Since the very first Green Car Awards™ presented by Green Car Journal in 2005, the magazine’s mission has been to acknowledge and encourage environmental achievement in the auto industry. It has always been important to recognize new models that are driving a green revolution on our highways by decreasing emissions, encouraging energy diversity, and improving efficiency. This enlightened way forward is crucial to vastly improving the automobile’s impact on the environment and ensuring a future for personal-use vehicles.
That mission has never been more vital than it is today as we see first-hand the environmental challenges we all face. While there are many ways to address these challenges and solutions must come from many fronts, it’s reassuring to know that the auto industry is stepping up in significant ways.
High efficiency internal combustion models that eke out fuel economy numbers in the 30 to 40 mile-per-gallon range, and above, were unheard of in the recent past. They’re on the road today. Hybrids that extend fuel efficiency to 40 and 50 miles per gallon are not uncommon. Models driving on battery electric power often are achieving an energy equivalent of 80, 90, and 100 miles-per-gallon, or more. There’s still work to be done to accomplish important environmental goals, but this truly is a watershed moment.
The motor vehicle continues to have an important story to tell, now and in the decades ahead. That story speaks to greater efficiency, improved attention to sustainability, and a more thoughtful approach to environmental compatibility, all made possible by the enlightened design, advanced technologies, and amazing innovation found in an unfolding new generation of vehicles. The Green Car Awards – the most important environmental awards in the auto industry – celebrate these vehicles, and by extension the automakers, engineers, product planners, and others who make them happen.
Each award year, Green Car Journal editors examine the universe of vehicle models sold in the U.S. that distinguish themselves with exemplary environmental credentials. Through an extensive vetting process, five vehicles are identified in each of eight categories that stand out by virtue of their environmental achievement. This process considers many factors such as lower carbon emissions, greater efficiency, or the use of advanced technologies such as lightweighting, electrification, more efficient internal combustion, or other innovative efficiency-enhancing or sustainability strategies. Each model that rises to the top 5 in a category are honored with Green Car Journal’s Green Car Product of Excellence™. These standout vehicles then advance to be finalists for Green Car Awards.
Models honored with 2022 Green Car Product of Excellence are: Audi e-tron GT; Audi Q4 e-tron; BMW i4; BMW iX; BrightDrop EV 600; Chevrolet Bolt EUV; Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid; ELMS Urban Delivery EV; Ford E-Transit; Ford F-150; Ford Maverick; Ford Mustang Mach-E GT; GMC Hummer EV; Honda Civic; Hyundai IONIQ 5; Hyundai Kona Electric; Hyundai Tucson; Hyundai Venue; Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe; Karma GS-6; Kia EV6; Kia Seltos; Kia Sorento Hybrid/PHEV; Lexus NX; Lightning eMotors Electric Van; Lucid Air; Mercedes-Benz EQS; MINI Cooper SE; Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo; Rivian Electric Delivery Van; Rivian R1T; Tesla Model S Plaid; Toyota Sienna; Toyota Tundra; Volkswagen ID.4; Volvo C40 Recharge.
This year involved weighing the merits of more potential finalists than any previous year in the award program’s history. In the shifting sands of the pandemic, the auto industry’s chip shortage, and today’s phased timeline for new model introductions throughout the year, an important part of this process is determining a new model’s realistic delivery timeline, not just the availability of online preorders. In some cases this means a new high-profile model must be considered in the following year’s award program.
For the past 16 years, the Green Car of the Year® has been selected by an invited jury that includes leaders of the nation’s energy efficiency and environmental organizations, along with celebrity auto expert Jay Leno and Green Car Journal staff. This year’s invited jury included Paula Glover, president of the Alliance to Save Energy; Mindy Lubber, president of CERES; Joseph K. Lyou, president and CEO of the Coalition for Clean Air; Matt Petersen, president and CEO of Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator and advisory board chair of Climate Mayors; and Dr. Alan Lloyd, president emeritus of the International Council on Clean Transportation and senior research fellow at the Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin. Winners of all other Green Car Awards are selected by a jury of automotive experts and Green Car Journal staff.
Electrification is so important to 'green' cars today that nearly every Green Car Awards finalist included a battery electric, plug-in hybrid, or hybrid powertrain option, and all Green Car of the Year candidates were exclusively battery electric for the first time. After all the vetting, the evaluations, and the decisions, the results are in. Six of the eight award winners are all-electric vehicles and two are highly-efficient hybrids. Here are the standout winners and worthy finalists for this year’s 2022 Green Car Awards:
2022 Green Car of the Year® – Audi Q4 e-tron
Finalists for Green Car Journal’s signature award included the Audi Q4 e-tron, BMW i4, Kia EV6, Rivian R1T, and Volvo C40 Recharge.
2022 Luxury Green Car of the Year™ – Lucid Air
Vying for this award were the Audi e-tron GT, BMW iX, Karma GS-6, Lucid Air, and Mercedes-Benz EQS.
2022 Urban Green Car of the Year™ – Chevrolet Bolt EUV
Finalists were the Chevrolet Bolt EUV, Hyundai Kona Electric, Hyundai Venue, Kia Seltos, and MINI Cooper SE.
2022 Performance Green Car of the Year™ – Tesla Model S Plaid
Among this award’s finalists were the Audi e-tron GT RS, Ford Mustang Mach-E GT, Lucid Air Dream Performance, Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo Turbo S, and Tesla Model S Plaid.
2022 Green SUV of the Year™ – Hyundai IONIQ 5
The top 5 finalists included Hyundai IONIQ 5, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe, Lexus NX, and Volkswagen ID.4.
2022 Commercial Green Car of the Year™ – BrightDrop EV 600
Finalists were BrightDrop EV 600, ELMS Urban Delivery EV, Ford E-Transit, Lightning eMotors Electric Van, and Rivian Electric Delivery Van.
2022 Green Truck of the Year™ – Ford Maverick
Presented at the San Antonio Auto & Truck Show, finalists included the Ford F-150, Ford Maverick, GMC Hummer EV, Rivian R1T, and Toyota Tundra.
2022 Family Green Car of the Year™ – Toyota Sienna
Also hosted by the San Antonio Auto & Truck Show, finalists were Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, Honda Civic, Kia Sorento Hybrid/PHEV, Toyota Sienna, and Volkswagen ID.4.
With Subaru’s recently-unveiled Solterra electric SUV and existing plug-in Crosstrek Hybrid, you might think this automaker’s efforts toward electrification are fairly new. But that’s not the case. Like most automakers, Subaru was exploring electrification many years ago. Among the most interesting example was the Subaru B9 SC Scrambler series-parallel hybrid electric concept that was unveiled almost two decades ago. Here, we take a look at the B9 SC Scrambler roadster in a feature that originally appeared in Green Car Journal’s Summer 2004 issue.
Excerpted from Summer 2004 Issue: Subaru, a marque that doesn’t come readily to mind when talking advanced technology vehicles, can be a bit of a tease. Back in 1991, this auto- maker all but stunned the automotive world with a sports coupe that could generously be called atypical – the cutting edge Subaru SVX.
This swoopy, fast, and decidedly cool car didn’t become a huge seller, but it did establish Subaru’s credentials as a company that could bring advanced vehicles to the showroom with the best of ‘em, something we see today in models like the Impreza WRX STi. Still, Subaru tends to stay on the mainstream side with such well-engineered staples as the Outback, Forester, and Legacy rather than heading for the limelight with flexible fuel or hybrid models.
Well, Subaru has stepped out of the box again, and in a big way. Its B9 SC “Scrambler” hybrid electric concept blends the design direction of Subaru’s Andreas Zapatinas – formerly head of design at Alfa Romeo – with a unique hybrid electric drive technology that works seamlessly with Subaru’s Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive system, and also is adaptable to its current vehicle platforms.
This automaker’s Sequential Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle (SSHEV) system places a generator between a 2.0-liter, 4-cylinder DOHC Subaru Boxer gasoline engine and transmission with a two-way clutch, high-performance electric motor, and all-wheel drive transfer gearing integrated into the transmission case. What’s unique about the SSHEV powerplant is that its Boxer gasoline engine supplements the electric drive motor, rather than the other way around. Up to about 50 mph, the gasoline engine’s primary role is to charge the laminated lithium-ion batteries that power the hybrid vehicle’s electric motor. The gasoline Boxer engine takes over as primary propulsion above 50 mph, a speed range that’s most efficient for this internal combustion powerplant. Both electric and gasoline powerplants jointly provide power under demanding driving conditions.
Subaru says it will be able to offer customers the kind of performance now enjoyed with its turbocharged models by using its own hybrid electric drive technology. After being blown away by the impressive performance of Subaru’s SVX while driving this sports coupe at its debut back in 1991, we have no doubt that Subaru has the technical savvy and is surely up to this challenge…with a few more tricks up its sleeve, to be sure.
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.
Karma’s new GS-6 is offered in Standard, Luxury, and Sport models, all sharing the sleek exterior design of the company’s upmarket Revero GT. The three GS-6 variants are powered by a transversely mounted, 400 kW twin-motor rear drive module (RDM) energized by a 28 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that delivers 61 miles of battery-electric range. The combination, which produces 536 horsepower and 550 lb-ft of peak torque, comes with an EPA rating of 70 combined city/highway MPGe. Range increases to 330 miles with additional electricity from a 1.5-liter, turbocharged three-cylinder gas engine spinning a 170 kW generator.
The driver can select one of three modes that control how the motor is powered: Stealth mode uses the battery pack only; Sustain mode accesses the generator to create electricity to power the car; Sport mode uses both the batteries and the generator to supply power directly to the motors.
The drive system’s Sport mode is available in all GS-6 versions, not just the Sport model. The line-topping Sport model is differentiated from the other GS-6 versions by its 22-inch wheels (21s are standard on the others), red Brembo brake calipers, and torque vectoring from the RDM.
The GS-6’s leather interior is available in a choice of five colors and accent trim that range from carbon fiber to reclaimed wood from forests burned by California wildfires. The car’s Human-Machine Interface enables driver control of features including steering feel, accelerator pedal aggressiveness, and its Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). Controls in the haptic steering wheel give the driver command of the sound system and phone, driving modes, adaptive cruise control, and a three-mode regenerative brake system. The center touchscreen contains controls for the HVAC system, heated and ventilated seats, audio, and lighting. Also controlled through the center screen is the GS-6’s Track Mode, which provides data ranging from lap times and g-forces to energy use and even tire pressure and temperature.
The ADAS aboard the GS-6 has a long list of assistance and safety features including adaptive cruise control with stop and go, lane-keep assist, automatic emergency braking, blind-spot monitoring/rear cross-traffic alert, forward collision warning, and parking distance monitoring. Onboard cameras provide a 360-degree view around the Karma. Apple Car Play and Android Auto capability are built into the GS-6, and it can receive over-the-air updates for remote diagnostics and software upgrades.
While it sells vehicles globally, Karma's operations are in Southern California with headquarters in Irvine and a production facility in Moreno Valley.
Similar in size to Audi’s Q5 SUV, the Q4 e-tron is powered by one or two electric motors depending on configuration. The base Q4 40 e-tron sends an estimated 240 horsepower to the rear wheels through a permanently excited synchronous motor. The Q4 50 e-tron quattro and Q4 50 Sportback e-tron quattro add a temporary on-demand asynchronous motor to drive the front wheels as needed. The second motor brings total output to an estimated 290 horsepower. When not in use, the front motor doesn’t consume any energy or add any load resistance, so the drivetrain’s efficiency is like that of the rear-wheel drive system.
Both drive configurations are powered by a single 77 kWh battery located between the axles to optimize weight distribution. Preliminary estimates put the Q4 40 e-tron’s range at approximately 250 miles.
The drivetrain is configured to regenerate energy using what Audi calls intelligent recuperation, which incorporates navigation and topographical data in addition to the three regen modes selectable via steering wheel paddles and brake pedal modulation. The battery can be charged using either alternating or direct current, up to 11 kW with AC and up to 125 kW DC using a high-speed charger.
The Q4 e-tron interiors feature a 10.25-inch digital instrument cluster in front of the driver and a second, 10.1-inch touchscreen to operate the infotainment and navigation systems. A new steering wheel has seamless touch surfaces to control the instrument cluster. Available as an option is an augmented reality head-up display, which superimposes relevant driving information over the real-world view out the windshield at what is perceived to be a distance of 30 feet ahead of the driver, “creating an integrated and eyes-forward experience,” says Audi.
Several driver-assist systems are packaged into the Q4 e-tron models, ranging from High-Beam Assist to Adaptive Cruise Assist. Combined with Traffic Jam Assist, the adaptive cruise control can guide the SUV through its entire speed range. A Predictive Efficiency Assist program optimizes energy consumption over the duration of a trip.
Audi expects to produce the Q4 e-tron models at its Zwickau, Germany, plant with a net carbon-neutral footprint. Zwickau will incorporate renewable electricity to help achieve this certification. The Q4 e-tron SUVs should be on sale in the U.S. in late 2021 with a starting MSRP of less than $45,000.
Volvo’s positioning of the C40 Recharge is interesting in an era where an abundance of new models are identified by their makers as SUVs, though many could just as easily be called large hatchbacks. This is in reverse. Volvo doesn’t describe the C40 Recharge as an SUV – thought it certainly could be categorized that way – but rather, says it ‘has all the benefits of an SUV’ like a high seating position, but with a sleeker body design. We’ll chalk it up to marketing.
However you define it, the model is powered by a 78 kWh battery driving front and rear electric motors for zero-emission driving. Anticipated range is estimated at about just over 200 miles on a charge, with an official EPA rating still to come. Range is expected to improve over time with over-the-air software updates, Volvo says. The battery is configured to be fast-charged to 80 percent in about 40 minutes. Buyers of the C40 Recharge, and all-fully electric 2022 Volvo vehicles, will receive 250 kWh of complimentary charging for the first three years of ownership using Electrify America’s charging network. After that, owners will be eligible for Electrify America’s Pass+, with Volvo picking up the membership fees for the first year.
The C40 Recharge is the first Volvo with a leather-free interior. Upholstery options include renewable wool fiber or a combination of suede textile (made of recycled plastic) and micro-tech material. The carpet and much of the interior panels and trim are also made using recycled plastics.
Other interior features include dual-zone automatic climate control, heated front and rear seats, a heated sport steering wheel wrapped in a synthetic material, a 12-inch driver display instrument panel, and a 9-inch center display panel. The infotainment system in the C40 Recharge was developed with Google and is based on the Android operating system. Google services, such as Google Maps, Google Assistant, and the Google Play Store are built in, and owners have access to Google apps using the car’s unlimited data.
Driver aids built into the C40 Recharge include Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Keeping Aid, Oncoming Lane Mitigation, and Road Sign Information, which displays information alerts – speed limits, do not enter and other signs – in the speedometer.
Starting at a base price somewhat south of $60,000, the C40 Recharge is available through online orders only. It will come with a convenient care package that includes service, warranty, roadside assistance, insurance, and home-charging options. To simplify the online ordering process, the C40 Recharge will be available in one trim level called Ultimate. This model has ‘every available feature,’ says Volvo, including a panoramic fixed moonroof, pixel LED lighting, 360-degree surround-view camera, and Harmon Kardon premium sound.
As we forge ahead in 2021, consumers and businesses alike are feeling a sense of cautious optimism. While the personal, political, and professional anxieties from last year won’t go away with the flip of a calendar, we can share reasons for hope for a brighter year ahead. One of those reasons is around a renewed focus on climate action, specifically around clean transportation through electric vehicles (EVs) and the charging infrastructure to support them. This hope is giving many of us a brighter – and greener – outlook for 2021 and beyond.
It’s exciting to see a growing wave of electric vehicle offerings on the horizon, helping create more interest and demand than ever before. But while new makes and models are inspiring, the industry is reaching an inflection point. Making EVs mainstream will require much more than just the vehicles themselves. The U.S. and the world need significantly more charging infrastructure and a stronger overall charging ecosystem to drive true adoption, things my colleagues and I work toward every day.
Let’s think about existing infrastructure as a starting point. Currently, there are well over a million individual gas pumps across the United States, and almost everybody is familiar with how they operate. For reference, there are less than 100,000 individual public chargers, and most Americans don’t know how to use them. The collective ‘we’ have some work cut out for us.
For EVs to really take off, consumers need to start seeing charging stations much more frequently than they do today. And the charging experience needs to take minutes, not hours. That’s why Electrify America is building the nation’s largest open, ultra-fast DC fast charging network, with chargers capable of up to 350 kW. We’re investing heavily to ensure the EVs of today and of the future will be able to charge faster than ever imagined. By the end of 2021, we expect to install or have under development approximately 800 total charging stations with about 3,500 DC fast chargers, including along two cross-country routes.
One of the many benefits of EVs is the ability to offer drivers multiple options when it comes to powering up. Charging is still a new experience for most, so emphasizing this point has been meaningful in our ongoing EV education and awareness efforts. Offering seamless solutions for home and workplace charging, in addition to continued focus on public ultra-fast charging, is helping to build confidence for any driver or fleet operator interested in making the switch to electric transportation.
As enthusiastic as we are about our progress, we know we can’t create the infrastructure and EV ecosystem needed to ignite this revolution alone. We need industry partners, automakers, utilities, businesses, and government to all come together to accelerate our charging capabilities to help spur future EV adoption – and we’re working with many groups to make that happen. A lack of collaboration can crush this movement, which remains in a hopeful, yet fragile place. More investment and partnerships across the board are what will keep the momentum going to adequately handle a growing number of EVs. That’s why we believe continued investment in charging will drive EV adoption, and that all stakeholders should be fully supporting all charging industry growth.
While lack of public charging remains a main deterrent for EV purchase consideration – an issue we are working hard to address – the true beauty of EVs is that between home, public, and workplace charging options, drivers will actually have more opportunities to power their vehicles than gas-powered cars. And that’s a future worth celebrating.
Henrik Fisker is one of the most fascinating figures in the auto industry today. After a distinguished career designing memorable vehicles for others like the Aston Martin DB9 – and notably the BMW Z8 and Aston Martin V8 Vantage famously driven by James Bond – he set off on his own path. His first effort, featuring the gorgeous plug-in Fisker Karma of his own design, ended abruptly in 2013. But everyone loves a good comeback story, and Fisker is delivering one with Fisker Inc., the company he and CFO wife/cofounder Geeta Gupta-Fisker launched in 2016.
RON COGAN: You’ve designed some amazing and iconic vehicles for legacy automakers. What drove you to become an automaker yourself?
HENRIK FISKER: “I felt like in my corporate career I had hit the ceiling, and the pinnacle was designing two cars for Aston Martin, the V8 Vantage and DB9. I wanted to get out and get my hands dirty, and start doing something where I challenged myself. I really had a passion for the idea of coming up with sustainable vehicles that were also emotional and exciting. That’s how I started Fisker Automotive, originally with the Fisker Karma.”
RC: What are the most important lessons you’ve learned from your experience with the former Fisker Automotive, and how are you applying those at Fisker Inc. today?
FISKER: “If you have the ability to de-risk something, then do it. That’s lesson number one. An example would be, originally with Fisker Automotive, we didn’t really have a choice of a battery maker. There were only three and we were left to take the third one, which was A123, because Panasonic was with Tesla at the time and I think LG Chem had an exclusive with GM.
“Today we have the possibility to either choose some untested battery technology from a new startup, or we take tested battery technology from a large battery maker. We have chosen the latter, because I believe there’s too big a risk there, and we don’t really need to take that risk because the technology is getting better and better. We think it’s going to take a lot longer to come up with radical new battery technologies than we, and a lot of people, originally thought…I think we’re at least seven to 10 years away.”
RC: How will you stay ahead of the advanced battery curve?
FISKER: “When you buy a car today, any new car, the technology in that car is probably three to four years old, because it was decided three or four years ago. What we are trying to do is shorten that time down to 18 to 24 months, where we can decide on technology that late. When you get our car in the next year, we decided on the battery technology this year, which means we have the latest, newest technology.
“To give you an example, when we looked at technology in 2020, only a year ago, we estimated a range of 300 miles. Because we could delay that decision to now, we now can have a better, more energy-efficient cell and a more energy-efficient pack, which means we are getting up to about a 350-mile range. That is the advantage of being able to choose technology very late in the development process.”
RC: Any other lessons learned?
FISKER: “Number two, I would say, is financing. Originally, at Fisker Automotive we had many, many financing rounds, and we saw other companies as well, like Tesla, having many financing rounds. What happens is you end up having delays, because you never get the financing when you need it. When you have a delay developing a car you actually end up increasing costs because time is cost. The other lesson learned: Go and get the total amount of money you need for your first car.”
RC: Does that mean you have enough now to fully produce the Ocean?
FISKER: “We needed slightly less than a billion dollars to get the Fisker Ocean to market, and said we aren’t going to kick off the program full speed until we raised the entire amount of money. We decided last year to do a SPAC merger, where we went public and we raised over $1 billion. To this date we have had no delays. We are going full speed, and we are still on target to launch the vehicle next year.”
RC: Can you share insight into your asset-light business model?
FISKER: “The advantage is that you’re taking less risk, specifically in manufacturing. We have seen what Tesla has gone through, ‘manufacturing hell.’ They have been pretty clear about it. I don’t know that either investors or customers have the patience that they may have had many, many years ago, where it was still the early adopters that bought electric cars.
“I think the competition is a lot stronger today, and I think the expectation is a high-quality car on par with any other traditional OEM out there. This was really important for us. Yes, there might be some car enthusiast fanatics that feel it’s super cool if you make your own car, but the reality is that I don’t want to risk our company or the quality just to prove we can manufacture a car better than Toyota. I don’t think it has any real relevance to our stakeholders or to our customers, quite frankly. Nobody questions the fact that Apple doesn’t make its own phones.”
RC: So you’ve contracted your manufacturing out to Magna.
FISKER: “Magna is probably one of the best automotive manufacturers in the world, manufacturing some of the highest-quality cars out there, for German luxury makers to even one large Japanese conglomerate. We know this is their job. We are paying them to do it, and they will deliver a high-quality vehicle straight out of the gate.
“If you are manufacturing in your own plant and you’re still in the learning process, that means you’re going to spend more hours per car, and that is cost. I’ll bet you our vehicle is actually at a lower cost-per-vehicle to manufacture than any of our startup competitors, because they aren’t going to make perfect vehicles in the lowest amount of time straight out of the box, like Magna can do it. They will do it at the right man-hours per vehicle, and therefore our costs per vehicle are already fixed. This gives us an advantage, which is why we can already announce pricing on our vehicle, because we know those costs.”
RC: How important is your deal with Foxconn to your future plans?
FISKER: “I think it’s extremely important and it has accelerated our business model. Through this partnership, we are able to get to an even more affordable vehicle much quicker than the Fisker Ocean. It also gives us the opportunity to revolutionize the future of the automobile in a way that would have taken longer under normal circumstances. We are partnering with a group that was part of the smartphone revolution, quite frankly, and they’re an amazing partner for making a revolution in the automotive industry.”
RC: Can you share more details?
FISKER: “It’s going to be very futuristic. I’m going to take a lot of risk in terms of design and certain features in this vehicle to really shake up things, and look at maybe new ways of usability in what I would call a mobility device. Let’s call it that right now. I think this vehicle will be hard to categorize – in the way we normally say, ‘it’s a sedan or an SUV, or so on’ – and it’s on purpose.”
RC: What’s ahead?
FISKER: “You can’t forget the fact that a car company really, in my opinion, only becomes a car company once you have multiple models. We did not want to launch the Fisker Ocean and then start the next program, because that way you’re waiting another two and a half years for the next vehicle. Instead, we are actually working on multiple vehicles right now, so we can have a quick cadence of products. Our plan is to come up with four vehicles before 2025, and so far, we are on course for that.”
As Chief Scientist for Toyota Motor Corporation, one of my most important responsibilities is to think about how to address climate change using science, data, and facts. When it comes to electrification, my role is to maximize environmental benefits with the limited number of battery cells the world can produce.
Toyota’s way of thinking about this question is strongly influenced by the Toyota Production System (TPS). It forms the basis for how we conserve resources and eliminate waste to maximize the quality, durability, reliability, and value of our products. Based on TPS, we believe that maximum net environmental benefit can be achieved by considering the most limited resource – in this case the battery cell.
Every battery cell is an investment of environmental and financial resources. Carbon is emitted for every battery cell produced. Once built, every battery cell has the potential to produce more benefit than what was invested, or what we call a positive Carbon Return on Investment (CROI). But that CROI is not guaranteed. The result depends on how the battery cell is put to use. The physics of climate change (which accumulates carbon in the atmosphere for decades) and limited battery cell production suggests that we minimize total carbon emissions from all of the world’s vehicles by maximizing the CROI of every manufactured battery cell.
Let’s consider the average U.S. commute of 32 miles roundtrip each day. In this case, a 300 mile range battery will yield a very low CROI. The reason is that the vehicle carries excessive battery capacity and excessive weight that is rarely needed or used. The bulk of the energy stored in the battery cell (and the battery cell’s weight) will be carried around most of the time for no purpose, consuming extra energy for its transport, and wasting the opportunity to use that energy for more benefit to the environment. In TPS terms, we consider this to be a waste of transport and inventory. Put another way, that same battery capacity could be spread over a handful of plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), each of which would utilize most, if not all, of the battery capacity while rarely using its internal combustion engine (ICE). In this case, the overall CROI is higher for the same number of battery cells.
As another example: If a battery cell in a battery electric vehicle (BEV) is recharged by a high-carbon intensity powerplant, the CROI of that cell will be small compared to one recharged by a renewable energy powerplant. So in this case, consider a situation of two cars – one ICE-type and one BEV, and two geographic locations – one with renewable power and the other with high-carbon intensity power. More net CROI will be derived by operating the BEV in the area with renewable power and the ICE in the geography with non-renewable power than the other way around.
Finally, if a battery cell ends up in a long-range BEV whose price puts it beyond the budget of a consumer, or in a street parked vehicle that must use high-rate chargers that lower the battery cell’s life, the CROI will again be smaller than what is possible, versus placing the battery cell into, for example, a PHEV.
BEVs are an important part of the future of electrification. But we can achieve greater carbon reductions by meeting customer needs and circumstances with a diversity of solutions. Wasted CROI harms the environment because there is a limited supply of battery cells, and the cost of production to the planet and to the producer is not zero. Given this fact, how and where battery cells are actually used and charged are critically important.
In summary, given limited battery cell production and significant environmental and financial costs, the way to maximize CROI is to target battery cells into diverse vehicle types – hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles that match customer needs and circumstances, and maximize the CROI for every battery cell. This strategy is similar to running a factory efficiently in the Toyota Production System, where efficiency is maximized by eliminating waste at each stage of production and maximizing the benefit derived from every resource and cost. And it forms the basis for Toyota’s belief in this result.
The Hummer EV SUV will share key components with the Hummer EV pickup, from its Ultium powertrain platform to the open-air driving experience that comes from its removable Infinity Roof panels. Both the SUV and pickup are being touted as having significant off-roading chops, including the ability to ‘crab walk’ diagonally around trail obstacles thanks to four-wheel steering, and an Extract Mode that utilizes the Hummer’s Adaptive Air Ride suspension to raise the body some 6 inches out of harm’s way.
Because the SUV is shorter than the pickup – overall by about 10 inches and with a wheelbase nearly 9 inches shorter – GMC is promoting it as having ‘best in class off-road proportions.’ Those proportions, combined with its four-wheel-steering capability, do give it a tight turning radius of 35.4 feet, equal to that of the Chevrolet Bolt.
The smaller platform, though, does have a cost: less room for batteries. The Hummer EV SUV’s double-stacked battery pack contains 20 modules, while the Hummer EV pickup has 24. That means, on paper, anyway, the SUV is less powerful. The Edition 1 version of the SUV that will be available at launch is rated at up to 830 horsepower compared to the pickup’s 1,000. Range is shorter, too, at 300 miles compared to the pickup’s 350. Torque remains rated at up to 11,500 lb-ft, a number GM arrived at by multiplying the twisting force through the gear ratios in the Ultium platform’s front and rear drive units.
How Hummer configures that platform will be a key differentiator between Hummer EV SUV models. Edition 1 and 3X models will have three drive units, one to power the front wheels and one each for the rear wheels. The 2X and 2 models will have two drive units, one up front and one at the rear. The 2 will also have 16 instead of 20 battery modules, lower power output, and shorter range, but will be priced accordingly – 79,995 compared to $105,595 for the Edition 1.
Adding the Extreme Off-Road Package to an Edition 1 raises its MSRP by $10,000, for which the Hummer buyer receives 35-inch Goodyear Wrangler Territory tires on 18-inch wheels (22s are standard). Also provided are underbody armor and rock sliders, front and rear lockers, heavy-duty half-shafts, and the UltraVision camera system that provides up to 17 views around the vehicle to see the surrounding terrain, including under the body, in real time.
Those UltraVision images are among the infotainment channels broadcast on a 13.4-inch high-def touchscreen positioned between the driver and passenger. In front of the driver is another 12.3-inch information screen. GMC promises Hummer occupants a ‘multisensory, immersive experience’ with customizable features that can tailor not just the sound through the Bose entertainment system and the feel through the haptic driver’s seat, but also the SUV’s steering, suspension, and acceleration response. The center screen can also be used with an updated version of the myGMC mobile phone app to show satellite-rendered trail maps for navigating off-road. The revised app also tracks real-time energy consumption and can find local charging stations.
On the subject of charging, an optional Power Station generator can be used not just to charge personal devices and power recreational gear, but has the power (240v/25A/6kW) to charge other electric vehicles.
The low-floor, skateboard-like Ultium drivetrain platform has one other advantage: It affords several gear storage options. Folding the SUV’s rear seat flat and opening the powered tailgate reveals nearly 82 cubic feet of cargo space, more than GMC’s Acadia SUV with its second and third row seats folded. There is additional storage space hidden beneath the load floor and more in the Hummer’s front trunk.
GMC expects to launch the Hummer EV SUV in Edition 1 form in early 2023. It will be followed by 3X and 2X models in the spring of ’23, and the base 2 model in spring ’24.
Somewhat smaller than Lincoln’s first plug-in SUV, the Aviator Grand Touring, the Corsair is a luxury-oriented, two-row crossover that injects comfort and class into a compact premium crossover segment dominated by European offerings. It's offered in both conventional gas- and plug-in hybrid-powered variants.
When one looks to Corsair, its distinguishing characteristics and luxury appointments mean there’s no mistaking it for anything other than a Lincoln. Its attractive design features creased and organic dynamic bodylines, a Lincoln-esque diamond patterned grille, and oversized alloy wheels. Inside is a premium leather-upholstered, wood-accented, and tech-rich cabin. The compact Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring lives large enough for four to five well-sized adults and a complement of weekend luggage.
At the heart of 2021 Corsair Grand Touring beats a 2.5-liter inline 4-cylinder, Atkinson cycle gas engine and a twin electric motor planetary drive system. A constant variable transmission transfers torque to the front wheels. A third motor producing 110 lb-ft torque is dedicated to driving the rear wheels, bringing the confident traction of all-wheel drive. Combined, this powertrain delivers an estimated 266 horsepower.
EPA fuel efficiency is rated at 33 combined mpg and 78 MPGe when running on battery power. It will drive 28 miles on its lithium-ion batteries with a total range of 430 miles. Conventionally-powered Corsairs net an estimated 22 city and 29 highway mpg, and 25 mpg combined .
A driver-centric cockpit offers infinitely adjustable and heated leather seating surrounded by wood and burnished metal accents. A comprehensive dash and infotainment display, back-up dashcam, pushbutton drive commands, head-up display, parking assist, and smartphone keyless access are standard or available. Top-of-the-line Co-Pilot 360 driver assist, electronic safety, and personal connectivity features are offered. Corsair Grand Touring’s 14.4 kWh battery module is located beneath the model’s body pan, resulting in a lower center of gravity and unobstructed rear deck cargo space.
The Corsair Grand Touring has an MSRP of $50,390, about fourteen grand more than the conventionally-powered base model. It's expected to make its way to Lincoln showrooms sometime this spring.
The 2021 all-electric Polestar 2 arrives in North America this year as the brand’s first pure electric vehicle, aiming to take on Tesla in a market that’s seeing increased interest in EVs. Produced in China through a collaboration of Volvo and Geely Motors, this 5-door midsize electric hatchback proudly forwards the Polestar nameplate that was formerly dedicated to Volvo’s performance arm. Now, Polestar represents the maker’s global electric car initiative as a stand-alone car brand.
At first glance, there’s no mistaking the Volvo pedigree of Polestar 2 as it embraces the design language of Volvo’s XC40. Manufactured on Volvo’s CMA (compact modular architecture) platform, it presents premium fit and finish seamlessly blended with the utmost in functionality. This eye-catching model gets high marks for attention to detail, clean lines, and an unapologetically conventional front facade and grille design that fits its persona, without giving way to the whims of those who seem convinced an electric must look decidedly different.
No performance is lost here in the transition to zero-emissions electric power. Polestar 2 is motivated by dual electric motors, one at each axle, producing a combined 408 horsepower and 487 ft-lb torque in the Performance Pack all-wheel drive variant. This delivers a claimed 0 to 60 sprint in just 4.5 seconds.
A 292 mile range is estimated on the electric’s 78 kWh LG Chem lithium-ion battery pack, which is said to be 10 percent more powerful than Audi and Jaguar offerings. Polestar integrates the battery module as a crash-protected unibody stress member, improving overall road handling characteristics through strategic weight distribution. There are multiple charging options with integrated dual inverters and AC/DC at-home and network charge capability. Charging to 80 percent capacity can be had in 45 minutes at a fast-charge station.
Polestar 2’s regenerative braking enables one-pedal driving, a feature pioneered by the BMW i3 some years back and now adopted in an increasing number of electric models. In effect, strong regenerative braking slows a vehicle down sufficiently to often allow coming to a gradual stop without using the brakes, a fun feature that enhances the joy of driving. Although not fully autonomous, Polestar 2 comes standard with the automaker’s Polestar Connect, Pilot Assist, and adaptive cruise control for Level 2 partial automation.
Inside, driver and passengers enjoy a more conventional cockpit and cabin environment than that presented by some competitors. Polestar 2 is minimalistic but also business class posh in its interior design, placing emphasis on low environmental impact manufacturing practices and materials like repurposed Birch and Black Ash wood accents, plus soft touch ‘vegan’ synthetic seat fabrics.
Heated and cooled seats, inductive cellphone charging, ample points for device connectivity, and a standard panoramic digitized sunroof are provided. Information is intelligently presented in the instrument cluster and a large center stack navigation/infotainment touchpad. A familiar center console select shift is used. Easy access to an ample cargo deck is afforded by a power lift rear hatch, with additional room provided by a fold-down second row seat.
The price of entry for Polestar 2 is $59,900 before federal or state incentives, with the model offered in three trim groups, five color combinations, and four add-on price upticks. It’s currently available for order in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Buyers will discover a no-salesman showcase approach with a take-your-time-and-look buying and lease environment. As the market reacts, Volvo intends to make Polestar 2 available in all 50 states.
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."
It’s no surprise that the move toward electrics is also being driven by growing consumer interest in vehicles that address the challenges of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Those who don’t see this this transition aren’t paying attention. However, taking this as a sign that the imminent end of the internal combustion vehicle is upon us assumes too much. The numbers and trends do not bear this out.
While our focus here is on all ‘greener’ vehicles offering lower emissions, higher efficiency, and greater environmental performance, we give significant focus to electrification on GreenCarJournal.com because, to a large degree, this represents our driving future. There are many electrified vehicles now on the market that have met with notable success, particularly gasoline-electric hybrids. In fact, hybrids have become so mainstream after 20 years that most people don’t look at them differently. They simply embrace these vehicles as a normal part of their daily lives, enjoying a familiar driving experience as their hybrids deliver higher fuel efficiency and fewer carbon emissions.
Less transparent are electric vehicles of all types because they have a plug, something that’s not familiar to most drivers. This includes plug-in hybrids that really are seamless since they offer both electric and internal combustion drive. The challenge is especially pronounced for all-electric vehicles that drive exclusively on batteries.
A recent survey of consumers and industry experts by JD Power underscores this. Even as the overall survey indicated most respondents had neutral confidence in battery electric vehicles, many said their prospect for buying an electric vehicle was low. They also had concerns about the reliability of battery electric vehicles compared to conventionally powered models. Clearly, there’s work to be done in educating people about electric vehicles, and it will take time.
Overall, automakers do a good job of providing media with the latest information on their electrification efforts, new electric models, and electrified vehicles under development. That’s why you’ll read so much about electric vehicles in mainstream media and learn about them on the news.
What’s less evident is that consumers truly learn what they need to know about plug-in vehicles at new car showrooms. Car dealerships are critical even in an era where online car buying is starting to gain traction. Showrooms are still where the vast majority of new car buyers shop for their next car, and the influence salespeople have on a consumer’s purchase decision is huge.
The JD Power study illustrates consumers’ lack of understanding about the reliability of electric vehicles…even though reliability is a given since electrics have far fewer moving parts to wear and break than conventional vehicles. Dealer showrooms can help resolve this lack of understanding with readily-available materials about electric car ownership, a sales force willing to present ‘green’ options to conventional vehicles, plus adequate stock of electrified vehicles – hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric – to test drive.
Sales trends tell us that conventional internal combustion vehicles will represent the majority of new car sales for quite some time. More efficient electrified vehicles will continue to make inroads, but not at the pace many would like, even at a time when greater numbers of electric models are coming to market. In the absence of forward-thinking dealerships willing to invest in change, an enthusiastic sales force eager to share the benefits of electrics, and auto manufacturers willing to incentivize dealers to sell electric, this promises to be a long road. It’s time to change this dynamic.
It’s well understood that driving electric is more efficient with a lower cost-per-mile than driving internal combustion vehicles. That’s especially true if you're charging an EV up at home. But what if you need to use public chargers on the road or live in an apartment where a commercial pay-per-use charger is your only option?
The cost can vary significantly since commercial chargers use different methods of payment. For example, many providers charge for the time it takes to charge a battery rather than the kWh of electricity delivered. This would be like gasoline stations charging for the length of time a nozzle dispenses gas in the fuel tank, not by the number of gallons of gas pumped. A few providers charge a per-session fee or require a monthly or annual charging subscription. While many public chargers at businesses and parking lots remain free of cost to EV drivers, that is changing over time.
When you pay by the minute, charging cost is influenced by an EV battery’s state of charge, ambient temperature, and the size of the EV’s on board charger. Different size chargers can mean a big difference in the cost of a charge even though the same number of kW hours are delivered. For example, earlier Nissan LEAFs had a 3.6 kW (3.3 kW actual output) on board charger while later ones had an updated 6.6 kW (6.0 kW output) version. Thus, it takes almost twice as long to charge an earlier LEAF at double the expense than later ones, even though both have the same 30 kWh battery. Many EVs now come standard with a 6.6 or 7.2 kW charger. When considering buying or leasing an electric model, keep in mind that a more powerful on-board charger means quicker and potentially more cost-efficient charging.
It’s an interesting bit of science that while charging an electric vehicle, the rate of charge isn’t linear but rather decreases as a battery approaches full capacity. If an EV has a lower state of charge (SOC) at the beginning of a charging session, charging occurs at its maximum rate, such as 3.3 kW, 6.6 kW, 7.2 kW, and so on. As the battery approaches 100 percent SOC, charging can slow to a trickle. The last 20 percent of charge can sometimes take as long as the initial 80 percent. To be most cost efficient, it’s recommended to only charge to 80 percent full capacity when using a public charger, especially one that includes time-based pricing.
For a charging cost comparison, let’s look at charging an EV with a 40 kWh/100 mile rating and a 50 kW on board charger. At a Level 3 charging station it would take about 48 minutes to get an additional 100 miles of range and cost between $6.24 to $16.80, depending where you did the charging. With a 350 kW fast charger this would take about 7 minutes and cost between $1.82-$6.93 to add 100 miles. This compares to $10.00-$13.33 for a gasoline vehicle that gets 30 mpg and fuels up at $3.00 to $4.00 per gallon. This shows the need for fast charging when away from home and charging with time of use chargers, and more importantly, the need for pricing solely on a per kWh basis.
While kWh charging is fairer to the consumer, some companies prefer time-based charging because the longer customers are connected, the more profit is made. However, public charging could be moving from time-to-charge to the kWh charge model. This will put the energy cost of EV operation in line with that of gasoline vehicles where fueling cost is determined by the cost of a gallon of gasoline, not the time it takes to refuel. Clearly, this change is needed.
New rules in California will eventually ban public charging operators from billing by the minute and require the fairer billing by kWh. The ban will apply to new Level 2 chargers beginning in 2021, and to new DC fast chargers beginning in 2023. Chargers installed before 2021 can continue time-based billing until 2031 for Level 2 chargers or 2033 for DC fast chargers.
The new rules do not prohibit operators from charging overtime, connection, or parking fees, or fees for staying connected after reaching 100 percent SOC, providing they are disclosed. Electrify America already charges 40 cents per minute if your vehicle is not moved within the 10 minute grace period after your charging session is complete. It remains to be seen whether more states will follow California’s lead. Laws will have to be changed in about 20 states where only regulated utilities can presently sell electricity by the kWh.
Charging providers like Tesla and Brink presently charge by the kWh in states where it’s allowed. For example, Tesla charges $0.28 per kWh while Blink charges $0.39 to 0.79 per kWh, depending on location and user status. California regulations require Tesla and others to show the price per kWh and a running total of the energy delivered, just like a gas pump.
Other charging considerations can affect the actual long-term cost of operating an EV. These include lower charge pricing and discounts that come with subscriptions, free charging incentives that accompany a vehicle purchase (like the first 1000 kWh provided free or 100 kWh of free charging per month), or if a charger is shared with another user. For Teslas, free unlimited Supercharger access has often come with the purchase or lease of a new Tesla model.
While EV technology is now relatively mature, pricing electric vehicle use is evolving. Hopefully, competition and a bit of government regulation should ultimately make it as understandable as it is now for gasoline vehicles.
An important measurement of your vehicle’s efficiency is understanding the cost per mile of your daily driving. For a gasoline vehicle, one merely divides the cost of a gallon of gasoline by the miles-per-gallon the vehicle gets to determine cost per mile. As we move into the electric vehicle era, determining a vehicle’s operating cost becomes more complicated. That’s because an electric vehicle’s cost per mile can depend on many factors that influence what you pay for charging its batteries – the price of electricity, the length of time it takes to charge, time of day, how close to ‘full’ the battery is, and even an EV’s onboard charger capabilities. The cost of charging EVs can also vary considerably based on whether they are being charged at home or at public chargers.
We’ll guide you through the process of understanding electric vehicle charging and how this directly impacts driving costs. Just a note, though, that our calculations focus on battery electric vehicles (EVs) and plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) when running solely on battery power. Because things get more complicated when the gasoline engine of a PHEV is operating, this is not covered here.
Electric vehicle energy use is measured in terms of kilowatt hours per 100 miles (kWh/100 miles). This would be like gallons per 100 miles in a gasoline vehicle. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) includes this number on the window stickers of plug-in vehicles along with their estimated miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe), since we’re so used to a gas vehicle’s mpg rating as an efficiency reference. EPA determines MPGe by assuming a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.7 kWh of electrical energy (MPGe = 3370/kWh/100).
So how do you determine what each mile of driving costs in your electric vehicle? Let’s do an example. The cost of electricity in a sample California city is about 15 cents per kWh ($0.15/kWh). If a current model Kia Soul Electric with an EPA rating of 31 kWh/100 miles was charged here, it would cost $4.65 to travel 100 miles. This translates to $0.15/ kWh x 31 kWh/100 miles = $4.65/100, or 4.65 cents per mile.
Gasoline prices in the U.S. vary considerably depending on markets and world events. In recent times, that range was between $3 to $4 per gallon, while the average price of electricity ranged from $0.095/kWh in Louisiana to $0.31/ kWh in Hawaii. Even within a state the rate depends on what a specific utility charges, which can differ substantially. Thus, the cost to drive an electric Kia Soul could range from 2.95 to 9.6 cents per mile. In comparison, the cost of driving a gasoline Soul could range from 10.0 to 13.3 cents per mile.
Unlike gasoline, the price of electricity can vary not only by location, but the time of day it is used. Utilities typically have two types of rate plans – level-of-use and time-of-use. With level-of-use, the price rises with the amount of electricity used. Here, the last kilowatt used in a month could cost more than the first one, which would most likely be the case for electric vehicle owners. With time-of-use, utilities divide a day into peak, off-peak, and sometimes a mid-peak period. Some utilities have as many as six time-of-use periods. In any case, electricity is most expensive during peak usage times, usually in the morning, late afternoon, and early evening. Others offer a lower rate for EV charging than the rest of a home’s electrical service, but the savings may not amortize out considering the fee charged for installing a separate meter. Additionally, many offer the option of a special EV rate plan that can make the cost of charging an electric vehicle more financially favorable.
You can charge an EV or PHEV using Level 1 household 110 volt current using a portable charger often provided with a plug-in model, with the charger powered via a standard wall outlet. Typically, electricity is supplied at a 1.4 kW rate. This is workable for topping off batteries after limited daytime driving where little battery power was used, but the time required for charging a fully depleted battery can be considerable. For example, to charge a Chevy Bolt’s 66 kWh battery to 80 percent state of charge (SOC) with Level 1 charging would take about 38 hours…far too long for most drivers. This time is reduced to about 7 hours with a Level 2 charger at 240 volts and a 7.2 kW charging rate. Level 2 charging is recommended for any vehicle with a battery capacity larger than 10 kWh.
While the latest generation EVs and some PHEVs have the capability to fast-charge to 80 percent SOC in a half-hour or less at a Level 3 and above charging rate, Level 3 charging is not available for homes since this requires 480 volt electrical service. In all cases it’s important to avoid discharging EV batteries to near-zero percent SOC to avoid diminishing battery longevity.
Charging at home at a more convenient Level 2 rate requires special Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). These wall or portable chargers cost between $200 to $1000, with wall chargers also requiring installation that can run from $800 to $1300. Most automakers offering EVs and PHEVs have a recommended EVSE provider, but there are many companies selling EVSEs.
In penciling out the financial benefit of a plug-in vehicle, your number crunching should include the cost of the EVSE. For example, if an EVSE costs $1500 installed and you plan to drive an EV 75,000 miles over a five year period, the EVSE’s amortized cost will be 2 cents per mile. Since most people will likely drive their EV for many more years, amortized EVSE cost could be much lower.
While the overall cost of driving electric can vary widely depending on vehicle purchase or lease cost, electricity rates, EVSE and installation cost, and the length of time an EV is driven, as a general rule owning and operating an EV will be less than that of an equivalent gasoline vehicle.
These days, Henrik Fisker bringing to bear insights and lessons learned from his first effort at Fisker Automotive to his new company, Fisker Inc, with what looks like another groundbreaking vehicle – the Fisker Ocean. Most recently, the company has made moves to bolster the funding of its new electric vehicle launch with a $2.9 billion reverse merger with Spartan Energy Acquisition Corp. a move that’s taking Fisker public. Plus, there’s reportedly a deal in the works with VW to use that automaker’s MEB platform for Fisker’s new electric vehicle.
Fisker’s all-electric, five seat SUV is slated to begin manufacturing late in 2022 and feature several versions with two- or four-wheel-drive. The quickest variant will feature a 302 horsepower electric motor that will accelerate the Ocean from 0 to 60 mph in under 3 seconds, with power from an 80 kWh battery said to provide a range of 300 miles. A Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 2 Combo plug offers a 150 kW charging capability that Fisker says will allow the battery to be fast-charged to provide 200 miles of range in 30 minutes.
A state-of-the-art heads-up display integrated into the windshield is complemented by a 16-inch center touchscreen and a 9.8-inch cluster screen. Karaoke mode displays lyrics for your favorite song in the windshield so you can keep eyes on the road. A full-length solar roof provides electric energy. One-touch ‘California Mode’ simultaneously opens all side windows, rear hatch glass, and the solar roof to create an instant open-air feeling. This feature allows the rear hatch glass to roll down to handle carrying long items.
Over time Fisker has brought in some significant talent to help get the job done. One of these moves is bringing in Burkhard Huhnke, former vice president of e-mobility for Volkswagen America, as chief technology officer to lead Fisker’s R&D activities in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. Another member of Fisker’s executive team is senior vice president of Engineering Martin Welch, formerly with McLaren cars and Aston Martin.
Fisker says the Ocean will start at $37,449 and will be leased for $379 per month, allowing an impressive 30,000 miles per year with maintenance and service included. The company is currently accepting $250 deposits.
There are challenges ahead even as electric pickups are poised to enter a potentially enthusiastic market. Those challenges could mean a more gradual market trajectory than that of electric sedans and SUVs, which have already taken quite some time to gather momentum. For example, cars and SUVs used for commuting or running errands are typically driven less than 40 miles daily, with occasional trips of several hundred miles with passengers. That’s a reasonable and flexible duty cycle for electric passenger vehicles. It’s different for trucks.
With the exception of work trucks in urban areas, pickups in many rural areas travel hundreds of miles every day without refueling. That’s not an issue for conventionally powered pickups with their considerable driving range. It could be for coming electric pickups since their battery range is about half that of most full-size gas pickups. When conventional pickups do need to refuel, it takes but a few minutes to fill up with gasoline compared with the hours required for electrics. Realistically, it's difficult to see electric pickups meeting the duty cycles of work trucks like these until fast charging becomes widespread, especially in rural areas.
Towing presents additional food for thought. It’s well-known that fuel economy, and thus range, is reduced when conventional vehicles tow trailers, boats, or any load. Range is impacted more dramatically in electric vehicles, a fact that could make electric pickups less desirable for towing a boat or heavy load any significant distance since charging would likely be required every couple hundred miles. Illustrating the challenge is that towing a 5000 pound trailer with a Tesla Model X or Audi e-tron has been shown to result in a range reduction of up to 40 percent. Increasing range by adding batteries in an electric pickup may bring longer range, but it also means reducing payload and towing capacity pound for pound.
Looking at the demographics of pickup owners and comparing this with available charging stations presents a stark reality. The 13 states where pickups represent 25 percent or more of new vehicle sales have about 2600 public charging stations, less than 10 percent of all public charging stations in the country. That’s quite a disconnect. These are typically large states where long distance travel is the rule. This underscores the importance of charging opportunities and the formidable challenges electric pickups may face in areas where charging infrastructure is behind the curve.
Another challenge is maintenance. Even though electric pickups require significantly less maintenance than their gasoline or diesel counterparts, there are times when EV-specific service will be required. While the usual tire, brake, and fluid maintenance can be performed by mainstream service providers, electric pickup manufacturers must provide for other potential servicing involving an electric drivetrain, on-board electronics, and the many other controls and systems unique to an electric vehicle. That’s not a significant issue for legacy automakers like Ford and GM that have a widespread dealer sales and service network, even in sparsely populated states. Service personnel at dealerships can be trained in EV-specific work. Fledgling and start-up electric pickup companies will certainly be at a disadvantage here.
Will electric pickups succeed? Time will tell. Plus, we’ll have to see how some wishful launch schedules align with reality since COVID-19 has caused auto manufacturing delays and shutdowns. Plus, with today’s extraordinarily low gas prices, the value equation for electrics of any kind is skewed, at least for the present time. That doesn’t mean there won’t be demand for electric pickups…just that expectations for timing and market penetration should be tempered.