2 ms·

Wouldn't the advantage of being able to cruise at low RPMs massively increase range with the same size battery? And wouldn't not replacing the transmission res

Wouldn't the advantage of being able to cruise at low RPMs massively increase range with the same size battery? And wouldn't not replacing the transmission result in lower costs for the retrofit? If the upfront cost of a retrofit is the major hurdle preventing adoption, then reducing complexity of the retrofit would seem more important than reducing overall complexity of the drivetrain... particularly since you'll still be better-than-parity complexity following an electric retrofit. I understand the non-trivial power-loss of connecting a motor to a transmission, but to me this seems like an acceptable trade... particularly as someone who enjoys rowing through my gears.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Wouldn't the advantage of being able to cruise at low RPMs massively increase range with the same size battery? Not really. An electric motor does not lose much efficiency with increased speed. >And wouldn't not replacing the transmission result in lower costs for the retrofit? In a longitudinal application it would be cost neutral to retain a manual transmission. In any application it would be dumb to keep an automatic transmission. In a longitudinal application replacing any transmission is as easy as a couple carrier bearings and a different drive shaft. If I was really trying to cut cost but perform a large volume of conversions on FWD cars with transverse mounted engines (i.e. basically all FWD cars) and automatic transmissions I'd keep the transmission housings but replace all the clutches, planetaries, etc with a single solid shaft. While machined parts are expensive they're still cheaper than coming up with another solution for the differential.