The need for smaller and more affordable cars is evident these days. Consumers struggle with the high cast of new models while regulators grapple with realistic ways to mitigate carbon emissions that can impact climate change. A massive influx of zero-emission electric cars has been a popular notion for achieving carbon reduction goals in recent times. But this singular strategy has been fraught with challenges by slowing electric vehicle sales and persistently high EV prices. New thinking is needed.
Along with hybrids and plug-in hybrids, smaller and lighter vehicles that achieve high fuel efficiency and thus lower carbon emissions are important. These present a natural complement to electrified vehicles and present another component in crafting an achievable national transportation strategy. Unfortunately, most automakers have abandoned their smallest and most affordable car models in recent times and focused on larger ones delivering greater profits. Now, to the surprise of many, the U.S. Department of Transportation has been directed to explore regulations that would support production of today's smallest class of highway-legal models – Japanese-style kei cars – for use on American roads.
Kei cars, a popular and affordable class of exceptionally small vehicles in Asia, do not meet U.S. safety standards and new models cannot be imported here. Whether kei cars can be reengineered to meet U.S. safety rules while remaining affordable is an open question. Also unknown is if drivers will embrace such small cars here given American consumers’ penchant for larger and heavier vehicles. But it sure is an intriguing thought.
Looking back for perspective, in 2009 Green Car Journal editors noted that things were changing in the automotive market. Buying trends were shifting as fuel economy again became more of an issue. Consumers were holding back on new car purchases as they weighed their budget limitations and the implications of a challenging economy.
At the same time, advanced technology vehicles like electric cars appeared to have more potential than ever as those in Washington seemed ready to push that agenda for energy efficiency and oil displacement goals. Concerns about carbon emissions and climate change were not yet primary drivers but would be soon enough. For these reasons, many automakers here and abroad were either committing to electric models or had ones in development.
Perhaps the most high-profile evidence of EV momentum at the time was Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV, an acronym for Mitsubishi Innovative Electric Vehicle. Based on the automaker’s offshore Mitsubishi i, a small kei car powered by a 0.7-liter three-cylinder gas engine, the electric i-MiEV was sold to Japanese fleets in 2009 and consumers there in 2010. It was also undergoing early testing with electric utilities Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) here in the States. At the time it seemed likely this electric model would eventually make its way to American consumers…something that did come to pass a year after its introduction to consumers in Japan.
Along the way, Mitsubishi created anticipation with an edgy concept based on the production car called the i-MiEV Sport Air. Reinforcing the ‘Sport Air’ theme was a formidable clear cutaway roof panel providing a substantial feeling of openness to the cockpit even with the panel in place. That feeling was enhanced once the lightweight plastic roof panel was detached. Other design features included a lightweight aluminum and plastic teardrop bodyshell, interesting 3D headlamp and taillamp designs, and circuit board graphic elements incorporated into various exterior components…all in the interest of virtually shouting ‘electric.’
Bowing to its sporty theme, the mid-ship i-MiEV Sport Air variant was powered by an 80 horsepower electric motor, a 13 horsepower bump up from the standard electric motor in the i-MiEV. The electronic control unit was also re-calibrated to better suit American driving conditions. Energy was supplied by a 330 volt lithium-ion battery pack beneath the floor. Like the batteries, its charger and inverter were located as low as possible to optimize the 2155 pound car’s center of gravity.
Alas, while this sporty version of this Mitsubishi electric car never did make its way to the highway, the production version of the i-MiEV did debut here at the end of 2011, though slightly larger and reworked to meet the needs of American drivers. It was some 4.3 inches wider and 8 inches longer than its kei car sisterships in Japan and other world markets while riding on the same wheelbase. Mitsubishi also redesigned the EV’s bumpers and added side curtain airbags to the U.S. version to enhance safety and meet U.S. regs.
Our first impression when we laid eyes on the U.S. production i-MiEV? Mitsubishi’s small electric car was different. With styling considered cute to some and a bit of an oddity to others, it was clearly not a car for everyone. This begged the question: Just who was right for the i-MiEV?
That was not a question easily answered since there were no direct comparisons. Nissan’s LEAF was more sophisticated in many ways but cost about six grand more than Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV. When the electric smart fortwo ed (electric drive) emerged shortly afterward, it came in at a grand or so less than the i-MiEV, but that savings brought with it the loss of a rear seat and that was a deal-breaker for most American drivers.
Those who wanted an affordable – as far as electric cars go – zero emission ride with realistic expectations found the electric i-MiEV offering a potential fit. It was by design the least expensive, full-function four passenger electric vehicle on the market at the time. That didn’t mean it was cheap. Rather, at a retail cost of $29,125 for the base ES model, it was simply the EV that would strain budgets the least since all EVs, by nature, were expensive to make and their price reflected this reality. That said, factoring in the $7,500 federal tax credit available at the time meant the cost to American consumers was an approachable $21,625. Potential state and other incentives dropped the price even lower.
Back in the day, we had the opportunity to spend time behind the wheel of a 2011 i-MiEV in city driving and on California highways and back roads. What was that like? Think vintage VW Bug and you would be in the ballpark in the way of driving experience. The i-MiEV was fun to pilot if your expectations were modest, sort of like those early Beetles.
While it did have a host of modern features including an array of advanced entertainment, electronics, and safety systems, the Mitsubishi i-MiEV cabin was generally spartan by the day’s automotive standards, also like those early Beetles. Instrumentation was minimalistic with the obvious juxtaposition of an HDD navigation system and rearview camera that were optionally available. The interior was surprisingly spacious considering the i-MiEV's smallish external dimensions, featuring over 50 cubic feet of cargo room with the rear seats folded down. Access for stowing gear and goods was easy through a large rear hatch.
Our initial on-road testing was enlightening. We understood that running climate control or the stereo system would diminish range, but in the interest of driving the i-MiEV in ways that everyday motorists typically drive, we ignored that and did what we would normally do. Using the ‘Eco’ or ‘B’ transmission selections were recommended to maximize range and regenerative braking, but again, we thought it instructive to see what tooling about town in ‘D’ (Drive) would bring.
It was a pleasant experience. We drove 65 mph on the freeway and merged readily enough. Driving around town was comfortable and confidence-inspiring with no downsides. We were driving electric with zero localized emissions, a real plus. Then, amid our joyous care-free highway romps, we stole a look at the battery gauge and realized that our devil-may-care driving really had sapped this EV’s range. It was back to the barn for a charge, pronto. We understood why most drivers would want to opt for the transmission selections that favored range over performance. Driving more conservatively and using the tools provided to optimize range would allow drivers to realize the EPA’s combined range estimate of 62 miles.
When the time came to charge up, the deed could be done in 7 hours from full discharge with a 220-volt home charger through a port at the passenger’s side, or in 22 ½ hours with a 110-volt mobile charger that’s carried along in the vehicle. We used the more convenient 220-volt Level 2 wall charger in our Green Car garage. To encourage quicker at-home charging, at the time Mitsubishi was using Best Buy's Geek Squad to install Eaton home chargers that were priced at $700 plus installation costs.
Surprisingly, Mitsubishi also enabled high power charging capability in its cost-conscious i-MiEV. On the driver’s side of our test car was a second chargeport for replenishing batteries with a public CHAdeMO fast-charging system that could bring the i-MiEV’s battery’s back to 80 percent state-of-charge in about a half-hour. Fast-charge capability is common in EVs these days but an unexpected benefit back then.
Overall, Mitsubishi strived to keep the cost down by making the i-MiEV as simple as possible. One example of this minimalism was the model’s instrumentation that consisted of a battery state-of-charge meter, gear indicator, speedometer, eco/regen indicator, and odometer. A remote key fob allowed drivers to communicate with the vehicle to pre-heat or pre-cool the cabin as well as control the charging process. While wireless, the remote for our test vehicle was not connected to the Internet so it could not be used with a smartphone.
We’ve had lots of experience with city-class cars over the years, most notably neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) aimed exclusively for around-town use at a governed top speed of 25 mph. The i-MiEV, while clearly intended as a city car with its limited range and minimalistic approach, was designed for much more than neighborhood use with its greater functionality, electronically-limited 81 mph top speed, advanced safety, and user-friendly features.
The Mitsubishi i-MiEV – like the kei car genre from which it sprang – was aimed at drivers who wanted their rides distinctive, eco-friendly, reasonably priced, and ideally suited for around-town driving or commuting. Demonstrating their everyday capabilities was the goal of Mitsubishi's EVTown Initiative in Normal, Illinois, home of the manufacturing facility where domestic i-MiEVs were built. Here, drivers were regularly seen behind the wheel of i-MiEVs as they went about their daily business, making these electric city cars a common sight around town and illustrating that driving zero-emission EVs in city environs was, well…”normal.”
Obviously, Mitsubishi was banking on a large enough pool of like-minded buyers to make this approach a success. American auto preferences being what they are – bigger, faster, more sophisticated features – it’s no surprise that the i-MiEV ultimately faded away from new car showrooms after the 2017 model year as new electric vehicle choices and capabilities expanded.
Still, the i-MiEV deserves its distinction as a trailblazer and an important point of reference. Its story is especially relevant today as the national conversation expands to address the potential for smaller and more affordable city cars with a lighter environmental impact. True, they may not be for everyone. But the very fact that small kei cars are even being discussed today opens the door for more minimalist models that serve the fundamental needs of daily life. Perhaps something along the lines of Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV Sport Air would do nicely, don't you think?
There’s something almost magical about plugging your car into an outlet at night and waking up to a full ‘tank’ in the morning. There’s no need for a stop at the gas station, ever. Plus, there’s no nagging guilt that the miles metered out by the odometer are counting off one’s contribution toward any societal and environmental ills attendant with fossil fuel use.
This is a feeling experienced during the year Green Car Journal editors drove GM’s remarkable EV1 electric car in the late 1990s. Daily drives in the EV1 were a joy. The car was sleek, high-tech, distinctive, and with the electric motor’s torque coming on from zero rpm, decidedly fast. That’s a potent combination.
The EV1 is long gone, not because people or companies ‘killed’ it as the so-called documentary Who Killed the Electric Car suggested, but rather because extraordinarily high costs and a challenging business case were its demise. GM lost many tens of thousands of dollars on every EV1 it built, as did other automakers complying with California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate in the 1990s.
Even today, Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne says his company loses $14,000 for every Fiat 500e electric car sold. Combine that with today’s need for an additional $7,500 federal tax credit and up to $6,000 in subsidies from some states to encourage EV purchases, and it’s easy to see why the electric car remains such a challenge.
This isn’t to say that electric cars are the wrong idea. On the contrary, they are perceived as important to our driving future, so much so that government, automakers, and their suppliers see electrification as key to meeting mandated 2025 fleet-wide fuel economy requirements and CO2 reduction goals. The problem is that there’s no singular, defined roadmap for getting there because costs, market penetration, and all-important political support are future unknowns.
The advantages of battery electric vehicles are well known – extremely low per-mile operating costs on electricity, less maintenance, at-home fueling, and of course no petroleum use. Add in the many societal incentives available such as solo driving in carpool lanes, preferential parking, and free public charging, and the case for electrics gets even more compelling. If a homeowner’s solar array is offsetting the electricity used to energize a car’s batteries for daily drives, then all the better. This is the ideal scenario for a battery electric car. Of course, things are never this simple, otherwise we would all be driving electric.
There remain some very real challenges. Government regulation, not market forces, has largely been driving the development of the modern electric car. This is a good thing or bad, depending upon one’s perspective. The goal is admirable and to some, crucial – to enable driving with zero localized emissions, eliminate CO2 emissions, reduce oil dependence, and drive on an energy source created from diverse resources that can be sustainable. Where’s the downside in that?
Still, new car buyers have not stepped up to buy battery electric cars in expected, or perhaps hoped-for, numbers, especially the million electric vehicles that Washington had set out as its goal by 2015. This is surprising to many since electric vehicle choices have expanded in recent years. However, there are reasons for this.
Electric cars are often quite expensive in comparison to their gasoline-powered counterparts, although government and manufacturer subsidies can bring these costs down. Importantly, EVs offer less functionality than conventional cars because of limited driving range that averages about 70 to 100 miles before requiring a charge. While this zero-emission range can fit the commuting needs of many two-vehicle households and bring substantial fuel savings, there’s a catch. Factoring future fuel savings into a vehicle purchase decision is simply not intuitive to new car buyers today.
Many drivers who would potentially step up to electric vehicle ownership can’t do so because most electric models are sold only in California or a select number of ‘green’ states where required zero emission vehicle credits are earned. These states also tend to have at least a modest charging infrastructure in place. Manufacturers selling exclusively in these limited markets typically commit to only small build numbers, making these EVs fairly insignificant in influencing electric vehicle market penetration.
Battery electric vehicles available today include the BMW i3, BMW i8, Chevrolet Spark EV, Fiat 500e, Ford Focus Electric, Honda Fit EV, Kia Soul EV, Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive, Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Nissan LEAF, Smart ForTwo Electric Drive, Tesla Model S, Toyota RAV4 EV, and VW e-Golf. While most aim at limited sales, some like BMW, Nissan, and Tesla market their EVs nationwide. The Honda Fit EV and Toyota RAV4 EV are being phased out. Fleet-focused EVs are also being offered by a small number of independent companies. Other battery electrics are coming.
BMW’s i3 offers buyers an optional two-cylinder gasoline range extender that generates on-board electricity to double this electric car’s battery electric driving range. A growing number of electrified models like the current generation Prius Plug-In and Chevy Volt can also run exclusively on battery power for a more limited number of miles (10-15 for the Prius and up to 40 miles in the Volt), and then drive farther with the aid of a combustion engine or engine-generator. Both will offer greater all-electric driving range when they emerge as all-new 2016 models. Many extended range electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids like these are coming soon from a surprising number of auto manufacturers.
It has been an especially tough road for independent or would-be automakers intent on introducing electric vehicles to the market. Well-funded efforts like Coda Automotive failed, as have many lesser ones over the years. Often enough, inventors of electric cars have been innovative and visionary, only to discover that becoming an auto manufacturer is hugely expensive and more challenging than imagined. In many cases their timeline from concept and investment to production and sales becomes so long that before their first cars are produced, mainstream automakers have introduced models far beyond what they were offering, and at lesser cost with an established sales and service network to support them.
A high profile exception is Tesla Motors, the well-funded Silicon Valley automaker that successfully built and sold its $112,000 electric Tesla Roadster, continued its success with the acclaimed $70,000-$100,000+ Model S electric sedan, and will soon deliver its first Tesla Model X electric crossovers. While Tesla has said it would offer the Model X at a price similar to that of the Model S, initial deliveries of the limited Model X Signature Series will cost a reported $132,000-$144,000. It has not yet been announced when lower cost 'standard' Model X examples will begin deliveries to Tesla's sizable customer pre-order list.
Tesla’s challenge is not to prove it can produce compelling battery electric cars, provide remarkable all-electric driving range, or build a wildly enthusiastic – some would say fanatical – customer base. It has done all this. Its challenge is to continue this momentum by developing a full model lineup that includes a promised affordable model for the masses, its Model 3, at a targeted $35,000 price tag. It will be interesting to see if the Model 3 ultimately comes to market at that price point.
This is no easy thing. Battery costs remain very high and, in fact, Tesla previously shared that the Tesla Roadster’s battery pack cost in the vicinity of $30,000. While you can bury the cost of an expensive battery pack in a high-end electric car that costs $70,000 to over $100,000, you can’t do that today in a $35,000 model, at least not one that isn’t manufacturer subsidized and provides the 200+ mile range expected of a Tesla.
The company’s answer is a $5 billion ‘Gigafactory’ being built in Nevada that it claims will produce more lithium-ion batteries by 2020 than were produced worldwide in 2013. The company’s publicized goal is to trim battery costs by at least 30 percent to make its $35,000 electric car a reality and support its growing electric car manufacturing. Tesla has said it’s essential that the Gigafactory is in production as the Model 3 begins manufacturing. The billion dollar question is…can they really achieve the ambitious battery and production cost targets to do this over the next few years, or will this path lead to the delays that Tesla previously experienced with the Tesla Roadster, Model S, and Model X?
Tesla is well-underway with its goal of building out a national infrastructure of SuperCharger fast-charge stations along major transportation corridors to enable extended all-electric driving. These allow Tesla vehicles the ability to gain a 50 percent charge in about 20 minutes, although they are not compatible with other EVs. For all others, Bosch is undertaking a limited deployment of its sub-$10,000 DC fast charger that provides an 80 percent charge in 30 minutes. A joint effort by ChargePoint, BMW, and VW also aims to create express charging corridors with fast-charge capability on major routes along both coasts in the U.S.
The past 25 years have not secured a future for the battery electric car, but things are looking up. The next 10 years are crucial as cost, infrastructure, and consumer acceptance challenges are tackled and hopefully overcome to make affordable, unsubsidized electric cars a mass-market reality. It is a considerable challenge. Clearly, a lot of people are counting on it.
In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama set a goal of having one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. The million EVs would include plug-in hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, and all-electric vehicles. Now that we’re roughly at the halfway point for the 2015 goal, what is the scorecard?
It’s important to note that the goal was rather naively – or perhaps intentionally – based on manufacturer- and media-supplied data on how many electric cars could be built and not from projections of how many people would actually buy them. Unless we’re talking very hot-selling items like the latest Apple iPhone or iPad, sales projections are usually based on projected sales and not made on potential production.
The estimate actually projected 1,222,200 EV units produced including 13,000 commercial vehicles (Ford Transit Connect, Navistar eStar EV, and Newton EV). Another 252,000 included Fisker Karma and Nina models and the Think EV). Think is no longer producing cars and Fisker Automotive has ceased production, although it should reappear because of it's just-announced bankruptcy sale to China's Wanxiang Group..
Sales of the four EVs and PHEVs to date have been far lower than their target numbers, with the Tesla S a lone exception. The million EV goal looks far from being achievable by 2015.
Electric vehicle models not included in President Obama’s estimates, but now on sale, are the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Honda Fit EV, Fiat 500e, Chevrolet Spark EV, Toyota RAV4 EV, and smart electric drive. Of these, only the i-MiEV is available everywhere in the country. Some others can be considered ‘compliance vehicles’ since they are only offered in very limited ways with the intent to comply with California’s ZEV mandate, which aims at putting over 1.4 million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2025.
Part of the government’s strategy to reach this goal is to offer substantial tax credits to encourage sales. Typically, this includes a federal credit of $7,500 plus state incentives. As of November 2013, 40 states and the District of Columbia have monetary incentives including electric vehicle tax credits and registration fee reductions ranging from $1,000 in Maryland to $6,000 in Colorado. Even with incentives, though, electric sales are not keeping pace with President Obama’s ambitious goals.
Bill Siuru is a retired USAF colonel who has been writing about automotive technology for 45 years. He has a Bachelor degree in automotive engineering, a PhD in mechanical engineering, and has taught engineering at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy.