Evaluation of Electric Vehicles as an Alternative for Work Trip and ...

1. Report No.
FHWA-CT-RD-343-30-99-1
2. Government Accession No.
Technical Report
Documentation Page
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
December 1999
6. Performing Organization Code
Evaluation of Electric Vehicles as an Alternative for Work-trip and Limited Business
Commutes – Final Report
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
James M. Sime, P.E. CT 343-30-99-1
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations
Division of Research
P.O. Box 317546, Newington, CT 06131-7546
11. Contract or Grant No.
CT SPR Project No. HPR-343EV
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations
Division of Research
P.O. Box 317546, Newington, CT 06131-7546
15 Supplementary Notes
A study conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
16. Abstract
This report presents the results of a four-year evaluation of an electric subcompact car.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
January 1996 – January 1999
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
HPR-343EV
The principal finding was that the 1995-model electric car must be viewed in two contexts, the body/chassis/drive train and the
battery/recharge system.
Firstly, the vehicle body, chassis and drive train were adequate for the transport of personnel within Connecticut for most routine nonemergency
state business. Drivers did notice that the drive train was somewhat underpowered as compared with most other vehicles on the
road. The designer of the drive train appears to have placed higher priority on efficiency over acceleration and speed. The car is best suited
for use on primary and secondary highways and local roads where speeds are generally below 55 mph.
Secondly, you must recognize that several different batteries could power the car. Two different battery types were evaluated in this project.
A conventional sealed lead acid battery (CSLAB) powered the first car, and an advanced lead acid battery (ALAB) powered the second.
Our finding is that a 50 Ampere-hour CSLAB car configuration was reliable, although cold-weather range was 15-20 miles less than the
warm weather range, due to the power-draining effect of the electric heater/windshield defroster. The CSLAB car demonstrated a yearround
driving range of 35 miles per charge in Connecticut.
The 85- and 95-Ampere-hour ALAB car configurations we tested were uneconomical due to premature ALAB failures in all
combinations tested over four years.
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
Electric Vehicle, Automobile, Alternative Fuel, No restrictions.
Energy, Environment, Advanced Lead Acid
Battery, Lead Acid Battery
19. Security Classification. (of this report)
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
ii
20. Security Classification. (of this page)
Unclassified
Reproduction of completed page authorized
21. No. of Pages
96
21. Price