Motoconmutadores eléctricos vs de gasolina: una comparación basada en especificaciones para importadores

Todo importador que construya un programa de motos para trayectos urbanos se enfrenta eventualmente al mismo dilema: mantener en stock eléctrico, mantener en stock de gasolina o mantener ambos. El debate suele conducirse con eslóganes —“el eléctrico es el futuro”, “la gasolina es lo que el mercado confía”— y los eslóganes no sobreviven al contacto con un plan de contenedor. Lo que sí sobrevive es la hoja de especificaciones.

Esta comparación utiliza cifras publicadas de cuatro modelos reales de la gama urbana de Zukida: dos eléctricos y dos de gasolina. Cada número citado a continuación proviene de esas hojas, y allí donde una conclusión se deriva y no se afirma, se deriva mediante un cálculo aritmético que puede verificar.

La comparación comienza con el ciclo de servicio, no con el combustible

Antes de comparar los trenes motrices, defina el trabajo. La propia posicionamiento de Zukida para la gama urbana eléctrica es explícito: el E-Bike CG y el E-Bike GN se describen como construidos para flotas de última milla y servicio de bajo ruido. Sus notas de producto nombran a África, Oriente Medio y Sudamérica como los mercados donde se han convertido en modelos clásicos. La gama urbana de gasolina —la AX100 y la ARCH— se describe en términos similares como clásica en África y América Latina, pero sin el enfoque de bajo ruido y última milla.

Esa diferencia es el argumento entero en miniatura. Las motos urbanas eléctricas ganan donde las rutas son cortas, predecibles y vuelven a un punto de carga conocido: flotas de reparto, servicio en campus y municipal, trabajo de mensajería urbana, comunidades cerradas. Las motos urbanas de gasolina ganan donde la ruta es larga, el terreno es desconocido y el repostaje debe ser posible en cualquier lugar donde se venda un bidón de combustible. Un comprador que mantenga en stock eléctrico para una red de distribución rural no está apostando por la tecnología; está cometiendo un error sobre infraestructura.

Potencia y velocidad: Lo que las hojas de especificaciones dicen realmente

Coloque los cuatro modelos lado a lado y la primera sorpresa es cuán cercanos están en el rendimiento principal.

Lea esa tabla cuidadosamente, porque desmonta dos supuestos a la vez. Primero, los modelos eléctricos no son lentos en comparación con los modelos de gasolina de entrada —70 km/h frente a 85 y 90 km/h es una brecha que la mayoría de los ciclos de servicio urbanos nunca revelarán—. Segundo, y más útil para las ventas, los modelos eléctricos publican una cifra de par máximo de 160 N, que es el número que gobierna cómo una moto cargada arranca desde un punto fijo o asciende una pendiente. La escalabilidad publicada para ambos modelos eléctricos es ≥25°. Para el trabajo de reparto con paradas y arranques frecuentes, esa característica de arranque importa más que la velocidad máxima.

También conviene anotar las opciones de potencia nominal: ambos modelos eléctricos se listan con opciones de 1500 W, 2000 W, 3000 W, 4000 W y 5000 W a 72 V nominales, con un motor de 72 V 35H 2000 W y un controlador de 72 V 80 A de tres velocidades con marcha atrás y punto muerto. En la práctica, esto significa que una sola plataforma puede especificarse para varias clases de potencia regulatorias o de clientes sin reingeniería del vehículo completo, lo cual es valioso si su mercado limita la potencia según la categoría de licencia.

Energía: 6.2 horas de carga frente a 2.2 litros por 100 kilómetros

Aquí es donde las dos tecnologías divergen genuinamente y donde las fichas técnicas son más útiles.

Los modelos eléctricos publican un alcance máximo de 90–120 km, un tiempo de carga de 6.2 horas, una batería de litio ternaria a 72 V 30–50 Ah (opciones) y un cargador que acepta CA 220 V o 110 V. La salida del cargador de la CG está listada como CC 84.2 V 3 A; la de la GN, como CC 84 V 8 A. Ambas ofrecen dos modos de conducción, Confort y Deporte, que es cómo un operador intercambia alcance por rendimiento.

The gasoline models publish fuel consumption instead: 2.2 L per 100 km for the 98 cc AX100 and ≤2.8 L per 100 km for the ARCH125/150. The AX100 carries a 12-litre fuel tank. Doing the arithmetic on those published figures, a 12-litre tank at 2.2 L/100 km implies roughly 500 km of theoretical range before refuelling — against 90–120 km before a 6.2-hour recharge.

That is the honest trade. Electric wins decisively on energy cost per kilometre and on noise. Gasoline wins on refuelling time and on range per stop, by a factor of roughly four to five on paper. If your customers ride all day and cannot park for six hours, the specification sheet has already told you the answer — you do not need a pilot programme to find out.

Battery Life: Treat It as a Consumable With a Published Number

The most common commercial mistake in electric two-wheeler importing is failing to price the battery replacement. Zukida’s sheets are unusually direct about it: cycle life is listed as 500 charging cycles at 3C discharge, for a lithium ternary pack offered at 72 V 30–50 Ah.

Multiply that published cycle life by the published maximum range and you get a rough lifetime distance in the region of 45,000 to 60,000 km, depending on how the pack is treated and which capacity is fitted. That is not a warranty claim — it is arithmetic on two published numbers, and real-world results will vary with heat, load, discharge rate and charging discipline. But it is enough to structure a commercial conversation: for a fleet covering 100 km a day, 500 cycles is on the order of a year to a year and a half of service before the pack becomes the dominant operating cost.

Three practical consequences follow. First, quote the battery separately from the vehicle so replacement pricing is visible from day one. Second, ask about battery-as-service or replacement-cycle terms before you commit to a fleet tender — Zukida’s own product notes state that container quantities, mixed-fleet orders and battery-as-service configurations can be discussed. Third, specify charger voltage for your market up front; the sheets list AC 220 V with 110 V as an option, which is exactly the kind of field that causes expensive rework if nobody asks.

Container Economics: SKD and CKD Change the Answer

Landed cost per unit is decided by how many units fit in a container, and here the two powertrains are closer than expected while the packing method matters enormously.

• E-Bike CG: 132 units per 40ft HQ.
• E-Bike GN: 105 units per 40ft HQ, SKD packing.
• AX100: 144 units per 40ft HQ in SKD double packing, or 244 sets in CKD.
• ARCH125/150: 105 units SKD, or 175 units CKD per 40ft HQ.

The jump from SKD to CKD is the largest single lever on landed cost in this comparison: the AX100 goes from 144 units to 244 sets, and the ARCH from 105 to 175. If your market has local assembly capacity, or a tariff structure that favours knockdown kits, the packing decision may matter more to your margin than the powertrain decision. Our separate discussion of CBU, CKD and SKD import structures covers that choice in detail.

Note also that the two electric models differ by 27 units per container (132 versus 105) despite near-identical powertrains — a function of body dimensions, listed at 2000 × 760 × 1080 mm for the CG and 2000 × 690 × 1050 mm for the GN. Small dimensional differences scale into real freight differences at forty-container volumes.

Choosing by Market, and Building a Mixed Order

The published market notes are a useful starting point, and they overlap in an informative way: electric is named for Africa, the Middle East and South America; gasoline for Africa and Latin America. Africa appears on both lists, which is the realistic picture — most large markets are not single-technology bets.

A sensible stocking logic follows from the specifications rather than from ideology:

1. Urban delivery and municipal fleets with fixed depots and overnight parking: lead with electric. The 90–120 km range and 6.2-hour charge fit an overnight cycle; the 160 N torque and ≥25° gradeability handle loaded stop-start work.
2. Rural and inter-city transport where fuel is available and charging is not: lead with gasoline. The AX100’s 12-litre tank and 2.2 L/100 km figure, or the ARCH’s ≤2.8 L/100 km with ≥90 km/h, match long unpredictable routes.
3. Regulated urban markets with noise or emissions rules in city centres: electric, and confirm which of the 1500–5000 W rated options your licensing category permits.
4. Markets with local assembly or tariff advantages: quote both powertrains in CKD — 244 sets for the AX100, 175 units for the ARCH — and let the packing method carry the margin.
5. First-time importers: start mixed. A container split across the E-Bike CG and a gasoline model such as the ARCH125/150 lets your dealers discover the demand split with their own customers instead of your assumptions.

The mechanical specification detail also deserves a look before you commit. The AX100 runs a two-stroke 98 cc engine with kick start and drum brakes as standard (disc/drum as an option), which keeps purchase price competitive and servicing simple in markets where two-stroke expertise is widespread. The ARCH is four-stroke with electric and kick start, alloy wheels and disc/drum brakes, at 122 kg dry. Those are different ownership propositions in different service networks, not just different engines.

Preguntas Frecuentes

How far can the electric commuter actually go?

The published maximum range for both the E-Bike CG and E-Bike GN is 90–120 km, with an eco speed band of 50–55 km/h and a maximum of 70 km/h. Real range depends on load, terrain and ride mode — both models offer Comfort and Sport modes — so for route-specific figures, send the duty cycle to the factory rather than relying on the headline number.

How long does charging take, and what supply is needed?

Charging time is listed at 6.2 hours. The charger accepts AC 220 V with 110 V as an option, and outputs DC 84.2 V 3 A on the CG and DC 84 V 8 A on the GN. Confirm your market’s supply voltage when ordering; the sheets list both, but the default configuration is the one that ships.

How long does the battery last?

Cycle life is published as 500 charging cycles at 3C discharge for the lithium ternary pack, offered at 72 V 30–50 Ah. Against the published 90–120 km range that implies a lifetime distance in the region of 45,000–60,000 km by simple multiplication, though real results vary with heat, load and charging practice. Price the replacement pack into any fleet tender from the start.

Which packs better into a container?

Gasoline, slightly, and CKD dramatically. Per 40ft HQ: AX100 at 144 units SKD double packing or 244 sets CKD; ARCH125/150 at 105 SKD or 175 CKD; E-Bike CG at 132 units; E-Bike GN at 105 units SKD. The SKD-to-CKD jump is the bigger lever on landed cost than the powertrain choice.

Are the electric models underpowered for commercial use?

On published figures, no. Both carry a 72 V 2000 W motor with rated power options from 1500 W to 5000 W, a maximum torque of 160 N, gradeability of ≥25° and a top speed of 70 km/h. That is competitive with entry-level gasoline commuters for urban work, and the torque figure is what matters for loaded pull-away.

Conclusion: Let the Route Decide

There is no universal winner here, and the specifications make that clear rather than obscuring it. Electric commuters offer 160 N of torque, ≥25° gradeability, 90–120 km of range and a fraction of the energy cost, at the price of 6.2 hours per charge and a published 500-cycle battery that must be budgeted as a consumable. Gasoline commuters offer roughly four to five times the range per stop on published figures, five-minute refuelling, and CKD packing that puts 244 AX100 sets into a 40ft HQ.

The right answer is the one your customers’ routes dictate: electric for depot-based urban fleets, gasoline for long and unpredictable rural work, and a mixed first order wherever you are not yet sure. For the full mechanical breakdown of the 98 cc option, see the AX100 specification, and for the electric platform, the CG de bicicleta eléctrica sheet carries the complete electrical table.