Talking with someone who knew some GE execs in the 70s, they had prototypes that did 75mpg

[zulchzulu]

Someone I know, who has been in the "energy business" since the 1970s, were discussing the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car and he had read the book but never saw the documentary.

I talked a bit about how the GM version of the electric car had been turned into a very reliable, very attractive, high performance vehicle with a strong lithium battery technology and was terminated without good reason and the vehicles leased to drivers was destroyed. He had read the book.

The car looked like a Honda Accord sedan with four doors, a large trunk, and not some freaky looking golf cart that many equate with electric cars. The performance was phenomenal where you could go from 0 to 60 in about 5 seconds... silently... and continue to drive with the only emission coming from your mouth as you might smoke a cigar.

He then told me about how in the early 1970s that GM and other auto production companies had come out with vehicles that had modified engines that were capable of performing at 70+ mpg. He had attended a meeting where several of the executives were bragging to each other about how amazing their prototype engines could perform as well as how they were going to destroy that technology and make the copyrights on those engines off market.

What this brings to this forum is the possible discussion where Obama brings up just how GM and other auto companies have dropped the ball or hid the secret to "energy success" and make it an issue that they reissue the ability for GM plants like the downsized one in Janesville, WI to be able to have access to those plans and start a new direction.

Technology like this should not be held hostage for corporate gain that actually hurts our country's energy future. Perhaps we need to consider those energy companies that are sitting on perfectly proven technological breakthroughs as "treasonous".

The plans are there. The science is there. The proof is there. If auto companies are sitting on the possible solutions due to self-absorbed motives, then they need to be exposed.

What side on these auto industry execs on?

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. General Motors sold the patent for advance batteries to the oil companies

I guess you knew that..... they sold it to Chevron.

[MrMonk]

4. If the patent was granted in the '70's or '80's,

it's no longer enforceable and the disclosed information is in the public domain. All someone has to do is look it up, and they'll know the "secret". Personally, I don't believe that this advanced battery technology existed, so I'm not going to look it up. Unless it's somewhere near the secret formula for turning water to gasoline.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. The EV1........ the electric car that they destroyed

they sold the battery patents to Chevron... Its common knowledge.

[MrMonk]

9. So what? The patents, if there really were any, are part of the public record.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Whatever you might want to do some research vs making slams

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

[DJ13]

2. I think the biggest sticking point in electric for automakers is

....a lack of a secondary market in replacement parts it would result in.

Electric motors dont usually need a thousand little parts that can be field serviceable by a dealer or shop, the entire motor would need replacement, and probably has a service life thats too long to make replacement motors a worthwhile business.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Planned Obsolesce

Just make the motors and drivetrain with cheap parts.

Its been part of manufacturing practices for ages. Even Porsche recognized this.
He wanted to build a car at one time that would last for decades but discovered
the economic consequences of that type of thought.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Something you could do to help, zulchzulu

I'm employed in the energy field, but with only marginal contact with those most powerful, and I hear a lot of stories (most of which I believe).

And I don't doubt your story one bit.

But there are numerous tales of squelched technologies, batteries, high efficiency engines, last-forever lightbulbs and razors, yet seldom are these stories verified and the technologies brought to light.

Is there any way your friend could surreptitiously assist you in exposing some names, places, documents, etc., that might make for a legitimate news story?

I'd love to see something like that.

[AdHocSolver]

16. When I was a young lad, light bulbs could last for years.

I have a pack of 40-watt light bulbs that says it will last for 1000 hours. What it doesn't tell you is that 1000-hour figure is a maximum number of hours, not a minimum.

Light bulb filaments don't "burn out". The filament snaps due to stresses that occur while it is lit.

If you compare filament structures between 1000-hour and 2000-hour bulbs (for which the bulb companies charge considerably more), you can see why the one bulb will last longer than the other. (It helps to use unfrosted bulbs in making this comparison.)

The (alleged) 1000-hour bulb will have two supporting rods and a long filament. This ensures that the weight of the filament will put a constant strain on the wire ensuring that it will snap sooner rather than later. The 2000-hour bulb will have three or four supporting rods with a shorter filament. It is this added bracing that ensures longer filament life.

Since the bulbs are manufactured by the thousands by machinery, the cost difference between the two designs couldn't possibly account for the disparity in price. In fact, I have seen house branded 2000-hour bulbs sold for less cost than major-brand 1000-hour bulbs. (Both were manufactured offshore.)

[spag68]

17. Long lasting bulbs

The only difference between regular and long lasting bulbs, is that one is designed for 120V and one is 130V. Why would anyone use these bulbs anyway? compact fluorescent can last up to 10.000 hours and Led bulbs last virtually forever.

[AdHocSolver]

21. The bulbs I referred to are both designed for 120 volts.

I do not use, nor do I want to use, compact fluorescent bulbs. They use a lot of energy to manufacture, they produce ultraviolet radiation, and they present a pollution disposal hazard as they contain mercury.

LED bulbs not only last much longer, but as they are solid-state devices, they are the cheapest to manufacture. However, the companies that manufacture LED's are still making big profits off of them because the public hasn't learned yet how cheap, and efficient, they are.

The bulb manufacturers are still making big bucks selling compact fluorescent bulbs so they aren't going to kill that golden goose. Plenty of time to make profit off of fluorescents before their pollution potential becomes general knowledge.

[shraby]

7. They could be doing tons better on plain old gas mileage.

In the 1960's we had a Renault that would get over 40 mpg...when gas was 27 or so cents a gallon. If they could do it then, they could do it now...no excuses.

[spag68]

19. High mpg cars

Has everyone forgotten about the Geo Metro,52mpg????

[Indydem]

23. 1995 Metro got 44/37. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. You should have this moved to the environmental/energy forum

You would get a lot better response, its a great forum

[NYC_SKP]

12. You got that right, it can be reposted in the EE forum, smart bunch there. nt

[Indydem]

10. I have heard this argument before, and it is assinine...

If GM had a secret vault with the plans for a 70+mpg car, they would be MAKING IT RIGHT NOW, and making a huge enormous profit. Thats what GM does, they make a profit, thats their purpose. Not to protect the oil industry or keep efficient cars off the market. The public is begging for more fuel efficiency and if GM had an engine that could do that and be on the market next year, they'd do it and destroy Ford, Chrysler and Toyota. They could even charge SUV prices for a midsize car, making MORE money. This is an urban legend, cooked up by crazies with no basis in reality.

As for the EV1, I suggest some of you do some research beyond the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car." GM lost 1 billion dollars on the program they did develop and all their market research showed a lack of demand for an all-electric vehicle. I am not aware of ONE legitimate report showing that there was a desire for the car, besides a long list of people wanting to lease. The problem with that being that that list of thousands wasn't near the run that they needed to make a profit, and the EV1 is a car restricted to warmer climates only. It would have never worked anywhere there is snow. Add to that the $1 per gallon price of gas at the time, the general consuming public was not going to buy the EV1. It was an idea before its time, and died a death like so many other cutting edge technologies.

[Danger Mouse]

13. The public may want it, but the fuel companies don't...

and that, in the end, is who runs the game.

[Indydem]

14. What is your basis for that enlightened position?

Since when do the board of directors, CEO and President of GM, Chrysler, Toyota or Honda (all of which who also killed their electric car programs) answer to the oil industry?

They anser to their share holders, and if GM could make a 70+mpg car they would make tons of money for their shareholders and themselves. That is their motivation, profit and greed, not helping out Chevron or Exxon.

[Danger Mouse]

15. America's car companies are miles behind foreign competitors on fuel efficiency standards...

and it is killing them. Foreign cars are better made, have better gas mileage, and are more desirable. I don't exactly chalk them up as having the most intelligent business practices.

[Indydem]

20. Well we can tell where your loyalties lie....

For the CAFE of GM, I'll pay $3,380 for 25k miles per year. For Honda I'll pay $3000. @$4 per gallon. That is $1.041 per day more to drive an American car than a Honda (based on CAFE). That is not "Miles ahead." I will gladly pay $1 a day to drive an American car made by Union American Auto Workers.

As for quality, I'll put my Pontiac against any Honda, Nissan, or Toyota you want to pick. Plus, I know that the rights of the workers who built it were protected by collective bargaining.

As for desireable, thats a matter of taste. Again, I'll drive an American automobile built by union hands anyday. Thats what makes American cars desireable to me, but apparently your ego or some other factor motivates you to stab organized labor in the back when purchasing an automobile.

[quakerboy]

27. Maybe you can help me here

Which cars are actually made in the US?

Its my understanding that many "American" autos are made elsewhere, and only the final assembly is done in the US. I also recall having heard that Toyota had started doing assembly of at least some of its models here in the US. Both of those are anecdotal, and I do not know their truth.

Can you point me to actual data on what cars I might find that are truly made in the US?

[AdHocSolver]

18. I saw the movie. Many of the people who leased them wanted to buy them.

That is why GM got scared and destroyed the cars. GM profit margins would be less on a fuel efficient car than their gas-guzzling SUV's since the markup on the SUV is much greater than the markup on a hybrid, as the cost of producing a hybrid is greater.

Moreover, the "public" wasn't clamoring for fuel efficient cars until recently. GM had their customers convinced that fuel efficient cars would be "slow" and "ugly" looking. (By the way, Tesla electric car: zero to 60 MPH in 4 seconds.)

Then there are after-market profits to consider. Gasoline engine cars have huge maintenance costs that electric vehicles don't have. Oil changes, muffler replacement, tune-ups, coolant system maintenance, automatic transmission maintenance are all profit areas for auto companies that would vanish with electric-powered vehicles.

As for the alleged billion dollar loss, they lost that amount because they didn't go into production of the vehicle. Any company that spends money on development and doesn't produce a product for sale loses that investment. They could have recouped some of that development cost if they had sold the vehicles. There were plenty of people interested in buying them. GM destroyed the cars to prevent a market developing. GM would only lease the vehicles. They refused to sell them from the beginning.

As for a problem with driving an EV1 in snow, last I heard there were millions of people living in southern states where snow is not a problem.

There has always been a very close relationship between the oil and auto companies. The same people and investment companies that own oil stock own auto stock. The American auto companies are not going to hurt their chances of profiting from their oil stock.

Finally, Japanese, Korean, and most European auto companies all have better fleet gas mileage figures than the American car companies. You mean to say that all those foreign auto executives could see higher gas prices coming, but American auto execs could not. That doesn't say much for American auto executives' leadership.

[Indydem]

22. Lets work this out with logic....

1. Gm did not want to produce the EV1 because their research showed the public was no going to pay $80k for an electric car. Sure, some advocates and celebrities would have paid the price, but your average Joe on the street was not going to pay that for an electric car that couldm't go more than 40 miles per charge. Wasn't going to happen. Not when joe public could get an SUV and fill up the tank every week for 10 years for the same price.

2. The EV1 is UGLY. The average american consumer would not have purchased it due to its design and lack of physical appeal. It is not an attractive vehicle. The Tesla (which is still to be proven viable or not) it a gorgeous car. If GM had developed that car, there might have been a future, but they tried to base it on an existing product, and ended up with the ugmobile.

3. Won't argue that because there is likely some truth to that. But there would still be a huge market for parts and body panels and electronic controllers and batteries and such. Just because there is no motor to service doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other things to go wrong. GM would have done just fine.

4. There were NOT plenty of people interested in buying the EV1. End of story. Urban legend. You cannot say that the 800 people who leased the EV1 were a lot, and you cannot say that the thousands who were on waiting lists constitute a buying public. There was no room to make money making only 20,000 cars and thats being generous on demand.

5. Using the EV1 in warm climates requires the use of AC for comfort and battery protection, lowering the range of the car significantly, enough to cripple it.

6. Ok, whatever you say.

7. GM CAFE: 29.6 Honda CAFE (highest) 33.7 That is not that great of a difference. Not to mention Gm offers about 40 cars to make that average and Honda offers 2. Not much to be said for choice. Besides that, Toyota is a global company manufacturing cars for a global market where fuel is MUCH more expensive than in the US. It served them well to have efficient cars. GM and the other US automakers make their cars primarily for the US market where fuel has been (until recently) been much cheaper. Americans want bigger, badder, faster cars. GM gave them what they wanted.

[Egnever]

24. Fairly short sighted of gm no?

not that I buy into the who killed the electric car horse crap. GM has pretty much marketed themselves to extinction at this point no?

[AdHocSolver]

25. Logic...

1. An experimental car cost $80,000 each. A production car, accounting for mass production methods and economies of scale, would cost far less.

2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have turned out some pretty gross looking cars over the years. (Aztek, anyone?)

3. Electronic parts are cheap to manufacture. I worked in the business for several years. The retail prices have huge markups. Electronic parts are not only cheap, but they last a looong time. The most expensive part of an electric vehicle would be the battery pack. Up to now, the batteries used in hybrid cars have proven quite reliable. Moreover, battery research is being pursued vigorously on several fronts. The number of parts in the mechanicals in gasoline engine cars is in the high hundreds. The number of parts in the mechanicals of an electric vehicle would be in the dozens. Body parts and accessories are common to both kinds of cars and are irrelevant in predicting maintenance costs.

4. The EV1 was an experimental car available only in California. GM would only lease the cars so that the company could get them back and destroy them. That was their intent from the beginning. They worked very hard to get the zero-emissions program mandated by that state defeated.

5. Last time I was in California (albeit, several years ago) it was pretty warm. Nothing in the movie indicated that it was a serious problem for the people who actually drove the EV1 cars.

6. OK.

7. GM fuel standards look better than they are in reality. Trucks and SUV's built on truck chasses are not counted in the CAFE figures. If they were, GM would look a lot worse than that. Not all Americans wanted "bigger, badder, faster" cars. That is why Honda, Toyota, and a host of foreign-branded cars are out-selling American cars. Those Americans who believed GM advertising now have a pain in their wallets, and can't even sell their gas-guzzling SUV's without taking a loss. GM didn't give Americans what they wanted. It sold them a bunch of snake oil.

[quakerboy]

26. Your argument sounds good

It makes some sense on the face, but it begs the question: why did they recall and destroy the cars?

If it was about making money, and they were loosing money, it would make sense to end the production of the EV1. Ok. But why not sell off the already existing autos to willing buyers to recoup as much of the money as they could.

[Indydem]

28. This one is easy...

GM didn't want the liability (legal and otherwise) of all those electric cars running around on the road. They would have had to create parts for 10 years (GM policy) and even if liability was signed over, there was a risk to GM's image and any future owners.

They destroyed the cars because they were a liability. End of story. GM will still be the first major company to release an electric car (made in America) and hydrogen fuel cell, when that technology comes to fruition.