hybrids will continue to be slow-growing niches for many, many more years.
GM sold its NiMH patents to Texaco, who was summarily gobbled up by Chevron.
Chevron sued Toyota in order to stop them from using the Panasonic EV-95 NiMH superior batteries, that are STILL in use in hundreds of Toyota RAV 4 EV today.
The NiMH EV1 could travel 140 to 160 miles on NiMH batteries.
GM killed the EV1, then shredded them instead of selling to willing buyers.
These are the facts, not my opinion.
NiMH batteries are great for EV applications. How many 160 mile range EV's are on the market now? Only one, the Tesla, at a cost of 100 grand with batteries that will not last as long as the RAV 4 EV.
NiMH batteries are proven in EV applications every day of the week as demonstrated by the Toyota RAV 4 EV.
Personally, I would much rather have a 160 mile range EV as opposed to a 40 mile EREV.
GM should resuscitate the EV1 post haste.
That range is on the high end, Jabroni. In the real world there are many conditions that can significantly lower the mileage, but that really isn't the point.
And, ultimately, Toyota has sold millions of vehicles using NiMH technology. So, GM didn't kill NiMH technology by selling its NiMH patents.
Still, my main point is that NiMH is not sufficient for the Volt's purposes. More important, the EV1 doesn't prove that NiMH is sufficient for the Volt.
Also, I don't think most would agree with you on the EV1 versus the Volt.
Consumers - not according to GM - expect a range of about 300 miles. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense. Consumers often don't make sense. Yet, you have to sell to consumers, and changing consumer perceptions takes much time and massive amounts of money.
The fact the EV1 was a two-seater ensures it had no future, at least in terms of profitablility, unless you could sell it for $100,000 + to cover the small sales numbers and huge production costs.
Even if you made it a four-seater, such as the RAV EV, you are talking a top range of a little over 100 miles, and much less in other conditions.
That means range anxiety. That means most Americans simply would not be interested.
Just a few years ago Toyota had to assure potential Prius customers that the Prius was not a plug-in vehicle - a feature they did not want.
Moreover, if you believe statistics, the average commute is less than 40 miles. Thus the Volt provides the same cost-effectiveness in terms of home charging as does the EV1 for commuting.
However, for longer trips, weekend trips, family of 4 vacations, etc., the Volt still provides all of your needs without any range anxiety, without any nagging issues or problems.
The Volt is also far more forgiving if you forget to charge for a night or two, or can't for whatever reason.
Perhaps you'd still prefer the EV1 over the Volt, but do you really believe that is true of most other consumers?
I don't.
The Volt provides Americans essentially everything they want and expect from a car without really sacrificing anything - compared to other EVs (If gas is $2.00 per gallon, most won't won't the EV1 or the Volt). That kind of vehicle is marketable to a far, far wider range of consumers than the EV1. That means scalability and potential profitability.
I don't disagree, nor did I argue, that GM shouldn't have continued the EV1 program. I'm just arguing that the EV1 doesn't prove that the Volt is achievable with NiMH technology (I've been having an e-mail battle with EV1.org over this issue, which is the source of my EV1 angst).
But it still wouldn't have changed much today, except that it would have cost GM, minimally, several hundred million to set up a production facility. (Before, each of the EV1s was essentially hand made.)
Hybrids, i believe, were a far better hedge for NiMH technology, as scalability was conceivable. Yet, even after selling more than a million Prius hybrids, Toyota still hasn't recovered its total Prius investment.
Even today, most automakers - not just GM - think Toyota completely wasted their time on NiMH technology, despite the sales success of the Prius.
Even Toyota was ready to convert the Prius to lithium - after more than a decade of massive investments developing supply chains for its NiMH technology - but they weren't able to ensure the necessary reliability in time.
NiMH is a fine technology. And, had gas been $4.00 per gallon when the EV1 was launched, NiMH EVs might have had a chance. Nonetheless, NiMH still would eventually have been phased out.
I honestly can't say that I like either car. I can understand how EV1 sounds nice but was not possible to scale up to mass production. The volt is an attempt to make a mass produceable hybrid and even though I don't like it, I want it to succeed.
I have a hard time swallowing that the range of batteries has decreased from 160 miles to 40 miles, a few years into the future, for the sake of reliability. Would you mind showing me a site that can prove the rate of EV1 battery failures (the good batteries, not the ones in the first model).
IMO the Volt is another red herring made to distract from the fact that pure-electric is workable. Both the Japanese and American car companies are pushing hybrids to appease the environmental crowd while still requiring the two things I want to avoid: gas and an ICE.
I can see how I'd want one car in my family with gas and an ICE for trips, but, using the other for short commutes, I wouldn't need those things (or 4 seats for that matter). Name one reason why a family (4 or 5 members) would need two ICE cars.
Will I even be able to buy a stripped down Volt with just the 40 mile electric engine? Oh, let me guess: demand will be too low for it so I won't be able to get one, right? That's a recurring theme with pure-electric vehicles. Everyone wants one, but can't get one because there's no demand.
Greg-
The EV1 and the Volt are entirely different vehicles, but both of them run purely on electricity. The EV1 used only grid electricity. The Volt will use both grid electricity, and an onboard generator - a small engine - to create electricity when grid electricity has been used, but the Volt is always powered by electricity.
That gives the Volt, essentially, unlimited electric range. Whereas the EV1 had a top range of about 150 miles in good conditions. In other conditions, that range could be cut in half.
This fights 'range anxiety' that has been studied and validated, making the Volt more appealing to a larger group.
Batteries in the EV1 could not sustain unlimited mileage. They weren't made to power a car for 400 miles, stop and fill up with gas and go another 400 miles ( Not that that is how u would want to use a Volt, but if you only do that once a month, the Volt would still get about 50 mpgs).
EV1's, however, were designed to go about 100 miles and take 7 hours to recharge. Actually that's what their NiMH batteries mandated.
NiMH batteries can successfully power a 100 mile electric vehicle today, but not cost-effectively. Not by a long shot.
Lithium batteries won't be cost-effective either at first, but because they offer automakers a much lighter battery for the same power, economies of scale might one day get them there.
In terms of demand for EVs. Automakers need to sell millions of vehicles to achieve economies of scale, especially with newer technologies.
At today's energy prices, there is no way that millions of Americans are ready to pay $50,000 + for 100 mile, small sedans.
Most Americans, for instance, are interested in vehicles like the Prius, but they think it costs far too much at $23,000, especially when gas is only $2.00.
Ultimately, electrification is going to happen, but its going to take a long of time without serious intervention, such as much higher CAFE or gas prices.
I'd pay 40K for an all electric car with over 100 mile range. In a few years oil prices are going to be $10-$20 a gallon, there is a net decline of 7% oil production over the world this year and all ensuing years, etc economies need cheap oil to grow.
Volt will be obsolete in 5 years, what is next best is an electric car/ volt car using any fuel stock to run on with a gas turbine.
atlaw-
perhaps you would, but not most Americans according to numerous consumer studies. range anxiety is real.
I don't disagree that the Volt isn't the most sensible EV technology at this time, but it was designed around the issue of range anxiety. The Volt is a balance of technology and consumer demands.
more important, the Volt's Voltec drive was designed to be flexible. inevitably, not only can it use multiple fuels, but it could also morph into a pure EV. likewise, the next gen GM fuel cell vehicle and the Volt are evolving into the same platform.
Voltec, like Toyota's HSD, is meant to be a flexible, adaptable architecture.
The EV could have easily been upgraded to travel up to 300 miles on one charge. Thing is, GM opted to go with a weaker battery than one that was already existed, and threw it in all their Ev's...
i just just watched 'who killed the electric car,' such a shame
who killed the electric car is a very good movie, but it's still a bit unrealistic.
if gm sold the EV1 at cost, maybe a few hundred people a year would have bought it. the car could have never been supported by economies of scale.
just because we can build a rocket to send to the moon, doesn't mean its cost-effective to mass produce it.
What nonsense by Dahcredyns. I have just watched the movie who killed the electric car. The EV1 would have succeeded and you know it. If it was such a bad idea, why did they go as far as crushing the cars to ensure no one would ever have access to the car.
So, you would have paid 60+ for a two-seat EV with a 100 - 150 mile range?
GM only makes money on vehicles if it sells in scale, which means at least one hundred thousand cars per year. Even then it would have taken more than a decade for the EV1 to even come close to recovering its production costs.
You honestly believe that when gas was well under $2, that there would have been more than a few thousand buyers per year?
GM was already losing billions in the the North American market, yet it could have continued to lose billions more marketing a car only a few thousand buyers per year wanted?
Why did Toyota, Honda, and every EV automaker in the world stop EV production or go bankrupt about the same time?
HMMM???? I know, it's all part of the big oil conspiracy.
Even today analysts from JD Power, Polk, etc. claim that it will take gas prices at $5.00 or more - depending upon the analyst - to make a market big enough for EVs to give major automakers a chance to achieve profitability.
Even Barack Obama's auto task force has come to the same conclusion.
Give me a friken break.
Post a Comment
<< Home