To bad there not selling in the states. I wonder why the two diffrent motor layouts?

Me likey EVERYTHING about this car... (except that "regenerative" fan).

I like the the PV on the roof. Any idea how long it takes to recharge the batter on PV alone? Just to gauge the time needed.

Ben:
I don't think they're selling anywhere; it's a concept car. Or am I mistaken?

I remember a previous report that they plan to sell the iMiEV in japan by 2010, but have no plans for USA sales.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/mitsubishi_acce.html

clett: "Any idea how long it takes to recharge the batter on PV alone?" - for comparison, the Tesla drives about 4.5 miles on a days worth of charge from 1 square metre @ 200 Wh/mile, 6kWh/day solar, 15% eff panels, SoCal sun.

Two motor layouts to more effectively utilize regen braking (more total motor power in the front than rear) and to save cost (using a single motor in the rear instead of two in wheel motors).

Is that car facing forward or backward?

Maybe one inboard motor so they can have a place for (some) friction brakes, if only for parking and emergencies? It seems like they would want to avoid using a wheel motor and a brake on the same wheel if the unsprung weight is to be tolerable, especially if they are emphasizing handling.

It's got to be easier to package an inboard motor in the rear, since rear wheels don't steer. By using wheel motors up front you eliminate the need for half-shafts and CV joints needed to deliver the power to a wheel that also steers. In practice this lets them have AWD in a platform that (I am guessing a little here) has no space allotted for an inboard motor and half-shafts up front in the first place. After all, they refer to it as a "rear engine" (ok, rear-powertrain) platform.

Notice how the specs of the wheel motors and the rear motor vary, too. The rear is more biased toward power and the wheel motors more to torque. I wonder if this is a product of reduction gearing or if the different shapes of the two motor types alone require it. Either way I would assume that they can strategically send power to the motor(s) better suited to meet the demands of the moment (torque versus power) and not just for fancy stability enhancing features.

Oh, aha!

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/mitsubishi_acce.html

Note that the specs of the rear motor are identical to that of the rear (only) motor in this other product. So when they decided to make a sporty concept in the same design family as the existing product, the easy way to add power and all wheel drive properties was to add on the wheel motors up front.

Yikes. I think everything looks better in red, but even a drop-dead Ferrari red wouldn't make that car look good.

Why on earth can't car companies make a bleeding edge vehicle based on something like a Civic or a Camry or even (ugh) a PT Cruiser? Why do they always have to resort to "Lost in Space" designs?

Lou:
The answer to your question is in the charging voltage. It's 100V (slow) or 200V (fast). In other words, it's for the Japanese market, the only place in the world those voltages are used, and where most all the vehicles look weird to westerners in general, and in particular to Americans. And that's what's on the streets... the concept cars are even wilder.

I would take something that looks like this concept over a PT-cruiser esque design. The PT cruiser is almost as horrid an abomination as the Pontiac Aztec.

Aztek? I think they should have called it Rhinocerous. It's actually a very good impression of one. If they had just called it that, people would have probably loved it for being so true to nature.

I thought they had decided they did not like in-wheel motors ,
must of had re-think !
pity it looks like a jelly mould !

I've been promoting "in-wheel" motors for about 30 years now. Nice to see someone is starting to produce them. In another 20 years, current transmissions will be as obsolete as fossil fuel cars.

Now if we can just get someone to add on board gen-sets.

For the people that think its ugly: it is a mini what did you expect, if they tried to make it look slick there would not be enough space left inside to even breath.

I like it!

It looks a bit like the Fiat 500! (I used to own one many mmons ago).

Obviously, this car will never be marketed in the USA...I might move to Japan then...whattaheck!

Fred

In 1953- the GE J 47 jet engine used by the B 47 bomber had a similar power motor-generator weighed about 40 lbs. Nothing new in motor design really. I would think they could put the drive shaft upper so motors weight could be sprung and I would see no problem adding a friction brake. Seems like a roof mounted jet engine generator(about 12"diameter) would work well enough to make a little larger car and perhaps self charging and a top speed in the 150+ range. The first time one competively finishes a NASCAR race, the public will stand in line.
Ron Rose

Why Ron and the noise and fuel useage will send them running.

Why Ron and the noise and fuel useage will send them running.

So what's up with the "power generating fan inside the front grille"? I heard that 9/11 changed everything... Did that include the First Law?

the fan got to be for cooling it just does not make sense.

At first I thought in-wheel motors were just gimmicks for concept vehicles. However, at second thought they have important advantages: 1) They eliminate transmission; 2) They save space; 3) They reduce overall vehicle weight; 4) They enable a better road grip when the power of each wheel can be adjusted individually; 5) With reduced weight and no friction from transmission they should also be more efficient. I would still like to know whether it is possible to make in-wheel motors durable enough considering they are sitting in a wheel and being seriously shaken all the time. However, ICEs are very durable which is amazing when you recognize they are subject to countless of explosions with associated vibrations / “shock waves”. So it should be possible.

I'm also intrigued/confused by the fan. As for the design, this thing isn't that far off from the Beetle.

I think if they completely redesigned the front headlights and grill, the louvers on the side (and the fenders and doors that lead to them), and the rear roofline, then they might have a vanilla enough vehicle that someone other than me might buy it in the states. And the wheels. God this thing is ugly... but it's salvagable with a complete redesign.

I like the power system though, seems like it'd be fun to drive and handle like a dream if the wheel motors are well accounted for. Maybe put this powertrain in an Eclipse or a Lancer or something.