Electric Vehicle Performance
& Battery Cost Comparison

 In the following pages, the reader will find performance comparisons between electric vehicles made by Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Toyota and Electric Fuel Propulsion Corporation (EFP) [which has licensed its technology to Electric Auto Corporation (EAC) in 1994]. These comparisons are based on tests by the U.S. Department of Energy and General Motors.

In 1969, the best performing electric vehicle on the road was the MARS II Electric Car produced by EFP, equipped with Lead Cobalt Batteries, which had a maximum driving range of 146.8 miles on a charge. In 1997, the best performing electric vehicle on the road was the EV-1 Electric Car produced by General Motors, equipped with Lead Acid Batteries, which had a maximum driving range of 90.5 miles on a charge (EFP and EAC were not producing electric vehicles at that time).

The MARS II had a much heavier body than the EV-1. The gross vehicle weight of the MARS II was 4,160-pounds vs. the EV-1 gross weight of 3,045-pounds. This made the MARS II 52.7% heavier than the EV-1 which means that the Lead Cobalt Batteries had to do a lot more work than the Lead Acid Batteries in the EV-1. The MARS II traveled 62.2% farther than the EV-1 (56.3 miles farther than the EV-1 range of 90.5 miles).

In the 1970's and 1980's, improvements were made to the Lead Cobalt Batteries. Therefore, it can be assumed that if the MARS II had been tested in 1997, its range would have been greater than 146.8 miles. Further improvements are being made now.

It should be noted that Honda and Toyota used Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries (NiMH) which cost was estimated at $450 per kilowatt hour (Note 1) as compared to $67 per kilowatt hour for the Lead Cobalt Battery (6.7 times as much). Nickel is ten to fifteen times as costly as lead.

Assuming an efficiency of 4 miles per kilowatt hour (kWh), the 105-mile range Honda (shown on the comparison chart) would require a 26 kWh Nickel Metal Hydride Battery with a cost of:
$11,700 (26 kWh x $450/kWh = $11,700).

By contrast, a 26 kWh Lead Cobalt Battery would only cost:
$1,742 (26 kWh x $ 67/kWh = $ 1,742).

Not only does the NiMH battery suffer from excessive cost, it also has a heat problem and cannot be safely charged at temperatures over 120°F. Therefore, a cooling system must be built into the EV for safe NiMH operation and fast charging is not practical. Also at high temperatures, the NiMH battery suffers a high self-discharge rate. The Lead Cobalt Battery is not affected by these high temperature problems.

Ford, Chrysler and General Motors are now beginning to install NiMH Batteries in the vehicles shown on the comparison sheet (which, until recently, have been equipped with Lead Acid Batteries). This will increase the range of those vehicles, but at a high cost penalty due to the high cost of the NiMH batteries. Those companies will absorb the loss as part of their commitment to the State of California to bring a certain number of EV's to the market before Year 2003.

The new constant speed ranges (under the U. S. Department of Energy Test Program in Phoenix, Arizona) for EV's made by Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, with estimated cost of Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries, are as follows: (assuming 4 miles per kilowatt hour)

Note  Pilot scale price estimated to be $450 to $550 per kWh for Nickel Metal Hydride; and production scale price estimated to be $250 to $350. Reference: Report by the California Air Resources Board, "A Report of the Battery Technical Advisory Panel, December 11, 1995).

NB**  The Attached Report is about a 500kb .PDF file.
Please allow time of this to open in your browser or "Right Click" the link/Icon above and choose (dependent on your browser)  "Save [Target/Link] As".

If you don't have the Acrobat Reader you can get a copy @ http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html