You are here:
Green Car News >
VIDEO: Chrysler's new EVs in action

VIDEO: Chrysler's new EVs in action

Posted Sep 24th 2008 2:02PM

CommentsAdd

Jeep EV

Along with all the photos of its new battery-powered vehicles, Chrysler yesterday also provided some video footage. The clips after the jump include Chrysler VP for ENVI, Lou Rhodes, discussing the electric vehicle program, and running footage of the Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep EVs. There isn't much new here but you might want to see these vehicles in action, silently humming along as they do their business. Although Chrysler has made some bold claims, it will be interesting to see which if any of these ever make it to mass production. The Jeep in particular is interesting because if Chrysler can build a commercially viable Jeep EV it could also presage a similar RAM.

Related:

Related Gallery2011 Chrysler EVs

[Source: Chrysler]

Lou Rhodes, Vice President - Advance Vehicle Engineering and President - ENVI, discusses Chrysler's trio of electric vehicle prototypes.

Dodge EV

Chrysler ER-EV

Jeep ER-EV

Category: EV/Plug-in, Hybrid, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep

Tags: chrysler ev, ChryslerEv, dodge ev, DodgeEv, electric vehicle, electric vehicles, ElectricVehicle, ElectricVehicles, jeep ev, JeepEv, lithium, lithium ion, lithium ion batteries, lithium-ion, LithiumIon, LithiumIonBatteries, lotododge

Chrysler

2013 Chrysler
Chrysler Sedans
Chrysler Minivans

Chrysler Cars

Add a Comment

Sign in »

24 Comments

Filter by:

Sean

I'm sold on the EV Wrangler. Chrysler BUILD IT!!! I have a 1998 Jeep Wrangler and I love it, but it's a wonderful idea to have an electric because of the gas prices here in CA. This would be an ideal vehicle for commute and I can use my 98 Wrangler as a weekend car or a vacation car that can be towed by my motorhome. So Chrylser, BUILD THE JEEP EV WRANGLER!!!!!

October 01 2008 at 12:53 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bill

IIRC, turbines, at least in production applications, are less fuel-efficient than piston engines.

September 26 2008 at 8:47 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

pae

Also seems like the concept floated in the PNGV Patriot post finally has merit. (Recalling that turbine powered 1963 Chrysler.) Would not a compact turbine be well suited to range extender duty? Perhaps the term would be micro-turbine. Build it with a nice modular design perhaps for use as a home backup power plant. Sounds like the turbine could burn many different fuels as well. Including Tequila.

Seems like the problem with the turbine engine was the long spool up time did not fit existing driving practices. As a range-extender, that constraint is entirely removed.

September 26 2008 at 10:22 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to pae's comment

Gas turbines are lightweight, can run on a variety of fuels, and their high speed operation mates well with high speed generators.

For automotive use they have 2 drawbacks: the high temperatures require the use of exotic alloys and ceramics, driving up the costs, and in small sizes the efficiency is low. Automotive sized gas turbines cannot take advantage of certain efficiency boosting devices used for large stationary gas turbine power plants, as they are too bulky and weight too much.

September 29 2008 at 1:39 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

pae

Seems like the current Jeep Patriot would be a much better candidate for EV/ER-ification than the Wrangler. It is a much smaller, much lighter, much more aerodynamic brick. Why start with the aerodynamics of a cinder block when you already have a nice rounded brick in the stable?

Perhaps the Patriot would be a better match for a pure EV. Not enough room for the range extender powerplant?

September 26 2008 at 10:06 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Speaking of high mileage vehicles... does anyone remember during the Clinton years that he posed a challenge to the big 3 to come up with the most fuel efficient vehicle they could? The winner was Chrysler with a vehicle they called the patriot. It used gasoline to power a turbine which in turn charged a bank of batteries that powered motors at the wheels. Acceleration was 0-60mph in about 5.5s and achieving a fuel efficiency of 90mpg. Oh yeah, and the vehicle was the size of a Cadillac STS.

So am I dreaming this up or does anyone else remember this?
I have tried to search for this info but found nothing.

TV

September 25 2008 at 10:27 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to tv's comment

It was called "Partnership for Next Generation Vehicles", and the government provided billions to develop high mileage hybrids. Toyota and Honda were not allowed to participate, so they went and developed their own hybrids - and got them into production and on the road BEFORE GM, Ford and Chrysler got their prototypes finished and displayed in 2001. Bush jr. canceled the PNGV program, the prototypes were mothballed, and the Big 3 went SUV crazy instead. Toyota and Honda got the last laugh when gas prices soared, hybrids took off, and the Big 3 are still trying to catch up.

Some of your details are a bit off. Turbocharger, maybe, but not a turbine. It was quite a bit lighter and much more aerodynamic than a CTS, but it did achieve excellent fuel economy.

September 26 2008 at 4:13 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

superdart

I read somewhere that is was available in 4wd & 2wd.

@ Joe C: I understand your viepoint for wanting it in a smaller car, but these vehicles show that you can put these systems in just about anything to great effect.

I highly doubt you will ever see a Charger/300 getting 65-75mpg...they are just too heavy. Maybe an Avenger or Caliber......

Also, making a Jeep that gets 40mpg is perfectly acceptable to me. I'd take a Jeep over a Prius any day.....

September 25 2008 at 11:43 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Wayne Dunham

I didn't see the really important question answered. Does the Wrangler EV come with 4wd/Awd? I need that to get in/out of my driveway in the winter.

Now if they can give me part time 4wd, 40 mile EV range, and keep it under $35k they might just have me.

September 25 2008 at 7:56 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to Wayne Dunham's comment

The current Jeep EV prototype they are showing has a single motor and rear wheel drive only. However, they are testing a 4 motor 4 wheel drive design, if the motors prove reliable enough they plan to offer that as an option. Of course, 4 motors will cost more than a single motor and differential.

September 26 2008 at 3:59 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Niralisherni

These are very exciting times for the electric industry. So many new and wonderful vehicles in the offing, obviously everyone is really serious about EVs.

September 25 2008 at 6:54 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Joe

The most interesting fact is what Lou Rhodes mentions in the first video in the 20 seconds between minute 2.00 and 2.20.
"If you go more than the 40 miles electric than with ten gallons of gas the range-extender will allow you to travel up to 400 miles without stopping (abridged)".

the math, two versions depending on interpretation:
*400 miles incl. the 40 miles electric: 400-40=360 miles. 360 miles/10 gallons of tank volume = 36mpg with gas generator running.
*400 miles exlc. the 40 miles electric: 400/10 gallons of tank volume = 40mpg with gas generator running.

36-40 mpg is quite good for a vehicle the size of the Jeep Wrangler that is currently rated at max 16/21 mpg (c/h) for the 2008 3.8 manual 2WD by EPA.

However, given that a Prius is rated 48/45 mpg (c/h) today, I want to see Chrysler putting their technology in the average 4/5-door family sedan or even better a sleek wagon family car. I don't hink making gas guzzlers more acceptable again will do. Make really fuel efficient vehicles available such as a Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum with 65/75 mpg (C/h) with gas generator running and 40 miles electric before that and I figure that a lot of people will buy one. I know cars that get that today and are much smaller (Smart anybody?) and thus less practical. Similar milage in a big-ish family car and you've got yourselves a best seller Chrysler! Oh, and where can I send my consulting bill? :-)
Still: step in the right direction and all...

September 25 2008 at 3:27 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Gordio

Canadoc:

They don't "need" it is not the same as they don't "benefit" from it. More gears can still make the car faster (taller gears i.e. 1st, 2nd gears) and give it more range (shorter gears 5th, 6th gear)

September 24 2008 at 9:35 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply