ALL ELECTRIC VERSA

[The Edge]

Click here http://www.engadget.com/2009/0...moni/

[marlin29311]

Cool!

[srellim234]

Think they'll eventually merge technologies and we'll get a Versa hybrid?

[Promise Land]

I doubt we will see a Versa/Tiida hybrid. Nissan has the goal to be the leader in EV (electric vehicle) technology. Toyota has the market on hybrids with the Prius. Nissan uses the Toyota technology on the Altima hybrid to keep in the game, but is developing the EV program to be in the lead.

Sadly, you can't get those wheels or paint scheme on a regular car. I like it.

[mdamatas]

Nice... It is actually based on the Tiida (look at the rear lights), so from what I can say, this model is not too far from reality, as the 2010 US Versa model apparently will look like the current Tiida...

Imagine the line up for 2010 Versas, including an EV version...

[kerrton]

Actually, Nissan has completed development of their own in-house hybrid system, and has indicated they will be releasing several hybrid models to directly compete with Toyota in 2012. The Altima will be one, and other candidates including the Rogue, Maxima and who knows about the Versa, Murano and maybe even the large truck/SUV's as Chrysler and GM have done. Bottom line, hybrids are a high priority for Nissan as well, since they recognize this as a bridging technology that will make them profits now while they wait for the EV plan to materialize, which realistically won't really take off for a decade or more.......2012 will be an exciting year for potential Nissan buyers...

[kc5f]

One link for the above post:

http://www.reuters.com/article...90727

[goliath908]

That car is cool. Wish that I could get one.

[Bubs daddy]

The technology is fascinating and I'm sure over the years it will mature and costs will decline. For now, 100 miles or even 200 mile ranges are not enough for me. The price of these vehicles combined with their commuter role will prevent me from even considering buying one,

My Versa now can get almost 400 miles and completely refuel for another 400 miles in less than a few minutes. All nicely equipped for about $16,000.

I see electric vehicles somewhere in the future but they will not be near as practical or as inexpensive as their internal combustion counterparts for quite a while.

[srellim234]

That's why I look for not a lot of change for the time being in the long distance driving market. Range and ease of use.

When the electric car designs and fueling stations catch up with the ability to pull into a station and swap out the batteries in under 15 minutes you'll see electric vehicles become mainstream. The consumer can plug in at home and swap out batteries at stations when away from home. The same way that cars have been designed to run on the same gas, EVs would have to be designed to run on the same batteries. Some manufacturers like Nissan are exploring that scenario right now.

[Andrews Chalmers]

EV's will never be practical beyond the usual commute/in town errands.

The idea of swapping out batteries is a lovely one - but it isn't going to happen because li-on batteries aren't exactly boom proof and there will be too much maintenance for the garages.

Garages won't have the necessary expertise and support staff to provide the service to drivers at an AFFORDABLE price.

[Bubs daddy]

Swap out a 400 lb battery pack that's below the floor? There goes self serve...

And practicality is going to be an enormous bugger. I've seen the neighborhoods where barely one car fits in the driveway or garage so the other parks on the street. Say you live on a house that's on a small ten foot hill. Are people going to run a cord stretching all the way up the lawn or stairs? This would look lovely.

I can see adolescent miscreants new game of mischief, unplugging cars. But I guess eventually electric plug in poles everywhere, on the street, parking malls, sides of the road. Again, lovely and so beautiful to look at.

[KimberKenobi]

screw the Leaf, screw a hybrid... give me that car!!!

[kerrton]

You guys are being pretty short sighted here, battery technology is just starting to take off, in 10 years from now they'll be completely redesigned, and in 50 years oil and gasoline and disel will be very uncommon. If you research the cutting edge stuff in development now, it's WAY beyond current Lithium Ion battery tech, try researching UltraCapacitors, this another huge technolgoy that is set to hit the markets soon. Also, charging without the need for cords is a proven technology and will also be the norm in the near future, although no one can say for sure when.

The bottom line is that the leaf is just a bridging technology in the early stages of the coming energy revolution, in a decade from now things will have accelerated in terms of deployment, reseearch and development and adoption of alternative technologies such as this, and electric WILL be used for long distance driving, it is inevitable but won't happen overnight.

[Bubs daddy]

I think many are just citing the limitations of electric cars as it is a developing technology and as such are not going to be practical in many applications today. Tomorrow's another issue. I'm still not convinced about cars with battery technology even 20 years from now. Perhaps they may be electric, they may be hydrogen powered, maybe a combination of an another technology or combination/hybrid. But that's just cars.

Over the road tractor trailers, cargo ships, freight trains and other energy demanding transportation will be the challenge. I'm not sure if I want to be on the maiden flight of an electric plane.

Aircraft will be using petroleum based fuel for quite some time.

Powering a 2000+ pound car is one thing. Powering an 80,000 pound tractor trailer rig and giving it today's 1500 mile range is quite another.

[KimberKenobi]

They made EVs that could go 100 miles per charge before there were lithium ion batteries used for EVs... there's currently an EV that goes 400 miles per charge.

Not really needing much more than that. Besides, the Camel knows he goes on all my crazy roadtrips.

Hybrids are heavy and inefficent. A total EV is a realistic bridge technology without the negatives that hybrid cars possess. (Yea, if you drive on road trips you'll probably still need a gas vehicle for the time being...)

Oh, and hydrogen is a net energy loss. Okay as a battery, but hydrogen fuel stations are unrealistic. I feel I have some speaking room here... I mean, I do have a B.S. in Sustainable Studies...

[Bubs daddy]

I'm sure this Leaf will get 100 miles per charge at 35 mph, no a/c, no radio, no accessories on level ground at 72 degrees. After that, it's downhill fast. Out here with a/c used 9 months out of the year, over 60 100+ degree days per year and 75 mph speed limits, the Leaf will be lucky to get 50 miles on a charge. In the cold weather, it will be the same deal. With defroster, heat, temperatures in the 30's or below, it will not get near 100 miles per charge.

In realistic driving conditions GM's lead acid battery electric vehicle, EV1, was lucky to get 40 miles before it needed charged.

Anyone who reads my posts knows I've never been a gasoline/electric hybrid fan and see those as stopgaps until whatever technology rises to the top. I'm not convinced when the dust is settled that it's going to be electric vehicles. It will take years to find out.

A vehicle that is powered off the grid will need substantial improvements in infrastructure not just at the plug in level but for power grids that are already strained.

I've heard the same about hydrogen as well although there's a govt. fleet in CA right now that is doing well. Takes about 5-10 minutes to fill up with comparable range of gas engines.

I've been reading about electrics and I'm not aware of one that is a passenger car that gets 400 mile range. Not ready for prime time anyway.

Internal combustion engines today are quite efficient, 99%+ clean, offer 400 mile ranges and filling in less than 5 minutes for another 400 miles.

Swapping battery packs is not very efficient, they'll be storage and longevity issues, an immense infrastructure change,and ranges will always be considerably less than advertised because of the demands of climate control in the vehicle, accessories, outside temperature, speed, and a host of other factors.

It's interesting to see things develop but the internal combustion engine will still be around for a long time.

[KimberKenobi]

I really doubt that. The Tesla has a range of 240 and it's is fast, sexy, and overly techy. (which makes me giggle with glee just looking at it...)

I know 3 EV1 owners and they got over 50 miles per charge. 50 miles will get most people living in cities to work and home with 1 or 2 errands every day. Lithium-ion technology allows rechargeable batteries to cycle deeper and more times, which improves power and longevity.

Many EVs out there today can be powered from a regular power outlet (with their transistor pack yada yada) and while there would need to be infrastructure for long trips, I'm pretty sure my 25 mile (to and from) work commute could be handled pretty easily.

Hybrids are usually inefficent due to their weight/power ratio. With the Prius (and I'm sure now or soon with the Insight) you can get a plug-in pack which dramatically helps mpg but eats your trunk space (and who needs that).

I'd love to drive an EV around town and leave the Camel in the garage for road trips and auto events (let's fact it, at 62k in 2 years, the Camel has earned a break).

For something like 70% of people, an EV would fill their in-town driving needs.

Hydrogen as a fuel source is a loser. When you liquify Hydrogen, you lose 30%-40% of the energy. It takes more energy to make hydrogen fuel then you get back from the hydrogen fuel... Significantly more.

I'm not saying that EVs are going to storm the world and solve all our energy problems... but for many people they meet or exceed daily travel needs. I'd own an EV alongside the Camel very happily. (tee hee hee, especially if it were another Versa or a car called a Leaf in light green, let's face it, I've already designed how I'll paint it.)

It's exciting that someone is finally going to put out a name brand, possibly affordable, electric vehicle. I mean, and $100k Tesla would be heaven (yes, I've already picked out my colors and features like 2 years ago) and there is a company in Arizona that produces all-electric trucks and SUVs... but let's face it, put a name brand behind it, and make it reasonably affordable, there are people who would buy it. Some people begged to keep their EV1s and were prepared to front the cost of manufacture for their EV1 (and I think a few would have been able to actually pay for it).

There is a market for EVs. There has been for some time (if there wasn't, people wouldn't be building them in their garages with any parts they can get ahold of).

An EV makes more sense (efficiency-wise) than a hybrid and many hybrids get the same or worse gas mileage than their all-gas counterparts (the Ford Escape Hybrid used to be a glowing example since it got works gas mileage than my mom's Subaru Forester and it wasn't even AWD). There are people who would chose EVs instead of hybrids. There are people who would get rid of their gas cars to drive an EV (these people would likely rent cars for long trips but lots of people own a gas car and still rent cars for trips). Many people would own an EV alongside a gas car.

[Andrews Chalmers]

Oh, and hydrogen is a net energy loss.

I think that is the wrong way to approach hydrogen - you have to consider the nuclear fuel cycle that'll be used to produce the hydrogen. There simply aren't any manufactured fuels that create a net energy gain.

[Bubs daddy]

As I stated, I've never been a fan of hybrids. I think they are here only until a developing technology wins out. I've driven the Prius (a govt. fleet car) many times and NEVER goes under just electric power unless you're backing out. Out here, a/c is almost always on and that kicks in the gas engine all the time. Just don't like them. I'd prefer a good high mileage diesel engined vehicle anyday.

The Tesla has an IDEAL range of 240 but that's under optimal conditions. Range is reduced when other demands are added. The main complaint about the Versa is the mileage as many aren't getting the mileage advertised. That's usually the case because it's under optimal testing conditions (even though they have been changed recently).

It will be the same with electrics. A 50 mile range would have been a definite deal breaker for the EV-1, especially for the lease price ($600 per month). That is scant and not practical for anyone who can only afford one car.

The Tesla is a helluva car and a looker as well. They've also raised the price to around $117,000. That car will be considered exotic and out of the reach of 99.9% of buyers.

And one can use a 120V outlet but it takes twice as long or more to charge. Many would want to install a 25 amp, 240 V outlet. Even that will take hours.

Electric vehicles will have their place in the short term and perhaps the long term when technology is improved and price drops but for the near future they're niche cars.

Most people can only afford one car and because of that and electric vehicle with today's range won't do. That's why that even though they'd appear to be great commuter cars, if that's the owner's only car, they will be impractical for them.

For the two car family, an EV would make much more sense. You mentioned this would complement your Camel. Indeed, a two Camel livery would be nice.

Again, I've read the same things about hydrogen technology. I'm not convinced that it will be viable.

I'll admit that Nissan has surprised me by releasing this so soon. I think it's a good start. I've been reading about GM's Volt and they're having many issues with it and releasing it as a 2010 may cause some compromises. Compromises as in a small gasoline motor to assist-now it's a hybrid. For a possibly $30,000 or more vehicle? I'll pass. The Leaf is impressive, I'll say.

EV's serve a purpose and I think they will adapt and overcome their shortcomings over time. But infrastructure, technology and practicality is woefully short at this time. Ten years from now, that may not be the case.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 1:01 PM 8/8/2009

[azrael4h]

I think that is the wrong way to approach hydrogen - you have to consider the nuclear fuel cycle that'll be used to produce the hydrogen. There simply aren't any manufactured fuels that create a net energy gain.

Indeed. The issue is not that it is a net energy loss (which any fuel will be; there is always loss of energy from creation to where it's used, be it in long power lines, hauling massive tanks around with the stuff, or terrorists building hydrogen bombs from readily available commuter cars). It is which is most economic to push.

Even at $100+/barrel, oil-based fuels are more economic to push for commuter vehicles than Hydrogen. The heavy duty tanks, specialized fuel systems, and the fact that hydrogen evaporates much faster than gasoline make it a daunting challenge to ever make it economical to run instead, when there are people making gasoline from garbage now.

This is ignoring billions of dollars of infrastructure investment that would have to be done. Plus billions to even design and build an affordable Hydrogen car. Even Hyundai is claiming the best they can get is a $50k mass produced hydrogen car, with questionable reliability and safety, no infrastructure to fuel it, and questionable range.

Most of the "hydrogen" cars I've seen aren't even running hydrogen to power the car. It's being used to generate electricity for an electric motor instead. Resulting in further loss, as you always lose energy when going from one form to another.

The difference with that an electric vehicle already has much of the needed infrastructure available. Nearly every home has power, and there is power to spare during the off peak hours that could be put to more efficient use.

Upgrading that structure is also much simpler, with the need only to force large warehouses and factories (biggest energy hogs out there) to offset some of their use with solar, and building some new nuclear plants. No need to reinvent the wheel entirely; all the needed tech is right here.

Save inexpensive, long lasting batteries capable of pushing a conventional car 200+ miles while being affordable.

[KimberKenobi]

I think that is the wrong way to approach hydrogen - you have to consider the nuclear fuel cycle that'll be used to produce the hydrogen. There simply aren't any manufactured fuels that create a net energy gain.

True, but Hydrogen as a battery is a much better solution than Hydrogen as a fuel. If you're going to use it (and by all means do) use it as a battery where net loss is significantly less and you've just made an efficient, rechargeable, and truly clean battery.

Stating the horribly obvious to me does not improve your statement. All manufactured fuels are a net energy loss... I think I covered that one before my degree. Buy Hydrogen as a fuel is just pitiful in the amount of energy it takes to produce. Plus, if you have to modify the support system (i.e. gas stations) maybe we can just skip modifying them multiple times until we have to break down and finally admit that batteries are the way to go.

I have no doubt that one day a battery-run vehicle will be able to fit the needs of the people. I've seen some amazing technologies out there and some pretty determined people. If an electric car could go over 600 miles on a charge and could be charged in 30 minutes, I think you'd win a lot of people over.

Just because a technology is clean and nifty, doesn't mean it's better than the crap we have. And some advances are better for the few than they are for the many.

*EDIT*To Bubs:Depends on which Tesla you're getting. They have one with a 300 mile range. I've seen cobble together EVs which go 150 miles on a charge. I have faith that someone can figure this out... it's not rocket science

To azrael4h:Beautifully stated!

...

Honestly, this is the most intelligent debate I've seen on here in a long time. Now no one ruin it for the rest of us!

[MinisterofDOOM]

Just because a technology is clean and nifty, doesn't mean it's better than the crap we have.

Exactly. That's been my biggest issue with all of these supposed "solutions" and "replacements" for a while now. Everyone is so eager to reach out and grab anything that looks even halfway feasible without really looking at how well it fits into the existing usage model. It seems to me less beneficial to spend time messing around with ideas that realistically aren't all that viable rather than devote real attention to those with the most potential (particularly those based on improvement of already-existing technologies).

[Andrews Chalmers]

Stating the horribly obvious to me does not improve your statement. All manufactured fuels are a net energy loss... I think I covered that one before my degree.

What statement?

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Depends on which Tesla you're getting. They have one with a 300 mile range.[/quote]Kimber,

I went to their site and I see the Model 2 indicates 300 miles. But I'm not crazy about the body style. Not for me. That Roadster and Roadster 2 are nice but I'd have to change the wheels. Black...yeesh. I like a polished brighter metal surface.

Now, about those mileage ratings. I doubt you or I would get the rated mileage. That car just calls to be driven, uh...spiritedly.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 12:35 PM 8/13/2009

[KimberKenobi]

rofl... I'll race ya till the batteries die... whoever gets the farthest wins XoD