Slashdot Mirror

And no it's not to compete with Tesla, or because EVs are great (from an economic or market standpoint), or because of the VW diesel scandal. California and 9 other states are mandating that all automakers sell ZEVs (zero emissions vehicles), and that the ZEVs comprise at least 14.5% of their total vehicle sales by 2025. If they can't hit 14.5%, they'll either have to buy ZEV credits from another automaker, or they will be prohibited from selling any more ICE cars in those states until their ZEV sales go above 14.5%. Since those states make up approximately 1/3rd of the entire U.S. market, every automaker is busy prepping ZEVs - mostly electric, some hydrogen fuel cells.

This is why you have oddities like the BMW i3, which comes with an option for a backup ICE with a 1.9 gallon fuel tank to help people overcome range anxiety. Why not a bigger fuel tank? Because the ZEV mandate states that a ZEV is allowed to have a ICE engine as a backup, but its range on the ICE has to be less than its range as a ZEV.

This is also why Californians are enjoying some crazy-good lease and purchase deals on ZEVs right now. The ZEV requirement is already in effect, gradually ramping up to the 2025 target, so automakers have to start selling ZEVs now. But those states will consider the automakers to have hit their ZEV target for their state if they hit the target in California alone (since they're just mirroring California's mandate). So all the automakers are shipping nearly all their ZEVs to California and offering huge incentives for people there to buy/lease ZEVs before the end of the year, to drive up their ZEV sales as a percentage of all their vehicle sales in California.

Yes, I read the articles. What I stated is that the article is biased and wrong. Your opinion is that the article is right and that one or two anecdotes explain the electric car market. I'd contend that actual empirical sales figures for different types of vehicles and actual costs for different types of vehicles are more illuminating than a couple of anecdote's written by someone with a well-known bias, but YMMV. :)

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Have you ever seen any data from a relatively neutral or reputable source indicating that electric cars on average have lower total cost of ownership than comparable gas vehicles?

I picked one at semi-random (literally, the first one I found in a Google search) and looked up the TCO on Edmunds:
Spark EV, 5 year TCO $34K
Exact same car, gas version, 5 year TCO $28K

So in exchange for your car only having an 82 mile range before needing to be charged vs a 300+ mile range before a much faster fill-up, you only need to pay 22% more for it. What a deal!

Unless you are in a rare and special situation, the EV version isn't going to be a good deal for you. You're paying more and getting less. That's why only 1.6% of new cars sold are EVs... it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of people to buy them. Occam's razor, the simple reason is the correct one here, no need for conspiracy theories about dealerships.

Yes, I read the articles. What I stated is that the article is biased and wrong. Your opinion is that the article is right and that one or two anecdotes explain the electric car market. I'd contend that actual empirical sales figures for different types of vehicles and actual costs for different types of vehicles are more illuminating than a couple of anecdote's written by someone with a well-known bias, but YMMV. :)

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Have you ever seen any data from a relatively neutral or reputable source indicating that electric cars on average have lower total cost of ownership than comparable gas vehicles?

I picked one at semi-random (literally, the first one I found in a Google search) and looked up the TCO on Edmunds:
Spark EV, 5 year TCO $34K
Exact same car, gas version, 5 year TCO $28K

So in exchange for your car only having an 82 mile range before needing to be charged vs a 300+ mile range before a much faster fill-up, you only need to pay 22% more for it. What a deal!

Unless you are in a rare and special situation, the EV version isn't going to be a good deal for you. You're paying more and getting less. That's why only 1.6% of new cars sold are EVs... it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of people to buy them. Occam's razor, the simple reason is the correct one here, no need for conspiracy theories about dealerships.

The most we can do is try to convince our citizens to buy locally produced and engineered goods rather than always buying the cheapest products.

This is why I bought a Tundra. Built in Texas, designed by Americans. It is as much American as an F-150.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-rev...

And the engine maintenance?

Was that free too?

According to Edmunds.com the Nissan Leaf has the lowest TCO of any car over five years.

No Engine, no transmission. The braking system powers the battery which greatly reduces the amound of time your pads actually contact the disk. What equipment there is in the car is fully enclosed from the weather unlike an ICE that is fully exposed to the road and weather while you drive, corroding wires and hoses.

Up next VW cars fuel economy gauge's found to be incorrect......Wait that's really a thing?? http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-ec...

Crap I thought I was going to be able to make a prediction here but it already happened darn.

According to Edmunds, the Aztek killed Pontiac. It's one thing to make a niche product, but to make it an important part of a large, mass-market company's product line is asking for trouble. There's lots of other products out there which are really niche product, but they're usually sold by small, niche companies--look at Lotus for example, or any other high-end automobile.

The BMW i3 is a weird car. However the issue with EREV's is that unlike full BEV vehicles you still have standard vehicle maintenance. You might and in fact not believe this but the Nissan Leaf has the lowest TCO of any car in recent years. No oil, no exhaust, no transmission (relatively speaking). The brakes ride on the recharge system prolonging brake pad life. No wiring exposed to the elements. In fact all of the components are in an enclosed space making them much less susceptible to the environment.

My point being that a fully BEV (battery electric vehicle) can potentially make back the money you've invested in the car initially, by the time your payments have expired. This may not be True for your EREV (extended range electric vehicle)

push to start/keyless ignition. It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It seems like it causes more problems than it solves.

No but you were suggesting he change his car when, really, keeping his car (meaning a new one needn't be manufactured) would potentially be better for the environment, their income, and overall more efficient as a new car needn't be manufactured.

I am a huge fan of keeping cars, safely, on the road for as long as possible.

If his car is safe and serviceable, selling it doesn't mean taking it off the road - it will be sold on the used market, likely enabling some other driver with an even older car to upgrade to something more modern (and more fuel efficient and cleaner).

And note that I only suggested that because he expressed concern that cyclists were making him slow down and waste precious resources - so rather than force the cyclists to buy a car (and use even more of the precious resources he's worried about), he could purchase a car that doesn't waste so many resources when he's stuck behind a cyclist.

When I retired I got more heavily into collecting cars and it is a shame to see some of them being put to rest when they really needed a trivial, few hundred dollar, repair and then some regular maintaining of said vehicle.

Does that few hundred include labor, or are you counting your "free" labor? My broken transmission might need only a 50 cent retaining ring, but that doesn't make me feel any better when it takes $1500 of seal kits and labor to get to that retaining ring.

We seem to forget the order (generic we) of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I am not so good at the first one, personally. Then there is the added factor that the EV batteries can not be recycled and are considered hazardous waste by the EPA.

EV batteries are more recyclable than you realize:

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-ec...

Lithium-ion batteries now are somewhere between 70 and 100 percent recyclable, depending on the particular chemistry of the batteries. There are about half a dozen in use and more are being developed. The bits that can't be recycled are mostly consumed as fuel in the furnaces that are used to melt down the metals, which include cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese and, someday, lithium.

Then there is the mining and processing the various ingredients...

Mining and processing the various ingredients of fossil fuels that power vehicles (in many areas, even electric vehicles are still powered by fossil fuels) also has an environmental toll -- which the cyclist is not contributing to. (the 20 lbs of steel and 2 lbs of rubber in his bike are negligible compared to the tons of steel and plastic in a car).

I think we need to examine the cost but, in the end, I think it will be worth it simply to move off of carbon based fuel.

Which is exactly what the cyclist on the road is doing (which is what started this thread)-- using no carbon fuel for transportation.

As an aside, I am debating... I have finally decided that I take enough trips into town - just into town - that I can justify owning an EV. However, I have a dilemma. I do not know if I want a Tesla or if I want the i8 from BMW. I am a "preferred buyer" with BMW so I can make a deposit and go up near the top of the list but it is still in testing.... It is a conundrum.

It's a conundrum that few in this world can contemplate, not many people can afford a $100+K car. Though a bicycle is much more affordable.

That's range rover, the original Chelsea tractor and prototypical suburban assault vehicle.

You can't expect much from a car whose average MSRP is only $112k. http://www.edmunds.com/land-ro...

I would go to a legitimate review site before asking random Slashdotters.

Range is the big issue. If you have a regular commute or you live in a city (but still have access to charging) it's a cool small car with very low cost of ownership that won't retain much re-sale value. Otherwise, it's probably not tenable.

"The nickel-metal hydride batteries found in hybrid vehicles are basically 'zero-landfill' products. Whatever can't be recycled is consumed in the recycling process, leaving no trash behind."

"Lithium-ion batteries now are somewhere between 70 and 100 percent recyclable, depending on the particular chemistry of the batteries. [..] Recycling specialists say that as volume grows, it will become more economically feasible to recover some of the content now wasted."

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-ec...

So the most popular wastes nothing. The newer variety no worse than thirty percent waste down to zero, and will improve as the quantity of "expired" batteries increases. Seems pretty good to me.

What SUV has a 4-banger in it?

The Ford Escape is one.
And there are quite a few others, apparently.

(logged in now). And I'm talking about the F-RS not the Scion of 2004. This article has a few statistics showing that the people buying the FR-S are not that young Edmunds . So maybe the actual marketing campaign for the FR-S was aimed at younger people than who actually bought it. I don't know. But I know the car and the design is towards handling - difficult to sell to youngsters - and tuning - easier to sell but maybe not such a large market.

I haven't spent any thought yet on the distinction between BRZ and FR-S.

His car is 12 years old, yours is 5. If you replace yours at twice the interval that he does, your net carbon footprint will be significantly larger. His car get a tank every month and a half, so 8 tanks a year. At 32 mpg, ~16 gal/tank (18.5 max, per http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/5-s...) he drives ~5000 miles/year. You drive 20,000 miles/year. So your fuel consumption is twice his per year, even if you get double the mieage. So not only is your car newer which implies you generate tons more carbon buying new cars, but you burn twice as much fuel as he does per year.

And if you upgrade to that newer model, you will put tons more carbon into the atmosphere, before you ever drive it.

Your best bet is a recycled (ie. used) Honda CRX HF, which gets the same fuel mileage as your Basic Marin Wheels but has already had its carbon burned.

This would tie in well with the study that people who worry about carbon climate change are the ones who do the least to prevent it....

andy

I've never made any concerted effort for "environmental reasons," but I do notice that I don't use nearly as much energy as most people do, which is a side effect of how cheap I am.

For example, most self proclaimed environmentalists I know leave their computers running 24/7 and deliberately disable the standby features. I myself have all of my machines configured to enter S4 after 15 minutes of no activity.

I also replaced all of the bulbs in my house with LED bulbs, which is more to do with helping to keep the house cool in the summer, which reduces AC usage (not to mention being more comfortable here in Arizona.) It's not a cheap thing to do short term, but DEFINITELY saves money long term so long as you get the bulbs at the right price.

Also I'm the only person I know who times my driving so that I minimize time at stop lights, as well as driving with the cruise control on at every possible time (most cars have a feature that allows you to nudge your speed slightly faster/slower, which is more fuel efficient than disengaging it in order to adjust your speed.)

And by the way, modern cars are so low emission that some of them actually clean up the air around them. The 2011 Ford F150 Raptor is one of them. If I were an environmentalist, (and I need to stress that I am NOT) I would push for more of these cars to be on the road than lobbying for higher gas prices (which serves to ruin the economy, and has almost no actual benefit on reducing emissions.)

(Source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-rev...)

If you've ever seen that movie Bad Santa, with the scene where Billy Bob Thornton tries to commit suicide with a Benz and it doesn't work, that's actually accurate. It wouldn't be a terribly effective suicide tool for the above mentioned reason. Newer cars are just too clean burning.

We've never seen climate-warming related disasters that result in sustained long-term famine/death. It is always localized (Katrina, Sandy) and recovery begins within months at the worst. However we have seen bad economic decisions cause all of the above not only on a local scale but on a global scale, and last for decades at a time before recovery can begin. We also already know that in fairly recent times, that places like Los Angeles were under sea water, and AGW had zero to do with that. I don't think anything we ever do can ever prevent it from happening again either. Also during the age of dinosaurs, CO2 levels were more than 20 times what they are today, temperatures were much higher as well, and macro-scale life not only lived but thrived even better than it does today, so I'm not so sure that AGW (which probably does exist) is a huge concern.

All of the above said, I think screwing with the economy in the interest of influencing the climate is a very bad idea in general.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-new...

2014 Corolla - Edmunds.com TCO = $35,728
2014 Prius - Edmunds.com TCO = $35,727

(Edmunds TCO includes gasoline, repairs, financing, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc for 5 years)

With savings like that, why the heck aren't people lining up out the door for the Prius?? I mean, 1 dollar over 5 years... that is like 20 cents a year, IN YOUR POCKET. Cash money, man.

**To be fair, there is almost a 3800 dollar TCO advantage for camry hybrid vs camry base model... but 760 dollars a year isn't exactly going to drop a lot of panties.

2014 Corolla - Edmunds.com TCO = $35,728
2014 Prius - Edmunds.com TCO = $35,727

(Edmunds TCO includes gasoline, repairs, financing, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc for 5 years)

With savings like that, why the heck aren't people lining up out the door for the Prius?? I mean, 1 dollar over 5 years... that is like 20 cents a year, IN YOUR POCKET. Cash money, man.

**To be fair, there is almost a 3800 dollar TCO advantage for camry hybrid vs camry base model... but 760 dollars a year isn't exactly going to drop a lot of panties.

Dealers and sales liars say that to run your credit in order to sucker you.

Remember folks, everything that comes out of a sales person's mouth is a lie until proven otherwise.

On one hand, that's only a little less than 1/2 of a typical oil change interval. On the other hand, the actual oil change is eliminated, and swapping this sucker in should be a lot easier than actually doing an oil change. For one thing, they won't be leaving off your drain plug.

FYI... "Typical Oil Changes" are no longer 3,000 miles but twice that. Newer cars generally suggest 7,500 miles or more and you can go longer in that older car too because the oil being used has improved. The 3,000 mile interval was born in the days when oil filters where optional equipment and motor oil broke down faster. Now days, you are wasting money and oil if you do this more than every 6,000 miles. Save the cash and the environment.

Link: http://www.edmunds.com/car-car...

Where you erred:

1) As you noted (but didn't factor into your figures) maintenance difference is hardly just oil changes. In reality, electric drivetrains have a tenth as many moving parts. They don't even have a transmission, for crying out loud, have you priced what it costs to replace a transmission? Just replacing a timing belt can cost a fortune. One can't so readily discount maintenance, it's a huge portion of operating costs.

2) If you drive the car until you totally run it into the ground, the average car will be driven a lot more than 250k miles (we're just going to go with your above erroneous figure - more on that in a second). If you sell it, you're selling a more expensive vehicle. And beyond that, as vehicles age, generally the most important aspect as to how well it holds its value is what it costs to operate it (energy costs + maintenance). Once all the luxury is gone, cars come down to simply how much does it cost to get you from point A to point B.

3) 37 cents per kilowatt hour is an absurd electricity price. The US national average residential rate in 2013 was $0.1226/kwh. 37 cents per kilowatt hour is even over double the *California* average rate. Beyond that, EVs can sometimes get even cheaper power due to off-peak rates.

4) The audi a6 quatro isn't even close to the performance of the Tesla Model S (depending on the details, more on that below).

5) The MSRP on a new TDI quattro (the one that gets nearly 30MPG - the gasoline ones don't) is $57.5k. The base Model S is $59.9k, roughly the same price - *before* incentives. And has a slightly better 0-60. But the performance Model S, which blows the Quattro out of the water with practically supercar-level acceleration plus has a bigger battery pack, is only about $10k more (again, not counting tax incentives/rebates/etc). Beyond all this, I'd argue that the Model S is simply a nicer car, period, all issues of driving/efficiency aside.

Nissan NSX used aluminum bodies.

Acura, not Nissan.

I don't see why I need to talk to automotive engineers just because you've failed to produce evidence that cars are typically built with pedestrian safety features.

Well, had you read beyond the first sentence you would have seen some information to that effect, although in fairness, I admit the Wiki page is a bit thin on details; here's a link to a better article, as well as this graphic that details some of the areas of vehicles that have been designed to improve pedestrian safety.

You are misconstruing my statement about car drivers. Malicious intent is when you actively go out to injure people, whereas the vast majority of collisions are "accidental" (i.e. someone may not have been following traffic rules, but did not intend someone getting hurt as the outcome).

Probably ought to work on your wording, then. Because the way you said it originally, it sure feels like you're attributing malice.

> For a purchase, you make payments on a $50K loan.
> For a lease, you make payments on a $25K loan, and at then end you either buy the car for $25K, or return it.

Not so much. For a lease, there is often a leasing company that makes the payments on the loan, collects the payments from the driver, and has a 35%-40% gross profit. In other words, the driver is paying 35%-40% more by leasing.

You can put actual numbers for a specific lease offer in this calculator to compare:
http://www.edmunds.com/calcula...

I think you'll find it's more like:

For a purchase, you make payments on a $50K loan.
For a lease, you make payments similar to a $35K loan, and at then end you either buy the car for $35K, or return it and pay mileage and other charges.

Meanwhile, I just paid $12K cash for a 2011 model. While you're paying $700 / month to appear wealthy, I'm investing that $700 / month to be wealthy.

A few years old, but a very very educational series of articles:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-buy...

That's true, but there's something else at play here.

Many people in the Atlanta area get 3-season tires (aka Summer tires, not to be confused with Ultra High Performance Summer tires) because they tend to be FAR better in the rain than all-seasons.

See:http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/products/know-your-tires-all-season-vs-summer-9647443
http://www.tirereview.com/arti...
http://www.edmunds.com/car-rev...

So, here's the decision: Buy all-seasons to be safe for the 3 days every 3 years you need them, or buy summer tires to be safe for the 345 days every 3 years you need them. (Source: http://www.sercc.com/climatein...)

It's a pretty ugly vehicle, but there's some tough competition for "ever made". Even if you only count mass-produced cars.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-rev...

1 Fisker Karma caught fire, which spread to the nearby cars by high winds. http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/fisker-reveals-cause-of-karma-fires-during-hurricane-sandy.html

Here you go. http://www.edmunds.com/volkswagen/jetta/2013/?sub=diesel&style=200434644

Can I pay them an extra $1000 and buy directly from amazon? Why get a dealer involved?

A dealer gets involved so they can get that $1000 back from you. Familiarize yourself with the Four Square Worksheet. You probably won't see the physical sheet, but they're using it. It's a shell game where they get you to pull the trigger on the purchase by giving you a deal in one area but they get that money back, and then some, in another area. Half the reason the salesperson keeps going to visit his boss is so the boss can ensure the salesperson got the money back somewhere else on the four square. The other half is to make you sweat it out so you'll give in and pay more. Eat a good lunch before going but act like you didn't... bringing your lunch only tips them off that you're ready to wait out their nonsense and they don't want to business if they think they can't fleece you. They will offer you coffee to make you edgy... accept it and pretend to drink occasionally, but don't swallow it or anything else they give/tell you. Argue for a fair price, but once they agree on it in writing and you have your own written copy, let them think your guard is down... then absolutely refuse to let them add anything in any square.

I've negotiated prices on five car purchases for myself and others. When going into a dealership you need to remind yourself that you're not dealing with a human being. You're dealing with a Ferengi. You might want to bookmark the Rules of Acquisition on your phone to read while you're waiting for their latest offer so you see things through their eyes:

• Anything worth selling is worth selling twice
• Anything stolen is pure profit
• A deal is a deal ... until a better one comes along
• A bargain usually isn't
• Acting stupid is often smart
• When the customer is sweating, turn up the heat
• Only negotiate when you are certain to profit
• Never trust a man wearing a better suit than you own
• et al

"Oddly enough something that weighs very little and burns very little fuel does have low emissions - who would have thought?" Simple thinking like this is the reason why our energy policy is a mess. Compare for example how a leafblower has vastly worse emissions than a 6-passenger crew-cab pickup truck: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html

They don't get just 30MPG in the city unless your foot is flat to the floor full time. I drive a larger older Jetta and get 38MPG average over the 60K+ miles I've been driving it.

I assume you have not driven your Jetta purely in the city. Your figure would be what they call "combined" mileage, and your value sits right in between the city and highway ratings (30/42). I simply flagged the city number because, based on "official" mileage numbers it put the TDI engine in the absolute best terms (I ran both sets of numbers).

Also, most any vehicle I buy is likely going to need premium fuel unless it's a complete junker. I tend to like power and that usually requires premium to go with the turbo or higher compression.

See, this is how I know you've never even test driven a car with a 2.5 liter engine. The power provided is plenty (especially with the 5 cylinder design VW has, which bridges the torque gap nicely between I4 and V6).

In the 0-60 test the TDI is actually almost a second SLOWER than the standard Golf 2.5l (manual transmission), which shows you don't need a turbocharger to get plenty of off-the-line performance. Can you justify spending a $4,000 premium for LESS performance?

Further, the 2.5l I5 is designed for cheap cars, and is thus DESIGNED FOR REGULAR GASOLINE. Using Premium in an engine designed for regular is just a waste of your money. trust MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I drive a 2.4l Scion xB, I can get to 60 in under 9 seconds with a 4-speed slushbox and regular unleaded.

Oh yeah, head over to Fuelly.com if you want real world MPG numbers for your math. You may find that the gas vehicles have different MPG numbers too but not having owned one in a VW I dunno'.

Fuelly results for 2010-2013 VW Golf 2.5l: about 27mpg combined!

Fuelly results for 2010-2013 VW Golf 2.0 TDI: roughly 40mpg

This puts the numbers more in favor of the TDI, but you still have to drive it beyond 100,000 miles to break even:

Golf TDI: 40 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$4.00 = 10 miles/$
Golf 2.5: 27 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$3.60 = 7.5 miles/$

At 100,000 miles,

gas costs you a total of $9,333 ($13333 subtracting $4k starting cash)

diesel costs you a total of $10,000

They are selling them faster than they can make them and it has received spectacular reviews from the automotive press--or at least any automotive press that hadn't already made up their minds that "electric cars suck". This is a car which is more than competitive within its segment (luxury sports sedan). It's just a matter of time until the technology becomes more affordable and trickles down into mass market segments.

Hold on there....

They are purposely holding production down to just under what the market will absorb, because its important not to have a "sale" on a $87,000 car. With only a few charging stations around, they had to grow that network before they could possibly expect to sell cars in any volume.

Musk has already stated this is company policy for the first few years:

"To produce a vehicle that meets our quality standards requires us to carefully analyse each step of our production ramp, improve the efficiency of our manufacturing processes and continue to train our employees,"

Further, the car under review, Model S Performance isn't price competitive with the vary same car that Tesla's own website prefers to compare it with (the BMW 535i).

True, the car is well within the range of a wealthy owner. And the range has finally reached an acceptable level (265 miles on the largest available battery). And the promised (but not likely to be met) 20,000 vehicles in 2013 should see the car gain some traction in the market.

But to say they are selling them faster than they can make them is a bit of a twist on the fact that they are making them only as fast as they are selling. Read their sales page. Every car is bespoke. They are not producing ahead of a confirmed ($5000 minimum) reservation order.

Electric cars are competitively priced if you are actually in their target market.

Rich people?

For this particular one, yes.

For the rest of us, look at these numbers: The Edmunds.com 5-year True Cost to Own(tm) comparing the base model Nissan Leaf to the base model Toyota Corolla, which is half the sticker price: $35,567 for the Leaf, versus $37,440 for the Corolla, in spite of the feature advantage the Leaf has.

Electric cars are competitively priced if you are actually in their target market.

Rich people?

For this particular one, yes.

For the rest of us, look at these numbers: The Edmunds.com 5-year True Cost to Own(tm) comparing the base model Nissan Leaf to the base model Toyota Corolla, which is half the sticker price: $35,567 for the Leaf, versus $37,440 for the Corolla, in spite of the feature advantage the Leaf has.

Anyone who drives less than 30 miles to work every day (which is the majority of Americans) is a potential EV owner.

Don't you drive anywhere else?

Apparently not. In my almost perfect log of daily mileage starting in April, only once have I drive more than 100 miles in one day, and there was enough time in my schedule to charge enough to get home. I live 6 miles from work and 1 mile from school, so most days I drive less than 20 miles. My parents are 15 miles away, my friends are 30 miles away, and I usually carpool when going farther than that.

When you compare EVs to similarly-tricked-out gas cars, the prices are close

No, my VW Jetta TDI was considerably cheaper and is much less of a hassle.

and when you include fuel and maintenance savings the EV wins outright

No, how much gas and maintenance (are we including replacing the batteries here?) can you get for $50k?

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to compare. If you are comparing buying a new electric car to keeping your old gas one, that is a totally different question from what I intended. I also cannot comment on the economics of buying a $50,000 car, ever, and limit my discussions of economy to the Nissan Leaf. My statement is based off the Edmunds.com 5-year True Cost to Own(tm) comparing the base model Nissan Leaf to the base model Toyota Corolla: $35,567 for the Leaf, versus $37,440 for the Corolla, in spite of the feature advantage the Leaf has.

The batteries are holding up remarkably well for the majority of Leaf owners, and are warranted to maintain 80% of their original range after 8 years or 100,000 miles. It is difficult to estimate how much reduced range will lower the value of the car, but expectations are that they will still hold their value better than gas cars because they will still run just fine on cheap, clean electricity.

I don't know about you, but my personal driving habits don't include spontaneous trips of more than 100 miles without at least stopping to trade cars with a relative for the weekend.

Really? Do you live in the future, or perhaps a parallel universe?

No, but I live in an urban area with two large cities within 50 miles, both with adequate transit systems, which is quite possibly the same thing from your perspective.

The marginally-reduced flexibility is totally worth the savings, moral satisfaction, and pedal-flooring fun of driving a clean electric vehicle.

I'm glad you like it. I can't afford it, though. Plus, I don't want one.

If your lifestyle doesn't fit the EVs currently on the market, then I don't blame you. I respect that you will make the right decision for your particular needs. But not everyone is exactly like you, there are plenty of people who can save money and enjoy owning an EV, so bashing them is arbitrary and rude. After all, the most popular vehicle model in America is the F-150 pickup with a measly 2% of market share, proving that a car can be successful without having to satisfy everyone and their uncle.

Anyone who drives less than 30 miles to work every day (which is the majority of Americans) is a potential EV owner.

Don't you drive anywhere else?

Apparently not. In my almost perfect log of daily mileage starting in April, only once have I drive more than 100 miles in one day, and there was enough time in my schedule to charge enough to get home. I live 6 miles from work and 1 mile from school, so most days I drive less than 20 miles. My parents are 15 miles away, my friends are 30 miles away, and I usually carpool when going farther than that.

When you compare EVs to similarly-tricked-out gas cars, the prices are close

No, my VW Jetta TDI was considerably cheaper and is much less of a hassle.

and when you include fuel and maintenance savings the EV wins outright

No, how much gas and maintenance (are we including replacing the batteries here?) can you get for $50k?

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to compare. If you are comparing buying a new electric car to keeping your old gas one, that is a totally different question from what I intended. I also cannot comment on the economics of buying a $50,000 car, ever, and limit my discussions of economy to the Nissan Leaf. My statement is based off the Edmunds.com 5-year True Cost to Own(tm) comparing the base model Nissan Leaf to the base model Toyota Corolla: $35,567 for the Leaf, versus $37,440 for the Corolla, in spite of the feature advantage the Leaf has.

The batteries are holding up remarkably well for the majority of Leaf owners, and are warranted to maintain 80% of their original range after 8 years or 100,000 miles. It is difficult to estimate how much reduced range will lower the value of the car, but expectations are that they will still hold their value better than gas cars because they will still run just fine on cheap, clean electricity.

I don't know about you, but my personal driving habits don't include spontaneous trips of more than 100 miles without at least stopping to trade cars with a relative for the weekend.

Really? Do you live in the future, or perhaps a parallel universe?

No, but I live in an urban area with two large cities within 50 miles, both with adequate transit systems, which is quite possibly the same thing from your perspective.

The marginally-reduced flexibility is totally worth the savings, moral satisfaction, and pedal-flooring fun of driving a clean electric vehicle.

I'm glad you like it. I can't afford it, though. Plus, I don't want one.

If your lifestyle doesn't fit the EVs currently on the market, then I don't blame you. I respect that you will make the right decision for your particular needs. But not everyone is exactly like you, there are plenty of people who can save money and enjoy owning an EV, so bashing them is arbitrary and rude. After all, the most popular vehicle model in America is the F-150 pickup with a measly 2% of market share, proving that a car can be successful without having to satisfy everyone and their uncle.

I know places that charge 20% and up for used car loans.

Yeah we have some of the slime ball, "No credit? No problem!!!" type places. Even at a normal interest rate by the end of the loan they could have gotten a new vehicle.

I had a new car dealer try to pull the bullshit four-square worksheet on me. That's old school and lame. They claimed to not do the whole dance, then won't give me an out the door price and pull the lame old school, "Well how much do you want to pay per month?" I don't care. I'll figure out financing. You said I could have the one for $21K out the door (which you have conveniently forgotten and never wrote on paper), will you do the 4x4 model for $24K or not? I ended up buying from a dealer that I made an email offer on a new vehicle. Came in, signed some papers walked out in less than 20 minutes owning a new car. Worked out great for everyone.

Edmunds.com shows the 5-year "True Cost to Own" of a 2012 Nissan LEAF is $1000 LESS than that of a 2012 Toyota Corolla, and the LEAF is bigger and much more fun to drive. Admittedly, that includes the $7500 federal tax credit

So, in other words, the Nissan LEAF is less expensive, as long as you keep it for more than 37.5 years.

Edmunds.com shows the 5-year "True Cost to Own" of a 2012 Nissan LEAF is $1000 LESS than that of a 2012 Toyota Corolla, and the LEAF is bigger and much more fun to drive. Admittedly, that includes the $7500 federal tax credit

So, in other words, the Nissan LEAF is less expensive, as long as you keep it for more than 37.5 years.

electric vehicles are still much more expensive than equivalent compact cars.

This is a myth caused by sticker shock. The savings on fuel and maintenance more than make up for the added cost. Edmunds.com shows the 5-year "True Cost to Own" of a 2012 Nissan LEAF is $1000 LESS than that of a 2012 Toyota Corolla, and the LEAF is bigger and much more fun to drive. Admittedly, that includes the $7500 federal tax credit, but that is the calculus we currently have to work with. Cost will come down with time. Like you said, many more people could be happy with an electric car if they would just do the math--and take a test drive! Electric cars are amazing.

electric vehicles are still much more expensive than equivalent compact cars.

This is a myth caused by sticker shock. The savings on fuel and maintenance more than make up for the added cost. Edmunds.com shows the 5-year "True Cost to Own" of a 2012 Nissan LEAF is $1000 LESS than that of a 2012 Toyota Corolla, and the LEAF is bigger and much more fun to drive. Admittedly, that includes the $7500 federal tax credit, but that is the calculus we currently have to work with. Cost will come down with time. Like you said, many more people could be happy with an electric car if they would just do the math--and take a test drive! Electric cars are amazing.

Check your math. Accelerating at a rate of 6mph/sec (slower than a minivan at 0-60) would put you at 4000 mph in a little over 11 minutes.

BMW has an entry-level model that allows people who can't actually afford their cars to get their cars. This is not the case with Mercedes.

Not true. Mercedes also has a lower end model that is comparable with other new sedans. Heck, there are pickup trucks that cost more than this one.

With that said, I don't disagree totally with the point you're making. I think way too often, the attitude of the folks driving these cars has more to do with how they want to be perceived (i.e. powerful, wealthy, stylish, etc) than anything else.

After months of study conducted for the National Research Council by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), researchers concluded that the unintended acceleration accidents in 2009 and 2010 couldn't be traced to any problems with engines' electronic throttle control systems.

cite.

1) Yes, when you tax INCOME you need a flat tax of 20%. But the total ASSET, in this country is more than 4x the yearly income. Assume you are well off and make 100k a year. You save well and area millionaire. 20% of 100k = 20k. Now look at asset tax 5% of 1,000,000 = 50k. In order to match up the 20% flat income tax with a 5% flat asset tax, the guy making 100k a year needs to own exactly $400,000

If the guy owns less than $400,000, then he comes out ahead using my flat tax. If he owns MORE than $00,000 he is better off with the flat income tax. And that is the key to my argument. At 5%, it is set up to encourage people to own a reasonable amount of stuff. If they get greedy and buy luxuries, they end up paying more taxes. If they are thrifty and invest their money and/or spend on experiences (good trips, good food, etc.) then they come out ahead.

Most importantly, spending money on experiences like good food is BETTER for the economy, then spending money on items like a TV or diamonds. If you think about it for a short time, you understand why.

Note this a VERY basic mistake - anyone at all familiar with math should have been able to see that a tax on income does NOT have the same percentage as a tax on wealth.

2) I did not make a mistake about the poor not paying income tax. YOU did in restricting it to income tax. Like I said later in my argument, you can NOT just look at income tax and ignore the other taxes. You have to look at ALL the taxes. Yes the poor pay almost nothing in income tax - but they pay HUGE amounts of payroll tax - far more than 20% of their salary.

3) Yes, this is a tax on savings. So what? Yes, over time you pay huge amounts of taxes on the assets you have. But you are saving other taxes that all evens out. The difference between my tax and the standard income is an income tax discourages people from working harder - if you are self employed then you have to work twice as hard to get by. You work 20 hours but the first ten are taxed away. MY tax ENCOURAGES you to work hard and discourages LUXURIES. You work twice as hard, if you spend the money on things like trips, good food, or simply to pay off your college loans then you pay NO TAX. It only starts taxing you when you decided to collect luxuries and KEEP them.

4) As for your RIDICULOUS idea that over 14 years you would have paid more tax on an item then it is worth, it indicates again total ignorance of how the real world operates.

It's called DEPRECIATION vs APPRECIATION. As in each year items either lose value (car) or gain value (stocks). You buy that car for 30k, when you drive it off the lot, it loses 9%. Next year, another 10%, the year after that, another 10% http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/how-fast-does-my-new-car-lose-value-infographic.html

Note that 5% is about 1/2 the yearly depreciate of about 10%. Simple math says once again that the total taxes paid will NEVER exceed the original cost to buy.

With stocks it is even better. They go up in value about 8% each year. 8% is >5%. You still gain money on owning them.

5)Untracked assets already exist. They are called CAYMAN ISLAND BANK ACCOUNTS. They exist because it It is so incredibly easy to hide INCOME and so hard to hide wealth, Your entire argument is in favor of my asset tax, not against it.

My version is biased toward the poor, while the existing system helps the rich. Income is easy to hide - if you have an accountant and foreign bank accounts. It is FAR FAR FAR easier to hide $1,000 of stuff than it is to hide $1,000,0000 of stuff.

But wealth is much much harder to hide. If you generate cash then the US government realizes it. We can easily track what you do with it, but then your accountants come in with all the complex rules about what is

Edmunds has a nice calculator for comparing what you'd save on gas vs. the cost of a newer car: http://www.edmunds.com/calculators/gas-guzzler.html

Makes it easy to see that, in most cases, it doesn't really make sense.

Why does everyone feel the need to evaluate an eelctric car on price alone? People buy cars on more than price or everyone would be driving a Yugo - things like style, performance, image, and yes, even gas mileage all factor into it.

Here's what Edmunds said about the Volt:

http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/?sub=hatchback

Pros

Low monthly fuel cost in normal driving; useful 300-mile maximum range; appealing standard features; high-tech cabin.

Cons

Questionable value; small backseat for two people only; touchy brakes; no power front seats; home charger is a necessity.

And here's what they said about the $41,000 17/24mpg Lincoln MKS:

http://www.edmunds.com/lincoln/mks/2012/?sub=sedan

Pros

Spacious interior; plentiful standard features; good power and fuel economy from the turbocharged V6.

Lackluster base V6; strange combination of soggy handling and firm ride; mediocre interior materials; overpriced for what you get.

If someone is willing to spend $40K for a car and likes the added independence from the gas station the Volt provides, why is the Volt a worse purchase than say, a Lincoln?

My commute is too short to make any electric or hybrid car worthwhile (since I usually commute by bike), Instead of putting money into a car, I'll put it into a solar system for home, so when I do need to make a car purchase, I can power it myself. Should cost around $33K ($23K with tax incentives) to put up a system to provide 600KWh/month to power my home and car. (the Nissan Leaf gets around 3 miles/kwh so 150Kwh would power a 20 mile/day commute)