FEV, Inc. and Raser to Unveil Hummer H3 Range-Extended Electric Vehicle at SAE World Congress
13 April 2009
FEV, Inc., will unveil the Hummer H3 Range-Extended Electric Vehicle (ReEV) demonstrator at the upcoming 2009 SAE World Congress (Detroit, Michigan, 20-24 April). FEV partnered with Utah-based Raser Technologies (Raser) in the development of the H3 ReEV, the first vehicle equipped with Raser’s range-extended electric vehicle technology.(Earlier post.)
The Hummer H3 ReEV is the first range-extended electric vehicle based on a full-sized SUV. The Raser scalable plug-in series hybrid design provides 40+ mile all-electric range and 100+ mpg fuel economy. FEV performed the full vehicle integration including electrical and mechanical design. Additionally, FEV developed all software for the hybrid control unit and in-vehicle graphical display.
Propulsion comes from Raser’s 200 kW traction motor mated to a 4-speed automatic transmission. Raser’s 100 kW generator, driven by a 2.0L SIDI turbocharged engine, provides electrical power. Although a full-sized SUV, the concept has been achieved with only minimal sacrifice of acceleration performance, cargo space, or towing capacity.
Additional utility is provided by the availability of exportable AC power generation, making the vehicle ideally suited for use as a utility company service truck or emergency service vehicle.
The H3 ReEV will be on display in the FEV booth. The unveiling of the H3 ReEV comes one year after FEV and Raser first showed the technology as a concept at last year’s World Congress. The announcement was made jointly by Gary Rogers, FEV, Inc. president and CEO and Jim Spellman, Raser VP of Business Development.
Our goal in exhibiting this particular vehicle is to demonstrate that electric vehicle technology is a viable solution for a variety of vehicle platforms. Needs of consumers will continue to vary, and the Hummer range-extended electric vehicle shows that fuel economy does not necessarily mean sacrificing power and utility.
—Gary Rogers
does it cost less than a Volt?
Posted by: dursun | 13 April 2009 at 08:12 AM
Not likely. The Hummer H3 base price is $33,390, and that battery's going to set you back a lot more than a Volt's.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 13 April 2009 at 09:51 AM
The question is; what's the true mpg if a trip of 100+ miles were undertaken without any battery recharging? Claiming 100+ mpg when driven 85% on battery power is a misleading statement by Hummer, but I didn't expect anything different. Drive it 95% on battery power, and they could claim 300+mpg, but then some significant portion of the population would suspect trickery?
Posted by: Will S | 13 April 2009 at 10:32 AM
Make that a trip of 1000+ miles...
Posted by: Will S | 13 April 2009 at 10:32 AM
2009 HUMMER H3 SUV
Curb Weight MT 4695
That might put the automatic over 5000 pounds and this even heavier. If they want to make it better, shave some of the weight.
Posted by: SJC | 13 April 2009 at 02:43 PM
What a decent 5500+ little vehicle to drive the kids to school or drive to work, specially if it is an AWD and has 21-in + wheels.
Assuming that the average distance to school or work and back is less than 40 miles, the liquid fuel required (for that task) could be close to zero.
The cost of e-energy used per mile may be very low, if recharged over-night when rates are very low.
Posted by: HarveyD | 13 April 2009 at 04:30 PM
That is the interesting part. One family takes the kids to school 20 miles round trip in a 3000 pound crossover, one gallon of fuel 250 days per year. The other family does it in a 5000 PHEV for NO gallons per year.
I still would like to see a lighter vehicle. The 30 mile battery range might be more like 40 with the same set up.
Posted by: SJC | 13 April 2009 at 04:50 PM
If it truly uses less resources and generates less impact on the environment and oil imports, than a medium SUV, who cares what it weighs?
Could it be made much better and still sell?
- Will it sell as is?
- Who knows. Who knows.
Could the Prius be made better - made of magnesium and titanium and still be affordable and sell?
Who knows.
We do know this H3 will likely cost dearly and, beyond it’s 40 mile all electric range, will not get more than the 14/18 mpg of the normal 3.7 L version.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 13 April 2009 at 10:10 PM
Weight has an effect on range, especially around town. If you have to make it out of expensive material to get it light and it costs too much, well no. But aluminum space frame and plastic body panels can trim lots of weight and still be safe.
Posted by: SJC | 13 April 2009 at 10:26 PM
The government should limit the GVW of passenger vehicles. Our national roads and highways are an example of "tragedy of the commons."
Posted by: jimfromthefoothills | 13 April 2009 at 11:39 PM
There are only a few reasons cars go over a certain fairly low weight class.
1 They are trying to boost towing capcity.. you realy cant do that without weight.
2 They are trying to make the car feel more solid and safe.. and in some cases actualy be safer;/ 99% of these are luxury cars or high end fmaily cars.
3 Car feel. Some people just pay more for a heavier car with that heavy car feel to the driving... mostly luxury cars in this group but also some sports cars too.
The very simple fact is if you make 300k a year and have kids your likely to spend some extra money on a bigger more hungry car to ensure in a crash you come out ahead. Also doesnt hurt that big cars are dang comfy.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 14 April 2009 at 05:17 AM
A vehicle doesn't have to be heavy to be safe. Size helps (it increases crush space), but weight is of little benefit in a fixed-barrier collision or with a much larger vehicle.
What weight mostly does is transfer damage to lighter vehicles, creating the arms race we've already seen. Limiting GVW would eliminate the transfer of risk and push development into areas which increase safety all around.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 14 April 2009 at 11:08 AM
The only way to realy get people into lighter cars en mass is to kill off the worst drivers build enough roads to ensure more then enough room on the road for stree free driving.. oh and stop buying all that crap that takes 5 trillion semis to haul around.
Until then most people will simply feel too stressed out driving thier normal commute in anything smaller then an m1 battletank.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 14 April 2009 at 11:50 AM
Everything scales with weight. If the car is lighter, it uses a smaller motor. If the motor is smaller the batteries are fewer to handle peak power. When all this is scaled down, it get longer range for the same KWH of storage.
Posted by: SJC | 14 April 2009 at 01:06 PM
Let me answer a few of the questions. First, the car gets "100 mpg". What does that mean. It is a conversion of the cost of electricity to charge the batteries to the cost of gas and the miles obtained.
Asssume: gas= $2.50/gal electricity cost to charge batteries=$1.00 Miles on one charge of electricity=40. Now do the math. If 40miles/$1 of electricity, then 100miles (two and a half days of electric travel) costs $2.50. That is the equivilent of 100 mpg if gasoline was used. If gas goes to $5/gal, you have a 200 mpg car since electricity prices have been quite stable.
Now, after 40 miles of gas-free driving on your 300 mile trip to see grandma, the turbocharged 2.0 four cylinder gas engine automatically kicks on. It runs at it most efficiently tuned constant speed. It turns the electric generator at its most efficient speed to charge batteries and give continuous power to the electric, 268 hp motor. On the highway, you get 38 mpg while using gas. Amazing for a large suv. The average mpg=42. Not bad. Total cost for the 300 mile trip (assume $250/gal) is $18 (gas and electricity). In the H3 V-8 gas version, gas would be $50 for the same trip.
However, most people live within $20 miles of work and housewives usually travel less than 40 miles a day with grocery/kids/carpool/etc. So, after 30 days of 40 miles/day driving (no long trips) you would have driven 1200 miles and spent $30 in electricity to charge the car each night. The gas-guzzler version would cost $230 in gas for the same 1200 miles. Anyone want to save $2400/yr on gas?
Posted by: coolcars | 15 April 2009 at 10:29 AM
One more thing. We send $500 billion a year to the camel jockies to buy their precious crude oil. How about we make our own electricity with geothermal, wind, solar and nuclear, use it to run our cars, and tell them that they can fill their swimming pools with their oil for all we care.
Keeping $500 billion of our money in our own country would do wonders to fix our economy.....year after year after year. Think about it!
Posted by: coolcars | 15 April 2009 at 10:46 AM