back to article Silent, spacious and... well, insipid: Citroën's electric C-Zero car

French car manufacturer Citroën's logo represents the pioneering gear system designed by André Citroën. The company has a long history of innovation from the Traction Avant to the amazing DS – so is Citroën's C-Zero electric car similarly pioneering? A smart Hoxton cafe, not really an electricity showroom All that …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Mick Stranahan

    errr..

    didn't you folks review this thing three years ago, albeit with a Peugeot badge on the front?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/review_cars_peugeot_ion/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: errr..

      exactly. The code share is much more than just Mitsubishi + Citroen.

      Citroen + Peugeot also code share with Toyota with their very small petrol car (107, C1, Aygo respectively)

    2. Buzzword

      Re: errr..

      Yes, it's the exact same car.

      I recently drove the in-laws from London to Windsor and back in an '11-plate rented i-Miev (Hertz 24/7 have a couple of them). The silence is golden at low speed, but there's a considerable amount of road noise above 35mph. Contrary to the article, I found the handling to be fairly poor. For my own money I'd rather have a hybrid: you get the same silence at low speed, the same handy automatic gearbox for town driving, and of course the reassuring backup of a petrol engine.

  2. Tom_

    Price of Electricity

    One concern for me about the economics of the electric car is the increasing price of electricity. How can you estimate charging costs over five or ten years, even if you have a good idea of the mileage you'll be doing?

    I recognise that petrol costs are also variable.

    1. Charles Manning

      Re: Price of Electricity

      I'd be more worried by the price of subsidies.

      Every time someone buys one of these, Joe Public gets shaken down for hundreds of dollars/quid of extra taxes.

    2. DrXym

      Re: Price of Electricity

      I'd say petrol costs are vastly more concerning. It only takes a whiff of regional instability (e.g. what's happening in Iraq right now) for the price to be hiked up. And over the long term the price always goes up.

      I think it's crazy for electric cars to have so many batteries in them. It would be better for a hybrid that can do an average commute but can kick over to something else if the battery runs down - hydrogen, ethanol and diesel are all potentially renewable.

      Or even an aluminium / air battery which can't be recharged but does provide a large range so someone won't be stranded if they exceed their conventional range.

  3. Pisartis
    Joke

    C-Zero

    Ive figured out the meaning of the name: See nothing - as it always has to be plugged in to charge!

  4. Craigie

    Nope

    Electric cars just aren't there yet. The batteries need to be cheaper, pack way more power (for range) and charge much, much faster. Until then, they will be nothing but a niche market.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. monkeyfish

        Re: Nope

        Especially the one that uses a small petrol to charge the battery for an all electric drive (the vauxhall ampera/Chevy volt?). Seems like the best idea so far, as it has no need for a gearbox, and the petrol runs at a constant (efficient) speed. Electric motors make a lot more sense for cars than petrol engines.

        1. ijustwantaneasylife
          Thumb Up

          Re: Nope

          Or even better than a reciprocating petrol/diesel engine - why not something that is designed for constant speed efficiency and only uses a simple rotary motion (no, not a Mazda/Wankel). I'm referring to a gas turbine of course. Those aircraft guys know a thing or two about efficiency.

          1. Brenda McViking

            Re: Nope

            Yeah but when they're really small they're not that efficient, in thermal terms. They're also expensive to build and maintain, require expensive materials as the average temp at the back is soooo much higher and are still very thirsty. Not to mention it'll easily drown out the noisiest boy racer Corsa driver who has drilled a hole in his exhaust.

            GTs are extremely power dense, and therefore fine for when you want an insane amount of power from something that doesn't take up much space or weigh very much - thus for land based vehicles they really don't make sense - you're much better off with a diesel running at it's optimum driving a generator, if you're after maximum efficiency with minimal losses... Unless of course you're trying for land speed records.

            But don't let me stop you wanting a jet car. I do too!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Nope

            Gas turbines tend to be not so quiet. So no.

            Vehicles that use them are helicopters and airplanes. Even a helicopter, before turning their blades at reasonably speed, can be heard for miles, due to the gas turbines. Search videos of the Bell Huey H1 taking off (the Vietnam chopper, for reference) and see what I mean. Modern choppers are not too far behind either. And you don't want that high-pitched whine of something rotating at god knows how much rpm, that would need severe gear reduction, pretty much like what choppers must do today anyway. That jet bike uses an helicopter turbine too, and sounds like a F-16 on takeoff.

            Efficiency? Neither. They present power-to-weight ratio instead, which mean they can deliver outstanding performance in a tiny, light package. Like a soda can sized turbine can propel a scooter at an idiotic 100mph. That kind of performance is great on something that should fly, but it tends to be a gas guzzler. Apparently choppers burn 35 liters of Jet A fuel per hour. They are not efficient, so much in fact that high-bypass turbines were invented to improve fuel efficiency.

            But Wankel engines, on the other hand, can reach up to 7000 rpm easily (I'm not sure, ask Mazda, please?), so do electric motors/generators, and I believe both would work nice together.

          3. RaidOne

            Re: Nope

            Or the armor guys. The only land vehicle in mass production that I know of using a turbine is a tank - the Abrams.

          4. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Nope

            Gas turbines (turboshafts) aren't particularly efficient. What they do achieve is to pack a lot of output into a small package and on an aircraft that's more important than overall efficiency.

            A single-speed fixed output reciprocating engine runs very efficiently and doesn't need most of the mountains of gubbins attached to automotive engines (which are all there to ensure the thing can work at a huge range of speeds and pwer outputs).

            Turbines and piston engines both only work at maximum efficency at very close full power/full load.

            Toyota's just blueskied a crankshaftless engine which outputs about 10kW and is tiny. If you need more output, just add more modules - the advantage is that you only need to start each cylkinder when it's actually needed.

            1. John 62

              Re: Nope

              Turbine engines are very clean burning, though!

              Wrightbus looked into diesel turbines for city-based buses that don't have to go fast. They said the emissions were great, but the fuel efficiency was about the same as a normal diesel engine and with crap torque/power (can't remember which).

          5. Jan 0 Silver badge

            Re: Nope

            Aircraft can trade weight against efficiency. Road vehicles can tolerate more weight, but I remember that the gas turbine cars (Rover UK) and US trucks of the 60s sunk without trace.

            BTW, what happened to the micro gas turbine to power my mobi?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Electric cars just aren't there yet.

      I agree, they're not, but we have to get through this phase so they do get there. Digital cameras "weren't there" for years and for a while, people paid 2 million yen for a 1.3 megapixel Canon digital SLR. Compared to a film SLR, it was rubbish and massively expensive, but it had to happen to get us to where we are now, where most people own a digital camera.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Electric cars just aren't there yet.

        Yep, but I don't remember the taxpayers subsidising early digital cameras in the way we're expected to for electric cars.

      2. Anna Logg

        Re: Electric cars just aren't there yet.

        Batteries and electric motors have both been under development for over a century, we're way way past the 'easy win' phase of development hence it's difficult to see electric cars in anything like their current form making much progress.

        1. jonathanb Silver badge

          Re: Electric cars just aren't there yet.

          A lot of people don't realise that electric cars were around before diesel and petrol cars were invented. They were at their most popular when they were competing with steam and horse powered vehicles.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Russell Hancock

      Re: correction needed

      While i agree that VED is the correct term for it "Road Tax" can also be correctly applied as it is a "Tax to be able to use the road" - i.e. without it you are not allowed to use the roads...

      MOT and insurance could also be called "Road Taxes" as you have to pay them to go in the road and they are just another way to get money to use something - Why are there so many "taxes" on driving? Petrol, MOT, VED, Insurance, Fuel Duty, VAT... Maybe they should scrap the lot and have one simple "Road Tax" that is "the charge for using roads"...

      (looks like this turned into a bit of a rant at the powers that be - sorry about that!)

      1. frank ly

        @Russell Hancock Re: correction needed

        The MoT has a (government mandated) maximum cost of about £50 for an 'average' car and many test centres will do it for less than this. That is cheap for what they do and the government doesn't get a penny of this money, so it's not a tax. Insurance .... meh.

    2. SimonM

      Re: correction needed

      and did you really write "Tescos" ?

      1. monkeyfish

        Re: correction needed

        I'd prefer it if all the tax was on petrol/diesel and nothing else (i.e. no 'road tax'). If you own a Hummer but only drive it 100 miles a year, you are doing less damage to the roads and environment than a diesel/electric doing 10,000 miles a year. So the amount of fuel you use is directly proportional to the amount of tax you should pay. Until we all drive electrics, then they'll have to tax something else (they'll still want the tax, after all).

  6. nematoad

    What?

    "There is 1,120kg to haul around, which is par for the small car course."

    Small? My Mini Cooper S (original type) weighs 715 kg kerbside, now that's small.

    That Citroen is like all the other "small" cars presently produced. A big fat dumpling.

    1. dogged

      Re: What?

      Have you seen the "new" Mini Countryman? I've seen smaller Jeeps.

      1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

        @dogged Re: What?

        That's because the new Mini countryman shares a platform with the BMW X1, which is indeed bigger than most jeeps.

      2. nematoad

        Re: What?

        "Have you seen the "new" Mini Countryman? I've seen smaller Jeeps."

        Yes I have. That's why I posted that my "original" Mini is small. I wasn't talking about the "new" one, those great lumps dwarf my car.

        1. A Twig

          Re: What?

          Indeed, the footprint of a new Mini (the normal one, not the 4x4 or Clubman) is bigger than a Land Rover Defender 90!

    2. Steven Raith

      Re: What? (Re classic Mini)

      Go crash both into a wall or telegraph pole (or cow) at 40mph and see which one you walk away from.

      Then try that again at 70mph and see which one you *still* walk away from, and which one requires several refuse sacks to collect you.

      If the risk is worth it, all power to you though, nice to see there are still some people who give a toss about good cars, no matter how old they are.

      That said, 1160kg is not awfully bad for a small car full stop these days (try to find anything under a ton these days?), never mind an electric one. I'll stick with my fourteen year old 1050kg*, 115lb/ft**, 125bhp** snot-hatch for now though; I think late 90s cars danced the line of weight/safey pretty well. That, and I'm skint.

      Incidentally, the torque comparator between the Elise/exige and the C-Zero is a bit of a misnomer - the VVTi lump may make the same amount of torque, but it makes triple the horsepower too; if you had said it had the torque of a 1.8 petrol Focus or similar, that'd have been more apt a comparison as that's a perfectly nippy car in terms of torque, and a good benchmark for about-town nippiness. If you get into a C-zero expecting overt peppiness, I think you'll be disappointed once you get beyond 30mph.

      Steven R

      *less now thanks to Fords unique, weight saving measures. You know, rust.

      **Less now thanks to 125,000 miles, the last 20,000 of which have been done hard...still headbutts the revlimiter with aplomb and crackles on the overrun though!

      1. dogged
        Meh

        Re: What? (Re classic Mini)

        Go crash both into a wall or telegraph pole (or cow) at 40mph and see which one you walk away from.

        Then try that again at 70mph and see which one you *still* walk away from, and which one requires several refuse sacks to collect you.

        Or, y'know, don't crash into things.

        1. Steven Raith

          Re: What? (Re classic Mini)

          Dogged - well done ;-) but me not crashing into things won't stop other people crashing into me.

          The safest driver in the world can't stop a pissed up moron crossing the centre line on a blind corner...

          1. dogged

            @Steven Raith

            All I'm seeing here are arguments for banning cyclists or indeed anything that isn't a late 1980s Volvo.

          2. Vic

            Re: What? (Re classic Mini)

            The safest driver in the world can't stop a pissed up moron crossing the centre line on a blind corner...

            No, but strict adherence to the Roadcraft rule will prevent you trying to occupy the same spot at the same time.

            Go buy the book - it *will* save you at least one accident.

            Vic.

    3. Gordon 10

      Re: What?

      And how much would your mini weigh if it had to get a 4 or 5 star NCAP rating? Its not exactly Apples and Oranges is it.

      That said I wonder if there is mileage in the thought of a seperate test for electrics given their weight distribution and the need to bias them towards low weight.

      1. Aaron 10

        Re: What?

        The C-Zero scored a 4 on the NCAP tests, like the Nissan LEAF.

    4. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: What?

      " My Mini Cooper S (original type) weighs 715 kg kerbside, now that's small."

      It will also crunch up like wet cardboard if hit from behind and like slightly stronger cardboard in a head-on/side on crash.

      There's a reason for the extra weight in modenr cars and ain the case of this car at least 400kg of the mass is battery.

    5. stu 4

      Re: What?

      Maybe, but you are still hawling around 715kg of dead weight to move your body about.

  7. Matt_payne666

    £8k for a car with 42km on the clock? Now... that is very tempting... (and the cost these basic transport units should cost)

    shame I can't claim any work expenses on an electric, or else I could run that and keep a quattroporte for the school run...

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Is the author sure that that 5-year-old car with 42km on the clock isn't dealer shorthand for 42K miles, which makes the depreciation closer to 60p/mile? Still nasty, but somewhat more realistic.

  8. monkeyfish

    Thoughts

    1) Legislation is coming in to stipulate that electric cars must make a car-like noise, which is a huge shame as a lot of the appeal is their quietness. No. People should learn to look where they are going.

    2) Why do they have to make them so ugly? Without an engine, small motors could be placed at each wheel, so then the entire front could be glass*. They could actually look cooler than 'normal' cars if they tried.

    3) Standards. The batteries need to be standardised so you can buy them from 3rd parties in 10 years time. That way, you can take advantage of each improvement in battery technology as it comes along. Just need a standard shape, size, working voltage, and charging voltage. Current and capacity should improve as the tech gets better. Just make it modular enough that small cars have 1 or 2, large/sports cars have 3 or 4, and lorries can have 18 or whatever.

    *May not be a good idea in the event of an impact (or a stone chip), but they could make them look a lot better than they do now. If they are heart decisions and not head ones, then looking cooler than normal cars is a must, surely.

    1. Uffish
      Headmaster

      Re: Thoughts

      Re: People should learn to look where they are going.

      People usually do look where they're going, but they can't look behind at the same time - that's why ears were invented.

      1. monkeyfish

        Re: Thoughts

        err, ever heard of the green cross code? Look left, then right, then left again, before crossing the road.

        1. Bassey

          Re: Thoughts

          Brilliant. But what happens when you are walking ALONG the road? Plenty (most) of the roads around here have no pavements and I rely on being able to hear traffic coming to protect myself from it (there's bugger all point relying on them avoiding me!). The same thing, of course, applies to cyclists and other road users who aren't motorised.

          1. GettinSadda

            Re: Thoughts

            Maybe you should read the highway code:

            ==== QUOTE =====

            If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

            be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light

            keep close to the side of the road.

            ================

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Thoughts

        "but they can't look behind at the same time - that's why ears were invented."

        So we'd better make push bikes noiser, then?

        The unpleasant and pervasive noise of traffic is on the threshold of becoming an avoidable evil, and clowns who like the status quo are working hard to keep cars noisy. Maybe they could have a pedestrian with a red flag walk in front of each electric car, to ensure that the car sticks to a responsible speed and doesn't knock anybody over?

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          @Ledswinger Re: Thoughts

          I have plenty of negative things to say about electric cars. Their silence, however, is not something I would complain about.

          Besides, an IC car travelling under 30 is virtually silent from the front until it gets quite close. You'll hear the road noise before the engine. Maybe all cars should have some sort of artificial noise-maker fitted to them? Perhaps something that can be activated by the driver...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Ledswinger Thoughts

            "Their silence, however, is not something I would complain about."

            Neither was I!

          2. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: @Ledswinger Thoughts

            "Maybe all cars should have some sort of artificial noise-maker fitted to them? Perhaps something that can be activated by the driver..."

            I see what you did there. Have an upvote! Better yet, have a beer to kill the pain of being a smart person in a dumbass world.

          3. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: @Ledswinger Thoughts

            "Maybe all cars should have some sort of artificial noise-maker fitted to them? Perhaps something that can be activated by the driver..."

            I know you're refrring to the horn, but I'd like to have one which made Jetsons flying car noises.

        2. Uffish
          Megaphone

          Re: Thoughts

          I'm betting on the Whitehall mandarins keeping their support for noisy cars (Green cross Code: "Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic before you see it."

          My interest is the aftermarket opportunities for custom sounds.

        3. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Thoughts @Ledswinger

          "The unpleasant and pervasive noise of traffic is on the threshold of becoming an avoidable evil, and clowns who like the status quo are working hard to keep cars noisy." Now, it is interesting you mention this. Mrs IP and myself have been looking for the next Potsherd Manor, and kept running into a problem with road noise. Mrs IP wants to live where she can't hear vehicles at all - she gets quite agitated if her world is afflicted by the noises of civilisation*. I, on the other hand, get stressed if I can't hear noise, especially road noise.** I would have been overjoyed to live within earshot of the big dual carriageway hereabouts.***

          *However, "civilisation" doesn't include railways, which she would have been happy to live near. She would also have been happy to live near the river or on the coast because of the noise - which to me is indistinguishable from the sound of a dual-carriageway or motorway about 100m distant ...

          ** I love having weekends away doing motorsporty things, since I arrange to stay at motorway hotels where I can hear the traffic - best nights' sleep I get in the year!

          *** We have chosen the next house to be graced with our occupancy - as an exercise for the reader, I'll leave you to guess whose preference won ...

      3. Jan 0 Silver badge

        Re: Thoughts

        Why would they need to look behind? Modern tyres are far noisier than engines at low speeds.

    2. Mike Flugennock

      Re: Thoughts

      "1) Legislation is coming in to stipulate that electric cars must make a car-like noise, which is a huge shame as a lot of the appeal is their quietness. No. People should learn to look where they are going...."

      Well said! Even inasmuch as I was once nearly run over by a Prius driving under electric power because I couldn't hear it -- still, I think that's the coolest thing about electrics. I keep trying to imagine how strange and peaceful my city would sound at night if most of the vehicles were electrics.

      "2) Why do they have to make them so ugly? Without an engine, small motors could be placed at each wheel, so then the entire front could be glass*. They could actually look cooler than 'normal' cars if they tried."

      That's always been my problem, and probably one reason why electrics have never done well -- ever since the first ones were in large production in the '70s, they've always been butt-ugly. The Tesla's had its issues lately, but at least it's the first electric car with real "chick magnet" potential. Everything else looks bland and institutional, like a "people mover" concept at an early '70s transportation expo.

      I mean, how tough would it be to design a way more stylin', sporty two-seater urban runabout version of the Prius or this new Citroen beast?

      As far as configuring individual wheels' motors to make room for more styling options, I don't know if glass would be the thing for that big front windshield -- but you could probably use some heavy polycarbonate (the stuff they use for space helmets) to create a windshield that's part of a big front door that swings completely away, like the old Isetta.

      Actually, you probably couldn't do the entire thing as a windshield as you'd need at least the bottom third of that door to hold the latch/lock mechanism, and the handle.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Thoughts

      " Why do they have to make them so ugly? Without an engine, small motors could be placed at each wheel, "

      1: Putting them in the wheels increases unsprung weight and hammers the snot out of the motors.

      2: This is _NOT_ a dedicated EV. It's an electric conversion of a Mitsubishi Kei car and the electric motor is sitting where the original 660cc engine was.

    4. hplasm
      Happy

      Re: Thoughts

      "Legislation is coming in to stipulate that electric cars must make a car-like noise..."

      No- electric cars should go quietly 'veep-veep-veep-veep' as they go bu. q.v The Jetsons.

      Or have no wheels.

      *edit*

      EEK- Alan Brown beat me to it... :)

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thoughts

      1 - Tesla already makes a car-like noise, due to 3000lbs of weight flexing those big 21" tires. And yes, people *don't look around* because they trust their ears to warn them about impending doom. They've just never been to Africa, where Hippos and Rhinos can move absurdly quickly and silently for their size. Now that's 6000lbs of a beast with an attitude towards humans. And they are aiming at trampling you, no accident there. Well, horns and glowing headlights might help a bit.

      2 - Ugly? Tesla S looks like a Jaguar or Nissan. But the rest of the lot is ugly as a train wreck. Point taken. The Leaf is wake-up-in-the-morning-and-scream-in-horror ugly. Pale blue really makes it disgusting. For God's sakes, paint it fire-engine red or jet-black.

      3 - Standards. Tesla uses standard notebook batteries. Some 7000 of them in one giant water-cooled slab. Conveniently on the bottom so they can be swapped... in 90 seconds. Shape and size could be helped, by dividing that slab in smaller parts, maybe 2 or 4 parts, in standard sizes, to fit smaller cars. Some form of connection between them could be automated, just like our cellphones use spring-loaded connectors. Their solution seemed the most elegant and feasible.

  9. David M

    Does '42km' really mean kilometres, or was it short for 42000 miles?

    1. dogged

      Based on the maths, at depreciation of £600/mile, yes it's actually 42 kilometers.

      1. Simon Rockman

        Yes, it was 42 kilometers, c. 25 miles. It had been sitting at Mitsubishi HQ for years not being driven. I think most of the miles it had done have been the boss of the dealership taking it home.

  10. 0laf
    Coat

    Buggers up when you can buy an equivalent sized small diesel or petrol car for £12k no including government subsidy. Some of them don't pay VED either and most of us don't live in London so the congestion charge is an irrelevance.

    £10k buys a lot of petrol or diesel even at today's prices.

    I applaud the technology but we're a long way away from electric vehicles being the obvious choice for the masses. I think most people would happily choose electric for a commuting car if it made sense we're now past the pointing and laughing stage. We're at teh stage of "I've paid a fk lot of money towards this through my taxes and I'd like to see something usable outside of London".

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    Not all green

    It's still not as environmental or useful as buying a cheap second hand car (given manufacture etc) basically just a Well-off persons toy

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Replacing old/dead battery packs? Oh do keep up FFS...

    1) The price of battery packs (such as for the Nissan Leaf) has dropped 40% in the last 3 years due to increased production.

    2) A 'dead' battery pack still has a lot of worth, as it can be used to small grid level storage.

    3) A 'dead' battery pack will probably only need a few of its cells replacing to bring it back up to near new spec. At a cost of £20-£30 a pop. Try rebuilding a modern petrol/diesel and see how much that costs!

    The 'need to replace a £10,000 battery pack every 5 years' is just bogus. There are drivers who have done 100,000miles in a Leaf and are still on the original batteries...

  13. earl grey
    FAIL

    145/65 front, 175/55 rear

    Seriously? Two different sizes tyres? What genius thought of that?

    What size is the spare? Is there even room for a spare?

    Or, worse, are these run-flat? Expensive and ride like bricks.

    1. Aaron 10

      Re: 145/65 front, 175/55 rear

      The narrow front tyres are for less aerodynamic resistance. The C-Zero comes with a tyre repair kit, no spare. The tyres are not run-flat, though they are LRR.

      Many cars comes with different sized tyres on the front and rear, however most tend to be for performance reasons rather than efficiency.

  14. Aaron 10
    FAIL

    Another poorly-researched review?

    A few days ago, I complained about the lack of research done on articles. Here's another.

    The range indication is on the right-side of the dash. You must push the button (trip reset) several times through the 8 options to get the "range remaining". Like all EVs, the range remaining is incredibly inaccurate, so I rarely use it, instead choosing to display the outside temperature on the right and watching the battery gauge on the left.

    Rear drum brakes mean little when your drivetrain is running the rear wheels. Regenerative braking makes rear discs unnecessary.

    No climate control? Are you mad? There are three knobs in the middle of the dash!

    Obvious cut 'n paste error: "Ecotricity has 150 charging stations that will charge a Leaf in 30 minutes but they are not compatible with the Tesla and the Leaf cannot be charged at Tesla stations". WHAT? The CHAdeMO standard works on the LEAF and the C-Zero (and Peugeot iOn and Mitsubishi i-MiEV). It's the Tesla (as your copy 'n paste error suggests) that is incompatible with these fast charging stations.

    Do some research already!

    1. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: Another poorly-researched review?

      There is a point to be made about how difficult it is to get the relevant information displayed in modern cars. I rent cars several times a year, and they don't usually have the manual with them. Trying to find simple things like how to reset the trip meter can take a quarter of an hour, and the staff at the rental agency usually don't know. Now with electronic keys, finding where the slot is can take time, too (what the hell is wrong with the standard place on the steering column?).

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    a WHAT in the boot?

    Rather a nice review, however shocked to find a positive review on the Xerox Colorqube 8570. Not a patch on their old models, full of plastic parts, high failure rates, shocking warranty support. Not unlike some modern cars compared to the old counterparts! Bring back the Phaser!

  16. Mike Flex
    Boffin

    180Nm of torque – that translates to 65bhp and 133 lb/ft in old money

    Er, no. 133 lb.ft or, more usually in the UK, ft.lb but not lb/ft.

    (Strictly, its lbf.ft or ft.lbf.)

    1. markp 1

      Re: 180Nm of torque – that translates to 65bhp and 133 lb/ft in old money

      Actually it doesn't really matter what it makes at the motor... useful torque output in automotive applications hinges entirely on the gearing, because all that matters is what happens at the *wheels*, and the amount of instantaneous force they can apply to the road as a result.

      And, we're not being told that here. Though we've got the wheel and tyre size, which helps, there's no mention of the reduction ratio, nor what rpm it achieves its maximum power and/or top speed. (I could probably fish it out of the i-MiEV specs, if Mitsubishi themselves have published them, but life's too damn short)... so we can't see how long you have to wait after starting for max torque to kick in, nor how long until it's making maximum power.

      However, there are some assumptions we can make.

      1/ It's not going to have as much starting torque as a normal car with the same rating on its engine. Not unless it's able to overboost in the first couple seconds, and the car in question is able to reach 80mph in first gear.

      The overboost would emulate the effect of winding-up a small engine before dropping the clutch in order to leverage the additional energy thereby stored in the flywheel, which means that if you first redline the motor and your rpms happen to drop through the max torque point before the clutch fully hooks up a little below it, you are at least momentarily shoving rather more torque through the gearbox input shaft than the rated 133lb.ft. Which is why this trick allows you to do burnouts in an otherwise underpowered car which can't do them if you launch by revving up to max torque rpms and holding the engine there on full throttle as you feather the clutch, or to get a heavy caravan moving on a steep slope even if all the engine is capable of doing once started is holding its speed at said max torque revs (and about 15mph in first, at full throttle).

      The "80mph in first" thing is because that's the rated max speed of the car - or more likely 130km/h, probably for a combination of legal and technical factors. It would otherwise be like starting in third for most ICEs, except yer electric motor tends to run up to twice as fast and is less bothered about being held at its max speed. Say 13000rpm instead of 6500 (which makes the other maths easy, here); instead it's somewhere between first and second... (10km/h per 1000rpm, or about 6.2mph).

      So, if we're comparing to a similar small petrol-driven car with a 5mph/1000 first, or 8km/h, and the same size drive wheels - 175/55 isn't too out of the ordinary (nor would 145/65 have been, 20 years ago), though we haven't been told the rather crucial rim size - then the electric will only put 80% as much torque to the road at peak thrust in its single gear as the petrol would in first gear - and at a slightly higher speed, should the ICE also get its maximum at 2000... in this case 20km/h instead of 16km/h (12.5 instead of 10mph ... and bear in mind this is being charitable and assuming it revs slightly higher than most electrics which tend to hit 10 to 11k instead). Which isn't entirely unrealistic, depending on what model you look at. Anyway, this means that 133lb.ft becomes a more modest - but still respectable - 106lb.ft equivalent ... this can be contrasted against the real-world 1600cc Astra I once had, which offered slightly greater power output but only 92lb.ft torque, or more closely the hard-charging 1.6 Megane which mustered up a full 100bhp but still only 106lb.ft itself - but did manage to offer up a curve that provided a good 90% of that all the way from 1750 to 5750rpm... (Both of them with approx 8km/h per 1000rpm first gears).

      2/ It won't be any faster than an equivalent 49kW / 65bhp car. Possibly slower. And probably on a pat with older 55hp (or less) examples.

      Once starting torque is out of the way - and it sounds here like it's maybe slightly lacking for that, at least in the crucial 0 to 10mph zone - the main statistic that makes any odds in terms of Going Fast with a car is POWER. Nothing else. Torque only really matters for ICEs because having a lot of it represents being able to make more useful power at lower rpms, and so it improves driveability because it doesn't bog down and you don't have to thrash it everywhere in low gear to make progress (saying "high torque" is just less of a mouthful than "the engine makes a usable amount of power without you having to rev it hard").

      Power, and along with it, weight; power normally dictating, with the aero, the car's top speed - but here it's artificially limited, so all we have to play with is power-to-weight. And this car's power to weight (and indeed, torque to weight) isn't very good... about 58bhp per tonne. Or to put it another way, only a smidgen more than what a 45bhp, 795kg VW Polo from the late 80s would have offered (the 55bhp model would trounce it). The engine in that car actually only offered up 55lb.ft, but at rather lower rpm than an Elise, and it got its max power fairly low down as well. With its lower gearing (= more force at the wheels, at least in first) and lower weight (better acceleration, better cornering even on 145s all round), and an enthusiastic driver at the wheel of the VW, the electric would have trouble keeping the old, "underpowered" petrol off its tail on city streets and country lanes. It might pull away briefly as they headed onto the motorway, but its lead wouldn't last long as its rival eventually sailed by at 85+. And this is the basic 1-litre model, remember.

      (Actually, when I run the maths ... the Polo had about a 4.5mph/1000 first gear (I had a slightly heavier 90s model that used the same gearbox and wheels/tyres, and that's what it offered), so that's an extra 1.111x increase to its effective torque... so, 55 x 1.111 = 61.1, x 1.25 = 76.4... x (1120/795) = ... wait for it ... 107.6! And that was at around 2600 to 3000rpm, or... 18 to 22km/h. Sound familiar? So even at the point of the C-Zero's strongest acceleration, the old petrol car would pace or even gain on it, especially as you could pre-wind the engine to the ~6500rpm redline and burn the clutch down to 4000, 3000, 2500rpm depending on the slope you were faced with, getting a much sharper launch... It would then probably start to lose out in the midrange, but certainly up to 20, 25mph I'd call it a dead heat)

      A crucial thing in this case is where it makes its maximum power... like, what speed it achieves 65bhp (or at least, 60ish...), and how long it holds onto it, if not all the way to max (some EVs do, some don't... and as this one might not have flat torque all the way down to stall speed, it might also lose some of its edge at the top end). The delivery is a lot flatter and more sustained than in an ICE, but it's also going to take longer to get there - except in the rather unlikely situation of it hitting 65bhp at 4000rpm (or about 25mph, similar to an ICE in first gear) and then holding onto it up to at least 10000rpm (100km/h / 62mph). It probably drifts up and peaks, or at least hits the shallow edge of the plateau around 7500-8000 (taking the old Tesla Roadster example as my guide), so until you get to the what would otherwise be considered the top of 2nd gear, you're not going to get full power. Not actually the biggest problem seeing as the manual-geared fossil fuel equivalent (with, in this case, equivalent weight and gearing) will have started out making maybe 30-40bhp at max torque, whizzed up to 65, held it momentarily before backing off a little, breaking delivery, dropping back to maybe 40-45, and building back up to 65 for a bit... then breaking one more time and resuming at perhaps 50bhp on the way towards 100km/h. The electric's potential for instantaneous power at any certain point along the way is maybe lower, but it makes up for it in not needing gearchanges, or having its output drop back down after each one. It all evens out - it's not actually massively fast, but it's more consistent, and that can help make up the average.

      We can see this in how it takes about 16 seconds to reach 100km/h. Which is slower by maybe 1.5 seconds vs my old, slightly lighter, slightly more powerful (and indeed, slightly better max wheel-force-per-tonne) Astra. It's not a dreadfully embarassing result for something of its output and bulk, but neither is it magically sparkling. It's resolutely average, given the stats... no big unexpected kick in the back, but no sitting and waiting for it to eventually reach 30 (as was the case with the Berlingo van, which had an epic 9-second 0-50km/h time). Mediocre. Average. Boring. And in fact, in a world where being able to scoot nicely through traffic without always murdering the engine and/or brown trousering it - as well as pulling adroitly onto motorways and fast A-roads - requires something with performance more in the 12-second range, somewhat disappointing. Because they almost certainly could have stuffed a Leaf-esque 66kW (90bhp) lump in there, giving the thing a much more pleasing 80bhp/tonne (closer to an old Polo GT than a 1.0 - or at least a mid noughties TDi), and it wouldn't have even had significantly greater energy consumption ... one just has to assume either they were lumped with what Mitsubishi provided with no opportunity to make changes (the Kei class regs mandate a maximum 50kW / 66bhp power output...), and/or specced it in line with the French road tax system which is based off a mix of engine power and CO2 emissions... even when said emissions are zero. And it makes for rather obvious breakpoints at particular power outputs where the car would otherwise jump up a tax band - hence the proliferation of otherwise strange 54, 65, 74, 79, 86, 92, 106 (etc) bhp/PS outputs which don't even make much sense when converted back to kW. Possibly a mix. A 50kW, Tokyo-law-compliant i-MiEV very slightly detuned to 49kW to notch down one french tax band...

      Man. I think I've digressed. Blame it on crashing blood sugar.

    2. markp 1

      Re: 180Nm of torque – that translates to 65bhp and 133 lb/ft in old money

      Anyhoo.

      tl;dr - guys, if you're going to offer such a heavy car to the market - a good 150 to 200kg heavier than the petrol version - it needs stronger motors, and I don't mean ones with meaningless torque figures that only apply over a very limited speed range and only when compared against traditional cars with the same gearing. In REAL WORLD terms, this one struggles to come even close to the performance of the base 1-litre, which handles the 0-100 sprint in between 12 and 14.5 seconds depending on trim level... despite having barely half the peak torque output (!) and almost exactly the same bhp. 16 is a bit yesteryear, and pushing against the limits of what I'd call acceptable for everyday use; my old VW took 20, and that felt terribly slow at times... what's one that sits between that and my current "adequate" TDi going to feel like? And that's without considering what appears to be the electric equivalent of automatic transmission lag off the line - which is one of the reasons there even exists a petrol version that needs 14.5 seconds, because it's the auto and thus doesn't get the benefit of pre-revving and dumping the clutch for a faster start...

      If electrics are going to be sold on the basis of being nippier, having instantaneous lung-collapsing acceleration and the like, it'd be nice if it was... yknow... true. Something with a 16-second 0-100k sprint time isn't cutting that mustard with me. That's the performance of an economy-tuned 1.2 litre supermini (or lower-end diesel, possibly not even a turbo one) of 10 to 25 years ago...

      ----

      ... aaaaaaaand there now follows an orphaned section where I tried working out the power and such before realising I was putting it in the wrong place. This is largely due to the small edit window and me having not pre-planned this alarmingly sprawling essay. The information may still be of use, it just didn't find a home up above.

      Also I've just noticed that I misread the torque rpm as 2000 instead of "2490" somehow. Thus a quick correction to all posted figures, rounding that off to "2500" (which makes bugger all realworld difference).

      Max torque speed at 10km/h per 1000 is thus 25km/h, or approx 15-16mph. Thus more disappointing still vs it kicking in at 10mph for the ICEs... we can only hope it rises in a fairly shallow curve from 0, or is indeed flat.

      Power produced at that speed is therefore a rather healthier 63bhp, very nearly its entire peak power - which may well, therefore, hit at 65bhp plateau no later than 3000rpm (the brilliance of modern digital controllers, eh...).

      Which actually is fairly astonishing (and makes you wonder just how bad the launch lag actually is, because a car which can maintain an average of at least 64/1.12 = 57hp/tonne from 25km/h on its way to 100km/h shouldn't be too sluggish at all... hell, that's better than what my DCi makes at its 2000rpm, 200Nm (= 56bhp) maximum and ~1080kg weight (= 52bhp/tonne, though that IS at about 11mph and it does eventually pull to 86bhp)) and really should be more what they're highlighting here. Yknow, "produces maximum rated output from as little as 18mph all the way to 70+mph", something like that, rather than the often rather meaningless torque figure. Still, it kinda fits with the acceleration. (Although it's not an accurate way of doing it, if we consider the petrol one has a PWR of about 75bhp/tonne and streaks to 100km/h in 12 seconds dead, (12.0/57) x 75 is only a hair off the electric's actual time. The leccy should come out a bit faster than that, given that the petrol probably doesn't achieve full power until at least 20-25mph, and will have to change gear at least twice along the way, so I can only presume that initial lag is at least equal to the generally needed rev-up time (seeing as the sprint time is a minimum, measured only from when the wheels start to turn)...

      Right, errata over, onwards with further dumpage.

      ----

      Now, as power is merely force multiplied by velocity - i.e. it's the ability to keep the wheels pushing against the road with the same relative oomph as the car travels faster, which is what torque ultimately provides (and why you accelerate less in higher gears, as the power is delivered as lesser torque/force but at a higher wheel rpm as the multiplication factor reduces ... and also why comparing ICEs to electrics is HARD) - it's possible to work out one from the other, so long as you have all of the necessary arguments. And in this case, even though we don't have the full details of the power curve, we do have the torque at a certain speed, and a reasonable stab at the gearing.

      Power in bhp is equal to torque in lb.ft at 5252rpm. Thus, 133lb.ft at 2000rpm is an actually-fairly-respectable 50.6bhp. Producing that much power at 12-13mph isn't too shabby, especially from a 65bhp motor - and unlike an ICE which, unless it has a CVT, will have jumps in its gearing where the power falls back some as rpms drop (and may momentarily cut out altogether), it'll maintain at least that much on its way to its peak. Which is why it'll probably feel fairly thrusty once it does actually get going, even if it lacks a bit initially and at the top end.

      However, this does mean that the maximum torque CAN'T be maintained anywhere higher than about 2560rpm (ie, 16mph), and that's if we assume it hits max power at that point, rather than it being the usual gradual slide from one to the other. That's a pretty narrow peak even by internal combustion standards. I mean, it'll still remain fairly strong for a while, even if max power isn't reached until right on the limiter (in this case, representing no more than 26lb.ft shaft output ... though that's still equivalent to holding the old VW in third gear all the way to 80, which is something I actually did a coupla three times on hilly motorways...) it only loses about 8% for every 1000rpm / 10km/h, which means it'll feel like it's being maintained much more continuously than in any given non-CVT ICE, but it does show we shouldn't get too hung up on a figure like that in this setting as it's actually kinda meaningless.

      I'd be rather more impressed if they're just fronted up and said that it "produces more than 50bhp from 20km/h right up to 130km/h, with a peak of 65bhp at (1)xx km/h, with a starting thrust (at standard kerb weight) of yyyy Newtons". That'd let us put electrics on a more even playing field with each other, because from now on a motor's raw shaft torque will mean little when not processed with a mind towards its top speed, max rpm and weight. I mean, that's already the case anyway, but most everyday cars have roughly the same weight and starting gear, so it's a more fungible measure... It'll seem unfamiliar at first, but hey, we got used to euro cycle economy ratings, CO2 emissions and 0-100k acceleration stats... I'm sure we can deal.

  17. This post has been deleted by its author

  18. This post has been deleted by its author

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like