Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Tesla introduces financing product for Model S customers; lease-sale hybrid | Main | Pew Survey finds broad support for Keystone XL; splits on fracking; slippage in seeing warming as very serious »

Print this post

Porsche introducing first plug-in hybrid with second generation of the Panamera

3 April 2013

CL87913
2014 Porsche Panamera E-Hybrid. Click to enlarge.

Porsche is introducing its first plug-in hybrid and two new extended wheelbase variants with the second generation of the Panamera. The new Panamera S E-Hybrid produces 416 total system horsepower (310 kW) and is joined by Panamera 4S Executive and Panamera Turbo Executive models in the revised Panamera lineup.

The new Panamera S E-Hybrid improves upon the hybrid powertrain offered by the previous Panamera S Hybrid (earlier post)—which is not listed in the new generation Panamera line-up—with a more powerful electric motor, and a higher-performance battery that supplies more energy and is able to be recharged from home or public vehicle charging stations.

The electric drive produces 95 hp (71 kW), more than double the power of the previous model’s electric motor (47 hp, 35 kW). Electricity is stored in a newly developed lithium-ion battery, which at 9.4 kWh has increased capacity over the previous battery (1.7 kWh).

Via the integrated on-board charging componentry and the standard Porsche Universal Charger (AC), the battery can reach full charge within approximately two and a half hours when connected to a 240V power source.

The Panamera S E-Hybrid expands upon the driving performance of the previous generation, while fuel consumption is reduced when compared to the previous Panamera S Hybrid. Final US EPA fuel economy ratings will be available closer to launch.

Simultaneously, its electric-only driving performance is substantially improved, enhancing acceleration, range, and top speed. The electric driving range of the Panamera S E-Hybrid is estimated to be greater than 20 miles (32 km) based upon current NEDC testing. Driving range may vary in real world operation, due to the effects of environmental conditions, terrain, air conditioning and heating use, driving style and other factors. The Panamera S E-Hybrid can reach up to 84 mph (135 km/h) in all-electric operation.

The Panamera S E-hybrid is capable of accelerating from a standstill to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds, an improvement of a half second when compared to the Panamera S Hybrid. An electric boost function helps in instances where maximum acceleration is desired, when the electric motor works in tandem with the combustion engine during acceleration. Electric boost is also available when a kick-down switch in the throttle pedal is activated by the driver during acceleration.

The car’s top track speed is 167 mph (269 km/h). The parallel full hybrid system developed by Porsche also offers “coasting” at higher speeds, a mode in which the internal combustion engine is turned off and the electric motors use vehicle momentum to generate electricity that is stored in the lithium-ion battery.

The Panamera S E-Hybrid also includes an entirely new range of convenience functions which can be activated and operated by Porsche Car Connect, a mobile app available for Android and iOS-powered devices. These functions include a charge status indicator and the ability to control the vehicle's new auxiliary climate control option, which enables vehicle preheating or cooling via the Porsche Car Connect app. These functions can also be programmed from inside the vehicle. A mobile device may also be used for remote access to vehicle information, such as remaining driving range or vehicle location.

New twin-turbo V6 engine. S models are now powered by an entirely new 3.0-liter V6 engine with twin turbochargers. The twin-turbo V6 replaces the naturally aspirated 4.8-liter V8 engine in the previous-generation Panamera S and Panamera 4S. The new bi-turbo engine is also used in the Executive version of the Panamera 4S. The engine offers increases of 20 hp and 15 lb-ft torque when compared to the outgoing V8 engine. Carefully-managed turbocharging ensures that the maximum 384 lb-ft (521 N·m) torque is available across most of the twin-turbo V6’s operating range.

Transmissions. With the exception of the Panamera S E-Hybrid, all Panamera models are equipped with the seven-speed Porsche Doppelkupplungsgetriebe (PDK); the Panamera S E-Hybrid uses the eight-speed Tiptronic S automatic.

The PDK transmission works in tandem with other vehicle systems to enhance fuel savings in the new generation Panamera. For example, the optimized engine Auto Start Stop feature now turns the engine off earlier while coasting to a stop. With the exception of the Panamera GTS, models with PDK also offer a coasting function in which the clutches open in overrun allowing the engine to idle and the vehicle to coast freely. This function can significantly improve fuel economy, especially when traveling on the highway.

Assistance systems. An expanded lineup of assistance systems is available. The revised adaptive cruise control system is now offered with Porsche Active Safe (PAS). This system visually and audibly alerts the driver in the event of a sudden decrease in following distance and briefly tugs on the brakes. It can also intervene in the braking process and apply increased braking pressure in an emergency braking situation, if required. Another new feature, camera-based lane departure warning, offers greater convenience and safety in city and highway travel.

The refreshed Panamera will celebrate its world debut at Auto China in Shanghai, which opens on 21 April, where further details on the new models will be revealed. The new generation of Panamera models will be available starting late in 2013. Panamera Turbo S and Panamera Turbo S Executive variants will be available in 2014. The Panamera S will start at US$93,200, while the plug-in Panamera S E-Hybrid starts at $99,000.

April 3, 2013 in Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef017c384e3a8e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Porsche introducing first plug-in hybrid with second generation of the Panamera:

Comments

Twice the power, 5 times the energy storage - what's not to like about that. Engineering-wise, it is brilliant, and only $6k extra.

I hope the Porsche customers don't mind tiptoeing around town on electric making almost no noise.

Maybe they can have a special "Porsche noise" generator so you can remind everyone that you are driving a porker.

There is no point in driving a Porsche if nobody notices.

Just letting Tesla know they're pikers when it comes to making porkers.

If you can get a Tesla Model S for nothing down and $500/mo, it's definitely moving downscale compared to Porsche.

Not the plug in hybrid of the future, obviously...
How can Porsche put it's name on a Plug in Hybrid with a RIDICULOUS 9.4KWH battery pack ? When TESLA set standards are for 40, 60 and 85KWH ?
This is only a gimmic to limit pollution taxes on CO2 in Europe. Pathetic.
No German company seams ready to launch a Tesla Inspired car just adding the missing Range Extender of German quality and the German comfort and reliability on top. I still have a hope on Mercedes who has an agreement with Tesla, but little.... Also them have too much to protect the day they go for all electric power trains (No Big German ICE engine, no big gearbox, no big transmission needed any more. Count the factories to close down...
Plug In Hybrid EV of the future will not come from them, full stop. I don't understand why TESLA does not add an optional Range Extender at least to Model X where there is more room, so it can become a BIG PLAYER on this HE market. Their current Pure EV niche won't scale up without that (Can't go on vacation with such a car !). Limiting their cars to luxury second car EV gadgets till they find a way to add that Range extender option...

@Patrick,
You can't cruise the Autobahn at over 100 mph with a meager range extender. Not that one should do that regularly!

This new Porsche PHEV has everything right: powerful engine and the Porsche name to qualify for high-dollar luxury class, while the 20-mi AER is just right to permit a reasonable battery pack yet still allow for very good braking regeneration, and modest price premium for the PHEV version.
Pay an extra $6k for the PHEV version and save $20-30k over the car's life for fuel cost and maintenance and repair cost. Now, even affluent people has no more excuse not to go Green, in both senses of the word!

We still need better batteries.

Adding a motor-generator and batteries is not likely to reduce maintenance and repair costs - though there is ample room for improvement in a German car.

Do you suppose the reason for the lack of Tesla equivalents in the market place is because they won't make enough profit for a good return on their investment (like Volt)?

Oh wait, making a profit is evil and they simply don't want to be evil - OK, that's it.

No wait, Tesla is making a profit - now I'm confused.

>>>"Adding a motor-generator and batteries is not likely to reduce maintenance and repair costs - though there is ample room for improvement in a German car."

Imagine if a person drives all short trips and daily commutes on battery and motor alone...what would happen to the engine and the transmission? Recall from High School Driver Ed that most of engine wear and oil fouling is from cold starts and short trips!

Who ever said that making profit is evil? As long as you don't resort to unethical practices such as price-gouging and monopoly, etc...

Remember what I've told you before, TT, that you will see more and more PHEV's coming out? It just makes a lot of economic sense!

Patrick,

I disagree with you on most accounts. As long as car batteries are limited by production capacity and unit price, you get the highest total fuel saving by distributing the batteries on the highest number of cars. A modest battery pack means high utilization of the batteries. High utilization means high fuel savings.

I applaud Tesla for what they are doing. But I also think there is limited space in that market at the moment, just as there was limited appetite for Priuses in the beginning.

The German (European) engineering tradition is that of evolution and optimization (let's make it better) rather than revolution (let's make something entirely new and different) in the US. But nevertheless, you see all the European car makers reducing their fleet emission at a record pace, even without sorting to hybrid propulsion yet. Hybrids will come, and they will slash fuel consumption even further. And with time, as people get 'comfortable' with smaller ICE's supported by an e-motor, and batteries get cheaper, the ICE will get smaller, fuel consumption will drop further, until the point where we are at BEVs or PHEVs with small (25-30 hp) range extenders. At least that's what I predict.

I think this approach is wise in a market that still fundamentally demands ICE-powered cars. The readers of GCC constitute a small minority among car buyers.

Finally, I would like to applaude Porsche for taking a large (sensible) step from 1.7 to 9.4 kWh. My only experience with hybrid drive from a Prius was that the e-motor was annoyingly weak during acceleration. With 71 kW and presumably high torque, electric-only acceleration should be adequate for in-town driving.

“Recall from High School Driver Ed that most of engine wear and oil fouling is from cold starts and short trips! ”

Well sure Lyndon Johnson was president and cars rusted out in 5 years. My '89 Ford Ranger has made nothing but short trips less than 10 miles in the last 7 years. No oil burning, no fouled spark plugs.

There are many reasons to spend lots of money on a car, saving money is not one of them.

High-end European cars just don't rust out in 5 years. They are designed to last for 20-30 years, more if garaged and well-kept.

In America, many people trade in their cars after 100-120k miles due to concern about future reliability. A Toyota's paint job will last for 15-20 years at least.

However, a PHEV with the engine and transmission still spanking new after 100k miles, the owner will feel confident to keep it for another 100k miles, totaling 200k miles before trading in. This is very good for the environment, is it not?... besides all the gasoline adn potential pollution saved? A PHEV will retain much higher value at 100k miles than a conventional ICEV.

"This is very good for the environment, is it not?.."

No, hauling batteries around and charging them with fossil fuel generated power is worse for the envronment.

@ Roger Pham. You need to try the Tesla S 85KWH top notch on the motorway : It can cruise the Autobahn at over 100 mph VERY WELL!
The beauties of such much larger Battery packs are huge. Not only you increase the capacity hence the full EV range, moving to 1 or 2 charges per week instead of 1 or 2 per day, for more comfort and so they wear a lot less, minimizing the need for any petrol to very few long trips per year with a 85KWH. But also you dramatically increase the Instant Power supplied at any moment to the motors, allowing to go to an "All Electric Drive train" working even when maximum power is required at high speed on the motorway or on mountain roads, like Tesla did. It allows you to dramatically simplify your drive train, pulling not just the Big tracting ICE engine but also most of the big gear box and the big transmision. Up to moving to one electric motor per weel or per axis, and only electric cables in between them and the batteries, the ICE Range Extender never having to tract the car itself any more, but only used as a pure "electric generator" optimized for rare usages at constant speeds, to refill the batteries or provide electric power directly to the electric motors when batteries are totally depleted. I know it is less effective to burn petrol to make electricity to run electric motors, but if this is used during only <5% of your yearly milleage and rest is 100% Electric burning ZERO PETROL and saving costs and weight, you won't mind that little un-effectiveness .... Problem is the more the batteries get large the less times per year that ICE generator will be used, creating new challenges and opportunities too.
TESLA did it all right, except that, missing a range Extender they prevent you from long trips and far away vacations to hostile places w/o secured fast charge plugs. Un-acceptable to me. Adding a Range Extender option to their Model X would tripple their maket, and count me in too, making it a real replacement car for my beloved BMW. Porsche design keeps the full big tracting ICE engine with its huge Gear Box and Transmission, adding the electric parts on top, means adding weight and costs and complexity and maintenance... This is totally un-effective in my view. Buy it if you want but don't count me in.

@Patrick,
In a few years, when battery will be smaller and lighter for a given output, the idea of range extender in the Tesla will make a lot of sense. For now, I'm afraid that the range extender will compromise the trunk space and reduce the vehicle sale potential.

Perhaps a removable range extender with built-in fuel tank can be placed in the trunk, but for long trips, people usually carry a lot of people and luggage. Well, if only 2 people are traveling long distance, perhaps they can put their luggage in the rear seat and put the range extender in the trunk. Still, a removable range extender cannot carry too big a fuel tank, so traveling range between refill will be significantly restricted.

Perhaps you can work out an engineering design details for a range extender for the Tesla model X and send it to Tesla to see what they say. Perhaps you can post it here, or give us a link to it so that we can contribute further critiques or suggestions.

Perhaps in the Tesla Model X with the rear drive version, the front of the car can serve as luggage room so that the range extender can go on the rear trunk space. Perhaps a Kawasaki Ninja 500cc motorcycle engine with 59 hp can be used. This motorcycle weighs 370 lbs, so the engine, fuel tank and generator may weigh about 200 lbs, and can be placed right behind the rear seat and take up 1/2 of the rear trunk space. Instead of 85 kWh battery pack, a 60 or 40 kWh battery pack can be used, thus offsetting the extra weight and cost of the range extender. Why don't you work this out and present this idea to Tesla? If Tesla adopts this idea, the next PHEV Tesla could be my and your future car.

Even the Tesla hot-selling model S has more than adequate front luggage room of 5 cubic feet for the 59-hp Kawasaki Ninja 500cc-engine with the generator. The battery capacity can be reduced from 60kWh to 40 kWh in order to keep the weight and cost the same as the 60kWh battery version. The AER will be reduced from 210 mi EPA to 140 mi EPA, but this is more than adequate for daily commute. Why don't you give Tesla a suggestion to see what they say. The Ninja engine is street legal, so I don't see any conceivable emission problem. Of course, if driven on engine power all the time, it may not meet California emission standard, but if only used 10-20% of the time, then the engine's emission per mile should be divided by 5-10 x, and I'm sure it will meet emission standard! The rear trunk space is still a generous 26 cubic feet, and the room for the fuel tank of 4-5 gallons can take up the space given up by using a smaller battery pack. The fuel tank can be made rupture-proof by the use of carbon fiber, in case of survivable collision.

A front-wheel-drive version of this PHEV Tesla model S will leave more room in the back for a larger fuel tank of 8-10 gallons, hence driving range comparable to other ICEV's.

However, more importantly, the front wheel drive version can allow for direct coupling of the engine to the drive shaft at above 30-40 mph in order to eliminate electrical ohmic loss, AND the contribution of the engine's torque and the torque of the generator turned into motor during brisk acceleration. This can add a potential of 60-110 more hp to the car to rival the performance version of the model S lineup, and will fetch a higher price premium, hence higher profit margin, added by the fact that the engine and generator should cost no more than $3000, vs. the $8000-10,000 saving on battery cost when downsizing from 60kWh to 40 kWh. A handsome profit margin, indeed, or the cost reduction can be passed on to the customer by reducing the price of the baselevel Model S from 62,000 to $55,000-57,000.

The direct coupling of the engine with a clutch to the drive train will also improve mpg on engine mode, perhaps allowing > 40 mpg overall driving. The lower engine friction operated at optimum load and rpm allows better mpg than that of the C-Max Energi, even though the PHEV Model S is bigger and heavier. The engine will operate at 50-70% load during level cruise at 60 mph, so should be reving about 3500-4500 rpm. When the car goes up hill, the engine torque will be supplemented by the motor, while when going down hill, the engine will still operate at 50-70% load to remain in peak efficiency, by charging the battery. At 120 mph top speed, the engine will be reving near its maximum power rpm at 9000 or so, and additional power will be provided by the battery to maintain this speed. Top speed on charge-sustaining mode should be around 80 mph in order to be competitive with other ICEV's on the highway.

Should be an exciting development, and I'll buy this vehicle in a heart beat!

An early AC Propulsion test vehicle used Panasonic lead-acid batteries with a generator trailer for long trips.  The trailer carried a 250 cc motorcycle engine.

Tesla would be better off with a trailer instead of trying to modify the Model S or Model X to incorporate fuel, exhaust and cooling.

@ Roger Pham. You're getting closer,... still we need to convince Tesla. Be carefull that reducing Battery too much may not work. My bet is Tesla cancelled the 40KWH Model S last week due to insufficiant instant power delevired with it, not just the lower range, that if they were adding a Range Extender ICE engine they could overcome easily. So Discussion for me is between the 60KWH and the 2 x 85KWH packs, and I'd tend to pick the High-Perf 85KWH pack only here so I'm sure to have enough Instant Power at any speed on the motorway and on mountain roads, and with >300M all EV range I only have to recharge one time per week during working times and short week-end trips. And to have enough room for the Batteries plus the Range Extender plus the familly Laggage on long vacations trips, I would forget the Model S and only try put that on much larger Model X only, whose delay to 2014 could be used to add this... But then for the Range Extender used as a "Pure Generator" in it, we can be more "creative". That "never tracting" ICE engine needs to be small, light and very effective at constant speeds, so it could be of a different techno than usual tracting ICE engines. Look at the very small Micro Turbines in former Jaguard EV car concept, th

The micro turbines used as pure generators can be effective. They rise many questions on safety when used in undergrownd parkings, but that was adressed in the past... Alternatives are rotative engines or downsized ICE engines (3 x pistons,..etc). Key criteria beyond providing the most efficent electric power for the electric motors and recharging the batteries, is their compacity and their reliability for rare usages. The larger the battery is, the fewer times per year the R-E will be used. So you need an engine that can be very reliable when used heavily but only a few days per year for long distance vacations trips of >1K Miles per day. Other industries already went through that (Backup Electrical Power Generators for Hospitals only working when electricity supply fails a few times per year for exemple. But need find a small light model that can be put in a car safely... Feasable, just not trivial. Hence likely why Tesla did not pick that yet... Let's help them.

@Patrick,
For a 40 kWh pack to provide 270 kW (362 hp) of power, it is only putting out under 7 C. This is a low power rating. Modern Lithium Polymer battery for R/C use now starts with 25 C rating as entry level, going up to 60 C for high performance version. Years ago, R/C lipo started at 10 C and going up to 20 C for high performance. A small battery pack will save $8-10,000 and over 300 lbs of weight, so the PHEV will be cheaper and lighter as well. High performance cars and planes need to be as light as possible or else you will have a dog. Try some R/C electric flying or R/C electric car racing for a while and you will see this point. I always use the smallest battery pack possible, usually 30-40% smaller than what is called for, and smaller motor and smaller speed controller as well, and make 'em work harder. That's how you get performance! Weight will destroy performance!

The Ninja engine can out perform any turbine unit. It is a super-duper hot rod engine with >10,000 rpm redline, and very light for its power, with good fuel economy. It is designed to power a generator separately in the serial hybrid mode, but can also be coupled to the drive train via a clutch at the right rpm to avoid ohmic loss and increase power at top speed. You won't be able to find any turbine engine that can match what this engine can deliver! A turbine engine will consume twice as much fuel for the power and the range on engine power will be unacceptable. Plus, a turbine engine will cost tens of thousands of dollars...Not cost effective!

with >300M all EV range I only have to recharge one time per week during working times and short week-end trips.

That's probably the wrong way to manage your battery; deep-cycling is generally bad for them.  What you really want to do is just plug in for opportunity charging whenever you can.  Even if it's only Level 1, you'd keep the battery close to optimal charge without having to worry about a need to go somewhere on short notice.

Microturbines are great for specific power, but generally stink for thermal efficiency.  Also, a trailer with driven wheels can help with the vehicle dynamics.  A trailer can be swapped out without affecting the vehicle, so you could tote a zinc-air FC trailer for a trip from LA up I-5 and trade for a diesel generator when heading eastward to Iowa.

@ Roger Pham. I agree with most of your comments. This said if you move to an "All Electric Drive train", you save a lot of weight & $ too : No big German ICE engine, no big gearbox, no big transmission needed any more, with all components attached this should save a TON in weight, no ? So there should be some room for a larger battery for more comfort - although I agree 40KWh could work if instant power is OK - with a R-E, especially if the Range Ext is as light as you pictured your Ninja..., still keeping an overall light weight for the SUV.
Also Roger, if what you say is right : "For a 40 kWh pack to provide 270 kW (362 hp) of power, it is only putting out under 7 C. This is a low power rating. Modern Lithium Polymer battery for R/C use now starts with 25 C rating as entry level, going up to 60 C for high performance version...", then why the hell does the VOLT that has # 18KWH Battery available if I got it right, needs its very complex cinematics so the ICE can help the electric engine tract the car when maxi power is required at high speed on motorway or when climbing mountain roads ? 18KWH x 25 = 450KW that should be a lot more than enough to tract that can in all circumstances and simplify the drive train of the volt. Obviously there is a reason Volt designers did not buy that was enough.... I don't expect them stupid at all, since so far they made the best ever PHEV optimized arround that affordable battery capacity...
Also @ Engineer-Poet : I keep worrying on the limited number of cycles each battery can stand before retaining only <80% of its initial capacity, and wearing, considering the HUGE cost for replacing that battery. So for me charging twice per day a battery limited to 3000 x cycles before hitting <80% should start "damadge" it in no more than 4 years, while charging it only twice per week should push that to 29 years instead = A lot better ! I understand we should never push the battery to full/deep discharges, but I'm missing where is the optimum in between. I hardly buy that recharging batteries depleated by <10% makes any sense considering the wearing cycles.... On the other side I get the need to be able to fully recharge overnight, and ideally in # half of that time, so in the evening the Grid can reverse the charge for sometimes to pass its peak comsumption times using EV car batteries as very effective instantly available optional local generators for the grid, then fully recharge it the other way as soon as all citizens go to sleep and consume much less power, fully completing the charge before you need to take your car in the am. But still I'm missing how that can play with battery wearing cycles. No question to kill my expensive battery pack in few years to help the grid for free ! I could accept an agreement that can secure > 10 years usage of my battery, assuming the Grid contributes one way or another if it wants me to allow the reversal at peak hours ...

So for me charging twice per day a battery limited to 3000 x cycles

You're missing the point; 3000 cycles is the rating at a specific depth of discharge (DoD).  Generally, a lower DoD will increase the number of cycles more than proportionally, down to a fairly low level.  AC Propulsion did a test of a tzero battery pack in V2G use, and found that the micro-cycling from grid regulation caused the pack capacity to increase as a result of the test.

@Patrick,
The following link will give detailed info on how to manage lithium battery and prolong its life.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries

Note 3 important things:
1. The number of charging cycles will increase greatly with reduction in depth of discharge. See the table on that page.
2. Avoid full charge and full discharge if possible, and avoid storing the battery at full charge over prolonged period of time. Charge to 80% of maximum charge, to be discharged to no less than 20% for optimum battery life.
3. Battery does age with time and reduce capacity even if you don't use it. If you keep the battery fully charge and kept it at 40 degree C, capacity will drop quickly with time. However, keep it charged to well below max and keep it cool, battery capacity will be maintained for much longer.

For the reason that battery does age with time even with little use, and the effect is accelerated with higher ambient temperatures, it is best to have a smaller pack and use the heck out of it, and replace them every 5-7 years, instead of having a bigger pack with twice the investment, only to see the pack significantly degraded after 5-7 years with less use, due to the large pack size. People living in desert or hot tropical areas should use PHEV like the Ford C-Max Energi with only 8 kWh pack, so that it would not cost too much to replace the battery pack more regularly.

The Volt was designed 10-15 years ago, so its battery pack technology reflects what was available back then, 7-10 C max, made by LG Chem. The 25-C (and up) Lithium Polymer now all came from China, and it seems that the Chinese now have the latest advancement in Lithium Polymer battery. No LiPo battery made elsewhere can match in performance and quality.

The latest in LiPo now available from China can be charged at 8-C current, and seems to have 3x more charging life cycles than older packs. This is very fast charge. At 6-C charging, a pack can be charged full from zero in 10 minutes. If charged from 20% to 80% of capacity, a pack can be charged in 6 minutes at 6-C current to avoid overstressing the pack. Talking about advancement. I hope that the latest in LiPo technology will make its way to automotive use, although safety consideration may require a safer chemistry like LiPO4, with somewhat lower energy density, but still very applicable to PHEV's requiring smaller-capacity pack.

@E-P,
A trailerable range extension ICE module is more applicable to "purist" BEV enthusiasts who wants a big battery-pack BEV without any ICE built-in. However, for a PEV with a smaller battery pack, a built-in ICE unit allows for reduction in the size of the battery, hence reduction in weight and cost, and can add power and torque directly to the drive train, hence allowing for reduction in the size of electrical components as well, further reducing cost.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group