Mitsubishi's electric car plans revealed
From the outside looking in, electric car development programs seem to proceed at a snail's pace and are filled with many ambiguous meanderings. Even when company executives make lots of public statements, the waters stay muddied. A recent interview with Tohru Hashimoto, Corporate General Manager of the Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle business or the "MiEV Promotion Office" conducted by Stephen Clemenger and published on the EV World website, refreshingly goes some way to shed light on the reasons behind many of the decisions taken by that company - as well as it's path ahead.
After a brief history of Mitsubishi's involvement with battery electric cars since the 1960s and its more recent development program featuring the Colt EV MIEV and Lancer Evolution MIEV, Hashimoto explaines that they want to introduce an electric car to the "real market" as soon as possible. Some of the other, more significant points made are as follows;
- Mitsubishi would like to have a "lease type agreement" with individual customers (yes, we can hear your groans)
- A larger model iMiEV is in the works though the focus will be on the current configuration (pictured above) until after it launches
- In-wheel motors should be used by Mitsubishi in 5 to 10 years though a smaller companies may use them sooner
- Mitsubishi will add a range extender in future for larger models though it is unlikely to be a fuel cell (yes, we can hear your cheers)
- Mitsubishi has no interest in making Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and will continue to manufacture cars with doors and seating for four (more cheers)
[Source: EV World]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joseph 2:25PM (6/17/2008)
It seems that Domenick reads all our comments, considering how he can predict our cheers and groans.
I find it very strange that Mitsubishi is going after in-wheel motors. One motor is more efficient than two. It's that simple. (If one motor converts electricity to motion with 90% efficiency then two motors would do it with 81% efficiency. Multiply 90% times 90%)
Reply
James Bowe 3:08PM (6/17/2008)
Your logic is flawed. By multiplying you are assuming that one motor runs another. Thus motor two is already down to 90% as it runs off motor one. Of course this makes no sense as motor one turns a wheel, it doesn't power motor 2. The current is split 50/50 between the motors, which each operate at 90%, thus each properly applying 45% of the total electricity to moving the car, resulting in 90% efficiency. The only room for efficiency to drop is in the extra wiring, but that's negligible. From what I understand, in-wheel motors are MORE efficient. Probably because it is easier to turn the wheel than it is to turn the crankshaft.
Reply
Uncle B 3:24PM (6/17/2008)
Dear Tohru Hashimoto Claus,
I want a three wheeled, 90mph roadster, ultra-lite carbon fiber aerodynamic bodied, 2 seats, both with 4 point sports belts, one behind the other, eclectic metallic orange, with rechargeable batteries I can exchange in an instant,at recharging stations wherever I go. I want it to be half as wide as a normal car so I can sneak past the A-holes in grid-lock like a motorcycle. I want it short enough that me and my three pals can share one parking spot in town, to save money! and I want it to be more fun than a bag full of Prozac to drive! I want to get to work feeling like I had a blast! I want to look forward to going home 'cause driving it is fun, I want this thing to be affordable, to buy and to run, and I want a sexy secretary who just might put out, but that's not your department is it!
Reply
paulwesterberg 3:32PM (6/17/2008)
In-wheel motors gives you the bonus of all wheel drive + traction control and better regen without bulky differentials and torque converters.
Also since the load is distributed between the wheels you can likely keep heat issues to a minimum and avoid expensive/bulky water cooling.
Of course the leases and 5-10 year time frame is BS.
Reply
Wave54 3:37PM (6/17/2008)
Except for the battery swap stations and the sexy secretary, you might try the VentureOne:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/the-venture-one.php
Reply
e 3:42PM (6/17/2008)
Re the wheel motors. This is definately the way to go, total brake by wire regen brakes will only be possible with in hub motors, the unsprung mass is little different to a regular disc brake assembly. No driveshaft mass can only help efficiency, will also free up useful space within the wheelbase.
Reply
ug 3:56PM (6/17/2008)
Sure, we could try the VentureOne, if it were OUT yet.
Reply
ug 3:56PM (6/17/2008)
I think it's safe to say we can scratch the iMiev off the list of relevant electric vehicle projects. Like Volvo, their roadmap is too slow and the lease business model is DOA. Only GM is moving ahead at the proper pace to have vehicles on the road before oil prices cause an irreversible meltdown of the auto industry.
Reply
lavina1 6:39AM (1/27/2009)
All the noises I hear from GM are sounds of bankrupcy not exciting development plans for Electric cars.
Where did you get your info?
Serge 5:01PM (6/17/2008)
The possibilities offered by a 4wd system using in-wheel-motors first intrigued me when I saw this system on a prototype Lancer Evo MiEV at NY Autoshow in 05. Imagine having the ability to precisely control torque on each wheel for offroad / poor road applications ...
The to-market development time-table is [disappointingly] sluggish. Our best hope for a reasonable new generation auto in the the next few years seems to be the Volt. I hope that GM pulls it off, grabbing the leadership position in this market with lots of possibilities (and lights the fire under all other manufacturers in the process).
Reply
tchamp 5:08PM (6/17/2008)
I have to echo that 'scratch off the list' sentiment. I have no desire to lease a vehicle. I will BUY a MiEV if they bring it to market in the US, but I will not lease. Leases suck. I'll turn my hope to Subaru with their R1e unless Mitsu sees the light.
Reply
stevejust 5:24PM (6/17/2008)
I actually don't mind the idea of leasing an electric vehicle. There are things that could go wrong with any new technology, and I don't mind the idea of having a lease with an option to walk away at the end if it doesn't go well. I believe the future is here, and we're not going to see a EV Plus/EV1/Rav 4 EV/Ranger EV scenario all over again. (Fingers crossed.)
The big question will be whether we would be able to get any tax credits for leasing vs. buying. Now that Toyota and Honda can't incentivize people with the tax breaks on their hybrids, I wonder if we'll start to see more leased hybrids? At least a lease option would get people to STFU about battery cost replacements and potential resale value down the road.
Reply
stevefazek 6:45PM (6/17/2008)
Yeah but with wheel motors i cant put some 24"s on my ride to pimp it.
A problem with hub motors is brakes lol. They wont meet DOT standards so they law will need to be rewritten.
I wouldn't mind leasing it if the payments where the normal paying 50% of the value of the car. But i dont want to be held at any liability for the batteries if i lease it.
if the all electric Imev costs 20-25 grand the lease payment better be 200-250 a month.
I rather just shell out the 25 grand for the car.
LI and NiMH batteries we all know last 100k+ in a car and even at 200,000 miles will still have maybe 60-75% of the range.
You know what these batteries will still have a ton of life in them even at 50%. I would just use them in my home and charge them with a wind turbine.
Reply
Mark 7:21PM (6/17/2008)
Lease only = NOT INTERESTED!!
We saw what GM did with the EV-1..They leased > confiscated > crushed.
If I can't outright BUY this electric vehicle, my money is going ELSEWHERE.
YOU FAIL, MITSUBISHI.
If I can't buy, you don't get my money. PERIOD.
Reply
Yanquetino 8:29PM (6/17/2008)
I almost punched my computer screen to read "lease" in the above report. As others have already indicated, we want to BUY the iMiEV in North America: a mere "lease" will not do.
I then read the original article, but couldn't find the word "lease" anywhere in it. Domenick, are you sure you read that right? What I have found is this quote:
"They plan to target large fleet customers first and then individual >>>buyers
Reply
Steve 10:38PM (6/18/2008)
Lease-only cars would suck almost as much as being forced to lease battery packs for purchased cars... like Nissan's rumored proposal. When you own the car but not the battery pack, the automaker's financial arm pretty much has you by the b@lls.
On the flip side, all these talks of lease arrangements could be the automakers' way of working around the high cost of batteries we can continue to expect for the foreseeable future. And some people (not me) actually prefer leases for various reasons. I suspect the manufacturers will be losing money on many of the early models, and are looking to mitigate costs to the consumer and automaker alike. Of course, in the long run, a lease works out much better for the lender than the lessee.
Reply
Domenick Yoney 11:55PM (6/17/2008)
@ Yanquetino: From the start of the second page of the interview, "
Will the iMiEV have a limited production run and be available to selected customers or through the normal dealership?
In the first step, we will have a lease type agreement to a specific customer. This would be to a company for their fleet use. It will happen in the first year of the iMiEV going on sale. Later we would like to have a lease type agreement with individual customers for their own personal use."
I feel your pain. I personally can't stand the who leasing (I call it 'fleecing')thing. He does hedge with the language so it doesn't seem a done deal.
Reply
Ralph 2:06AM (6/18/2008)
Ugh...not the lease scenario AGAIN! Why is it that there is so much trepidation on the part of these major auto manufacturers to release a competent, non-fossil fuel product that we can purchase outright?
These guys say they've been at it since the 60's working with electric vehicles and we still don't have a viable vehicle that we can purchase...and we still have to wait a couple years more?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but based on the actions (or lack thereof) of the major auto industry players I have come to the conclusion that it is going to take a relatively small automotive company to have the hutzah to prove that a proper sized, non-fossil fuel vehicle is commercially viable.
Reply
kert 3:33AM (6/18/2008)
lots of people are jumping to wrong conclusions, and the start of the article is kinda wrong too, Mitsu has never been ambigous or secretive about their plans, they just dont mouth off that much, and when they talk they mostly talk japanese.
First, in wheel motors are not in the 2009 MiEV design. They were and are working on this config, but not for the first launch.
The timeframe to launch MiEV in Japan is still 2009, the five years were given til adoption of in-wheel motor configuration in a new model ( pending the durability and weight improvements for this )
As for leasing, i never read anything about leasing to individuals before, this must be a new plan, but then i would guess market demand on this or that regional market can change a few variables there.
Reply
BGJ 6:21AM (6/18/2008)
The reason OEM's lease vehicles like this: cost. In case you haven't heard, properly engineering BEV's are VERY expensive. So until batteries become cheap, expect to have a leased vehicle.
And wheel hub motors? Makes sense in a controlled driving environment but not in the real world. Warranty/repair costs would be very high when a very expensive component is in an area that gets frequently damaged and is exposed to the elements in everyday usage. Not to mention the high unsprung mass on each corner is very bad for ride quality. Keeping 1 motor enclosed under the hood makes more sense. It might be less efficient, but it is the more sensible design.
Reply