DailyTech - Nissan Showcases All-Electric Mixim Concept

Submit News

Auto Nissan Showcases All-Electric Mixim Concept
Brandon Hill (Blog) - August 31, 2007 9:52 AM

50 comment(s) - last by number999.. on Sep 3 at 7:56 PM

(Source: Nissan)

Nissan hops on the all-electric bandwagon

North American consumers haven't had much experience with all-electric vehicles in recent years. Companies like Tesla Motors, however, are looking to change that. The company’s production-ready Roadster packs 6,381 lithium-ion cells into its battery pack, can bolt 0-60 in 4 seconds and race all the way to a top speed of 130 MPH. The Tesla Roadster also has a hefty price tag of $100,000.

Nissan is looking at the lower-end of the pricing spectrum with its all-electric Mixim concept car. The Mixim uses what Nissan calls a "Super Motor" powertrain and lithium-ion batteries. The concept features drive motors on both the front and rear axles which effectively make it all-wheel-drive.

From the outside, the tiny three-seater looks like the Batmobile -- if the actor playing Batman was Vern Troyer. Nissan, however, says that the vehicle is designed to look like the visor of a crash helmet. Diamond shapes are used throughout the exterior and Nissan based the steering wheel design and driver controls on video game consoles.

Nissan's tiny Mixim weighs just 2,100 pounds and is 145.7" long -- roughly the size of a MINI Cooper.

Comments

Threshold

Username	Please enter your username
Password	Please enter your password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Conceptually hideous.

By therealnickdanger on 8/31/2007 10:09:53 AM , Rating: 2

It has some features I think look OK, but ultimately the production vehicle (if it comes) will probably not appeal to the audience they think it will. The only thing I think is kinda cool is the center driver's seat.

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By omnicronx on 8/31/2007 10:13:54 AM , Rating: 2

This is just a concept, do you know how ugly the Audi TT when i saw the concept at the autoshow? I think its a great idea, personally i think hybrid cars are a waste, they just don't save enough gas against all gasoline cars of the same size (see civic). I could see this car ending up looking pretty sexy and a bit toned down inside if it ever comes to production.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By therealnickdanger on 8/31/2007 10:21:26 AM , Rating: 2

I don't know how ugly you thought it was, no. I still think it's ugly. Small, round cars just aren't my thing, I guess. To each his own?

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By omnicronx on 8/31/2007 10:50:13 AM , Rating: 3

ya well feast your eyes on this ugly pos
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/07/26-pe...

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By SiliconJon on 9/3/2007 11:49:37 AM , Rating: 3

Heh, kinda gotta a shorbus look, doesn't it.

As for hybrids being a gimmic, the Prius gets 60 mpg in the CITY. In fact it does worse on the highway at a horrendous 50mpg. I took one for a test drive, and had it been $5k cheaper I could have, and would have, bought it. It was a great ride, and 60 mpg for a city driver that may be getting 20 mpg in one of today's "effecient" old-school engines is a hell of an improvement.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By keithxp on 8/31/2007 10:23:42 AM , Rating: 2

Hybrids aren't the final solution to better gas mileage but more of a small sacrifice to the traditional gasoline only car. Its merely a small step to awareness.

As for the concept, it's great. McLaren F1 front seat, 0-60 in 4 seconds, and its coming from Nissan (not an unknown brand like the Venturi Fetish). If all cars by 2038 have mileage estimates of 35+ per gallon, these cars are the future for the performance market such as Ferrari, Lamborghini and all the others.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By Spyvie on 8/31/2007 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 3

The 0-60 number is for the Tesla

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By kkwst2 on 8/31/2007 10:56:37 AM , Rating: 5

I just don't buy that argument for current hybrids. To me, they're just a way for people to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything. When you take into account the vehicle's overall impact, it's not clear they're an advantage at all.

The all-electric powertrain is much more promising IMHO, whether it's an all-electric car like this or one of the designs like the VentureOne or GM hybrid in which the small engine charges the battery. These cars start offering an environmental profile that is really encouraging.

By promoting the current "dual drivetrain" hybrids, one might argue that you're actually slowing development of these more promising strategies. I'm not saying that's the case. I don't really know, but I refuse to support them.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By omnicronx on 8/31/2007 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2

I totally agree, except for the consumer saving a little money, in the end it really does nothing for the environment. Although C02 emissions from cars in north America account for a lot of the total emissions, its not that big of a number. So even if 1/4 of the population bought a hybrid how much would emissions actually go down ? I should also note, you could probably get the same effect if everyone bought a car like the civic, city jetta or a car like that, especially with hybrids lackluster highway millage. Electric or hydrogen is the way to go if we are actually serious about saving the environment, and even then there will always be a market for gas with all the big rigs and trucks out there.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By blaster5k on 8/31/2007 11:39:59 AM , Rating: 3

The technology for electric cars still has a long way to go. Quick refueling is going to be important for longer trips and other situations.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 11:52:21 AM , Rating: 2

If ya wanna get a kick, do a google search on "Cows produce more emissions than cars" and read some of the stuff that comes up

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By omnicronx on 8/31/2007 12:00:25 PM , Rating: 3

I'm pretty sure they release methane, not C02, but you are right, a hell of a lot of emissions come from farming animals.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 12:07:35 PM , Rating: 2

Well that depends on which end we are talking about. They breath a lot. Then again so do humans. So if we wanna cut CO2, everyone should stop breating. If an average person breates between 10 and 20 times per minute (at rest) and with each breath, takes in 500 cc of air, how much oxygen can we turn into CO2 per day, individually?

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By TomZ on 8/31/2007 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 2

I would suggest everyone do their part to reduce CO2 by breathing 20% less throughout the day. Imagine the impact we could have!!!

(^- I'm kidding, by the way)

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 12:49:43 PM , Rating: 3

I can the new law now "From this point on, all US citizens are required to hold their breath for 5 minutes at a time. Anyone caught not doing so will be punished by death"

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By TomZ on 8/31/2007 12:54:18 PM , Rating: 1

That's right - why do people need to waste all that oxygen and produce all that CO2 anyway!

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 12:57:10 PM , Rating: 2

So that plants have something to breathe??? It would just suck if no matter how hard we try to save the forests, at the same time us trying to rid the earth of CO2 caused all plants to die off...

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By Spyvie on 8/31/2007 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 2

Are there more cows now than there were grazing animals 300 years ago? Do modern domesticated herds produce more methane per head than a herd of buffalo or muskoxen?

I find it hard to believe levels of green house gases from organic sources have changed much

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 12:55:41 PM , Rating: 2

Actually there might be more cows now. I don't know what the herd sizes were back then, or what they are now. However i do know that we have huge farms that have enough cows to constantly feed 300 million people. So i don't doubt that it is at least possible that there are more than there were

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By omnicronx on 8/31/2007 12:57:23 PM , Rating: 2

Approximate population in 1000AD = 310 million
1750 = 800 million
1900 = 1.2 billion
now = around 6 billion.

Now thats a lot of livestock increase since just 300 years ago. More people equals more food needed equals more livestock. Just think about how much of the united states and Canada is farming / livestock land let alone around the entire world. Theres no reason in my mind to believe grazing animals from 300+ years ago had any impact on emissions compared to today.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By PAPutzback on 8/31/2007 2:13:46 PM , Rating: 3

I know I pack in a lot of pepperoni and big macs thru out the year. Put me down for 2 cows, 75 chickens, 4 fish, 1 jackelope and a few skirt trout.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By darkpaw on 8/31/2007 2:23:16 PM , Rating: 2

Don't forget the Giant Panada for desert.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By number999 on 9/3/2007 7:07:56 PM , Rating: 2

According to wired mags carbon footprint survey it averages about 770 pounds of carbon a year or about a months average driving for the average car.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/carbon.ht...

What's worse is the carbon footprint for eating food coming from overseas. A footprint of over 3000 pounds.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By number999 on 9/3/2007 7:03:50 PM , Rating: 2

According to studies I've seen the total environmental impact of a car is about 82-83% from driving for conventional cars and about 78% for hybrids. The rest is from the manufacturing the car. One of these studies is from Edmunds.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 11:49:10 AM , Rating: 3

Most hybrids are that way, yes. They hook up two engines to one powertrain, which is a stupid idea IMO. IF you want to see what i would consider a true hybrid, look at the Chevy Volt concept car: http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

Really, its a full electric car, meaning only an electric motor is hooked to the wheels, however it has an onboard generator providing extra power for a longer range. And the best thing is with its current design that generator could be anything. Gas engine, Diesel, Diesel running Bio-Diesel, hydrogen fuel cell, even solar. Anything that can provide power. It could even have a nuclear reactor if you wanted it to.

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By number999 on 9/3/2007 7:32:31 PM , Rating: 2

There were and are many different ways to set up a hybrid. The following is the way they are classified.

http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-center-how-hybr...

The Prius powertrain is a series parallel while Toyota seems to go for parallel. The Volt would be a series hybrid.

The question should be, when it was developed, was the electric motors necessary available and was the infrastructure there for mass production of these motors at that quality and quantity. (Probably since the EV1 was in production).

Also the way power is stored and applied in the vehicle. The first Prius' were sold 10 years ago. In that time NiMH batteries have more than quadrupled in capacity and costs for the batteries have gone down. It was a question of electric motor carried, how to store electrical power, how the conventional engine ties in, etc. The performance benefits and costs of each and how changing one changes the other and the performance of the vehicle. Things have changed and at least the hybrids have been available for the last 10 years.

Check the EV1 powertrain variants if you like the volt concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev1

Parent

RE: Conceptually hideous.

By glenn8 on 8/31/2007 10:26:43 AM , Rating: 2

I like the look... sorta. What I like more is the creativeness. I wish car buyers (North American) were more accepting of radical designs so we can start seeing better looking cars that steer away from convention designs.

Parent

Electric....still a problem?

By lmc82 on 8/31/2007 1:30:52 PM , Rating: 2

I know the electic car sounds great, and is also good for the environment. However, what happens in states like California, which already have a huge power demand problems, especially during the summer months. Get rid of Gas is great and I'm all for it...Independence!...but if every car was electric....what would happen to the power grid then?...anyhow just a thought. Blackouts....gotta go :P j/k

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By Acanthus on 8/31/2007 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 2

Not to mention that people just assume that the power coming from the wall is inherantly cleaner than burning gasoline... (hint: it almost always isnt)

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 1:46:06 PM , Rating: 2

It would be, if we were allowed to build nuclear power plants. And we could be oil independant easily, say perhaps by drilling in the barren ice fields of northern alaska. THere are a lot of options out there for different energy. Fill the barren land of death valley with windmills and/or solar cells.

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By jconan on 9/1/2007 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 2

Nuclear power plants pose a problem of their own. What about the storage of nuclear waste once the cores have been used. Where would you store this (the half life on these waste take awhile around 704 million years to decay)? There isn't enough land for housing development to go around and storing nuclear waste on precious land would take away any available land.

Probably the only way to is not nuclear fission reactors but fusion reactors that have yet to become public or commercialized and is still in the research stage. Once fusion reactors come on line maybe electricity would be nice but now majority of the electricity comes from fossil fuels that contributes to green house gas. So charging all electric vehicles to the power grid sure isn't going to help the environment.

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By Hare on 9/1/2007 4:35:26 PM , Rating: 2

Put the rods in a capsule and launch it to outer space? ;) j/k.

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By jtok202 on 9/1/2007 8:50:20 PM , Rating: 2

Simple all of the old coal mines that are currently being dug, can be refilled with the spent uranium. :) The amount of waste associated with nuclear waste is considered a much more serious problem than it really is.

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By number999 on 9/3/2007 7:56:43 PM , Rating: 2

Build a couple heavy water plants. Canada is more than willing to sell them to you. The waste of a light water reactor contains about 0.9%wt U235 and about 5.2g /Kg of waste of radioactive Pu, more than sufficient to run a heavy water reactor.

It will generate 25% extra power using the DUPIC fuel cycle from light water reactor waste and the waste from the heavy water reactor will contain <0.2%wt of U235 and less than 2.6g Pu/Kg of waste. Since the light water waste is only physically processed you can reduce the amount of dangerous waste.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm

As for fusion. For how much? It costs 4-5 billion for a regular reactor and takes 4-5 years to build. By the time the technology develops commercially and a commercial design is created, I and the majority of people reading this will probably be dead by the time the first commercial reactor completes, meanwhile what to do about power.

Finally, a DOE statement last year, stated that if all the vehicles were PHEV's, 84% could be supported just with off peak capacity.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/doe_study_...

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By number999 on 9/3/2007 7:35:05 PM , Rating: 2

Most studies show that the equivalent power is cleaner than gasoline, even if the source is coal. And at least you have the ability to capture the output if you get desperate enough. You can't with a ICE car.

Parent

RE: Electric....still a problem?

By darkpaw on 8/31/2007 2:26:38 PM , Rating: 2

Yup, and no one anywhere will allow grid upgrades due to all the NIMBYism. Theres tons of people in Northern VA complaining about building new power lines, drove up to upstate NY and saw hundreds of signs against new power lines there.

They gotta go somewhere, but no one wants utilities built near them.

Parent

Wow!

By Martimus on 8/31/2007 11:03:26 AM , Rating: 1

That is an ugly concept. At the very least, it is very weird looking.

RE: Wow!

By lagomorpha on 8/31/2007 12:48:03 PM , Rating: 2

Well it is just a concept. We all know if it did actually make it into production it'd end up looking more like this:

http://www.nissan.co.uk/home/vehicles/passenger/K1...

Parent

RE: Wow!

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 12:58:16 PM , Rating: 2

Is that supposed to be better???

Parent

RE: Wow!

By Martimus on 8/31/2007 1:37:02 PM , Rating: 2

Lets hope not. After seeing that "car", their concept looks downright beautiful in comparison.

Parent

RE: Wow!

By lagomorpha on 8/31/2007 10:45:55 PM , Rating: 2

No, that isn't better. I was trying to point out it'll probably be ugly and common looking and not ugly and unique.

Parent

Size... and money

By Screwballl on 8/31/2007 10:47:28 AM , Rating: 2

Now how about the size requirements... I am 6'5" and that car looks like I would need to chop the roof off just to be able to sit in it.... it may work well for smaller people (ie: Asian culture) but as us Americans are larger in general both in height and weight... which is also why our vehicles are generally larger... and to power the larger vehicles need larger engines and potentially more gas used....
The technology is there to make a 200 mpg 500 cubic inch V8 with very little emissions... but the oil industry refuses to as they are shafting the consumers (another year of record profits)... They do see the environmentalists are pushing for "cleaner" emissions which they know means lower mpg which means more money in the oil companies pocket. This is why a 1990 Geo Metro could get 50 mpg with very little emissions requirements yet the model year 2000 equivalent only gets 30 mpg (and 2006 models are showing about 23 mpg in city and 28 highway).

RE: Size... and money

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 11:56:11 AM , Rating: 2

I don't care what anyone says. If GM or Toyota, or anyone else could make a 500 cubic inch V8 that got that good of gas mileage, they would instantly produce it, becaue they would have an instant leading edge on anyone else. Thus, because they don't produce it, it don't exist.

However if you have solid, well documented proof, show me. I will then admit i was wrong

Parent

RE: Size... and money

By Hoser McMoose on 8/31/2007 3:45:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The technology is there to make a 200 mpg 500 cubic inch V8 with very little emissions... but the oil industry refuses to as they are shafting the consumers

Uhh... I think the tin-foil hat is on a bit too tight there, it seems to be constricting blood flow to your head!

There are just some pretty fundamental rules of physics that you can't get around. A 500ci V8 just isn't going to get you 200mpg unless it's an extraordinarily stupid design (ie getting 10hp out of said 500ci engine, in which case you're better off using a 100cc 1 cylinder engine). There's only so much power in gasoline and there are very definite stoichiometric limits as to how much of that chemical energy can be converted into kinetic energy to move the vehicle.

quote:
This is why a 1990 Geo Metro could get 50 mpg with very little emissions requirements yet the model year 2000 equivalent only gets 30 mpg (and 2006 models are showing about 23 mpg in city and 28 highway).

The 1990 Geo Metro got 46mpg city, 50mpg highway with a 49hp engine and a 1620lbs curb weight.

Find me a car today with a curb weight of only 1620lbs and a motor that tops out at only 49hp and there you'll have a car that does MUCH better then just 46/50mpg. Of course, you'll also have a car that nobody in North America is going to buy.

FWIW the Toyota Aygo sold in the UK is available with a 67hp motor and a 1863lbs curb weight and it manages 51 miles to the US gallon on the combined UK test. So very similar fuel economy to your old Geo Metro on a bigger car with a more powerful engine. Obviously not sold here because, as mentioned above, no one would buy it.

Parent

RE: Size... and money

By tjr508 on 8/31/2007 5:00:18 PM , Rating: 2

I guess it's hard to pump blood six and a half feet in the air.

1. There is no 500ci V8 capable of running 200mpg in any modern car. If there was, the inventor would be a noble prize winner and on the Forbes 100 for sure by now.

2. Nissan doesn't have to build cars for you. Ignoring the 6'5 crowd isn't going to hurt Nissan nearly as much as trying to build a car of similar spec that would fit such a giant person.

Parent

Who else is sick of...

By d33pblue on 8/31/2007 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 4

...people complaining about the way concept cars look?

RE: Who else is sick of...

By acer905 on 8/31/2007 12:37:17 PM , Rating: 2

Personally, i'm just sick of the way cars in general look today. And how they are made. Give me a CJ-5. I'll be happier than with anything made in the last 10 years. But thats just me.

Parent