Using 2x of these direct drive wheel motors will give approx 540 Nm (peak torque presumably) at the rear axle. That is approx 25% the torque available on the front axle after ICE flywheel torque is multiplied by the gearbox and final drive ratio to something around 2,000 Nm (depending on gear and rpm)

For direct drive wheel motors to be effective in EV mode they need closer to 700 - 1000 Nm peak torque and ideally on all four wheels to maximum energy efficiency from brake regeneration.

Rear brakes don't do much braking, but a dump-load resistor integrated with the engine radiator could allow some amazing fade-free braking performance.  Not that this mod would be retrofitted to vehicles which do lots of mountain descents....

1 m/s² of accel is enough for operation in slow traffic.  Further mods to the vehicle, such as an A/C evaporator core with integrated ice storage, electric power steering and brake boost and a DC-DC converter to run 12 V loads from the HV battery, could allow long periods of engine-off operation.  Eventually you'd have to re-start the engine to circulate fluid through the transmission and lube all the parts rotating with the output shaft.

50,000 miles of tire pouncing
wander what the affect on the motors

also you would want to make sure you dont hit any potholes, replacing motors and tires

A 271-lb-ft motor if used to replace the torque converter, can generate much more torque than the engine can at the wheel, due to the gear reduction effect of the drivetrain. This is also retrofittable to existing vehicles, as I've outlined many times here in GCC.

Why would you do this with a old, clapped-out Honda? If you are serious, try it with a relatively new vehicle. Oh well, it was probably a good learning experience for a few undergrad students but not much else.

@Trevor,
Why not just replace the torque converter with a single motor of 200 ft-lb? You can double the acceleration that way while using only one motor and one motor controller. No potential issues with shock damage and excess inertia of in-wheel motor.

There are much better ways of transmitting energy from the vehicles energy storage to the wheels. A transmission need not be more than a simple conductor; perhaps made of copper or aluminum. The rotor/stators don't have to be in the wheels with all of their disadvantages. A short shaft from each motor mounted nearer the center of gravity outboard to the wheels makes much more sense. A controller between the accelerator petal and the drive motors allots the appropriate energy distribution.

Unless and until we find a way of generating or storing significantly more energy than we can today, we are just spinning our wheels to think we will change the American mind set to adopt EV's to the degree needed.

If you doubt this, just look through any of the various motor magazines and stop and reflect on what you just read.

Just don't get caught up in their propaganda.

This is where a 2-speed gearset would be perfect.  Imagine multiplying that 200 ft-lb by 2.5x for takeoff, and the greater efficiency during low-speed operation due to higher back EMF and reduced coil currents.

If you could get 2.5 m/s² from zero to 15 MPH, you could do it in under 3 seconds with electric power alone.  That would do a lot of traffic-jamming right there.

Just FYI, MG, increased pole count substitutes for rotational speed; the power of a motor is proportional to the drive frequency, and torque is proportional to pole count.

But is it possible to increase the pole count (say to double or triple them) without increasing the motor diameter

(assuming the same physical size of new and old poles to produce the same pulling force)?

The magnetic force is conservative, like a potential field; moving from A to B yields the opposite in energy change from the move from B to A, and is independent of the path.  For instance, if you have four linear foot-long magnets in opposite-pole pairs aligned N-N and S-S at a certain spacing, then allow them to move so that they are aligned N-S and S-N, you'll release X amount of energy.  If you make each magnet into a semicircle so this shift is achieved by rotation, you'll get the energy released over 1/2 revolution.

Now consider breaking up each of these magnets into 10 pieces, and aligning them N-S-N-S along their respective sides.  Now it doesn't take 1/2 revolution to go from N-N and S-S alignment to all N-S, it takes 1/20 revolution.  Roughly the same amount of energy is released (magnetic leakage aside), so the torque is about 10 times as much (energy = torque * rotation).

For a motor, the torque is far higher and the power at any given rotational speed is greater because the same amount of energy can be applied more times per revolution.  The downside is that poles are smaller, magnetic leakage is higher, higher drive frequency requires more costly electronics (or did, I haven't checked lately), and eddy-current losses in core materials goes up.

@E-P,
I tried to follow what you are saying. I assumed you talked about a radial machine, not axial one like the one used in this text. Apparently you assumed that there were enough room to insert more magnets among existing ones, along circumference. I understood properly, you made new magnets by cutting the original cylindrical magnet so that circular surface remained the same, only you reduced the height, so new magnets are shorter in height.
If it is the case (ie there was empty space for new magnets around), then original design was inefficient. On the other hand if you reduced the surface (and not height) along which two magnets face one another (rotor and stator), then you also reduced the pulling/repealing force, and it is not a right way to prove something here.

I still believe that you cannot add new poles, that generate the same magnetic flux as old one (with the same current), without increasing the diameter of the motor.

Put it the other way around:
Say you removed 1/2 of poles from a pancake motor (say Honda IMA), so holes appear between poles. You can then simply reduce the radius, pack remaining poles tightly, and make the motor smaller/lighter. Drive it at the same rpm, but now with half torque, so it would produce only 1/2 the original power at given rpm?

@E-P,
How do you think AC Propulsion gets 200 horsepower out of an induction motor weighing just 70 pounds?
I know about that motor, used in Tesla roadster, first generation. Later they increased mass to 110 lbs. Max rpm is over 13,000 rpm meaning they run it up to about 450 Hz.
Isn't it a prime example of an induction motor having such power density thanks to high max rpm. Two pole, or 4-pole, but not 16 poles.

Quote from the Austin Hughes book on e-motors, 3rd edition, page 41:
Output power per unit volume is directly proportional to speed.
Low speed motors are unattractive because they are large, and therefore expensive. It is usually much better to use a high-speed motor with a mechanical speed reduction.

I admit, I'm not a motor expert, but know something. The guy 'T2' was probably the most knowledgeable to comment on motors, especially induction ones.

I mentioned axial just to avoid confusion.
Did you think of that Honda IMA pancake motor example I mentioned, would it work that way?