7 3/8 x 9 1/4 T echnical / Build Your Own Electric Vehicle / Leitman / 373-2 / Chapter 3
Chapter 3:
E l e c t r i c Ve h i c l e H i s t o r y
Third Wave After 1979: EVs Enter a Black Hole While the second “oil shock” of 1979 and the ensuing shortage further spurred electric vehicle development onward, the “oil shock glut” of 1986 and events leading up to it nearly shut development down. While the larger internal combustion automobile manufacturers were “whipsawed”—their crash programs of the late 1970s were now bringing lighter, smaller cars to market that (temporarily at least) no one wanted—the independent electric vehicle manufacturers were simply wiped out. With oil and gasoline prices again approaching their 1970s levels, everyone lost interest in EVs, and the capital coffers of the smaller EV manufacturers were simply not large enough to weather the storm. Even research programs were affected. From mid1983 until the early 1990s, it was as if everything having to do with EVs suddenly fell into a black hole—there were no manufacturers, no books, not even many magazine articles. The EV survivors were the prototype builders and converters, the parts suppliers (who typically had other lines of business such as batteries, motors, and electrical components), and EV associations, although their membership ranks thinned somewhat. Four trends (see Figure 3-7) highlight EV development during this third wave: • Low levels of activity at GM, Ford, and Chrysler • The best independent manufacturers arrive and then depart • Low levels of activity overseas • Continuation of individuals converting existing internal combustion vehicles
Lack of EV Activity at GM, Ford, and Chrysler
In retrospect, given all the other problems the big three had to deal with during this period, it’s amazing that electric vehicle programs survived at all. But survive they did, to emerge triumphant in the 1990s. The GM Bedford van project became the GM Griffon van—the G-Van. With a broad base of participation from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Chloride EV Systems, and Southern California Edison, the General Motors G-Van, actually an OEM aftermarket conversion by Vehma International of Canada, was widely tested for fleet use. While it was humorous to read numerous complaints about the G-Van’s 53–mph top speed, 60-mile range, and 0 to 30 mph in 12 seconds acceleration, one has to wonder how many report readers correctly associated this data with G-Van’s 8,120-lb. weight, 36 batteries, and huge frontal area. Ford’s direction was to continue to build on its sodium-sulfur battery and integrated propulsion system technology using government funding. Teamed with General Electric, Ford’s ETX-I program adapted sodium-sulfur batteries and an integrated AC induction motor propulsion system to a front-wheel drive LN7 automobile test bed. The follow-on Ford/GE ETX-II program utilized sodium-sulfur batteries and a permanent magnet synchronous motor propulsion system in a rear-wheel-drive Aerostar van. Meanwhile Chrysler, under the sponsorship of the EPRI, used their standard Caravan/Voyager minivan platform, a GE DC solid-state motor, and 30 Eagle Picher NIF 200 6-volt nickeliron batteries to achieve 65 mph and a 120-mile range in their 6,200-lb. TEVan.
Arrival and Departure of Independent Manufacturers
Numerous independent electric vehicle manufacturers had already come and gone during the previous wave. As an independent EV manufacturer in the third wave, you
51
