Find Reviews by Make:
22 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: 230 to Yuma Edition...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Can’t quite read it. Print is too small.
Is the “fuel economy” actually being given in Kilowatt-Hours per hundred miles, just because it happens to be in numbers that look “impressive” (at the time) in miles per gallon terms?
That it can’t compete with the mileage of the Volt.
BTW, back in about 93 or 94, I recall being behind a EV1 as it took the ramp from SB I-75 to WB I-696, and when that car accelerated, it took off like a rocket…
I just watched “Who Killed the Electric Car” last night. Apparently the EV1 was Jesus himself reincarnate.
Gm actually had a 10 year head start on everyone with the EV-1. How sad,.
GS650G :
October 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Gm actually had a 10 year head start on everyone with the EV-1. How sad,.
Not really… almost all car companies had EVs. Audi even had an EV wagon with gasoline engine as range extender and sold a hundred or so. (Audi duo) in the mid 90’s. So even a useful cargo hauler that would just have rolled over an EV1 :-) Same goes for Nippon carmakers etc. Only toyota/hond actually continued their efforts and brought us hybrids.
Whatever you believe about ‘who killed the electric car’, it is a matter of historical fact that GM conspired to kill the street car.
Used to be a (semi) secret of point of corporate pride.
Just a thought…
kaleun :
Not really… almost all car companies had EVs. Audi even had an EV wagon with gasoline engine as range extender and sold a hundred or so. (Audi duo) in the mid 90’s. So even a useful cargo hauler that would just have rolled over an EV1 :-) Same goes for Nippon carmakers etc. Only toyota/hond actually continued their efforts and brought us hybrids.
Audi did not sell electric vehicles in the US before GM. It’s highly doubtful Audi even sold 100 to real customers at that. What other company actually put electric vehicles in customer hands for real? These were cars that were really on the market, albeit only in CA.
Without splitting hairs or bringing up some one off concept cars sold in far away lands, can we just accept the simple truth that GM squandered an advantage for reasons that are debatable and dubious? EV-1 owners have tales of woe concerning their desire to keep their cars running or even hold onto them.
They sold them in Europe since they are a German company.. as GM is an American company and sold them on their home market first. And they sold them, not just some experimental lease as GM.
Same for Japanese companies, they had been selling EVs, hybrids in Japan for many years before they sold the first ones in the US. So it is a tale to say GM was ahead. They probably were 10 years behind even then since all other companies already sold 5-seater EV’s and hybrids, not just some goofy EV1.
“Gm actually had a 10 year head start on everyone with the EV-1. How sad,.”
What advantage? The EV-1s were huge money-losers. It was a research project not an actual product.
“The EV-1s were huge money-losers.”
It would be more correct to describe them as loss-leaders. Toyota used to make slim to no profits on Celicas, MR2s and Supras, none of which are made anymore. In my opinion, they seem to have switched their loss-leading strategy to vehicles such as the Prius, a car which has generated more column-inches than profit.
GM (and many other companies) could have followed this strategy but chose to make their losses elsewhere on flashier and more powerful cars.
When the EV miles per whatever eventually is decided by EPA whomever, we’ll have cars that in the real world don’t get anything near the stated numbers. To be fair the mpg revised numbers are better than previous ones, so maybe the EV numbers will be closer to real world.
I’ve always thought the EPA should have a stop-go-stop-go… rush hour figure. It’d reduce greatly most of the discrepancy people discern between city and their actual mpg.
bunkie :
What advantage? The EV-1s were huge money-losers. It was a research project not an actual product.
GM had good real-world research in the books from the EV-1 experiment.
More importantly, they had a head start on the IMAGE of producing environmentally friendly, high-tech electric cars.
Imagine if those were selling alongside the high-profit Suburbans 10-15 years ago. Then the SUV market collapsed — and GM would have been printing money all over again.
Interesting, to me, that the EV1 was more efficient in the city than the highway. I would imagine the same thing with the Volt. Highway all electric range of 33 miles instead of the touted 40 miles?
What’s wrong? Everything. For example, they could have added a rear spoiler and made it a Pontiac. Take out the spoiler but put on whitewalls? Yes, a Buick! A chrome grille would have made a fine Cadillac. Then they could have finally “mainstreamed” it at the Chevrolet union hall!
GM biffed! No lie!
Hmm, it would work as an Oldsmobile too.
@ Justin Berkowitz
More importantly, they (GM) had a head start on the IMAGE of producing environmentally friendly, high-tech electric cars.
Wow, how accurate is that. This statement says it all doesn’t it?
GM could have been a leader, eerily similar to a claim from their previous life; “Standard Of The World”.
If the EV1 was only an experiment because it lost money, how does that explain the rest of GM’s cars? I don’t recall GM making an operating profit on any of its cars in North America in decades.
«it is a matter of historical fact that GM conspired to kill the street car»
Such an urban myth.
Thousands of cities around the world had street cars in the early 20th century. The contraptions were common even in South America and Africa.
One would guess GM also killed them? Oh, and by the way, did GM kill the Zeppelin, the horse-drawn cart, and the penny-farthing (high-wheel) bicycle?
@Justin Bewrkowitz and PeteMoran
+1
Perception is everything and the perception today surrounding the Volt is it’s not going to make it. The EV-1 was really everything you would expect from an electric vehicle and while not as cheap as the Prius it was cheaper than the Volt is expected to cost.
It was the most aerodynamic vehicle ever sold.
It’s induction charging method was adopted by Toyota and others.
Performance was adequate and range was more than enough for most people.
Recharge times were acceptable.
It used lead acid batteries, common technology which is cost effective.
GM squandered a chance to lead. This would have been an excellent vehicle to build in NUMMI, over in the Left Coast.
What’s wrong with this picture is that it demonstrates we’ve regressed when it comes to describing the energy efficiency of electric cars. kWh/100 miles is EXACTLY how their efficiency should be described- not some dubious, contrived version of mpg.
GM killed the trolleys? Not so. Interestingly enough, they weren’t even accused of it until 1974…. after the trolleys had been dead for 40 years.
Buses killed the trolley, and GM’s only contribution was to build a very good, efficient, and comfortable bus. Henry Ford gets some of the blame for building cheaper cars, but buses did in the trolley.
Buses were faster, cheaper to operate and ride, more comfortable, and more flexible – you could add or delete routes because of changing customer demand as easily as turning the steering wheel. Not so for the trolleys.
Here’s a link to a very good 22 page paper that gives a careful analysis of the reasons for the death of the trolley system.
http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
A few more interesting points – government and the unions helped kill the trolley. Since they were the unchallenged transportation king from circa 1880 to circa 1920, governments generated lots of taxing by taxing them and the unions milked their cash cow nearly to death. In a monopoly situation, the trolleys passed on their increased costs until complaints about fares made governments start capping fares. So, early buses were fairly unregulated, and not unionized, while trolleys got squeezed more and more tightly between capped revenues and increasing costs.
FWIW.
Yeah I would have sold my CR-X for an EV-1 easily. Same car class, different propulsion.
Get them to market and let the folks that want ’em buy ’em.
‘Cept I don’t think the industry wants to sell them.