We Really Are Getting So Screwed

Forget gas being so much, we've been screwed because we do not have a true EV in this country.

For people like me, who almost never drive more than 150 miles in any given day, the EV would be perfect.

I would love to have a car that had no emissions, no moving parts to fail, no trips to the dealer and no need for gasoline provided to us by those who hate us.

I can't have one though (except the Tesla Roadster), because Big Oil, GM, CARB and the Federal Government felt threatened and the average ignorant American Consumer didn't know enough to protest.

GM killed the EV1, citing several reasons that are debatable such as lack of demand, not wanting to continue supplying replacement parts or service for the cars, etc. The real reason: If Americans found out that they could drive 150 miles on $5 of electricity in a car that didn't have parts to break, many of us would flock to them like we've never seen. If they found out they could drive 300 miles on $15, this would spell then end of many profitable cars and require them to produce less profitable ones.

Big Oil killed the EV until 2014 when their patent expires on the NiMH batteries necessary to give EVs the range we need in a car (300 miles on a charge).

CARB dropped their ZEV program under pressure from the Government, who we know is in bed with Big Oil. The Government has also been doing more good lately for the profitability of Corporate America than for the American people.

Furthermore, not only did the Government act to protect the profits of Exxon, Texaco and Shell, but they acted to protect the profits of GM and Ford, and worse, they are currently throwing money at hydrogen fuel cells like they are a godsend. Newsflash, no one has a plan to sell any hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in the US, EVER.

The American Consumer, once again, did not investigate for themselves and were turned off by the idea of the electric car. They believed the misleading statements made by Big Oil and the automotive industry regarding EVs. If they understood the truth about the cars, they would have demanded them sooner and for less money. In the free market economy, this would have forced their production on a mass scale.

What really disturbs me about this is that in my lifetime, the only thing that has been of any promise for cutting our dependence on foreign oil has been the EV. Hybrids are nice, but they still use gas and with most Ford and GM hybrids being trucks and SUVs, they aren't helping cut our dependence much. GM is teasing us right now with the Volt, but if you really investigate, it is nothing more than a Hybrid with the ability to go 40 miles with only the electric motor. BTW, it won't be ready until 2012, but what do you want to bet it never sees production.

What bullsnip, GM had a car, the EV1 that with the battery technology of the Rav4 EV, could have gone 300 miles on one charge. They had it in 1997 and now they're telling us the best they can do is a Volt with a 40 mile range and it will not be to market by 2012 if ever. Quite frankly that is a cop-out. I sat in a 1999 EV1 and I've seen it driven on the highways in Michigan, it was the future of the automobile.

What is really tragic about the EV program was that GM crushed all but a handful of their EV1 cars when they returned from lease. The rest were given to museums and engineering schools. However, they had their controllers and batteries removed and when you take one, you agree never to make it drivable in any fashion. The former EV1 lesses wanted to keep their cars so badly and offered to pay $25,000 for each one to buy it from GM. Instead of selling the cars for 1.9M and stating they were "as is, no warranty", they crushed them. There was no provision in the lease agreement to buy the car, so the lesses had no legal recourse and had to watch their cars be destroyed. Nissan, Honda and Ford did the same thing, although because some Ford dealers used a standard lease form, which included the right to buy the vehicle at lease end, Ford had to sell several of them to individuals. Several others Rangers were sold via a lottery to former lease holders, but the remaining Rangers were crushed.

Toyota still has Rav4 EVs on the road in Cali, because they had the wisdom to keep customers happy. They are now 7 years old and all are still running on their original batteries and still getting 150-200 mile range. I sincerely hope that Toyota sees the EV as the future and devotes time, money and engineering power into EVs so I can one day drive a car that helps us eliminate our dependency of foreign oil.

Sounds exactly like the synopsis of a documentary fairly recently - "Who Killed the Electric Car?" They blamed the consumers, oil companies, auto manufacturers, Government, CARB, and competing technologies (Hydrogen fuel cell) as the guilty parties in the eventual demise of EV vehicles.

I personally wouldn't blame GM that much - I mean they stuck their necks out there and commited close to a billion dollars of research into the project. Sure they could have handled the end of lease option better - but I think they were covering themselves from potential liability (remember - they initially had preorders for 5000 units - but when the cars came, less than a 100 were leased immediately - the rest of the preorder consumers backed out). Because of this - many of the subcontractors pulled production on replacement components and jumped ship. If I was the car manufacturer - I wouldn't let anyone have a car that didn't have any spares available.

Plus the lone EV1 at the Smithsonian - anyone heard of the rumors that when it disappeared from display for a few weeks for maintenance - a bunch of people were spouting conspiracy theories on why it disappeared. Come on - they pull displays all the time to clean them up.

IMO, the biggest thing that killed these early EVs - was that they came out too early - remember that gas was on the order of $1.00 to a $1.25 a gallon. Not much incentive to lease a car with new tech for $299/month back in 1996. Though they did eventually crank out something like 8000 units - some got shipped overseas somehow and are still around. The NiMH conspiracy - I don't buy it. NiMH is superior tech over SLA types - but still not the perfect solution. You can't completely discharge the cell and you cannot fully recharge it - to maximize life span. Something like 60-70% discharge to 80-90% recharge to capacity - you can improve on it somewhat, if you can control the heat.

Want to reduce dependance on oil - have people stop buying gas guzzlers. Auto makers and oil companies are around to make money - if people stop buying the larger, thirsty, more profitable vehicles - then they will make smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. If everybody refused to buy an SUV or truck or sports car, and buy a little "electric city" car - manufacters will change accordingly to make sure they still make money. As long as the market exists to buy such profitable vehicles, EVs will continue to be pushed off to the right. The ICE has come a long way, todays tech can squeeze more power , better economy, and cleaner emissions out of a drop of gas that was never though possible a decade ago.

I digress, the ICE certainly is a far different animal than it was 30 years ago.

It is truly a feat of engineering that my Solara can rocket down the freeway at 85 mph and still achieve 31 mpg. At 75 mph, it will attain 34 MPG on purly highway driving with no AC.

What I was speaking to was the fact that most domestic autos do not achieve the fuel economy of their Japanese counterparts and their "Hybrids" are mostly trucks and SUVs, which still do not get better fuel economy than a Camry Sedan.

Maybe the EV was a car before its time, but it was foolish to destroy them. Those cars may not have been the answer when gas was cheap, but it would sure be nice to have them this summer when gas is predicted to hit $4.00 a gallon. Had they kept the cars around and continued to research battery technology, they could be selling us a small, limited range EV right now for a reasonable price. Instead, as I stated in my original post they have promised us the Volt, a car no better than the 1997 EV1 in terms of range. It will not be available until at least 2012, if ever.

I guess my real problem is this: Every time I drive home from school, I burn 3 gallons or so of gas. The 1999 EV1 would get me home with 20 or 30 miles to spare on its range at a much lower fuel cost. In the amount of time I keep a car, I would not have to replace any batteries, and so maintenance costs would be significantly less than my Solara.

I'm not saying that the EV is for everyone, I'm just saying that if people really thought about what they needed in a car, many of us would be driving something different. Ninety percent of the Trucks and SUVs I see on the highway have one person in them and I'd be willing to bet that they aren't business vehicles or used for towing a camper or a boat. It is wasteful, plain and simple. I'm not saying everyone should drive a Yaris, but a Camry is far more sensible than a 4 Runner for most people and it would help us reduce our oil dependence.

Gas at $4 a gallon? That equates to an oil price of $137 a barrel......given that gasoline inventories are now at their lighest levels since jan '94 and oil inventories are better than they were during most of 03/04 and during 2000 if it gets to $4 a gallon it won't be due to market fundamentals.....

I have a family member who works for big oil (which company I won't mention).

He is an oil futures analyst and a good one at that, and for the past 5 years every time he has foretold an increase in gas prices, not only was he spot on when it would come, but how much the price would go up.

He predicts gas at $4.00 a gallon by June as a national average and as high as $4.75 in some places.

I'm holding my breath because at that rate, my Solara will cost $72 to fill up. That $72 will only get me 365 miles.

If I had an electric car than used $8 of electricity to go 150 miles, it would cost me $16 to drive 300 miles.

In the world of ICE cars that would be like getting 75 mpg in my Solara if gas was $4.00 a gallon.

For cars like the Rav4 EV, the figure is even better, its lighter weight makes it more efficient as an electric car.

Even though G.M., Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Toyota and particularly GM have the ability to reproduce those late 1990s and early 2000 EV tomorrow, I can not see that happening. Since GM considered the EV1 a failure and it was the best selling of the lot, I don't see any of these companies reentering the market until one is large.

Where we will see an EV come from first is from an auto company that doesn't have 50 or 100 years in the auto industry in the US. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pioneering the mass produced, affordable electric car with limitations that virtually everyone can live with. That company will make money hand over fist like G.M. and Ford used to in the mid 20th century.

Personally I believe that company will either be Japanese, Korean or Chinese.

The reason I believe this is because Japan has several heavy industry companies that could focus their efforts on a competitive electric car and do it well. Mitsubishi is an example of this, they make everything from ocean cargo carriers to generators to plasma televisions and cars. There are others and who says they could not focus on the electric car instead of ICE cars?

If Japan doesn't do it, Korea will. Their offerings like Kia and Hyundai have done well here recently and who is to say that they couldn't use their up and coming image as an auto producing country to successfully launch an EV?

China could and would do it too if there was a market for it. If and when they enter the US auto industry, they could make a name for themselves by supplying the first successful EV.

What is keeping the EV from market isn't lack of technology, its lack of consumer interest and lack of manufacturer interest. Consumer interest will change rapidly if fuel becomes scarce and or expensive. While Detroit, Honda and Toyota have proved they are capable of EVs, they seem to be apprehensive in bringing them to market, even if there is demand. An up and coming, new company might view the EV as its only shot to make it by carving out a portion of the market that is neglected by the others. That line of thinking has given us almost all of our best products and ideas.

Sure, we could bring in just EVs - but we could have similar issues with big electricity having a monopoly, manipulating the market etc. That is wwhy whilst EVs are a sound idea, it needs to be just one of a couple of alternatives. Also, things like planes and motorbikes can't really be EVs, they need to be light, well packaged etc. so biofuels could work for these...

Cars are the only thing I'm talking about being EVs, and I don't know about in Australia, but there is no such thing as Big Electricity in the US. Almost every state is served by at least 2 electricity companies, and in most states, those companies are heavily regulated concerning what prices they can charge and how much power they must provide.

Furthermore, EVs would be recharged at night most of the time, when the electric grid is not experiencing peak demand. At non peak demand times, electricity falls to almost half of what it costs during the day.

Don't forget the <a href="http://www.allpar.com/corporate/electric-cars.html">electric minivans</a> - these were made over a decade ago and some are still on the road. GM's coming back wiht the Volt. I think that if the EV1 was really long-term practical, they'd be all over it rather than spending billions on the Volt. That said, if not for the "anything pre-German is crap" rule -- now amended to "anything pre-Private Equity is crap" -- we'd be seeing another series of those electric minivans. It's really just about the perfect vehicle to go all electric since there's lots of battery space.

And yes, I agree that the average American could raise their gas mileage 10 mpg by getting the car they really need, not the one they THINK they need.

Don't forget the <a href="http://www.allpar.com/corporate/electric-cars.html">electric minivans</a> - these were made over a decade ago and some are still on the road. GM's coming back wiht the Volt. I think that if the EV1 was really long-term practical, they'd be all over it rather than spending billions on the Volt. That said, if not for the "anything pre-German is crap" rule -- now amended to "anything pre-Private Equity is crap" -- we'd be seeing another series of those electric minivans. It's really just about the perfect vehicle to go all electric since there's lots of battery space.

And yes, I agree that the average American could raise their gas mileage 10 mpg by getting the car they really need, not the one they THINK they need.

The Volt is not an electric car, it is a serial Hybrid. Chevy's commercial for the Volt makes it seem like it is an electric car, but it is not.

The EV1 was long term practical, but for GM there was this dichotomy between the clean, efficient and non polluting EV1 and a Suburban. The EV1 was too good, if it had ever been mass marketed people would have expected other EVs too. The problem was that GM saw no way to make money on the EV and saw the Suburban as a cash cow.

GM will never bring back the EV1, despite the fact that is was and still is the answer to the perfect commuter car. Its called pride, they will never admit that they made a mistake and they certainly won't admit that they gave up what could have been a 3-4 year lead over other manufacturers in the EV market.

As for the Chrysler Minivans, yes I remember those too. They are able to go further than an EV1 because of the space factor. More batteries equals more range. Even with the second generation EV1s range of 120 miles on a charge, I could easily drive one 99% of the time. If the Rav4 EV had the modern Li-ion batteries, it could go 250 miles on 1 charge, which would work for many, many people.

Ignored by many people is the fact that most nations DO have unused electrical capacity - at night. Peak power is made during the day. The problems would come during the dog days of summer when a/c units run at homes and electric cars might just require the use of dirty peaking plants.

Solar power is great among other things because it reduces peak power load, which has more of an impact on the grid than nonpeak load. Some utilities even do things like pump water into a lake at night so they can generate hydro during the day. That avoids building and running a (usually dirty) peaking plant.

I don't know how long-term-practical the EV1 was. The Dodge TEVan was designed so that the batteries could all be replaced relatively easily by standard parts (it also had an automatic battery watering system!). I don't know if the EV1 was designed to allow access to the batteries. As one who has had an a/c evaporator replaced, I can tell you that access is a bigger deal than you might think! Cheap parts become very expensive when they're buried.

My personal belief is that there's truth on both sides of the EV1 story. I think GM was thinking about its liability and the potential for lawsuits when they destroyed 'em, and I think they were just saving face later when they said it would be impossible to re-do what they'd already done - after blowing their lead. Then again, if electric cars were that easy to make, wouldn't someone be doing it?