By David EvansPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 11:08 GMT
Why aren't Chrysler mentioning the fact that the Dodge EV is clearly a Lotus Europa with added batteries? Nothing wrong with that, but it just seems a little impolite not to mention it (and pass it off as all their own work).
By Richard WillettsPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 12:25 GMT
While I don't doubt Chrysler are responsible for the EV tech in the roadster calling it a DODGE with no qualification is barefaced cheek... it is obviously a Lotus Europa!!!
Secondly... WTH? 50MPG is hardly going to set the world alight!!!
By FraserPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 13:09 GMT
What's with the "But it's a rear wheel drive", a sports car _should_ have rear wheel drive. It'd be rubbish if it didn't. Can anyone name a sports car with FWD?
NB: Just because a car has 'sport' written on it, doesn't mean it's a sports car. (As I am fond of telling the PFY at work: Your Clio sport is just a normal Clio with a slightly larger engine and all the bolts tightened up properly.)
By Joe GoodPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 13:34 GMT
Two critical bits of information are missing from the article: (1) Can you plug the vehicles in instead of using the gasoline engine, and (2) What is the expected price of each vehicle?
If the answer to (1) is "no", then they're just hybrids, so Chrysler is misleading us. They're significant improvements on existing hybrids, but they're still hybrids. (My Prius handily beats 50 mpg on long trips, but drops to 36 in our day-to-day use because we make lots of short (<5 mile) trips. If these really do use up their electric charge FIRST, before charging, and give 50+ mpg for short trips, they'd be a big improvement over both existing hybrids and diesels).
If the answer to (2) is, "We don't know that yet", then they're just concept cars, and really not worth reporting on or getting excited about.
By Vadim GlikPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 14:59 GMT
So Chrysler claims that only one of the three vehicles will be ready by 2010, but won't say which. What do you want to bet that it will be the Dodge with maybe about a few hundred units available and probably for "pundit" purchase only, and at a $150k price tag.
By Richard WillettsPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 15:35 GMT
.... they won't use any fuel at all... they are not assisted hybrids like the Prius hence Chrysler not calling them hybrids... the petrol engine is not connected to the wheels in any way... BUT surely over the 40 mile per charge range the engine is running constantly to keep the battery topped up hence the 50MPG so seeing as this only applies to longer trips it is less efficient than many diesels for longer journeys.
Granted if you rarely make such trips it represents an excellend advancement but then wouldn't you prefer to buy a cheaper car with no petrol engine at all, maybe some more batteries, that costs less?? I know I would!
By Mike MoylePosted Thursday 25th September 2008 18:22 GMT
"Chrysler claims eight gallons of fuel will allow the Jeep to run for 400 miles. "
So why can't ALL of Chrysler's cars get 50 MPG? If you can do that with the inherent power losses involved in converting internal combustion to electric to drive the wheel motors, why not just drop the battery and announce your 50 MPG fuel economy?
By PunkTigerPosted Thursday 25th September 2008 20:10 GMT
While I applaud car makers bringing more electric vehicles on the road, why oh why are they focusing on these ghastly vans, SUVs and sports cars? Soccer moms and guys with small willies aren't the only people in the market for an electric vehicle. When I saw "Jeep" in the headline, I was hoping for something along the lines of the 2-door Wrangler. You know... something small-ish. Even the Chevy Volt is a big 4-door sedan. Let's see some smaller electric cars go into development.
And, as for the 40-mile range, in 1904, electric cars with more primitive batteries had a 40-mile range. After 104 years and improvements in battery technologies you'd think they'd be able to go a little further than that by now.
Fire, because even steam cars would be an improvement over petrol.
By Iam MePosted Thursday 25th September 2008 23:29 GMT
To see what kind of numbers these cars turn in a mixed usage test. One of the downsides to living in the Los Angeles area is the fact that for most of us the MPG claims made by car manufacturers usually mean exactly shit. Due simply to the fact that the bulk of our driving is mixed use or in the midst of rush hour traffic which means our actual gas milage relates more to a mixed usage rating than what is claimed by the car maker.
By StevePosted Friday 26th September 2008 07:48 GMT
What the hell is m/h? Has the author lived on the moon for most of his life, or did he just miss mph or not understand what it meant when reading it for the past 100 years? (Or less depending on age - clearly).
By Richard WillettsPosted Friday 26th September 2008 10:41 GMT
It doesn't matter what your usage is if the journey remains under 40 miles round trip, the petrol used will be zero gallons... hence the NOT hybrids angle, over that mileage it would seem pointless them being electric!
By Tony Smith, Editor, Reg HardwarePosted Friday 26th September 2008 12:38 GMT
We use a / in all 'per' units, eg. Mb/s, f/s, lb/ft etc.
I'd have thought that in a discussion about cars, it would we clear from the context that m/h doesn't mean metres per hour, men per horse or anything else but miles per hour.
However, if readers find this too much of a leap, we can use mph instead.
By David HayesPosted Friday 26th September 2008 12:55 GMT
In the US a gallon is ~3.78 litres, whereas in the UK a gallon is ~4.55 litres. 50 MPG (US) ~= 60 MPG (UK). 60MPG for a petrol is a good figure, especially a 4x4!
It's not a huge leap towards 100MPG (UK), but it's all moving in the right direction.
Comments on: Chrysler intros electric trio
Oi! #
By Evil_Medic Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 10:45 GMT
At least Tesla changed the panels #
By David Evans Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 11:08 GMT
Terminological Inexactitude #
By Ralph B Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 11:32 GMT
I don't understand #
By Fraser Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 11:40 GMT
ZZZZZAP! #
By b Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 12:02 GMT
ouch #
By Craig Wallace Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 12:14 GMT
MPG and uncredited car "borrowing"!! #
By Richard Willetts Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 12:25 GMT
m/h #
By Dom Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 12:39 GMT
By the way... #
By Fraser Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 13:09 GMT
Price? Plugging in? #
By Joe Good Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 13:34 GMT
@Joe Good #
By Tony Smith, Editor, Reg Hardware Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 13:39 GMT
0m/h to 60m/h in 9 seconds? #
By DZ-Jay Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 13:40 GMT
bets on the Dodge #
By Vadim Glik Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 14:59 GMT
Well on short trips... #
By Richard Willetts Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 15:35 GMT
@Fraser #
By Richard Sloan Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 16:28 GMT
I'm confused... #
By Mike Moyle Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 18:22 GMT
Ohm's Law? #
By Chris G Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 19:16 GMT
Enough with the BIG cars already! #
By PunkTiger Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 20:10 GMT
Can anyone name a sports car with FWD? #
By Clive Harris Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 23:26 GMT
It will be interesting to see #
By Iam Me Posted Thursday 25th September 2008 23:29 GMT
I'll repeat people #
By Steve Posted Friday 26th September 2008 07:48 GMT
Usage Irrelevent up to 40 miles... #
By Richard Willetts Posted Friday 26th September 2008 10:41 GMT
yes, electric... #
By Jan Buys Posted Friday 26th September 2008 11:23 GMT
@all confused readers #
By Tony Smith, Editor, Reg Hardware Posted Friday 26th September 2008 12:38 GMT
US MPG != UK MPG #
By David Hayes Posted Friday 26th September 2008 12:55 GMT
mi/h #
By David Hayes Posted Friday 26th September 2008 13:36 GMT
m/h #
By michael Posted Monday 29th September 2008 07:47 GMT