EV 914's Options

[930cabman]

Yes and I enjoy my sleep (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheer.gif)

Excuse my ignorance as I had no knowledge of the past 8 Lemans winners running EV hybrids.

New technology is great and we need it, but converting a finely tuned machine with batteries is not for me.

Being an old stubborn guy, I enjoy the simplicity of my fleet of 914's as the drivability has similarities to my first car in 1969, a '63 bug. I run carbs too

[Superhawk996]

The drive train PLUS rear battery pack and cooling is roughly the weight of a six cylinder engine and transmission according to the vid.

@bbrock

You know I can't resist a good debate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I think we are all over the map. I'm not debating that you can get 100 miles of range out of a 914 with a 26 KWh battery. That is agreed.

What I want to focus on is the falsehood that the EV conversion doesn't destroy the 914 dynamic handling character. I get people will do conversions - that's fine if they want to spend a whole lot of money to build a less capable 914 (less range than gasoline, degraded handling vs. a stock 914, and shitty range as compared to purpose designed EV).

I call (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) that the power pack unit in the video is roughly the weight of a six:

From information I can find on-line

Tesla rear motor unit: 290 lbs
26Kwh batteries (let's use the Beetle numbers) -- 280 lbs
Two cooling tanks with lets say 4 gallon of water - 32 lbs
Cradle with sufficient structure to support all the weight - 75 lbs (estimated)
Radiators -- 2 @ 4 lbs each = 8 lbs
Fans --4 @ 1 lb each = 4 lbs
Total = 689 lbs.

I'm a little unclear on where the power electronics are - are they in the front battery module or the rear? How much do they weigh (guessing about 10 lbs based on weight of Tesla SiC MOSFET inverter)? That looks like it may be the inverter DC to DC converter on the side of the rear battery pack?

Now lets talk moments of inertia

Look at this picture - that is A LOT of mass siting up at the TOP of the engine compartment. Not only the coolant but probably also the power electronics (inverter, DC/DC converter, some of the batteries, etc.) that are sitting up high in the engine compartment. This is unlike a boxer engine that puts most of that mass low in the vehicle. That is going to lead to increased propensity for the vehicle body roll as well as fore/aft pitch when braking and accelerating.



Now let's look this one



So the motor is well behind the rear axle. This is a 290 lb mass that is going to seriously degrade the handling by adding moment of inertia to the vehicle. Not only because of the mass and it's rearward placement, but also because it's running (and its gyroscopic rotation) laterially across the car. This is unlike the gas powertrain where the crankshaft, transmission gears, and differential, are centralized and rotating along the central axis of the vehicle.

Then of course we have the radiators stuck out at the farthest end. At least they are relatively light.

My main bitch with all this are the flippant remarks by those that do these conversions and gloss over them with remarks that it's about the same weight (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) The burden of proof is not on me to prove that the vehicle has been degraded. It's PHYSICS. Those doing conversions don't get a pass on physics and math just because it's an EV.


I'm not saying my mass numbers or engineering analysis are 100% correct - I'm working with what I can find on-line. However, I am tired of having to be the one to dig out the numbers while those doing the conversions just spin a fairy tale about how good the vehicle is while driving a straight line down the motorway.

If these conversions are so good, then post numbers (mass, range, moments of inertia). Moments of inertia could easily be modeled with some basic CAD work. The onus is not on me . . . they have the components, they can measure where they are packaged, they can determine with a high degree of precision what the degradation is instead of me doing napkin math. Yet they never tell you that information . . . I wonder why?

I propose the following challenge for those that want to do an experiment to see how mass and its placement degrade vehicle handling.

Go to Home Depot, buy some 50 lb bags of pea gravel. They only cost about $4 a bag. Buy 6 bags (300 lbs). This will cost you all of $30 to learn a very important lesson in Physics. Go have a field day -- move that mass around between the Frunk, the passenger compartment, and the Trunk and see how it changes the vehicle handling. Arrange the mass longitudinally vs. laterally and note the change. If by chance you can't tell the difference . . . an EV conversion won't bother you a bit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[Superhawk996]

One example, we are in need of a new truck and are eyeing the Ford F150 Lightening carefully. Why? Because we only use pickup trucks for hauling crap in the bed, and 200 miles of range is more than enough for us for that purpose.

Love the optimism. You will get no where near 200 miles of range hauling heavy cargo or towing.

Before I left the industry, I was in discussions with the major RV manufacturers. They are very concerned about their business model given the coming mandates. As in, if EV's are mandated as currently planned, the RV industry ceases to exist.

Think towing ranges of 90 miles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

https://www.motor1.com/news/590117/f150-lig...-towing-camper/
"Before Schmidt connected the trailer to the truck, the range was 85 miles (137 kilometers). After entering the measurements of the trailer onto the system, the Lightning automatically recalculated the range to 54 mi (87 km). As for efficiency, he said that he's seeing 0.8 mi/kWh when the trailer's connected – around half of the usual 1.5-1.8 mi/kWh he's getting sans the Airstream camper."

Good thing you're towing the camper with an EV truck. You'll basically be living out of the camper while you're waiting for the next charge so you can move down the road another 100 miles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

I know . . . we'll just put an electric platform under the trailer so that it can provide it's own motive power, reducing parasitic load on the EV tow vehicle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQEztxVGEbI


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) Have you ever actually used a fast charger?

Now imagine:
1) Trying to find one with enough space for a truck and the trailer
2) A situation where you can charge both the truck and the trailer simultaneously
3) Having to disconnect the trailer to charge the truck. Then move the trailer to be charged - but putting the truck elsewhere while the trailer charges.
4) Not being murdered while napping in the camper by those lined up behind you waiting for their chance to charge.

[Chris914n6]

are you guys all asleep or something.

wonkipop your dreaming. That car is the equivalent of a Top Fuel Dragster. Completely useless on the street for human needs.

[914Sixer]

WHO is training the local fire departments to handle these wonderful batteries? Oh yeah, isn't disposal on the same level as toxic waste. Are you going to put them with nuclear waste?

[bbrock]

One example, we are in need of a new truck and are eyeing the Ford F150 Lightening carefully. Why? Because we only use pickup trucks for hauling crap in the bed, and 200 miles of range is more than enough for us for that purpose.

Love the optimism. You will get no where near 200 miles of range hauling heavy cargo or towing.

Before I left the industry, I was in discussions with the major RV manufacturers. They are very concerned about their business model given the coming mandates. As in, if EV's are mandated as currently planned, the RV industry ceases to exist.

Think towing ranges of 90 miles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

https://www.motor1.com/news/590117/f150-lig...-towing-camper/
"Before Schmidt connected the trailer to the truck, the range was 85 miles (137 kilometers). After entering the measurements of the trailer onto the system, the Lightning automatically recalculated the range to 54 mi (87 km). As for efficiency, he said that he's seeing 0.8 mi/kWh when the trailer's connected – around half of the usual 1.5-1.8 mi/kWh he's getting sans the Airstream camper."

Good thing you're towing the camper with an EV truck. You'll basically be living out of the camper while you're waiting for the next charge so you can move down the road another 100 miles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

I know . . . we'll just put an electric platform under the trailer so that it can provide it's own motive power, reducing parasitic load on the EV tow vehicle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQEztxVGEbI


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) Have you ever actually used a fast charger?

Now imaging:
1) Trying to find one with enough space for a truck and the trailer
2) A situation where you can charge both the truck and the trailer simultaneously
3) Having to disconnect the trailer to charge the truck. Then move the trailer to be charged - but putting the truck elsewhere while the trailer charges.
4) Not being murdered while napping in the camper by those lined up behind you waiting for their chance to charge.

Goodness. That sure is a lot of extrapolating and speculation about my pickup use case. The farthest I've ever driven our pickup in the last 20 years is 40 miles one way. Truck is always empty on one direction. Ninety percent of loads hauled are lightweight building materials. The rest are loads of soil/gravel/etc. usually hauled only 20 miles. Trust me, 200 miles of range is PLENTY for our pickup needs even accounting for actual hauling range and I will probably never have to use a public charger. If I did, who said anything about a trailer? Did I mention a trailer? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Yes, I can read and understand what the truck can and cannot do. It fits our needs rather nicely. I get that it isn't the ticket for a lot of pickup owner's needs, but it would work well for us. BTW, another perk of this truck is that will make it easy to use power tools for projects on the "back 10" remote from the house. Can't say that about ICE.

[Superhawk996]

Goodness. That sure is a lot of extrapolating and speculation about my pickup use case. The farthest I've ever driven our pickup in the last 20 years is 40 miles one way.

@bbrock

Yeah . . . I get that it it will work for your use case to haul an occasional sheet of plywood or to haul your ICE engine to the landfill (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

I was just having fun . . . like all other EV hype, I've been severely disappointed that the OEM's won't answer the heavy cargo and/or towing range question head on and have left it to 3rd party review like the one I posted. Instead, they are hoping that the public only remembers the 200 mile number and they are pretending an EV truck is just as capable as a ICE truck. Yet, simultaneously, they are already in discussion with the RV industry about the range deficiency.

[Superhawk996]

WHO is training the local fire departments to handle these wonderful batteries?

They've been trained. . . . to let em' burn. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)



http://www.ev-institute.com/images/first_r...nder_poster.pdf

[bbrock]

Yeah . . . I get that it it will work for your use case to haul an occasional sheet of plywood or to haul your ICE engine to the landfill (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

I was just having fun . . . like all other EV hype, I've been severely disappointed that the OEM's won't answer the heavy cargo and/or towing range question head on and have left it to 3rd party review like the one I posted. Instead, they are hoping that the public only remembers the 200 mile number.

Agreed, and like I said before, we have a way to go before EVs are ready for critical mass in the overall market. I also think that a 100% phase out of ICE is highly unlikely, impractical, and unnecessary, but have little doubt that EVs will be a majority of the personal vehicle market before long without any mandates.

The EV fanboys on Youtube drive me nuts acting like spending hours on trips in dimly lit deserted back parking lots waiting for the batteries to charge is just part of the fun. It's ridiculous. I get equally annoyed by all the naysayers, like ICE is somehow perfect. Yeah, climate change and constant wars over oil is a real hoot. Not to mention that all the lead we've breathed from gasoline for nearly a century has made each of us on average 6 IQ points dumber. At least we finally fixed that one (almost) but not without a lot of complaining from many people about how horrible life would be without leaded gas.

Things are advancing rapidly though and we are on the verge of transformation. Two weeks ago I took a trip from Jackson Hole to Bozeman and was shocked at the number of Teslas I saw all along the trip. I expected to see them in Jackson which is in the richest county in the nation, but they were abundant even way out in the boonies. EV is rapidly changing technology that will continue to present challenges, but on the whole, it offers more advantages than disadvantages, and not just from a tree hugger standpoint. One of the coolest features (pun intended) is that you can leave the AC on to keep the dogs nice and comfy while parked on a hot day. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[wonkipop]

are you guys all asleep or something.

wonkipop your dreaming. That car is the equivalent of a Top Fuel Dragster. Completely useless on the street for human needs.

not a top fuel dragster at all - a t. f. d. does not go around corners.
or they didn't the last time i saw one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

the mcmurty is a circuit track car.
the design engineer is a young guy ex Williams F1/Mercedes F1
in a way - closest comparison would be the idea of the old lotus clubman?
except it is way faster in a straight line or in a corner.
i believe its designed to run flat out on a race track for around 40 minutes.
at the speeds being demonstrated at goodwood for that 40 minutes.

the fan powered downforce is the fantastic bit.
downforce without drag.
the old brabham F1 car or the chaparrel fan car? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

they stuck an additional rear downforce wing on it for goodwood to go for the record.
they had the fans going as well.
watching the vid i thought it was on the verge of dangerous.
not much to protect the crowds if it had some kind of downforce failure?

there are vids around of it starting up.
makes a sound out of the fans that is a reasonable surrogate for an ICE engine.
ie a threatening sound.

yes its expensive. very. and its very small with one seat. etc.
but as is the way its usually a car like this that is first pointing the way?
what its telling you is what a stripped out pure sports car in the electric era will really be like. -- not a fricken mobile loungeroom with no dashboard stinking of toxic glue that drives itself and occasionally decides to end it all with you on board .....tesla.

trouble is i doubt i will live long enough to be able to park my backside in a mass market version of one.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

gets me excited.
more excited than screwing around with electrifying an old beetle or a 914 and upsetting the character of an older car.

i look at that beetle for instance and all i can think is its now a front engined car.
no more swapping ends on a dirt road and having it go arse first into a ditch.
which is something i managed to do when i was about 18 years old.
scared the crap out of myself and forced me to learn to drive.
electric conversions of old cars are just cruisers? or am i wrong?

[wonkipop]

WHO is training the local fire departments to handle these wonderful batteries? Oh yeah, isn't disposal on the same level as toxic waste. Are you going to put them with nuclear waste?

yep.
germany has already banned full EVs with lithium ion batteries from most standard height multi storey car parks.
can't get the fire trucks in to douse a battery fire.

its under assessment here too.

i was involved with an apartment building that had a car stacker in the design.
the fire brigade took part in all reviews of it.
basically the car park had to be treated as a giant oven.
fully fire isolated from surrounding structure at all points.
the philosophy was let it burn and when its finished scrape it all out afterwards.
no way were they sending the firemen in to fight a fire if a battery went up in the stacker.

see that ship that burned a few months ago?

the electric motors are fine.
but it has to be said that elon musk forced everyone's hand on the batteries.
and i don't think it was a very good call.
but that may change in the decades down the track.

i deal with clients who want tesla wall batteries and car chargers incorporated into their houses. it does not even occur to them there are dangers. once the discussions around the design of the house get real serious its interesting watching them not hesitate to agree to a fire isolated garage structure for both the wall battery and the car.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[wonkipop]

another tit bit of information for ya.

i was out east in the state (thats in australia) two weeks ago for a bushfire rebuild job.
with my structural engineer mate.
we went down to the sailing club he is a member of for a few evening ales.
interesting guys hang out there.

just off shore of 90 mile beach is the big oil and gas fields that got opened up by ESSO in the 60s (thats EXXON). those fields just pump gas these days into a big pipeline that comes inshore in a couple of spots. we were drinking with a guy who is way up the food chain looking after the system.

basically the life of those fields will now be determined by the life of the offshore rigs not the field itself. the decision has already been made.

he said the rigs are already past their designed lifespan by 20 years and have been given a go ahead to be maintained as best as possible for another 10 then .......lights out.

i imagine its the same all around the world.

the oil infrastructure is slowly being turned off.
its a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure.

it got me thinking because once the pipeline gets on shore it just goes everywhere and basically connects into an entire east coast of australia gas network.

all that is going to be sacrificed at some point in the next few decades and it seems the implementation of the shut down has commenced.

the australian public it seems has not been informed of that.

the offshore rigs are still owned by EXXON.
or some sub company of them.

the australian govt. never had the $ in the first place to develop the fields in the post war years nor would it have the ability to extract further life out of the resource.

interesting times.

[930cabman]

My nephew recently sold his Tesla and went (back to) a 991. Smart kid, said the "S" was just not right for him.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

[windforfun]

another tit bit of information for ya.

i was out east in the state (thats in australia) two weeks ago for a bushfire rebuild job.
with my structural engineer mate.
we went down to the sailing club he is a member of for a few evening ales.
interesting guys hang out there.

just off shore of 90 mile beach is the big oil and gas fields that got opened up by ESSO in the 60s (thats EXXON). those fields just pump gas these days into a big pipeline that comes inshore in a couple of spots. we were drinking with a guy who is way up the food chain looking after the system.

basically the life of those fields will now be determined by the life of the offshore rigs not the field itself. the decision has already been made.

he said the rigs are already past their designed lifespan by 20 years and have been given a go ahead to be maintained as best as possible for another 10 then .......lights out.

i imagine its the same all around the world.

the oil infrastructure is slowly being turned off.
its a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure.

it got me thinking because once the pipeline gets on shore it just goes everywhere and basically connects into an entire east coast of australia gas network.

all that is going to be sacrificed at some point in the next few decades and it seems the implementation of the shut down has commenced.

the australian public it seems has not been informed of that.

the offshore rigs are still owned by EXXON.
or some sub company of them.

the australian govt. never had the $ in the first place to develop the fields in the post war years nor would it have the ability to extract further life out of the resource.

interesting times.

Hmmm... I think you should run for office. Seriously. If you do, don't forget about the SHIFT key. Best to you & yours.

[windforfun]

No quicker way to destroy a 914 than to put a (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif) ton of batteries in it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/barf.gif)

Shame so few "drivers" value handling anymore. That used to be the whole point of what these funny little European cars were about.

Try pulling 0.5g turn or perform 0.5g braking. Most of your friends and family will wet themselves like little girls thinking they past the limit and about to die. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer3.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer3.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer3.gif)

[914e]

The drive train PLUS rear battery pack and cooling is roughly the weight of a six cylinder engine and transmission according to the vid.

@bbrock

You know I can't resist a good debate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I think we are all over the map. I'm not debating that you can get 100 miles of range out of a 914 with a 26 KWh battery. That is agreed.

What I want to focus on is the falsehood that the EV conversion doesn't destroy the 914 dynamic handling character. I get people will do conversions - that's fine if they want to spend a whole lot of money to build a less capable 914 (less range than gasoline, degraded handling vs. a stock 914, and shitty range as compared to purpose designed EV).

I call (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) that the power pack unit in the video is roughly the weight of a six:

From information I can find on-line

Tesla rear motor unit: 290 lbs
26Kwh batteries (let's use the Beetle numbers) -- 280 lbs
Two cooling tanks with lets say 4 gallon of water - 32 lbs
Cradle with sufficient structure to support all the weight - 75 lbs (estimated)
Radiators -- 2 @ 4 lbs each = 8 lbs
Fans --4 @ 1 lb each = 4 lbs
Total = 689 lbs.

I'm a little unclear on where the power electronics are - are they in the front battery module or the rear? How much do they weigh (guessing about 10 lbs based on weight of Tesla SiC MOSFET inverter)? That looks like it may be the inverter DC to DC converter on the side of the rear battery pack?

Now lets talk moments of inertia

Look at this picture - that is A LOT of mass siting up at the TOP of the engine compartment. Not only the coolant but probably also the power electronics (inverter, DC/DC converter, some of the batteries, etc.) that are sitting up high in the engine compartment. This is unlike a boxer engine that puts most of that mass low in the vehicle. That is going to lead to increased propensity for the vehicle body roll as well as fore/aft pitch when braking and accelerating.



Now let's look this one



So the motor is well behind the rear axle. This is a 290 lb mass that is going to seriously degrade the handling by adding moment of inertia to the vehicle. Not only because of the mass and it's rearward placement, but also because it's running (and its gyroscopic rotation) laterially across the car. This is unlike the gas powertrain where the crankshaft, transmission gears, and differential, are centralized and rotating along the central axis of the vehicle.

Then of course we have the radiators stuck out at the farthest end. At least they are relatively light.

edited to keep this shorter

@Superhawk996

My goal is to weigh the same as a six. One thing I should point out is those conversions used a small drive unit which is roughly 198 pounds. The battery weight sounds about right. The contactors, relay, BMS and so on are in the high part of the battery box, next to the large coolant tank.

On my car I will start at the front. The front pack weighs 95 pounds, the mount, fuses, BMS around 14 pounds. So roughly the weight and location of a full full tank.

I have a 2.5 pound 12 volt battery where EGR counter was located.

The motor is a Hyper9 125 HP, 170 lbs/ft of torque it weights 120 pounds (with the inverter/controller), The transaxle dictates the motor location, the flywheel is 5.25 pounds, the pressure plate is 13 pounds, the disc is stock. I would love to find a lighter pressure plate and disc.

The two rear packs are also 95 pounds each. They are located 1-3/8" above the floor pan, the case is about 1/4" from the firewall and sit on each side of the motor. All the rear mass is a below the top of the trans axle. My engine/ battery cradle weighs 24.5 pounds, the battery cases are a total of 26.5 pounds. Two chargers at 11.5 pounds each. One at the original battery location one at the relay box location. 23 pounds of copper cabling and 15 pounds of contactors, fuses, relays, and DC to DC convertor.

So I'm a around 428 pounds at the location that from what I can find is around 350 pounds for a four and 450 pounds for a six. I believe the mass is a little lower and closer to the center than a six. From what I have found of people weighing complete engine and ancillary parts that seems to be close.I never had an engine to weigh so I have to go off what documentation I can find.

[TonyH]

Whether you like 'em or not....they are definitely a wave of the future.
Not sure what I think about the whole idea myself.

Still have the rear luggage boot which is nice.

It's pretty slick the bolt in rear cradle that holds some of the batteries, Tesla motor, cooling, etc.

The "custom" look is pretty bad as to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJTNsH-SIqk

I have a dread of running out of charge with an electric car. The idea of chopping a classic car does not appeal to me one bit. But, that is one neat reversible conversion. If it had a decent range, meaning you could actually drive somewhere, it might be a winner.

A bit like airships, nice idea but are they practical?

[wonkipop]

another tit bit of information for ya.

i was out east in the state (thats in australia) two weeks ago for a bushfire rebuild job.
with my structural engineer mate.
we went down to the sailing club he is a member of for a few evening ales.
interesting guys hang out there.

just off shore of 90 mile beach is the big oil and gas fields that got opened up by ESSO in the 60s (thats EXXON). those fields just pump gas these days into a big pipeline that comes inshore in a couple of spots. we were drinking with a guy who is way up the food chain looking after the system.

basically the life of those fields will now be determined by the life of the offshore rigs not the field itself. the decision has already been made.

he said the rigs are already past their designed lifespan by 20 years and have been given a go ahead to be maintained as best as possible for another 10 then .......lights out.

i imagine its the same all around the world.

the oil infrastructure is slowly being turned off.
its a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure.

it got me thinking because once the pipeline gets on shore it just goes everywhere and basically connects into an entire east coast of australia gas network.

all that is going to be sacrificed at some point in the next few decades and it seems the implementation of the shut down has commenced.

the australian public it seems has not been informed of that.

the offshore rigs are still owned by EXXON.
or some sub company of them.

the australian govt. never had the $ in the first place to develop the fields in the post war years nor would it have the ability to extract further life out of the resource.

interesting times.

Hmmm... I think you should run for office. Seriously. If you do, don't forget about the SHIFT key. Best to you & yours.

yeah no worries. i'm not really into reforming, just resignation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

i just saw that the little electric car did smash the hill climb record at goodwood.
most people at goodwood were reported to have grins from ear to ear watching it do it.

it is the future.....whether we like it or not.
just saying.

i'm pretty sure that politicians down here will find a way to ban it before anything like it could ever get near a public road. so not much point wasting time trying to alter the inevitable. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Superhawk996]

My goal is to weigh the same as a six.

I think that is an admirable goal. Just be aware (which it seems you are) that weight isn't the only thing. It also matters where the weight is located and how it is oriented.

One thing I should point out is those conversions used a small drive unit which is roughly 198 pounds.

@914e

Whats 90 lbs among friends. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grouphug.gif)

So we'll call the total 600 lbs for that rear module. Way to heavy and the fact is that motor is still behind the axle and is a serious degradation as far as driving dynamics are concerned. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

In all honesty, I'm intrigued by your conversion proposal. You get extra points in my book by retaining a transmission and a clutch pedal as an anti-theft device.

It sounds like you are at least trying to minimize the handling degradation and have a decent chance of achieving something close based on what you've laid out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/first.gif) A big chunk of your success will depend where that front mass goes. If you can get it inside the fuel tank compartment, that is a huge success to keep mass centralized. As it continues to move forward from the OEM location, you'll be adding to moment of inertia even though the weight might be close to a full fuel tank. Location of the front weight matters a lot.

Do you have a build thread? If not, please start one and let's see how it shapes up.

[GeorgeKopf]

WHO is training the local fire departments to handle these wonderful batteries? Oh yeah, isn't disposal on the same level as toxic waste. Are you going to put them with nuclear waste?

It is very simple. If the batteries start to burn, just shoot the car into space.