Filed under: EV/Plug-in, GM, AutoblogGreen Exclusive, Green Daily, At Witz End
At Witz' End: GM EV1 - The Real Story, Part III
NOTE: If you missed them, you can read parts one and two.High tech development, market launch and retreat
Because its 1,175-pound pack of 27 advanced lead-acid (PbA) batteries - 26 propulsion, one for accessories - held a mere half-gallon of gasoline-equivalent energy, the production EV1 would have to be an incredibly efficient teardrop-shaped two-seater to achieve even barely acceptable range. Stretching it to accommodate four passengers would have reduced its already very modest range some 25 percent due to added weight and aero drag.
"The fundamental variables are mass, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, accessory loads and driveline efficiency," says Bob Purcell, who was our Advanced Technology Vehicles (ATV) Div. Executive Director. "So the exercise was to ensure that we would meet all customer requirements using the least possible energy in each of those areas."
Continue reading after the jump.
Breakthrough technologies
That effort brought breakthrough technologies such as the first heat pump automotive heater/air conditioner, electro-hydraulic power steering and electro-hydraulic, power-blended regenerative braking. "In every way, that car was the ultimate statement of energy efficiency," Purcell asserts, "and many of the benchmarks it established still stand today."
Our tireless ATV engineering team had to rethink and, in many cases, redesign virtually every element of the modern automobile. One major issue was noise. Once you've "drained the swamp" of the entire spectrum of internal combustion propulsion system sounds, a lot of other noises that you never knew were there rise up out of the dramatically lowered level. Every motor, pump and mechanical system had to be significantly hushed, and while the turbine-like whine of the "traction" (drive) motor might be heard as a positive by some, the louder, harsher noise of the step-down gearset definitely would not. It was a major challenge.
Even with standard traction control, cruise control, AM/FM/Cassette/CD premium audio, power anti-lock brakes, tire inflation monitoring (for weight and packaging reasons, EV1 was the first production GM vehicle with no spare tire), power windows, mirrors and steering and dual airbags, EV1's total weight was just 2,970 lb. Its aluminum structure - 162 pieces bonded together with aerospace adhesive, spot welds and rivets - weighed less than 10 percent of that. The exterior body panels were dent-resistant, corrosion-proof SMC and RRIM composites. With a near-perfect aero shape perfected by many hours of wind-tunnel tuning, its drag coefficient was an astounding 0.19, unmatched by any volume vehicle before or since.
Powered by a 137-hp 3-phase AC induction motor through a dual-reduction gearset with an overall ratio of 10.946:1, it was capable of strong, smooth performance (like the Impact, about eight seconds 0-60) and respectable handling on its narrow, 50-psi, low-rolling resistance tires, though its top speed was electronically limited to 80 mph. Gently driven in warm ambient temperatures, it could squeeze out 50-70 miles in city driving, somewhat more on the highway. It could be recharged in 3-4 hours using GM's innovative, all-weather "inductive" charging on its standard 220-volt charger or 12-16 hours on its 110-volt compact convenience charger.
Market acceptance?
Everyone at GM ATV understood that demand for an expensive two-seater with very limited range would not be strong. But we knew from our 1993-94 PrEView Drive, which put EV1 prototypes into daily use with regular folks for three months at a time that people loved the cars and learned to live with their limitations. Market research said that most peoples' daily commutes were well within EV1's range, and it would be most households' second, third or even fourth vehicle. Owners would simply choose a different ride for longer drives. And we knew that GM's customer-friendly Saturn dealers would take excellent care of EV1 owners.We also knew that long-term success would depend absolutely on advancing battery technology. Our '99 EV1's much more expensive available nickel-metal hydride NiMH batteries could hold nearly twice the PbA pack's energy, stretching its range to a still-inadequate 130-140 miles. But the lithium-polymer chemistries being developed by 3M Corp. and others - which promised gasoline-competitive size, weight, cost and range - never panned out.
For several reasons – limited production volume due to component (especially battery), availability, unacceptable cold-weather range and very limited public-charging opportunities offered by cooperative electric utilities – EV1s were marketed at first only in Los Angeles, CA and Phoenix and Tucson, AZ. Two more cities, San Francisco and Sacramento, CA soon followed, but the optional '99-model NiMH batteries were not offered in Arizona because, at that early stage of their development, they performed very poorly in hot weather.
Dismal disappointment
Critics contend that GM didn't try hard enough to publicize EV1s. I thought the ads I saw were pretty good, and I know our PR team worked very hard with media to get the word out and provide test vehicles to auto writers in those areas, because I was heavily involved with that effort. ATV/Saturn's EV1 ad budget may have been limited after the initial launch (lots of other GM products also needed major promotion at the time), but I can't imagine that any potential customers were unaware that EV1s were available at Saturn dealers in those five markets.
Still, the EV1 was a fairly high-priced, low-range two-seater. How many two-passenger non-sports cars have succeeded in America in our lifetimes? Zero. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, only 500 '97 EV1s were built and 400 leased. That dismal performance was followed by about the same numbers of '99 Gen II cars (there were no '98s), some with optional NiMH batteries. At that point, GM gave up and pulled the (ahem) plug. Until a practical, affordable gas-competitive battery technology could be developed, there would be no GM EV2 or EV3.
Not surprisingly, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chrysler and every other automaker with volume EV aspirations also gave up for the same reason, and California was eventually persuaded to give up its ill-considered sales mandate of technology that was nowhere near market ready.
Those aware of serious liability risks with aging 300-plus-volt batteries, and state laws requiring parts and service support for decades after vehicles are sold, should understand why GM chose to lease, not sell, these early technology EVs. And why they had to be recalled and destroyed when their leases were up. As we well know, that necessity made those 800 or so lessees - people who genuinely loved their EV1s and did not want to give them up - extremely unhappy.
But don't let anyone try to tell you that GM wanted that program to fail. You don't table it, revive it, then do everything we did - and invest at least a billion precious development dollars - on a product you don't want to succeed. From CEO Jack Smith down to those of us who worked our proverbial tails off to make it work, everyone at GM desperately wanted it to.
Next time: Lessons learned as applied to hybrid development.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
meme 4:37PM (9/05/2008)
I see you didn't answer my question from last time: I asked, when you stated that you did everything possible to keep the price down, why the vehicle wasn't based at all on an existing platform. Everyone knows that low volume = high price. Yes, you needed to make it more aerodynamic, and that could have cost you some performance, but it looks like you threw price right out the window, but then turned around and used price as an excuse to kill the program. It looks like you never intended the vehicle to be profitable but then used its lack of profitability as the reason for its death.
I assume you'll address this as some point? I sure hope so. Otherwise, it's not going to reflect very positively on you.
Reply
tankd0g 9:43PM (9/05/2008)
Existing platforms at the time weighed more than the whole EV1 with passengers did.
Tim 4:48PM (9/05/2008)
There was also absolutely no explanation as to why they were destroyed. Lots of car programs have failed, including GMs, but they aren't usually all destroyed the second the plug is pulled. It only makes sense to sell them and regain as much money as possible.
Reply
Jameson 5:01PM (9/05/2008)
Second paragraph from the bottom. Whether or not you believe that explanation is up to you, but he did say it.
Paul Sallmen 4:57PM (9/05/2008)
Hmm... if I were GM I would've done more what Toyota did with their RAV 4 EV - they should have sold about 200 of those EV1s to lessees (determined by lottery or an auction). Then they could've used the remaining 600 EV1s as parts cars. Financially, this may not have made much sense, but it sure would've helped them in the PR department. Furthermore, they would've had a much better idea of the longevity of the cars as these cars would now be about 10 years old. Still, I'm sure they did learn a lot from the EV1, which will be incorporated into the Volt.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 5:05PM (9/05/2008)
Of course, Price is the key issue.
Today, you could sell at least 50,000 of these priced at $25,000, and maybe 500 of these priced at $100,000.
What your unit cost is, only GM knows for sure. And unit cost is tied into your planned production volume. Anyway, today, Honda plans a small premium of approx. $2000 for it's next "prius like" hybrid. One of the battery companies says they can cut the cost of battery production in half if they sell 50,000 units...
So, today, it looks like a New EV1 is Viable.
What's this about the aerodynamic drag increasing because you stretch the car to a 2+2? That's a new "fact".
Reply
Jameson 5:20PM (9/05/2008)
Why put "fact" in quotes? The author is an engineer talking about engineering issues. Considering he was involved in the development he would know these things. If you want to see another example of 2 seater vs. 4 seater look at the original Insight vs. the Prius.
Mike!!ekiM 7:05PM (9/05/2008)
Because it sounds like bull.
The primary factor in areodynamic drag is Frontal Area. Increasing the length of a car should have only a very minor impact on aerodynamics.
Jameson 8:50PM (9/05/2008)
Frontal area is just as important as drag coefficient and messing with the teardrop shape they were going for could easily make a difference. Plus, he did say the 25% drop was due to weight and drag.
why not the LS2LS7? 2:49AM (9/06/2008)
Honda's IMA has zero engine-off range. As such, the Honda needs far less battery capacity (and cost) than any EV.
Matt Lenart 6:35PM (9/05/2008)
"still-inadequate 130-140 miles"
doesn't seem to list any positives from this project, focusing mostly on their "inadequate" first-gen Pb-A battery. this guy is losing credibility FAST and just wants to clean up GM's image in the wake of this PR nightmare.
one question he fails to answer is:
why are there still RAV4 EV's on the road getting 80,000k and 80 miles/charge w/ ZERO publicity?!?!?!??!
another one is:
why did chevron buy controlling stock of their "inadequate" large format NiMH batteries, and subsequently manufactured NONE?
last question is:
if they did everything possible to raise public awareness of this electric car, why is it that hardly anyone knows they ever existed?
i guess the 40 mile range of the 201x VOLT is more adequate than that of the 130-140 mile gen2 EV1.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 2:45AM (9/06/2008)
You have no credibility yourself. Just a line of babbly. The Volt can go a lot farther than 40 miles.
cazancoz 2:04PM (9/15/2008)
I agree that 130-140 miles was more than adequate. The author himself, admits that the majority of those who leased the car LOVED THE CAR, and LEARNED TO LIVE WITH ITS LIMITATIONS.
@why not the LS2LS7?: Matt is talking about the Volt's electric only range, which is supposed to be around 40 miles.
Brian 7:15PM (9/05/2008)
So, you're saying the Saturn / Ev1 woman on "Who Killed the Electric Car" is wrong. I guess one of you is not telling the story accurately of whether GM really pushed these cars. One of you is an engineer and the other is in sales / marketing. So, I just wonder if you got the whole story.
Reply
Bill 8:34PM (9/05/2008)
This article shows how much EV design is driven by the battery technology available at the time.
The enourmous size and weight of the lead-acid batteries available at the time meant the vehicle had to use more expensive aluminum (so it couldn't be based on an existing steel body), and had to have the lowest CoD possible.
Only 10 years later we're now talking about a lithium-based pack for the Volt, but with better power delivery and longer service life than the EV1's lead-acid pack, and which weighs roughly 1000 lbs. less.
Reply
ryan 9:27PM (9/05/2008)
The fact that the RAV4 EV was successfully SOLD to people and still fetches amazing prices on ebay would tend to, as Matt said, go against the whole argument that GM couldn't sell the EV1s to people due to battery liabilities. Toyota is an incredibly careful company that is very risk-averse. They STILL won't commit to using Li-ion batteries! I personally can't imagine how a sealed off battery module system could put the driver of a car in any danger if it were designed so that they would never come in contact with it. Even gas-powered cars sometimes spontaneously combust (talking from experience), so that kind of danger can't be linked to the EV having high voltage batteries.
One must be careful in giving too much credit to the average American consumer though. This is a country where totally impractical cars like Suburbans, Hummers, and the worst of all, pick-up trucks (bought by those not involved in heavy industry work), have had exceptional sales. The people who buy these obviously have no ability to distinguish their needs from their wants. These same people have their cabins, 200+ miles away, and they need to make trips out there in the summer. 130-140 miles WON'T get them there! In their mind, that instantly kills the prospects of owning an EV1.
Reply
Bill 9:43PM (9/05/2008)
GM clearly had technical difficulties moving from lead-acid (almost all of the EV1s) to NiMH packs.
And as the article states, cost was and is also an issue - replacement NiMH packs for the RAV EV are over $25,000 (wikipedia) - you can see why lead-acid was the more attractive option.
buzz 9:34PM (9/05/2008)
Thanks. Much more information content than Part II. Seems feasible that EV1's only needed to be sold in CA to meet the ZEV compliance so why push it into AZ if it's too hot for the NiMH? I agree that the ads I saw were good and on target. Seems that most of these cost issue were quite predictable. What production-cost model was GM working toward when they started this program?
@meme's question deserves an answer. I kind want to know the reverse... they spent all this $$ on new technology (and some was quite important for present hybrids&EVs) but didn't seem to flow it into the larger market. The efficiencies of light weight and a 0.19 Cd could certainly have helped the gas-burning segment of GM's line get better than the paltry mileage they do now. Seems like there must be more to the story.
Reply
Stan-O 10:07PM (9/05/2008)
A few things made me wonder -- a "billion precious development dollars" and then only 500 units manufactured (first year)? I wonder what kind of the ad budget there was if they only intended to reach less than 500 people?
Also, seeing how stocked the GM dealers are with the cars, I also wonder what percentage of the pre-order or immediate sale is acceptable to GM in the non-fleet passenger car market?
EV1 sold 80% of the first year run, how much better do the other GM models do in the non-fleet leases?
Reply
ug 11:12PM (9/05/2008)
I'm sorry, but 100 miles on a charge is more than adequate if you plug in each night. People are used to 300 mile ranges in gas cars because they don't hit up the gas station every day in their commutes.
Reply