If you're the type that enjoys taking short road trips at low speeds, then a new "car" hitting the States this month may be just what you've been looking for: by the end of July, Toronto's Feel Good Cars Inc. is set to ship one of the country's first fully-enclosed, all-electric vehicles to 20 dealers nationwide, with 25 more expected to sign up by the end of the year. The Microcar Zenn (which stands for zero emissions, no noise) is an electric version of the diesel-powered MC-2 sold in Europe; Feel Good imports the cars without a drivetrain, slaps in a five-horsepower engine at its Canadian factory, and plans to unleash a small fleet of 2,000 vehicles in the next year at $10,000-a-pop. Equally at home in the inner city or a gated community, the Zenn features many of the same amenities you'd find on a regular car -- seat belts, headlights, defroster, and a gauge cluster (no nav system, though) -- in a 1,200-pound package that's just 120-inches long. While vehicles such as the Chrysler GEM have shown us that there is indeed a market for these glorified golf carts, folks who enjoy hitting the highway and feeling the wind in their hair will surely steer clear of the Zenn, as its top speed of 25MPH and maximum range of 35 miles mean that you couldn't possibly merge into 60+MPH traffic -- that is, if the battery even lasted long enough for you to make it to the on-ramp in the first place.
[Via
Autoblog Green]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Daniel Rutter @ Jul 2nd 2006 2:47PM
The range isn't such a problem for many purposes, but the top speed is.
I note, however, that the spec sheet says the top speed is artificially limited to make these cars comply with the official Boring Vehicle Standard. That limiter may or may not be easy to disable.
You're not going to turn a jumped-up golf cart like this into a highway cruiser by anything short of a full rebuild, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could add a law-breaking switch that gave you 15 to 20 more miles an hour in top speed, so you wouldn't get endlessly beeped and passed if you dared to venture into ordinary suburban streets. Acceleration would probably be perfectly acceptable (by econobox standards), since practically all EVs have plenty of torque.
** Hello Moto ** @ Jul 2nd 2006 2:48PM
What could you possible do with a car like this? I understand if a car can hit 75MPH, then it has a valid place in the economy, this this car... it would be embarrassing to have sitting around.
Taylor @ Jul 2nd 2006 2:55PM
The first? What about the EV-1 like 10 years ago?
-Taylor
Scott @ Jul 2nd 2006 3:07PM
It would work fine for people in Big Cities that just need a relatively cheap car and only need to go to the Grocery store or the Pizza Shop.
SR @ Jul 2nd 2006 3:30PM
In these big cities (like NYC) people tend to use something else to get to the pizza shop - their legs.
BTW, 25 MPH does not cut it even on NYC roads.
What a waste of time.
JoeyPoey @ Jul 2nd 2006 3:44PM
Maybe if it could go up to 45-50 MPH. I mean, over here in San Antonio, where they put up a neighborhood with only one way in or out--without a stoplight to let you get out--you need to screech up to at LEAST 30 to squeeze into the unforgiving stretch of cars whizzing by.
I mean, the EV-1 could go pretty fast. But, like the EV-1, this car made oil changes, changing brake pads, and recharging brakes, i would get one to drive to work.
mastershake916 @ Jul 2nd 2006 4:07PM
Wow, the engadget crowd sure is mean.
Remi B. @ Jul 2nd 2006 4:27PM
I heard a bit about those sometime ago since they're going to be built at 10 minutes from here (in Saint-Jérôme, Québec).
Saint-Jérôme is also a test-bed for many other electic cars. I guess there's not a lot of other places in North America where you can see electric Citroens.
Manu Sharma @ Jul 2nd 2006 4:36PM
"top speed of 25MPH and maximum range of 35 miles"
India's Rewa electric car company have models that give a somewhat better performance at 40MPH top speed and 50 miles range. It costs around $8200.
They also developed a fuel cell version of the car.
http://www.revaindia.com/
Nak @ Jul 2nd 2006 4:44PM
car dealerships? this thing seems like it should be sold at best buy or a sporting good store
Dean @ Jul 2nd 2006 5:25PM
Er...
Feel Good, Inc.?
soopergooman @ Jul 2nd 2006 5:59PM
electric huh, i smell a fosil burner. How are you to recharge it? Plug it in... In order to recharge it, you burn more fosil fuels than if you were driving an equivilant sized diesel or gas car. Nice try though.
BIll @ Oct 18th 2007 12:18PM
Its OK Soopergooman, we can excuse your ignorance.
A fossil fuelled power plant will have over 4x the average efficiency of an IC engine running in a car. That means 1/4 the fossil fuel burned to drive an electric car the same mile as an IC car.
Furthermore, the emissions systems in a power plant are far superior to the emissions systems in an IC car, so less than 1/4 of the emissions will be emitted.
Finally, in an area like LA, the (lower) pollutants will be generated outside of the city, so less people will have associated health problems.
kerunt @ Jul 2nd 2006 6:14PM
So, I understand this come with my Cheerios?
...
What a waste of $10,000.
Matt @ Jul 2nd 2006 8:40PM
Hey sounds good - you Americans might not like it but in London this would be ideal...the average speed is 12mph, and 35 miles would probably cover the average commute to and from work just about.
Also, you dont have to pay the £8/day congestion charge, and you get free parking (in some places anyway) in an electric car!
There are similar cars around (e.g. the one mentioned by Manu Sharma), but they look pretty stupid...at least this one looks not entirely odd!
rickm @ Jul 2nd 2006 8:43PM
I'd buy one just to get around town in. I can easily move around my town at 25mph or so (if that due to traffic). That 35 mile limit blows. I think I'll stick with my bike.
Cliff @ Jul 2nd 2006 8:51PM
All we want is an electric car that can get us to work and get us home with a little extra juice to get through traffic jams. How hard is this?!
Sean @ Jul 2nd 2006 9:54PM
"...and 35 miles would probably cover the average commute to and from work just about."
"I can easily move around my town at 25mph or so..."
Both of these comments are basically supporting the idea of a car with 25 mph speed limit and 35 mile range, yet even they say things like "would probably cover" and "25mph or so". If the range limit really is 35 then "probaby cover" it wouldn't be good enough and there's no "or so", the limit is 25mph and hopefully your city doesn't have any streets that are 30mph or more. Who can use this besides the rent-a-cop security guards inside a gated community?
distantbody @ Jul 2nd 2006 11:11PM
This car is definitely NOT the state of the art.
I just hope buyers know this so the don't keep the opinion that electric cars are impractical.
Take a look at the Lancer EVO with in-wheel electric motors
http://www.autoblog.com/2005/08/24/mitsubishi-testing-lancer-evo-with-in-wheel-electric-motors/
or the cool Subaru R1e concept
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/03tms_subr1e/
It is definitely possible to build an electric car today that is just as capable as a gasoline version. Subaru is likely to build the R1e, and even the next version of the Prius is expected to be a plug-in hybrid!
Jeff @ Jul 2nd 2006 11:23PM
"It is definitely possible to build an electric car today that is just as capable as a gasoline version."
Of course, the big dirty little secret about electric cars - and the reason why there hasn't been as much development put into them as there has been in hybrids and full hydrogen powered autos - is that electric cars are no better for the environment, or your pocketbook, than gasoline.
Where do you think electricity comes from? Most electricity in the United States is generated by coal. Mile for mile, an electric car will actually generate *more* fossil fuel emissions than a gasoline-powered car - they'll just do it at the electric plant rather than at your exhaust pipe.
Think about it. All we ever hear about electricity usage is conserve, conserve, conserve. Yet somehow electric cars are supposed to be environmentally conscious? The only way that's the case is if you're generating your own solar power.
As for cost, you're certainly not saving any money with an electric car in most areas of the US, unless, again, you've got something like a solar roof to generate your own electricity (those usually aren't enough to power a full house, though, much less charge a car at the same time).
The emissions problem is actually a problem for all alternative energy solutions, including hydrogen and ethanol. Most people just don't think about what happens with their fuel *before* it gets to their car. But other technologies have more promising potential solutions, whereas electricity is basically a dead end for now. Probably the only thing Bush has been right about in his two terms is that the only real way for us to solve our electricity problem right now is through more nuclear power, and is that what electric car owners really want? Instead of burning fossil fuels, they're helping generate radioactive nuclear waste?
Bill Seavey @ Dec 3rd 2006 10:13AM
Jeff's comments certainly deserve a reply, because his objections to EV development are crucial and many people probably share them.
It is very true that most electrical generation in this country is from dirty coal, and until we get away from that there's no hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or other fossil fuel emitting pollutants. However, EV's are much more efficient in using electric utility power to convert energy to mileage vs. hydrocarbons by at least 4 to 1--in other words, a gas powered car that gets 20 mpg can go 20 miles at $3 gallon, whereas an efficient electric can go the same distance for 1/4 of the cost. (Not including battery replacement/amortization). Charging is generally done off-peak (nighttime hours) when there isn't as much strain on the grid. But I agree we must go to solar, wind and possibly even nuclear to continue to supply enough electricity for all our electricity needs--100 square miles of solar panels in Nevada alone would provide all the electricity we currently use. We will never NOT need electricity even though conservation is extremely important, so we might as well count on making more.... And solar is getting more efficient, with wafer thin panels that are getting up to 25% photon conversion ratio to electricity. Eventually, millions of homes will have them--and many of these homes RETURN power to the grid (grid intertie) because they are capable of producing much more power than they use. It is (or could be) a brave new world. My own work is in the area of small scale supplemental solar power and gasoline propulsion alternatives--and I particularly like pure EV's. But, yes, we must get almost totally away from carbon based electricity generation, and toward renewables--and soon, as fossil fuels will one day run out (see peakoil.net) My work is at powerfromsun.com.
S @ Mar 12th 2007 6:13PM
I hope you do realize that currently, solar power is on a level playing field with nuclear in the cost department! If we poured as much money into developing and deploying solar energy everywhere as we do with nuclear/coal, it would be even cheaper AND it is a decentralized energy solution, so that if you have a station go down, the whole world doesn't stop.
Charbax @ Jul 3rd 2006 12:27AM
There are 90mph top speed electric cars with 130 mile range in Europe.
PMX @ Jul 3rd 2006 1:19AM
"Where do you think electricity comes from? Most electricity in the United States is generated by coal. Mile for mile, an electric car will actually generate *more* fossil fuel emissions than a gasoline-powered car - they'll just do it at the electric plant rather than at your exhaust pipe."
Proof? Do you seriously think your car's internal combustion engine is more efficient than a coal/hidroelectric plant? Not only it can't be, due to its size/cost constraints, but whenever you stop at a red light it keeps running & burning fuel. With an electric car, not only do you avoid that, but you can even recharge the batteries a bit when you break (dynamo-like).
Charley Watson @ Sep 3rd 2007 7:20PM
Oooh--don't say break! I think you meant brake, dynamic braking. Even this little car, the 15kWh energy storage capacitor, as currently delivered by Texas partner, to be recharged in 5 minutes as claimed, would require around 800 Amperes from the usual 220V service supplied to the average size US home. That's about 4 times the total available from the utility service (200Amp to an average size house. Now they are talking about supplying a cap big enough to take you on a 500 mile trip at freeway speeds. That would require nearly 60 times the energy storage capacity and the same 60 times the current to charge in the 5 minute recharge cycle. I think ZENN had better place a security guy at the airport in Texas watching for those capacitor fellers at the Carribean flight gates.
Charley Watson
distantbody @ Jul 3rd 2006 3:16AM
You're right Jeff,
Electric cars aren't that effective if the electricity is generated in a dirty way, but that definitely isn't a "big dirty little secret", it's simple logic.
I agree that nuclear power is the only correct policy of the otherwise tragic Bush government.
But Jeff, you are showing signs of the "we don't like your solution" attitude that has been the trademark of 'green' groups for decades. You are confusing nuclear *power* with nuclear *waste*#. Nuclear *waste*# is dangerous. Nuclear *power* is NOT. A single individual is more likely to have 250 serious car crashes in a year(of which even once in a year is a vvv low probability event) then be alive during a (non-Russian#) nuclear meltdown on earth.
And hydrogen fuel can be produced by using a third of a nuclear power plants electricity, with a third used fuel the cars batteries and the other third going to houses and industry. Of course Greenpeace will say "we don't like your solution", but *their* "big dirty little secret" is that renewable energy alone could *never* produce enough electricity to power the world, not even enough to produce 40% of it.
# It isn't really even waste, it is quite reusable until all the radioactivity is used up, if only governments would give more funding to the technology)
# Russia is somewhat more likely to experience a nuclear meltdown because they are currently operation 6 or so obsolete 'RMBK' type reactors, like the one at Chernobyl, because they have an inherently unsafe design, which is why the EU, the US an the rest of the world are pressuring Russia to close the last 6
Matt Hadder @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:35AM
Highly industrialized Germany is producing nearly 70% of its total electricty via wind power. Its working there... must be because they're the only ones with wind?
More wind mills = more power, its that simple. Combine that with no fuel to dig or drill for, no transport costs of the fuel and only mininmal maintainence on the air turbines you've got one of the cheapest (and renewable) sources of power.
Also this idea that internal combustion engines are more efficient than electric motors is pure & utter hogwash. Internal combustion engines even have to have cooling systems and radiators to dispose of WASTE (heat) energy.
Mile per mile, including power generation electric, beats out everything, hands down. Compaired to hydrogen combustion engines, battery based electrics are eight times more efficient and still four times more effcient than hyrdogen fuel cell power. Internal gasolince can't even come close to either of these technologies for effciency.
Another benifit is maintenance costs because there are only bearings and possibly brushes that can break or wear out on electrics. Compair that to the amount of moving parts in an internal combustion engine.
If you want to skip the middle man though, google 'The Flying Crowbar' for nuclear powered vehicles! haha
Steve @ Jul 3rd 2006 9:26AM
I think my daughter's 12v Barbie Jeep could take this thing.
distantbody @ Jul 3rd 2006 9:54AM
"Germany is producing nearly 70% of its total electricty via wind power. Its working there... must be because they're the only ones with wind? More wind mills = more power, its that simple."
Matt Hadder, you are a fool. Find out why here: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/03/nuclear-vs-wind-part-i.html and here: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/03/nuclear-vs-wind-part-ii_20.html
hey alex @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:05AM
Top speed of 25mph? Where are you going to drive this, on the golf course? I couldn't use this to get to work, because the speedlimit is much higher.
** Hello Moto ** @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:28AM
You guys are 100% wrong about cars being more efficent then powerplants. First off all you car is not very efficent. Think about how hot your engine - muffler - exust gasses all are. That means they are all giving away a tramendus amount of engery.
How, here is a short quote about your pocket book. The same as gas? HELL NO. Its FOUR TIMES CHEAPER!
"To compare the cost per mile of gasoline cars to this electric car, here's an example. Electricity in North Carolina is about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour right now (4 cents if you use time-of-use billing and recharge at night). That means that for a full recharge, it costs $1 (or 50 cents with time-of-use billing). The cost per mile is therefore 2 cents per mile, or 1 cent with time-of-use. If gasoline costs $1.20 per gallon and a car gets 30 miles to the gallon, then the cost per mile is 4 cents per mile for gasoline."
As for pollution, I cannot find what I am looking for, but there are 2 general ideas.
1. Powerplants are business, so efficency matters, for cars few people REALLY buy a car on the EPA numbers, they buy teh car they want, and think a little about it, not much. Also powerplants are older, and have had exponentaly more R&D money. THey are also larger which gives them an advantage, and they don't have to move, so they can be built heavy/cheap/etc. which leaves more money for designing a better version.
2. Power cannot really be stored, so basicly all power generated at night either has to travel across the country, or more often it is lost, loss is mostly though heat, but it can also be lost into the ground, etc. By making use of the extra power being generated at night, they can gain energy from basicly nothing for the first 10-25% of cars.
Malle @ Jul 3rd 2006 2:18PM
"Highly industrialized Germany is producing nearly 70% of its total electricty via wind power."
Well, no it isn't Matt. Read this:
"Denmark’s 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 percent of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country."
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Wind/2006.htm
and please read this one too:
http://www.windpower.org/en/futuresupply.htm
Jake @ Jul 3rd 2006 2:53PM
FYI even living in California with high energy prices, driving a full sized SUV electric car (Toyota RAV4) iirc he pays about $8/month for that. The normal RAV4 would cost around $150/month at ~24.5mpg and ~$3/gallon.
Or in gas terms, he's getting 450MPG in equivalent $3/gallon gas =)
His car goes 85mph+, has a range of 80-120 miles and has been in the shop ONCE since he got it in early 2002...
There is no GOOD reason why 70-80% of americans shouldn't own an EV and 99% of all family should own at least ONE EV...The only reason they don't is the car makers have a vested interest in not changing. The oil companies are pushing pie in the sky tech like hydrogen, because #1 its way off in the future (killing EV which works) and then they can supply you with hydrogen if/when it ever does work.
Matt Hadder @ Jul 4th 2006 2:00PM
Jake and HelloMoto are on the money here, literally. A bit of simple math shows how EV's are cheaper per mile, by far.
The first link there shows what a guy built at home, an S10 EV that can reach speeds of 80mph. Costs the him about $2.24 to go 50 miles (at 8cents/kwh). Check my math, but thats compairable to about 4.5cents/mile or 65-70mpg on a homebuilt EV.
Heres 2 sites about converting S10 pickups to electric.
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=19&blogid=40
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1997_February_March/The_Eternal_Engine
And another home-grown conversion page. Again they say if it can't go freeway speeds its not a real EV.
http://www.qsl.net/k5lxp/ev/primer/primer.html
Thanks distantbody for those links, I don't agree with the bloggers' opinion about nukes VS wind, but one of the replies by Dave Ericson had some good information about wind technology.
Most of farmers around here used windmills to pump water up from wells for generations without any meltdowns, smog or fuel cost increases. Now that they're putting up air turbines they must be fools too.
Tom @ Jul 16th 2006 11:01PM
We need to go back to look at history of our country here. In 1915, 1/3 of the cars were electric, 1/3 steam and 1/3 gasoline. The USA had more railroad mileage that was electrified in all the world. The electric locomotive was the best performer in its day and could do the work of several steam engines, lower maintenance, offer higher speed and more reliable. Gas was about 12 cents a gallon and stayed cheap for many years, enter big oil in the 1920's and by end of the 1930's most of the electric railroads were converted to diesel or went out of business, electric cars were a thing of the past and the gas auto started its reign.
Big oil had the best sales pitch and partnered with other industries to discredit anything electric.
The ZENN is a citycar, it is designed to be a second car for in your neighborhood. The law passed in most states says you can use this car on city streets up to a 35 mile speed limit. There are battery options for this car if you want longer range, but instead of bringing out your big car to go to the store a few miles away, you can take the ZENN, you can visit a friend in town, pick someoneup, etc. It also can work for college campuses, parking lot patrols in large malls, Airport transportation. Yesterday I was in my big car running errands, had the air on, and went about 20 miles total, and I was thinking I could be doing this in a ZENN. Let's give ZENN and other EV's a chance and not let big oil put them down. Electric rail is coming back with a vengance too. Let's not repeat history this time around.
Courtney @ Sep 24th 2006 7:02PM
Oh Jeff, I certainly hope you visit pluginamerica.com.
No one take Jeff's comments too seriously.
http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html
"Don't plug-in hybrids use coal-powered electricity?
Of course, just plugging your car battery into one of your home's sockets isn't much of a benefit to the environment if coal is the ultimate source of most electricity, right?
Wrong. From well-to-wheel, electric power is still far cleaner than using gasoline according to several studies.
Of course, plugging your vehicle into a solar powered socket, on the other hand, would produce completely clean energy.
Still, it's not that you have to plug it in, rather it's that you can plug it in."
http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/better_than_hybrid_car_plug_in_hybrid_car.html
Besides, as more countries decide to use alternative energy sources, the already invalid argument against electric cars because of "....but we get our energy from coal plants. That creates MORE pollution" will be even more invalid. Plus plugging in these cars will not generate more pollution.
In the end, plug-in hybrids are the way to go both for your wallet and the environment.
George Countryman @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:50AM
So many of the posters here are totally missing the point. The low speed specs on the Zenn are in response to govenmental limitation regarding the maximum speed of electic cars and the battery technology in place. Zenn have exclusive rights to the new super capacitor electric storage technology coming from EEstor and when that comes on stream in late '07 early '08 the range will jump to 500 miles. Dropping an electric power plant that can handle hiway speeds is mindlessly simple once the vehicle is certified for airbags and crash test standards. Once the new super capacitor is available and the crash testing is certified this company is going to dominate the full speed electric vehicle market for 10 or more years. The future truly at our doorsteps
Steve6f8eh @ Mar 21st 2008 10:18AM
Let's look at this practically. The government is restricting the speed of this car to protectthe major car manufacturers until they can catch up or buy the equivilent. Until we start yelling from the highest roof tops this will not change.
The future is electric capacitors for cars (a charger at home is charged all day, and then when you plug your car in it charges quickly....it is not rocket science people), and Algae Biodiesel for trucks. This could carry us for the next 50 years. The technology for both exists right now, and if our governments really gave a rat's ass, they would support these technologies, but they are bought and paid for by Big Oil and Big Auto.
Iuli @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:29AM
Move to Europe. Then you can drive these:
Air car - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
120km/h maximum speed with 200km range.
Hybrid class as well that has a range of 4500km with a tank of gas. Drive in your country from coast to coast basicaly, and on highways too :P