Hybrid Tech building an electric Mini Cooper, will charge a bundle
By Paul Miller 
posted Apr 23rd 2007 4:08PM
posted Apr 23rd 2007 4:08PM
[Via Autoblog]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
40K over the gas version? Well, I'm glad to see we are making it more consumer-friendly now.
and 120 miles per charge is just unacceptable.
Save the Earth? I thought the batteries were toxic.
You know what else is unacceptable? A political figure attatching himself to electric cars just to get support while he honestly doesn't care a damn about any of it, and just wants the votes/support to push forth his agenda.
Electric cars are stupid, you fill it up with electricity, so rather than releasing pollution yourself, you're diverting the pollution to the power plants.
That's not quite true. Using clean electricity to charge up an EV is much better than everyone driving around his/her own internal combustion engine. Even a coal fired (and therefore polluting) plant built just to recharge cars would be better for the environment then everyone driving a regular car. But, if we use wind/hydro/solar/nuclear, we get an even better deal for the environment. mmkay?
"Electric cars are stupid, you fill it up with electricity, so rather than releasing pollution yourself, you're diverting the pollution to the power plants."
What, you mean you don't have a solar roof? Get with it!
What's amazing to me is that "environmentalists" still point to electric cars and hybrids as a good thing.
They're really fucking bad for the environment. REALLY.
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188
Read up on it.
That study was fake. CNW released a new report correcting their previous report. Stop believing that useless garbage. Here's what you need to read: http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html
I just read that entire article. It doesn't offer one single verifiable bit of evidence against the article, only pointing out areas in which the study was vague or lacking in methodological details - never outright incorrect.
But the study wasn't "FAKE". They gathered a significant amount of data and presented their findings. The article posted in your reply did no such thing, but made vague hints at other findings that support their point of view. Where are the studies from MIT and the like? They're mentioned for name-credibility, but not actually cited our sourced.
It's kinda funny how often the "Scientific Method" is ignored once it doesn't agree with someone. Addressing data with data is a hell of a lot more valuable than "Well, it could be something else, and you don't have enough evidence to prove that my answer is wrong." Isn't that the Creationist view? That sure seems to be the line of reasoning that this article, and "flareak" are endorsing.
But don't take my word for it - read for yourselves!
Of course, however I just thought I'd bring out the point that in a sense, you're still diverting the pollution, and electric cars are NOT a solution, they're a small step towards one.
"we just look forward to the day when it doesn't cost so dang much."
and doesn't take a five hour recharge time.
Did anyone see the car on Discovery channel that runs 100% on Air .. and soon it will create its own air pressure a 100% eco friendly with no need to fill up with .. well anything , it fills its self up with compressed air , it compresses , they were saying all for about $15,000
That's BS if I've ever heard it...
wow, such a GREAT step towards a greener car...making it so damned expensive that only the rich could afford. *sarcastic clap*
This is what killed the electric car.
Someone needs to start a not-for-profit that builds electric cars... these bastards are taking the mother nature to the cleaners (although on a lesser extent that current manufacturers).
Shame it's a slug compared to PML's Mini
nope,,, not BS,, i saw the same thing,, its for real, the working has something to do with the difference in atmospheric pressure & the pressure in the cylinders, or chambers, never heard about it since,, so i imagine that depending on your height above sea level would alter it performance, (i bet they use mineral oils to lubricate it too ;p)
like the "laser light craft" model by nasa, it flys by using light reflecting so fast that it superheats allowing it to lift off the ground (i actually have seen this working & have a foto of it on display)
it all sounds like BS but thats coz you havent seen it
I don't understand. What's wrong with gas?
How about Methane, goodness knows we have plenty of that :)
And, Jon I caught that on Discovery's FutureCar series.....all air, amazing.
I'm more happy with my gas guzzling at 32~35mpg Cooper S that can go at 380miles or higher if I went ubber soft on the gas pedal than that electric car. At least I can speed at 90mph on the highway or faster. and hear the engine's sweet sound.
exactly how does a *sarcastic clap* sound, how does the sound differ from real claping? -*sarcastic typing sounds*-
yeah....if you see the image....you can save the world with a flat tire ...haha...
way cooler IMO: http://greasecar.com/mnep_view.cfm?mnepID=78
The main part of that price is the expensive batteries.
We're spending a trillion or two to secure our oil in Iraq. What would happen if we peeled off a few hundred billion dollars to build lithium ion factories from guvmint funds and drop the price by a factor of a hundred? We've spent endless free taxpayer money to prop up the oil economy. We would liberate ourselves from foreign oil if we spent a trillion to subsidize battery production to the point where economies of scale take over for the taxpayer buy-in. Then the car would cost 20-30 grand. And the cost to run it would be nearly zero, a penny a mile.
Build a hundred square miles of solar electric farms in Nevada desert, pipe the power to the cars, and we have a steady state energy economy. Probably for a hell of a lot less than even this one oil war cost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502561.html
This is coming from Toyota. The CNW "has been discredited by Argonne National Laboratory, MIT, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others."
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=4
"David Friedman, research director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, thinks that CNW's results and apparent methodology bring red flags. "This study has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs and Carnegie Mellon's Lifecycle Assessment Group. The reality is hybrids can significantly cut global warming pollution, reduce energy use, and save drivers thousands at the pump," commented Friedman."
I don't know if I can give you data. But I think I can trust MIT's stance on this. And especially if so many studies are also in agreement that the CNW study is incorrect. If that data is SO important to you, you should go ask MIT, etc.
Right...but WHICH MIT study? Where's something peer-reviewed and published? Or did some professor that happens to work at MIT say "It looks suspicious" and that was taken to mean that "MIT denounces this study"? Typically, Universities don't throw their name behind a relatively small issue such as whether a particular report is credible or not. I'd really like to read the report that 'MIT' allegedly authored, but I can't find it in any of my journal sites, jstor and LexusNexus, among others.
I'm not saying the report isn't dubious - it seems like a pretty outrageous claim - but at the same time no one has actually presented DATA to the contrary, only opinions. If a bunch of scientists had proven that beef was good for the heart and pork was bad, and the only objection came from the pork growers, and they had no data to back up that claim...why would I believe them?
Right now its reviewable data against opinion. I didn't think that's how science worked...
You guys who are anti electric are not thinking it through, gas technology is at it's peak while battery tech is still making leaps and bounds.
Truth is that electric cars are the future, eventualy battery tech will give you more mileage than gas and I can't wait to see oil companies stagger on that one. And who really needs to drive more than 160 miles in a single day or sitting?
so,, all these mod cars getting conversions to electric,,, where can someone get the info on how to do a conversion? & buying stuff like the powerful electric motors, & lithium ion hypersonic super phonic ticktatonic batteries required for the job,,, i reckon it would make an awesome project car,, pick out an oldskool RX2 or something cool & light, & mod it (maybe its better suited to front wheel drive conversions?)
so,, any ideas?
The first time I ever saw a Mini I thought "cool!", "A car thats prolly only gonna cost $5,000 bucks!".$59,000???????? What kind of rich person would want to ride in a golf cart looking vehicle?
I like this and think it is a step forward even if it is a pricey one. If more of these are mass produced the price will come down so others like me can afford it/
it is impossible to look good in a poxy Mini!!!!!!
Never thought I'd see in my lifetime,but the electric car is almost here {maybe 1yr}.
We have today many renewable sources of electric power.
Ultra Capacitors will soon replace the "battery" thru Nano Technology. An Ultra Capacitor will accept 80 percent charge in 1min.I spend longer filling my 20mpg car.
If every car in Ca. were electric we have the ability to meet this demand today.
Lets stop burning coal for electric power {56 percent of daily supply} and start using our "American Genius" to get these cars here now.
Join the revolution at
http://www.allcarselectric.com