# 1976 Fiat Spider 124 EV Conversion



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Donner Car: 1976 Fiat Spider 124. Objective: Get my feet wet in the EV world and give me something to occupy some of my time in retirement. Challenges: Limited space, one spot in a three car garage in new house covered by a strict HOA. Advantages: Significant experience with large DIY projects. Built two vacation homes, built and flown experimental aircraft, car restoration, motorhome conversion and many other electrical mechanical systems. Background: Retire Lockheed System Engineer with AS and BS EE degrees. Age: 73. Location: Windsor Colorado

I want to build a low cost EV that is simple and performs similar to that of the 124 with the ICE. Range about 30 miles and used on relatively flat city streets with occasionally highway driving. Present design is 48 VDC Series Shunt Forklift motor of about 15 HP through the original 5 speed transmission and driven from a PWM controller from a 72 VDC LiFePo4 battery pack. No drive hardware obtained yet, still open to different technology. I intend to include significant instrumentation to monitor and document performance.

Additional information in "New Member" thread.

I intend to update this thread as I progress along with the project. Provide details on the design and lessons learned. I encourage input from the forum especially on simpler low cost approaches. 

View attachment 133420

Striped down waiting for initial drive train.


----------



## floydr (Jun 21, 2021)

Larrybia said:


> Present design is 48 VDC Series Shunt Forklift motor of about 15 HP through the original 5 speed transmission and driven from a PWM controller from a 72 VDC LiFePo4 battery pack.


So ~22HP @72V nominal? 

the attachment returns :
Oops! We ran into some problems.
The requested page could not be found.
later floyd


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Looking at kits from electro motor sports. Trying to go inexpensive but get reasonable performance. Either DC Brushed as in the ME1008 or PMSM as in the ME1507 or ME1302. Comparing electric motor torque curves against the Fiat 124 ICE torque curve indicates to me that the ME1302 may not cut it where the ME1507 and ME1008 might be OK. The only issue I found in the forum was against the ME1008. The comment was that the ME1008 would not last long in a car. Initial recommendation from one member was that the ME1302 would be ok. I expect the final weight of the car would be near 2400 lbs. I am looking for comparable performance as with the ICE. Range near >15 miles initially. Anyone have a comment or recommendation.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

15 will get you 10 in Colorado...
😂


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

DC forklift motor - 15 hp so probably an 11 inch motor

I would suggest simply using the motor in place of the gearbox - which will leave the engine bay for batteries

You will need to increase the voltage - you need about 150 volts for street use
You will need about 500 amps to give useful torque

DC forklift motors are old obsolete technology - but they are cheap and powerful

IMHO the sensible options are the old DC forklift - OR - the power unit from a modern EV

The "new kits" are both very expensive and gutless

Motor Voltages
My motor (Hitachi) is badged at 48 volt - but I'm feeding it 340 volt 
That is a bit extreme but 150 volts will be no problem


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

Dc brushed is kinda 1940 technology anymore unless you want to build your own pwm controller. Ten years ago, it was all you had for parts......or you had no money.......new automotive motors are multiphase, more efficient, and do regen. Jury is out on the ME series of motors, there's better available now. Someone indicated the hyper9 was induction, I don't know.

Might want to see if you can work on your car, some HOA's say "nope".

Having built your own plane means you understand the labor of love your undertaking.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

HOA saids OK as long it is in the garage. Partial to a DC motor because it is cheep and I can use just a cheep basic controller initially. I want to get things going to get hands on experience with a 8 -12v 100 ahr battery pack (72v). If things work I would switch to LiFe and 96V to get extended range, higher speed with the about the same weight. I got the lead acid batteries from a solar project I was working on in CA. By the way I intend to use the batteries in the car as house backup. Charge from the sun, charge from the line, drive the car. If there is a power outage use the car batteries to power the house through an AC inverter. More bang for my buck. Piotrsko do your comments on DC motors still apply to a permanent magnet motor like ME1008? Has any one on the forum heard any good or bad thing about the ME1008, especially powering a 2400 lb car?


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Make sure you can get that "cheap" DC controller - a lot of people can't get the components to build your components, and, because they cannot, what was "cheap" no longer is. Same story for motors, as has been stated in another thread where they can't get a bearing to produce a motor.

The world made a mistake relying on Chinese manufacturing - and when it got buyer's remorse, the Chinese made sure the world could not get the pieces needed to repatriate manufacturing. There are no parts shortages for BYD and others making EVs in China...Musk is now talking about importing Shanghai-made Teslas to the US, so time to whack them with a 30% tariff.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

piotrsko said:


> Someone indicated the hyper9 was induction, I don't know.


No, the HyPer 9 - which is a Dana TM4 SRI 200 house-branded for NetGain - is an interior permanent magnet motor. That "someone" may have confused it with the HPEVS series of motors, which are all of the induction type.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Larrybia said:


> Piotrsko do your comments on DC motors still apply to a permanent magnet motor like ME1008?


Whether a DC motor has field windings in series with the armature ("series"), or field windings in parallel with the armature ("shunt"), or field and armature separately controlled ("SepEx"), or no field windings at all because it has permanent magnets instead, the motor still depends on brushes and a commutator to operate the armature; the characteristics do change (including the ability to regen with a suitable controller), but whether they are suitable for a given application or not depends very much on individual motor choice.

The ME1008 (and ME1007) seems like a strange design to me: it is apparently totally enclosed, so it isn't cooled by air passing through it, but it has no other cooling provisions (external fins and fan, liquid cooling, etc).


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Sounds bad. Will we have to regress back to the 20s and use carbon piles, high current knife switching and lead acid batteries. Our power infrastructure is not going to take that type of inefficiency, Ha Ha. Yea, lets stop hydro carbon drilling. 

Well, I am still looking for a motor.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Last post comment back to Remy.


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

Talking to a commercial water well servicer: there are cheap used (pulled working but scrap value), multi phase ( he hinted at variable speed ?) AC controllers for water wells up to 100hp, but the down side is they are generally 408 volts 3ph. He thought there might be DC capable controllers. Did not verify this claim. Worst case is you can use the power silicon and the control scheme. 

Over in the for sale section here there's usually a couple of controllers for sale, but buyer beware, Singapore merchants on the internet have proven to be more honest and forthright. Might be worth it to aquire the controller and let that dictate the powertrain


----------



## floydr (Jun 21, 2021)

Larrybia said:


> Trying to go inexpensive but get reasonable performance. Either DC Brushed as in the ME1008


You might check out this post dual ME 1003? motor set up for an idea of what can be done if your are inclined, Note in the article on the Miata conversion the motors are identified as ME1007's But the motors are vented which would be a ME1003? Unless the brush covers were changed.
Later floyd


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

floydr said:


> You might check out this post dual ME 1003? motor set up for an idea of what can be done if your are inclined, Note in the article on the Miata conversion the motors are identified as ME1007's But the motors are vented which would be a ME1003? Unless the brush covers were changed.


ME1007's would also be 48 V motors, but this is a 72 V car...

Among the Motenergy brushed DC PM motors

vented: ME0708, ME0709, ME0909, ME1002, ME1003, ME1004
enclosed: ME1007, ME1008, ME1513, ME1514


36 V: ME0909
48 V: ME0708, ME1004, ME1007
72 V: ME0709, ME1003, ME1008, ME1513, ME1514


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Seriously considering the ME1507/ME1905. It is a 96 volt system. Talk to Electro Motor Sport and they recommended that system. Attached picture of the Spider motor bay. Transmission is supported by itself and there is plenty of room for the motorwith good support. The interface plate is not in place. I am waiting until I know what motor I will use before I cut the plate.






Should be a clean installation with plenty of room for batteries.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Larrybia said:


> Seriously considering the ME1507/ME1905. It is a 96 volt system. Talk to Electro Motor Sport and they recommended that system.


The ME1507 and ME1905 were not in my earlier list of Motenergy models, because they're not the brushed PM type that was being discussed. The ME1507 is an enclosed (to IP65 standard) air-cooled brushless radial-flux PM motor; that seems inherently preferable to any brushed motor to me, for similar size and other ratings.

Motenergy doesn't even list the ME1905 on their web site, so it's not clear what the difference might be.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Per Electro Motor Sport sales it was just a part number change.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Coming along with the car conversion. Built the motor to trans interface and testing with a small 24V 3 HP peak motor running on 36 volts with a Curtis 275 amp controller. Looks like the interface performs well, but only time on the road will tell. 
I am gong to mount into the car just for the fun of it to see what the motor can do. 10 mph in first? Will measure the amps dawned. Probably get a 72 V PM motor from Electrosport, ME1908 with 19Hp peak at 72 volts. Thinking about lead acid batteries with a total 7.2 Kw AH pack. Hope with this arrangement I can get 10 miles level ground with 50% discharge. Into the project $2300 including donor car. Expect another $2500- $3500 for batteries, motor and controller. If this setup works out and I like the car I may spring for an AC motor system from Electrosport in the future. My primary purpose right now is to hands on learn about EV systems and have fun building. I am working on full instrumentation for this setup. Fun to plot the data and evaluate the results.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Lead acid is heavy, low energy storage, and expensive. 

Why?


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

initial cost cheap, quickly available and can use later on other projects. If I go with a AC system probably go with Lithium Iron cells. But that decision is further out.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Big mistake.

It's not cheaper than a Leaf battery.

It weighs A LOT.

AC system has nothing to do with the battery choice...all batteries are *DC*


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

I will check out the Leaf battery. Are you talking about a new or used leaf battery? Right now for my testing and learning phase I was just going to get $1,200 of lead acid batteries. Use them later to replace batteries that go bad in other cars because of the Colorado cold. Also, I am spreading out my costs over time. Yes, I know all batteries are DC, but I did not want to invest in a larger battery that would give me more range until I go to the AC system. What do you think of the Jaw coupling to the transmission? I went with it because of possible misalignment between the motor and transmission. For testing purposes I expect to do less than 100 miles. In that distance I should be able to evaluate ware.


----------



## Functional Artist (Aug 8, 2016)

Just an FYI:
In Lead Acid batteries there are (2) main types
...& they are designed for (2) very different uses

Starter batteries are used to "start" car engines (for short bursts)
...& Deep Cycle batteries are used to "power" electric motors (for long term/continuous use)

So, Starter batteries are not very "good" for long term power draws 
...& Deep Cycle batteries are not usually very "good" for starting car engines 

As another example, of available OEM Lithium battery packs, complete (used) 360V Chevy Volt Lithium battery packs are usually available for ~$2,000.00 on car-part.com
...& will "power" most DIYEV's very well


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Plan on zero misalignment between the two. Things you can't control, like temperature changes is why the coupler is there...not to enable a sloppy build. Jaw couplers suck, imo, but that's imo.

Check in with @windraver - he may have a set you can get. You won't pay much more, if any, than lead acid, you'll get more range, and a lot less weight which is a huge problem in any build.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Thanks for the info. Still learning and have not made any critical decisions yet. Yes deep cycle would be better and I could use them latter in my RV.


----------



## Functional Artist (Aug 8, 2016)

Larrybia said:


> Still learning


Me too  

As for Lead vs Lithium in an EV

When I first converted my ElMoto (electric motorcycle), I used (4) 12V 35AH Lead Acid batteries (~140lbs.)
...& my range was only ~9 miles

Then, when I upgraded to a 48V 50AH Chevy Volt Lithium module (~50lbs.)
...my bike seemed "more nimble" from the (~90lbs.) weight loss
...& my range increased up to ~25 miles


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Larrybia said:


> What do you think of the Jaw coupling to the transmission? I went with it because of possible misalignment between the motor and transmission.


The "Jaw coupling" ( Lovejoy type coupling?) needs both shafts it connects rigidly supported by bearings. The input shaft of the typical, common transmission, as it looks like the 124 has, is not well supported inside the transmission. You may have noticed it has a lot of side to side play. Typically, with an ICE, a carefully located pilot bearing is used at the end of the input shaft to align and support it. This pilot bearing is located in the end of the crankshaft or in the center of the flywheel.

The input shaft center line needs to be located within 0.005"(according to most manufacturers) from the transmission center line to prevent damage to the gears and bearings inside the transmission from misalignment. A Lovejoy type coupling will not support the input shaft and align it with this kind of accuracy. If you use one, be prepared to have to replace this expensive and rare transmission after a short period of time, as others have found with similar types of transmissions with poor input shaft support and misalignment issues.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

So the Jaw coupling will not work for the long run. I was wondering why the need for the pilot bearing. It was always a pain to get the transmission slid into the flywheel even with a clutch disk centering tool. There are other 124s that have been electrified. How did they connect the motor to the transmission? The electric motor should have a front bearing. Will it support the side/up/down play of the input shaft of the transmission? I guess I need to get a ridged coupling and get as precise alignment as I can get. I will have to do a lot more research on this. This is why I have not spent big bucks yet on batteries and a motor system. Maybe the 124 is not a good candidate for my effort. Is there some way of telling that your misaligned? Noise or vibration? If so than maybe some careful left/right/up/down adjustment to tweak the alignment. Than match drill in place. The mechanical aspect is not as simple as I though. Well I will continue with the small motor and electrical setup I have for now with the Jaw coupling. Lots to think about.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

One of the best options is to get a commercial adapter plate and coupling such as those made by can EV(possibly others) and supplied by their retailers: -- Vehicle Adapter Plates - - Motor Mounts / Adapters - MOTORS - EV PARTS . Although, I don't see one for a Fiat listed. An option would be to switch to a transmission from a more common vehicle (Toyota, Nissan, Ford, GM,etc.) that has an adapter plate and coupling available.

It looks like this Fiat transmission has a separate bell housing that has a machined circular hole where it aligns with the main body of the transmission. If so, this hole could be used with a dial indicator to align the electric motor output shaft on a fabricated adapter plate. This process is similar to how an ICE is set up: How To Align Your Bellhousing For Maximum Transmission And Clutch Life Unfortunately, most modern transmissions don't have a separate bell housing with this alignment option.

Rather than relying on the varying tolerances of regular bolts for repeatable alignment of the adapter plate on the bell housing, reamed holes with close fitting dowels should be used- just like the OEMs and the commercial adapter plates above use. 

The coupling should have some provision for a pilot bearing or bushing to support and align the end of the input shaft.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

The jaw coupling will not work in the short run either. Wrong application.

You need a coupler and motor mount that's designed to be aligned as a system, ideally with that pilot bearing centered on the motor shaft. 

There will be machining needed -- you are not going to pull a solution out of your HobbyKing catalog. Ditch the RC-car engineering.

Don't know what you mean by "rigid coupler".


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Throw the gearbox over a hedge - its not needed - your problem with a low voltage system will be rpms - not torque
and a gearbox operates by gearing the motor down

When I was starting out I planned on using a Ford gearbox - but some quick calculation showed that I simply would not need the gearing
In "top gear" even with a small controller I was getting close to the "spin the tyres" torque

Without the gearbox you simply need to attach the propshaft to the motor - and with the motor where the gearbox used to live you will have lots of unobstructed space under the bonnet for batteries


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Not with the motor he's planned to use.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

I appreciate all the input. All the comments give me plenty of options to investigate. At this point all I really have is a donor car and can go anywhere from here. Like I said I got a lot of research and thinking of how to go from here. Yes, I see the bell housing is separate. Also, based on all the input the motor is decision is not up in the air. My term "Rigid Coupler" refers to a coupler that is one piece connecting the motor to the transition. Maybe I am using the wrong term? Back to the drawing board.


----------



## 428RC (12 mo ago)

I spent about 6 months designing the main systems on paper, and still I should have done a little more research on batteries before I bought. I have a good solution, but I could have done better.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Larrybia said:


> There are other 124s that have been electrified. How did they connect the motor to the transmission?


They likely did what many conversions have done: they rigidly mount the motor to the transmission, and do not use any flexible couplings.



Larrybia said:


> The electric motor should have a front bearing. Will it support the side/up/down play of the input shaft of the transmission?


Yes, it is common to mount a flywheel and clutch assembly on a motor with no support of the shaft other than the motor's own bearings, and to pilot the transmission shaft in that assembly. Don't assume that this will work with every motor, but it typically works with motors based on industrial designs (including old forklift trucks) with protruding plain shafts.



Larrybia said:


> I guess I need to get a ridged coupling and get as precise alignment as I can get.


Yes, that's the general best practice. The coupling can have rotational compliance (like the spring centre of a clutch disk), and may slide axially (depending on design details) but not radial compliance.



Larrybia said:


> Maybe the 124 is not a good candidate for my effort.


There's nothing unusual or especially difficult about the 124 as far as connecting a motor to the transmission is concerned.



Larrybia said:


> The mechanical aspect is not as simple as I though.


That's a common situation: people with electrical experience don't realize that the mechanical parts are not trivial; people with mechanical experience don't realize that the electrical parts are not trivial. Software people don't understand high-power and high-voltage electrical issues, while electrical or electronic hardware people don't appreciate the complexity of software systems. Even when working in their own fields, people don't anticipate that their own experience might not completely cover new applications.



Larrybia said:


> Well I will continue with the small motor and electrical setup I have for now with the Jaw coupling.


I don't think that's advisable.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> The "Jaw coupling" ( Lovejoy type coupling?) needs both shafts it connects rigidly supported by bearings. The input shaft of the typical, common transmission, as it looks like the 124 has, is not well supported inside the transmission. You may have noticed it has a lot of side to side play. Typically, with an ICE, a carefully located pilot bearing is used at the end of the input shaft to align and support it. This pilot bearing is located in the end of the crankshaft or in the center of the flywheel.


More specifically, the input shaft is very well supported by a bearing right beside the only gear on the shaft... but there is only that one bearing, so nothing in the transmission really keeps it in line. The pilot bearing at the tip of the shaft doesn't take much force (because it is so far from the gear), but it is critical for alignment. When the clutch is engage the pilot bearing doesn't even turn, because the input shaft turns with the engine or motor that is driving it - the engine or motor is providing the bearing function. Because it turns so little, the pilot bearing is sometimes just a plain bushing (but I wouldn't suggest doing that).


----------



## Functional Artist (Aug 8, 2016)

brian_ said:


> *That's a common situation: people with electrical experience don't realize that the mechanical parts are not trivial; people with mechanical experience don't realize that the electrical parts are not trivial. Software people don't understand high-power and high-voltage electrical issues, while electrical or electronic hardware people don't appreciate the complexity of software systems. Even when working in their own fields, people don't anticipate that their own experience might not completely cover new applications.*


Very important (I even emboldened it) 
...& well said


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

^^ With no clutch present, the pilot for the input shaft can be a slip fit hole in the coupler design...the coupler, motor shaft, and trans input shaft never rotate relative to each other.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I sometimes lose track of which project is using which configuration. It is certainly true that without a clutch, the pilot location feature only needs a slip fit, not a bearing; it is a like a setup with a clutch in which the clutch is never released.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

brian_ said:


> the input shaft is very well supported by a bearing right beside the only gear on the shaft...


Yes, _one_ _end_ of the input shaft is well supported by probably a regular single row ball bearing. But, one regular single row ball bearing does not a well supported shaft make. It takes at least two bearings to support a shaft. Inside the transmission, only one bearing supports the shaft (ignoring the needle bearing inside the end of the input shaft- that provides end support and alignment for the transmission main shaft, ironically from a _well_ _supported_ input shaft) . So, this type of input shaft is NOT well supported inside the transmission. It needs to have a well located (aligned) pilot bearing, bushing, or machined hole to support the other end of the shaft.

Some transmissions have a well supported input shafts by two or more bearings_ inside_ the transmission. Some of these still use pilot bearings, others do not.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> Yes, _one_ _end_ of the input shaft is well supported by probably a regular single row ball bearing. But, one regular single row ball bearing does not a well supported shaft make. It takes at least two bearings to support a shaft. Inside the transmission, only one bearing supports the shaft (ignoring the needle bearing inside the end of the input shaft- that provides end support and alignment for the transmission main shaft, ironically from a _well_ _supported_ input shaft) . So, this type of input shaft is NOT well supported inside the transmission. It needs to have a well located (aligned) pilot bearing, bushing, or machined hole to support the other end of the shaft.


All absolutely true. 



electro wrks said:


> Some transmissions have a well supported input shafts by two or more bearings_ inside_ the transmission. Some of these still use pilot bearings, others do not.


Again, true. These are typically transversely mounted all-indirect transmissions, as commonly found in front wheel drive and some mid-engine vehicles... and EVs with motors that can be removed from the transaxle (such as the Nissan Leaf).


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Well it moves with the small motor and three old batteries. Got about 10 mph on 25 amps at 36 volts in first. Overheated the small motor in second. Small motor only a 5" dia 24V winch motor. Its a glorified golf cart with a very kluged up system. Now to take into consideration all the forum suggestions and do the real engineering and build. Got to get a bigger motor, better coupling between motor and transmission, do away with the throttle and clutch pedals and mount the electric pedal. Figure out the battery type and how they will be mounted. Then paint and put the normal car electrical back in. This is a real DIY project, only $2400 in so far including the donor car. Now the big bucks.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Bought a ME1003 DC PM motor from Electricmotorsport. 12-72 volts, 15 hp continuous, 26 hp peak. Measured stall torque and got a slope of 0.8 ft lbs /amp. Based on the weight of the Spider the motor should give the Spider good performance. Surprisingly, under no load the motor start rotating at only.5 amp. The advantage of a PM motor, no field to excite. Initially using the Lovejoy coupling. Ridged coupling is having the female spline welded on. Alignment of the inline and radial dimensions accomplished with the transmission vertical. When aligned the coupling moves up and down on the trans/motor shaft with very little resistance. Than bolts torqued down and freedom of coupling checked again. With transmission horizontal, no noise or vibration, no load at 1000 rpm. Initially will use a 36v 275 amp controller I have with three 12v deep cycle batteries. Just want to get the Spider moving so I can start the EV registration process. Not worried about range yet. Initial rough estimate is that I will get 1 mile on about 800 watt hour, level 60 mph, worst case. This is based on static rolling resistance and expected wind resistance. Expect dynamic conditions to be much better. So far only measuring controller current and voltage, amp and watt hours used, and motor RPM and temperature. Working on speed, vehicle tilt angel and acceleration. Need to investigate possibility of regeneration from the DC PM motor. Into the project $3400.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I must admit to thinking that its a real shame that such a nice car now has such a puny motor


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Are you referring to HP or torque? Check out the 1976 Fiat torque and HP curves. Not so good at low end for the torque or high end with the HP. Torque is acceleration, HP is speed. I am not building a high speed sport car just a EV car for around town. Older Fiats may look nice but as an ICE they are a bitch to maintain. What do you consider a not puny DC Motor?


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

You need to be careful about staring at ICE torque curves for comparison purposes. There's a huge torque multiplication that can occur during clutch slipping.

A skilled driver can get as much standstill torque to the tires out of a manual transmission ICE as a librarian can get by flooring an EV.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Larrybia said:


> Are you referring to HP or torque? Check out the 1976 Fiat torque and HP curves. Not so good at low end for the torque or high end with the HP. Torque is acceleration, HP is speed. I am not building a high speed sport car just a EV car for around town. Older Fiats may look nice but as an ICE they are a bitch to maintain. What do you consider a not puny DC Motor?


I would consider a DC forklift motor as "not puny" - a 9 inch motor will give oodles more torque and power
I like the Fiat sports car - I used to have a Lancia Zagota - great car

But if its an EV then it should GO like an EV - not like a Golf Kart

It just seems a shame when the IC engine guys are talking about power not to be able to blow them away


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Larrybia said:


> Are you referring to HP or torque? Check out the 1976 Fiat torque and HP curves. Not so good at low end for the torque or high end with the HP.


The point of a transmission is to allow the engine (or electric motor) to turn at the desired speed. After the first second or so of acceleration, suitable shifting will always have the Spider's engine able to put far more power than the peak power of that electric motor.

Yes, engine torque is low at low speed - although available torque output of the 1756 cc Fiat engine is higher than the ME1003's continuous maximum of 315 inch-pounds (26 lb-ft) at any engine speed from idle to redline - but for extreme performance the simple solution is just slipping the clutch. The torque output from the clutch is the same as the input (a clutch doesn't multiply torque but it also doesn't lose any), but it allows the engine to turn fast enough to produce more torque; ideally the driver slips the clutch just enough to allow the engine to run at its torque peak. After a second or so of slipping the car is moving fast enough that slipping isn't needed any more. The lower the performance expectation, the less slipping is used... down to a small fraction of a second in normal driving. With peak torque available down to zero speed, an electric motor doesn't need a clutch at all.



Larrybia said:


> Torque is acceleration, HP is speed.


While that is often stated, it's nonsense. Torque at the engine or motor doesn't matter; torque at the wheels is what matters but that torque multiplied by wheel speed is *power*.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> I like the Fiat sports car - I used to have a Lancia Zagota - great car


Ironically, the only part or design feature in common between the Fiat 124 Sport Spider and the Lancia Beta Spider (called the Lancia Zagato in the U.S.) is the Fiat TwinCam engine that this conversion eliminates.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

I have a 1967 TR-4A which I have had since 1969. All stock and in very good condition. I have rebuilt it many times and it is fully restored. I have never raced it but been to many meets and rallies. That is where I get my "show off kicks". The TR-4 is my baby. Do not intend to race with the Spider, show its performance off, however maybe participate in fun rallies if I get extended range.

As long as the Spider is safe to drive around town, lends it self to range extension in the future and looks reasonably good I will be happy. It is providing me the platform for experimentation, learning and keeping me busy. I am also trying to keep all cost down and do all the engineering my self. Got to do that in retirement to keep healthy. 

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## Peter Lin (26 d ago)

If you use AC induction/asynchronous motor, you can consider using our controller.


----------



## Electric Land Cruiser (Dec 30, 2020)

You have built a DIY EV in a couple of months for less than most people spend on a single component of their build. You have nothing to explain. This project is awesome. Gotta start somewhere. Looking forward to seeing how it evolves.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Larrybia said:


> Do not intend to race with the Spider, show its performance off, however maybe participate in fun rallies if I get extended range.
> 
> As long as the Spider is safe to drive around town, lends it self to range extension in the future and looks reasonably good I will be happy....


Fine, as long as you understand that the currently selected motor is unlikely to provide even moderately acceptable performance for normal driving around town. It's not about showing off.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Well I will find out. Its easy to put on another motor if necessary. $700 learning experience to me is worth it. When I am up and fully running on a 72 Volt I will post performance figures. May be able to get some money back on a resale of the motor if necessary. Do you think that the ME1302 would do better as recommended in a early reply?


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Completed some testing with the ME1003 motor and a 36 v battery pack. Three Group 24 lead acid deep cycle batteries from my RV. Very satisfied with the performance considering the battery pack. Drove 3 miles with max speed of 22 mph and also doing acceleration tests. Used only 30 % of the battery pack. On starting in 2nd gear got max acceleration of 3 M/Sec^2 with two large guys in the car. Performance matched prediction pretty well. For reasonable driving stability added an additional 150 lbs ballast in the front to get the correct tie toe in. Weight distribution is critical when modifying from ICE to EV. Either redesign the suspension or load the car as if it had an ICE. Getting the lower weight batteries and paying the higher price may not always be the best solution. Consideration of driving conditions (Stop and Go and Hilly Terrain), type of battery care you will need to do and cost to redesign suspension needs to be considered. I am not trying to build a performance car but just one that is surface street worthy and at the lowest price possible. Next phase is to to install a 72 volt battery pack and a higher voltage/current controller. Plan to put three more batteries in the front and do away with the ballast. Need bigger cables because they got warm but the motor saw no change in temperature. However, its cold here in Colorado. Also if I want more range can add batteries in the trunk. Getting 6 new batteries and the controller will add about $1000 to the already $3500 I have into the project so far. That includes $1500 for the donor car. Then I got to paint the car, get a new windscreen, redo the normal electrics and clean up the interior and get it registered.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Keep a log to track the range and charge cycles. It'll be interesting to see the $/mile you wind up spending because of battery replacement, assuming you stay with the deep cycles.


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Dollars per mile have been well documented for lead acid batteries. They have been around for many years. It is well known that dollar per mile is no where as good as that of a Li chemistry batteries. And there are a lot of other negative aspects. However, for packaging convivence, availability and to reduce initial costs I chose to go that way at this time. .


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Ok.

That's irrelevant to what I asked: are you going to log those numbers from your car and post them here for others that land on the forum to understand and evaluate for their builds?


----------



## Larrybia (2 mo ago)

Probably not. My interest in using this vehicle with lead acid will most likely not last through a required replacement. Than I will use the lead acid batteries in a backup power supply application that does not require as many recharge cycles. I believe the number is over 3 to 1 for Li when all costs (Initial Cost, Life Span, Capacity, Safety and Disposal) are considered. Maybe you can provide the forum some insight into the number.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

I didn't, and never plan to, use lead acid for propulsion. I also give a LOT more to this forum than I take and run. Try it some time....


----------

