Peter S Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 (edited) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/business/electric-car-conversions.html A provocative NY Times article. Edited December 16, 2019 by Peter S dup post - please delete (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capngrog Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 It's too bad that the article can't be read without creating an account. Free or not, if it involves a password and registration of my email address, it's just not worth it to me. Christmas Cheers, Grog 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Old news. Several companies already do such conversions. Icon is one of the more famous ones and built the 1949 Mercury that has been discussed on this forum before. GM is talking about an electric "crate engine" product line. These links don't need subscriptions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepher Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 This company has been doing electric conversions on classic Porsche and Volkswagen cars for some time now. https://www.zelectricmotors.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter S Posted December 16, 2019 Author Share Posted December 16, 2019 I think what's new and interesting is the movement to electrify larger and heavier cars. In the last White Triangle News a member of the Hudson club reported on his efforts to re-power a stepdown with an electric engine. Also, there's the possibility that electric engines may become a necessity in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 (edited) Matt is spot on. This doesn't just apply to electrification, either. No aftermarket conversion of anything (engine swap, trans swap, brake swap, etc) will have anywhere near the engineering and testing investment that the factory put into their cars originally. That is not to say that pure stock is the only way to go (and most of my cars are modified in one way or another), just don't kid yourself that any aftermarket or garage modification will be more reliable that properly maintained OEM. I don't know how many threads I read on various automotive forums (fora?) about people who have done four wheel disk brake "upgrades" and now the car doesn't stop as well as it did before, or how many people have converted points to electronic ignition because it's "more reliable" except now they have to carry a spare ignition module in the glove box so they won't be stuck when the original craps out. Edited December 16, 2019 by joe_padavano (see edit history) 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTR Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 46 minutes ago, joe_padavano said: Matt is spot on. This doesn't just apply to electrification, either. No aftermarket conversion of anything (engine swap, trans swap, brake swap, etc) will have anywhere near the engineering and testing investment that the factory put into their cars originally. That is not to say that pure stock is the only way to go (and most of my cars are modified in one way or another), just don't kid yourself that any aftermarket or garage modification will be more reliable that properly maintained OEM. I don't know how many threads I read on various automotive forums (fora?) about people who have done four wheel disk brake "upgrades" and now the car doesn't stop as well as it did before, or how many people have converted points to electronic ignition because it's "more reliable" except now they have to carry a spare ignition module in the glove box so they won't be stuck when the original craps out. + 1000 !!!! There are umpteen million aftermarket “conversion” or “upgrade” components or kitsfor undercarriage (i.e. brakes, suspension, steering, etc) hawked by all kinds of CEMA “member” manufacturers and producers, sold by numerous catalog or online vendors and many or perhaps even most are not very well engineered, let alone DOT/NHTSA approved or even safe for road use, but general public, including hobbyist or so-called professional car builders/restorers/shops catering to them don’t seem to care or more likely comprehend this. “Yeah, Let’s order this cool & colorful disc brake or IFS kit shown in the magazine ad or catalog with the bikini wearing college girl and then my ride will be so much better, right ?” Who cares if those components were originally designed or intended for some lightweight sprint or off-road car, shouldn’t they work just as fine in any full-size road use car or truck, even if latters are 3-5+time heavier or has more power, etc. Then again, like the saying goes, “You can’t fix s****d”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryB Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Spotted on the West Coast 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesR Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 15 hours ago, capngrog said: It's too bad that the article can't be read without creating an account. Free or not, if it involves a password and registration of my email address, it's just not worth it to me. Christmas Cheers, Grog Yet another reason not to read the New York Times. Of course, I don't like the idea of converting old internal combustion cars to electric, but what happens in 80 years when either there isn't any more gas or it costs $150 a gallon (in today's money)? Interesting hypothetical. I suppose those engines could be converted to run on propane or E 85 or something, which I guess would be preferable to electric motors. Unavailable engine or drive train parts could be a problem, though. Not everyone can be Jay Leno and have a forge or foundry that makes connecting rods. Better that the cars be driveable than non-driveable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frantz Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 I think it'll open up some cars to hot rodding again. No EPA restrictions to worry about. That in turn could help increase interest in old cars as a whole and hopefully historic value in old cars too. I started out in the old car field caring much more about performance than history myself. As for fuel costs... you can make something that will burn for less than $150! though a few permits might be needed to do it legally. There will be a market solution of some sort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MochetVelo Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 The article opened up for me to read, and I'm not a N.Y.T. subscriber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frantz Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 16 hours ago, MochetVelo said: The article opened up for me to read, and I'm not a N.Y.T. subscriber. I think they track your IP and after your read too many they start asking you to subscribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keiser31 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Saw this electric hot rod a few years ago.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete O Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 21 hours ago, JamesR said: Yet another reason not to read the New York Times. Of course, I don't like the idea of converting old internal combustion cars to electric, but what happens in 80 years when either there isn't any more gas or it costs $150 a gallon (in today's money)? Interesting hypothetical. I suppose those engines could be converted to run on propane or E 85 or something, which I guess would be preferable to electric motors. Unavailable engine or drive train parts could be a problem, though. Not everyone can be Jay Leno and have a forge or foundry that makes connecting rods. Better that the cars be driveable than non-driveable. The NYT loves to publish this kind of article. They firmly believe internal combustion is bad and is killing the planet, and electric is clean and will save us all. They fail to consider that the electricity is generated by (mostly) coal burning power plants, but that's just a minor fact that shouldn't get in the way of a political position. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capngrog Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 hours ago, keiser31 said: Saw this electric hot rod a few years ago.... I'm well aware that there is an ongoing spirited discussion as to whether or not cars at shows should have their hoods open or closed. Although I understand both sides of the discussion, I generally tend toward the open hoods position, since I appreciate the mechanical aspect of things. However, I consider the photos of the motor bay of the yellow machine to border on blasphemy. That electric motor/speed control combination is about as interesting as a trash can and would look better if kept entirely out of sight. The full throttle "roar" (whine?) of that electric motor would be about as exciting as the sound of ice cream melting. The era of electric-powered, self-driving vehicles is upon us, but I don't have to like it. In the interest of "truth in advertising", I must admit to a prejudice: I like mechanical things, electrical not so much. Oh while on the subject of prejudices, I believe that an electrically powered vehicle has a "motor", a vehicle otherwise powered has an "engine". Just my opinion. Everybody has one. Christmas Cheers, Grog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, capngrog said: However, I consider the photos of the motor bay of the yellow machine to border on blasphemy. That electric motor/speed control combination is about as interesting as a trash can and would look better if kept entirely out of sight. So, no different from other cars with LS or similar late model engine swaps that are so ugly they have to put a plastic cover over them to hide the engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JACK M Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 I am thinking that the earths supply of fossil fuels will outlast me. That may be a I don't care attitude, so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keiser31 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) Please don't shoot the messenger. I only posted those photos because this thread is about electric conversions to old cars. I didn't build it, I just observed it. Just thought I would share. Edited December 17, 2019 by keiser31 (see edit history) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter S Posted December 17, 2019 Author Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) I think the conversions are interesting. At the very least they show that the tinkering spirit is not dead. I think that the NYT is just reporting facts. ICs May never disappear, although they surely will be highly taxed, but their heyday is slipping away fast. That handwriting is on the wall Edited December 17, 2019 by Peter S Fix error (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 When I was working at a Corvette tuner, we were contacted by one of the local colleges who were participating in the Electric Grand Prix in conjunction with the Cleveland Grand Prix (this would have been in the mid-90s). At first we were only going to paint the thing for them, but we ended up re-engineering the whole car. We modified the battery packs so they could be removed and replaced more easily (we put them on tracks and built a cage for them so they could be removed en masse). We also put a 2-speed Lenco transmission between the engine and the rear end, so instead of direct drive, we had an overdrive and an underdrive gear. The first time we tried to drive it, we put it in low and pressed the throttle. There was a loud pop and then nothing. The motor was humming but it wasn't moving. We looked for a problem and eventually found that it had instantly snapped both halfshafts. That's when I learned about the wonders of 100% torque at 0 RPM. Once we had bigger, stronger half shafts made, the car worked beautifully and we dominated the race. Most of the cars were running about 70 MPH around the course. Our car, with the Lenco and an overdrive gear, would run 105. We were also able to change batteries faster, so while the rules said we had to do at least one battery change, we did three because it took us 2 minutes instead of the 12-15 minutes it took the other teams. We still won the race by more than 12 minutes. It wasn't even a fair fight. After that, they outlawed everything we did instead of incorporating it into the rules or embracing innovation. Then the electric grand prix died. But man, that was A LOT of fun. My point? There are hot-rodders playing with electric motors just as there were hot rodders playing with internal combustion. It's a mistake to discount the innovation and fun that they can offer just because they don't make smoke and make a lot of noise. Once we had that race car dialed in, you'd better believe it was thrilling to drive. MASSIVE acceleration at any speed and we could never go full throttle in low range because it would probably break the axles again. We had a heck of a lot of fun doing it. And back to my original comment, which was summarily deleted because I wrote something that resembled (but wasn't) a naughty word. I obviously dig electric cars and the future of them, but I'm very displeased with the guy in the article claiming that old cars are inherently unreliable. I resent that he's taking a dump on the rest of the hobby by saying that the only way to make an old car drivable is to make it electric, as if some guy in his home garage is smarter and turning out better product than the Porsche engineers. If your car is right, it will be reliable, and I doubt that any home-built electric car will be the answer to your reliability woes, especially if you're not smart enough to fix what's already there. I guess there are fewer moving parts so there's less to go wrong, but that doesn't mean the guy putting it together is an engineer. And it certainly won't be cheaper. This guy in the article simply seems like a lot of hobbyists with misguided ideas and no practical knowledge--if you can't fix it properly, change it into something you do know how to fix, whether it's an electric motor or a Chevy V8. That's all nonsense, too. If the point is to try something different, that's cool. Electric motors can be a lot of fun and they're especially well suited to toy cars like ours where range and practicality aren't priorities. But taking a dump on the rest of the hobby just to sell product? Not cool. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 hours ago, capngrog said: Oh while on the subject of prejudices, I believe that an electrically powered vehicle has a "motor", a vehicle otherwise powered has an "engine". Amen and Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryB Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 5 hours ago, Pete O said: The NYT loves to publish this kind of article. They firmly believe internal combustion is bad and is killing the planet, and electric is clean and will save us all. They fail to consider that the electricity is generated by (mostly) coal burning power plants, but that's just a minor fact that shouldn't get in the way of a political position. In the USA, natural gas is the top source at 35%, coal 27%, nuclear at 19%, renewables at 17%. US government numbers for 2018. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lump Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 10 hours ago, capngrog said: Oh while on the subject of prejudices, I believe that an electrically powered vehicle has a "motor", a vehicle otherwise powered has an "engine". Just my opinion. Everybody has one. Christmas Cheers, Grog When I was a high school kid taking auto mechanics, a debate broke out in class about whether "motor" or "engine" was correct for gas-powered power plants in the cars we were learning to work on. Since I had been expressing strong opinions on the subject, the instructor ended the debate by giving me the assignment of researching the history of the words, and finding out what was really, "correct" according to experts on engineering terms and on the history of words and names. I went home and asked my dad, whom I thought knew everything automotive. Instead of giving me his opinion, he instructed me to dig out some of his ancient automotive text books and training manuals...some of which went WAY back into the teens, etc. The earliest reference by some certified engineering instructors explained it this way (paraphrasing from memory) "When a power plant is fixed in a stationary location, it is officially an 'engine." When it is installed in any kind of vehicle which is mobile under power, it becomes a "motor." Hence the term "motoring." I had always called an electric powerplant a "motor," and a gas-powered unit an "engine." But I had to admit the definitions made sense. And, I got an "A" on the extra-credit project. Cheers! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1912Staver Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 In thermodynamics if it burns fuel it is a " heat engine ". However in marine craft if it has a gasoline or diesel { possibly even electric } power plant then it is a " Motor Vessel ". Here in Canada our marine engineer licences are either Steam Ship or Motor Vessel. Not much Commercial vessel Steam left these days except a few on the Great Lakes, although larger Navy vessels still have quite a few Steam turbines. Greg in Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maok Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 7 hours ago, TerryB said: In the USA, natural gas is the top source at 35%, coal 27%, nuclear at 19%, renewables at 17%. US government numbers for 2018. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php Even if the electric source is 100% dirties coal, an EV would still have less carbon foot print from the fuel source than an ICE. FYI, only about 25-30% (at best) of the energy from petrol(gasoline) is used to propel an ICE vehicle forward. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzBob Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, maok said: Even if the electric source is 100% dirties coal, an EV would still have less carbon foot print from the fuel source than an ICE. FYI, only about 25-30% (at best) of the energy from petrol(gasoline) is used to propel an ICE vehicle forward. Mazda Says Its Next-Generation Gasoline Engine Will Run Cleaner Than an Electric Car Mazda hopes to achieve 56 percent thermal efficiency with the Skyactiv-3 gasoline engine. That would make it the most efficient internal-combustion car engine in history. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a15912314/mazda-skyactiv-3-gas-clean-as-ev/ Edited December 18, 2019 by AzBob link (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryB Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, AzBob said: Mazda Says Its Next-Generation Gasoline Engine Will Run Cleaner Than an Electric Car Mazda hopes to achieve 56 percent thermal efficiency with the Skyactiv-3 gasoline engine. That would make it the most efficient internal-combustion car engine in history. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a15912314/mazda-skyactiv-3-gas-clean-as-ev/ They’ve hired a bunch of engineers from the Volkswagen Clean Diesel program to achieve these results 😀. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzBob Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) Mazda’s claim stems from the assumption that much of the emissions generated by electricity production in the US is generated through the use of fossil fuels, e.g. natural gas, coal, and to a lesser extent renewables like hydroelectric, wind, solar. Nuclear is in the mix as well. If all electrical generation were strictly by wind, solar or hydroelectric, the EV clearly comes out on top. Edited December 18, 2019 by AzBob (see edit history) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now