I like the project for both being inventive and unique. As far as "wasting" a car, have we really gotten to the point where anything's irreversible? Hell, with enough determination and stupidity, my '67 Barracuda could be fixed.
As far as the batteries, I'm thinking budgetary constraints were the idea behind using those 6V deep-cycle golf-cart batteries (and I think he got hosed on those... $117 each?!). Even stepping up to AGMs would have been about 50% more. I will say that I think he'll have more range than he thinks he will, but not by a huge margin.
I agree with 69.5 about it needing to be a manual, as well, but disagree as to the saltine-cracker-and-papier-mache Dakota transmission. Those are notoriously weak particularly to shock loads (pardon the pun), and an electric motor makes peak torque at zero RPM. The Dakota manuals are easily blown up with factory 2.2L if you try to have any car-abuse-type fun with them. Even a T5 would be a better choice, as they're made out of Wheat Thins and spit.
The cool thing about the electric motor is that because of the flat torque curve, you can run a pretty-wide ratio spread and still have an enjoyable ride, so if you're not going to do burnouts or powershifts with it anymore, either the Dakota trans or any wide-ratio trans (like an A833OD) would be suitable.
As to the reasoning behind the project?
Well, if he's doing it to be different, he has my respect and applause.
If he's just doing it to save money at the pump, he's already lost the fight. He'll radically alter his other expenses charging that thing. I hesitate to say he'll ever save much if any, even after he's driven far enough to have saved 12 grand on gasoline. Leave your oven on at 400 degrees for four hours a day for a month, and report back to me on your electric bill. Ask me how I know this. Seriously--I have experience in this area. Oh, and even at $4/gallon, $12,000 buys a lot of gasoline. If you amortize that cost and the increased home utilities, he likely won't live long enough to appreciate his "savings", and he's reduced the fun-to-drive quotient by at least 66% by taking out a bunch of power. However, the fun-to-explain-to-people factor has definitely gone up. Conversely, I will say this: though I really enjoyed explaining to people the $6000 engine in my $200 '72 Charger, I took a lot more gratification from driving and beating the tar out of it.
If he's doing it to "be green", then he's a fool. Everyone talks about the carbonless car, and zero-emissions "footprints" without taking into consideration that something like 80% of North America's electric power is generated by fossil fuels... so while he won't be belching CO2 out the tailpipe, some powerplant will be doing so in his stead, and likely at a similar if not higher rate than the car burning gasoline. I know, I know... coal-fired plants are cleaner all the time, and a huge improvement over what they were even five years ago. They're still not as clean at the same energy produced as any 2004 non-hybrid gasoline production car... and that's before the energy they must generate to power a 4,000lb car the same distance as gasoline travels through potentially hundreds of miles of transmission wire, countless transformers, etc, just to get to the outlet into which the charger is plugged.
Then again, maybe he's got a windmill or water-wheel generator in his back yard.
In the '50s, there was a push at GM to build viable electric cars. In the engineering department, where these morose engineers were forced to try and make it happen, there hung a sign: "Electric cars: Faster, farther, cheaper. Pick any two." It still applies today, and what the greenies claim is a solution is nothing more than a diversion.
I do not claim to know the answer, but I can tell you that at this point, neither electricity nor ethanol are the solution (even the green team has abandoned corn fuel for economic and environmental-impact reasons).
