Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby The_Toecutter » Sat 09 Feb 2013, 22:20:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdmartin', '
')
You have some good points, but I'm not going to respond to them all. It is sufficient to say there's no market for it because it can't/hasn't been done in places in the world that would eat it like hotcakes, so no way is it going to happen in the US. In places where people can barely afford gasoline there's no mass-market 75mpg, $15k cars. In Europe, where gas is at or over $10/gallon, there's no $15k car that gets 75mpg. If it can't be done in places that have a massive vested interest in having it, it can't be done in the US, where safety regulations are strong and car buyers expect a certain level of luxury. There's really no motorcycles on the road that are getting 75MPG, so there's not going to be any cars doing it either.

And, again, the value of higher MPG shrinks the greater you climb:

15mpg car over 15,000 miles uses 1,000 gallons of gas.
30mpg car over 15,000 miles uses 500 gallons of gas - savings of $1500 @ $3/gallon over 15mpg car
60mpg car over 15,000 miles uses 250 gallons of gas - savings of $750 @ $3/gallon over 30mpg car
75mpg car over 15,000 miles uses 200 gallons of gas - savings of $150 @ $3/gallon over 60mpg car

It's the law of diminishing returns. When you can buy a car that gets 35mpg for $15k brand new, you have to do a lot of driving to justify 50mpg out of a $25k Prius:

100,000 miles @ 35mpg = 2,857 gallons @ $4 = $11,428
100,000 miles @ 50mpg = 2,000 gallons @ $4 = $8,000 savings of $3,428 - $10,000 initial outlay = $6,500 loss.


The only reason such a car hasn't sold in nations where high fuel costs are the norm is, once again, because the mainstream automakers haven't tried to build such a car in recent years. The half-hearted attempts that have been made at making an inexpensive yet efficient passenger car, like the Ford Fiesta, the VW Golf, and the Renault Clio, all have been at the top of the sales lists in Europe, while also getting nearly the best efficiency versus their competition, and being among the cheapest, if that's any indication as to the mindset of those in Europe. Used microcars like the Peel P50 and Messerschmidt are highly sought after and cherished as well. There are many ways these cars could be made more efficient, without resorting to expensive drive systems or technology, but aren't pursued, in favor of furthering planned obsolescence. The most efficient variants of these cars use hybrid drives to save fuel, instead of taking the more obvious, rewarding, and cheaper path of load reduction.

The Prius uses a complicated drive system to save fuel, instead of focusing on load reduction; its load reduction techniques used, account for most of its fuel economy gains over the baseline average ICE car sold in the U.S. A 0.25 Cd is significantly lower than 0.3, and along with a frontal area that is lower than the average new car, proportionally will lower fuel consumed overcoming aerodynamic drag on the highway. Weighing 3,000 lbs instead of 3,800 lbs is also going to yield significant fuel economy improvements, yielding a proportional fuel consumption during acceleration and at steady state low speed cruising, by itself. These things versus the baseline car, together, theoretically yield a 35% improvement in fuel economy by themselves, over the baseline 29 mpg.

Its complicated hybrid drive system needlessly makes it cost more than its competitors. The kind of drive system in that Prius, even with all of the creature comforts kept in the vehicle, should have no problem getting 80 mpg highway, instead of 50 mpg, if it were designed for it. See GM Precept, Ford Prodigy, Dodge Intrepid ESX2, ect. That Atkinson cycle engine in the operating points with which it is allowed to function is nearly as efficient as a diesel, and indeed Toyota developed the Prius in response to the aforementioned 80 mpg prototypes unveiled in the 1990s. The Prius has a large frontal area, even though its drag coefficient of 0.25 is one of the best figures on the market. That 0.25 Cd is not exactly groundbreaking or pushing any boundaries, however. There is no excuse why a midsize car couldn't be built with a Cd of 0.16 instead, and just by that one change alone, even with the same frontal area, weight, tires, and gearing, the amount of highway miles traveled on a gallon of gasoline by that Prius would increase by at least 30% to 65 mpg instead of 50 mpg, with no significant additional costs incurred to the consumer, without any need to re-design the entire car over again, and without significantly altering the appearance of the car; indeed, the Prius already has all the styling cues of an extremely streamlined car, just without the actual streamlining to go with it. A car built from the ground up to be a midsize car and the most efficient possible, could even work with a frontal area a few square feet less than a Prius, without compromising passenger room, safety, or comfort, and that reduced frontal area coupld with the streamlining, would allow it to approach the 80 mpg milestone.

GM, Ford, and Dodge already did it in products that they decided not to sell, after all of the government money thrown their way to develop them!

But I'm not advocating for merely a point A to B passenger car that is highly efficient. I'm talking about blending that archetype with a dedicated sports car for the race track, without compromising any of the traits of either that makes them desirable within their own niches, while keeping it as simple as possible to keep costs suitable for the entry level market. It would simultaneously meet the needs of two market niches that have virtually no representation within industry, in spite of the demand for such a product in each niche, while costing less than virtually anything else available.

Take for example, the great fanfare that ensued when the Mazda Miata was first sold in 1989. It was a real sports car, kept light weight, rear wheel drive, and small. Having no competition on the market, it sold extremely well.

It has porked up in recent years, to its detriment.

Take that same Miata, design it to be functional like the Opel Eco Speedster, Costin Nathan, Devin SS, or Fraser GT, instead of "cute", keep the interior at a bare minimum, keep the creature comforts to a bare minimum(maybe keep the AC and radio, for instance), put in a small 4-cylinder turbodiesel, streamline the shit out of the body with a Cd of under 0.2 and a frontal area of under 18 sq ft(can be done while still maintaining adequate downforce for high speed stability), aim for 50/50 weight distribution(even if a little weight has to be added for ballast), gear it with the first 4 gears set up for performance with 4th gear made to match the car's theoretical top speed at peak power, and a 5th gear for best possible highway fuel economy at 70 mph, add crossmembers to the chassis to prevent flex, mass produce a roll cage shape to come with the car standard, use stout driveline components from sub $25,000 entry level trucks and musclecars that can reliably handle 300 horsepower, and what might you could end up with?

An 1800 lb, 70+ mpg rocket that maybe only has 150 horsepower/210 lb-ft of torque, but can top out at close to 180 mph, do 0-60 mph in under 5 seconds, costs no more to build than that baseline Miata, and can take constant, unyielding abuse for decades without mechanical failure if the driver chooses to do so. And, with an extremely tall 5th gear, enthusiasts could tune the engine for more power to get a very scary top speed to compete with $250,000+ exotics, without fuel economy taking a hit during normal driving conditions.

Fuel economy better than cars costing twice as much, and performance better than cars costing three times as much(or 10 times as much, with tning). Are you insane enough to believe that people wouldn't buy that car?

Such a car could be put together today using a Miata chassis as a starting point at the hobbyist level. Just think of what the automakers could do.

Racing enthusiasts are stuck re-engineering old cars to meet their racing needs. Ecomodders are stuck re-engineering old cars to meet their economy needs. Joe Sixpack complains about high gas prices, not knowing exactly what is going on and having little knowledge of physics, but is awe-struck by a 50 mpg Prius, but can't afford its price tag and is thinking instead Kia or Hyundai, if he can even afford new, while wishing in the back of his mind that he could afford that Corvette he's been dreaming about since his youth.

Sounds to me like there's a missed opportunity there in the U.S., let alone Europe where fuel costs are much higher, and where there are places where such a theoretical vehicle's performance could legally be used on certain roads.

I'm well aware of the law of diminishing returns. The fallacy is that a fuel efficient car will cost more than one that isn't fuel efficient. That is not true, unless exotic methods are being used to get that fuel economy. During the 1990s, the Geo Metro XFi was one of the most fuel efficient cars on the market, while also being among the cheapest; being front wheel drive with weak mechanicals, poor GM build quality, aesthetically ugly, and anemic when the hammer is put to the floor, is why consumers never flocked to it, and not their lack of desire for economy. The Metro XFi was light weight, and for its time, streamlined versus the norm, and geared for its function of fuel economy. That is why it did well in fuel economy.

If that same Metro XFi package were rear wheel drive, had three times the horsepower, used beefy driveline and chassis components from trucks or musclecars, remained lightweight and bare bones with regard to the creature comforts, could still seat 4 and haul large items, cost the same as that Metro XFi, and maybe looked like a smaller but funky hatchback cousin of an F-body Camaro instead of a shitbox, I can guarantee you that consumers would have ate it up in the U.S.

A guilt-free musclecar without the musclecar pricetag? Well, that would also mean less of the already existing musclecars at that time, being inherently more expensive, would be sold, especially if a cheaper, faster, more reliable, better handling, more efficient solution was available right next to it on the same dealership lot. That's why GM killed the 1990 Pontiac Fiero GT before it ever went to market; it was faster than the Corvette of the time with less than half the pricetag. That's the same reason why the car that I am describing is not being built and sold. It has nothing to do with consumer demand or a lack thereof, and everything to do with maintaining the sales of overweight halo cars and cash cows, or, planned obsolescence.

Seeing GM get a bailout in 2008 was heartbreaking. So much missed opportunity on their part, and then I'm forced to pay taxes to subsidize their mistakes of not only refusing to innovate in a major way, but also creating a bunch of guzzling, inefficient, poorly-built, shitbox SUVs that no one wanted to buy when gas prices started to become noticeable to the average person. Meanwhile, Aptera, a victim of malfeasance that happened to have a highly efficient and extremely cheap product(should it have been mass produced), which elicited no shortage of interest, was left to rot at the exact same time.

We're living Atlas Shrugged, in reverse. Bizarro world. John Galt is living alone in a bunker out in bum fucking Egypt waiting for collapse, having divorced himself from his industry-running country club buddies long ago that saw it fit to use that bloated bureaucratic morass we call a government for their own ends.





Motorcycles are ultimately hindered by their high drag coefficient. It is actually easier to make a car get 80+ mpg on the highway than it is a motorcycle(provided it is to stay a motorcycle with the rider exposed to the elements). As an electric vehicle conversion, small motorcycles tend to do slightly worse Wh/mile at high speeds than the most efficient electric car conversions, even though the EV conversion weighs 3 times as much or more, and has a larger frontal area than the motorcycle by far. It's overall CdA ends up being lower than the motorcycle.

That being said, with a small diesel engine and a Craig Vetter fairing, the potential for a 200+ mpg motorcycle does indeed exist. But I'd be hesitant to call it a motorcycle at that point.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 10 Feb 2013, 22:11:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ast time I checked, my current best candidate to replace my reliable 2003 Japanese midsized sedan is the 2012 or later Toyota Hybrid Camry.

The base LE model costs around $23000. EPA rated at 25 city / 35 highway.
The Hybrid LE model ONLY costs about $3500 more. EPA rated at 43 city / 39 highway.


$26,500? That's a lot of money! When I spend $12,000 on my battery and fix a few odd ends(paintjob), I'll have spent less than $20,000 on my EV total, including restoration of the vehicle, all of the other EV parts, and even paying experts to do some of the things I couldn't(welding). I understand my labor is free and the chassis was already built decades ago, but in the case of an OEM, labor is a very marginal cost anyway, and there is an abundance of mass produced chassis available in-house.

That battery will last no less than 5 years, provided the charger is programmed properly for the battery. It may last closer to 15-20 years in reality though; no one really knows, because these batteries have only been used in conversions since about 2002, and when properly charged and if not overheated from abuse, they don't die and instead deliver thousands of cycles. .

TC, good for you. I wish you lots of success and enjoyment from building and maintaining your own E.V. If I were in your position, I might well do the same.

First, I have no clue about the mechanics behind such things. Second, bad joint health makes me doing the labor for such things (more or less) impossible -- which is one reason I don't know much about doing them. (Genetics is a random bitch. I have a good mind for math, bad body for hard physical work, or some days much of any physical work).

Yes, I'll agree that $26,500 is expensive, but compared to what? I want a practical, durable (by reputation anyway) turn-key solution that will last a LONG time, and doesn't use experimental technology, and where I don't need to rent a car for the occasional out of town trip.

Current reasonably priced electrics don't offer that. Most electrics or pseudo electrics (i.e. the Leaf or the Volt) aren't reasonable, IMO, for the range, cost, battery risk, and maker reputational issues.

Next time around, if I can get a proven true electric with, say, a reliable REAL WORLD 200 mile range, at a cost close to the hybrid -- and I'm convinced we're not using mostly dirty coal and oil to produce the electricity -- I'll be all over the EV. If I have to build it myself, or drive, say, a GM, or pay 9 skazillion dollars for something with the range of the LEAF -- not likely.

Cheers.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Sun 10 Feb 2013, 23:32:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'C')ould you imagine if they had a choice in the marketplace that was cheap by virtue of the product using so little parts and resources relative to everything else on the lot being fully loaded? Most new cars are expensive precisely because they come from the factory fully loaded with everything. The consumer doesn't want all of those features by default; it's just that the car companies are appealing to the lowest common denominator to boost prices for the pleasure of the dealerships, and during the late 2000s, manufacturers like Kia and Hyundai were obliterating the U.S. industry because they had cheap, lightweight, fuel-efficient, relatively low-frills, and reliable cars available. The sales figures don't lie.
What about the first gen Honda Insight? That was a cheap, lightweight, fuel-efficient, relatively low-frills, and reliable car. It was a flop.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby The_Toecutter » Mon 11 Feb 2013, 01:33:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'N')ext time around, if I can get a proven true electric with, say, a reliable REAL WORLD 200 mile range, at a cost close to the hybrid -- and I'm convinced we're not using mostly dirty coal and oil to produce the electricity -- I'll be all over the EV. If I have to build it myself, or drive, say, a GM, or pay 9 skazillion dollars for something with the range of the LEAF -- not likely.

Cheers.


The kind of car you want, was developed and operational in 1996. James Worden's Solectria Sunrise would have been $20,000 in mass production, could seat 4 adults, met all NHTSA safety standards, set a world record of 373 miles on a charge at a Tour de Sol rally, and had a "real world" 200 miles range on a 26 kWh pack of NiMH batteries. The major automakers refused to touch it, and Solectria damned near went under and later had to survive by selling drive systems.

The Nissan Leaf, Honda Fit EV, Ford Focus EV, and their ilk, seem a major step backwards by contrast, given that today's technology is leaps and bounds ahead of what was around in 1996. They need significantly larger battery packs to do half as many miles on a charge, as the Sunrise, when those batteries are two times as energy dense as NiMH batteries. There is something very, very wrong with that picture. One of the greatest perceived barriers to EV acceptance is the amount of range you get per dollar spent on the car. A $30,000 vehicle with a 80-100 mile range is going to be a much harder sell than a $20,000 vehicle with a 200 mile range, no matter how luxurious the $30,000 vehicle is or how many features it has versus the $20,000 one. One would think that most prospective EV buyers would have more anxiety over range, than they would, luxuries.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'W')hat about the first gen Honda Insight? That was a cheap, lightweight, fuel-efficient, relatively low-frills, and reliable car. It was a flop.


a) The first-generation Honda Insight was a two-seater. This limits the market niche of the vehicle. Most people who shop for a two-seater are thinking "sports car", which the Insight was not. Honda was smart in making the second generation a 4-seater, for this very reason, as the powertrain of the 2nd generation Insight is also ill-suited to sportscar performance given the vehicle's weight, the same flaw the 1st generation had.

b) Most people who buy two-seaters are looking for a performance-oriented vehicle. The 2000 Honda Insight with 5-speed manual did 0-60 mph in 10.5 seconds. Compare this to the 2000 Mazda Miata with 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds, 2000 Toyota MR2 Spyder with 0-60 mph in 7.3 seconds, 2000 BMW Z3 2.8L with 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds, and 2000 Porsche Boxter with 0-60 mph in 6 seconds. Further, the level of performance that the Honda Insight offered was not commensurate with its pricetag, as other cars in its price range were significantly faster.

c) The point above could have been addressed without significantly altering the fuel economy of the car or adding greatly to the cost. John Wayland, owner of the "White Zombie" electric Datsun 1200, which at one point was the world's fastest street legal EV through the quarter mile, once got a chance to test drive a Honda Insight that the owner had turbocharged. This allowed it to do 0-60 mph in 7 seconds, while fuel economy was uncompromised when driven as normal, instead of racing. The additional cost of such a measure is well under $2,000, which would have made the Insight significantly faster than cars costing well above $30,000, while keeping the Insight at or below the $20,000 mark.

d) The Insight is hardly a simple design. It has two seperate propulsion methods, which means more parts within its powertrain to break. Replacing its tiny little battery is extremely expensive, costing thousands of dollars. Its complicated embedded systems make it difficult for one to repair the drive system themselves.

e) Honda only made a few hundred of them each year. It is impossible to sell more cars than are made. They have been highly sought after since their introduction, in spite of the "low sales" that has always been cited by Honda as the reason for its cancellation.


If anything, the Insight's hybrid powertrain hindered it greatly. It would have done every bit as well with regard to fuel economy with a small 2.0L turbodiesel, and not only have been greatly simplified as a result, but could have also been made to perform like its competitors, the other two-seaters on the market, without compromising either reliability or fuel economy. Even with a gasoline V-Tec engine replacing the hybrid drive, it could have still been a 50+ mpg car, if the heavier, less-aerodynamic Civic VX is any indication, with acceleration performance to beat many of the competitors listed above due to its light weight.


That being said, it is perfectly possible to make a chassis/platform that can accommodate both a 2-seater and 4-seater body style. GM did it with the EV1, but never got around to making a 4-seater variant. Give it more performance than cars costing twice as much, which really isn't difficult to do(there seems to be an unspoken rule in the auto industry mandating a price proportional to power-to-weight ratio across the bulk of vehicle models from all manufacturers), and it would do very well.

In the U.S., performance sells. Performance and fuel economy are not mutually exclusive, as the traits that improve fuel economy the most, also improve performance greatly. Weight reduction and drag reduction both do wonders for performance with regard to acceleration and maximum theoretical top speed, and are the most cost effective ways to improve fuel economy.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Mon 11 Feb 2013, 06:55:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')he kind of car you want, was developed and operational in 1996. James Worden's Solectria Sunrise would have been $20,000 in mass production, could seat 4 adults, met all NHTSA safety standards, set a world record of 373 miles on a charge at a Tour de Sol rally, and had a "real world" 200 miles range on a 26 kWh pack of NiMH batteries.
That $20,000 prediction was made in 1994. In today's dollars that's $31,000. Not to mention nearly every EV that actually went into production did so at a higher price level than the predicted price. The Volt, Tesla Roadster, Tesla S, etc. Just to give a real life price check: the Toyota RAV 4 EV, which had the same battery pack, retailed for $42,000($60,000 in today's dollars.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')he Nissan Leaf, Honda Fit EV, Ford Focus EV, and their ilk, seem a major step backwards by contrast, given that today's technology is leaps and bounds ahead of what was around in 1996. They need significantly larger battery packs to do half as many miles on a charge, as the Sunrise, when those batteries are two times as energy dense as NiMH batteries. There is something very, very wrong with that picture. One of the greatest perceived barriers to EV acceptance is the amount of range you get per dollar spent on the car. A $30,000 vehicle with a 80-100 mile range is going to be a much harder sell than a $20,000 vehicle with a 200 mile range, no matter how luxurious the $30,000 vehicle is or how many features it has versus the $20,000 one. One would think that most prospective EV buyers would have more anxiety over range, than they would, luxuries.
The electric smart car starts at $25,000 and can only go 63 miles on a charge. And I think you would agree that car is not sporting many luxuries. You want 200 mile range you are going to have to have to greatly increase the battery size, and with it, the cost. Suddenly it makes sense why you don't see any $20,000 EVs with 200 mile range.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')mart has announced the pricing details on the ForTwo Electric Drive, which is on its way to dealerships now.
The price tag starts at $25,000, making it the most affordable production electric vehicle in the U.S. The convertible model will start at $28,000 and will hit the U.S. market in spring of 2013. Smart is also offering the Smart ForTwo Electric to companies, municipalities and individuals under a 4-year, 40,000-mile lease agreement starting at $599 a month for an electric-drive coupe. A $7,500 federal subsidy for electric vehicles was factored into the lease price. The Smart ForTwo Electric can travel a total of 63 miles on a full charge.
2013 Smart ForTwo Electric price starts at $25,000
Last edited by kublikhan on Mon 11 Feb 2013, 07:10:14, edited 1 time in total.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Mon 11 Feb 2013, 06:58:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I')n the U.S., performance sells. Performance and fuel economy are not mutually exclusive, as the traits that improve fuel economy the most, also improve performance greatly. Weight reduction and drag reduction both do wonders for performance with regard to acceleration and maximum theoretical top speed, and are the most cost effective ways to improve fuel economy.
Sounds like you would be interested in the SIM Drive cars. But if you look at the trend this design is going, it seems to be moving away from the direction you want. The first one was very aerodynamic with a drag coefficient of 0.19:
Image

The second one got fatter and shorter, and lost it's fish tale:
SIM-WIL

How much you want to bet the third version they are working on is even less aerodynamic? I'm guessing they have their reasons to make these changes. But it appears to me that the super aerodynamic prototypes always loose much of their aerodynamics the closer they get to production.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby The_Toecutter » Sun 03 Mar 2013, 20:50:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')hat $20,000 prediction was made in 1994. In today's dollars that's $31,000.


Fair enough. How does the Sunrises 200-250 mile range compare to the Nissan Leaf's 80-100 miles? How do they compare in price?

Given that, which do you think would be an easier sell?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot to mention nearly every EV that actually went into production did so at a higher price level than the predicted price.


They also went into production at lower volumes than were projected to come up with the projected price. If a hobbyist can put together a 150-200 mile range conversion for well under $25000, surely Nissan shouldn't have any problems exceeding that in every which way, shape, and form. Nissan, Kia and Hyundai make cars sold in the U.S. with base prices as low as $12,000(Nissan Versa, Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent). Sell back the ICE and ICE-related components and you have a glider that costs no more than $8000 and weighs somewhere in the area of 2000 lbs. To get a $25000 EV from it that still weighs about 500 lbs less than a Nissan Leaf, $17000 of EV components from a hobbyist could easily produce superior performance and range to that expected from a Nissan Leaf if the transmission of the converted vehicle is retained and the following components used: $1500 WarP 8" motor, $4500 WarP Drive Pulsar+ integrated controller/charger/DC-DC converter, $9000 345.6V/60AH/20.7 kWh CALB CA60FI LiFePO4 pack and $1600 Orion BMS.

You'd end up with an EV that had a "real world" 80+ mile range, 0-60 mph in around 9 seconds, and a top speed of well over 115 mph. This thing would consume around 200-250 Wh/mile in "real world" driving conditions, and weigh significantly less than the Leaf.

Imagine what happens, if hypothetically, the Versa, Rio, and Accent were to have half the drag coefficient times area that they currently do(something that costs next to nothing for an automaker to do per car in a production run), the deletion of a lossy transmission(more savings for both cost and efficiency), and economies of scale that can justify a small AC drive system in the area of 50 kW with its own integrated charger and DC-DC converter coupled to a single-speed gear ratio(an AC system is not only slightly more efficient than a series DC setup, and not only allows for regen, but per kW is much cheaper in volume than a DC one, although due to low volume of EVs and lack of sales outside of OEMs, for hobbyists, DC currently remains the cheaper choice per kW of peak power).

A 120 Wh/mile EV is perfectly possible for a car that seats 4. Examples of 20 year old EVs have already proven it, whether professionally done, or hobbyist conversions. That's a "real world" 150-180 miles range on the above mentioned 20.7 kWh pack, closer to 200 miles range with the driver paying attention to efficiency and doing the speed limit.

Granted, labor is not included; an OEM's labor costs are marginal anyway, and a truly mass produced, affordable EV using cheaper components shouldn't have any problem being even cheaper than what is described above.

Would this hypothetical glider postulated above exist, and would the car be mass produced as an EV, it is easy to see how a 150 mile range EV could be mass produced for a far cheaper cost than today's Nissan Leaf.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Volt, Tesla Roadster, Tesla S, etc. Just to give a real life price check: the Toyota RAV 4 EV, which had the same battery pack, retailed for $42,000($60,000 in today's dollars.)


There were also scarcely more than one-thouand RAV4 EVs of that generation ever made, and they were virtually hand-converted. The 2013 RAV4 EV is much cheaper in today's dollars, and performance much better, and range slightly better, using components that in volume are more expensive to produce than those in the original RAV4 EV(LiFePO4 in volume being slightly costlier than NiMH in volume, the need for a BMS, and the presence of a much more powerful AC drive system).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he electric smart car starts at $25,000 and can only go 63 miles on a charge. And I think you would agree that car is not sporting many luxuries.


It's cost is not exactly a function of the parts in it. $25000 is easily enough money for a hobbyist to build an EV out of a classic car with no less than twice that range and 0-60 mph acceleration of under 5 seconds, or if they are meticulous about their choice of parts, their donor, and the modifications needed to improve efficiency, perhaps a 200 mile range. The battery is the most expensive component. In my car, the battery is 2/3s of the cost, and will be ordered sometime this year. You can buy CALB LiFePO4s for around $400-500/kWh in volume for a single car; in a bulk order, the price can go down to the $300/kWh range, and potentially even lower than that for an OEM ordering enough for 20,000+ cars in a mass production run.

The Smart needlessly uses an overpriced battery. It only has 17.6 kWh. The Smart, having the aerodynamics of a brick, also suffers greatly in its potential range per charge. As far as efficiency goes, the Smart EV does about as well as a Leaf, and a little bit worse than a 2nd or 3rd Gen Toyota Prius converted to EV, thus the consumer sacrifices a LOT going with the Smart. A hobbyist could easily buy a Smart For2 that uses an ICE for $12500, pay $12500 in parts(say, Alltrax AXE4865 controller with WarP 8" motor and 15 Calb CA400FI in series), and cost the same as the OEM version while out-performing it from 0-30 mph starting in 3rd gear, topping out at no less than 50 mph, and getting ~10% better range than the original given the same travelling speed due to the increased battery kWh size and reduced weight. And the owner would still have ICE parts that could be sold to recoup some of the costs and provide a savings, or to pay someone else to convert it.

It shouldn't be similar in cost or even cheaper for a hobbyist to build a conversion of a car that is close to, or even superior to, the EV offered by the maker of the same exact car. Yet, it is.

There is something wrong there. The Smart For2 EV by the OEM looks to be very overpriced, and needlessly so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou want 200 mile range you are going to have to have to greatly increase the battery size, and with it, the cost. Suddenly it makes sense why you don't see any $20,000 EVs with 200 mile range.

OR you can reduce the amount of power the vehicle needs to maintain highway speeds. This allows greatly increased range on the same size battery. There is no shortage of sub-150 Wh/mile conversion or prototypes.

Dave Cloud's "Dolphin", needs 130 Wh/mile at 65 mph, ~170 Wh/mile "real world." It does 200 miles range at 65 mph on used lead acid batteries. It is nowhere near as efficient as it could be: not only is it lugging a full ton of used golf cart batteries around, but it also has alignment issues, cheap but high rolling resistance tires, and a highly inefficient direct-drive 72V dual motor setup using golf cart parts that can't even shift between series and parallel thus producing HUGE heat losses during acceleration. On paper, this could be a 110 Wh/mile @ 65 mph and 150 Wh/mile "real world" EV still lugging around the lead but maintaining a transmission, or an 80 Wh/mile @ 65 mph and 120 Wh/mile "real world" EV with a lithium pack weighing 1300 lbs less and an efficient AC drive with single speed ratio. The Aptera could certainly do it.

Reverend Gadget's GT6 bodied Spitfire uses 100 Wh/mile at a steady 55 mph(from phone conversation with him). It is a very light conversion with the best LRR tires available, but nowhere near as aerodynamic as Dave Cloud's "Dolphin". It's aerodynamics are definitely much better than the average conversion, mind you, due to a very small frontal area(14.9 sq ft for GT6 body, 15.2 sq ft for spitfire MkIV body); it's drag coefficient isn't bad either, and is bound to be lower than the convertible Spitfire Mk I(streamlining and Car Aerodynamics by Jan P. Norbye quotes the MkI as 0.39, and various sites quote the MkIV Spitfire as 0.42; given the 137 mph top speed of the ADU4B on the Mulsanne Straight at LeMans with only 111 brake horsepower, I estimate it at 0.32, in-line with what a GT6 driver once quoted me). This car gets 24 miles range to 80% DoD on 15 Exide Orbitals at 60 mph; these batteries were measured by Rich Rudman as delivering ~270Wh each at the 1 hr rate, and Gadget was discharging them at about twice the rate!

John Bryan's VW Karmen Ghia needed ~100 Wh/mile highway. IIRC, it got 45-50 miles to 80% DoD on a pack of 16 Optima D750s, or a pack around 6 kWh at the 1 hr rate to 100% DoD. It made use of LRR tires and aerodynamic modifications. His pack is old and tired these days though, but still delivered 50% of nominal range when it was already 9 years old. Imagine it with LiFePO4!

James Worden's Solectria Sunrise, with extremely lightweight construction and similar, if not worse aerodynamics than Dave Cloud's Metro, could do 200 miles at 60+ mph and "real world" on only a 27 kWh pack, which is 135 wh/mile. With hypermiling techniques, it set a world record of 373 miles on a charge, putting it well under 80 Wh/mile if driven as efficiently as possible, and easily under 100 Wh/mile driven carefully in city conditions.

Alan Cocconi's electric CRX, with some aerodynamic modification(Cd 0.25), got 135 miles per charge @ 55 mph on a pack of 28 Optima Yellowtops. I don't remember what his pack size was, but the car had a ridiculously good efficiency(somewhere around 120 Wh/mile). He got the Cd down to 0.25 and used one of the most efficient AC drive systems ever made.

Other less efficient cars for comparison:

AC Propulsion's TZero, weighing in at 1900 lbs, and with a CdA nowhere near as good as Gadget's Spitfire, consumed 160 Wh/mile at 60 mph, 180 Wh/mile "real world", going 302 miles on that 60 mph run before needing a recharge. Its tires have a Crr of 0.0085, which are far from being the lowest Crr of any tire on the market.

In the past, John Wayland's Datsun 1200, Blue Meanie consumed < 150 Wh/mile at 60 mph. Wayland quoted it many years ago that it used 55A with the pack sagging to 162V at 60 mph on level ground. It has brick-like aerodynamics(compared to say, a Honda Insight) and at the time weighed in at 2,340 lbs, although it made use of some very good LRR tires. This figure is also outdated; he has since upgraded the car.

John Wayland's other Datsun 1200, White Zombie, has thick, sticky drag tires, has the aerodynamics of a brick(but a decently small frontal area), and weighs around 2,300 lbs. It consumes an estimated 200 Wh/mile at 60 mph.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'S')ounds like you would be interested in the SIM Drive cars. But if you look at the trend this design is going, it seems to be moving away from the direction you want. The first one was very aerodynamic with a drag coefficient of 0.19:
Image

The second one got fatter and shorter, and lost it's fish tale:
SIM-WIL

How much you want to bet the third version they are working on is even less aerodynamic? I'm guessing they have their reasons to make these changes. But it appears to me that the super aerodynamic prototypes always loose much of their aerodynamics the closer they get to production.

I have always been interested in them since first seeing one. The low drag design is what is needed to keep the cost per mile of range low. The advantage of reducing the rear tail is making the car easier to maneuver and park; it also reduces the moment of inertia in the rear of the vehicle, improving slalom times and thus maneuverability. Given that this car was supposed to be a compact/hatchback instead of a midsize sedan, going with a shorter, wider design makes sense for its application even if drag might suffer; it's actually easier to make a larger car more efficient on the highway than a smaller one, thanks to the share of energy consumption that aerodynamic drag accounts for and the ideal shapes for a streamlined car, which is also why the Solectria Sunrise was designed the way it was. An efficiently-designed 4-seater EV would actually have copious amounts of legroom by virtue of its shape too.

The SIM-LEI has the 0.19 Cd, wheras the SIM-WIL has the 0.22. The SIM-LEI and SIM-WIL needs 130 Wh/mile and 160 Wh/mile "real world" respectively which is in-line with what my spreadsheet calculations show. Both are damn near twice as efficient as the Nissan Leaf, thanks to a CdA that is roughly half that of a Leaf.

That means they could get the Leaf's range on half the battery. Think of what that does to cost! The potential for a $25000, 200 mile range EV, and $15000, 100 mile range EV is there. When are the major automakers going to run with it, and even make 80+ mpg diesel cars using a similarly aerodynamic platform in the $15000-20000 range?
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Mon 04 Mar 2013, 00:26:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'H')ow does the Sunrises 200-250 mile range compare to the Nissan Leaf's 80-100 miles? How do they compare in price? Given that, which do you think would be an easier sell?
Of course a sedan that could go 250 miles for a the same price as a compact that goes 80 miles would be a steal. 3x the range and a bigger car as well? Hell yeah! But there is no such product for sale. If nissan could have profitably sold the nissan leaf with triple the range, they would have. But batteries are expensive. And car companies have costs that hobbyists do not(see below). More and more car companies are looking at the EV market and concluding they can't do what you are asking: make an affordable EV car with the range, performance, comfort,etc that consumers demand. Many are giving up or going bankrupt instead:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oyota has seen that many customers are not yet willing to compromise on range, and they don't like the time needed to re-charge the batteries. Moreover, the infrastructure for recharging has not become as widespread as originally anticipated.

So, even though Toyota is ready with the iQ EV, we believe a plug-in hybrid solution offers a better way than pure electric for most customer needs in the short- to medium-term, and that is where we will concentrate our commercial activities. Toyota vice chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada tells Reuters, "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge."
Toyota kills plans for widespread iQ EV sales after misreading demand and battery tech

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ndian car giant Tata has mothballed plans to introduce an electric car in the UK. A combination of slow-growth in the UK EV market and high production costs have led the firm to ditch plans to start a more comprehensive launch this year. Tata says that the launch of an electric car has been postponed after a “fundamental review of its business strategy ” concluded there has been “slower than anticipated market growth” for battery electric vehicles.
Tata says ta-ta to Vista EV

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')outhern California electric vehicle startup Aptera Motors is out of time, out of money and out of luck. It announced today that it is shutting its doors, liquidating its assets and laying off its staff. “After years of focused effort to bring our products to the market, Aptera Motors is closing its doors, effective today”

In an interview with Automotive News, Wilbur said his company’s inability to secure funding shows investors are cooling on EV startups. McCammon reiterated that point, saying Solyndra’s bankruptcy, a federal investigation into two Chevrolet Volt fires and “two other electric vehicle companies having to go out and raise money — again” made investors wary of supporting Aptera.
EV Startup Aptera Motors Pulls the Plug

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')eneral Motors Co. is suspending production of its Chevrolet Volt electric car for five weeks amid disappointing sales. The Volt was rolled out with great fanfare in late 2010 but has since hit bumps in the road. Sales have fallen short of expectations, and its reputation was bruised by an investigation into a possible fire risk. It carries a high price tag — around $41,000.

“The fact that GM is now facing an oversupply of Volts suggests that consumer demand is just not that strong for these vehicles” GM spokesman Chris Lee said the company was “taking a temporary shutdown” of the assembly line. “We’re doing it to maintain our proper inventory levels as we align production with demand,” he said. The Volt is just far too expensive for many customers. Chevy Volt: Why production was halted and what it means

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I')t's cost is not exactly a function of the parts in it. $25000 is easily enough money for a hobbyist to build an EV out of a classic car with no less than twice that range and 0-60 mph acceleration of under 5 seconds, or if they are meticulous about their choice of parts, their donor, and the modifications needed to improve efficiency, perhaps a 200 mile range. The battery is the most expensive component. In my car, the battery is 2/3s of the cost, and will be ordered sometime this year. You can buy CALB LiFePO4s for around $400-500/kWh in volume for a single car; in a bulk order, the price can go down to the $300/kWh range, and potentially even lower than that for an OEM ordering enough for 20,000+ cars in a mass production run.

The Smart needlessly uses an overpriced battery. It only has 17.6 kWh. The Smart, having the aerodynamics of a brick, also suffers greatly in its potential range per charge. As far as efficiency goes, the Smart EV does about as well as a Leaf, and a little bit worse than a 2nd or 3rd Gen Toyota Prius converted to EV, thus the consumer sacrifices a LOT going with the Smart. A hobbyist could easily buy a Smart For2 that uses an ICE for $12500, pay $12500 in parts(say, Alltrax AXE4865 controller with WarP 8" motor and 15 Calb CA400FI in series), and cost the same as the OEM version while out-performing it from 0-30 mph starting in 3rd gear, topping out at no less than 50 mph, and getting ~10% better range than the original given the same travelling speed due to the increased battery kWh size and reduced weight. And the owner would still have ICE parts that could be sold to recoup some of the costs and provide a savings, or to pay someone else to convert it.

It shouldn't be similar in cost or even cheaper for a hobbyist to build a conversion of a car that is close to, or even superior to, the EV offered by the maker of the same exact car. Yet, it is.

There is something wrong there. The Smart For2 EV by the OEM looks to be very overpriced, and needlessly so.Apples and oranges. A car company has many more costs than a hobbyist has. Not just parts but also: labor, research, development, advertising, marketing, management, finance costs, profit markup, etc. These costs are not going to go away and so must be factored in. So we have to go with the prices the auto companies actually charge for their vehicles. Not dream about how cheap it would be if they only charged us for the cost of the parts. And if a crappy little smart car is going for $25k and a tesla roadster is going for $110,000, those are the prices we have to deal with in reality.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby The_Toecutter » Sun 10 Mar 2013, 13:35:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'O')f course a sedan that could go 250 miles for a the same price as a compact that goes 80 miles would be a steal. 3x the range and a bigger car as well? Hell yeah! But there is no such product for sale. If nissan could have profitably sold the nissan leaf with triple the range, they would have. But batteries are expensive.


The Solectria Sunrise uses a pack that stores even less energy than the pack in the Leaf. It still goes three times as far. A hypothetical new Leaf, designed to be like the Sunrise, and with an even less powerful drive system and smaller battery pack, would be by virtue of its design and chosen components, would be cheaper to produce, than the current Leaf, as it would use less of everything. Nissan hasn't an excuse. The reason they aren't selling such a car is because they aren't building it. An extremely efficient/aerodynamic car conflicts with planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence helps maximize profit.

Also, once production moves to its plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, the price of the Leaf is going to drop due to increased production volume. Production volume is the real cause of the high price versus, say, a Versa, not the components(in spite of the battery expense). That gap can be narrowed by thousands of dollars between the two, tens of thousands if a stripped down Leaf is offered, as there is a stripped down Versa. I have researched the components that comprise EVs, and with the battery being the most expensive component, a 100 mile range EV could be CHEAPER to produce than a comparable gasoline car. I can give you the studies done on this subject from the early 1990s onward if you want them. All that is needed is production volume. Not only have I personally done the research on this years ago(the technology has likely come down in price for OEMs since then, as most of the information I know is dated and there have been only improvements since), but the designer of the Renault ESpace himself even admitted that EVs in volume would be cheaper than gasoline cars.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd car companies have costs that hobbyists do not(see below).


Hobbyists have costs that car companies do not have. Those components I listed in my previous post are basically hand-built, or close to it. Everything except for the batteries is produced in low volume. What do you think this does to the cost? Further, in bulk order, those CALB cells drop into the $300/kWh price range, making the cost of a pack of the size fitted into the Solectria Sunrise less than $7000, with a guaranteed life of no less than 10 years and thousands of cycles to 100% discharge. Nissan's more expensive choice of battery isn't even that good, and these CALB cells do not have the tendency to "brick" as the packs in the Tesla cars and Mitsubishi iMIEV can.

Given the increased power per unit of weight and decreased cost per unit of peak and continuous power of the CALB CA cells over the CALB SE cells of the past, these manufacturers would be absolute idiots not to consider these cells in the immediate future. I understand that Tesla wanted something with more power than the SE cells could provide, and thus they used less reliable, more expensive per kWh LiIon batteries with a cobalt cathode, and created a horrendous management system to engineer around the faults of these batteries, including potential fire risks and sudden cell death(arranging the pack into a set of parallel removable blades was brilliant on their part, taking Alan Cocconi's LiIon TZero prototype from 2003 a step further).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore and more car companies are looking at the EV market and concluding they can't do what you are asking: make an affordable EV car with the range, performance, comfort,etc that consumers demand.


Such a car is not going to succeed if it panders to the lowest common denominator to appease dealership lots. Cars today are so damned uniform in features and qualities as to border on ridiculousness. Not everyone buying a new car wants "fully loaded", but these days, all cars come that way standard. By doing this, wide sections of potential buyers are ignored and alienated. Even before EVs were considered for the market a few short years ago in 2008, car companies were having difficulty selling enough gasoline-powered automobiles too, including needing government bailouts to stay afloat.

The Toyota IQ EV is a joke, like the Smart; its design makes for a very expensive EV per mile of charge allowed and has low functionality as a mainstream passenger vehicle.

Tata's Vista Indica EV prototype has to compete with its own gasoline Vista car on the market that costs $6,500. Batteries make competition with such things too expensive. The kind of price range where a highway-capable EV can begin to be competitive is at the $10,000+ mark, due to the cost of the battery. A $6,500 EV may be possible, but it wouldn't be much of a car due to the limitation imposed on the battery size as a result of the cost; look up the $3,500 Tara Tiny, the cheapest passenger car EV on Earth. It only does about 40 miles range and 35 mph top speed. The battery is more than a third of its cost. A hobbyist in the U.S. can currently make a highway capable 72V conversion with a 4.3 kWh pack of LiFePO4 batteries for around $4,000 using all new components plus whatever their donor chassis is, most of the components in volume far lower than is typical for the auto industry, if they are very picky about component selection and pay attention to the donor choice and the aerodynamics, but they will be stuck with a 30-40 mile range at best doing so using the most efficient chassis available(certain kit cars, Triumph Spitfire/GT6, VW Karman Ghia, ect), and 10-15 miles range if they use the typical bloated, unaerodynamic chassis available on the new car market. Tata will not get such an electric car below the $10,000 mark without dramatically reducing the drag and shrinking the size of the pack to achieve its current range, and will still have to compete with a gas burner that is roughly half the cost. Of course they killed it! They're target markets in India can hardly afford the gasoline-burning Tata Nano or Vista as it is, where average annual incomes are somewhere around $1,000/year. Reva already has the EV niche within India in the $10,000-15,000 price range cornered, and it is a very small niche due to the limited number of potential buyers.

Further, while market growth may be slower than anticipated, it is still taking off rapidly:

http://cupertino.patch.com/articles/debunking-a-myth-electric-vehicles-are-off-to-a-great-start#photo-13504658

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the last year over $2 billion of plug-in cars have been sold in the United States. In 2011, 17,000 of these vehicles were sold, and over 53,000 were sold in 2012—a staggering growth rate of 244%. Wouldn’t we all like to see our businesses grow like that?

(Please see graphs attached to this article.)

Another way of looking at the market is how it compares to other growth stories in the automotive world. Everywhere you look in Cupertino you see the Toyota Prius, which is to be expected since it is the No. 1 selling car in California. If we compare the first three years of the Prius with the first three years of the plug-in vehicle, it makes the plug-in car look like a raging success.

And then there’s the Chevy Volt. It’s taken a lot of criticism in the press by people labeling it as a failure, but what’s the reality? Well I don’t think anyone thinks of the Porsche 911, the Mazda Miata, the Corvette, or the Mercedes S Class as fairlures, but the Chevy Volt outsold all of them in 2012.


Sales being slower than anticipated might have something to do with an economy that is collapsing.

The Aptera was a victim of malfeasance years ago as well, and hasn't recovered(I posted a link to a very long exposure on this issue on this site back in 2009 that I can try to dig up if you want; I don't feel like spending hours explaining what happened). This has nothing to do with its consumer acceptance or its viability.

The Volt's fire hazard risks are overblown and hyped up by right-wing media with anti-EV biases. Plantagenet here on this site fell for it. The pack was already damaged and the car turned upside down when the fires happened.


Aside from the Aptera, none of the cars you linked to in those articles would make good platforms for a mass-market EV due to the fact that they were designed like most gasoline-burning cars, or even used them as their platform. To compete in today's market, the car must be designed as a whole system. Paul MacReady knew that in 1989 when the Impact was designed. The SIM cars or the Solectria Sunrise, or even GM's EV1, are a much more realistic design for a mass-market EV than either of the ones you linked to in the articles posted.

Less efficiency equals greater cost per mile of range. It's that simple. You can't get around the laws of physics; using batteries to push a heavy barn door through the air at highway speeds for an appreciable distance is going to cost lots of money.

There are hobbyist conversions with packs one-third the size of that in the Nissan Leaf that get similar range. The automakers can run circles around hobbyists; they have billions of dollars and teams of engineers at their disposal.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd if a crappy little smart car is going for $25k and a tesla roadster is going for $110,000, those are the prices we have to deal with in reality.

I'm not dealing with them; my conversion is damned near done. I could have spent more than the cost of my conversion buying a new Mazda Miata, but instead, I'll be getting a car with not only similar performance, but an EV with what will be no less than 200 miles range, for LESS than the cost of the new Miata.

A low volume smart EV or Tesla Roadster is going to be damned expensive. It has little concession to economy of scale or frugality. The Tesla Roadster was in fact designed as a high-end vehicle from the start, as was the Leaf.

The automakers have yet to even try to do a stripped-down Kia Rio or Hyundai Elantra equivalent of an EV. Tesla wanted to under Martin Eberhardt, but they did not have the economies of scale at the time to make it feasible, and thus resorted to a hand-built $125k Roadster, and now have moved to a bloated pimp-daddy Model S that is still well outside the price range of most people in the new car market, and both still manage to compete and even out-do the gasoline burners from the major automakers within their respective price/market segments!
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Sun 10 Mar 2013, 15:25:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'A')n extremely efficient/aerodynamic car conflicts with planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence helps maximize profit.
I'm not buying this argument. Engineers at car companies spend alot of time and money making cars more aerodynamic. The problem is, they have to style the car in a way to make it visually appealing to car buyers(not to mention americans are not the most eco friendly consumes out there, wanting to drive 10mpg bricks that can tow a house). Car companies are afraid, justified or not, that if they style the car to be super aerodynamic, it won't be appealing to consumers. There's other factors at play that limit aerodynamic improvements as well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')utomakers have been interested in aerodynamics at least since the introduction of the Chrysler Airflow in 1934. But the need to improve fuel economy in recent years has pushed aerodynamics toward the top of automakers' priority lists.

It turns out we — the car-buying public — have helped cause this emphasis on aerodynamics. You see, the easiest way to improve a vehicle's fuel economy is to make it smaller and lighter and give it a smaller engine. But we want 400-hp sports cars and seven-passenger SUVs and 5,000-pound-capacity tow vehicles — and we want good gas mileage, too.

Lucky for us automakers have found a way to do that: by making their vehicles slip more smoothly through the air.

"The main driver for lower aerodynamic drag is fuel economy," says Max Schenkel, General Motors technical fellow, aerodynamics. "As long as federal standards for fuel economy increase and fuel costs go up, aerodynamic drag will have to be improved."

Automakers focus on aerodynamics for financial reasons, too. "Aero benefits can almost be cost-free to some extent — just how you bend the metal and how you execute gaps and joints, and…a lot of that is design," says Rick Aneiros, Chrysler Group's vice president of Jeep and truck design. "If you're trying to reduce weight by adding expensive exotic materials, that's not easy to do. And improving engine efficiency, that's not easy to do. So the leading strategy is to improve aerodynamics whenever possible. That's why we built our own full-size wind tunnel here."

In fact, today's wisdom says you can't start measuring a vehicle's aerodynamics too early in the design process. From the earliest conceptual stages on through the working-prototype stage, automakers rely on computer software and wind tunnels to ensure vehicles meet their aerodynamic targets.

How Drag Affects Mileage When you consider aerodynamics from a fuel economy standpoint, you're primarily looking at coefficient of drag (known in the business as "Cd"). Essentially, this is how easily a vehicle moves through the air, though drag isn't the only factor that is considered. "There's more to aerodynamics than just drag," says Doug Frasher, strategic design chief at the Volvo Monitoring & Concept Center. "There's downforce and lift. And there is yawing moment, which is basically when you're in a crosswind, how much does the vehicle get steered by the wind that is pushing on it? And then there's noise. So we try to look for all of those factors.

It's easy to get a feel for drag numbers by comparing Volvo sedans. According to Frasher, during Volvo's boxy-but-safe era, a Cd of 0.36 for the 960 model was typical for a sedan. Today's Volvos have come a long way, with the much sleeker S80 coming in at just 0.28. "Not too long ago, anything below 0.3 was considered a sports carlike silhouette," says Bill Kwong, Toyota's product communications administrator. Now, Toyota has several vehicles in the sub-0.3 range, including the Avalon and Camry at 0.28 and the Solara at 0.29.

Cooling is a big deal, aerodynamically speaking, since it requires airflow into the vehicle through the radiator, which increases drag.

How Automakers Improve Aerodynamics While some shapes are inherently more aerodynamic than others, aerodynamicists and designers subtly shape every vehicle to reduce drag. "We look at all areas of the car that come in contact with the air. Upper surface shape, under floor, wheels and even cooling and engine bay," says Ian Anderton, aerodynamicist at the Jaguar Design Studio in Gaydon, England. Automakers fine-tune the way the air attaches to the vehicle's surface, and the way it leaves the rear end. Automakers spend a lot of time optimizing vehicles' aerodynamics.

Slippery Styling Several automakers recently unveiled concept cars that are dramatically more aerodynamic than today's production vehicles — concepts like Volvo's 3CC (with a Cd 30-percent better than the S40) and Mercedes' bionic car (at 0.19 Cd). Could these companies be trying to gauge buyers' reactions to strikingly different designs — or even prepare us for more radical-looking vehicles to come?

Aerodynamics — and aerodynamicists — certainly are influencing designers more than ever before. Hitoshi Takagi, an engineer in the Nissan Aerodynamics Performance Engineering Department, says, "We seek to proactively propose many aerodynamic models to our designers. It is our goal to stimulate new ideas for design, rather than to wait for their proposed design and then seek an aerodynamic solution."

Still, most automakers predict a slow and steady evolution, rather than a huge leap forward. A Mercedes spokesperson says the company's "engineers and designers are always striving for improvement, but the constraints placed on the designers by consumer tastes, practicality, legislation and production technologies will prevent giant strides."

Or, as Chrysler Group's Aneiros says simply, "We're not about to make the world's most aero vehicle that no one would buy."
Improving Aerodynamics to Boost Fuel Economy

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he government's tougher new fuel-economy standards are going to force automakers to go to new lengths to increase gas mileage, and many are already looking at fine details such as aerodynamics.

Designers and engineers have tried to perfect exteriors in wind tunnels since the gas shortages of the 1970s. They keep finding new tricks -- including the smallest ones. "Even the handles on the doors have an impact," says James Smith, past president of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

Little steps will matter, too, such as how easily speeding cars slip through the air. "Every manufacturer will have to squeeze every tenth of a mile" per gallon, says Mark Perry, Nissan's director of Product Planning and Advanced Technology.
Automakers are making cars more aerodynamic and boosting mpgs

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'A')lso, once production moves to its plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, the price of the Leaf is going to drop due to increased production volume. Production volume is the real cause of the high price versus, say, a Versa, not the components(in spite of the battery expense). That gap can be narrowed by thousands of dollars between the two, tens of thousands if a stripped down Leaf is offered, as there is a stripped down Versa. I have researched the components that comprise EVs, and with the battery being the most expensive component, a 100 mile range EV could be CHEAPER to produce than a comparable gasoline car. I can give you the studies done on this subject from the early 1990s onward if you want them. All that is needed is production volume. Not only have I personally done the research on this years ago(the technology has likely come down in price for OEMs since then, as most of the information I know is dated and there have been only improvements since), but the designer of the Renault ESpace himself even admitted that EVs in volume would be cheaper than gasoline cars.
Not buying this argument either. If EVs in volume can be cheaper than gasoline cars, then why are they not? Nissan, Tata, Toyota, GM, Aptera, etc all tried making an EV consumers would want. But they couldn't do it cheaper than an ICE. They even released statements saying as much(see my previous post.) So sure, show me those studies that say otherwise. You will forgive me however for being skeptical when the car makers themselves flat out said they could not do what you say they could do. Show me an EV that costs less to purchase than a comparable ICE. I too have looked into this. Everything from ultra expensive sports cars to glorified golf carts. EVs were always more expensive to purchase than their ICE counterpart. Now you could make an argument that the liftime costs of the EV might be cheaper than it's ICE counterpart. No fuel costs, lower maintenance costs, etc. Lifetime costs are watched more closely for commercial vehicles and that's one reason why we are seeing a faster uptake in EVs in commercial applications than automobiles. I have written about this before:

Renewable Sources Continue Explosive Growth

But I am not seeing any EV, commercial or otherwise, that sells at a price cheaper than it's ICE counterpart.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'H')obbyists have costs that car companies do not have. Those components I listed in my previous post are basically hand-built, or close to it. Everything except for the batteries is produced in low volume. What do you think this does to the cost? Further, in bulk order, those CALB cells drop into the $300/kWh price range, making the cost of a pack of the size fitted into the Solectria Sunrise less than $7000, with a guaranteed life of no less than 10 years and thousands of cycles to 100% discharge. Nissan's more expensive choice of battery isn't even that good, and these CALB cells do not have the tendency to "brick" as the packs in the Tesla cars and Mitsubishi iMIEV can.

Given the increased power per unit of weight and decreased cost per unit of peak and continuous power of the CALB CA cells over the CALB SE cells of the past, these manufacturers would be absolute idiots not to consider these cells in the immediate future. I understand that Tesla wanted something with more power than the SE cells could provide, and thus they used less reliable, more expensive per kWh LiIon batteries with a cobalt cathode, and created a horrendous management system to engineer around the faults of these batteries, including potential fire risks and sudden cell death(arranging the pack into a set of parallel removable blades was brilliant on their part, taking Alan Cocconi's LiIon TZero prototype from 2003 a step further).LiFePO4 does seem like it would be a good choice for EVs, but I believe Tesla did look at it and decided against it. And since they probably know far more about LiFePO4 than I, I defer to their judgement.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'C')onsidering low energy density of current LiFePO4 batteries that will not be the choice for a long(ish) time, unless car is meant to be city car.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jfeister', 'T')here have been many folks giving recommendations to Tesla on battery chemistry / form factors based on advantages they've heard about. You have to keep in mind this is an electric car company, and perhaps the world leader in electric drive-train technology. They have entire laboratories dedicated to testing various chemistries, and a lot of smart folks dedicated full time to researching the advantages and disadvantages of each. It's quite likely that if anyone knows what the best choice at this time is for electric cars, given all the trade off's, it's the folks at Tesla.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ramon123', 'A')gree with jfeister - virtually impossible for anyone to know something that Tesla's battery people don't know, about batteries. We should be asking them questions.
LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE (LIFEPO4) BATTERIES

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')ata's Vista Indica EV prototype has to compete with its own gasoline Vista car on the market that costs $6,500. Batteries make competition with such things too expensive. The kind of price range where a highway-capable EV can begin to be competitive is at the $10,000+ mark, due to the cost of the battery. A $6,500 EV may be possible, but it wouldn't be much of a car due to the limitation imposed on the battery size as a result of the cost; look up the $3,500 Tara Tiny, the cheapest passenger car EV on Earth. It only does about 40 miles range and 35 mph top speed. The battery is more than a third of its cost. A hobbyist in the U.S. can currently make a highway capable 72V conversion with a 4.3 kWh pack of LiFePO4 batteries for around $4,000 using all new components plus whatever their donor chassis is, most of the components in volume far lower than is typical for the auto industry, if they are very picky about component selection and pay attention to the donor choice and the aerodynamics, but they will be stuck with a 30-40 mile range at best doing so using the most efficient chassis available(certain kit cars, Triumph Spitfire/GT6, VW Karman Ghia, ect), and 10-15 miles range if they use the typical bloated, unaerodynamic chassis available on the new car market. Tata will not get such an electric car below the $10,000 mark without dramatically reducing the drag and shrinking the size of the pack to achieve its current range, and will still have to compete with a gas burner that is roughly half the cost. Of course they killed it! They're target markets in India can hardly afford the gasoline-burning Tata Nano or Vista as it is, where average annual incomes are somewhere around $1,000/year. Reva already has the EV niche within India in the $10,000-15,000 price range cornered, and it is a very small niche due to the limited number of potential buyers.And that is the crux of the problem with EVs. You can get the equivalent or better performance from a gas burner at half the price. And if you dramatically reduce the drag of a car, you can dramatically increase the performance of the gasoline burner as well and you are still left with the same problem as double the cost for equivalent performance.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')he Volt's fire hazard risks are overblown and hyped up by right-wing media with anti-EV biases. Plantagenet here on this site fell for it. The pack was already damaged and the car turned upside down when the fires happened.I agree the whole fire hazard thing was overblown. That is not the issue I have with the volt. I simply object to it's price tag.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Sun 10 Mar 2013, 20:59:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'S')ales being slower than anticipated might have something to do with an economy that is collapsing.
Not really, car sales in general have already picked up off of their recession lows. The ICE version of the volt(Cruze) is doing especially well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') steadily improving economy and strong December sales lifted the American auto industry to its best performance in five years in 2012, especially for Volkswagen and Japanese-brand vehicles, and experts say that this year could be even better. Manufacturers on Thursday announced their final figures, which were expected to total 14.5 million – 13 percent better than in 2011.

Unemployment eased. Home sales and prices rose. And the average age of a car topped 11 years in the United States, a record that spurred people to trade-in old vehicles. Banks made that easier by offering low interest rates and greater access to loans, even for buyers with poor credit. “The U.S. light-vehicle sales market continues to be a bright spot in the tremulous global environment,” said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting for LMC Automotive, a Detroit-area industry forecasting firm.

Volkswagen led all major automakers, with sales rising by a staggering 35 percent and led by the redesigned Passat midsize sedan. VW sold more than five times as many Passats last year as it did in 2011. Jesse Toprak, vice president of industry trends for TrueCar, said VW has the right mix of value and attractive vehicles and called the company “the force to watch in the next several years in the U.S. market.”

2012 auto sales of 14.5 million are a five-year high

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hevrolet's new compact Cruze has marked the first time in years that a U.S. automaker has topped the passenger car sales charts. The best-selling car in the United States in June, the Cruze zoomed past perennial chart-toppers like the Toyota Camry and Honda Civic. Chevy's small car success reflects parent General Motors' emphasis on small, fuel-efficient passenger cars.

"With continued strong consumer demand for GM's fuel-efficient vehicles, June was another solid month for us," Don Johnson, the carmaker's vice president for U.S. sales operations says. "The month caps a successful first half of 2011 for us in the U.S. market - our sales are up and we've gained share profitably."
Chevy Cruze becomes first U.S. car to top sales in years

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')here are hobbyist conversions with packs one-third the size of that in the Nissan Leaf that get similar range. The automakers can run circles around hobbyists; they have billions of dollars and teams of engineers at their disposal.
....
I'm not dealing with them; my conversion is damned near done. I could have spent more than the cost of my conversion buying a new Mazda Miata, but instead, I'll be getting a car with not only similar performance, but an EV with what will be no less than 200 miles range, for LESS than the cost of the new Miata.
I went to a website that sells EV conversion kits(LiFePo4). They said the conversion price ranges from 25-30k for 100 miles of range. That is half the range you are talking about at a higher price, and it doesn't even include the price of the car. Obviously your prices are going to be lower since you are doing the labor yourself and you are using an older, lighter car. But forking over 30k to convert my car to electric, on top of the price to buy the vehicle itself, and all the while cutting my range by 3/4ths from 400 miles a tank to 100 miles a charge? This does not sound like the appealing $20,000 200 mile range EV you were talking about. I want a $20k 200 mile EV all costs included, not on top of the costs for the ICE car.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Q'): How much does it cost to convert?

So overall cost can be as low as $5k if you do everything yourself, converting a smaller car, and don't need a huge range. They also can be as high as $25-30k if you are after below-6-sec 0-60 on a heavy modern car and you want a 100 mile range. Electric Motor Werks!
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Mon 11 Mar 2013, 15:47:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'A') hobbyist in the U.S. can currently make a highway capable 72V conversion with a 4.3 kWh pack of LiFePO4 batteries for around $4,000 using all new components plus whatever their donor chassis is, most of the components in volume far lower than is typical for the auto industry, if they are very picky about component selection and pay attention to the donor choice and the aerodynamics, but they will be stuck with a 30-40 mile range at best doing so using the most efficient chassis available(certain kit cars, Triumph Spitfire/GT6, VW Karman Ghia, ect), and 10-15 miles range if they use the typical bloated, unaerodynamic chassis available on the new car market.
When you say "bloated" I say "legal". All of the ultra light weight cars you mentioned would not even be legal to sell as a new car today. Today's regulations about safety systems and what not add considerable "bloat" to the car. That's not even getting into all of the new features consumers nowadays are demanding. These features can also add considerable weight to the vehicle. Not to mention Americans love affair with bigger cars. I don't think many potential car buyers would appreciate a tiny stripped down featureless EV replacing their big fully loaded ICE. Exotic light weight materials are one way to bloat up the car yet try and keep the weight down, but you said you object to that route as it adds too much cost.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are new cars so darn HEAVY?

As of now, I don't think the automakers have much choice. Here are my guesses at some ballpark figures on requirements imposed by government regulations: 200 pounds of "5 mph" bumpers, 100 pounds of air bags, 50 pounds of OBD wiring and capability, an extra thirty pounds for stronger glass elements, forty pounds of catalytic converter and a thousand other detailed specifications to satisfy D.O.T., EPA and similar regulations. Compound those types of weight penalties with consumers who now demand a couple of hundred additional pounds for sound deadening and absorbtion, heated seats, power everything, 18 -20 inch tires and wheels. What you end up with is a car that cannot be made lighter without the use of hyper-expensive futuristic alloys and materials. The car makers don't really have a choice - they're forced to make heavier cars.

Increased safety standards add a tremendous amount of weight. Also, as drivers are demanding more creature comforts, these too add weight and size to a vehicle. Automakers know the added weight is decreasing fuel economy. Take the 1990 Ford Festiva for instance...it managed 30 mpg city and 38 mpg highway according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm. Of course you were riding in a tin coffin. Today, cars makers struggle to compromise between safety, weight, size, and fuel economy.
why are new cars so darn HEAVY?

And 2 door sports cars as your chassis, really? You just got done talking about how the 2 seater market is a niche market and how if EVs are going to succeed they need to have broad appeal. I don't think going for a 2 door sports car is the right direction to go for an EV that has broad appeal. Yet that is your showcase example for making a light EV? So for everything you have presented screams "niche" to me. If you are going to convince me that a hobbyist can do a better job than the automakers, you are going to have to do a better apples to apples comparison. No more 40 year old 2 door cars that would not even be legal for the automakers to sell nowadays. Show me a modern 4 door car with a 200 mile range, a reasonable price tag, and is legal to drive on US streets. It doesn't have to be a SUV brick. A corolla or civic conversion would be fine.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby jdmartin » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 12:40:00

I'm with Kublikhan on this one Toecutter. Don't get me wrong - I like the idea of an electric car, charging it up in my garage, not having to stop for gas, etc. But they are not out there that makes any kind of economical sense right now. If you buy an electric car, today, you're doing it because you (insert: want to save the planet; want to be tragically hip; dislike petroleum products) - not because it makes sense in the wallet. I shopped the closest thing that could work for me, a hybrid (I drive about 100 miles a day, sometimes a little more), and the cost difference between that and what I bought (a Kia) was $10k dollars, where the payback period would be in the multi-hundreds of thousands of miles. It just didn't make sense.

The things you object to/complain about in mainstream cars that make them so expensive are things that are not going to be compromised. My father sold cars all his life and there are 5 things that Americans are about when it comes to buying new cars, a combination of at least 3 of the 5 being necessary to get that car out the door: Comfort, Economics, Style, Gadgetry, Safety. You talk of doing away with sound reduction, creature comforts like AC, you might as well figure on not selling any cars except to a few niche people. It's not as if the worldwide auto makers create cars that we have to settle for - they create the cars that the market demands. If they didn't, some one else supplants them in the market. Virtually no car buyers are going to trade sound deadening and air conditioning for an extra 50-100 miles of daily range, because there's already a vehicle out there that gets ridiculously good fuel economy if you're willing to suffer some deprivation while operating it: it's called a motorcycle.
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
User avatar
jdmartin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Merry Ol' USA
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby kublikhan » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 15:05:22

Take a look at Mercedes low drag concept car:
Mercedes Bionic

eeeeww. That's the best styling Mercedes came up with for a low drag car? Hideous. And I wish they would start offering a sedan(trunk/boot) version of EVs and hybrids. Almost all of them are hatchbacks. Hatchbacks are not that popular in the US and personally I don't care for them. I'd rather take the fuel economy hit and get a sedan with a trunk. The split window in the Prius I test drove drove me crazy.

While looking for a sedan EV I ran across the CODA. Finally a sedan version of an EV, and it has the cheap LiFePo4 batteries we were talking about as well! Unfortunately this EV has turned out to be a disappointment as well. I guess even cheap LiFePo4 batteries and a bargain basement chassis are still not enough to get EV prices down to ICE prices.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ake a cheap Chinese car, shoehorn in an electric drivetrain, freshen it up as best you can. Then pray. The strategy doesn't seem to be working for this California-based electric automaker. Things have gotten a bit dire at California-based electric carmaker Coda Automotive, which late last week announced that it was laying off 50 people (15 percent of the staff). Even spokeswoman Larkin Hill was let go. The company quickly tried to spin the news, saying that the move to “release” the employees was designed to “right size” Coda. But only about 100 cars have sold, and in the wake of a poor crash safety rating, they’re not likely to move many more.

There is bound to be attrition in the electric car business. We’ve lost Aptera, Bright, and a bunch of smaller ones I barely had time to meet. The Coda Sedan is based on a small Chinese vehicle, which the company struggled to bring up to date (including with stronger crash-worthiness). The strategy of buying a bargain Chinese car sounded good at the time, but it’s plain that making the Coda competitive was a Herculean task, despite a larger battery, battery management and more range than the Nissan Leaf.

One big problem is that Chinese styling is 20 to 30 years behind the West, and attempts to dress up the Coda didn’t do much to disguise the 1985 Toyota Corolla design. The car looks dated. A recall brought 78 of the 100 cars back for airbag issues, and the national safety agency gave the car an OK four stars (but only two stars for the driver). These things hurt, as did the car’s price of $39,900 (lowered from $44,900.)
Coda's layoffs spell trouble ahead

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ohn Gartner, an automotive analyst at Pike Research, is not surprised by Coda’s difficulties. “Coda has not been able to gain traction with consumers or fleets,” he said. “Coda's launch vehicle has not been viewed favorably as consumers have not been willing to compromise ‘just’ to have a vehicle with an electric drivetrain.” Gartner said the founders are likely to shift their attention towards developing their battery technology for other vehicle platforms and for grid energy storage.
Massive Layoffs at Coda Automotive

I must say though Toecutter, I like your attitude of "If the market doesn't provide what I want, I'll build it myself." I did something similar when putting together my home entertainment system(I couldn't find a DVR that did what I wanted so I built one myself). I wish you luck with your endeavor and hope it works out for you.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Why all of a sudden Americans love small cars?

Postby vision-master » Sat 16 Mar 2013, 14:38:08

VW’s 261-MPG Plug-In Hybrid Arrives in 2013

Image
It features a 48-horsepower two-cylinder diesel engine displacing just 800 cc. It’s bolted to a seven-speed DSG gearbox and mated to a 27-horsepower electric motor drawing power from a lithium-ion battery of undisclosed size. The plug-in hybrid has an electric range of 21 miles and fuel consumption of just 0.9 liters per 100 kilometers, which comes to 261 mpg by our math. It emits 24 grams of CO2 per kilometer — compared to the 89 grams emitted by the Toyota Prius.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/vw ... s-in-2013/
vision-master
 
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron