# Planning 1969 International Harvester Travelall conversion



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

Welcome fellow WA resident-

The travelall is a cool truck, (I still retain fond memories of my 77 ramcharger but it had to go when I bought my 61 land rover) but will suffer from the challenges of any large, heavy, non-aerodynamic vehicle when you look at it from an EV conversion perspective. advantages are plenty of space for batteries/components, and (if you are intent on keeping 4wd) the divorced transfer case could be a useful configuration. The ICE components in that truck are big enough to offset a lot of battery weight in their removal. You could lose a few hundred pounds more weight going to 2wd but that would also require sourcing a new front axle, etc. etc. At minimum, make sure the truck has freewheeling hubs in the front if you keep the 4wd.

Looking at where you are, if you are on roads where you won't need to drive 60mph to keep up with traffic, that is an advantage too, since aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed, or roughly speaking, 10mph increase in speed is a 30% increase in drag.

Budget will be a big factor in what you try, but in any case the best battery right now (quality and quantity for $) is surplus/salvaged leaf cells. You would need at least 60kwh worth, or two 2016 leafs, or 2.5 earlier leaf packs. Probably in the not too distant future it will be easier to retrofit/reconfigure tesla modules, but people are still working on the electronics care and feeding to make them work reliably outside of the original tesla vehicle.

As for drivetrain, a DC drivetrain could be done and you would need at minimum a single 11"motor, or dual 9's. Nothing smaller than a Z1K controller would do. AC drivetrains are better in many ways, but also pricier and you do give up some low end torque. If you have significant hills though it could be a great advantage to get regenerative braking. A dual stack remy would be a great motor setup, but you are looking at significant $ for the motor and inverter.

The best example to build from is another local guy, who has converted a 90's F250 extra cab 4x4 to electric. The truck has gone through a couple battery configurations but currently has about 60kwh worth of leaf cells in it. It gets about 80 mile range at freeway speed. This truck is probably somewhat worse than yours weight and aero wise but is the best example to go from. His truck can be seen at:

http://www.evalbum.com/2898

Good luck


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

madderscience said:


> Welcome fellow WA resident


It's a beautiful place!


madderscience said:


> (if you are intent on keeping 4wd) the divorced transfer case could be a useful configuration. The ICE components in that truck are big enough to offset a lot of battery weight in their removal. You could lose a few hundred pounds more weight going to 2wd but that would also require sourcing a new front axle, etc. etc. At minimum, make sure the truck has freewheeling hubs in the front if you keep the 4wd.


I do need the 4wd for winter months as we get more snow than the surrounding area and I still need to get to work on those days. So perhaps a month out of the year it ever risk 4x4 being engaged and that would be for short low speed periods.

Sorry I'm not sure what "ICE Components" are in the context of already being in the vehicle.

She has normally free wheeling, manual locking hubs and the t-case has 2 High, 4 High, 4 Low, and neutral.


madderscience said:


> Looking at where you are, if you are on roads where you won't need to drive 60mph to keep up with traffic, that is an advantage too, since aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed, or roughly speaking, 10mph increase in speed is a 30% increase in drag.


all but 5 miles of my daily commute is 55mph posted roads which most of us travel at 58-60, the rest is sub 35mph or 70mph I-5.



madderscience said:


> Budget will be a big factor in what you try, but in any case the best battery right now (quality and quantity for $) is surplus/salvaged leaf cells. You would need at least 60kwh worth, or two 2016 leafs, or 2.5 earlier leaf packs. Probably in the not too distant future it will be easier to retrofit/reconfigure tesla modules, but people are still working on the electronics care and feeding to make them work reliably outside of the original tesla vehicle.
> 
> As for drivetrain, a DC drivetrain could be done and you would need at minimum a single 11"motor, or dual 9's. Nothing smaller than a Z1K controller would do. AC drivetrains are better in many ways, but also pricier and you do give up some low end torque. If you have significant hills though it could be a great advantage to get regenerative braking. A dual stack remy would be a great motor setup, but you are looking at significant $ for the motor and inverter.
> 
> ...


That's a rather detailed gallery on that ford and gives me hope outside of that 28k price range they've estimated. My hope is to learn from others mistakes and avoid pitfalls which only increase costs.

One thing that puzzles me is the back and forth I see with Transmission VS None. I think with the divorced transfer case I'm basically in a position to use any transmission, or none, that I want as long as it can handle the torque and weight of the vehicle.

I also failed to mention I'm nearly certain that my pinion gears are 4.11 - however for ~400USD I could switch to 3.07 or 3.08 if that would benefit a direct to transfer case drive?

I'm still not even sure what I could come up with for a total budget at this point - so I'd like to flesh this out as both minimal *sane* budget and we'll say a moderate _do it all right_ budget.

I've also considered as much as solar to increase range and decrease dependencies on public charging as I've access to 4 panel systems which are advertised to output 110VAC @ 15A and as before if it's at all practical someday it would be planned to add in a small genset to again break away from grid dependencies. I don't know why I'm thinking that far future...


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

*1969 International Harvester Travelall conversion idea*

1) Pull out the engine, transmission, transfer case, fuel tanks and exhaust.

2) Buy a wrecked Tesla.

3) Put the rear motor from the Tesla approximately where your transfer case is now.

4) Adapt your driveshafts to mate with your new Tesla unit.

5) Fill in the remaining spaces underneath your Travelall with Tesla battery modules and charger. Use the entire Tesla battery.

6) Use .020 AlClad aluminium with nutplates to seal of the entire bottom for weather protection and aerodynamic improvement.

7) Finish off and carpet the remaining space under the hood to use as a frunk.

8) Once you have finished all of the above, you will have multiple options available to you for Tesla battery and motor control.

9) Take a bow, you have built an AWD 450 HP Travelall.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

madderscience said:


> Welcome fellow WA resident-


No place I'd rather be!


madderscience said:


> ...if you are intent on keeping 4wd the divorced transfer case could be a useful configuration. ... At minimum, make sure the truck has freewheeling hubs in the front if you keep the 4wd.


the 4 wheel drive is important to me with the amount of snow we get. However I'd estimate 40-48 weeks a year it'd be in 2wd. Hubs are manual switch between free and locked.


madderscience said:


> Looking at where you are, if you are on roads where you won't need to drive 60mph to keep up with traffic, that is an advantage too, since aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed, or roughly speaking, 10mph increase in speed is a 30% increase in drag.


On a one way trip to work it'd be 33-35 miles @ a posted 55mph which most travel at 57-59mph with another 3 miles at posted 70mph and a 2 miles at 35mph.



madderscience said:


> Budget will be a big factor in what you try


10kUSD doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but mostly I'm interested in seeing what the best budget build would look like for cost and what the "done right" build would look like.



madderscience said:


> ...but in any case the best battery right now (quality and quantity for $) is surplus/salvaged leaf cells. You would need at least 60kwh worth, or two 2016 leafs, or 2.5 earlier leaf packs. Probably in the not too distant future it will be easier to retrofit/reconfigure tesla modules, but people are still working on the electronics care and feeding to make them work reliably outside of the original tesla vehicle.
> 
> As for drivetrain, a DC drivetrain could be done and you would need at minimum a single 11"motor, or dual 9's. Nothing smaller than a Z1K controller would do. AC drivetrains are better in many ways, but also pricier and you do give up some low end torque. If you have significant hills though it could be a great advantage to get regenerative braking. A dual stack remy would be a great motor setup, but you are looking at significant $ for the motor and inverter.
> 
> ...


All in all I think this is doable and I appreciate the links to regenerative braking and the electric ford.

I'm curious if there would be any value to deleting the transfer case and running a motor on each drive line while primary driving would be off the rear axle then when 4x4 is needed engage the hubs and the secondary motor driving the front wheels?

I still find interest in things like a genset that might produce 50%+ of the required power to travel at highway speed in hopes that it provides a way to limp or charge without the dependency of the public infrastructure, or lack thereof.

Trying to post this reply again as it seems to have been lost to the land of inactive admins...


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

*Re: 1969 International Harvester Travelall conversion idea*



nucleus said:


> 1) Pull out the engine, transmission, transfer case, fuel tanks and exhaust.
> 
> 2) Buy a wrecked Tesla.
> 
> ...


This actually sounds like a ton of fun if one could find a rolled tesla that wasn't obliterated...


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

The ideal build I was describing (2 leaf packs, dual remy motor, plus everything else) is probably a $30-40K build, unfortunately. it is totally possible to do an EV these days for $10K, even using a leaf pack, but to get the range you want out of it with that budget you'd have to start with a much smaller, more efficient vehicle.

If you can find an abandoned build/conversion sometimes that is the cheapest way to get parts, but you probably aren't going to find state-of-the-art parts that way, and you will almost never find good batteries that way.

FWIW an off-lease 2013-2015 leaf with about an 80 mile range can be had well under $10K right now Do keep in mind though that 70 miles of range on a sunny warm day uses about the same energy as 55-60 miles in cold and rain, and if its snowing, it gets much worse. so if you have a vehicle with just enough range in good conditions, you'll still either need to find charging or keep it garaged when the conditions aren't ideal.

The 2016+ leafs have a 30kwh pack, and a bit over 100 miles range. when those start coming off lease, they will be very competitively priced as well, since the 2018 leafs have a much larger battery pack.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

madderscience said:


> The ideal build I was describing (2 leaf packs, dual remy motor, plus everything else) is probably a $30-40K build, unfortunately.


Confirmed my fears of obscene costs. Thanks for your input!

If I moved my target range to say 30 or 50 miles what might that change your estimate of the cost to be? Since I can always add more power storage later...


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi
You can certainly meet those requirements
If I was doing that now I would be looking for a crashed EV and simply use the parts

A Leaf would give you similar performance to the original - if you want 4WD then use two Leaf's

I believe that complete working Leafs are down at the $5000 mark now so damaged ones should be available

I would be looking at using the entire motor/gearbox/diff unit at both ends


A Tesla would be more fun! - and maybe not that much more expensive - the aluminium body means that repairs are expensive and they do get written off without a lot of damage
I have seen them for about $12000

For a Leaf you could try and con the electronics into believing that it's all still in the Leaf

For the Tesla you would probably have to swap over the "brainboard" - several people on this site are working on bits to do that

In either case getting the whole car would be a good idea - and keep all of the electronic bits until you are SURE you don't need them


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Hi
> You can certainly meet those requirements
> If I was doing that now I would be looking for a crashed EV and simply use the parts
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I follow what you mean given the weight of the IHC vs a leaf?


Duncan said:


> A Tesla would be more fun! - and maybe not that much more expensive - the aluminium body means that repairs are expensive and they do get written off without a lot of damage
> I have seen them for about $12000


I was poking around on some salvage sites today and saw several 2016's for between 5000$ and 15000$ this actually has me thinking it wouldn't hurt to be watching for one in the right shape and in the mean time fix up the issues the current power plant has.



Duncan said:


> For a Leaf you could try and con the electronics into believing that it's all still in the Leaf
> 
> For the Tesla you would probably have to swap over the "brainboard" - several people on this site are working on bits to do that
> 
> In either case getting the whole car would be a good idea - and keep all of the electronic bits until you are SURE you don't need them


That was my next concern now that I had realized the tesla concepts aren't just witty sarcasm how one might use the tesla 'guts'.

There was also mention of "awd" by replacing the transfer case and lengthening the drivelines, while I can see this working it would also require swapping the front knuckle u-joints with CV's or you'd be replacing U-joints frequently which while possible would easily add 2k to the total cost... can't say it's a bad addition. Assuming the Tesla motor is dual output shaft can it handle having nothing connected without premature bearing failure on that shaft?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi
The Leaf is about the same power as your old wagon - little bit less but the electric torque will make up for that - so I would expect similar performance (with one Leaf - with two.....)

I would be dropping the Leaf or Tesla units in place of your diffs - so the motor was transverse (just as in the Leaf/Tesla) and coupling your driveshafts up to the Leaf/Tesla ones

You end up with two motors each driving two wheels - DO NOT worry about coupling them together and getting them so that they go at the same speed - the ground will do that for you

The idea of putting a Tesla motor in the middle longitudinally and driving your current diffs strikes me as hard work


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

Duncan said:


> I would be dropping the Leaf or Tesla units in place of your diffs - so the motor was transverse (just as in the Leaf/Tesla) and coupling your driveshafts up to the Leaf/Tesla ones
> 
> You end up with two motors each driving two wheels - DO NOT worry about coupling them together and getting them so that they go at the same speed - the ground will do that for you
> 
> The idea of putting a Tesla motor in the middle longitudinally and driving your current diffs strikes me as hard work


It seems if this was an IFS/IRS rather than straight axle the idea of a traverse motor would be a trivial swap. Perhaps less trivial than what my lack of knowledge of the motors says is not much more than motor mounts, output shaft yokes and drive shafts with the single suggested by *nucleus* tesla motor in place of transfer case. Ignoring the fact that it would then require machining of the front axle internal races to allow replacing the u-joint inner axle with CV joint axle.

Perhaps the most effective plan would be to find something with IFS/IRS and swap out those components moving the whole vehicle to both independent suspension and AWD direct drive units traverse as they're used in the donor vehicles.

I don't see any way that this thing wont be a ton of work regardless of how it's done.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> There was also mention of "awd" by replacing the transfer case and lengthening the drivelines...


I assume this is the scheme which turns the Telsa motor/transaxle unit 90 degrees, so that the outputs to the wheels become outputs to the axles. This sort of arrangement (although usually with a gas engine and transaxle) has been done quite a few times; however:

packaging is a challenge - can the Tesla unit really sit under the floor, even in the transmission tunnel?
the Tesla unit is geared to run the wheels, so adding the final drive reduction results in a very low-geared vehicle



gehidore said:


> Assuming the Tesla motor is dual output shaft can it handle having nothing connected without premature bearing failure on that shaft?


The two output shafts of the motor/tranxaxle unit are the outputs of a conventional differential. If nothing is attached to one output, that one just spins and no torque can be put out to either shaft. This leaves two choices:

use both outputs, such as in the normal installation to run two wheels, or in the full-time AWD setup above in which one output goes to each axle
replace the differential with a spool - which would need to be custom-built, because no one will have one in production for a Tesla
If you mean just the motor by itself, then no, it doesn't have a double-ended shaft, and no motor from a production EV will.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

brian_ said:


> packaging is a challenge - can the Tesla unit really sit under the floor, even
> in the transmission tunnel?


In the case of this vehicle there is ample space for near anything under it. I can roll from one side of the vehicle to the other under it without touching anything but the ground and I'm not a tiny person. Without measuring - I'll do that later - there's easily 14w"x 8h" recess which makes up the transmission / transfer case tunnel add another 6-7" for frame depth and you've got essentially a 14"x 14" tunnel to put things.


brian_ said:


> the Tesla unit is geared to run the wheels, so adding the final drive reduction results in a very low-geared vehicle


Certainly worth noting!


brian_ said:


> use both outputs, such as in the normal installation to run two wheels, or in the full-time AWD setup above in which one output goes to each axle


Seems the options are:

swap out entire rolling gear/suspension for IFS/IRS with CV axles and harvesting parts from an AWD tesla's drive train direct driving the wheels from there.
harvest from AWD tesla and remove diff from tesla motor using the motor to directly drive each axle which - requires machining a pair of yokes to mount to each motor output shaft.
harvest RWD tesla motor to drive the divorced transfer case - requires machining a yoke for the motor output shaft



brian_ said:


> replace the differential with a spool - which would need to be custom-built, because no one will have one in production for a Tesla
> If you mean just the motor by itself, then no, it doesn't have a double-ended shaft, and no motor from a production EV will.


Not sure what you mean by a spool, google fails me on the subject coupled with electric motors.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the motor having it's own differential vs dual output shafts.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> Not sure what you mean by a spool, google fails me on the subject coupled with electric motors.


... because it's not about electric motors. 
I mean the solid replacement for the spider, spider gears, and side gears of a conventional differential. The same thing that a drag racer puts in the rear axle so one wheel won't spin on the strip; the same thing that an off-roader puts in an axle of a vehicle never driven on pavement to keep one wheel from spinning.
Image from random online discussion, showing stock ring gear bolted to spool in typical axle housing, replacing differential gears:


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> In the case of this vehicle there is ample space for near anything under it. I can roll from one side of the vehicle to the other under it without touching anything but the ground and I'm not a tiny person. Without measuring - I'll do that later - there's easily 14w"x 8h" recess which makes up the transmission / transfer case tunnel add another 6-7" for frame depth and you've got essentially a 14"x 14" tunnel to put things.


That sounds enormous, but I think if you look at the threads in this forum where people share the dimensions of a Tesla drive unit - even the "small" motor versions, you might be surprised how large they are!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> Seems the options are:
> swap out entire rolling gear/suspension for IFS/IRS with CV axles and harvesting parts from an AWD tesla's drive train direct driving the wheels from there.


I agree - that's the all-out swap approach. Of course it means that nothing is left of the original vehicle other than the body and some of the frame... and you either use the Tesla suspension (and have relatively little ground clearance or wheel travel) or fit some other complete independent suspension.



gehidore said:


> harvest from AWD tesla and remove diff from tesla motor using the motor to directly drive each axle which - requires machining a pair of yokes to mount to each motor output shaft.


If I understand this correctly, that's using only one Tesla drive unit to drive the front and rear driveshafts. If so, the differential can stay in (giving you full-time AWD with an open centre diff); if you replace the diff with a spool you're stuck in 4WD with no centre diff and thus no ability to turn on anything but loose surfaces. A lockable diff in the Tesla case would be ideal, but the chances of finding something that would fit seem very low.



gehidore said:


> harvest RWD tesla motor to drive the divorced transfer case - requires machining a yoke for the motor output shaft


... or either the front motor or the rear motor of an AWD Tesla, because even a Tesla front motor is more powerful than the stock Travelall engine. The next problem is that you have only the final drive reduction of the axles (plus the transfer case reduction when in low range), and that gearing is way too tall to effectively use the Tesla motor. The stock Tesla Model S overall gearing is about 9.7:1, and the stock axle ratio apparently ranges from 3.07:1 to 4.09:1, so you would need at least 2.4:1 additional reduction from something just to match stock Tesla gearing. Since the Tesla is geared for a software-limited maximum speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) - and faster is possible without destroying the motor - more reduction gearing would be suitable.

The gearing problem is that like most production EVs, the Tesla motor comes with a two-stage reduction gearbox (9.7:1 in this case), and to replace an engine and transmission it needs only one stage of that reduction... but it does need one stage (about 3:1 or 4:1 would work) to be suitable.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

brian_ said:


> ... because it's not about electric motors.
> I mean the solid replacement for the spider, spider gears, and side gears of a conventional differential.


I knew I was missing something obvious, *that* spool I'm familiar with, pardon my density.


brian_ said:


> That sounds enormous, but I think if you look at the threads in this forum where people share the dimensions of a Tesla drive unit - even the "small" motor versions, you might be surprised how large they are!


Just took measurements

 Engine compartment above frame between fenders *37w*37d*28h*"
 Transmission tube between and including frame height *16w*20d*17h*" tapered to 14w*14h" at the tail
 distance bewteen transmission and transfer case *~18"*
 Transfer case tube between and including frame height *16w*12d*14h*"
 frame inner width *28"*
 saddle bag area outside of frame below seats one per side*14w*60d*7h*"

Also snapped some pictures





brian_ said:


> If I understand this correctly, that's using only one Tesla drive unit to drive the front and rear driveshafts. If so, the differential can stay in (giving you full-time AWD with an open centre diff); if you replace the diff with a spool you're stuck in 4WD with no centre diff and thus no ability to turn on anything but loose surfaces. A lockable diff in the Tesla case would be ideal, but the chances of finding something that would fit seem very low.


I was thinking in this example in my list that I would be using two motors one on each drive line to the existing complete axles and making the front one switchable in the same sense that the transfer case can be 2wd or 4wd. at this point likely consuming twice the power to operate in 4wd. I think you might also run into synchronization issues without mounting something to monitor axle/motor speed? 



brian_ said:


> ... or either the front motor or the rear motor of an AWD Tesla, because even a Tesla front motor is more powerful than the stock Travelall engine. The next problem is that you have only the final drive reduction of the axles (plus the transfer case reduction when in low range), and that gearing is way too tall to effectively use the Tesla motor. The stock Tesla Model S overall gearing is about 9.7:1, and the stock axle ratio apparently ranges from 3.07:1 to 4.09:1, so you would need at least 2.4:1 additional reduction from something just to match stock Tesla gearing. Since the Tesla is geared for a software-limited maximum speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) - and faster is possible without destroying the motor - more reduction gearing would be suitable.
> 
> The gearing problem is that like most production EVs, the Tesla motor comes with a two-stage reduction gearbox (9.7:1 in this case), and to replace an engine and transmission it needs only one stage of that reduction... but it does need one stage (about 3:1 or 4:1 would work) to be suitable.


In the 'options' I was listing I had assumed that only the first one would retain the stock diff on the tesla motors, the others would be directly driving the transfer case which has 1:1 2 high 4 high and 1.96:1 4 low or the axles which currently have 4.11:1 ratio with the option to switch to 3.07:1 or go 5+:1 if necessary. Does that seem plausible?

With the option to use front or rear in AWD perhaps the ideal donor would also be AWD even if I only require a single motor given I'd then have a spare / replacement for future use or another _you probably shouldn't bother with ev on that_ type conversion.


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

Putting motors front and rear changes the entire suspension and steering of the vehicle. 

Even if you have to modify some metal, replacing the transfer case with a Tesla drive unit is a much simpler prospect.

Having a center differential makes the AWD more fuel efficient and better driving than the stock four wheel drive.

Gearing is an issue with this approach for sure. The Tesla drive unit will give about the equivalent of about first gear in the Travelall.

With the current 4.11 axles, and some tall 37 inch tires, you max out at only 44 MPH, the stock ratio 3.07 gets you to 55 MPH.

So unless you are ok with 55 MPH, we need taller tires or, the better option is to change the final drive ratio in the Tesla box. Saleen went the other way way 11.39, so we just need to swap to a lower ratio.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

nucleus said:


> Putting motors front and rear changes the entire suspension and steering of the vehicle.
> 
> Even if you have to modify some metal, replacing the transfer case with a Tesla drive unit is a much simpler prospect.
> 
> Having a center differential makes the AWD more fuel efficient and better driving than the stock four wheel drive.


Not sure how that changes both suspension and steering if I'm mounting them center of mass with stock axles and only engaging the front motor when hubs are locked and under 35mph for those times you might benefit from 4wd


nucleus said:


> Gearing is an issue with this approach for sure. The Tesla drive unit will give about the equivalent of about first gear in the Travelall.


 I presume you're talking about mounting the motor and drive unit 90 degrees from stock tesla and driving the axles from that? Or am I misunderstanding the tesla motor? would it not be possible to simply strip the drive unit from the motor and direct drive some axles or the transfer case with the motor itself? Using the ring and pinion for the necessary reduction?


nucleus said:


> With the current 4.11 axles, and some tall 37 inch tires, you max out at only 44 MPH, the stock ratio 3.07 gets you to 55 MPH.


Tallest I'm willing to go is 35 most likely end up with 31-33", the ones pictured are 31x10r15 and have since been sold as I _was_ going to swap out for 6 lug disk axles before finding the donors were bent and not worth repair.


nucleus said:


> So unless you are ok with 55 MPH, we need taller tires or, the better option is to change the final drive ratio in the Tesla box. Saleen went the other way way 11.39, so we just need to swap to a lower ratio.


55mph no, 65 sure I could accept that.

For the sake of clarification I've wasted some time with gimp to modify a thing...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> I was thinking in this example in my list that I would be using two motors one on each drive line to the existing complete axles and making the front one switchable in the same sense that the transfer case can be 2wd or 4wd. at this point likely consuming twice the power to operate in 4wd. I think you might also run into synchronization issues without mounting something to monitor axle/motor speed?


One drive unit, splitting power to front and rear by differential (your first drawing - thanks for those ), takes no fancy controls; each end gets the same torque (which is fundamentally what an open differential does).

Two motors, one for each axle (the second drawing), need coordination - this can certainly be done, but will take some work on the controllers. If you can adapt enough of the Tesla controls, they will handle the coordination... but I think that's beyond what anyone has been able to do so far in a DIY project with Tesla components.

There is the issue that in most 4WD vehicles (with old Land Rovers and Steyr-Daimler-Puch/Mercedes G-wagens being the notable exceptions) the front and rear shafts are not in line: the rear is at the centre and the front is substantially off to one side to clear the transmission and engine. This is clearly shown in the diagrams. Joint angles might be a concern.

I don't see so much point in turning the front drive off. For the same total output power, running two motors shouldn't take much more power in total than one motor (for the same total power to the tires). It is true that mechanical drag is still reduced by disengaging the front hubs, but it's not going to cut power consumption more than a few percent.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> With the option to use front or rear in AWD perhaps the ideal donor would also be AWD even if I only require a single motor given I'd then have a spare / replacement for future use or another _you probably shouldn't bother with ev on that_ type conversion.


The extra motor from an AWD Tesla isn't really a spare, because the front and rear motors are not the same (they have different power output), and the gearboxes are not the same either (they position the motor differently), so it would be for a different project.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

nucleus said:


> Putting motors front and rear changes the entire suspension and steering of the vehicle.


I assume that nucleus is assuming for this scenario that Tesla units would sit where the current axle is, replacing the axle entirely (and requiring a new independent suspension).



gehidore said:


> Not sure how that changes both suspension and steering if I'm mounting them center of mass with stock axles ...


This is what you showed in the middle configuration drawing. What nucleus had suggested to avoid changing the axles and suspension is what you showed in the top configuration drawing:


nucleus said:


> ... replacing the transfer case with a Tesla drive unit is a much simpler prospect.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

nucleus said:


> ... change the final drive ratio in the Tesla box. Saleen went the other way way 11.39, so we just need to swap to a lower ratio.


Is that a realistic option? Having Saleen do anything is about the same as burning cash for firewood, so I'm not so surprised that they did custom gearing. If a random DIYer went shopping for a gearset, could it be acquired for less than thousands of dollars?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

brian_ said:


> Two motors, one for each axle (the second drawing), need coordination - this can certainly be done, but will take some work on the controllers. If you can adapt enough of the Tesla controls, they will handle the coordination... but I think that's beyond what anyone has been able to do so far in a DIY project with Tesla components.


Nope that is the easy bit - all you need is two throttles and the ground will handle coordinating everything

Think about the old Twini Mini's - two completely independent power units 

In some ways it's a bit like a standard open diff - the ground does the coordination


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Nope that is the easy bit - all you need is two throttles and the ground will handle coordinating everything
> 
> Think about the old Twini Mini's - two completely independent power units
> 
> In some ways it's a bit like a standard open diff - the ground does the coordination


Decades ago, that was good enough... but not good enough to actually build production cars that way, although that was mostly a matter of sheer impracticality. Today, it probably wouldn't be good enough for a production car.

At best you get equal torque to each axle; yes, that's just like the open diff which is still common but not acceptable for off-road or performance vehicles. With a computer-controlled system managing two independently controllable power sources most people would at least expect the end which slips more to get reduced torque, and preferably for the system to manage vehicle attitude (oversteer versus understeer). Even in cars with open axle diffs, separate application of left and right brakes is used by basic traction control systems to make up for the inadequacy of simple equal torque distribution side-to-side.

In a 4X4, at least not having one end spinning madly while the other end grips would be nice.

But this is DIY, so just asking both ends for the same torque might be good enough.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

brian_ said:


> One drive unit, splitting power to front and rear by differential (your first drawing - thanks for those ), takes no fancy controls; each end gets the same torque (which is fundamentally what an open differential does).
> 
> Two motors, one for each axle (the second drawing), need coordination - this can certainly be done, but will take some work on the controllers. If you can adapt enough of the Tesla controls, they will handle the coordination... but I think that's beyond what anyone has been able to do so far in a DIY project with Tesla components.


I was thinking the same thing regarding synchronization.



brian_ said:


> The extra motor from an AWD Tesla isn't really a spare, because the front and rear motors are not the same (they have different power output), and the gearboxes are not the same either (they position the motor differently), so it would be for a different project.


This makes it sound almost as if the direct drive of the transfer case is once again ideal unless there's some other diff type gear box which can be retrofitted to sit between the front and rear axles and direct drive from a tesla single motor.



brian_ said:


> There is the issue that in most 4WD vehicles (with old Land Rovers and Steyr-Daimler-Puch/Mercedes G-wagens being the notable exceptions) the front and rear shafts are not in line: the rear is at the centre and the front is substantially off to one side to clear the transmission and engine. This is clearly shown in the diagrams. Joint angles might be a concern.


Joint angles is one of my strong points here so that one I'm not too worried about. In a perfect world I'd figure out a way to sneak CV joints in everywhere...


brian_ said:


> I don't see so much point in turning the front drive off. For the same total output power, running two motors shouldn't take much more power in total than one motor (for the same total power to the tires). It is true that mechanical drag is still reduced by disengaging the front hubs, but it's not going to cut power consumption more than a few percent.


Beyond having U-joints in the knuckles of the front axle making anything but driving straight a wobbly wearing affair. I agree that full time AWD seems ideal.



Duncan said:


> Nope that is the easy bit - all you need is two throttles and the ground will handle coordinating everything
> 
> Think about the old Twini Mini's - two completely independent power units
> 
> In some ways it's a bit like a standard open diff - the ground does the coordination


Interesting thought, my brain doesn't seem to like it though.



brian_ said:


> Is that a realistic option? Having Saleen do anything is about the same as burning cash for firewood, so I'm not so surprised that they did custom gearing. If a random DIYer went shopping for a gearset, could it be acquired for less than thousands of dollars?


Does sound spendy and also lacking user service, this is the one thing that has me mostly focused on removing the gear boxes and using the motor(s) directly.



brian_ said:


> I assume that nucleus is assuming for this scenario that Tesla units would sit where the current axle is, replacing the axle entirely (and requiring a new independent suspension).


Makes sense!



brian_ said:


> This is what you showed in the middle configuration drawing. What nucleus had suggested to avoid changing the axles and suspension is what you showed in the top configuration drawing:


Middle configuration was assuming I'd be removing the gear box from the tesla motors and direct driving the input shaft and or a drive shaft with slip yoke allowing suspension travel - the short axle shafts in drawing was a mistake.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

Also realized I had looked at the wrong set of axle tags in my archives these are 4.09:1.

Looks like I can get discontinued 2.72:1 ring and pinion sets for a steep shot of 250USD *each* as well.

However I'm more likely to snag 3.07:1 gears for 300 total front and rear.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

Based on some light reading it seems AC is really the way to go for regenerative braking, which I think is worth the extra cost.

I find others who have talked of similar but no real specifics to this: would be possible to use an off the shelf 10kWh full load with 13kWh peak genset to electrically feed an AC motor while also offering some form of charge to what ever batteries you might have.

If the the genset was snappy enough to adjust to load such as takeoff or emergency acceleration even if it had turbo style lag I think one could start with simply replacing the existing ICE with something off the shelf or home built, propane or dual fuel. This should help keep initial costs lower then I could add or expand to battery capacity and perhaps phase out the genset all together - or keep it as a side of the road backup.

For me this kind of a setup would be acceptable even if it only provided a 30-40mph "limp mode".

I'm eager enough to start on this that I'm working on getting wheels and tires back on the beast so I can move it into my shop, carport is too dang cold this time of year, and start stripping away the current power plant and other unnecessary items for better calculations of weight lost vs weight gain and to get a better view of what needs to be done.


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

gehidore said:


> Also realized I had looked at the wrong set of axle tags in my archives these are 4.09:1.
> 
> Looks like I can get discontinued 2.72:1 ring and pinion sets for a steep shot of 250USD *each* as well.
> 
> However I'm more likely to snag 3.07:1 gears for 300 total front and rear.


2.72:1 would work I think. Everything Brian said in this thread is dead on.

The issue is that the Tesla controller, Motor and transmission are tightly integrated, it is not a simple matter to separate them for independent use at all.

To accomplish this you would have to create two custom plates, custom cabling, coolant lines and buss bars

EVTV has some tear down video, they put a custom Quaife limited slip differential into Tesla drive units, which would be a nice upgrade for your project.

I suspect that changing the gearing is relatively simple, as Tesla is known for using many off the shelf components with an eye towards mass production and supply line flexibility.


https://youtu.be/mHT1ET9Elhs


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

Closest to current power plant AC motor I could find was AC-35x2 Dual Stator AC Induction Motor Drive in a kit with dual controllers and some gauges for each motor.

96VAC
650A
125Horse
260FTLB torque
And what caught my eye most was it could be grabbed in a marine format where it's sealed and oil cooled - which they claim means you can boost the torque output due to cooling.

The more I learn about this the less I think the price is too obscene for the gains in the long term.

I think the motor could be used to direct drive the transfercase. I'm not too worried about the HP loss as the torque rating claims to be right where the current power plant is at. I would still love to see 180 horse and 300 pounds of torque - I'm just not seeing anything prebuilt that does this without going for a tesla package, I hope my google fu is weak, or doing some self coupled dual motor configuration which interests me but there's so much scattered info on it that I'm having trouble formulating solid numbers.

Plan is still for 31-33" A/T tires and if necessary ring and pinion swap.


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

Do you know the ratio of the transfer case?


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

nucleus said:


> Do you know the ratio of the transfer case?


2-HI and 4-HI - 1:1, 4-LOW 2:1; Shifting requires allowing the vehicle to roll backwards usually in neutral or engine off. Without another 2 to 3k invested in the front axle for CV conversion 4x4 is useless over 25mph and on pavement.

Is there a reliable method for calculating TQ/HP values actually needed for driving these beasts? I've found tons of formulas but they keep producing numbers that feel obscenely low or those that exceed by double the stock combustion values.

I found one instance of an 8600 pound escalade running dual 11" DC motors powering a 4l60e. There's little interest in powering a transmission when the values I've calculated based on tire sizes, gears, and a speed of max 65mph:

4.09 gears, 31" tires, 2881RPM
4.09 gears, 33" tires, 2707RPM
3.07 gears, 31" tires, 2163RPM
3.07 gears, 33" tires, 2032RPM
Seem to show that with most the AC motors transitioning out of peak torque and into peak horse at or shortly after 3300rpm that I'd be well suited 
Most the HPEV's seem to be rated for 4500 pounds or less AC51 shows as only being rated to 4000 pounds, the AC35x2 is rated for 3500 pounds. So I'm genuinely confused as to what AC motor(s) would be best.

The Siemens 1PV5135 4WS14 seems interesting as well but the power sheets on it are rather mixed between sources. Seems sellers are stating 160 horse 221 foot pounds, but then claim the same output with a coupled pair of that motor. Then the data sheets show much much lower values. Also found no weight rating for the Siemens - the price and plumbing for liquid cooling appeals to me with this motor.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> Is there a reliable method for calculating TQ/HP values actually needed for driving these beasts? I've found tons of formulas but they keep producing numbers that feel obscenely low or those that exceed by double the stock combustion values.


You can do a coast-down test, assuming that the vehicle is still driveable (that you haven't started taking stuff out). If you have a GPS receiver that you can use in the vehicle (even in your phone if you can get the data from it), that can do all the measurements for you, so you just get up to some reasonable speed, shift to neutral, and wait for a significantly lower speed. A video camera watching the speedometer works, too. You do need the mass (weight) of the vehicle as well. Of course, do this on flat ground and without wind.

The result of coast-down testing is a formula to calculate power needed to maintain speed, at any desired speed. Accelerating takes that much power, plus more in proportion to the vehicle mass and the rate of acceleration. Climbing a grade takes more power, in proportion to the slope (at a percentage grade) multiplied by the road speed and the vehicle weight.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

brian_ said:


> You can do a coast-down test, assuming that the vehicle is still driveable (that you haven't started taking stuff out). If you have a GPS receiver that you can use in the vehicle (even in your phone if you can get the data from it), that can do all the measurements for you, so you just get up to some reasonable speed, shift to neutral, and wait for a significantly lower speed. A video camera watching the speedometer works, too. You do need the mass (weight) of the vehicle as well. Of course, do this on flat ground and without wind.
> 
> The result of coast-down testing is a formula to calculate power needed to maintain speed, at any desired speed. Accelerating takes that much power, plus more in proportion to the vehicle mass and the rate of acceleration. Climbing a grade takes more power, in proportion to the slope (at a percentage grade) multiplied by the road speed and the vehicle weight.


Unfortunately the IHC SV oiling plague struck my motor and my rocker assembly is in rough shape. However I could probably Duct Tape™ and Bailing Twine™ it back together enough to put her on the road a short while. I've been trying to avoid doing just that as it's in prime condition right now to just start breaking it down and put her on a weight loss plan.

I can say *this* from her prior history: I've often remarked that she rolls sooooo smooth it _feels_ as if you can coast up hill without loosing momentum. Especially when compared to other large vehicles with automatic transmissions, even when compared to my '99 camry.

I pull the typical combustion components and cut off the frame welded hack of a trailer hitch I can easily drop pounds

engine -619#
transmission -140#
radiator -60#
fuel tank -60#
exhaust -100#
wheels from steel to aluminum -70#
fluids -55#
other ICE related items -150#
hitch -80#

Essentially at least 1300+ pounds that can be dropped right away. Other things can be worked on for further weight shed.

Two 24kW leaf packs 1296# added weight minimum.
130-300# of AC motor plus mounting framework etc - planing to use aluminum as much as possible for anything that's added.

Not sure what else I can provide for information other than asking on the IH forums if someone would do a coast down test for me with their likely heavier vehicle as most people throw a diesel, 345, or 392 in them.


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

gehidore said:


> 2-HI and 4-HI - 1:1, 4-LOW 2:1; Shifting requires allowing the vehicle to roll backwards usually in neutral or engine off. Without another 2 to 3k invested in the front axle for CV conversion 4x4 is useless over 25mph and on pavement.
> 
> Is there a reliable method for calculating TQ/HP values actually needed for driving these beasts? I've found tons of formulas but they keep producing numbers that feel obscenely low or those that exceed by double the stock combustion values.
> 
> ...


With this low a gearing, I think you will want a lot of power. Keep in mind power is what moves a vehicle.

It would be a shame to build a vehicle that was slow and couldn't maintain speed on a grade. Cooling is key with a vehicle of this size.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

nucleus said:


> With this low a gearing, I think you will want a lot of power. Keep in mind power is what moves a vehicle.
> 
> It would be a shame to build a vehicle that was slow and couldn't maintain speed on a grade.


I do know the adage that "Torque gets her moving, Horse Power keeps her moving".

The fact that electric motors start off at peak torque changes the paradigm of combustion motors which we're used to. The power curve numbers from the electric motors show you should be able to run lower values than stock combustion engine, which starts at 0 across the board and usually doesn't reach peak torque until half way through the power band which through the magic of reduced gears in a transmission allows you to move the vehicle. 

I've no issues targeting greater than stock or equal to stock power values - if that doesn't mean I'm doubling the budget I've got to create to accomplish this monster.

This is why I was _hoping_ there was some magic formula someone had constructed to estimate required power to get to a target speed at a reasonable window of time without a transmission boosting torque values with low gears.



nucleus said:


> Cooling is key with a vehicle of this size.


I agree 100% I think a liquid cooled motor is going to be the best choice for something of this weight, the addition of the sealing that the liquid cooled motors seem to have also bolsters my opinion of them if you weigh the 190+ inches of rain a year.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> I do know the adage that "Torque gets her moving, Horse Power keeps her moving".


Fundamentally, this adage is nonsense, in part because torque is meaningless without the context of speed; however...



gehidore said:


> The fact that electric motors start off at peak torque changes the paradigm of combustion motors which we're used to. The power curve numbers from the electric motors show you should be able to run lower values than stock combustion engine, which starts at 0 across the board and usually doesn't reach peak torque until half way through the power band which through the magic of reduced gears in a transmission allows you to move the vehicle.


This is important: the need for a range of ratios is reduced with an electric motor as the driver, particularly if the vehicle is operate only up to the peak power speed of the motor. Unfortunately it is not a solution - lots of torque from the motor multiplied by very low speed is still not much power. Even a motor only halfway up to its peak power speed, and so producing lots of torque, will accelerate the vehicle more rapidly if given a lower gear (more reduction), because the torque gain from the gear reduction more than makes up for the lower motor output torque; that's why it really is only power which matters.



gehidore said:


> This is why I was _hoping_ there was some magic formula someone had constructed to estimate required power to get to a target speed at a reasonable window of time without a transmission boosting torque values with low gears.


If you have a modern AC motor and inverter, and gear it so that most of the time during that acceleration it is in its constant-power range (above the constant-torque range), then you only need to calculate the average power needed for the that acceleration. Power is the power to keep it moving (overcoming drag), plus the kinetic energy at the target speed divided by the acceleration time. With a DC motor that drops off rapidly in power above the peak power point, and has no range of constant torque, you could still build a formula based on ideal motor behaviour... but I haven't done it, and the published performance data doesn't match the ideal very well.



gehidore said:


> I agree 100% I think a liquid cooled motor is going to be the best choice for something of this weight, the addition of the sealing that the liquid cooled motors seem to have also bolsters my opinion of them if you weigh the 190+ inches of rain a year.


Yes, there are reasons that modern production EVs all use liquid-cooled motors.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> Not sure what else I can provide for information other than asking on the IH forums if someone would do a coast down test for me with their likely heavier vehicle as most people throw a diesel, 345, or 392 in them.


A coast-down test of a similar vehicle would still be useful, even if the test vehicle is substantially heavier, because the aero drag will still apply... and yours will be heavier, too, after conversion.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

gehidore said:


> ... There's little interest in powering a transmission when the values I've calculated based on tire sizes, gears, and a speed of max 65mph:
> 
> 4.09 gears, 31" tires, 2881RPM
> 4.09 gears, 33" tires, 2707RPM
> ...


I think those values show that motors peaking in power at 3300 rpm would be well-suited to the shortest final drive that you could possibly get, preferably 4.68 or more with 31" tires. In the worst case, with 3.07 gears and 33" tires, the motor would still be at only 2/3rds of its peak power at the top of the target speed range... so you would be choosing a motor 50% bigger than would be required with ideal gearing.

The readily available AC motors for DIYers drop off in power after that peak (although not as badly as DC motors) so you don't want too much reduction. The motors used in production EVs (PM or induction) maintain peak power over a broad speed range, so they can use more reduction and thus produce more power at low speeds. For instance, a Nissan Leaf's PM AC motor (with the stock inverter and controller) maintains peak torque to - and hits power at - 2700 rpm, but maintains peak power out to 9800 rpm, so it can effectively use almost 8:1 overall gearing. A Tesla Model S with its induction motor hits peak power at a road speed of 42 to 50 mph, but maintains peak power at up to three times that speed... so it can make good use of almost 10:1 reduction.

A key aspect of the production EVs is high voltage, allowing effective operation at those high motor speeds. At half of their battery voltage, there won't be as much speed range available.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

brian_ said:


> A coast-down test of a similar vehicle would still be useful, even if the test vehicle is substantially heavier, because the aero drag will still apply... and yours will be heavier, too, after conversion.


I'll request someone does this.



brian_ said:


> I think those values show that motors peaking in power at 3300 rpm would be well-suited to the shortest final drive that you could possibly get, preferably 4.68 or more with 31" tires. In the worst case, with 3.07 gears and 33" tires, the motor would still be at only 2/3rds of its peak power at the top of the target speed range... so you would be choosing a motor 50% bigger than would be required with ideal gearing.


The steepest production I've found is 5.89:1 I see your point though that ideally I should be targeting beyond the torque range and well into the hp range for cruise speed rpms.


4.11, 31", 2896
4.27, 31", 3008
4.55, 31", 3206
4.88, 31", 3438
5.13, 31", 3614
5.38, 31", 3790
5.89, 31", 4150

I would be content using 31" tires which it had in the original photo shared at the start of this thread.


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

Unless you get ahold of a really big, torquey motor I'd definitely keep the transmission, or at least keep a transmission, if not the original one. You can potentially do things like remove individual gear ratios if it has more than you need to keep from churning as much oil around. I did this in my original toyota MR2 transmission, I removed the fifth gear and reverse components, including one gear set and syncro, and an idler gear for the reverse. I had to fabricate some spacers to keep the shafts together and some linkage blocks to keep the shifter components from going into positions that didn't have anything anymore, but it all worked out well.

Also I wouldn't design for your peak torque rating at cruising speed. You need torque to get to cruising speed, not as much to maintain it. FWIW my xB is geared for peak torque at about 45mph. At 65mph it has about half the max usable torque left which is still more than double what is needed to maintain speed, and top speed on the flats is about 75.. This gives me better acceleration and still enough power to maintain 60mph speeds on any of the freeway hills I see. my xB is geared a little lower than it would need to be except I do tow a small trailer occasionally so I wanted a little extra low end torque. If you keep a tranny, even with just two speeds you can get the best of both worlds of course, Gear for 25-30mph peak torque in 2nd, and 50-60mph peak torque in 4th.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

madderscience said:


> Unless you get ahold of a really big, torquey motor...


Any specific suggestions in AC? I've found a bunch of motors out there but honestly can't tell if I'm under sizing or over sizing.
For instance the Siemens 1PV5135-4WS14 or Oil Cooled HPEVs AC-35x2 or Dual NetGain Hyper9's ?

[edit]The dual stack remy you suggested initially looks attractive however that price is terrifying... The single remy is also attractive when compared to the other motors and still seems to be the best price for the power output if I'm reading the continuous charts and data correctly.[/edit]



madderscience said:


> ...I'd definitely keep the transmission, or at least keep a transmission, if not the original one. You can potentially do things like remove individual gear ratios if it has more than you need to keep from churning as much oil around. I did this in my original toyota MR2 transmission, I removed the fifth gear and reverse components, including one gear set and syncro, and an idler gear for the reverse. I had to fabricate some spacers to keep the shafts together and some linkage blocks to keep the shifter components from going into positions that didn't have anything anymore, but it all worked out well.


Seems like a good place for a built powerglide


madderscience said:


> Also I wouldn't design for your peak torque rating at cruising speed. You need torque to get to cruising speed, not as much to maintain it. FWIW my xB is geared for peak torque at about 45mph. At 65mph it has about half the max usable torque left which is still more than double what is needed to maintain speed, and top speed on the flats is about 75.. This gives me better acceleration and still enough power to maintain 60mph speeds on any of the freeway hills I see. my xB is geared a little lower than it would need to be except I do tow a small trailer occasionally so I wanted a little extra low end torque. If you keep a tranny, even with just two speeds you can get the best of both worlds of course, Gear for 25-30mph peak torque in 2nd, and 50-60mph peak torque in 4th.


Makes sense.


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

I've always like the idea of a siemens like the one you suggest for the next EV I want to build, which will be based on a midsize 4wd pickup, but I'm waiting for at least 100kwh of battery. But they are take-offs intended for other purposes originally, whereas the remy setups uses a common and powerful motor element and an EV Conversion specific focused housing.

my choices in order would probably be: 1) dual remy, 2) the siemens, 3) Single remy. I'd avoid the lower voltage ones just becuase you will need a LOT of amps to get any power, and you will need very big, heavy connectors, contactors, etc, and you will have to double or triple parallel cells to be able to sustain that much current without damaging them. 

Electric power is volts * amps, so if you have a 300v system, you need half the current, and all the conductors, contactors, fuses, etc can weigh half as much vs a ~150v system.

Yes, a properly built powerglide would be a good tranny option.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

madderscience said:


> I've always like the idea of a siemens like the one you suggest for the next EV I want to build, which will be based on a midsize 4wd pickup, but I'm waiting for at least 100kwh of battery. But they are take-offs intended for other purposes originally, whereas the remy setups uses a common and powerful motor element and an EV Conversion specific focused housing.
> 
> my choices in order would probably be: 1) dual remy, 2) the siemens, 3) Single remy. I'd avoid the lower voltage ones just becuase you will need a LOT of amps to get any power, and you will need very big, heavy connectors, contactors, etc, and you will have to double or triple parallel cells to be able to sustain that much current without damaging them.
> 
> ...


From my point of view:
The dual remy would suffice to direct drive the transfer case - if it didn't just turn it into a cork screw on the first hard takeoff.

But would the Siemens or single Remy be capable of no transmission travels or should I be adding in planning to do a transmission as well?

The Remy at least has consistent power data posted while there appears to be at least 3 versions of that specific Siemens motor with power from 60horse to 150 horse and the retailers of the surplus motors all have just copy pasted the description across the board.


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

with a truck that big I think I'd favor keeping a transmission over trying direct drive, though if you could find a shift-on-the-fly capable transfer case that might allow you to combine the two. Its just too likely that you will want to tow something, haul a literal ton of something, or plow around in the mud, and having 4 or 6 overall ratios (2 on the transfer case and 2 or 3 on the main gearbox) would be handy. With that setup the single core remy would be plenty of power.

It doesn't help you but I see even EV West sells a modified VW transaxle with 2 forward speeds. 

Maybe use a gear vendors overdrive unit as your 2 speed box and run 5.xx ratio axles.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

madderscience said:


> with a truck that big I think I'd favor keeping a transmission over trying direct drive, though if you could find a shift-on-the-fly capable transfer case that might allow you to combine the two. Its just too likely that you will want to tow something, haul a literal ton of something, or plow around in the mud, and having 4 or 6 overall ratios (2 on the transfer case and 2 or 3 on the main gearbox) would be handy. With that setup the single core remy would be plenty of power.


Funny you should say this, my wife just leaned over and said to me "you're still going to be able to pull the horse trailer with this right?" I actually plan to remove the hitch assembly as it's some dealership/previous owner mod where it was *welded* to the frame in what appears to be amateur stick work - I trust it very little. I may someday add in a bolt on receiver.


If the single core remy would do with a 100kW controller would it also be plausible to run a single, or double, HyPer9? I've seen instances of the _technology_ in them being used in industrial applications in europe with great success as they should have less losses in heat. Not sure about the lack of active cooling; the motor still intrigues me.



madderscience said:


> It doesn't help you but I see even EV West sells a modified VW transaxle with 2 forward speeds.
> 
> Maybe use a gear vendors overdrive unit as your 2 speed box and run 5.xx ratio axles.


I've been reading on power losses on automatic transmissions and it seems folks are seeing up to 40% losses on a dyno with a th300/400 but only up to 15-20% with the powerglide. Not sure any of those values are accurate and I've also seen Warp's bolted to a fancy direct drive powerlgide - I feel that wouldn't be a very long lasted on road transmission though.

So I'm weighing pros and cons between a built powerglide with a properly matched lockup converter or a manual transmission as much as I don't enjoy grabbing gears as much as I used to.

Also looked at tires and I think with the wheels I'll end up using I'll actually go with 30x9.5r15's as anything bigger will rub unless I run spacers or purchase offset wheels.

Supposedly by tomorrow I should have a coast down test from at least one vehicle and by sunday one more from another.

Also contacted gear vendors to see what they might have or can create that might minimize machining and or alignment issues if I went that route


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

Power losses in a powerslide are from heat in the TC. You wont use that. Race versions are really long lasting on the street. A powerslush in circle track configuration is as efficient as a handshaker.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

In looking for combinations that will work without much additional machining and using the Siemens 1PV5135-4WS14 I found this:http://store.evtv.me/proddetail.php?prod=bfaceadapter combine this with an EVGlide or any B face transmission adapter, I'd say for the price compared to the effort required to get reliable machining work that's aligned done locally, it wouldn't be a bad investment.

My issue now is the plethora of Siemens 1PV5135-4WS14 that I can find and none of them appear to be the same submodel/version/whatever it is that makes them all different. However the vendors not only claim they're each the from the same surplus stock and they have just copy pasted whatever description someone else wrote, or sent to them with their sales brochure, and it doesn't necessarily apply to that motor. They range in price 1295USD to 2800USD, each suggesting a different 100kW to 150kW inverter/controller also ranging from 3600USD to 7800USD. Some suggest the stock unit which they'll sell you cheap cheap with some open source controller.

I don't know if the Siemens motor is up to the task based on the lack of complete information on it.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

Just heard back from EV West and they insist that their EV Glide is incompatible with the HyPer9 - strange since the trans is advertised as shipping with B-Face adapter as is the HyPer9 - and is Track only...

I guess I'm back to planning to adapt myself and trust the proper tools will be available for a perfect match up on the shaft alignments when I get there.

I still like the idea of the powerglide over a th300/400

I still have a SM465 laying about in my shop so maybe that'll be the victim of this endeavor.


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

Have you read the powerglide thread?

For what I know the seimens motors work on a fla powered ranger adequately since that's what ford used. So maybe 100 to 150 hp. Possibly the differences are trans pattern. If you know what the bellhousing is from, alignment shouldn't be all that hard.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

piotrsko said:


> Have you read the powerglide thread?
> 
> For what I know the seimens motors work on a fla powered ranger adequately since that's what ford used. So maybe 100 to 150 hp. Possibly the differences are trans pattern. If you know what the bellhousing is from, alignment shouldn't be all that hard.


I hadn't seen the powerglide thread until now, and I'm slowly working my way through it.


----------



## gehidore (Sep 8, 2017)

So I've read through the powerglide thread... as fun as that sounds I don't think it'd be that much fun right now.

I dug out my SM465 and the ratios are as follows:

 6.55
 3.58
 1.57
 1.0

I'm curious if this coupled with a 2:1 reducer, NP203 bolted to my NP205, would make sense in a 3 or 4 spd or perhaps without any reducer?

Assuming I can maths; reducer effective gear ratios:


 13.1
 7.16
 3.14
 2.0

On top of 4.09 gears in the differentials.


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

All that reduction only if the motor will spin faster than 5000 rpm. I have a toyo kyogo 5spd with a borg 1340 and 3.73 diff and it is past redline at freeway speed in the top lowers using the transfer case reduction.


----------

