[Zythryn]

nm

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by apeweek

awesomeness

excellent.

now i want to see this movie.

tfs

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

The cost of the 1100 cars produced came to $900,000 each when the R&D costs exclusive to that vehicle were included.

It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of EV1 financials.

The Wikipedia article “EV1” states that 1100 EV1s were manufactured, that “GM stated that they spent over $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1” (emphasis mine), and that “One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research and development costs”. This suggests that over 90% of the cost of the EV1 was “marketing” – a not unreasonable, but potentially eye-opening statistic

To have sold the cars to the public would have required GM to maintain spare parts for these engineering abortions for ten years. Even if the actual cost of manufacturing each vehicle was only estimated at $80,000 each, keeping a network of parts, supplying training, and the other things that are required by the federal, CA and AZ governments would have cost GM millions more to make a hundred or so customers stay happy. They did the smart thing and cut their losses.

Absent terming them “engineering abortions”, this is the argument commonly presented to explain GM’s refusal to sell individual EV1s following the termination of their lease program. There are, I believe, flaws in it:

“Keeping a network of parts, supplying training, and the other things that are required by the federal, CA and AZ governments would have cost GM millions.”
As described in an open letter to then and present GM CEO Richard Wagoner, some buyers were willing to enter into sworn releases of responsibility for parts and service, and purchases EV1s at GM’s stated residual value of $24,761.60 each.

“They did the smart thing and cut their losses.”
If GM’s sole motivation for destroying rather than selling the EV1s was financial loss-avoidance, why would they not accept offer such as those made by EV1 enthusiast and collectors? Even assuming a very adverse tax accounting scenario, I can’t see that income of up to $19,000,000 – though a small item for a $190,000,000,000/year revenue company like GM - would have been financially less desirable than a stated loss of the same amount, even assuming a worst case tax accounting scenario.

I’m not an expert in the pertinent law, but the argument TBD offers seems to depend on the implication that it’s legally impossible to release a manufacturer from responsibility for parts and service. I don’t believe this to be the case. Rather, I believe that GM’s destruction of their EV1 fleet was made for other reasons, the most likely, IMHO, being to reduce the likelihood of California’s Zero Emission Vehicle Program create a disfavorable market for them and other manufacturers. In short, I believe that GM was “playing to lose”.

[mustang292]

Solar powered cars are what we need to work on.

[Zythryn]

Hmmm, Toyota's Rav4 EVs are still available (only car I know of that goes up in value each year). Anyone know a Rav4 EV owner? Perhaps they signed an agreement with Toyota such as the hypothetical one mentioned by Craig?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by mustang292

Solar powered cars are what we need to work on.

Why not go to another eschalon of research, skip cars, and focus all this huge sum of money into teleportation research?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Hmmm, Toyota's Rav4 EVs are still available (only car I know of that goes up in value each year). Anyone know a Rav4 EV owner? Perhaps they signed an agreement with Toyota such as the hypothetical one mentioned by Craig?

This doesn’t appear to be the case. According to Toyota’s RAV4EV website, ”Please be assured, Toyota will continue to ensure that dealers capable of servicing RAV4 EVs are located in each major metropolitan area in California throughout the 5-year powertrain warranty period of your vehicle.”

Like GM, Toyota discontinued their EV in 2003. Unlike GM, they sold, not leased, them. Both the EV1 and the RAV4EV were popular with their user/owners, an unusual fraction of whom formed clubs to share their enthusiasm about these vehicles.

Since, unlike the EV1, the RAV4EV uses mostly standard RAV4 parts, it’s unlikely that parts will be an issue for existing RAV4EVs. Historically, the electric parts, excluding batteries, are usually more reliable and longer lasting than the non-electric parts of a vehicle.

I’m inclined to think that the differences in the manner that GM and Toyota conducted and discontinued these similar products reveals a profound difference in their approach to customer relations, and that this difference is partially responsible for why GM lost US$10,000,000,000 on revenues of $192,000,000,000, while Toyota gained $14,000,000,000 on revenues of $157,000,000,000 (FY 2005 figures).

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by mustang292

Solar powered cars are what we need to work on.

Any electric vehicles is solar powered if the electricity used to charge it is solar generated.

On of the attractive qualities of EVs, or any “rechargeable” vehicle, “zero-emission” or not, including battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric, hydrogen burning, synthetic alcohol burning (or, in principle, even rubber band driven! ), is that it can be “charged” (or its fuel manufactured) using a variety of sources of generated energy. Assuming that energy utility companies are properly managed and not subjected to unfair government or private business interference, this promises to allow such vehicles to be dramatically less expensive to the consumer than current gas and diesel fueled vehicles.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by apeweek

Efficiency is the EV's strongest point.

Very true, however, but you need to remember that much of the electricity produced in this country is done so by burning fossil fuels. Soooo, I ask you then; Why compound the efficiency loss by first burning the fossil fuel at the station and then adding to it the transmission over the grid?

Originally Posted by apeweek

It's gasoline that loses most of its efficiency, not electricity. The electric grid is 95% efficient.

Very true, but I reiterate; Why compound the losses thru transmission?

Originally Posted by apeweek

Battery storage is 88% efficient. Electric traction motors are 95% efficient, and transmissionless EVs get most of that power right to the road.

Don't forget the weight involved in building these vehicles. The heavier these vehicles are, the more energy they will need to function!

Until we can produce the greater portion of our electricity needs thru some source other than fossil fuels, it really makes little sense to burn the hydrocarbons at the station and then transport the electricity generated over the grid to ultimately be stored in batteries placed in our cars....................................Infy

[InfiniteNow]

Infamous,

It might also be argued that the power stations, whose specialty it is to generate power, may be so efficient in their method that the losses from transmission would cancel out. Since the vehicles primary speciality is transportation, it may be a less efficient converter of fossil fuel to power than the energy station, and it could still be more efficient to transport from the station to the electric car...

Just a thought. I haven't done any research on this to support the idea.


Cheers.