I despise GM, but I can understand their decision from a business standpoint and this EV1 evangelizing is just dreaming. Sorry for attempting to introduce data to the discussion...
1. They built the car (as did a few manufacturers) not because they wanted to, but because of legislation in California (of course).
2. Although there were waiting lists, we're talking hundreds of people waiting most likely, at most a few thousand. Hardly a market that a major auto manufacturer could make a financial go of.
3. The range limitations and the costs would never have attracted significant demand. $80,000 each in the late 90's.
4. They were only leased/operated in very warm climates, an EV1 would be crippled by winter weather in most of the USA.
5. Even if they had continued production, at $80,000 (plus 10 years of inflation) each, even with today's high gas prices, there wouldn't be enough buyers to make it worthwhile.
And the Chevy Volt is just as likely to be first to market as any full featured, competitively priced electric car by any manufacturer. At $110K or more the Tesla is not competitively priced, nor is the $50K Cooper or any of the 'neighborhood vehicles.'
From wiki:
The ZEV Mandate originally specified that by 1998, 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto manufacturers in the state of California were to meet 'zero emission' standards a s defined by the California Air Resources Board and 10% by 2003.
There were 5,000 people who
expressed interest in an EV1, but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease (back in the late 90’s), went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one.
660 Generation One EV1s were produced for the 1997 model year, using lead acid batteries; each found a lessee.
In December 1999, GM released approximately 200 of the new Generation Two 1999 EV1s with the new nickel metal hydride battery. Over the next 8 months, the remaining 257 Generation Two EV1s were released to certain selected lessees which initiated a lengthy waiting list. In mid 2000, GM closed the EV1 plant. A total of 457 Generation Two EV1s were produced and all were eventually leased.
Over the next two years, approximately 200 of the Generation One EV1s were re-issued to their original lessees on revised two-year leases including a new limited-mileage clause. The delays were due to design complications in retrofitting the NiMH battery. Due to the tenuous retrofitting process and limited number of recall replacement parts available, GM offered the waiting Generation One leasees the opportunity to terminate their lease at no charge, or the chance to transfer the lease to one of the few 150 Generation Two EV1s left - ahead of those already on the Generation Two waiting list.
In late 2003, GM officially canceled the EV1 program. Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In fact, during the later stages of development for the car, GM officials claimed that they stood no chance of ever making a profit on the EV1 itself.
When canceling the program, GM also cited a lack of demand for the two-seater, particularly in light of its limited range and its suitability to "warm weather" states only. During the EV1's development phase, several Northeastern states moved to pass ZEV laws similar to those adopted in California. General Motors, along with many other prospective EV manufacturers, opposed this movement despite the likelihood that such legislation would have vastly increased the market for the vehicle. While this may seem a sinister position to have taken, GM's internal research showed that the EV1's range would be reduced by as much as 50% for use in cold-weather states. This was due chiefly to the effect of ambient temperature on both the batteries and the special low rolling resistance tires.
In 2001, the California Air Resources Board modified the ZEV mandate to allow manufacturers to claim partial ZEV credit for hybrid vehicles. General Motors and DaimlerChrysler then sued the state of California and CARB, alleging that the new ZEV rules violated a federal law barring states from regulating fuel economy. In response, CARB removed the requirement for electric vehicles from the ZEV mandate in 2003, and GM - having produced a product for a mandate and market that no longer existed - cancelled the EV1 program soon after.
Over 100 people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive such liability as they were able under American consumer product laws. GM consistently refused offers to purchase or re-lease any EV1s, stating that they would be subject to ongoing product liability from both the purchasers and any future owners, and that their internal customer support policies would require them to provide service and replacement parts for the EV1s for at least ten years.
GM's suppliers stopped making replacement parts because of low demand, making it impossible to repair the vehicles.
Of particular concern to the company was the likelihood that each leased car's battery packs would require replacement at 25-35,000 mile intervals, and that the very low volumes involved would necessitate the corporation's subsidy of spare parts to private owners, perhaps on an indefinite basis.
GM believes that the electric car venture was not a failure, and that the EV1 was doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place. In fact, the NiMH battery packs (or
Ovonic Battery) that were expected to dramatically improve range came with their own set of problems; GM had to use a less-efficient charging algorithm (lengthening charge times) and waste power on air conditioning to prevent the battery packs from overheating. In addition, the elimination of the environmental mandate that led to the car's creation was, as previously mentioned, a huge factor in the program's cancellation. The EV1 could not have been created without the looming CARB 2% ZEV mandate in California.
The view of the EV1 as failure is a controversial one in itself. When viewed as an attempt to produce a commercially viable EV product, it was not a success. If one considers the vehicle from GM's perspective, as a technological showpiece—a production electric car that actually could replace a gasoline powered vehicle—the program's outcome is less clear. The EV1 was produced for the consumer market, and many lessees found driving an EV1 to be a favorable experience. On that basis, EV1 would qualify as the most successful electric car ever built.
The price for the car used to compute lease payments was US$33,995 to US$43,995, which made for lease payments of US$299 to over US$574 per month. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs. That itself is right if the technology is not posted to other areas. The vehicle's lease prices also depended on available state rebates. In 1999, the cost for the electricity used to power the car was computed to be one-third to half the cost of the equivalent amount of gasoline, and since that time, increases in gas prices may have made electricity relatively even less expensive (depending on customer location, recharging time and electricity billing variations — some utility companies have variable billing for peak vs. non-peak usage rates).