RE: Electrogenic launches EV conversion kit for MX-5
Discussion
My mk2 was great fun but the engine was never one of the best bits, not much power and it had to be worked hard to get that. The mpg really wasn’t great either.
While I agree the sums probably don’t make sense to do the conversion, I’d far rather someone electrified an MX5 and kept it on the road, rather than took the engine out of an E-Type, DB5 or Testarossa!
While I agree the sums probably don’t make sense to do the conversion, I’d far rather someone electrified an MX5 and kept it on the road, rather than took the engine out of an E-Type, DB5 or Testarossa!
Bispal said:
Why?
There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
Do you genuinely spend £4.50 a litre on fuel?There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
andy43 said:
Bispal said:
Why?
There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
Do you genuinely spend £4.50 a litre on fuel?There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
If the guy can afford a McLaren, I'm sure he doesn't mind spending his money on whichever fuel he likes the best.
Cost aside, I should be the target market for this - an EV convert that has owned 3x MX5's.
However, I love my (turbo) NA because it's *not* like my EV, and I think my EV is great because it's *not* like my MX5.
If my MX5 was an EV, it wouldn't suddenly become my daily, it would still have it's other character traits <flaws > that make it an excellent weekend car.
However, I love my (turbo) NA because it's *not* like my EV, and I think my EV is great because it's *not* like my MX5.
If my MX5 was an EV, it wouldn't suddenly become my daily, it would still have it's other character traits <flaws
> that make it an excellent weekend car.andy43 said:
VladD said:
You should probably check your "Occupation" in your own profile.
If the guy can afford a McLaren, I'm sure he doesn't mind spending his money on whichever fuel he likes the best.
If the guy can afford a McLaren, I'm sure he doesn't mind spending his money on whichever fuel he likes the best.
Twenty quid a gallon though…
Really scratching my head over this.
Even with the original engines being the
in the NA's armour, there's never been any shortage of affordable options for giving them some sparkle. Forced induction (my NA had a s/c and loads of Jackson Racing bits), bodies, the NB VVC engine fits, etc etc. Even spare engines must be fairly common, if you've grenaded the original (and if so, how??? They're hardy things!).
As mentioned the real Achille's heel of the NA is rust, most owners have probably spent more on welding than anything mechanical.
I genuinely don't believe that the NA is *that* collectable, even now with dwindling numbers, bar the RS Ltd which, let's be honest, you'd want to keep totally original, including the engine. Yes, it's a classic, but not quite in the same way as the other cars they have kits for, kits that genuinely make things markedly better - giving the Mini reasonable modern day performance and the DMC a means of reliable propulsion that isn't ridiculed.
I guess I'm just really struggling with why...? The potential numbers of owners who'd consider this must be ludicrously small. A very strange business decision.
Even with the original engines being the
in the NA's armour, there's never been any shortage of affordable options for giving them some sparkle. Forced induction (my NA had a s/c and loads of Jackson Racing bits), bodies, the NB VVC engine fits, etc etc. Even spare engines must be fairly common, if you've grenaded the original (and if so, how??? They're hardy things!). As mentioned the real Achille's heel of the NA is rust, most owners have probably spent more on welding than anything mechanical.
I genuinely don't believe that the NA is *that* collectable, even now with dwindling numbers, bar the RS Ltd which, let's be honest, you'd want to keep totally original, including the engine. Yes, it's a classic, but not quite in the same way as the other cars they have kits for, kits that genuinely make things markedly better - giving the Mini reasonable modern day performance and the DMC a means of reliable propulsion that isn't ridiculed.
I guess I'm just really struggling with why...? The potential numbers of owners who'd consider this must be ludicrously small. A very strange business decision.
Skodillac said:
RichardHMorris said:
Around 150 mile range.
No, go and try again and do better this time.
I've been living with less than that in my daily driver for over 7 years now (Nissan Leaf).No, go and try again and do better this time.
And this is meant as an occasional use car for short summer jaunts, it's not going to be the choice of a photocopier salesman who needs to get from Aylesbury to Aberdeen in an afternoon. A 42kwh battery in such a thing is sufficient.
Whilst we all seem in agreement that the engines were not a stand out feature, i think that was very much the point, no one element of the NA MX5 stood out with powertrain, gearbox, grip, ride etc all in balance. Besides an engine that is often still going today some 30Y later with just servicing and continues to be reliable with no known issues.......perhaps our view of "special" needs a broader view?
As to an EV NA MX5....no, talk about following a blind alley.
The MX5 formula is about rewarding the driver, the clue here is in the word rewarding. ie you get rewarded for the effort you put in....hanging on to a gear, using the manual box, leaning on the low weight and modest grip, feel it move about with a sound track that is entirely in keeping with the car. an EV with no gears and all about the torque suggests it will become a point and shoot car. Remove the gears and it is no longer as engaging, remove the soundtrack and well to me at least....pointless
AS to the argument that it is environmentally better, well I'll freely admit i am not best informed on these matters, but replacing a working engine that is already in existence with fresh mined elements seems about face. Add in that these really do do low mileage a year so the amount of tailpipe CO2 reduction is pitiful. I like the sustainable fuel idea myself and will look into that with my creeping sense of social consciousness.
As to an EV NA MX5....no, talk about following a blind alley.
The MX5 formula is about rewarding the driver, the clue here is in the word rewarding. ie you get rewarded for the effort you put in....hanging on to a gear, using the manual box, leaning on the low weight and modest grip, feel it move about with a sound track that is entirely in keeping with the car. an EV with no gears and all about the torque suggests it will become a point and shoot car. Remove the gears and it is no longer as engaging, remove the soundtrack and well to me at least....pointless
AS to the argument that it is environmentally better, well I'll freely admit i am not best informed on these matters, but replacing a working engine that is already in existence with fresh mined elements seems about face. Add in that these really do do low mileage a year so the amount of tailpipe CO2 reduction is pitiful. I like the sustainable fuel idea myself and will look into that with my creeping sense of social consciousness.
TheFastFish said:
The point of an MX5 is the analogue driving experience, mediocre engine included.
The point of electrification is to make cars more environmentally acceptable, but in this case, sounds very expensive.
Solution - get the engine to run on synthetic fuel. It may be more expensive to fill up but for the low miles likely to be driven for me the man maths adds up.
Unfortunately the "environmentally acceptable" angle doesn't wholly work for synthetic fuels as they require significant amounts of energy to produce.The point of electrification is to make cars more environmentally acceptable, but in this case, sounds very expensive.
Solution - get the engine to run on synthetic fuel. It may be more expensive to fill up but for the low miles likely to be driven for me the man maths adds up.
At best, synthetic fuels can claim to be "carbon neutral" as the CO2 produced at the point of combustion can be offset against carbon capture during manufacture, but that's before factoring in the inherant inefficiency of burning said fuel in an engine which is only around 40% efficient (but real-world closer to 25%).
I've purposefully tried not make this sound like a pro-EV response and would actually prefer them to leave the litte MX-5 NA alone.
Save electrification for the NG (if the Fiat 124 Spider was the NE and the Abarth Spider was the NF) or, if the next MX-5 has to comply, make it a rotary hybrid up until 2035 to soften the blow.
C69 said:
Don't the mechanical bits often outlast the bodywork on these cars?
If I was spending north of £20k to electrify a first-gen MX-5, I'd want to be really, really sure that the donor car was rot-free.
Bang on this. I sold Mrs TR7V8s MX5 NA for spares repair after the final MOT fail on rust & absolutely refused to spend any more money on it. When it went the gearbox, engine (with a new HG) & rest of the running gear were fine. The body looked like a colander. If I was spending north of £20k to electrify a first-gen MX-5, I'd want to be really, really sure that the donor car was rot-free.
I never found the NA/NB engine lacking with a sports exhaust it went well enough. The car wasn't comfortable, hence I had a NC2. But it was OK. And about as bulletproof as you can get.
VladD said:
andy43 said:
Bispal said:
Why?
There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
Do you genuinely spend £4.50 a litre on fuel?There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
If the guy can afford a McLaren, I'm sure he doesn't mind spending his money on whichever fuel he likes the best.
However my point was WHY spend £20 / 30 / 40k on an EV conversion for 1-2k miles per year when if its the environment that concerns you, you can achieve similar levels of environmental betterment with sustainable fuels.
I haven't bought any sustain fuel for a few months now as the nearest place that stocks it is 100 miles away, which negates the point of using it as 200 miles is almost a tankful. They also will no longer deliver barrels. If they rolled it out to more outlets I would use it all the time in my MX5, like Harry's Garage does.
schedoni said:
This makes little sense other than as a vanity project as none of these cars are likely to cover the mileage to repay the embodied CO2 (probably 20,000km) for very many years.
But it does show that a relatively lightweight Ev roadster is very possible. A modern car with modern safety will weight more than an MX5 of course, but equally a bespoke EV platform takes away some weight.
I don't expect that the forthcoming EV Boxster will end up being that light, but maybe the Lotus? (the pure EV one not the Emira hybrid)
I was thinking similar, that this only weighs 100kgs more than a standard na, a new nd isn't a great deal heavier than an na, so surely this shows that a light weight small ev sports car is possible, and I think a 150 mile range is reasonable, but as batteries improve, that range should increase without a weight penalty. Maybe there's good news in this as it demonstrates that the future Boxster and A110 may not be 2 tonnes leviathans.But it does show that a relatively lightweight Ev roadster is very possible. A modern car with modern safety will weight more than an MX5 of course, but equally a bespoke EV platform takes away some weight.
I don't expect that the forthcoming EV Boxster will end up being that light, but maybe the Lotus? (the pure EV one not the Emira hybrid)
Bispal said:
Why?
There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
I have to agree with most of this, I like the concept, but in reality it is just too much cost for very little gain, if any.There is no performance benefit over a low cost turbo conversion.
There are no environmental benefits as the original engine already exists and new batteries will need to be provided.
I have read comments regarding the characterless engine. I disagree after 17 years and 150k miles of NA ownership. All that's needed is a bit of induction bark and this can be achieved by drilling the airbox for free! Plus you lose the gearbox with an EV conversion.
AFAIK converting a car that's not ULEZ to electric does not make it ULEZ, which would be the only benefit of this, if you daily drove in London.
I am pretty sure most NA owners do around 2k miles a year (NA's are rarely daily drives anymore). Mine is 3 seasons a year but just locally. I use sustain classic fuel. Its £3 Litre more than super unleaded. 2k miles at 30mpg = 300L = £900 per year extra.
To me sustainable fuel is the best answer for these cars. I expect an additional £900pa is a LOT less than the cost of the conversion, financially & environmentally.
Now if it was cheap as chips to convert and it was ULEZ compliant, I think it would make a fun little EV to commute to work in.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff