Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE Opens New Division for Large, Established Automakers
Tesla Motors Introduces Roadster Sport

Chrysler Introduces New 200C EV Concept, New Jeep EV Concept and Update on Three Earlier EV Concepts; Production to Begin in 2010

The Chrysler 200C EV. Click to enlarge.

Chrysler unveiled the 200C EV Concept, the newest Chrysler ENVI electric-drive vehicle, at the North American International Auto Show. The 200C EV, based on a shortened version of Chrysler’s rear-wheel-drive platform, features a range-extended electric drive system that delivers up to 40 all-electric miles, with a total range of up to 400 miles.

In September 2008, Chrysler and its ENVI electric-drive organization (earlier post) had unveiled three production intent electric-drive prototypes: a battery electric Dodge EV sportscar; a plug-in hybrid (extended range electric vehicle) Jeep; and a range-extended Chrysler minivan. (Earlier post.) In addition to the new 200C EV concept shown at Detroit, Chrysler unveiled updated versions of the original three, along with the Patriot EV, a range-extended version of the Patriot.

The powertrain in the 200C EV. Click to enlarge.

Chrysler said that it will produce at least one of these vehicles for North American markets in 2010 (and for European markets after 2010), with at least three more models to follow by 2013. Between the ENVI electric-drive vehicles and its GEM (Global Electric Motorcars) neighborhood electric vehicles, Chrysler expects to have 500,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2013. GEM has produced 40,000 electric vehicles over the past ten years.

Chrysler’s ENVI Electric Vehicles utilize three primary components: the electric traction motor; a Li-ion battery system; and a controller that manages energy flow. The Range-extended Electric Vehicle combines the electric-drive components of the ENVI Electric Vehicle with a small gasoline engine and integrated electric generator to produce additional energy to power the electric-drive system when needed.

200C EV. The rear-wheel drive motor in the 200C EV delivers 200 kW (268 hp) of peak power. The range extending generator uses a SULEV gasoline engine and delivers 55 kW (74 hp) of continuous electric power. The 200C EV accelerates from 0-60 mph in approximately 7 seconds, and turns in a standing ¼-mile in the mid-14 seconds. Top speed is greater than 120 mph (approximately 193 kph).

Jeep Patriot EV. The range-extended Jeep Patriot EV also offers 40 all-electric miles, and a total range of up to 400 miles. The front-wheel drive Patriot EV uses a 150 kW (200 hp) traction motor, with a SULEV gasoline engine and electric generator delivering 45 kW (60 hp) of continuous electric power. Acceleration from 0-60 mph takes approximately 8 seconds, and top speed is greater than 100 mph.

Dodge Circuit EV. The update of the battery-electric sports car concept, the Dodge Circuit EV, features a 200 kW (268 hp) rear-wheel drive traction motor. The car accelerates from 0-60 mph in less than 5 seconds, and delivers a standing ¼-mile in the low 13 seconds. Range for the vehicle is 150-200 miles.

Jeep Wrangler Unlimited EV. The Wrangler EV is another range-extended electric vehicle, equipped with a 200 kW (268 hp) electric motor that develops 400 Nm (295 lb-ft) of torque. It has a range of 400 miles, including 40 all-electric miles.

Chrysler Town & Country EV. Chrysler’s electric drive minivan is another application of the range-extended powertrain, with a 200 kW (268 hp) motor producing 350 Nm (258 lb-ft) of torque. It is also designed for a 400-mile total range, with 40 miles of all-electric driving.



It doesn't look like an EV. It has a huge drag coefficient and a big grill to catch bugs and defeat efficiency. What's the point of trying to look like a gas guzzler? If a consumer is going to spend all that extra money to drive an EV, don't they want the rest of the world to know their commitment?

I think the Aptera has a much better chance of success because people don't want to drive their grandfather's Oldsmobile anymore.


Not one mention of fuel economy on any of these vehicles. When will they learn that a 0-60 time and over 100 mph top speed does not sell these types of vehicles. Sure, I understand they need to perform acceptably to be competitive in the market place, but don't make it your vehicle introduction highlight.

Willy Bio

This is fantastic news! Loser TOYota with its 8 mile electric range PHEV Prius can screw off. The market was theirs, and now theirs to soundly lose. Not that I'm being all pro-US, just pro-real progress, and TOY seems to want to rest on its laurels.


So what?
There is no energy improvement.This is just a
shift of where the pollution is made.
We need to find solutions in light weight transportation. Currently we try to transport our 70-90 kg avarage in a vehicle that weighs 25-40 times as much. So this is an efficiency of much less than 4%. The real innovation needs to come from new lightweight transportation.


So what?
There is no energy improvement.This is just a
shift of where the pollution is made.
We need to find solutions in light weight transportation. Currently we try to transport our 70-90 kg avarage in a vehicle that weighs 25-40 times as much. So this is an efficiency of much less than 4%. The real innovation needs to come from new lightweight transportation.


So what? It is only tax money invested.
There is no energy improvement. This is just a
shift of where the pollution is made.
We need to find solutions in light weight transportation. Currently we try to transport our 70-90 kg avarage in a vehicle that weighs 25-40 times as much. So this is an efficiency of much less than 4%. The real innovation needs to come from new lightweight transportation.


Stan Peterson

These all seem to be be variants on two different sized motor/controllers oriented around EREV architecture.

Two appear to be FWD and three to be RWD.

There did not seem to be much discussion of the ICE engine but from the output I would anticipate it is similar to the Volt. It is a small I4. The Chrysler World ICE is produced at 1.8 liters and that could serve as the engine, especially if they make it an Atkinson cycle, and perhps downsize it to 1.6 liters or so. OTOH, the Prius has upsized it engine to 1.8 liters and that could serve fine.

Chrysler and A123 have signed agreements and worked together so the battery supplier may well be an American firm too. Maybe Chrysler's Evs will absorb some of the A123 factory output that is to be built in Michigan?

GM's ground breaking efforts with series hybrids, and EFLEX/EREV architecture once shown the way, it is easy to duplicate. But then again this grounsd was well trodden by Dr. Frank at UCDavis, and he has recomended series archtitecture as the best from his experiments.

Stan Peterson

For those who suggest ultimate mileage will come from some little start-up company like Aptera, I would like Aptera to produce in quantities of 10 vehicles; or even 100, first. Despite the hoopla, only now after three years of "mass production", has Tesla managed to manufacture its 100th Tesla, collectively.

IOW, don't hold your breath for Aptera, Fisker, Think, yada, yada, yada.
The Volt will probably have a effective economy of 320 mpge. They may not get actual CAFE ratings for that, from the bureaucrats. But it doesn't matter. Real world numbers will be about that, if they achieve 40 miles AER, and 50 mpg with the ICE engine running. And it provides lots of room to be relatively inefficient in other places.

For example, not using ridiculously expensive construction materials for maximum weight savings. Even if a EREV is 20% heavier than it need be, an EREV from anybody, following the same formula will answer the need for a) fuel economy, b) removing the Oil cartel. All done at a "mere" 250 mpge.

It is also easy to predict the end of the sub "C" segment vehicles, within the next decade. Who needs them? And who really wants them? Many have accepted them grudgingly as penalty boxes, but that is all. On reflection, there will always be Marxist cloacal cavities who will deem it important to penalize the proletariat, "for their own good". So I guess the odds are good, some future Marxist dictator will produce a 21st century Trabant/Volks-Vagon.


Let's see Chry actually put one of these things into production. If they do a few cosmetic changes to the grills on these buggies - someone might buy the idea they're EVs. Volt's grill is mostly paint so it doesn't appear to be needed for actual EREV cooling.

Since there's a preponderance of aging hippies (aka boomers) who live in the "country" - they might go with the Jeep EV first and cater to old hippie ideals. That way the boomers can remain fringy, drive green, and be patriots to boot. Abbie Hoffman'd be proud.

Stan Peterson

I have been looking at and considering the accompanying picture and "see-through" diagram. This seems to be an unusual layout for a "RWD" vehicle.

A series architecture needs no axle or connection between the ICE /generator and motor, and rear differential, there appears to be none. It would seem that the front end is allocated to ICE and generator mounted traversely between the front wheels and the power electronics and auxilary equipment, (EHVAC ?), mounted in the traditional transmission/axle position extending behind them. The batteries use the rest of the "tunnel" and then mount traversely under the rear seats, in a "short T" like the Volt. Behind them is what appears to be the electric motor powering the rear wheels?

This is different then the Volt layout. It should yield optimum weight distribution, a very low CG, and RWD is favored for other handling reasons. The power electronics in the front seat "trannsmision hump area" should be small enough for commodius seating in the front. OTOH, the drawback to the layout may be in the trunk area in providing reduced cargo capacity. But that has always been a RWD drawback.

This Chrysler may not be a simple "Volt copy" and may have some appealing ideas for handling and performance of its own. The layout may even be preferred over time. Commnents anyone?


Anyone who thinks Aptera drivers will pay a penalty, hasn't seen the Popular Mechanic test drive video. Car critics who have driven it are blown away by the quiet, beautiful, comfortable and quick ride this car delivers. Maybe its just marketing hype, but this car makes me drool with anticipation. The modular design with plug in electronics make it appear to assemble as easily as a desktop PC. Once the aluminum roll cage is welded, the rest screws, plugs and glues together. When you throw out the Model T assembly line and rethink personal transportation from scratch then you look at strong, cheap, easily moldable materials like acrylics and PVC plastics. I read an interview with the priciple inventor who thought they would be able to mass produce the car for less than $15,000. It is true that they will need to charge a premium over $27,000 until they can develop economies of scale. The road ahead is undoubtedly tough without a dealer/service network but I wish them luck.

Willy Bio


But electricity can and is created from renewable and pollution free sources. Even that which is created by old coal plants has been proven to be less polluting than individual ICEs all over the place.

So Wil, you are actually utterly wrong and completely out to lunch. Care to comment?


No need to kick Chrysler any more. They probably won't survive even with bailout money. What Chrysler makes won't sell and what would sell they can't make.

Except for good salaries their execs have nightmares. Too little capital, a legacy of poor products, and fierce competitors who started earlier with better ideas.

These models look as if they would sell today (as much as anything will in a bad economy) but will they be competitive in three to five years when they are available? Not likely!

EVs and a variety of hybrids will be flooding the market within 18 months. They have seemed just out of reach for years. That is ending. A bigger concern will be our ability to buy them.


1. Chrysler used existing bodies/platforms to reduce time to market and costs. Yes, these models look like ICE cars. Missed opportunity for lowering Cd and mass, but Chrysler didn't have a choice.

2. Chrysler assumes their brand is offroad and performance, so yes, they went for that.

3. No efficiency numbers...because these are concept vehicles...perhaps that means they're not real enough yet.

4. Just having a genset optimized for one particular RPM value should should improve thermal efficiency of the vehicle considerably. Regenerative braking and charging from the wall socket are to some degree gravy. The vehicles that need this the most are probably the minivans, which no other vendor has talked about electrifying, that I'm aware of. Maybe the Dodge Caravan rides again.

Justin VP

The minivan has potential. Chrysler makes good minivans, but unfortunately other than Jeep Wranglers, it's about all they do well. A hybrid minivan of any kind would be a real winner. They're mostly city kid-haulers, so spend a good chunk of time in traffic. They're heavy, inefficient, and would really benefit as a hybrid. Shoot, they'd be a great work truck or city delivery vehicle.

It's a shame no one has done a hybrid minivan yet, but I'd guess it's the normal raeason: they're not profitable... yet.


This car is a joke, as someone said it look like a Hunday, with a few year behind. So ok let's say Chrysler is catching up on design with the competition, still nothing under the hood. I don't believe they will make this car an EV, it is not the right platform. Pure EV will be city car because of their limited range therefore they will more look like a Smart or a IQ or at best a MINI than a sedan design to drive mainly on highway. So just a distraction to get some money from the government




@willy bio

impressive suggestion to use bioenergy and renewal energy
Be aware that all the investments done in this kind of energy this doesn't even come close to the growth of current electrical energy consumption. There is a huge energy deficit, covered by traditional coal plants.
Our children will need to pay for our energy spending and our reluctancy to come with durable solutions.
For those who have children, may understand that lowering energy cost for transportation is finding new lightweight transportation, like the above mentioned person suggest two wheelers. who only weigh up 1/20th of a car and car also go on green electricity.
We leave our children with a huge problems,pollutions, energy shortages and debts to deal with because their parents were unwilling and incapable to think out of the box for tackling the problem.


@willy Bio

please read this articke on this website.
Global Energy Consumption Rises as Supplies Lag; Coal Still the Fastest Growing Fuel in the World
18 June 2008

Stan Peterson

Mr. Wala,

Please don't yell.

Solar cells are an eco-disaster just waiting to happen. The thermal efficiency is at best 10-12% less than half an ICE. The "thermal pollution" is extraordinary as a result.

The other pollution effects from making active devices such as Solar cells capturing as much of the Sun's energy as possible, is predictable but unrecognized by these sometimes mentally-challenged people.

Albedo is the scientific measure of what proportion of the sun's energy is reflected, verses captured, back into Space. Lowering the Albedo captures more energy, warming the Earth. The effect of an active device a solar cell, which can correspond to a perfect Capture, or zero Albedo, can be very significant, as compared to the Earth average of 31%. An active device like a solar cell, captures more energy, then moves some energy, to capture even more, or possibly producing an effective less than zero Albedo, over its surface area. This can be and is TERRIBLE when in widespread use.

GHGs can purportedly alter the climate by at most tenths or hundredths of one degree. Albedo reductions by solar cells, when collectively and cumulatively used over large areas, can produce thermal warming and climate alterations as much as tens to hundreds of degrees.

Many Greens have little or no Science training, as well as no appreciation of "unintended consequences" for their nostrums. Sometimes they only dimly understand, the alternatives to their proposals. It does NOT mean such devices as they propose, are pollution free, at all.

Solar Cells are thermal time bombs for the local and world climate, when and if placed in wide spread use!

It makes no difference if distributed over a million rooftops; or in large centralized solar farms, except for the local warming effects. The total cumulative area, is what is important, and potentially destructive.

For an example of unintended consequences by these unforseeing loons, look what happened with their absolute and unequivocal opposition to Nuclear electric generation. Principled critics, like myself, wanted the problems corrected, the deficiencies tested, and redesigned, and the systems perfected. That has pretty much been done.

They wanted simply, "No Nukes"!

Now they are swinging around to the opinion, that Nuclear is better than the alternative. What happened is the oldest, dirtiest, fossil generation that it was meant to replace, stayed running. Antique, grandfathered-in, "old smokers" with virtually no pollution abatement equipment, are still running. Thirty years, aftern they should or would have been torn down, and scraped. But there is simply no alternative other then to let these pollution pigs still run.

Or the stupidity they fostered when the Dupont and the HVAC makers offered other, less efficient but new replacements, for Freon, as an alternative to provide the needed refrigeration for foods and other needs. These new formulations should not effect the Ozone. It ALSO meant lots more energy was consumed, for the same cooling capacity, creating more pollution and fossil energy use.

Now Freons are increasingly questioned as the real basis for the Ozone hole, since old measurements from long before, such as the 1940s and early 1950s, when re-examined, are surprisingly revealing the existence of the Ozone hole, long before Freons were in widespread use.

If you look at any Green "solution" carefully, you apt to find lots of "unintended consequences".

Wind machines kill raptors, and de-stabilize electric grids with surges of electricity pulsing down power lines as the winds change, destroying equipment, tripping circuit breakers, and causing Blackouts.

The Windmills don't last long as expected, stuck up on poles, exposed to the elements, and variable stresses; or generate anywhere near the predicted performance. If some technology is or was not in widespread use, there is probably a valid reason, and not some conspiracy, as they easily assume.

Jesse 67

If you're not a "Green" Stan why are you interested in green technology discussed on Green car Congress?

Lets take a square meter of average "earth" as a system that also requires 150 w of electricity so the guy sitting on that square meter can watch a large TV.

1. In a square meter 1000 W comes in, 30% reflected back so 700 W is absorbed as heat. To produce 150W of electricity at 30% efficiency means burning 500 W of fossil fuels, that 150 W of electricity also turns back to heat so 500 W added to the system. So the sun adds 700 W the fossil fuels add 500 W for a total of 1200 W right?

2. Now consiger the same square meter but with a solar panel giving the guy some shade so his beer stays cold and he can see his TV with no glare. A square meter of solar panel; theoreticaly 0% reflected back, 1000 W comes in, 15% or 150 W is turned into electricity, which we'll also say all goes back into heat, so 1000 W is added to the system. He doesn't need to burn any fuel to produce his electricity so the total heat added to the system is 1000 W.

So if 1 W of solar power replaces 1 W of fossil fuel power then for every 150 W of solar electricity produced it means 200 W LESS heat added to the system. Call me crazy but I think that means that this guy's square meter will be cooler with the solar panel than the fossil fuel generator.

No conspiracy there.

The comments to this entry are closed.