What's the point exactly? It already gets like 40 MPG.
It would... if it ran, which it won't be doing for much longer.What's the point exactly? It already gets like 40 MPG.
It's not. I don't think I've seen a DIY EV conversion yet which preserves a car that is better than the new equivalent; it's not like people are taking half-century-old Ferraris and making them usable by sticking outdated motors and salvaged batteries in them.I do appreciate converting classic cars to EV as a means of preserving them. But I'm not sure the Metro is worth preserving
If that other car is better because of the engine, that's irrelevant to conversion. If it has other desirable features that won't survive the conversion (such as air conditioning), they're irrelevant, too. If the other car is just bigger, that's not an advantage for EV conversion. Of course, if what someone wants to build is inconsistent with the Metro (actually Suzuki) body and chassis, then they should build with something else - flog the Metro for whatever it brings, and buy a more suitable non-runner with the cash.Maybe I'm scarred from my experience from driving a 92 Metro XFI as my first car. While it had a little bit of charm as minimalist transportation, I feel like any car you could get for the cost of motors/battery/etc would be heads and shoulders ahead of the Metro
That's just fiction.I was a bit encouraged by seeing a 1993 Metro with a total build cost of $200, top speed of 100Mph and range of 120 miles...
Resources:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/722
http://www.evalbum.com/1595
The Civic has a more sophisticated suspension (double A-arms in front - rare for small front-wheel-drive cars - and multilink rear suspension); you don't need that specifically for an EV conversion, but it is a nice chassis. We have one - the CRX version.I've got a 1993 Honda Civic DX that might be a better and safer vehicle to attempt a conversion with but it is in worse shape and is an automatic.