# VW getting 258 mpg



## adamtheha (Mar 14, 2007)

WANT!!!
http://vista-sg.blogspot.com/2010/01/world-cheapest-vw-car-2010-in-china.html
It is supposed to sell in China for the equivalent of $600US. It could be 25x this price, and still be amazing!
I would love to import one to Canada, even if I had to add some safety features.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yup,so much we can do,yet cant do.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I was thinking I'd sacrifice half the mileage for a little more capacity, but that is kind of a bad attitude. That little thing would do 1/4 of our trips as built. Still moving two people for 129mpg would be great. A TDI Jetta moves 4-5 people + some bags in that 50+ mpg range so we already use cars in that fuel eff range here. I wonder how safe it is and what it does in the snow.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

Isn't the picture of the L1 car? If so... carbon fiber... no way its only $600. Diesel engine AND an electric motor?

somethings not right here.

Michael


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I dont believe the claims. My moped can not even get that gas milage.


----------



## roachhill (Jul 8, 2009)

I guess we'll just have to wait for one to come to a local dealership to find out. I have doubts it will ever happen but if they can do what they claim I'd buy one. The biggest problem with all the little fuel efficient cars, like the smart car, is that they are aren't much good for highway travel or a family car so they are only a second car and they are WAY too expensive to be just a second car. The original Chevy Sprint could get better than 50 mpg and cost $4995 brand new, not bad but they couldn't build it now if they wanted to. The only reason that someone can't just manufacture a little car body powered by a little motorcycle engine as a cheap commuter is all the useless government interference. Every car in this country has something like $4000 in added costs just meeting the pointless standards. Incidentally bike mileage is severly hampered by poor aerodynamics so a small bodied car can beat a bike in mileage. That said I don't know how anyone would manage 258mpg. 100 should be doable though.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

The thing is something like 90% of all miles are done by single driver cars,no passengers.

Yup,they can do those ultra high miles,look at how efficient motors have become in last 50 years.

Coming to a dealer near you,not happening.

This can be done,but it requires a whole new roadsystem,etc etc etc. It isnt just the vehicle.We are still at 1900 tech on the entire system.


----------



## adamtheha (Mar 14, 2007)

No electric motor, just a single cylinder diesel. It probably weighs next to nothing, my kid could probably tow it. I would love to see something like this here, with capacity for two, and a bit larger, stronger frame. I would also sacrifice 1/2 the efficiency for that.
This is only being sold in China, and it STARTS at 4000 yuan, currently $600 US. I don't think it's carbon fibre, maybe fibreglass. Gas tank is 1.7 gal. Looking at the dash, looks like you get a steering wheel and a speedometer, so no frills for chinese people I guess.


----------



## 12vman (Feb 17, 2004)

I'd have to wait for the 4WD model..


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

It's our earth caring EPA that mandates high fuel usage.... Catalytic converters need fuel to burn "clean" so the engine runs rich to make it so. Gotta love those oxygen sensors.

As far as the "car". Not happening. No way it would pass all the various regulations. They would have to greatly increase it's weight. With the increase in weight it would need a bigger engine. So it would use more fuel. Then it would need 20% or so more fuel again for the Catalytic Converter. So you would be back to around 60 or so MPG. Kinda like the "smart" car. What would be the point.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

adamtheha said:


> No electric motor, just a single cylinder diesel. It probably weighs next to nothing, my kid could probably tow it. I would love to see something like this here, with capacity for two, and a bit larger, stronger frame. I would also sacrifice 1/2 the efficiency for that.
> This is only being sold in China, and it STARTS at 4000 yuan, currently $600 US. I don't think it's carbon fibre, maybe fibreglass. Gas tank is 1.7 gal. Looking at the dash, looks like you get a steering wheel and a speedometer, so no frills for chinese people I guess.


I still say its complete and utter fiction. A decent quality 1 cylinder 8.4hp diesel engine, by itself, will cost $600. Add in a 6sp DSG transmission, and you're over the $3k mark.

Take a look at the picture in your link. Then take a look at this link: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/vwl1.htm

Notice the 2nd seat? This was the 1st version of the car, I think.

Michael


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

If the car is anything like the website it will have a confusing instrument panel, will accelerate very slowly, take forever to get up to speed and its warranty will be unenforceable because it will be nearly incomprehensible.


----------



## roachhill (Jul 8, 2009)

I looked it up on Snopes, the car is a real prototype and it does get that fuel mileage and even higher at lower speeds (314mpg at 48mph). That's the good news the bad news is the price is a myth, The real cost is very, very high and VW shelved the whole project because the cost made the car impractical as a marketable product. The rumour has persisted because CNN picked it up and ran it as real news, that's some fine fact checking they have there.


----------



## henk (Jun 20, 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

"In June 2010, reports circulated that a single-seater version using the model name L1 would be sold in China for 4000 yuan (US$600) starting in 2011. Despite reports on ABC News, Truthorfiction.com rates these reports as "fiction""


----------



## roachhill (Jul 8, 2009)

Makes you wonder if CNN stole it from ABC or ABC stole it from CNN.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Ross said:


> I wonder how safe it is and what it does in the snow.


Snow? That'd be interesting. Far as safe, I'd say they'd be a heckuva lot safer than any motorcycle. Sorry, one of my pet peeves is we allow cycles on the highway, that are suicide machines, yet we insist on 'safety' for enclosed vehicles.

I'd buy one, even at 6K.


----------



## Mr.Hogwallop (Oct 2, 2009)

City Bound said:


> I dont believe the claims. My moped can not even get that gas milage.


Me either. The best tweaked and stripped down moped can't get that kind of MPG.

I'd have to see it to believe it.
Wouldn't it be great i it were true?

Big oil lobby would never allow it into the US. A VW Lupo gets @70mpg but they wont sell it in the us... vw says there is no demand for it and nobody will buy it.

More like, nobody will let them sell it?


----------



## Mr.Hogwallop (Oct 2, 2009)

Correction, 99mpg. Road tested.



> IN Italian, lupo means wolf, but for much of Europe it also denotes the smallest car in Volkswagen's litter. The Lupo 3 Liter TDI is also VW's most efficient. ''Three liter'' stands not for engine displacement or size, but for fuel efficiency: three liters per 100 kilometers in European measure, or 99 miles a gallon.
> 
> That figure was the four-minute mile of fuel efficiency. With the Lupo 3 Liter, Volkswagen beat Opel, Renault, Fiat and other automakers to seize the bragging rights for selling the first, and so far only, production vehicle to reach this miserly pinnacle.
> 
> Last year, a fleet of Lupo 3 Liters drove around the world in 80 days, averaging better than 99 m.p.g. But their passage across the United States was barely noted. Today, however, with fuel prices moving higher (although American gasoline remains laughably low to Europeans), the Lupo might get more attention.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Just how big a car is the Lupo? What kind of performance does it offer? I'm not talking 0-60 but rather what can it cruise at with a family of four plus luggage, for instance. How does it handle on wet roads? Maneuverability? I'm all for fuel economy and all that but there is a lot more to a car than just mpg.


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

My husband has an '03 tdi Jetta. He gets 47 mpg average, in a car that seats 5, and has a big trunk. He gets told constantly that he is at the wrong pump, that he just killed the car, that he can't read, because that little car can't use diesel. People just don't know they exist and they are shocked when he tells them it's a turbo diesel and that he's gotten 60mpg on the freeway.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

People are always shocked to hear the mileage of any diesel. My 27 year old 8 passenger Suburban gets 19MPG an will run on almost anything you pour in the tank. I love seeing the look on peoples faces when they see me pouring used motor oil in my fuel tank.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

My 81 Chevvette Diesel had the same problems we even had station attendents take the diesel hose OUT AND PUMP GAS IN!
gurr
Then claim not to be responceable since it was self serve!

But 50 MPG all the time and better sometimes.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Diesel is more expensive than gas. Why not run it on the (comparatively) cheaper alternative? 
If it's all the same to0 a diesel.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

Justin Thyme said:


> Just how big a car is the Lupo? What kind of performance does it offer? I'm not talking 0-60 but rather what can it cruise at with a family of four plus luggage, for instance. How does it handle on wet roads? Maneuverability? I'm all for fuel economy and all that but there is a lot more to a car than just mpg.


The Lupo is different than the L1. The Lupo was an actual production car, while the L1 is just a prototype.

How big? Very small 4 seater. Top speed is supposed to be 91mph. 

Wet pavement? what tires do you have on it.

Whats the statistic of single occupancy on vehicles? over 90%? If you insist that every trip you make is going to be with a full car, or that you can only have one car that must be able to take the whole family on a vacation, then this car isn't for you.

The L1 is made as a commuter car. More range/faster turnaround than an electric, but not intended to be the be-all, end-all of transportation.

Michael


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

If it isnt a Suburban,with a full bed,3 ton,6 wheel drive getting 90 mpg someone will ALWAYS have a problem with it here.Never fails.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................They didn't show the bicycle pedals nor the midget chinaman in the back seat eating a bowl of chop suey whilst he peddled . , lol , fordy:grin:


----------



## keyhole (Dec 2, 2008)

City Bound said:


> I dont believe the claims. My moped can not even get that gas milage.


There have been inventions and patents in the USA for 100 years that allow you to get over 100 MPG. The only thing is that they hardly ever get to the people. Normally they are bought up by some company and shelved or if the owner doesn't sell he normally dies of some strange accident.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

keyhole said:


> There have been inventions and patents in the USA for 100 years that allow you to get over 100 MPG. The only thing is that they hardly ever get to the people. Normally they are bought up by some company and shelved or if the owner doesn't sell he normally dies of some strange accident.


Ahh... yes. Like the mythical 100mpg carburetor that you put on a V-8 engine. Go as fast as you like, and get good gas mileage. I need to find the website that calculates the energy in moving the typical car of the era, and compares it to what they say the carburetor will put out. Some time around the 1970's or so this myth became popular.

I hope you know that a patent only lasts for 17 years? After that, anyone can make a knock off of the product. Where are all of these wonderful devices? They should all be in the patent office records. Or are these the special secret patents that nobody gets to look at? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you show a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. The only patents I can think of that would get 100mpg over the last 100 years would be for shoes, bicycles, horse buggies...

Michael


----------



## keyhole (Dec 2, 2008)

artificer said:


> Ahh... yes. Like the mythical 100mpg carburetor that you put on a V-8 engine. Go as fast as you like, and get good gas mileage. I need to find the website that calculates the energy in moving the typical car of the era, and compares it to what they say the carburetor will put out. Some time around the 1970's or so this myth became popular.
> 
> I hope you know that a patent only lasts for 17 years? After that, anyone can make a knock off of the product. Where are all of these wonderful devices? They should all be in the patent office records. Or are these the special secret patents that nobody gets to look at? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you show a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. The only patents I can think of that would get 100mpg over the last 100 years would be for shoes, bicycles, horse buggies...
> 
> Michael


Michael I know today's generation have a a hard time with the old saying of"Reading is fundamental"!!! By that I mean most just want everything given to them on a silver platter without having to do any work for themselves. I have my own kids and even see it from them from time to time when they think they can get away with it.

Sorry for the sarcasm but you have demonstrated a total lack of effort on your part to even use your fingers to type in the search box on any page to look for anything. For an old, tired individual like myself spending only about 20 - 30 minutes a day on a computer I was able to find the plans, patents and downloadable plans for many carbs and devices. So here's a bone for you
http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm#2026

now go fetch!!


----------



## 12vman (Feb 17, 2004)

I remember the old updraft carbs on small engines that made a lot of sense. The ventura and the bowl was positioned lower than the intake port of the engine. No liquid gas entered the engine, just vapor.

In days gone by, gasoline sold at the pump had more octane than it does today. I believe this has something to do with things too..


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Maybe we can all make our points without using sarcasm?


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

keyhole said:


> Michael I know today's generation have a a hard time with the old saying of"Reading is fundamental"!!! By that I mean most just want everything given to them on a silver platter without having to do any work for themselves. I have my own kids and even see it from them from time to time when they think they can get away with it.
> 
> Sorry for the sarcasm but you have demonstrated a total lack of effort on your part to even use your fingers to type in the search box on any page to look for anything. For an old, tired individual like myself spending only about 20 - 30 minutes a day on a computer I was able to find the plans, patents and downloadable plans for many carbs and devices. So here's a bone for you
> http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm#2026
> ...


I fail to see any data showing that the carburetor gets good mileage. The only thing I could see is the quote 

"Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburetor using Pogueâs theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canadaâs National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: "You can get fantastic mileage if youâre prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour." 

I say again... where are all of these wonderful devices? The carburetor mentioned is supposed to provide "dry properly proportioned combustible mixture from a liquid fuel". Do you think its going to be better than fuel injection? Complete atomization of fuel, directly injected into the cylinder, or intake manifold? If the carburetor is so fantastic, why isn't everyone using it? Maybe its because of the above quote... you make the engine operate at a very low hp. You can get the same result by putting a lawnmower engine in a car. Useless as far as getting anywhere goes, but probably great mileage.

I read... a LOT. I'm a master at searching the net. I'm a scientist/engineer. Your one example, that doesn't have any supporting documentation, is one of the reason I posted what I did. How was this contraption suppressed? Have you looked at the complexity? Why would any engine/car manufacturer use something like this? I will wait for your explanation why this thing will provide better gas mileage than fuel injection, the standard modern technology that gets only mid 30's mpg, unless you go hybrid, use hypermiling, or extreme vehicle design.

If you want some further reading, look at the counter claims for the carburetor at this site.

A simple thought exercise is fairly enlightening in this case. Take a small electric vehicle. They use 200-300 watt-hrs/mile. If a gallon of gas has the equivalent of 33,700 watt-hour of energy per one US gallon, your mileage at 100% efficiency for the engine would be 112mpg to 167mpg. Still less than 200mpg, and this is a small vehicle. If you factor in the maximum theoretical efficiency of 60% (CR of 10), your mileage is even less. Add in all the inefficiencies that make a standard gas engine operate at only around 25%, and your mileage is 42mpg. Pretty close to what you see in small vehicles that are well designed.

Ross: sorry about the sarcasm. I should know by now to just ignore the "true believers" and conspiracy theorists when they don't have any supporting facts. Its just really hard, since they come in, make a blanket statement, and have no facts to back it up. Ah, well... I'll shut up now.

Michael


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

artificer said:


> I should know by now to just ignore the "true believers" and conspiracy theorists when they don't have any supporting facts. Its just really hard, since they come in, make a blanket statement, and have no facts to back it up.


Whatever you do DONT google what happened to the NiMH battery from the EV-1,that got 140 miles/charge in REAL WORLD driving,on FREEWAYS,up mountain roads....in a real MODERN sized car thats was powerful and as fast as a PORSCHE!

That lasted what,2-3 years before the cars were scrapped and an OIL COMPANY now owns the rights to the Ovonics large capacity NiMH battery (which BTW was developed with OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!!)......that sits on a shelf gathering dust and is licensed to NOBODY,PERIOD.

Thats my conspiracy theory that is 100% TRUTHFUL and can be looked up for verification.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> Whatever you do DONT google what happened to the NiMH battery from the EV-1,that got 140 miles/charge in REAL WORLD driving,on FREEWAYS,up mountain roads....in a real MODERN sized car thats was powerful and as fast as a PORSCHE!


You mean the cars that cost $1,000,000,000 (thats a $billion) to make 800 cars? 26Kw-hr battery packs? The program that was canceled because they backed away from the ZEV regulations in California?

You can get large capacity Lithium ion packs that weighs much less, for the same or less cost as the EV-1 pack. Why aren't people using it in vehicles? Could it be the $15,000 price tag, just for the batteries?

I would have liked to see the EV-1's sold to people, but considering the liabilities to the company, mandatory parts supply requirements, cost just to have them on the books... I can see why they abandoned the project. If they hadn't backtracked on the ZEV regulations, we would probably have many more vehicles to choose from.

As a comparison, the Tesla has a battery pack that is twice the size, and goes more miles. Not many people are willing to spend the $100k+ it takes to buy one, however.

So... the EV-1's battery pack is older technology. Costs just as much as lithium ion, has a higher discharge rate. Slower charge rate. Whats so revolutionary about it that people can't make EV's without one?

What about the Toyota RAV4-EV? 100% electric, and they were sold to the public. Not as sexy to talk about as a theory that the oil companies bought out the rights to a battery that threatened their bottom line. 

While its debatable whether Chevron is keeping the large format batteries from the market for market share, need for cash to set up a production line, or just to stop their use, there are other technologies out there. The patents are up in 2 years anyway, as far as I know.

Michael


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

artificer said:


> Ahh... yes. Like the mythical 100mpg carburetor that you put on a V-8 engine. Go as fast as you like, and get good gas mileage. I need to find the website that calculates the energy in moving the typical car of the era, and compares it to what they say the carburetor will put out. Some time around the 1970's or so this myth became popular.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael


Actually my DH father's friend had the prototype car that did do this it was sold by accident. WHen Chevy found out they went lookign for it. They offered the man a new car, $4,000 and he took it . Dh father told him h e was stupid he should have kept the car!! They figured it got well over 100 MPG. This was in NJ Morris County.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

texican said:


> Snow? That'd be interesting. Far as safe, I'd say they'd be a heckuva lot safer than any motorcycle. Sorry, one of my pet peeves is we allow cycles on the highway, that are suicide machines, yet we insist on 'safety' for enclosed vehicles.


And that is the real reason why we don't have tiny cars that get 60 mpg. It isn't some big oil or car company conspiracy just a ridiculous safety requirements for microcars that are utterly unrealistic. Cars like the Lupo aren't sold here because there is no way it would pass safety standards. I'd say any cars under 1500 pounds shouldn't be required to have crash beams, power locks (yes that is a government safety requirement), or airbags. If you're buying that small of a car safety probably isn't real high priority anyway. 

The other problem is it is hard to make a small car profitably when they are required to have all the same safety hardware as a larger car. The labor on a small car versus a large car are the same. That is why large vehicles are so much more profitable. The only way I see that one could make a small car at a profit and cut much of the red-safety tape is to manufacture microcars as a "kit". Some states such as mine actually have a class of motorcycle that is four wheeled provided it is under 1200 pounds. Register it as a cycle and drive it all year round.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

artificer said:


> You mean the cars that cost $1,000,000,000 (thats a $billion) to make 800 cars? 26Kw-hr battery packs? The program that was canceled because they backed away from the ZEV regulations in California?
> 
> You can get large capacity Lithium ion packs that weighs much less, for the same or less cost as the EV-1 pack. Why aren't people using it in vehicles? Could it be the $15,000 price tag, just for the batteries?
> 
> ...


Bottom line...as SOON as it was proven technology and they replaced the lead acid in em with NiMh the Lobbyists got the law changed *FAST* and large pack NiMh became history.They didnt fear lead acid,the NiMh was different,it worked!

And set up line costs!!??

Others have tried to license the tech,thats INCOME for the oil company,and they WONT license it. Panasonic I believe tried hard to get a license,wasnt happening.Wasnt the RAV4 batterry battery pack lost when the Ovonics patents sold to the Oil Company? Actually NOT sold,they just bought the COMPANY and shelved the battery?

*Toyota sure wanted that battery,thats a fact,as did Panasonic.*

So make any EXCUSES you want,there was a market and it was pulled OFF the market,speculate as you might why,the FACT is,they are NOT available and an OIL COMPANY has seen to it,shelving the High OUTPUT Nimh through many patents.Though others,including Panasonic were more than happy to pay royalties or BUY OUT the tech,they were turned down.PERIOD,no sale.

Imagine that battery in a vehicle with a tiny Kubota diesel to recharge after 140 miles???? Thats Fighting Words to Big Oil,and they fought and paid off who needed to be paid and it died a very complete death.

As for costs,what do you think it costs to make one off batteries vrs an assembly line tossing out millions? Huge difference,the LAST thing Big oil wanted was that happening in an electric that had size,range,power,modern as George Jetson tech and proven 100,000 mile longevity.

As for the 1 billion price tag,what do you think the auto companies spend to update or introduce a new model,its right in that ballpark.

Kept saying it couldnt be done,but it was.And it was eliminated by changing the LAW that mandated the tech and buying the company that owned it,simple as that.

Or its just coincidence BIG OIL paid for the battery and it cant be used?

*Bottom line,it existed,was bought and now it doesnt exist. Spin that fact.*


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> Bottom line...as SOON as it was proven technology and they replaced the lead acid in em with NiMh the Lobbyists got the law changed *FAST* and large pack NiMh became history.They didnt fear lead acid,the NiMh was different,it worked!
> ...
> A


Well, thats an interesting interpretation of the battery's history. Are you saying that this one possible example proves all the other suppressed technology? I think its debatable, and the point is moot anyway. The patents will soon be up, and everyone can use the technology. It might be delayed, but people are arguing that for 100 years technology has been suppressed, and we still can't use it. Thats definitely not the case here.

I believe that the battery was successfully licensed, but it took time. There's a new RAV4 in the works, and its electric. Batteries are lithium ion, I believe. Like I said... there might have been a delay, but companies are still working on the vehicles. Along with the killing of the ZEV requirements, low gas prices are what killed the EV's. Now that gas is over $3/gal, and will probably never go lower, there is more interest in EVs. I've always said... Gas prices over $4/gal will put alot of EV and alternative fuel vehicles on the road. Gas prices didn't hit $2/gal consistently until 2005. If you don't have artificial ZEV incentives, straight economics made the EV's impracticable.

My take on the batteries history was that after the ZEV requirements were dropped/delayed, GM dropped the project. Along with getting rid of its internal parts production, they shed the battery program. Texaco bought the company, but decided to not pursue it, unless someone came up with an order of 100,000 units. While its unfortunate that they didn't pursue small scale battery production, I can see it as a financial decision, as well as possibly a control on production. With cheap gas, not many companies were interested in the technology, so it just lay there. Hopefully it is now being revisited with the gas prices twice as high, as well as new ZEV requirements.

Did I mention I'm building an XR3? 125mpg on diesel, 250mpg if you make it a hybrid. The battery of choice is lithium ion, not Nimh. Why would you want to use 1980's or 1990's battery technology today?

Michael


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Not saying others suppressed,saying the battery was.

It isnt about the EV-1,the battery was the story.EV-1 was just a platform,as was the Rav4 and Ford Rangers and S-10's that were battery powered.Platform means little ,the Ovonics battery was the story.

And the Oil Company will NOT release the tech.Again,pick the excuse,they could sell it if they didnt want 'liability',theyve chosen to shelve it.

IIRC the battery rights sold for 400 million,or was it 40 million to GM,who sold the rights to Big Oil (anybody recall offhand the pay off?),in any event it was the inventor and his wife who got the lions share,they were in their 60's IIRC and took the money and ran.Cant really blame em for that,they saw their destiny as enriching themselves not the world,and I doubt they thought it would be shelved,but in any event they earned it,their puppy,and they did as they saw fit,certainly their right.

That delayed electrics for another 15 years or so until Li-Ion came on to the scene,and that was yet another NEW tech with its own headaches AND HIGH COSTS that needed to be worked out.They werent mainstream by any stretch and have have had a LOT of issues that needed to be worked out.

The reason Li-Ion is now THE TECH isnt because its 'oh so great',its because Li-Ion isnt stifled by the patent horrors that Ni-Mh are. Theyve said clearly the reason they are going Li-Ion is because they wont get trapped by patents like Ni-Mh had.

Ni-Mh may have been heavier and be slower to charge but an 8 hour charge meant 140 miles consistently in all modes of normal driving.And again,the EV-1 was as fast as a Porsche up mountain roads,weight was a non issue.There was nothing wrong with it,it worked and worked well. Too well. They were able to get 200 miles in milking it mode.Li-ion is nowhere close to that milestone,nor have they the proven 100,000 miles the Ni-Mh had.

Real shame the battery got stifled,and the 'Who killed the Electric car' ala EV-1 became the story and all about GM being responsible for the death of electrics,they werent,Big Oil was.

Toyota for one was BIG to continue electrics,Prius being an example of their dedication to a hybrid concept which is the best of both Worlds.50,000 yearly of em in Toyotas would have pushed down battery costs real fast,as mass production always does.

I still say,had the battery been released we would have had Prius hybrid cars with 140 mile range and self charging,and S-10's, Ford Rangers perhaps and Rav-4's. THOSE were the cars that were destroyed,EV-1 was just the scapegoat.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

artificer said:


> Did I mention I'm building an XR3? 125mpg on diesel, 250mpg if you make it a hybrid. The battery of choice is lithium ion, not Nimh. Why would you want to use 1980's or 1990's battery technology today?
> 
> Michael


Because that technology WORKS.Proven.

SCE did a report of every mile their electrics ran,it was darned impressive.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

This is certainly an interesting development,speaking of the patents.....very good article if interested
----------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

Current status of the Ovonics battery technology

Multiple companies have tried to develop NiMH battery technology without making use of Ovonics' patents. Electro Energy Inc., working with CalCars, converted a Toyota Prius from a hybrid electric vehicle to a PHEV using its own bipolar NiMH batteries.[17] Plug-In Conversions uses Nilar NiMH batteries and the EAA-PHEV open source control system in its Prius PHEV conversions. These organizations maintain that these developments are allowable because their NiMH battery technologies are not covered by Cobasys' patents. However, these batteries did not become commercially available until late 2007.[18] The technical capabilities of current bipolar NiMH technology are also significantly more limited than those of the ECD Ovonics technology. For example, the operating temperature range for ECD Ovonics NiMH batteries, an important consideration for their use in consumer road vehicles, is -30 to +70 Â°C (-22 to 158 Â°F),[19] while the operating temperature range for Nilar's bipolar batteries is a more limited -6 to +52 Â°C (21 to 126 Â°F).[20]

On July 28, 2009, Automotive News reported that Cobasys would be bought from Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices by battery maker SB LiMotive, a joint venture of Bosch and Samsung.[21] At the time of the 2009 Cobasys sale, control of NiMH battery technology transferred back to ECD Ovonics.[22] *In October 2009, ECD Ovonics announced that their next-generation NiMH batteries will provide specific energy and power that are comparable to those of lithium ion batteries at a cost that is significantly lower than the cost of lithium ion batteries.*


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Interesting that Mercedes called their bluff and ordered the amt specified but they never made an effort to deliver them.

"Nothing to see here,please WALK forward"


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

If the Oil Company didnt have the money to set up a profitable battery line they sure have the money to fight lawsuits for their refusal to produce them.

I like the part about the auto companies who surely ARE interested in that effective battery.I look forward to seeing how this all plays out and if the battery will ever be produced AGAIN for automotive use.
------------------------------------------------------

Cobasys' problems with other potential customers also raised questions about the company's sales policies. In October 2007, International Acquisitions Services, Inc. and Innovative Transportation Systems AG filed suit against Cobasys and its parents for refusing to fill a large, previously agreed-upon, order for large-format NiMH batteries to be used in the Innovan electric vehicle.[11] In August 2008, Mercedes-Benz sued Cobasys for again refusing to fill a large, previously agreed-upon order for NiMH batteries.[16]


----------

