Quantum Leaps - 1999 Chevy Silverado EV2

Jo Borras
by Jo Borras

In 1996, General Motors unveiled the first modern electric car: The EV1. Built to prove that GM could satisfy California’s then-new zero-emissions regulations, the EV1 was a quick, efficient, electric two-seater that could be plugged into a standard 110 outlet. By all accounts, the car was well-loved by its owners lessors, but wasn’t profitable enough for GM to make a business case for the development of an EV2. GM halted production after the 1999 model year.

What if they hadn’t stopped there, though? What if, instead of cancelling the EV1, GM had decided to build on everything they’d learned about EVs and doubled down on it, using economies of scale to drive down costs to a level that could have been profitable? What if they had a platform that they already knew they were going to make hundreds of thousands of, every year, standing by at the ready? And, finally, what if that platform had been sturdy enough to carry around an extra thousand pounds of battery without breaking a sweat?

They did, and the 1999 Chevrolet Silverado EV2 is the story of GM dominance that never was.

THIS REALLY COULD HAVE WORKED

Take yourself back to 1999, if you can. At the time, the EV1’s cancellation didn’t seem like particularly big news. After all, gas was still relatively cheap and the dollar still relatively strong, by post-COVID standards, and the need to develop EVs seemed like it could wait a generation or two, still. What was big news in 1999, however, was the launch of the similarly loved GMT800 Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup and its Gen-III “Vortec” line of small-block V8 engines. The trucks were fantastic, and I remember admiring the Chevy’s reptilian grille – which sat in sharp contrast to the carp-mouthed, jellybean ugliness of the ’97 Ford F-150, in my opinion.

Fast forward twenty-few years, and Ford is stealing the headlines with its all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup, coming to market with a genuine mainstream contender that offers real-world benefits to commercial customers while, at the same time, using the pickup’s beefy frame to carry an extra-large battery to deliver a very practical 400-ish miles of empty-bed range. Meanwhile, Chevy’s electric Silverado challenger is nowhere to be seen (at least, not as I type this).

It didn’t have to be this way. Chevy should have beaten Ford to the electric pickup punch by two decades – and they could have, by taking everything they’d learned building the EV1 and applying it to the 1999 Chevrolet Silverado EV2.

In 1996, the “first generation” EV1 carried 1300 lbs. of lead-acid batteries good for 75-80 miles of range – but, even then, battery technology advanced quickly. By 1999, the “second generation” EV1 had dropped 400 pounds of battery by switching to the then-new nickel metal hydride (NiMH) “Ovonic” battery pack that slashed charging time and bumped the car’s EPA-rated range to 142 miles.

Those are decent numbers, even today. Compare those numbers to, say, the 110 mile range of a 2020 Mini Cooper SE or the 100 mile range on the 2022 Mazda MX-30 EV, and you might say that GM had a winner – but efficiency has never sold well in America, and that was probably even more true in 1999, before the dot com bubble burst. Americans always want more, whether that’s larger vehicles, more powerful engines, or more range from their EVs.

The Silverado EV2 could have given Americans all of that. Consider the dual-motor EVs of today – Chevy could have put EV1 motors at the front and rear of a specially hydroformed GMT800 frame. They already made 40 configurations of said frame, after all, what’s one or two more between friends? That same frame could house those new NiMH batteries with ease – and a lot more of them, too. Especially considering all the space that would be freed up by jettisoning the Vortec V8 and 4L60-E automatic transmission.

Imagine it. A pair of 137 horsepower EV1 motors for a combined 274 hp – that’s four more than the 270 hp rating on the 5.3 Vortec that same year. With all the torque available at zero rpm, an electric Silverado would be just as fun around town as the Vortec with its notoriously snappy throttle tip-in. And if the EV1 could get 140-odd miles out of 900 lbs. of battery, surely a Silverado-based EV2 could get to 200 miles with 1500 lbs. of battery.

Even in 1999, nothing needed to be invented to make this happen. Heck, with the $500 million check that the Clinton administration gave GM to subsidize the EV1’s development, nothing really needed to be spent to make it happen. All it would have taken was some forward-thinking marketers, a little ingenuity from the engineers, a clever understanding of how to bring electricity to the job site from the commercial truck guys, and a lot of balls from GM’s top brass.

Alas, one look at the late-90s Pontiac Bonneville or Grand Am and their acres of tacky plastic body side cladding – which were already an industry joke when those cars were launched – will tell you that none of those things existed at GM.

A STEP TOO FAR

Back when I was working at Mosler Automotive in the late ‘90s, some of Detroit’s most influential executives (guys like Dave McLellan and Joe Ziomek) were coming to see us because we (well, Warren Mosler and Rod Trenne) were the first people to design a car entirely on a computer. That’s a fact that is so staggering to me that I often forget just how incredible it was that I got to be the one looking over Trenne’s shoulder as a 19- or 20-year-old kid.

Then it hits me: If GM were so far removed from the future on something like CAD back then, I can see why an electric Silverado might be too much of an ask, even from our automotive time-travelling Sam Beckett. This one probably would have taken a whole team of car-enthusiast time travelers to make happen, and at least two or three DeLoreans.

All the same, I think it would have been an incredible machine – one that could have stamped GM’s authority on all things innovative and electric for the next 20 to 40 years. But that’s just me – what do the Best and Brightest think? You know the drill, so scroll on down to the comments and tell us what you think.

[Image: Chevrolet]

Jo Borras
Jo Borras

I've been in and around the auto industry since 1997, and have written for a number of well-known outlets like Cleantechnica, the Truth About Cars, Popular Mechanics, and more. You can also find me talking EVs with Matt Teske and Chris DeMorro on the Electrify Expo Podcast, writing about Swedish cars on my Volvo fan site, or chasing my kids around Oak Park.

More by Jo Borras

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 28 comments
  • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Sep 29, 2021

    @Jo, A) What was the cost of a 26.4 kWh NiMH battery pack in 1999? Here are some estimates of the total vehicle cost (battery was a significant portion): "One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs;[81] other estimates placed the vehicle's actual cost as high as $100,000.[6] Bob Lutz, GM Vice Chairman responsible for the Chevrolet Volt, in November 2011 stated the EV1 cost $250,000 each and leased for just $300 per month.[82]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 Take that cost estimate and multiply by 1.7, because you have spec'd out a significantly larger battery. How quickly do your proposed economies of scale kick in? (The NiMH battery was only introduced in 1999.) B) How does the rolling resistance of a 1999 GMT800 compare to a 1999 EV1? What are the respective drag coefficients? C) Are we building this as a K1500 or a K2500? What is the payload rating of the vehicle we started with, and what payload do we end up with? Same for towing capacity. What is the electric-only range when fully loaded? And when max towing? You have created a failed business case *and* a market dud. When TTAC begins in 2002, they are going to write super-harsh reviews of your 'electric pickup' - and they are going to be dead right. [GM has done some stupid things in the past. Not building this was not one of them.]

    • See 1 previous
    • Scoutdude Scoutdude on Sep 30, 2021

      There are a couple of reasons why the EV1 cost so much per vehicle that wouldn't have applied to a EV Silverado. They only made 1100 so no where near enough to amortize the development cost. Since it was a purpose built vehicle the body and all the light weight components meant that was a large part of that development cost. The EVrado could have sold in much higher volumes maybe 10x as much in a 10 year run. And EVrado could have used much of the same pieces as the gas truck. So cut the development cost in half and sell 10x as many since it was a useful useable vehicle rather than a commuter pod that very few people had an interest in past the 80's.

  • JimC31 JimC31 on Sep 30, 2021

    I do recall when I had this illusion that this might have made sense at the time. I figured the biggest mobile machines in existence are electric drive, and big machines sometimes actually carry around excess weight on purpose(like say farm tractors,) that EVs should 'trickle down' from there. That's of course completely wrong, you had to start as small and light and aerodynamic as possible. Tesla's EV semi has laughable range for its job. This? In 1999? Not a bloody chance.

  • Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
  • Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
  • GregLocock Car companies can only really sell cars that people who are new car buyers will pay a profitable price for. As it turns out fewer and fewer new car buyers want sedans. Large sedans can be nice to drive, certainly, but the number of new car buyers (the only ones that matter in this discussion) are prepared to sacrifice steering and handling for more obvious things like passenger and cargo space, or even some attempt at off roading. We know US new car buyers don't really care about handling because they fell for FWD in large cars.
  • Slavuta Why is everybody sweating? Like sedans? - go buy one. Better - 2. Let CRV/RAV rust on the dealer lot. I have 3 sedans on the driveway. My neighbor - 2. Neighbors on each of our other side - 8 SUVs.
  • Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.
Next