-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
AC Propulsion eBox
- Thread starter stockey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- EV Conversions
tonybelding
Active Member
AC Propulsion sold their first eBox to a customer
It's Tom Hanks!
http://www.acpropulsion.com/releases/02-15-2007.htm
It's Tom Hanks!
http://www.acpropulsion.com/releases/02-15-2007.htm
I'm willing to bet the tesla sedan will out sell the eBox 100 fold.
tonybelding
Active Member
AutoWeek tests the eBox
And they appear to like it. . .
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/FREE/70418009/1007/FREE
And they appear to like it. . .
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/FREE/70418009/1007/FREE
tonybelding
Active Member
Re: AutoWeek tests the eBox
Mostly for their comments about the EV1 -- and even I caught it where they described the original EV1 with the defective Delco batteries. That's not a good basis for comparison.
Still. Even if you compare the NiMH-equipped EV1 with the eBox, the eBox has somewhat greater range and far greater utility -- in terms of passenger and cargo space. Put the same drivetrain into an aerodynamic body, rather than one shaped like a shoebox, and I could imagine it getting 200 miles range on the highway. The improvement of technology beyond that of the EV1 is clear enough.
vfx said:
Mostly for their comments about the EV1 -- and even I caught it where they described the original EV1 with the defective Delco batteries. That's not a good basis for comparison.
Still. Even if you compare the NiMH-equipped EV1 with the eBox, the eBox has somewhat greater range and far greater utility -- in terms of passenger and cargo space. Put the same drivetrain into an aerodynamic body, rather than one shaped like a shoebox, and I could imagine it getting 200 miles range on the highway. The improvement of technology beyond that of the EV1 is clear enough.
W8MM
R1.5 #325 + Mdl S #01380
Re: AutoWeek tests the eBox
Some large company might (possibly) buy an eBox and tear it down, just to have a look see. But, what good would it do a huge car company to purchase manufacturing rights if they had to re-engineer and re-tool every component from scratch to make their version of such a vehicle cost competitive? There are very few new ideas for electric cars since the Baker electrics of a hundred years ago, and purchasing rights to the eBox might not expand their pool of knowledge.
If the eBox contains any new, good, novel ideas, patent rights would be available for license instead of needing to purchase the whole shebang.
Large, technologically-sophisticated companies have a pretty big "Not Invented Here" factor. Often, there are plenty of good reasons for this approach.DDB said:
Some large company might (possibly) buy an eBox and tear it down, just to have a look see. But, what good would it do a huge car company to purchase manufacturing rights if they had to re-engineer and re-tool every component from scratch to make their version of such a vehicle cost competitive? There are very few new ideas for electric cars since the Baker electrics of a hundred years ago, and purchasing rights to the eBox might not expand their pool of knowledge.
If the eBox contains any new, good, novel ideas, patent rights would be available for license instead of needing to purchase the whole shebang.
tonybelding
Active Member
Re: AutoWeek tests the eBox
GM certainly isn't interested in buying the eBox technology, since they already had (or have) it. The eBox's drivetrain is merely a refinement of the EV1 drivetrain with an upgrade to li-ion batteries. The thing you've got to realize about GM, and I think this applies to a number of other big car companies, is the lessons they learned from the ZEV Mandate:
1. People won't pay more for a car unless they can recover the costs (from fuel savings) within a couple of years.
2. People won't buy a car that can't go 300 miles between fueling. That's the minimum requirement.
3. People won't buy a car that can't refuel in five minutes at widely available stations.
The eBox fails on all three counts, therefore GM and most other car companies have no interest in it. If they are aware of the eBox at all, they are laughing at it, and they are laughing at anybody who thinks there's any market demand for it.
I think they learned all the wrong lessons from the ZEV Mandate experience, and the last laugh will be on them -- but for now their thinking is basically unchanged on this subject.
GM certainly isn't interested in buying the eBox technology, since they already had (or have) it. The eBox's drivetrain is merely a refinement of the EV1 drivetrain with an upgrade to li-ion batteries. The thing you've got to realize about GM, and I think this applies to a number of other big car companies, is the lessons they learned from the ZEV Mandate:
1. People won't pay more for a car unless they can recover the costs (from fuel savings) within a couple of years.
2. People won't buy a car that can't go 300 miles between fueling. That's the minimum requirement.
3. People won't buy a car that can't refuel in five minutes at widely available stations.
The eBox fails on all three counts, therefore GM and most other car companies have no interest in it. If they are aware of the eBox at all, they are laughing at it, and they are laughing at anybody who thinks there's any market demand for it.
I think they learned all the wrong lessons from the ZEV Mandate experience, and the last laugh will be on them -- but for now their thinking is basically unchanged on this subject.
Martin is too smart to re-invent the wheel. He seems to have a knack for pulling things off the shelf to make something new.
AC Propulsion is more interested in licensing than manufacture.
Perhaps it's a bit like Glenn Curtis vs the Wright brothers.
AC Propulsion is more interested in licensing than manufacture.
Perhaps it's a bit like Glenn Curtis vs the Wright brothers.
Last edited:
