Certainly, the development costs were high, but the production cost would be less than building ICE cars as there are way fewer parts per vehicle.

It is all water over the dam with a large amount of our tax dollars wasted. It sure would be nice if GM would at least be truthful. If they lie when I know they are lying, how can I believe them when I have no way of verifying?

I guess I have trouble understanding why they can’t just say “Our lawyers and lobbyists beat down CARB and we didn’t have to do what we didn’t want to do.”

Spartysecrets: Can you tell me about the EV1 donation program?
Dave Barthmuss: The EV1s were available for lease to customers in California from ‘96 to 2000. It had very limited appeal because of its range issue and batteries. We were only able to lease 800 in four years. After spending over a billion dollars to market it, we had to discontinue it. We did one of three things: donated them to museums, gave them to college students to work on them so they could learn more about automotive engineering, and recycled - or scrapped - the rest. 50 or so went to universities.

SS: Why were they donated?
DB: To extend the learning of the EV1. Part of what we need is good automotive engineers. This is a great way for them to learn about energy and propulsion systems and for them to come up with a new idea. Whether its powered by whatever means.

SS: How and why were they specifically modified before donation?
DB: Primarily the battery electric propulsion system, because those parts were frankly just wearing out. We did not want to have a vehicle in the hands of students that we didn’t have the confidence could be operated in a safe way. Because we could only lease 800 of these vehicles, we ran out of parts. in 97 or 98 we couldn’t order enough parts from them to make it profitable for them (the part manufacturers). We didn’t have any inventory of spare parts. We had to cannibalize parts of other EV1’s to keep these going safely.

Its not (a car) meant for a shade-tree mechanic - so to say - because of the high voltage and unique parts. We felt it best to provide it in a safe way for the students to tinker with, revise, innovate, make them run with their own technologies, rather than have a particularly dangerous experimentation.

SS: Why was the university told not to seek EV1 parts or to get the car running again as an EV1?
DB: A, they’re (the parts are) not available. B, they’re old. Probably at the end of their useful life. The EV1 had 2000 unique parts. It was developed on early ’90s parts. We just did not want to advocate people finding these old spare parts and failing.

SS: If GM donated these vehicles for science, they must have been proud of them. What do you think about the technology of the EV1?
DB: At its time it was the most technologically advanced vehicles in the world. It set many patents and standards. It was a tremendous, full-functioning, battery-operated vehicle. Frankly, there is a little bit of EV1 in every electric-type vehicle we have. The regenerative breaking is still used. The power convertor is the same technology used today in fuel cells. All the EV1 engineers are working on our electric vehicles and hybrids. They use the same regen breaking process to recharge their battery systems. Without the EV1 we couldn’t be building hybrids and our new Eflex system - that is being illustrated by the Chevy Volt concept vehicle. We appreciated the passion and enthusiasm of the people that leased the vehicles. We just wish there were a lot more of them.

They were built right there in Lansing. Unfortunately, the plant only operated at about 8 percent production. It may have also built Buick Riyadas at that time, but it was primarily for EV1s. In 1996 gasoline was still under $2, we still had the Trade Centers, we didn’t have a war driving up the cost of petroleum, we didn’t have Al Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth.” Times were very different then. People were a lot less willing to pay a monthly lease fee.

SS: You say demand wasn’t there. What about the reported waiting lists?
DB: We had a list of about 5,000 people that said “I’m interested” and said they wanted to learn more. we generated that list by our award-winning advertising. We contacted every single one of those people, showed them the EV1, showed them the charging system we’d put in their garage for them, showed them it would go 100 miles and how long it would take to charge. Then, only 50 out of those 5,000 were willing to sign a lease. Then you find out, this isn’t practical for my everyday use.

SS: How much was spent on the project and why didn’t GM try to recoup any of its investment?
DB: Well over a billion (dollars). Perhaps closer to a billion and a half. We would have had to sell vehicles in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for us to be able to recoup the investment.

If it was going to succeed, it was going to be in California. People were doing nothing but selling these things on the floor. We had a sales force just for them. Our salespeople had cell phones before anyone else. We leased them through our Saturn retailers, which was our most trusted brand. Given the California regulations and environmental mind frame, the climate, the support that California was giving… But with all that only 800 people in 4 years does not a business make. It really doesn’t make a difference in attacking the environment and energy changes we’re trying to make.