http://www.autobloggreen.com/gallery/all-electric-mustang/518461/

how can that have 1000+ torque at 0 rpm??? and 2000+ at the same thing on the upgraded model???

Electric motors achieve max torque the very moment they start to move, regardless of speed.
I think that's how they're measured... @ 0 RPM's.

Put it this way, in order to spin that electric motor with your hand, you would need to apply 1000 ft/lbs of torque to get it to move. I could be completely wrong on this statement.

I would be interested to see the construction of the motor itself. We have plenty of 1000-1400hp motors where I work at and they are big,heavy monsters. This also says a lot about how far battery technology has come. While 110 miles (depending on driving habits) isnt very far, to be able to deliver that kind of juice for that far is pretty impressive. Most of our industrial electric motors are 440 volt or higher. I still think hybrid tech is the way to go to get the best of both worlds. Several concepts I have seen that offered fwd fuel power along with rwd electric power gave some pretty impressive options of power/economy/flexibility.

DC motors, like in this car, and AC motors, like at Tbat's work are quite different.
Bobbys right about DC motors typically producing max torque at 0 rpm. Usually the torque will decrease as RPMs increase. Since "power" or "hp" is proportional to torque times the RPM, there will be a certain RPM where peak power is produced, but not necessarily peak torque.

In AC motors its different and not nearly as easy to produce low-end torque. They produce a maximum "pull-out torque" and then quickly stall if the load is any higher.

I'll stick to gas for now, thanks.

0-60 in 4 seconds and all you hear is the whisper from the tires. Ouch!

I give them a nod in regards to the technology aspect. I'm guessing this costs $80,000 and the 600EV is probably $150,000. Build cars like this helps in developing new technologies for the residential and commercial market.
Initially, I wasn't pleased with the 110 miles/8 hr charge. But since its made for joy riding and not daily driving, this isn't that bad. Its just like a 454 engine with 8 mpg except you have to leave it plugged in overnight.

I wouldn't race with it. It can get pretty disturbing looking if that thing was in a car very bad pile up and the battery acid burst.

So if your on a long trip, stop and charge for 8 hours every 110/220 miles.....


I'm with Ace here... I'll stick to my fossil fuels for now...

I'm more interested in BioDiesel, propane/natural gas, etc.... you know, the cleaner renewable resources.

With electric our power plants will be polluting that much more for having to produce more power to supply to the cars...

In most of the electric cars there is a small gas engine that still gets great fuel economy. I drive a long way almost every day but its still under 100 miles round trip, so I, and nearly all of the general population, would greatly benefit from a 100mi per charge (without having to use the gas engine). I like the concept, and I think in the future when nuclear energy is going to be forced to grow, these electric cars could save us a lot of gas and money.

I won't go into it, but for those who are interested in the future of clean, proliferation-resistant, plentiful nuclear power: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Can't deny the electric car isn't environmentally as we would like due to the electrical plants powering them.

Also, the problem with ethanol is there is not enough land in the US to totally replace the demand. Still blending it with other fuels do help (E85).

If the fuel cell technology gets around, that will most likely be the future in my opinion.


BTW: Data on where our oil comes from.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro...ent/import.html
Got to love Canada?

Forget the electric going into battery-powered cars... look at the waste they produce. These batteries still go out like a car battery. You'll need to replace it within 6 years. Toyota and Honda are already having to deal with warranty-replacement of their Hybrid vehicles' batteries within 75k miles. Not to mention the biological waste created in sulfuric acid and lead from these batteries.

Green isn't at clean as the tree huggers would have you think. Waste created by burning fossil fuels is just transfered somewhere else. Biodiesel and Ethanol are steps in the right direction. Just wait until we find a way to properly harness the power of coal.

I'm all for finding a way to get out of the oil dependency we have, but until then, I say drill what we have so we can stop buying elsewhere...

But I don't feel like much is being done to try and get better technology. Wonder why... [/sarcasm]

It's all fine and good to find a cure for oil dependency, but where do you put all the used hazmat in those batteries after they burn out in five years?

For it to be truly as green as leftwingers would believe it, the pollution-spewing manufacturing plants they're in would need to be green too.

But Arc, in order to realize that, that would mean leftwingers would actually have to THINK!

Like that'll happen...

The goal is to reduce pollutants coming from cars. The problem is the plants will produce more pollutants. There is an argument on whether the extra pollutants from the plants is more or less than pollutants to an equivalent car. You can guess which political side votes on which argument.

The batteries Hazmat materials are recycled. This is what is being done with hybrids now.

Overall, there are several goals to these alternative cars. Some are better/worse than gasoline, which is the reference point.
- Less airborne pollution
- No additional adverse effect to the environment.
- Provide just as much power as a gasoline equivalent.
- Cheaper operating costs
- Cheaper to the consumer
- "Home grown"

Some folks pick a alternative fuel more so based on their own political agenda and skew the facts of it.

Yes, that is what I was touching on.

As for the rest of what I'm about to say, don't tear me down! .. Just going to detail a few things that I think are the biggest obstacles to development right now.

Like Ace said, a lot of people don't think past the car sitting in front of them to the process used to make it (factories), what that extra 4-6k on the price tag is (pounds and pounds of batteries).

I was positive some of the batteries were recycled. All? No.

As for the necessity for hyrids, people themselves are an adverse effect on the environment, no matter what they do. We're kind of a sentient virus, and there's only so much we can do to try to fix the errors of other people and past generations. China is a big polluter right now, and other countries can't do much to fix that, so while we're over here yelling at Bush, their nasty air is making it into OUR already nasty air in California and Alaska on the trade winds.

Hybrid cars will break like any other car, so operating costs will probably be offset by failure of much more expensive parts. At least until hybrid technology is cheaper to manufacture. And it makes it worse because your common-man out of the garage weekend mechanic probably doesn't know diddly-squat about working on hybrid components, so he's **** out of luck if he doesn't want to pay exorbitant dealer repair fees.

There are pioneers of this field, but I think most people are a little daunted by the prospect as it stands now. In time, this may change.

As for that extra 4-6k on the price tag, it takes about as long to make up for that in gas as it does for the battery to wear out, on average, so I don't think they ever really pay for themselves. Especially since the government isn't supporting the hybrid tax break anymore.

It's got a loooong way to go. All the political issues are getting in the way, too. And for some, hybrid cars aren't an option right now either. It really needs to expand into other divisions beyond passenger cars and small SUVs. The SUV thing is a huge leap forward though, that came a lot sooner than I expected. Worked a lot better too.

Too bad the Accord Hybrid didn't catch on, that thing was actually pretty hot. I wouldn't mind one. Spare car, of course, there's no affordable hybrid right now that would waste my GTP, and I looooove my GTP .. when it's not being ornery.

I wonder what would have happened if they hadn't 'killed the electric car' back in the day. Like how much more advanced would it be now? More affordable, almost definitely, since technology always gets cheaper as it gets older and as the manufacturing process is refined to be more efficient. And if they'd be a little more popular than they are now? I hardly ever see a hybrid where I live. For some reason, we have them out the wazoo at used car lots.

I dunno. There must be something in the human psyche as well. Individual minds can process change easier, mostly, but group us all together and it gets so much harder. This is kinda like Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. You really can't predict if it's going to fail in the long run or not, but I do think we are going to need some options before we overrun this poor tired world with babies and carbon emissions.

People tend to overlook at how much energy and just how harmful of process it is just to get the materials needed to make the batterys.

Cars arn't the devil to the enviroment people think they are. Power plants, (coal burning)and large industry are far more influential.

I'm all for alternative fuels for progress and less dependancy( by the way if it wasn't for the leftist greenies we wouldn't be dependant on foriegn oil. Plenty of it in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, Southern Coast of CA. But we can't drill it to get it.) But the notion that cars are causing global warming phhsssss. Global warming doesn't even exist. It's just a scare. Lets look a bit at some recent history. Do you realize that Jimmy Carter said that by the end of the 80s that all the oil would be used up? How bout in the 60s when (I forget who did the report) but the world will die of starvation by 1990? The 70s had "Global cooling" Every few years there is something to grab onto and make people afraid. What irks me the most is most people don't take the time to look at things and decide for themselves. They believe the first thing some body says and then it's gospel.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius.

When your talking points of degrees with multiple thermometers from multiple time periods read by multiple people comparing Ice cores, soil cores fossil records and such is it really that big of a deal?

So by my reasoning everything is honkey dorey. Not enough change to even quantify.

Herc.....

x2! Well said, Herc.

I tend to disagree, Herc. Throughout the history of our planet, there's "records" of the water line raising and dropping pretty often. There's been ATLEAST 4 times the ice caps have completely thawed, and then refroze.

With that being said: global warming is a very real event, BUT it's gonna happen ANYWAY, its just that humans may very well be accelerating things.

I agree with you on the history of the cooling and warming. But show me a fact where humans have accellerated the process. And don't say increased CO2 levels because CO2 does not retain more heat then nitrogen.

heres an analogy for you. Take a football field. Nitrogen comprises roughly 78 yards of that field. Oxygen comprises roughly 19 yards. CO2 .1 inch of that field.

So us spewing tons of pollution into the air, sea and land, completely altering our natural surroundings and killing off a ton of species ISN'T accelerating the process?

Last I knew, the earth was in balance and taking care of its business its own way before we came in and started diverting the flow of ancient rivers, hunting animals into extinction and general causing a haze of chemicals to permeate the atmosphere.

Given, some of that stuff doesn't affect global warming, but when taken as a whole, the earth would be doing a lot better without us.

Do we do harm? You betcha. That's not my argument. But once again please post a fact on how CO2 is the bad guy.

Nature does find a way.

Honkey dorey? Got to disagree with some of the points you brought up.

The Bush administration initially refused to use Alaska reserves and the concept made sense. Oil isn’t an unlimited resource and once it goes, it goes. A solution is to improve efficiency so oil isn’t consumed much as Oil is also used for plastics. Once oil supplies start going low (not going to debate when, doesn’t matter), we own Alaska, our ace in the hole and we will near alternatives.

Cars aren’t the devil or the main source of pollution: True, but they are a contributing factor. Institutions are working on reducing plant pollution. It’s just not the latest fun news. Some solutions face liberal and conservative opposition because it inconveniences them.

Let’s say the global warming theory is just the latest farce. So we should go back to leaded gas because it lubricated the engine better? Get rid of all the emissions stuff on cars so they are a lot cheaper? Get rid of the low sulfur fuel because liberals wanted it and get the regular because its cheaper? Let’s not focus on land fills? Drill in Alaska and get rid of the spending on wind machines and solar panels so it can be placed into the community? We can then go back to original muscle cars! We can consume all we want! Whoo hoo?!

Our convenience shouldn’t be the only priority. Let’s take responsibility for our actions. Clean up after yourself. Examine each solution carefully and implement it. Regardless if the earth is going to be fine or not.

My point is not to focus if global warming is a farce. Focusing only on source and ignore the facts isn’t the way either. It came from a liberal = false? If it’s a conservative belief or liberal belief. Facts are facts, even if I don’t like it and it is an inconvenient to me.

The only thing that kept us from opening new rigs in Alaska is because of ANWR not to horde for later use. The latter is a political ploy.

Like I said I'm all for progress. Things can be done better. But I also want people to base their actions and opinions on fact and not heresay.


By the way I do do my part. I use my scoot which gets 53mpg as my primary commute vehicle and the truck is only used on those occasions that warrents a truck or the weather is junk and both the better half and I both have to work that day.

Here's your electric car: APTERA

Where do I put my $300 worth of grocerys?

In the passenger seat man!

:rolleyes: