Electric motors don’t have torque curves. It’s all available right away. As a kid I remember reading in Wired about an electric car scene in California where they had to learn things the hard way and one guy’s maiden voyage ended still in his driveway with the backend split in two.
This is essentially the "area under the curve" argument. But it's been polluted to absurdum by Internet fanboys with an agenda so now everyone thinks EVs are some magical thing that don't abide by the laws of physics.
No amount of fanboy screeching is going to change the fact that it's only 200hp. Compared to a bone stock 70s/80s car that made 200-250hp from the factory this will 200hp EV will be a riot. But at $20k that's not what it's being compared against. The 500+HP LS crate motor and transmission combo (i.e. what this is being cross shopped against) are going to make more than that from ~2500rpm on up.
If you graph power available at a given output RPM with an electric motor you get a line. With an ICE you get an upward and then tapering off curve. When you add transmission gears to the ICE it's a series of essentially overlapping saw teeth except on the first gear where it goes all the way down to whatever power you make at 1500-2000rpm (so like a little under 100hp for a ~500hp engine, probably like 30hp for an ICE that makes ~200hp stock).
Basically even with a flat curve there comes a point where the taller curve is so much taller it still wins.
When comparing to cars of about the same horsepower the EVis gonna win every time, because flat curve. Even if comparing to a more powerful ICE car where the areas are approx. equal you don't have to pull back to shift (even CVTs "shift", it's for longevity reasons) and the ICE is probably not geared deep enough for best initial acceleration (though for "modern" power levels both cars have more than enough to roast the tires) the EV is still probably better.
And as an side I think it's dumb that they make you replace the transmission. There are tons and tons and tons of cars out there that either still have the original transmission or someone swapped an SBC into them in 19-whatever. Being able to just replace the engine would make the swap a ton more accessible because you don't have to also add transmission mounting, controls, driveshaft, etc. to the list. Most older transmissions can handle "muh EV torque" just fine. It's the shifting under torque they don't like.
Basically this is cool but I think it's too expensive for the specs it has.
Edit: Not calling you a stupid fanboy, just saying you've been mislead by them.
There will be torque multiplication by the transmission in 1st through 2nd so it won't be as much of a dog as you think. Race car, no. But it'll hold it's own in modern traffic unlike a lot of older cars.
Out of curiosity I looked up the ratios for the mentioned 4L60 transmission: 1st is 3.059:1, 2nd is 1.625:1, 3rd is direct drive at 1.00:1 and 4th is overdrive at 0.696:1. Then you'll have the ratio in your rear differential, whatever that happens to be.
My high school car was a 1975 Impala with the 350 cubic inch small block V8. Because of the Malaise Era emissions laws, it only produced 145hp but still had decent torque at 250ft·lb. It had a huge amount of space under the hood so perhaps this could fit both the motor and battery in there? (F/R weight balance being ignored)
Your point about people comparing this against the LS crate motor is correct IMO. This will be an expensive low-volume kit until (if!) economies of scale kick in. Only bought by people who want something different to show off to their friends at the weekend car shows.
The people who drive performance cars do. I never had a problem in my old Geo metro making 50hp - except when following a corvette - they always waiting until the end to accelerate and I needed the whole ramp to get up to speed. It works for them because they had enough power for that trick.
Being conparable to the original performance might be a feature on it's own.
Insurance companies don't care what mods you do to your car, even EV swapping, except performance mods. If you tell them you've been doing performance mods, they'll drop you.
> Edit: Not calling you a stupid fanboy, just saying you've been mislead by them.
No worries at all and I should have been clearer that I wasn't saying it was just as good, more that it wasn't "Oh well, 200hp" like a ICE engine. I also think raw horsepower is overrated in street driving. As a single data point, a couple of weeks ago I got to run three laps in a GTR "Godzilla" at Loudon on the interior track. It was a blast but after I'd come down off the high I realized that 585hp did not feel wildly different from the ~400hp in my Camaro. And I rarely get to use much of that (other than some of those lovely overly long onramps around here).
As somebody who used to race FB RX-7s and NA Miata, I can say with complete certainty that somewhere north of 120rwhp would have been nice. 200 in either car would have been a hoot, especially with the EV flat power curve. And in neither would I have wanted more than ~300hp because I have no need to go more than 150mph surrounded by other amateur car nerds. I gave up instructing because cars are just too darn fast - when I started, Miata and Rabbits and Civics were the norm, then came the E36 and E42 M3s, and then boost buggies, and then the C6, and NOPE NOPE NOPE I have a wife a mortgage don't need this anymore.
Ha, my next-door neighbor spent COVID rebuilding his CTS-V engine and the next time he went to a track day they told him he had to wear a flame-retardant suit from now on because he broke 10 seconds over whatever the standard time/distance is.
I'm reminded of the old joke "how to shoot yourself in the foot in 25 different languages". The first one was "C - you shoot yourself in the foot." Zig remains very close to that philosophy.
So the difference is not in writing new stuff but in maintaining the existing codebase. Rust's rigidity makes it potentially harder to break stuff compared to Zig's general flexibility. As a project grows and matures, different types of contributors naturally come in and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to learn about historical footguns that may have accumulated.
The JVM and the ecosystem it sustains are more important than Java itself. The main reason newer languages can run "everywhere" is because hardware has been commoditized and the number of server OSes has been reduced to two. The JVM was designed to flatten a much more diverse environment than what we have today. Whatever you produce that can run on the JVM will still be runnable in 30 years.
I strongly disagree with Kotlin being strictly better than Java. It pretends to fix things that haven't been problems in Java for more than 10 years while introducing a layer of syntactic complexity that's completely unwarranted. It just thrives on hype and Android development.
I've "ported" several legacy server side applications to kotlin over the years. I have no regrets.
That said I feel kotlin is almost a testbed language for java to steal features from at this point. Modern java is "good enough" now to warrant sticking with java these days. But back before some of the more recent java editions, kotlin was a boon to productivity, at least for me.
Luckily with "big" (feature and keyword wise) languages, you get to pick and choose what features you actually use. Obviously there are pros and cons, but in most cases you can control the complexity. The issue that remains is when a library or framework you use evolves to use more bells and whistles than you're comfortable with, but I'm general the kotlin community is finally large enough that there's always alternative libraries etc.
I generally just consumed the java libs directly in kotlin, sometimes with my own tiny shim layers for ergonomics. That way nothing crazy gets foisted on me w.r.t. orms etc.
reply