Filed under: EV/Plug-in, GM
Veteran journalist John McElroy calls for EV1 revival; too bad it's not that simple
Over on our sister site Autoblog, veteran automotive journalist John McElroy writes a weekly column and this week, he's calling on GM to revive the EV1. Judging by the comments on various posts here on ABGm that's a sentiment many of you could clearly get behind. I've never actually answered that particular question here but since John brought it up I will address it. At first glance it would seem pretty straightforward to just " dust off the CAD data" as John suggests and start building some new ones. The premise, as put forward by John and readers here, is that the engineering has already been done and we just need some tooling and we're off and running.
If it were only that easy. Electric cars like this are full of electronics to make everything work. The EV1 was designed in the early '90s with components that were current (so to speak) at that time. When is the last time you tried to buy a processor for a 10 year old computer? They aren't made any more and companies like Intel and Motorola are unlikely to start making them again no matter how much GM begs. That means most all of the electronics will have to be re-engineered, and the accompanying software will have to be rewritten to work. Then there is the brake system that used bits based on old ABS hardware to do regenerative brake blending. Same story about re-engineering. Then there are the airbags which don't meet current standards. Do you see where I'm going with this? The list goes on and on until we reach the batteries. By the time you're done you might have a car that looks like an EV1 in much the same way that the new Dodge Challenger looks like a 1971 Challenger, but it's a whole new beast. There is also the issue of the EV1 having been designed for low volume production. Making these in large would also require a lot of changes. You would be better off to just design a new car that's more cost effective. Rest in peace EV1; bring on the Volt.
[Source: Autoblog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
hodad66 2:13PM (6/28/2008)
Too bad they didn't keep going with the model instead of crushing them all! The shortsightedness of this nation and Detroit is simply sickening. Imagine being able to buy a 4th generation EV1 tomorrow.
Reply
Sasparilla 2:44PM (6/28/2008)
Not to put too fine a point on it, GM management chose to do low volume/custom production with the EV1 since it didn't require the investment for what would have been a low/no profit 1st gen car - originally it was going to be a mass produced car and was designed as such, so that possibility is still there we're they to revive such a project. Anyone who has read the book about the EV1's development could see it was constantly evolving throughout the design and even production process.
A good question from this would be, is there a market (for people's 2nd/commuting car) for an updated EV1 all electric 2 seater with super aerodynamics and could go way over 200 (probably over 300) miles with Li Ion batts or way over 100 miles with (cheaper?) Nickel Metal Hydride for less than $40k? There definitely is and the lower the price could be worked down, the bigger the market would be.
So, while it wouldn't be a lets just make it like it was project (cheap), it would be a much cheaper project than a full ground up new all electric vehicle. I'd love to see this actually (or a 4 passenger EV1 like they made in a concept car for a plug in hybrid), however my money on a EV from GM will be an all electric version of the Volt. Bob Lutz talked about this directly being his vote for a true zero emissions vehicle for California (other forces in the company wanted to make fuel cell vehicles). This is too bad as I think the Volt is butt ugly and I'd rather buy an EV1, but its where I think GM will go.
Reply
gierkink 2:47PM (6/28/2008)
I bet Chinese and Indian car companies could and would benefit from the 'old' EV design.
Reply
fnc 3:39PM (6/28/2008)
And if they decided to go with NiMH batteries, there's the whole fact that Chevron now has that patent. Way to plan ahead there, GM.
Technology marches a great deal forward in ten years, it's no doubt better to start over with the Volt using what's known today. If it meets with even marginal success, there's no doubt they'll make a 'city' EV only version to move into that market without having to develop an all new car. It will probably have a hard time competing with purposely designed city cars though.
And the Volt is ugly? As far as I know no final shapes have been shown, and it's been stated the concept would in no way work due to its horrible aerodynamics.
Reply
Chris M 5:20PM (6/28/2008)
While some re-engineering would be required, it would be considerably less than designing a new car from scratch, and would probably take less time. For that reason, it is quite common for new car projects to use some parts from other existing cars - it saves time and money.
AFAIK, the only change in safety regs is the advanced airbag mandate, and even that can get a waiver if no suitable advanced airbags are available.
If GM had used a common microprocessor, it might run just fine on a newer version of that microprocessor. After all, it is possible to run older versions of Windows and even MS-DOS on some of the latest Intel or AMD processors. Even if the code had to be edited and tested, it would still likely take less time than writing new code from scratch.
It is also likely that the structural components - frame, body panels, suspension, etc. could be used without alteration.
The Volt project is already using a lot of components and design engineering from the EV1, and many components could end up as common items, thus reducing supply problems and reducing production costs for both Volt and "EV2".
Reply
mguy 5:39PM (6/28/2008)
re: NiMH patents.
If I'm not mistaken (and I certainly might be) it's not actually legal to hold a patent for the sole purpose of suppressing technology. Of course, this is done all the time by big companies with deep pockets and armies of lawyers, but all it takes is a challenge from another deep-pockets company. If GM went to court and said "we're offering a fair royalty, give us access to these batteries" that would be the end of it.
They won't, of course. They want us focusing on the bleeding edge battery technology that will be ready any day now, because they want to delay the electric power train transition for as long as possible. I guess that's an improvement over pointing us to hydrogen fuel cell technology that may or may not be ready in ten to twenty years.
As to the Volt being ugly: Everything GM has produced recently has been cartoonishly hideous. Unless they fire the people who have been designing their bodies, the Volt will be an eyesore, regardless of how closely it matches the concept eyesore from the auto show.
Reply
SolarDave 5:46PM (6/28/2008)
Forget the EV-1; the Toyota RAV4 EV had an 80 mile range and seats 5. Folks get over $50K for them today (4-6 years later) on eBay, and the car is basically the same as the RAV4 so engineering issues are minimized. That one's a no-brainer.
Reply
Tony Belding 6:25PM (6/28/2008)
GM are already working on this, they call it the "Chevy Volt". The Volt promises to be a huge improvement over the EV1.
As for this idea that GM could somehow dust off the blueprints and start cranking out EV1s overnight. . . With his extensive knowledge of the auto industry, McElroy really should know better. It just doesn't work that way.
Sure, GM could put it back into production, but at this point it would actually take longer than getting the Volt onto the market. Given a choice between the EV1 and the Volt, which do you think people would buy? The EV1 was a wonder in its day, but it would be hopelessly obsolete when compared with the new generation of BEVs and PHEVs that are coming Real Soon Now.
Reply
snakesausage 6:30PM (6/28/2008)
What they need to do is sell the body and most of the power component and body designs to a kit car company. They would make the body and subassemblies and you have to do final assembly yourself. Kind of like an Ikea EV1. This would get around the safety regs and would satisfy the relative low volume demand.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 7:22PM (6/28/2008)
It didn't make sense to crush the EV1s, but it doesn't make sense to bring them back now. I'd rather see GM get the Volt done, and maybe make electric versions of some of their other cars. I think an electric (or REEV) minivan is something that a lot of people would be interested in.
Reply
T2 7:25PM (6/28/2008)
" If you want to know how high gas will go, ask yourself how expensive it must get for you to stop using it, that is how high it will go. I don't think $5 is the number, I'd guess more like $10."
copied from a previous poster.
Well, $10 might just do it but I just learned what $6 can do. A local Chevrolet dealer returning from holiday found only two new cars left on his lot but all the new trucks still awaiting sale, and now I hear those remaining cars are gone too !! The dealership is probably tapping into the auction market so the sales guys are still "moving iron", just not any as NEW vehicles.
Too bad that a situation could develop where the lack of inadequate corporate governance/shareholder democracy fails society - this illusion of capitalism under which we live.
The Oshawa plant is shuttered, a dealership has no automobile product and the hybrid won't be ready until late 2010.
As if shareholders need to know why their share price just dipped to 1955 lows.
On the other hand EV-1's with lead-acid batts even, would sell at MRSP as soon as they hit the lot. Almost zero maintenance and free plug-ins everywhere you go. Walmart,BurgerKing,Starbucks will have 120v charging bays for their EV customers. Park with us, they'll say, and get five free "gas" miles every hour you're here. In the past you needed a map for the 220v there was no real interest in establihing EV infrastructure. With the american customer hostage to $7 oil, american business will rise to the occasion and I visualise for a couple years at least free 110v charging outlets everywhere.
The problems someone may have modifying a VOLT microprocessor card for an EV-1 configuration is small potatoes, compared to an ability to pick up free electrical power. It'll be "Keep your Air miles but where can I plug in ?"
T2
Reply
Bill 9:04PM (6/28/2008)
Almost all EV1s had lead-acid batteries, not noted for their longevity in EV applications.
NiMH batteries have been available from Cobasys assuming you met their price and minimum order (GM has ordered them for the mild hybrid Vue Green Line, IIRC).
But the battery technology for the immediate future of EVs is lithium-based chemistries.
Reply
MadScientistMatt 9:06PM (6/28/2008)
I thought the idea of GM dusting off a design that's over 10 years old and putting it into production sounded crazy enough for other reasons. My first thought is that GM takes enough criticism for keeping designs in production past their expiration date (the Cavalier and the 60 degree V6 come to mind). Bringing a 10 year old design back unchanged isn't going to do their reputation for quality any favors. While it is a different segment, jumping in with a deliberately obsolete design isn't going to help them in the long run. Putting the Volt into production would be a much better idea.
As I work in the aftermarket electronics company and we've attempted to keep a device in production for over 5 years with no changes, I can't believe I didn't think of the trouble with sourcing parts.
Reply
UH2L 10:01PM (6/28/2008)
mguy:
Are you blind? The Saturn SKY, Cadillac CTS, Saturn Astra, Chevy Malibu, Pontiac G8, and GMC Acadia are all beautiful vehicles as judged by people in the industry or anybody with some sense of aesthetics.
Hideous would be the new Camry, Maxima, Pilot, etc...
UH2L
Reply
jamesFF 12:52AM (6/29/2008)
I was thinking GM should dust off the plans for the Geo Metro. Of course make a few changes so it will pass today's safety and emissions standards.
Reply
ed 1:31AM (6/29/2008)
Hmmmm.
1. Why people always assume a corporation is the bad guy?
2. You cannot use ownership of a patent to prevent someone else from using it.
3. There's an international agreement that in a "crisis" foreign governments can openly violate any patent. This is the hammer used on pharma companies to reduce drug prices for everyone else on the planet except Americans.
4. No offense but the last thing I'd want to have happen is to get stuck in bad traffic with 10% charge left on a EV. If you're on the side of the road with a dead battery then what? Tow truck?
Unless the EV has some reasonably serious range, nothing under 200+ miles, then I absolutely wouldn't waste my time on it.
5. So you're driving an EV. Now millions of other people are driving EVs. Where the heck is the electricity coming from to charge your cars?
And how precisely are you insulated from massive price increases because now electricity usage has greatly exceeded supply?
Reply
rj 1:37AM (6/29/2008)
to me - any 2 seater is a toy. We don't need toys
Reply
TRF 10:30AM (6/29/2008)
To me any vehicle with more than 2 seats is a disgraceful waste of valuable resources. We don't need more wastefulness.
Reply
Ignatius 11:12AM (6/29/2008)
Well, I have more than one friend, so if I wanted them to fit in my car... well, that wouldn't be possible, now would it?
I'm looking forward to the Volt, but I would have loved to have an EV1...
Reply
Randy C. 11:57AM (6/29/2008)
Don't abandon hope! There are things that can be done to get the EV1 on the road quickly. Airbags, use a system from another car that is being made today like the Cobalt. The only thing to change is a couple of parameters for the new car weight. ABS brakes also use a system from a currently made car etc.
I forgot what this engineering is called but a prime example is the new VW Beetle. Everything on the Beetle that isn't specific to the Beetle design was taken from the Jetta, engine, wheels, suspension, door handles etc. This saved a lot of money and enabled VW to put a unique car on the road much faster.
Reply