Slashdot Mirror

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)

All the bashers are talking trash, but have probably never even SEEN a Volt in person, yet feel they can comment on it.

My comments are based on the professional review by Edmunds. I put a lot more faith in Edmunds than in the comments of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot. Edmunds says the Volt gets low 30s on gas. http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/?sub=hatchback#fullreview

"In an Edmunds test of a Volt with the battery pack depleted, the car averaged 31.4 mpg in mixed driving. This isn't a bad mileage figure compared to regular gas vehicles, but it is seriously subpar when compared to the mid-40s mpg that a standard hybrid typically provides."

So sorry, but you're full of it.

There - seeing a name make you feel better? Want some cookies? As to quoting Edmunds, at least quote it without changing it - they claim 33mpg, which is still off, at http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/?sub=hatchback

Lies, misleading, and BS is all you folks can come up with. And as to electric range, here;s a pic of my dash this morning, after driving in almost 20mi:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l33/Sharkonwheels/2012%20Chevrolet%20Volt/IMG_20120306_095705.jpg

as you can see, the center console computer says I travelled 19.2mi, consumed 4.9kWh, and if you check the dash, oh my, what's it say? Yes. 21mi left.

Want me to help you with the math? that's almost 41mi. estimated. And guess what, I did the almost 20 home again, and the dash STILL said I had 5mi left in EV mode.

Want me to help you remove that foot that you so vehemently shoved down your throat?

You're quoting some dumbasses you've never met - I'm taking pictures of my dash. We done Einstein? Or you want more pictures and proof?

Oh, and if you look even HARDER at the center console, you'll see it says 66.6mpg lifetime. And that's with dealership idiots putting a couple hundred miles on it, and not driving efficiently.

Never ceases to amaze me the gullibility of people, and believing everything they read as if it's the gospel. How about getting off the computer, and learning a few things on your own, and gathering your own information, instead of taking the lazy way and having someone else do it for you? Knowledge is empowering. Ignorance is the easy way out.

All the bashers are talking trash, but have probably never even SEEN a Volt in person, yet feel they can comment on it.

My comments are based on the professional review by Edmunds. I put a lot more faith in Edmunds than in the comments of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot. Edmunds says the Volt gets low 30s on gas. http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/?sub=hatchback#fullreview

"In an Edmunds test of a Volt with the battery pack depleted, the car averaged 31.4 mpg in mixed driving. This isn't a bad mileage figure compared to regular gas vehicles, but it is seriously subpar when compared to the mid-40s mpg that a standard hybrid typically provides."

So sorry, but you're full of it.

There - seeing a name make you feel better? Want some cookies? As to quoting Edmunds, at least quote it without changing it - they claim 33mpg, which is still off, at http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/?sub=hatchback

Lies, misleading, and BS is all you folks can come up with. And as to electric range, here;s a pic of my dash this morning, after driving in almost 20mi:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l33/Sharkonwheels/2012%20Chevrolet%20Volt/IMG_20120306_095705.jpg

as you can see, the center console computer says I travelled 19.2mi, consumed 4.9kWh, and if you check the dash, oh my, what's it say? Yes. 21mi left.

Want me to help you with the math? that's almost 41mi. estimated. And guess what, I did the almost 20 home again, and the dash STILL said I had 5mi left in EV mode.

Want me to help you remove that foot that you so vehemently shoved down your throat?

You're quoting some dumbasses you've never met - I'm taking pictures of my dash. We done Einstein? Or you want more pictures and proof?

Oh, and if you look even HARDER at the center console, you'll see it says 66.6mpg lifetime. And that's with dealership idiots putting a couple hundred miles on it, and not driving efficiently.

Never ceases to amaze me the gullibility of people, and believing everything they read as if it's the gospel. How about getting off the computer, and learning a few things on your own, and gathering your own information, instead of taking the lazy way and having someone else do it for you? Knowledge is empowering. Ignorance is the easy way out.

All the bashers are talking trash, but have probably never even SEEN a Volt in person, yet feel they can comment on it.

My comments are based on the professional review by Edmunds. I put a lot more faith in Edmunds than in the comments of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot. Edmunds says the Volt gets low 30s on gas.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/?sub=hatchback#fullreview

"In an Edmunds test of a Volt with the battery pack depleted, the car averaged 31.4 mpg in mixed driving. This isn't a bad mileage figure compared to regular gas vehicles, but it is seriously subpar when compared to the mid-40s mpg that a standard hybrid typically provides."

So sorry, but you're full of it.

Not too far. 3 months. The 2012 model year for the Volt started mid-2011.

http://www.edmunds.com/futuremodels/2012/

I had a Honda Civic DX hatchback (4-speed) and was able to achieve 53 mpg. It's EPA rating was 40mpg. It was routine to get 45-50 mpg and I usually drove 75mph on the interstate.

My 1996 Geo Prizm is rated for 27mpg, but typically gets 33 and has gotten 40.5.

My 2001 Toyota Prius gets 40mpg at 80+ mph and 60-ish mpg when going 48 mph.
It's rated for 41 mpg.
5500 mile cross country trip with 85mph interstate speeds - 45 mpg.

The ratings are wrong.
Your mileage will vary by 25-50% from the test numbers.
Not all drivetrains are equivalent, some will surge and waste fuel like the GMC Acadia. It's rated for 23 mpg and some people are only getting 13. (76% error)

Manual transmissions are best since you can see the road ahead and shift accordingly.
Being in top gear with the engine idling while going downhill is an excellent way to conserve fuel.
It also allows you to downshift just before going up a hill without having to step on the gas.

I bet a fuel-conscious driver in that mustang you linked could get 30-35 mpg.

Sure, cars and planes don't go faster in 2011 than in 1980. So what?

Yes, yes they do. I have a 1982 Luxury car that tops out at 100 mph and it's a mercedes. The modern equivalent (The BlueTEC S 350 being the current equivalent of my 300SD) is electronically limited to 155 mph and makes 0-60 in just over 7 seconds, it takes me more like 15. I murdered my '78 Celica by making it do 100 mph for a sustained period (though it was surprisingly stable at speed as a platform) but a 2010 celica will make a buck twenty or better. Planes might not be faster, but cars most CERTAINLY are.

I don't know about $500K but Maserati has a base MSRP of $118,900 to $136,300, Ferrari $192,000 to $310,543, McLaren has a MSRP of $245K, Then there is a big jump to the Bugatti Veryons with a base MSRP of $1,705,769 for the coupe and $1,990,064 for a convertible, but a convertible that goes 254MPH just seems wrong. I can't imagine them doing to much volume with those.

I don't know about $500K but Maserati has a base MSRP of $118,900 to $136,300, Ferrari $192,000 to $310,543, McLaren has a MSRP of $245K, Then there is a big jump to the Bugatti Veryons with a base MSRP of $1,705,769 for the coupe and $1,990,064 for a convertible, but a convertible that goes 254MPH just seems wrong. I can't imagine them doing to much volume with those.

I don't know about $500K but Maserati has a base MSRP of $118,900 to $136,300, Ferrari $192,000 to $310,543, McLaren has a MSRP of $245K, Then there is a big jump to the Bugatti Veryons with a base MSRP of $1,705,769 for the coupe and $1,990,064 for a convertible, but a convertible that goes 254MPH just seems wrong. I can't imagine them doing to much volume with those.

I don't know about $500K but Maserati has a base MSRP of $118,900 to $136,300, Ferrari $192,000 to $310,543, McLaren has a MSRP of $245K, Then there is a big jump to the Bugatti Veryons with a base MSRP of $1,705,769 for the coupe and $1,990,064 for a convertible, but a convertible that goes 254MPH just seems wrong. I can't imagine them doing to much volume with those.

More than once I've had to side step quickly to avoid a Prius in a store parking lot - I'm used to audio cues of my environment, and they just weren't paying attention while backing out.

Sound-makers on Prius and others is already being done in Japan

you are right about fuel, lubricants, and filters improving over time. But it's not as though that's the only thing that has improved. Engine design has also improved. How many engines use pushrods anymore? How many engines are fuel injected today? Even things like plugs. Today, you get platinum tipped plugs which can go 30k - 60k miles without a change. Hardened valve seats means no more leaded gas. That means cleaner emissions. Engine tech has improved.

It is pretty unremarkable for a 4 cylinder engine to get 170 hp/150ft-lbs of torque and get 30 mpg on the highway. Those old engines would get about 15mpg and make 50% less hp/torque.

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2011/ford/fusion/101325677/specs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_210#Engines_2

I said that you had to take your car to a mechanic every year or two. Coolant flush, plugs, fuel filter, tranny flush, etc. All required maintenance. But you don't have to really know about that stuff. Personally, I do and perform my own maintenance. But you don't have to be so hands on.

I drive a 2000 nissan. 150k miles on it so far and just now recently it developed its first real problem (had to replace fuel pump). If that thing doesn't get at least 250k I'll be wondering what the heck went wrong.

I like cars. It'd be awesome to work on one of those old chevy small blocks. Would love to get my hands on one. If I had the time and money, you can bet I'd drive an old bel-air or impala. But I certainly wouldn't expect to drive it for 150k miles and only have to do only routine maintenance.

"Who cares about the hardware, as long as it looks nice! It is very, very important to developers to know how the hardware works. I'd not want one who does not anywhere near my systems "

Depends on the type of work you need done. If you need someone to write a device driver or program a microcontroller, then sure. If you want someone to develop a website then you'd be a fool to want it tailored to specific hardware. In that case, you want someone who knows how to design a good scalable website, which means that you don't even know what kind of hardware will be running the site because it could change.

And sharepoint doesn't look nice.

I have a hybrid with a CVT. I can basically out accelerate almost anything on the road (except for true sports cars) from a standstill to the speed limit.

Not a chance, unless "the speed limit" is very low.

Although you will almost certainly use less fuel, there are many non-"sports cars" that will out-accelerate any hybrid. There's even this seven passenger hauler that weighs nearly 5000 pounds.

I used Edmunds Cost of ownership list.

At my office everyone was trying to out-hybrid each other, and talking about all the money they would save. At 5 dollars a gallon it really seemed worth it to them to buy brand new hybrids.

I showed that at 10 dollars a gallon the civic hybrid finally paid for itself in the typical 5 year ownership term over the non-hybrid, nothing else even came close until you modeled gas at 11 dollars a gallon.

For kicks I modeled a 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo - a Giant Gas-wasting monster of a 2-seater. And showed that assuming you needed 150/month for ongoing maintenance, You could buy another one each year, fill it with 5 dollar gas all year, then set it on fire, using 10 gallons of gasoline before buying a new one... and it would still be significantly cheaper to own than a prius.

I get it, it's about conspicuous conservation. But Faux Green is pretty played out.

There is no Porsche made in the last 20 years that had only 220 HP

Wrong

Maybe if you said "the last 7 years"...

The lack of a clutch pedal probably has something to do with it, but not exactly in the way you're proposing. In the Audi case, investigators concluded that pedal placement had something to do with the incidents. Here were the relevant facts back then:
1) For virtually every incident, the Audi was the driver's first non-American car.
2) Distance between the brake and accelerator pedals in Audi 5000's was less than in most American cars (probably because they used the same pedal cluster as manual-transmission models)
3) Pedal height was different from what drivers of American cars would expect. Audi placed the brake and accelerator pedals at roughly the same height to facilitate heel-and-toe downshifting. Most American cars at the time had the brake pedal substantially higher than the accelerator.

All these factors taken together meant that some drivers would get confused about which pedal they were depressing. The greater prevalence of manual transmissions in the rest of the world would help to explain the lack of such incidents outside of the United States.

your car analogy is not true. pro tip: if you're going to post with an IANAL disclaimer, consider just keeping your yap shut.

Protip: If you're going to protip, be right.

Edmunds: What voids your vehicle's warranty

Aftermarket parts or modifications: This aspect of warranty coverage has a great deal of gray area. Although many dealers would have you think otherwise, simply having an aftermarket part or modifying your vehicle cannot void your warranty.

"Some dealerships may say 'just because you have a [cold air] intake or something' that the whole vehicle warranty is voided," explains Loren Wong, Edmunds associate business analyst and a former warranty administrator for BMW and Acura. "That's not true."

The saving grace for consumers is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. The act states that a dealer must prove that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage.

Its like the 40k a year person who wants to look rich by driving a BMW. Sure its flashy but whats underneath?

Uh, quite a bit, actually:

The BMW 3 Series is the company's top seller in the United States and a favorite in the marketplace for good reason: It's a well-built, premium compact vehicle endowed with world-class fit and finish, ample power, and a comfortable ride and handling trade-off that is unmatched by most cars at any price.

http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/3series/review.html

Car analogy (you know you wanted one): That's like walking into the Ferrari dealership expecting to figure out if you can afford the Ferrari 599 GTB after you ask "how much does it cost?" and then asking "and how's the fuel economy?"

Hmmm.... And I wouldn't condone looking up your local Ferrari dealer just so you could go in the store and do exactly that. That would be childish. Don't. No, really.

I'm left with the same old question.

If the major car companies could indeed implement any of various technologies or techniques to enhance fuel economy, why would they NOT do it?

For instance, if just introducing turbulence in the fuel stream or direct injection in the chamber improved fuel economy substantially, why would they not do it?

Actually, they do.

TFA makes a few claims about the Transonic invention:

- Heating the gasoline.
- Pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber.
- injecting it into the combustion chamber.

Pre-heating the gasoline is not common, to my knowledge, in passenger car engines. However, it is the subject of a patent. Indeed, there is an fascinating writeup by a determined and fairly clever amateur (maybe) on preheating the fuel. His concept seems dangerous, but it might work... Might, if we could test it adequately.

Pressurizing the gasoline is fundamental to injection; the process is obvious upon inspection. Higher pressures are being used now to overcome other problems. So far, we are not seeing improved economy, largely because these techniques are being used to improve performance. More about that later.

Injecting it into the chamber is not new, nor is it unused in passenger cars. Porche uses the technique, and advertises that it does improve economy. This is not new art.

So, if these techniques are well-known ( I know of them, so I expect the engineers know them even better), why aren;t they beign used to improve economy?

Well, it's later now. Performance is also a goal.

Turbocharging is used to essentially stuff more air and fuel into the chamber and either improve performance or economy, at little cost since it uses exhaust gas to power the pump. Usually used to deliver performance. actually, to deliver improved performance from otherwise economical engines. Serving two purposes at the same time - good engineering. Supercharging requires engine power to deliver the improved performance, so economy is not a goal there.

And the American market at least is not so focused on economy. Somewhat, but we also want to be able to beat the other guy to the end of the ramp. Deal with it.

Toyota clearly demonstrates the incentive manufacturers have to pursue economical cars, though right now it's as much marketing as it is market share. All-electric cars were tried - the Chevy EV1. It probably failed primarily because it threatened dealer profits. There is some diversity of opinion on this. The EV1 was just an experiment.

But my answer to the question "why not" is simple. These techniques to improve economy are not without consequences. Preheating fuel increases pressure and therefore chamber pressures. This imposes new demands on engine design, some increasing weight and size, which is contrary to current design trends. Complex injector design needs to be tested to verify it can survive at least the 100,000 mile standards. Lots of inventors don't ever test long-term or design life. The EPA does.

Bottom line, for me, is that if it were that simple it's either a true breakthrough or it's not that good in practice. Which one is this? I vote not that good in practice, but if it is, the manufacturers will either license it or steal it. Or not, for a good (to them) reason.

Well, according to this breakdown of a Prius motor and this diagram, a Prius does indeed have gears.

I think that Woz's point about software glitches is a good one, but it may be just a red herring in this case. Toyota's got quality problems up the wazoo, both software and hardware (defective wazoos to be recalled later this quarter). IMHO (and the NSHO of many pundits lately) is that a focus on speed and growth, rather than planning and quality, is at the root of the problem. Sounds very much like the state of many corporate IT shops.

Check these out:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0eb3fd
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/sienna/2004/discussion.html

I think that Woz's point about software glitches is a good one, but it may be just a red herring in this case. Toyota's got quality problems up the wazoo, both software and hardware (defective wazoos to be recalled later this quarter). IMHO (and the NSHO of many pundits lately) is that a focus on speed and growth, rather than planning and quality, is at the root of the problem. Sounds very much like the state of many corporate IT shops.

Check these out:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0eb3fd
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/sienna/2004/discussion.html

This is a worthless story trying to bash electronics for a mechanical failure, and even the story admits that the electronics are not the problem in this specific case. What a load of hogwash. The article doesn't even mention or link to the real source of the problem and it fails to provide additional sources of information for people who might be affected. Someone's got to kick timothy in the ass for getting this dribble posted on the front page. At least post a story about a real electronics's failure causing serious problems such as the O2 sensor issue that the poster above mentioned, now that's a scary situation.

Our New Car

I just bought a 2010 Toyota Camry LE 2.5L I4 6-speed Automatic with EX (Upgraded Radio) and QA (Aluminum Wheels) as a first car for my wife and I as we have just moved across the country to a new city. This was the choice after a lot of researching and test driving of other vehicles and then eliminating them based on real cost of ownership, fuel efficiency, components used, safety ratings, the quality of built, the comfort of the ride, and the headaches or having to deal with the specific sales people (Honda, I'm looking at you!).

Just to make it clear that I'm not a Toyota fan boy and I am not a car person at all since don't find cars "sexy" and I was perfectly happy with my old 1994 Chrysler. This new car is not the perfect vehicle for us, it was just the best in the class for the price. There are some deficiencies in the car, such as the trip computer not showing you fuel efficiency ratings, the quality of the construction in the plastic covering under the engine, cheap plywood backing covering the spare tire in the trunk, and louder than normal wind noise coming from the front roof support posts and root during 80 mpg highway driving speeds, a cup holder divider that comes out anytime you take a cup out of it, and probably a bunch of other issues that we'll find out after more than 4-weeks of owning it.

This recall does not really trouble us since it is mentioned that the issue is rare, it only happens in cars sued for a while already, there is a environmental and humidity aspect to the problem with regards to condensation, and the cause is a gradual wearing down of a bushing that causes additional friction preventing the accelerator pedal from returning back to the home position that happens overtime and is noticeable with a pedal that starts becoming slow to return.

Our car was just manufactured in 2009-11 in Kentucky and I'll be checking the information below today on the weekend to see if our pedal is in the recall or not, most likely it it because it most likely has the CTS manufactured part. I'll call the dealer and arrange for a replacement in a few weeks while after they get a handle on all the people that are coming to them now. No rush on this. I've also instructed my wife on how to resolve this problem if it does occur to her when she's driving by hitting the breaks and shifting into neutral gear, then turning the ignition off when she's safely off the road.

Below is some real information about this recall.

Toyota.com - Latest News About Toyota's Safety Recall Campaign

1. Is my car safe to drive until a fix is issued?

The condition is rare and generally does not occur suddenly. It seems to occur when the pedal mechanism becomes worn and, in certain conditions, the accelerator pedal may become harder to depress, slower to return or, in the worst case, stuck in a partially depressed position.

3. What is the actual issue affecting accelerator pedals?

In rare instances, there is a possibility that the affected accelerator pedal may stick in a partially downward position or slowly return to the non-pressed position.

4. Is there actually a problem with the vehicle's compu

http://www.edmunds.com/saab/97x/review.html

This is just the conclusion

Cars are one of the most completely recycled things on the planet.

According to Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures, at least 84 percent of an average car's material content gets recycled. As incredible as it seems, automotive recycling ranks as the 16th largest industry in the United States. Recycling those vehicles provides enough steel to make nearly 13 million new cars, while also providing jobs for 46,000 people.

China had 40 "death vans" built by Junguan Group to standardize executions. Now we know why.

Why is there so much hate for supposed Prius "smug" but not the same amount for luxury car owners? People typically buy cars that make them happy. I don't rag on anyone who drives an Excursion, or a Corvette, or a Mercedes. Yet there is tons of hate for Prius drivers. What the fuck?

No Prius has been built in America - Toyota was planning on opening a plant in Mississippi to build them, then the economy went to shit.

Thats great that your Corolla cost less, but Corollas fucking suck. They have no space, and crap power. You know what a Prius gets on the highway? 45mpg at 80mph, 50mpg from 65-75, and 55+ below that. The hybrid system may not do all that much on the highway, but don't doubt that the Prius gets great fuel economy at those speeds.

The Prius is entirely a solution to American needs: We want a vehicle with high fuel economy while still having space. The Prius does that and does it well.

The Corolla you have must have the 1.8 liter engine. According to edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124046 it gets a 0-60 time of 9.1 seconds. The '09 Prius does 0-60 in 10.3 seconds; thats with a 1.5 liter engine. http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius/2009/testdrive.html

The batteries, well, what can I say. There are bad things in the batteries, but they can be recycled. Can I recycle gasoline that I have already used? No. Which will be worse for the environment, over the lifetime of the vehicle (as people always use this stat)? Gasoline. No one seems to care though, they just want to bash on the Prius.

The Volt is a step, its not the ultimate solution. So chill the fuck out.

Oh and by the way, you say your Corolla cost you 1/3 that of a Prius. You must have got one hell of a fucking deal then, because the prices listed on Edmunds.com (check my links) show the Corolla at $21,975, and the Prius at $22,000.

Why is there so much hate for supposed Prius "smug" but not the same amount for luxury car owners? People typically buy cars that make them happy. I don't rag on anyone who drives an Excursion, or a Corvette, or a Mercedes. Yet there is tons of hate for Prius drivers. What the fuck?

No Prius has been built in America - Toyota was planning on opening a plant in Mississippi to build them, then the economy went to shit.

Thats great that your Corolla cost less, but Corollas fucking suck. They have no space, and crap power. You know what a Prius gets on the highway? 45mpg at 80mph, 50mpg from 65-75, and 55+ below that. The hybrid system may not do all that much on the highway, but don't doubt that the Prius gets great fuel economy at those speeds.

The Prius is entirely a solution to American needs: We want a vehicle with high fuel economy while still having space. The Prius does that and does it well.

The Corolla you have must have the 1.8 liter engine. According to edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124046 it gets a 0-60 time of 9.1 seconds. The '09 Prius does 0-60 in 10.3 seconds; thats with a 1.5 liter engine. http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius/2009/testdrive.html

The batteries, well, what can I say. There are bad things in the batteries, but they can be recycled. Can I recycle gasoline that I have already used? No. Which will be worse for the environment, over the lifetime of the vehicle (as people always use this stat)? Gasoline. No one seems to care though, they just want to bash on the Prius.

The Volt is a step, its not the ultimate solution. So chill the fuck out.

Oh and by the way, you say your Corolla cost you 1/3 that of a Prius. You must have got one hell of a fucking deal then, because the prices listed on Edmunds.com (check my links) show the Corolla at $21,975, and the Prius at $22,000.

You have to be careful when using too many colors, or else you might wind up with something like Windows XP which looks like it was designed by Fisher-Price.

Seriously, it's easier to be minimalist, as you won't offend or annoy people as much. If you try to do more bold things, aesthetically, you might find some people who love it, but a lot of people will absolutely hate it. GM just had to shed an entire car company that tried "bold styling" too much, called Pontiac. Here's an example of one of their more famous forays into non-conservative styling:
http://www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/top10/05.trucks.worst.residual.value/05.pontiac.aztek.500.jpg
I found this image in an article about "worst residual value". With something that ugly (though I'm sure the designers didn't think so), it's hard to find people to buy it from you. I recall this vehicle being an outright disaster in sales.

Of course, that's the beauty of themes. Unlike a car, where once it rolls out of the factory you can't easily change the way it looks or its color, changing a theme on your desktop environment is pretty trivial, taking only a few mouse clicks. So it's better if the DE uses a minimalist theme for the default, and then offers some more exciting themes as options which users can select if they want.

It is $20-33k without a battery. Call it insane if you want. The Volt only has 40 miles electric range. Many people want a pure EV for the lower maintenance and longer electric range (for example, for a commuter car).

Contrary to popular myth, EVs aren't currently expensive just because of the batteries. They're also expensive because many of their components are not produced in bulk. Handmade motors, chargers, inverters, etc aren't cheap. That'll change over time, but if you want the first gen...

Did you try Googling for "mpg competition" and "6000 mpg"?

Now I don't have the greatest faith in the rules of these competitions. They put exactly 1 gallon of gas in the tank, which I believe is subject to error. However, 1000+ mpg results have been going on for several years now. Closed-course, specially built ultra-lightweight car, naturally.

So is the version they are giving as a prize from the contest with the first Transformer DVD? Why did it take so long to get the Camaro into production? I know the first movie used the concept 2006 Camaro panels on a Pontiac GTO.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=121044

GM could probably avoided their bailouts and bankruptcy if they could have allocated more to cars that people want instead of competing with styles the Japanese car makers are doing and taking a loss on them.

It's not just theory.... here is an article about just such a robotic system, including a video demonstrating it operating.

Ever time you use your card online you have to punch it in.

I have my credit card number memorized (so I don't have to pull it out of my pocket) and I don't have to change it every month.

Every time you want to unlock your front door, you take your keys out of your pocket.

Garage door opener. I don't use the front door and I don't have to reach into my pocket for this. It's either on the wall next to the door inside the garage, or on my visor right above my head. Single button press, not typing a special, memorized, changed-every-month combination.

Every time you go into your car, you take your keys out of your pocket.

No, I don't.

I didn't finish reading all your post, FYI the battery currently costs $36k, but if you pay $12k now, Tesla will promise (if still in business) that will cover the cost of a battery within 5 years. they only guarantee a battery for a year, and think it will last 5year 200k miles. so really the battery currently costs
$118k for 300k miles, at 2-4* the cost of gas for a car.

It's fragile, underpowered and heavy, with crap axle articulation

Consumer Reports and Edmunds both seem to think you are full of crap in your analysis of its offroad abilities. Furthermore how you can call a vehicle with nearly 400HP underpowered strikes me as bizarre, even as heavy as it is. I've ridden in one myself on an offroad test track and it was impressive - though I'd never buy one in a million years. Perhaps you are referring to the H3 which was supposedly designed primarily for urban use and might actually be underpowered?

There is plenty to complain about with Hummers but please criticize the right things.

turbo-diesels are dropped from the lineup

Here is a perfect example of it. Turbo diesels are particularly useful where high torque is needed, like small vans or trucks or utility vehicles. It is a dream power plant for those applications. Yet, when Ford decides to bring the Transit Connect, they drop the 1.8l Duratorq Diesel engine and substitute it with a 2.0l gas engine. Here is a relevant quote on the subject from greencarcongress.com:

Rather than the 1.8-liter Duratorq diesel engines featured in the Transit Connect in Europe, the version headed for North American offers a 2.0-liter, four-cylinder gasoline engine and automatic transmission. The North American version of the Transit Connect delivers fuel economy estimated at 19 mpg US city and 24 mpg US highway. The 66 kW (88 hp) version of the 1.8L Duratorq on the European cycle delivers 30 mpg US (7.9L/100km) city and 40.6 mpg US (5.8L/100km) highway.

Here we go again.

One could probably arrange for another "tanker" car to drive parallel to yours and have them refuel you without stopping through an extended hose. I don't see what could prevent that from working. :) Ok, seriously, why has this not been tried in a Gumball rally?

It's correct that most of the steps in refueling are the same, but your numbers for recharging the batteries come, ehm, from a dream world. While I don't deny the existence fast-charge battery cells, that's not what's used in the current electric cars. Instead, the Tesla cars use pretty standard laptop battery cells which take a few hours at best to charge. If you recharge at home, then sure, the situation is different. But then, I can also refuel on my way to work on a station next to a jammed street, possibly saving time by cutting in front of the cars that stayed in the line.

As for the range, why, 600 miles is completely reasonable. A VW Golf appears to have a 55 litre tank, and can realistically do 5l/100 km (a TDI, not the one from the link), putting the range at over 1000km or over 600 miles. Yes, some people drive that long without stopping for anything more than a bathroom stop or driver swap.

Then, you completely sidestep the MPG issue. A Prius gets what, 50MPG? If the google calc is to be believed, that's about 4.7l/100km. That's just a bit better than the 5l/100 km for a diesel Golf, which is the official EU combined cycle number (actually 4.9), a pretty realistic estimate according to people who drive one. So yeah, it's a bit worse, but hardly "complete nonsense", especially once you consider that the other hybrids (Civic, Camry, even the Insight) have noticeably worse performance in this regard. I don't see what the energy density of diesel fuel has to do with anything, and there was also no talk about the emissions of any sort here, you just brought that up to make you point seem stronger.

The purchase price is the only point at which the original poster is way off, at least when talking about new cars, or unless he meant 20% more. As for used, which is what many people buy, the Prius can be three times more expensive than a Golf of a same year. Or did you not hear about used Priuses(?) selling for more than the new car's price a while ago? The panic subdued a little, but they're still ridiculously expensive. Prius Golf. As a hidden bonus, you also get a car which isn't a complete dog to drive. The Aptera is an entirely different beast, of course, but it's also not available anywhere yet.

Having said all that, I hope you don't get the impression that I'm against electric cars in principle and that I don't see any future for them. They're not quite here yet for a normal person, and Tesla doesn't deserve any special treatment for that. Neither do GM or Chrysel or anyone else for that matter, but I can hardly do anything about that. Countless industries managed to get their products down to an average person's level, and this one will have to do the same.

read this for the real stormy on car sales men
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying/articles/42962/article.html

I was really looking forward to charging my electric SUV via USB. Now my hopes are dashed!

If it takes 32 hours to charge a tesla with a 15 amp, 110 volt current, I'd hate to see the charging time with the 1.5 amps, 5 volts maximum USB 3 provides...

This post neatly explains the math behind Tesla charging.

If you do the math, a 10 gallon tank of gas holds about 360 kWh of energy. It'd take 9 days to suck that much power through a 110 volt, 15 amp circuit.

Fortunately, electric cars are more efficient at converting the energy in their batteries to kinetic energy than gasoline engines are -- they require fewer kWh per mile than gasoline cars, which in turn means you need to "refuel" and store less energy than a gasoline automobile does.

• The people that use craigslist are representative of the general population of Los Angeles.
• The distribution of cars for sale on craigslist for Los Angeles is similar or identical to the distribution of cars for sale in the city itself.

Now, none of those cars need to worry about snow, or road salt either. Yet, all of the first 20 cars here have mileage less than 28 mpg (and most have less than 25) according to FuelEconomy.gov (if you feel the source is biased, I won't mind using numbers from car forums*). So it looks like the people in Los Angeles use vehicles that are incredibly inefficient despite not needing to use such vehicles due to reasons such as yours. Is Los Angeles a very different city from the rest of the US? It's definitely worth looking at other cities too, then.

*In a few cases, I did: I found Edmund's CarSpace easy to search so I looked at that instead of fueleconomy.gov quite often.

Currently, many people get rid of their old cars by donating them to charities. After donating the car, you can take a tax deduction based upon what the charity was able to sell it at. http://www.edmunds.com/advice/selling/articles/48930/article.html. In most cases the Charities are fixing them up and selling them to people without cars or who could not afford a car on the open market.

Here's the catch, you're not going to be able to deduct $2,500 to $4,500 based upon your tax bracket. So if this bill passes we could see people giving their cars to the gov't rather than to a charity.

Also FTA, the older your car is, the less you get from the gov't as far as vouchers is concerned. Surprising.

What's wrong? Mostly that every week or so someone comes up with another article claiming cold fusion or gas made from dirty sweat socks or some such. The article seemed a bit thin to me so I did some googling and found an Edmunds article claiming the car would be out next year. But that article came out last year. See any cars around yet? Then I cam across this one that says the car won't be available around here until 2011. And then there's a Bloomberg article that claims that, "The government may subsidize hybrid cars to cut costs for consumers." So is the $22k price tag with or without the subsidy?

For comparison purposes, I've been following the saga of the Chevy Volt and I think the BYD offering falls into the too-good-to-be-true category. The best guess seems to be the Volt will cost around $35k to $40k, mostly because of the expensive lithium-ion batteries, and the all-electric range is about 40 miles. But the BYD says they're using the same batteries and selling around $22k with a 62 mile all-electric range. And while the Chinese model is allegedly "here" you and I won't get to see or touch one until at least 2011. Until I see better specs or more detailed plans I can't get excited about this.

Mind you, I think plug-in hybrids are the way to go, but cars like the Volt and Tesla never recover the extra cost of the vehicle in fuel savings. I suspect the answer is to ditch the fancy batteries and stick with cheap lead-acid packs and a limited all-electric range of about 20 miles for a basic two adult and two kid car. It still means that half the forty mile range will be all electric. The last piece of the puzzle will fall into place when parking spots (malls, office complexes, parking structures) offer recharging for a fee. How many people drive to work, then park for eight hours? Until then you're in a chicken-and-egg trade off. The rechargers won't be put in until people are buying plug-ins, but not many will buy plug-ins without the rechargers.

30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.

My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.

Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html

Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm

--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)

My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.

What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?

Yes, I know a number of people who get this sort of mileage on the highway from their LS1 F-bodies and Corvettes. It's not that much of a mystery, it's called gearing. 6th gear in the T-56 is .50:1 at 60mph the engine is only turning 1400rpm.

Who said anything about 30mph? He was going 60mph, reread the message.

Actually, you're wrong about window sticker numbers. Those are averages. Take a closer look at your window sticker; usually under the city mpg rating (on GM window stickers anyways) you'll see "Actual mileage" listed and it will be a range of something like 15-21 city, 23-33 highway (not the numbers for my Formula as I can't find the window sticker for it :/ )

I could care less what Edmunds has to say about a car that they test drove for maybe a week. I've been driving my Formula since I bought it new in July of 2002. I'm pretty sur eI have a better idea of how to get the best mileage out of it. Of course keep in mind the mileage I get is because of how I drive. If I were driving like I used to I would be getting about 20mpg average ;)

You'd max out the car in 5th gear, not 4th and the limiter is at 162 mph ;)

Yeah, I bought the Formula for a specific reason: I was doing A LOT of drag racing at the track in my 2000 GTP and I wanted something faster and that would take modification a bit better than the GTP did. It only had two options (Hurst short throw shifter and chromed rims) and I could have done without both. I've seen a lot of Formula's. Not as many as TA's of course, because peopel got the silly notion that a TA is faster than a Formula. Amusingly enough it's usually the other way around, because the Formula is lighter. The TA does have a better suspension though. My Formula dyno'd 307hp 326ft-lb at the wheels stock, with 3100 miles on the odo, so it wasn't even fully broken in yet. GM rates those motors at 305hp at the motor. Mine was actually lower than a lot of peopl'e stock dyno numbers too.

I've probably got close to 2000 passes at t

30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.

My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.

Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html

Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm

--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)

My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.

What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?

Yes, I know a number of people who get this sort of mileage on the highway from their LS1 F-bodies and Corvettes. It's not that much of a mystery, it's called gearing. 6th gear in the T-56 is .50:1 at 60mph the engine is only turning 1400rpm.

Who said anything about 30mph? He was going 60mph, reread the message.

Actually, you're wrong about window sticker numbers. Those are averages. Take a closer look at your window sticker; usually under the city mpg rating (on GM window stickers anyways) you'll see "Actual mileage" listed and it will be a range of something like 15-21 city, 23-33 highway (not the numbers for my Formula as I can't find the window sticker for it :/ )

I could care less what Edmunds has to say about a car that they test drove for maybe a week. I've been driving my Formula since I bought it new in July of 2002. I'm pretty sur eI have a better idea of how to get the best mileage out of it. Of course keep in mind the mileage I get is because of how I drive. If I were driving like I used to I would be getting about 20mpg average ;)

You'd max out the car in 5th gear, not 4th and the limiter is at 162 mph ;)

Yeah, I bought the Formula for a specific reason: I was doing A LOT of drag racing at the track in my 2000 GTP and I wanted something faster and that would take modification a bit better than the GTP did. It only had two options (Hurst short throw shifter and chromed rims) and I could have done without both. I've seen a lot of Formula's. Not as many as TA's of course, because peopel got the silly notion that a TA is faster than a Formula. Amusingly enough it's usually the other way around, because the Formula is lighter. The TA does have a better suspension though. My Formula dyno'd 307hp 326ft-lb at the wheels stock, with 3100 miles on the odo, so it wasn't even fully broken in yet. GM rates those motors at 305hp at the motor. Mine was actually lower than a lot of peopl'e stock dyno numbers too.

I've probably got close to 2000 passes at t

30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.

My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.

Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html

Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm

--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)

My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.

What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?

30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.

My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.

Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html

Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm

--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)

My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.

What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?