I think that depends. If they're quoting just the battery or the battery and IPU in their figure. If so, then battery weight wouldn't double since two IPUs aren't needed. Still, my thoughts of "two pounds of battery per HP" seems fundamentally sound, if not a little high.
I don't think that you can count the weight of the motors as 'heavily' (no pun) as you are. We know they were going to do some kind of AWD with torque vectoring. The purely mechanical SH-AWD system has/had it's own weight penalty AND presented additional drivetrain losses as well. So, while it's a purely academic exercise at this time, we're really looking at the difference in weight (excluding batteries) between Mechanical AWD and Electrical AWD. I suspect it's a wash once you add in the driveshaft and three differentials. This of course brings us to the next question of whether it should be AWD at all, but that's a discussion for another thread.
I see what you are saying. If we start with the assumption that the car will be AWD, the weight and complexity of the hybrid approach is offset by it's simplicity and weight savings over a conventional AWD.
What I have not been convinced of however is whether I need/want AWD in my next NSX. So far the SH-AWD implementations, while innovative, have not set the industry on fire as a "must have" feature. But coupling it with microprocessor controlled electric motors might well set some kind of new benchmark. Then it is just a matter of now much additional power reserve you desire for added acceleration and that is where your 2 pounds per HP comes from. I think I understand now, very good!
I had not seen this explanation in C&D before, but it definately makes your point http://blog.caranddriver.com/acuras...l-power-the-rear-wheels-with-electric-motors/
Last edited: