William H Lanteigne July 13, 2011 03:20 AM I submitted the \"hybrid replacement transmission\" idea on whynot.net in 2005:Most car manufacturers use interchangeable transmissions in different models, and often different manufacturers use the same transmission in their respective products. My idea is for a replacement transmission that bolts up to an existing vehicle. This would contain an electric motor, a generator, and a torque converter coupled to a direct drive (no lower gears, the electric motor would start the car from standing. The electric motor would propel the car up to about 25 mph, the ICE would begin charging the battery pack as the car began moving, and would take over driving duties over 25 mph).I\'m pretty sure this is possible using off-the-shelf technology, if not off-the-shelf parts, the problem would be offering it at a price competitive with conventional replacement transmissions.In practice, when the origninal transmission goes out, I would take my existing car to a transmission shop and ask for the \"Hybrid conversion\" transmission. The transmission would be installed for the same price as a conventional transmission swap, plus the added cost of control boxes and a dozen or so off-the-shelf deep-cycle marine-type batteries. There is ample room for a battery pack in a car such as my 1983 Ford Crown Vic, under the seats and in the trunk. VoiceofReason July 13, 2011 11:09 AM True diesel electric submarines have been around for almost 100 years now at this point. I really don\'t see why so many companies can\'t see the logic. You have the ICE run a generator only. The electric system drives the car regardless of whether the ICE is on or not. The engine is there to extend range and recharge the batteries. Duh. myale July 13, 2011 11:37 AM Is there a reason they have gone petrol and ethanol rather than diesel - know there was some solidifcation issues of biofules replacing diesel so assume this it the reason they have gone petrol maybe?Would of been interesting to also see some more radical concepts such as an engine that also scale its power up or down - do they really need such a large engine merely to drive the generator.Shame the miniature jet engine concept from jaguar has currently dissapeared, perhaps it was simply not possible but it sounded so cool.What is really needed in the car market is an \'apple\' type company, someome that takes huge risk but pushes the boundaries to creat a huge step leap - we need an ipod moment Calson July 13, 2011 02:46 PM Problem is not range but long recharge times with the use of conventional battery technology. If I could drive a car 100 miles and stop at a recharge station for 5 minutes and then go on with my trip or return home it would make a great deal of difference in my ability to use an all electric car for commuting to work or making trips to stores.It presently takes me 5 minutes to refill my gas engine powered cars and even though their range is from 220 to 400 miles the shorter range is less of a problem than the need to recharge an electric car\'s batteries over a period of hours. What is needed is a capacitor design for vehicles. Muraculous July 13, 2011 03:09 PM The multi-fuel micro-turbine concept is alive and well (as a 35 to 40kW range extender) for battery powered vehicles. Also on the board is an alkaline aluminum-powered fuel cell that works right down to -40 degrees. Please send 5 million dollars for prototype assembly and testing :-) Karsten Evans July 13, 2011 03:43 PM Why not use a closed loop Steam generator then you can burn anything.Scandinavia had separate fuel heater in VW Beetles.. why not a small steam generator.If driving on a long journey.. set the steam generator on a slow burn and use the power to recharge the batteries on the move..Simples Dave B13 July 13, 2011 04:26 PM BFD General Motors has already been selling, since Dec. 2010, to US consumers the Chevrolet \'Volt\' a technological version of this Volvo \"concept\" to be test driven in 2012http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_VoltBTW - Ford owned Volvo, sold it to China\'s Geely in 2010.http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-08-02-geely-volvo_N.htmSo, this: \"The project, which is supported by he Swedish Energy Agency and the EU\"confuses me greatly. Iosif Olimpiu July 13, 2011 04:34 PM This can be a concept better than Toyota Prius, but the world need more(depend on the hidden people controling the petrol \"force\") I can\'t understand why the manufacturers can\'t include sollar cells in the windows, on the flor, or even in the paint composition. So many kind of sensors and intelligence, but we can\'t have or put some ideas on practice? dgate July 13, 2011 05:32 PM William, your idea of electric motor/generators in the transmission has been in use since 1998 in the Toyota Prius and without the complication and slippage of an inefficient torgue convertor. An explanation of how it works can be found online and its pure genious and so simple.Voiceofreason\'s suggestion is just how the GM Volt works and under certain circumstances the Prius will do the same i.e run the ICE as a constant speed generator while running on electric from the battery. The volt system is only efficient while running on pure battery electric. When the ICE kicks in it is less efficient than the Prius because the Toyota\'s ICE is driving the wheels directly. There is too much loss in the ICE to electric system compared to direct drive and fuel efficiency is the priority.The suggestion of capacitors is a non runner because they only store a short spike of energy. They are good at absorbing brake energy and releasing it for a burst of acceleration as in F1 cars but not for long distance running. kelvint63 July 13, 2011 06:27 PM @Karsten; I've thought the same thing. The steam generator seems the most practical (we started the Auto industry with steam and electric; why not bring it full circle). Batteries are the biggest problem with EV's; they're big; heavy and expensive (the lighter ones are even more expensive). An onboard generator of any kind addresses this problem; it reduces the size of the batteries, hence lowering the weight, hence lowering the cost, plus you get more range. What am I missing here; looks like a win; win; win plus Winning. Duh!