Re: [Amc-list] Re; ELECTRO-RAMBLER =revisited=

["Garry Nordstrom" <gasnordstrom@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark:  I enjoy your input on the site.  The concord electric wagon was 
designed to go 65 MPH, for 6 hours.  The charge time was 1 to 1 on driving 
verus charging.  AMC put a special suspension in it as it holds 24 
batteries, driven by a 30HP GE motor.  Most batteries go where the gas tank 
was, then balanced in front with additional batteries. the motor is a direct 
hook up to the tourque converter. standard 3 speed auto.  This now presently 
is being prepared for a media blasting, only 491 miles on it, no rust ,but 
wush for it to be in show condition.  I do need to finish my scrambler , as 
well as the 79 AMX.
My 2nd electric car is a commuta car, o miles, 8 hp, top speed of 35 MPH, 
ugly as hell, this also will be a challange to get up and running, but I am 
committed to alternative energy.
The list's input will always be apprecitaed as I take on this project, As a 
former educator, I need to do total rechearch before I move forward.  Input 
will be imperative to make sure I do not screw up,,so when a brain storm 
hits you, let me know.
Garry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans." <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Amc-list] Re; ELECTRO-RAMBLER =revisited=


>I did some heavy reading  of the first Saturn site you posted and after 
>thinking it over am sad to say, "I don't see the point". The guy spent a 
>small fortune on the conversion, even with sponsors. He said he would post 
>his costs, but unless I missed the link, He never did so. He has moved his 
>battery pack twice since the initial build and it says the car was removed 
>from use after 3 years, but I can't or did not see why. He went thru two 
>Battery pacs after finding Optima batteries to be unrealiable. The car was 
>overloaded so he rebuilt the suspension.
>   As a conclusion, I think he quite likely spent more building and keeping 
> the thing going then he would have spent  fixing the ICE,as he calls it 
> [Internal Combustion engine]. Even factoring in gas costs I doubt he broke 
> even. He only drives 5 miles one way to work.
>   Unless I stumble on a complete car for dirt cheap, I don't see myself 
> getting involved with a conversion right now.
> Honda advertises up to 50mpg from thier new Civics. Even if they screw the 
> public and it "only" gets 40mpg, it's likely a better deal. Of course I 
> just realized that is likely a Hybrid, I'm not interested on one of those. 
> It's agood concept, but it takes too much control away from the owner for 
> my tastes. They won't even release the proposed costs of replacement 
> batteries yet!
>    I'll just shoot for a straight gas or diesel subcompact when the time 
> gets here for a new car. That will be a while unless something happens to 
> one of our DD's. Son number two can get his permit in October. Then a year 
> later he is elegible for his license. It costs us an additonal $800 every 
> six months for son number one. I'm not in a hurry to buy anything new, 
> now, or ever.
>   We saved a ton of cash buying the XJ Cherokee. Paid $6500 cash for a 97 
> with 52K on it. Two and half years later  we we have spent maybe $750 in 
> maintaing it. $225 was unnecessary as it was for a set of 15X8" canyon 
> wheels. So we have maybe $7500 in it even fudging for cost factors. A new 
> Jeep would have depreciated more then that after 2 1/2 years....
>   Coming to my senses and my wifes always good sense with money has left 
> us with a nice nest egg in the bank and NO PAYMENTS on anything! Our kids 
> grumble cause ,"you could buy that if you wanted" to which we reply, " 
> yeah, but if we bought that and everything else we wanted, then we 
> couldn't buy the next that when it comes along". We're good thank you.
>   I think I'll stick with gas engines in my Rambler for now. Maybe I'll 
> have to build a still some day to run'em, but by then I hope to have time 
> to do it!
>
> --
> Mark Price
> Morgantown, WV
> 1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" 
> <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> The used Saturn cost just $900, the batteries were $1,700 and the
>> conversion kit was $6,700. Charles says the cost of the conversion
>> will be paid off in gas savings within two years. By his math, a
>> daily commute costs between 30 and 60 cents. With his gas vehicle
>> it was $10.
>> --------------------
>>
>> The problem I have with this equation is that for $6,700 I can buy 1,340
>> gallons of gas @ $5/gal (inflation over the next few years). That's
>> 40,200 miles @ 30 mpg, 33,500 @ 25 mpg... so let's figure 36,850 miles
>> (average). If the guy drives a five speed older Saturn and keeps it up
>> (I allowed the $1700 in batteries for minor repairs, assuming the car
>> was in reasonably good driving condition). If he drives conservatively
>> (like he HAS TO with the electric) and just uses it for short trips
>> (like the electric) he should average closer to 30 mpg OR MORE though.
>> We'll go ahead and have him use part of that $1700 in repairs for
>> synthetic oil in everything, and just do a once a year oil change. After
>> all, he's only driving it 50-60 miles a day. Five days a week, 52 weeks
>> a year at 60 miles is 15,600 miles. So he can buy at least 2.5 years of
>> gas for the Saturn for less than the conversion kit price, and with
>> careful driving (like you have to for the electric) three years. Not
>> only that, but he'll have to replace that battery pack in three years --
>> conservatively $2K with modest inflation. But we'll call that a wash --
>> the Saturn engine will likely need some maintenance over the three years
>> that the electric wouldn't. Timing belt changed, and the oil changes,
>> tune-ups. Assuming no major repairs, he's not going to pay for the
>> conversion in two years -- the math is flawed. If it was cost effective,
>> there would be more companies making conversions. Now there are some tax
>> incentives, especially in CA, that add up to about $2K a year.
>>
>> So if Charles changes his driving habits and thinking, he'll save more
>> by NOT converting the Saturn. Note that his time to do all the work was
>> not figured in, and I'm sure there were lots of nickel-dime (well, more
>> like $50-$100) parts needed for the conversion not included also -- like
>> battery racks and cables (not usually included).
>>
>> An electric is like the new hybrids -- more a statement than anything
>> else. Conservative cars and driving at the very least make up for the
>> difference in price. That's the only thing that has kept me from
>> building one. It would be a fun experiment, but I can get a 60s-70s
>> Rambler/AMC and all but totally restore it for the cost. Putting a turbo
>> 2.3L four with five speed in a 62 American will net much more fun and be
>> as cost effective over a five year period as building an electric --
>> depending on how I drive it. It will be more salable in the end to boot.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amc-list mailing list
>> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> 

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list