I don't think there's too much argument that an electric motor has many advantages over an IC engine. But it's not the motor that's been holding back the electric car, it's been energy storage. And energy storage will likely continue to hold it back from becoming dominant for at least another couple of decades. No pratical energy storage medium can come close to the energy density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for a reasonable cost. Even when factoring in an electric motor's greater efficiency and re-gen capabilities, it's still not close. Sure, it's always possible there will be some great breakthroughs in the near future, but then again we've been chasing this rainbow for over a century and made minimal progress.


I like to use the example of a bicycle: I can probably generate about 250 lb-ft of torque at the crank of my Mongoose ... but I doubt I could beat even an Aveo to 60

 

Proud, show me an automotive electric motor that makes the same output torque at any shaft speed. That 1000 lb-ft / 300 hp motor is a perfect example. Its torque "curve" is obviously quite negative in slope. If it made 1000 lb-ft at 0 rpm all the way to, say, 10000 rpm (or whatever), it would be making WAY, WAY more than 300 hp. They don't work that way.

I know we are off topic, and yes, even when we go electric, there will be "normal" cars and cars with a higher performance envelope, as well as hot rodders to elevate things beyond stock. Sooner or later, we will get to that point, and you are right to point out that we will have to adjust along with it.

But still, your example of a 1000 lb-ft electric motor still doesn't quite fly relative to getting performance numbers. Clearly, a 1000 lb-ft (at 0 rpm) motor that peaks at 300 hp will have an advantage over, say, an LT1 V8 that also peaks at 300 hp but only offers 330 lb-ft of peak torque. But that same electric motor would not fare so well against an LS7 with "only" 470 lb-ft of peak torque, but 505 hp. Put 'em both in a Z06 and gear them appropriately, and the LS7 is going to outperform it.

F1 cars make something like 700-800 hp, with less than half that number in lb-ft of available torque...

 

And in the case of an F1 car, one, or at most two, people can lift the front wheels off of the ground with the driver in the car. They also get about 3 MPG.

Other than that, your point is well taken.

 

I'd actually consider the GT500 except that I'm holding out hope that GM will come around and build the Camaro Z28.

In the back of my mind, I'm still toying with the idea of building a performance electric car. If I had the money (which I don't) I'd just buy a Tesla Roadster. I have decided if I do build one its going to have to have a cool factor, and since I'm a Chevyman to the bone, it will most likely be a Camaro or a Vette.

 

Well, yeah. Point is, horsepower is the key for them, not monstrous peak torque at idle followed by a rapid decrease in torque output leading to a modest horsepower peak. NASCAR racers, Top Fuelers, whatever; none of them would choose an engine with an output curve like that.

And yeah, I wouldn't expect fuel sipping when making that kind of power. You have to burn some fuel to release the chemical energy to make that sort of power!

Heck, go run a normal car at high engine speeds in a track situation and watch the fuel economy sink. Those window sticker ratings are generated in a street / highway cycle, not a racetrack situation. When driving cars that have instantaneous fuel economy displays, you can see the fuel econ drop into the single digits at launch and under heavy load / acceleration conditions. In a race, they are driving in those conditions the whole time!

 

No disagreement, I only mean to offer that low weight is a big part of the F1 car's performance envelope.

The tax structures in Europe dictated the attention to small displacement. The gaining of high HP out of little engines is directly related to the tax structures.

Range is the issue with electric cars. You can certainly get a ton of whoop *** from electric propulsion. The problem is the range. Charge time is an adjunct bugaboo with batteries. The advamtage of the gasoline engine in a vehicle is that it will continue on with a very short interruption to refill the tank. Electrics aren't quite there yet.

 

Then how about something with an F1 motor and transmission that is a bit harder to lift like the old Renault Espace F1 minivan. 800HP 3.5L V10, 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. 0-124mph in 6 seconds. Now while it makes more HP than torque, it was still spinning 520lbft.

At any rate, let's say I used technology from the Roswell spaceship and could build a motor that made only 20 lbft of torque, but it had a flat torque curve all the way up to 262,000 RPM. With the right transmission ratios it will destroy an average big block car that makes 20 times the torque because it is cranking out 1000HP.

The point is that higher average power is always better in acceleration contests because you can take advantage of gearing.

 

If you can do any of those scenarios for under $30k and meet CAFE and emissions you are on your way.