I also hope that they'll find the time to update their web site this year. They seem to have abandoned it more than a year ago, which seems unlikely to facilitate confidence on the part of prospective buyers...
Posted by: David Hunter

Well, I can think of one reason above all others to pick this particular car to do: solar cells! Its flat, high roof is perfect for them. If you can park in the sun, they'll be cheaper than gasoline already and will extend your freedom from chargers. Plus the electric company could not mess with you.

Although I still have to say I'm mystified that ACP doesn't seem to care about aerodynamics much. Here's why: at 180 miles range in city driving, average 25 mph, that's 7 hours driving--how much do you want to drive in a day? If you can find a powerful charge outlet at mealtimes it is unlimited. Range conquered. However, freeway driving is a different story. 3 hours' driving is a limitation. The last thing you want is it to be compromised by shorter range due to high drag.

The only key spec they didn't mention is projected battery life. However, because it uses industry-standard 18650 cells, I would expect to only be looking at one replacement over the life of the car. In a few years when they need to be replaced, you should be able to put in the best available batteries of the time, and vendors are talking about working up to huge cycle lifetimes you'll never wear out (spacecraft li-ion's already do this).

Getting the first units to pencil, progress value aside, will require a ton of driving plus internalizing the air pollution value and probably also the big item: federal costs due to oil consumption. But this federal government isn't likely to help much.

It's a shame to have to change brake fluid every two years on a car that will never likely need brake pads. How about putting something like Prius brakes on it?
Posted by: P L Schager

At the present time this technology is expensive and there is no way to get around that. Viable EVs need to start at the top and gradually work their way down to the masses.
Posted by: Tim Egan

Q = 1/2 . rho v squared

So the aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of vehicle speed. So this vehicle is OK for city driving. Rolling resistance to tyres is more or less independent of speed. But on the motorway most of the energy goes into overcoming air resistance. We all know you use a LOT more petrol at 70 or 80 than 55. It's a basic tenet of EV conversions - use the most aerodynamic vehicle you can.

ACP are apparently not stupid - so why did they choose such an inappriopriate design of car to convert?
Posted by: W Tahil

The xB is not at all inappropriate as the basis of the vehicle ACP wanted to build. It is light. It can hold a family of five plus luggage and a dog. It has relatively low frontal area. It has enough space to allow for a row of batteries down the center of the car without significantly comprimising interior space. There are many factors to consider in EV design, not just Cd. Given available platforms, the xB was represents an intelligent compromise for an EV chassis.
Posted by: F BB

Not everyone likes the looks of the Scions. Some might go so far as to say “yes, they’re the look of the future, but right now they’re ugly”. But, from the perspective of our plan to build EV conversions and make money doing so, we have not found a better vehicle to start with. The gasoline Scion is well-equipped, costs less than $15,000, and weighs less than 2400 pounds. The xB is huge inside. The xA has a sporty, aggressive stance. The xA and xB are built on the same platform so we get two cars for the price of developing one. The xB in particular appeals to fleets. They are Toyotas but they don’t look like it. To get the best range and performance in an EV with the broadest appeal and the lowest price, the Scion has the looks of a winner.
-----------
Posted by: Steve Erlsten

Consider this. You buy a Chevy Tahoe for about $40,000 and I buy an eBox for $65,000. Let's set aside car payments and insurance and only consider operating costs over a 5 year life of both vehicles.

Chevy claims 16/21 mpg but real world experience tells us it's more like 12 mpg. At our current $3.25/gal. that's 27cents a mile in fuel costs. If fuel goes to $5.00/gal. that cost goes to 42cents a mile. (What did gas cost 5 years ago and where will it be five years from now?)

If you drive 100 miles per day, 21 days per month for 12 months, that's about 25,000 miles per year. At $3.25/gal. you annual fuel cost is $6,750. If gas goes to $5.00 your annual cost is $10,500. You're also likely to spend $150 every 5,000 miles on periodic maintenance. So you're looking at $7,500 a year at today's gas prices and perhaps $11,250 if gas hits $5.00/gal.

Now look at my eBox. I can go about 140 miles on 39kwh of electricity. Assuming a 75% charging efficiency and 12cents/kwh my per/mile cost is about 4.5 cents. If we assume that electricity can also go up in cost by the same 150% as in the gas prices, I might wind up paying 6.9 cents/mile in the future. In my eBox, 25,000 miles will cost only $1,125 at today's electricity prices and will rise to $1,725 if electricity prices go up 150%. My eBox will probably only require one $150 service per year since it has no oil to change and regen braking. My annual costs are then going to be $1,275 on the low end and $1,875 at the theoretical higher prices.

At the lower (current) gas and electricity prices, I come out ahead $6,225 per year. At the $5.00/gal-18cents/kwh projection the difference is $9,375 per year in my favor. Over 5 years that would be an operating advantage of $31,125 to $46,875. Even considering that my eBox cost $25k more than the Tahoe, I still come out ahead.

OK, to be fair, I also have to consider the cost of replacing that expensive battery - but I've got anywhere from $6k to $20k in savings to apply to that cost. In reality it would be most practical to build the cost of the replacement battery into the financing, just like those prepaid maintenance contracts that seem so popular now.

If you picture a world of $5/gal ++ gasoline you might also see that the eBox will have a bit better resale value in 5 years. Finally over those 125,000 miles the Tahoe will put almost 100 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while the eBox has only a fraction of that through the grid power generation emissions.

My friends, we should all get in line to buy one of these ugly little wonders just to shame the car companies into putting EV's back on the road!
Posted by: Jim Olsen

Its nice that AC Prop. is moving the EV forward.

Someday there will be lots of ICE vehicles but no fuel for them. That day will come suddenly and perhaps soon. How much would you pay to own electric then?

Good point. However, when Gage was talking about the $10K figure, he was assuming that one of the big auto companies would be licensing the technology and installing the EV drivetrain INSTEAD of an ICE, so there would be no labor, and the cost of the ICE drivetrain would be subtracted out of the equation. So the rough price for the vehicle could be: $15K+$10K-$5K(ICE drivetrain)= $20K. Of course, this is all very speculative and requires a big auto company to come on board.
Posted by: F BB

I'm saving up for one and like PC's and cell phones the price will come down as I take a while to save up.

Imagine what GM could have asked for the EV1, maybe $40-50 and they would be saving their image as well as jobs the the enviroment. Instead of crushing our dreams and their future.

I'm saving up .
Posted by: jim stACk

That is another great thing about the eBox!! It uses the stock Toyota AC compressor. They power the air-conditioning with a small and very efficient electric motor, so it works just like a normal Scion.
Posted by: F BB

One strong reason for selecting the xB is that it can suffice (politically) as a fleet vehicle while still possessing a sort of geek charm for consumers. I like it because I can comfortably fit my 6'4" frame into it along with 4 others my same size. It's roomy AND ecological. Big guys will love it.
Posted by: Earl Cox