Chrysler Unveils Portal Electric Minivan – 100 kWh Battery & 250 Miles Of Range (w/video)

10 months ago by Eric Loveday 58

Chrysler Portal

Chrysler Portal

Leave it to Chrysler, the minivan pioneer, to come forth with the first long-range, all-electric minivan.

Called Portal and purely a concept for now, this minivan packs a 100 kWh battery pack that’s good for some 250 miles of purely electric driving bliss. It’s front-wheel-drive and features a single electric motor.

Chrysler says that Portal can recharge at a rate of up to 350 kW, which means it can be juiced back up from empty to 150 miles of range in just 20 minutes or so.

Apparently “350 kW” is now the future-tense catch rate for charging, as the Chrysler EV could take full advantage of both the Europe-wide network which begins construction this yearΒ (400+ stations) and also EVgo’s first ever US-based 350 kW station being constructed now.

portal-3

Portal rides on a 118.2-inch wheelbase, which is slightly shorter than the Pacifica, but there’s still room for three-row seating for up to 6 individuals.

Beyond the electric-ness of the minivan, Portal features Level 3 autonomous driving capabilities, which means that the vehicle can fully drive itself in some, but not all, situations. It works in a manner similar to the Tesla currently on roads. The driver must keep monitoring the road and driving environment; a camera mounted on the instrument panel uses facial-recognition software to monitor the driver. If the vehicle determines the driver is not monitoring the road or driving conditions change, it alerts the driver to retake manual control. If the driver does not respond to the alerts, the vehicle will maneuver itself to the side of the road and come to a safe stop.

portal-4

Since this minivan is to be shown at CES 2017, it’s a bit on the radical as you’d expect. However, it’s not so out there as to dismiss it for production in the future. Toned down a bit, this van could certainly be a winner if Chrysler ever chooses to release it to the public. Chrysler’s official statement is that Portal isΒ “next generation family transportation designed by millennials for millennials.” So, perhaps there’s hope after all.

We’ll have more on Portal when it get revealed in full CES 2017.

portal-2

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

58 responses to "Chrysler Unveils Portal Electric Minivan – 100 kWh Battery & 250 Miles Of Range (w/video)"

  1. DangerHV says:

    Makin’ EV progress! Make it available nationwide by 2020, for under $45,000 msrp , and you’ve got a winner Chrysler!

    1. Ambulator says:

      At $60,000 they would have a winner. I don’t know if they can make it that cheap, though.

      1. przemo_li says:

        This is automotive version of “click bait”…

        It for example have totally illegal cameras instead of mirrors!

        So pipe it down. There is no winner here. This render will not reach production.

  2. Mister G says:

    Looks like a Kia Soul.

    1. bro1999 says:

      That was my first take….a really BIG looking hatchback.

      I wonder how much of a concept it is….like the Bolt concept (basically ready for production) or a concept that will never see the light of day.

      1. Alonso Perez says:

        With those doors and roof? Never see the light of day.

        I like it by the way, so that’s unfortunate. I never got why people started hating minivans. I think it was just successful marketing by SUV sellers catering to male insecurities…

        1. Rightofthepeople says:

          Why is it that just because a man wants a vehicle that looks a bit more masculine (and less “mommy mobile” looking than a van) it means he has male insecurities? Isn’t it possible to simply have a different preference for something without being insecure?

          1. Nemo says:

            In this case? I’d say no. The very idea of a car being “masculine” (or not) is silly.

            If you need a big truck, for actual work, that’s one thing. But if you just want a certain vehicle because you think it looks “masculine”, then you look like a fool to me.

            One time, a man pulled up next to me at Radio Shack in an enormous (empty) Ford pickup, and got out smoking a giant cigar, wearing a cowboy hat. I laughed out loud.

          2. wavelet says:

            I’m not in the US. When I came to study there in the early 1990s and saw my first SUVs, I couldn’t believe it at first — someone had taken the large toy truck-cars with exaggerated outlines 3-year-old boys love and constructed them as actual, large, vehicles.

            That in itself would be just funny. However, the environmental damage these vehicles cause, esp. when driven by a single person, is huge (not just the gas they use… The polluitom, energy and materials they use up to be made, the space they take on roads & parking, the damage they do to smaller vehicles/pedestrians/cyclist). As long as none of that is externalized, I don’t people should have the right to drive them.

          3. Alonso Perez says:

            Cars are a bit like clothing and so I recognize that, to a point, the identity of a car can express the gender of the owner.

            Unfortunately what people have been trained to associate with “masculine” has the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick. So if “masculine” = stupid, then sure, whatever. All the early SUVs were built on truck frames, so it was hard to make them aerodynamic. It was easier to create tack on the “macho = brick” aesthetic, and now we are stuck with it.

            I think a vehicle can be aerodynamic and quite stunning at the same time. It just takes more work, more design. You don’t think a Learjet is a “mommy plane” do you?

        2. AlphaEdge says:

          Why don’t you wear a pink dress.

          1. Cerio says:

            You seriously compare a car to clothes? That’s sad.

            1. Jeff says:

              You may not like the comparison, but it is accurate. Cars like clothes are often chosen to express the buyer’s wealth, style,ideals and even sexuality. It’s why there are so many different models available, and so many combinations of options.

        3. All-Purpose Guru says:

          As a proud owner of a minivan I can tell you that a vehicle with 16 cup holders and seemingly-infinite reconfiguration options behind the driver’s seat is designed for a DUDE.

      2. BartV83 says:

        I just drove a soul EV for the weekend and I must say I see little resemblance… The Soul doesn’t have the possibility for third row, is way more compact and ‘boxy’,…
        I do like the doors of this concept, way better than the (in my humble opinion πŸ˜‰ ) impracticable doors of the i3 (or the model X, but I should not judge before trying one of those, and I couldn’t afford one anyway).

        I like this car, perfect family car or surf van πŸ™‚

  3. apkungen says:

    “150 miles of range in just 20 minutes or so” is far from 350kW. It is an average power of around 180kW. Hopefully 100 miles will be a lot fastar to charge up, say 10 min or so.

    1. przemo_li says:

      At 350kWh there will be significant tapper off.

      Well, all cars and charging standards support tapper off. That’s a safety feature even if car can take max charge rate for the duration of charging…

  4. jimijonjack says:

    100 KWH battery & 0nly 250 mile range ? this thing must weigh 7000+Lbs.. How does Tesla Get 310 +plus miles with a 100kWh battery..

    1. bro1999 says:

      Teslas are aerodynamically sleek.

      This think is a brick in comparison.

      1. Sublime says:

        The most aerodynamic shape is a water droplet. Anything that is not a water droplet is making compromises. Most of these compromises are required in order to make the car useful. Needing wheels for instance πŸ™‚
        I think Chrylser did a really good job of staying close to that basic water droplet form, while still incorporating elements we expect to see in a car, like a defined break between the windshield and the hood and a grill. Tesla works on the other end of that spectrum, where they try very hard to make their cars look traditional, while sacrificing little to aero losses. Both are great designs, with different goals and compromises.

      2. speculawyer says:

        Gotta put it in a wind tunnel for the real results but I suspect that rear end creates a pretty big vacuum that hurts things.

    2. 2013VOLT says:

      Especially considering how inefficient the Tesla is.

    3. John Hansen says:

      The Model X is a closer comparison. It gets 289 miles, and still isn’t as big as this, so 250 seems reasonable.

      1. Vexar says:

        Model X has seating for seven, six or five, so it seemed plenty roomy to me.

        1. John Hansen says:

          My Chevy Volt seems “plenty roomy to me”, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. The point I was making was that bigger cars use more energy, and the Pacifica is a bigger car than the Model X. The Pacifica of 197.3 cubic feet of interior space, while the Model X has 120 cubic feet. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the Pacifica uses more energy. Whether or not a smaller car is sufficient for your needs is immaterial.

          1. Jeff says:

            So your comment is both irrelevant and immaterial.

    4. Alan says:

      This is a minivan, not a skateboard !

      How much does the model X SUV get for a 100kWh battery 289 ?

      1. przemo_li says:

        Do not know why people jump to the conversation with actual EPA ranges.

        This is GFX render of a car, that while showcasing some good innovations…. is NOT real. Car OEM can not know real EPA for it, so comparison to real EPA is pure delusion (real street legal car WILL have better or worse EPA range then what is claimed here).

  5. apkungen says:

    Will be perfect fo autonomous taxi/bus in the future but how many people will actually buy this?

    1. jelloslug says:

      Depending on the price, lots and lots and lots of people.

  6. Michael Will says:

    But why no dual motor ?

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Because they don’t have a system ready?

      But it’s a concept. I’ll only care when I have a direct quote of the intent to release and the target year.

  7. jim stack says:

    QUOTE=if Chrysler ever chooses to release it to the public.
    =So Dreams are hard to buy and drive.

  8. Cavaron says:

    350kW – is that a childrens toy?

    If the big carmakers would just bring 10% of their EV Concepts to market, we would have 5% morketshare or more by now.

  9. pjwood1 says:

    I love this idea but will enough lost brand loyalties and conquests happen to make the (high dollar?) Chrysler a success?

  10. Doug B says:

    Nice! just put a second motor for AWD and this would be awesome.
    Unlike the X, looks to have plenty of headroom in far back.

  11. G2 says:

    Build it.

  12. Chris O says:

    Fairly modest range claim for such a big battery. Is 250 miles really all a car like that would get from a 100KWh battery? At least it can be recharged pretty quick, it’s amazing how the next step after 50KW charging appears to be 350KW rather than 150KW.

    1. przemo_li says:

      1) Battery pack capacities more then triple.
      2) Tesla already have 135kWh.
      3) Charge rates is easy number with real meaning that can be boasted about.

      Hence everybody wants as big a number as possible (for a given price tag).

      So I do think that there will be cheaper cars that will be limited to 150kWh after all.

  13. Sublime says:

    When you think of the model x, you think of cool doors and big driver info screens. I think Chrysler beat Tesla in both those elements on this concept. That screen looks like it’s part of the car and not an LCD pulled off a laptop and fiberglassed into the dash.

  14. Lou Grinzo says:

    I think nearly all car companies are struggling with their EV strategies right now. I’d guess they all see the handwriting on the wall, and know that they’ll have to “go electric” with a sizable portion of their lineup soon, even if only because of competitive pressure and not regulations.

    But when to leap into the fray is an immense question. Wait too long for cheaper batteries, and you risk falling way behind market leaders. Leap in too early on a large scale and you risk having angry customers (plummeting resale plus newer models being both better and cheaper).

    Therefore, I expect we’ll see a lot more non-announcements like the Portal as companies try to look like they’re on the leading edge without taking on an uncomfortable level of risk.

  15. Brett says:

    Wow, the end of the, “Our family has two kids, we need a van.”, excuse for not buying an EV. πŸ˜‰

  16. Marc says:

    Absolutely ugly… but I want it. Price it lower than 65k and you’ve got a deal.

    1. Rightofthepeople says:

      Under $65k? Better be under $45k and preferably under $40k. Who on earth would pay $65k for a minivan?

  17. unlucky says:

    Looks like the BMW i3 concept with some cladding attached.

  18. mustang_sallad says:

    I think the Porsche Mission-E is the only other concept that’s been unveiled so far with 350kW charging capability. This would require a 800V+ battery. Hopefully we’ll see more like this soon from other manufacturers, including Tesla.

  19. PHEVfan says:

    Steering looks like a gaming console, not for driving a vehicle. Definitely a concept there.
    Outside is fairly good looking, though.

  20. SJC says:

    This is just a concept obviously. You could make the front 3 seats, no need for a console. Then you have a 6 passenger van with two row seating.

    1. DJ says:

      And storage in the rear. What kind of minivan is built to only haul 6 people around and no gear!?!?!?

      Apparently millennials don’t have gear.

      1. SJC says:

        6 around town, 4 on the highway.

  21. speculawyer says:

    Meh. Obviously a concept that will never be built & sold.

    Given Sergio’s attitude toward EVs and Chrysler’s abilities right now, I seriously doubt we will see a toned down version being built either in the next few years.

  22. Bacardi says:

    Why a ground up “mini van”? Why not add this new powertrain/battery tech and autonomous features to the existing Pacific “hybrid”?

    Technically a regular full size van, which is often used in commercial applications is a far more popular segment than a minivan…

    If you want to build something from the ground up it should be an AWD SUV…

  23. Kdawg says:

    So what do we call these doors? Star Trek doors?

    1. Sublime says:

      Flasher doors

    2. Trollnonymous says:

      “Guillotine”

  24. Trollnonymous says:

    The concept is ugly. I’ll wait till the prod intent is shown.
    I’m not above driving an EV Minivan. Minivans hold more than an SUV.

  25. Rich says:

    I’m not a Chrysler fan … quite the opposite. However, this EV is great! 250 electric miles on a vehicle this large. Great utility with the doors, fold flat seats, 350 kW charging, and larger platform. The only think I didn’t like is the glass at the bottom of the doors.

    Now, for Chrysler to commit to a delivery date and price. Don’t wait for autonomous drive to deliver.

  26. JyBicycleOrTesla says:

    LG is probably making the battery, battery management, drivetrain, and entertainment system.