Who killed the electric car part II Toyota

[cycledrum]

Originally Posted by octavia

I've wondered about some of the internal history around the EV-1. The sequence of events makes no logical sense. Is it possible that the powers-that-be at GM made decisions out of emotion? I have a hard time believing there isn't more to the story but in the footage I saw, people were looking pretty irritated.

Was it just a simple power struggle? Did the EV go down in flames due to an executive temper tantrum?

GM sure did not capitalize on the battery technology that came out of the EV-1 era, so to speak, while Toyota did capitalize.

At the 2000 Detroit auto show, GM showed a 'Precept' hybrid concept car while Toyota unveiled the Prius for the US.

Trouble is, I think GM's 'hybrid' Precept drivetrain was jacked up. The electric motor drove front wheels while gas motor drove the rears. GM did not have the ingenious 'Power Split Device', the heart of the full hybrid system used in Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD).

Also, GM obviously never marketed the Precept and rest is history with the Prius.

So, with the Volt concept, makes one wonder if GM will ever seriously produce and market that car. I saw out-takes of the WKTEC movie that showed GM trying to use an auxiliary gas engine to recharge an EV-1 like battery in a concept car. Didn't work back then.

GM Unveils Concept Car That Gets 80 Miles A Gallon

^ One of GM's advanced technology 'look at what we can do' cars that they usually never market.

At least that's how I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[blueumbrella]

Originally Posted by cycledrum

GM sure did not capitalize on the battery technology that came out of the EV-1 era, so to speak, while Toyota did capitalize.

I just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" movie again and it appears there was a confluence of parties responsible for the demise of the EV-1. Many industries had reason for not wanting the EV-1 to succeed, but it is hard not to believe that big oil played a big role. They certainly had motive, fearing if battery technology continued to improve and the EV became common place in California, other states may follow in making these same laws. Even if the EV were just 20% of vehicles sold, that is a lot of gas not to sell. General Motors and all the parts manufacturers also had a lot to lose. GM claimed to be losing money on each car with an estimated cost of $80,000 and the lease payments based on a cost of approximately $33,000. The parts manufacturers also would not be selling near the parts and maintenance items. The movie zoomed in on the guy who developed the batteries at the time the car was destroyed. At the time they allowed the car to get between 75 and 150 miles between charges. According to the movie, one of the major oil companies purchased the patents for these batteries, never to be seen again.

I guess the follow-up to this movie may be "The Electric Car that Killed GM".

[Zhentar]

Originally Posted by octavia

I've wondered about some of the internal history around the EV-1. The sequence of events makes no logical sense. Is it possible that the powers-that-be at GM made decisions out of emotion? I have a hard time believing there isn't more to the story but in the footage I saw, people were looking pretty irritated.

Was it just a simple power struggle? Did the EV go down in flames due to an executive temper tantrum?

I think the ultimate EV-1 killer, regardless of any politics around it, were battery life and cold weather performance. If I drove the EV-1 to work one cold, wisconsin winter morning, I wouldn't be driving it home. Add to that batteries with a much shorter working life span than people expect out of automobile components, and a commercially available EV-1 would have been a disaster. GM did the world a favor canning the EV-1, because if they had sold it, the public perception of electric vehicles would have been tainted for a very long time.

Where GM did screw up, and big time, was that after halting the EV-1, they just gave up. Meanwhile, Toyota was working on their Hybrid Synergy Drive, and we all know how that turned out.

[blueumbrella]

Originally Posted by Zhentar

I think the ultimate EV-1 killer, regardless of any politics around it, were battery life and cold weather performance.

I can't imagine this would be true. I believe that ways to cope with the cold would have been developed, just as they have done for the ICE. Even if the EV-1 had not initially gone into the cold climates we still would have benefited. Just think how much further along battery technology may have evolved. If the batteries were so bad, why was the patent for the battery technology used in the late EV-1 models purchased by Standard Oil and taken off the market? This was in 2003.

Originally Posted by Zhentar

Here GM did screw up, and big time, was that after halting the EV-1, they just gave up. Meanwhile, Toyota was working on their Hybrid Synergy Drive, and we all know how that turned out.

Yes GM screwed up, but remember, Toyota was fighting along side GM (in court) against the the California law at the time. The previous head of GM publicly stated several times that GM made a big mistake.

The EV-1 is just one of the nails in the coffin being built.