« Synthetic Biology Company Raises $20 Million; New Focus on Biofuels | Main | FTA to Fund $12 Million in Fuel-Cell Bus Projects »
Mitsubishi Accelerates Electric Vehicle Work, Announces New Research Vehicle and Testing Partners
12 October 2006
 |
| The components of the i MiEV powertrain. Click to enlarge. |
Mitsubishi Motors (MMC) has unveiled a new, single-motor research electric car based on its i minicar. The new Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle (i MiEV) will be used for joint research programs with Japanese power companies beginning this year, and in fleet tests in 2007. Mitsubishi had earlier planned to begin selling electric cars in Japan in 2010. (Earlier post.)
The power companies will conduct field tests, gather data and evaluate the commercial viability of the vehicle. MMC will provide power companies with EVs and analyse field test data collected by them.
The label “MiEV” now encompasses all of MMC’s electric drive systems work, including lithium-ion batteries, in-wheel motors and other technologies related to EV, hybrid-electric vehicle and fuel-cell vehicles. The broader MiEV concept is based on MMC’s former concept Mitsubishi In-wheel motor Electric Vehicle (MIEV), referring to a lithium-ion battery/in-wheel motor-driven vehicle. MMC continues to develop its in-wheel motor technology.
Mitsubishi decided to priotiritze development of the single-motor configuration because it can be developed more quickly and at a lower cost than its in-wheel-motor configurations—and therefore accelerate market introduction.
 |
| The i MiEV |
The new i-MiEV is powered by a compact 47 kW motor that develops 180 Nm (133 lb-ft) of torque and a 330V, 16 kWh or 20 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. Top speed is 130 kph (81 mph), with a range of up to 130 km (81 miles) for the 16 kWh pack or 160 km (99 miles) for the 20 kWh pack. The motor is coupled to a reduction gear and differential to drive both rear wheels.
Charge time (80% capacity) with a 15-amp/200-volt on-board charger is 5 hours and 7 hours for each of the packs. Use of a 15-amp/100-volt charger increases the time to 11 hours and 13 hours respectively. A 3-phase, 50kW/200V quick charger drops that to 20 minutes and 25 minutes respectively.
MMC will display i MiEV at the 22nd International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium & Exposition (EVS-22) at Pacifico Yokohama in Yokohama 23 - 28 October 2006.
MMC will begin joint research with Tokyo Electric Power Company, and The Chugoku Electric Power Co. in November 2006 and with Kyushu Electric Power Co. in January 2007. MMC will provide each power company with i MiEVs. By testing i MiEV, the power companies will evaluate how the vehicle is applied to their business and how fast-charge infrastructure may be developed for EVs.
In the autumn of 2007, MMC will begin fleet testing in order to verify the vehicle’s technical capabilities in daily use and to evaluate the commercial acceptance in collaboration with the power companies above along with the Kansai Electric Power and Hokuriku Electric Power Company.
October 12, 2006 in Electric (Battery), Japan | Permalink | Comments (75) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6409206
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mitsubishi Accelerates Electric Vehicle Work, Announces New Research Vehicle and Testing Partners:
Comments
I'm glad they saw the light about not using in-wheel motors. Until motor mass can be brought down, unsprung weight will be a problem for in-wheel EV's.
Posted by: AES | Oct 12, 2006 12:12:08 PM
Mechanically nice and simple isn't it? Seats 4, Good speed, usefull range, Reasonable recharge time. Now the question is how much do they estimate that it will cost in mass production? Is this the breakout from a major car manufacturer that we've all been waiting for?
Posted by: Neil | Oct 12, 2006 12:31:08 PM
Why is it when ever a vehicle like this is developed its gotta look like an egg on steriods. I know there will be people that'll say "EEeeuuuww, I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those ugly things". Next thing you know a young family will buy one and they'll over load it with 5 or 6 kids and then a big SUV will run over them killing all the kids and the parents too and it'll be the Hindenberg all over again -- electric vehicles will be set back 20 years. We got the Telsa Supercar (big power, big speed, big price) and then we got this egg beater thing -- I just wish this first one could be more mainstream, full of all the appropriate air bags and safety features, a modest range and modest price -- something that a small family could afford and love -- something that would catch on and become an Icon -- remember the first Mustang -- something like that!!!
Posted by: JJ | Oct 12, 2006 12:55:18 PM
This is very good news, I really hope they can make it work. We've been waiting a long time for anything EV, really.
Posted by: Erick | Oct 12, 2006 12:55:48 PM
JJ, you mean a plug-in Prius, right?
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Oct 12, 2006 1:02:38 PM
fyi CO2 -- No, I was comparing and contrasting two EV's 1) The Telsa and 2) This Egg Beater Thing. PHEV's are in a class all by themselves (except now that you mention it the Prius does kinda look like an egg beater on steriods -- there, that outta wake up and shake up the comments section on GCC -- I'm predicting a record number of comments -- let's see if we can exceed 100!!)
Posted by: JJ | Oct 12, 2006 1:12:43 PM
Flames for JJ! Heresy! :) (I actually like the look of the Prius)
Posted by: Neil | Oct 12, 2006 1:19:51 PM
Cars that look like the i MiEV are ten-a-penny in Europe and Japan. It makes sense for Mitsubishi to make a vehicle that its home market is comfortable with.
Its just Yanks that don't "get" them.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | Oct 12, 2006 1:25:32 PM
What they need is a modular "recharging" system (Motor + fuel tank). You could replace 1 seat with this or a sizable proportion of the boot. If you used diesel, you wouldn't have such a fire problem as with gasoline.
They you could have a 5 seater with short range, or optionally, a 4 seater with 3-500 mile range.
Most people would never buy (and less still use) the range extender, but it might make more people buy it, and the people who bought it could always go on long runs with it, or buy it later when they needed it.
Most people would probably have a 2nd car for long runs, and use this for shorter ones, but the modular charger would give the appearance of a long range electric car.
Posted by: mahonj | Oct 12, 2006 1:29:56 PM
JJ:
The USA version will use a Dodge RAM 2500 with all it beauty and hugeness + a 2-ton trailer for the batteries to take the kids to school.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Oct 12, 2006 1:41:58 PM
What's Li-Ion cost these days? $500 per kw/h in bulk? That would put the 16kw/h battery at $8000. Since it states a range of 81 miles and most folks will need to either use heat or A/C for some significant percentage of the year, we'll just say that this battery is enough for 40 miles a day with light climate control use but that it will result in a significant cycle of the battery.
Most Li-Ion is rated around 1000 cycles, although to be honest, they drop off so the useful range may be half as much by 1000 cycles. Still, we'll blissfully pretend otherwise and look at it doing 40 miles per charge anyway. That's 40,000 miles per battery pack or a cost of about 20 cents per mile for the pack alone. That's a little pricy by any standard.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Oct 12, 2006 1:45:29 PM
Honda used the theory that people would flock to the familiar and the safe -- like the Civic and the Accord, when they built their hybrids. Toyota took the completely wrong approach and built a car no one could love, except for the fact that they crushed Honda in sales.
Maybe this is an egg on steroids, but I don't get the egg beater reference.
Posted by: t | Oct 12, 2006 1:58:07 PM
Sid Hoffman -- What's L-Ion cost these days? $500 per kw/h in bulk?? -- Good point/post and well said. I guess the real question then is: In a perfect world where there are millions of cars running around with the perfect battery in them (what ever the perfect battery turns out to be -- quick charging/safe/long lasting/high energy density) what will be the bottom line cost of those batteries produced in bulk with all the associated economies of scale already figured out and built into the vehicle. Just what will that cost be?? $______.00 per kw/h??
BTW -- The Prius does look like an elongated egg beater and so do the people who drive em -- the Telsa, now that's a looker/head turner for sure!! (I'm shooting for +100 posts just to see if GCC can handle triple digits!!)
Posted by: JJ | Oct 12, 2006 2:12:34 PM
Another idea is that they build a fuel tank into the system as part of the basic design and you just add the motor as required. This way you could have a proper filler cap and proper safety at the cost of some space below the floor.
Then it would be a piece of cake to add the charging engine.
At present battery technology levels, it seems a hybrid is the best solution. The question is whether it is principally petrol or electric. If you have a charging engine, you can reduce the battery size by at least 1/2 with considerable savings in money, space and weight.
If you make the machine a little taller, you would have loads of space for a fuel tank and a charging ICE.
Posted by: mahonj | Oct 12, 2006 2:32:54 PM
Man this is cool! I want one!
Posted by: K | Oct 12, 2006 3:19:50 PM
The lithium-ion maintanence fee to replace all the engine oil, oil seal, oil filter, blah blah blah for a maintenance free electrical engine.
So lets say you are using semi synthetic engine oil, okay, its like 30 bucks(how much?) per bottle for every 5000 miles. So, according to JJ, in an estimated lifetime of the lithium ion battery of 40,000 miles, we would also saved:
(i am not too sure about the market price of US)
240 bucks for engine oil
300 bucks for an engine overhaul(after 40k miles)
100 bucks for any spare parts related to engine oil
Plus the trouble free benefit(no need to visit workshop)
okay i admit that this is not a big deal of money compare to 8,000 bucks per battery pack. But this is to be considered into the bill.
Posted by: rexis | Oct 12, 2006 5:37:13 PM
JJ,
In Europe and Japan, the streets are narrow and parking spots small by US standard. This kind of shape is needed to maximize internal space with minimum footprint AND minimum aerodynamic drag. EV's requires more internal space for the battery pack, thereby raising the height of the vehicle, thus a more bulky appearance. This is a quite an attractive styling considering all the above. The Tesla is designed for emotional appeal but internal space and seating are severely limited in comparison this vehicle. If you live in Japan and have parking space for one car where you live, this car, or better yet, its PHEV version, would be the one to buy. Forget about a Tesla, unless you are a bachelor living a swingin' single's lifestyle.
If you are into Green Vehicles, get used to it!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 12, 2006 6:53:21 PM
Oh yes, as they are still studying the feasibility of it. It is not perfect. Even our current vehicles are imperfect as well, being inconvinience enough to visit the gas pump almost daily. But people has get used to it.
Its time to get used to an EV.
Posted by: rexis | Oct 12, 2006 11:31:30 PM
This independent report details how much it costs to make a standard (small) LiIon battery.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf
Back in 2000 it cost ~$1.70 to make a single 8 Wh battery (page 34), so that's $210 per kWh battery costs (manufacturing). That was 6 years ago, could be cheaper by now.
The 16 kWh battery in the Mitsubishi could therefore cost as little as $3400 to manufacture. That's not far off the same amount saved from not having engine, radiator, accessories, exhaust, catalytic converter etc etc. So overall price premium could be smaller, maybe $1,500.
The Mitsubishi LiIon is also meant to be a particularly long lasting type, developed for EVs and hybrids. Assuming 100k miles, the pack cost emerges at 3.4 cents per mile, less if you discount the savings from not having ICE costs.
Posted by: clett | Oct 13, 2006 2:48:40 AM
I'm torn between the fact that I'm glad that an EV is in the works and the styling of the little thing. I don't understand why anything green must look so bad! afterall, the most popularly sold cars don't look like that, and that's because people don't like cars that look like that, they like cars that look like the popularly sold cars! I also think that a recharge time of 25 minute is very respectable. In fact, it's even workable for long distance trips. You just must make time for the recharge. You could go to lunch, or take a quick nap! The infrastructure is there, and that would put a serious halt on this stupid hydrogen pipe dream.
Posted by: Richard | Oct 13, 2006 7:28:11 AM
There is a perfectly logical reason for the ubiquitous "egg beater" design. The embryonic state of EV evolution. Which means, don't count your egg beaters, before they hatch...back.
Posted by: gr | Oct 13, 2006 9:33:51 AM
For reference, here is a picture of an egg beater:
http://www.chefscatalog.com/images/catalog/product/20397_med.jpg
I don't see any resemblance to any of these cars.
Posted by: hal | Oct 13, 2006 9:37:36 AM
Clett, the saving of not having a mass produced IC engine, rad, exhaust, ancillaries, etc, will just about pay for a current tech power control unit + electric motor.
So the batteries would still be a premium.
Current tech elec cars are always charged at a premium.
You have to ask yourself why that is. I seriously doubt its because elec car co's are ripping people off. Its because manufacturing costs are higher.
Face it people, the cost basis for elec cars just does not add up yet. Increase in gas prices (in the USA) will not make a difference either. Gas prices in Europe hover at $6/gallon and yet the economic case for elec cars still doesn't add up here. There is no reason to think the states is any different.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | Oct 13, 2006 12:05:29 PM
Looks promising. I wouldn't mind one with a 250cc internal recharger for longer journeys.
As for battery costs,
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/afs_trinity_fil.html
gives $200-300/KWhr, if super caps are used as well.
As for the egg shape, this is pretty popular in Europe, e.g Ford Focus, Mercedes A class, and lots more. You get much better space utilisation, pretty good safety. Not so good on motorways, but ideal for a second car.
Posted by: Alexander Terrell | Oct 13, 2006 12:27:39 PM
Clett had a great graph on his website that I saw awhile back. It shows the declining cost of lithium ion. It may not make economic sense today, but with a strong downward push each year it can make sense in the not too distant future.
Mitsubishi also isn't releasing this car for mass production this year. It sounds to me like they are prototyping and giving to utilities to look at how you'd upgrade for fast charging. By the time this thing is hitting dealers in volume it could be 2010 or 2012 at least. And 4-6 years is a big difference in the cost and ability of the batteries.
Posted by: aa2 | Oct 13, 2006 3:22:50 PM
Andy >"...the economic case for elec cars still doesn't add up here..."
partly because the manufacturing companies get such nice subsidies through tax codes etc
Vehicle manufacturing plants are strategic tools (think about it, where would you manufacture tanks, armoured personel carriers, trucks etc when you are ramping up for war ?); part of the national security infrastructure & recognized as such under legal & tax codes
Can you say "welfare" for the entrenched/traditional way ?
Wake up & quit ignoring the big "externalities" when you start "doing the numbers"
"The only barrier to a successfully sustainable planet is ignorance." - R. Buckminster Fuller
Posted by: daCascadian | Oct 13, 2006 4:50:00 PM
Sid, your range and lifetime estimates are too pessimistic. The batteries would last 50-60k miles. That's life-of-car in Japan, where regulations pretty much force you to scrap your car after 5-6 years.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Oct 13, 2006 9:36:34 PM
How come in this cost comparison going on no one is mentioning that electricity is so much cheaper than gas? Tesla, for example, is saying about 1 cent per mile to run their car. In terms of total cost of ownership, if you compare gas + oil+ repairs vs. electricity + (fewer) repairs, the cost of the battery might not have to drop too dramatically, just by about the amount it is likely to by the time this thing comes out. Total cost of ownership is a better comparison because with an electric you can just wrap more of that total cost into your car payment. Would I rather spend $300/mo on an electric car payment or $200/mo gas car payment + $100 a month in gas?
I'd take the electric for reliability (oh yeah, and that saving the planet thing.)
Plus I think it looks great. Seriously. Not Mini great, but better than a Mustang! :-)
Posted by: Jeff R | Oct 14, 2006 12:51:58 AM
I think this car looks quite promising. It seems to me this is the first car (if it comes into production) that is quite "mainstream", by this I mean manufactured by a large carmaker who is capable of mass-production and not of any "exotic"-breed like the Tesla-sportscar. Here in Europe (and Japan), we are quite used to this type of car and I would love to have one for my daily commute. In fact, it just looks like the smart-forfour should have looked and seems only slightly smaller than the current Mitsubishi Colt. (http://www.mitsubishi.fr/models/berlines/colt3portes/)
I've driven a leased smart fortwo for about a year and never felt unsafe in it. They get reasonable crash-tests results also, compared to their size (JJ: I would rather crash a smart fortwo into a brick wall then a 1964 Mustang, and not only for the good looks of the Mustang!;-).
Good idea they use the single motor, this reduces production cost and eliminates the discussions about unsprung weight.
The article doesn't mention what type of Li-Ion battery is used by Mitsubishi? Do they also use thousands of AA-type Li-Ion cells like Tesla and other Li-Ion cars?
Isn't it possible to make large cells, like in Lead-acid batteries? It seems to me that production costs of let's 100 large cell's is significantly less than 6000 small cells.
Posted by: MasterD | Oct 14, 2006 2:14:00 AM
the Tesla uses 6000 small cells so if there is a problen with one you could replace it with little cost
but you are right it is possible to build larger cells
i hope this car goes on sale asap i have to buy a new car soon and i hope this is the last ICE i buy
Posted by: antigravity | Oct 14, 2006 9:17:55 AM
You may be able to replace one or more bad cells, but now you have a bank of aged cells and you find yourself replacing often.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 14, 2006 9:27:10 AM
Does anybody know what the recycle value or core value will be for a li-ion would be? I think that the lithium cost would be a large cost in production so at 60k miles the new pack would be less if you consider the core value.
Posted by: Burtt | Oct 15, 2006 7:47:21 AM
If you had a $10,000 battery pack in your EV that went bad after a few years, I do not think that you would get much for it as a recyclable trade in. Think of how much your get for a car battery trade in. If the car battery costs you $75, they might give you $5 or just offer to take it off your hands in trade. It would be considered in the cost per mile, along with the electricity and the labor to replace the pack.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 15, 2006 9:18:22 AM
Wouldn't the scrap value of Li-Ion batteries be high, since they contain all the stuff to make new batteries. It's probably not as simple as scrap iron - just melt and use all over again, as if nothing happened (except contamination with alloy components)
Does anyone have any knowledge on this?
Posted by: Thomas Pedersen | Oct 15, 2006 3:10:07 PM
This car will NOT sell in the USA. The Mitsubishi i (not the EV but the actual model they sell) is not designed to be a left hand drive vehicle and the steering column has space only for a right hand drive vehicle.
Mitsubishi would have to redesign the car to make it left hand drive compatible...and even then they probably wouldn't sell it in the US as an electric or gas powered vehicle since the gas powered vehicle only has a 660cc engine (the electric version seems like it will outperform the gasoline version in every aspect except for driving range).
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 16, 2006 8:42:00 AM
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/14/mitsubishi-wont-sell-an-electric-car-after-all/
Oct 14th 2006 Mitsubishi won't sell an electric car after all.
Mitsubishi's announcement last Monday at a dealer's convention in Las Vegas to bring an electric car to the U.S. market. But they lied. What said in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
CNNMoney's website that quotes Mitsubishi spokesman Dan Irvin in an email saying, "Please note that contrary to the Automotive News story of earlier this week, there is currently no plan to sell this car in the U.S."
Posted by: 66coronet | Oct 16, 2006 12:54:32 PM
Another RESEARCH vehicle?!? How about some PRODUCTION vehicles!!!
Posted by: DWF | Oct 16, 2006 2:26:29 PM
Mitsubishi NEVER SAID it was bringing the electric i to the states. That was Automotive News pulling a story out of its collective...ear. The Mitsu release said nothing about the US market, just that testing had to be finished in Japan before anything else could be considered.
http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/corporate/detail1533.html
Posted by: Mitsufan | Oct 16, 2006 7:48:10 PM
Mitsubishi, bring it, I'll buy it.
Posted by: Richard Easton | Oct 18, 2006 3:48:21 AM
if the batterys are dead dfter 50000miles you only have to change the batterys not the whole car but a well made battery pack should last at least 100000miles this would last most people about 4 years and in that time the cost of new batterys would have droped plus you new batterys would prob be lighter giving you better range and more speed
Posted by: antigravity | Oct 18, 2006 9:33:15 AM
Modular, standards-based design would be great. Ala, pc motherboards and the like. Just plug in additional RAM, replace a hard drive, or video card, depending on the requirement. However, this type of versatility is not always the best business model. I doubt too many automakers will clamer to design a product that will cannabalize present and future sales by allowing customers to plug in various combinations of batteries, ice powerplants, etc. A cool concept, nonetheless. Despite all the gloomy, negative speak here, I'd wager if someone conducted a longitudinal analysis on the progress of EV development, basely soley on the information archived here by GCC, you would see significant gains in capability (e.g., charging options, range, acceleration, battery life). It seems we are on the verge of a breakthrough to a very feasible consumer product. I'd wager again, if a million consumers would commit a $5,000 deposit, an automaker would come forward and deliver a EV under $20,000 with a 100 mile range, highway capable acceleration and speed, and battery life guaranteed to 100,000 miles.
Posted by: john galt | Oct 21, 2006 9:08:02 AM
Sure Electric cars are more expensive now but look at other electronics. If you wanted to replace your 3 year old computer with a equivalent well you couldn't because it was obsolete. You would have to buy a new one at half the price and 3 times the power.
Same thing for battery packs. Engines aren't going to change much just like keyboards and mouses just the battery. They will reduce in price significantly more then gasoline. They will be more efficient, cleaner and recyclable because it makes business and political sense.
Posted by: Johnny | Oct 23, 2006 7:23:25 AM
Hi,
Excerpt Below - Full article here
"A123Systems has developed a new generation of Lithium-ion batteries, that will deliver up to 10X longer life, 5X power gains and dramatically faster charge time compared to conventional Lithium technology, as validated by independent testing at Motorola and government research labs. They are delivering batteries to Black and Decker with unprecedented power, safety, and life as compared to previously used batteries. Their batteries use proprietary nanoscale electrode technology built on research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and exclusively licensed from MIT. The initial family of batteries is targeted at applications such as power tools, advanced medical devices, hybrid electric vehicles, mobility products such as electric scooters, robotics, and consumer electronics..."
Posted by: Mitch | Oct 25, 2006 9:54:13 AM
May I suggest you all look at http://www.altairnano.com/ and their nanosafe Li Ion battery, see Dr. Evan House's ZEV presentation. They will supply a real mid-size SUV with 10 ship sets of batteries by the end of 2006. These batteries should run for more then 12 years (12000 cycle testing of full discharge and recharge) and the SUV gets about 110 to 200 mile per charge and the batteries can be recharge in 10 minutes (assuming the charging unit can supply that rate). They had the car available for driving at the ZEV conference. I have not seen any cost as of yet, but a recharge of 10 minutes is unreal. In addition they have a 1937 Cabriolet reproduction and they are planning on a second sports utility truck (Phoenixmotorcars.com). The initial order for the batteries was $750000.
So if you don't want an egg, there are some really nice cars coming out.
Second thought, someone converted 2 BMW Mini cars to ALL electric wheel motors, just 160 Hp. per wheel. It does 0 to 100 in about 5 second (they say less then 5 seconds, but I don't think it was tested for that). Take a look at this site for the Mini, http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/newsID/2060724.006/page/1/country/ecf/lang/eng/mini/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini
The best part about all of this is with fast charging and long lasting stored power, whether by chemical or charge, the future could be JUST electric with NO ATP supplied power.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 30, 2006 10:33:46 AM
Actually, I think it is CUTE!! :) Reminds me of the LightCycles in the movie TRON.
But then I also like the design of the SMART FOR-TWO (www.smartusa.com) design as well.
The car design I simply do not "get" is the (Toyota) Scion 'shoebox' which is very popular with todays youth. ? ? ? ?
Posted by: Terry | Nov 2, 2006 1:23:49 PM
When can I buy an MiEV, this is the car we have been waiting forever for. Patrick Seattle Washington USA
Posted by: Patrick Sibley | Nov 6, 2006 9:20:15 PM
I like the www.theaircar.com.
Posted by: Victoria Stanford | Nov 14, 2006 12:48:07 PM
What a piece of crap this car will be. A more incomvenient and useless vehicle can hardly be imagined. When will those who want to build electric cars keep putting out garbage, usually (at $44,000 for the EV1) exorbitantly expensive vehicles that take too long to recharge to make trips possible and batteries that cost a small fortune. Li ion batteries suck. I predict that this product won't be any better than the EV1, a car that should NEVER have been put on the market.
Posted by: kent beuchert | Nov 14, 2006 3:36:21 PM
I love the way the spin doctors work. The reason Mit is not going for in-wheel motors is because of cost. It ain't got nothing to do with "desire to get the vehicle out there quickly for the deserving public."
Posted by: kent beuchert | Nov 14, 2006 4:00:02 PM
Kent, have you seen Sony Pictures 2006 film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" GM did not sell the EV1, it leased the vehicle, then later cancelled the leases forcing customers to return the EV1s, despite the fact that a number of the same customers offered to purchase their EV1s after using them for many months. Once again, GM dropped the ball allowing Toyota and Honda to score the runs. My best guess: Electric vehicles will dominate in a decade.
Posted by: Guy | Nov 20, 2006 11:43:35 AM
JJ's solution of having an auxiliary charging engine is practical. Battery technology holds the key to the EV. Until battery technology is perfected and made affordable, batteries that offer the best balance between range & economy should be used for normal commuting. A small trailer containing a 220V generator could be pulled behind a car to extend range on long trips and to charge batteries when grid electric isn't accessable. When advanced batteries are perfected and affordable, the generator could be sold or used for emergency home backup. EV's make more economic sense than HEV's since 90% of people drive less than 100 miles per day.
Posted by: Jim Hixon | Nov 23, 2006 8:44:30 AM
why has no one thought of bonding pv cells into the roof of the car , most cars that are used for commuting spend most of the day say eight hours or more, parked up
outside in the sun , surely there would be some benefit from the trickle charge such panels would provide, it would put an end to the scrum for the shaded places in the supermarket carpark!
Posted by: andrichrose | Nov 27, 2006 12:09:24 PM
"why has no one thought of bonding PV cells..."
People have thought of it. It won't work. There is insufficient area on the roof of a small car to absorb enough solar energy to make any significant difference; even on a summer day in Arizona. The additional weight of the solar panels hurts more so than the additional energy helps.
Tesla motors is talking about packaging a solar panel array to be mounted on the roof of your garage. That's a much more practical use of solar technology.
Posted by: Nate | Nov 30, 2006 7:27:36 AM
Why is it that for every discussion of electric vehicles, someone comes along and says "You know, you could make it a gas-electrichybrid to increase the range..."
Great idea! Nobody has EVER thought of that before...
If you want a hybrid, go buy a hybrid. But don't bastardize my dreams of a pure electric car. Range is a temporary issue, and anyone making pure EV's is doing things the right way.
Worst case, if you have an electric car with crap range, go rent a Sport/Utility/Assault Vehicle for your long trips. Best case, range will only get better. Let electric car makers increase the range the RIGHT way.
Posted by: ross | Dec 6, 2006 10:02:51 AM
If it goes to Europe, Portugal...
I Will Buy...
Posted by: Sérgio | Dec 21, 2006 5:00:49 AM
Looks like a baby shoe.
Posted by: Zippy | Dec 28, 2006 11:48:59 PM
why cant they scale it up to something like a focus. im six foot four, wheres the version for tall geeks..
Posted by: nobby | Jan 4, 2007 6:12:55 PM
Hey Kent,
You are soooooooo wrong about EV cars.
Funny how GM had the chance to show everyone in the world that the US was going to be at the forefront of new technology [EV1] and decided under false pretenses to scrap the whole thing! Or maybe it was because the f****g Bush administration together with the entire Detroit ensamble and the Big Oil consortium did not like the idea of loosing $$$ due to EV powered vehicles.
Wake up man and smell the rotten scent of oil...go to the video store and rent "Who Killed The Electric Car" documentary. Also, remember that GM bought the Ni-Cad battery patents from Ovonics and then sold it to who??? Freaking Chevron who then sued Toyota for using such battery technology in their HEV. Toyota had to pay $60M in fines...and then the rest is public notion!
Soon, very soon ICEs will disappear forever and so will Big Oil...Maybe with a less dirty/corrupt US government we could achieve freedom from foreign oil [unless you Kent like to see young American soldiers get killed on a daily basis for Mr. Bush/Saudis thirst of oil] and a more stable society! Maybe you should move to Dubai....
...and goodbye!
FS PhD
Posted by: Fred | Jan 5, 2007 2:09:44 AM
One way of doing it !
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html
Posted by: Frank | Jan 5, 2007 8:14:49 AM
I was very inpressed when Mitsubishi calimed they could make the traction motors so light they could mount them at the wheel as unsprung mass. They claimed that this would not affect ride or handling since the motors would be so light weight. Even though I prefer the motors to be sprung, I figured Mitsubishi must know what they are up to.
I see now they are reverting to mounting a single large electric motor on the sprung part of the vehicle. From the vehicle dynamics point of view putting the motor on the sprung mass makes a lot of sense. Where I part company with Mitsubishi is in using a single motor. They should consider running one for each wheel. Keep them as part of the sprung mass but give each wheel its own motor. That would be an improvement over what they appear to be doing. It could be set up to give excellent handling and traction.
I guess for a city compact they don't reckon it's worth the bother. Most of those cars are not good to drive anyway. The purchasers have not got much of a clue!
Sione
Posted by: Sione | Jan 7, 2007 4:07:12 PM
Most people do not realize how little power an automobile takes on the average. Fifteen horse power or less will do for most cars on a level freeway at freeway speeds. Electric motors do not have an absolute rating, and they can be highly overloaded for brief periods. A gallon of gasoline has about 120,000 BTUs of energy or about 47 horse-power-hours. A car has an efficiency of about one fourth (25%), so there are only about 11 actual horse-power-hours available at the wheels. A car that gets 30 miles to the gallon, thus has an average output at 60 mph of 22 horse-power. This does not include all wheel and transmission inefficiencies. Eleven (11) horse-power-hours is about nine kilowatt hours which costs less than one dollar most places and most nights in the US. A hundred horsepower engine in a car would require about nine (9) gallons of fuel an hour to operate it at full power. Very very large diesel engines for ships(100,000hp) get twice the efficiency....
Posted by: Henry Gibson | Jan 11, 2007 2:12:00 PM
I am betting on GM's all electric vehicle. I think it will dominate the American market,and the other manufacturers will be playing catch up. An on board generator is the way to go.
Watch out for a battery pack that can be upgraded with generic batteries. That will be important for cost savings.
I wonder if we can keep these on the road a lot longer than our present vehicles.
Ron
Posted by: Ron Wagner | Jan 15, 2007 4:38:19 PM
If you refer to that piece of greenwash BS called the volt, it is a dream in the clouds and pure PR so GM can sell more of its monstruosities like the Tahoe or the Suburban dinosaur.
But no worries... Mexico's oil production is dropping 40% per year, that of the world has already peaked and is in terminal decline.
Happy motoring is dead... and those who will drive in 10 years will afford Rolls Royces and $20 per gal gasoline.
There won't be any ugly cars on the road then, just snobs and one bodyguard/driver per studly ride.
Posted by: Ian | Jan 22, 2007 2:31:00 PM
I would like to see an 'affordable' electric car made that doesn't use combustable fuels to recharge itself.
Surely there are many different kinds of engine designs to run a generator that don't need to use non-replacable fuels.
But we the public will probably never see a true 'fueless' engine for an electric car as long as there are billions of dollars to be made on oil. There is too much infrastructure in the oil industry. Sure after the last drop of oil is gone then we might see some progress towards making a car that can recharge itself without oil or gas. But by then it will be too late for everyone. We need fueless car research and production in the right areas.
Not more profit gouging.
I'd like to know if anyone out there is trying to make an 'affordable' electric car that doesn't use oil or gas in its engine.
Posted by: RICHARD WALKER | Jan 28, 2007 11:42:41 AM
JJ:
Your comment on the prius, I don't care they are a huge wast of space (too big and too inefficient).
Your comment about the iMiEV, may be true for the USA? but in the real world (every other country) this size car is common, they are called micro cars, k-cars etc see:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car)
for more proof here is a link to the model I drive every day: (http://www.daihatsu.com/catalogue/cuore/index.html) It's a great car, perfect for passing SUV's and sports cars in real driving conditions (peak hour) being so small I can squeeze past a bus with out changing lanes, change lanes in to smaller gaps and park where you would never dream of parking.
I say Mitsubishi release this car now and I will replace my Cuore right away, if not let me be part of the trial. this iMiEV is equivilant to my Cuore in every except it's electric.
This is the Electric Car I have been waiting for!
This is the Electric Car I have been waiting for!
This is the Electric Car I have been waiting for!
If any car manufacturers are listening this MiEV represents my ideal car, build them NOW and I will buy.
D.
Posted by: Dave | Feb 2, 2007 4:10:48 AM
I think that the combination of solar power on your home, desinged to provide a surplus... and charging at night, is truly using solar power to drive. This is a real world solution. We will never create "closed system" "off the grid" technology. But we can create, today, "zero grid impact." Hope that was clear enough.
Posted by: Gary G | Feb 23, 2007 12:59:53 PM
It's very obvious to the American public, that when auto makers get together and make an electric car look like a childs toy, that they are not encouraging any adult to buy or take them seriously, but only to make their other products look better.
Maybe this is why independant companies like Tesla Motors are in the process of eliminating the auto cartel; which won't be too hard to do, especially once they get the price down for the average buyer and offer 3 vehicle styles.
The time for a change is now and it's not hydrogen fuel that will help as the cost is too much and the infrastructer needed will be passed along to the buyer not saving us any money at all. Hydrogen appears to be a political tool rather than a real American Advantage for its people.
Posted by: craig white | Apr 12, 2007 4:07:24 PM
No more internal combustion engines!!! Bring on the Duracell powered cars! Seriously... Time for change.
No? A long over due change. What GM did to us with the EV1 in the end, is no different to what happens when you drop the soap in the shower in jail.
Posted by: Aussie | May 27, 2007 4:14:04 AM
gosh,all this preoccupation with the looks of that car,I'd be more imbarrast driving around in a Honda Element or that scion version.
In a few years from now you'd be glad to drive around in anything,that is not muscle powered.
Posted by: HHN | Nov 1, 2007 10:07:14 AM
Eventually Americans pocketbooks will out way their egos. I'm not a green freak, but we do have a responsibility to this world and our future generations. I wish American auto makers would get onboard. Maybe their sales would increase too.
Posted by: Donn | Apr 12, 2008 9:43:34 AM
JJ- your obsession with # of post is strange, as is your description of vehicle aesthetics. Maybe even non-nonsensical. But it's true, there needs to be more classical design combined with future-compatible propulsion or nothing will happen.
Dave, this electric car you have been waiting for is already in production by Phoenix motorcars. You should be able to buy one this year. Granted, it'd be great if more companies would actually produce this stupidly simple yet aggravatingly absent vehicle design.
Gary, we already have off-grid technology. It's just no one wants to have it because it's expensive and often ugly, and not always possible depending on your environment... and often not (currently) better, either. But then, that may be your point. Urban environment -> no go. Desert or river environment -> no problem. Zero grid impact is do-able, and is definitely possible now. Problem is, I think, other impacts.
Anyways, the obvious reality is that we are killing ourselves already with our POS cars (look at iran, germany, and china- mostly iran-they had 3600 pollution-related deaths in one month in '06), we can't afford petroleum fuel for much longer (diesel is $4.50/gal here) and yet the hummer and the escalade still sell. I hate people. We need GM to go under so some company with some f-ing sense and abilities in execution can bring us what we should have had back in 1999 when chrysler was promising us the fuel-cell sedan... or any number of other empty 90's promises from any number of other manufacturers...
Posted by: brian | Apr 17, 2008 2:54:27 AM
Well, GM... or someone, anyway. They've screwed up, but so has every other american auto maker ...so I don't target GM specifically, other than for their promise as a failed company as they've made headlines to that effect already.
Posted by: brian | Apr 17, 2008 3:34:37 AM
I haven’ t been playing much lately because the golf course renovation is still not complete, so i’ m kind of worried that i might be rusty. Not so clever seeing that i’ ll be playing with a pro in a couple of days. I think i’ ll drive him crazy with all the bad shots. Like i said though, the trip is not only about golf, we will really get a chance to do so much more.
Posted by: Dubai Marina | May 21, 2008 10:48:58 AM
20 cents per mile? So $3 per 15 miles? Which is about the same as having a 15 MPG truck in your driveway at $3 per gallon... but the costs here will be going down, and the costs of the petrol for the truck will not. The net carbon impact is important too... and yes... if they sold them here I'd be serious about getting one.
respectfully
BJ
(New Zealand)
Posted by: redshift | Jun 13, 2008 10:05:53 PM
Hex Bolt, Hex Bolt Supplier, Hex Bolt Manufacture, hex, bolt, Windsor Hex Bolt, Hex Bolt, India Hex Bolts, Manufacture Hax Bolt Supplier, Hex Bolt Exporter,Crown Screw, fasteners, screws, Crown Screw and Bolt, Crown, nuts and bolts, bolt bus, banjo bolts, crown bolt
Posted by: windsor exports | Oct 30, 2008 10:28:43 PM
