Slashdot Mirror

Good luck using your "spacious" car anywhere reasonably populated.

...my Yukon XL is an $80K truck...

So the price of a new EV comes between $20k for a Leaf (after incentives, etc) to $35k for the Model 3. Your truck is between 2 & 4(!!!) times the price of these vehicles - $45k to $65k more!

According to this site, your truck ranges between 12 & 16 miles to the gallon, so lets take the middle range & say you pay ($2.13/14) $0.15/mile. Engine maintenance seems to hover around $0.10/mile & depreciation reportedly averages 20% per year, or 60% of its total value after 5 years.

EV's maintenance costs are so low that manufacturers are basically giving them guarantees that are so long term I'm not going to even bother trying to calculate their per mile maintenance costs.
An EV typically consumes 20kWh per 100 miles, which with an average US price of $0.12/kWh, runs at $0.02/mile - if you even pay!

You sound like a big driver, so you probably do more, however let's use energy.gov's annual average of 11,244miles/car.

Your Yukon XL costs (11,244*0.25)+(80k*.2) = $18,811 per year, or $62,055 over 5 years - plus the additional $45k-$65k you paid up front. I'll let you do the sums for your real mileage.
The EVs cost $4k-$7k/year in depreciation, plus $225 if you recharge at home.

At 56k miles over 5 years, you're totalling...
Yukon: $107,055-$127,055
EVs: $12,000-$21,000 + up to $1,125 'leccy

And that's the point. You might be prepared to pay half the price of the median US home to finance your car, but I highly doubt you align with that quoted 90% of your fellow Americans.

£90/day is not "cheap", rent that for a week vacation and you've made a monthly car payment...

*sigh*

Best real world data is probably available from Fuelly, even though it may need some clean-up for fuel type and sub-model it can at least give you a decent idea of how well a certain model fares. Unfortunately some models have a limited number of samples even there.

But actual driving data is more relevant when selecting a vehicle than the manufacturer figures even if the number of samples is low.

EPA can't drive stick. And, they drive slow as all hell in automatics. No one gets the EPA mileage in an automatic unless they drive like a total asshole on the road (total slow fuck).

I have no trouble getting the EPA estimated mileage in my 1997 Audi A8 Quattro, and that was back in the day when the EPA mileage estimates were invented from dreams and unicorn jism. It's got 230,000 miles on it, and still gets over 19 MPG combined. The window sticker estimate is 17/25; the 3.7 liter FWD model has an 18 combined estimate and I have the 4.2 liter AWD version. (The EPA has not published a combined mileage estimate for my vehicle.) And here's a couple on Fuelly getting over 21, they must be doing pretty much all-highway. And I make pretty good time, I don't hesitate to pass, etc. I just don't waste fuel. Enjoying it isn't wasting it, but if you're on the brakes all the time, that is. And mind you, it has a fairly old-school automatic... clutch packs and not bands, but still triple-planetary.

Also, it's easy as hell to beat the EPA estimates while still driving fast with most manuals I've driven.

Most people don't downshift soon enough on flat, and/or downshift too soon on a hill, and they fail to get good mileage.

The Ford Mustang Ecoboost seems to be about where the EPA rating said it would be (21/32 city/highway)... I know I'm averaging 23.8 MPG in mine, and it's an 80/20 split of city/highway driving. Lots of people believe you'll always get the highway mileage, and forget the city rating.

I'm a hypermiler. I get 51 mpg out of my diesel minivan, But I have to work really hard at it, drive slowly, draft trucks, avoid braking, coast and engine-brake whenever I can. It's so much work I usually can't drive with the radio on, to avoid distraction.

Fuelly shows the same model/year minivan routinely gets 35 mpg or less in normal driving condition. So it's almost entirely a matter of driving style rather than technical tricks.

Because the US Jetta is 37.8 miles to the gallon and the UK Jetta is 45.4 miles to the gallon. http://www.fuelly.com/car/volk...

Except the battery msotly the same materials are used in fabrication. But you can power a tesla exclusively with renewable resource (solar electricity hydroelectricity, tide electricity geothermal electricity, wind electricity etc...) , or non carbon based resource (nuclear electricity). You cannot do that with a chevy impala. Over say 125.000 miles over 8 years (the lifetime of the tesla battery to have a comparison) let us say both the chevy and tesla go thru all fuel for the one and 1 battery for the other : http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/impala says chevy gets 25 MPG about. Let us say 30. So 125.000/30= about 4200 *gallons* of fuels. So assuming your electricity is done by nuclear or renewable means (would be an easy way in france for example, 75% electricity is nuclear, no idea for the US but it is dependent I guess, if you live in 3 gorge dam or california ;)), then to produce more carbon the tesla S battery would need to consume 4200 gallon of fuel equivalent carbon for the battery. Hint : that's not the case.

I find the tracking my kms on fuelly has led to much more knowledge about how many L/100km I am actually getting, rather than relying on "ideal" conditions. When doing research before buying new cars, it is also nice to have a "real world" database. I used to track using just the trip counter but it turns out that was wildly inaccurate. http://www.fuelly.com/

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 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

I have been driving a Sonata Hybrid for more than a year and so far it has performed very close to the advertised 40mpg.

I am no hypermiler, just drive it less agressively, use syntetic oil and keep tires at 40psi.

MPG depends immensely on driving style, so official figures are never going to be exactly right for everybody. I drive on empty roads in 5th gear at 30mph as much as possible, and my car has a total lifetime average of 71 British mpg(or 59mpg in US gallons) since I bought it 25k miles ago. It's an ordinary 5-seater estate car too, not some whacky-looking smart-car or fiat 500. http://www.fuelly.com/driver/jaffacake/fabia can anyone do better than that!?

Yeah, well, my car was averaging 38 (gasoline), not max. On highway, I could do a bit better. 40. And that was despite driving 75+mph
I checked out
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/520d/2012

and it looks like the 520d owners aren't doing much better.
But they might drive a bit more aggressively than I do.

(all measurements above in US gallons)

Anyway, 52mpg is indeed pretty damn good. Looks like it has regenerative breaking which helps on that front a lot.
Diesel though. In the US diesel is more expensive than gasoline.
http://thegreencarco.com/blog/news/diesel-more-expensive-gasoline/

Popularity of gasoline probably also explains why it is abbreviated in the US and not so much in europe.

I find such numbers very hard to believe - http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/insight/2010

Also, check this site out http://www.fuelly.com/driver/smithy
It needs a bit more online filtering ability to root out regional differences, but it is fun to peruse.
BTW that link is to my stats, only discovered it since I got the Honda CRZ. The Passat has just over 118,000 miles on it, but I have not been tracking it that long in terms of miles since I drive the Z more than anything else recently. The wife is negligent in reporting fuel ups on the V, and I haven't ridden the bike in a while, but tonight I should be updating the Passat.

The Mazda 3's EPA gas mileage is wrong. My wife gets 27-29 mpg highway 24 mpg combined. According to fuelly, the mazda 3 gets 23 - 30 mpg for people. The mazda 3's optimal speed in 5th gear is 75-80 mph, it actually is quite inefficient at climbing slight hills or fighting a headwind at 60 - 70 mph. As you might guess most people don't live in areas with speedlimits that high. http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/3

In contrast, motorcycles are a lot cheaper and consume a lot less gas unless its some 1000cc model. However, motorcycles pollute more on either a per mile or per gallon basis but I forget which.

Or visit Fuelly.com and just browse what some people are getting for fuel economy. There's a few people out there that apparently can't enter numbers properly, but it's a nice view of what people are getting in reality and not just "EPA Estimates".

Yes, my cars are on there too.

Or visit Fuelly.com and just browse what some people are getting for fuel economy. There's a few people out there that apparently can't enter numbers properly, but it's a nice view of what people are getting in reality and not just "EPA Estimates".

Yes, my cars are on there too.