CNBC This Morning: Electric/Gas Wrangler in 2010
09-24-2008, 03:06 PM
#71
JK Enthusiast
I'm not worried about an electric motor on each wheel getting in mud and water. I've seen plenty of fully sealed industrial motors that run in the worst conditions.
Just think about it, a high torque electric motor on each wheel each pulling independantly and each fully controled. No diffs to get full of water, no clutches ruined by shifting in water or mud. No automatic trans overheating.
Just running silently down the trail. Need power, just push the go petal a little more.
With the right design parameters you could make the JK EV fully submersable.
You could make each wheel turn in a different direction, right side forward, left side reverse. What would that do for tight turning on sand, dirt or mud?
If this is what is coming, I am there!
Just think about it, a high torque electric motor on each wheel each pulling independantly and each fully controled. No diffs to get full of water, no clutches ruined by shifting in water or mud. No automatic trans overheating.
Just running silently down the trail. Need power, just push the go petal a little more.
With the right design parameters you could make the JK EV fully submersable.
You could make each wheel turn in a different direction, right side forward, left side reverse. What would that do for tight turning on sand, dirt or mud?
If this is what is coming, I am there!
09-24-2008, 03:26 PM
#72
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Badlands (near Lafayette, IN)
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-24-2008, 03:41 PM
#73
Fair point, however:
Range Rover Sport = 45mpg
Audi Q7 = 47mpg
VW Toureag = 46mph
BMW X3 / X5 / X6 = 38-49mpg (depending on model)
Land Rover Defender = 38mpg
all of these either are mpg's of friends vehucles and all used how mine is used, light off road use/green laning and a fair whack of tarmac at 70-90mph cruising speeds, and they all exceed or come close to exceeding the combined hybrid mpg - and they are all stock diesel engines
My point about my A3 is actually that there are already a bunch of companies out there who through engine refinement and development can produce far superior engines capable of much further range than what we have.
If they are serious about developing better mpg, the front and side profile needs to be looked at and edges smoothed/honed
Range Rover Sport = 45mpg
Audi Q7 = 47mpg
VW Toureag = 46mph
BMW X3 / X5 / X6 = 38-49mpg (depending on model)
Land Rover Defender = 38mpg
all of these either are mpg's of friends vehucles and all used how mine is used, light off road use/green laning and a fair whack of tarmac at 70-90mph cruising speeds, and they all exceed or come close to exceeding the combined hybrid mpg - and they are all stock diesel engines
My point about my A3 is actually that there are already a bunch of companies out there who through engine refinement and development can produce far superior engines capable of much further range than what we have.
If they are serious about developing better mpg, the front and side profile needs to be looked at and edges smoothed/honed
its a jeep
its supposed to be a BOX.
it always has
also, when is the last time you saw an x5 with 33s on it....
jeep designed these jeeps to be able to do stupid things. sometimes its a give and take situation
if you wnat gas mileage buy one of hte cars listed above
not only will you get gas mileage, you will also get comfort, something severely lacking in the JK
09-24-2008, 07:27 PM
#75
JK Enthusiast
maybe its 27kw per battery. and as for the "peak" power of 200kw for the motor, think about this. the v6 we have now has a "peak" power of 208hp (i think it was) and that only happens at what? 4800rpm? so of course under full load it won't go far. hell, you won't go far with you v6 screaming at 4800+ rpms constantly and 20 gallons of gas either. so of course they did the test under low power and slow city driving.
What my original post points out is the fact that Jeep's press release for this vehicle is full of buzz words and hype. The proposed system will only be useful for the commuter in an urban environment (25-30 miles per day max). It intended target is the tree hugger, look im doing something to help the environment, but I want to drive a 5000 lb SUV, envionmentalist.
Yes, I pointed out the fact that the press release only showed in the low energy "city" statistics. In real world offroad driving, that 40 mile battery range would drop significantly. My best engineering estimate of driving on aggressive off road trails would be that the battery would last around 4-6 miles and that the 1 liter gas powered engine/generator/alternator would not be able to meet the energy demands of the electrical systems.
Anyone notice that the "Trail Rated" emblems are missing!
09-25-2008, 03:37 AM
#76
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ft Lauderdale, fl
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric JK
looks like Chrysler , jeep are hard at work on electric and hybrid vehicles set for 2011 the article shows a Hybrid JK which can run 40 Mi on battery
i wonder how i will do off road?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09...-vehicle-line/
i wonder how i will do off road?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09...-vehicle-line/
09-25-2008, 05:04 AM
#77
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newcastle - UK
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dude
its a jeep
its supposed to be a BOX.
it always has
also, when is the last time you saw an x5 with 33s on it....
jeep designed these jeeps to be able to do stupid things. sometimes its a give and take situation
if you wnat gas mileage buy one of hte cars listed above
not only will you get gas mileage, you will also get comfort, something severely lacking in the JK
its a jeep
its supposed to be a BOX.
it always has
also, when is the last time you saw an x5 with 33s on it....
jeep designed these jeeps to be able to do stupid things. sometimes its a give and take situation
if you wnat gas mileage buy one of hte cars listed above
not only will you get gas mileage, you will also get comfort, something severely lacking in the JK
there are a few x5's and Q7's around here that are off-road modified, however my point is a stock 4x4, i am not interested in massive wheels and mud plugging tyres, or hundreds of lb's of weight extra, i want a good ride and lower road noise and some creature comforts - and my JK delivers all of that very nicely
my point seems to have been missed somewhat, all im saying is that the mpg they see as their future is not particularly acceptable imo, i mean look at the defender, its like a box, its roots are as good as if not better than the wrangler and its developing a new defender to push 3figure mpg - so whats the problem, other than Jeep dragging its heels?!?
09-25-2008, 08:29 AM
#78
JK Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great point, that does look a little low. If this goes production, hopefully they could clean that up some and moce it a few inches, but would certainly need some good armor in any case.
09-25-2008, 11:31 AM
#79
JK Super Freak
Guys, just wanted to note...
In regards to the 4x4 mileage discussion ... Metric and Imperial gallons are different. 50mpg in the UK is, off the cuff, about 40-42mpg here in the US.
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.
Carry on...
In regards to the 4x4 mileage discussion ... Metric and Imperial gallons are different. 50mpg in the UK is, off the cuff, about 40-42mpg here in the US.
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.
Carry on...
01-03-2009, 10:46 AM
#80
JK Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: phila, pa
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'd rather see the jeep as a hybrid. with the electric what happens if one of the motors go out while the other 3 are still working. also the electric isn't a good idea if you're a city dweller with no garage because you don't have guaranteed parking in front of you residence. if you're lucky enough to find parking in front of your own place, any one can come along and mess w/ the cord which is always exposed to the elements.