[Detroit Auto Show] 2014 Cadillac ELR electrifies the luxury market

The discontinued 1999 GM EV1 got 160 miles per charge. Electric car technology has been ready for a long time. There is just a lot of revenue in it for oil and car companies to fuel and maintain a combustion engine drive train.

gm1999ev101.jpg




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
YOU sir are the ONLY one I see so far in this thread that knows what da FUCK is going on..the OTHERS should start by watching the Documentary called "GAS HOLE" They had cars that could run on gas Vapor..100 Miles to the gallon WAYYYYYYY back in the 70's Do y'all REALLY think 35-38 miles per charge is the best they could do?

Yall/WE are being CONTROLLED. Do you clowns really think they gonna allow people to to become totally independent from GAS or OIL?:lol::hmm: The FIRST mofo that TRY'S to go public with an invention that will allow you to do IMPRESSIVE distance in a Totally gas free car OR a gas driven car that will allow you to do 500-1000 or 1500 miles on a single Charge or fill up your gonna read about or find His or Her ass Dead somewhere in a fuckin Desert or some shit. WATCH/START with the doc/movie "GAS HOLE" then come back here and post cuz most a yall in here walking arould with your eyes whide SHUT!:smh:
 
Im in agreement that the 35 mile range is impractical.

For most it's not
A key design parameter was a target of 40 miles (64 km) for the all-electric range, selected to keep the battery size small and lower costs, and mainly because research showed that in the U.S. 78 percent of daily commuters travel 40 miles or less. This target range would allow most travel to be accomplished electrically driven and the assumption was made that charging will take place at home overnight.

This would be good for someone who has a short work commute (national avg. is 15 mi I believe)
True. I live 6 miles from my job, 9 miles from downtown, and about 12-17 miles from surrounding shopping centers, restaurants, etc...
 
The discontinued 1999 GM EV1 got 160 miles per charge. Electric car technology has been ready for a long time. There is just a lot of revenue in it for oil and car companies to fuel and maintain a combustion engine drive train.

gm1999ev101.jpg
It did quite get 160 miles, but it was close depending on weather and driving habits
Expected real-world range is 55-95 miles for the high-capacity lead-acid EV1. Expected real-world range for the optional nickel-metal hydride EV1 is 75-130 miles. However, actual mileage and range will vary as a result of driving style, terrain, temperature and accessory usage, particularly as affected by ambient temperature and the use of heating and air conditioning.
Another reason why the EV1 range was greater was because the battery pack was 3 times the size of the Volt's battery pack. That was one of the reasons why the EV1 was a 2 seater, because the back was for batteries
The Volt concept vehicle had four doors with a rear liftgate and seating for four passengers. This was a significant change in design when compared to the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s, which only seated two to reduce weight and to make the necessary room for the lead-acid battery pack. The top speed was also increased on the Volt, from the electronically limited 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). The battery pack size was reduced, from about 10.6 cu ft (300 L) in volume in the EV1, to just 3.5 cu ft (100 L) in the Volt.
 
I like the Buick's interior better, it seems warmer even though the Caddy's shape obscures outside view with it's shape. The Buick says "chick get naked!", the caddy says "ok miss put your feet in these stirrups and try to relax"

S0-Los-Angeles-2011-Buick-LaCrosse-GL-concept-245037.jpg
 
A key design parameter was a target of 40 miles (64 km) for the all-electric range, selected to keep the battery size small and lower costs, and mainly because research showed that in the U.S. 78 percent of daily commuters travel 40 miles or less. This target range would allow most travel to be accomplished electrically driven and the assumption was made that charging will take place at home overnight.

All of you guys defending the specs of this car are blind to the underlying objective of these big companies. There is no reason why GM cant release a pure electric car in 2013 with a range of 250+ miles per charge. You guys overlook all the blatant evidence that these companies are doing everything in their power to keep a combustion engine inside of a car. This stupid justification of making a car with 40 miles per charge is absurd. Who in the hell wants the hassle of having to charge their car everyday. I hate having to charge my phone everyday and a lot of times I forget and have a dying phone in the morning. Its a big ass inconvenience, the companies know this, and they know people will mostly rely on the gas engine because of it.

Not everyone drives straight home everyday after work. Who wouldn't want the flexibility of driving to a friends house, go out on a date, or go downtown without driving home first to charge their car. The amount of charging stations around the country are quite minimal so charging on the go is unreliable. You would have to carry around a long ass extension cord in the trunk to use at your friends house, sounds ridiculous to me.

The EV1 in 1999 got 160 miles per charge, over 10 years later, the small company named Tesla managed to produce a car that can get 200 miles per charge. Imagine what a company as big as GM could do with all their R&D resources in ten years working to improve battery technology....just ponder that thought for a minute. Look at how the size/weight of cell phone batteries have decreased since 1999. Look at technology as a whole since 1999 and how devices have become smaller, more complex, and more efficient. The 1999 EV1 could get an 80% charge between 1 and 3 hours, imagine what the charge rates should be after 10 years of improvements, ponder that! Electric car technology has not improved because they don't want it to improve.
 
It did quite get 160 miles, but it was close depending on weather and driving habits

Another reason why the EV1 range was greater was because the battery pack was 3 times the size of the Volt's battery pack. That was one of the reasons why the EV1 was a 2 seater, because the back was for batteries

Your entire post holds no credibility because u are doing a straight comparison with a 13 year old car. 13 years is more than enough time to improve on all of the EV1's disadvantages such as being a two seater, battery size, and speed. You would have done better by making comparisons to the new Tesla which can seat 5 people and 2 kids (7 passengers total) and carries the battery on the bottom of the car.
 
Last edited:
YOU sir are the ONLY one I see so far in this thread that knows what da FUCK is going on..the OTHERS should start by watching the Documentary called "GAS HOLE" They had cars that could run on gas Vapor..100 Miles to the gallon WAYYYYYYY back in the 70's Do y'all REALLY think 35-38 miles per charge is the best they could do?

Yall/WE are being CONTROLLED. Do you clowns really think they gonna allow people to to become totally independent from GAS or OIL?:lol::hmm: The FIRST mofo that TRY'S to go public with an invention that will allow you to do IMPRESSIVE distance in a Totally gas free car OR a gas driven car that will allow you to do 500-1000 or 1500 miles on a single Charge or fill up your gonna read about or find His or Her ass Dead somewhere in a fuckin Desert or some shit. WATCH/START with the doc/movie "GAS HOLE" then come back here and post cuz most a yall in here walking arould with your eyes whide SHUT!:smh:

All of you guys defending the specs of this car are blind to the underlying objective of these big companies. There is no reason why GM cant release a pure electric car in 2013 with a range of 250+ miles per charge. You guys overlook all the blatant evidence that these companies are doing everything in their power to keep a combustion engine inside of a car. This stupid justification of making a car with 40 miles per charge is absurd. Who in the hell wants the hassle of having to charge their car everyday. I hate having to charge my phone everyday and a lot of times I forget and have a dying phone in the morning. Its a big ass inconvenience, the companies know this, and they know people will mostly rely on the gas engine because of it.

Not everyone drives straight home everyday after work. Who wouldn't want the flexibility of driving to a friends house, go out on a date, or go downtown without driving home first to charge their car. The amount of charging stations around the country are quite minimal so charging on the go is unreliable. You would have to carry around a long ass extension cord in the trunk to use at your friends house, sounds ridiculous to me.

The EV1 in 1999 got 160 miles per charge, over 10 years later, the small company named Tesla managed to produce a car that can get 200 miles per charge. Imagine what a company as big as GM could do with all their R&D resources in ten years working to improve battery technology....just ponder that thought for a minute. Look at how the size/weight of cell phone batteries have decreased since 1999. Look at technology as a whole since 1999 and how devices have become smaller, more complex, and more efficient. The 1999 EV1 could get an 80% charge between 1 and 3 hours, imagine what the charge rates should be after 10 years of improvements, ponder that! Electric car technology has not improved because they don't want it to improve.

Your entire post holds no credibility because u are doing a straight comparison with a 13 year old car. 13 years is more than enough time to improve on all of the EV1's disadvantages such as being a two seater, battery size, and speed. You would have done better by making comparisons to the new Tesla which can seat 5 people and 2 kids (7 passengers total) and carries the battery on the bottom of the car.



You two dudes in this thread are beyond conspiratorial and just plane dumb. We don't even have to be engineers to understand the basics of supply/demand and capitalism in general. Do you think because the technology exists to bring something market, it automatically means said product will be reasonably priced or a success? To your point since GM killed the EV1, then the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle should be all around us. Why not? They've been developing the tech for over 10 years, hydrogen can be synthesized.

My god, why aren't there hydrogen stations all over the US!
The technology is here!!!

Oh, except one small detail, technology cost actual money, not imaginary units fucking potential. The raw materials that make this technology doesn't come from a Star Trek like transporter. It has to be mined by fossil fueled vehicles, actual manual labor, shipped across oceans using fossil fuels, assembled by more manual labor all while having an infrastructure in place to support the technology. All of which cost actual money.

Now lets take a look at the reality of electric vehicles. Carlos Ghosn, put billions into the development of the Nissan Leaf, to bring it in at a reasonable price point for the average consumer. The Federal government pays every person that purchase an electric vehicle $7500. When the Leaf came out the average transaction price of a new vehicle was over $25000. The Leaf debut at a price of $32K, after the federal tax credits, it came in at $25000. Why is a vehicle that has more than double the electric range of the Chevy Volt, almost $10K less than the price of the Volt at introduction, being out sold by more expensive Volt consistently and not even close.Please give us your insight, since all it takes is a reasonable price and good range. Explain?
 
You two dudes in this thread are beyond conspiratorial and just plane dumb. We don't even have to be engineers to understand the basics of supply/demand and capitalism in general. Do you think because the technology exists to bring something market, it automatically means said product will be reasonably priced or a success? To your point since GM killed the EV1, then the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle should be all around us. Why not? They've been developing the tech for over 10 years, hydrogen can be synthesized.

My god, why aren't there hydrogen stations all over the US!
The technology is here!!!

Oh, except one small detail, technology cost actual money, not imaginary units fucking potential. The raw materials that make this technology doesn't come from a Star Trek like transporter. It has to be mined by fossil fueled vehicles, actual manual labor, shipped across oceans using fossil fuels, assembled by more manual labor all while having an infrastructure in place to support the technology. All of which cost actual money.

Now lets take a look at the reality of electric vehicles. Carlos Ghosn, put billions into the development of the Nissan Leaf, to bring it in at a reasonable price point for the average consumer. The Federal government pays every person that purchase an electric vehicle $7500. When the Leaf came out the average transaction price of a new vehicle was over $25000. The Leaf debut at a price of $32K, after the federal tax credits, it came in at $25000. Why is a vehicle that has more than double the electric range of the Chevy Volt, almost $10K less than the price of the Volt at introduction, being out sold by more expensive Volt consistently and not even close.Please give us your insight, since all it takes is a reasonable price and good range. Explain?

Its the range, I wouldnt buy the Leaf because it gets only 73 miles per charge and their is no engine to fall back on. Most people dont even let their gas tank get lower than half full so the usable range would be whole lot less than that. The Leaf just isnt a practical car for the average person because of range....it being ugly as fuck doesnt help either.

Why hasnt battery technology improved enough to compete with the 160 miles per charge range of the 1999 EV1 in a smaller cheaper package? In 1996 the GM EV1 was introduced with a range of 80 miles per charge.....17 years has passed, what the hell have they been working on in the meantime??
 
Last edited:
Its the range, I wouldnt buy the Leaf because it gets only 73 miles per charge and their is no engine to fall back on. Most people dont even let their gas tank get lower than half full so the usable range would be whole lot less than that. The Leaf just isnt a practical car for the average person because of range....it being ugly as fuck doesnt help either.

Why hasnt battery technology improved enough to compete with the 160 miles per charge range of the 1999 EV1 in a smaller cheaper package? In 1996 the GM EV1 was introduced with a range of 80 miles per charge.....17 years has passed, what the hell have they been working on in the meantime??
Now that is the truth on the Leaf!:lol:

AS far as being in a "smaller, cheaper package" it is.

This was the the EV1's batteries
6391607157_f63e6a4fe6_b.jpg


This is the Volt/ELR batteries
chevy-volt-illo-b-de-97238374.jpg

X11CH-VT164.jpg

8382547073_761d51d549_o.jpg


The EV1 wasn't that cheap. Back in 1996, it was $33,900. Of course it really wasn't that cheap to make them, and GM was losing big on each one
3241348206_15d5863636_o.jpg

 
Man...Caddy's are shriveling up. Where do they put the battery? I miss big bodied cars. I'm not a Cadillac enthusiast like my brother but I love the Buick Park Ave. They should at least bring back an offering or option since they still offer Suburbans and other large SUVs.
 
Man...Caddy's are shriveling up. Where do they put the battery? I miss big bodied cars. I'm not a Cadillac enthusiast like my brother but I love the Buick Park Ave. They should at least bring back an offering or option since they still offer Suburbans and other large SUVs.
It runs down the center and near the bottom
8383447802_bb4d152f4c_o.jpg
 
Its the range, I wouldnt buy the Leaf because it gets only 73 miles per charge and their is no engine to fall back on. Most people dont even let their gas tank get lower than half full so the usable range would be whole lot less than that. The Leaf just isnt a practical car for the average person because of range....it being ugly as fuck doesnt help either.

Why hasnt battery technology improved enough to compete with the 160 miles per charge range of the 1999 EV1 in a smaller cheaper package? In 1996 the GM EV1 was introduced with a range of 80 miles per charge.....17 years has passed, what the hell have they been working on in the meantime??

Dude, they've been working on products that actually make money. You can spend billions on something just for the sake of development. There has to be an ROI that can benefit them in the future. The Volt is still a gamble, so is the Telsa model S. The model S is doing OK, because of it's price point. Even if GM bought out Tesla and continued to develop their battery tech, it still doesn't eliminate the cost of the raw material and precious Earth metal that go into the average battery. Auto manufacturing can't be compared to things like cell phones. It just doesn't work that way. If you people fully understood the process and amount of time it takes to bring a regular internal combustion vehicle to market, they would know why a battery powered vehicle is no simple proposition. In a nutshell the electric car is coming, but it won't be because we have the tech, it will be based on market conditions. Gas is at $4+ which is start, but you need a grid, faster charging and ultimately charging stations that can support this tech. It's coming, but you can't have a pie in the sky outlook on this stuff.:cool:
 
Dude, they've been working on products that actually make money. You can spend billions on something just for the sake of development. There has to be an ROI that can benefit them in the future. The Volt is still a gamble, so is the Telsa model S. The model S is doing OK, because of it's price point. Even if GM bought out Tesla and continued to develop their battery tech, it still doesn't eliminate the cost of the raw material and precious Earth metal that go into the average battery. Auto manufacturing can't be compared to things like cell phones. It just doesn't work that way. If you people fully understood the process and amount of time it takes to bring a regular internal combustion vehicle to market, they would know why a battery powered vehicle is no simple proposition. In a nutshell the electric car is coming, but it won't be because we have the tech, it will be based on market conditions. Gas is at $4+ which is start, but you need a grid, faster charging and ultimately charging stations that can support this tech. It's coming, but you can't have a pie in the sky outlook on this stuff.:cool:

You have basically proved my point. Yes, an electric car is not as profitable as a combustion engine driven vehicle. The ROI will always be greater for a gas auto. The maintenance costs for an electric car will be considerably lower due to no engine, no transmission, no radiator, no oil changes, no tune-ups, and less moving parts that could fail. Your point about development costs would be believable if 17 years hadn’t passed since GM introduced such an excellent starting point for the electric car platform. Maintaining vehicles is a huge revenue stream for auto companies and they don’t want to cannibalize existing revenue streams with the introduction of new products. It is no secret that the Auto and Oil companies work together to promote their best interest. This is why electric car technology has remained stagnant. Without gov’t involvement, the rules of capitalism will always win, and the greater good for society will always lose.

Tesla Motors was founded in 2003, it took them five years to produce the 2008 Tesla Roadster. They just released the Model S with a base price of $52,000. GM is huge and over 100 years old, they came out with the EV1 in 1996, how is it that a start up like Tesla can outshine GM in such a short time? You cant tell me this doesn’t seem fishy to you….

Auto companies build these vehicles with the purpose of planned obsolescence…as in they need the vehicle to stop working at some point so the customer can purchase a new one. Over 100 years ago, people had the ability to produce light bulbs that would last well over 3,000 hours, the big light bulb companies got together and made 1,000 hours to be the standard lifespan so all of them could make a profit instead of steadily spending money trying to 1up each other. In a combustion driven vehicle, eventually the cost to maintain all those moving parts (in engine, in transmission) and cooling systems will be higher than the car value and the customer is forced to buy another one.

In an electric car, all you have is the battery and a few electric motors to power the car and the auxiliary systems like power steering and brakes. I believe we are all familiar with how resilient electrical motors are made today. How often does the motor in a refrigerator need to be replaced or how often does a ceiling fan motor go bad, them shits can run for a long ass time.

The only major concern is how long the battery will last before needing replacement. I believe paying a few grand for a battery every 75K or 100K miles is acceptable, considering you won’t be paying for gas and to maintain all the shit on a combustion engine driven vehicle. You really don’t need a grid or charging stations for a practical electric car when you can charge it at home, all that can come later…unlike a fuel cell car which would need an infrastructure of hydrogen fueling stations immediately.
 
2014 Tesla Model X - Luxury SUV

- 210-270 miles per charge
- Holds 7 Adults (with plenty cargo room left over)
- Projected Base Price 60K (before govt incentives)


Why cant any of the big 3 make something like this? Without all of the luxury bells and whistles (17" touch screen, falcon doors, etc.), a car like this could be in the 30K to 40K range before the incentives. Electric cars dont have to be small and ugly, maybe the big 3 make them that way on purpose to drive people away, so they have a reason not to make them....;)



1671665-slide-s4a6587.jpg


1671665-slide-s4a6722shelf.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top