I have found a nice donor 78 242 and I am converting it to be an electric vehicle. I have been told by numerous people that Volvos are heavy and I should chose a lighter car, but I am a Volvo guy, what am I going to do? Volvos forever!

So I pulled the radiator, the overflow tank, the air box. I am going to pull the engine this weekend, (anyone need a rebuildable B21?), pull the gas tank, remove all the exhaust. I am trying to figure out what else I can do to get the weight down but not comprimise the structure.

I don't have much to add to the conversation - though I did come across this a while back on one of the Triumph Spitfire lists that I'm on. May be of some use - or at least a worthwhile contact - http://www.triumphspitfire.com/goodwin.html

Thanks for all the comments. To the poster who said I need a manual steering rack, that's what I got. It was a big consideration for me when looking for nice body/blown engine 240's for me. The car I got has nice red paint, and a blown engine and it was $150. It cost more to get the Uhaul and tow trailer than the car cost.

As far as vacuum for the brakes, I am going to buy an electric vacuum pump. I hope it doesn't use much power. I didn't want to be forced to buy an electric power steering pump.

As to the poster who said my car was over the weight limit, notice the very first question of my first post was: "how can I lose some weight on this car?" I am quite aware that I need to add 1000 lbs of battery. I don't know the exact mass of the B21 engine which is being removed, but I would guess engine+exhaust+radiator+fluid+gas tank+misc from the trunk = 600 lbs lost. I have had people tell me to get rid of the rear glass and replace it with plexiglass.

I also have a 122, which certainly seems lighter. It doesn't seem as beefy though, I just love the beef of the 240. Of course I will pay for it with lower mileage, but I only work 13 miles from home, and 50 as a top speed is acceptable for me.

I like the posts about how recycling old cars saves the earth. I agree with that. I also find there is something theraputic about fixing a car. That's why we sold my wife's S80 and got a 240 wagon for her, I can fix it. I was so sick of the gizmotrons on that S80 going out. I would advise anyone against a 99 S80. Of course I may have had worse luck than average, but that thing was a piece of crap. Someday I may have another favorite model, but at this point in my life I live and breath the 240, and now with the electric project we have all 3 kinds, 2 door, 4 door and wagon. At some point I expect to have done almost everything to them. There isn't much problem with rust in California, I don't see why these cars can't outlive me.

As far as "there is no such thing as a free lunch" posts. No kidding. Hard to make polution free power. But I didn't mention that in my day job I am a process engineer for a solar panel company. My dream is to take home the less efficient solar panels and power my home and car. I plan to stay tied to the grid and get the "net metering" deal offered by PG&E. I wonder how many panels need to be produced to just break even on the 200 cars driving there using gas get to work everyday? I am all for anything new concerning ways to make power. We can do better than the internal combustion engine running on fossil fuels, can't we?

I calculated that a full charge (50 miles worth) should cost about $2. With gas at $3.50 a gallon here in the bay area, and my 240's all getting about 23 mpg, I should save something like $5/50 miles, or ten cents a mile. My bill of materials is up to $6k, so I am looking at 60k miles to break even. It is going to be a tough road to money savings. Unless of course gas prices go up. That seems fairly likely. If I can spew a little less CO2 into the air, I think that would be good. Saving the earth is worth some money. I could carpool or ride a bike, and I do those things too, but like I said, this a project. I am all for alternatives.

I know you have a 1978, but I used to own a 1980 -- which shouldn't be too different from yours -- and still have the "green books" for it. From these '80 specs (and assuming you car started as a 4-cyl DL wagon, but correcct me if I'm wrong, as I also have specs for the other models):

Curb Weight: 2891-2999 lbs
Permissable front axle weight: 1885 lbs
Permissable rear axle weight: 2600 lbs

our bricks aren't as heavy as people think they are.

If everyone were as conscientious as you...keep up the good work!

Maybe do a blog of the process that we could all follow?
--
Jonathan Knauer - 94 945Ti - fun!

I think you might be able to ditch the transmission also. Read around on the EV (electric vehicle) conversion sites, see if that's what people usually do.

V8 conversion people often go for front springs from a Volvo 240 diesel. Should be able to get those from fcpgroton. More beef than the red block front springs. I don't know if the springs for the V6 PRV are a good route.

Also I'd definitely consider putting some batteries in the rear. Maybe where the tank used to be. This will help even out the car's weight distribution. Also lets you either load in more batteries or leave the front compartment less crowded than otherwise. Getting overload or graduated-rate springs for the rear is not difficult; I've found them at regular parts stores and at fcpgroton.com.

You can look up the weight distributions in the owner's manual and try to duplicate it. I think the wagon is about 55/45, as delivered.

Good luck with it!!
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, expanded air dam to 7" from ground, forward belly pan reaches oem belly pan, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, quad horns, tach, small clock. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock.

Another battery possibility to look into would be Nickel-Iron batteries, also known as NiFe, or Edison cells, after their inventor, who developed them circa 1910 for (surprise, surprise) electric vehicles. While they are considered obsolete technology, they have a couple of notable advantages:

Ability to withstand a very large number of charge-discharge cycles, therefore a long service life.

Relatively benign chemistry, compared to lead-acid.

On the other hand, I believe their energy density is somewhat less than that of lead-acid, making an already heavy battery pack even more massive.

While it is entirely possible to convert a Volvo to an EV, it is not an ideal candidate, due to the front engine, rear wheel drive configuration. Something with all the mechanical components at one end is better suited. Back in the 60s and 70s, small European rear-engine cars were the starting point of choice. Renault, Fiat 850, Simca, and of course VW, of which the Bus was ideal, as it had a large flat floor (plenty of room for batteries) and could cope reasonable well with a half-ton of added weight. In the FWD realm, early Saabs worked nicely, as the engine compartment was well suited to an electric motor, due to being a longitudinal engine, and the suspension was sturdy enough to deal with the battery load. For something more modern, a Saab 900 might work well.

The points others have made about lack of power brakes and steering are important things to consider. The absence of a vacuum booster for the brakes is by far the greater of the two. It's tough enough to stop a stock 240 if the booster has failed, to say nothing of the extra 1000 lbs you will be adding, and in this application, there is no substitue for vacuum. The small rear engine cars mentioned above were all designed with manual (non-assisted) brakes, and though their stopping power was not on a par with that of a Volvo, they can be used as is. The steering is a lot easier to deal with. The 78 242 may well have a manual steering rack, in which case you are good to go as-is. If you presently have power steering, either find and install a manual rack, or rig up something to drive the hydraulic pump electrically, though doing so will siphon off current that could otherwise be used to propel the car.

May I add a comment about weight? 12 lead-acid batteries at 80 lbs/each = 960 lbs. That's about 40 lbs greater than the car's load limit, and you haven't sat down in the driver's seat yet. I'm sure you'll save some weight as the electric motor will be lighter than the gas engine it replaces, but you're still going to be right up against the weight limit. The car will handle rather poorly unless you replace the springs with higher-rate units, and it will pogo unless you concurrently replace the shocks to provide greater damping.
--
David Brick, Santa Cruz CA, 1988 245

Great idea. A excellent project that I'm sure you can improve upon in the future as batteries become better. Couple of years back I posted the following about going hybrid but I don't have the resources to experiment. "I'm thinking that this vehicle and others like it, perhaps pickup trucks because of rear drive configuration and workspace under the hood, if an electric assist motor was successfully added it would benefit both available power and increase gas mileage. Rather than the hi tech systems in hybids I'm thinking more like the electric assist add ons for bicycles. If some battery powered torque was applied at the right times ...... " I don't think there have been any tech break-thru's in the last couple years but the idea of and electric assist add on still intrigues me, because of the potential power and economy gains in using an electric motor to help out the internal combustion during it's most inefficient load times. I think developing a motor and battery configuration would'nt be too difficult, but how to apply the power while retaining the original power train?

Wow - I'd really like to know how this works out. And what skills you needed. Welding?? In addition to electrical of course.

I looked into electric conversions and learned a few things. I started by doing a google search on "EV1" which was GM's EV that they produced and then pulled back and crushed (yup!).

As I recall from my reading most EV (electric vehicle) conversions don't use a tranny at all. Reverse the current flow to go in reverse. Apparently most DC motors really don't care too much what rpm they run at. Well at least not when you put an approprite DC motor into a car to propel it. Saves you plenty weight too, if I'm correct on this.

Yes the brick is heavy but if you don't mind throwing in enough batteries - - it might work out. I suspect you've done more calcs on this than the well intentioned folks below who doubt your success. However I think you might need a bit more battery than what you wrote. My recollection is the motors used are well over 100V, 12x12 might not be enough to get you in the good range. And that was for flyweight cars.

You'll need to create a vacuum for braking and 12V for things like lights and a fan. Not a weekend project but I sure wish I had the guts and skills and time to take it on.


--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, expanded air dam to 7" from ground, forward belly pan reaches oem belly pan, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, quad horns, tach, small clock. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock.

I appreciate your attempt, whether it succeeds or fails. Myself I like the 245 body and if I could get better mileage out of it by dropping in a different engine with the same or better reliability and power (and ran cleaner), I'd consider it.

The weight-power ratio of lead acid battery packs have been the weakness in EVs, but someone has wired together lithium batteries from laptops to produce a racecar . The article appeared in a Popular Science issue a few months ago. His company probably has a web site. I'll have to go digging through back issues.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans in Brampton, Ont.

The Tesla roadster is reviewed in the May07 issue of Popular Science. Google "Tesla Roadster" for more references. $100,000, recharges in 3.5 hours and can beat a 510 hp Lamborghini Gallardo of the line.

Yep, 6,831 laptop (lithium-ion) batteries wired together.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans in Brampton, Ont.

You need a lot of d**n lithiums (lithiae??) to power a car. As mightyep stated, likely 3X the price of lead acid ones. The big boys are trying to figure out how to use lithiums and nickel metal hydrides but I think a driveway mechanic would want lead acid unless he's also an electro chemical engineer.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, expanded air dam to 7" from ground, forward belly pan reaches oem belly pan, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, quad horns, tach, small clock. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock.

I am sure that the brain trust available here can help you a great deal. I have a lot of experience with HV systems but none with the application you are dealing with. I do wish you luck with your project. I really don't understand why you would want to build a limited range, limited use vehicle but that's OK, I don't have to understand, do I? ;-)

The biggest problem with EV has always been limited range. GM has a planned for production EV; it will have an onboard generator. The target range between stops for fuel or recharge is over 600 miles. Good for GM. They claim that the average commuter (less than 40 miles a day) will never cause the generator to come online; a true zero emissions car. But when you need to use the car to travel, you can. If the price is reasonable, I would buy that car.
--
Mr. Shannon DeWolfe -- (I've taken to using Mr. because my name tends to mislead folks on the WWW. I am a 51 year old fat man ;-) -- KD5QBL

Shannon,
I always enjoy your comments.
But re "...a true zero emissions car...", please just keep in mind that there is no such thing* as a "zero emission" (or a 'zero fossil fuel', for that matter) vehicle. It's just a matter of where the emissions are produced or fuel is consumed -- with an electric car you describe, the site of the emissions and burning is the grid's power plant, rather than the car! We're still producing emissions (and using mostly* fossil fuel) that get to the same place, our atmosphere.
Regards,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* unless, of course, you're charging up your car's batteries entirely with a wind turbine, solar panel, etc.

So very true. My faux pas.

And electric vehicles are as dirty as gasoline powered vehicles. When you consider that for now and the foreseeable future better than half of our electrical power comes from coal, electric vehicles consume more "dirty" energy per mile than any other form of locomotion. There just ain't no free lunch.

Batteries are inherently dirty. Lead, nickel, arsenic, lithium, cadmium, mercury, manganese dioxide, potassium hydroxide, etc. One saving grace of a battery is that it can be recycled.

The only reason I would consider owning an electric vehicle (with onboard charger) is economics. If I can commute to work and back on an overnight charge that costs about $2.00 and then drive home (200 miles each way) on $10 worth of gasoline, I am all for it.
--
Mr. Shannon DeWolfe -- (I've taken to using Mr. because my name tends to mislead folks on the WWW. I am a 51 year old fat man ;-) -- KD5QBL

The Thing about electric cars is that the energy is produced in a centralized stationary production plant apposed to many smaller mobile production plants(cars), in thery allowing easier control of the pollution.
Rich

Actually, I feel that we (those of us on the RWD forums) are making a positive contribution to fossil fuel conservation, global pollution, and even mineral resource conservation.

We're extending the life of older cars! Yes, these vehicles pollute more, and aren't quite as fuel saving as new vehicles. But I remember discussing this some time before on this, or maybe the OPINION forum -- their use (instead of a new car) saves on the energy and resources that are spent building a new car!

Think about what goes into a new car! Not only for actually creating the raw materials (mining and extracting the ores, breaking down petroleum for plastics, etc.). Even if metals are recycled, they still have to smelted and repurified and made into newer alloys. All of this takes energy, and creates pollution. And then these things have to transported -- this is not done on the site of the factory. And then the factory has to run and assemble the parts, and the finished products again transported.

Sure, almost everyone blames our older cars for pollution and poor energy consumption, and even the government backs this notion. But the government has another motive, to promote the nation's economy. So they don't want us to conserve our old cars despite the energy savings -- they want us to buy new cars just to boost the GNP, and the hell with the energy (and resources) used up to build the car!

I say, instead of buying a new car with slightly better economy, I've saving more energy by not buying a new car -- i.e., by not becoming part of the market force to drive new car manufacture.

Bottom line: I'm confident that the energy savings comparing a new car to my old car (i.e., the net energy consumed because I am not using a new car) is LESS than the energy consumed (and certainly viz resources, I'm consuming zero resources compared to a new car's build) in the manufacture of a new car.

That's my story, when folks say that using my old car is bad for global energy consumption and pollution.

Comments?

I agree we are recycling perfectly good cars that others have decided to throw away. Lets not forget the financial conservation that goes along with buying an old unwanted car. They are cheap to buy, maintain (especially if you DIY) and get relatively good gas mileage. Let's not forget the state sales tax that you save by buying old cars. With three teenagers these old Volvo's are the only way to stay in budget as far as I am concerned. Dan

2/3 of the energy that a car consumes during its lifetime (not sure how lifetime is defined) is consumed during the manufacturing process.

In other words, when you drive a new car off the lot, 2/3 of the energy it will ever consume has already been consumed.
--
Jonathan Knauer - 94 945Ti - fun!

re: "...2/3 of the energy that a car consumes during its lifetime (not sure how lifetime is defined) is consumed during the manufacturing process...."

This is roughly what I've always thought, intuitively, also. But never had a source or quantifiable amount to cite. If you have such a reference, I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks.

Seems what I said may not be true:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981

The first reply contains a number of links to various studies.
--
Jonathan Knauer - 94 945Ti - fun!

I didn't come forth with all of my specs on this EV car conversion:

1) Motor: After reading a lot on motors, I have decided on the Advanced Electric 9" DC motor. Multiple sources say this is the right motor for me. I am going to keep my standard transmission. I have a source for an adaptor plate to bolt to the manual tranny and the motor mounts to it.

2) I am going to get a controller which "chops" the voltage, where the duty cycle is what controls the speed.

4) It looks like the lead acid batteries are 3x cheaper than the next best batteries, which I believe are nickel metal hydride. My plan, although I am not happy about it, is to start with 12 12V T-1275 batteries from Trojan. They are 80 lbs each and cost about $150 each. The cheapest NiMH batteries I could find are $450 each for the similar 1 kwh/battery. Lithium ion batteries for this application I think will be more than $1k/kwh. I would like to plan for a battery upgrade at some point.

5) The car will not have heat, no ac, no radio. The top speed when run through a simulation is 50 mph and the distance I can go between charges is 50 miles. My thought is if I can do this with a volvo, anyone should be able to do it with any car.

Sounds good!

I've posted here before about an electric car, much like you are proposing, that I drove once while at Penn State. A group of students there build a hybrid vehicle for a DOE sponsored competition, then ""FutureTruck". They had a bunch of batteries, a motor, controller...and an old Pontiac Fiero... sitting around.

It was definitely weighed down by the batteries filling the space under the hood and around the motor in the back. It drove nice, even with a rudementary throttle. Throttle pedal past halfway made the car go, less than half slowed the car, and I never really found the middle, but that would let it freewheel. The engine "braking" was quite effective, so not having power assisted brakes wasn't an issue around town. I didn't even use them. Overall I was very impressed. It was torquey and quick, despite its weight.

Might it be worth finding a non-power assist steering rack? Something to consider. Transmission may not be needed, but it gives you options for gear ratios to play around with and a clutch for when something unforseen happens...

Is there a state inspection in your area? If you haven't already, you should look into what kind of roadblocks you may run into with registering, inspecting and insuring such a vehicle.

Good luck and keep us posted.

--Will
850 / Mini

I'm glad to hear that you did your research. And you know your car's projected limitations, good -- you won't be disappointed.

Would you mind sharing where you'll get your motor-transmission adapter plate? I didn't think there'd be a source for such an uncommon choice as a Volvo transmission?

And don't forget that a big chunk of energy consumption could be your lights! Even if you don't plan to drive at night, if it suddenly/unexpectedly rains, many jurisdictions require you to turn on your lights (e.g., "lights required when using windshield wipers"). My LED conversions for all my parking, taillight, and brake lights (Rolling, "Converting to LED Lamps", March/April 2007, pp 34-5 and 37) will save you some watt-hours, especially if you can comply with parking lights rather than headlights (there's no substitute for headlights yet). If you need headlights, put in the lowest wattage kind you can find -- after all, you won't be "outrunning" any headlight in an electric car.

Keep us informed on your progress -- also, consider keeping a diary/photo record of your project for an eventual article in Rolling.

Good luck.

Hi. Jorrell is right on all counts. Let me share some thoughts.

Re WEIGHT:
Don't worry so much about the weight, as the car is actually lighter than it looks -- only about 3,000 lbs which isn't much for a car of its size. Much of the credit is due to the "unibody" design, where the inner panels (not the fenders, though) provide the torsional rigidity instead of the old-fashioned, heavy frame of, e.g., older domestics.
Besides, unless you do a lot of stop-and-go city traffic, the lack of aerodynamics and other factors (friction in the drive train, disc brakes, etc.)will probably take as big or a bigger toll on your "rolling" energy needs. You can minimize this aerodynamically with skirts and other body modifications, by using low weight synthetics in your rear axle and front hub grease, as well as with tall aspect ratio, narrow tread width tires, those that are made with hard rubber (i.e., promising low wear rate and poor traction, such as an H or even better, an S speed rating), and of course, a high max. inflation pressure so you can pump it up to a high pressure.

Re TRANSMISSION:
This is the one place where Jorrell (rather than made a mistake) simply may have inadvertently implied something that can be misconstrued. When he mentioned the transmission needed to keep the electric motor at its optimum rpm, actually, the highest torque output of an electric motor is at standstill -- torque diminishes rapidly as the electric motor turns faster -- so it might be thought that you're supposed to keep the motor turning fast. But there is a tradeoff, that while higher speeds reduces torque, a faster turning motor reduces amperage (energy consumption) -- so you want a compromise rpm which is generally much, much slower than a gas, or even a diesel, engine.
In many electric cars, a transmission is not even necessary unless the car is expected to cover a wide range of vehicle speeds -- from city traffic to highway speeds -- the latter being something that I expect your home-brewed vehicle will not have a chance in hell of doing unless all you need to do is drive on a highway between two adjacent exits. Don't take offense, but if you can make it work at in-town speeds, you'll have accomplished a lot! Honestly.
So I would keep it simple and start off without a transmission.

ENERGY SOURCE:
Of course, although Jorrell was aghast at the thought of you using lead-acid batteries, certain other kinds that are much more efficient will cost you a fortune, if you can even get them at any price. Other alternatives to lead acid aren't that expensive, though, and are available at a reasonable price, such as gell cell, glass mat, etc., some under the brands commonly seen in car and boating stores, but they aren't really that(!) much better than lead acid. Sure, they hold slightly more power, charge a little faster, are a little safer (maybe a lot safer) in a crash, but they aren't the(!) answer that car companies are waiting for! They're still waiting! Don't get your hopes up in that regard.
Bottom line: there are safer alternatives to lead acid, but they're a little more costly and you should not expect miracles from them.
In any case, a big factor in their long-term cost (re eventual replacement) will be dependent on how you maintain them -- don't treat them like a typical automobile battery (i.e., install and forget it). They'll need t.l.c. regarding their recharging -- you'll have to go with an expensive, multi-bank charger, the kind used on big sailboats for multiple battery banks -- and if you want your batteries to last, these chargers cost a mint! Believe me! I know!
And of course, your total stored power (range) will be limited by the humungous weight of any battery type you use, and the ability of the car's suspension to support that weight.

You may find that the distance you can run will disappoint you (speaking as someone who sees this himself on his electric-powered boat).

The MOTOR:
This is probably the easiest part of the project.
There are various kinds of motors available -- you probably could get a nice one from a shop that rebuilds industrial motors (e.g., elevators). But research the kind you want because there are many choices: DC, AC, and variants of these. They all have different efficiencies in this application.
And it isn't only their output torque that's important, as they all "spin", but it will affect what kinds of controller they'll require, as well as ancillary devices such as an inverter (if you go AC) to add to your costs.
And don't forget they're voltage needs -- high voltage (and with that higher torque) will require more batteries, which will be more costly and heavier.

The CONTROLLER:
How you're planning to control the motor will make probably the biggest difference in how efficiently your car uses its battery power. Case in point: I've got a small boat that I use on a local, small lake (more like a pond) -- I drive it with an electric trolling motor (it's quiet, cheap to operate, etc.), although small (~ 1 hp) -- well, I said the boat was small, didn't I? Sure, I don't have to worry about battery weight, because the hull carries it thanks to buoyancy. I used to have one motor that used an ordinary motor controller -- it regulated power (and the boat's speed) with a variety of resistors, much like the ventilation fan in our own Volvos. Well, with my batteries, 4 deep discharge 6 volt batteries to make a double bank of 12 volts, which weighed, by the way, about 160 lbs total, I could run at about 3 knots for about 3 or 4 hours, maximum; and at slower speeds, there wasn't much improvement, because the resistors wasted what the motor didn't. However, a couple of years ago, I switched to another trolling motor with a different controller, one that regulated, instead of by resistors, by "chopping" the current rapidly. This, I found, almost tripled my running time at slower speeds (around 2 knots). In fact, the slower I ran, the more savings I found -- at maximum speed, there was no savings (because there was no interruption). This is analogous to many modern "trolling motors", by the way.

However, for a car, we're talking about controlling a lot(!) more current, and voltage, than more a mere 12, <1 hp, boat motor. It definitely won't be easy, or at least won't be cheap, to find such an efficient controller for a car's power needs.

You can do almost anything if you have enough money to throw at it (kind of like my bigger boats :-), but do you have enough?

So, before you start this project, you really ought to look into all these (and more) factors first. Do your research, and see if you'll be able to meet your objectives.

Regards,

I think you're crazy. Weight is everything in an EV. Batteries, controllers and wiring have got to cost several thousand dollars. Why put all that money into a car that is inherently unsuited for the conversion and will drastically reduce your range?

I'm a Volvo guy too, but if I was going to build an EV, I'd choose a Volkswagen.
--
Volvo Farmer.

24 Volvos, '58-'91, all RWD

Mike:

You are trying to answer the last question first if you are trying to do an EV conversion. First, how many pounds are your batteries going to add (please tell me your not thinking lead acid), then comes the motor, what type, what weight? What will you do about a gear box to keep the motor running at the max efficiency RPM, perhaps a CVT?

My only advice is to look at previous failures like the Renault "Le Car" electric, it suffered with all of the above plus some.

Yes, Bricks are heavy, but not nearly as heavy as their reputation. If you don't believe me, drive your ride across a truck scale at the local road side rest... you WILL be surprised.

Design an efficient EV storage and drive system first, then tweak it to fit the car, not the other way around. After all, many car companies design the drive train first and then wrap a car around it.

jorrell
--
92 245 250K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently taking names and kicking reputations!

I've been looking into converting a Range Rover to electric. The outcome was negative - I still had to use a transmission to get moving; contrary to what's been posted here, one has to have one in an electric car - because, despite the series wound motor would have torque inversely proportional to the revolution rate, the torque is still limited by electric resistance of the winding and maximum magnetic induction of the core.
The Range Rover was way too heavy for this application - getting reasonable daily mileage meant carrying around unreasonable number of batteries.

Much more viable is hybrid - one can get the very smallest automatic-transmission FWD setup, like a Honda Civic or smaller even, drop a really large alternator, and keep the rear wheels powered by an electric motor. The beauty of that is that this setup will be self-balancing, so one wouldn't have to worry about synchronizing front and rear drive.

Because the torque is so great in a mottor starting off, the heavier the vehicle is the greater a transmission would be needed. A slow turning motor will bull a LOT of current. The transmission most likely only need to be a 2 speed.

For 2 interesting videos of electric dragsters on my local papers web sight.
http://tinyurl.com/2ptn6p
http://tinyurl.com/37f7qk
At 80 MPH he can get the wheels to break from the ground!

Fascinating: two threads on EVs at the same time!

Controllers aren't as expensive as they used to be; they have come down rapidly due to much cheaper chips etc. I want a controller for my 1/4 scale bus (another story), and it will be ~$120 US instead of the $600-700 that they were a couple of years ago.

Then comes the innovation stuff. Mother Earth News published plans for a conversion system, must be 12 years ago. The "chopper" they used for control was a small electric motor driving a wood drum with a brass plate wrapped around it. A brass contactor rode on the drum... well, it was really easy.

The conversion also used a small (10hp?) diesel to run the generator for extended trips. Performance wasn't spectacular, but the fuel mileage sure was.

My Yaris has electric power steering, no problem. An electric vacuum pump with a reserve tank is also no prob.

Innovation is the only way to get this project complete. I already know that there is a few hundred pounds in that Volvo that doesn't need to be there! Removing the cardboard upholstery panels and replacing the card with 1/16 birch ply saves a lot of weight, believe it or not, as does changing the seats, removing insulation (electric motor, right?), taking out ANYTHING that is not required for the operation of the vehicle! My guess is 20% of the weight in that Volvo is unnecessary when you really look at it!