Comments on: Chrysler gets into electric car race

Watch out Chevy Volt: Chrysler plans two extended-range electric vehicles for release in late 2010, along with an all-electric Dodge EV sports car and electric city car.

[markb1967]

all i can say is watch the movie "who killed the electric car" and you will understand that no one is on the side of the consumer. GM, Toyota, Chrysler, they are all doing this for survival, not us.

In 1992 we had the EV-1, 120 miles on a single charge. 16 years later no one can do better? Come on Now!!!

[k2dave]

Was the EV-1 really that good? yes a small nitche loved it, but that doesn't make it a great mass production car. The big problem with a electric car is no practical enroute refueling option no matter how far it can go on a single charge, so you really need 2 cars so a person can venture more then 60 miles from home. By removing 2/3rds of the batteries you can add a small gas-electric generator, and you have a totally electric dally commuter car but also a car you can take on longer trips.

[open-mind]

Except that the Volt as designed (and possibly the Chrysler vehicles too) will be better than the EV-1 in terms of range and cost and safety and features and versatility. But I agree it's unfortunate it took $3/gallon gas to get this all going.

On a related note, Chris Paine who made "Who Killed The Electric Car" is working on a followup movie that some feel may be called "Who Saved The Electric Car". A few days ago Chris got to test drive a GM prototype that uses the Chevy Volt electric drive train. It will be interesting to see which car maker wins this race..

[W Macaulay]

The EV-1 was powered by lead-acid batteries too -- very heavy and probably not good enough by modern standards.

[markb1967]

Your comments are valid, but they could have continued development and had a huge market share today.
Instead they pulled the plug because they realized that the car didn't need maintenance (oil changes, brakes-not as often, etc) and a lot of their profits were in car maintenance.

GM could be the Apple computers of Cars if they kept developing the electric car. But their GREED and Oil friends prohibited the process, and the cars were destroyed.

[bigmc6000]

Do you just copy and paste the same thing in every automotive thread? The EV-1 had crap for range, a crappy battery, was expensive as hell (as much as the Tesla Roadster is today) and is 100% completely worthless once you've used up your 120 miles. Combine that with the fact that in the summer heat of the south or winter freeze in the north it would kill the batteries and you have 1 big hunk of junk that was never anything more than a late model alpha (not even beta!) vehicle.

As for the comment that no one can do better you're obviously blissfully unaware of the Tesla Roadster - over 300 miles per charge and it uses good batteries that won't bite it because it's a little cold. Please stop trolling...

[rafalink]

The GM EV-1 was on the streets in 1997 and was capable of a range of at least 60 miles per charge, as reported by GM, maybe even more, as reported by the actual owners. The Tesla Roadster (Tesla Motors) is capable of 244 miles per charge using lithium-ion batteries, Tesla Motors is a small company without the kind of money that GM, Chrysler or Ford have for R&D. Chrysler and GM are now saying that their futuristic (end of 2010) cars could only go for 40 miles per charge? And this are the great news? I don't understand. Why are they still pushing for the need of gas? Why hybrid cars cannot be charged from any electrical outlet? This might be the last chance for the American car companies to do something to survive. Get it right, what we want is a 100% electrical car with the best mile range possible (minimum 60 miles as with the EV-1), that could be charged at any 110 volts outlet.

[open-mind]

That's 40 miles electric until the gasoline generator kicks in, then it will have unlimited range (like a normal car) at about 50MPG. Unfortunately, but electric range requires big batteries which cost big bucks. Most people drive less than 40 miles per day and will use little-to-no gas for day to day driving.

[bigmc6000]

Why is having the ability to go an unlimited number of miles important? Because most people can't afford two cars (one for city trips and one for longer trips). The only way "we" want a 100% electric car is if it can be totally recharged in less than 10 mins (see the Lightening). As I've said before the EV-1 - and any other 100% electric car is 100% useless when you run out of juice. You can't walk down to the store and buy some more gas or call up AAA and ask for a gallon of gas to make it to the gas station - you have to have it towed to your house and then plug it in for hours before you can go anywhere.

Maybe you do have the money for 2 cars but the rest of us don't...

[pking13]

Fully agree that the Big 3 in the US are lagging far, far behind Toyota, Honda, and others in terms of innovation and efficiency. Toyota and Honda both started selling practical hybrids years ago and were successful, even before the cost of gas spiked. That advantage is paying huge dividends now, but its safe to say that they would have remained successful even with relatively cheaper gas.

One of the most damning things you'll notice in the cars above (except the "sports" model) is that these cars are huge and extremely heavy. Using lightweight materials is the biggest factor that has allowed Tesla to achieve relatively high efficiency with their all electric car. Jeeps are incredibly inefficient vehicles because of their drive train and overall weight, so how can we expect a practical electric vehicle on that platform. The US companies have to rethink their design process and design some new cars if they hope to compete with the new start ups; otherwise the battery range afforded by the Big 3 will continue to be dismal.

[bigmc6000]

GM, Ford and Chrysler are lagging? Really? Neither Toyota or Honda have even come out with a vehicle the likes of the Volt or Chrysler's eV vehicles. Hybrids are just another way to make sure that you're always buying gasoline. It doesn't matter if you only go 3 miles in your Prius you're still burning gasoline. Now counter that with the Volt where you can go 40 and not give a dime to foreign oil. If the entire US had vehicles that went 40 miles without needing gas we wouldn't need to import oil anymore and as the technology continues to grow that 40 miles will grow to 50, 60, 70, and even 80. Basically the only time you'll ever need gas is when going on a trip.

Of course the other option is a 100% eV vehicle with very low commercial recharge time (the Lightening) but until you have recharge your vehicle in less than 10 mins and get over 300 miles per charge that's not going to happen...

[ddmotors]

These vehicles will initially be quite pricey unless they are in some way subsidized by the government, which probably is not a bad way to get started at minimizing our fossil fuel demand. Otherwise, these vehicles will capture a smaller segment of the market. For everybody else who wants an electric vehicle, they will continue to depend on the lower cost EV Conversion market currently thriving in the US. If you want a $16,000 or less EV, there are plenty. A good source for information is: http://www.ddmotorsystems.com/ElectricVehicles.shtml .

[-fjtorres-]

Actually, Chrysler is being extremely wise to make their first electrics a mini-van and a Jeep. That makes their offering *complementary* to what GM is doing and what the japanese *may* do in response to the Volt. The one thing too many people forget is the given a choice, a majority of american buyers *prefer* the big hulking cars to the tiny econoboxes. So, given a choice between an electric econobox and electric minivan, surburban households will go for the minivan form factor. Chrysler should do nicely with these cars. But they need to educate people on the reality that a range extended vehicle isn't just another type of hybrid but a rather a step *beyond* the hybrids now on sale. American manufacturers aren't "catching up" to the japanese; they're leap-frogging them.
And most important, they're way ahead of the euros and koreans.
Anybody who actually researches electric cars and avanced battery technology will find that the most advanced batteries are all being developed by american companies so the american automakers would have to be singularly dense not to realize they have an advantage by not being tied to the older battery technologies and suppliers like their japanese competitors. And they're not quite that dense; odds are they are investing in multiple alternate battery-tech outfits.
In a way, this is a lot like the computer busness, where access to the most advanced components grants a major advantage to the system builders.
We may yet see the Detroit three jump right back to the forefront of the industry.

BTW, I assume everybody understands *why* GM and Chrysler are introducing these vehicles *now*, right? And why Ford should be scheduling *their* dog and pony show for next week?
(Hint: they're heading to congress, hat in hand...)

[buggermenot]

Attn all US car companies. You sell a lot of cars in other countries, because they were not buying your cars in the 70's- 90's while they were all dying at100K miles. This is your big chance to change your image and build a good car that runs for 200K plus, so don't blow it!

[MatthewStephen]

I would agree with some of the previous comments that this is something that the auto manufacturers must do for survival. However, I would also add two observations. First, the transition to solid-state cars represents a paradigm shift for the automobile. Anytime that happens (through historical product development life cycles) there has been both chaos and opportunity; Not all the guys who made horse drawn buggies survived to make cars, and not all the present auto manufacturers will survive to produce electric vehicles. While new product development is in the blood of automobile design, new technology implementation is done very carefully and slowly, which is something of a detriment during periods of rapid change regardless of their deep pockets. Startups like Tesla can leverage the lower barrier of entry in electric vehicles (no engines and transmissions which represent the largest expense related to new vehicle design) to gain entry into specific segments. They'll start in areas where the margins are high and gradually branch out via technology licensing or by private equity.

Second, and most importantly, I suggest the value proposition offered by electrical vehicles is so dramatic and so disruptive (although it is an evolutionary technology) that the rate at which consumers embrace these products will catch the oil companies and oil distribution networks off guard. A reduction in gasoline by 5% will produce a corresponding reduction of service stations by 5% in a perfectly elastic market. That's an economic way of saying that as oil consumption in decreases so will the number of gas stations. Furthermore, a 5% reduction will lower the demand for oil and thus reduce the price, however, once the electric cat is out of the bag, the price of oil would have to drop to ~ $10 a barrel in order to compete with electricity. So once it starts, and it is starting, it isn't going to stop. And I don't know about you, but I could go the rest of my life without changing oil again no problem.

[markb1967]

great article, and true representation of what could happen. However, don't overlook our Govt. getting in there and helping the gas companies and anyone else with a bailout. Once Electric cars hit the mainstream, and I hope it's soon, our Govt. will start taxing something to regain the lost income from gas taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of owning a gas or electric car are about equal once our Govt. has taxed them to be that way.

[bigmc6000]

Well they have to tax it somehow - where do you think they get the money to build roads, bridges and the upkeep on all of that? We'll still be putting all those miles on the roads but we won't be paying the tax anymore. They'll find a way to make sure there's still money for road construction (as well they should!)

[dirty55409]

stop making electric cars look like peapods lol or calling them peapods. Once that stupid "Look at those hippies with their green cars" mentalities go out the window we can sit down and produce real cars with real efficiency. The Prius isn't even worth calling a green car. My friend's 1993 Toyota Tercel get 40mpg just like the prius... And the tercel wasn't $25k. Surprisingly the Chevy Volt looks promising and I'm glad.

[zysmith]

rafalink mentioned the limited travel distance on battery only. This actually makes sense for a couple of reasons:
1) Most trips made are under 40 miles so these people will never need to use fuel.
2) Batteries are expensive, and heavy. Limiting the size of the battery pack and adding a generator to extend the cars range gives you the best of both worlds, something the rail industry has known for a loooooong time.
3) Recharging an electric car takes time, and lots of it. If I had a family car version of the Tesla (a really cool car) I couldn't visit my friends in PA (320 miles away) without an 8 hour layover to recharge! With a plugin hybrid, I just need to put ~ 6 gallons of fuel in the car and off I go.

A minivan that runs at ~50 mpg and can go most days without using any fuel!? Sign me up!

[davidherron444]

The proper term is 'plug-in hybrid'. The use of 'extended range electric vehicle' is wrong. It's a near-lie and a clear attempt by car companies to greenwash after the clear accusation that they murdered the electric car.

[texaslabrat]

As far as I know, there have been no standards bodies that have sanctioned one term versus another (If you know of such a declaration by an industry-sanctioned standards body, please be so kind as to include a link to said declaration). Both are acceptable. Further, the "plug-in hybrid" label lumps together parallel hybrid drivetrains (such as found on the Prius) with a larger battery pack along with the technologies being described in the article. Those drivetrains with serial hybrid drivetrains (such as found on the Chevy Volt and the Chrysler vehicles mentioned in the article) are well-described by the "extended range electric vehicle" moniker, as well as allowing them to be further distinguished from their parallel-drivetrain competiion. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's a "near lie"...first 40 miles is electric-power...further distances are enabled by "extending" the "range" via the auxillery gas-powered electric generator....thus an extended range electric vehicle. Not a great mental leap for most folks to make in order to arrive at that one. You seem to have strong feelings about the previous attempts at a viable electric car in the 90's...and that's understandable..but try to rein in your emotions such that they don't cloud your ability to think logically....your previous post made you look rather foolish ;)

[k2dave]

It's not wrong, the car has a 100% electric drive system, the range of the car is extended by the use of a gas powerplant to supply electricity if needed.

Also the term plug in hybrid is a bit inaccurate, and more descriptively called a serial plug in hybrid.

[antuan.goodwin]

I'm sure it's no secret that the Dodge EV is a rebadged and re-engineered the Lotus Europa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lotus_europa_2006.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Europa#Europa_S.2C_2006

[albizzia]

The chassis is the Lotus Europa, re-engineered into an EV. The Dodge EV is virtually identical to an EV demonstrated by Proton Motors of Malaysia, which happens to own Lotus! I suspect that Chrysler may be planning to have Proton make the Dodge EV for them, taking advantage of lower labor costs in Malaysia, and Proton would be eager for the business.

The performance and range are slightly less than for the Tesla Roadster, but the Dodge EV is likely to be thousands of dollars less than the Roadster. (Tesla 0-69 mph in 3.9 sec, 244 miles per charge vs. Dodge EV 0-60 mph in 5 sec, 150 to 200 miles per charge)

[Ormond Otvos]

I tend to skip everything after "global warming is a hoax." We need legislation allowing smaller cars and less safety gadgets. The Smart Car video with the 70mph barrier crash should prove microcars are safe enough, when you can buy a 700# Harley motorcycle with NO safety gadgets at all. We're so irrational and nanny-state about auto safety. I can't buy a Zenn because the only rational route for most of my driving is on the freeway, on which I drive my Echo at 55, but the Zenn, capable of that speed, is legally limited to 35, even though it's a re-motored diesel vehicle that's been on the highways in Europe for ten years! We need a slow lane on the freeways. This one change would sell a million Zenns, which are available with power and battery options, RIGHT NOW, that would do the job.

Once again, lobbyists ruin our lives, and the planet's health.

[Tod Smith]

2010 is a joke. The CAR companies now that gas will average above $5 a gallon and are seeking to profit buy selling these cars at above $50K.

At this point the Earth will be soon done and the demand for 40 MPG electric vechicals will be like trying to buy a Wii. Kill the Corperations!

[bigmc6000]

You do know the Volt is going to go for between 35k and 40k right? And that's helping to offset the R&D. Also, there's a $7500 tax credit on the table so your first year cost of the vehicle (let's assume a 5 year car note) is actually NEGATIVE (the feds give you 625 a month for the first year at the end of the year and the decrease in your gas bill actually means that the first year it'll be cheaper to buy one of these vehicles than it will be to continue to drive your current vehicle!!)

[albizzia]

There is one incorrect notion that keeps popping up about plug-in serial hybrids like the Volt and the planned EV minivan and EV Jeep from Chrysler: The gasoline powered generator is not there to just "recharge the battery", it is designed to provide power to the electric drive motor when the battery charge is drained to about 35%, and will only recharge the battery if there is surplus power available. Also, the gas engine will not fully recharge the battery, but will shut off when the charge reaches 45%. Most of the charging is done from an outlet, as that is much cheaper and saves a lot more gasoline!

The 40 mile range was chosen, as it means a smaller less expensive battery, and 90% of daily driving is less than 40 miles, and the gasoline "range extender" generator can take over for those rare longer trips.

The Dodge EV is a high performance electric sportscar, range is estimated to be 150 to 200 miles per charge, sufficient for all but the longest daily commutes. It is not designed for very long trips.

The "Peapod" is a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle with limited speed and range, but its low initial cost and very low cost of operation make it attractive as an extra car for local driving. Chryslers GEM division has already sold more than 30,000 NEVs, the Peapod is an improved model with better looks.