View Single Post
Old 02-05-2011, 12:13 PM   #25 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
What I find intriguing is someone who thinks they are up to the job of building an EV asking these sort of questions. I mean, if you can thread a nut onto a bolt, why are you asking these things? Don't you know?

Clev: your assumptions are equally strange. Do you think a solid axle is banging around under the rear of that AWD? Really? Does a rearward weight bias spell instant highway death?

I can see what he's getting at with the rear MOTOR (engine ) rear battery layout, and it makes perfect sense to me, and I think it's worth pursuing. As I've explained in the XL1 thread, added weight at the rear of a vehicle is much more manageable than added weight at the front. He is thinking he wants the batteries right next door to the motor for "cleaner" wiring. But I seriously doubt that as this thing goes forward (if it does at all) that the final solution will be all the batteries in one spot. There will be some in the back and some in the front. That should even out any *overblown* handling concerns, but then it negates the "clean" power cable theory.

I wonder if Winfield's IP is the same as that of the guy who was going to mod his old Jeep to get 50 mpg? Same sort of, "I'm gonna do this but I don't have any idea how"? I feel like, if ya have to ask, it ain't gonna happen anyway.
__________________


  Reply With Quote