From the link:

"That cost is as little as $3,000, according to a statement on MTSU News, and its viability on such a wide range of vehicles..."

Today, there is a technology demonstrator running in a 1994 Honda Accord Wagon. From this the end retail price can be determined? Really?

The article is full of meaningless buzz phrases.

If by "Succeed" you mean people will purchase them, then, probably, yes. If you are asking if it will deliver as promised, I very seriously doubt it. P.T. Barnum would be very proud of these guys.

This operates all the time as an electric "assist". It's an interesting idea though, especially for around town. I have a 12 mile/day commute, and never take long trips.

Now, if we could fit generators on the front rotors, and run the IC engine on HHO gas, we might have a winner.

I like it...it seems feasible to bring the cost down through volume production or partnering with an aftermarket auto parts manufacturer. You could market it as more power to the rear wheels for rice burners first...they'll get the volume going to make it cheaper for the mainstream short-distance commuter.

I have gone down a few paths in an attempt to convert a '72 Commando to a full electric...but cost is a huge bummer.

What's the big deal, this has been around for over a 100 years...In fact 112 years ago we had more electric cars than gas...

Local charging station.....circa 1910

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2010/10/11/in-photos-edisons-electric-cars-circa-1900/

I'm curious as to how it might affect handling. They add 10-20 lbs. of weight to the rear wheels. That should require a change in shock absorbers (or struts) and maybe even springs.

I'm also not sure what the draw is to plug-in hybrids. It's one thing if you can generate your own power (solar, wind, zero-point energy, Mr. Fusion, etc.) but the grid is not a particularly low cost source of power.

As for this setup, battery assist should improve your fuel mileage, but at the cost of kWH off the grid unless, of course, you generate your own. Twould end up not being much of a gain.

Shock absorbers, maybe. Springs, I don't think so. The weight is not added to the "spring supported" part of the car.

This increases the "unsprung" weight.

You're right there...it would affect the moment of the car inertially, but handling correction could be a simple shock change away. The anti-roll bar is usually built to an extreme and would still be sufficient. The different weights of replacement tires have to be compensated for when the car is built.

I think I would, however, distribute the weight of the batteries and controllers over a larger area. It's convenient to put it all in one place but not optimal.

That's tough to do on existing designs.

In the doors?

That's actually not a bad idea for the batteries if you could keep them low enough. connection could be made with the door closed. Four door rear windows don't go down all of the way anyway, so there should be space there.

Wrong, wrong, wrong....By your reasoning the trunk would be useless and forget carrying any passengers....The grid is the cheapest source for energy for individual use by the population....Generating your own electricity is way more expensive than the grid...

The grid IS cheap IF used efficiently (resistive heaters vs. heat pumps). I can't say I consider storing energy in batteries then using it in a car without regenerative braking efficient.

That begs a question, does this system use regenerative braking? From reading the article it didn't specifically say that and most off the shelf 3-phase brushless motor drivers don't store the braking energy. They burn it up in large resistors.

I googled Dr. Perry & this story. Others are asking that same question. If it's simply power assist, then I can't see it being worth it. He's got an interesting idea.

My comments on adding weight to the wheels is solely about handling and control. In designing a performance suspension, you want to minimize the weight of the wheel assembly so as to improve its ability to react quickly with road features, i.e. bumps, pits, pot holes & the like.

It would be cool to have two of these setups, one for the front and one for the back...400ftlbs of torque on a lightweight aluminum tube frame and carbon fiber body...You couldn't go far, but you could go fast....

This is very interesting as an approach.

How is the braking solved: it looks as if they replaced the brakes with the brushless DC engines.

If this can be certified for your car, there is a certain market for it.

Do you happen to drive less than 100km / day:

remove the engine with gearbox and sell it. (you can even remove the fuel tank)

Mount the weel engines

put the barreries and electronics in the engine compartment.

Off you go, don't forget to hook your car to the house grid every night, you might run in trouble on the highway.

The only issue to solve: heating of the passenger compartment: it used to be done with waste heat from the engine. Now you will have to organise a heat source (extra battery + Phase change storage that is charges when on grid power? , waste heat from the motor drivers)

If they have a product to offer they can contact me.

I agree K Fry, the price of $3,000 is ridiculously low. This is an interesting idea, but I fail to see this incarnation ever gaining any 'traction'....

200 lb-ft of wheel torque (x2) is inadequate for anything other than assisting the ICE (A typical V6 produces 250 lb-ft, which shows up at the drive wheels as 750 lb-ft, even in fifth gear.)

Your point is absolutely correct, and don't forget the torque multiplication (yes, and energy loss too) of the torque converter as well. Regardless of what the actual ratios are, you need to be able to provide huge amounts of torque at low wheel rotation speeds to acheive acceleration suitable for city traffic conditions as well as being able to run at high speeds. AC servomotors alone can do a fantastic job of the first- just look at the forklifts in your nearest warehouse!- but you need both for a decent highway vehicle.