IIRC, there were no good attempts, largely due to lead acid batteries. The EV-1 was much praised but it wasn't that great. Lead acid batteries mean short range and long recharge times.
There were any number of niche markets, and many countries, where the range would not have been a problem. Something like the first generation Nissan Leaf with a 70-mile range could have been made any time in the last 60 years. It might have been expensive at first but the cost would soon have fallen. It was not made mainly because people lack imagination. There are any number of technological improvements that might have been made, but have not been. Modern wind turbines development could have started after 1910. It did not begin until the 1970s, and it was mainly carried out by counterculture people at first.
These are not failures of technology. They are failures of imagination, or victories by politics and big money standing in the way of progress. There are countless examples. Everywhere you turn you see dysfunctional technology. You see dangerous, stupid machines that should have been replaced decades ago, or generations ago, such as coal fired generators. Millions of lives are lost and billions of dollars are wasted by problems that should have been fixed long ago. Problems such as air pollution in London, England could have been ameliorated or even fixed were not even addressed until the 1950s. There were proposals as far back as 1200 AD that would have reduced this problem! Certainly, any time after 1650, there was sufficient science and technology available to reduce it, by improving complete combustion. There were tests burning coal soaked with cat-piss to test for complete combustion. I quoted Samuel Florman on this in the introduction to my book:
Sir Hugh E. C. Beaver, addressing the First International Congress on Air Pollution in 1955, traced the seven hundred year long campaign against air pollution in England. Complaint after complaint, committee after committee, report after report — all were ineffectual, as the centuries passed, and conditions grew progressively worse. Finally the London Smog of 1952, with its horrendous 4,000 deaths, set the scene for a new investigating committee, which was chaired by Sir Hugh. The committee’s report was well received, said Beaver, and led to effective action, not because the report was exceptional in any way, but because the public was, at long last, receptive. The lesson to be learned, according to Beaver, is that "on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the issue."