DIY Hybrid Car Kit

Hybride And The Groom writes "Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Ship the parts of a hybrid individually and get your customers to put the car together themselves. That's exactly what Robert Q Riley Enterprises is doing, according to a story on CNet today, with its XR-3 hybrid. It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope. Better yet, cough up $200 for the blueprints and schematics and even build the parts yourself. It's no secret that many hybrid drivers are smug enough as it is. Allow them to brag about having built the damn cars themselves and we might be entering obscenely smug territory."

buy an old S10 and convert it to electric

there are plenty of people doing nice electric S10's for under $10k including the donor car. The 40 miles round trip per charge is almost twice what I need.

"Zero dollars in manufacture"

It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope.

Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture"

I know some people like that. Unfortunately, since there time is actually worth close to zero dollars asking them to build it for me would get me close to zero progress wouldn't it? Actually my guess is they would screw it up so bad I would have to throw it all out and buy another kit if I tried to get them to build it for me.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture"

Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

Or the entertainment you receive from putting together your own toys is greater than the cost of your time, in which case you might even "profit".

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture"

It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope.

Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

So just like Open Source Software, then.

It should go over very well here.

For the record, if my car wasn't under a very comprehensive warranty for the next five years, I'd order the parts and do the conversion just so I could say that I'd done it.

Spare time

Well, if you enjoy tinkering with stuff and would otherwise have the time free anyhow, then it might even be that the time is of a negative cost.

That is to say, if you spend $25k for the unit, but spend 200 hours being rather entertained by putting it together, then you've just spend $25k on the parts and saved $x on whatever else you might have spend that money on (movies, video games, trips, etc).

I do a lot of the additions/repairs around the house. If might cost *more* than a plumber/carpenter/etc if you count what my day job's hourly rate is, but for me the cost of supplies is paying for both the renos and the entertainment of doing them.

One man's burden is another man's leisure, I'd rather be working on neat projects around the house than baking under a hot sun swinging a stick at a dimpled white ball.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture"

Having nearly completed building a one-off airplane, I can attest to the fact that a one-off greatly increases the amount of 'stuff' going into the waste stream. It seems that each part made for the airplane requires a mold, jig or custom clamp to hold it in place. Buy the time I finish, I will have built the equivalent of 2.5 airplanes, and none of those molds, jigs or clamps will be useful to anyone else.

Let there be no doubt. Massive manufacturing operations really do decrease the waste-stream volume on a per unit basis.

Motorcycle, not a car

Like so many of these things, it's a motorcycle - not a car. It only has 3 wheels so that they don't have to meet safety standards.

Who knew you could lighten up a car if you stripped out all of the safety equipment?

Why stop there?

Why not design the car yourself - using bits and pieces found at your local junkyard? Better yet - smelt the metal in your garage and take up blacksmithing to make all the bits. Sort of like building your own computer from discrete transistors.

uh, no, that's not the reason

Uh, building a hybrid at home probably makes more pollution than making it in a factory.

The reason they sell it as a kit is to avoid all the federal vehicle rules. By passing on assembly to the end-user, it becomes THEIR problem to get the car licensed.

Also I don't quite get the "zero dollars to manufacture". Lots of the steps involve lots of time, welding, painting, trips to the hardware store. That all costs many $$$.

Re:uh, no, that's not the reason

I agree completely. The first part of this article makes an assumption which doesn't seem too solid: that automotive machinery pollutes. If this is a reference to the byproducts of the power generated to run the machines, then I fail to see how running smaller machines in your home will improve the situation. Plus, power (and pollution?) is still needed to make the parts for a car no matter who puts it together. Sounds like someone is just trying to appear 'green' and cash in on the hybrid craze with kit 'car' (actually a motorcycle as an astute reader notes above).

Safety

So has this thing been crash tested? Do you have to get the car certified after you build it, so that you can drive it on the road? Are you any more liable if anything happens to a passenger, motorist, or pedestrian, in such a car?

Registration?

So, what happens when I build this thing, and try to get it registered at my local DMV?

DMV Drone: Make?
Me: Me
DMV Drone: No, who is the manufacturer?
Me: Me
DMV Drone: (sigh). Model?
Me: Mostly done in Solidworks.
DMV Drone: NEXT!

Re:Registration?

First, it's a motorcycle in the US, so that eliminates most of the headaches. Second, it's a lot like registering a self-built trailer from a kit. You put it together, grab all your receipts, and head down to the State Sherrif's office for a safety inspection. Some states allow third-party inspections, so you might go that route. As you're not a "vehicle manufacturer," you aren't permitted to issue VIN numbers, and you don't have a title yet, so you use something called a "certificate of origin" to get your local DMV to create a title for you. AFAIK, the certificate of origin allows the DMV to tax you appropriately ... how else would they know how to value your custom-built creation? I built a trailer from a kit (Haulin' flatbed [haulin.com] from the local Home Despot.) It came with a certificate of origin. I took that, the purchase receipt, and a gas-station inspection to the local DMV, and all was well.

Cars are a completely different matter, as the auto manufacturers have lobbied to make sure it's illegal for you to make your own car. Think of the children, etc. There are special categories for Antique and Street Rod cars, but there are restrictions against using them as daily drivers. However, trailers and motorcycles are still viable.

RTFA

From the web site:

Although the XR-3 can be built just as the prototype was built, kits are on the agenda. Information will appear on this page as it becomes available. But the XR3 can be constructed using the same techniques used to build Tri-Magnum. Click on FRP/foam composite for a document that shows the composite system used to build the body for the XR3.
                    A knocked-down body kit consisting of pre-molded panels provides the greatest benefit at the least cost. So body kits will be supplied as unassembled panels that builders can bond together. In addition to enabling the lowest price, this type of kit also reduces packaging and shipping costs. Frame kits will consist of a welded-together assembly, which turns the project into mostly a bolt-together operation. The goal is to deliver the greatest benefit at the lowest possible price, and avoid supplying parts that you can purchase locally.
                    The price of kits has not been established.

So the $25,000 is a guess at what you might be able to buy parts to build it for. It isn't an offer to sell a kit.

Orkmobile, Ew

All I want is a light, very efficient hybrid/electric vehicle, that doesn't look ridiculous. Even if its stripped down for weight, add a plastic body that has the same rough shape as a "real" car. I hope every innovation doesn't have to look like something brought here by Mork from Ork.

It's probably slow...

The "tractor engine" spec'd for the diesel propulsion is the Kubota D902. Here's some information about that, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3241283/Three-new-models-for-Kubota.html [ecnext.com]

The D902, a three-cylinder version of the Z602, has a displacement of 0.898 L and an output of 20.6 hp at 3200 rpm. A 3600 rpm version, due for introduction next year, will be rated 23.5 hp.

I also looked for a price on this engine. The first I saw was about $2800 for a remanufactured unit, with a $700 core charge. It's used in bobcats and similar. If you're building this "car," you won't have a core, so it's going to cost you $3500.

We need to stop manufacturing uneccessary cars.

most hybrids (GM) at least basically have a motor wedged between the engine and transmission. The engine and drive line are exactly the same as the non hybrid versions.

This being said I recently purchased a trusty 92 Corolla which after a little tweaking and cleaning up gives me over 40 mpg. how hard would it be to mfg a adapter kit between the transmission and engine similar to what GM does.

a big part of the problem is we keep building unnecessary crap. I know in our economy this is not beneficial but why not take cars we already have and update them.

Re:Lifetime of Beetle parts...

Crimeny, having had a VW Beetle I would estimate that you would have to factor in the cost of a barn to keep enough spare exhausts, wings, sills, filler, primer, welding rods etc to keep 10 of the damn things operative (at least in the UK).

Re:Lifetime of Beetle parts...

You don't keep all 10 operative. You keep 2 operative and put your 8 organ donors in the barn. 4-to-1 seems like about the right ratio to keep an old Beetle together.

Re:Neat idea...

Smarts aren't actually that fuel efficient -- 35mpg hwy/31mpg city if I remember correctly. It's not even a regular hybrid, let alone a *plug-in hybrid*, like this vehicle. Of course, for this vehicle, ignore the BS mileage figures; most EV and PHEV manufacturers come up with fake "mpg" figures that assume you drive X miles on electricity and Y miles on gasoline, where X is much greater than Y, and then ignore the electricity. Still, it's hugely beneficial. Even from our current grid, according to a DOE study, due to the greater efficiency of power plants, you get a third lower CO2 emissions by going electric.

For those who are interested in going electric, and aren't into novelty kit cars, here's a list of 33 upcoming EVs and PHEVs [dailykos.com], excluding motorcycles and commercial vans/semis, not counting concept cars, and not counting cars from new companies that haven't shown compelling evidence of working toward production.

Re:Hybrids suck anyway

Several things wrong with this.

1) The amount of energy needed to produce a modern battery generally only measures a few charge cycles worth. Virtually every peer-reviewed study of cars shows exactly what you'd expect: that far more energy is consumed during their lifetimes than during their construction. Your average car will burn a couple times it's own weight in fuel over its lifespan, and none of that is "recycled" like most of the car's body.

2) Yes, EVs cost more to buy than diesel cars currently. They also consume electricity which averages $0.10/kWh in the US instead of diesel which averages, what, $4.30/gal? Your average 40mpg-diesel sedan would take about 250Wh/mi electric, which equates to 9.3 cents per mile diesel and 2.5 cents per mile electric. Assuming reasonable battery longevity (i.e., either NiMH, zebra, or automotive li-ions, not lead-acid or traditional li-ions), the total cost of ownership for EVs is very favorable to them over their lifespans. This allows all sorts of methods to work around sticker shock for those who are concerned, such as longer loans, leases, surcharges on electricity fillups or battery swaps, battery rental, or so forth -- all of which give you a normal up-front cost and monthly operations costs that are still lower than what the average driver would spend on gas or diesel. And this is just with current battery costs; they're falling fast. Ener1 (parent company of battery maker EnerDel), for example, expects their cell prices to be cut in half over the next few years. Most automotive li-ion aren't even close to being limited by raw material costs.

3) Most diesel numbers are quite distorted to boot. Yes, diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines. No, they're not *that* much more efficient. Most people will look at some european diesel and lament that they're getting 50mpg or so and we can't get it here.

A) Diesel is simply a more dense fuel -- about 15% denser. Gasoline mpg != diesel mpg. Just ethanol mpgs are going to be inherently lower than gasoline due to its lower density, diesel is inherently going to get an artificial 15% boost that isn't representative of, say, it's CO2 footprint or how much oil it represents.
B) The european drive cycle is more lax than the revised EPA drivecycle, and is more similar to the old EPA drivecycle. Remember how much nicer the official numbers used to look in the US? Remember how they worked out in the real world? Same issue.
C) Sometimes the "gallons" you see on mpg numbers for european cars are imperial gallons, not US gallons. Imperial gallons are larger.

In general, a diesel car will emit around 80% as much CO2 per mile and consume about 80% as much oil chemical energy. It's a difference, and even a relevant one, but not as big of a difference as it at first appears.

Re:oh well

Hmm, could you put this in terms of a car analogy?

Re:oh well

> You built it yourself. Why would you be taking it to a repair shop?

Because... it doesn't work? Because you've botched the ignition or torqued the steering improperly or pinched a wire somewhere?

> And what is with the can't do attitude? A constant theme on /. is the "anti-science" or "anti-intelligence" attitude in the US. Why is an "anti-ability to bolt a few parts together" attitude any better?

Oh, there's obviously going to be many successes. Lots of people have successfully built kit cars -- the AC Cobra replicas, Lotus Seven, etc. I'm not disputing that people who put together kit cars couldn't do this. I'm wondering aloud if this is a way to solve the carbon footprint of construction. I'm having a difficult time believing that the kind of person who wants to build a car to reduce their carbon footprint is the same kind of person who builds a Pagano in his garage.

Re:oh well

It happens all the time in the UK. There's a healthy market for kit cars (well, car kits) and some people design and build the entire thing themselves. You build it, the man from the VOSA comes round, makes sure the brakes work and so on, gives you your SVA (Single Vehicle Approval) certificate and you're good to go. The requirements are lower than for production cars (eg. no crash testing, for obvious reasons), but as long as the brakes and steering work and the wheels won't fall off it won't be a danger to other road users - the safety of the driver/builder is their own problem.