[HN Gopher] General Motors is assisting with the restoration of ...
___________________________________________________________________
General Motors is assisting with the restoration of a rare EV1
Author : betacollector64
Score : 86 points
Date : 2026-03-20 17:59 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (evinfo.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (evinfo.net)
| kotaKat wrote:
| In a way it feels like a sick and twisted joke that GM is willing
| to help with this, especially how they've been treating their
| current EV lineup.
|
| BrightDrop's dead, the Bolt was loved and killed and brought back
| and killed again, they keep making questionable decisions with
| their infotainment and subscription models (no CarPlay, mandatory
| consumer Google Account and OnStar subscriptions), the best thing
| they even apparently sell right now has a Honda (re)badge on
| it...
| InUrNetz wrote:
| The anti CarPlay stance is a real deal killer for me. I put an
| aftermarket radio in my Chevy Express to get CarPlay, and have
| a long history of Chevy, GMC, and Buick ownership, but this one
| blocks me from buying a new GM car.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Honda Prologue is an option if you really like the Ultium
| SUVs, sadly only a Blazer sized rebadge and no Equinox.
|
| I do wonder what the outlook for that is now, they were
| supposed to be a shorter term bridge until Honda had their
| own EVs but Honda recently killed a bunch of EV plans so
| maybe the GM partnership sticks around a while?
| fullstop wrote:
| I've been satisfied with Android Automotive on my Equinox EV.
| I did see that there are USB dongles which can allegedly add
| Android Auto to the car.
| bluGill wrote:
| My blazer doesn't have android auto either... where are
| these usb things, I might be interested. I really want my
| phone to respond to 'ok google' not the car saying 'this
| needs a subscription'
| fullstop wrote:
| These cars are sold with data plans which last quite a
| few years. What model year is your Blazer? I think that
| my Equinox has app access for 3 years and maps / google
| assistant for 8 years. I've tested tethering with my
| phone and it works with that, so I have a path forward
| once the built-in subscription lapses.
|
| This is the one that I saw: https://evplay.io/shop/ev-
| play-lite-gm
|
| It's kind of expensive, and there's a non-zero chance
| that GM does something to block it.
| bluGill wrote:
| 2024. I refused their privacy policy, so that might be
| why I'm getting nothing. I don't drive much so I'm worth
| more to GM than they are to me.
|
| If GM tries to block it there are a number of ways a
| lawyer can fight back and likely win. The Magnuson Moss
| warranty act was historically written about car radios
| for starters. There are other consumer protection laws as
| well. You need a good lawyer, but I suspect they will
| take the case for the expected gains in the return
| lawsuit. If I were them I'd get a lawyer to write this up
| in a "white paper" - It would be a few thousand, but it
| is also something GM will likely see if they think about
| doing anything.
| stetrain wrote:
| Annoyingly "Android Auto" and "Android Automotive" are
| completely different things.
|
| Android Auto is where you can connect your phone to the
| car and your phone projects onto the car's display with
| apps and navigation.
|
| Android Automotive is when the car itself is running
| Android Automotive for its infotainment OS, meaning it
| has access to a limited Android App Store to install apps
| natively into the car's infotainment system and you can
| sign in with your Google account.
|
| Some cars with Android Automotive also support CarPlay
| and Android Auto on top of it, but GM has decided to
| disable those features, meaning you have to use the
| built-in Android Automotive system to manage your media
| streaming apps and pay GM for the data access plan.
| bluGill wrote:
| I have a blazer ev without it and I agree it is the biggest
| negative. If I drove 8 hours a day their onstar is better,
| but if you use a car a reasonable amount it isn't worth a
| subscription (or setting everything up that is already in the
| phone)
| thumbsup-_- wrote:
| Honestly I'm an apple guy and felt the same until I drove
| their Blazer EV and loved the native google maps. This is way
| better than projecting from phone. The native integration
| knows about car's battery state all the time and auto-
| suggests stops. Any native map in car do they but they
| usually aren't good quality maps. In GM's case, the native
| maps are google maps. I can also sign in on my google account
| and I don't need internet to use it (in case I'm in a remote
| area).
|
| I feel I want every car to have native google maps now.
| segfaultex wrote:
| >The native integration knows about car's battery state all
| the time and auto-suggests stops.
|
| CarPlay does this on my F150 Lightning. It manages state,
| preconditioning when routing to a charging stop, will
| suggest charging stops as I'm routing, etc. etc.
|
| There's really nothing special about GM's implementation
| IMO, except that they charge you monthly to access it.
| segfaultex wrote:
| We bought an F150 Lightning instead of a Sierra EV mainly
| because of this. I'm not interested in 'cars as a service'.
| sanex wrote:
| You've got it reversed. Honda is rebadging the equinox ev. GM.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Yeah, and it's still the best thing GM can even build right
| now. It's an Equinox without GM's bullshit and even includes
| CarPlay in the package.
| fullstop wrote:
| It's based on the Blazer, and is larger than an Equinox EV.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Actually a Blazer, not an Equinox
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| A "Blazer EV", right? Not to be confused with the same-
| named gas Blazer (built on a different chassis):
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/blazer
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Yes, Blazer EV
| kccqzy wrote:
| GM's Cadillac is doing alright with EVs: the Optiq, the Lyriq,
| the Vistiq are all selling well.
| fullstop wrote:
| Equinox EV is also doing well.
| parpfish wrote:
| Those names are horrifiq
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Given GM's history with this vehicle, I'd assume any contact
| with them is an attempt to lay claim to ownership of the
| vehicle. There's no way I'd even communicate with them
| mediumdave wrote:
| The Bolt will be back in 2027.
|
| I'm a huge fan of the Bolt, and I love my 2019. It's a very
| practical car, and has surprisingly decent range.
| kotaKat wrote:
| For approximately one and a half model years.
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/785214/2027-chevrolet-bolt-
| limite...
| twobitshifter wrote:
| I hadn't heard that they killed the Bolt again! At least there
| is the 2027 model, which us starting to show up at dealers.
| With the Iran war, I expect much more interest in EVs right
| now, so this version of the Bolt may sell out fast.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| I've been watching these videos, I'm honestly shocked about the
| complete 180 gm is pulling...
|
| In the past, they would have wanted the motors disabled and the
| batteries incapacitated (if they weren't already, because half of
| them were trash), if they couldn't legally scare you into letting
| them scrap the car.
|
| I kindof feel like there's some ulterior motive, like they want
| another museum piece for themselves, or sales are really hurting
| and they want to drum up some good will. Call me skeptical if you
| must, but they _really_ didn't want these on the road.
| bluGill wrote:
| This is common for all cars of all makes. You want people to
| buy new ones so there is an areg where old cars are a
| liability. People buying new cars trade them in after three
| years, so you want some value left so they can afford that, but
| you want them to wear out in about 12 so that people have
| reason to keep buying more instead of keeping the old. Then
| after about 25 years it is a collectors car and you can be
| proud of the few left - they are not impacting new sales much
| (if any) and give people reason to dream about cars.
| xp84 wrote:
| I don't think it was all that mysterious, or even sinister. The
| car was a compliance car, it was mandated by the state to
| exist, and was not at the time a profitable model. All of them
| were leased. When the mandate expired or whatever, selling the
| cars instead of taking them back would have meant supporting
| this very different car for a long time with parts and repair
| service. This would have been a huge headache, and not worth it
| by any measure. Yes, they could have attempted to make BEVs
| happen for the mass market in general, but every carmaker was
| free to do so and they all seemed to agree that it wasn't a
| good risk until Tesla came years later and made that bet with
| the S and the 3. But that was 15 years of advancement later.
|
| And GM could have crushed all of them, but apparently was proud
| enough of it and not afraid people would 'discover its secrets'
| and build a new EV, since they decided to just park a half
| dozen or whatever at schools for students to poke and prod at.
| I get that the optics of crushing them made them look like a
| villain from the "Captain Planet" cartoon, but it would have
| been foolish for them to do anything else.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Was it even a compliance car?
|
| It's eternally fascinating that people can't or won't grasp
| that the cars cost far more to produce than they could put
| them to market for, instead deciding that it was a big
| conspiracy.
|
| It took until ~2015 for batteries to become practical for
| expensive mass market cars.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| And even now, the fantasy of the $30,000 EV hasn't _really_
| been realized. In the US, your only option right now is the
| Leaf, but good luck finding one for under $32,000.
| xp84 wrote:
| If that was the fantasy even 6 years ago, the fantasy
| should have been updated for inflation to a $40,000 EV. I
| don't even mean to exaggerate -- that's how much
| inflation we've had since 2020. We have plenty of
| sub-$40k EVs.
| monocasa wrote:
| Meanwhile Europe has access to $30k EVs because they
| didn't stock a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. Hell, a
| leapmotor to3 is almost down to $20k.
| slackfan wrote:
| To be furiously pedantic: I can walk into my local GM
| dealer down the road and buy a 2027 Bolt for 29000~ right
| now.
| HoldOnAMinute wrote:
| There's uncountable numbers of used Tesla Model 3's for
| under $30,000
| aeturnum wrote:
| > _Was it even a compliance car?_
|
| I am not an expert but I believe that US regulations
| require that manufacturers make a range of vehicle types to
| sell on the US market. You don't need to sell a lot of,
| say, compact cars - but you need to offer a compact car in
| order to sell your cash-cow large trucks.
| bluGill wrote:
| California not US regulations in this case.
| aeturnum wrote:
| ah! thank you
| ndiddy wrote:
| CAFE didn't work like this, it was a lot dumber.
| Basically it weighed the fuel economy for vehicles under
| 6000 pounds between two categories: passenger cars
| (sedans, coupes, wagons) and light trucks (vans, SUVs,
| crossovers). Passenger cars had an MPG target of ~8 MPG
| higher than light trucks. Car manufacturers that couldn't
| get their MPG (weighted between sales of the two
| categories from that manufacturer) below the targets were
| fined. Essentially this incentivized car companies to
| sell fewer passenger cars and more light trucks so their
| target MPG was lower. This is why crossovers have
| basically taken over the market in the US. Car
| manufacturers modified their designs to count as light
| trucks (lowering the MPG by 1-2), but since the target
| for light trucks is 8 MPG lower than passenger cars, they
| look more compliant on paper. We've gone from passenger
| cars making up ~50% of US car sales in 2000 to ~20% of
| car sales today.
|
| I use the past tense because the Trump admin has gotten
| rid of the fines for this regulation so it basically
| doesn't matter anymore (one of the few good moves it's
| done). It'll be interesting to see if small cars are able
| to make a recovery in the US, or if it's too late.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I am sure it'll be a few years as manufacturers will
| worry that a future admin (if we get such a thing lol)
| could un-remove the fees - but it would be wonderful to
| see actual small trucks again.
| nickff wrote:
| CAFE wasn't 'dumb', it was designed to prevent the 'big
| three' from manufacturing (new generations of) small cars
| outside the USA (i.e. in Mexico), with non-UAW labor.
| CAFE was not designed to protect the environment or
| reduce emissions; that was just a PR veneer to make it
| more palatable. You're completely correct that it led to
| strange designs, perhaps most notably the PT Cruiser
| (which was classified as a truck
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser).
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| And it killed a bunch of useful smaller truckish vehicles
| because they scored poorly. The Ford Ranger, the Chevy
| Astro, the Crown Vic and every other sedan with a big
| ass.
| criddell wrote:
| I thought they destroyed them all because they didn't want to
| have to provide the legally required parts and service for
| them. Now that they are in classic car territory, those
| requirements no longer exist.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I find the obsession with ev1 very US centric. There were
| many many other electric cars released before EV1. I think
| that documentary is to blame for this, GM was not the only
| company exploring EV's and there were other players as well.
| They just, for some reason or another, did not commit to it
| fully.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_electric_vehic.
| ..
| theodric wrote:
| It's nice, and special, and purpose built, and quasi-
| production, and so on. Not just a Peugeot hatch or BMW 2002
| or VW Golf or some Aixam quadricycle bejaardewagen with an
| electric drivetrain crudely crammed in, but a proper car
| designed by a major manufacturer from the ground up as an
| EV. I think it's pretty cool. I wish somebody would take
| molds off an EV1 and sell a kit car or Miata body shell.
| legitster wrote:
| It's not just that the car was a compliance car, it's that
| these were _experimental models_. They were not able to be
| registered by individuals because they didn 't go through all
| of the mandated safety regulations that normal models do.
| arcfour wrote:
| So the state first mandates the cars exist, then mandates
| the cars be destroyed. Truly this is government efficiency
| at its finest.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > As GM's team put it: "EV1 set in motion everything we're doing
| in electric right now"
|
| Sounds line GM is taking credit for EV industry's success after
| they recalled and sent to the crusher the very car model these
| people are trying to restore.
| ezfe wrote:
| They're taking credit for their own success? I don't know how
| you can construe that to be the industry overall.
| conception wrote:
| You mean Toyota and Tesla's success? Let's be real - the
| Prius and then Model S kickstarted the EV revolution.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| If you read the history you'll see the appropriate word is
| "restarted" the EV revolution. It was on and off again in a
| slow march to the point that allowed Tesla to exist. I'm
| not diminishing the role Tesla played, but it has to be
| taken in context. They stood on shoulders.
| therealpygon wrote:
| An over 125 year, often abandoned, stuttering march
| filled with stories of invisible battles by the
| entrenched to keep the status quo.
| xp84 wrote:
| I think looking at every carmaker's lineup should make it
| obvious that they don't give a crap what powers a car,
| they are just trying to sell what's popular. EVs were
| trendy for a couple years and a margin-subsidizing $7000
| was available so everybody enthusiastically brought out
| EVs. Now they're less popular so they're all pulling
| back. Arguably even Tesla is doing so, given that Musk
| has intimidated that he didn't really think Tesla was
| going to keep selling cars forever.
|
| When the demand is sufficient, the cars will be sold in
| numbers to match it. Demand will increase as it becomes
| practical to own an EV for more people. This mainly has
| to do with charging infrastructure at every level, which
| is capital intensive for both individuals and
| governments.
| bluGill wrote:
| Those were important too, but the ev1 started that modern
| ev.
| therealpygon wrote:
| Do you suggest we ignore or include in this history the
| original contributions of the first electric cars from all
| the way back in the single digits of the 1900s?
| bluGill wrote:
| There was a long time between those cars and the modern
| electric car where the only thing electric was "golf
| carts" (not general purpose cars), or homemade
| conversions. The EV1 was the first commercial car in the
| memory of most people alive today. The 1900s ones were
| fun/interesting historical things, but not practical.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Right before that in the paragraph:
|
| > The EV1 introduced technologies that remain foundational to
| modern EVs
| hamdingers wrote:
| It's not a success if you quit the race at the finish line,
| even if you were in the lead.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| It's a trap, they've got a car crusher at the ready for sure.
| bobim wrote:
| Maybe GM is still the legal owner since they were all leased,
| so that would be a possible sad outcome.
| xp84 wrote:
| If you've watched these guys videos, you would know it's not
| some sort of cartoon villain trap. They took them to Detroit,
| showed them a ton of stuff, let them talk to a bunch of very
| sincere and cool engineers, gave them a bunch of unobtainium
| spare parts, and gave interviews on the record with
| executives. Let's just say GM's PR department is running a
| lot better than their cars do these days. Someone there saw
| the initial buzz about this find, and obviously convinced the
| C-suite that they could very easily score huge wins in public
| goodwill, partly counteracting all the "Who Killed the
| Electric Car" hype.
| giobox wrote:
| If you follow their videos, they and a handful of others have
| secured title to their EV-1s. There are a small number of
| ways the cars were able to fall out of the leasing agreement
| and into properly titled private ownership.
|
| In this case, they took advantage of the fact the car was
| abandoned in Georgia and went to impound action, which let
| them buy it from the State with title, bypassing any
| potential agreement with GM.
| drysart wrote:
| This particular vehicle was sold at an impound auction under
| a court order. Any existing legal ownership of the vehicle
| prior to the auction was extinguished.
| rozap wrote:
| This is part of GM's broader marketing push to drum up goodwill
| from younger people. It's the same reason why they have a
| youtube series about the beginnings of the Cadillac F1 team,
| which is clearly produced for zoomer and millenial audiences.
|
| I don't think there's anything nefarious here, they are just
| cultivating a particular image to try to sell cars. It's a
| reasonable marketing strategy, as marketing strategies go.
| Loudergood wrote:
| Some Millennials are reaching their mid 40s now.
| rozap wrote:
| Still on the younger end for people who have enough money
| to buy a car, which now averages $~40k. Zoomers are
| economically screwed.
| creantum wrote:
| Tesla: Tarpening and Eberhard along with Musk's cash changed the
| world. GM was a half hearted effort to please some politicians,
| as evidenced by leasing a few, and in the end destroying them
| all.
| simondotau wrote:
| Tarpening and Eberhard left Tesla long before the company had
| any "change the world" influence on the automotive landscape.
| If you want to give credit to anyone other than Musk, give it
| to Tom Gage for designing the AC Propulsion tzero. Tarpening
| and Eberhard's business plan was little more than "make a
| handful of tzero clones for weird enthusiasts like us."
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > We are seeing the administration try the same tactics now in
| 2025 and 2026 to kill EVs,
|
| Interesting... if removing subsidies has caused Ford to write off
| 20 billion and Honda to announce they took a 15 billion dollar
| loss mainly on EVs... maybe something is wrong?
|
| I'm in this industry, it's going to get worse. We're looking at
| 2034 vehicles now, and surprise, they're ICE.
| dotancohen wrote:
| And in the paragraph after that, the article makes its single
| reference to Elon Musk, calling him crazy. Completely out of
| place in the article. It's clear that both the sentence you
| quote and the following one are there for political purposes,
| and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Would not
| surprise me to learn that the editor threw them in after the
| article was written - they just have nothing to do with the
| article.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| If Elon can't be named without someone feeling the need to
| comment on his behavior, that's mostly on him. His public
| persona has made a neutral reference to him into a possible
| implicit endorsement.
|
| I agree the comment seemed out of place and I'm speculating
| about why they put it in, but that's one reason I would do
| so. Someone who does a Nazi salute on TV with a bizarre smile
| on his face is not just another business guy.
|
| Lee Iacocca didn't get those comments.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| >It's clear that both the sentence you quote and the
| following one are there for political purposes,
|
| Yes. These people can literally not fucking help themselves.
|
| I personally see it as a pettiness and weak character that
| they cannot let ideology drop from the foreground even for a
| second.
|
| Again, I'm in this industry. There was a marketing push
| because they saw a way to easily sell new and second cars
| even to people it doesn't work for. Marketing pushed so hard
| that there's an equal pushback from reality.
|
| Nothing to do with Elon or Trump.
| xp84 wrote:
| Honestly, instead of subsidizing EVs themselves, the government
| should spend their money on initiatives that make them more
| attractive, and it should probably be carrots not sticks at
| this point, because a quick read of the room would indicate
| that most people reeeeally don't want to feel bullied into
| buying an EV that doesn't fit into their lifestyle.
|
| Everybody who thinks that we need heavy-handed mandates and to
| fully eliminate ICE vehicles is just setting themselves up for
| disappointment.
| NewJazz wrote:
| The us govt literally tried carrots (tax credits) and now the
| new administration is threatening owners with sticks
| (absurdly high national registration fees).
|
| Oh, and everyone who couldn't afford an EV complained about
| the subsidies.
|
| The easiest way to make EVs more attractive is taxing carbon.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| The easiest way to make EVs more attractive is to have a
| battery w/ the power density of a 14-gallon stamped-steel
| tank filled with gasoline, at no more than 10% of the total
| BOM cost of the vehicle.
| segfaultex wrote:
| You think making the biggest breakthrough in battery tech
| is easier than monetary incentives?
| linksnapzz wrote:
| It's a difficult thing, but it's _only_ one thing. Paying
| people to buy & drive cars that they'd otherwise
| wouldn't isn't a sustainable practice either.
| Tostino wrote:
| I need a freaking EV that's flat towable. Not a single one
| released so far has been able to do that.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Just make sure the lawyers don't get a chance to rewrite history.
| I think this is mostly an attempt to wash the shame away from
| what was clearly technology ahead of it's time. They chose poorly
| and Elon Musk would be an unknown millionaire today if GM decided
| to continue development of the EV1.
| xp84 wrote:
| This statement doesn't really seem supported by facts. Battery
| technology just wasn't able to make this car for the mass
| market 25 years ago. GM continuing to keep this very low-volume
| car in the showrooms for 15 more years at an unattractive price
| point would not have changed anything. Even if GM had produced
| a car like the Model S around the same time that Tesla did in
| our timeline, that would not have guaranteed them anything, nor
| would it have constrained Tesla's founders from taking the risk
| to start that company and succeeding.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| That's an old argument. The Prius hybrid was already running
| around with the same battery technology. They could have
| shifted. They could have pivoted. They could have done a very
| low volume production. The car was killed.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Yeah if the volt was released a decade earlier they'd have
| been a frontrunner in the pure ev space in the late 2010s.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| It's the correct argument. Bob Lutz deals with it in one of
| his books.
|
| The EV1 was a evaluation exercise/hedge against regulation;
| the impetus was a lunatic assertion in 1990 by the CA
| gov't: they wanted 10% of cars sold in the state by 2000 to
| be electric. Nobody outside of Sacramento thought this
| would be doable, but it was an excuse to do some useful
| R&D, as well as to demonstrate to lawmakers the
| difficulties involved.
|
| As for the Prius-the Gen I Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive cost
| $380 million in 1990s dollars for R&D. Anybody at GM trying
| to spend that kind of money on an experimental(!)
| powertrain for a low-volume(!!) economy(!!!) car would've
| been fired. At Toyota, Shoichiro Toyoda was supportive of
| such an idea, despite the limited opportunity for near-term
| profit; and if you have that last name at that company,
| nobody's gonna fire you.
| coryrc wrote:
| If they hadn't lobbied to make small cars more expensive
| because the margins were lower, they could have built a model
| that was capable of being EV or gasoline, to get economy of
| scale for most of the vehicle. Well, worked with Daewoo to
| make a nicer version of the Chevy Aveo which could be a
| 4-seater gasoline car or 2-seater EV... Well, problem with
| that idea is the EV-1 was only popular with Hollywood types
| because it was a statement vehicle, so everybody knew what
| you were doing. I guess the dual-purpose vehicle would not.
|
| tl;dr You're right :)
| egorfine wrote:
| It's an unfortunate accident that GM sent engineers instead of
| lawyers. I'm sure this will be corrected soon.
| recursive wrote:
| I don't know what's inside, but I see a car with an EV1 body
| around my city. I only ever see it parked, not driving, but it's
| not always parked in the same spot, so I guess it must drive some
| time.
| legitster wrote:
| > That decision, and the fury it sparked among EV1 lessees who
| fought to keep their cars, is the subject of Chris Paine's 2006
| documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" It is essential
| viewing for anyone interested in how the auto industry, oil
| companies, regulators, and consumer culture shaped the trajectory
| of electric transportation. Paine does not let anyone off the
| hook easily, and the film holds up as both a piece of
| investigative storytelling and a snapshot of an industry at a
| crossroads.
|
| The conspiracy about GM killing the EV1 is very hyperbolic and
| the documentary is mostly a fantasy.
|
| Carmakers releasing test cars to markets and then destroying them
| was a common practice - GM did the same with their hydrogen cars,
| the famous turbine engine cars, and even large scale prototypes
| like the Aerovette. In many cases they were only able to
| circumvent safety/testing regulation because these were not
| registerable cars.
|
| Even if the market tests were successful, the only placed they
| planned to sell them was California as a compliance car for CARB.
| No matter how you try to spin it, a lead-acid battery powered car
| was not ever going to be the car of the future.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Wait didn't they have a NiMH battery too?
| linksnapzz wrote:
| Eventually, near the end. The first run of them was lead-
| acid; the battery was about 60% of the weight of the vehicle.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Yes, the exact same battery technology Toyota was already
| using in their Prius, which is still in-use in many Toyota
| hybrid models still on the road. The battery was not the
| problem.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Prius had 0.91 kWh battery and the EV1 had 26.4 kWh with
| NiMH. The EV1 was expensive, $80k to produce in 1996 money.
| A large part of that had to be the battery.
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| NiMH batteries suck too
| flyinghamster wrote:
| Yes, and unlike what has been done in the Prius, these were
| large-format cells. The patents on them ultimately ended up
| sold to a Chevron subsidiary, which would only license the
| technology under absurd terms. They assumed that lithium-
| based battery technologies wouldn't be suitable. Oops.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_au.
| ..
| mikkupikku wrote:
| The earliest prototypes of what would become the Tesla Roadster
| used lead acid batteries.
| danans wrote:
| > Carmakers releasing test cars to markets and then destroying
| them was a common practice - GM did the same with their
| hydrogen cars, the famous turbine engine cars, and even large
| scale prototypes like the Aerovette. In many cases they were
| only able to circumvent safety/testing regulation because these
| were not registerable cars.
|
| The EV1 wasn't just a "test car". It was a production vehicle
| which was built (as you said) to comply with the California ZEV
| mandate, which GM also spent millions lobbying against, and
| eventually defeating, while they were contracting with an
| outside engineering firm to design the EV1.
|
| TTBOMK, GM didn't spend millions lobbying against turbine
| engine and hydrogen fuel cell tech.
|
| http://www.evnut.com/carb_ruling.htm
| legitster wrote:
| > It was a production vehicle which was built (as you said)
| to comply with the California ZEV mandate.
|
| It was never a true production car - none of the cars GM
| leased were registerable because they did not have a
| finalized production design submitted to safety or
| (ironically) EPA standards.
|
| Technically GM did lobby against hydrogen fuel cell tech at
| the same time because the ZEV mandate specifically also
| included hydrogen as a potential solution. But no one is
| accusing GM of also killing the hydrogen car just because it
| made it less far along the development process.
|
| I know it's the real controversial opinion - but nobody was
| wrong. The experience of CARB more or less proved that a
| successful EV was not immediately available. But mass
| hybridization probably resulted in more measurable emissions
| savings than the original 10% ZEV goal ever would have.
| longislandguido wrote:
| Look at that simple 90s dash and tactile controls.
|
| Do you know how many more EVs would be adopted if they weren't
| marketing iPads-on-wheels to the masses? It's the biggest
| hindrance to the industry behind lack of charging infra.
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| 0?
| jacquesm wrote:
| At least 1.
| Loudergood wrote:
| People act like other new cars aren't exactly the same on the
| inside.
| ssimpson wrote:
| My mom got to test one of these for like 3 months. While only a 2
| seater, it was a super cool car. For the time it was very modern.
| And it was very quiet, it had a gentle horn you could honk so
| that people knew you were there. She let me drive a few times and
| it was also very quick.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-23 23:00 UTC)