Gizmodo

Imagine how more efficient this vehicle would be if it didn't have the body of an SUV? What the hell is the point of spending so much time into creating something so very efficient, only to turn around and give it a body that is anything BUT efficient?

Oh that's right, SUV's are a status symbol... I almost forgot.

But, is that REALLY an SUV? It looks like a Matrix, which really isnt an SUV at all.

^^ word.

To add to that, it doesn't matter if it does 0-60 in 4 seconds, what matters is how many power stations it takes to charge it up, and if the grid can handle it. No point in saving dinosaurs if you're burning forests.

These cars should have an equivalent MPG rating (or do they already?), perhaps KW/charge?

It has to be a 'real measure' not like a 'energy factor' that can be distorted by manufacturers. KW/Mile doesn't account for losses in charging.

Um. The point is that people will buy and use it. Because, while you may not be breeding and doing the soccer-mom bit there are millions of people who are...every day.

The large-scale adoption of electric as the primary power source for vehicles is long long overdue, and it's nice to see companies with deep pockets catapulting past the automakers who have held this tech back. Bravo!

If I were Mazda, however, I'd be talking to someone at Zap about the use of their designs. Can you sue for that? Cause that photo above is a Mazda.

A nitpick, but Lotus designed everything on the Tesla but the drivetrain (and relations), not the body, which in fact Tesla changed from the Lotus design...I guess that's a bit more than a nitpick.

As to "no point in saving dinosaurs if you're burning forests", that's not really true. From a pollution perspective, an electric vehicle is far cleaner than a fossil fuel equiv, as power plants are FAR cleaner than 1mm cat-equipped cars...

Sorry but no SUV will ever be cooler than a little, nible roadster like the Tesla... (doubly so if the roadster in question is based on the Lotus Elise).

It could be any one of a variety of characterless brands.

What do we do with all the batteries when they die?

So if this is to be an EV, how come it appears to have tailpipes? (check out the gallery over on jalopnik)

I guess its in the REALLY early concept stages.

if they price this under 40k, it will be a huge seller. it looks sexy and has none of the suv guilt. i bet they are going to charge 80k though....which will make it a footnote in automotive history.

Whato do you do when the batteries die? You buy more. THey typically have a 5 year warranty/life on them.

A new set of batts cost about half the cost of the car - not to mention if the tech behind the batts croak also.

Cars that use "the grid" to charge are using about 1/10th the resources as gas fueled cars, and that's without factoring in wind, solar, and hydro power (depending on the area you live and where you get your power from.) So this is indeed a "green" vehicle. Take it a step further and convert your home to solar power and this vehicle become 100% emission free if you're charging it at home.

Why a SUV? Are you kidding me? "Why not" is a better question. I used to hate SUV's too for environmental reasons but hey, this thing is electric! You can have you SUV for the kids AND drive it guilt free knowing it's even more earth friendly than a Toyota Corolla.

Anyway sign me up, I want one :)

i'd get this, but only because it's not one of those stupidly huge full-sized SUVs. i'd compare it to a large hatchback or the toyota matrix, as mentioned already.

at least it's a much more useful car than the tesla. i can hope on the price...

It's a good thing Lotus is designing this SUV, because Zap's own cars look stupid as hell. The Tesla looks freaking amazing in photos and videos I've seen. It really gets around the "nobody wants electric cars because they look dorky" problem.

The same goes for the ENV fuel-cell motorbike...I just wish Yamaha would put its concept Deinonychus into production too. I want one so bad.

As to the issue of families needing SUVs to haul kids...most American families don't have more than 2 kids, right? Get a station wagon. I grew up with 2 parents and 3 sibs and we somehow all fit in an ancient Toyota Corolla. If you're worried about status, they have much nicer looking wagons out there these days =P

(sorry double post... I mean, the ENV also fixes the problem of previous alt-fuel motorbikes/scooters looking stupid, not that the ENV itself looks stupid.)

It would be more aerodynamic, and thus get even more MPG if it did not have the body of an SUV, period. If a sedan doesn't have enough room for people, then they could easily make a station wagon version.

"These cars should have an equivalent MPG rating (or do they already?), perhaps KW/charge?"

They sure should, but why would this car be any less efficient then a Telsa? Telsa's CEO has countless times expressed that Electric car's efficiency increases as motors become more powerful, the exact opposite of our petrol powered cars (as a rule). So the fact that this car has a great deal more power and longer range would appear to play into his assertion. That is if we are going to trust the man who's single handedly revitalizing the electric car idea.

"i bet they are going to charge 80k though....which will make it a footnote in automotive history."

Ugh, more baseless fun at the giz. hey car to substantiate that in any way? They're charing quite a bit less then telsa for a car that can go further and hold more then 2 people. Telsa had zero problems selling out of their first run - thus i'm pretty curious what your logic is on this comment, aside from 'well i've not really been following this here electric car thing and, uhg, 80k is a lot of money so, ugh , it won't work... there's plenty of petrol cars with more then 600hp available for under 80k.. ugh.. yeah".

Let's get real and take this car in context, thanks

To me that looks like a Station Wagon. An "SUV" is a Truck with a full back on it. A station wagon is a sedan with a "raised" trunk on it. This folks is a station wagon. But compainies dont want to call it a station wagon cause people dont buy station wagons, they buy SUVs.

Just how green are these vehicles in the long run? what happens ten years down the road when the batteries die, can they be recycled? and what happens to the batteries when some idiot wraps the thing around a telephone pole?

It's a "crossover SUV" which basically means "cooler looking station-wagon." Take the general shape of an SUV, lower it, decrease the height a bit, and shrink a bit, and you've got a station wagon...but that sounds so uncool for those hip soccer moms! call it a "crossover SUV" and they'll be all "wowee, I'm like a hot chick in this thing!"

regarding batteries:

when the rechargable batteries die in 5-10 years (less/more?), they are supposed to be pretty easily recyclable. I vaguely remember hearing that at least 80% of the material is recyclable, but could be wrong on that.

Also, in that 5-10 years, batteries will hopefully be cheaper...so buying replacement batteries will be a smaller hit to the wallet.

BWGunner: That's exactly what I was thinking! This car looks a hell of a lot like my Mazda3.

Batteries, etc:

The current "new" generation of rechargeable batteries don't have the same problems as rechargeables have had in the past.

The new Nikel Zinc batteries are even supposed to be recycled or disposed of with no toxic effects.

The looks/efficiency argument:

I agree that the look does not seem to go along with the message of sustainable efficiency; however all the super sleek lightweight electric 0 emission vehicles in the world are worth precisely dick if the consumer wants to drive a big beast around.

So you stick the 0 emission motor in the big brute and boom, now those nitwits in the trucks have something new and better for you and them.

but...but...it still pollutes, blah blah:

Quick answer to those who think that because electricity must be produced it is just the same as burning gas in an ICE engine: Go kill yourself, stupids.

Longer answer: Even if we had no other means of generating electricity other than burning coal or even oil consider the following

1) Delivery: How much does to cost or pollute to deliver electricity from a turbine to a tank? zip. You burn gas to deliver gas.

2) Pollution: While some companies may bitch, installing large and efficient clean-air systems on smokestacks is at least possible. Try installing that kind of heavy equipment on your Bronco. The simple fact is you cannot make a portable combustion device as clean or as efficient as a stationary one.

But those arguments assume as fact some things which are not fact; namely that we are not stuck with burning high carbon items like coal or oil to generate electricity. Not true. Any reader here can list off three or more things which are and can be used to subsdize electrical production such as hydro, natural gas, bio-fuel.

Those who so strongly resist advances for clean air need to go die in a war.

[syntax nazi]Isn't saying "ICE engine" like saying "PIN number"? [/syntax nazi]

super sweet. I can't wait until I'm rolling an EV, I've been driving a low-emissions vehicle but it'd be great to switch to electric, especially with electic cars starting to look this cool.

Vaporware car....brought to you by.. doesn't really matter.

How many Teslas out on the road now ? Oh yeah, none. Whens the date of release ? Sometime 2007 or 2008.

The market is just not there. The price will be double what they say, and the performance will be half of what they say.

No one's said it yet? Oh alright, I'll do it...

I hope Sony doesn't make the batteries

Calling this an SUV is just silly and it won't work. People buy SUVs to make them feel big, powerful, and well, to scare everyone else. This may look like a nice, slick wagon, but I don't think it will scare anyone.

just send it over to europe. We don't feel the need to compensate for anything by driving a huge SUV.
Our most accepted SUVs are pretty much like the one on the photo anyway..

Ok, parody over. I like the idea of having a real car as an EV, not a tiny roadster. This kind of thing should be targeted at the masses, and masses drive sedans or hatchbacks or (even) some SUVs.
I guess the abuse of hp is to compensate some weight increase, but i'm pretty sure some less powerful engine would also require less batteries and fit perfectly in a smaller car (like the mazda 3 which gave this one its looks)

It's not an SUV and Jalopnik doesn't describe it as one, they call it a "crossover" vehicle.

In fact, it is a hatchback, not an SUV, and that's a good thing. It may ride a tiny bit high for a hatchback, but not enough to give it the full boatlike handling, danger of rolling over and poor braking of a true SUV. They also gave it a high beltline to give it the illusion of greater height. While this has the incredible advantage of giving you crappy visibility, like a Dodge Magnum, it still doesn't make the car an SUV.