...business? It is obvious that GM and the oil companies took advantage of their customers by trying to prolong the dependence on fossil fuels. They ignored technology and fulled their pockets with our money. Why try to save the ones who ripped off every single person in this country. Please, no ignorant answers. This is a serious question.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GM turned their back on the eclectric car in the 1990s, Do they deserve to stay in...
- Thread starter Joe S
- Start date
Serious question? If you were serious why would you load your question with statements that GM took advantage of their customers, ignored technology and ripped off every person in the country?
GM did not ignore technology. The technology for efficient batteries did not exist in the 90's. General Motors' decision to equip the EV1 with a lead-acid battery was based on that power source's reputation for durability and reliability. However, a kilogram of the best-performing lead-acid battery can house just 0.4 percent of the energy in a kilogram of gasoline, That's the reason the lead-acid battery in the EV1 comprised 1,175 pounds of the EV1's 2,970 pound weight, but still couldn't muster so much as 100 miles of range.
A far better option, MacKenzie argues, would have been an idea championed by Howard Wilson, a vice-president of Hughes Aircraft, which GM had purchased in 1985.
"What I'd really like to do," MacKenzie quotes Wilson as having said, "is install a small gas turbine engine that could run at a constant speed to provide the electricity for the motors.
The emissions would be tiny, but we can't do it because the CARB mandate insists on zero emissions." (Ironically this is similar to the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt GM is planning to introduce in 2010, only it uses a small conventional gasoline engine instead of a turbine to power the electric motors once a bank of batteries lose their charge.)
The gas turbine urged by Wilson would have been able to run on any fuel from gasoline to cooking oil, and its constant speed would minimize emissions surges resulting from the necessity to throttle up the engine to overcome load, according to MacKenzie.
Even if Wilson's concept had come to fruition, there's still some question if the resulting car would have been purchased in enough volume to bring down the $80,000-per-copy cost of the EV1. "In the end, though, price wasn't an issue," MacKenzie adds.
"The reality is the EV1 was hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go wasn't able to do the job [then GM chairman] Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it could. That's what killed the electric car."...
GM did not ignore technology. The technology for efficient batteries did not exist in the 90's. General Motors' decision to equip the EV1 with a lead-acid battery was based on that power source's reputation for durability and reliability. However, a kilogram of the best-performing lead-acid battery can house just 0.4 percent of the energy in a kilogram of gasoline, That's the reason the lead-acid battery in the EV1 comprised 1,175 pounds of the EV1's 2,970 pound weight, but still couldn't muster so much as 100 miles of range.
A far better option, MacKenzie argues, would have been an idea championed by Howard Wilson, a vice-president of Hughes Aircraft, which GM had purchased in 1985.
"What I'd really like to do," MacKenzie quotes Wilson as having said, "is install a small gas turbine engine that could run at a constant speed to provide the electricity for the motors.
The emissions would be tiny, but we can't do it because the CARB mandate insists on zero emissions." (Ironically this is similar to the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt GM is planning to introduce in 2010, only it uses a small conventional gasoline engine instead of a turbine to power the electric motors once a bank of batteries lose their charge.)
The gas turbine urged by Wilson would have been able to run on any fuel from gasoline to cooking oil, and its constant speed would minimize emissions surges resulting from the necessity to throttle up the engine to overcome load, according to MacKenzie.
Even if Wilson's concept had come to fruition, there's still some question if the resulting car would have been purchased in enough volume to bring down the $80,000-per-copy cost of the EV1. "In the end, though, price wasn't an issue," MacKenzie adds.
"The reality is the EV1 was hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go wasn't able to do the job [then GM chairman] Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it could. That's what killed the electric car."...