« Toyota Announces More Details and Pricing for Lexus GS 450h Hybrid | Main | Land Rover Concept Showcases Hybrid System and Other Technologies for 30% Reduction in Fuel Consumption »
Mitsubishi Introduces the Concept-EZ MIEV
28 February 2006
|
| Concept-EZ MIEV |
Mitsubishi Motors introduced the Concept-EZ MIEV 4WD mono-box concept car at the 76th Geneva International Motor Show that began today.
The Concept-EZ MIEV (Mitsubishi In-wheel motor Electric Vehicle) showcases another application of the company’s MIEV concept for next-generation electric vehicles using in-wheel motors and a high energy-density lithium-ion battery system as core technologies.
The four 20 kW motors deliver a combined maximum output of 80 kW (107 hp) and combined torque of 1,600 Nm. The use of the in-wheel motor also allows for a “wheel-at-a-corner” layout for high-stability road-hugging.
The lithium-ion battery system, with output of 24 kW and weighing 150 kg, is mounted under the floor. Taking advantage of the absence of a centerline powertrain that distinguishes the MIEV concept, the Concept-EZ MIEV provides three seating arrangements:
Lounge mode: A conference room-like space with the seats arranged in a circle.
Transport mode: Luggage space with the rear seats stowed under the floor.
Driving mode: Appropriate for normal driving conditions, spacious and comfortable seating for five adults.
The Concept-EZ accelerates from 0–100 km/h in 11 seconds, and has a cruising range of 120 km (75 miles) with a maximum speed of 150 km/h (93 mph).
In January, Mitsubishi introduced the Concept-CT MIEV series/parallel hybrid at the North American International Auto Show, an electric-dominant gasoline-electric series/parallel hybrid concept (earlier post).
The Concept-EZ is the fourth MIEV vehicle Mitsubishi has developed, starting first with the Colt EV in the spring of 2005, followed by the Lancer Evolution and then the Concept-CT.
February 28, 2006 in Electric (Battery) | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4355916
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mitsubishi Introduces the Concept-EZ MIEV:
Comments
All they need to do now is put in a small diesel generator and you could drive from coast to coast.
Posted by: Lucas | Feb 28, 2006 9:08:15 AM
Hey Lucas, that's a backward step if I've ever heard it. I've never had to drive coast to coast. They have airplanes for that.
Posted by: Richard | Feb 28, 2006 9:42:37 AM
Richard, you should read today's article by Monbiot on air travel...
Posted by: JN2 | Feb 28, 2006 10:20:52 AM
Lucas, you could just buy a Honda generator and carry it as cargo, if that was your goal. Actually that's better because most people wouldn't want to carry the generator for in-city driving, or where they have reliable access to plugs.
Posted by: odograph | Feb 28, 2006 10:26:42 AM
The trick is to make the diesel unit modular so a diesel one or a gasoline one can be fitted, or they can be omitted for city use, or used with a smaller battery.
This would be a serial hybrid then.
Noise reduction might also be a problem unless designed in from the start.
Interestig though. Also has a nice performance spec: reasonable acceleration + sane max speed.
How many people actually driver > 93 mph ( once they have passed through puberty ) ?
A question: if you limit the max speed, and can use thinner tires as a result, how does this affect mpg ?
Posted by: mahonj | Feb 28, 2006 10:29:41 AM
More ...
What about a serial hybrid which is electric led and only has the ICE for emergency situations ?
Say we have 80KW of power from the battery, but only 40 form the generator. As long as you could drive at say 65mph, you could go on unexpected long trips, or "get you home" in a city if it all went wrong. The main thing is that it would eliminate the "running out of juice" feeling that you could get in a battery only car.
Also, the mitsu has 225 wide tyres - for a 90mph car ?
I guess it is a concept and has to look cool. Surely a real one could be offered with "ecomomy" or "pose" tires ?
Also, what about modular batteries - a 60 km and a 120 km version - you would save quite a bit of weight and cost.
Posted by: mahonj | Feb 28, 2006 10:40:48 AM
After reading the Monboit article I've come to the conclusion that he is a scientific illiterate.
Posted by: tom deplume | Feb 28, 2006 11:01:23 AM
I figure that if you do it right, you should be able to drive from LA to NY on one five gallon tank of gas.
Posted by: Lucas | Feb 28, 2006 11:32:56 AM
Maybe four gallons of BioDiesel...
Posted by: Lucas | Feb 28, 2006 11:34:37 AM
mahonj: I like your idea. Buyers should have the choice between various configurations to best satisfy their driving requirements. Personnally, I would pick the larger batterry pack with the smallest gen-set to maximize EV mode. Just enough power from the gen-set to barely maintain 60 mph, with 2 people on board, on longer trips would be satisfactory for me. Others may prefer the opposite, and that's a legitimate choice. Ideally, with modular battery packs, one may be able to add batteries to optimize the configuration as funds become available.
Posted by: Harvey D | Feb 28, 2006 11:43:07 AM
Excuse me, but why does every thread need to gravitate towards a discussion of plug-ins and biodiesel? This concept vehicle is a pure electric vehicle.
I understand that people have their pet favorite modalities, but it gets a bit tiresome having to listen to the same schpiels about (bio)diesel and/or GOHEVs at every turn, regardless of the true topic of the thread.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Feb 28, 2006 11:45:25 AM
Range is a bit on the weak side, only 120 kilometers.
How long are charging times?
If they are short, <10 minutes, the short range is not a big trouble.
But if you are going 500 km it is quite a pain to stop and charge 4 times à 8 hours.
But 120 km is good enough for commuting.
Posted by: Starvid | Feb 28, 2006 12:10:30 PM
Bravo, Joseph. Yes I have been noticing, too, the affinity to berate these true electrics "CONCEPTS" as inferior due to their lack of plug-ins, gensets, or the lack of use of biodiesel in their operation. One must crawl before one can walk, much less run a marathon. Lets embrace these technologies, and future ones, and then vote with our checkbooks on which is best.
Posted by: Mark A | Feb 28, 2006 12:11:59 PM
The energy has to come from somewhere. If you don't plug it in, you have to have someway to recharge it.
(Maybe you would just throw it away?)
Posted by: Lucas | Feb 28, 2006 12:14:58 PM
Last sunday I was at Toronto autoshow and saw Subaru RV1 electric (not sure about the name though). Its tiny, way tiny even for my minimalistic mind. Anyway:
range is 120km, time to recharge to 80% SOC is 5 mins.
Question is car makers can tease public as much as they want but untill its availible on the road its just an air
blowing. Same with this one. Somehow I find that carmakers
do it "just in case" that oil prices will skyrocket. No way they put it into production with today gas prices.
Posted by: Alex | Feb 28, 2006 12:33:16 PM
Yes, this whole concept car deal is frustrating. What do they do with these concepts, anyway? Test market them? Maybe they put these out so they can read all these great comments on Green Car Congress. :)
If people want to discuss modifications, what's the harm? Maybe someone with influence is listening, somewhere.
As far as that goes, I could live with an electric only with 75 mile range and fast recharge. I can just use my other car for long trips.
Posted by: t | Feb 28, 2006 12:49:12 PM
Joeph W. Don't you think that PHEVs will precede pure EVs and even be essential for users with frequent long highway drives, until such time as the pure EVs can store enough energy for 300+ miles at high speed? I guess that an EVs for city driving + a PHEV for longer drives + a 3-ton 4 x4 to impress the neighbour would be a good combination but who can afford all that harware. A PHEV with modular units that could easily be transformed into a pure EV when batteries become powerful/small/cheap enough would be a good concept or a phased transition to pure EVs.
Posted by: Harvey D | Feb 28, 2006 1:22:46 PM
In my current and short term future situation, I would have no use for an electric only auto. I like to live in the most sparsely populated places I can find and plan on moving to Wyoming this summer.
I know there are many who would be able to use one like this and far be it from me to discourage them.
I sure would like to see some other automakers start to use the in-wheel drive system. I hope some are silently experimenting with it.
Not very encouraged though. Auto engineers are the least imaginative folks I've ever met. Auto CEOs are even less so.
Posted by: Lucas | Feb 28, 2006 1:24:39 PM
I think it is strange, in a country with multiple-car familes, to think that every new car has to satisfy both daily communte and once-a-year road trip.
If you are a single (and single-car) person you are in the minority ... with minority goals.
With cheap gas an no evironmental concern, we now see 3-4 SUV families (as families reach the "teenage drivers" stage) ... but with higher gas prices and a little more global warming awareness ... maybe it will be "just" 2 SUVs and an electric.
(And yes, for that once-a-year road trip you can plug in at your motel, and take a honda generator and/or solar panels if you are going into the wilderness.)
Posted by: odograph | Feb 28, 2006 1:44:57 PM
Oh, and I could mention that even some single people could choose to park their much-loved SUV or sports car, and take the electric for weekday commutes.
Posted by: odograph | Feb 28, 2006 1:46:28 PM
Mitsubishi seems to be pushing hard in the EV area so we may see some production models soon from these concepts. Big fan of the EV revolution so I'm crossing my fingers.
Recharge times? I think A123Systems is just now getting a production plant going for it's advanced batteries and I haven't heard of any other going production yet so these almost have to be standard batteries so recharge would be long. This is a concept though so by the time there is a production model who knows. Though I think for fast recharge you would need special recharge stations. I don't think even 220v would give that super quick charge the batteries can support. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Range? 75 miles is enough for lots of people to use it for their second commuter car (or city car). I certainly would buy it (well dependent on cost). The general market though I believe will almost certainly demand a car with a little more range and flexibility so plug in hybrid & bio-fuel. I'm sorry not touting my favorite technology just looking at market forces as I see them.
Fast recharge stations don't exist yet and just because 98% of the time you don't need the extra range that 2% worries a lot of people. Sure you HARDLY ever drive your car anywhere but to work and back but what do you do when you DO need to drive out of town?
Like I said though these are just concepts and the biggest thing for a car like this which would drive acceptance as a "commuter" replacement or a strictly "city" car will be gas costs. If they go up enough people will be happy to sacrifice that seldom needed convenience of the long range and fast refill for the dramatic reduction in fuel cost.
Then again maybe in the next year or so we'll see some vehicles made with the new super batteries and the utility companies will jump on board and create a "electric corridor" filled with fast recharge stations somewhere in the US. We've got the "hydrogen & ethanol" ones starting now so what's one more. Heheh.
Posted by: Russell Phillips | Feb 28, 2006 2:00:09 PM
This would make a great 2nd car for a (sub)urban family.
Electric is very good for short range, stop/start.
ICE is very good for long journeys, especially (bio)diesel.
Hybrids are an expensive way to combine the two in 1 car, but if you allow for 2 cars, you do not need to hybridise, just figure out how to park them.
If the EV is for short range use, you can keep it simple and cheap.
The problem is one of marketing as much as engineering.
[ but we still need a better battery (+ultracap) system ]
Posted by: mahonj | Feb 28, 2006 2:11:58 PM
The batteries and ultra capacitors presently being developed take only a few minutes to charge up. We should rethink the purpose of a service station in terms of supplying electricity for charges and not just liquid fuel. Since it takes about the same amount of time to charge as to pump gas, there should not be much difficulty in estabishing charge prices according to the Kw hours required for the service. Remember that in the 1800's the only service stations were for changes in fresh horses, for re-shoeing and for other animal related services.
adrianakau@aol.com
Posted by: Adrian Akau | Feb 28, 2006 2:14:40 PM
Given the lithium ion batteries, is the range any better than using less expensive NiMH batteries?
Posted by: cs1992 | Feb 28, 2006 3:04:31 PM
Ok, so 75 mile is not as far as a gas powered car but its enough for me. I could go round trip to work without charging at work. Of course I would charge it at work.
This type of vehicle could include a tag along generator for people needing longer trips. I hope Mitsu sells an all electric car here sometime soon.
Posted by: Hampden Wireless | Feb 28, 2006 5:43:48 PM
> Ok, so 75 mile is not as far
> as a gas powered
> car but its enough for me.
Tank of gas (about 11 Gal) takes most people about 200 miles on average. Wonder if there is a way to achieve that. I rarely make trips where I have to refill.
Bob
Posted by: Robert | Feb 28, 2006 6:48:43 PM
damn people, for someone who lives in the city 75 miles is more than enough. last fall, i would go to community college in los angeles, which was 30 miles roundtrip. on some days, i would travel 50 miles. still, that's still under 75 miles, and never mind the fact that )ideally) the college would have charing stations. BUT even if it didn't, I would still have enough juice to go out for lunch.
i think the key thing about this car is its max speed. with 93 mph, i would be able to still drive 70+ on LA freeways without any trouble.
jebus let's get serious. for city dwellers, this car would be a godsend. honestly, if you spend more than 75 miles of driving per day without a hypothetical place to recharge, i'm really sorry. that sucks.
as for "longer" trips, no one is asking you to throw away your current car. just keep it for that occassion.
Posted by: lensovet | Mar 1, 2006 2:05:12 AM
And for city dwellers, think about "never having to stop for gasoline again."
The downside is range sure, but the upside is home "fueling."
Posted by: odograph | Mar 1, 2006 4:06:50 AM
I think you are all missing the realities of the market. Yes, an all electric vehicle with a range of 75 miles would be great for a number of people, especially those who post here with two car families willing to sacrifice range of a second car for efficiency/environmentalism. However, the reality is that currently only a small number would be willing to do so until the technology is proven. Let us not forget the negative feeling most people have regarding all electric vehicles after there first introduction. (present company excluded)
Furthermore, the number of single people (unmarried, divorced, etc.) in the US is growing. Most of the people in this group only have one vehicle and it must be able to handle all driving conditions from short commutes to longer trips for work or to visit friends, relatives, etc. Having to buy a second car defeats the purpose of saving money/energy and many in this group simply can’t afford to have two cars. (insurance, payments, etc) Furthermore, let's not forget that the production of any vehicle uses a significant amount of energy so suggesting everyone have 2 cars to save energy and money is ludicrous.
Finally, from an automakers standpoint, no one is going to produce a car that appeals only to a limited segment. They generally try and produce cars where they can achieve high enough sales figures to return a profit. This concept and others like it are a great start and hopefully full EVs capable of longer range and quick recharge are on the horizon. However, the realities are until that time comes, some onboard method of recharging would need to be an option at the very least to ensure high enough sales figures to make production of this car feasible to any large scale manufacture. Be that a diesel-generator combo or a fuel cell stack that derives hydrogen from gasoline or otherwise. It is just the realities of economics and the market economy. The majority of the public does not share the same sentiment as those who post here. Sorry
Posted by: skimonster | Mar 1, 2006 4:08:18 AM
Maybe we should require all electric golf carts, on golf courses around the world, and all these electric fork-lifts in plants worldwide, to pull a trailer with a generator. But I guess make that a diesel generator, running exclusively on biodiesel. Then everyone would be happy.
Posted by: Mark A | Mar 1, 2006 5:57:36 AM
I think the critics here have false expectations.
There are 220+ million cars in America, but a new car only needs to sell a few thousand a month to be a "hit." That's all the Prius sold ... and that was enough to scare people into publishing "hybrid hype" articles.
Maybe if an electric sold 2 or 3 thousand a month, people would go on about "electric hype" and how the thing cannot possibly replace all the cars.
Well, that's not the point, is it?
Posted by: odograph | Mar 1, 2006 6:06:09 AM
For your amusement here are the monthly sales figures for the BMW Mini (USA only).
Now substitute the argument about how "not everyone can own an electric" and make it "not everyone can own a mini."
Does that mean that BMW loses money, or that making the Mini (for the people who want it) is a bad idea?
Geez ...
"BMW says strong sales of its Mini and 3-series cars helped lift its third-quarter profits."
more here
Posted by: odograph | Mar 1, 2006 6:11:55 AM
shikmonster, the people who have just one car won't be buying a new car regardless of whether it's an electric or not. however, those who are considering replacing their car might keep it and get an electric as the "replacement". that was my point.
if you think there aren't a lot of people who only drive in the city, go to los angeles and check out the traffic. if all those people were driving electric vehicles, a) they at least wouldn't waste energy, b) the air quality would increase ridiculously.
my point remains.
Posted by: lensovet | Mar 1, 2006 11:27:38 AM
Someone calling himself Robert said:
Tank of gas (about 11 Gal) takes most people about 200 miles on average. Wonder if there is a way to achieve that.Try 245 miles at highway speeds... going on three years ago.
My TDI has a range of well over 700 miles on a tank if I drive it carefully.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 1, 2006 6:07:31 PM
Refilling or recharging your vehicle at home is a big benefit for most people, especially commuters. Who likes filling their cars up with gas, especially self serve? This is something people have been doing for almost a century. Pulling up to your parking spot at home, getting out, and plugging in on your way to the door sounds a lot nicer to me. How about a CNG Hybrid version of the current Civic with the home refill system?
Establishing the market for EVs is the big step. People can trade up for larger capacity and or quicker recharge batteries as the technology or finances allow. Standarization will be important as it is for other batteries.
Posted by: mark | Mar 1, 2006 7:13:06 PM
You don't have to speculate so much about how the market might respond to a care like this. We had a very similar electric car for sale in America for several years back in the 1990s: the GM EV1. Here are some comments from
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/hyb_ev1.html
"EV1: Lessons Learned
"The EV1 was an all-electric vehicle conceived, developed and built by GM, and offered for lease through Saturn retailers in California and Arizona beginning in December 1996 and through August 2004.
"The lead acid EV1 required a 5 to 6 hour charge, which offered a driving range of 55 to 95 miles. The nickel-metal hydride battery pack required a 6 to 8 hour charge, which provided a driving range of 75 to 130 miles. The vehicle was available for lease only, and monthly payments ranged from $299 to $574, with significant subsidies by GM and some governmental incentives....
"Its drawbacks, however, were a restricted driving range and, as a sporty commuter car, seating for only two people – factors that severely limited its consumer appeal.
"EV1 owners were a proud, loyal group. Unfortunately, there were not enough of them. GM was able to lease only about 800 EV1s in four years-- not enough to establish commercial viability. And that came only after GM invested more than $1 billion to develop, design and build the car, install a charging infrastructure, dedicate a sales team entirely to the EV1, provide reduced EV1 lease payments, and to create and place award-winning advertising."
So there you have it. 1 billion dollars spent, 800 cars leased. That was the market for an all-electric vehicle with a 75 mile range. Does that really sound like a good investment? Maybe to you it does, but probably not to most car makers. This is why these vehicles continue to be "concepts" and are not yet being put into production. Nobody wants to waste another billion dollars.
Posted by: Hal | Mar 1, 2006 11:45:28 PM
I read about some very long waiting lists to even get a chance to lease the EV1 and other EVs, so just because the 'brains' at GM say it was a bad idea (building piles SUVs and selling them at a loss is obviously a better idea) does not mean it was the reality of the situation. Obviously bringing a whole new mode of transportation to the market is going to be expensive, no doubt about that, but as the most affluent society we can certainly afford to do it, and there is the will, given the right motivating forces, but as long as silently subsidized gas keeps flowing we will blindly follow the herd off the cliff as we hit the limits of our unsustainable living patterns. We should have started this in the 70's with the peak of US oil production, but we failed to learn and refused to face the fact that oil is not unlimited.
Posted by: Schwa | Mar 2, 2006 4:05:40 AM
Actually Hal I heard it was 1,500 cars leased with another 5,000 on the waiting list. These figures are straight from GM employee Chelsea Sexton who managed the waiting list. She was on the waiting list herself for two years and never got to lease one...
http://www.dontcrush.com/media/ChelseaSextonFC.mov
"800 cars" is an interesting bit of corporate spin...
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Mar 2, 2006 4:20:15 AM
The EV1 needed a specially installed charging station. You can still see galleries of some around the web.
Any EV that needs that kind of infrastructure will have a much harder time. If it is possible on the other hand, to charge from "regular" 110/220, things should go much more smoothly.
Posted by: odograph | Mar 2, 2006 6:39:29 AM
as far as i remember, the toyota rav4 EV had a waiting when toyota discontinued it.
since we're on this topic, can someone explain to me why the CA legislature repealed the ZEV regulation that was supposed to go into effect by 2000? I didn't realize this at the time, but really, every big manafacturer had at least one electric car in production by that time.
what gives?
Posted by: lensovet | Mar 2, 2006 12:17:59 PM
the real reason GM and the other car makes don't want to produce electric cars is because the electric motor is much more reliable than the ICE engine, a well designed electric motor needs almost no services, no oil change, no plugs, hence no more cash for the dealership, some car makers make more profits from servicing cars than the car sale it self. Where i work there are countless electric motors running 24hrs a day 365 days a year all with out any prob, GM and co know this all too well. Thats why they would not sell the EV 1 to the public they only leased the car to the public, If the public were let buy the cars you would still see them on the road now but they would be getting a lot more range than 75 to 100 miles. Batterys are getting better and batter every year when the cost of li batterys comes down we will see electric cars again only not from GM
PS does any one here know if this is even possible www.europositron.com
Posted by: anti gravity | Mar 3, 2006 8:25:09 AM
No, the europositron stuff is not possible. I'm a chemist and I think it's an obvious scam. The future is lithium batteries, there are very good reasons for that.
Posted by: Magnus | Mar 5, 2006 2:55:59 PM
Less combustion vehicles means less noise and cleaner air in cities, which may be enough to bring some "environmentally conscious" sprawlers back inside the city, making electric cars even more practical. Positive feedback loop.
Posted by: Highground | Mar 6, 2006 10:37:24 AM
Magnus,
You dont know, so how can you say such things about somthing you have no knowledge on, I am also a chemist.
That just means I understand the conceptepts,
but Sci-Fic usally become Sci-Fact.
Meaning you never know when or were new technology will come.
I read the website
http://www.europositron.com/en/techniques.html
and would consider this a great leap. If this comes through then you can say goodby to Petrol Cars for sure. Since the batteries could go as far as gas.
I am an American but have traveled many times to Finland, home of Nokia.
Finland has more Scientist per Capita than the USA and any other country.
This would be the most likely place for this Development since,
1. Gas is 3 times as much in Finland than the US ($ Motive).
2. Nokia and other Electronic Companies would benefit (National Pride Plus$).
I might just stop by his research center next time I'm in Finland.
I have been wiating for an opertunity like this.
Posted by: Nuclear Waste. Heard of it? | Mar 8, 2006 11:38:39 PM
i just want it all , now!!! long distance , low if no pollution, in drive recharge,(and or built in solar recharge system) and i dont realyy care if it does 50 mph or 100mph, just want to get it done as fast as possible so we can start to have a lush , green and calm earth again! hint everyone: we all know why our earth is so pissed off at us latley!!! ...so in conclusion, is there anyone that can steer me in the dirrection of helpiong to further all of our causes? schooling , first purchase test purchases and promotion (guinne pig ) , i will drive any of these cars if it will help make more people aware of the situation, and help spread the disease,... the SAVE OUR FRICKIN PLANET DISEASE.... !!!! HELP!!! I JUST WANT IT NOW ... NOT IN TEN OR TWENTY YEARS!!!!
Posted by: bill | Mar 9, 2006 1:34:44 AM
Bill,
If you want to clean up the planet and still have the populace stay mobile or become more mobile, you have to get out of the car mentality.
Skyweb Express for in-city travel. Up to 60 mph private transportation.
(http://www.skywebexpress.com/)
Transrapid for cross country travel. Up to 360 mph maglev transportation.
(http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/basics.prg)
Problem solved.
poweRob
Posted by: poweRob | Mar 9, 2006 6:28:07 AM
Mitsubishi have been talking about this car for a little while now and every time I check up on it the release date seems to keep moving to the future.
The idea is well overdue for a pure electric car.
I could put money on it that mitsubishi will change their mind and release only hybrid versions when the release date comes.
Just what the world needs, more hybrid "electric" cars with expensive, dirty gas engines attached. Yuk.
Why does the world need to burn fuel so badly? Biodiesel, CNG, LPG, Petrol, Hydrogen etc, the list never ends. Pure Electric vehicles are the only truely clean method (hydrogen is mainly extracted from oil at present) and the less oil usage and carbon created the better. It's not rocket science.
Pure electric is the best solution for most households! Simple!
Posted by: Gavin | Oct 24, 2006 12:53:01 AM
