# Envia Battery Breakthrough Could Mean 200-Mile Electric Car



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

GM-backed Envia Systems has developed battery that will take car at least 100 miles and 50-50 chance of doing 200 miles on a single charge, which will be a 'game changer' according to GM CEO Dan Akerson.

More...


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I would love to have a car that could go 100 miles, then flip a quarter and if you win you can make it back home. Should be a great selling point for GM...maybe in Vegas.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I would love to have a car that could go 100 miles, then flip a quarter and if you win you can make it back home. Should be a great selling point for GM...maybe in Vegas.


LOL, thats not what they meant. 

The US military actually tested production samples from Envia and confirmed 400 wh/kg.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I know what they meant, they meant Mo Money Mo range!!! If you're not far enough in development to know what the result will be you should keep your mouth shut, or talk about what you know you can make. 

Also, I'm really tired of hearing these guys measure chemistry technology in miles. You don't make a 200 mile battery, you make a battery of XX wH/kg and when someone sticks YYY lbs of your battery in a car that uses ZZZ wH/m you get a 200 mile range.

The difference between a 100 mile range and a 200 mile range is stuffing in 2x the cells, not flipping a quarter at the R&D plant.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Forgive my pessimism but with GM involved it is very likely we will not have access to these batteries. Remember who they sold their last battery company to.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If we'd want em anyway. I'd expect GM to want the batteries to have high density with a nice disposable cycle life.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Honestly, its just a poorly written article. The recent article about Envia in Charged EV mag was much better.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

Dunno. GM spent a billion on making electric cars for a market that didn't want them, under orders from the Gobermint. Then the government bent them over when Toyota started crying/bribing. The EV1 is still one of the quicker production EV's.

GM makes a 505HP 3200lb car that gets 27mpg with a 1950's V8 small block. They aren't too dumb from an engineering perspective. The Volt is a solution to the range problem using off-the-shelf tech that apparently nobody else was smart enough to figure out. Not Toyota, Not Honda, Not Mercedes.

The government spent so much time using the US auto industry as a scapegoat, that it's stunning that they were surprised when they drove them away.

Our government hates Americans. Or at least hates success. Britain got that way for awhile and it nearly buried them.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

McRat said:


> Dunno. GM spent a billion on making electric cars for a market that didn't want them, under orders from the Gobermint. Then the government bent them over when Toyota started crying/bribing. The EV1 is still one of the quicker production EV's.
> 
> GM makes a 505HP 3200lb car that gets 27mpg with a 1950's V8 small block. They aren't too dumb from an engineering perspective. The Volt is a solution to the range problem using off-the-shelf tech that apparently nobody else was smart enough to figure out. Not Toyota, Not Honda, Not Mercedes.
> 
> ...


What

10char


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

McRat said:


> GM makes a 505HP 3200lb car that gets 27mpg with a 1950's V8 small block. They aren't too dumb from an engineering perspective. The Volt is a solution to the range problem using off-the-shelf tech that apparently nobody else was smart enough to figure out. Not Toyota, Not Honda, Not Mercedes.


Plug-in prius was around long before the Volt. They were just slow to sell it (especially here) because they claimed it wasn't marketable. Personally, I wouldn't want either. I'd be quite happy with a Prius C and a home-built EV (Or an OEM one with 30 mile range for under $15k). Get two cars for the price of a Volt that out perform it in every category.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

The biggest problem with OEM's is that they don't want to make a reliable simple electric car; because they have a vested interest in having every car back at the dealer to be repaired/serviced for as long as possible. They seem to do everything they can to make cars difficult/impossible to work on yourself or convert. It seems like if Joe Schmoe can build an electric car in their garage with 100 miles range and reasonable performance for 20-30k in off the shelf parts and a roller plus some sweat equity, one of the automakers should be able to do the same thing for half the cost if they actually wanted to.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Plug-in prius was around long before the Volt. They were just slow to sell it (especially here) because they claimed it wasn't marketable. Personally, I wouldn't want either. I'd be quite happy with a Prius C and a home-built EV (Or an OEM one with 30 mile range for under $15k). Get two cars for the price of a Volt that out perform it in every category.


The Prius was still a hybrid concept car (not plugin) when folk were driving around in pure electric EV-1's.

Toyota cried that could not produce a pure electric (cried = bribed) with the day's technology so the gobermint sided with them instead of GM, even though GM proved it can be done. Kinda like the pickup gas tank thing. Lawyers/politicians are much better at engineering than any American engineer according to the courts.

So the Prius was given the blessing and the subsidies, and GM took it in the arse. They are evil, and the Japanese are not. Keep in mind the US tried to take over the world and the Japanese did not. Or do I have that backwards?

If the sides were reversed, imagine the US dominating the electric vehicle market like they did 100 years ago. But sadly, we will give it to other countries for a handful political contributions. We just invent things. It's up to foreign countries to profit from it.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

jeremyjs said:


> The biggest problem with OEM's is that they don't want to make a reliable simple electric car; because they have a vested interest in having every car back at the dealer to be repaired/serviced for as long as possible. They seem to do everything they can to make cars difficult/impossible to work on yourself or convert. It seems like if Joe Schmoe can build an electric car in their garage with 100 miles range and reasonable performance for 20-30k in off the shelf parts and a roller plus some sweat equity, one of the automakers should be able to do the same thing for half the cost if they actually wanted to.


Joe Schmoe could not afford the million dollars worth testing dictated by the government for each model car. He could not even develop cheap tire pressure sensors which are a legal requirement now (along with several hundred other mandates).

You really need to completely take apart a modern car to appreciate what our government has done to the auto industry. You could not make the mandated equipment for what any new car costs retail.

How's your crumple zones, air bags, door bars, rollcage structure, padded interior, and self diagnostics doing?

And yes, I've taken late model cars down to the frame.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

McRat said:


> Joe Schmoe could not afford the million dollars worth testing dictated by the government for each model car. He could not even develop cheap tire pressure sensors which are a legal requirement now (along with several hundred other mandates).
> 
> You really need to completely take apart a modern car to appreciate what our government has done to the auto industry. You could not make the mandated equipment for what any new car costs retail.
> 
> ...


True enough. The fed needs to get back to what their mandate is and quit fiddling with everything/screwing it up.


----------



## Mark C (Jun 25, 2010)

jeremyjs said:


> The biggest problem with OEM's is that they don't want to make a reliable simple electric car.......
> 
> It seems like if Joe Schmoe can build an electric car in their garage with 100 miles range and reasonable performance for 20-30k in off the shelf parts and a roller plus some sweat equity, one of the automakers should be able to do the same thing for half the cost if they actually wanted to.


I keep looking at conversions on EV album, to include some from participants on this forum. I do not intend this as insulting in any way, but Joe Schmoe's track record for making a 100 mile range conversion is not very good {likely a funding problem}. I've worked the numbers up several times and I can't see how to convert a vehicle using new components that has a greater range than the current new offerings from Mitsubishi, Nissan and Wheego. 

That said, I am planning to buy someones conversion that they have grown tired of and make a few upgrades and have a nice local car to drive.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If I could afford a Leaf I could easily make a 100 mile car...a real 100 mile car.

But I can't, so I don't, and even if I could, I probably won't. The most I could use within reason is 25.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Mark C said:


> I keep looking at conversions on EV album, to include some from participants on this forum. I do not intend this as insulting in any way, but Joe Schmoe's track record for making a 100 mile range conversion is not very good {likely a funding problem}. I've worked the numbers up several times and I can't see how to convert a vehicle using new components that has a greater range than the current new offerings from Mitsubishi, Nissan and Wheego.
> 
> That said, I am planning to buy someones conversion that they have grown tired of and make a few upgrades and have a nice local car to drive.


Actually it is not hard to do but you do have to be able to afford the batteries. A solid 45kwh pack will do in a light weight vehicle and you will be able to do a healthy drive at freeway speeds. 55/65 mph. Do you really need more than like 70 miles at 55mph? Then a good 24 kwh pack will do in a light weight glider. Larger pack in a heavier vehicle. My Leaf is not a light weight and has a good 24 kWh pack. It could and should be like 34 kWh in size. Beyond that it is not really needed as I rarely ever drive more than 50 miles per day anyway. But I do like to do so at 60 mph. I can. I'd like a bit more. My next electric after my Bug will be a long distance runner. I am hunting for cells so I can go at minimum 200 miles at 55 mph. I won't drive much faster than that in the other EV. I was thinking of doing a Fiat 500. A new one. Should do well with an AC55 and the new controller and a healthy 200AH cell pack. May not get more than 100 miles but it will be fine for that little thing. 

My Bug should do a cool 45/50 miles at 55 mph. Hoping anyway as long as I stay off the hotrod throttle.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Now if you expect to do a 100 mile range on lead acid then you are sadly mistaken. Some will say it has been done but they won't tell you it is at 35 mph and no stops and slightly downhill with a tail wind.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Some will fail to say that they charged again half way. Oooops.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

McRat said:


> The Prius was still a hybrid concept car (not plugin) when folk were driving around in pure electric EV-1's.
> 
> Toyota cried that could not produce a pure electric (cried = bribed) with the day's technology so the gobermint sided with them instead of GM, even though GM proved it can be done.


Eh? Toyota built the all electric RAV4EV, many of which are still on the road today, after GM crushed the EV1. GM then sold off their battery technology to an oil company, which sued Toyota and Panasonic, preventing them from selling their EV format NiMH batteries in the US, effectively killing EV development for 10 years. So Toyota went the hybrid route, while GM built gas guzzling SUV's. There is plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Eh? Toyota built the all electric RAV4EV, many of which are still on the road today, after GM crushed the EV1. GM then sold off their battery technology to an oil company, which sued Toyota and Panasonic, preventing them from selling their EV format NiMH batteries in the US, effectively killing EV development for 10 years. So Toyota went the hybrid route, while GM built gas guzzling SUV's. There is plenty of blame to go around.


So you are saying the millions GM spent on developing a lightweight battery for cars should have been given to Toyota? Even though they did not bid on it?

Remember that Toyota could not figure out how to get their emissions down on their performance cars. When GM figured it out, they saw no need to copyright the ECM code (take a look), and shortly there after, Toyota was using a similar closed loop "learning" ECM. Coincidence? Perhaps. 

In the end, nobody wanted an EV1 for what the technology cost. So it wasn't necessarily Toyovernment that killed the EV-1 as it was the consumer.

We wanted cars that could carry heavy loads of passengers in comfort. You might notice that all companies make SUV's, not just GM. Why? That's what the people want to drive. Personally, I would have to wear a paper bag on my head to drive an SUV. I put over 200,000 miles on a Chevy Sprint when all this was happening, and have over 300,000 miles on motorcycles. 

Now I run diesel. It is the most effective motor fuel to date, and can be made at a fraction of the cost of ethanol, and has lower CO2 emissions per HP/hour. Now I'm going to experiment with home built EV technology, hybrid or otherwise.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm saying that Toyota/Panasonic had developed their own version of a large format NiMH cell, which may have been better than the Ovonic NiMH that GM was using and subsequently off to Chevron. GM was not using the technology, nor was Chevron, but they sued to stop Toyota/Panasonic from using it. Somehow in your world where Toyota has the government in their pocket they couldn't get this ruling over turned. 
You first claimed that Toyota got the US government to kill the EV, then you claim it was the customer. In truth it was probably a combination of the automotive lobby, including GM, that got the CARB mandates revoked and killed the EV program. People never really got a chance to buy many EV's during that time since production numbers were low, they were only offered in a few states, and mostly only offered for lease, not purchase. Hard to say there was no market for a product that wasn't for sale.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

What the consumers want, the consumers get, if the government does not step in.

The lease-only program was because it was the most high tech car produced at time, and was only Gen I. If you looked at it under the bodywork, the suspension was developed by Hughes Aircraft. The K-member was $8000 and did many different functions. This was the SR-71 of cars.

I would venture a guess that the EV-1 had more aerospace components and technology than automotive.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Could be, but Honda also had an EV, not for sale, as did Toyota, (until consumers demanded they sell it and not crush it the way GM did). Toyota proved that you did not have to go over the top with aerospace components to create a viable EV. 
The truth is there were a lot of consumers who wanted EV's and could not get them, until the government stepped in and mandated it. Then the auto lobby, and oil lobby, revoked the government mandates and the EV's, that many people still wanted, went away.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

McRat said:


> We wanted cars that could carry heavy loads of passengers in comfort. You might notice that all companies make SUV's, not just GM. Why? That's what the people want to drive.


 People want to carry heavy loads so they buy suv's and big trucks and then drive around all by theirselves?The majority of the buying public does not know what they want until the advertisers tell them. 
As for GM backing a battery company I am still leery of their track record when it comes to dealing with the American public. Like I said before remember who they sold their last battery company to. The way I remember it was California set a mandate that 10% of the vehicles sold in California by 2010 had to be electric or emissions free. Gm set up a team to build an electric car that GM did not necessarily want as illustrated in the weird and lackluster advertisements. In the meantime as I see it the ev1 team got really enthused and built a really good electric car for the time. The leasers of the car liked it with the lead batteries and even more with the nickel batteries. It was GM Ford and Chrysler that sued California and got the mandate struck down arguing an electric car was unfeasible. This is conjecture but GM then though wait a minute how can we say an electric car will not work when we have a perfectly good example of one that does work running around? So they destroyed the evidence by crushing ev1 to the dismay of the people that drove and loved them and sold the NIMH battery to an oil company that stifled its development.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> LOL, thats not what they meant.
> 
> The US military actually tested production samples from Envia and confirmed 400 wh/kg.


According to the Envia website, the cost is $125/kwh which is also promising. $12,500 for a 720 cell 100kwh battery that weighs 500Lbs. The power density is never mentioned, however, and no tests were done at discharge rates above C/3 -- 15A from a 46aH cell is not EV relevant. Even if we can afford a 100kwh battery, we still want a max discharge rate of at least 3C -- 150A from that 46aH cell -- so we have 300kw acceleration on tap for at least 10 secs. We don't want a Tesla to embarrass us, right ?

BTW, it describes Envia as a Concord, CA company but cell development and production is in China.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Most vehicles would be embarrassed by a Tesla, I can live with that to get a longer range less expensive pack.


----------

