Print 104 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Sep 26 at 11:19 AM

Chrysler's all-electric sports car  (Source: Detroit Free Press)

Chrysler Vice-Chairman Tom Lasorda unveils the new models
New all-electric sports car leads the pack.

While GM has generated a media frenzy over its upcoming release of the Volt plug-in hybrid, and even Ford is getting in on the act, little has been heard from Chrysler. That's all changed now, as the smallest of the US Big Three today announced plans to release three electric vehicles, including a totally new all-electric sports car. One of the three models will be on sale as early as 2010.

Chrysler unveiled an "electric range-extended" versions of their Town and Country minivan, as well as their iconic Jeep Wrangler. Both models will be plug-in hybrid variants. The automaker says each will have a 40 mile range on electric-only drive, at which time the gasoline engine will kick in.

This range is identical to GM's Volt, which should come as little surprise, given Chrysler has been working with A123 Systems, the same Lithium-Ion battery supplier GM reputedly will use for the Volt. Chrysler has not announced an official supplier yet, however, and says they are "working with multiple suppliers" on potential sources for batteries.

Tom LaSorda, Vice-Chairman for Chrysler, said the new models have been in the works for nearly two years. According to LaSorda, Chrysler's strategy is radically different than GM's. "We said we’ll take something more bold on the electric — all electric."

LaSorda said, "we didn’t want to spend the time on developing an all new platform, an all new car and then an all new propulsion system. We said we’ve got two icons for our company, a Wrangler, which is the icon for the Jeep brand, and the minivan, there’s 11 million-plus which we’ve sold. And people would say, ‘My god, they brought green to a minivan and Wrangler, this is unbelievable."

The most interesting of the new models, perhaps, is the new all-electric Dodge sportscar, capable of a 0-60 acceleration time of under 5 seconds. The vehicle's range will be 150-200 miles and will have a charging time of 6-8 hours on a standard 110v outlet. The vehicle will also accept a 220v supply, which will cut charging times in half.

No name or price was given for the sports car.

Chrysler has been hit hard by poor sales due to high gasoline prices. The automaker's sales have been down more than 20% in 2008-- a value double the industry average.

Comments     Threshold

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

The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By tastyratz on 9/24/2008 9:48:45 AM , Rating: -1
Vehicles that are all electric and require an overnight charge are only suitable for secondary forms of transportation for most people. They could be used to putt to work and back as long as you remember to plug it in and give it ample time. Useless for long trips or work commutes, extended traveling away from home, "forgetful" people who didn't plug it in 1 night (even if it doesn't happen all the time)... you know - most of the population.

The reality is we need transportation with an instantly replaceable form of energy (ala fuel). Whether it be ethanol, gas, hydrogen, propane, etc... Its application in the consumer space relies solely on the ability to just "fill up and go"

By fill up and go I would venture to estimate the average consumer would consider a re-fuel/re-energize time of under 10 minutes. For the sake of argument lets go with a time closer to gasoline refueling - lets calculate off 7.5 minutes.

A quick battery charge to the caliber needed for 7.5 minutes?

While many refuel stations already have electricity - most of them don't have the kind of electricity it would take to charge that (by most I mean none).

Lets say batteries just stuck at 32kwh like the Chevy volt has talked of.
(Note: Every source I look to says either 16 or 32, I really don't know what they have. Lets say 32 for argument. If someone can confirm either or please let me know).

Also my math here is assuming the charging function was 100% efficient. The reality is a significant portion of that will be lost along the way. Any % I put would just be arbitrary and guessing.

@ 220v (nevermind 110) you would have 4.5amp draw for every kw draw. 32x4.5=144 amps for 1 hour to do a complete charge. Feasible if the charge time is 1 hour and a new electric panel is run to the house/shop. It doesn't end there though...

If we could charge a battery in less time through some really fast charge batteries lets say 7.5 minutes. Lets multiply that 144amps by 8 and that means we would need a 220v circuit with an amperage rating of 1152amps!!!! And given the volts rating that would only give people a 40 mile charge. If it were to be applicable to the consumer in reality I would guess at least a 100kwh battery would be needed. At that size we would be talking 3600 amps... (normal outlet 120 would be 7000+ amps)

3600/7000 amp draw at an impossible 100% efficiency? sound good to you?

The problem isn't the battery technology, its the sheer quantity of energy required to do something like this. I cant imagine the infrastructure changes and power plant changes it would take to give people the ability to supply 1000's of amps in so many places.

The other concern is heat. That kind of energy being put into a battery without very long to dissipate heat would get mighty toasty - Frankly I don't know how they could deal with that kind of heat at any point - that's most likely melt the trunk off your car hot.

Electric cars are a hippy novelty and remain needing to be plugged in overnight. Most likely that will be the start and end of it. For any consumer using them for transportation beyond a short to medium trip to work without a generator that runs off a fuel they are unusable. Generators (like the volt has) make them feasible but bring us back to a fuel source.

By isorfir on 9/24/2008 10:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
Useless for long trips or work commutes, extended traveling away from home, "forgetful" people who didn't plug it in 1 night (even if it doesn't happen all the time)... you know - most of the population.

The automaker says each will have a 40 mile range on electric-only drive, at which time the gasoline engine will kick in.

If you don't remember to plug it in or need to go more than 40 miles, you'd treat it like a normal gasoline car. Far from “useless.”

By clovell on 9/24/2008 11:25:17 AM , Rating: 2
...unless battery technology continues to develop.


RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Spuke on 9/24/2008 12:34:12 PM , Rating: 1
unless battery technology continues to develop.

...which has been a slow and painful development.


By Doormat on 9/24/2008 1:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to what? Li-Ion batteries enjoy a 5-10% efficiency gains every year. Many companies are working on producing batteries that will outclass current generation Li-Ion (AltairNano for example).

I would fully expect that by 2020, batteries that are capable of providing 50 miles of electric only power are available for $3,000 or less, last 15 years and are quite small (about 1/3 the Volt battery size).

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Spuke on 9/24/08, Rating: -1
By clovell on 9/24/2008 5:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, Spuke, you've forgotten the definition of the word 'never', or how 5-10% annual gains compound (like in a 401(k)). I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're making it hard.

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Spuke on 9/24/08, Rating: -1
By dragonbif on 9/24/2008 8:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think you can read!
*5-10% per year
*by 2020 with a 10 mile increase in range
This is the kicker that you just can’t seem to read!
and are quite small (about 1/3 the Volt battery size)

That is 33.333333% of the size they are now. By simple math if you can go 50 miles on that battery, then the same size they are now would be 150 miles. Granted because of the added weight it may only be 130 miles but without figures we can only do the simple math. I fail to see why you feel the need to criticize this gain in range? Or are you looking for 500 miles by 2020? Also because of the new technology we may be able to charge them in 1-2 hours that would be nice. I used to live in Alaska and at some of the stores they had plug ins for your engine heater to keep it warm as you shop so I could see places adding them in with a fee or for free.
Some day I could see some one asking “Gas? What is gas?” It is like a fart!

By Spuke on 9/25/2008 7:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think you can read! *5-10% per year *by 2020 with a 10 mile increase in range

But before this, I said,
So you're saying that 5-10% gains EVERY year until 2020 only amounts to a 10 mile increase in all electric range?

Hmmm. Who can't read again?

By clovell on 9/26/2008 11:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
No, I wasn't trying to say that. hell, with even half a percent increase per year, we'd be able to see this within our lifetime. Never is just a strong word. I don't mean to argue the exact figures, just the concept.

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Keeir on 9/24/2008 12:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
... unless battery technology in the form of charging times continues to develop.

It doesn't matter if a car has a 6000 mile range. If it takes me 1 hour to charge for 10 miles (Ref, 40 AER Chevy Volt, 4 hour charge time @220V), thats a serious drawback to me.

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Keeir on 9/24/2008 4:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Last food for thought. Average US household uses 11,040 kWh/year (Source: Energy Information Administration – Table 5: US Average Monthly Bill by Sector, Census Division, and State 2006)
To charge that car 1 time takes more energy than the average household uses in a year. Scary thought.

Well, assuming a 90% charging and energy retention rating

A chevy volt will travel 40 AER miles on 8kWh of stored energy.

Therefore, the average electrical usage into miles should look something like-

11040 kWh * 0.9 * 40m/8kWh= 50,000 miles (49,680).

I might be able to live with a pure electic car that gave me a 50,000 mile buffer...

By tastyratz on 9/24/2008 5:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh good point, touche. I made a mistake with my census example I am glad you pointed it out. I was for some reason thinking the household uses 11,040 wh/y instead of kwh/y.

90% rate seems a bit optimistic though, doesn't it? I would assume a drastic decline in efficiency as well if we were to charge a battery in a far smaller amount of time (consumer convenience factor)

By Keeir on 9/24/2008 5:55:45 PM , Rating: 2

Real Li-Ion packs for cars are typically able to acchieve 110V to 220V efficiencys of 95%+. I think even higher voltages may lead to even high efficieny. The real issue with large capacity batteries is retention as most batteries will lose energy over time. In such situation as a 50,000 mile battery pack, energy loses would be very significant as it would take years to use all the energy.

By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 10:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
Vehicles that are all electric and require an overnight charge are only suitable for secondary forms of transportation for most people.

This part I would 100% agree with. Especially with a 150-200 mile range...and I'm guessing that's with very conservative driving habits.

Especially considering the amount of people who live in apartment buildings don't have access to external electrical outlets. The electric car that could vastly help their monthly bills, if the car was affordable, is really out of reach for them anyway.

By Fnoob on 9/24/2008 10:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
Those numbers do look discouraging. 3600amps! Might as well just replace the radio antenna with a lightning rod!

Most batteries I have used in the past seem to degrade performance in extreme heat or cold. If 'they' could create a rechargeable battery system that increases in charge efficiency the warmer it gets, the charge time would decrease significantly. Further, they could route some of that heat to the occupants and windshields in cold environments, eliminating the need for a heating/defrosting system that draws power.

By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2008 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? The Chrysler EV (minivan version) has an eight gallon gas tank and can go 400 miles on it, according to Chrysler. Although those with commutes of less than 40 miles round trip (like me) can use no gas at all on a daily basis, it has a gas engine electric power source as well -- yielding a 50 mpg gas car as a result (well, more like 40 mpg because the first 40 miles weren't using the gas). So even if I forget to charge it, it's still a very high MPG gasoline minivan.

A full charge using 115V takes 8 hours, less if one has 220/240 available. But the charge is not mandatory.

Not mentioned in the article, Chrysler has a dedicated website about these cars, it's linked to in the regular news articles about it (look in Google news). The minivan version is the one I wish were out now, and if the price weren't too astronomical I'd probably get it (and because it is leveraging off a current design, perhaps it won't be).

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Keeir on 9/24/2008 1:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
(well, more like 40 mpg because the first 40 miles weren't using the gas).

I find thier claims a little bit... far fetched. They are claiming thier mini-van will acchieve 45 MPG city?

The Cd of the Chry. Mini-Vans is typically ~0.35 with a frontal Area around ~31 ft2.

For comparison, the Prius has a Cd of ~.26 and a frontal area ~23 ft2.

This means the drag component has a difference of 10.85 (Mini-Van) to 5.98 (Prius).

I would also think the mini-van would have a higher mass than the Prius

There are gains in efficieny to having serial hybrid design and running a maximum fuel efficieny point at all times, but there is a limit to how efficient a gasoline engine can be. Somehow, I doubt that the serial+engine Chrysler is designing can power a mini-van to the same level as a Prius... it may require increasing energy out per gallon of gas by 25-50%! (Which seems to indicate a massive leap in engine technology... something not typically easily accomplished or produced in very short time frames)

By Doormat on 9/24/2008 1:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the Volt is supposed to get 45MPG on the gasoline generator. The idea that the minivan will also get that seems laughable.

If you work backwards, the Volt should get about 9kWh from a gallon of gasoline (200Wh/mi * 45mi). If the van is using 275Wh/mi as I estimate, it would get about 32MPG, or 260 miles on gasoline alone. Still not too bad, but I would expect Chrysler to up the fuel tank to 10 gallons before its all said and done, and offer a combined range of 360, or 320 on gas alone. Unless they've managed to build a more efficient electric generator and get more kWh out of the gallon of gas.

By JediJeb on 9/24/2008 3:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
One thing to consider though is the minivan has a lot more room to put in a larger engine and generator which would not have to work as hard as the smaller ones in the Prius so maybe that is where they are making up the difference. Just like a Vette or Trans Am can get 25+ mpg highway, if the increase in size/weight/engine displacement versus milage was linear then comparing them to a Camry the bigger cars should be in the 5-10mpg range( just an estimate not exact calculation).

When you figure the 2.0L displacement engine is running maybe 3000rpm at 70mph and the 5.0L displacement engine is running 1700rpm at 70mph. The 2.0L is moving 3000L of air per minute while the 5.0L is moving 4250L of air per minute at cruising speeds ( figured as displacement X rpm / 2). The larger engine is displacing 1.4 times as much air but is 2.5 times larger. Assuming equal fuel/air ratio is needed to run them both then the amount of fuel difference is the same as air difference.

I guess what I am getting at is that with more room to play with the minivan may be able to compensate using a larger engine/generator combo to keep the same milage and range as the smaller car. So the numbers Dodge is puting out may be correct. There are so many factors that figure into effeciency besides just Cd and frontal area. Torque, gearing, rolling resistance, ect all have to be factored in.

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Keeir on 9/24/2008 4:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Current Mini-vans get 20-25 MPG combined. I just have difficulty conceptionalizing a system that nearly doubles thier fuel economy without reducing the required energy output. I mean, compare the Camry and the Camry Hybrid. Or the Volt and the Cruze. Differences exist of 10-20% or more in certain situations. Maybe the mini-van is going to harness lost heat energy?

Not sure, but I am sure that Chrysler can not do 25%+ better than GM and Toyota. That seems fantastic.

By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2008 5:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
fwiw - Note that Chrysler still gets technology (including hybrid technology) from Mercedes (Daimler). Possibly they got some "good stuff" from them. In any case, Chrysler does have a second generation prototype according to their website. Perhaps their marketing may have been helping their claims a bit, but even with "standard" deflation of marketing numbers "still ain't bad". I've an ancient 1996 Chrysler T&C and with the A/C running full blast I'll still get maybe 23~24 mpg on the highway.

RE: The novelty electric car is doomed from the start
By Keeir on 9/24/2008 6:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2003 Chrysler T&C AWD which has averaged just about 19.5 MPG combined over its life. Removing the AWD and adding some lower resistance tires... maybe 23 combined?

If Mercedes has that technology... where are the Mercedes cars that have nearly doubled thier fuel efficieny? Not heard any announcements or etc...

Note: It would be great if the final results was 30 AER/30 MPG combined. However, given that the 2008 T&C is rated at 17/24 with a 3.3L V6 and 4 speed Automatic... I just have trouble believing the 45 MPG number by 2010. Even a Mazda5 (smaller) with 4 cyclinder and Manual gets only 22/28.

By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2008 8:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Note that Toyota has a minivan (not sold in the US) that supposedly gets 35 mpg. It's a toyota style hybrid meaning not an "electric car" and not using lithiums (which are supposed to get the effective mileage higher than the Nimh ones they're using). This makes the Chrysler claimed numbers more believable in that they'll be lithium, a pure electric vehicle, and I understand front-wheel drive (less losses with drive train stuff at all four wheels).

By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2008 8:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Make that "less losses without drive train stuff at all four wheels"

By Keeir on 9/25/2008 6:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Supposedly" gets 35 MPG.... is it a "full" sized mini-van, or a cross over (IE Subaru Forester type)? What testing methodology was used to get 35 MPG? Note, British MPG test for example give results 25-50% higher than US ones.

Even if it was a Full-sized Mini-van under US testing, I reference the Volt/Prius. Similar sized cars, One a Parrell (Toyota Style) Hybrid with 45 MPG combined using Nimh. One a serial hybrid (proposed Chrysler) with 45-50 MPG combined with Lithium. Seems to me that 35 MPG combined would be a reasonable outcome.

I guess I refuse to believe that using the existing ~.35 Cd body shape and same A combined with existing engine technology will result in a mini-van that nearly doubles fuel economy. Or the same 40 AER that the volt gets without either A.) increasing battery size and thus cost or B.) using a greater discharge which will reduce battery life

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki