Why did General Motors kill the electric car?

Question

The EV1 electric car was a very sucessfull electric car that Gereral Motors distroyed after California repealed the clean air act. Now hydorgin full cells are the choice of the con men.

Answer 1

GM did not kill the electric car. The EV-1 was not successful due to a variety of handling problems low mileage between charges and even some safety issues. I worked in a lab that helped develop that car and it amazes me how little of the truth is really known about it. Actually the EPA killed the EV-1 by expecting to much from GM to quick!

Answer 2

I agree that we are being conned with the hydrogen hype.

I worked on the design team at GM that developed the EV1 and it never lived up to the promises that we had hoped for. Now that battery technology has improved it is closer to being what it was intended to be, a commuter vehicle. GM never promoted the EV1 as a commuter vehicle and just tried to slide it in with all the other brands it produced.

When some of the legislature started babbling about how electric vehicles are not totally pollution free because of the coal used to power the electric dynamos no one stepped up to mention that electric vehicles would be charged at night when the dynamos are shunting power to the ground because there is so little power usage at night. You can't just turn off a dynamo, then flick a switch and turn it back on. Charging an EV at night produces no more extra carbon dioxide than is being produced now, and when cleaner means of producing electricity are in use it will be even less.

As with anything new there rumor mongers, con men (for and against) and misinformation surrounding it. Be informed and make your own decision.

Answer 3

The truth is quite simple, ask yourself, can it be a coincidence that not one of the car manufactures even today who make ev cars have made one that doesn't look disgusting. Bmw's ev is ugly as anything and bmw obviously have a history and reputation for aesthetic cars. Also, there is more room to work with without the petrol engine so in theory they should be sexier, lighter and more aesthetic. Ultimately, there is only one logical explanation. The car manufacturers do not want them to become popular and sell. Even hyrbid cars look better (notice they have a combustion engine* Why do you think the car company's were bailed out? Jobs? grow up. The oil company's obviously had huge profits to loose if petrol cars stop selling and they have about 90% of our governments on pay roll. I also suspect Kennedy was assassinated for this reason (yes they had electric car technology then, actually we as a society have had the tech since the 1900's and indeed people used to drive electric cars back then. Educate yourselves, Wake Up.

Answer 4

If there was money to be made on electric cars, people would make them.

Yes, big companies do spend time trying to eliminate competition. But GM couldn't keep Honda, and especially Toyota from basically taking over their market. So I'm pretty sure the days of GM being so all-powerful that they can alone determine the vehicles which are available to the public.

That Tesla Roadster mentioned costs 98,000 as a base cost. You could buy a much larger BMW (530xi) and you wouldn't pay off the car for 400,000 miles. Yeah, electric cars are cheaper. That's a comparison to a luxury car with options and premium package.

Answer 5

If there is money in making electric cars why doesn't a new manufacturer start up to make them? The reality is that they are not viable alternatives for most people. Families don't fit in them and if you have to drive long distances they won't make it. At best you would need a conventional car as a backup. Wouldn't the manufacturing of the second car consume more energy than you would save in the first place? Don't even talk about saving money, you could only get service from a dealer with factory parts. Not many people could afford the maintenance. Most complex issues are made easier when you don't look at the details and only consider a few broad allegations that may or may not be true.

Answer 6

Until the government grows a set of nuts and passes legislation making car companies increase MPG and run off of alternative fuels then they will not. As we knoe the government will not do that because the Oil Companies and the Saudi's are the biggest lobbyist in Washington. I think that we should move to be free of oil imports. And yes this can be done Brazil strived to make itself free of oil imports after the oil crisis in the 1970's and has been very effective. We have 100 million more people than Brazil, but we also have a much more technilogical country. I would love to see us come up with a way to be oil free.

Answer 7

The electric car is pointless if the power plant they recharge from is burning fossil fuel. It effectively just moves the exhaust pipe from under the car to the smokestack. Even if that problem was solved with hydro, nuclear, wind, or solar power, employers or whoever are eventually going to see the electric bills rise and make everyone recharge at home, where the mothly utility bill will go up just like the gasoline bill used to.

Answer 8

It was too successful.As you well know the auto manufacturers and the fuel (read oil) suppliers are in bed with each other, it was apparent after a year that the electric car filled a real need. None the less, it was to the advantage of the oil industry to continue use of the diesel and gasoline powered engines. But hold on! There may be hope for us all; Dr Jerry Woodall, PhD, Purdue University has developed a cheap and efficient way to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen..so a fuel cell is obsolete, and the car runs on hydrogen, and has water as a byproduct..It's a fairly simple way of using aluminum metal and gallium to generate hydrogen.. if this sounds interesting, Googl Dr Woodall, and read all about it, and his interview with Glen Beck on CNN.. Good news for all of us!

Answer 9

i saw the movie too and i thought it was fantastic, i think GM was pressured to make sure it would fail and never be released for sale and when it didn't fail they removed them by force and had them all destroyed, i think the EV1 worked to well and GM and other un named companies (i think oil) know that early on, and forced the destruction of the models, which makes me wonder how many times this has happened

and on the other question GM and other companies can make more money from hydrogen and ethanol because its still a fuel and you still havet to buy it, electric cars were limit less except for a plug in at night that barely used any power. see it worked to well, it was a great car for the consumer but not the auto companies

Answer 10

The electric car was cheaper to operate then normal cars.

The EV1 could drive 75-to-150 miles ( on average roughly 110 miles.) per charge with Gen 2 Avionic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Fully loaded these batteries would contain 26.4 kWh of energy. If I use the average U.S. electricity price (9.82 cents/kWh.) I calculate that the EV1 would use: 9.82*26.4= 259 cents --->2.59$ for 110 miles. This is 2.36 cents/mile.
Based on the average fuel consumption of American cars, which is 27.5 miles per gallon, and the price per gallon, which is 2.23$/gallon, it costs 8.92$ to drive an ordinary car 110 miles making the cost of the electric car to 29% the fuel cost of ordinary cars.

The batteries lasted longer then the cars themselves.
Also, the cars were never massproduced which ould have driven down the manufacturing costs significantly.

The Tesla Roadster currently have a fuel cost of 2 cents/mile
and emits 1/10 of the of the pollution. It takes about 3.5 hours to fully charge the batteries which lasts over 200 miles per charge.