Recently, I spent time at HybridFest, a car show dedicated to emerging green technologies and fuel economy. The kind of person who attends HybridFest is that same kind that talks around the water cooler about their MPG and how much money their hybrid has saved them. And this kind of person is exactly who companies like GM need to convince to buy their products.
That’s probably why GM was the #2 sponsor, right after Toyota. That doesn’t explain, however, why GM didn’t show up. Show organizer, Eric Powers, told me that GM representatives were on hand for dinner Friday night to kick off the show, which began officially on Saturday morning, but after that no one saw them.
Instead of putting their floor space at the show to use, GM chose to leave a musty old city bus sitting in the corner looking inconspicuous (see first photo). Not too many people wondered where GM was, but personally, I was excited to see what they’d have at the show to counteract the Toyota party van:
Seeing the GM logo on everything made me sure that at some point I would see GM there. But alas, it was not to be. There was no clash of automotive giants, and no GM reps to talk about upcoming designs with.
So, what happened?
Firstly, let me say that this article is not some cookie-cutter condemnation of GM. I have spent time with GM and discussed their plans, as well as test-driven their HCCI technology, and I can honestly say that there are a lot of smart people at all levels in the company working to rebuild their image and their product lineup as one that is fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.
We all know that GM is going through hard times, posting $15.5B losses and still two years away from releasing the earliest production models of the Volt, which they hope will be their saving grace.
Part of me hoped that GM would come to HybridFest with some surprise mock up of the Volt, or perhaps even one of their drivetrains strapped to the body of another car. I’d also hoped to strike up a conversation with someone from GM about the future of the Chevy Aveo, that small, affordable car that seems to get no media attention and surprisingly bad fuel economy (GM has promised to make it a class leader in 2009 with a total redesign, and I wanted some insight into this).
Another, perhaps pernicious part of me didn’t want Toyota to steal the show. I knew HybridFest would be like a Prius collectors show, but since I knew Honda wouldn’t be there I feared that Toyota would only increase it’s legacy as “the hybrid company.” Obviously, other companies can do it (and Honda did, with the Insight, which was released in the US earlier than the Prius and with better fuel economy), but somehow Prius and hybrid have become pretty much the same thing to some people.
Anyway, one can only assume that all the pressures weighing down on GM right now finally got to them, and caused them to back out. HybridFest is great, but it’s not like the media is buzzing with this story, so there has been little word of why GM suddenly disappeared.
What does this mean for GM?
Well, GM is in a tough place, but this wasn’t the right place to cut corners, I think. As I said earlier, the type of people that go to HybridFest are influencers and pushers. They want to brag about hybrid tech, take their friends on test drives, and change the way people look at fuel consumption. Sure, GM might have only reached a few thousand people, but they missed an opportunity, for just one weekend’s work, to have high-quality interaction with the people they are trying to win over to their side.
By not showing up, HybridFest allowed Toyota to dominate, with the only GM in sight (Honda pun!) being a modified Equinox that showed up with the University of Wisconsin. No one is impressed by a shallow advertising blitz talking about fuel-efficient truck hybrids. What GM needs to do is generate real, meaningful buzz around their products, and they need to do it at the grassroots level or else their efforts will just be passed off as another round of corporate greenwashing.
I will be in contact with the company soon about their future plans, and there marketing strategies, and am excited at the possibility to share that with you, so stay tuned.
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
Lots of advertisements will tout “real world” fuel economy increases and testing procedures in an attempt to make their product look more desirable. Surely, if you wanted to buy something to increase fuel economy, testing that proves it actually does would be good, right? And what’s more conclusive than someone actually taking the thing you plan on buying and driving around with it?
Well, unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
How the EPA does testing
The EPA doesn’t just stick a driver in a car, give them a course, and tell them to drive around it and hope that they do it consistently every time. Instead, they put test vehicles up on a dyno and run a course designed to simulate driving.
Many people fault the EPA for this method, but I believe they have put a lot of effort into developing and refining their testing methods, and at the very least, they are internally consistent, which is what’s most important when comparing vehicles. In fact, it is internal consistency that the EPA is most concerned with, and also the reason that their EPA ratings often conflict with our own real life observations.
Sure, the EPA may have rated my car at 27 mpg combined, and I might get 40 mpg by EcoDriving it, while you might be upset that you only get 25 mpg by driving normally. But therein lies the great flaw of “real world” fuel economy numbers. No driver, road, traffic, or weather condition is ever consistent enough to make comparison fruitful.
How scammers do testing
Using acetone as an example of a scam (and not wanting to link any pages for fear increasing their reputation with Google), you can see that it’s proponents will often talk about “beating the EPA” or the “inefficiency of modern internal combustion engines.” They use these buzzwords to lead you into their story, which hinges on “real world” benefits for “drivers like you.”
Acetone rests on a very shaky, some would say fraudulent, technical background, and relies mostly on “evidence” from fuel economy “tests.” Most of these tests, however, consist of walking up to someone who has never thought much about fuel economy and telling them, “Hey, I’m going to put this stuff in your tank and you’ll see 30% better fuel economy.” From there, the testers, who sometimes don’t even calculate fuel economy, will give reports like, “I’ve driven my car with acetone for two weeks now and the needle is still above the halfway line! OMGLOLWUT.”
Other, slightly more intelligent scammers will run tank-to-tank testing, meticulously recording their findings, but ignoring major variations in weather, type of driving, or driving technique. Just take a look at my fill-up history from the last three years and tell me if you think it’s a consistent enough to base tests on:
Other, even trickier scammers, usually companies, will pay for “3rd party” testing to be done at some “university” or other credible place. This is a tricky area, because there are many reputable places working on fuel economy testing, but there are also many devices that’ve “shown increases” at such facilities that have also been declared scams when brought to court by the government or investors.
How I do testing
I use my MPGuino to record fuel economy over predetermined courses using predetermined driving techniques. I try to be meticulous about what RPM a shift at, how much throttle pressure I use, and control as many factors as I can. However, I’m not here to say that even given how much effort I put into it, I’m not much better than those scammers.
Recently, I attempted to test fuel economy changes when removing the alternator belt on my car. It’s relatively well-known that the parasitic drag from the alternator reduces fuel economy. However, I was interested in seeing for myself the difference that it made on my own car.
In NJ, where I usually reside, I have a test loop where I can usually get mpg reading within +/- .5% through consistent driving. Generally, others have high confidence in these tests due to the low deviation in my results. In MO, where I am now, there is a similar loop, albeit a hilly one. I used the same ideas to test my fuel economy with the alternator, without the alternator, and then with the alternator again, and these were my results:
First, I’d like you to notice that the distance was a very consistent 7.31 miles. Now, please notice how inconsistent the mileage readings were. I lost mpgs without the alternator, then lost them again when I reattached it! These numbers are, of course, not good, and a result of faulty testing. Not only are they not internally consistent, but they are inconsistent with the results that many others have demonstrated.
So who should you believe?
The takeaway here is that you can’t take fuel economy testing at face value. Not from me, or anyone else. The people most worth trusting are those that are transparent about the difficulties of accurate numbers and their testing methods. Take a look at the methods used and decide for yourself if they are prone to error or not. And remember, even the most well-intentioned testers can make errors.
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
Back in January 2007, the Washinton post reported how the Ford Motor Company had reported a loss of $12.7 billion in 2006, the worst in its 103 year history.
In the same article, “Ford…blamed the loss in 2006 on a profit collapse in its truck-dependent North American division.”
Today, Ford reported a second-quarter loss of $8.7 billion - the worst quarter ever.
Of course most of us sort of expect that. We hear in the news every day about the cost of food, energy, and healthcare. We hear about the housing market and banks going bankrupt.
But we plan ahead, we change as we have to, as do the motor companies.
In May, the F-150, the “best-selling vehicle in America” was outsold by Honda’s Civic and Accord and Toyota’s Camry and Corolla. None of which are pickup trucks, and all of which are know as well-built, fuel-efficient vehicles.
So, Ford is changing right?
In June, Green Car Congress reported that “Ford Motor Company will produce the new Ford Fiesta small car for North America at the company???s transformed Cuautitl??n Assembly Plant???currently producing F-Series (F-150 to F-550) pickups for the Mexican market???beginning in early 2010.” North America - that means the Fiesta may or may NOT even be for sale in the United States. And sales two years from now aren’t doing Ford any good this summer.
Take a look at Ford’s main web page. In the “Vehicle Showroom” feature for the Ford brand, six of the vehicles are “cars”, everything else is a pickup, SUV or crossover. And that’s only if you count the Focus and Mustang twice.
While the Ford Escape Hybrid offers greatly improved city mileage over it’s standard engine brother, it comes at a premium of about $8000 extra. That’s if you can find one. This spring, when I checked on availability of that vehicle, I found that there was only one, literally just one, for sale at any dealership in the entire state!
For years, auto manufacturers have been saying that they just are giving the public what it wants, and that’s trucks and SUVs. Ford has continued its manufacturing based on outdated modes of thought about what people want in a vehicle.
Right now, what the public wants is something affordable to operate - not another gas guzzler.
Will Ford make changes to its lineup quick enough to continue as one of the major manufactureres, or will “Built Ford Tough” simply not be good enough?
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
I’ve posted about HybridFest a few times already, but I just wanted to point you all in the direction of something I just wrote for Popular Mechanics about some of the neater things that could be seen hanging around HF 2008.
Anyway, I hope you join us next year, I know the event will be even better.
NOTE: The above readout may seem a bit unclear at first glance, but from left to right, top to bottom, here’s what the information means: Instantaneous MPG, Speed, Trip MPG, Distance. I took this photo after a short drive.
By now, we know about devices like the PLX Kiwi and the Scangauge II, but what about those of us who don’t have 1996 or newer cars? How about those who don’t want to spend $170-$300 on instrumentation or prefer to support open-source projects?
Well, the MPGuino is the answer! A few months ago, Darin posted on the forums looking for someone to help him build an open-source MPG gauge for all fuel injected cars. From there, forum member dcb stepped up to the plate and has taken the reigns in a really big way. Nowadays, on release v0.66, the MPGuino is a fully functioning, useful display that anyone with a bit of soldering kills can put together.
Building the MPGuino
The MPGuino is based on the arduino platform, and for it’s tiny footprint I chose to base my build around the iDuino, even though lots of folks use the freeduino. Since the iDuino doesn’t accept the car’s 12v, I used a cell phone charger to convert to 5v and wired directly to the board. Everything else, down to the LCD, which I bought on ebay, is pretty standard to the build. For more of the basic, check out the release one thread.
Anyway, here was my parts list and aproximate prices:
- iDuino: $20
- HD 44780 LCD: $10
- Parts from ratshack: $6-7
- Auto cell charger: $5 (at the dollar store)
Total: $42-43
It’d be a bit cheaper with a freeduino and some parts you might have laying around or found online, but I was trying to slap this together quickly.
Anyway, on to the assembly! The first thing I did was follow the iDuino assembly instructions, posted and annotated by the makers of the kit. However, I didn’t insert the jumper pins because I found it easier to just run the wires I would be connecting through the holes and soldering directly. From there, go ahead and follow the wiring instructions from this image:
My button and component board is a little ugly, but here’s what it ended up looking like:
The next step from here would be to find a project box and try to clean up the mounting a bit, but I haven’t quite gotten to that part yet.
Anyway, with the physical unit put together, go ahead and download the arduino 11 platform to your computer and then test out some of the sample programs. If it isn’t broken (hopefully it isn’t!), go ahead and upload the latest MPGuino software and make sure that everything is working.
That’s about it! The next is to wire it into the car. I disassembled the cigarette lighter cell charger like this and wired it into one of the spare spots on my fuse box so that it would be powered whenever the key was in I or II. From there I simply tapped into the speed sensor wire and fuel injector wire, which I’ll leave up to you to find on your own car, though some suggestions can be found here.
The next step is to power up the MPGuino in your car and figure out how to use it.
Using the MPGuino
Luckily, there’s really not much to using the MPGuino. The first thing you need to do is go ahead and figure out the calibration figures for your car. I’m told that most Japanese makes will use 8204 for the speed sensor and that many American makes will use 10000. However, it’s easy enough to compare the distance on the MPGuino to your odometer in order to see if any adjustments need to be made.
The fuel variable is a bit trickier. Some of them have been figured out, so I would search and then ask, but if your car hasn’t seen the likes of the MPGuino before, you might be the pioneer who figures out the numbers for a perfect calibration. The trick here is to simply keep track of your tank mileage on the MPGuino and then compare it to a standard fill up and make adjustments based on the percentage you’re off from the pump fill.
I’ll be the first to admit calibration can be a pain in the ass, but luckily it’d already been done for me. After that’s out of the way, you can check out your mileage by simply using your three buttons to scroll through the screens. See more about that here.
Personally, I tend to use the instant/current screen the most, and when I’m on longer trips or trips where the sun will hurt visibility on the screen, I use the big instantaneous numbers.
Anyway, this is really were the fun begins. The MPGuino in conjunction with your EcoDriving skills will net some good numbers (see first image).
Limitations of the MPGuino
As of writing (v0.66), the MPGuino has a few issues, the biggest of which is that you have to do all the assembly yourself. That’s not a problem for a lot of us, but for the MPGuino to go more mainstream we’ll have to figure out how to make it more accessible to your average ecomodder.
What’s more, the LCD leaves a little to be desired in terms of readability in the sunlight. However, a solution is currently being worked on.
For more issues, and more up-to-date issues, check this thread or more generally look around the MPGuino forum.
Places for MPGuino Improvement
Luckily, the MPGuino’s faults all play into it’s biggest asset: open-source. Sure, I may want an AFR display, but all that means is that I’ll have to do it or find someone smarter to do it for me. Though limited by hardware (but only to a small degree, platform changes are always a possibility), everything else is up in the air with the MPGuino and anyone can edit the code. If you’re interested, check it out for yourself in the Arduino 11 environment.
Well, I hope you’ll find this useful. If you have any questions or knowledge, don’t hesitate to post in the forums, open-source relies on all you to test and help improve the project!
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
Sorry for being a little scarce recently, but it???s because I???ve been on the road with some of the other members of the EcoModder forums visiting HybridFest out in Madison, Wisconsin. Some of us were local, so the trip wasn???t such a big deal, but others of us (me!) had an 18-hour, all-night drive out from New Jersey. So, I hope you understand that updates have been a little scarce, to say the least.
EcoModder was a ???Silver Sponsor??? of HybridFest, which besides meaning we helped with the whole thing coming together, means we got to have a big booth where we showed my car, Ben Nelson???s electric motorcycle, and talked to everyone interested about EcoModding. I also gave a few talks about EcoModding, which I think helped connect us with some cool folks. In the image above, you can see me standing with my car before the event had even officially started. You can see more pictures on flickr.
Anyway, HybridFest was a great time, and I???d like to share with you a few of the highlights as I see them. I may take some more time to get into these things in longer posts, but if you were considering coming out, here are some of the great things you missed:
The EcoModder booth: As I already mentioned, we had Ben???s DIY electric motorcycle and my 91 CRX attracting attention. I got so many questions about the ???68 mpg @ 60 mph??? sign that I didn???t have time to check out any of the speakers or any of the other booths!
Toyota: Toyota was the biggest sponsor and brought a whole team of people to show several hybrid models as well as walk people through a gigantic pop our trailer bus. The sweeten the deal, they gave out non-battery LED flashlights (which you had to shake to charge up) and packets of seeds.
GM: You’ll hear more about this in a post I will write tonight, but GM came to the opening dinner Friday night and then disappeared, abandoning a city bus, their floor space, and their sponsorship of the event.
MPG Challenge: Evidently everyone expected the winner to win, but you can check out the results here. It was an open course, time-limited event, so definitely practical to real life driving…and with some amazing results.
Prii: And I thought Hanover had some massive collection of the iconic hybrids…Everywhere you turned would be a different Prius with a different custom paint job and some sort of claim to fame.
I wish I could comment more on the other booths and the speakers, which I heard were great, but I spent all my time manning our booth and not too much time wandering around. However, it was definitely a great experience, and I urge you all to come out next year.
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
A few months ago in a post about A/C alternatives I promised you I’d try some of the gadgets and get back to you. Well, summer has finally hit and in between sweaty drives around town I’ve been doing a little research. Here’s what I’ve learned:
the A/C shirts, according to some cycling reviews I’ve read, are kind of uncomfortable and don’t last very long. Coupled with the high price, I let this one pass;
this was the cheapest option, and therefore first on my list, stay tuned for more info;
seems like it would work better than #1, but again, cost is a factor. I might give this a try later;
definitely still on the to do list, expect an update on this before I shell out for #3;
this is definitely next up with the beaded seats already taken of, when I return from HybridFest this is my next mod.
Before thinking about these tricks for alternative A/C, I’d always thought those beaded seat covers were for weirdos. Luckily, the other founder of EcoModder told me that they did a great job of keeping you cool in the summer. I was a little skeptical, but when he showed me his beaded covers and I realized I could get a pair for just $26 dollars (shipping included), I figured it was worth a try.
The Komfort Beads showed up on my doorstep the day after I ordered them, and I went right ahead and threw them on both my passenger and driver’s seats. It wasn’t very hot outside, so I couldn’t tell how they worked during short trips around town, but today they got their first real trial.
The Date
When I removed my A/C (most of you will think I’m a fool, but it never worked anyway), I decided that the ultimate replacement would be found when I could go to a date and take a date in my car without showing up a puddle of sweat or reducing her to one. Today I got to put this to the test, as it was extremely sunny and blisteringly hot on the way to an engagement with a lady caller.
I won’t get into the date, but the beads were a success. When I showed up I was a little toasty, but my back felt much nicer than usual and wasn’t a pool of sweat. The seat was still slightly uncomfortable, but it was definitely refreshing to have my back feeling good. When she got into the car, she agreed. I’m sure she’s used to A/C, but I didn’t hear any complaints about the heat. The only negative seemed to be that the beads could tug at longer hair.
Success!
Yep, I’m going to call it a success. The beads don’t put you in a 70F paradise, but they greatly improve summer driving and reduce sweat. Especially for just $26 for a pair, this was a great deal. Does anyone have any other beaded seat cover brands they can recommend?
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
Two days ago, the New York Times had a really interesting article about something currently going on in one of the most progressive cities in the country: San Francisco. We all know that finding a parking spot in the city can really sucks. What’s worse is that driving around the same block over and over again isn’t getting you very good gas mileage.
San Francisco has an answer for both the anxiety and efficiency of finding a spot: Smartphone accessible parking spot details. Using small wireless sensors, parking spaces will be able to communicate with driver’s smartphones in order to tell them where there are open spots. It’s also possible that in the future you’ll be able to pay for parking over the phone, as well refill the meter without actually walking out to the spot.
This technology could be revolutionary, especially in congestion capitals like New York:
Not that New Yorkers need any reminders of their traffic problems, but a study released in June by Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group, reported that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in New York City is generated by people circling the blocks.
NYC recently saw it’s congestion pricing plan fail, but if this system works in San Francisco I can see it reducing emissions, fuel use, and stress in congested cities around the world.
Introduction: I???ll admit it.?? I have mixed feelings for Mitsubishi.?? I once owned a 2003.5 Lancer Evolution VIII that was a blast to drive, yet was plagued with factory defects.?? Most owners of that conveyance have since traded it for a Subaru Impreza STI, or something else, before it catastrophically failed.
The Galant was the only 4-cylinder offering in which to choose from the lineup in Rental Row.?? Among with the Impalas, SUVs, and Chrysler 300???s, the Galant offered the most promise in it???s small 2.4L ???World??? engine (that???s the same one shared with many Chrysler-based vehicles — such as the Sebring, Avenger, and high-trimmed Caliber.?? The FE may just save this vehicle???s shortcomings.
On the Outside: The front-end harkens images of the ill-fated Diamante, with the rear ?? view taking after the youthful Lancer.?? I would classify it ???awkwardly average??? with an air of some class.
Mitsubishi has had its fair share of trouble lately.?? Before the Chrysler buy-out from Cerberus, Mitsubishi was left wondering were to go and was struggling to gain a foot-hold on the U.S. market while still sharing engines.?? The Eclipse bloated-up, the Galant itself was slipping in simplicity, and the brand was viewed as a risk to buy.?? Now, the Chrysler brand has broken free any new design sharing, but retains the venerable 2.4L, DOHC, 4-cylinder that powers much of its lineup.?? The question: has Mitz redeemed itself lately?
On the Inside: Ugh.?? The interior is cut-and-pasted from the Endeavor SUV, which is at best, mediocre (or vice-versa).?? The biggest complaint is the driver???s seat comfort.?? Height adjustment is available in this trim via knob, but lumbar is fixed in the Hunchback Position.?? The wheel/column only tilts and doesn???t telescope.?? Even the Chevy Cobalt offers a telescoping wheel.?? Not good.?? The HVAC and radio controls are cheaply lit, and hard to see in bright light.?? Is the A/C on or not?
Reporting in all fairness, blind-spots were abundant and sound system was utterly awful.?? The bass boost was in full-force.?? A full adjustment to ???-6??? on that setting still announced the authority of the thump.?? Conclusion: it???s uncomfortable in there.
Otherwise, expect faux-wood trim, a bit of extra room and some added safety features.
Safety:Tire Pressure Monitoring, depowered drivers bag, side airbags, and ABS with EBD.
Efficiency: This is the only reason why I bothered to report on this car.?? Over 73.4 miles of Cincinnati hills and gridlock, the car only used a smidge under 2 gallons of fuel.?? Let???s assume the previous renter filled-up a ways-out from the lot, and give it 73 miles at 2 gallons.?? That???s [B]36.5 MPG[/B].?? I could hardly believe it!?? Honestly, I didn???t go easy on the go pedal at all.?? On the highway (when it opened-up), I set the cruise for about 65-70 and went around town with the traffic (at their hefty pace and acceleration).?? The only technique I used was to force an upshift from the slap-shift gear selector.?? Otherwise, it was business as usual.
The Drive: Perhaps this is where the Galant makes up for it???s shortcomings.?? Steering feedback is precise, torque is well-pronounced, and transmission feel is rather appropriate.?? The ride is well-adjusted for the vehicle???s size, which promotes some driving confidence.?? Where it starts to sponge out, is during corners with its marshmallow tire sidewall strength.?? Save cash on manufacturing where you can, I suppose.
For the Energy Conscious: This car competes with some pretty heavy-hitters in the FE lineup: Accord, Camry, Sonata, Malibu, Fusion.?? Further testing would be required, but the only advantage I can see is: 1) Potential FE, and 2) being different (with choice #1 actually paying for itself).
As always, consider the size of vehicle you need. This car may fit the bill for folks looking for a new car with low financing and a gracious warranty.
For an efficient, mid-sized sedan, others are out there.
Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2009 Mitsubishi Galant
Trim: ES (Base)
Class Size: Mid-Sized Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 2.4L SOHC, 16-Valve, ???MIVEC??? Variable Valve Timing, I-4
Rating: 160 hp at 5500 RPM and 155 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2400
Price as Tested: $21,000 USD (June, 2008)
Curb Weight: 3483 lbs.
EPA: 20/27
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: TBD
Emissions: ULEV
Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: [B]36.5 MPG[/B]
Speed Avg: ~40 MPH
Time of Operation: ~1.0 hours
Distance Driven: 73.4 Miles
Ambient Outside Temp: 75-95F
Cruise Speed: 65-70 MPH
Test Loop: Metro Cincinnati, OH
A/C Usage: 100% of time
Wind/Weather: Warm, Humid ??? Wind calm
Driving Style: Average (including some rush hour jams)
It seems our favorite media darling, the Chevy Volt, will have?? bit of competition when it comes time for it’s eventual release in 2010. Though we’re not sure if it will make it to the US (like the Smart Car EV), we do know that Mitsubishi’s iMiev will make it to market a year earlier than the Volt and be priced lower.
The iMiev, which we start hearing about earlier in the year, has already been slated by Mitsubishi for commercial sale in Japan in 2009, a full year before the Volt is intended to hit US shores. There are also unconfirmed rumors that the iMiev may also make it to the US after a run of a few years in Japan. However, what’s really interesting about the iMiev right now is that Mitsubishi has just released a price figure of what $37,496 US, which is about $2,500less than we often hear talked about as the price point for the Chevy Volt.
Despite the similarities in pricing and release date, the two cars are very different beasts. The iMiev is based on a current Kei-car produced by Mitsubishi for Japan, and has a 47kW electric motor powered by a 330-volt lithium ion battery pack. The car will have a top speed of 80 mph and an all electric range of about 100 miles. Charging will take place via a normal power outlet and should take about 14 hours to completely charge the battery, though there is all a 220V charge option, which only takes 7 hours.
On the other hand, the Volt will feature a sportier 120kW motor and 100+ mph top speed, but will only have an electric range of 20 or 40 miles (depending on the speculation and model selection), after which is will switch over to your standard dinosaur burning engine like in most cars these days. Chevy claims that most people never drive over 40 miles in a day, but I’m sure these Volts will be burning enough fossil fuels that calling them “electric cars” will leave a bitter taste in some peoples’ mouths. I think series hybrid or plug-in hybrid is much more appropriate.
While you’re getting hyped up for the iMiev, check out this test drive video from Popular Mechanics:
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
