# Got the equipment, need help deciding what to convert



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Hey EV gurus, my friend recently emailed me saying he was selling his partially finished EV truck conversion for $5k, and I couldn't pass up the deal, so I bought it without really knowing what I would end up doing with it. I have wanted to build an EV for a decade now so I figured this was as good a time as any.

The partial conversion is built on a 1994 Chevy S10 2-seater, which is a vehicle that doesn't serve a lot of purpose for me. I need something that can carry my wife and child safely, and I also find the Chevy to be a very boring car. So I need to decide what to build, but I am limited by the fact that I already have the equipment so whatever I choose needs to work with what I have. Here's what I now own:

60kWh Lithium-Ion batteries in 95 x 3.2V, 200Ah cells
125kW UQM PowerPhase motor w/ controller
6.6kW charger
BMS for 95 cells
1000W DC-DC step down converter
Pressure pump for brakes, etc.
Chevy S10 with hydraulic bed lift (partially installed)
A bunch of other small things I haven't looked at yet

I posted earlier on a thread about converting a Sprinter van, which is still an option, but I am starting to lean towards a city vehicle since I think that is still a better fit for me. I'm thinking I will need a fairly large vehicle since the battery pack is big, so probably either a sedan or an SUV. Also, since I am going to be spending a lot of time on this project I want to choose a nice vehicle. So this is about as far as I've come. Every day my ideas change and I figured some guidance from the community would help. Some of the options I've thought of are a BMW E series, and a Volvo XC60, but I'm pretty open still.

I guess at this point I'm looking for advice that would help me make the decision between luxury sedan and SUV, as well as things to watch out for that can narrow down my list (i.e. does it have to have a manual transmission? will these batteries even fit in a BMW E-series, etc)

Overall I'm very excited though, thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## toper (Jul 12, 2018)

I would definitely recommend finding a vehicle with a manual, especially for a first time conversion. While it's possible to do an automatic, it's a lot more hassle. You need to feed it oil, autos like to be at lower RPM's which is contradictory to electric motors, since they perform better at higher RPM's, and it's extra weight. 

You may be able to fit them in a Bimmer, the one I am working on is a 2002 E46, and the trunk is actually massive. Along with the fact that the area under the hood is massive. The straight 6 engine means that the bonnet space is much larger than a V6, because the inline engine requires a longer hood. So you could theoretically have half the batteries in the back, and then also in the front engine bay, which helps with weight distribution while using all of those cells. 

Porsches are also a fun conversion, though you may have to reduce pack size for that. There is a neat Audi Tesla swap on youtube on the Rich Rebuilds channel, you could do something along those lines as well. You've got a lot of potential with those components, that's truly a steal.

I don't think a SUV would be the best, there's a lot more weight to move, which will reduce the overall performance and range of the car. A luxury sedan is likely your best bet to get the most out of these parts.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Thanks Toper, I had actually checked your post out not long ago, it looks like a nice ride.

It would be important to me to maintain some sort of trunk space, like enough to fit a stroller in the back. Right now I have a chevy volt, and my hope is that I could convert a car large enough that it would have at least as much space as the volt (which isn't much). At least most cars would have the third seat in back though, my 2013 Volt has used that for batteries.

I see your point though, on your thread people were indicating that even the BMW would be too heavy, and while my motor is slightly larger, it still comes in lower than pretty much any SUV I can find.

I'll see what options there are in the straight 6 or maybe V8 luxury sedan world.

Have you made any measurements of the engine and trunk cavities on your BMW? How's your build coming along?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi
I hate to be wet blanket but if you want "transport" buying a second hand factory made EV will give you a superior product for less money

I would only advise converting if you really WANT the resultant vehicle

So - sports cars?

Or - as you have a family - what about a "Classic Car" - not something dead rare but something unusual enough and fun enough - just about anything from the 70's 

Something that you can take pride in as being "yours"


----------



## toper (Jul 12, 2018)

I had thought about doing that myself originally, a nice classic 70's era car. But that doesn't solve the weight issue. They are made of real steel and little to no plastic, so they drive like boats due to their immense mass. It would be really cool nonetheless, though the practicality may suffer.

And massawe, in terms of preserving trunk space, I am sure you could do this if you placed more batteries up front. That will still keep a normal weight balance, since the engine being removed is definitely heavier than just the motor and a few batteries. So you can maybe line the floor in one layer of batteries and just have a raised trunk liner. If you are using an older bimmer, that's likely better, as they were made less complex, so they are lighter overall, especially if it's a coupe or just a standard 'I' model. Mine is heavy because it has AWD, which adds an extra ~300lbs. You could go even older if you wanted to, the late 80's models are even lighter.

The 

And my project is going well, it is on pause for a bit right now though. I am in college so I am away from the project, 350 miles away specifically, but I am trying to use this time to build up finances to get all the parts. I think near thanksgiving or Christmas time is when I plan to have all the parts in hand, and then I'll complete the conversion then.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

You are hitting the nail on the head a bit. The thing is I have always wanted to convert an EV, so part of this is fulfilling a dream. I do want something unique, which is why I am ripping everything out of the truck it is currently in. But I also don't want to own more than two cars, so I need to find the right balance. My other car will be a road trip vehicle, so it will be very spacious and gas-powered. This car will mostly just be for commuting around town, but I do want to be able to fit my family and a stroller (or something of similar size). But you are exactly right, choosing the right vehicle is key and so far I keep changing my mind each day, which is why I need help narrowing down the list. The battery pack generates just over 300V, the minimum for the motor, so downsizing the batteries to fit in a smaller car is not really an option.

I'm not totally convinced that I could get a comparable factory EV for less money though. I'm thinking if I spend ~3k on a chassis, then throw in another $5k for random parts and adapters, plus the $5k i've sunk already, I'm at $13k. I don't think I could find a comparable vehicle (60kWh, 125kW) for that price, but maybe I'm wrong? Anyway given the amount of work involved I could probably make up the difference by working at McDonalds the same amount of time I will be working on this car, so your point is still valid. I also currently have a Volt, which I love and I hate. I love not using gas driving to work, but I hate all the constant beeping, reminders, buttons for door locks, short electric range, etc. As soon as my new vehicle is up I will sell my Volt, hopefully for about $11k to make up most of the cost of my conversion.

My vehicle does need to be something I can take pride in, and something unique, like you mentioned. I'm open to classic cars but I have the same reservations that Toper mentioned. Also one of my biggest problems is that I'm not usually a 'car person,' so I don't have lots of cars I've dreamed of owning over the years, I'm basically just scanning the streets.

This is way too long of a response with very little substance. Sorry about that. One of the cars that looks like it could work well is the Range Rover Evoque, at 3,500 lbs, but I don't think this is realistic to find with a blown engine for under $5k. Perhaps BMW, Jaguar, Lexus sedans are the right places to look? Do you know of any good classic cars that would have a decent amount of space and still come in fairly light? If you have any suggestions of models that you think are good candidates that could help me create a better short list.

Thanks!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> One of the cars that looks like it could work well is the Range Rover Evoque, at 3,500 lbs, but I don't think this is realistic to find with a blown engine for under $5k. Perhaps BMW, Jaguar, Lexus sedans are the right places to look?


If luxury interior touches and fancy toys are important to you, then these vehicles are great. Or you can spend half as much and get a more reliable vehicle which drives as well and is functionally comparable. The only good feature of the luxury/performance sedans is that they're rear-wheel-drive (if that matters to you), but in SUVs if you take the logo badges off you can't see any mechanical difference between a Toyota/Honda/Ford/Chevy/Mazda/whatever and the brands which cost far more.

The luxury brands do depreciate heavily, making them cheaper when used than a reasonable brand would be if they sold for the same price new, but one reason that they depreciate is that parts and service are so unreasonably expensive. If you buy one which is cheap because it has some major mechanical problem, it could have thousands of dollars worth of problems with parts that you are not going to replace with the EV components.

I know a guy who bought an Evoque, and he said at the time that he would have been just as happy with the Mazda CX-5 which he test drove around the same time, and only chose the Evoque because he really wanted a 2-door. I had a look at the Evoque - it didn't look worth twice as much as a CX-5 to me.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

I get what you are saying. Finding that middle ground is not easy. The thought of spending $13k and a year of work to have a Honda Accord that looks like the car my mom drove 10 years ago just isn't that exciting to me, and since the difference between a busted Honda and a busted Jaguar is only a couple grand it seems like it would be more rewarding to have a car that at least looked nice and felt more unique at the end.

That said, I don't want to end up spending more fixing up the mechanics of the car than I spend doing the conversion (in time or in money). So there's clearly a line. And I think I agree with you, the Evoque is over that line. I just like the size, weight, and look of it, but it is too expensive and parts would be hard to come by.

So what's in the middle? I think many BMW's fit in the middle: nice looking, big enough to fit the parts, and still plenty of replacement parts. Is there something slightly more exotic that would work though?

Its a big decision


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> So what's in the middle? I think many BMW's fit in the middle: nice looking, big enough to fit the parts, and still plenty of replacement parts. Is there something slightly more exotic that would work though?


I think the choice of the term "exotic" is interesting. A current BMW is a good car (although not particularly reliable or easy to work on), but far from exotic. While some auto enthusiasts still drive them, most BMW (and Mercedes, and Porsche) owners just want a transportation appliance which will impress the neighbors who don't know enough to not be impressed. GM figured this out decades ago, and maintained multiple brands of basically the same vehicles in multiple trim levels, because many buyers cared so much about the brand badge - more than they cared about the actual car - so they would pay far more for a Cadillac than they would for the same car with a Chevrolet badge. Ford did the same thing with Lincoln, and the Japanese manufacturers eventually followed suit with Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti.

If style is the big factor, I like some of the Lincoln sedans. Under the skin they're Fords, which isn't a problem. But in style, only your own opinion matters.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

While I've never owned a BMW, when I have driven in them I have found that they usually feel much nicer inside than a Honda or Toyota. I also think they are a nicer looking car, with more attention put into aesthetics than the Honda/Toyota. As you said, this is just personal opinion, but since with a conversion the motor and fuel source aren't tied to any particular car, I think the aesthetics factors in more than if I were buying a gas car, where I would care more about the engine, fuel economy, and price.

By no means am I tied to a BMW. I just just want my car to look nice, and I don't find anything particularly appealing about a Corolla or an Accord. I won't deny that branding influences my opinion, but isn't all of aesthetics pretty arbitrary really?

The reason I don't mention more exotic cars is because I've just never been a car person. I don't really know what kind of cars to look for, which is why I'm reaching out on this site for suggestions. I'm looking for help finding the right balance of exotic, reliable, and conversion-able. I'm very good with electronics but I've always just driven whatever car my parents got bored of and sold to me, I've never liked gas engines which I think has always turned me off to cars in general.

I agree about the Lincoln sedans. These are nice looking rides, and are usually fairly spacious. It looks like the MKZ is the only one that would be reasonable size. Personally I think the Town Car is a great looking car but probably way too heavy. Are there any other models that you like?

I'm mostly building the car to learn and to reduce my fuel consumption, but if I can make something that looks and feels impressive without drastically changing the price tag it seems like a good investment.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi
It's all down to what YOU like - and it does need to be a "bit special" to justify the money

When I was in the USA (late 90's) I liked the Ford Thunderbird - a bit exotic but not expensive

Spend a few months thinking and looking - something will come up


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

The Ford Thunderbird is pretty cool actually. I like the new models, but they only come in a two seater. The 1988 model is pretty 80's looking, but definitely has some funkiness that I like. Also at 3258lbs it's pretty light, and replacing the original 104.5kW motor with my 125kW motor means it may actually drive like it's supposed to. The 60's and 70's models are great, but heavy and probably would require more maintenance than I'm ready to put in.

Maybe not the most spacious vehicle being a 2-door coupe, but it looks like the engine compartment and trunk are pretty large. Prob not super fun getting a baby in and out of the back seat, but maybe it will take me 9 years to do the conversion anyway and then the kid won't need the car seat...

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll add it to my list!


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Well I've continued to compare vehicles like crazy. I created a big image of all the cars I liked, with the brand names and symbols removed, to help see which ones really stood out to me without the branding. I then showed this list to my wife. When it is all said and done though, my practical side is winning the battle, and I realize that if I can't pack enough gear for a camping trip or a short road trip into the car, then I probably won't even end up using it that often. I'd rather have a more 'normal' looking car that I use a lot than a hotrod that sits in my driveway.

So I've been looking a lot at the mid 2000's Volvo V50 T5. It has one of the larger cargo spaces at 27.4 ft3, it only weighs ~3,400lbs, and it comes with plenty of luxury options to make me feel special. It's not the coolest ride on the road, but I can add some stuff to make it look more unique and it certainly isn't ugly in my opinion. It is also basically the reincarnation of the 240DL, which was my first car ever in high school. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

So besides that fact that it seems tricky to find one of these with a manual transmission (they do exist), does anyone see any reason that this car wouldn't work well, or any particular challenges I should prepare for? Also, do you have any other suggestions for similar rides? I looked at the Mercedes E350 Wagon (no manual transmission) and the Audi A4 Wagon (only 17 ft3 cargo space).


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> So I've been looking a lot at the mid 2000's Volvo V50 T5.
> ...
> So besides that fact that it seems tricky to find one of these with a manual transmission (they do exist), does anyone see any reason that this car wouldn't work well, or any particular challenges I should prepare for.


The V50 is one of the Volvos built on Ford's C1 platform... it's Volvo's version of a 2005-2010 Euro-market Ford Focus, and a predecessor to the platform of my Mazda 3 (which I really like).

If you can't find one with a manual transmission, you could probably swap in a transmission from a wide choice of other vehicles on the same platform, but it's always a hassle to convert the shifter assembly and add the clutch pedal.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

That's good info. I didn't realize so many cars had a common core like that. Hopefully I won't have to swap a transmission, but it's good to know I wouldn't need to find a second busted Volvo V50 to do it.

It looks like I was wrong about the cargo space of the Audi A4 wagon as well, a 2007 A4 Avanti is said to have 27.8 ft3, which puts it right up there with the Volvo. These are also much easier to find based on some quick searches.


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

2 comments: typically the clutch pedal is a long through pivot rod brake pedal held in with circlips. So getting one from a junkyard and possibly doing some slight machining is a possibility. Get the brake pedal also because they are smaller than what is currently installed and will interfere.

If it's a factory option, the holes and mounting points are already there.

It's not that hard to either use the slush trans or convert to a handshaker.
You just need idle for one, and the modified floor plate for the other.

Ive done several swaps and lived to tell about it. Weekend worth of under car crawling.


----------



## DrGee (Aug 22, 2018)

massawe said:


> Hey EV gurus, my friend recently emailed me saying he was selling his partially finished EV truck conversion for $5k, and I couldn't pass up the deal, so I bought it without really knowing what I would end up doing with it. I have wanted to build an EV for a decade now so I figured this was as good a time as any.
> 
> The partial conversion is built on a 1994 Chevy S10 2-seater, which is a vehicle that doesn't serve a lot of purpose for me. I need something that can carry my wife and child safely, and I also find the Chevy to be a very boring car. So I need to decide what to build, but I am limited by the fact that I already have the equipment so whatever I choose needs to work with what I have. Here's what I now own:
> 
> ...


Just amazing what you got for 5 grand.. 60kwh of batteries and all that extra kit! I'm trying to find a way to get 40Kwh under 3500 USD..
Wish all the best in your project. I also initially thought about getting a Range Rover to convert. I was put off by the cost & the serious reliability issues. I've opted to convert my Jeep Grand Cherokee instead.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

A jeep would be a pretty sweet conversion. Would love to see your progress.

I'm setting up a test right now to make sure all these batteries are still in good shape. I know that they have been kept fully charged, and that they are basically unused, but I also know that they are at least 5 years old, so I'm hoping this hasn't caused much damage. I also read that they should be stored at 50% charge, which they weren't.

So I'm setting up a constant current load to test it out. Since I don't have a good way of pulling tons of power, I'm planning to just pull about 7A for 20 hours or so until I see the voltage start to dip. I do have a datasheet for the cells so that should help my estimate. I'm a little nervous though, because if I find that the batteries only have 70% capacity or something, then is it still worth installing them knowing that they are already on their way down?

The deal was too good to refuse though. Even if the batteries aren't as good as I'm hoping, I think I still have over 5k of equipment. It would be a bummer though.


----------



## DrGee (Aug 22, 2018)

massawe said:


> A jeep would be a pretty sweet conversion. Would love to see your progress.
> 
> I'm setting up a test right now to make sure all these batteries are still in good shape. I know that they have been kept fully charged, and that they are basically unused, but I also know that they are at least 5 years old, so I'm hoping this hasn't caused much damage. I also read that they should be stored at 50% charge, which they weren't.
> 
> ...


It was certainly a good deal. I would've jumped for it too! Well I suppose even if the batteries have lost so much capacity, you could still use them with a plan to replace them gradually as funds become available..
How are you settling up your constant load test? 
You could hook them up to an iron if you can series and parallel them to give you 120 or 144V (a 1200W iron draws about 10A @120V)...


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

I built a PCB with a constant load test based off a couple NFETs with feedback from a 0.33 Ohm resistor between the emitter and ground. I tested it and it worked well, but then I realized I had designed it to pull 5A, and it was really just overcomplicating everything and was going to take forever to drain the battery.

I ended up just sticking together a network of 10W resistors to create a load of about 0.22 Ohms, and then just monitoring the voltage over time. I tried to characterize the resistors a bit before hooking them up to the battery to see how much the resistance changed with temperature. I saw about a 5% increase in resistance with 3A flowing through them, and no air movement. In my final setup I put a fan on it and spread it out over 6 resistors so it never got all that hot.

With this setup I was pulling about 45W from a single 3.2V 200Ah cell, and I ended up pulling 658Wh from the battery! This is 18Wh over the rated capacity, and I stopped pulling at 2.5V. Of course I was pulling current at a low rate of .075C, and the rating is at a 0.5C discharge (lots more internal resistance losses) but I was still pleasantly surprised by the result and feel that the battery is showing basically full capacity. The articles I had been reading were making me think I may have lost a third of the capacity from them just sitting there sop this was very reassuring.

So, with the batteries proven I'm feeling a bit more confident about moving forward. Anything I might be missing that could be skewing my results?


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Perhaps the biggest challenge I am currently facing with this conversion is space: I have a single car garage, full of stuff, and a sloped driveway coming down from it. If I'm going to do this conversion, I either need to do it in the driveway, or setup a space in my side yard to do it (farther from tools and power). Either way is far less than ideal.

I have a friend with a farm where I could do it, but it's pretty far away and I don't think I'll have a lot of full days to go over there. Looking at other people's setups I see some pretty impressive garages, with two post lifts and other equipment that I simply won't have room for.

I'm comfortable with welding and fabrication, and all sorts of electrical equipment, but I am wondering what people think about trying to do a conversion in a space like this. I live in NW USA, so it's rainy for a good part of the year. My hope was that I could do the motor work with the car parked in my driveway, with the hood up next to the garage so I could access it easily from my garage. I can add an awning if needed so I can work in the rain.

Is it crazy to think I can build it with this space setup? I'd love to hear people's opinions. I'm especially interested in how much of the work needs to be done from below, and how much of a pain it will be to have the car at a slight angle while working. I realize this depends a lot on the specifics of the build. I am currently planning to convert a station wagon such as the Audi A4 wagon or similar.

I don't plan to move anytime soon so I think it's either make it work in this space, or sell things off before I get too deep.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

massawe said:


> I either need to do it in the driveway, or setup a space in my side yard to do it (farther from tools and power).


I vote side-yard if you want to park your driveable car in the driveway. Else, driveway should be fine. Keep in mind that after you yank out the motor, you won't have a way of moving the car up the driveway except pushing.

You'll want access to your car, and not have to worry about it sliding around.

Most of what you're doing isn't going to be actually doing anything. It's going to be poking, proding, thinking, shuffling, testing, praying, cursing, etc. The amount of times you'll actually have tools in hand and using them is like, 5%.

It's like welding. 5% of the time on a welding project is laying the bead. The rest is jigging the workpieces and figuring out how you're welding and where.

You're not going to be using very many tools, if you are, go buy a cheap use $10 hand truck and build maybe a 2-tier couple wooden boxes for it. Then you can wheel it into and out of the garage on your way to the car every day for 95% of the tools you'll use.

You need a measuring tape, socket/wrench set, screwdrivers, prybar, grinder, impact, and a power cord. That's about all. Leave the power cord out on the lawn or, if you have to, Harbor Freight yourself an auto-retracting one.



> I have a friend with a farm where I could do it, but it's pretty far away and I don't think I'll have a lot of full days to go over there.


That's the worst of the 3. If you're like most people, you'll keep having days when it's "not the right day" to go over and a whole year will pass. Try to fit in little tasks when you can. You'll be spending more time in front of a desk thinking, tinkering, and occasionally running out to check fit or measurement on something.



> Looking at other people's setups I see some pretty impressive garages, with two post lifts and other equipment that I simply won't have room for.


Jackstands are like, 4 for $40. I suspect you'll spend more time bent over than on your back anyway (and also while working on the car! ).



> My hope was that I could do the motor work with the car parked in my driveway, with the hood up next to the garage so I could access it easily from my garage. I can add an awning if needed so I can work in the rain.


6 2x4s and a $10 Harbor freight tarp, $20, you've got yourself an awning. Solid investment. Could even bungie it to the A pillars so it doesn't flop and flat about.

At least you won't be working in the heat.



> Is it crazy to think I can build it with this space setup? I'd love to hear people's opinions.


What did guys do in the 60s when every guy wrenched on his own car? I can't see why an EV would be harder than an engine.



> I'm especially interested in how much of the work needs to be done from below,


On most conversions I've followed over the years, almost none. You're bending over the hood and trunk, not sliding under.

The first thing you'll probably do is the de-ICEing, that'll involve yanking out gas tank and exhaust and some under-side work, but, it's not going back afterwards. Engine compartment and trunk once it's empty.

You'll be fitting your motor and coupler and mounts. You'll be rigging your battery shelves and accessories and controller. You'll be doing wiring. Pretty much zero of that is done from below unless you need to weld a funny angle or do some body repairs. Maybe your power cables will be run underneath, but, just not that much left when you get rid of what's under an ICE car.

You're not playing with the suspension, where a 2-post comes in handy, so, no reason to be under there for that.

Heck I've hardly even seen most guys spent any time on jackstands after the stripping.

I say go for it.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Thanks Matt, it's great to hear from someone with more experience than me in this stuff.

One by one the roadblocks are coming down, it's sure starting to sound like the project must go on!

I think my plan then is a) rip everything out of the truck, b) sell/scrap the truck chassis, c) build a proper build area - either a canopy in the side yard, or else reroute my current EV charger to the street so I can charge my Volt there and then do it in the driveway, d) build an EV!

Do you think anyone would want the old chassis, it's a 94 Chevy S10 in good shape, with a partially installed hydraulic bed lift, and partially completed battery boxes under the bed. I'm sure it's not worth much, but if I don't have to scrap it that would be great. I would be down to donate it, I'm just not sure anyone would want to take on someone elses partially completed job like this. I also plan to rip everything of EV-value out of the truck... Scrap metal?


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

This weekend I pulled the motor and transmission out of the Chevy. The previous owner had replaced the trucks automatic transmission with a manual, and it looks like he purchased one new/refurbished as it's super clean.

So basically now I have a nice transmission, a professionally manufactured motor adapter plate, as well as a nice frame that holds the motor to the chassis. I'm starting to wonder if it won't be easier to just stick this whole setup in the new vehicle, as opposed to trying to get a new adapter plate to couple it to an existing transmission? My thinking is that if the transmission fits, then maybe all I need to do is modify the motor frame so that it can attach to the new chassis.

I imagine this would only work with cars that could accommodate this transmission. Does this sound like it would work, or do you think I would basically be limited to trucks like the S-10, or similar vehicles like a Chevy Blazer?

I'm still leaning toward a wagon such as an Audi A4, or possibly something larger like a box-van/sprinter. Is there any chance this transmission might fit in these types of vehicles, or no way?

On a similar note, assuming the transmission doesn't fit, how likely is it that the adapter plate would fit the new transmission? I realize a definitive answer is impossible without knowing the destination vehicle, but is it worth trying to find a vehicle it will mate to or would this limit me to a small selection?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> I'm starting to wonder if it won't be easier to just stick this whole setup in the new vehicle, as opposed to trying to get a new adapter plate to couple it to an existing transmission? My thinking is that if the transmission fits, then maybe all I need to do is modify the motor frame so that it can attach to the new chassis.
> 
> I imagine this would only work with cars that could accommodate this transmission. Does this sound like it would work, or do you think I would basically be limited to trucks like the S-10, or similar vehicles like a Chevy Blazer?


Probably Chevrolet/GMC light trucks, perhaps the Chevrolet Astro / Pontiac/GMC Safari vans, maybe some old rear-wheel-drive GM cars, plus the Camaro and Firebird (of the right range of model years). Even then, some of these vehicles were not set up for a manual transmission - the shifter position certainly wouldn't work in an Astro van.

Similar vehicles of other brands would work, with more effort likely in mounts and shift linkage arrangements.



massawe said:


> I'm still leaning toward a wagon such as an Audi A4, or possibly something larger like a box-van/sprinter. Is there any chance this transmission might fit in these types of vehicles, or no way?


Certainly not in a vehicle which comes with a transverse engine and transmission, but maybe with lots of custom mounting and shift linkage work in some longitudinal engine vehicles. The transmission is very far forward (compared to the pickup truck configuration) in front-wheel-drive cars and the Sprinter and similar vans.



massawe said:


> On a similar note, assuming the transmission doesn't fit, how likely is it that the adapter plate would fit the new transmission? I realize a definitive answer is impossible without knowing the destination vehicle, but is it worth trying to find a vehicle it will mate to or would this limit me to a small selection?


Nearly zero, unless the transmission is from a vehicle which came with engines related to the ones in the original pickup (which means only some General Motors vehicles).


To me, it seems easier to build a very nice custom S-10 pickup than to make an old-style GM transmission work in something completely unrelated.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Thanks brian,

It sounds like this great stuff will be fairly useless to me. Probably the best approach is to hold onto it until I've settled on a vehicle, then sell it off and buy my new parts with the proceeds.

It's too bad, it was a pretty well done installation, but I just have zero need for a small 2-door pickup. It still needed a good bit of work to finish it up too.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> Probably the best approach is to hold onto it until I've settled on a vehicle, then sell it off and buy my new parts with the proceeds.


That is certainly the most straightforward approach, and will probably lead to the best resulting vehicle.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

brian_ said:


> To me, it seems easier to build a very nice custom S-10 pickup than to make an old-style GM transmission work in something completely unrelated.


I was forgetting about this:


massawe said:


> ... I just have zero need for a small 2-door pickup.


Which brings us back to one possibility...


massawe said:


> I imagine this would only work with cars that could accommodate this transmission. Does this sound like it would work, or do you think I would basically be limited to trucks like the S-10, or similar vehicles like a Chevy Blazer?


Mechanically it would be a straightforward swap of motor and transmission into a second-generation Chevrolet Blazer, GMC Jimmy, GMC Envoy (first generation), or Oldsmobile Bravada. They're not very sophisticated, but some were well-equipped and with routine upgrades plus a rear suspension conversion to coils or air springs it could be a nice vehicle. These are popular vehicles for customization, and it is even possible to buy a ready-made rear coil or air suspension system for them.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Man, looking at the blazer it does look like that car would meet my needs. It's large enough to carry the family, batteries, and some stuff, but still small enough that it might get OK range.

Removing the transmission and motor was very easy (~4 hours work), so if the motor mount points were the same I could have the drivetrain in super quick, probably cutting a year off of my conversion time vs converting the Audi A4 Wagon.

I guess the question is can I live with the reduced range. I imagine the biggest hit in range would be freeway driving. From looking at another Blazer conversion I saw they were getting 450Wh/mile. I also saw an S10 truck that was claiming 307Wh/mile. I was hoping for something closer to 300Wh/mile from the A4, which would mean 133 miles/charge (Blazers @ 450Wh/mi) vs 200 miles/charge (A4 @ 300Wh/mile). That's a pretty big difference. 133 miles might just barely get me to Eugene from Portland (at a risky ~83% DOD), but wouldn't get me to Seattle.

I've also been thinking about adding some additional batteries if I have space and can handle the weight, which might alleviate the problem. Right now it's setup for 300V, which is the low end of the motors range (goes up to 450V). I am sure I can't get more batteries from the same manufacturer, but was thinking I could add a smaller pack of a different brand, maybe 50Ah, 100V, to boost the voltage, and then have a sort of sport mode as well as boost the range a bit. Have you heard of anything like this being done?

I'm super tempted by the relative ease of converting the blazer...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> I guess the question is can I live with the reduced range. I imagine the biggest hit in range would be freeway driving. From looking at another Blazer conversion I saw they were getting 450Wh/mile. I also saw an S10 truck that was claiming 307Wh/mile. I was hoping for something closer to 300Wh/mile from the A4...


The difference in energy consumption between the S-10 and Blazer examples is probably due to some difference between those two specific vehicles (or their driving conditions) other than the body. While a Blazer would be heavier, it would likely have the same or lower aero drag - the short cab and open box hurt the pickup. Both would be worse than an Audi A4, due to aerodynamics and weight.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

The one quoting 450W/mile did seem like a pretty low end conversion. 144V lead acid setup. What are the biggest contributors to losses within the drive system? IR losses? Motor efficiency?

I'm also having trouble telling whether the transmission would fit on the second generation blazers (1995-2005). I like this style better than the first generation.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> Mechanically it would be a straightforward swap of motor and transmission into a second-generation Chevrolet Blazer, GMC Jimmy, GMC Envoy (first generation), or Oldsmobile Bravada.


Buick Rainier and Saab 97-X too I think. Mother of all rebadging, like Oprah, "And YOU get a Blazer, and YOU get a Blazer! All the manufacturers get a Blazer!!! WOOOOO!"



> The difference in energy consumption between the S-10 and Blazer examples is probably due to some difference between those two specific vehicles (or their driving conditions) other than the body.


At highway speeds, almost nothing matters other than body, no? Air resistance swamps everything else combined several times over.

I can't imagine there could be a 46% difference due to driveline.

Frankly I think both the S-10 and Blazer builds are lying. I'd suspect closer to 600wh/m for both.

307wh/m at highway speeds is for like, a Civic-sized car or maybe even smaller.

It's really hard to look at other people's projects and get useful mileage, especially if they had lead acids because:

1 - Just about everyone with lead-acids tells the "lead acid lie" about their range. They will say "I get about" and round up 30%. That's on new batteries. Tail wind. This one time. Because they know their range sucks and they're defensive about it because it used to be the thing people made fun of EVers for.

2 - People will tell you range, and max speed, and leave you to presume they get that range at max speed, rather than 30mph.

I made a day or two's work roughly guessing the physical requirements of a vehicle on the EValbum site and comparing it to their battery specs and what they were claiming for range, and pretty much no one was in the ballpark of a realistic range claim.

I think we should come up with a standardized power measurement. Like, power draw on level terrain at: 30mph, 45mph, 60mph. 3 measurements that accurately tell everyone reading about your realistic power draw.

The OEM S-10 EV in '98 got "86kWh/100 miles" (max speed 45 mph... that's only 3/4 highway speed), and even then that's 860 Wh/mile. At actual highway speeds, surely well over a kWh/mile.

A bit hard to compare years, but:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/s10 <-- '94 seems to have the most data. 17.7mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/s10_blazer <-- '94 again, 16.4mpg

Unless they used different engines, the S10 is doing 10% better than the Blazer.


If we presume they have very similar Aero, it was hard to find specs but drag Coefficient for an S-10 is 0.40. Drag area of the Blazer is 1m^2.

Weight is 1400 kg (3100lbs)

http://www.enginuitysystems.com/EVCalculator.htm <-- Punching those into this and zeroing acceleration (steady speed), it comes out to like 210Wh/mile.

Hrm, no way that's accurate, too low. Punching in the numbers for Tesla S80 I get about the same amount, and Tesla advertises around 300.

Anyway, that's what the numbers say. I'm skeptical.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Yeah, after some more research based on your comment I sadly have to admit that you are probably spot on, and my estimates are far too high.

My Chevy Volt gets anywhere between 300Wh/mile and 550Wh/mile, depending on driving style and ambient temperature (it's way worse in the winter, even without using the heater). So... I guess we can assume the Blazer may be somewhere between 500 and 750Wh/mile. That would be 80-120 miles range.

The Workhorse W-15 truck with it's 60kWh battery pack promises 80 miles electric, but this also has 4WD, with two 230hp motors, and a generator, fuel tank, etc... So hopefully I can do a bit better than this.

If I did the much harder Audi conversion I'm guessing this could get quite a bit better, but I think the amount of work involved would at least double. Even 80 miles would be plenty for around-town driving, but it would make a trip to the coast pretty risky.

Has anyone experimented with integrating a small generator into the vehicle? Even a 2kW generator would be able to get me out of a bind without a flatbed tow truck. I guess it could just be a portable gen that sits in the trunk on 'risky' trips, but it would be cool if it could run while the car is driving. I guess 2kW wouldn't be nearly enough to move the car down the road so maybe it wouldn't matter whether it ran while the car is in motion or not. Charge for an hour, drive for 5 minutes, repeat.

I looked at those other 'blazers', man it's ridiculous! At least spare parts shouldn't be an issue! Maybe the question is which one has the nicest interior?


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

By the way, the guy I bought my stuff from has another electric truck for sale, this one is even running I believe, although I think it's a smaller setup than the one I bought. Still looks like a killer deal for anyone interested, I don't know any more details than what's written in the ad tho, so email him to find out:

https://portland.craigslist.org/yam/pts/d/1986-ford-ranger-electric/6749316604.html


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

There USED to be a rule of thumb for battery sizing before all the smart people got here with their you tube formulas: 10% of the weight of the vehicle was watt hours per mile.

My ranger is a brick and weighs about 4000 lbs curb weight ready to drive and averages 430 wh per mile. Reno is full of monster hills and idiots in suburus but my long term average is still about 430 watts/mile. The Volt I got the pack from was supposed to get 40 miles electric from a charge, which SUPRISE, is kinda what I get if I want to leave my comfort zone on discharge. The last bit sucks.

My experience,$0.02, YMMV


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> 10% of the weight of the vehicle was watt hours per mile.


That's quaint, but, shape has a lot more to do with power requirements than weight.

I suppose it's roughly true that larger vehicles are going to be heavier, but, for extreme example, a limousine is going to be heavier than the base car by X amount, but because it's the same frontal shape it's not going to have Base+X increase in power requirements.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

piotrsko said:


> my long term average is still about 430 watts/mile


Thanks piotrsko. It's nice to have a number from someone who isn't inflating for a magazine article.

If I did the blazer, I would probably weigh in quite a bit higher than 4000 lbs. The curb weight of a 2003 Blazer is 3642, so take away 450 lbs from the engine and other stuff, then add in 1340 lbs of batteries and 250 lbs of motor/controller/etc. and I'm up at 4782 lbs... Thats a heavy ass car. Since the GVWR is 5350, this only leaves me ~550 lbs for my passengers and my junk.

The Audi A4 clearly won't be happy with this weight. However, it's bigger sibling the A6 has a GVWR of 5269, plus a little extra space, so this one is still in the running.

Could it be that 60kWh is just too big of a pack? Since my battery cells are 200Ah, and the setup is already at the low end of the motors voltage range, I can't easily shrink the pack. Each cell consists of 10 parallel prismatic pouches, so I could break them open and reconfigure them, but this seems like a good way to start a fire and waste a lot of time.

The older blazers (i.e. 1993) have a GVWR of 6250 lbs, so maybe I just need to get one of those to make this work. Scaling up piotrsko's number by the difference in weight would get me 514Wh/m, or 116 miles/charge. That's a number I can live with if it's true. My main goal is enough range to get to the coast (~95 miles), so with lunch at a charge station this could still leave me about 15-20% capacity.

Of course Matts comment is also true, so on the highway that number might plummet as the Blazer has terrible aerodynamics. I heard there are some tweaks you can do to the body to improve aerodynamics but I don't think it will help that much, the blazer is boxy. 

The Audi has way better aerodynamic numbers, but the GVWR makes me nervous, and I'm not sure exactly how I would pack in the batteries yet either. I've calculated that I could fit about 74 in the trunk (of the wagon) and still have some space left, but it wouldn't be ideal and I don't know if I can fit 21 more under the hood.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

This guy did an Audi S5 conversion with 85kWh! He sacrificed the entire backseat, but he did add 25kWh more than I plan to. I wonder what this thing weighs? Seems like he should be hitting the GVWR of 4810 lbs even before he gets in the driver seat. I guess he'll never have many people in the car though.

https://electrek.co/2018/08/06/tesla-powered-audi-s5-conversion-electric-car/

If I went the Audi route, perhaps I could sacrifice the center seat. I do like the idea of having a nice firewall between the battery bank and the passengers though.

What gets me is that it seems like the people in these articles never actually know what their range is... "Sam hasn’t tried to drive on an entire full charge yet, but he expects that the vehicle should be able to travel 250 miles on a single charge"... really?? Sometimes I feel like the cars in these articles don't actually even get used, they are just for show and tell. After all the calculations and discussions about range, aren't people curious to immediately find out what range their EV has when it's done?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> What gets me is that it seems like the people in these articles never actually know what their range is... "Sam hasn’t tried to drive on an entire full charge yet, but he expects that the vehicle should be able to travel 250 miles on a single charge"... really?? Sometimes I feel like the cars in these articles don't actually even get used, they are just for show and tell.


I think that's a very common situation. Another possibility is that the range is well known, but the builder doesn't want to admit it.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

brian_ said:


> I think that's a very common situation. Another possibility is that the range is well known, but the builder doesn't want to admit it.



I guess so. In the beginning it seems like range is this giant looming question, but I guess once it's built you are just happy to drive it, not so concerned about the exact specs.


I think the Audi A6 is out of the running. I spoke with the guy who was doing the fully custom conversion and he said there was no possible way to pack 50% more batteries into his rig without taking up the back seat or the entire trunk. A conclusion I was already close to making from his photos. 



I also have been keeping an eye on the dates for blog posts from peoples conversions, and I'm pretty aware of how it can stretch on for an eternity. So I think the relative ease of the Blazer and the extra space make it the winner. I also do like the look of it.



So Blazer it is. I think the only question now is what generation. I really like the newer generation (1995-2005) better than the older generation of the S10 Blazer. However, I haven't found any info about whether I can put the Borg-Warner T5 transmission in a 2004 Blazer, it would be way better if I could, since I already have the adapter plate for this. Does anyone have any knowledge/guesses here?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> In the beginning it seems like range is this giant looming question, but I guess once it's built you are just happy to drive it, not so concerned about the exact specs.


Not concerned... or not able to do anything about it, and not willing to admit failure to meet the exaggerated claims already made. 



massawe said:


> I also have been keeping an eye on the dates for blog posts from peoples conversions, and I'm pretty aware of how it can stretch on for an eternity. So I think the relative ease of the Blazer and the extra space make it the winner.


That's a refreshingly realistic viewpoint.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> So Blazer it is. I think the only question now is what generation. I really like the newer generation (1995-2005) better than the older generation of the S10 Blazer. However, I haven't found any info about whether I can put the Borg-Warner T5 transmission in a 2004 Blazer, it would be way better if I could, since I already have the adapter plate for this. Does anyone have any knowledge/guesses here?


Based on the first post, I checked the year range of these vehicles and concluded that the truck is the second generation (model years 1994-2004; rounded body), not the first generation (boxy body). The photo attached to the first post confirms that.

That's why I suggested this:


brian_ said:


> Mechanically it would be a straightforward swap of motor and transmission into a second-generation Chevrolet Blazer, GMC Jimmy, GMC Envoy (first generation), or Oldsmobile Bravada.


The Blazer generations are slightly out of synch with the S-10 generations, which is not an unusual situation. The second generation of Blazer doesn't start until model year 1995. Assuming that the drivetrain and chassis are in synch with the body, your existing hardware corresponds to the (desired) second generation Blazer.

The Envoy name wasn't used until 1998, so the very same vehicle which is called a second-generation Blazer when sold by Chevrolet was called a first-generation Envoy when sold by GMC.

The Borg-Warner T5 is very common, and fits many models over a wide span of years, presumably using a variety of bellhousings, extension housings, and shifter arrangements. To fit really conveniently, you want it to fit exactly as-is, but the greatest chance of that would be in a second-generation Blazer because it simply is a second-generation S-10 other than the rear portion of the body. Auto wreckers maintain extensive interchange databases; it should be possible to check if a T5 from a 1994 S-10 fits (without any modification) a 2004 Blazer.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Buick Rainier and Saab 97-X too I think.


Not quite. The 

Chevrolet TrailBlazer,
Buick Rainier, 
Saab 9-7X, 
GMC Envoy (second generation), 
Oldsmobile Bravada (third generation), and
Isuzu Ascender
are all variants of the GMT360/370 platform, which replaced the GMT330 platform of the second-generation Blazer and its siblings. They sound similar, and physically they are, but they're not the same and are not even related. You can't assume that anything from a GMT330 vehicle will fit any GMT360 vehicle.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

There's an uncommon variant of the second-generation S-10 which has a 4-door crew cab, called the S-10 ZR5. It has a rear seat like a Blazer, but a pickup box and a longer wheelbase (so maybe more battery space). It's an oddball possibility which would be a relatively straightforward transition (although not trivial because the existing battery boxes wouldn't fit), and would provide some needed interior.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

brian_ said:


> Based on the first post, I checked the year range of these vehicles and concluded that the truck is the second generation (model years 1994-2004; rounded body), not the first generation (boxy body). The photo attached to the first post confirms that.
> 
> it should be possible to check if a T5 from a 1994 S-10 fits (without any modification) a 2004 Blazer.



This whole post is very logical! I guess I was getting thrown off by all the little tweaks that happened over the years. After reading your comment then reading through the wiki page again it all lines up perfectly.


From more research it looks like the differences between the NV1500 used in the later Blazers and the T5 that I have are; shifter handle might be in a slightly different spot; T5 uses external clutch slave cylinder; speed measurements are slightly different.


None of these things sound like that big of a deal. In the truck that it came in, the shifter handle wasn't even attached. Do you think I will want to shift gears? Would this improve my highway mpg? I guess I should start looking into the torque vs rpm details.



Either way I'm stoked, I think I'm about ready to start looking for the donor car. It seems like going with 2wd instead of the 4x4 saves me a few hundred pounds, so that may may the search a little trickier, but I'm not really in a hurry.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> From more research it looks like the differences between the NV1500 used in the later Blazers and the T5 that I have are; shifter handle might be in a slightly different spot; T5 uses external clutch slave cylinder; speed measurements are slightly different.
> 
> None of these things sound like that big of a deal.


Since this T5 (with the bellhousing it has, to suit the S-10) presumably bolts onto the engine the same way as the later NV1500, if the differences are too much of a hassle you could change transmissions. If you buy a manual transmission Blazer you'll get whatever transmission fits it, and you would still be using your existing motor adapter plate and coupler (which is a major part of choosing a compatible vehicle).



massawe said:


> In the truck that it came in, the shifter handle wasn't even attached. Do you think I will want to shift gears? Would this improve my highway mpg? I guess I should start looking into the torque vs rpm details.


I wouldn't want to have the weight and bulk of a transmission, and not have the choice of gear ratios. On the other hand, some DIYElectricCar members do say that they just leave the transmission in the same gear all of the time.



massawe said:


> It seems like going with 2wd instead of the 4x4 saves me a few hundred pounds, so that may may the search a little trickier, but I'm not really in a hurry.


I assume that the S-10 that you have is 2WD. The output end of the transmission usually has a different housing section for 4WD, to allow the transfer case to be bolted on. That means that the easiest transitions would be to use the (manual) transmission which comes with the 4WD vehicle that you buy, or stay with 2WD to be able to use your existing transmission as-is.

Also, depending on how the front final drive (differential and housing assembly) and the engine/motor are mounted, putting your existing electric motor mount in a 4WD vehicle may require some additional mounting bracket work... or it may be not an issue at all. It's a detail to check out, but is shouldn't stop you in any case.

One additional detail is that while most 4WD vehicles of this series have a traditional part-time transfer case, some - usually called "AWD" - have a full-time transfer case... it drives the front axle all of the time, with a viscous coupling to allow the vehicle to turn properly without binding and control the amount of drive to the front. I think the full-time ("AWD") transfer case is single-speed, while the base 4WD transfer case has high and low ranges. If you go with 4WD, you can arrange the new vehicle to be part-time or full-time, depending on what components you get.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Check to see if the year you get has the axle punch through the oilpan, and, attempt to avoid those ones.

The jackshaft out of the front diff that rides through the oilpan needs a disconnect coupler to selectively power the passenger CV. They're famously faulty and usually the first thing snatched from the junkyard as GM hasn't made them or continued that design in years.

At the very least, if you do go with one of those models, reach under the front passenger tire for the drive side of the CV shaft (right after the boot), and see if you can lift or shake it. If it's solid, your disconnect is probably intact. If you can wobble it around, your disconnect is long, long, long gone (and 4x4 won't work anyway until you replace it).

Can't tell you which models, but, modern Trailblazers for sure and I've heard some of the classic Blazers were like that too. Not hard to tell, just look if you axle goes through the oilpan.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Check to see if the year you get has the axle punch through the oilpan, and, attempt to avoid those ones.
> ...
> Can't tell you which models, but, modern Trailblazers for sure and I've heard some of the classic Blazers were like that too. Not hard to tell, just look if you axle goes through the oilpan.


Yeah, given that you won't have an engine's oil pan, you definitely won't want a front axle housing designed to be part of the oil pan. Fortunately, you're not looking for a Trailblazer (GMT360 platform), but the second-generation GMT330 or "classic" Blazer. They are entirely different platforms and use different engines, so it wouldn't be surprising if there is no overlap of front-drive hardware; on the other hand, this through-the-pan front axle arrangement is common.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Thanks guys. I do like the idea of a 4x4, but it sounds like the 2wd has more advantages for me: less weight, more space, less problematic components. It's not easy to find the 2wd but they do come around. I was wavering between 4x4 and 2wd before reading your comments though.

I've been planning the battery installations a little bit and it isn't going to be easy to pack 95 of these cells in! I won't know exact numbers until I get the vehicle of course.

Right now I'm thinking if I can pack one row of batteries under the motor controller, between the motor and the radiator, maybe I could get a max of 10 batteries under the hood. That's not much... From online measurements of the rear space I think I can get 45 in the back, and am hoping I can install a second row of cells underneath these (where the spare tire goes) to bump it up to around 70 in the rear. That still leaves me with 15 batteries... I was thinking I may need to put these where the center console is, running in a line between the driver seat and passenger seat towards the backseat.

I believe this is similar to how the volt does it. Have you seen any conversions doing this? What are your thought on having batteries right next to the passengers like this?

Also, do you know if LiIon prismatic cells will care what orientation they are in? I may need to lay some on their sides...

Any other creative places for batteries?

I'm hoping the high clearance of the vehicle brings some opportunities to build some custom shelves underneath.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> Right now I'm thinking if I can pack one row of batteries under the motor controller, between the motor and the radiator, maybe I could get a max of 10 batteries under the hood. That's not much... From online measurements of the rear space I think I can get 45 in the back, and am hoping I can install a second row of cells underneath these (where the spare tire goes) to bump it up to around 70 in the rear. That still leaves me with 15 batteries... I was thinking I may need to put these where the center console is, running in a line between the driver seat and passenger seat towards the backseat.
> 
> I believe this is similar to how the volt does it. Have you seen any conversions doing this? What are your thought on having batteries right next to the passengers like this?


The Volt has a "T" pack: it runs down the centre of the car, and across behind the rear seats. Of course, the car's floor is shaped to accommodate this and there is no propeller shaft (driveshaft) under it.

The battery can certainly be right beside passengers - most modern EVs put the battery right under the passengers feet and seats - but it needs to be enclosed properly. In production vehicles it is normally on the outside of the body, so there's a floor between the people and the battery pack, and even then the pack is enclosed in its own case.



massawe said:


> Also, do you know if LiIon prismatic cells will care what orientation they are in? I may need to lay some on their sides...


These cells on their sides should be no problem... but they do generally need to be stacked in a row and constrained from expanding.



massawe said:


> Any other creative places for batteries?


I didn't see the fuel tank location in that list - is it a usable shape?
In a pickup truck the fuel tank is usually on one side and the exhaust on the other side, flanking the propeller shaft. If the Blazer is similar, perhaps the muffler space is another potential battery pack space.


----------



## DrGee (Aug 22, 2018)

I plan to use the petrol tank for battery space in my Jeep conversion. You may be able to do the same. I plan to use the existing tank on the left. After I remove the exhaust system on the right, I'll fit another tank from a junkyard in the available space and fill that tank with another battery pack.


----------



## Emyr (Oct 27, 2016)

I wouldn't bother using a normal fuel tank as the battery case.

It may have baffles to prevent fuel starvation when cornering. You'd want to remove the baffles to install the cells, but the baffles also contribute to the stiffness of the tank.

A tank normally also has a rounded shape. You'll be able to fit fewer cells inside than in a custom case you design to fit the space where the tank was located.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I agree that while the place where it was located is often a good possibility, the fuel tank itself is not likely to be a useful case. The shape of the top of the tank indicates the shape of the available space (so I look for online images of tanks to indicate whether the space might be workable), but there's no reason to follow that exactly with the battery case.

There are some older vehicles with very simply shaped tanks that are basically rectangular with rounded corners. In that case the tank might make an interesting novel case, if the dimensions are compatible with the cells being used, but generally it wouldn't be very practical. Early Land Rover under-seat tanks would be an example of a reasonable possibility, but even then _goingbush _made battery boxes in the same pattern and mounts as the original tanks for his LandRover lightweight EV conversion, but didn't use the actual tanks. My motorhome has a huge and simple 270 litre box for a tank which would be great.  A second-generation Blazer is not a good candidate for this.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

brian_ said:


> The battery can certainly be right beside passengers - most modern EVs put the battery right under the passengers feet and seats - but it needs to be enclosed properly. In production vehicles it is normally on the outside of the body, so there's a floor between the people and the battery pack, and even then the pack is enclosed in its own case.


Ok, I'll have to see if I have enough space to build a solid enclosure around the batteries. I don't want to have all the weight in the back of the vehicle, so this seems like a valuable piece of real estate for batteries. I was even thinking it could run all the way back to the rear seat if needed, and whoever sat in the middle seat would just need to straddle the pack. What better place for batteries than right between your legs? In reality I don't travel with 5 people in my car much, so this would probably hardly ever be used.

I was thinking about putting some of the other electronics under the seats, such as the DC/DC step down converter. Hopefully this will free up more space under the hood for batteries, and would require smaller cables running to it.



brian_ said:


> These cells on their sides should be no problem... but they do generally need to be stacked in a row and constrained from expanding.


I hadn't thought of expansion. I have some extra cells, one of which I damaged years ago, so maybe I'll pop it open to see how the pouches inside are constrained within the plastic housing. I imagine these cells are made to be pressed firmly one against the other. Do these type of prismatic cells usually require cooling?



brian_ said:


> I didn't see the fuel tank location in that list - is it a usable shape?
> In a pickup truck the fuel tank is usually on one side and the exhaust on the other side, flanking the propeller shaft. If the Blazer is similar, perhaps the muffler space is another potential battery pack space.


My current plan is to rip out everything under the rear of the vehicle (spare tire, fuel tank, exhaust) and build a platform that hangs a bit below the floor to pack in as many batteries as possible. I am thinking I may have to do a good bit of body surgery for this to work, but it seems like a good place to store the bulk of the batteries. The S10 truck I bought had a similar compartment built in this location, under the bed.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

massawe said:


> My current plan is to rip out everything under the rear of the vehicle (spare tire, fuel tank, exhaust) and build a platform that hangs a bit below the floor to pack in as many batteries as possible. I am thinking I may have to do a good bit of body surgery for this to work, but it seems like a good place to store the bulk of the batteries. The S10 truck I bought had a similar compartment built in this location, under the bed.


Good, but keep in mind that this is really three areas: behind the axle, and ahead of the axle on each side of the propeller shaft.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

It's looking like it could be hard to get the exact donor car I'm looking for: 2wd, manual, 4 door, good condition.


Most for sale are 4x4's, but going with 2wd saves me ~350lbs, and may give me extra space for equipment under the hood, so I like the 2wd option. It also allows me to use the transmission I have if needed.


So I'm wondering how hard it would be to just use an automatic and put my manual transmission in it. That would open up a lot of donor car options.


I did some calculations to try and see what my motor efficiency would be in different scenarios and it looks like it's better in every situation to run in 1st gear. From the motor datasheet the sweet spot is between 4000-5000 RPM, and the torque stays pretty good until 5000 RPM. I found that 5000 RPM in 1st gear would be 75MPH. The motor controller says it can run in reverse, so I shouldn't need that.


Here's a copy of my spreadsheet with my calculations:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o2A01L3i5QZLhILSh5ocB8pHeTUXs6FQGR87Drj5WNs/edit?usp=sharing


The motor efficiency curve is here:
https://www.neweagle.net/support/wi...on_Inverters/UQM/PowerPhase_125_DataSheet.pdf


The range numbers from this spreadsheet go between 103 miles and 131 miles, so that's not too far off from what I was thinking. Although this number doesn't account for hills and stops. It looks like the rolling resistance is definitely the dominating factor. I used 0.02 for the coefficient of rolling resistance, but I imagine the type of tires makes a huge difference. Maybe some lower profile tires would get me better rolling resistance? Is there a place to find the coefficients of rolling resistance for various tire models?


I am always fishing for a second set of eyes on my work, makes me feel less responsible for it when a screw up  Thanks.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi
You seem to have forgotten the diff ratio in your calcs


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

Comments: most 4wd trucks/ car be easily converted back to 2 wd, the holes and mounts are there. Well maybe not the S10 Zr2. Even Subies.
Worse case the driveshaft and axles could be removed. The baja guys run 4wd vehicles like that because they are stronger.

For aero data and tire related, I suggest ecomodder.com


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

Duncan said:


> Hi
> You seem to have forgotten the diff ratio in your calcs


Ah yeah. I appreciate that you used the word 'forgotten', since the reality is that I hadn't even realized that differentials altered the gear ratio. I'm a complete noob when it comes to car mechanics. Fortunately what I lack in experience I make up for in naive ignorance.

So I updated the sheet (same link should work), and now things are much more complicated. It looks like 3rd gear offers some serious advantage at 60mph now, so I guess my no shifter idea is not sounding so good anymore, unless I could leave it in 3rd. I'm not sure what the starting torque I will need is though, so this sounds too risky.



piotrsko said:


> Comments: most 4wd trucks/ car be easily converted back to 2 wd, the holes and mounts are there. Well maybe not the S10 Zr2. Even Subies.
> Worse case the driveshaft and axles could be removed. The baja guys run 4wd vehicles like that because they are stronger.


From looking at some truck forums it sounds like this could be a bit of work as I may have to remove the front suspension as well?

I'm wondering how different the shifter location is from the manual to the automatic... if it's not far I could modify the hole in the floor since I'll prob be ripping that area up anyway. I'm not sure how hard it is to install the clutch pedal either. Is the clutch pressure assisted like the brakes, or is it just a direct mechanical connection?

I can probably find a 2wd automatic still quite a bit easier than a 2wd manual. It seems like manual and 2wd are the areas that are less common, so removing either one of these constraints opens up my options considerably.

Maybe I'm just impatient though...


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

Big hole in tunnel for trans access, uses different tin covers for different shifters/ transmission. You can make your own.

IIRC, the clutch pedal is a longer shaft that passes through brake pedal pivot assy, get one at pick a part wrecker. Takes an hour to install. Mounting holes are already there. (Ask me how I know). Clutch is either master cylinder or rods depending on year. Aftermarket kit for converting rods to cable. Aftermarket kits for different master cylinder adapters.

Tie points on suspension stay the same except for '80s rangers and Late 90's ZR2.

Btdt chilton or haynes have pictures. Library may have one to look at


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

piotrsko said:


> Big hole in tunnel for trans access, uses different tin covers for different shifters/ transmission. You can make your own.
> 
> IIRC, the clutch pedal is a longer shaft that passes through brake pedal pivot assy, get one at pick a part wrecker. Takes an hour to install. Mounting holes are already there. (Ask me how I know). Clutch is either master cylinder or rods depending on year. Aftermarket kit for converting rods to cable. Aftermarket kits for different master cylinder adapters.
> 
> ...


This all sounds like it is within my comfort zone. Being able to purchase an automatic will definitely open up my options.

I'll aim for 2wd, since I don't really plan to start converting the car until early 2019 anyway, so I have some time to look. If I can't find anything by February or so I may need to follow piotrsko's advice on converting 4wd to 2wd.


----------



## massawe (Jul 27, 2018)

This is a general question, but I thought I'd post it here instead of on a new post:

I've started my conversion and want to post my progress etc and get feedback. Is the best way to do this to start a blog on this site, or is there a better way like just using a thread in one of the forums? The reason I ask is that I find the organization a bit convoluted sometimes and I didn't see many people actively using the blogs section.

Thanks!


----------

