Slashdot Mirror

Obviously I have not sat in one as its not available to general public yet

What market are you in? Kona Electric has been out in Europe for quite a while.

Obviously I have not sat in one as its not available to general public yet but all reviewers have given it much better reviews than Model 3 as far as internal space is concerned.

Name one. I've been in in both. It's not even close.

The SUV movement in the US is more about a high driving position

No, a SUV is a large vehicle built on a truck frame. A CUV is a vehicle have a SUV-like form factor, but of any size (large or small) and with unibody construction.

I'm warning you for your own good: if you're waiting for the Kona because you're expecting it to be some "SUV", you're going to be seriously disappointed. This is the back seat.. Here's the size of the vehicle compared to a person. That doesn't mean "don't get the car". As far as non-Tesla EVs go, there's nothing "wrong" with it. But it's not an "SUV". Keep your expectations in check.

(Model 3, by contrast, is much larger inside than most people expect, particularly in the front).

BTW: If you're looking for an EV like the Kona (aka non-Tesla) whose back seat isn't cramped, I'd recommend the Kia Niro. Its front and trunk are pretty similar in size to the Kona, but its rear seat is much larger. Hyundai and Kia have a manufacturing partnership, so their vehicle lines are pretty similar.

Ok.
P90D Model X does 3.3 secs and P100D Model X does 2.9 secs.

Top of the line stang does 0-60 in just under 4.0 secs. So no. Not even close
Demon does 2.3-2.6 (while model S, the better comparison, does 1.9). So yes, a top-of-the-line ICE muscle car finally beats the fastest SUV. Barely.
SLG does 3.3 sec, which means it beats P90D, but loses to P100D

And the Model S is faster and outhandles all of those that you mentioned.
I will be curious to find out how the Model 3 does in terms of handling vs. others. So far, handling on the track is one of its big points.

The last time a car manufacturer tried its luck too much on the stock exchange (earning there intermittently more than from its production) it ended up being bought up by a competitor. Someone still remembers Porsche 'buying' Volkswagen?
This also included 'interesting' communication of the CEO to the market. Maybe Musks wants to step into Wiedekind's steps?

Don't mix up "bucking traditional style trends in order to be deliberately unusual" (for example, Prius Prime) with "bucking traditional style trends because it matters for aerodynamics" (such as aero wheels, grilleless designs, greater rear taper, shallower windshield rake, etc). The former is for people who want to shout to other drivers, "HEY, I'M DRIVING A GREEN CAR!!!", while the latter is simply physics and economics - lower energy consumption means smaller battery packs / less weight / less cost (or instead, longer range), fewer cycles at lower DoD on the packs, less cost to charge, faster charging from a given power source, etc, etc. It basically gives you a better, cheaper car.

Style trends change. Sometimes manufacturers buck style trends to stand out - with the Prius Prime, for example, there's nothing about having your rear end look like it was stepped on by a giant that helps your efficiency. But more often, they do so because it offers serious potential benefits. The latter slowly tends to become mainstream over time. "Back in the day", cars that didn't look like carriages were seen as weird. Raked, windshields (let alone curved ones)? Headlights -embedded- in the hood? A curved hood? Any taper whatsoever? Bumpers? On and on the list goes - all used to be seen as "fugly". As weirdmobiles. But they won out because they offered very real advantages, and people's style expectations changed accordingly as that's what they got used to seeing.

I dunno, but it sounds like this:'

http://www.freesound.org/people/lonemonk/sounds/123686/

Oh, yeah, it's the fuel pump:

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/cling-clanger-automotive-diagnostic-app/

There are as many, if not more, businesses than there have ever been before.

I would like to see your source for that observation. Not as a challenge, but because it would provide a welcomed counterbalance to the consolidation I'm seeing in finance as of the past few decades.

Look at Gibson Guitar Corporation. Per this wikipedia article, the global sales of guitars began to decline, so they marshalled their resources and diversified by acquiring a bunch of other companies.

Gibson purchased Garrison Guitars in 2007.[21] In mid 2009 Gibson reduced its work force to adjust for a decline in guitar industry sales in the United States.[22] In 2011, Gibson acquired the Stanton Group, including Cerwin Vega, KRK Systems and Stanton DJ. Gibson then formed a new division, Gibson Pro Audio, which will deliver professional grade audio items, including headphones, loudspeakers and DJ equipment.[23] Gibson announced a partnership with the Japanese-based Onkyo Corporation in 2012. Onkyo, known for audio equipment and home theater systems, became part of the Gibson Pro Audio division.[24]

Every year, I see fewer and fewer independent companies out there. Especially in auto manufacturers. Other than Tesla, not a lot of new companies bringing cars to market. Instead, all the smaller companies are bought out by bigger companies. Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Fiat / Chrysler, which owns a bunch of smaller car brands, is always trying to get more consolidation going in the auto industry.

Another example happened back in the late 2000s when Porsche attempted a hostile buyout of VW, and got too strung out in debt in the attempt and then VW turned around and ate Porsche.

Yeah, try to drive one of those in the sort of lava fields we have here, it'd bottom out before it even gets started. ;) Even on less extreme terrain, its clearance looks like a pretty big flaw - it can hardly drive on a flat slope without nearly bottoming out, let alone uneven terrain. They could raise the center, but then they'd also be raising the CG because not on the driver but the batteries are in that center bit, and on an offroader you really want a low CG.

Seems to me the solution is to put the batteries next to the hub motors. Something right next to the hub should never bottom out, and as they're low so the CG will stay low. It also allows you to reduce or eliminate your in-arm power wiring (esp. good given all of the bending that goes on in those swing arms), thus reducing wire mass, wire cost, and wire resistance. If you fully eliminate the in-arm power wiring you'd have to charge the packs individually, but even if you retain it you could reduce it to smaller wires that only need to be able to handle charging currents and inter-pack charge balancing, not peak discharge currents. Having the batteries next to the hub motors, you could upgrade them to pretty much whatever power level you wanted.

Another problem I see is with the use of hub motors. Everyone loves them until they start messing around with them and then the problems start to become clear. One, they're unsprung mass, which reduces your ride quality. Two, they're harder to cool, which limits performance. And three, you shake them to bits even on normal roads, let alone offroad. I'd prefer each wheel being hooked up to a small high power motor, connected to the wheels via a stubby CV joint (which should lose only a fraction of a percent of the energy transmitted). That way you keep your unsprung mass low, your motors are easy to cool, and they're not shaken to bits.

This thing is underpowered, but with some proper design choices there's really no limit to how high powered it could become.

The last issue I see is, if you're making an offroader, do you really want motors and wiring connections somewhere that they're going to get wet? Do you want to have your wheel drop into a deep puddle and suddenly short out? It seems to be that they really should have the motors (and as per above, battery packs) protected by a cowling. For transmitting the power to outside of the cowling I see two options. One is to use a waterproof rotary joint, like submarines use, although those are somewhat lossy. A better option might be to have the rotor simply penetrate the cowling (with only a small clearance around it) and use your pack / battery air-cooling system to maintain sufficient positive pressure inside to resist water influx - around 5-10 PSI should be enough for unbridged river crossings, while only 1-2PSI would be needed if you only want to be able to handle the occasional puddle. The air ingress to the cooling system would need to be located as high as possible, of course, whatever design one chooses.

(Yeah, this is something I've been thinking about for quite a while, I'd love to build my own go-anywhere electric vehicle some day ;) )

New Tesla Model S P90D “Ludicrous Speed” Goes 0-60 MPH in 2.8 Seconds

Exactly the reason I bought my F250, I did not opt for the upgraded head unit with the Sat Nav system. I can read a map or use my phone for directions, also the two grand to have that "feature" was a no thank you for me. With the cars that only have controls in the touch screen systems, what a pain. One point of failure and you can't do a dang thing and that will cost you 800 to 2000 bucks to get it fixed.
I also agree with rogoshen1, having to look away from the road just to hit the AC or what ever, is bad design. You can't really learn where it is like you can with physical buttons cause there is no physical button or it could be on a different screen.
I've also seen a lot of new cars with buttons everywhere. Take a look at the ford explorer steering wheel Not only that, they have capacitive buttons that are nearly just as bad. Don't get me wrong the Explorer is a nice car and I also like some of the convenience, but wow. How many options do you really need while driving a car, or in a car in general. I think it's option overload if you ask me.
I have '86 f150 that is getting old but I really like because it is simple to operate and simple to fix.
BTW I'm 33 and work in the IT industry, not an old geezer quite yet.

GM is in the process of getting disrupted, both in terms of business model and technology. They are afraid of Tesla, and it's obvious and there isn't much to see here.

No, they are not afraid of Tesla. As TFS stated, they think of Tesla as "fringe" Which at the moment, they are kind of correct. GM has sold almost 80,000 Volts. The Model S is has probably sold 30K units to date. Granted, the Volt is cheaper and has been for sale two years longer. But it's also not something that GM really cares about. And that's just looking at their electric vehicle sales. GM probably averages 200,000+ units sold per month in the US alone.

That being said. They should take notice. Times are changing and it's hard for large companies who have been around forever to see threats. And Tesla has been and is a very forward thinking company

GM should have been out of business long ago anyway. Leave it to Ford and Toyota who actually know how to make and sell things. They will be able to compete with Tesla where GM will not.

I wouldn't count GM out just yet. They still sell a lot of vehicles.They've also been very innovative in the past. It's possible they can do so again.

LOL. My accord has 12 gals. I get 26 MPG driving nicely. That is 312 miles.
My wife's highlander has 16 gals, but gets 21 mpg driving nicely. That is a range of 336 miles.

In fact, the average car has a range of 250-350 miles. That is why Tesla picked that size. The Model S's range IS AVERAGE.
Now, as to driving 8-10 hours without a stop, good luck. Driving at 75 MPH in the USE, 8 hours will take 600 mile range.
Worse, not even truck drivers are allowed to drive for that long without a break. In fact, they are required to take a minimum of a 30 minute break during any 8 hour period (i.e., they can not hit 8 hours of driving).

You silly neo-cons/tea* make lance armstrong and richard nixon look like boy scouts that tell simple white lies.

Not sure who you mean by "everyone else", but when I search for reviews the only negatives that I find are questions whether a new car company can make it. There is very, very little negative about about any of the actual cars. Things like "rear headroom is cramped", stuff like that.

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/awards/1301_2013_automobile_of_the_year_tesla_model_s/viewall.html

Generally speaking, the Model S is one of the best reviewed new cars ever.

Motor Trend 2013 Car of the Year
Automobile 2013 Car of the Year

Just as importantly, Elon Musk is a truly great man who has not historically been caught spewing unfounded claims. Consider his eventual vindication about Tesla and SpaceX. People said his rockets were too good to be true (cost vs. capability) and wouldn't work. Now he just needs to scale up production, which he is doing, to corner the entire non-secret space launch market.

People said Tesla wasn't going to ever release a car. Then the Roadster was released. Then people said Tesla wasn't going to release the Model S before going bankrupt. Remember when Elon bet that journalist $1,000,000 that the Model S would be released on time? Yeah, he won that.

I'm suprised people haven't stopped criticizing this guy and got on board. If Elon Musk didn't exist, we wouldn't have PayPal, Tesla, or SpaceX. This is just one guy we are talking about! He revolutionized three separate industries by the time he was 40!

Yeah, still not right. I'm sure Ford had the same discussions internally about Chevy at some point.

Patents and Patent Infringement are not about protecting / stealing ideas, they are about protecting / stealing the particular method of an idea. The rest IMHO is justifiable hogwash built to create "outs" for companies to sue one another. Patent law shouldn't be applicable to what colors are used, what shape things are. It's evident that the products differ it's also evident that they are the SAME product.

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/24741059+w750+st0/0909_04_z+chevy_camaro_vs_ford_mustang+engines.jpg
http://blogs.cars.com/putc_special_reports/images/2010v6so/Lead.jpg
http://image.hotrod.com/f/featuredvehicles/hrdp_1012_2010_chevrolet_camaro_vs_2010_ford_saleen_mustang/31149805+pheader_460x1000/hrdp_1012_01_o+2010_chevrolet_camaro_vs_2010_ford_saleen_mustang+front_view.jpg

From across the room can you tell the difference?

The United States in 2010 spent over 130 billion dollars on new cars alone.[1] [2] Preliminary reports suggest the total for 2011 was higher.[3] Also in 2010 Americans spent $479 billion dollars on gasoline.[4] [5]

There are about 250 billion cars in the US[6], using a very rough estimate of $10,000 per car[7], that's $2.5 trillion dollars' worth of passenger vehicles. I'm not even going to get into the costs of road maintenance.

I would post statistics on fuel efficiency/energy use per passenger mile but I suspect that you're not a complete idiot. A 2002 APTA study put total public transit costs at ~$39 billion annually.[8][pdf]. Do you see how the one number is a couple orders of magnitude lower than the other one?

I can keep hauling out statistics, but [8] is a pretty comprehensive overview of the subject. Among the other BTS statistics? The "hidden tax" I mentioned is on average 10% of annual income. Other sources claim double this number. As with medical care, no other country on Earth comes close to spending as much money per capita. That above $2.5 trillion figure is more than the US annual federal revenues. The US spends as much money on new cars annually as the national budget of Greece -- which has the 24th largest budget (by expenditures).

In summation, given the roughly two orders of magnitude difference between spending on personal vehicles and mass transit, my previous statement was entirely correct.

For further comment on Libertarianism, see here.

I seriously doubt you could have bought a luxury car for $4500 back then.

1981 Chrysler Imperial for $18688:
http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2008/07/01/hmn_feature22.html

1980 Ford Pinto for around $4500:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto14.htm

You'd have to go back to the 60's to get a luxury car in the $5000 range:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/collectible_classic/0812_1960_cadillac_series_62_convertible/viewall.html

I see what you're saying, I thought you were talking about the opposing piston motor mentioned in the article. Diesels inherently have more emission problems than gas engines, so using a two-stroke is asking for trouble. Two stroke engines burn a lot of oil because of how they are lubricated. Earlier diesel engines were two stroke, but they couldn't keep up with the emissions standards. Actually, it was just recently that Volkswagen came up with a system that could put their four stroke diesels (TDI) on the road in the US (trucks have lighter standards than cars, so they were on the road the whole time).

Just recently they've had government testing of their new car battery prototype, as well as testing by the independent firm Dekra.

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1058119_its-official-dbm-energys-electric-car-battery-is-real

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/05/dbm-energy-record-breaking-kolibri-battery-passes-government-tests/

This is reassuring as their claims are seemed so extreme:

"Mr. Hoffmann also cites estimates that the mass-production cost of a 98.8 kWh version of the pack would range from 800 to 1,000 euros, or from about $1,100 to $1,400, which is thousands below current costs."

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cars-computers-best-buy-sell-electric-vehicles-45795.html

Not so. The values being quoted for electric batteries are putting a real damper on sales.

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6659473/green/will-battery-costs-bring-down-ev-resale-values/index.html

A $12,000 battery is nothing to sneeze at for replacement costs. If this tech proves to be as good as it sounds, it will make adoption of electric cars that much more feasible. Recharges in 5 minutes, and a huge improvement in total charge cycles, which means a huge savings for the owner, as well as better resale value.

Distances being another big concern, BUT, when someone invests in one of these cars, I would imagine they will either buy a car with a combustion backup engine like the Volt (can fall back on combustion engine to charge battery), or they have a second vehicle which is not electric. They could also fit a scenario where they simply don't travel that far and will probably fall back on rentals when needed for the occasional long trip.

• Odyssey EX-L and Touring - 17/25
• Sienna - 17/23
• Odyssey LX and EX - 16/23
• Tacoma 4x2 - 17/21
• Sienna AWD - 16/21
• Tacoma 4x4 5 speed - 16/20
• Tacoma 4x4 6 speed - 14/18

So only the Sienna AWD models get worse gas mileage than a Tacoma. I recognize it's not that big of a difference, so other factors will weigh more heavily in the purchasing decision, but mileage is not something that your truck is better in, unless you're willing to divulge your trucks exact model and year. Keep in mind that you can't compare what you get with estimates, you have to compare estimate with estimate. Also keep in mind that the EPA recently changed how they calculate mileage and so you have to compare recent numbers.

All the searches I've done so far on insurance (no, I haven't bothered with getting quotes) indicate that minivans are generally cheaper to insure than SUVs. Some SUVs are cheaper than the cheapest minivan, but the most expensive minivan is much cheaper than the most expensive SUV. My google-fu failed me in finding much in the way of insurance for trucks but this indicates that trucks have a wide range seeing as the GMC Sierra was the 3rd least expensive and a Dodge Ram was the most expensive. The only place I did see a Tacoma listed shows that insurance is several hundred dollars more, however, it is generally in your favor in that it shows that 5 years out you may be ahead with a Tacoma over either the Odyssey or the Sienna (depending on the model you choose). The bulk of the difference actually lies in the depreciation, so it also depends on how long you tend to own your vehicles and whether you buy used or not.

And speaking of the convenience factor, you also mentioned that you want to load up the family and go on vacations. You could do that with a four door Tacoma, I suppose. But it would be much more convenient to be in a minivan. Also, minivans are easier for kids and grandma to get into and out of than pickup trucks. They also drive more like a car, which is to say, they are nicer to drive, more responsive, handle better, etc.

So the math does work out in your favor of a Tacoma over an Odyssey or Sienna (depending on models chosen, way you drive, how often, there are other comparisons, etc). But you'd be a fool to not see that SUVs and trucks are generally more expensive than other vehicles. Especially when you start to get people who only want it for the image and not for its utility, which is what the vast majority do. Maybe not you, but the vast majority. So it's a stereotype. You'll just have to live with the fact that you do something that lumps you into that category.

Maybe be some bizarre coincidence you personally really do "see so many Minis and Smart FourTwos on the road," but that is not representative of the entire American car population.

Trucks and mid-size sedans are by far more popular than compact cars. Source: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/the-top-10-best.html

About 20 to 30 thousand Mini Coopers and FourTwos sold last year. The Ford F Series sold half a million trucks last year. Sources: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/25/u-s-smart-fortwo-sales-so-strong-penske-wants-15-000-more/ and http://blogs.automobilemag.com/6271167/car-news/2008-mini-cooper-us-sales-hit-a-new-peak/index.html.

So yes if your building a train that drives on perfect road/track, and you only care about efficiency, not performance, comfort, and rarely have unplanned stops, more weight is not a bother.
So sure, you can make up for weight with exotic materials, but using those on hybrids just throws even more advantage to them.

First, the Volt will be around 3500 LB
while the Tesla model should come in around 3800 lbs. They are within 10% of each other.

Since any decent performance battery is still way less reliable than any ICE system, that argument of complexity of gen set = higher failure is currently so crazy to be laughable. A hybrid car will have lower maintenance and life time cost than any all electric car built today, unless you only do short trips between charges, then the hybrid would be equal (engine not needed.)
So, you are saying that the failure state of a pure battery system will be higher then a battery system AND a ICE driving a generator????? You are obviously not an engineer if you think that two systems; the electrical being simple and the ICE being complex is going to be as simple as a simple battery system. The hybrid will require a great deal more maintenance than a pure battery. In fact, because the hybrid has a smaller battery pack, it will require replacing much faster (though cheaper).

Or this radio made and sold in Japan (its a bit older, but it illustrates the point):

http://japan-auto-sound.com/images/206-0606_IMG.jpg

Checkout some of these radios sold in the west.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/CarAudioVideo/Source/CD-Players/Pioneer/FH-P8000BT
http://www.alpine-usa.com/US-en/products/product.php?model=IVA-W505
http://www.alpine-usa.com/US-en/products/product.php?model=IVA-D106

Check out the dash of the Nissan GT-R:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cars/nissans-gt+r-data+dense-dashboard-explained-324672.php

Compare the GT-R dash with the dash of the Corvette ZR-1:

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/chevrolet/0802_2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1/photo_03.html

Here - check out some western dashboards

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2008/a/2008-Audi-R8-V12-TDI-Dashboard-1280x960.jpg

http://supercarspecs.com/images/porsche/2008porsche911gt2/images/2008-Porsche-911-GT2-Dashboard-1280x960.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/0/y/5/1/bw_08reventon_dash2.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2008/klm/2008-Lamborghini-Gallardo-LP560-4-Dashboard-1920x1440.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/g4/68/763068/2/91636989.LEA7wlE4.jpg

Check out the dash of the Nissan GT-R:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cars/nissans-gt+r-data+dense-dashboard-explained-324672.php

Compare the GT-R dash with the dash of the Corvette ZR-1:

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/chevrolet/0802_2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1/photo_03.html

Or this radio made and sold in Japan (its a bit older, but it illustrates the point):

http://japan-auto-sound.com/images/206-0606_IMG.jpg

I was not apologizing for Apple - I was faulting them for their lack of understanding Japanese culture and what the Japanese value in usability and functionality. They may need to design different phones for different markets if they wish to succeed in those markets.

-ted

Take a look at this dyno graph.

As you can see your torque curve is nowhere near flat and you don't hit even 160(or so) ft/lbs of torque until 2500 RPM's.

I can't find a dyno chart of the VW TDI but according to vw.com the Jetta Sportwagen's diesel get's 236lb/ft @ 1,750-2,500 rpm. That happens to be where the majority of city driving will be, and with a well geared transmission where the majority of all of your driving can be.

Bottom line is that the diesel has a ton of power where you need it, get's great gas mileage, and is a lot of fun.

No, the TDI is not a replacement for the MS3, but it's not supposed to be. The MS3 is a "hot hatch" that is able to be driven very quickly, just not in most people's every day situations.

Well lets take an honest look at this on.
The Hummer has terrible resale value for a lot of reasons. A big one is that it is a terrible vehical with a terrible repair history. A Prius is a Toyota and has a great repair history.

Okay, how about a Toyota Sequoia with a Honda Civic Hybrid? $26k versus $20k, but just over $17k 5-year depreciation instead of just over $8k 5-year depreciation.

It doesn't matter what comparison you do; guzzlers have horrible depreciation in comparison to fuel-efficient cars. Namely, because guzzlers continue to cost a lot to run, while a person who's buying used is doing so to save money.

Why not compare it to a Lexus, Honda, Acura, or Mazda 3 or 6.

Because we're comparing fuel-efficient vehicles with guzzlers, obviously.

"The average car on the road is now roughly nine years old, implying an average lifespan of 18 years. Ignoring inflation on gasoline prices and interest on the purchase, this would work out to a savings of $41,400 over the lifespan of the vehicle. That's a *Lot* of money. Saying it has to cost under $20k is just stupid."
Yea you are ignoring the interest that you would have to pay on the extra money.

And inflation on gas prices. If you want more detailed calculations that include interest and inflation, go here.

The other thing you are forgetting is that car loans are limited to usually five years

And so one should pretend that economics doesn't matter because of this, right? Whether the money is coming from a car loan, a savings account, home equity, or whatnot, economics is still economics. All that changes is the interest rates.

and you are ignoring the cost of a battery pack replacement. I doubt that any battery pack will last the 18 years you are perdicting for a car life span.

1) That's covered by the linked calculations.
2) LG Chem expects their spinel packs for the Volt to last 30 years. A123 has already gotten over 7,000 cycles on their pack. AltairNano titanate cells have done over 20 *thousand* cycles.

"Let's toss in another $500 in maintenance savings -" $500 a year? On my Mazda all I have had to do is change the oil and get new tires.

Um, no. In 2005, the average driver spent $2,013 in gasoline and motor oil plus $2,339 on other vehicle expenses (repairs, insurance, etc). Unless you have a magical car that never breaks, your car needs more than just oil and tires changed.

And those are not available yet for a car sized battery pack

BZZT, sorry, try again! *Almost all* new PHEVs and EVs coming out in significant volume in the coming years are using one of those chemistries, and the prototypes are running on them. The only glaring exception to this is Tesla.

plus I question the very idea of charging a Li/Poly car pack in five or ten minutes.

I love how you confused LiP, spinel, and titanate cells with li-poly; that was just the icing on the cake.

That will out a LOT of heat.

Li-ion variants tend to be over 99% efficient at slow charging and ~96% or so efficient at fast charging. 60kW*4%=2.4kW -- 50% more power as heat than a blow dryer consumes. 250kW*4%=10kW, still the tiniest fraction of the heat released by a running internal combustion engine.

None of those technologies are available right now.

What part of "Already Installed Across Oahu" don't you get? What, do you need a link? Or two? How about a map? Or

Well lets take an honest look at this on.
The Hummer has terrible resale value for a lot of reasons. A big one is that it is a terrible vehical with a terrible repair history. A Prius is a Toyota and has a great repair history.

Okay, how about a Toyota Sequoia with a Honda Civic Hybrid? $26k versus $20k, but just over $17k 5-year depreciation instead of just over $8k 5-year depreciation.

It doesn't matter what comparison you do; guzzlers have horrible depreciation in comparison to fuel-efficient cars. Namely, because guzzlers continue to cost a lot to run, while a person who's buying used is doing so to save money.

Why not compare it to a Lexus, Honda, Acura, or Mazda 3 or 6.

Because we're comparing fuel-efficient vehicles with guzzlers, obviously.

"The average car on the road is now roughly nine years old, implying an average lifespan of 18 years. Ignoring inflation on gasoline prices and interest on the purchase, this would work out to a savings of $41,400 over the lifespan of the vehicle. That's a *Lot* of money. Saying it has to cost under $20k is just stupid."
Yea you are ignoring the interest that you would have to pay on the extra money.

And inflation on gas prices. If you want more detailed calculations that include interest and inflation, go here.

The other thing you are forgetting is that car loans are limited to usually five years

And so one should pretend that economics doesn't matter because of this, right? Whether the money is coming from a car loan, a savings account, home equity, or whatnot, economics is still economics. All that changes is the interest rates.

and you are ignoring the cost of a battery pack replacement. I doubt that any battery pack will last the 18 years you are perdicting for a car life span.

1) That's covered by the linked calculations.
2) LG Chem expects their spinel packs for the Volt to last 30 years. A123 has already gotten over 7,000 cycles on their pack. AltairNano titanate cells have done over 20 *thousand* cycles.

"Let's toss in another $500 in maintenance savings -" $500 a year? On my Mazda all I have had to do is change the oil and get new tires.

Um, no. In 2005, the average driver spent $2,013 in gasoline and motor oil plus $2,339 on other vehicle expenses (repairs, insurance, etc). Unless you have a magical car that never breaks, your car needs more than just oil and tires changed.

And those are not available yet for a car sized battery pack

BZZT, sorry, try again! *Almost all* new PHEVs and EVs coming out in significant volume in the coming years are using one of those chemistries, and the prototypes are running on them. The only glaring exception to this is Tesla.

plus I question the very idea of charging a Li/Poly car pack in five or ten minutes.

I love how you confused LiP, spinel, and titanate cells with li-poly; that was just the icing on the cake.

That will out a LOT of heat.

Li-ion variants tend to be over 99% efficient at slow charging and ~96% or so efficient at fast charging. 60kW*4%=2.4kW -- 50% more power as heat than a blow dryer consumes. 250kW*4%=10kW, still the tiniest fraction of the heat released by a running internal combustion engine.

None of those technologies are available right now.

What part of "Already Installed Across Oahu" don't you get? What, do you need a link? Or two? How about a map? Or

I think this is just great! Looking for a bottom so I can get one cheep!

I am a SUT owner, but close enough so I will take this on. I will downsize when:

• it can pull 5000 lbs safely
• has 4x4 so I don't get stuck for 6" of snow
• can haul a fridge, stove, generator...side of beef
• has a range of 750+ KM
• it starts cold and heater works at -20C
• suspension suitable for rough roads
• doesn't crawl up the hill empty
• survivability if I hit a deer (haven't yet but seen them in peoples laps on small cars)

Not everyone lives in LA, Houston, Miami or Toronto. In those cities, a little Smart Car is ideal. But if in winter I see another little crap box of a car stalled 200 miles out of Winnipeg at -30C in 3" of snow should I drive by a laughing in my SUT 4x4? No, I think they would like to get into the SUT, warm, alive and safe while we winch them out of the ditch. Or in at least I will not hear any chirps about the millage my SUT gets.

The real problem is in a couple years it is going to make them more expensive for me as fewer are produced.

The fact that big fair weather city types adopted them, does not make it our problem. While I could own two vehicles, it makes more sense still to pay for the extra gas for one depreciating asset than to have two depreciating.

Generalizations suck, some people need these vehicles. And when some green idiot gave us more taxes... That tax should have been limited to big fair weather cities.

Let's say the GP gets 5 miles in his 8 minutes. My work reimburses me about $.49 per mile. That makes the GPs commute worth 4.90. I'm not quite sure if he meant 3.10 (bus fare) one way or 2 so the value will depend on that.

$.49 a mile seems a bit much. Let's do a calculation for my car:

Gas=.17/mile
Car Depreciation= .12 [(12000 - 6000) / 50000 for my 2000 Civic)
Maintenance= .04 [2000/50000 -- Kind of made up but definitely achievable on a new car for 5 years if you can change your own oil and you don't blow through tires]
= .33/mile

The bus fare works out to .62/mile (assuming that's a one-way fare). So it'd be slightly cheaper if you could get a really cheap bus ride.

Now, I'm not including fees that you have to pay for just having a car, which would include parking (somewhere, we'll assume work is free), insurance, bullshit state fees and all forms of state-sponsored graft (smog checks, parking/speeding tickets, etc).

According to this a similar car would cost 25k to drive for 5 years, not new, and that's all-inclusive I mean down to the financing if you borrow your car from a bank. Let's try to own a bus pass for 5 years:

Bus: 3.10 * 2 (each way we think) * 240 (working days a year otherwise we stay in the dank cave and guard the precious) * 5 years = 7440 .

Seems to me the only way to achieve dramatic savings using public transport is to not own a car at all. YMMV if you live in a crowded city. I mean clearly most people in NYC have done the math and realized driving isn't worth it.

It costs less than the cost of public transport.

I think it depends on who you are and where you live. For example, if you're a good American living in New York, and you go out and buy a 2008 Ford F-250, you'll spend about $46,000 in 5 years. That gives you ~$9,000 each year (forget time value and all that for the moment). Compare that with getting the 30-day unlimited ride MetroCard for $76 ($38 for reduced fare), it costs only ~$900 a year. You have ~$8,000 left to take a plane or taxi or rent a car to go wherever subway or buses don't go.

Automobile Magazine had a write-up a few months back of a previous roadtrip of Roy's, attempting to beat a package overnight from New York to Miami:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/great_drives/0703_fedex_jet_vs_2007_bentley_continental_gtc/index1.html

It's a funny read, the author has a hilarious writing style.

Most car collectors are boomers. And so, naturally, they are attracted to the cars of their youth (50's and 60's models). Personally, I think most cars from that era are butt ugly. The 60's Mustang design looks like a fucking box on wheels (far inferior to the sleek modern Mustang design). The GTO looks like a bigger box on wheels. Most of the 50's models look like barges with silly fins (I guess you could call that the "Whale" look, huh?). The only design from that era that doesn't make me want to hurl is the late-60's Camaro/Firebird, and it's still inferior to the modern design.

VW already has prototypes using the first generation of these engines including the EcoRacer concept, which is a little roadster that will do 230km/h with an efficiency of 3.4L/100km.

The VW press release about it is here: http://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/medias_pu blish/ms/content/en/pressemitteilungen/2005/10/19/ in_a_nutshell__the.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.ht ml

and here is a Test Drive from Automobile: http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0605_20 06_volkswagen_ecoracer_concept/

There was also a clip on Fifth Gear of it in season 9

Also coming from GM in model year 2008 is the full hybrid GMT900 truck platform [1, 2, . This encompasses the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, among others. The hybrid uses the GM/DaimlerChrysler Advanced Hybrid System 2.

The hybrids will feature:

- 5.3L FlexFuel Vortec V8 (able to run using E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline)
- Active Fuel Management (AFM)/Displacement on Demand (DOD), disabling cylinders as needed for cruising
- Two 30kW electric motors inside of the same physical space as the normal automatic transmission
- A continuously variable automatic transmission
- Conventional 110VAC power outlets on board
- Hybrid system derived from the advanced system on already in use on GM's Allison transit buses

This advanced hybrid system, while not plug-in, will be offered on all model year 2008 GM full size SUVs, as well as pickups and fleet vehicles. The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions. As the process efficiency increases over the next few years, these numbers will improve.

Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward. While the Volt is very interesting (conspiracy theorists: think of some way the Volt is really still a GM plot to "keep electric vehicles down" or to assist big oil) and using centralized power generation and leveraging the existing electric grid and production capacity is a necessary step to the future, the full hybrid SUVs will be one of the big things that people buy in the short term, not to mention being one of the major things - if not the thing - that may make or break GM in the next decade.

Heh, I wish I could afford something like those. I'm a poor college student, so I drive a Hyundai Accent (although, it wouldn't be so bad if it were one of these , but alas, Hyundai hasn't decided to build it yet).

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/pickups/0409_ gmc_sierra_hybrid/

TrekStor has recently decided to produce a limited series of this magnificent gadget for those who would buy the most expensive mp3 player in the world. A price has not been disclosed as of yet.

...it's still a good indication a engine that has a high peak torque number is likely torquer down under.

If you're comparing a car that has a peak torque of 200 lb-ft with one that peaks at 400, then yes, the latter probably has more low-end torque as well. But in a less non-sensical comparison, where the peak torque values are similar, even slightly different engine designs can have greatly different torque curves. Go here and search for "torque curve". In that paragraph, comparing the Mustang Bullitt's 4.6L SOHC V8 with the standard GT's 4.6L SOHC V8, with peak hp of 265 compared to 260, and peak torque of 305 compared to 302, so only a 3 ft-lb and in this case around 1% difference, yet they point out that the Bullitt is at around 300 lb-ft around 2000 rpm while the GT doesn't get there until 3000 rpm. Only 3 lb-ft difference, but the Bullitt's torque curve is significantly flatter. No, I'm afraid you can't tell by peak torque either.

You can probly bring out someother odd design like s2000 and other crap...

At least you're capable of seeing the weakness in your own argument. Unfortunately, it's been a long time now since these were "odd designs". Manufacturers, esp. the Japanese, have been boosting peak hp, and advertising that, while keeping engine size the same. Hence they don't pull any harder. (Although they do pull longer.) Since nowadays everyone makes small OHC engines, they're all of this "odd design" -- no low-end torque to speak of, unremarkable peak torque, and a stratospheric red-line that you need to approach to wake the motor up at all. I guess they get better mileage by moving the real power generation up the rev band, away from where you drive most of the time (where an automatic transmission keeps you). It's called progress, I guess. But it definitely ain't odd anymore -- it's been commonplace for a while now.

>yes, I know that Chevy doesn't make Camaros anymore

They've recently made at least one ;-)

Just to prove that German automakers aren't the only ones who plan products based on what their rivals have done, GM comes out with the Camaro--a retro-styled, two-door coupe with a honking big V-8 that harks back to the glory days of Motown. If that sounds familiar, that's exactly what Ford did with the Mustang.

Until electric cars become efficient enough to run all day on a single charge with half a day of stored energy still available, petrol is the energy source we need to replace.

You're confusing the issue. Electric is the means of propulsion (like: internal combustion). Petrol is the energy provider. You can chemically reduce gasoline (petrol) in a fuel cell to produce electricity to power an electric vehicle. Just as you can burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine same as gasoline. We could replace internal combustion with electricity today, using gasoline fuel cells - the problem is replacing the gasoline with an alternative like hydrogen.

But who says that hydrogen wouldn't work now? There already are hydrogen-powered electric concept vehicles with a 300 mile range.

I'm betting on Biodiesel.

No, no, no, no and NO! Replacing oil dependence with a farming dependence is stupidly insane! Instead of being at the mercy of foreign countries and their oil production, suddenly we're at the mercy of farming methods, pests, crop productions - and farm subsidies. And then you still have to burn it and produce polutants when you use it. They may be renewable polutants, but they're polutants nevertheless.

Pure machine solutions please - solar and wind to electricity then hydrogen. The best solar plants now (the stirling engine ones) are efficient enough to work on cloudy days. The next generation of solar cells will actually be full-spectrum (and a giant leap in efficiency from the current generation). Windmills are continuing to gain in popularity and acceptance (I currently buy all my domestic electricity from my power company's windpower program). And hydrogen storage research is bearing fruit - with solid storage tablets and nickel nanoparticle sponges being significantly closer to the energy density of gasoline than previous storage methods.

There has been significant progress in reducing the emissions of diesel engines. For example Toyota just released a high power diesel car that they claim to have world's lowest combined oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate emissions.

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/paris_2004 /0411_toyota_d4d/

The VW Jetta TDI (diesel) gets consistently 55-60 mpg -- about as good as the best hybrids out there.

Not according to the head-to-head comparison of Jetta TDI and Prius done by Automobile magazine. They had the TDI getting 34mpg in traffic, 43mpg on highways--significantly worse than they (or I) got in the Prius.

http://automobilemag.com/reviews/0409_prius_jetta_ comparo/index1.html

Also, the point of the Prius is not economy--it's minimizing environmental impact. That's why Toyota tunes the engine for minimized emissions, not for maximized MPG. They build the car using recycled, recyclable plant-sourced plastic, not the cheaper oil-made plastic.

And of course, we're missing the essential perfume dispenser.

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/paris_2004 /0411_citroen_c4/

Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile and Road and Track. Being a former mechanic, I love cars. Once a gearhead, always a gearhead. ;-)

Just check this site out where a bunch of harley riding bikers have created their own monowheel thingy.

Automobile Mag