Secrets of the 1966 GM Electrovair, an EV Pioneer

General Motors has a long and varied history with alternative-fuel vehicles. Here’s an interesting example from 1966, the battery-electric Electrovair II.

 

GM’s Electrovair II sprang from an earlier experiment known as Electrovair I, which was limited in success, but it apparently demonstrated enough potential to trigger a second attempt. While Electrovair I was based on a first-generation Chevrolet Corvair sedan, Electrovair II was built around a second-generation Corvair—a mildly customized ’66 four-door hardtop in Marina Blue. (You can see a video of the Electrovair II in action and hear a brief description of its operation here.)

Easily the most distinctive feature of the Electrovairs was their batteries. Both used silver-zinc cells, a type more often found in aerospace and military applications. Electrovair II used 286 silver-zinc cells wired in series and arranged in 13 trays with 22 cells per tray. Seven battery trays were mounted in the front luggage compartment, while the other six trays were installed in the engine compartment out back in order to more evenly distribute their considerable weight: some 680 lbs. The total capacity of the 530-volt pack was 26.4 kWh (kilowatt-hours). For comparison’s sake, the 2022 Chevy Bolt EV features a  65-kWh battery in a more space-efficient package.

 

With five of the six battery trays in the rear engine compartment removed, we get a decent view of the motor, a 115-hp four-pole, three-phase induction unit built by GM’s Delco Products Division and coupled to a specially engineered transaxle. The power inverter, motor controller, and oil cooling system were tucked away in the rear compartment as well, leaving the cabin free to accommodate the usual five passengers.

Road performance, which included a 0-to-60 mph time of 16.7 seconds, was described as similar to a production Corvair with automatic transmission, although Electrovair II’s top speed was restricted to 80 mph by the motor’s 13,000 rpm limit. With 680 lbs of batteries, 315 lbs of electronics and cooling gear, and a 130 lbs of motor, the Electrovair II’s greatest  handicap on the highway was its weight: around 3400 lbs, some 800 lbs heftier than a production Corvair.

There were other problems, too. Range was limited to 40 to 80 miles, due in part to a lack of regenerative braking, which the project engineers declined to pursue. (They saw regen braking as mainly a means to replace conventional engine braking, not as an energy source.) GM’s windup report from the project (SAE no. 670175) also cited long charging times of six to eight hours, limited charging cycles and resultant short battery life, and high materials cost as obstacles to further EV development at that time. But then, that was the state of the art in 1966. By the way, Electrovair II is still around in fine shape and can be seen in the automaker’s private vehicle collection at the GM Heritage Center in Sterling Heights, Michigan.

 

11 thoughts on “Secrets of the 1966 GM Electrovair, an EV Pioneer

  1. No, no, NO! Enough of this EV foolishness. It’s a band-aid on a heart attack. I’m the biggest opponent of EVs, they may work in a limited situation( going 9 blocks to work) but to think they will replace gas is merely a pipe dream. Funny, the “down sides” mentioned in 1966, still dog the EV industry today. “Range anxiety”, being the #1 deterrent. Living in a rural area, EVs will never work. Everything from poorly located charge stations, cords torn off, and could you imagine if every car needed a charge at once? And where does all that juice come from? Since no power plants are being built, we are already over loading the grid, without this baloney. Nope, a “swing and a miss” if you ask me. Going to have to do better than that for the masses. One of the funniest pictures I’ve seen, is an EV out of juice being charged by a gas generator.

    • Even though I live on a farm and an EV may not serve my needs (at least not yet), I don’t understand the hostility some hold toward them.

      In the U.S. we tend to pride ourselves on our freedoms, so if a segment of the car buying population wishes to be early adopters of a product or service, who are we to criticize their right to exercise their freedom of choice in a market economy?

      There are many things I’ll never buy and that I see no use for, but I don’t understand the need to condemn others who might find them to be of value. Besides, 35 years ago I thought that the first cellular phones a useless status symbol…and here I am today, typing this comment on one.

      • In reply to David B. It will not be a choice. You and I will be forced to go electric. All IC autos and trucks will be banned and you will not be allowed to purchase one and if you currently own one you will not be able to afford to run one or maintain one. That is the problem, you will not be free to drive what you wish.

        • Larry, I’m well aware that there are some state and national governments that would like to ban all internal combustion engines. But as I enter my seventh decade, I’ve learned that there’s no sense in getting worked up over things I can’t control. And on top of that I’ve lost count of the number of times since the late 1970s when I’ve heard that we’d be driving pathetic little penalty boxes by a certain year. Yet here we are in 2022, with people lining up to buy 15 mpg trucks and SUVs, despite gas being at or above $4.00 per gallon…

      • Thanks for the reply. 1st, cell phones ( another scourge of society) is a lot different than EVs. The advances in communication are staggering, and today, we literally can’t live without them. I feel, EVs are not the answer, and companies are pouring a ton of money into something that can’t work like fossil fuels. The “solution” has to be more universal, like gas, to be viable. It’s as if, these EVs are a temporary solution to a much bigger fix, and as long as there is still gas, and Americans driving habits remain, EVs will remain a “novelty” that only the wealthy, who probably couldn’t care less about fuel costs anyway, will be able to enjoy.

        • Howard, we may have to agree to disagree on the cell phone analogy. I got my first cell phone in 1992, and at that time I doubt many people were using them as their only phone, unlike today, almost everyone at that time still had a landline in their homes.

          Current EV technology may not yet have them quite on par with internal combustion vehicles, but the advances have been staggering. When the Nissan Leaf was introduced 11 years ago, it was praised for having a range of just over 100 miles. Today over a dozen models have a range of over 300 miles (and have outrageous horsepower at the same time). If we can overcome the problem of charge times, EVs could at least be a stopgap solution for *some* (probably not all) drivers. But then again, perhaps internal combustion vehicles will become like horses: When the new generation of transportation devices come out, the old device becomes a plaything for the wealthy. 😀

  2. It would be interesting to read the final report but the SAE charges $33 to download a 17-page report created 55 years ago. Thanks SAE!

  3. Can I put in a vote for an article on the SunRaycer? I still remember a Scientific American article I read on it back in the eighties.

  4. Such was GM’s unwillingness to put any more money into the (production, gas-powered) Corvair program after ’65 that even though they had a styling tweak all set to go from the Electrovair program’s mods, they never even used that. Even the trim piece connecting the points of the headlight pods wasn’t used in production.

    That definitely feeds my theory that far from killing it, Ralph Nader prolonged the life of the Corvair, with GM continuing to build it after the Camaro was launched just so it wouldn’t look like they were reacting to his book rather than the Mustang.

Comments are closed.