AC Propulsion converts stock Scion xB into fully electric "eBox" car

Ever since we saw "Who Killed the Electric Car?" we've wondered when even more companies would get inspired to bring back this fantastic ride. Enter AC Propulsion, a California-based company that just debuted its eBox, a converted Toyota Scion xB with an electric engine. After you bring your own Scion, AC Propulsion will do the deed for $55,000. So what're the specs on the eBox? We're glad you asked: 180 mile range, top speed of 95 mph, and you can get a full charge in five hours right from your garage's wall outlet. Sure, that sounds like a lot for a car that's ordinarily pretty freakin' cheap (~ $18,000), but when you think that you'll never have to buy gas again over the life of the car, it just might be worth it.

[Via AutoblogGreen]

[Mattso @ Dec 11th 2006 7:01PM]

I wonder how much your electric bills would go up, though.

[Peet @ Dec 11th 2006 7:04PM]

to pay for the conversion you would have to drive a little over 900k miles, the equivalent of 75,625 tanks of gas at $2 a gallon.

[Luqman Mahmud @ Dec 12th 2006 1:09AM]

Your math is slightly off but close. Lets see, The Scion has a 11.9 gallon fuel tank. Assuming that it costs you $18,000 for a fully kitted Scion xB and $55000 to make it electric and you never bought another gallon of gas, to break even (ie pay for the conversion only), it would take you (at $2/gallon) 27500 gallons of gas ($55000/$2 per gal). With an 11.9 gallon tank(lets call it 12 for ease of math), that's 2291.67 tanks of gas (27500/12). Now, the Scion xB gets an EPA rated 30 city / 34 highway mpg with an automatic transmission. Lets average your mileage out at 30 miles to a gallon. That means that your would have to drive 825000 miles to break even (27500 x 30). Upping the cost of Gas to $2.50/gallon (more like reality in DC), gives you the following mileage: 660,000 miles. Still waay too much.

[CharlieX @ Dec 11th 2006 7:08PM]

At $2 a gallon, I want to go to where YOU get gas Peet!

[TIMMAH! @ Dec 11th 2006 7:17PM]

Probably not that far off at $2/gal considering you have to factor in some battery pack replacements which offsets the unrealistic gas price.

[Gunn Salelanonda @ Dec 12th 2006 5:29PM]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The power coming from your garage wall had to come from SOMEWHERE and where do you think the batteries are going to go when they can no longer hold a charge?

As reported on Jalopnik.com, the DoE just released a report that states:
if "84% of the nation's 220 million vehicles relied primarily on electricity, emissions of carbon dioxide...would be cut by as much as 5%."

"although vehicle-produced smog would drop in major cities...sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, would rise in rural areas where coal-burning power plats are located."

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/doe-reports-power-grid-can-fuel-millions-of-plugins-no-word-on-whether-gm-will-kill-it-220906.php

---
Also, they could have picked a more aerodynamic shape than the Xb.
Think of all the energy wasted in punching this brick through the air at 95MPH.

[djb @ Dec 11th 2006 7:17PM]

I wonder how many charges the batteries are good for, and what it will cost to replace them. This tech is on the cusp, but it ain't there yet...

[Joseph @ Dec 11th 2006 7:25PM]

I live in a condo and my garage Electricity is not monitored on my bill.

It would be free for me to fill up.

put in an emergency gas backup that will generate power for my batteries and im on it.

[ChronoZaga @ Dec 11th 2006 7:29PM]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You gotta be kidding. $55,000 to save on gas that would NEVER add up to that before the thing ceases up and dies, even if you don�t factor in what you�ll pay in electricity. Even if you do it to save the environment, 80% of US power is generated by fossil fuels. Go ahead hippies, have fun wasting your money for no benefit whatsoever, at least you'll have a cool, if not horrendously overpriced, ride. It�s simply a fact; the gas burning engine is the most efficient thing we�ve got right now, like it or not.

[hautedawg @ Dec 11th 2006 8:19PM]

Okay, fine. But you are the type of person that causes companies not to do research, you don't believe in the future, you just want status quo and are happy with the present. I feel for you, because life without forsight would be dreadfully vanilla...not to mention boring. I bet your wife gets tired of that attitude too (sorry for the personal attack, but you called me a hippy)

[josh rosenthal @ Dec 12th 2006 2:03PM]

No fuel burning with solar panels. Keep on advocating the adequacy of existing technology to justify not using something new and clean and you can enjoy your new ocean front house in Kansas.

[Hernan Paredes @ Dec 11th 2006 7:42PM]

the price for humanity to survive in the coming decades..... priceless

[foolio @ Dec 11th 2006 7:49PM]

I don't have a position on whether the cost is justified, but the assertion that "80% of electric power is generated by fossil fuels so it doesn't matter anyways" needs a clarifying point. In a large, multibillion dollar power plant, the efficiency is much higher than a car engine, since spending a million dollars for a 1% efficiency boost makes sense. Not sure what a coal plant gets out, but I can't imagine a car engine translates more than 25% of the energy in its gasoline into power at the wheels. The sheer amount of unburned gasoline out the exhaust, compared to that out of a powerplant, is a pretty big clue to the fact.

[Bubba @ Dec 21st 2006 12:57AM]

you only get roughly 10% of energy released from your gas engine. majority of the energy is wasted in heat.
Electric cars may not be practical to the everyday consumer at this point. but you can sure see a greater majority of people moving towards alternative methods. a good sign.

[Juaquin @ Dec 11th 2006 7:48PM]

You are all missing the point. It's not supposed to be cheaper than gas. It's not even supposed to be revolutionary. It's a concept and a prototype, something for prosumers, to pave the way for electric vehicles in the future. Of course this isn't practical, but the research put into it will someday make electric cars a viable alternative to all the pollution we cause today.

[Stephan @ Dec 11th 2006 7:54PM]

Charge it while at work, at the electricity is free!*


*Hopefully nobody notices the 100' orange extension cord.

[Landincoldfire @ Dec 12th 2006 6:00AM]

Heh, We actually have 110 outlets in the parking lot. They are for the heavy diesel trucks, but I bet we could get away it.

[KC @ Dec 11th 2006 7:56PM]

Cost of car + $55,000 + cost of electricity to recharge + cost of (Sony) battery replacement + cost of insurance for exploding batteries

No thanks. I'll stick to my $1 for 12.5 miles gas powered car.

[Daniel W Rasmus @ Dec 11th 2006 8:02PM]

This is a postive development. See my comments on the Economics of Deletion on my future of work blog. I look forward to the dialog.

http://future-of-work.spaces.live.com

[shon Dempsey @ Dec 11th 2006 8:13PM]

$18,000? Someone had fun with dealer installed options... Mine cost $16K after taxes.

http://www.scionlife.com

[bob nojob @ Dec 11th 2006 8:28PM]

Wow. Too bad that most of Americas electricity comes from burning Fossil Fuels. Now instead of paying for gas and burning it yourself you get an overpriced and less efficient car that takes electricity made from burning fuel somewhere else. Brilliant!!!!!! I guess if you can't see the pollution it doesn't exist right? Why not just get a diesel car and burn fryer oil, its cheaper, better for the air and in a pinch you can run it on diesel from the pump.

[Andrew Fong @ Dec 11th 2006 8:28PM]

If you want to reduce greenhouse emissions from cars, figure out how much the extra pollution costs Americans and tax gas to that amount.

Seriously, to build off what Peet was saying, let's assume gas costs $4 per gallon, that the Scion normally gets 30 MPG, and that you drive 30,000 miles per year. (55000 / 4) * (30 / 30,000) = 13.75 years. You have to drive this car at least 13 years before it pays off! Add in the fact that the figures I use are inflated, that you have to pay for eletricity, the lost income from not investing that 55,000 in bonds, etc. and the average consumer will need this car to last at least 40 years for it be profitable. Not likely.

[Ben @ Dec 12th 2006 12:29AM]

So it would take a really long time to pay off (over 10 years)
And most of the United States' Electricity Comes from Fossil Fuel
But its still a step forward, the person who gets the car might be getting electricity from a non fossil fuel burning power plant.
Thats why the GM EV1 was so popular, people want something that will help to start things in motion to lower our impact on the earth.

[Keo @ Dec 11th 2006 8:34PM]

I'm psyched to see more EV project/conversions! Just from a design standpoint, electric engines are much more elegant than an internal combustion engine with all of their multiple pistons, camshafts, valves, bearings, pumps, oils, pipes and hoses.

What I'm waiting for are mass-produced EVs, that's where we will see prices drop, those will cost much less than buying a gasoline-powered car and retrofitting for an electric engine. Most of that $55K is likely labor. Once they get the battery technology sorted out with higher range per charge and faster recharge times, I would expect them to cost about the same as any car today. With the exception of possible eventual battery failure, I would also expect them to be more reliable and cheaper to maintain then most cars (less thermal stress, fewer systems for air and heat exchange).

No, this vehicle is not carbon-emission free if you do not get your electricity from wind, hydro- or nuclear-power plant.

BUT one thing people forget about when comparing powerplant emissions to gasoline emissions is that there are a ton of polluting/high-emission steps _before_ you even get to burn the gas in your car: delivery from oil well to refinery, refining from crude oil to gasoline, delivery to local distribution point, delivery to gas station -- you're looking at diesel ships & trucks for most of the distribution methods. And everytime gasoline is transferred from one container to another, hydrocarbon vapor is released into the air.

[Sam @ Dec 11th 2006 9:00PM]

See, a chunk of the cost has to be for RIPPING THE ENTIRE CAR APART. If AC propulsion could get the shell and the basic components it needs, then the cost of the car and the cost of conversion would drop a good bit.

[Chris R @ Dec 11th 2006 9:01PM]

You people are obviously missing the point.

These conversions are not meant for economy. Do you really think all new technology starts off immediately affordable? VHS's costed 80 bucks a pop once, what if developers just stopped making tapes because they were too expensive for Joe Sixpack?

I mean come on.

[Evan Rodgers @ Dec 11th 2006 9:41PM]

Labor costs are whats killing this project. Its too bad- I would get one...

[captain obvious @ Dec 11th 2006 9:45PM]

UM..THIS IS A GREAT DEAL!! THE SYSTEM WILL PAY FOR IT SELF IN LESS THAN 22,000 MILES!!!

$3(gallon) x 18,333(miles)= $54,999

at

$2.50(gallon) x 22,000(miles)= $55,000

[Shadow-Video @ Dec 12th 2006 12:38PM]

Sorry Obvious, bad math
$55,000 (cost) / $2.50 (per gallon)= 22,000
22,000 x 20 (avg MPG) = 440,000 miles to recover your cost

[Andrew Fong @ Dec 12th 2006 1:32AM]

You forgot to add in miles per gallon calculations. Multiply that by 30 and that's how many miles you really have to drive for it to pay off.

[Dispraiser @ Dec 11th 2006 10:17PM]

I hate to bring this point up, but where does the electricity come from in your plugs? Farts and rainbows? Fact is there's a lot of oil being burned to make that electricity too. I'm excited to see this car, though. It really is relativley cheap and actually has about the range and speed I'd expect from a gas powered car - the old two gripes about electic cars. Once full electric hits about half this price, I'd expect to see people start to jump onboard.

Then the smug crisis begins, right?

[Dispraiser @ Dec 11th 2006 10:17PM]

If your car gets 1 MPG, Captain Obvious.

[Sdip @ Dec 11th 2006 10:29PM]

I think you are all missing the point. Cars aren't even close to largest sources of global warming caused by humans and don't cause nearly as much damage as cattle. According to a recent UN report Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. So if you really want to save the planet stop eating beef.

Read the whole thing:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

[Rudy @ Dec 11th 2006 11:00PM]

We should also factor in the low maintanence costs of Electric Cars. No more oil changes, air filters, gas filters, coolant, smog tests, emission controls, spark plugs, etc. Now if they (or the government) threw in at least a $5,000 rebate for solar panels... I'm in!

[Dag @ Dec 11th 2006 11:24PM]

I love this ... one problem though. Heat. One of the beutiful inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine is the energy lost to heat. Crutial when driving through winter in Canada. I can see running an electric heater when its -25 degrees C outside a problem when it comes to vehicle range per charge.

[Hawk @ Dec 11th 2006 11:39PM]

Too bad they can't do something about the ride. Have you ever been in one of those things? I *own* one. xB, not electric xB. :P Thing has the worst ride of any car I've ever been in. I didn't buy it for the ride, though.

I'm sure there are plenty of tuners that, after replacing the entire suspension, all four wheels, adding a supercharger, new exhaust system, custom paint job, leather or vinyl-wrapped interior, CF hood, neons, custom sound system, etc... would probably have spent as much as they did to buy the car in the first place. So, consider this a different kind of 'tuning'.

[Kai @ Dec 12th 2006 12:57AM]

Well since we're being pessimists, what about where those batteries come from and where they are disposed. Battery waste and production create some really toxic chemicals. Anyone see that article on the desolate wasteland created by the factory that smelts nickel (?) for Toyota's Prius batteries? I agree technology like this should be promoted, but realize its not the saving grace of humanity.

[captain obvious @ Dec 12th 2006 1:45AM]

Actually most cars really get gas milage closer to 20miles, and with wear, poor oil upkeep & maybe poor airflow that can creep to 10 miles. You are also forgetting all the routine maintenance thats required for a combustion engine. Factor in all that and I say no more than 80k to 100k.

But most will not get this to break even. They will get it to make a point. No more gas stations. No more gasoline.

[Gabe @ Dec 12th 2006 2:24AM]

Adding my 2 cents, even though most of the points have already been made. Electric cars keep smog and other pollutants out of city air. Burning fossil fuels at a power plant is probably more efficient than burning them in your car, but I have two points that I'm pondering: is the fossil fuel->powerplant->grid->battery->motor process still more efficient than fossil fuel->engine? The second point I'm pondering is that you can side-step this issue if you have your own personal solar or wind generator, or you happen to get your power from a renewable source. Oh, hey, what if cities had those electric cables hanging over the streets like in the olden days and everyone had a great big arm sticking out of the roof of their car to charge the battery. OK, I'll stop using my imagination now before anyone gets hurt.

[grey @ Dec 12th 2006 2:37AM]

Imagine if food arrived cooked and ready to eat, practically delivered right into your mouth, and meanwhile there was one single place in every town where the food preperation, dirty dishes, packaging, wrappers, napkins and trash from your meal were concentrated. All the dishes were washed together in giant machines, the garbage seperated and recycled, etc. Much more efficient, manageble, and clean, right? That's the difference between concentrating all the energy in power plants vs. wasteful energy created by individual autos. If the energy is produced by coal plants, we can clean the emissions, we can capture or reprocess them, we can neutralize their effects on the atmosphere, because there are much fewer nodes to deal with and the scale increases in such a way that it begins to make economic sense to deal with.

[slasherx @ Dec 12th 2006 2:55AM]

I think most of the figures you guys calculate assume that scion is running the same engine as before. Of course this isn't the case since it can't use the same engine for obvious reasons, ie. it doesn't take gasoline. So with the new engine I'm sure you get a lot better gas mileage, about 2-4x better than the 30mpg this car should get on a gas engine.

[Morgoth @ Dec 12th 2006 5:05AM]

Slasherx: why in X's name would you get better gas mileage after the conversion? It wouldn't even run on gas anymore? I think you're missing a very vital point here. Please read your post again, and think for a sec. :)

[slasherx @ Dec 12th 2006 5:27AM]

Ah you're surely right! I made the same mistake. I just mean that the distance you would travel per charge would be more than the distance per gallon. :P Thanks for the correct. :D

[Jeff @ Dec 12th 2006 9:23AM]

Where does electricity come from?

Think about that and get back to me. Thanks.

[Fei @ Dec 12th 2006 2:26PM]

Yeah, have fun with that electricity bill!

[triscope @ Dec 17th 2006 7:25PM]

I think this tech is very well within reach, just not enough funding has been made to fully experiment with the best of what we have today.

Motors:
Seimens has been producing electric motors for years : 3 Phase AC motors which produce anywhere from 60 - 150 peak hp. These motors run at 90% efficiency and have a peak rpm range of 10000 rpm. AC motors are the way to go, no brushes, high efficiency, thats what AC propulsion and tesla motors are using.

Batteries:
New development in Lithium Sulfur batteries are being made and researched on. A company called Sion Power boasts it can deliver twice the energy density of regular lithium polymer batteries in a smaller package (half the size) at extremely cheap production costs.

DC to AC inverters are already there, dont know too much on if they really need improvements, but they are rated at very high efficiency and get the job done.

So basically we HAVE the technology today to build cheap reliable extremely efficient electric cars that can have ranges well over 300 miles per charge. Its just a matter of how and when and if pressure from the oil companies will subside.

[Justin @ Dec 12th 2006 2:14PM]

Hey.. this would have been great for the days I went to college. The trip was only 457 miles (Detroit to Marquette, MI). That means the almost 8 hour trip would have only taken an extra 12.5 hours. Guessing I could find somewhere to plug it in.

[TIMMAH! @ Dec 12th 2006 2:10PM]

"Wow. Too bad that most of Americas electricity comes from burning Fossil Fuels."

Okay, yes that's true, but there are alternative sources for generating this electricity. What's the alternative to inefficiently burning fuel in the individual car?

As many have already pointed out:

1) More efficiencies can be wrung out of a central consumption source rather than trying to get these efficiencies out of each individual car. Cars a very inefficient at using the fuel that they burn. Most of the energy is wasted in heat.

2) It's much easier to deal with cleaning pollution at a single source (generation plant) rather than trying to clean it up at the individual tailpipe.

3) There are alternatives in generating electricity which do not pollute. There is no non-polluting alternative to internal combustion.

[Slashdog @ Dec 12th 2006 5:59PM]

Calculations

Petrol Car
25% Efficient on average.

Electric Car
Electrical Supply (USA) (70% fossil fuels at 40%, 30% nuke and other at 90%) @ 55% * transmission and sub transmission losses @ 93% * charger losses 80% = 40.1% efficient.

More importantly the reduction in CO2 is 57% due to the energy mix (thanks nuclear etc.) and increased efficiency. This doesn�t take into account that fossil electric plants produce far less NOx�s and other nasty�s that help along global warming.

[Marc Brooks @ Dec 12th 2006 6:05PM]

According to T. Gage from ACPropulsion:
"The eBox consumes between 200 and 250 Wh/mile from the battery depending on type of driving. The battery charger is 85% to 90% efficient depending on charge rate and other factors. So the electricity consumption from the plug rannges roughly from 225 to 300 Wh/mi."

Given that my (summer rate) electricity costs 7.90 cents/kWh, that means that the price ranges from $0.0178 to $0.0237 per mile. Assuming 30mpg (what my current car actually gets), that means that fuel comparison is $0.711 "per gallon".

Finally, assuming you are doing 30,000 miles per year, gas is $3.00 per gallon and the cost is $55,000 and the xB "optimistic" rating is 30 MPG. You get:

(55 000 U.S. dollars) / (((3 (U.S. dollars per US gallon)) / (30 miles per gallon)) * 30 000 (miles per year)) = 18.3333333 years to payoff the purchase...

Not sure what the tax credits would be, though.

http://www.google.com/search?q=55000+dollars+%2F+%28%283+dollars+per+gallon+%2F+30+miles+per+gallon%29+*+30000+miles+per+year%29+in+years