GM EV1
Once again I find myself taking a little-traveled off-ramp to venture forth into limited-production car territory and have a look at an automobile that made a big splash but never quite made it into full production. The GM EV1 has engendered its share of fanatics, both pro and con, which makes it a bit different from the old Chrysler Turbine (though turbines in general still have their fans). The Turbine also didn't create its own mythos of evil corporate executives, pliant politicians, and heroically earnest C-list Hollywood celebrities in the years after its discontinuation.
I'm not sure if I'd call this missive a car lust exactly. I've always taken a rather cynical view of electric cars, having my early hopes for them continually dashed as the reality always failed to live up to the promise. It seems that practical electric cars are, like fusion power, always a few years away from becoming reality. We are constantly teased with promises of 200-mile ranges, only to see that drop to the usual 50-70 when driven in real-world conditions when the driver has the temerity to turn on the radio or another electric accessory (Bad driver! No heat for you!). Or, alternatively the cars cost so much that only green-oriented megazillionaires can establish their Street-Green cred by driving 10 miles to the latest red carpet ceremony.
Still, even though Chrysler's Turbine never had much hope for becoming a real-world product, it still interested me enough to write a post about it; and the same is true of the EV1. In a lot of ways, it was an engineering marvel, incorporating various technologies that have since become de rigueur in many models. In my view, it's not necessary for a concept or limited-production vehicle to go into actual production for it to be considered a success; if it does the job of proving the efficacy (or not) of certain technologies then it has performed its function well.
Interestingly, electric cars aren't terribly innovative or even all that new. The first electric vehicles were developed in the early-mid 19th century and by the turn of the 20th century were, in fact, outselling other vehicles. New York City even operated a fleet of electric taxis in 1895, built by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia (see the photo to the right). Electrics did have their advantages compared to other vehicles of the time--they were quiet and clean; required no complicated (and difficult-to-master) gear shifting; did not require manual (and often dangerous) starting procedures; and, due to the relative paucity of good roads outside of major cities, their limited range proved to be not a limiting factor. Nevertheless, as the technology of internal combustion cars improved--the electric starter, easier shifting--and oil became an abundant fuel source the functional advantages of electrics lessened. And once the road system improved, the limited range of electrics put them at a distinct disadvantage. It wasn't on a lark that the internal combustion engine became dominant.
Fast-forward to 1990. GM introduced the Impact (a rather unfortunate name for a car, if you ask me), an all-electric vehicle at the 1990 LA Auto show. Based on a perceived positive viability of the Impact, GM went forward with a limited hand-built run of the Impact, lending 50 of them out to select customers for 1-2 weeks for evaluation. Press and customer reaction seemed favorable, but I suspect that GM already had the electric car pegged as a mass-market dud. Still, they pressed ahead, led in part by California's CARB regulations.
As an aside, this wasn't the first electric car since the early 1900s, even by GM. The Henney Kilowatt was in production for two years, but only 100 were ever produced. Others had a bit more luck; Sebring-Vanguard produced more than 2,000 of its CitiCars. GM itself had tinkered with all-electric versions of its Corvair and Chevette lines in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively.
The end result of the Impact was the 1996 EV1. It was the first model to wear the "GM" brand and was introduced to much fanfare in the mass media. Initially, the EV1 was only made available to lessees in southern California and Arizona, including some high-profile celebrities. Lessees tended to be rather fanatical about their EV1s--some would say absurdly so, but, hey, we go nuts over Gremlins--but they had some good reasons to be enthusiastic.
Stylistically, the car was, arguably, quite attractive. The EV1 was sleek and low--no exhaust apparatus cluttering up the bottom!--with lots of curved glass, integrated headlights, and an interior that was a tech-geek's dream. Most of the instrument cluster was centered and the driver was presented with a clean view: a steering wheel, a couple of indicator lights, and not much else. The back end always seemed to me to be cut off at mid-thought, and I'm not generally a fan of fender skirts, but I think one can reasonably argue that it was not a total dorkmobile.
The charger used magnetic induction (GM called it the "Magne Charge" system) with a large user-friendly paddle rather than a direct coupled metal-to-metal contact using a standard plug, although that could be used as well. The batteries in the Gen 1 vehicle were standard lead-acid batteries, replaced by NiMH (Nickel-metal-hydride) batteries in Gen 2 vehicles (some Gen 1 vehicles were also retrofitted with the NiMH batteries). The result was 137 brake horsepower and 110 pound-feet of torque which, as on all electric cars, was available throughout the rpm range. This gave the EV1 a 0-60 time of 8 seconds, although it was limited to a top speed of 80 mph. A prototype set the speed record for an electric vehicle at 183 mph.
With 1,100 pounds of batteries, weight was always an issue; GM introduced several features to decrease poundage. The frame was of bonded and welded aluminum and weighed only 290 pounds, a savings of about 40 percent over the steel equivalent. The bonding used an aerospace-grade structural adhesive, a first for a production vehicle--much of this aerospace technology came out of GM's purchase of Hughes Aircraft in 1985. A number of composite materials were also used for the body panels, which not only reduced weight but also resisted denting and breakage. The wheels were die-cast aluminum, and weighed just 8.5 pounds each. Still, the EV1 clocked in at almost 3,000 pounds.
Among the other technological niceties were regenerative brakes and a variable-effort steering controller. The brakes were said to have increased the range by about 10 miles. The steering mechanism also provided substantial energy savings and found its way into the Vauxhall Astra. The drag coefficient (Cd) was a stellar 0.19. For comparison, the current Prius has a Cd of 0.25 and a Nissan GT-R comes in at 0.27. In its sales literature, GM claimed this was the same number as an F-16.
So, the EV1 was a technological marvel. How did it drive? By nearly all accounts, it was more fun than a clown on fire. Despite its diminutive size, most reviews I've read were positive on interior and trunk space, as well as seating position and accommodation for drivers of all sizes and shapes. Handling was generally considered more than adequate, and the continuous torque made for fast maneuvering in traffic.
But then comes the two bugaboos of electric cars: recharging and range. The Gen 1 range was stated as a very modest 50-70 miles per charge while the Gen 2, with NiMH batteries, had a stated range of 75-130 miles per charge. As they say, your mileage may, and it certainly did vary depending on weather, driving conditions, topography, driving style, the number of electronics in use, passengers, etc.
I imagine that if I state any real range number we will no doubt get two dozen comments from enthusiasts saying it just ain't so and they got twice as much on a regular basis. My back-of-the-envelope calculation from the various articles I've read all over the Interwebs these past few days leads me to believe a fairly typical range would be in the 45-70 mile ballpark. Certainly you could squeeze a lot more (or less) depending on the degree to which you hew to hypermiling techniques. We can argue over how accurate that number is and whether it is really adequate for some number of people for some amount of time, but there you have it. I'll stick with it until someone pays me (enough) to say something different.
Recharging times were similarly slippery. A separate wall charger was supplied with each leased vehicle (part of the Magne Charge system). Using this system, the NiMH batteries could be charged to about 80% in 2-3 hours and be at full charge in around 4 hours. Some, however, reported up to 8 hours to produce a full charge. A separate "convenience charger" stored in the trunk would run off a normal 115v circuit but would take significantly longer to charge it up, often up to 15 hours. Again, the numbers and whether they're adequate for how many people can be argued over endlessly, but it's fair to say that five minutes at a gas station has it beat by a long shot.
GM eventually stopped the project, took back all the leased vehicles, crushed most of them, and sent the remainder to museums and elsewhere after being suitably disabled. Why they did this is beyond the scope of this post, and, to be honest, I'd just plain rather not go there. It's quite a contentious issue, and this is, after all, the Car Lust blog, not the Social and Political Ramifications of Automotive Technology blog.
It is, however, reasonable to judge the relative success of the EV1 program as a limited production concept vehicle. Perhaps paradoxically, given my cynicism regarding electric vehicles, I judge it as a fairly successful project. I would wager that, before the EV1, most people thought of electric cars as glorified golf carts. Not so after.
The design of the car was, I think, really quite outstanding. It had superb performance in a number of areas, notably acceleration and handling, and was no slouch in its use of interior space to great advantage. Many of the technologies were easily transferred to conventional vehicles and have since become standard equipment on many. Heck, most modern hybrids use a lot of the technology pioneered in the EV1. The EV1's combination of really quite attractive styling and good performance at least created a general impression that an electric vehicle could be considered, in some sense, cool. Sadly, the Prius probably set that back a few decades, but there may be hope yet if the Tesla ever becomes a reasonable reality.
Do I think true electric cars have much of a future? Not really. Unless there is some remarkable leap in battery technology--which we've been told for years is "just around the corner"--I tend to think the combination of range/recharging/cost will keep them as decidedly niche vehicles for quite a while. I have more hope for true hybrids, although the current crop of battery-assist designs leaves me more or less cold. Still, I think we ought to consider the EV1 as at least a moderate success in putting a lot of interesting technologies to reasonable real-world testing and move on from there.
Credits: Most of these photos are widely available across the web, but the electric NYC cabs photo comes from Gas 2.0.
--Anthony Cagle
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 25, 2010 at 07:23 AM
I've really appreciated this post and Chris' post Friday on electric cars in general. There's a lot of electric-car hype these days, and it's useful to be reminded that the technology is still not yet the equal of plain old gasoline power when it comes to utility.
IIRC, the EV-1s were offered only in California and Arizona because of the year-round warm weather. During testing, GM found that the batteries quickly lost their charge and collapsed into a pathetic sobbing heap in a typical midwest winter.
Also, I recall hearing that GM crushed the EVs to avoid future products liability claims. Some of the lessees offered to sign waivers of future products liability claims in order to keep their vehicles, but those waivers wouldn't be enforceable against anyone who didn't sign them (say, a passenger in the EV), and might even be invalid against the signer if the signer could make out a claim that GM failed to adequately disclose certain risks. (There's also the bad PR risk of an EV owner appearing on "60 Minutes" with a tale of woe and obvious injuries, complaining that she can't sue because GM made her sign a waiver.) In this case, the lawyers were probably right that crushing the cars was the safest course.
Chris Hafner on January 25, 2010 at 08:35 AM
Count me as a fan of the EV1. I always thought it looked cool - like what the early Saturns were supposed to look like before they were watered-down - and it performed pretty well for an electric. EV1s did a great job of demonstrating what was possible (a slick car, decent performance) and not possible (anything like a reasonable range figure) with electric cars.
As an experimental vehicle, quite cool, but clearly not ready for prime-time.
That Car Guy on January 25, 2010 at 08:43 AM
Here in Middle Tennessee, a friend of mine that worked at Saturn had an EV1 for a while. I probably could have pushed him for a test ride/drive in it, but I didn't. I'll always regret that. But at least I got to see it. Nice article, Anthony.
Sonicfrog on January 25, 2010 at 09:02 AM
I wished I could have driven one. Oh well.
PS. Typo alert - the word "vary" was left out of this sentence:
"As they say, your mileage may, and it certainly did vary depending on weather,..."
CJinSD on January 25, 2010 at 10:54 AM
I used to see EV1s on the road occasionally in San Diego. These days, I see as many Teslas around in La Jolla as I do running examples of the Lotus Elise and Exige, even though the Lotus was quite common here only 3 years ago. I'd say that EV1 fans should put their money where their mouths are and buy Teslas, but even at $100,000 a piece the only way Tesla stays in business is by taking our tax dollars. My wish is that someday people will be smart enough to understand why electric cars were closer to horses in utility than they were to the internal combustion cars that drove them from the market.
Mochi Mochi on January 25, 2010 at 01:48 PM
very nice article.
there's a tesla dealer a few blocks from my office. I see teslas regularly running around the streets of west los angeles. I also see Toyota RAV4 EVs driving around reasonably often. yesterday I came across a fully electric motorcycle. I've also seen porsche 914 electric conversions running nicely on the freeways.
electric vehicles can be completely practical forms of transport but our preconception of what a car is all about get in the way of making that happen. the problems, challenges, and shortcomings are enumerated in this article. One of the chief obstacles is trying to replicate the experience of a standard car powered by an IC engine. Our current fleets of new cars are enormous power hogs. All kinds of crap that people want and think they must have. Everything from powerful stereos to power-windows and air conditioning - and cigarette lighters. These were at one time unimaginable luxuries and these luxuries are the things that contribute weight gain and power loss in an EV. I'm sure the market is not ready for this, but the best way to make EVs viable as viable transport at this time is to think Nano Tata instead of Lexus SUV.
Steaming Pile on January 26, 2010 at 07:54 AM
A pathetic sobbing heap. Sounds about right for Detroit, and places like Upstate New York. Cold is the enemy of the electric vehicle, and we have cold in abundance this time of year. So yeah, you could count me among the gas-assisted electric hybrid fans here. My only concern about the only such vehicle that currently exists - the Chevy Volt - is why they need 1400CC of gas motor to maintain a charge on the batteries. One would think an actual generator motor running at peak power would not need to be anywhere near as big. Heck, you could design a purpose-built engine (as opposed to pulling one off the shelf) that turned a generator very, very efficiently because that was all it did. I bet 30 HP(about what a mid-grade lawn tractor provides) would be more than sufficient if it were properly done.
Chris Hafner on January 26, 2010 at 08:00 AM
SP: "One would think an actual generator motor running at peak power would not need to be anywhere near as big."
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Another weird thing about the Volt is that when the battery depletes to a certain point and the gas engine kicks in, it doesn't recharge the battery per se - it drives the electric motor and keeps the battery at a level 30-percent charge. With that much power, why not recharge the battery as well? Especially when the car is at a stop and the electric motor doesn't need the help?
I also agree that an engine designed specifically to recharge electric batteries could be way more efficient than what they have. Imagine a kei-car engine, for example - tiny, highly fuel-efficient, but thanks to lots of sophistication they develop lots of power for their size. Or, heck, a motorcycle engine.
kenny heggem on January 26, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Truth be told... 50 miles is not too shabby.
Many, Most even...
would find that range plenty to get them around for a day or two before an evening recharging.
Then again people in our cities are too lazy to ride a bike 3 miles. Having to charge something every 50 miles seems hardly daunting, however.
Not everyone lives in the sticks and commutes 30 miles each way.
Yeah... it might only serve 75% or more of the population. So good thing they killed it. WTF?
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 26, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Kenny: You are correct that most people don't drive 50 miles a day, but that's not necessarily the full measure of the range people need from their car. I think nearly everyone, even someone with a very short commute, takes a drive longer than 50 miles at least once a month. They might make that longer trip only a few times a year, but it's forsesable that they will have a regular need for that range. To offer myself as an example, I usually make a car-pool run to school in the morning, go to the office, and then straight home for supper--but two or three times a month, at least, I'll make a significant trip (15+ miles one way) in the middle of the day to an off-site meeting.
On the day you have to do a 120-mile round trip (to visit grandma, take the kid to college, go in to the main office for the annual sales meeting, have your appointment with the specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, whatever it may be) a car that goes 50 miles and then has to snuggle up to a wall outlet for two or three hours just ain't gonna cut it.
Chris Hafner on January 26, 2010 at 01:53 PM
Wasn't the Cleveland Clinic the first hospital to do a face transplant? You certainly wouldn't want to be late for that because the batteries ran out on the way.
Anthony Cagle on January 26, 2010 at 02:20 PM
It's not just the range and recharge, of course. It's also the cost. I didn't mention it, but GM was figuring on around $36-39k to manufacture the EV1. For that price you're getting a very small car with limitations that even a base model Kia can easily surpass.
OTOH, of course, the Prius has shown and a really lackluster car that will not save you any money in fuel costs can sell pretty well (although subsidies and tax breaks help that analysis, and I seriously wonder if Toyota makes any money at all on them), just because it acquired a certain Green Street Cred.
So, I dunno. I tend to think that if it was so obvious and easy to make money on an electric vehicle someone would surely have done so by now.
That Car Guy on January 26, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Anthony: I assume that's $36-39K in 1996 dollars? Ouch!
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 26, 2010 at 03:17 PM
Using the U.S. government's handy-dandy online inflation calculator, that equates to $50,000 or better in today's dollars for a car "with limitations that even a base model Kia can easily surpass."
Holy cost efficiency, Batman!
That Car Guy on January 26, 2010 at 05:28 PM
"Holy 2011 Chevy Volt, Commissioner!"
kenny heggem on January 29, 2010 at 09:58 PM
Why would 3 hours charging not cut it? For some, maybe... but to save ALL that money on fuel/ I will chill in a cafe for a bit... for more sustainable transportation? Sure. To save money? Heck yeah.
If someone wants to drive 100 miles 1-2 days a month....
Rent one. Get something that will get that desiired 150-250 miles that si so crucial those 2 days. Or, have a second inexpensive used car around.
Then enjoy the pennies on the dollar of your 50 mile limit car that will serve 90% of your needs. Seems like a pretty sweet compromise to me.
To the grab and go American, though? Hmmm.
Matt Groom on January 31, 2010 at 09:12 AM
When I was 11, we went on a field trip to EPCOT center and they had an EV-1 on display in a section called "Future Automotive Technology", and the EV-1 was featured on the cover of a nifty booklet they gave out (still got it if you wanna see a scan). I was fascinated by it. It was slated to be in full production in five years, just in time for my 16th birthday, and I was super stoked! Then, they recalled them all and crushed them, which had to be the biggest disappointment GM ever handed me, and I've been a Ford guy ever since (a cardinal sin in my familiy at the time). Never mind that I could have never afforded one at those prices, and still can't.
Recalling and crushing the very few EV-1s out there had to be GM's biggest blunder of the 20th century. If they had simply surrendered the EV-1's to the Lessees, and made them sign a document stating that GM was not responsible for parts, maintenance, death, injury, disembowelment, explosions, maiming, or general mockery the owner's received, they could have turned a market dud with no future into a permanent Green Badge of Innovation. It wouldn't have cost them anything, a aftermarket technology section would have sprang up early, and many EV-1's would still be on the road today.
David M. on January 04, 2011 at 01:38 PM
I think they have a better future than what you say in your last paragraph but really good article overall. Thanks.
I think once a charging infrastructure (hopefully fast chargers) springs up, range will largely be a non-issue. EVs are great second/commuter cars at this point. Would a Leaf with a 60-100 mile be a good only car? Maybe not but for a family with 2 or 3 cars and someone who's daily commute is less than say 30-40 miles, it may be a great car.