Chevy Spark EV 90 miles range @100 kph

Not bad at all and it will still have decent winter range because the battery is heated, sure the heater will consume energy but it should still have at least 80 odd miles range. Which would be a lot better than the Leaf.

The Spark can also fast charge 10 mins quicker than the Leaf too 0-80% in 20 mins.

The test was done with no heat and a/c just the fan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPsgnI4vRoQ

The spark will be really good fun to drive 400 lbs torque, at the wheel ? I don't know I just go by any car advertising whatever torque, it's a lot anyway and way more than most cars on the road.

SO from Carlow Town to Drogheda is 83.3 miles, there are no fast chargers so you'll have to charge at around Lusk, about 67 miles, and then it's another 90 miles to Belfast.

So you'd have to charge twice, but each time should be less than 20 mins if the 20 min charge time is correct, you'll arrive at the Lusk charger with 20-30% range left and more at the Drogheda charger.

SO Carlow Town to Belfast can be done with maybe 30 mins extra to charge in total, That's around 160 miles and you can fast charge the Spark many times a day, every day according to GM.

Major inconvenience to some people but it can be done, to me for the odd long trip it's ideal. Now if I only had the cash

But hold on, there is a major obstacle to over come.

The Europeans and the American Auto companies decided to abandon the Japanese CHAdeMO fast charging standard in favour of the SAE standard.

What does that mean ?

It means the the current fast charge infrastructure in Europe and the U.S will be incomparable with the Spark EV, BMW I3, VW E-UP, E-Golf etc, basically all future E.U and U.S fully electric cars.

I have not found out yet if they can use the non fast charge public infrastructure. I.E the smaller green/white street chargers.

I also can't find out if there will be some kind of adaptor to allow charging from current fast chargers.

So the ESB will now have to source dual chargers or have 2 different systems side by side or abandon future fast chargers compatible with the Leaf/Imev.

It could seriously delay the roll out of the fast charging infrastructure, however the new SAE standard will allow for 240 kw charging compared to 50 kw with the current CHAdeMo standard.

240 kw would mean you could charge your leaf to 80% from 0 in <5 mins if it were capable.

Max Power1

Range still too small to be heralding as the "future" of EV motoring

It is a move in the right direction, but not enough yet to be a viable alternative form of transport

You won't be buying it then Max, it's perfectly viable for most people, that is when there is a fast charge network compatible for the likes of the Spark.

Personally I'd rather a much cheaper car that will do 95% of my driving than a much more expensive car.

For the 5% I can fast charge, no big deal to me, If we're going to the West, say to Galway from my house is about 124 miles so would mean a single 20 min charge. We would normally stop for a bite to eat or coffee along the way anyway or stop and see some sights.

Going to Belfast , 2 x 10 min charges are not going to seriously effect my sanity for the rare times we're up north.

Going to Donegal ? still possible. However I stress that this is with the existing charging network.

I only hope that the ESB can figure out the bast and quickest way of installing the quick chargers for SAE compatible cars as currently there are a fair few QC points installed and more to come by 2014.

If I were the ESB I would not continue to spend millions on a Quick charge network that is only compatible with, lets face it what, 100 or less total E.V's in Ireland ? can anyone tell me how many exactly ?

It must be a complete headache now for the ESB !

166man

A figure of X amount of lb/ft of torque is hardly going to make it a great car to drive. Swift off the line, maybe but I can't see it being a drivers car in any single sense of the word.

Range is too small too, I think maybe as a second car they might work, but how many people are pumping €15k+ into a second car to runabout in? Not many Id have thought...

Yawlboy

Deleted User wrote: »

If I were the ESB I would not continue to spend millions on a Quick charge network that is only compatible with, lets face it what, 100 or less total E.V's in Ireland ? can anyone tell me how many exactly ?

I read recently that there were 259 EV's registered in Ireland since 2009. See link > http://www.thejournal.ie/electric-cars-charge-points-970659-Jun2013/

Mycroft H

It's still kinda rubbish to be fair. When it can do Dublin to Galway in a single go I'll be impressed. As of now? Nope, not yet. Still massive room for improvement.

166man

166man wrote: »

A figure of X amount of lb/ft of torque is hardly going to make it a great car to drive. Swift off the line, maybe but I can't see it being a drivers car in any single sense of the word.

Maybe maybe not but you got to experience instant torque of electic cars before you can comment, all I can say was the Leaf was really fun, not going to break any records of course but the power delivery is a lot difference so you can't make direct comparisons.

I can only imagine that the Spark having twice the torque would be just mental.

That torque by the way is instantly available at all speeds.

166man wrote: »

Range is too small too, I think maybe as a second car they might work, but how many people are pumping €15k+ into a second car to runabout in? Not many Id have thought...

If I could afford it I'd be selling the Prius and the Spark would be my main car.

The greatest obstacle for now is the lack of fast chargers and the current ones won't work, though I'm still trying to find out if there will be some kind of adaptor.

If I was doing my old 80 miles a day commute i could just make it if those figures are correct, if not all I would need is 5 mins on a fast charger or less.

100 miles a day I would need 5 mins maybe a little more.

If someone parks at a Luas stop with ev charging, then no problem at all.

Yawlboy

Yawlboy wrote: »

I read recently that there were 259 EV's registered in Ireland since 2009. See link > http://www.thejournal.ie/electric-cars-charge-points-970659-Jun2013/

Thanks, so 60 fast chargers for 260 odd ev's. By the end of 2013,

SO I think they should not install another single fast charger unless it has dual ChadeMo (leaf/Imev) and SAE (all E.U/U.S) cars.

That's a lot of money for 260 cars for a charge system to be phased out !

BX 19

BX 19 wrote: »

It's still kinda rubbish to be fair. When it can do Dublin to Galway in a single go I'll be impressed. As of now? Nope, not yet. Still massive room for improvement.

What, you can't charge for 20 mins or less for what, 1-2 trips to Galway a year ?

galwaytt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You won't be buying it then Max, it's perfectly viable for most people...

Sorry, but its not. That test was done with no heat or ac. That might work in Arizona,

With either heat or ac on the range would be pitiful.

And no vehicle here would usefully function without heat. Work it out: when was the last time you used a car with neither?

Mycroft H

Deleted User wrote: »

What, you can't charge for 20 mins or less for what, 1-2 trips to Galway a year ?

I travel a little bit more frequently than that.

For me until the range stretches beyond what would be my daily maximum mileage than no, it's just not practicable or reliable enough for me. Imagine you get home and you realise you've not got any tea. Simple, hop in the car and drive to the shops. Or not so simple, since you've drained your car on your daily commute and it's on the slow charge and won't be ready for a while. Or you've to run to the chemist/doctors late at night etc.

You just don't have that dependability of switching the key and driving off whenever you need to. I couldn't pay money for a car and not have that.

Max Power1

galwaytt wrote: »

Sorry, but its not. That test was done with no heat or ac. That might work in Arizona,

With either heat or ac on the range would be pitiful.

And no vehicle here would usefully function without heat. Work it out: when was the last time you used a car with neither?

Finally a welcome retrieve from Mad_Lad's blinkered view on this topic

I've always said, give me an EV that can match the range on my car to even 50% and I would consider it. At the weekends for example I often go on fun random drives of 100-300 km. Not possible in the current ev (spark included, which dissapoints me having heard better things about it)

I would consider buying an EV with a range of 80-100km if it were cheap (like sub 5k cheap) and keeping it as a second car. It is just not viable as a first car for >90% of people - to believe otherwise is just delusion.

Think about it, if it were any way an option for people, it would have taken off like diesels did post '08. The average irish motorist wants "de cheep taaaax" and to pay less at the pumps. The EVs offer both of this, but yet they did not take off. Why? Because in their current format they are not a viable option.

galwaytt

galwaytt wrote: »

Sorry, but its not. That test was done with no heat or ac. That might work in Arizona,

With either heat or ac on the range would be pitiful.

And no vehicle here would usefully function without heat. Work it out: when was the last time you used a car with neither?

No the range won't be pitiful with the heat on like the Leaf because the battery is heated which makes a much bigger difference than actually using the heat.

I don't know the actual consumption figures yet or if it's got a heat pump or not.

the A/C is pretty efficient anyway so it wouldn't be hard on the battery.

With the Leaf you got reduced range in the cold because the battery is not heated and the heater.

BX 19

BX 19 wrote: »

I travel a little bit more frequently than that.

For me until the range stretches beyond what would be my daily maximum mileage than no, it's just not practicable or reliable enough for me. Imagine you get home and you realise you've not got any tea. Simple, hop in the car and drive to the shops. Or not so simple, since you've drained your car on your daily commute and it's on the slow charge and won't be ready for a while. Or you've to run to the chemist/doctors late at night etc.

You just don't have that dependability of switching the key and driving off whenever you need to. I couldn't pay money for a car and not have that.

You'll still get home with plenty of range left.

If I'm charging at fast charger or Luas I'll still have plenty of range left for a trip to the shops etc. and way more.

I would certainly not return home with a battery so empty that I couldn't make it to the shops after an 80-100 mile commute !

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Finally a welcome retrieve from Mad_Lad's blinkered view on this topic

I've always said, give me an EV that can match the range on my car to even 50% and I would consider it. At the weekends for example I often go on fun random drives of 100-300 km. Not possible in the current ev (spark included, which dissapoints me having heard better things about it)

I would consider buying an EV with a range of 80-100km if it were cheap (like sub 5k cheap) and keeping it as a second car. It is just not viable as a first car for >90% of people - to believe otherwise is just delusion.

Think about it, if it were any way an option for people, it would have taken off like diesels did post '08. The average irish motorist wants "de cheep taaaax" and to pay less at the pumps. The EVs offer both of this, but yet they did not take off. Why? Because in their current format they are not a viable option.

I guarantee you matt, if you couldn't afford to run your 30 mpg 535D if diesel got so high you would have no choice to switch if petrol and diesel got that expensive.

This is the thing that most effects ev adoption is the fact petrol and diesel is still far too cheap for most people but the longer distance commuter.

If people decided enough, I can't afford to or am not willing to shell out xxx amount on fuel a week you would see a far greater adoption.

Currently as I keep saying there is 0 incentive for most people to change because they can afford petrol/diesel and until the point comes where it gets unaffordable nobody will change to electric 200 mile range or not.

Fact is if I can do 80-160 miles a day in an ev I would hardly say that is not suitable for most of the population. And if I can QC along the way for the odd long trip even better.

Matt you're never going to change to electric because I bet you drive the 535 hard and are willing and can afford to spend a lot on diesel or you simply don't do the miles. That is up to you but the average motorist doesn't care about electric/petrol/diesel simply what they can afford or are willing to spend and currently petrol/diesel suits that fine.

There is a lot of uncertainty and mis information on electric cars as far as the public are concerned, even the dealers are clueless about them.

I've had some people even say that they heard that they can't do more than 50 miles on the motorway and that the lights run down the battery.

I've heard some crap like "sure it's will run up me electric bill, and it's expensive enough" this has to be the one that makes me laugh the most. And I say how much do you put in your tank at the garage every week ? " eah around 50 euro" grand I say so how much is your electric bill ? "around 80 Euro's" right I say , do you know that 50 euro's is around 2,400 miles equivalent in electric ? "jaysus go away your joking " no I'm not !

Uncertainties remain about battery life also, this will not be over come for a while as data comes in but ev tech is changing so fast that if the Leaf battery lasts say 75,000 miles in no way reflects if the BMW I3, Spark etc won't do 200,000 miles.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

The spark will be really good fun to drive 400 lbs torque, at the wheel ? I don't know I just go by any car advertising whatever torque, it's a lot anyway and way more than most cars on the road.

I thought we already explained to you how thats not a correct assumption based on the arbitrary "400 lbs torque" paper stat? :pac:
Chevy should be shot for the Marketing spin on this.

Fun fact: this mini car is best-in-class when it comes to torque, generating more than the Ferrari 458 Italia and Porsche Carrera S

Idiots. Real cars always quote peak BHP and torque at X RPM, Chevy dont as it undermines their BS.

This motor makes 540 Nm (402 ftlbf) of Torque at stall and out to about 2000 rpm.

The very high torque is motor performance that we are very proud of, and customers will notice the difference: (It has a gear reduction of 3.18 to 1, so the axle torque is the product of these two)

http://insideevs.com/gm-general-says-spark-evs-400lb-ft-of-torque-no-misprint/

Call a spade a spade, its an urban runabout with 130bhp. Lots of torque low down (peak torque at 2000rpm would be considered brutal in any performance application) makes for a car that springs off the line for the first 10m then bogs down. So if your definition of fun driving is accelerating in a Town from traffic light to traffic light quickly but at a low actual speed, then yeah, the Spark is awesome and better than many other cars. If you actually plan to do real driving on real roads, then its the opposite. Its all the worst characteristics of Diesel's power delivery.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

I guarantee you matt, if you couldn't afford to run your 30 mpg 535D if diesel got so high you would have no choice to switch if petrol and diesel got that expensive.

This is the thing that most effects ev adoption is the fact petrol and diesel is still far too cheap for most people but the longer distance commuter.

If people decided enough, I can't afford to or am not willing to shell out xxx amount on fuel a week you would see a far greater adoption.

Currently as I keep saying there is 0 incentive for most people to change because they can afford petrol/diesel and until the point comes where it gets unaffordable nobody will change to electric 200 mile range or not.

Fact is if I can do 80-160 miles a day in an ev I would hardly say that is not suitable for most of the population. And if I can QC along the way for the odd long trip even better.

Matt you're never going to change to electric because I bet you drive the 535 hard and are willing and can afford to spend a lot on diesel or you simply don't do the miles. That is up to you but the average motorist doesn't care about electric/petrol/diesel simply what they can afford or are willing to spend and currently petrol/diesel suits that fine.

Dont know who Matt is! But I have already mentioned on pretty much every thread on EV's recently, give me one for 5k and it can take my work commuting miles, leaving me more fun miles in the 535 at the weekends.

I do roughly 30-40 k km per year. A lot of that is a 80km total commute (as in, there and back) daily to work. So for those journeys of course an EV is an option, a viable one, and one that I would avail of once I didnt have to sink 15k in to a fast updating technology. Give me an EV for 5k and I will take it.

Other driving I do is at the weekends, traction control off, foot to the floor, sideways :P Which would not be fun in an ev with no power. (or any ICE car with fwd and not much power either btw)

I'm never going to change to electric? If I wasnt in work I would go back through my post history and could find multiple posts saying I would consider an EV at the right price.

Max Power1

Matt Simis wrote: »

Call a spade a spade, its an urban runabout with 130bhp. Lots of torque low down (peak torque at 2000rpm would be considered brutal in any performance application) makes for a car that springs off the line for the first 10m then bogs down. So if your definition of fun is driving accelerating in a Town from traffic light to traffic light quickly but at a low actual speed, then yeah, the Spark is awesome and better than many other cars. If you actually plan to do real driving on real roads, then its the opposite. Its all the worst characteristics of Diesel's power delivery.

Exaggerated to the nth degree. An average diesel like a vag exits useful power band at 3k rpm (lets leave exceptional bi- and tri-turbo ones out of this factor)

If that is reduced down to 2k rpm, then you have a very very narrow powerband, almost down to the point when it becomes dangerously underpowered imo.

Is there anywhere I can get a test drive in an EV?

Idbatterim

Is it not possible to have an extra battery that you could pop say into the boot of the car etc if you needed more range the odd time?

Days 298

Couldn't the EV1 do between 70-90 miles per charge depending on conditions? Thats nearly 15 years ago at this stage. It's disappointing how slow progress on range is being made, if proper strides could be made petrol prices could come down gradually. If the range could be got to 200 miles then I could see them taking off hugely if the price was right.

Why do I keep mixing up matt and Max ?

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

I'm never going to change to electric? If I wasnt in work I would go back through my post history and could find multiple posts saying I would consider an EV at the right price.

True.

I wouldn't be willing to shell out so much in diesel though as you.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

True.

I wouldn't be willing to shell out so much in diesel though as you.

Well most of it is discretionary income. Like, I don't need to drive randomly down to wexford or something and take the back roads. But its a fun drive!

If I had to, I could cut my fuel bill by 50-60% without much effort at all. And it is that other 40 odd percent (perhaps it is less than 40%, I never calculate how much I spend on fuel) is where I could substitute in an EV.

Max Power1 wrote: »

Is there anywhere I can get a test drive in an EV?

Does anyone know the answer to this? Just to satisfy my curiosity

Days 298

Days 298 wrote: »

Couldn't the EV1 do between 70-90 miles per charge depending on conditions? Thats nearly 15 years ago at this stage. It's disappointing how slow progress on range is being made, if proper strides could be made petrol prices could come down gradually. If the range could be got to 200 miles then I could see them taking off hugely if the price was right.

No it had around 16 kwh battery so 60 max miles.

The Leaf for instance weighs about the same but with a 24 kwh battery but it's a fair bit bigger than the EV1

The Leaf battery is smaller. And much more powerful.

Lithium batteries offer much higher power densities and more energy densities than NiMh.

You do know that EV development was not going to happen 15 years ago because the idiots GM sold the Battery patents for the NiMh battery to Chevron Texaco who turned around to GM and said HA HA you can't use the battery.

Then Toyota were only allowed to make a battery big enough for hybrid only use and were strictly not allowed to make a battery electric car.

Still, I wonder what we would have got today if GM had not been so stupid, it could have sparked off a lot of research and a race into building better electric cars.

Nissan have started the ball rolling now because they released a 24 kwh battery other car makers did too, when Leaf Gen II comes in 2016 it will have more range and other car makers will follow.

Max just go to Windsor Nissan on Belgard. That's where I test drove the Leaf.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

No it had around 16 kwh battery so 60 max miles.

The Leaf for instance weighs about the same but with a 24 kwh battery but it's a fair bit bigger than the EV1

The Leaf battery is smaller. And much more powerful.

Lithium batteries offer much higher power densities and more energy densities than NiMh.

You do know that EV development was not going to happen 15 years ago because the idiots GM sold the Battery patents for the NiMh battery to Chevron Texaco who turned around to GM and said HA HA you can't use the battery.

Then Toyota were only allowed to make a battery big enough for hybrid only use and were strictly not allowed to make a battery electric car.

Still, I wonder what we would have got today if GM had not been so stupid, it could have sparked off a lot of research and a race into building better electric cars.

Nissan have started the ball rolling now because they released a 24 kwh battery other car makers did too, when Leaf Gen II comes in 2016 it will have more range and other car makers will follow.

Have they said what they expect the range to be? I would imagine that 200-250 miles of range would be a mental turning point for people. I think it is just the fact that the current range is in (or near to) double digits only. 200+ and you have pretty much everyone in Ireland as a potential customer!

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

Max just go to Windsor Nissan on Belgard. That's where I test drove the Leaf.

Might head down next weekend so. I'll tell 'em some mad lad from the internet sent me!

166man

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe maybe not but you got to experience instant torque of electic cars before you can comment, all I can say was the Leaf was really fun, not going to break any records of course but the power delivery is a lot difference so you can't make direct comparisons.

I can only imagine that the Spark having twice the torque would be just mental.

That torque by the way is instantly available at all speeds.



If I could afford it I'd be selling the Prius and the Spark would be my main car.

The greatest obstacle for now is the lack of fast chargers and the current ones won't work, though I'm still trying to find out if there will be some kind of adaptor.

If I was doing my old 80 miles a day commute i could just make it if those figures are correct, if not all I would need is 5 mins on a fast charger or less.

100 miles a day I would need 5 mins maybe a little more.

If someone parks at a Luas stop with ev charging, then no problem at all.

You're still only looking at the car from how quickly it goes off the line. What about how it corners, stops, changes direction at the flick of your wrist etc. these are all things that make it a drivers car, not just torque. I can't see the Spark or the Leaf etc being in anyway fun to drive. I'd miss petrol power. The smell of burning fuel and rasping my twinspark right up to 7k revs.

See the Spark might work for you due to your specific routine, but everyone's is different. I'm not going to change my life routine for my car to save on emissions, your car is there to facilitate, not the other way around.

Life changes everyday and with the leaf/spark you'd need to be constantly thinking ahead of when you need to stop where you can recharge etc. I can't say if I will or will not need to be in Donegal next week, if I do I like to know that I can jump in my car on half a tank if fuel and get there.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Have they said what they expect the range to be? I would imagine that 200-250 miles of range would be a mental turning point for people. I think it is just the fact that the current range is in (or near to) double digits only. 200+ and you have pretty much everyone in Ireland as a potential customer!

If based on the Leaf's efficiency according to the EPA (which is far more trustworthy then the BS NEDC ) then the Leaf needs 30 kwh average per 100 miles so the leaf would need 40 kwh or basically twice the battery size and that's can't be done with the cells they use, it would weigh 3,000 kg.

Tesla use a much higher energy density and use a 18650 cell type, i.e round and not pouch cells A4 size. These cells are made much cheaper using already in use production techniques.

Tesla's battery is huge so it naturally can take a higher cell charge and discharge rate. The smaller the battery the harder that is. So the need for an ev specific cell.

Tesla say in around 3-4 years they will have a 200 mile range Ev that is affordable, and they will do it, as that's their goal.

Most of the worlds car makers do not want to do this, and this is why Tesla will succeed in this regard, with the exception of Nissan, But Nissan made some poor choices in battery choice. One of the reasons Renault went with LG Chem. Nissan being mainly ICE producer did not have the expertise that Tesla have in battery pack design so they had to use bigger more expensive cells that are already out dated. And because of contracts they can't simply change manufacturer and they can't change the battery so early in the leaf's cycle life, it would be far too expensive and one of the reasons you'll not see new battery technology in the Leaf when it's battery wears out. I'd be very surprised if they did.

Leaf II will be very interesting.

Max Power1

166man wrote: »

You're still only looking at the car from how quickly it goes off the line. What about how it corners, stops, changes direction at the flick of your wrist etc. these are all things that make it a drivers car, not just torque. I can't see the Spark or the Leaf etc being in anyway fun to drive. I'd miss petrol power. The smell of burning fuel and rasping my twinspark right up to 7k revs.

.

For me, the sound of the gear change in the 535 at 5000 rpm, foot flat to the floor, getting tunnel vision, is what I would miss.

You couldnt powerslide in a leaf :P

But it goes back to what I said earlier. The leaf/ev could be used for the boring stuff like 40km motorway trips to work and back. But, if I had to rush into hospital or someone told me I had to be in cork in 2hrs I know what I would want and it would not be the ev.

For the laugh, is there anyone with an EV that is going to the trackday!!!:D:D:D

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

I thought we already explained to you how thats not a correct assumption based on the arbitrary "400 lbs torque" paper stat? :pac:
Chevy should be shot for the Marketing spin on this.
Idiots. Real cars always quote peak BHP and torque at X RPM, Chevy dont as it undermines their BS.


http://insideevs.com/gm-general-says-spark-evs-400lb-ft-of-torque-no-misprint/

Call a spade a spade, its an urban runabout with 130bhp. Lots of torque low down (peak torque at 2000rpm would be considered brutal in any performance application) makes for a car that springs off the line for the first 10m then bogs down. So if your definition of fun driving is accelerating in a Town from traffic light to traffic light quickly but at a low actual speed, then yeah, the Spark is awesome and better than many other cars. If you actually plan to do real driving on real roads, then its the opposite. Its all the worst characteristics of Diesel's power delivery.

Max I told you before, you can't compare the torque of an electric motor with that of an ICE, it's just completely different.

Torque of the AC Synchronous Motor is also not a function of RPM but of Current applied to the coils and that is available at all rpm.

HP of 130 is enough to bring the Spark to 90 mph but it's the torque that gets it there in 7.5 ish seconds, and it's heavy. If it was half the weight could be 5 seconds or less.

in EV volts x amps = watts

amps = torque and volts = speed

hp is a unit of power in this case being volts x amps = watts = HP

So if they want more torque they will add more amps and it may or may not go faster depending on the final gear but all they have to do is increase the volts.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

For me, the sound of the gear change in the 535 at 5000 rpm, foot flat to the floor, getting tunnel vision, is what I would miss.

You couldnt powerslide in a leaf :P

But it goes back to what I said earlier. The leaf/ev could be used for the boring stuff like 40km motorway trips to work and back. But, if I had to rush into hospital or someone told me I had to be in cork in 2hrs I know what I would want and it would not be the ev.

For the laugh, is there anyone with an EV that is going to the trackday!!!:D:D:D

NO you won't get the tunnel vision in the Leaf, that's for sure but it was not built to compete with the 535.

I think what you will find most impressive with the Leaf is the instantaneous torque at the tap of the throttle.

Coming up to a busy roundabout and 100% torque immediately is very satisfying, you're off before someone else has lifted the clutch and hit the accelerator and then changed into 2nd.

But you won't get the shove of the 535.

Maybe you can buy the 60 kwh model S ?

Mixed up Matt and Max again !

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is it not possible to have an extra battery that you could pop say into the boot of the car etc if you needed more range the odd time?

You could, but it would be difficult, it would have to be the same battery chemistry and you won't get your hands on those batteries.

Besides, why would you pay more for the occasional long trip when you can fast charge ?

CiniO

For me range would suffice no problem.
At the moment we have 2 cars in our household. One is used rather for longer journeys, while second car over last 3 years never did more than 120km per day. In vast majority of days it's only 40km - 50km, while some days it's 80km - 90km, while other days it's 0.
This second car is 01 Fiat Bravo 1.2, but I suppose EV could do it's job perfectly...

The only question is would EV be cheaper to run, and more fun to drive, than 1.2 bravo (with lowered eibach suspension)?

I have quite precise calculations for this bravo.
Over last 5.5 years we owned that Bravo it travelled 76k kilometres (it has nearly 215k km on the clock now).
Cost of purchase in 2008: 1300 euro
Cost of maintenance over 5.5 years: 2675 euro (and that includes everything from tyres, oils, servicing, repairs, nct fees, screenwash fluids, etc).
Cost of insurance: 2130 euro
Cost of tax: 1568 euro
Cost of petrol: 7127 euro

Total: 14800.
I could probably sell it now for around 800, so 14000 euro to run a car for 5.5 years which travelled 76k kilometres...

Could EV do any better (cheaper)?
Meaning if I buy EV now, and sell it in 5.5 years after travelling 76k kilometres, will it cost me more or less than 14k?

CiniO

CiniO wrote: »

For me range would suffice no problem.
At the moment we have 2 cars in our household. One is used rather for longer journeys, while second car over last 3 years never did more than 120km per day. In vast majority of days it's only 40km - 50km, while some days it's 80km - 90km, while other days it's 0.
This second car is 01 Fiat Bravo 1.2, but I suppose EV could do it's job perfectly...

The only question is would EV be cheaper to run, and more fun to drive, than 1.2 bravo (with lowered eibach suspension)?

I have quite precise calculations for this bravo.
Over last 5.5 years we owned that Bravo it travelled 76k kilometres (it has nearly 215k km on the clock now).
Cost of purchase in 2008: 1300 euro
Cost of maintenance over 5.5 years: 2675 euro (and that includes everything from tyres, oils, servicing, repairs, nct fees, screenwash fluids, etc).
Cost of insurance: 2130 euro
Cost of tax: 1568 euro
Cost of petrol: 7127 euro

Total: 14800.
I could probably sell it now for around 800, so 14000 euro to run a car for 5.5 years which travelled 76k kilometres...

Could EV do any better (cheaper)?
Meaning if I buy EV now, and sell it in 5.5 years after travelling 76k kilometres, will it cost me more or less than 14k?

You need to take the Leaf for a drive to know if you'll like it or not and try get it for a day at least.

But remember your winter range in the Leaf will be around 60 miles @60 mph and that's on a new battery!

Currently the Leaf in Ireland will cost around 18,000 Euro's 2nd hand for a 2011. You'll get one in the U.K for around 13-14K -transport and inspection costs.

Cost to fuel in winter will be around 1.80 on night rate for 60 odd miles, you may get more, you may get less, that's the average.

Summer range is anything from 75-95 miles @20 deg C.

Service is around 100 a year for a battery report. And you got to do it for the warranty. They do other (checks) too.

Nothing needs to be serviced or replaced on an e.v, brakes should last a long time. Brake fluid would probably need to be changed every 2 years as normal, coolant ? probably 100,000 miles at least.

Road tax 104 a year I think ?

Battery life is something we just don't know much of yet, certainly Arizona had problems due to heat we'll never experience. There is a rumour of a Leaf loosing the first capacity bar at 75,000 miles in Seattle meaning a 15% drop in capacity. Now no one knows yet how many fast charges were done etc. there just isn't enough data to tell.

But whatever the results are with the leaf battery that means nothing, because every electric car will have some different battery.

The Spark will have a much better battery, one of the reasons GM can get 400 or so lbs of torque is because they can suck a lot of amps form those A123 battery cells. Amps give you torque in an EV. And it can charge 10 mins quicker on a fast charger.

The greatest disadvantage is there will probably be 0 SAE chargers by the time we get it.

But the best way for you to save would probably be to keep the Bravo as it's paid for and not worth a lot and to spend 14-18K on an e.v will be around 10 years of petrol at today's prices.

2500 € or so maintenance over 5 years would be another 5 grand including 7.5 grand for 5 years petrol would be 17.5 K euro's.

So the question is, will the battery meet your needs in 10 years ?

Nissan will repair your battery once it reaches 70% capacity it is unfortunate that that they at this time, will not install a new one and give you some money for the old one which can be used for renewable energy storage.

IF you're buying a new/2nd hand car and it costs around the same price as the EV then The ev is worth serious consideration.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Might head down next weekend so. I'll tell 'em some mad lad from the internet sent me!

Missed this post.

Yeah do, I think you'll like it one way or another. don't be afraid to plant the throttle make sure it's "NOT" in eco mode.

Days 298

Days 298 wrote: »

Couldn't the EV1 do between 70-90 miles per charge depending on conditions? Thats nearly 15 years ago at this stage. It's disappointing how slow progress on range is being made, if proper strides could be made petrol prices could come down gradually. If the range could be got to 200 miles then I could see them taking off hugely if the price was right.

I got it wrong, well partly.

I was looking up the EV1 Gen I which had 16 kwh lead acid of all batteries.

The Gen II had NiMh 26 kwh, so yeah it was amazing for it's day but it's such a shame that the EV movement was killed by an oil company. God knows what we could have had by now !

The GM Spark EV will have 21 kwh but much better power density for great acceleration in a lot smaller battery. And much, much faster charging. 20 mins to 80 V 4 hrs to 100%.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

Max I told you before, you can't compare the torque of an electric motor with that of an ICE, it's just completely different.
Torque of the AC Synchronous Motor is also not a function of RPM but of Current applied to the coils and that is available at all rpm.
HP of 130 is enough to bring the Spark to 90 mph but it's the torque that gets it there in 7.5 ish seconds, and it's heavy. If it was half the weight could be 5 seconds or less.

in EV volts x amps = watts

amps = torque and volts = speed

hp is a unit of power in this case being volts x amps = watts = HP

So if they want more torque they will add more amps and it may or may not go faster depending on the final gear but all they have to do is increase the volts.

For the love of god, we already did this?! You can compare torque on a donkey , an EV, a Diesel, a petrol etc. When the term "Horsepower" and "Torque" were coined there were neither ICE or EVs. Im not saying Torque is a function of RPM (as its not directly, even on ICE), Im trying to get you to understand what the hell you are posting, the relevance of the figure on the Spark and how it relates to other cars.

If you cannot grasp this please stop quoting it. If you cannot compare them, then why are Chevy doing so, I quoted it direct to you? Also why are you comparing them (you already said its "way more than most cars")?

The reason the Spark has such pants HORSEPOWER (which is the more important stat) is because the TORQUE is at a crappy low RPM. Rotating force doesnt care if the drive is electric or animal or ICE.

Torque, moment or moment of force (see the terminology below), is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis,[1] fulcrum, or pivot. Just as a force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist to an object. Mathematically, torque is defined as the cross product of the lever-arm distance and force, which tends to produce rotation.
Loosely speaking, torque is a measure of the turning force on an object such as a bolt or a flywheel. For example, pushing or pulling the handle of a wrench connected to a nut or bolt produces a torque (turning force) that loosens or tightens the nut or bolt.

I mean just read it. If the Spark had 400fb-lbs torque at 6000rpm, them we would all be excited. It doesnt and to highlight an apples to apples comparison, which closes this circle on comparisons, look at the Tesla.
The Tesla Model S, baby version, has: 317 lb·ft (430 N·m) @ 0-5000 rpm
Which means its faster at accelerating, has a higher top speed and also would offer a much wider (longer) power band despite having considerably lower peak torque. Since it has much much higher RPM (though the older Tesla Roadster had 14,000rpm) they could even use gearing for torque multipliers to have higher axle torque. But they dont have to as high torque at high RPM is high Horsepower, the only stat worth caring about on a car.

Again, you can compare torque and horsepower as they are mechanical ratings of movement and force. How you generate them is irrelevant.

Having $hitloads of torque at 0-2000rpm is for drills and boats.


PS: The Spark doesnt get to 90mph in 7.5seconds, are you mad? Its advertised as around 8seconds to 60, which is a long way off. My "baby" commuter car has a 258ft-lb peak torque engine that gets to 60mph in about 5.5seconds. Its also heavier than the Spark Ev. How - the magic of RPM and Horsepower and Torque + gears.

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

For the love of god, we already did this?! You can compare torque on a donkey , an EV, a Diesel, a petrol etc. When the term "Horsepower" and "Torque" were coined there were neither ICE or EVs. Im not saying Torque is a function of RPM (as its not directly, even on ICE), Im trying to get you to understand what the hell you are posting, the relevance of the figure on the Spark and how it relates to other cars.

If you cannot grasp this please stop quoting it. If you cannot compare them, then why are Chevy doing so, I quoted it direct to you? Also why are you comparing them (you already said its "way more than most cars")?

The reason the Spark has such pants HORSEPOWER (which is the more important stat) is because the TORQUE is at a crappy low RPM. Rotating force doesnt care if the drive is electric or animal or ICE.

I mean just read it. If the Spark had 400fb-lbs torque at 6000rpm, them we would all be excited. It doesnt and to highlight an apples to apples comparison, which closes this circle on comparisons, look at the Tesla.
The Tesla Model S, baby version, has: 317 lb·ft (430 N·m) @ 0-5000 rpm
Which means its faster at accelerating, has a higher top speed and also would offer a much wider (longer) power band despite having considerably lower peak torque. Since it has much much higher RPM (though the older Tesla Roadster had 14,000rpm) they could even use gearing for torque multipliers to have higher axle torque. But they dont have to as high torque at high RPM is high Horsepower, the only stat worth caring about on a car.

Again, you can compare torque and horsepower as they are mechanical ratings of movement and force. How you generate them is irrelevant.

Having $hitloads of torque at 0-2000rpm is for drills and boats.

Here is a quote to obviously more knowledgeable people than I.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388750

"An automobile ICE engine, by design, has to be spinning to make torque. It has to suck in air, compress it, and expel it, and it's not going to do that at 0 RPM. It's not going to do it at 10 RPM either, or even 100 unless it's some huge marine engine. Remember, a piston only makes power 25% of the time, and this power has to pay for the remaining strokes, including compression, which slows it WAY down. So in general, it has to spin at a decent speed to make enough power to be able to even pay for itself. Once it gets there, it has to spin faster to make extra power, and even faster to make the kind of power you want. Depending on design, you'll usually end up being in the thousands of RPM before you get there....

Electric motors, on the other hand...they're just some wires and magnets. You run a current through a wire and it becomes a magnet, which pushes against another magnet and vuoila! you've got force.

The more current you supply, the more force. I'm guessing the greatest current usually runs at 0rpm, since there's practically no resistance in the wires. Once the motor starts spinning, the moving magnetic field slows the current down. "

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

PS: The Spark doesnt get to 90mph in 7.5seconds, are you mad? Its advertised as around 8seconds to 60, which is a long way off. My "baby" commuter car has a 258ft-lb peak torque engine that gets to 60mph in about 5.5seconds. Its also heavier than the Spark Ev. How - the magic of RPM and Horsepower and Torque + gears.

Settle down there matt, I said 0-60 mph !

Actually under 8 seconds.

Here's another explanation

This post, part of a series we're running all about electric cars, was written by Patrick E. George from HowStuffWorks.com.
Just like a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, an electric car's motor generates power that drives the wheels to put things in motion. Unlike a gasoline engine, electric vehicles (EVs) deliver power a little differently.
Power output from an electric motor can be measured in either horsepower or kilowatts -- the latter a measurement of electricity. Nissan says their LEAF EV puts out 80 kilowatts, while Toyota says the Prius hybrid's electric motor has 60 horsepower. Remember, one kilowatt is roughly 1.34 horsepower, so power can be measured either way, although for now most American drivers understand horsepower a little better.

Let's talk a little bit about how electric motors and gasoline engines send power to the wheels. The main difference is immediate power and torque. A car company may say that one of their gasoline-powered engines has 300 horsepower, but that's actually peak horsepower. That number is the highest amount of power the engine can deliver at a certain number of revolutions per minute (RPM), and that number is usually pretty high on the tachometer.
The downside to a gas engine is that it must build RPMs through acceleration until it reaches its maximum power and torque. Not very efficient when you think about it! This also necessitates transmissions with several gears that optimize power output at different engine speeds.

In contrast, switching on an electric motor is similar to turning on a light bulb. A bulb turns on immediately when you flick a switch; it doesn't need time to build up power. The peak power of an EV is always at zero RPMs, which on the Tesla Roadster is 288 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque -- all of it as soon as you hit the throttle.
What does all that mean for how horsepower is rated on electric cars? It means that since power is available immediately, we may not need cars with massive horsepower figures anymore. Remember, the Tesla Roadster S is about as fast as a Corvette Z06 with almost half its horsepower. So when the Nissan Leaf is said to put out a "mere" 107 horsepower, the same as their efficient (but not exactly racy) Nissan Versa, odds are the Leaf will be quicker in many situations. The driving experience will also be smoother, quieter and possibly with less maintenance since an electric motor has so many fewer moving parts than an internal combustion engine.
Print Cite Feedback

CiniO

Deleted User wrote: »

In contrast, switching on an electric motor is similar to turning on a light bulb. A bulb turns on immediately when you flick a switch; it doesn't need time to build up power. The peak power of an EV is always at zero RPMs, which on the Tesla Roadster is 288 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque -- all of it as soon as you hit the throttle.

This is pure bullsh1t...
At zero RPMs power is 0.
Power = torque * revolutions (obivously assuming compartibile units)
If torque is constant through all RPM range in EV, then power chart would be a straigh rising line up to max rpm.

But I don't think that EV has constant torque over all rpm range.

CiniO

CiniO wrote: »

This is pure bullsh1t...
At zero RPMs power is 0.
Power = torque * revolutions (obivously assuming compartibile units)
If torque is constant through all RPM range in EV, then power chart would be a straigh rising line up to max rpm.

But I don't think that EV has constant torque over all rpm range.

Current gives an AC synchronous motor torque NOT RPM.

But it's true electric motors don't have constant torque through the rev range, but it;s still a much wider torque curve than an ICE.

Peak torque is always at 0 rpm and reduces gradually as the revs rise. and as the revs rise the currents drops. Current, amps = torque.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

Settle down there matt, I said 0-60 mph !
Actually under 8 seconds.

Maybe you meant to, but you implied 90mph:

Deleted User wrote: »

HP of 130 is enough to bring the Spark to 90 mph but it's the torque that gets it there in 7.5 ish seconds, and it's heavy. If it was half the weight could be 5 seconds or less.

You are posting long volumes about Torque and EVs and, not trying to sound like a dick, you already had a dreamlike view of EVs beforehand and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire theory and are quoting things that are contradicting your own understanding.

The somewhat rose coloured text you quoted is trying to make a "big deal" out of the simple point that the torque ratings of Electric motors have a one fundamental difference to the meaning of rating on a combustion engine. This is true but not what you think/are saying. You somehow took the notion that they arent the same rating of twisting force, this is false.

An ICE, at a given point performing 400ft-lbs of torque to turn a nut/flywheel is the same as an Electric motor doing 400ft-lbs (or a super strong man) . In the most simplest of terms, the difference is:

- The Electric will do that from stall speed to some low RPM (usually, there are high RPM, low torque electrics). This is good for moving a train or boat, heavy slow things.
- The ICE will do that in a specified power band of RPM and will increase the speed at which it turns the nut (or flywheel) as it continues to spin. It cannot do it from the point the engine starts up. However the ICE can spin so fast, it can use gear torque multipliers to put out vastly more torque (with the limitation of a specific power band which doesnt start at stall speed) than an Electric drive, this is usually called Axle Torque.
This is good for moving a car or truck.

RPM is important to EVs and ICE alike as the whole point of motors/engines in cars is to rotate wheels per minute. High RPM and low torque will utilise gear multipliers, High Torque at low RPM kind just sucks as putting in a gear reducer kills the high torque.

Were this a conversation about turning rusted old nuts then the low RPM high torque electric drive looks great. However its about automobiles, where the point is to spin wheels faster and faster.

Again, consider (actually think about why this is):
- 2014 Spark EV - 400ft-lbs @2000rpm - 1394kg = 0-60 in 7.5 to 8seconds and top speed: 90mph
- 1995 BMW E36 M3 Evo - 258ft-lbs from 3200rpm (but tailing off at 8000rpm) - 1460kg = 0-60 in 5.3s and top speed delimited around 180mph.


The answer is af course, horsepower, which is a function of Torque and RPM (and specifically axle torque and the lack of it on the Spark). The M3 engine has 322bhp and the Spark has a weak wristed 130bhp. The M3 engine also puts out far more torque on the road via Axle Torque. Lots of torque at tiny movements (low RPM) - meaningless. Now look back at what you posted and Chevy and see how absurd it looks. 400ft-lbs, more torque than most cars, Ferrari 458 etc. The Spark and Leaf and Volt are good for nipping around City traffic as you cannot drive fast in the city. The same way a Fiat 500 Arbath would make a faster Urban car than my 2ton V12. But on a real road at real speeds, not even in the same ballpark.

You should be angry at Chevy and the rest of the EV zealots for completely misleading you, its a marketing BS piece thats suckering people in.


PS: Please stop talking about Volts + Amps and Torque, the rest of use dont talk about CFM and IDC when talking about ICE and Torque. It has nothing to do with what Torque is a rating of, its just the "fuel" to get there. Also the "25% efficiency" crap has nothing to do with anything, thats just something EV-heads throw out that has no bearing in the real world on anything at all.

Matt, the chevy doesn't need 350 hp because it is restricted to 90 mph.

It's got 130 hp by the way not 90.

dgt

Sounds like its great in the city but useless otherwise. Sure look at the size of it, not meant for munching miles on a motorway. Not a hope of that being any use to me in my world.

What if I wanted to tow a cement mixer with it? Carry several bags of coal in the boot? Lash the tools, spare parts and other people in and comfortably go to the arse end of nowhere 400 miles down the road to buy a car? Tow another car with it? Go off roading and drive through floods with it?

It will take a lot more than that to coax me away from diesel

dgt

dgt wrote: »

Sounds like its great in the city but useless otherwise. Sure look at the size of it, not meant for munching miles on a motorway. Not a hope of that being any use to me in my world.

What if I wanted to tow a cement mixer with it? Carry several bags of coal in the boot? Lash the tools, spare parts and other people in and comfortably go to the arse end of nowhere 400 miles down the road to buy a car? Tow another car with it? Go off roading and drive through floods with it?

It will take a lot more than that to coax me away from diesel

:rolleyes:

unkel

Deleted User wrote: »

The Leaf for instance weighs about the same but with a 24 kwh battery

That really is what it boils down to.

24kWh is a pathetic amount of energy for use in a car. It's the equivalent of just over 2l of petrol...

Most of the cars I've owned have a fuel tank of about 70l, so store about 700kWh.

Wake me up when electric vehicles pack about 200-300kWh of stored energy, until then they are useless. It's no surprise nobody is buying them tbh, even with the massive subsidies and generous infrastructure in place