Automakers, energy interests, and major government-funded efforts have been on the hunt for the ideal battery to power electric cars for decades. It hasn’t been an easy road and remains a challenge even today, as shown by several massive recalls of electric vehicles with batteries that, in rare cases, have suffered spontaneous combustion. Fires aren’t a new thing. During the EV’s drive to market, a small number of battery fires occurred early on, including several in experimental Ford Ecostar electric vehicles powered by sodium-sulfur batteries back in 1994. One battery safety incident that stands out occurred at an electric car race in 1992. Rather than a fire, a race entry running an experimental battery suffered a leak that spewed a toxic vapor cloud that injured racers and race personnel, causing the raceway to be evacuated. Here, we present the following article from the Green Car Journal archives, as it was originally published in June 1992.
Excerpted from June 1992 Issue: It was in the final hours of racing activity at Phoenix International Raceway when the lead car began spewing a reddish-brown vapor trail into turn one, then went into a spin, braking hard.
As the car slowed to a stop, its driver tore at the window’s safety net and dove out of the opening head-first, stumbling, then collapsing as he tried to escape the battery gases that filled his cockpit and the area around the car. Like the driver, James Worden, of the Solectria team (Boston, Mass.), 14 track officials and others who came to his aid would be taken to the hospital to treat breathing difficulties. Worden was admitted in serious condition. Fortunately, all 15 people injured in the accident recovered.
This was the sobering final scene that red-flagged this year’s APS Solar and Electric 500 in Phoenix, Ariz. An important showcase of new and developing electric car technology, the race exemplified new thinking like quick-change battery packs and race-style pit stops under 20 seconds. Many of the cars were substantially faster than just a year ago, and the driving more sophisticated. Products from major sponsors like General Electric, Motorola, Goodyear, and Firestone were used and touted on banners and cars. The event drew a small crowd of enthusiasts and a good showing of research teams from across the U.S. Many were small-time efforts with personal cars converted to electric propulsion. Others were well-financed teams equipped with the latest in electric motors, controllers, and batteries.
It was the experimental battery technology that brought an early end to the Chrysler-Plymouth Electric Stock Car 200. Complexed bromine solution leaked from a dislodged tube in the race car’s pressurized zinc-bromine battery on lap 91, hitting the hot track and creating a toxic cloud near the car and an acrid smell that hung over the infield. The hazardous materials team handling the incident ultimately ordered the raceway evacuated. Although disabled, Worden’s Solectria entry was later declared the winner since he was five laps ahead of the field.
Should this experimental battery have been at the race? Race sanctioning body Solar and Electric Race Association (SERA) regulations specifically cite that “any battery type (except silver-zinc) is generally permitted and any number of batteries may be utilized within the vehicle.” Thus, the prototype zinc-bromine batteries used independently by both the Solectria and Texas A&M entries were allowed. A wide array of other battery technologies, some potentially dangerous, would also be permitted under these rules.
Phillip Eidler of Johnson Controls, supplier of the experimental batteries in the Solectria car, told GCJ that of the battery technologies being pursued, zinc-bromine is one of the safer ones. “What you saw out there was one of the worst incidents, short of crashing into the wall, you’re probably going to see from the battery system.” He also cites that the Johnson Controls battery does not contain pure bromine. “It’s a complexed form, in solution, that doesn’t have near the vapor pressure and evaporation rate of pure bromine,” advises Eidler. Johnson Controls is the largest U.S. manufacturer of lead-acid automotive batteries and the leading supplier to both the original equipment and replacement markets.
Sources at Johnson Controls cite the company is engaged in a cost-shared development contract for the zinc/bromine battery with the U.S, Department of Energy for utility applications. Zinc-bromine is said to have 2-3 times the energy capacity of lead-acid batteries and, according to Johnson Controls’ vice-president of battery research Bill Tiedemann, it’s “one of the most environmentally safe battery technologies available.”
"While experimental technology is critical to the developing EV and alternative fuel vehicle fields, it’s equally critical that safety is addressed as vigorously outside the lab as it is inside. "
A spokesman for principal race sponsor Arizona Public Service (APS) told GCJ that the technologies to be used by race teams will certainly be examined more clearly for safety in coming years. SERA’s Ernie Holden cited that closer scrutiny would be built into the safety inspection process for future races as well. Johnson Controls is also offering to help in any way it can to make the race a safer event. Since assurances from entries using experimental technology cannot serve as the final word on safety, though, it’s obvious that an expert inspection team will be needed to independently perform this task.
This incident should sound a warning signal within the industry. While experimental technology is critical to the developing EV and alternative fuel vehicle fields, it’s equally critical that safety is addressed as vigorously outside the lab as it is inside. This is especially true in the case of public demonstrations of experimental technology. With the upcoming schedule or races, ride-and-drives-, and public demonstrations of electric vehicle technology worldwide, it will be imperative that adequate safety measures are taken. The same holds true for future fleet testing of electric vehicles using potentially hazardous batteries. A catastrophic battery failure on city streets could have wide-ranging consequences.
Experimental technology will continue to be seen in electric car racing, since racing is the proving ground that ultimately benefits the cars that make it to dealer showrooms. But high-risk system components, or even ones protected by redundant safety systems which could still prove deadly in the event of catastrophic failure, might be penciled out in the rule books for safety and liability reasons. This is especially true of those technologies which could injure large numbers of people in a single incident.
What of experimental components, like batteries, which need to be tested during their evolutionary run to market? That’s why the major automakers have proving grounds In their place, smaller R&D firms can rent a track like Phoenix International Raceway or countless others around the world…and do their testing with the stands empty. “It would probably have been much better for us if we would have just ran and ran the car around the track without anybody there,” muses Johnson Controls’ Eidler. “But we’ve done years worth of testing. After that works, where’s the next place you go?” That’s a dilemma that will surely be faced by many R&D efforts in coming years. He adds: “There comes a point where you have to take it out on the road.”
GCJ editors do expect that electric cars will compete in major-league racing alongside conventional gasoline-engine cars. But it seems certain that some important safety checks will have to be in place. Racetracks packed with tens of thousands of spectators are not the venue for volatile technology that could endanger the lives of those who are on hand to root for its success.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been in development for decades now as automakers strive to show how zero-emission, carbon-free hydrogen may be the ideal motor vehicle of the future. But focus hasn’t always been exclusively on hydrogen power generated through an electrochemical fuel cell. Some, like Mazda, showed us how internal combustion may present an easier and more seamless transition to the use of hydrogen. This automaker’s highest profile hydrogen project was the RX-8 RE that debuted 17 years ago, a model that could alternatively run on hydrogen or gasoline in its combustion rotary engine. Here, we present this article from the Green Car Journal archives as it was originally published in the Spring 2004 issue.
Excerpted from Spring 2004 Issue: No stranger to hydrogen power, Mazda recognized some time ago that its rotary engine and clean hydrogen fuel operate quite well together. Green Car Journal editors understood this first-hand when driving the automaker’s developmental MX-5 Miata hydrogen rotary sports car a decade ago. These days, reinforcing Mazda’s enduring interest in what many consider the ultimate environmental fuel is its latest developmental vehicle, which is based on the automaker’s acclaimed RX-8.
The Mazda RX-8 RE integrates Mazda’s Renesis hydrogen rotary engine, a lean-burn powerplant based on the automaker’s next-generation rotary engine launched earlier this year in the all-new RX-8 sports car. Even when running on conventional gasoline, the new Renesis features significant environmental improvement over previous generation rotary engines with better fuel economy and reduced emissions.
A rotary engine is especially well-suited for burning hydrogen since it uses separate chambers for induction and combustion. This overcomes the troublesome backfiring issues often faced when using hydrogen in piston engines.
In addition, Mazda says the separate induction chamber also provides a safer temperature for the engine’s dual hydrogen injectors with their rubber seals, which can be damaged by the higher temperatures of conventional engines. Dual injectors are used in each of the engine’s twin rotor housings since hydrogen has an extremely low density, thus greater volumes of this fuel must be injected than gasoline.
Mazda’s RX-8 RE aims to provide a traditional driving experience as it achieves extremely low emissions with hydrogen. This is accomplished by integrating a dual-fuel approach that allows seamlessly operating on hydrogen as available, or gasoline when it’s not. This is important and reflects Mazda’s belief that a dual-fuel system promotes the use of hydrogen and a developing hydrogen refueling infrastructure. The RX-8 RE uses both a conventional gas tank and a high-pressure hydrogen tank.
The Renesis hydrogen engine features 210 horsepower when running on gasoline and 110 horsepower on less energy-dense gaseous hydrogen. Power is transferred to pavement through a five-speed manual transmission. Performance is enhanced with 225/45R18 tires over 18x8JJ alloys and double wishbone multi-link suspension front and rear, with stop- ping power supplied by four-wheel ventilated disc brakes.
An array of advanced technologies is used in the RX-8 RE to allow exploring their value for a future production hydrogen vehicle. These include an electric motor to boost engine torque at low rpm and an electric motor-assisted turbocharger, both used to improve acceleration at low revs. An idle-stop system turns the engine off when the car is stopped and then starts again automatically when the driver is ready to accelerate. Regenerative braking recovers energy during deceleration and braking to charge the car’s 144-volt battery.
Other environmentally-conscious elements are incorporated into this high-profile hydrogen car, including water-based paint, interior parts made of plant-based plastics, optimized tires, and reduced overall weight. Reduced friction hub carriers and a fast-fill tandem master cylinder also serve to reduce brake drag.
This latest foray into the hydrogen world is a strong message that Mazda is giving hydrogen propulsion serious consideration, as it has for many years now. This automaker’s interest in hydrogen rotary power has been duly noted since the debut of its HR-X hydrogen concept car at the 1991 Tokyo Motor Show. A series of other hydrogen efforts have evolved at Mazda over the years including the HR-X2, MX-5, and Capella Cargo, all powered by hydrogen rotary engines, and the Demio FC-EV and Premacy FC-EV, powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
What has driven Mazda to pursue hydrogen fuel with such vigor for so long? A focus on environmental issues, of course, but also an apparent vision that this fuel stood at least a decent chance of coming out on top. That vision has now culminated in the Renesis hydrogen rotary engine and the outstanding RX-8 RE.
BMW, Ford, and now Mazda are raising the volume on the potential for using hydrogen in more conventional engines and not just in fuel cells. This adds additional motivation to create a hydrogen refueling infrastructure, promising to make things even more interesting as this alternative fuel is driven ever closer to the showroom in the years ahead.
Chrysler was in the thick of it in the early 1990s as automakers explored ways to meet California’s new and increasingly stringent Low Emission Vehicle regulations, and in particular the state’s coming Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. Though there was a flurry of activity in the Chrysler camp at first, other auto brands took the lead and we didn’t hear much from Chrysler for quite some time. Then, in 2008 there was an October Surprise. Chrysler unveiled three electric concepts that got people pretty excited, electrifying models from three of the automaker’s brands – Dodge, Jeep , and Chrysler. At the time, these were to lead to at least one production EV model and a renewed electrification effort at the company over the next few years, something that history shows did not materialize. The following article detailing Chrysler’s renewed interest in electric vehicles and its exciting Dodge EV prototype is pulled from the Green Car Journal archives and presented as it was originally published in the fall of 2008.
Excerpted from Fall 2008 Issue: In many ways, Chrysler has been late to the party in recent years. While others like Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and Toyota have forged ahead with eco-friendly advanced technology vehicle programs, Chrysler has largely sat it out in favor of a more traditional road. Maybe we can chalk it up to its former life as part of DaimlerChrysler, but with that automotive marriage behind it there’s no longer an excuse. And excuses are not being offered by Chrysler LLC, as evidenced by its stunning announcement of not one, but three production-intent electric vehicles.
Playing catch-up wasn’t always the way at Chrysler. In the early 1990s, Chrysler was on top of its alternative fuel game, with forays into virtually all of the important areas unfolding at the time from methanol and ethanol flexible-fuel vehicles to ones running on hydrogen, natural gas, and electricity. Then Chrysler seemed to all but disappear from the running, making news instead with such stylistic models as the Viper, Prowler, and 300, but with little in the way of alternative fuel vehicles beyond its GEM neighborhood electric vehicle and the occasional eco concept. Apparently, those earlier days are returning with a vengeance.
Now Chrysler has announced the coming of a production electric vehicle for the North American market. The automaker is showcasing its efforts with three prototypes – an all-electric Dodge sports car using Lotus Europa underpinnings and two range-extended electrics, a Jeep Wrangler and a Chrysler Town & Country. Chrysler says it will select one of these for production and sale to North American consumers in 2010. This will be preceded by 100 Chrysler electrics in fleet use in 2009.
All use what Chrysler says is ‘production intent’ technology, incorporating an electric drive motor, a motor controller to manage energy flow, and a lithium-ion battery pack. Chrysler will work with General Electric to develop batteries for the production model. It has also been reported that the automaker is in talks with battery company A123 Systems, which is separately working with GM on the Volt program and has contracts to provide its nanophosphate lithium-ion batteries for production Th!nk electric cars and BAE Systems hybrid bus powerplants. GE Energy Financial Services has invested $20 million in A123 Systems.
While Chrysler has not identified its other suppliers, photos of the Dodge sports car show the use of electric drive components from UQM Technologies, a company noted for its energy dense and high-performance electric drive motors and controllers. Specs provided by Chrysler indicate a 268 hp (200 kW) electric drive motor featuring a whopping 480 lbs-ft torque that powers the performance electric car from 0-60 mph in under 5 seconds. Top speed is said to be 120 mph. Charging at 110 volts is accomplished in 8 hours, or 4 hours at 220 volts.
The electric vehicles are being developed in an in-house effort that’s focusing on electric drive production vehicles and advanced technologies. This effort – called ENVI – is so-named by taking the first four letters of 'environmental.’
In the early 1990s, automakers, their major suppliers, and technology companies of all kinds were scrambling to develop the vehicles and power systems that would enable meeting the stringent requirements of California’s coming zero emission vehicle mandate, plus other government regulations sure to follow. One of the more interesting technology demonstrators created during the period was the Pininfarina Ethos, a developmental car used to showcase diverse powertrains including battery electric and, in this case, an advanced Orbital two-stroke engine. Here, we share our experience with Pininfarina’s Ethos in an article that originally appeared in Green Car Journal’s September 1992 issue.
Excerpted from September 1992 Issue: The Pininfarina Ethos, an environmentally designed sports car introduced at this year’s Turin Motor Show, was recently driven by GCJ at Goodyear’s Mireval proving ground. Time spent behind the wheel at this Mediterranean test track proved the Ethos a concept both interesting and timely for the auto industry.
A combined project of Orbital Engine Company, Hydro Aluminum, General Electric Plastics, Pininfarina, and others, the Ethos is intended to be both technology demonstrator and sales tool. These companies hope that a fully functional Ethos will help cure the myopia that plagues auto executives by packaging far-sighted vision in an attractive package that can be built today. This is no mere exercise. Rather, its an opportunity for an automaker to put its marque on the Ethos’ easily recycled bodyflanks. Then, either Pininfarina or the automaker can begin producing copies in the short term.
Technologies that allow the Ethos to stake claim to the environmentally friendly title include an efficient three-cylinder Orbital two-stroke engine, a lightweight extruded aluminum frame, a recyclable thermoset plastic body, and water-based PPG paint. These, and other, features allow the car to use comparatively few resources in construction or operation and also make it easy to recycle.
Orbital claims its engine would meet the California ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) while still offering an impressive acceleration figure of 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds. The company also cites that it would achieve a 35 percent improvement in fuel economy over a current vehicle equaling the Ethos’ projected 1450 pound weight. Bottom line: Faster acceleration than a BMW 325i and better gas mileage than a Civic VX. A marked decrease of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions would correspond to the increase in fuel economy since much less gas would be burned to travel the same distance.
But there’s more. An interesting aside is that with further refinement of the Orbital two-stroke engine, it’s also suggested that the Ethos might even be able to attain near-zero emission vehicle (ZEV) levels similar to those specified in California legislation for electric vehicles.
Unlike most of the concept and show cars that debut at international auto shows, the Ethos is a fully operational vehicle. To prove it, our test driver pushed the mid-engine Ethos around Mireval as hard as if it were the latest European production exotic. Though only one example exists, each shift was made at the redline, the straights were run at full throttle, braking was at the last instant for every turn, and the tires’ entire cornering power was exploited.
Impression? This first Ethos felt somewhat like a low-powered Mazda Miata. Since it featured a steel monocoque chassis rather than the planned aluminum spaceframe, it was thus more than 200 pounds overweight. But the Orbital engine also did not offer as much power as company officials say production versions might. The cumulative result is good, but no exhilarating, performance with 0-60 acceleration times in the range of 10-plus seconds.
Handling was entertaining when fitted with sticky Goodyear GS-Ds rather than low-traction, high-mileage tires. But some glitches expected from a one-off driven at its limits showed through, including at one point an overheated engine. The most notable shortcoming was presented by the stretched fabric-over-tube frame seats, the same innovation found in GM’s Ultralite concept car. While it’s possible this type of seat may be comfortable enough for a typical commute, they were bruising during hard driving.
Pininfarina’s Ethos is an important milestone in environmental auto design. It’s stylish, forward-thinking, and with a few areas of refinement will set standards others should consider emulating. Perhaps most importantly, the Ethos dispels the myth that a sports car cannot be both exotic and in tune with the new automotive environment unfolding before us. In a future where myriad alternative fuel and gasoline autos will fill a wide array of niche and regional markets, GCJ editors note that the Ethos, or a similar vehicle, is likely to be one of the many players.
Lee Iacocca distinguished himself as an automotive icon over a career that spanned nearly six decades. A hero to many for his leadership role in saving the former Chrysler Corporation from extinction, Iacocca is revered as the father of the Ford Mustang and the man who brought many beloved performance vehicles to American showrooms. Not inconsequentially, he also shepherded to market the Dodge Caravan, the world’s first minivan, changing forever the way that families seek mobility. Iacocca ventured into the environmental automotive realm with Chrysler’s electric TEVan debut under his watch in 1992, and then with electric bicycles and low-speed electric vehicles – decades ahead of today’s trend toward electric bikes – after retiring from Chrysler. The son of Italian immigrants, he exemplified love-of-country by serving as chairman of the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation in the effort to renew our national icon in the early 1990s, an appointment made by President Ronald Reagan. Lee Iacocca passed in 2019 at the age of 94.
This article shares a 2004 interview of Iacocca conducted by editor/publisher Ron Cogan and is presented as it originally ran in Green Car Journal’s Spring 2004 issue.
Ron Cogan: After a long and storied career in the auto business, what motivated you to get into light electric transportation like electric bikes?
Lee Iacocca: “Until 1950, the auto business was not that huge. But two things happened. Eisenhower created a 42,000 mile road system and the G.I. bill. The guys came home, moved to the suburbs, and had a new life outside of the city and had two kids. We caught them in the sixties with the Mustang but that was just for fun. Then twenty years passed, and we caught them with minivans because their lives changed.
“The reason I tell you this story is, naively enough, I thought I followed the baby boomers so long I knew them, even though I wasn’t one of them. I got them in 1964, I got them in 1984, and I would get them in 2004 with something electric. The same guy who now has kids and grandkids buys our bike and says it seems like an oxymoron to have a bike that you don’t have to pedal, but you can. It has a seven speed Shimano derailleur on it, first class. But when the kids come home he can’t keep up with the grandkids, so he goes for a ride and uses the electric one on the hills. It doesn’t embarrass him. That was a great theory, but I never made it work.
“I have a folding bike in my garage, it’s a knockout. It folds, it goes in the back of a minivan or Jeep, and I thought all the car dealers in America would have embraced it as an option because it gives you mobility where you can’t use internal combustion engines. I tried to force it, but in five years we’ve only sold about 25,000. But the market for bikes is so huge, all you have to do is get a small percentage of ‘em to say, ‘I’ll give electric a whirl.’
“The time is not here for electric cars. I’ve said that very openly. But the technology was here for light electric transportation and I thought there was demand, but I was wrong. I remember Pininfarina’s car. They had a hybrid in it, and I said, ‘Man this is off to the races, it might get support.’ In the background we’ll sell bicycles. It was light electric transportation systems and I said, ‘Let’s do it.’”
RC: So the vision was that electric bikes would lead to other light electric vehicles like neighborhood EVs and lightweight hybrids like the Pininfarina Ethos. How were you going to do this?
Iacocca: “I wanted every university to get on Lee’s Green Team. I wanted them to wear green jackets on campus, put a bike in every bookstore, and we’d get young people to say ‘Wow!’ If I get a bike in every garage, young kids are gonna say, ‘Hey dad, why do we have three cars and none of them are green?’ They’ll force the issue where older generations won’t. So, that’s what I tried to do when I came here.
“We’ve got a damn good product, at a damn good price. Why did it fail? Well, like fuel cells will fail…the distribution system. I chose car dealers to sell bikes because I knew most of them. Big mistake. It was introduced right in the heart of three years of all-time car and truck sales. Even my close friends who were dealers and bought 25 to 50 of them as a favor to me never put anybody on the showroom floor to sell them, never. So it didn’t work, and now we’re going to independent bike dealers.”
RC: You say that fuel cells will fail? What about the billions that automakers are spending developing fuel cell vehicles?
Iacocca: “Well, they’ll bet the farm on fuel cells, and it ain’t gonna happen easily. Not because I’m an expert here in California, but I’ve dealt with GM research guys and GM has so much going with fuel cells, although Chrysler, through Ballard, has also invested a ton of money in fuel cell technology. But they’re missing the whole problem here. The technology’s probably here now but the challenge is to change the distribution system. Once you’ve got the hydrogen – a challenge in itself – we’ve got to figure out how to deliver it to customers. Developing the infrastructure will require a huge investment. And what are you going to knock out? Wipe out the oil industry at retail levels? You can’t do that. Fuel cells are getting touted too heavily, I think. Am I for it? Yeah, but I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see it.”
RC: Where does politics fit into all this?
Iacocca: “I’ve written two books and I’ve taken the Japanese apart because of their trade practices, but what I’ve really taken apart is that this country does not have an energy policy. I’ve gone through nine Presidents of the United States and I can’t get them in twenty-five words or less to tell me what our energy policy is. I know that we’re at war because of oil, probably. Deep down, we don’t want to talk about it. We’re there for terrorism, right? We’ve got to make democracy come alive in the Mideast. That’s the oil capital of the world and we can’t avoid it. In a democratic nation, a free-enterprise nation, we’ve put up with a cartel and accepted it, and now we’re hooked on their oil.”
RC: What about China?
Iacocca: “Beijing announced they’re going to put restrictions on fuel economy that are stricter than the United States. They’re tweaking our tail here. They’re going to leapfrog and start with hybrids... they don’t want anyone coming over there and giving them a gas-guzzler. They have too much pollution, they depend too much on foreign oil, and they want to stop it.
“Well, that sounds like us in L.A. – we have too much pollution, we want to stop it. We’ve been talking, clacking our gums for 20 years, and nobody really wants to pay an extra dime for clean air. They just don’t want to do it. I’ve been in California 10 years and I’ve never heard people talk more about smog and clean air and do nothing about it, absolutely nothing. The Air Resources Board has tried their best and Detroit fought ‘em like hell, let’s face it.”
RC: Honda and Toyota were the first to market with hybrid vehicles. Many consider them to be in the lead as U.S. automakers are just now striving to bring their own hybrids to the showroom. What’s your take on this?
Iacocca: “I’ve worked with hybrids probably all my life and, by the way, the time has come. I’ve said this many times recently, that Detroit better get cracking or we’re going to be lost in the dust. What are they waiting for? Hybrids are complex and they’re more expensive, but they give you terrific gas mileage and it’s a start towards zero emissions. Is it going to happen? As sure as we’re sitting here…can’t fight it any longer. So it might be by small increments, but I would predict within three years from today, if you don’t have a hybrid car or hybrid SUV, you’re not going to be selling them.
“Every invention brings with it a set of opportunities but also a set of problems, and that’s where you’ve got to direct your attention today. I don’t think anybody has more incentive than the Big Three or whoever is left, maybe the Big Two after the Germans bought Chrysler. So the greatest incentive is for the petroleum industry and the biggest user of that petroleum, the U.S. car and truck industry, to get going or somebody’s going to knock the hell out of them.”
Early electric vehicle efforts took many forms, with automakers striving to compress the learning curve in order to meet California’s impending 1998 zero emission vehicle mandate. While a few automakers like Honda developed their electric vehicle programs around all-new designs, most turned to electrifying existing car, truck, minivan, or SUV platforms. Some were recognizable models sold in the U.S. Others, like the Ford Ecostar, were built on platforms sold only abroad. The Ecostar was unique in many respects, not the least of which was its use of an experimental sodium-sulfur “hot” battery, which provided exceptional on-board energy. Ultimately, this battery didn’t make the cut and was abandoned, although the Ecostar itself still shines as one of the era’s true stars. This article shares details of Ford’s Ecostar program and is presented as it originally ran in Green Car Journal’s December 1993 issue.
Excerpted from December 1993 Issue: It was just over a year ago when Ford debuted its Ecostar electric vehicle to the skeptical motoring press in Los Angeles, Calif. The unusual vehicle, based on the automaker's European Escort Van built in Britain at Ford's Halewood, Merseyside, manufacturing facility, seemed normal enough at first blush. But its powertrain made it the most unique vehicle ever to hit Hollywood's Sunset Strip.
Green Car Journal editors who drove the Ecostar found it to be an extremely capable EV, perhaps the best to date. But there were a few small glitches including an occasional drivetrain shudder and a degree of inverter noise. A recent test drive in a more refined Ecostar example illustrates just how far Ford has come in its electric vehicle project. The only two glitches we had noted were conspicuously gone, and the Ecostar drove better than ever.
"The shudder was an interaction between the drive system and the mechanical system it was driving, creating a resonance," Ford's Bob Kiessel told Green Car Journal. "What we had to do was compensate for that resonance. It's all done electronically.” Evolutionary changes in the controller also eliminated the high-pitched noise noted on the earlier drive. The Ecostar's gauges and diagnostics were also working this time around, a simple matter of more time spent dialing in the EV's many functions and subsystems.
During this most recent drive, we were aware of a significant amount of tire noise making its way to the cabin. Because this also created its own unique resonance, it was cited by some drivers as motor noise, a suggestion that Kiessel denies. Even so, he offers that improvements are in the works.
"We're testing a next-generation motor-transaxle that cuts the noise level down by an order of magnitude," Kiessel shares. Tire noise will be engineered out, at least to a greater degree, as R&D work on the Ecostar continues.
There was a reason for the Ecostar's recent coming out party. Ford has completed a number of the Ecostar examples it began assembling in June and was preparing to deliver them to fleets for real world testing over a 30-month period. Fleets taking delivery: Southern California Edison (Los Angeles, Calif.); Pacific Gas & Electric (San Francisco, Calif.); Allegheny Power (Frederick, Md.); Commonwealth Edison (Chicago, Ill.); Detroit Edison (Detroit, Mich.); and the U.S. Dept. of Energy (Washington, D.C.).
Ecostars now being driven on U.S. highways are milestone vehicles in that they're the first to travel under power of advanced batteries. The 37 kWh, 780-pound sodium-sulfur battery, built by ABB (Heidelberg, Germany) for Ford, allows the 3100-pound Ecostar to achieve a conservative Federal Urban Driving Schedule range of 100 miles. Acceleration on the highway is brisk enough to meet daily driving needs. Ford estimates 0-60 mph acceleration at about 16.5 seconds, in the realm of a Volkswagen EuroVan powered by a 2.5-liter inline 5-cylinder engine. Top speed is cited as 75 mph.
Once the entire 105 vehicle fleet is fielded in the U.S., Mexico, and Europe, it's expected that Ford will get plenty of feedback on how these vehicles perform and how they can be fine-tuned for the real market.
"This vehicle is a learning tool for us in several different ways," says Kiessel, "from a design standpoint to an engineering skills standpoint, and from a supplier development standpoint to market development and service. It's a probe to learn. What we're trying to do is focus on the things that will help us make better electric vehicles in the future."
We tend to take the nuances of electric vehicle charging for granted, but it’s been a long road to get where we are today. Establishing standards is a lengthy and involved process that’s not without controversy. Today, we have established connectors and protocols for standardized charging of all electric vehicles on the market, with the exception of Tesla, which has its own exclusive charging stations and connectors. Even so, change is still afoot as companies like BMW strive to commercialize contactless inductive charging that doesn’t require any connector at all for energizing an electric vehicle’s batteries. Back in 1992 during the early years of the modern EV’s march to market, GM and Hughes Aircraft were championing paddle inductive charging that would eventually make its way to the GM EV1 and early EVs from a number of other automakers. In the interest of taking our readers back to the beginnings of inductive charging, we present this article from the Green Car Journal archives, as it was originally published in June 1992.
Excerpted from June 1992 Issue: Visionaries who contemplated the day when electrical plugs would power modem automobiles weren’t so visionary after all. It’s likely that inductive charging using magnetic induction paddles, not plugs, will do the job. Hughes Aircraft, a unit of General Motors, has just introduced such a prototype charging system and has proposed it as an industry standard.
This charging system is unique in many ways. Perhaps its most important distinction is that the conventional method of providing electrical power through metal-to-metal contact is eliminated. There are no plug prongs to bend, and no fumbling to align multiple male to female contacts. The potential for electrical shock is gone. Instead, electricity is transferred from power source to vehicle through magnetic induction, the same technology used by the electrical transformers found on utility power poles. Hughes says it’s safe enough to allow recharging in the rain.
As a design concept, the electric paddle is as foreign to refueling as compact discs once were to music. But as the popular CD illustrates, things change. The 5-inch round, plastic-covered paddle has many of the same plusses going for it: It’s durable, easy to use, and makes perfect sense. GCJ editors found refueling with the charging paddle a user-friendly experience. Its handle is easy to grip, the paddle slides into the car’s charging port without effort, and it’s simple to disengage by depressing a thumb release and pulling outward from the port.
The line of Hughes EV chargers that will use these paddles include a wall-mounted 220-volt residential unit, a 220-volt curbside column for use in cities and parking structures, and a portable110-volt adapter unit that will allow charging at any electrical outlet. A kiosk style energy station will also be available for fleet service centers. Pacific Gas & Electric (San Francisco, Calif.) is currently testing one of these charging units. Hughes Power Control Systems (Torrance, Calif.) expects to begin general delivery of charging units to fleets and demonstration programs next year.
GM has adopted the paddle port design into the electric vehicle they’re developing for a mid ’90s introduction. Chrysler, Ford, and a number of Japanese automakers are evaluating the design for possible use with their coming EV models as well.
It was an exciting time for electric cars in the early 1990s. GM’s Impact concept was unveiled at the 1990 LA Auto Show, with the Tokyo Motor Show exhibiting many electric concepts as well. Among them was Tokyo R&D’s IZA electric car. Green Car Journal editors attending the Tokyo show found the IZA a fascinating counterpoint to the Impact at the time. If you’re interested in the beginnings of the modern electric vehicle field as we know it today, then there’s no better place to start than diving into Green Car Journal’s early issues with us. Here, we present the following article from the Green Car Journal archives, as it was originally published in March 1992.
Excerpted from March 1992 Issue: Sleek and slippery like GM’s Impact prototype, the IZA easily garners attention from anyone in its vicinity. It did this consistently at the Tokyo Motor Show. GCJ editors there found it to be among the most formidable EV research efforts showcased by Japanese interests.
The IZA is principally sponsored by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) as an “experimental study vehicle.” The company began with a clean slate in 1988, commissioning Tokyo R&D, Ltd. to design the body and Meidensha Corp. to handle motor and inverter development. Technical guidance was provided by the EV Research Organization and Professor Yoichi Kaya of the University of Tokyo.
Some interesting comparisons can be drawn with GM’s Impact prototype. Both aerodynamic EVs achieve an impressive 0.19 coefficient of drag, each relying heavily on wind tunnel design and high-tech construction techniques. The Impact uses a fiberglass-reinforced monocoque arrangement, while the IZA integrates a carbon fiber reinforced plastic body over an aluminum chassis. Height and width dimensions are nearly identical. Certain specifications vary widely since the Impact is a two-seater and the IZA a 2+2. The IZA’s body and wheelbase are longer (an additional 29 and 13 inches), and curb weight heftier by 1268 pounds.
One of the most interesting features found on the IZA is its brand of motivation. Meidensha Corp. integrated a direct-drive system with each wheel connected to a DC brushless motor. Japan Storage Battery Company installed 24 nickel-cadmium (NiCad) batteries to create a 288-volt, 28.8 kWh powerpack for the four-wheel drive powertrain. This battery system weighs in at a substantial 1170 pounds, one-third of the car’s overall weight. Bridgestone Ecology 205/50R17 low-rolling resistance radials were mounted to modulate road friction and unspring weight.
Endurance testing on Meidensha’s chassis dynamometer in October 1991 indicated a 343-mile range at a steady speed of 25 mph, and a 169-mile range at 62 mph. Indicated top speed is 110 mph, the same as that of the Impact.
The car incorporates a variety of comfort and convenience features including power steering, power windows, and power-assisted brakes. An inverter-controlled heat pump air conditioning system is also used. Its interior is simple but stylish, with a smoothly contoured dashboard placing all controls easily within reach. Minimal instrumentation is housed within a very small rounded cluster directly in front of the driver.
TEPCO sources advise GCJ that additional IZA models are not planned at this time. In the meantime, the company is conduction further tests and working to secure a license plate for highway operation.
The Nissan LEAF benefits from early electrics like the circa-1998 Nissan Altra EV, the first model to use lithium-ion batteries. The Altra EV was one of many electrics explored during Nissan’s decades-long electric vehicle development program, including the Future Electric Vehicle (FEV), FEV II, Prairie Joy EV, Nissan Hypermini, Altra EV, and of course the LEAF. To lend insight into the early years of Nissan’s electric vehicle development, we present the following article from the Green Car Journal archives, as it was originally published in June 1998.
Excerpted from June 1998 Issue: The Nissan Altra EV, an electrified iteration of the all-new R’nessa minivan, an internal combustion model sold only in Japan, created quite a stir at its official North American debut at this year’s 1998 Greater L.A Auto Show.
The reason? It’s the first time any production electric vehicle has used lithium-ion batteries, scaled-up versions of the batteries found in the highest-end notebook computers and video cameras. Just as lithium-ion allows these portable devices to operate longer on battery power, this advanced battery technology also provides an EV with a longer single charge driving range – 120 miles in the case of this minivan.
It could have been more. Nissan chose to go with a minivan because of its universal appeal and functionality. However, there was a desire on the part of some Nissan executives to go with a smaller, lighter EV because the Li-ion batteries could have provided a stunning 200 mile single-charge driving range in a smaller platform. Instead, the automaker chose a platform that weighs in at just over 100 pounds more than Honda’s EV Plus.
The Altra EV’s Li-ion battery pack consists of 12 modules of eight cells connected in series, or a total of 96 cells, each measuring 2.6″ in diameter and 16″ in length. A Hughes-type inductive charging system, the same as GM’s EV1, is used on the Altra EV. A full charge from empty takes about five hours.
The decision to integrate Sony Li-ion batteries represents substantial vision on the part of Nissan, and also, it seems, an ability to absorb significant short term losses. While Nissan sources will not officially comment on the actual cost of the Li-ion battery pack, insiders say that early versions cost somewhere between $50,000 to $70,000 each. Obviously, these costs will drop dramatically and quickly as the technology advances and greater numbers of these batteries are produced. In the meantime, high costs for early EVs used in limited demonstrations are to be expected.
Power is provided by a 83 horsepower permanent magnet synchronous motor and a 32-bit high-speed RISC motor controller processor. The motor features a compact design that weighs just 85 pounds. This electric powertrain achieves a high overall energy efficiency lf approximately 90 percent under ordinary driving conditions.
Green Car Journal editors had the opportunity to put the Altra EV through its paces at the automaker’s Tochigi test track in Japan. This test drive proved the Altra EV to be quite a capable performer, with good acceleration and handling characteristics. In fact, no apparent shortcomings were detected other than some slight gear whine, not a surprising occurrence since this vehicle’s operation is otherwise silent, with no internal combustion engine or exhaust noise to mask normal mechanical sounds.
Inside, an innovative, titanium-colored digital instrument panel displays performance and charge status that was easy to read during our test drive. Comfortable seating for four is provided with front and mid-section bucket seats. A good amount of cargo area is provided at the rear.
This four-place seating configuration, rather than the six- or seven-place seating found in conventional minivans, is simply a concession to the need to keep total gross vehicle weight within certain limits to ensure optimum driving range. Everything, from vehicle weight to aerodynamics to rolling resistance, is crucial in electric vehicles that carry a very finite amount of energy onboard. This is an especially important consideration since the Altra EV carries an 800 pound battery pack mounted beneath the floorboard.
Nissan is bringing 30 Altra EVs to the U.S. for testing this year, mostly within its own employee fleet and in the fleets of several electric utilities. Nissan sources tell Green Car Journal that delivery of the first 15 Altra EVs from Japan is slightly behind schedule, but they are expected imminently. After the initial 30 examples arrive, an additional 90 Altra EVs are scheduled to be brought to the U.S. for placement with fleets by 2000.
Of course, the Altra EV represents but one highly visible part of this automaker’s electric vehicle program. By all accounts there’s also a hybrid electric variant coming, possibly based on the efficient Nissan Avenir developmental hybrid platform that Green Car Journal editors had the opportunity to test drive at the automaker’s Tochigi track in late 1997.
While this hybrid vehicle was clearly still in the development stage – much of the interior was devoted to battery placement and instrumentation – it was far enough along to prove the viability of Nissan’s hybrid work.
Tadao Takei, Nissan’s executive vice president, has been quoted as predicting a January 1999 launch of a Nissan hybrid EV in Japan. This follows the late-1998 launch of Toyota’s Prius hybrid EV in the Japanese market. Takei expressed doubt that Nissan would reach the current 3,000 unit-per-month production of the Prius, which was recently ramped up to meet unexpectedly high demand for the Toyota hybrid.
Still, the fact that Nissan is moving forward with a hybrid launch signals an important commitment to what promises to be an exciting and growing segment of the auto industry.
POWERTRAIN
Type: Neodymium permanent magnet DC electric motor
Dimensions: 8.11 inches diameter x 12.01 inches length
Power: 83 hp (162 kW)
Maximum Torque: 17 ft-lbs
Maximum RPM: 13,000
Transmission: Transaxle type with 2-stage planetary gear set
Controller: 216-400 volt input range, Vector controller
Drive Configuration: Front-mounted motor, front-wheel drive
BATTERY
Type: Lithium-ion
Capacity (AH/Hour): 94/3
Nominal Voltage (V/Set): 345
Number of modules: 12
CHARGING SYSTEM
Charger Type: Inductive
Charging Time: 5 hours
BODY/CHASSIS/SUSPENSION
Body Type: Unibody construction
Front Suspension: MacPherson strut with coil springs and stabilizer bar
Rear Suspension: Rear multi-link beam with coil springs
STEERING
Steering Type: Power-assisted electric oil pump
Turning Circle (ft.): 36.2
Turns (lock-to-lock): 4.11
BRAKING SYSTEM
Brake System Type: Electric assist regenerative antilock braking
Front: Ventilated disc brakes
Rear: Drum rear brakes
Input Voltage: 12
Motor Type: DC brush
WHEELS & TIRES
Wheels: 5-spoke aluminum alloy
Size: 15-inch
Tire Type: Low rolling friction all-season radial
Tire Size: 205/65R15
DIMENSIONS
Overall Length: 191.7 inches
Overall Width: 69.5 inches
Overall Height: 66.8 inches
Wheelbase: 110.2 inches
Tread Width (front/rear): 60.4/59.8 inches
Min. Ground Clearance: 5.51 inches
Coefficient of Drag (Cd): 0.36
WEIGHTS & CAPACITIES
Seating Capacity: 4
Curb Weight: 3,749Ibs.
Weight Distribution: 56/44 front/rear
GVWR: 4.579 .lbs.
Cargo Capacity: 221 1bs.
Maximum Payload: 820 1bs.
FUEL ECONOMY
Hwy/City: 304/342 watt hours/mile
PERFORMANCE
Vehicle Range: 120 miles
Maximum Speed: 75 mph (governed)