  Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 519 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.242.200 |
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/2 23/index.html http://www.whokilledtheelectri ccar.com/ Are we in the situation that we are because GM conspired with the oil companies to kill the EV1 ? A new film to be released next week, Who Killed the Electric Car?, opens up the debate that perhaps our auto companies should have forged ahead with their revolutionary effort so that we aren't so deeply dependent on oil today. If you have any inside information at GM on the EV1 program, please share your discussions. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2232 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
With practically no passenger or cargo capacity, less than easily servicable batteries, and a long recharge time, has the thought ever occurred that maybe it did itself in? | ||
7milekid Member Username: 7milekid Post Number: 103 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 68.61.161.193 |
Did you kno that it only had a range of 80 miles, significantly less if you were driving fast or accelerating fast, and took several hours to recharge after doing so. Yea well i drive more than 80 miles each day. It also cost over 500 dollars a month to lease over ten years ago, and replacement parts were in short supply because of technology restrictions and thus very expensive and difficult to locate. The thing was expensive, impractical and butt ugly. It commited suicide. Do people honestly believe that GM would spend billions to set up a program and then purposely allow it to fail? I think not. I really wish people would quit believing everything they hear. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6056 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
I thought the death blow was renaming it the Impact just prior to it horribly failing federal crash tests. They couldn't keep the batteries from exploding upon impact. Wonder what crash-test dummies look like after an acid bath and scorch dermabrasion. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6057 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
HA! Looked through that second website and realized I had it backwards! It was the Impact first...failed the tests...was renamed the EV-1 for the CA celebrity marketplace. PR genius! Sell it to those who are least likely to pay attention to anything outside their mirror! Wonder what celebrities look like after an acid bath and scorch dermabrasion. Since these were all leases, we can assume GM got them back and they've been sent to the bottom of Lake Erie to the great wet automotive graveyard? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1951 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.12.109 |
God let's hope not. The lead in the enourmous amounts of batteries needed for these vehicles would be extremely destructive to the environment. Electric vehicle development continues at Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler. The EV1 vehicle was run as a prototype program. It showed the limitations of the current battery technology. The vehicle as built was nothing more than a glorified golf cart. The 80 mile range was only valid, if you didn't have to heat or cool the passenger compartment. That left the vehicle only valid in California with it's relatively moderate climate. Arizona and Minnesota were way beyond that vehicle's capabilities. After running out of juice it had a 6 to 8 hour recharge time. How would you like to be stranded at a gas station for 6 to 8 hours, ten miles from home, because you underestimated the number of miles you needed to travel in one day? Electric vehicle development is continuing with fuel cell systems. A fuel cell vehicle is an electric vehicle with a battery that can be charged in the same amount of time it takes to fill a normal gasoline powered vehicle. Fuel cells are already capable of about a 150 mile range. but once again suffer from the same heating and cooling issues that a battery powered vehicle does. The more heating or cooling you need, the shorter the range of the vehicle. Both a fuel cell and a standard conventional battery generate electricity through a chemical reaction. The conventional battey contains both chemicals needed to generate the electricity. Current battery technology relies on heavy metals to generate the electricity. Lead Nickel and cadmium are incredibly toxic to the enviroment and need to be reclaimed after their current 5 year lifespan. Fuels cells generate electricity by combining hydrogen with oxygen freeing electrons to do the needed work. A much more environmentally friendly approach. Also how are we going to generate enough energy, if we switch over to electric cars or Fuel cell vehicles? Fuel cells need hydrogen. Where will that hydrogen be generated. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements on the planet. Unfortunately most of it is bonded to oxygen in the form of water. You need to add electrons to water to break the bonds and seperate the molecule. It can be done using other chemicals added to the water, but the most common method would be through electrolysis. That means generating electricity first, applying it to water and capturing the outgassed hydrogen. Electric and fuel cell cars need more electric generation plants. We're barely keeping up with our electric needs at the moment. How will the electric grid deal with the added load of us all recharging our cars when we get home. It would be nice to get away from our fossil fuel vehicles, There isn't a single technology available in the next 10 years that will get us there. Everyone is working on it. The first to cost effectively do it will crush their competitors. The auto companies need no more incentive than that. | ||
Thewack Member Username: Thewack Post Number: 202 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 72.82.110.161 |
Wind in combination with cleaner coal technologies to help with the transition is one solution. We will get off fossil fuels sooner than later, but it will be a gradual process. This is explained extensively in "The Oil Factor", which explains our economic depnedence on oil and where our economy is headed as oil prices continue to rise. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2579 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.234.183.131 |
My brother drove a GM EV for a bit. This was in the LA area. AIR recall they had charging stations around the city (I _THINK_ I remember one at a supermarket parking lot in Pasadena (not sure if the juice was free or how it worked)). It struck me as a pretty nice car for essentially a beta test vehicle (wouldn't it be cool if the car companies did that more often, beta test new vehicles in target markets?). My brother is a tech nut and had a couple of other (homemade) electric cars that he played around with that were nicer ... but for a store-bought weirdo car it was ok. I also had a colleague (Bay area) who drove one of these GM EVs. She would charge it from her home (SI valley) and drive it to work (Berkeley), charge it there while at work and drive home. I assume the juice at work cost her nuthin ... Too bad GM did that weird shit with only leasing those cars, tho ... it sure smells fishy ... esp when they didn't allow lease renewals/purchases AND that they destroyed the cars en masse the way they did ... plus who doesn't love a juicy (!) conspiracy, nowadays GM is so enfeebled abd desperate it is kinda nice to imagine a rapacious and coolly calculated GM capable of such things ... Yay Detroit! | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1257 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.41.8.216 |
http://www.lib.wayne.edu/resou rces/special_collections/local /cfai/pages/detroitelectric.ht ml | ||
Thewack Member Username: Thewack Post Number: 203 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 72.68.164.61 |
The fact GM really thought the Hummer was the way to go is mind boggling. Sure, short term profits, but how long did they really anticipate cheap oil? The car maker that is doing the best right know is Toyota, and they are a leader in hybrids and high mpg cars. | ||
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock Post Number: 251 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66 |
People will be believe anything if you put it in a movie. If GM and the oil companies are such stange bedfellows then where and hell is big oil as GM barely keeps it's head above water? Rustic, I think its standard practice for an automaker to take back cars that are highly experiemental. Chrysler destroyed most of their turbine powered cars that they leased to employee's in the 60's. For more info see. http://www.allpar.com/mopar/tu rbine.html Biodiesel is my cure for the time being with my Jeep Liberty. There is a place here in Florida that sells pure blends for $2.65 a gallon, and more places are starting to sell 20% blends. Plus it's not to hard to make by yourself from used cooking oils. It's hard to beat the gas mileage and torque of a diesel! | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6059 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
Yeah, but Jeep JUST cancelled that diesel engine in the Libertys. Boggles the mind, it was outselling their wildest estimates. Particulate emmissions standards NEXT year...when did Detroit EVER let NEXT years regulations affect THIS year's sales?! Here is an article on my favorite prototype story--Nicola Tesla's Etheric Power source--along with a few other interesting stories of patented electric-car applications. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6060 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
HA, and then the internet serves up something interestingly new...Tesla Motorcars, a high-tech startup in Silicon Valley scheduled to deliver their first electric car in less than a month. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 68.42.169.74 |
cpv (solar troughs, towers and most definitely stirling dishes) + nanotube capacitors. (the capacity of batteries with the almost instantaneous recharge time of a capacitor) i can't wait for the future... | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 278 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 63.41.12.185 |
Michael Jackson?  | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1954 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.12.109 |
Gannon, You forget that the 2007 model year starts at the end of August. The Vehicles are already being built. If you want to sell a vehicle as a 2007 vehicle, it must meet 2007 regulations. So the 2007 regulations aren't next year's regulations they are next month's regulations. Also while they've cancelled the mediocre diesel in the Liberty short term, they have added a much better Mercedes diesel to the Grand Cherokee. Volkswagon has also killed off it's diesel engines for this year. They also couldn't meet the particulate standards. (Message edited by ndavies on June 25, 2006) | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6066 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
Bingo, thanks N, always forget that half-year jump...why I was able to enjoy my 1998 Contour SVT for 5 months before anyone was able to identify it. VW couldn't hit the new standard either, huh?! | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 514 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.43.107.72 |
GM=Clueless Ford=Clueless keep pumping out the suvs boys!!!! | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2234 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Etheric Power Source??? I remember reading that story when I was a kid. I also remember reading that Tesla cranked a lot of things that we take for granted today, over a century ago (i.e. AC current, RC devices, Wireless voice radio communication), as well as several items that strain credibility (i.e. "free" energy, death rays, and the electric car mentioned above). His museum in Yugoslavia has a lot of his notes and personal effects. I find it hard to believe that no one has been able to recreate the "Etheric" automobile since then. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2580 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.123.28 |
Tesla also pioneered what today we call RFID technology, imagine that ~100 years ago having RFID. The guy was singularly brilliant. The electric car is a nice conspiracy to nurse but a more plausable one is the cabal against/for clean diesel technology. That's big money we are talking about there ... | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 586 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.189.188.28 |
Hagglerock... .....thanks for posting that site with the Chrysler Turbine program information. My father (an engineer in the heater lab) said he had a signifigant problem designing a heater for that thing. It ran too hot. I wonder if a small turbine driving a generating system for recharging batteries in an electric drive system would be economical? | ||
Mike Member Username: Mike Post Number: 626 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.41.109.36 |
For the past few years, the media has been somewhat cruel to GM. Friedman and now this. | ||
Herbpowell Member Username: Herbpowell Post Number: 14 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 68.255.243.52 |
First of all GM was not in the position finicial to what Toyota and Honda have done with their hybrids. Which is take a massive loss in subsidizing their hybrid cars for basically a PR/image boost. As for the EV-1, the cars were destroyed because they were dangerous and GM thought they were a huge liabilty. Michelle Maynard was right the Big Three should've seen that like a engine that produces 500hp for the gearhead people would equally pay a premium for the amazing technology that goes into the hybrid cars and the fuel savings did not need to be the only economical reason to buy the car. In one sense though GM was right, since the debut of the EV-1 1996 it has only been the last two years that the was serious demand for anything hybrid (the redone 2004 Prius had great timing). During that time the company was kept afloat by the SUV. The two aren't mutually exclusive but just because GM did not produce electric,hybrid,fuel cell cars en masse they were still a leader in the technology for alternatives to gas powered engines (like they were with EV-1). Again they may have bet on the wrong pony but GM has seems to be pot committed to fuel cells, a technology that is hardly close to sure thing. As Detroiter and an American I am still rooting for the Big Three. | ||
Ericdfan Member Username: Ericdfan Post Number: 120 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.41.116.2 |
man, my uncle worked in the auto industry for must of his life. He loves technology..He used to tell me about all of Tesla's inventions. Man that guy was a freaking genius...Then all of a sudden he magically died and all his research was "lost" in a fire or something... | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1138 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 198.208.159.18 |
GM still owns and operates a few I beleive, they donated a few non-runners to colleges around the country as well. There is one in the lobby of the Walter B Ford building at CCS.
exactly. don't know too many people who would pay a premium for considerably less product, less convenience and more maintainance | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1140 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 198.208.159.18 |
here is a link to a GM blog regarding the movie and its claims. http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/06 /who_ignored_the_facts_about_t h.html#more
Sounds like a runaway hit that was squashed by the "man" to me!!! /sarcasm (Message edited by gravitymachine on June 26, 2006) | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4418 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.192 |
Forget a electric car. WE NEED HYBRIDS NOW!!! | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1957 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
Then go buy one Danny. They do have them for sale. I'll stick with a vehicle that meets my needs and doesn't cost me extra money over the life of the vehicle. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1139 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
What America needs right now: a well-built, durable (good for 150,000 miles-plus), low-maintenance, vehicle with ample cargo space, seating for six adults, all-wheel-drive for safety and traction in any weather, and averaging 35 mpg city and 45 mpg highway. Oh, and make it affordable, under $25K. Build THAT one, "Big Three," and watch the customers line up by the zillions. I'd be first in line. (Message edited by Fury13 on June 26, 2006) | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1958 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
Fury, How much are you willing to pay? How many of your requirements are you willing to give up to get the 45 MPG? If it was cost effectively possible, they would be doing it. This is the closest you'll probably come with the current technology. http://www.mobilemag.com/conte nt/100/354/C8136/ It has everything you want except only 1/2 the mileage. You could build a vehicle that does. You just wouldn't be able to afford it. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 84 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Fury13, And I suppose you also want it to also include full front and side airbags and also have it meet the testing requirements established by the Federal Govt. AND the Insurance Institute for Highway Safet. While you didn't specifically mention them, you will probably also expect that auto to have A/C, a sunroof, a full complement of electronic "infotainment" devices, etc. If that kind of vehicle content and performance were capable of being designed and built, don't you think that someone would already be marketing it? The only way to meet the kind of size and performance requirements you list is to make design tradeoffs that gets mass out elsewhere, which generally require the use of higher cost premium materials in the body structure and option content restrictions. But since your dream vehicle doesn't exist, in your world it's the fault of the "Big Three" who just don't know how to design a decent car. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1142 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
C'mon, those engineers at the automakers have got some big brains. They passed all their math classes in school; they can do it. The automakers just haven't felt the URGENCY to develop such a vehicle yet. Maybe droves of unsold gas-guzzling SUVs and luxomobiles sitting on dealers' lots, costing the industry money, will provide that urgency. Hope so. Gas will be at least $4 per gallon by summer 2008. If the U.S. automakers don't "get it," they will go under while continuing to produce the same obsolete crap. And I will have absolutely NO sympathy for them. Chevrolet or Ford can go the way of Hudson, Nash, and Studebaker... and I will not shed a tear. Like I said, I'd be willing to pay $25K, maybe even $30K for the vehicle I described. That's reasonable. If they sell hundreds of thousands of them, as they surely would, the automakers would recoup their R&D/tooling investments... no problem. Produce the right vehicles or die... it's that simple. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1143 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
This: http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars /subaru_outback_25iwagon_2006/ 17802/style_overview.html;_ylt=AjV6uYgsOxTQhjQzd67K0h.z fL8F ...comes close to what I'm talking about. MPG could be higher, and it only seats five, but otherwise, not bad. The Japanese will build the car I'm talking about long before the Americans do. | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 178 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.65.11.152 |
Not about conspiracy, but electric cars and GM Entrepreneurs bet on electric cars Associated Press SAN CARLOS — Like many Silicon Valley engineers, Martin Eberhard loves cars, especially fast ones. But the self-described “closet gearhead” didn’t feel comfortable buying a hot rod that guzzled gas from the Middle East or some other troubled region. So three years ago, Eberhard and friend Marc Tarpenning launched Tesla Motors Inc. Their goal: to design a sports car that would go as fast as a Ferrari or Porsche, but run on electricity. With about 80 employees, Tesla just raised $40 million from high-profile investors including Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. It plans to start selling its first model next year. “I’m not the only person that would like to buy a car that’s beautiful and fun to drive but also remain on the moral high ground,” said Eberhard, 45, who sold his previous company, electronic book maker NuvoMedia, for $187 million in 2000. “None of the energy that goes into an electric car comes from the Middle East.” Silicon Valley thinks it can do what Detroit could not — create a thriving business selling electric cars. In the 1990s, General Motors and other automakers spent billions to develop battery-powered vehicles, but they flopped because they couldn’t travel more than 100 miles before being recharged. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1959 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
Bullshit. All of the car companies have to deal with exactly the same physics as everyone else. If you want to put that much weight into a car and drive it around you will get the same fuel mileage. The Japanese get a pass because they don't build the large trucks that Americans have wanted for the last 10 years. If you campare apples to apples US and Japanese manufacturers get within 1% of each other in fuel mileage. Wait until the New Toyota full size pickup comes out. Optioned the Same as the US pickups it will get exactly what the US pickups get for Mileage. Sorry, this doesn't quite get the gas miliage the suburu gets. It has the 6 cylinder engine americans expect. http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars /ford_freestyle_selawd_2007/19 153/style_overview.html; And funny you picked a Subaru as you ideal car. A company so many americans love that the Auto industry press thinks they will have to leave the US market wihtin 5 years due to their falling sales. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1142 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 198.208.159.18 |
actually it will be worse, because GM's trucks will have "displacement on demand" like the new full size SUV's http://www.forbes.com/global/2 006/0703/040.html?partner=yaho omag
| ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1146 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
"If you want to put that much weight into a car and drive it around you will get the same fuel mileage." Don't put that much weight into them, then. Find lighter-weight materials. Don't build the vehicles so BIG. "The Japanese get a pass because they don't build the large trucks that Americans have wanted for the last 10 years." Yeah, well, the U.S. industry shouldn't have offered those large trucks, should they? Americans have bad taste -- they want the biggest and the baddest -- and they're used to having it easy, with gas below $2 a gallon until relatively recently. And why is the American build quality so bad compared to the Japanese? No excuse for that planned obsolescence. "...the 6 cylinder engine americans expect..." Six-cylinder cars get bad gas mileage. 24 mpg (EPA rating, which really means 22) on the highway? That won't cut it when gas hits $4 a gallon (or $5, within three or four years). Americans "expect" many things, but when it really starts to hit them in their wallets, they'll change their tune. Will I be able to get 150,000 or 200,000 miles out of that Freestyle? Hell, a Freestyle owner will be lucky to get to 100,000. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1960 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
thnk2mch, you left out the most important quote of the whole article.
They don't have a clue. Wait until they find out they have to crash a bunch of them before they go on sale. Wait until they have to stuff them full of airbags and crush zones. They'll need to meet all of the FMVSS regulations. The car pictured in the article won't even come close to passing all the regs. It's complete arrogance that these silicon valley people think they can do better than companies that have been doing this for 100 years. Look at all the trouble the Chinese are having bringing in already engineered standard cars into the country. It's going to take them at least another 3 to 5 years for them to meet north american regulations. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1143 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 198.208.159.18 |
lighter weight materials cost money to develop and produce. there goes your $25k target price.
Toyota just built a plant in texas to make the least fuel efficient fullsize trucks on the market (not on sale until the fall though). Also:
you really need to do more research on the subject dood. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1147 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
Gravity: But I want more than just build quality alone. And you have to admit that it took years for the U.S. automakers to improve. The U.S. automakers are only just now approaching parity with the Japanese in that respect. So, if I were to buy a used car, say a 2001 or '02 model, a Japanese car would still typically have better quality than an American one. As for the cars you mentioned... let's see, the Chevrolet HHR is rated at 23 mpg city/30 mpg highway; that's pretty good. But there's no AWD or stability control, so it'll be crappy on snow and ice. The Saturn VUE AWD only comes with a V-6, so mpg is down to 19/25. That's not too good, especially for a Saturn, which typically boasts high mpg ratings for most of its models. The Corvette coupe/convertible surprisingly is rated at 18/28 mpg (it's a V-8, but it's lightweight), but only has space for two people and virtually no cargo, so it's impractical. The Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD is rated at 13/16 mpg. What a dinosaur. Laughable. When the economy is bad, and gas prices keep climbing, MPG is the absolutely the most important thing. Period. Then, for me, safety, room, quality, durability. Again, I don't see much that comes out of Detroit that combines all those attributes. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 85 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Fury13, since you seem to think you know a lot about the automobile business and their quality history, try answering these questions: 1. Which company manufactured the passenger vehicle that won the top spot in the 1992 JD Power IQS? 2. Which manufacturer operated the assembly plant that won the 1992 JD Power Gold Award for having the highest production quality of all the plants in North American? 3. Which manufacturer produced the car line that was judged in 1996 by JD Power to be the most dependable 5-year-old (1991 model year) car in its price class? Hint #1 - it wasn't a foreign automaker. Hint #2 - it wasn't Ford or Chrysler. Hint #3 - they are the only auto manufacturer that has been continuously headquartered in the city of Detroit for more than 75 years. Believe what you want to believe, but the facts say otherwise about your claims concerning the Japanese vs. Domestic "quality gap" and its closure rate. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1150 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
Mikeg, I've owned a few GM cars. (And for the record, I haven't owned any Japanese brands -- yet.) The quality of the GMs I had was mediocre at best (granted, they were a little older, '70s and '80s models). Best car I've ever owned is my current one -- a Jeep. But it gets only 16 mpg on a good day, so it's outa here. Styling isn't important any more. Power/acceleration isn't that important any more. MPG is of paramount importance. Out with aesthetics and style; in with utility and practicality. I'll say it again: when GM makes a vehicle that is durable (I expect to get at least 150,000 miles out of a car with no major breakdowns or repair issues), reliable, has plenty of cargo space, has all-wheel drive (a MUST have in Michigan in the winter for me), gets (I'll reduce my mpg requirement a little, OK?) about 23 mpg in the city and close to 30 mpg on the highway, AND sells for around $25-28K, I'll look at it (and I mean a vehicle that burns regular gas and not a hybrid). (Message edited by Fury13 on June 26, 2006) | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 65 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
The new GM trucks will bury the new Toyotas in real world mileage. Toyota large trucks which currently include the Sequoia are incredibly bad on gas. Toyota doesn't lose money on every Priuos (or Pious like the owners) out of the goodness of their hearts. They have to buid mpg credits to sell the pigs that make money. BTW, the EV1 was never a money maker for GM. It sure seems odd that so many years after it came and went the same set of whiners are trying to make up some sort of sinister explanation for it's failure. Must be the grassy knoll next to the Ren Cen. Heck even when in production GM had to create cut rate leases for anybody to drive them. And these cars were tiny, very tiny. Smaller than the Honda Insight which nobody seems to want either and it's a hybrid. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 31 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 209.104.146.146 |
I think that looking back at the EV1 and saying that it does not meet the needs of the market today is a bit short sighted. First of all, technology has changed. Li-ion batteries that are currently available seriously outperform the old lead acid batteries and the next generation of batteries (lithium polymer) will outperform them with less weight, higher duty cycles, and less dangerous materials. There have even been vehicles that run on super capacitors. There have been low production cars like the Venturi Fetish (top speed 105, range 220 miles, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds) that have some amazing performance and show what is possible. The price of these high performance electric cars are currently too high, but they show what can be done and in mass production the prices would come down. All new technology starts out expensive and then comes down in price. How much money has gone into supporting research into new battery technology as opposed to the amount of money that goes into developing new engines? The Ranger EV was Ford's attempt in the electric vehicle market. They had some serious design flaws that had nothing to do with them being electric vehicles. The Ranger EV used lousy Delphi 8 volt batteries that are no longer produced anywhere. Why the hell would you use eight volts when there was only a single supplier making these? Why not 12 or 6 volts? To replace the batteries, you needed a special lift and a special tray that cost a fortune (not to mention special tools to repair anything else). The Ranger EV was a great vehicle that failed because of bad batteries and bad design. Sure there are range limitations on electric vehicles. I think that the mistake that people make when they are talking about electric vehicles is that they see them as a substitute for internal combustion vehicles. That is not necessarily the case. My wife drives 25 miles round trip to work everyday. Why does she need more than an 80 mile range? If we need to make a longer trip, we would take my car. Many fleet vehicles drive set routes that are also less than 80 miles per day. Hydrogen technology is years off if at all. I believe that electric vehicles will be part of our future whether we like it or not. The question is whether we will be making them in the US or whether we will miss the boat once again. I only see a few companies in the US working on this (and none in Detroit). Most action is overseas. Another manufacturer to watch is Miles Automotive http://www.milesautomotive.com. Currently, they are selling a vehicle that is not very impressive, but they claim that they will be selling a Li-ion vehicle the XS 200. I read here that a lot of people say that GM lost money on the EV1. I think that that was short range thinking. Toyota also lost money on their hybrids when they first came out. Research into electric vehicles also supports hybrid vehicles. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 33 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 209.104.146.146 |
The Venturi Fetish  |
