Chrysler Unveils 3 Electric Car Prototypes, One to Be Produced in 2010

A minivan! Finally!

I would have liked to see a sedan, but I'm glad they have a minivan design.

The minivan is the most important of all of these prototypes. Glad someone finally put some common sense into Electric vehicles.

I'm voting for the minivan as well :D

This is encouraging news. And I do hope that they aim more for a purposed-built EV carriage in order to optimize efficiency.

When I noticed the minivan, I was skeptical; I didn't think we had the battery tech for something like that to be practical. But the post says its electric range is as good as the Volt, and that it gets 50 mpg when running on gas. I'm skeptical of that, but if its true that would be AWESOME.

By the way, if we can make a 50 mpg minivan, WHY are our existing cars and SUVs getting so much less than that? I mean a minivan is about as big, heavy and not aerodynamic as you can get for a passenger vehicle (other than a bus).

I love the sportscar.. Finally we are getting some good tech and alternate vehicles!!

Hopefully the japanese will follow!

"...the post says...that it gets 50 mpg when running on gas."

No it doesn't. It says it "can drive 40 miles in all-electric mode and about 400 miles with 8 gallons of gasoline." That's 400 miles on 8 gallons and a full charge for a combined average of 50 mpg, not 50 mpg when running on gas only.

"...if we can make a 50 mpg minivan, WHY are our existing cars and SUVs getting so much less than that?"

The range or any mpg claim are based on an EPA protocol (EPA has yet to decide how they are going to test plug-in vehicles), just that it CAN. I could claim that my car gets 37 mpg highway because it can, but it is only rated at 32 by the EPA test. All vehicles CAN get better mileage than the EPA rating, which is reflected in fine print on the window sticker, where it lists a range of mpg (both high and low) that is possible with the vehicle depending on how it is driven.

I have to say, after the past few years I wasn't expecting this from Chrysler. Am pleasantly surprised. I just hope it's not just a tease that will never amount to nothing.

To Anthony,

I'm not an expert, but I think using a gasoline engine to turn a turbine to generate electricity to power an electric motor is actually more efficient then to using a gasoline engine to turn the wheels directly.

Anyone else able to confirm or deny this?

First Telsa, now Chrysler using the Lotus Elise platform for an electric sports car.

For someone as big as Chrysler, I expected more than just a rebadged and electrified Lotus

I would definitely take a close look at the minivan.

@Anthony

Some minivans are more aerodynamic than SUVs, plus there was a study released a short while back that stated that on average minivans transport more passengers per trip than SUVs.

It's a shame they didn't electrify the Pacifica. Now that would garner my interest- these models are pretty ho hum.

I think the sportscar is just way over the top... I wonder what kind of range it could get if they ratcheted down the horsepower to under 150 and increased the 0-60 time to 8 seconds. Would a range of 250-300 miles be possible?

What kind of sports car does 0-60 in 8 seconds? You might as well call it a civic if you do that

My bets are on the Jeep Commander looking thing making first production. All the people who are trying to get rid of their SUVs now will flock to that thing.

Ed: Probably not. Keep in mind that this is the maximum possible output of the motor - and unlike a combustion engine, the motor won't weigh a lot, so replacing it with a 150 hp one would probably only save you a few kilos. The acceleration and top speed would be slightly less, but the range tests are done at much less than top speed (I'm assuming they follow similar testing cycles as for combustion engines), so having a less powerful motor wouldn't make much difference.

David said:

"I'm not an expert, but I think using a gasoline engine to turn a turbine to generate electricity to power an electric motor is actually more efficient then to using a gasoline engine to turn the wheels directly."

Here's the tricky part, and in no small part the reason that noone's bothered to do it before:

It's technically less efficient. From a physicist/engineer's standpoint, you're converting mechanical energy into electrical energy, then converting the electrical energy back to mechanical energy. Any engineer would take one look at that problem at the outset and immediately dismiss it as a daft idea, because you're losing about 20-30% of your energy in that conversion, possibly more. Compare that to maybe 2-5% in friction between a few mechanical components in a standard drivetrain.

But that's not the problem. The problem is how people drive in the real world. In the real world, you have to keep your engine idling at stop lights, because internal combustion engines can't just go down to 0 rpm and start whenever you want them to. Such engines also can't produce enough torque at less than 1000 rpm to keep from stalling, which has necessitated the whole clutch/transmission thing that you're used to manhandling around. Moreover, their ability to produce power is limited to a pretty narrow range of RPM in the first place, so you have to have more than one gear to go from 0 MPH to 60 MPH.

Electric motors simply don't have these problems. At 0 rpm, you can just apply power and the motor just goes. So at stop lights, you use no power at all. The range of RPM that power can be usefully extracted is much broader, so you don't have to have many gears and a clutch to shift between them. And even more importantly, if you want to stop the car, you can tell the motor to turn into a generator, and store that power in a battery (although how much is stored is also subject to that energy conversion I spoke about before, plus charging losses). As such, an electric motor is much more suited to the stop-and-go traffic we all have to deal with.

Now, the third thing, is that gas engines only work at their most efficient at a very narrow range of RPM, as discussed before. If you can keep your engine running at that sweet spot all the time, then you'd get probably around 60+ MPG - there have been designs for gas-powered cars that have acheived 90+ MPG on the track, but with that stop-and-go traffic, they're just not feasible because you expect to be able to accelerate from 0 to 60 in less than about 60 seconds. :)

So the solution is as you see here: let a gas engine run all the time at its peak efficiency (which could potentially get you say, 90mpg if you didn't whine about the horrible acceleration) to charge a battery that powers an electric motor, and suck it up when you lose 30% of your energy to conversion losses. The other reason that this hasn't been done before (not like it hasn't been tried!), is that the batteries in the middle haven't been able to keep up with the task until we invented lithium ion batteries. And then we just had to wait until they got cheap enough to use in cars.

Oh yes, and while you're at it, let the first 40miles run from power from your wall. That will completely cover 90% of your trips anyway, giving you 0 gallons per mile. I'd bet 50 bucks that by 2010, gas will cost over $6 a gallon (in the US anyway - it's already worse than that elsewhere), and you'd gladly turn that 90% into 99% in a car like these.

"I have to say, after the past few years I wasn't expecting this from Chrysler."

Chrysler is under completely new ownership. The current fleet of Chrysler vehicles is a product of Daimler (Mercedes) ownership, who it seemed intended to add diesel engines to Chrysler products in achieve higher efficiencies. Since they dumped Chrysler, they left the company without diesels or hybrids or any other technology in the pipeline, so they are scrambling to catch up.

"For someone as big as Chrysler, I expected more than just a rebadged and electrified Lotus"

Like what? Chrysler doesn't really have anything upon which to base an electric sports car and probalby don't have the cash to develop a new chassis from the ground up right now. If it does make it to production it would likely be reskinned to look more similar to the Dodge Demon concept.

The battery capacities don't add up. How does the sports car go 200 miles on a battery the same size as the ones that take the others only 40 miles?

Minivan: 550 Wh/mile
Jeep: 675 Wh/mile
Lotus: 130 Wh/mile

It will definitely be more efficient due to reduced aero drag and a lower weight, but 4 times better? I doubt it.

excellent news!

so where are the supercapacitors?

supercapacitors are more environmentally friendly than lithium batteries. we need to see some battery and supercapacitors combination energy storage solutions.

They should make that Jeep more aerodynamic!

OK...maybe this makes me the biggest domestic dork ever (a title I will gladly claim) but my heart is aflutter at the thought of an electric MINIVAN! Please please please let me be able to afford the thing once they actually get it on the market.

Chrysler's best bet is still going for the Smart EV they were planning before instead of these green-ostentation monsters.

I'll bet those cars are craptastic like the rest of the big 3's cars.

wow!!!im amazed with the looks!!it suits my personality!!!

As an ecologically concerned organic lawncare and landscape company owner, I am in need of work vehicles that can haul materials around with a utitily trailer in an environmentally uncompromising way.
I've only discovered one four cylinder vehicle (foreign) that has an acceptable tow rating for my purposes. My choices have up until now been to determine which 6 or 8 cylinder gas guzzling brute would serve my business needs.
There is not only the need to provide families with ecological sound and innovative transportation but there's also the working/hauling/construction industry that need it too (some of us care).
If Chrysler is the 'first off the mark' North American car company, to lead us into a brighter environmental future, bring it on.

@steve: this is a good point, my (limited) understanding of electric vehicle technology is that it really suits high torque applications. Given that construction vehicles are already produced in fairly small amounts compared to consumer vehicles you would think they make a much better test-market anyway as the additional cost of small production runs is there already.

Lets see some electric tractors!

"Chrysler's best bet is still going for the Smart EV they were planning before instead of these green-ostentation monsters."

Chrysler's plans for the Smart ended when Daimler, which owns Smart, sold off Chrysler to Cerberus. So Chrysler no longer has the Smart available to them.

I'd like to see some information on pricing and expected availability outside of California. I commute by myself, have a wife but no children at home. I'd prefer a small sedan, but I'd buy the sports car. For those who think a sports car should do 60 in less than 6 seconds to qualify, I humbly suggest they try out an old 1.6 litre Mazda Miata. Fast? Not a chance. Fun? Very much so. It doesn't take blazing speed to make a car fun to drive. A nimble, responsive and light-weight vehicle like the Miata is far more fun than a 6 litre V-8 over a wallowing Detroit chassis.

If what you're saying about high torque applications is true, why aren't there more electric vehicles in trucking fleets. I know there are now all electric dreyage vehicles working at ports, and that long haul trucking and limited range EVs just don't mix, but is anyone coming up with a more efficient way of hauling stuff by big rigs?

I find it interesting that their version of the Tesla roadster 'has' about the same range with a battery pack that has less than HALF the energy storage of Tesla's battery pack. Put it on the dealers lot and it will be interesting - it's just a greenwarshing free-for-all right now.

It's no technical mystery how to make an electric car. The Volt is supposed to be impressive?? For some reason it will take 3 more years for the whizzes at GM to get this 'electric' car on the road while it took a few months and a couple thousand dollars for tinkerers to convert the Prius to a plug in hybrid with similar specs. That is going to be 3 years of great publicity from the company that is 'gas friendly to gas free,' in the mean time they will continue to sell the same old product while enjoying their new wonderfully green image. There is no impetus for change in detroit - it can only come from the demand side. I propose a highly public campaign and pledge list of people who vow to never buy a car that runs on combustible fuels again (yes this includes ethanol). Any takers?

"For some reason it will take 3 more years for the whizzes at GM to get this 'electric' car on the road while it took a few months and a couple thousand dollars for tinkerers to convert the Prius to a plug in hybrid with similar specs."

First, the "tinkerers" don't have to worry about long-term reliability, liability and warranty costs. They can simply build one, and if it works to their satisfaction, call it a success.

GM has to make sure that the vehicle not only works, but continues to work and without creating any unforseen hazard, which means lifecycle testing - building prototypes and driving them for hundreds of thousands of miles and in through the extremes of conditions that the vehicle encounter - severe heat, cold, humidity, vibration, age, etc. You can't do that overnight.

Second, the Plug-In Prius conversions still fall short of the Volts specs. While the all-electric range claims are similar, the Volt is said to be capable of attaining its range during the EPA defined drive cycle which includes a range of speeds.

The PIP's can't top 35 mph without the ICE, which means for the all-electric range that they are claiming it is only at low speed, not a standardized comparison.

i in no way want to defend the major automakers for their lathargy and poor efforts to bring inexpesnsive, mass produced ev's to market, bu tfor those asking why it has taken so long and saying that it's easy to build an ev, there is a reality in the differneces between the "build your own ev" and small scale golf cart applications, and a major manufacturer's standards. again, i'm first to laugh at the surprisingly poor quality you get from a chevy or ford in this day, but these companies have to follow all the rules, all the aporovals hurdles, and all the endurance requirements that never need be looked at if you get an ev kit car or a golf cart.

of course, they could have done this 30 years ago, but there was never an appreciable demand in the market. well, now there is, and perhaps there is also a more sinister reality (fat cats know the oil is soon all gone?) that the public isn't so privy to; anyway, the result is up until a year or two ago, none of these major manufacturers saw a need to develop a production scale ev product. now that they have, there is always a lead in time, and more so for all the new technologies they must add to their production process. so it makes sense that if the call from the market came in, say 2006, then the first sales occur in 2010. let's just all keep our fingers crossed that people's love of green doesn't fade as the opec oligarchs drop their prices to kill the plug-in pests!

I would love to get in contact with some one to order a couple of those Jeeps. I am involved in a development in Costa Rica called Flamingo Natural. This development is Leed certified and we are looking for some Electric or Hybrid SUVs. Contact me at andre@bwpcr.com. Thank you for your help and coments.

nice cars. a bit late in coming tho. and responding to gl's post, yes I agree that thats y GM will take 3 years to get the cars on the road. But if all companies start saying the same thing, they'll be dumping EV's into a market thats starving for powerful and capable EVs while 'tinkerers' will have three years of tech ahead of them.

Honda, has a prototype car that puts Ferrari to shame. there are powerful vehicles. Tesla is a good example. the atom is another one. the tech for all these. GM is going to stay behind the market if the ydont get those cars out on the roads pronto. personally I'll bet on the japanese and european manufacturers before I go CLOSE to the american automakers. No offense, but japs and europeans seem to be moving a bit faster on the Green side.
and second is that I just prefer Japanese vehicles.

I may be wrong, but I think the american auto manufacturers are behind the curve in Green Vehicles. Its too little too late.

hey love the cars im a huge tree hugger smile face:)

"They still don't get it. Now they have an electric brick..."

“I agree, they just don't get it. Everyone I know wants a small 4 door car like a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic.”

“The two guys above have it right.”

Ever wonder why Toyota made the RAV-4 EV rather than a Corolla EV?

What the first three above don't get is that a vehicle with an appreciable capacity to haul people or stuff, aerodynamic or not, requires a lot of batteries. To put that many batteries in a vehicle without using up all of the useful space requires either the vehicle be designed around the batteries to make most efficient use of the space, or use a vehicle that already has a significant amount of unused volume.

Designing an all new vehicle around the batteries takes time. The ENVI concepts can get to market quicker because they are conversions of existing vehicles. Trucks, SUV's and vans are prime candidates for conversion, because the floor is high and there is a lot of empty space underneath. The minivan will probably lose some of its “Stow-and-Go” features, but the interior volume should be unchanged. The ENVI sports car is essentially a reskinned, hard-topped Tesla.

“The Prius for example, looks like a regular car but has maybe thirty features that make it so efficient.”

The Prius looks like a regular car?