UK's Lightning to build all-electric GT sports car

Adding its name to the ever-growing list of all-electric cars that never seem to seep onto lots is Lightning, which is apparently developing a 700bhp whip that unashamedly rips styling cues from quintessential British cars of the past and present. Designed to "compete with premium market sport cars," the GT is hoping to "combine high performance electric motive power with an advanced regenerative energy system that recharges the car's batteries under braking by capturing lost friction energy." Additionally, motorists can expect a sub-four second 0-60 time, and better yet, just a ten minute charge time to sustain a 250 mile range. As expected, Lightning would love to secure your deposit on the not-yet-launched car right now for a 2008 delivery, but we'd recommend checking with its shipping department before you place an order from outside of Britain.

[Via Autoblog]

[noob @ Jun 13th 2007 3:15PM]

so the backend looks exactly like a TVR...i hope they aren't planning on shamelessly copying its design.

[J. R. @ Jun 13th 2007 3:17PM]

Surely you meant 10 HOURS... not 10 minutes... Heres to hoping (hopeing?)

[J. R. @ Jun 13th 2007 3:24PM]

Holy crap... I reread what they wrote in the press release. It really does say 10 minute charge for a 250mile range. That is just crazy. You're going to have to pump insane amperage into this thing; something like melting breaker panel on your wall... Am I off?

[Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 3:39PM]

"hoping". You got it right the first time.

[Owen V @ Jul 21st 2007 2:53AM]

Everyone has go to remember that electric cars are where its at but batteries are not.

A 10 minute charge is too long to be practical while traveling. With fuel cells a fill up could take exactly how long a gasoline fill up takes now and there will never be any dangerous chemical waste.

The range could be several hundred miles (like, 500 or more) because it will be a fuel tank just like todays cars.

And the only emission from the car is H2O

[spil @ Jun 13th 2007 3:17PM]

Looks a lot like a TVR to me, mainly because of the back lights. Did they say how much? I would definately look at that if it was on sale in the u.s. (but since it is "designed to 'compete with premium market sports cars'", looking is about all I would be doing.

[Don @ Jun 13th 2007 3:21PM]

Well, if you're going to copy, copy from something good! The TVR is a gorgeous machine. I do hope that it comes in non-purple though.

[McGinley @ Jun 13th 2007 4:29PM]

Its midnight blue,not purple.Get it right!

[John @ Jun 13th 2007 3:20PM]

Stop calling them "whips". Annoying marketing term, nobody calls them that.

[anonymouspimp @ Jun 13th 2007 3:26PM]

10 minute charge time?!?!?! I don't believe it.

The car made by Tesla Motors takes 3.5 hours to fully charge.

FYI-- i believe they also lowered their "range" from 250 miles to 200 miles on a charge.

[Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 3:38PM]

WTF is this electric car garbage about? It's incredibly inefficient compared to gasoline engines, and "zero emissions"????

You're simply trading emissions in - previously you'd release gasses into the air, now you'll simply be throwing out several million tons of Li-ion batteries each year if this tech catches on. HELLO - we all know how long our laptop batteries stay good for. Li-ion batteries have limited charge cycles, thus proving for more toxic garbage as the tech becomes further adopted. OOPS.

[spil @ Jun 13th 2007 5:01PM]

Every time there is a post about an electric car on engadget, this arguement always comes up. And each time, someone counters it with the argument that if it were made for a car, it would be more durable/longer lasting/etc.

I must say that you did bring a good refresh to that old argument of electric cars really being green. Most people just say it is channeling the polution to an electricity plant, and that is always countered by the people that prove the amount of electricity it uses per mile is equivalent to 500 mpg, etc. Yours is an interesting idea, but the argument of the battery being a better build for cars than for consumer electronics disproves your idea, and has already been said in the comments (see Quacktastic's). Good fresh idea, though.

[Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 5:57PM]

How will batteries be better made? We are only looking into alternative battery ideas - the top-tier battery technology at our hands is currently the Li-ion that we love and hate. Tesla is currently using off-the-shelf laptop batteries.

And the 500mpg story is dependent on the energy source - water power? Sure. Coal-burning electric plant? Look for something below 500mpg "equivalent" there.

Until we come up with a non-degrading battery technology and utilize renewable energy, we cannot call these vehicles "zero emissions". They still pollute. Until then, these vehicles are only marginally more "green".

[Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 6:24PM]

See apology below. Guess I should read the -whole- article next time... not just the first half.

[spil @ Jun 13th 2007 6:59PM]

The 500 mpg was just an example number that I made up. The point is that it is much more efficient than a gasoline or even hybrid powered car.

[Fred @ Jun 13th 2007 3:46PM]

This will never really compete with "premium market sports cars" because it is silent. The sound of the engine/exhaust is a big part of the premium market sports car experience.

[Mike @ Jun 13th 2007 7:02PM]

Well thats ok if thats you thang - I assume this isn't trying to compete with the big sports car maufacturers, more those who want something a little different, a slice of the future. Much as I enjoy the burble of a V8 or the scream of an Italian V12, Noise = wasted BHP. Internal combustion engines waste around 70% of their power as heat and noise, so your 200HP car is generating over 600HP, but wasting 400 out the radiator and exhaust. Give me the efficiency, power and instant torque (not to mention reliability) of an electric motor any day. Batteries are holding us back, if these guys have cracked it good for them. 250 mile range isn't at all unreasonable for a car with 700bhp! How many other exotics can match that?

[amirmah @ Jun 13th 2007 3:47PM]

Wow, 10 minutes ? my freakin cell phone takes at least 6 folds that time to become fully charged! it would be a breakthrough if it were real though, I'd love to have any electric car, I don't really care how fast it goes, as long as it gets me to my college in under 30 minutes.

And of course, as long as I can afford it! ;)

http://amirmah.googlepages.com

[Quacktastic @ Jun 13th 2007 4:27PM]

People, this technology IS ALREADY POSSIBLE!!! For instance, for anyone who gets Popular Science magazine, the July 2007 issue has an article on a new cordless circular saw by Dewalt, called the DC300K, which uses the new M1 nanophosphate battery (developed by A123Systems). The reason I point to this article is not because I assume there are DIY home-improvement people reading engadget in the hopes of stumbling across a review on power saws. I point to this article because, as the author stated:

"the M1's (the battery's) biggest promise is in spinning tires, not saw blades. Plug-in cars haven't caught on because they take hours to recharge. But an auto with M1s could reach 80 percent of charge capacity in just five minutes - making it as fast to refuel as a conventional car."

So, please, from now on, if you don't believe something is possible, do a little research. Too many times people on this website shoot something down because of their half-understanding of the technology.

[Quacktastic @ Jun 13th 2007 4:28PM]

Oh, and for those just throwing out the "increased waste" arguments haphazardly, these new M1 batteries last at least ten years, as opposed to the batteries in our current laptops (maybe 3 years).

[Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 6:04PM]

10 years is a hugely inaccurate lifespan estimate. How often do you charge up your cordless saw? How often do you drive your car?

I fill up my car more often than I charge my laptop up - and my laptop batteries start to degrade within a year. Let's say the batteries last 5 years in my vehicle - that's a lot of chemical waste every 5 years. Take into account the number of drivers on the road, and that's an awful lot of chemical waste.

And no, I'm not saying that it's *increased* waste - it's simply a different kind of waste. It's not as efficient and zero-impact as everyone thinks it is - there is pollution generated by electric vehicles, and I think that they are either before their time or are a stepping-stone to new technology that will prove more efficient and less impacting on our planet.

[Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 6:21PM]

Actually, 85% charge retention after 15k charge cycles is very respectable. I definitely stand corrected - I guess that'll teach me to read the -whole- article before I comment next time.

Still not at the magical zero-impact level yet, though that will take a very long time to reach. Likely not in my lifetime.

[Quacktastic @ Jun 13th 2007 8:20PM]

No one posting here, besides you, even came close to purporting that the car was "zero" impact. You offered that missive in an ill-conceived attempt to dilute your obviously ill-informed prior argument. Obviously, the electricity must come from some source and, ultimately, the car will turn into waste. But thats not really the point is it. What we need to be concerned with is progress, and these electric cars with the new nano-tech batteries promise a substantial amount of that. If innovation was only permitted to come in leaps and bounds there would be no innovation at all. But, I don't want to belabor the point.

[Tom @ Jun 14th 2007 11:58AM]

Realize that electric cars are, in general, touted as zero emissions. Also, I'm not an idiot - I simply didn't read the article in whole. **AS I SAID***, the new battery technology is impressive and definitely a step forward, but electric cars running on the widely used Li-ion aren't much progress at all. So -this- car is an improvement, as I now know from finishing the whole article. Read my posts before you try to insult me and my "ill-conceived attempts to dilute my obviously ill-informed prior arguments".
-I admitted that I neglected to read the whole article
-Arguments are for coming to a conclusion, which I thought we came to (before your post insulting me).
Now who's ill-informed?

[Quacktastic @ Jun 14th 2007 3:04PM]

Considering I sent in that post before you bothered reading the whole article (and considering you have admitted that you didn't bother reading the whole article) that would still be you who was ill-informed (as you admitted). My post was not intended to insult, it merely relayed what proved to be a truthful observation.

And while, once again, no one was discussing whether these cars would be zero emission, since you can't seem to leave the point - in fact, these cars are zero emission. The car itself gives off no gases; that is, "no emissions" as that word is used in both common parlance and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To say that the car's parts will someday become waste is not to say that the car itself is not "zero emissions." There is a very distinct difference between emitting gases and decaying, or breaking down. Similarly, saying that the electric power that the car uses still has to come from power-plants that aren't zero emissions, does not refute the fact that these cars are zero emissions. That would be similar to saying that the desk that my computer is resting on is not "zero emissions" because it was made at a plant which uses a coal burning furnace - the two are mutually exclusive.

[jon @ Jun 13th 2007 4:35PM]

Now that's an electric car!

But it does look an awful lot like a Jaguar D-Type or XK-SS from the late 50's. Always steal from the best.

[Scooter @ Jun 13th 2007 4:43PM]

Impressive, but still uncompetitive with fossil fuels. At this rate, on a drive down the autobahn you would need to stop every 2 hours (or less) to refuel. Compare that to at least six hours for a large diesel (by which time you're out of Germany and have to slow down!).
Presumably the range is not at top speed, which would make things miserable for the aspiring 'electric head'.

[Scooter @ Jun 13th 2007 4:47PM]

oh, and for the nay-sayers, electric cars do consume fossil fuels (where the electricity comes from) but industrial-scale power plants generate electricity more efficiently than a petrol or diesel motor car converts energy, so there are big savings as well as cleaner air especially near major roadways.

Now how about a green fix for tyres and lubricants?

[rp @ Jun 13th 2007 5:11PM]

I dunno, my car doesn't get great gas mileage. I think 250 miles/tank is pretty good. My car sucks gas like crazy. Of course, US cars don't get great mpg in general, and mine is a SUV, so it's even worse.
The really cool thing about this car is that, although you may have to stop to "refuel" more often (or in my case, about the same amount of times per trip) and assuming the way it charges does not require some sort of incredibly elaborate power setup/outlet other than the standard outlet (which would not make it very convenient for long distance travel anyway), you could pull up to a Kwik-E-Mart type place, find the outside jack and plug it in stealthily, go inside and buy a drink, come back out and get back on the road, all without paying anything for it (except the initial cost of the car of course, which is likely to be insane).

[catfish @ Jun 13th 2007 5:29PM]

Don't forget to add in transmission losses though.

[Scooter @ Jun 13th 2007 5:58PM]

@rp lol!
this thing won't charge out back at a Kwik-E-Mart. It will need industrial-strength connections. As J.R. implies, it'll need some serious circuitry, which may (not) be coming to your fuel station soon...

[Paul @ Jun 13th 2007 4:57PM]

The battery pack ("nanosafe") is from Altairnano (http://www.altairnano.com/) and *CAN* recharge in 10 minutes *IF* you plug into a special charging facility. Essentially it requires something like a 480 volt 500 amp service--basically what you see in factories running large equipment. Using standard 110 (or 220 in Britain in this case) service will result in more standard recharge cycles which is really better anyway since most of the time you'll want to charge it overnight, only needing the super quick charge when traveling or if you forget to plug in. It is a really cool concept. Basically they replaced the graphite in the Li-Ion battery with some kind of super nano-tech substance (lithium titanate) that results in a battery that can safely be charged (and discharged) in that period of time. It also has the added benefit of having a seemingly infinite charge-discharge cycle count (they claim to have stopped counting at 10,000), meaning that in theory you should not have to replace the battery pack. So far, I think the only disadvantage of the packs is that they don't yet have the volume production down such that pricing can be reduced and major car makers would jump. I'm hoping it is only a matter of time (I'm a stockholder). Note, this is the real deal, not vaporware (hmm, does that term apply to actual hardware?). It has been independently verified and is actually in production in real vehicles.

Phoenix motorcars (http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/) has exclusive rights to the technology in the US for light electric vehicles. They're making a pick-up truck and an SUV (I think the SUV is being geared towards the taxi marketplace). Altair is also working with some heavy machine manufacturers to create some monster batteries for monster haulers (and earth movers and such). Also targeting busses. Personally, I say this is the future, NOT Hydrogen.

[Grant @ Jun 13th 2007 11:11PM]

Hi Paul,

Last info I heard is that they had completed 25,000 charge/discharge cycles (6 min to charge/6 to discharge) and it was still above 85% capacity. That is harder on the battery then it would see in a commercial application so real world results would be even better. I've also seen Altair quote over 20+ years for battery life. They operate in extreme temperatures and require no thermal management either and don't explode if punctured.

It seems that most people really have no idea that it's just a matter of time before electric cars replace the combustion engine.

[Aigarius @ Jun 13th 2007 5:00PM]

For people bitching about range: some time ago Top Gear showed off a gasoline car with 42 mile range. For 250 000 pounds. That is without an air conditioner. And people buy that.

Sometimes it is not about long trips or even commute practicality. Sometimes it is just about pure style.

And as for the amperage - the UK style wall plugs are so thick that they will easily take the amperage even without much additional hassle.

[Yayaja @ Jun 13th 2007 5:05PM]

Wow, as soon as I saw that picture I got a raging boner. Oddly enough my boner looks alot like the car itself. FATE????

[Scooter @ Jun 13th 2007 6:00PM]

which end?

[Mike @ Jun 13th 2007 6:51PM]

Nope, elephantitis.

[kyle allen @ Jun 14th 2007 12:22AM]

Finaly, an ev car thats almoste not ugly

[Che @ Jun 15th 2007 12:59PM]

I think electric cars have a very promising future, but no matter what kind of batteries you use, a claim of a 10 minute charge lasting 200 or 250 miles just shows that these guys aren't serious.

I'm not interested in doing the math, but the amperage required to deliver that much charge that quickly at household voltages would probably require copper conductors at least several inches in diameter. Do you have wiring like that? Me neither. Also, even if the batteries were, say, 90% efficient during charge, 10% of all that energy would be released in just 10 minutes. That might work for a small battery for a saw, but in a battery that can really drive a car for 200 miles, that means a big fire.

A ten minute charge at that capacity is only possible if the battery is removed from the car and connected to an extremely high voltage power source and a massive cooling system to carry away all the waste heat. Since that won't be happening in real-world use, the battery won't have the plumbing it would need to circulate the coolant that would be required and no production battery will have the ability to be charged that quickly.

Electric cars, intriguing. BS claims, less so.

[flowcurtis @ Jun 16th 2007 4:16AM]

Truly a beautiful work of art. To bad the average person won't have the pleasure of owning one in my lifetime. Who knows maybe by year 2030. The Shareholders of the big 234 can make a profit and the government gives you a tax break of $ 4,000 yr. for the clean enviroment from non-pollutant fuels will all be driving one....... (WORLD CLASS)across the pond !