backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by talikarni.. on Apr 30 at 3:50 PM

Spark EV can go 82 miles on full charge

Back in November of last year, Chevrolet started talking up its new Spark electric vehicle. One of the more interesting things that Chevrolet offered up about the small electric vehicle was that it would have impressive performance, being able to reach 60 mph in under 8 seconds.
 
Chevrolet also announced the retail pricing for the vehicle at $32,495 before the $7500 federal tax credit. After that tax credit is applied, the new Spark EV would sell for under $25,000.
 
Chevrolet has offered up some additional information about the Spark this week. The EPA estimated electric driving range for the Spark is 82 miles on full charge. The EPA gives the vehicle a combined city/highway fuel economy equivalent of 119MPGe.

Chevrolet says that the Sparky EV could save owners as much as $9,000 in fuel costs over five years.

“Being able to provide our customers with the best overall efficiency of any retail EV has always been a key target for the Spark EV engineering team,” said Pam Fletcher, GM executive chief engineer for electrified vehicles. “We’re poised to deliver to the market an EV that’s not just efficient, but also thrilling to drive thanks to the 400 lb-ft torque output of its electric motor.”

The Spark uses a 21 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that carries an eight-year or 100,000 mile warranty. The Spark will also be the first vehicle to have an option for the SAE combo charger for DC Fast Charging. This charging capability will be available shortly after launch and will allow the Spark EV to recharge to up to 80% of its total capacity in only 20 min. Chevrolet says the vehicle could handle multiple DC Fast Charges each day. Standard charging takes under seven hours using a dedicated 240 V charger. The vehicle comes standard with a 120 V charge cord.
 
The vehicle is set to go on sale this summer in California and Oregon before a broader rollout at a later date.

Source: GM



Comments     Threshold


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

By Dr of crap on 4/25/2013 12:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
Yes agreed.

WHY not make it MORE aerodynamic, lower to the ground, almost sports car like.
Oh wait, with most of the US FAT, no one could get into it that's why.

But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 1:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!
It's to fool people into thinking there's more room in them than there actually is. And BTW, I actually like the Sparks looks and with a 84 mile range, it would be just barely enough to suit my current needs. And on top of that, it's not dog slow either.


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 2:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
it's not to fool anyone. Go measure it.


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 2:39:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's not to fool anyone. Go measure it.
Don't need to measure anything. A taller car WILL give one the impression of more room. But unless you're tall, the extra height is unused and irrelevant.


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 2:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
I mean these vehicles are not tall. They are short and smaller in overall dimensions. The ground clearance remains the same. They seem taller in that respect.

Why don't they change it? lots of reasons but i can sum it up to "the physical world didn't change size because your car is smaller"


By 91TTZ on 4/25/2013 4:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
They are tall. They're marketed as being "tiny" cars but when you park an older car next to them you realize just how big they are. They're much larger than the small cars of the past.

This Spark is 61 inches tall.

For reference:

My 300ZX is 49.6 inches tall.
A Dodge Neon is 55 inches tall
A Toyota Corolla is 54 inches tall
A Dodge Caravan was 64 inches tall.

This thing's height is closer to a Dodge Caravan than a Dodge Neon.


By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
None of the cars you listed are anywhere near this car's class. Even the Neon and Corolla are a step or two above it.

I agree with the previous poster, they make these so ugly: small yet tall which makes them look ridiculous. I was behind a smarttwo or whatever it is called and couldn't see over it. It was about as tall as the crossover in front of it. It's like they took the middle of a crossover and cut off the trunk and hood area.


By FITCamaro on 4/26/2013 8:57:49 AM , Rating: 3
That's kind of his point. A car in the sub (heck, micro) compact class is far taller than cars in the sub-compact class and even midsize class. And it's not far off from a vehicle that is a minivan.

But this has everything to do with crash standards. Nothing more. Bumper heights have been raised. Forcing automakers to adjust the design of their cars to meet new safety standards so the car will sell.


By FITCamaro on 4/26/2013 8:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
And I think it's utterly insane that we now have vehicles with wheel wells large enough to fit 30" rims INSIDE the wheel well.

Makes me want to throw up when I see it.


By AssBall on 4/26/2013 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah i'd much rather see a cadillac with 13" bronzed chromies on it...not.

The physics of larger tire size:
Better braking
Better mileage
Better ride
Better wear

You might lose some handling and pay a bit more, but to be realistic the 405 is not Leguna Seca.


By sigmatau on 4/26/2013 8:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
I don't believe you lose handling. You gain handling. Maybe the ride quality diminishes, but in terms of grip on the road, it is enhanced.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 10:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
None of the cars you listed are anywhere near this car's class. Even the Neon and Corolla are a step or two above it. I agree with the previous poster, they make these so ugly: small yet tall which makes them look ridiculous.


I am the previous poster. The other cars I listed are supposedly "larger", yet they're shorter.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 7:50:40 AM , Rating: 3
why are you comparing new cars with old cars? I can easily say all new cars are generally much bigger than its predecessors. Nice way to try and win an argument.

EVs are also a bit taller due to the fact that they have a huge battery underneath. But in general, cars are just much taller and bigger these days. The change started with bumper safety regs.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 11:10:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
why are you comparing new cars with old cars?


I'm comparing it to older cars primarily because companies claim that they're returning to fuel efficient "small" cars instead of the gas-guzzling big SUVs and boats we used to drive before. I'm showing you that these new "small" cars aren't actually small at all. The problem is that over time, automakers moved their compact cars upmarket to get more profits, resulting in those compacts becoming mid-sized cars. They then replaced those spots in their lineups with new compacts which are really tall and bubbly.

But let's compare the non-EV Spark with other new cars:

2013 Spark: 61 inches tall.
2013 Cruze: 58 inches
2013 Civic: 56 inches
2013 Corolla: 58 inches
2013 Scion Tc: 56 inches
2013 Accord: 57 inches
2011 Crown Victoria: 57 inches
2013 Cadillac CTS: 58 inches

As you can see, the Spark is STILL a tall car. Not only is it taller than compacts, it's taller than full size cars including giant boats like the Ford Crown Victoria and Cadillac CTS. The Spark doesn't just look tall because it's short, it IS tall.

quote:
Nice way to try and win an argument.

Arguing against reality. Nice way to try to lose an argument.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 12:39:51 PM , Rating: 3
How many times do i have to say this. EVs have their batteries underneath the seat/floorboard. That's a few hundred pounds of batteries. It has to go there.

Given that the clearance has to be the same as any other passenger cars, do you see why it has to be a few inches taller?
The headroom clearance and seat has to remain the same also.

Same cabin height + same ground clearance + added battery space = slightly taller vehicle. It looks like it's only taller by a few inches so what's the big deal?

It is not a marketing trick, it is by design constraints.

When you make full size cars, you give it more leg rooms and trunk space so it is. The extra size is mostly horizontal rather than vertical. The BMW 3 series is virtually the same height as the BMW 7 series. The main difference being interior space extended horizontally.

Comparing height when it's within a few inches of each other is irrelevant when the length of the cars you listed have a significant delta.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 3:11:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How many times do i have to say this. EVs have their batteries underneath the seat/floorboard. That's a few hundred pounds of batteries. It has to go there.


You keep saying it because you have really poor reading comprehension. I've already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning but you can't see it. So now I have to be more blunt and direct, which comes off as rude.

1. This car is a continuation of a line of cars that have always been pretty tall. They've been tall long before an electric version was even offered.

2. This car's current model didn't offer an electric version until 2013. It's been gas or diesel up until now, yet the car was still the same height. The height did not change in the electric version.

3. GM obviously knows how to make a lower profile electric car because their EV1 was only 51 inches tall (a full 10 inches shorter than this beast)

Since I've established that 1) this line of cars has always been tall and 2) the current model was tall before an electric version was offered and 3) other GM electric cars were shorter, I can confidently say that you're wrong about the tall height being due to it being electric.


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 2:17:41 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
WHY not make it MORE aerodynamic, lower to the ground, almost sports car like. Oh wait, with most of the US FAT, no one could get into it that's why.

They are very aerodynamic in terms of coefficient of drag. They are not tuned aerodynamically for stability because it won't be driven fast like a sports car. If you look up high speed sports cars, it actually has much higher coefficient than a prius.

quote:
But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!

These smart cars are low to the ground. They don't look like it because they are very short and small overall. Your perception makes it look higher off the ground than it actually is.

They cannot make them wider on that short of a wheel base because it will be unstable and cause more drag.


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 2:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They cannot make them wider on that short of a wheel base because it will be unstable and cause more drag.
Yes they can and have and lower CG does NOT make a car more unstable. It does the opposite. These cars are tall to give the impression of roominess, that's all.

Wheelbase comparison
Chevy Spark: 93.1 inches
Pontiac Solstice: 95.1 inches

Track comparison
Chevy Spark: 55.5/55.7 inches
Pontiac Solstice: 60.1/60.7 inches

Overall width comparison
Chevy Spark: 62.9 inches
Pontiac Solstice: 71.3 inches


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 3:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
I never said lowering drag will increase unstability. Making a car look good and stable requires wind tunnel to shape the body for down force and also how it flows on the sides and underneath. Normally, it adds a bit more drag for obvious reasons. These little cars are meant for efficiency so they just go for the lowest drag while meeting safety regs. If you don't believe me then drive one of these things at 80 mph. I have, it's scary as $%#@ and every gust of wind feels like it's going to blow you away.

And what is your point with these dimentions? It says that the Spark is a smaller car.

What those dimensions doesn't tell you is that the solstice actually have much more overhangs past the wheel base. A solstice is a much longer car overall, not just the wheel base.

Next time, at least try to be more convincing.


By Solandri on 4/25/2013 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's worth pointing out that lower drag coefficient doesn't automatically mean lower drag. To calculate actual drag, you multiply the drag coefficient by the surface area of the profile the car presents to the wind, times a few constants.

So if it's taller, that's going to increase the profile's surface area and increase the drag. Maybe even enough so there's higher drag despite the Cd being lower. (Likewise, a narrower body will reduce drag.)


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 6:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's worth pointing out that lower drag coefficient doesn't automatically mean lower drag. To calculate actual drag, you multiply the drag coefficient by the surface area of the profile the car presents to the wind, times a few constants.
X2 yep


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 5:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said lowering drag will increase unstability.
Don't you read what you write? You said making a short wheelbase car, wider would make it unstable. It does not. I referenced my own car as an example of a car that's wide and has a short wheelbase. Those two combinations happen quite a bit on sports cars which are very stable compared to typical cars. Your statement was overgeneralized.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 8:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you know what you wrote so I'll quote it for you.

quote:
Yes they can and have and lower CG does NOT make a car more unstable. It does the opposite. These cars are tall to give the impression of roominess, that's all. Wheelbase comparison Chevy Spark: 93.1 inches Pontiac Solstice: 95.1 inches Track comparison Chevy Spark: 55.5/55.7 inches Pontiac Solstice: 60.1/60.7 inches Overall width comparison Chevy Spark: 62.9 inches Pontiac Solstice: 71.3 inches


When tuning in a wind tunnel. You can go for stability or efficiency or most likely a combination of both. The priority for this car is efficiency because that's the whole point of the car. If you don't tune for stability then any big gust of wind will make the vehicle unstable at high speed.

Yes wheel base does matter for stability at high speed. Have you ever try driving a car that has a nearly squared wheel base? You will spin out very quickly. The only good thing is that you will have a very small turning radius.

And again all passenger cars meant for daily driving have pretty much the same ground clearance. The interior also need to have a certain amount of space for headroom clearance. The overall dimensions are smaller. So yes, a shorter car overall will look taller because they are shorter.
And please don't start listing sports cars and supercars will low ground clearance. It is clearly not meant for buying groceries and driving through pothole littered roads.


By Omega215D on 4/26/2013 2:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
Larger diameter wheels would be better though, they should at least do that.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 7:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
larger diameter wheels create more rolling resistance. All these hybrids/EVs normally have skinny wheels for efficiency.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 2:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Wider tires create more rolling resistance, but larger diameter tires do not.


By boeush on 4/25/2013 8:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!
You must live in a place where the land and roads are flat as a pancake. Where I live, there are hills and drainage ditches -- and yeah, even speed bumps and pot holes. And with that in effect, I absolutely hate low-to-ground cars, with a passion. They do nothing but scrape and scratch on the pavement all over the place, even when pulling in/out of inclined driveways onto the street at 3 mph. They're also a pain to park because you're constantly afraid of slamming your bumper into the curb or the concrete limiter at the end of your parking space.

Oh, and wide cars? Much more of a pain to park and get in/out of on packed parking lots and compact parking spaces. Much more of a pain to maneuver in tight quarters. At least, these factors are important when you don't live out in the middle of nowhere...


By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's one thing to have a low clearance sport car and another to have a chopped off SUV-freak that has 6.7 inches of ground clearance. Now that is insane! I remember owning a 98 Honda Accord that had just under 4 inches of ground clearance, which was higher than most competitors, and I thought it made the car look a little odd. I think they have gotten worse since then. But, come on, 6.7 inches of clearance for a small turd? That is small SUV territory.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 11:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where I live, there are hills and drainage ditches -- and yeah, even speed bumps and pot holes. And with that in effect, I absolutely hate low-to-ground cars, with a passion.


Nobody is proposing that these cars be low to the ground like a Lamborghini. A reasonable ride height like a Corolla, Civic, or Cruze works just fine in the city. I see cars like that all the time in Philly.

I don't think you realize just how tall cars like the Spark are. They're much taller than your average car. It's not an illusion, it's actually taller than Civics, Accords, big-ass Buicks and Cadillacs. It's near crossover/minivan territory.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki