What's new

Different types of EV configurations

Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Member Number
3093
Messages
1,093
Loc
Sacramento, CA
So let's start the conversation. I don't have proper terminology for almost any of this, so if you know the proper language for the industry, please chime in.

Motor configurations:

1) Simply replace a gas engine with an electric motor, leave the transmission, transfer case, axles as they are for a standard internal combustion vehicle. In some applications people could also skip the transmission, depending on how well the motor characteristics work with the final drive ratio.

2) Take something like the rear drive unit from a Tesla, put it in the center of the chassis so the rear axle shaft outputs act as transfer case outputs. Ideally you regear it because of the extra downstream reductions it will see (now having ring and pinions downstream of the axle shaft outputs).

3) Central drive units. This is what you see in Tesla vehicles, where the motor unit is the differential. No power transfer required through the chassis, it is all generated right at each axle. While the Tesla units are specifically designed for independent suspensions, there are engineering companies that have been investing heavily in solid axle equivalents as well, to be used as retrofit into vehicles that are currently IC powered

4)Hub motors. The motors themselves are actually located in the hub of each wheel. While it creates additional unsprung mass (penalty), the simplicity of having no driveshafts, axle shafts, differentials, transmissions etc is incredible. It also unlocks suspension geometry to an extreme level, no longer is everything revolving around the critical maximums of CV joints.

Battery configurations:
The required voltage is dictated by the motor/inverter combo you choose, and from there you're able to build in more capacity by maintaining that voltage but increasing the Amp Hours of the battery pack (need to be specific multiples of the cell quantities required for the needed voltage, so the whole system is balanced. You can't "just add 1 more battery module"). But you can break them down into individual symmetrical subpacks for convenience and swapping if necessary.

The potentials of Series-Hybrid:
This is where things get interesting to me. Basically you completely build your electric vehicle with one of the above configurations, and then you add an onboard IC generator that actively recharges as you deplete the batteries. Most hybrids of the last decade still had a direct link between the engine and the axles, but these series hybrids are fully disconnected. The engine is only acting as a generator. There are more and more of these hybrids hitting the road now, but I think it has pretty dramatic implications for the offroad world as well. Imagine having something like 400HP on tap via the electric motors for the drivetrain, and you have a 100HP generator onboard. While you're full throttle pulling all 400HP you're drawing down the batteries, but then when you ease out of it and get to the point of steady state cruising only requiring say 50hp, the excess power is regenerating the batteries, When the batteries get full, the generator shuts down. Automatically cycling as necessary (or however you want to tune it to act).


Obviously this is just a very very basic overview to at least get the conversation started over here. Would be sweet to continue the discussion on the technical concept side of things, and if you have seen any sweet builds that deserve recognition, add it to the conversation!
 
Motor configurations:
1) Simply replace a gas engine with an electric motor, leave the transmission, transfer case, axles as they are for a standard internal combustion vehicle. In some applications people could also skip the transmission, depending on how well the motor characteristics work with the final drive ratio.

2) Take something like the rear drive unit from a Tesla, put it in the center of the chassis so the rear axle shaft outputs act as transfer case outputs. Ideally you regear it because of the extra downstream reductions it will see (now having ring and pinions downstream of the axle shaft outputs).
Seems like 1 and 2 are the same thing to me
 
The potentials of Series-Hybrid:
This is where things get interesting to me. Basically you completely build your electric vehicle with one of the above configurations, and then you add an onboard IC generator that actively recharges as you deplete the batteries. Most hybrids of the last decade still had a direct link between the engine and the axles, but these series hybrids are fully disconnected. The engine is only acting as a generator.
This is called a Range Extender EV, or REEV.

There are more and more of these hybrids hitting the road now
Not really. The gov mandated emissions make it very detrimental to build a REEV. They are also extremely costly.
Most of the focus nowadays is about full EVs or the classic plug-in hybrid.

Currently for sale, I think the Toyota Mirai is the only REEV on the market. And with its hydrogen engine, it isn't really targeting a wide population.
Mazda is working on a REEV with a rotary, but most attempts are REEVs have been terminated (Chevy Bolt, BMW I3 etc)
 
One thing worth noting is that for every step closer to the wheels with the motor, the torque and power needed goes up significantly. For example, 3 requires 2x the torque and power of 2, if you want the same power to the wheels when 1 end of the vehicle has all the load. Cost goes up to with the additional electronics.

1 had/has a few offroad examples, and plenty of road going conversions. I think it is the most practical place to start at the moment.

2 is a great option, I just worry about how to put a locker in it.

3 is good if you can meet the power/torque needs. Lower CG, more steering angle.

A range extender is probably the most practical for everything but a off-road park toy/crawler.
 
1 is like a standard buggy layout. 2 is like a transaxle buggy, just without the transmission.

1 without the transmission (only Motor and TCase) and 2 which is a motor only with a reduction box behind, that looks like the same to me.
 
1 without the transmission (only Motor and TCase) and 2 which is a motor only with a reduction box behind, that looks like the same to me.
You're not entirely wrong. But the distinction is needed since 2 is going to be junkyard sourceable and 1 is going to be the more traditional swap.
 
You're not entirely wrong. But the distinction is needed since 2 is going to be junkyard sourceable and 1 is going to be the more traditional swap.
I think it's good to point out that #2 is really only the "same" in a 4wd/awd install, it is possible to run just electric motor to rear axle with driveshaft after taking out the transmission (option 1).
 
CVT, motors in the transmission? Toyota/Ford and probably many others by now.

 
Good call on the "Range Extender" term. And admittedly I did think they were more prevalent in OEM form so that's my bad, though i'll be very curious to see what Mazda does with that rotary version.

The difference between option 1 and 2 do blur a little bit, but it does seem handy to differentiate builds that use traditional transfer cases versus "transaxle" style setups (even though there's no transmission)

Tree, for the concern of lack of lockers for option 2, I think a spool and driveline clutches would probably be the most appealing option. Similar to how modern AWD vehicles engage or disengage drivelines seamlessly


Ebs sweet video, Weberauto has some great explanation videos for all sorts of automotive tech!
 
If you squint, plug in hybrids are essentially range extenders.

Who is going to make the first selectable locker for a Tesla drive unit?

It's interesting that off-road is eyeing going straight to EV and skipping hybrids.
 
If you squint, plug in hybrids are essentially range extenders.

Who is going to make the first selectable locker for a Tesla drive unit?

It's interesting that off-road is eyeing going straight to EV and skipping hybrids.

I can see the correlation (while operating in electric mode) when squinting hard enough, but I think the fact that the plug in hybrids still have a mechanical connection available between the engine and the wheels (that I'm aware of, always learning though) is worth the distinction

Good question on the locker. I believe there's a torsen limited slip available, but haven't seen a locker yet. I don't think it'll be too critical on the "transaxle" config, but definitely for actually using it as a proper differential (as intended) like #3. That is, unless brake-based traction control for rock crawling gets enough attention to actually have people investing time in tuning them. Considering what would already be going into an EV rock crawler build, plumbing in an ABS block/pump that you then custom tune doesn't seem too big of a next step. Maybe have a knob or buttons on the dash with multiple modes to select between

I agree on the interesting way off road seems to kind of be glossing over hybrids at the moment. Though I also kind of see why. Parallel hybrids don't really reinvent the wheel anywhere. You're still stuck with some sort of "standard" drivetrain configuration, but with bulkier packaging (due to the added motor) and the need for an additional large battery on top of that. And while they would net higher fuel mileage, that seems to be pretty low on the list of importance for crawlers. It would be sweet to apply it as a "boost" (like turbos or nitrous, only coming in under certain conditions), but I don't think there's enough of a revelation for most to commit to that kind of undertaking.
 
I can see the correlation (while operating in electric mode) when squinting hard enough, but I think the fact that the plug in hybrids still have a mechanical connection available between the engine and the wheels (that I'm aware of, always learning though) is worth the distinction

Good question on the locker. I believe there's a torsen limited slip available, but haven't seen a locker yet. I don't think it'll be too critical on the "transaxle" config, but definitely for actually using it as a proper differential (as intended) like #3. That is, unless brake-based traction control for rock crawling gets enough attention to actually have people investing time in tuning them. Considering what would already be going into an EV rock crawler build, plumbing in an ABS block/pump that you then custom tune doesn't seem too big of a next step. Maybe have a knob or buttons on the dash with multiple modes to select between

I agree on the interesting way off road seems to kind of be glossing over hybrids at the moment. Though I also kind of see why. Parallel hybrids don't really reinvent the wheel anywhere. You're still stuck with some sort of "standard" drivetrain configuration, but with bulkier packaging (due to the added motor) and the need for an additional large battery on top of that. And while they would net higher fuel mileage, that seems to be pretty low on the list of importance for crawlers. It would be sweet to apply it as a "boost" (like turbos or nitrous, only coming in under certain conditions), but I don't think there's enough of a revelation for most to commit to that kind of undertaking.
The boost function seems like it would be appealing. Some modern trucks have a small electric motor to help at lower speeds. Dodge's etorque and Ford's powerboost. They mount to the engine and in the transmission, respectively.
 
The boost function seems like it would be appealing. Some modern trucks have a small electric motor to help at lower speeds. Dodge's etorque and Ford's powerboost. They mount to the engine and in the transmission, respectively.

I agree the boost would be a cool feature for sure. Sweet notes on the Dodge and Ford options as well. I know GM put an assist motor on the serp belt of some 4.3s called the "eAssist" a few years ago, though I don't know if that was continued. From initial glance that looks similar to the Dodge etorque offering. Honestly, I think the belt driven hybrid is cool, except that it's spinning the crank so there's no option for silent running with the engine disconnected

The jeep 4xe platform looks interesting too. as far as introducing hybrid powertrains into rigs with somewhat traditional layouts go. Might generate some appeal as more and more of those things end up in junk yards

2021 Jeep Wrangler 4xe powertrain shows lots of potential across FCA - Autoblog
 
I agree the boost would be a cool feature for sure. Sweet notes on the Dodge and Ford options as well. I know GM put an assist motor on the serp belt of some 4.3s called the "eAssist" a few years ago, though I don't know if that was continued. From initial glance that looks similar to the Dodge etorque offering. Honestly, I think the belt driven hybrid is cool, except that it's spinning the crank so there's no option for silent running with the engine disconnected

The jeep 4xe platform looks interesting too. as far as introducing hybrid powertrains into rigs with somewhat traditional layouts go. Might generate some appeal as more and more of those things end up in junk yards

2021 Jeep Wrangler 4xe powertrain shows lots of potential across FCA - Autoblog
I think Jeep has an eTorque option for the 3.6 in the JLs too. I don't think that something like the 4xe is a great option for swapping. That size of battery is too big and heavy for a boost style setup, I would think.

Is the EV goal for performance, silent running, or novelty at the moment?
 
I think Jeep has an eTorque option for the 3.6 in the JLs too. I don't think that something like the 4xe is a great option for swapping. That size of battery is too big and heavy for a boost style setup, I would think.

Is the EV goal for performance, silent running, or novelty at the moment?

The battery is definitely the primary double edged sword of it all. On a sliding scale, how much space are people willing to give up for capacity? Sweet notes on the eTorque being in a few jeeps as well, I wasn't aware of anything hybrid/assist on jeeps beyond the 4xe. Shows how much I have to learn lol

That second question...damn good one. Honestly it might almost deserve its own thread. I'd say novelty at the moment, because i honestly think we're currently at the point of not knowing what we don't know. But I think going into it, there will probably be many different motivations and points of view for people building their first
 
The battery is definitely the primary double edged sword of it all. On a sliding scale, how much space are people willing to give up for capacity? Sweet notes on the eTorque being in a few jeeps as well, I wasn't aware of anything hybrid/assist on jeeps beyond the 4xe. Shows how much I have to learn lol

That second question...damn good one. Honestly it might almost deserve its own thread. I'd say novelty at the moment, because i honestly think we're currently at the point of not knowing what we don't know. But I think going into it, there will probably be many different motivations and points of view for people building their first
3.6 and 2.0 it seems.

I agree about it being novelty so far. But the potential performance of an electric crawler is undeniable. Just have to give up range.
 
3.6 and 2.0 it seems.

I agree about it being novelty so far. But the potential performance of an electric crawler is undeniable. Just have to give up range.
Thanks for the link there.

And yeah, I can only imagine what a JHF style ultra light chassis would be capable with solid axles that have axle mounted motors. Then the chassis only needs to hold the driver, battery, motor controller (if its separate), cooling system, and maybe the power steering system (assuming still hydraulic, but maybe you put individual electric/ hydraulic pumps on each axle considering how much electrical capacity you already have on tap there for the motors). And a chassis like that could actually be centered and symmetrical with no drivetrain in the way (if you wanted it to be)
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that motor on axle similar to rc crawlers would be the best way to go about it. Chain or belt drive to the yoke and mount motor to the top of the tube alongside the diff. Similar to whats been going on in golf carts forever.

No drivelines, tcase or anything else in the belly to wory about. Build a flat skid center wherever you want and stack it full of batteries. Weight bias and total weight would be easily adjustable depending on what you were doing and front/rear drive selection would be easy.
 
It seems to me that motor on axle similar to rc crawlers would be the best way to go about it. Chain or belt drive to the yoke and mount motor to the top of the tube alongside the diff. Similar to whats been going on in golf carts forever.

No drivelines, tcase or anything else in the belly to wory about. Build a flat skid center wherever you want and stack it full of batteries. Weight bias and total weight would be easily adjustable depending on what you were doing and front/rear drive selection would be easy.
Agreed 100%.

There aren't any good axle offerings that are on the market yet though.

But it's coming.
 
Also... dana spicers new 40hp electric hub motors.

Something like this combined with a portal would be sweet
Screenshot_20230316-182805_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
2big, what you described seems like a solid interim option to adapt our current axle styles, and not sacrifice any ground clearance.

I think the style that's inline with the axle tubes like Bebop posted are pretty interesting too. A bit of reduced ground clearance, but portals could mitigate that a bit.

I also wonder about putting the motor parallel to the axle tubes (like bebops, but not in-line) via spur gears like a rockwell spur gearset. Then you can almost set the motor on top of the axle tube to drive the upper gear.

Kinda like this, but imagine it rotated 90* as a top loader instead of a front loader (or whatever angle you want to clock it for packaging reasons)

Dana_E-Axles_Off-Highway_Commercial_Automotive_Construction_Mining_Thermal_Management.jpg-2.jpg



Those dana spicer hub motors look sweet too, looks like they have planetary hubs which completely make sense to keep the motor RPM up as high as they can get it. Treefrog brought up a really good point about hub motors that's been stuck in my head though. With a drivetrain mounted motor, you have the ability to put 100% of the available torque into a single tire in a nasty bind/undercut etc (not even including the additional reduction available in a tcase). With an axle mounted motor, on each end of the chassis, you can only put 50% of the total system power into a stuck or jammed up tire. With hub motors, you can only put a maximum of 25% of available system torque into a stuck tire.

So just for a rough ballpark reference, if we want the ability to put down enough torque to snap a 35 spline axle shaft on demand, something like 10,000fb-lbs at the wheel should be able to make it happen (IIRC the old school twist tests ended up around 9kish?). That seems like it might be a pretty steep ask for an individual hub motor, depending on how much reduction you put in the planetaries. And then if you have enough reduction for that to happen, what's your top speed? Even axle mounted configurations might struggle to get those kind of numbers, a two speed axle would be awesome
 
Even axle mounted configurations might struggle to get those kind of numbers, a two speed axle would be awesome

The beauty of all of this is simplicity.
Why add portals and planetaries etc.

The top loader like you're showing is likely the best solution
 
The beauty of all of this is simplicity.
Why add portals and planetaries etc.

The top loader like you're showing is likely the best solution

It all depends on the intended application of course, but I don't think the value of portals changes between internal combustion and electric. The added ground clearance is pretty awesome regardless. Planetaries (or at least some sort of reduction) seem necessary because so many of these electric motors seem to be able to spin incredibly high RPMs before efficiency drops too far, versus the wheel revolutions counted in the hundreds of RPMS (unless you're going very fast with small tires).

As far as the two speed goes, yeah that's def a lot of extra bulk and complication, but the thought there is if you're trying to have a crawler with enough torque to break axles, but not be limited to 40MPH (or whatever it maths out to) like a transaxle buggy. I haven't plugged numbers in from any available motor specs to see how that all works out yet though.
 
Yeah that's very reasonable, the sprung to unsprung weight ratio is crazy. Great for crawling for the same reason running lead shot or water in tires is good, but horrible for any sort of speed lol
 
I like the idea of direct mounting the electric motor to a top-loader.

You have no "engine" sitting between the frame rails, so the clearance problem with the old Rockwell top-loader goes away, because now your pumpkin (+motor) can slide right on up between the rails - no crank or harmonic balancer or oil pan to get in the way.

No driveshafts to hit or bind - you can have as much wheel travel as your suspension can handle, now that the driveshaft U-joints are not an issue.

Battery packs should likely be big, rectangular, and flat - just like our skid plates, and go in the exact same spot - just make sure if you drop it on a rock you don't puncture the pack and start a chemical fire.

Plenty of room between the 'rails now that you don't have a transmission, transfercase, engine, gas tank, drivelines, mufflers, clutch linkage or anything else in the way.
 
Top Back Refresh