To the detractors of the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?, one of the problems with trying to get the entire picture of what happened to the EV1 program at GM from one 90 minute film is that you quickly discover that it is impossible. Also, for as many times that I hear you say environmentally friendly cars simply have no appeal, there are millions of people like me who say that if there was just an environmentally friendly car made by an American car company I would buy one. Most of the people I know think that way. Most of them would have happily bought an electric car made by GM if it was offered where they lived. The EV1 was only offered in California and Arizona. Unfortunately, GM didn’t expand the market for the EV1 and now those people who would have bought an EV1 are in essence being forced to purchase the Prius made by Toyota and powered by gasoline.



I have been told by many detractors that GM claims that they spent around a billion dollars on the EV1, what you don’t hear is that GM puts every expenditure, from the beginning of the program to the very end, in that number. From the first cents paid to Aeroenvironment for the EV1 prototype somewhere in the mid to late 1980s to the last dollar spend on crushing the EV1 last year, a time period that covers more than 16 years. Simple math tells you that this averages out to only 62.5 million a year. Given that GM lost 4.5 billion in 1991, that is 4.5 billion in a single year, and 12.5 billion last year, 62.5 million a year clearly shows how little money GM spent on the EV1. The total expenditures per year averages out to about 6 dollars and 82 cents per vehicle that GM sold last year. Or you can think of it this way, the cost of running the EV1 project was one three hundredths of a percent of GMs total revenue for a year. (.03%) If GM’s total revenue were 100 dollars the cost of running the EV1 program would have cost it 3 cents. I don’t know about you but I don’t spend pennies, I just put them in a jar and forget about them. Needless to say, GM didn’t spend a lot on the EV1.

The tell tale signs that GM never was going to produce the EV1 as a viable product were that it limited distribution to California and Arizona, that it only leased the cars, wouldn’t want that technology reverse engineered by anyone else, and that it produced the cars in hand assembled batches rather than in a full functioning assembly line. Assembly line production is far less costly per unit and typically used for a product that really was to reach the entire marketplace.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I don’t believe that it talks about the other prototypes that GM made off of the EV1 platform. GM made a series hybrid of the EV1, which in essence gave the EV1 unlimited range using a turbine generator to power the car for long distances. It also made two parallel hybrids, one like the Toyota Prius and one with a unique structure where a small diesel engine powered the back wheels while the front wheels were essentially powered by a standard EV1 drive train. GM also had a 4 seat model of the EV1, a CNG model and a fuel cell model. All of these vehicles would have had much greater acceptance in the market place than the pure electric vehicle, with the exception of the fuel cell. All the versions would have provided GM with a real world test platform for future fuel cell vehicles, since fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use hydrogen fuel cells rather than a battery to produce electricity. That they didn’t pursue incorporating this line of improvements to the future fuel cell car makes me think that GM isn’t really interested in fuel cells either.

Oddly, GM keeps introducing prototypes that look to provide us with everything we need in a car and fuel economy to boot. One example is the Precept pictured below, but GM simply never goes into full production with these innovations. Why?

GM made the Precept in hydrogen and hybrid versions

With these innovations in the marketplace, GM would have been a decade a head of Toyota and Honda in hybrids and fuel cells. It also would have given Americans a choice away from gasoline, which would be plug-in electricity. Electricity, even in post Enron California, is far cheaper than gasoline today. Automobile users switching to use more electricity rather than gasoline would have had a moderating effect on the price of oil. There are also greater geopolitical implications as well, since electricity is produced virtually oil free.

It is GMs legendary shortsightedness that keeps the organization in the hall of fame of miss management. What I don’t understand is why the board doesn’t find people of vision to lead the company, at least managers with some idea that gasoline prices might rise, or that environmental or mid-east politics may force them into doing something different, or even that there just might be breakthrough technology that would put them at a disadvantage. The prudent management thing to do is to have a product mix that would protect the company from any sudden or unexpected shocks in oil prices, political change, unforeseen innovations, or Al Gore talking a lot about global warming. Another thing that GM’s management could do is to constantly improve that product line keeping competitors from being able to effectively compete. Am I wrong or maybe the oil crisis of the 1970s never happened? Am I wrong or aren’t most scientist in agreement that global warming is not only real but we are causing it? Am I wrong or is Toyota capturing more and more market share away from Gm? So I leave with some advice for GM’s management, go see, Who Killed the Electric Car? It might give you a clue about what not to do in the future.

Picture of GM’s 4 seater EV1 with diesel rear parallel motor

This Blog was originally posted on EVWorld