Home News New ePropulsion E163 and E60 batteries

New ePropulsion E163 and E60 batteries

New ePropulsion E60 and E163 batteries
New ePropulsion E60 and E163 batteries

The China based company, ePropulsion, have released a new generation of their batteries for mainly their electric outboards, the Navy 3.0 Evo and Navy 6.0 Evo engines.

Both batteries are a new design, compared to the older ePropulsion E40, E80 and E175 batteries. So far both the E80 and E175 batteries will still be available. But it seems like the E40 battery will be retired. 

The new batteries are a welcome change. The older E40/E80 and E175 batteries are in our opinion not really “marine ready”. They look more like fast modified rack-mount BYD or Pylontech batteries with a slight water proofing and some extra electronics. 

ePropulsion E60 & E163 overview

Compared to the older batteries, the new generation is built in rounded plastic but finally IP67 waterproof. They also have the connectors on top vs on the side which is much better. The batteries have also gained a display on top to show state of charge and consumption. 

A top protection cover with transparent display area, would be a welcome accessory though. 

The new design is much more suitable for RIB’s or similar. Now we just need a new design for the E80/E175 making them true marine batteries.

ePropulsion Batteries, E40, E60, E80, E163, E175
ePropulsion Batteries, E40, E60, E80, E163, E175

The E60 battery weighs in at 33 kg and is only 300mm tall – making it easy to fit under a seat or similar. Sadly, it is only 3kWh of capacity – which then paired with the Pod 3.0 gives a LOT less range than the old E80 battery. But it can drive the Navi 3.0 Evo.  

The E163 battery weigh in at 76 kg but contains about 8.3kWh of energy but is 495mm tall. 76 kg is not easy to lug around – so that would probably be best for “permanent mount” situations. 

Both new batteries are rated to 3000 cycles to 80% DoD (Depth of Discharge). That normally means the batteries will retain up to 80% of their capacity after having done 3000 cycles, but only if all your discharge cycles are less than 80% of nominated capacity. So, for a 3-kWh battery that would be 2.4 kWh and for the 8.3 kWh our it would be roughly 6.6 kWh. If you discharge BELOW the 80% the battery will not last as long or retain as much charge after 3000 cycles.

For comparison the Torqeedo Power 48-5000 battery (5 kWh) weigh 37 kg each – so 2 of them would be 74kg so about the same as one E163 battery but supply total of 10 kWh of energy. So Torqeedo energy density per kg is better than ePropulsion. 

Caution(s) and recommendations:

Most range calculation we have seen from both Torqeedo and ePropulsion – seems to be based on 100% Depth of Discharge (DoD) and NOT the 80% DoD that gives you better battery longevity. So, for optimum battery longevity, subtract 20% from all quoted figures from both companies. The only difference we have seen is Torqeedo’s Power 24-3500 battery – where it is quoted based on 100% DoD but will only do 800 full cycles – and will then have lost 25% of its capacity. 

Apart from that both Torqeedo and ePropulsion tend to give range in Statute miles or km.  But can we please include Nautical Miles when providing range speciation’s please? Only US Lakes and river boaters use Statute Miles. Most salt water marine people are used to knots and nautical miles. 

We do also need the warranty to be increased. Giving 2-year warranty on such expensive batteries is petty. Small outboards have 4–7-year full warranty and costs 1/3 or less of a full ePropulsion setup. 

There is NO reason at all why ePropulsion and Torqeedo should not match the longer warranties on both engine and batteries – just like the “on the road” competitors do. Battery powered engines are so much simpler than fossil fuel-based ones – and should have a lot longer warranty. 

Link to: ePropulsion E60 and E163 Press release

Subscribe to updates on Twitter – our Electric Pod Driver overview article is close! Comparing all Pod drive offerings from Torqeedo and ePropulsion

Leave a Reply