I agree a big increase in ev use will require a big infrastructure investment. I do think it beats the alternatives.
I don’t know about your claim that battery issues need to be solved with future technology. It really does seem like it is already worked out. Can it be improved? Yes, but it seems to be there.
Consider two car platforms: One based around a 50 kWh battery. One based around a 100 kWh battery.
One is a passenger/commuter car. One is an SUV or pickup. Allow for both to be backed up with a generator. I’d need to be convinced that this isn’t already possible today.
Just that sketch suggests ev’s with practical range and/or power/towing capacity, depending what you’re going for, are entirely possible, right now. Remember, electric motors are actually more efficient than conventional motors, so the notion that these vehicles are necessarily weaker just isn’t true.
I do not have a chart handy comparing the different approaches but I can offer this small bit of guidance to help understand what you read when you find it yourself.
Energy density is one part of the equation - how much can it store altogether?
Second is how much of a state of charge window (SOC) it must operate within to reach a target lifetime, and how well it survives complete depth of discharge (DOD)? Obviously a battery with twice as much energy density is no better than one with twice the SOC window.
These are separate issues than the power density - how much can it discharge over a period of time per kg.
A hybrid often trades off energy density for power density - alternatively a parallel hybrid can use a smaller battery with less power density and use the ICE to provide for extra power when needed. A full BEV needs a battery big enough to provide enough energy to last its range, and that will provide enough power as well at even moderate power densities. Another future approach is to focus on energy in the battery and combine it with an ultracap for power.
Cold air intake, coil over shocks and that was about it. Oh. And REALLY good tires and brakes. And the key wasn’t 0-60. The Matrix had horrible 0-60 times. It had brutally fast 60-130 times, though, because of the variable valve timing and high gear ratio (Higher than the Celica GT-S). Between 6100 and the red-line, it accelerated faster than the M3. I can say that with all confidence because my boss at the time had one, and he got really pissed at me about that. It was entirely possible to keep it in the power-band between second and sixth. I don’t want to say that it made more than 180 horsepower, but… I’ve never driven a car with 180 horsepower that behaved like that.
Let me repeat, it was a very odd engine. It literally behaved as if it had a supercharger on it. Maximum power was around 7600 RPM, and when that second profile engaged, it kicked like a motorcycle. I could burn rubber in third gear with it at 6100ish.
It may not have had the top speed of a M3, and given a long straightaway, the M3 would have outpowered it. But insofar as behavior in the 60+ band, it walked anything twice its power, as long as it didn’t have to slow down below 50.
I understand your claim of bullshit, and simply state that this was a repeatable behavior in this car.
I’m going to disagree that the Charger is a sports car. The Challenger might barely fit in, but I think it’s too large. I’d still call it a muscle car. The Neon SRT4 fits… but I’d call it a pony car instead. Very subtle difference, but mostly sports cars are designed as sports cars, and aren’t cars given tender loving upgrades.
We can all agree the Mustang is not a sports car, though, especially with the live rear axle. Great for launching off the line, not a sports car feature.
And I found this which links to a pdf that reviews battery technologies fairly well. See page 23 (15 on the page). The NiMH battery has peak power density less than half of the Li-ion battery and energy density of about 2/3s. Moreover NiMH technology is not likely to get any better whereas Li technologies are rapidly improving (A123 is not alone in bringing out new products, including quite a few American companies with excellent intellectual properties, if not the manufacturing experience, and several Chinese firms, such as CBAK, are chomping at the bit with new high power battery production lines rarin’ to go.)
I’ll try to make this short, because it really is far afield from the OT. If you wanna hammer away at this, let’s start a “Which is more important in a race: car or driver” thread.
An LS1 GTO is turning a low 14/really high 13 in stock form. I can usually get between 15-14.8 in my MINI (using runflats, never tried with better tires). A second is not that hard to eat up on a drag strip. Spin a bit much on launch, bump the limiter on a shift, and we are 90% of the way there. I know this first hand. 90% of my runs are the 15-14.8 above, but 5% are in the upper half of 15 seconds: usually because I first smoked the tires, then lugged the engine groping for traction.
(pdf warning) Here’s the results for the 2008 Solo nationals. It’s not a Lancer, but the top H stock driver (the Lancer’s class, he’s driving a N/A cooper), would have placed 46/58 if he was judged straight against the S stock class that the Z06 runs in, beating 4 Z06 vettes. If he had run in A stock with the base Corvettes, he would have placed 34/59, beating 5 base model vettes built in the last 20 years. Just about none of the drivers at the nationals are 90 and totally clueless, much less the bottom 1/4 of the 2 fastest stock classes.
That’s the funny thing about the Volt though- it uses Lion batteries, but somehow they manage not to deliver the performance you’d expect. They deliver the performance you’d expect from 2000 technology.
I’m not arguing that the Lion batteries don’t show more potential- in terms of actual performance. But- if the range is going to be 40 miles for vehicles built on a platform like the Volt, well, the Nickel batteries are a lot cheaper and sufficient for the job. You know, for a truly mass-market commuter vehicle. Keep the fancy stuff for more demanding applications.
As for these other technologies, I’m not catching the switch of the units of measurement. Some are rated in kWh, some in aH, then there is Wh/kg. How about a primer on the units, aH in particular?
A professional driver can get a 14.3 with my Camry. Numbers are weird.
Actually, back to the main question. How do you measure the gas mileage of an electric car, when adjusting for fleet averages?
And I hope the ultracapacitors kick in soon. We’re gonna need them. http://sev.prnewswire.com/utilities/20090427/DA0619827042009-1.html
Eestor’s looking better and better. Temperature range of -20 to 65C? That’s… four below to 149 above F. Hm. Not… quite… there for my winter, but the high end is more than acceptable.
Yeah, and I can go 180mph in my Scion Xa…just kidding.
Motor Trend tested the 2007 V6 Camry SE and got a 14.6 quarter mile time out of it, at 97mph. Of course the new Camry V6 engine puts out a lot more horsepower than ever before, something like 268hp. And it only manages 28mpg on the highway.
I’m not sure what your problem with the LGI/Compact Power battery packs is.
I think your issue is with GM decision to keep their SOC window restricted to that 8.8 kWh range, but that is not a battery issue so much as a GM decision. They want to be very careful to not overcharge or overdischarge the battery so have a battery with more capacity than they are using. The main reason is that they know that this battery must last 10 years/100K providing 40 miles per charge. Start off deep cycling and you may wear it down faster. OTOH start off cycling it only through a 55% SOC window and if you find that by year 5 or 6 it has lost some oomph in real world usages and now only goes 30 miles a charge then you can software fix in a wider SOC window and still deliver.
E-Sabbath indeed plug-ins will give new meaning to the phrase “your mileage may vary” - my guess is that they will test on a model of “the typical American” driver’s usages.
Ok, my problem. It is 16kWh? GM’s big EV unveiling is THIS wimpy? wtf
And have you noticed the strange crystal-like steering wheel? Flash Gordon is going to love this, but can you imagine taking your date out with that??? wtf
Then why are you suggesting raising efficiency standards leads to auto company bailouts? Have you posted any evidence that this is so, or is it more of a “my post is my cite” kind of thing?
The United States is a poor example because not only do we very rarely raise standards, but also…
Since we let standards slide, and then needed to bail out the auto manufacturers, it’s obvious that the converse is not true - that lax standards don’t lead to profitability - perhaps lax standards lead to bailouts!* That doesn’t demonstrate that strict standards lead to bailouts, but it really makes me wonder where you get your ideas from.
Spare me the drama, just post evidence that increasing efficiency standards leads to auto company bailouts, please.
*Not something I believe, but an entertaining thought!