Toyota Announces More Details and Pricing for Lexus GS 450h Hybrid
Land Rover Concept Showcases Hybrid System and Other Technologies for 30% Reduction in Fuel Consumption

Mitsubishi Introduces the Concept-EZ MIEV

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.



> 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.



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.


And for city dwellers, think about "never having to stop for gasoline again."

The downside is range sure, but the upside is home "fueling."


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

Mark A

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.


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?


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


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.


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.


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.


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

"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.


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.

Shaun Williams

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...

"800 cars" is an interesting bit of corporate spin...


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.


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?

anti gravity

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


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.


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.

Nuclear Waste. Heard of it?


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

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.


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!!! 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!!!!



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.

Transrapid for cross country travel. Up to 360 mph maglev transportation.

Problem solved.



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!

The comments to this entry are closed.