GM EV1

Page 1 of 4  
(Car Lust) - In 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 they had some good reasons to be enthusiastic...
Continued: http://tr.im/EV1GM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave U. Random wrote:

GM killing the EV1 was one of their biggest screwups. If GM had followed up on the EV1 they would own the electric vehicle market but they were-GM.
--
Civis Romanus Sum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do a search and you will discover the federal government REQUIRED GM to destroy every EV1. It was built as a purely experimental vehicle, under an exception to the federal EPA and NHTSA regulations. It could not be sold, only leased for the one year test and then destroyed.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So? They could have made and sold an almost identical model that wasn't experimental while they were crushing the current ones instead of scrapping the whole program. They could have told the people with the check for the last 78 (iirc) cars that federal regs forbid them from getting the exact car they had back but that they would get alternate vehicles instead for that money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Daniel who wants to know wrote:

Or they could have just built a vehicle powered by water and made BILLIONS.
The EV1 was and EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE, GM was required to crush them. Get over it and move on. Bitching and crying about "what if" is STUPID.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do you have any idea how much time and money it costs a manufacturer just to certify a vehicle to meet all of the NHTSA and EPA regulations? The crash testing alone take several years and every variations must meet CAFE standards

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

good point; don't forget to add to that the redesign/remaching time needed for any parts deemed to fail in crash tests to bring them up to standard; it might be as simple as doubling the thickness of the sheet being stamped; that dieset has to be adjusted accordingly, and the machine time has to be found between other scheduled work; a single part could add months to the delay
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:53:34 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

This might be true if you're the Wright Brothers, working out of a bycicle shop.
But, considering the size and resources of GM, it seems like it could be a six month project.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You obviously have not concept of what it takes for a manufacturer to meet NHTSA and EPA regulations, it that is what you choose to believe. LOL
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:54:52 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

I just watched a show on the History Channel where they claimed that the B-17 bomber went from drawing to roll-out in little over a year.
Of course, that's back when we had real companys, and real craftsmen working there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
More importantly, it was way before CAFE, the EPA and the NHTSA got into the car business LOL
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:08:23 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

When congress enacted emissions controls, it's rumored that Detroit hired a hundred lawyers to fight the law... while Japanese automakers hired a hundred engineers to solve the problem.
You must admit that modern cars are safer in a crash run cleaner, with less emissions start and run reliably with less routine maintenance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are correct it was only a rumor.
What they were objecting to was the "days certain" in the CAFE and NHTSA regulations at which they would be required to meet those standards.
If it were not for "days certain," rather than goals to be met, we would have the safer, more fuel efficient vehicles we have today, ten to fifteen years sooner and the vehicles would not be anywhere near as expensive.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Funny how CAFE standards were designed to keep inexpensive imports out and now are a noose around Government Motors heads.
LMAO. They behaved like government before they were government. Right down to all that unaccounted for government moneys.
On 26/01/2010 10:53 AM, Mike Hunter wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Once again our friend Canuck57 is telling us the sky is falling. LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes I do and it takes ages sometimes. I personally try to stay level headed about things most of the time. Obviously I am pro Prius and pro BEV (though I own neither) but I am aware of the downsides. I read somewhere a study talking about the fuel savings ROI vs. watthour of battery capacity and it falls off fast as you go from full hybrid to PHEV to BEV. In other words a Prius has a smallish battery pack and reduces fuel usage by 50% whereas a BEV has a huge battery and cuts it 100%. I don't like PHEVs because I am the type that would end up having the car have to burn fuel just to keep what is in the tank from going bad.
I think the general public needs to be better educated about the world around them and I think companies should stop using blanket terms in inappropriate ways such as:
3G instead of EVDO or HSDPA when describing a cellular data network. (app vs. map anyone?)
Oil labeled as synthetic when it really isn't (Castrol Syntec)
Hybrid vehicle referring to everything from the Toyota THS/HSD full hybrids to the GM BAS system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe we have been over this before...By definition, it is.
If you want something that is truly synthetic, how far back in the chain do you have to go? Carbon and hydrogen?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not to mention that for the car to sell it would have had to go for about 30k, the car cost 100k to manufacture and another US $3500 for the charging station you needed in order to actually charge the thing.
Great idea, LOUSY execution. AND GM was hoping for a grant to manufacture them under the Clinton administration that never materialized (because the administration simply didn't have the money).
In short.. it was a cost-ineffective rolling ecological disaster (because of the heavy metals in the batteries).
Another GM fail.
--
,,|,, O_O ,,|,,

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The intent was to evaluate the concept, not bring it to market.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

They still failed.
--
Civis Romanus Sum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.