GM’s old EV1 product manager says Nissan LEAF will succeed

Posted: Jun 02, 2010
 Email 3 Comments

2011 Nissan LEAF

After the failure (or demise) of General Motors’ EV1 electric-car, many Americans have grown skeptic of the capabilities of a battery powered vehicle. The EV1 was a huge flop for GM and it was too impractical, expensive and had limited range. But things have now changed.

“Things are different today,” says Sean McNamara a product manager for GM for the EV1 launch in the 1990s. “Completely different.”

Today, McNamara works at Nissan but is not taking part in the launch of the LEAF. Instead, McNamara is involved in a completely different segment and holds the position for regional product manager for Infiniti and is focused on the new 2011 Infiniti QX56.

Click here for more news on the Nissan Leaf.

McNamara believes in the LEAF, and it’s not only because he works at Nissan.

“The technology is so much better today,” he told Automotive News. “We were using lead-acid batteries on the EV1.” (They weighed in at 3,000 pounds.) Today, people really are looking for an electric vehicle.”

Well, he’s right because the 13,000 units of the LEAF allocated for the U.S. have already sold out.

2011 Nissan Leaf:

- By: Omar Rana

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)


Share |  Email  Print |

Tags: , , , , , ,




Subscribe & Connect

Connect with us on any of our social profiles below.

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

  • http://EV1.org Doug Korthof

    Actually, it was GM THAT FAILED.
    The EV1 was a GREAT SUCCESS with customers, but GM stopped caring about customers, sales and cash under Waggoner and Klutz.

    Even now, GM is L-Y-I-N-G about the EV1, its BANKRUPTCY, and its volt-hoax.

  • dougkorthof

    NO ONE said there was a “range issue” except IDIOTS AT GM.

    DUMB statements like “…After the failure (or demise) of General Motors’ EV1 electric-car, many Americans have grown skeptic of the capabilities of a battery powered vehicle. The EV1 was a huge flop for GM and it was too impractical, expensive and had limited range. But things have now changed…”

    IT WAS NOT IMPRACTICAL! DRIVERS LOVED IT.
    GM forgets, those were CUSTOMERS, and businesses that don't want to go bankrupt pay attention to their customers.
    IT WAS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE VOLT-HOAX, because it used less-expensive batteries — 110 miles on 18 kWh of lead-acid PSB 1260 batteries and 160 miles on 26 kWh of cheaper, defective GM-ovonics Nickel batteries.

    GM is now paying for 16 kWh of expensive, short-lived Lithium, but can only access 8 kWh! 400 lbs. of Lithium only yield, in practice, 8 kWh for 40 miles; 12 kWh of EV-95 PEVE Nickel batteries yield (we are still driving them!!) over 60 miles.

    So Lithium is not only more expensive, but in practice weighs more than

  • dougkorthof

    Nickel batteries. This idiot Mcnamara was probably assigned to sabotage the EV1, knew NOTHING about batteries; even FAILS TO MENTION the superior Nickel Metal Hydride batteries which still take the 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV over 100 miles on a charge, 5 years after Lithium would have worn out.

    Nor does the article cease lying about EVs; the VOLT-hoax could have 100 miles all-electric range, with batteries that last more than 10 years and maybe 200K miles, but GM is too ignorant — or bent on sabotage — to know.

    GM bought control of the worldwide patent rights to NiMH in 1994, with the intention of suppressing Nickel batteries; On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold the batteries to Texaco. Six days later, Texaco announced it was merging into Chevron (not something that happens in 6 days!) but it wasn't GM-Standard Oil who colluded, there WAS a dummy intermediary. On Oct. 16, 2000, the batteries were announced as going to Chevron; in 2001, after the merger was consumated, Chevron funded a lawsuit against Toyota, which had improved the range, power, energy and longevity of Nickel; in spring, 2002, Toyota tried selling the RAV4-EV, perhaps to pressure Chevron into letting it use the batteries; but in Dec., 2002, Toyota cancelled the plug-in car retroactive to its settlement with Chevron in Nov., and received rights to use Nickel ONLY IF ON CARS THAT CANNOT PLUG IN.

    In 2009, Chevron finally disgorged the patent-squat to Bosch/Samsung, but Chevron retained its stranglehold on any plug-in applications. That's why you don't see Nickel plug-in cars, except those made before the Chevron-GM lawsuit.