Slashdot Mirror
Chevy Volt To Resume Production One Week Early Following Record Sales
surewouldoutlaw writes "On the heels of the news that the Chevy Volt had a record month, selling 2,289 units in March, the Detroit-Hamtramck plant where the car is made will be resuming production of the car one week early, reducing a five-week shutdown to just four weeks, the United Auto Workers union said Tuesday. The shutdown had been put in place to re-align supply with demand. Volt workers have also begun to lash out at Republican presidential candidates' criticisms of the car: 'They're attacking our car to get at the President...But our car is going to change the way America does business. It's a breath of fresh air.'"
If GM can get the price of these things down below $30K, they will put ALL gas models out to pasture. Imagine, you can do up to 40 miles of your short hop driving on all electric but still have the range of gasoline (unlike cars like the Nissan Leaf).
My guess is government car fleets are being stuffed with these shit-cans for blatantly political reasons.
How does it cost more, other than the fact you get a charging station installed? This reminds me of all the naysaying about Priuses and how quickly their battery banks were supposed to fail. They are not failing.
The problem is that it isn't the Volt, it is that having an American car maker on the label makes it not good enough. Had the same car had a "H" logo on it, or perhaps a three pointed star, people would be buying this vehicle left and right. However because it is from a US automaker, it is perceived as crap.
I get an average of 50mpg in my 2007 Civic Coupe. This is with very mild driving changes like driving 65 and not being a retard and drag racing light to light. The Price difference for a car that is the exact same size as my Civic but costs 5X more and supposedly has 20X the technology only get's marginally better gas mileage.
Who is buying the Chevy Volt? It's over priced and under delivers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.
One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually) than a million tailpipes.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
It's not perceived as crap, it's perceived as a poor value because it takes longer than the life of a normal car to gain back the premium price you paid.
Gas mileage != economy. Total cost of ownership = economy.
Still much more efficient than all of those cars burning gasoline. The central plant is more efficient, and has the benefit of being able to transition away to alternative generation means (nuclear/wind/tidal/solar/solar thermal/....(gap).... fusion) as they become more viable. This also cuts down on refuelling infrastructure - fewer gasoline tankers on the roads etc.
Baby steps, for a culture that is firmly entrenched in gasoline and other fossil fuels.
Alternatively, those Volts may be charged off the grid entirely (or with minimal grid load) - I have seen house installations where the car is charged up from solar PV installed on the house (running to battery banks to provide overnight charging capability).
An electric car that, if you drive long distance, becomes a gasser. Seems okay to me. Just two problems:
- pricetag. I'd probably choose a pluggable Prius or Insight or Civic instead (~$20,000 each).
- government funding. I don't like paying for stuff I'm not using. Hopefully it's just a temporary subsidy to jumpstart GM's hybrid production, not a permanen form of corporate welfare.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
selling 2,289 units in March
Before everyone starts celebrating, keep in mind that some of the more popular gas car models out there average 40,000-60,000 units a month in sales. And the Prius hybrid sold about 30,000 units last month.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
it's perceived as a poor value because it takes longer than the life of a normal car to gain back the premium price you paid.
Well, as long as gas prices stay static during that same period...which I sure as shit wouldn't put any money on.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
The volt and it's twin the Opel Ampera began sales in February and has become a big seller there, which is not surprising given how much denser and closer European cities are to each other (taking advantage of the volt's optimum range), not to mention the higher gas prices which make it more affordable.
MSRP: $31,645
Source: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
Exactly.
My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.
So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.
I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".
Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.
All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.
vi +
That's after a "possible" $7500 tax credit. Actual MSRP is $39,145... and that's a starting price.
It's a nice car. It's quite, rides smooth, and roomy. It appeals to me nerd as well. It's like driving the future.
Have you driven one? I'm guessing not since your price is about 20K over the price of the car.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt. It's a very novel approach to the hybrid, offering significantly more electric-only range than other hybrids without the range anxiety of something like a Nissan Leaf. As for pricing; yes, it's expensive, but it's also fledgling technology. Electric-only automakers like Fisker and Tesla talk big but have little to show for all the boasting. The practical issues facing electric-only vehicles are still quite daunting.
I also don't understand the conservative backlash against this car. Here we have an American corporation trying to respond to market demand and a changing world by actually innovating. They didn't just slap together a half-assed Prius knockoff. They actually went for something new, but still practical.
The nonsense I hear repeated time and again is that the US government somehow forced this on GM. Automakers don't just pull cars out of their asses. Years of planning go into a car before the public even knows they're in development. The Volt concept was unveiled in 2007, well before they turned to the government for a bailout.
Interestingly enough, in my part of the country I've already seen a number of Volts, less than 10 but still more than the lone Nissan Leaf I encountered recently. I find it interesting given that I live in a region I'd say easily favors foreign automakers. So I found it surprising to hear that the Volt wasn't doing well. Of course it doesn't help you've got people on both sides of the aisle dumping on this car.
Now that IS an inconvenient truth.
vi +
One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually)
The process is already underway. Coal plant construction is ceasing in favor of cleaner natural gas for both economic and regulatory reasons.
"Price after tax savings. Net price shown includes the full $7,500 tax credit. $39,145 MSRP with federal tax savings from $0 up to $7,500."
Always read the fine print.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Overpriced? Yeah, I'll agree that it is overpriced, but arbitrarily throwing out numbers that you pulled out of your ass sure doesn't help your credibility.
How much of this record number (2,289) is from big taxi or government fleet orders? Lets see if it holds these sales month after month. This "record" may be all from a few one time fleet sales.
Even with $4/gal gas they still moved 9,292's camaro's in the same month.
Total GM US sales for the month where 231,052.
I have to return some videotapes...
It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.
Unless it's charged at night when there is a surplus of generation capacity.
The car really isn't all that "high tech" once you get past the electric drive train, though. Most of the features that it comes with can be had on a Chevy Cruze that costs roughly half the price if you leave out the tax rebates.
In the end that was offset significantly by the retention of value. In particular the second gen model that ran from 2003-2009. Toyota being able to keep up with demand is a more recent phenomenon, as such the secondary market was very kind fo Prius owners in the 2000s. People who got the tax credit and got out about 3-4 year in did quite well.
So now in 2012, 2289 units per month of a model is now considered a banner month. In the 80's I worked for GM in a component plant. One configuration we made was for a Chevy model, not necessarily the most popular, that I remember as being produced at 2200 units per day ( 2 shifts, 5 days per week). I remember because there were times due to problems, we could barely keep up with the assembly plant. Our LEAST popular configuration was for a top of the line Cadillac, only about 300 per day (6000 avg per month) required for it if I remember correctly.
You don't even need to replace it. It's already vastly more efficient.
It's quite what?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Include sales tax, and you'll need to have the charging station installed in your house if you don't want to have to wait 10 hours between charges. Most dealers were charging markup over and above MRSP for them as well. (though after much lower than anticipated sales, maybe that is no longer true.)
Since this car will burn exactly ZERO gas for 80% of vehical use, it gtes FAR better gas mileage then your car.
SUre, if you tkae a trip to the full extent of 375 miles and average out the MPG for JUST THAT TRIP, it gets the same as your alleged 50MPG civic.
But if you extend it to all the trips you will make, its a different number.
If my wife had one of these, it would almost never burn gas because she generally doesn't go further the 12 miles during her dauily routine.
The question is: How much gas will you burn in a year?
Last year I drove about 5000 miles in 25 mile chucks(just over 12 miles each way to work). For those drives, I wouldn't have burned any gas.
I drove 8000 total.
So if I had a volt, I would have used gas for 3000 miles* Which would have been 85 gallons of gas at 35MPG**
So I drove 8000 miles, and bought 85 gallons of gas.
just under 100MPG by the end of the year.
Obviously if you are driving 100 miles a day to work, your use would be different, but I am a pretty average driver as far as vehicle use.
*actually less, because of a lot of other short trips besides work.
** Volt is 35/40 I really should use the 40 because all the extended driving would be highway.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That may very well be true, but since when do we measure benefit to society by only looking at what's cheapest?
Not educating our children would be cheaper too, should we close all schools to balance our budgets? Should we close all fire departments to save a few bucks in the short term?
Why do intelligent people make the argument that trusting the market, and the "invisible hand" will always have the best outcome? It's as if people have replaced (or augmented) their trust in God with this idea of "the market is always right". Surely this is as far from a scientific argument as one could get?
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
And don't forget the +$5000 "adjusted market value" fee. I just bought a Prius last weekend, and this is exactly what the dealer had on their window sticker. I didn't pay it, but only because they received a new car while I was on the lot, and I got to it before they had a chance to put their window sticker on it and I told them they had to sell it to me for what it said on the factory window sticker.
It's based on the Opel Delta II platform. I personally think the Opel Ampera is a much nicer design. The volt is too conventional looking by todays standards. It's also far better equipped than the old Cavalier. The problem with the car is the interior was designed by GM. Lot's of features and buttons, but kind'a cheap feeling in my opinion. And I share that opinion on all GMs, from Chevy to Cadillac.
So sell her car that's "in great shape" and use the money to buy another one with better mileage (diesel if she can get it). Why get a car payment?
You can easily get a car in *great* condition (only a couple of years old) for very reasonable money here in the UK that will do 50-60mpg (40-50 US mpg) - we do have better and more mature diesels though. Still, I'd be surprised if she couldn't find a really good second hand car that she could buy outright that does better than 20 mpg.
The average age of a car in the US is now 10.8 years, which means that the life of a normal car is even longer than that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I only go to the gas station about once a month, with a cheap '98 car. It's called not driving much.
This space intentionally left blank
Even at $6/gal or $8/gal, how many miles do you have to drive to break even having spent $10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle? Don't forget to include the cost of the electricity for charging the vehicle. Let's assume $0.12/kWh and that the price of electricity magically remains constant for the entire time.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
???
Are you including the ~25% of electricity lost in transmission from central plant?
What about the industrial costs of the batteries, and the fact that they lose range/ need to be replaced after a few years?
Oh and dont forget, the ELECTRICAL infrastructure in most of the country is in poor shape, if we were to get a large surge in people recharging vehicles
would have brown/blackouts and have to invest in upgrading there (probably a number of additional power plants as well)
Yes, I am including that. I should have specified.
If you're paying sticker price for a car, you're getting ripped off regardless.
This space intentionally left blank
Include sales tax
Yes, because other vehicles are exempt from sales tax. /rolls eyes
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Accord to forbes:
"Only 160 of the March sales total of 2,289 were fleet orders."
The scheduled summer shutdown that has been extended from two weeks to three weeks. The current five week shutdown was not originally scheduled and was shortened by one week to four weeks. So the Volt production will have been shutdown for five weeks 'extra' by the end of the summer.
i make more than the average nurse and i can't afford to pay $40k cash for a car. i'm saving my money for a house (a liiiiiiittle bit more important).
http://www1.salary.com/registered-nurse-Salary.html
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Most of the charging would be done at home. Which means before 8am and after 6pm. The peak hours for electricity consumption are in the middle of the day (when the sun is shining and factories are running). Also, not sure where you get your 25% transmission loss number. Wikipedia had it at ~6.5%. You are just trying to spread FUD.
The ability of the GOP primary to generate bile is amazing. If you had told me a year ago that the GOP field would pile abuse on an American made car that is (fairly or not) a poster child for American innovation, and it turns out is also a success competing against imports, I would have told you that was crazy. But there it is. Not exactly the Party of Ideas.
20MPG? What does she drive? An F-150?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
. . . a coal-powered car. And if the cost of purchasing, insuring the-higher-value vehicle, and additional maintenance is factored in, it becomes significantly more expensive than an equivalent efficient gas-powered car. And according to reports, the average income of a Chevy Volt buyer is over US$170,000. Not exactly a recipe for a significant solution, even if the purchase and operation economics were more favorable. . .
At 20 MPG, she is probably driving a full-size car. She would have to get either an uncomfortable econobox or an impractical small car like a Fiat or Smart to keep from having a car payment.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Let's assume the following:
*You buy a normal ICE car that averages 30mpg (there are plenty that do)
*You keep the car for 5 years and drive 1250 miles a month (15000 miles a year)
*Fuel price is presently $4/gal and will rise by 1% every month for the next 5 years
Given these assumptions, your 5 year fuel cost is $13611.61.
So now let's assume that you pay $22k out the door for the above car (which is a good estimate for a ICE car comparable in size/features to the Volt).
Your 5 year TCO (just figuring based on car and fuel cost, assuming maintenance, insurance, etc is identical) is 35611.61.
That having been said, if you're the type of person who doesn't keep cars that long, then you're probably better off buying an ICE car as I expect the volt will take a much larger depreciation hit (dollar amount, not percentage) over the first 2-3 years.
That's ROUGHLY what I'd expect to pay for a volt after figuring in tax, title, license, and figuring in the tax credit. I don't have data on how much electricity it takes to charge the volt, so I've omitted electricity costs over the 5 years, but just off this 5 minute analysis, it doesn't look like the TCOs of volt vs ICE is all that different over 5 years.
If the current administration doesn't sign another illegal executive order, this time banning fracking.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You know, several of these previous tax credit gimmicks (Cash for Clunkers, etc) have been imputed as income by the IRS. Baahahahahaah. "Savings" FAIL.
Heh, you use a portion of someone else's tax money to pay 10% or whatever your effective tax rate is on community money that disproportionately favors you. I'd call it a tax revenue fail, keep the savings, and (quite incidentally and accidentally) score some green points. EV TCO is already favorable compared to your average compact, and with gas going up and batteries coming down the spread is increasing.
Some dealers have even claimed the tax credit themselves, rather than letting the buyer do it.
Exactly.
My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.
So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.
I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".
Valid, if you're out to save money in the short term you're not going to do it. However, you neglect to factor in things like maintenance. Don't forget the fact that electric vehicles are typically lacking in things like air filters, oil filters, etc. Maintenance for the late EV-1 was "rotate the tires and top off the wiper fluid". How much would you save if you didn't have to do all of the maintenance related to combustion engines?
Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.
Again, agreed. If you do not have a lot of money to throw around you're not going to save money.
All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.
Yes, that's true. You move the "where" of the pollution. But this is more important than you think.
Let's say a thousand vehicles emit the same amount of pollution as one coal-fired power plant. Which do you think is easier to install and maintain filters on? One coal power plant, or a thousand individual vehicles that may or may not be as well maintained as you'd like?
Even with the "environmental damage" that occurs from mining and the like, it's still all centralized in certain places. That makes containing and reducing that damage much, much easier.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I mean, can you spin the tyres on it when you pull out of the driveway, and does it make a satisfying noise as you rev the nuts off it? I suspect 'not'. So what's the point of it, really?
Three are a number of vastly important features in this car you cannot get in a Cruze for any price. No turbo lag. Quiet. No gasoline consumption. I know, I own both. Oh, the Volt corners so much better it isn't funny. It's ridiculously more agile in traffic. Everything in a base volt is nicer than a maxed out Cruze, from leather quality through the phone and stereo.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Look, first generations of new technology are never about "saving money". Do you really think people bought the first iPhone because they could "save money"? or the first laptops? Or the first computers?
The people willing to pay the premium for a promising technology are the ones that help create the market that allows the price to eventually come down. To belittle those that live on the cutting edge, that are "first adopters", is really short-sighted and frankly stupid. Without them, we'd never get affordable tech for the rest of us.
That said, your sister doesn't sound like a "first adopter" type person, nor does her situation sound like a good situation that can be helped by buying a first generation eletric car like the Volt.
But for people who want to support these emerging technologies, put their money where their mouth is about being greener and more efficient, then it's a decent, even smart, purchase.
(and for the record, the pollution created by a coal plant generating the energy required to charge an electric car is less than the pollution created by burning gas in a non-electric car. And batteries last longer than five years, and are getting better every year. And tax incentives for new technologies help them get off the ground, and are a smart investment for the future).
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I dare say that your sister is well outside the norm with her 120 mile per day round-tripper, 3 days a week and as such the Volt might not be the car for her.
And that's ok. There is no single car that suits every person.
Take me, as an example. My daily commute is just under 15 miles 5 days a week. A Volt would cut my fuel consumption from 7.5 gallons per week to basically nil. The car itself is still a bit pricey for me to justify, so I haven't taken the plunge yet... but if they get down to the $20k range, I might just.
Also, you're math is off. Pretty sure you forgot to include her trip HOME as part of her commute. Assuming Chevy's numbers are accurate (35 battery miles and 37 mpg thereafter) she would actually save $198 per month.
If her facility has a charging station, allowing her to use the batteries on her way home, her savings would be $251.10 per month.
Numbers current car;
60 miles to work x 2 = 120 round trip per day
120 miles x 3 days a week = 360 miles a week
360 miles / 20 mpg = 18 gallons per week in her current car.
18 gallons x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = $324 spent on gas with current car / month
Numbers random 40mpg car non-hybrid
360 miles per week / 40 mpg = 9 gallons
9 gallons x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = 162 spent on gas with a random 40 mpg non-hybrid per month
Numbers volt
60 miles to work - 35 battery miles = 25 gassy miles
25 miles to work + 60 miles home = 85 gassy miles per day
85 x 3 days = 255 gassy miles per week
255 / 37 = 6.89 gallons per week used in Volt
7 gallons x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = $126 spent on gas w/ volt
Numbers Volt + Charge at work
60 miles to work - 35 battery miles = 25 gassy miles
60 miles home - 35 battery miles = 25 gassy miles
50 gassy miles x 3 days = 150 gassy miles per week.
150 / 37 = 4.05 gallons per week
4.05 x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = $72.9 on gas per month w/ volt charging at work
Assuming $5 gas only makes the savings more substantial. /w work charge ($279 savings per month)
$360 current car
$180 random 40 ($180 savings per month)
$140 Volt ($220 savings per month)
$81 Volt
Agreed. Now get out your crystal ball and tell me what gasoline is going to cost over the life of the Volt, or any other car. The compute the even higher initial cost of buying nearly 10k worth of solar to charge it free for the next 3 decades (how long I've been off the grid without any failures in the PV system). Then remember '73 and the time value of waiting in lines for gasoline. Then add in the maintenance costs for an IC engine and transmission that can't rev match before clutching, so it wears. Then compare the total initial cost to the cost of any other car that is as quiet, as fun to drive and as agile - all of those cost more than the Volt, and they only have the one drivetrain. Then lets talk peace of mind. You can run the battery down on the Volt, it'll just switch to gasoline. Then run it out of gas - and you've still got 5 miles to limp to a gas or charging station. If you're going to play TCO games, use real numbers, one of which (price of gas) you can't predict. Oops, total logic fail. How about being sure of transport almost no matter what happens for the rest of your life? As an older guy, this looks like a fantastic deal, which is why I went for it, and am completely happy with it and the new solar gear I bought to charge it for free going forward. I drive normally (or a little hotter than normal because it's fun in this car) and have used zero gasoline in 2012 doing it. I've paid a power company zero since 1980. This kind of thing is how the rich get richer. You might try that plan, it's worked out for me.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
To be fair, it took an unprecidented Fiscal Crisis and economic crash to get the price of gas that low again.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I wonder what kind of car the employees at the Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly Plant are driving this month...
Then ttac has it wrong. Gm says otherwise, and there's a whole slashdot like foruim that tracks these kind of things at: http://gm-volt.com/forum/index.php You have to know that not all journalism is deserving of the name. In this case, they couldn't even read a press release right?
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I guess you have to post AC if you're astroturfing and making up numbers out of your ass, eh?
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
If you're paying sticker price for a car, you're getting ripped off regardless.
It's like he didn't watch that episode of King of the Hill.
Ok, but they make 2300 of them in march. that puts them on track for what, 30-50k sales a year. That's not exactly a mass market vehicle, that's for the people who are the edge cases that will benefit from the particular usage scenario where it is advantageous. And it's for people who are relatively well off. It's not like you need a car with airbags on the sides as well as the front and passenger positions for example, the risk of being seriously injured from not having them is relatively rare, and they're fairly expensive. I bet in 10 years though every car with have them.
The Volt is a technology commercialization demonstrator, and it's out there to establish a brand presence and to find anything wrong with the design on a small market.
If (and it's a relatively big if) you're in that 80% of people who live within about 60km of your job, *and* you drive that every day, 5 days a week, say 250 days a year(2000hrs of work, 8 hours a day) works out to about 1500 dollars a year in gas ($1.30/litre as of yesterday, but that was for regular, the volt uses premium fuel). Where I am the volt, before tax credits is 43K which is, for sake of argument, about 25k more than a comparable 5 door hatback like the sonic (15-21K), but you'd get I think 8500 dollars back from the government (ontario), that might be old numbers though, hard to follow given that it's both budget time and tax season. So your price difference is somewhere in the 15-20k range. You're counting on the vehicle having otherwise identical maintenance costs for 10-15 years for it to be worthwhile. Move to europe though, and the average price of petrol is US 2.4 per litre more or less (1.58 EUR before 20 ish VAT http://www.energy.eu/), and you have a *much* different calculation, where in canada you're talking about 1500 dollars per year in gas prices, in europe it's more like 2700 dollars for the same driving distance. Suddenly a 15k price difference is only 5 years to pay itself off, which is pretty compelling.
So now you're gambling. Assuming you plan to keep the car for 5 years, and the maintenance is no more than a sonic (for sake of argument) and your price difference is down to 15K after a tax rebate. Well... what is the price you're going to pay for fuel over 5 years going to work out to? (And what will the resell value of the car be, if anything, after 5 years). If the price of oil drops, a lot, you've lost, and lost a few thousands of dollars. If, on the other hand, the price of oil, or generally the price of gas goes up then it may have worked out in your favour.
And again, it's a niche vehicle, some people buy boats, some people buy airplanes, some people are paying a premium on a car to be able to say 'it doesn't use gas' most of the time. It's also pretty clear from the numbers that while volt 1.0 may not be a great deal economically it's not all that far off. There's a premium because they are only making a small number of them, and there's a premium for being an early adopter in anything, but if they can consistently get the price down to say 30k or the price of oil goes up 30%, or a bit of both it starts looking like its' economical for everyone. It may also be economical much earlier in different vehicles where you could more easily handle a larger charge (think minivan or SUV format, where yes, you're less fuel efficient to begin with, but you could use up some of the space for more battery too), and once there is some reasonable expectation of a decent resale value, which I wouldn't count on for volt 1.0s. Not everyone buys the most economical vehicle either. If that were the case there would only be compacts on the road. And yet people still drive around in hummers. If the volt makes you feel good about not giving the oil companies as much money, but giving money to people who are trying to innovate our way out of this mess then it might be worth it.
Oh, and all of this depends heavily on usage scenarios. I would think an electric vehicle would have much better performance in stop and go tr
We're talking about the price of this car, not the price of other cars.
Here's an article where Edmunds said they paid $49,000 out-the-door for a Volt
http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/long-term-test-2011-chevrolet-volt.html
They may have given away some leverage, but they clearly did not get the car for $30,000 as some have claimed.
Why do people keep arguing "My commute is not well suited for an electric car, so electric cars are a waste of money".
Since your sister's round trip commute far exceeds the range of any current electric car (unless she has a charge station at work), she's better off with a hybrid, since even if she bought a Volt, it would be acting as a gas-electric hybrid for most of her commute.
The Prius is reported to get around 50mpg on the highway (consumer reports' milage in their highway test was 55mpg).
So, using 50mpg and assuming she only drives 60 miles each way to work 3 times each week, your sister's monthly gas bill at $5/gal would be:
360 mi * (52 weeks/year) / (12 months/year) / (50 miles/gal) * (5 dollars/gallon) = $156
Versus 20mpg:
360 mi * (52 weeks/year) / (12 months/year) / (50 miles/gal) * (5 dollars/gallon) = $390
Or a net savings of $234/month
You didn't mention what car she drives currently. If it's got a $10,000 trade-in value, and if she qualifies for 4% financing, her monthly payment on a $23,000 Prius (price ignores tax+title fees) would be around $238/month so the car would effectively be free after the fuel savings. If her current car is older and has only $5000 trade-in value, then her payment would be around $330 so she'd be paying $100/month after the fuel savings (which may still be a good deal to get a nice new car for only $100/month)
Well, when obama took office gas was below $2 a gallon...and nobody ever said that would happen again only 12 months before that when it was over $3.
Well shit. Gas was $0.30 a gallon when Kennedy and Johnson were in office, then look what happened when the Republicans came to power.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.
Not a problem. Power plants are located away from cities, where people are considered less important.
:wq
No experience with a Volt but I have a six year old Hybrid Toyota Highlander. No battery replacement indicated anytime soon. I would pay a premium for an electric or hybrid electric car just for the driving experience -- instant torque on demand, no engine noise at low speeds or stopped. It really feels old fashioned when I drive my non-hybrid car. You are right, you don't save money replacing a used car with a new one, but unless you want to drive a patched up junker you have to replace it sometime. By the way, the Highlander is a real hot rod and I've had a few 'Vettes and Camaros in my day. Did I say Instant Torque and a CVT transmission?
Why do you hate America?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That would be great if the federal government would actually let us build more wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal power plants.
A company wanted to build a solar power plant in the desert but was stopped by the EPA because of concerns over the migration of the turtles out there. A company wanted to build a windmill farm out in the middle of nowhere but the military stopped them because it would interfere with the radar. Someone might use the windmills as cover for an air assault to deny us the purity of our essence or something.
Power lines to wind and solar farms can't be run because it might destroy the view on some national park, disturb some rare butterfly, or some other nonsense. We can't drill holes into a geothermally active area because someone will inevitably claim it will cause earthquakes, prevent earthworm migration, pollute the water table, or whatever.
Nuclear power? Do I even need to say anything?
Sure, I'd love to be able to burn less fossil fuels but the government needs to give us an option besides freezing to death. I'll change my tune, and get rid of my dinosaur powered truck and furnace, when the government gets a clue. Until the government allows someone to build a new nuclear power plant, one that does not just replace one built in the 1960s, we will continue to burn coal and do so at an increasing rate.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Okay, that made me spit out my mouth full of water.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
When your product has no history shouldn't every week be record sales? It's like the global warming scare head lines about record temperatures, as long as you ingnore the 99.9% of the earths history when we weren't taking temperatures.
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)
3 days a week at 60 miles from her house is 360 miles a week of driving just for work. That is 18 gallons of gas a week at 20 MPG. 18 gallons a week at $5 gallon = $80/week = $360/month just for work. And I would be that is not the only driving she is doing.
It may be well worth trading in her current car for a newer used car that gets much better gas mileage. Eventually, even well cared for used cars will require expensive repaires. Also factor in the time savings of stopping for gas less often.
A Volt would not be a good fit for her with the distances she drivesk, you really need to have a commute that is near the electric range fo the vehicle.
The Volt has an 8-year, 100,000 mile warrenty on the batteries. I personally know of several 10-year-old plus Priuses that are still working well on the original batteries. Stop spewing nonsense about the batteries needing to be replaced every 5 years.
plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me.
The trillion dollars we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't seem like much of a bargain to me either. I know which one I'd prefer to my tax dollars being spent on..
How do you know he's Michael Moore?
The difference is that Toyota does not sell a pluggable Prius, nor does Honda sell a pluggable Civic/Insight hybrid.
Learn to love Alaska
Don't get me wrong on this, because I think all the variety in the market is great, and I love having choices, and I was really looking forward to buying a Prius and doing fun stuff with it. (This was before Volt was available.) But:
I did recently buy a car, and did the math on a few, and gasoline prices have to go really high to break even. One issue, really a good thing, is that efficient gasoline cars are already past the TCO node where the cost of gasoline = cost of rest. They've started down the path of diminishing returns for fuel efficiency. That's one reason the cost premium of a hybrid or electric hurts so much.
In my case, Prius beats Matrix when gasoline averages something like $7/gal, over the life of the car. I didn't expect that to happen, so I picked Matrix.
You may be right, we may get to $7/gal, even beyond, but here's why I dodn't expect gasoline to get a whole lot more expensive than $5/gal (2009$):
There are a number of fuel technologies waiting in the wings when gasoline gets that expensive, which the oil companies will resurrect and improve. There are a lot of neat, new fuel technologies, but don't forget that there are also old standbys, industrially proven processes, for fuel synthesis from coal and natural gas. They've been more expensive than drilling, and they're capital-intensive, so oil companies aren't going to build plants on a whim, but they're not outrageously expensive.
That's in the medium term. In the short term, sure, oil is volatile, so there will be price spikes.
In the long term, I'm looking forward to all kinds of neat synthetic fuel technologies based on all kinds of energy sources. An estimate of $3/gal + CO2 capture for electrolytic synthetic fuel, while it may be optimistic, shows the scale of the possibilities for post-fossil liquid fuel. We don't really know how much industrial atmospheric CO2 capture will cost, yet, though.
Anyway, the point being, fuel may never get much more expensive, despite how things look. Hybrids and electrics have a bright future, but it lies along the path of overall cost reduction.
I fully expect my next car to be a turbine-electric, like the old Capstone demo. Microturbines and electric drivetrains will get cheaper. There's no fundamental reason I know why they can't be cheaper than piston cars; piston engines are just, for now, very well established, finely tuned, efficient technology.
I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt.
Democrats are for it, which means that Fox, the Koch bothers, and every conservative think tank is against it.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"$10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle?"
Except that the difference isn't nearly that large. My brand-new hybrid (Honda CR-Z) was $19,300. An insight will run you 2k more, which makes it only 10k more expensive then a Nissan Versa Base, which doesn't have A/C, Power anything, ABS, etc. A more fair comparison is something like a Nissan Sentra, which similarly equipped is about $16,000, or only $5k different. Also, you don't plug in most hybrids, like the Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid, so there's no cost for electricity.
But continue to pull numbers and facts out of thin air, while I save money in the long term with my Hybrid.
I'd rather not have poisoned groundwater, thank you.
I'm convinced by the evidence I've seen that we could satisfy our power needs with wind, solar, and nuclear. Yes, I'm an environmentalist who supports nuclear power. It's the greenest energy source we have currently available.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Ford has heard this gnashing of teeth that you are expressing: the new Fiesta is actually a pretty reasonable car to drive, not terribly expensive for what you get (it's small, but reports are it doesn't feel econo-box-y), and gets a rated 40mpg. I suspect that with a light foot it'd do pretty well. I'm still hoping that someone will get it through marketing's head that the diesel version of that car would sell over here, particularly as fuel prices rise. 60+ MPG from a car would be nice. I'd have to do the math on the premium on diesel vs gasoline tho.
And how much could that $15,000 have earned her in interest in 5 years if invested at moderate risk (i.e. not T-bills, but not growth stocks either)?
Not sure where you were going with the 4% over 5 years is $2,000, since she didn't take out a loan for either car. But if she took out a loan for the $20k car and not the $5k car, then in your example it about looks like the cars had about equal TCO (ignoring the difference between the $5000 cash for the old car and the down payment for the new car.
To be fair, it took an unprecidented Fiscal Crisis and economic crash to get the price of gas that low again.
Not to mention two wars in the Middle-East.
I have a 1999 Lincoln Towncar that gets 22 MPG average over a month of driving, mostly highway. So most likely it is something in that range.
I've been debating buying a new car to get better gas mileage, but when I factor in having to pay car payments, it is not a simple decision. The Lincoln was paid off years ago. And I have a 135 mile round-trip commute 4-days a week.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The Volt's gas mileage for my wife would be about infinity
B But the gas-equivalent mileage is far less than infinity because your power company charges more than zero for electric energy. How many kWh of electric energy does it take to charge the Volt for 20 miles of driving? How much does this energy cost? How many gallons does the Volt burn in 20 miles of extended range driving? How much does this energy cost? From these I can compute miles per dollar and a gas-equivalent mileage for electric driving.
No, why?
Oh right, you want to take a cheap shot at Obama! Ok, go for it. Let me know when we can get back to adult discussion.
I drive a minivan that seats 5 adults comfortably plus luggage and it does 53 mpg (44 US mpg) with relative ease.
It does not mean she has to drive a Smart car or an econobox. She won't be driving a Navigator or a Land Cruiser or Explorer or anything, but it doesn't mean you have to "go tiny".
However, you neglect to factor in things like maintenance. Don't forget the fact that electric vehicles are typically lacking in things like air filters, oil filters, etc. Maintenance for the late EV-1 was "rotate the tires and top off the wiper fluid". How much would you save if you didn't have to do all of the maintenance related to combustion engines?
That's a fair point, but since the general discussion here is about the Volt you do still have to account for maintenance of an ICE. Presumably it will require less maintenance than if it were the primary engine, but it's still there.
...here. What seems to be missing from all the discussions is that the Volt/Ampera is a very good, comfortable and well-equipped 'European style' car first. Its smooth and elegant power delivery is actually way more useable in daily traffic than an IC with much better figures on paper. Granted, it may not be for everyone for various reasons, but if the electric range suits your daily commute, your energy costs are half and your driving comfort double those of a clattering, noisy, smelly and soot spewing diesel that needs 4 jerky gear changes to reach 100km/h. It isn't cheap, but the price is roughly the same as a similarly equipped same old same old lease-slut BMW 320d ED.
I was sceptical about GM, but it turns that they have done their most decent job in years. Give it time; it's qualities will become evident as more people discover it irl and more versions appear.
Street creds: 528i, 525i, 944S2, Z3 2.8, 645Ci.
I'm not a coward by any name.
No one is saving money by paying sticker $ for ANY car let alone a NEW car. I am about to buy a used Subaru to use as a commuter car. By the time I kill this one I will be ready for a used Volt. Only the Volt version that qualifies for the white California Clean Vehicles sticker. They are making too many car pool lanes around this state.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Had the same car had a "H" logo on it, or perhaps a three pointed star, people would be buying this vehicle left and right.
Are we really living in the world of the Sneetches where buyers like stars on their cars? If so, perhaps Chrysler needs to hire its own Sylvester McMonkey McBean and bring back the five-pointed Pentastar or the Fratzog. Or does Chrysler not count as a US automaker because Fiat owns it? In any case, GM shut down one of its "H" brands in 2010, but it still has Holden in Australia.
we get our (extra) power from natural gas, which burns FAR cleaner than gasoline.
So how the frack do you drill for that without polluting the groundwater and causing earthquakes?
A large part of the problem with EVs is that current technology limits their range. To really get the most out of an EV, you have to not drive all that much to begin with. However, if you're not driving that much, you're also not buying that much gas. Even if you completely eliminate your entire gasoline bill, the total amount of money you're saving isn't that much.
One local news station recently ran a story about a dealership rolling out the first all-electric vehicle in the area, the Mitsu i-MiEV. The car costs $29,000 and has a range of 68 miles. If you were to drive the full 68 miles every day for a year (24,820 miles) in a 30mpg car, you'd use 827 1/3 gallons of gasoline, which is $3,309.33 at $4/gal. You'd be saving $16,546.67 over 5 years. A 40mpg car would drop the savings to $12,410. If you're not willing to push the limits of your battery capacity and play it safe at 50 miles daily (18,250 miles), you're only saving $12,166.67 or $9,125 over the gas cars. There are a lot of variables that come into play, but you may not end up saving all that much compared to the extra cost of the car (the 38mpg Smart coupe starts at $12,500).
However, the dealership itself says that the car isn't meant to be your sole vehicle. It's meant for known-distance commutes and quick trips to the store. Figure in the cost of a second car, even if it's just a beater or a rental, if you ever want to go more than 68 miles without stopping to recharge it. Plus, it's an ugly little 4-door Smart-looking thing. To quote my girlfriend when I opened the page, "What is that? It's horrible!"
There's no way I could get by with just an i-MiEV. However, a Volt would work out very well for me. I commute about 20 miles a day, and the nearest city with a mall and public transit is about 20 miles away. I wouldn't feel safe with a range of only 68 miles, but most of my driving in the Volt would be electric. Even compared to my 25/37mpg Cobalt, I figure the Volt (including electricity costs and some gas for longer trips) would cost me about $500 a year, rather than the $2,000 I spent last year. The 35/40mpg Volt is obviously much more economical if you never have to get into the gasoline, but the option is there if a longer trip suddenly comes up (e.g. having to drive to a remote site for work).
Despite being pretty much the ideal candidate for the Volt, I'm not sure if I'd ever actually make up the difference in price (after the tax credit). Though there are Priuses that have been running on the same batteries for over 10 years now, I'm still a little wary of the new technology (on top of being a new model). The styling isn't my first choice, but it's not terrible either. It's definitely not in the same class as my cheap base model Cobalt and I like the geek factor of the Volt. If gas prices go up significantly, the Volt would save me even more compared to the Cobalt. Regardless of savings or greenness, I don't mind the idea of lowering oil dependency. I'd feel a little more comfortable with a second gen Volt, but I'm hoping that they continue to flop and they go on clearance so I can snag one cheap (a few people managed to get brand new GMC Syclones for about 1/3 off when dealerships were trying to dump them). I also wouldn't mind seeing a (bio-)diesel option instead of gasoline for the ICE.
I really like the idea of using battery power for average commuting and such, but having nearly infinite range thanks to the gasoline engine if needed. Until battery rechargers are as plentiful and quick as gas stations, I think the Volt's hybrid setup is much more practical.
Just because you have an example of someone who shouldn't buy this car doesn't mean that no one should, and that it's a bad idea to even try making and selling them. Everyone in the universe should not day 1 go out and buy a new technology car, and no one is saying they should.
This is the first generation of a true electric mode capable (out of the factory) pluggable consumer priced hybrid.
That means people with extra cash lying around and who have a short-ish commute buy them.
Next generation costs 5-10k less and lasts for 60 miles, and moves to a better generator engine.
Third generation comes down in price again and lasts for 100 miles with an even better generator based on some new energy reclaiming tech someone discovers.
In 10 years, when your sister's car finally dies and she MUST buy a new one, there will be a nice car under 20k with a 60-100 mile range. Gas will be $9 a gallon. She will get all the way to work on electric, and hopefully get a nice charging place that charges her $3 for the day to use. If not, she uses petrol on the way home for 1/2 the trip, still saving money overall.
Gasoline takes between 4kWh and 7.5kWh per gallon to refine. Electric cars can go between 16 (on the low end) and 41 miles (on the high end) on that same amount of electricity. Unless your replacing a gasoline car that gets better that 40mpg you are NOT just moving the pollution. Replacing a car that gets 16mph and you are completely eliminating the pollution from he petroleum refining process and burning at the vehicle, but also REDUCING the pollution generated by the local power plant as your using fewer total kWh. Of course the answer is "it depends" but for the average case you argument is basically pro-oil nonsense..
Take me, as an example. My daily commute is just under 15 miles 5 days a week. A Volt would cut my fuel consumption from 7.5 gallons per week to basically nil. The car itself is still a bit pricey for me to justify, so I haven't taken the plunge yet... but if they get down to the $20k range, I might just.
If the gas is $5/gal. then you will be saving 7.5 * 5 = $37.5/week or $150/mo. Even not going into details of your car loan (if you need one,) your insurance alone will eat this money and ask for more. You can't insure a $40K new car for the same peanuts as a $10K used one. A loan will require you to have a very costly insurance.
But let's say that your insurance stays the same and you pay cash. The difference in cost between your current car ($10K as a guess, if you are lucky) to $33K (if you can get every discount and tax credit) will be $22K. To compensate for that you need to drive like you do for $22K/$150 = 146.6 months, or 12 years. This is longer than the warranty on the battery (10 years as I heard) and most likely the car will be dead by then for one reason or another. Since the cost of the battery comprises the majority of the car's price it does not make sense to repair - the car will be scrapped before you realize any savings.
But that's not all. You are investing $22K for 12 years. The car will give you negative return on that investment; however if you simply buy some safe, tax-free municipal bonds of a safe city then, with 3% rate, you can get $31K. This means that your actual LOSS on a Volt will be quite large.
An EV is a great idea; however with today's prices it simply does not make any sense, unless you are a rich "trust fund baby." A Volt is not a car for working people because it is a black hole for your money. You can buy it for pleasure, but that's the only reason to bother. Sales of Volt seem to confirm this reasoning - they are consistent with sales of expensive, luxury items into a very small market of top earners.
Edmunds is a for profit rag, everything it produces must be viewed through that persepective. It is becoming apparent that Fox not-News attacked the Volt because of the significant Saudi ownership of Fox not-News (paid for with oil money), so nothing but greed driven propaganda.
The Saudi's fear the takeover of electric vehicles, increasing production with a reduced parts set and further battery development means electric vehicles will price undercut infernal combustion engines. Of course the money flow to whiny greedy Texans will also be cut off, so Texas will join the rest of the southern US states as basket cases in need of Federal charity.
When the majority of vehicles are electric and cities are smog free, people will have trouble believing they are the infernal combustion engine on the roads in metropolitan areas.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Math fail: $39,145 MSRP on the Volt - $19,300 for your CR-Z Hybrid = $ 19,855 difference.
$31,645 (after $7500 tax credit, assuming you qualify for the maximum) - $19,300 = $12,345 difference. Even if you manage to negotiate $2000 (and from what I hear, they're not negotiating much on them) off the Volt, it's still in the range of $10,000-$18,000 more than your CR-Z So, my numbers are correct, and the question still stands.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
By the way, the Highlander is a real hot rod
Toyota.com has this to say:
Note: The Highlander Hybrid is not designed to be driven off-road.
Does it have low clearance, or what? Why would anyone want a 4WD like that? Plenty of rural roads (gravel if you are lucky) can be mistaken for off-road areas.
Funny that HBI's post was modded down. Probably by one of those "tolerant" people. I guess when you've lost the debate, you have to resort to thuggish behavior.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Me too, I am telecommuting. I fill up my supercharged '98 cobra maybe once every six weeks. My office is on the second floor of my house above the garage with big windows on all four sides. I run the A/C only in the worst heat of the summer, and only on days where there is no breeze whatsoever. I have a fan on my desk hooked to a small solar panel in the window.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
"Why do people keep arguing 'My commute is not well suited for an electric car, so electric cars are a waste of money'."
That's not what he said. Why don't you save your pointless rant for someone who expresses that opinion?
If that's not what he said, then what did he mean by this:
Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.
I thought he was using his sister's commute to show that electric cars are a waste of taxpayer money.
There are no socialist politicians in the US, just right wing and far right nutjob. Its interesting the lengths people will go to find a way to abuse the man because he is black
Sheesh. My mother's minivan (2002 Ford Windstar) gets 22MPG. My ancient 1993 Acclaim managed 24MPG, even with a slightly leaking head gasket.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
EV TCO is already favorable compared to your average compact
That's true, but the Volt has the unfortunate position of having a couple extra thousand dollars worth of complexity added so that it can run on both gas or electricity.
The sad fact is that the only people who a volt makes sense for are the same people who could do alright with an electric conversion that might cost them $10,000 - and they could buy a $11,000 Versa to park in the driveway for those "long trips" that theoretically kill the electric car . Then they could take $15000 and bury it in the backyard and still have money leftover vs. buying a Volt.
I'm intrigued by cars like the all-electric Leaf - but until battery prices come down (or until they offer a lower-range version) they are wayyyyy overpriced. My wife only needs to go 15 miles per day total. She currently drives a Camry. She puts less than 5000 miles on the car each year. With low mileage like that, it would take forever to pay for the Volt/Prius difference - but a safe electric car with maybe 40 miles of range would be ideal if they could price it close to other (gasoline) cars in it's class. Hauling around hundreds of miles worth of battery for her 6-mile commute is silly.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Serious question. What minivan are you driving? I'm going to be in the market soon.
I just bought a volt 2 weeks ago for almost $4,000 less than the factory sticker price.
You a funny man expecting adult conversation from an Anonymous Coward. Funny funny man.
I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world.
Cars cost more than horses. Cars replaced horses.
Opel Ampera sells very well in the EU. It's just the US sales that are lagging, probably due to much cheaper gasoline prices.
Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years.
I haven't checked your other claims, but this is blatantly not true. The Chevy Volt battery is designed for 10 years, and under warranty for 8 years.
The oldest Prius's are now 15 years old and mostly haven't had their batteries exchanged.
"electrical vehicles" don't usually come without a gasoline engine. They tend to require more maintenance than a WW2 era technology 20 MPG gas guzzler oversized USA straight-line-only vehicle. Yes, most are still that, even when glorified with electronic fuel injection and gizmo's inside the car.
Modern jap/euro cars tend to weigh less and are just as comfortable, if you pick the right ones. That will save you half of the fuel you are burning in your yank tank easily. Fuel won't stay at the $1/gallon mark for long. At this rate, expect $2 per gallon within the next 3-5 years. Staying with your gas guzzler will make life expensive really quickly. Not producing your own compact cars but rather importing them or licensing them will not help economy a lot either.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Bloody empirical measurements again, start thinking metric you folks... $5/gallon will turn into $10/gallon soon enough.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Oh course, that only matters if she doesn't need a car after 5 years so that she can sell them off. Otherwise, she's still got $13k stuck in a car that she can't sell (without buying another car). Also, you need to add in the cost of gas for the new car.
Texas has nothing to worry about. Until we actually start building more nuclear plants, the energy for all those electric cars you want to see on the roads will come from coal and natural gas. The EPA just introduced some more rules to favor natural gas over coal, and guess which state produces the most natural gas. (HInt: Its capital is Austin.)
The Saudis don't have to worry that much, either. Only 60% of petroleum is used for transportation, and much of that is for aviation. They'd be more worried about their pets in DC failing to block the Keystone pipeline.
That would most likely be a diesel. If you're in the US, our government's protectionism is at work again, keeping vehicles you want to buy out of the market.
Well, it's not like GM is known for their high quality vehicles to start with.
I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".
Probably sound advice in most cases, but your analysis is assuming a trade-in value of $0.
Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years.
Buy whatever you want, but please stop spewing bullshit. Battery replacement is so infrequent (even in mild hybrids that have been around more than a decade) that there isn't even enough data to calculate a meaningful MTBF. Either you're trolling with the 5-year battery replacement line, or you've fallen for a troll.
I am *personally* driving a pure electric with a battery nearing its sixth birthday, and it is still almost as good as new.
All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries
Such as? Go on, we're waiting.
PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants
Still a win on emissions (except maybe for CO2) even if your claim were true. It's not really true, because less than half of the energy mix is coal, and, more to the point, practically zero is from oil.
(and for the record, the pollution created by a coal plant generating the energy required to charge an electric car is less than the pollution created by burning gas in a non-electric car. And batteries last longer than five years, and are getting better every year. And tax incentives for new technologies help them get off the ground, and are a smart investment for the future).
Another point in favor of those who want to mention the "pollution" issues with gasoline vs. electric vehicles is that in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself. In the past, such energy was consumed from raw petroleum or by-products (like tars and heavy organic molecules also found in crude oil), but many of the current refineries simply use electricity to run their boilers and equipment as such energy sources are ideal for fixed physical facilities like a petroleum refinery. The refineries can usually find more profitable uses for those other organic molecules or even find "cracking" catalysts to break that down into Octane and other more valuable substances. Electricity at industrial rates usually is quite cheap from most power utilities too.
In other words, even if you are burning gasoline, a coal-powered electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway. Trying to compare the efficiency of using that electricity to make gasoline or charge up a battery can be very tricky, and I'm not entirely sure direct "apples to apples" comparisons can be applied even though it is tried. Most current "efficiency" measurements usually ignore completely this use of fossil fuels in terms of how it impacts pollution and energy efficiency calculations.
I wonder if it's possible to plug it while at work.
FACT: The Volt requires DAILY recharging. According to published numbers, it cost about $4 per charge. That is $120+ a month in electric cost.
FACT: If you take your example, 1250 miles a month means that the vehicle will be running on the gas engine for the great majority of the time. Remember, the Volt only has an average of 25 miles per charge. Given that the Volt gas engine has a miserable 24 mpg (claimed, ~20 real), you will be spending more on gas for the same drive (40+% more).
So in the end, for the same conditions you presented you will get an average of $7,120 of electric cost ($4 x 365 x 5) on top of $10K+ for gas (remember, the Volt is a gas guzzler). Adding the $40K+ price tag, that 5 year TCO is no less than $57,120 (ignoring any other maintenance cost) .... a $20K difference.
Neat... Nurses in my province start at around that wage, and make more like 80k after some years.
They also get double pay on overtime, etc, so senior nurses can pull some decent coin...
This gives me second thoughts about engineering... :-(
The diesel market in the US is pretty limited, unfortunately.
Yes, but if it serves as a backup and you never use it, the maintenance will be drastically reduced nevertheless.
Remember, changing oil is rated by miles. The less miles you put on the engine, the less oil you change. It's much the same for many other ICE parts.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Meh, depends really. Depends on the make/model, how new it is, and at what time of the year including demand and/or a waiting list. Worst case scenario happened with the Honda Odyssey (a popular minivan) in that many paid over MSRP in a bidding war.
Anyways, I'm with you. Paying MSRP is like adding insult to injury. Buying a new car is not a fun experience despite what the commercials illustrate. I really loathed the whole process. Once you settle on a price with your sales rep, then you're off to the next gantlet, the finance department. Those guys are really tricky. One guy looked and acted like Weyoun from ST-DS9. They try and bowl you over with numbers, warranty, and all sorts of shit. One guy was shoving paper so fast across the desk in a hurry that I actually told him to slow the fuck down and review each line item and how they add up. In the end though, if they don't get you one way, they'll make up for the loss in another. It's too bad Saturn folded. Their cars were so so in quality, but the buying process was fairly up front and honest.
Check out Truecar.com. I've actually made printouts and presented them to my Toyota sales rep. I must have saved at least a few hundred buck all said and done.
Life is not for the lazy.
...is to lease it, anyway. $349 a month makes it pretty darn affordable. Then just buy it after 3 years for something like $19k, if I remember right.
And it doesn't need 10 hours to charge. More like 4. Just get the 220 volt charger. No problems running it 80 miles a day in 2 separate charges, and electricity is about 1/5th the cost of gasoline.
Maybe the batteries aren't rated for the serious continuous shaking you would get in regular off-road driving.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
What's even more amazing is how many people will crawl out of the woodwork to point their fingers all around to call everyone "racist".
What you said: You're just abusing him because he's black.
What I heard: Hey, everyone, I'm all post racial and shit! Look at me! Hey, look over here at me, I'm a sensitive post racial soul and anyone who disagrees with Obama is one of those backwards racists! But forget all that, hey look at me I'm post-racial!
Kind of a sad form of ego gratification, isn't it?
It's still not a big seller by any margin. So what? The Chevrolet Volt sold 2,289 units in March of 2012. Meanwhile, the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 sold 32,555 in March of 2012. Congratulations Volt line, you managed to sell 7.031% of the total volume of Silverados in one month. Last year combined, Chevrolet Volt vehicles didn't even meet up to one MONTH of sales of the Chevrolet Silverado. U.S. Chevrolet dealers sold a total of 7,671 Volts last year
March 2012 Top 15 Pickup Truck Sales
2011 Chevrolet Volt Misses The Mark
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Well, as long as gas prices stay static during that same period...which I sure as shit wouldn't put any money on.
Of course, to be fair, I don't know that I'd bank on rock-solid electricity prices, either. Ten years ago, during California's rolling blackouts, selling an electric car might have been a difficult proposition. Even now, there are areas of the country where the electricity price is more volatile than gasoline prices, in general.
Of course, I suppose one would have the option (with the Volt) of simply not plugging it in and running off the gasoline engine, but that's a lot of added cost to get a 37mpg (gasoline) car.
In general though, I am glad to see people buying the Volt again, as the fears surrounding it seem to be a "fear the new thing" phenonemon. After all, if you really want to get scared about cars, remember that the average vehicle is sitting on 10-20 gallons of extremely flammable hydrocarbons.
This would't have anything at all to do with GE would it? Would it? http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcing-employees-into-chevy-volts/
I am agape at people bragging that they only go to the gas station once a month or so.
Yeah, you buy less gas than me, but you paid nearly $50,000 for a glorified Cavalier.
I'm agast at the ignorance and pessimism as if the year is 1905 and all we need are horses. Grow the hell up. In a world where people routinely lay down $50k+ for a car or worse, lease a car at $1000+ per month you're bitching and down playing the viability of the Volt? BMW, Mercedes, and many other luxury brands are releasing their Hybrids in 2012 and early 2013. Hell, BMW is building out their Carbon Fiber autos in Moses Lake, WA.
This is just the beginning.
http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/09/01/bmw-group-sgl-group-joint-venture-opens-the-new-moses-lake-plant/
I know, but I was being massively over conservative with estimates since I knew I'd be attacked by AC trolls with an ingrained hate for electric cars.
I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world.
Cars cost more than horses. Cars replaced horses.
You are seeing the world through the proverbial rose tinted glasses and are not accounting for the cost of the infrastructure needed to support horses, i.e. thousands of shovels to clean up their exhaust.
In 1894, the Times of London estimated
that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in
horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded
that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story
windows.
Citroen Xsara Picasso, 2.0 litre HDi from 2003. Looks like this: http://www.carzoneoflouth.co.uk/used-car-photos/louth-used-CITROEN-Xsara-Picasso-1.jpg
They don't make it any more, but do have a number of vehicles both slightly bigger and slightly smaller that fill the niche (C3 and C4 Picassos). You won't find one in the US, but if you are looking for efficiency, VW is your go-to right now for diesel in the USA. I was looking to move to the US on a permanent basis in 2008 and my research was suggesting VW was the only large scale manufacturer there going for diesel as an economy option rather than just something to put in big pickup trucks. The market may be much better now - especially since the diesels currently on sale in the EU (and for a number of years) have met the more punitive US regulations that prevented the early high efficiency turbo diesels that we had here in the early 2000's from being sold there. There are no barriers any more, except cultural ones that cars "must have big engines".
In a combined cycle I get 47 mpg, if I am doing longer distance driving (more than just driving in town) I get 55 mpg. My father used to drive a VW Touran that got even better figures that that (in a 5 year younger car) that also had 150 bhp. (For US mpg figures divide by 1.2).
I remember well - I lived there for a little while and was going to relocate permanently. VW are about the furthest on, but the current crop of diesels being sold in the EU does meet the stricter particulate/emission regulations of the US, so hopefully things will start to change if they haven't already.
In the Ford makes some of the best (and class leading!) diesel vehicles that are genuinely high quality cars that are attractive to own, much to the surprise of people in the US. I think it's purely a function of cost that explains their absence in the US - I think what they sell in the US is built down to a price that they simply can't match with their EU offerings, which have higher build quality and better spec. EU Ford has at least two top-selling-in-class cars in the UK (and a few other very strong cars) and is making hay while the sun shines. US Ford is trying to avoid circling the drain after betting on the wrong horse. It's a shame, but hopefully all is not lost.
That was very interesting, thanks. Pollution is of course also a reason to switch from ICE cars to EVs.
> and they could buy a $11,000 Versa to park in the driveway for those "long trips" that theoretically kill the electric car
Or even better?
free/subsidized rental cars of a similar model with zero paperwork.
IE, Toyota signs a deal with Budget to stock a number of (what is the Leaf, the Matrix?) cars as normal rental models. If a Leaf owner comes in, they simply hand in their keys and take a set for the rental model.
Yes? Would this do it?
Almost. It is still recommended that you change the oil every 6 months. I don't do that myself, but you have to run the ICE every so often to keep it from drying out and seizing up. Most engines have to run to pump oil through them or all the oil finds its way into the pan. You also have to think about the gas too, it does have a shelf life.
Spot on.
Trying to go non-fossil fuels at this point is like trying to built a 747 in the year 1906. It will fail for the simple reason that the technology base does not exist to support such an endeavor. Throwing more and more money at the project will not change that fact and will do nothing but waste resources that are better spent elsewhere in our society.
The transition will occur when the market says it should and not a moment before. We transitioned from whale oil, to kerosene, to electricity for illumination seamlessly with no government intervention. When the technology became cost effective people started using it.
"Sadly the Volt is a perfect example of what happens when the government gets involved..." No, the Volt was in design and development WAY before the Bush-era bailout, before the Obama-era bailout and expedited bankruptcy. Sorry, can't lay any perceived shortcomings of it on the government's feet. Well, any more than any car that must meet emissions, crashworthiness, etc, etc.
It _is_ very expensive for a compact car, which is why the average buyer high-income. GM says they are working on a less-expensive version. The CEO challenged the engineers to take something like $10K out of the cost. That would get it down near regular car prices.
Prius battery packs don't typically need replacement at 5 years, do they? I know their battery chem is different, but the Volt already has a lot of battery management built in, both thermal and electrical, so the vast majority of the Volts will go far longer than 5 years with their original pack. YMMV.
Hairyfeet, you are thinking of the Tata Nano. Very lightweight, made with inexpensive components. If you saw it in person, I'm not sure you or many other Americans would trust that it would be safe on our roadways. Although I agree that there is room in the market for a far less expensive vehicle than what the traditional automakers are now selling.
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.
One practical reason from personal experience -- the traction control (which can't be turned off) is tuned such that if you get stuck in a place where the front wheels spin, the traction control will shut down power to the rears. So you can't use the rears to push you out of loose sand or snow if the fronts don't have traction. So no off road capability at all. I suppose the only reason it has AWD is to push through loose snow (but don't stop or get stuck) and of course, marketing. Most of them are 2 wheel drive models though so there is no implied off road capability with them. 90% of AWD SUVs have never been off road, anyway.
Look, first generations of new technology are never about "saving money". Do you really think people bought the first iPhone because they could "save money"?
People buy the latest iGadget because they believe in the company as well as the technology. The technology of the Volt may be fine, but I think GM still has a stigma of being bad at product development.
A wise engineer once told me, "one blunder in the car industry takes decades of perfect execution to recover." The Volt may be a perfect car, but few will buy it based on GM's past mistakes.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I have to disagree with you.
First of all, the criticism of the Prius is ultimately still quite valid. The cars haven't really existed on the road long enough for the issue to rear its ugly head, but we know batteries have a finite lifespan. I don't think most educated people believed a Prius battery pack would, say, wear out completely in 2 years, like your cellphone battery might. But I can easily see a situation developing where someone buys a new Prius, owns it long enough to pay off the 5 or 6 year loan they've got on it, and then maybe they keep it another year or two. Well, now, it's an old "beater" of a car, so they trade it in for whatever "pennies on the dollar" trade they can get out of it. Problem is, by then, I doubt the battery pack holds more than a fraction of its original charge. It may still charge to some extent, but the car probably gets far worse gas mileage than it used to. In that condition, its major reason for existence is negated.
That means it's pretty much a disposable car at that point .... not really practical to buy used/cheap as a vehicle too far outside the life of a bank loan on its initial purchase.
By contrast? I remember, for example, my parents buying a Chevy Nova back in 1976. It was the less expensive model with the V6 engine, not the bigger V8. Converted to today's dollars, certainly cheaper than any entry model Prius. I was 5 years old at that time. I didn't even try to get my drivers' license when I first turned 15 or 16 like many teens did. I got mine when I was closer to 18. But guess what car they gave me to use as my daily driver? Yep... that Nova. Never had an engine rebuild or anything either, in all that time. (I think it did have transmission problems once and they got that repaired or rebuilt.) I eventually wrecked it and it was totalled out by insurance, but got some good use and driving experience out of it.
I just don't see any of the hybrids like the Prius giving people that kind of usable life, without investing a good chunk of the car's new price, repeatedly, for a battery swap, first.
We'd be a lot better off if that was actually true.
http://www.google.com/#q=president+authorizes+release+strategic+petroleum+reserve
IMO, Fisker and Tesla are trying to do something VERY different than GM or Nissan (with the Leaf).
In a sense, I'd say they're being smarter and more realistic about what the electric technology, today, is and isn't.
They're essentially saying, "Look... we know some of you want to buy an electric car primarily because it's cool. It's high-tech and different than what everybody else is driving. It even offers some potential performance improvements over a gasoline car since electric motors can generate LOADS of torque. So we're going to cater to that, and build you sexy, performance sports cars with this stuff!"
The money-conscious consumer who frets about paying $4/gallon for gas is really NOT that interested in the rather pedestrian-looking sedans like the Volt, or the compact cars like the Leaf, as long as the initial sticker price is anywhere over the mid $15K range or so. These are the people who scrape their money together to make loan payments on the new Mazda 2 or the like. And yes, they're often still of the mindset that if they came into some money with a new, much better paying job, or won a lottery, or ?? They'd want a sexy, performance vehicle for a change ... not dumping $50K into a Volt with home charging station.
You were doing great until the very last sentence.
If she wants a new car with better economy, she should look at Volkswagen TDIs. I own a Sportwagen TDI, and in the city I get 42mpg, on the highway 48mpg. My lifetime average is 41.4mpg in that car, which includes the break-in period where it gets less economy. Incidentally, this is what the EPA uses for their mpg ratings. The best I've ever gotten out of it is 56.2mpg over a 12 mile stretch of highway from my office to my friend's house.
You can get a new one for $22k, nicely equipped.
When looking at economy cars, the VW is safer, better handling, more powerful (so it doesn't feel like an econobox), built with better quality materials, and mechanically and electrically simpler. I can't believe the slashdot crowd completely ignores these vehicles.
My dad's old F-350 (1995) managed 16 unloaded on the highway. Granted, it had that massive 7 litre diesel, but it's still a damn sight bigger vehicle.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
There really is an "art" to buying cars. I generally decide how much money I am going to put down, my monthly payment goal, and then pick out a car that is about 6-8% higher than I can "afford" by my numbers. I tell them I want this car, I'll do these terms and they can choose to meet those or not. It worked for my previous 3 car purchases (though, in fairness 2 of those were 2 year old models, one was brand new).
It does generally require an appreciable time commitment, as you have to sit there while they go to "the manager" and BS for 10 minutes to make you think they're really reviewing the numbers and going to bat for you.
Just another ignorant American.
My 2007 Infiniti G35 gets about 21 mpg (US) combined. It's not a huge car by any means, though it does have a fairly high output engine.
On the other end of the spectrum, my Subaru gets around 30 mpg combined and 35-37 mpg highway.
Just another ignorant American.
I don't know what year you live in, but toyota does sell a pluggable prius. I will have mine this month.
I bet they would really like to get rid of that part, but right now they feel it's required. If it was my only car, I'd like it to have that gas generator since filling up with electricity isn't very easy when you're 50 miles from home. Someday that will change. But you're mostly right, I'd go for the cheaper fuel efficient car right now since I doubt I'd ever make up the difference in gas vs electricity savings.
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
Hardly. The inflation-adjusted gasoline prices are highly volatile. Just in the past 15 years there's been more than a factor of 2 variation in gas prices.
Why are you trying to make this into a left VS right issue? I said the GOVERNMENT, not any party, and all the tax breaks and other initiatives for "green tech" were there under Bush as well, they weren't pushed as hard is all.
And the problem with the batteries is EVERY study I've seen on them involves them being kept in a climate controlled garage when not in use. tell me do YOU have a climate controlled garage? i bet you don't, hell I don't know a single person that actually does. Have you ever stuck a LiOn battery in a hot car? notice how the battery wasn't worth shit afterwards? its not rocket science, LiOn batteries don't respond well to extremes in heat and cold, which is why we use lead Acid batteries to start cars. Now figure in several hundreds pounds of liOn being out in 114F summer heat or 8 degree F winters, how long do YOU think they will last?
And thanks, i knew it was tata or tanto or something, but the rest of the point is spot on. if you want to lower the gas usage for America you HAVE to give the working poor a vehicle that is dependable, cheap, and cheap on gas. Not a single one of their "green" vehicles currently comes close and without the government propping them up they won't either, simply because the battery tech wasn't there. As another poster put it we are trying to build a 747 in 1908 and we simply don't have the technology. A MUCH better use of our resources would be 45MPG+ 4 cyl cars that cost less than $10K, and then give a "cash for clunkers' kinda deal to get those that can't afford even $10K out of all those old Fords and Chevys. This is something we could build NOW without any major breakthroughs in tech, and not only could we build it but it could truly become the "people's car" with whole industries springing up around to provide everything from customization to repair. better IMHO than wasting billions on an electric car that few will be able to afford and even fewer will be able to afford battery replacement.
I predict in less than 6 years the majority of these all electric cars will be in the dump because when people find out the true battery replacement costs and find that no car lot will give them shit for trade in if it needs new batteries they will just toss the things and move on. this isn't a right or left issue, this is the government trying to force the market to go in a direct where it isn't economically feasible to do so and will fail, just as every other attempt has. When the tech is there the market WILL move, but you can't force it when the tech just isn't ready.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
How does it cost more to *operate* than traditional (i.e. gas powered) vehicles?
> in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself.
I highly doubt that, Refining+distribution of gas = 17% of the total cost From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon [ca.gov] (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric (more tire wear, more road wear/maintenance), storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)
>electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway
And what about ignoring the amount of fossil fuels used in mining, refining materials for building and maintaining power lines, building plants, transporting coal, etc, etc. If we start using electric for our cars, the electric infrastructure will likely have to be doubled or tripled, putting a big hit on fossil fuel used to get to that point.
...plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase.
Lets not forget the $250,000 that tax payers have already paid in advance for each Volt produced thus far.
Yes? Would this do it?
It's a great idea, but I think it would fail at typical vacation times when everyone wants a car at the same time. Talk to any ZipCar member from Manhattan about this. All winter, you could get a ZIpCar for the weekend no problem unless it was a holiday weekend. And in the summer... just forget about it.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Are you sure about that? http://www.toyota.com/prius-plug-in/
Thanks, i'll have to remember that "building a 747 in 1906" bit as that is just about the perfect description I've seen of the whole electric car mess. And how quickly everyone forgets this is our SECOND go round, they tried to push the same thing in the 90s and it failed then too. instead i get modded down for pointing out what should be common sense, that you can't force a tech that isn't ready, and sadly some even saw it as a "Bush VS Obama" debate as the poster below you which of course had nothing to do with anything, as its more about the government trying to force change that just isn't ready. We saw what happened with CAFE, the government tried to force small cars when they were boxy POSes and instead everyone bought SUVs which were bigger hogs than the stationwagons we had previously.
I saw a consumer advocate on "money matters" arguing with congress about this and was amazed at how much they didn't understand even the most basic tenants of the free market. he said "I pointed to study after study that showed the average consumer does NOT want a teeny tiny electric 2 seater, that they at least want something big enough they don't feel cramped and have the ability to haul their friends and family in, so what were their questions? "How can we make them take the two seater" well you can't, you are just throwing money away because people won't buy what doesn't work for them" and that was it in a nutshell, a bunch of bureaucratic clueless sitting in a committee deciding that this "green thing" makes for a good soundbite so they blow piles of money on something that nobody wants.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Thanks, it is a very good example. I struggled for a long time to come up with a soundbite-ish way to sum up the problem and finally settled on that because it is something that everyone can relate to.
For those who don't get the example. Even if you gave an engineer in 1906 the plans for a 747 and even showed him video of it working they couldn't produce it, not because they are stupid, but because so many of the technologies necessary to build it simply do not exist and many of those technologies are interdependent. They couldn't produce the aluminum alloys used in the airframe, they couldn't produce the high temp alloys used in the engines, they couldn't produce the transistors for the avionics, they couldn't produce the tires for it, they couldn't produce the hydraulics that move the control surfaces, they couldn't even produce the rivets used to hold the airplane together.
No amount of central planning and money throwing would be able to overcome that because the central planners have no way of knowing the correct path to take and, as in the Soviet Union, frequently took the wrong path. The only way it could work is the way it did, Market actors pursuing their own interests, finding what worked and what didn't and others building atop the efforts of those before them.
True, if plugged into the grid. However, if the car is charged with a solar charging station then the gas mileage would be infinity.
True, if plugged into the grid. However, if the car is charged with a solar charging station
Then the mileage can be computed from the opportunity cost of not being able to use the PV panel's power for something else. For example, you might have to buy power from the grid to power home appliances while most of the power goes to your car. Or you might miss out on using a grid-tie inverter to sell power back to the electric company while charging the car.
I'm just sorry I can't find that Money matters video as his shock and disgust over dealing with congress really nailed it. i believe he was working with Kelly or one of the other car testing and rating agencies. he was like "I just couldn't believe it. i had charts, studies, tons of data, all showing EXACTLY what i had said, that the average American wasn't gonna take a teeny tiny two seater because its too cramped so they are uncomfortable, they can't carry their groceries or family in it and most people aren't gonna buy TWO new vehicles just so they can be green during the commute during the week. Did this change their stance? nope all they kept asking me was how they could somehow magically get people to buy something which didn't work for them. finally i just told them you can't do it, they thanked me and that was that".
And that was it in a nutshell, some committee had a bunch of congress critters that decided that cars they wouldn't personally drive or own was "good enough for the peasants' because it gave them a good soundbite about being green so it didn't matter how much it failed, they would just keep throwing money at it.
The sad part is I do believe there is a way to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the gas usage in America, but that would mean abandoning this whole electric car nonsense and building instead a "people's car" which would be a 4 door and 2 door 4 cyl that got 40MPG and cost less than 10k. Then you could offer a cash for clunkers that would allow even the very poor to buy this new car. The average age of a car on the road is now 11 years simply because people can't afford no $40K+ new car in a dead economy with families to feed, even i am driving a 99 Ranger because my 2 boys matter to me more than replacing a running truck that is a gas hog.
But if they sold what i just described as well as say gave me $3k trade in for my ranger? i'd give up my 14MPG truck for the 40MPG people's car tomorrow. but instead they will push toys for rich folks to feel good about themselves, only there isn't enough people making over 100K a year that actually give a shit about being green for those to ever even break even. its a dead end, just like in the 90s, and we all know it. the only question is how much of OUR money will be pissed away on this before the government gets a clue and pulls the plug.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you compare a 50mpg HEV with a 4mi/kWh BEV, you save about $0.13/mile using the BEV with $8/gal gas and $0.12/kWh electricity. This works out to about 75,000 miles to break even on a $10K price difference. But the Volt's a bigger car than those hybrids you listed, so it's not really a fair comparison.
My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.
So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.
That's off by a factor of two, assuming she also drives home from work. She probably drives other places too.
All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.
Actually, even including battery, etc, and manufacturing, and assuming all electricity come from coal, electric cars still cause less total pollution than conventional ones burning gasoline (though this depends on how you assign relative values to different types of pollution). The difference becomes much more significant when lots of the electricity comes from sources other than coal (in the US, 60% comes from non-coal sources). Of course the only way to "save" the environment using transportation choices is not to drive, and to remove the perceived need for others to do so as well.
Hold on a minute, you're not done yet. You didn't count charging losses or taxes on the electricity yet. And the Volt gets about 3.4mi/KWh, so your figures for the Volt costs start off 15% low. Consumer Reports calculates the Volt costs $0.038/mi @ $0.11/KWh, 12/11th of that is $0.0415, so let's use $0.04/mi for simplicity. Ok, savings is now $0.12/mi, so were now at 83k mi for BE on $10k difference, 150k mi on $18k difference. That's counting exclusively electric miles on the Volt, gasoline powered miles don't count, because they cost about the same as the other vehicles.
What if we reduce the gasoline cost to $6? That's $0.12/mi - $0.04/mi = $0.08/mi difference. Now, we're at 125k mi for $10k, and $ 225k mi for $18k.
But wait, the Volt battery pack wears out. It's guaranteed for 8yrs or 100k mi, but after that, you're looking at replacement when you get near breakeven, even with $8/gal gas, and you're not likely to make it to break even with $6/gal gas.
If gasoline remains below ~ $7/gal, or electricity increases, well, you'll never hit breakeven. Edmunds, Consumer Reports, and others have analyzed it extensively, see the first link above for more details.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The link you listed mostly compares electric and other hybrids to conventional vehicles, not so much to each other. And they do this at current gas prices, and up to $5/gal. I think the $19K CR-Z HEV you're comparing it to is not comparable to the Volt - it's smaller, and also gets under 40mpg (the Insight is also smaller and also gets in the low 40s). A Prius costs more like $25K (advertised as ~50mpg, probably less in independent testing like the one you're using for the Volt), and a Focus is like $28K (~40mpg advertised). So it you really want to get picky on details, the gas price to break even vs. the Focus in 100,000 electric miles is $0.08/gas-mile or $3.20/gal, and vs. the Prius it's $0.11/gas-mile or $5.50. That is assuming all-electric miles, but presumably the battery will last longer than the warranty period, and the advertised mpg for the HEVs are probably high. Also, a battery replacement 8 years from now should be cheaper than the purchase price premium.
A Prius is $22k. The also compare it to the all electric Leaf, and the all gas Chevy Cruze.
The battery probably will last longer than the warranty period, but did you read where Chevy estimates that it's capacity will be reduced 10%-30% in those 100k miles? Oh, BTW, that's 100k vehicle miles, not 100k electric miles. By the time you hit 100k-150k electric miles, the battery is expected to need replacement, if for no other reason than significant loss of capacity.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
A Prius is $22k.
According to the Toyota site a Prius is $24,000-$29,805 base MSRP, depending on which version you get. I don't know which one is most comparable to the features on the Volt, but it's probably not the cheapest one.
They also compare it to the all electric Leaf, and the all gas Chevy Cruze.
They list the per-mile costs of those, but they don't do a direct comparison on the time to break even on the difference in price between a HEV and BEV. I don't see an analysis of whether a (mostly) BEV is worth the extra cost over a HEV on the wikipedia page nor the pages it links to.
The battery probably will last longer than the warranty period, but did you read where Chevy estimates that it's capacity will be reduced 10%-30% in those 100k miles? Oh, BTW, that's 100k vehicle miles, not 100k electric miles. By the time you hit 100k-150k electric miles, the battery is expected to need replacement, if for no other reason than significant loss of capacity.
That's not a thorough analysis of the mean lifetime a buyer can expect for a battery given any replacements they might get during the warranty period. It only makes sense to buy a Volt if the vast majority of the miles will be electric, so it makes sense to assume most of the miles will be on electric. If you frequently need a longer range, you are probably better off with a car that has a longer range at high efficiency.
The Edmunds analysis you cited says that the payback period is 135K miles at $5/gal which is within the expected lifetime of most cars, and it seems to be around 90-100K miles for the more common HEVs (the full-electric leaf is at the low end of the range). But number of years to break even on a price premium is not the same thing as total cost of ownership- what you really want is the total discounted purchase, fuel and maintenance costs over a given number of years/miles, minus the residual value at the end of that period. And yes, you might have to replace the battery (or maybe it'll get replaced under warranty). You also might have to replace parts on other cars.
So if you only care about total cost to yourself (it's beyond me why anyone thinks buying a car is a good way to save money), and you will generally drive within the electric range, and you expect gas prices to rise significantly relative to electricity prices, then your total cost of ownership will almost certainly be lower with a Volt than with a regular gas car, some HEVs would probably "save" you more, and a full-electric (if the range works for you) is probably the best deal. If gas prices stay the same, you'll probably have similar total cost of ownership either way. Not owning a car at all will save you more.
These arguments that electric vs gasoline cars are a bad investment remind me of the exact same argument a few years ago about how hybrids, and now people like you are insisting on comparing electric cars to hybrids to decide if they're "worth it." Lots of people buy SUVs. How long do those take to recover their price premium?
The argument exists solely because the proponents of these vehicles talk about how cheap they are to drive. It's a lie. If they would stop lying about it, then companies like CR & Edmunds would do their analysis, and 95% of the population would ignore those and simply buy what they want.
The problem with the Volt is that it's priced about $10k too high. The only reason anyone will ever get near breakeven is because of the tax credit. Take away that $7500 (which expires in the quarter that they sell the 60,000'th vehicle, and is lower the next quarter), eventually dropping to zero. The problem is that the tax credit isn't "free", it's taking money from every taxpayer, including the person buying the car. 60k cars & $7500 = $450M, plus more for the decreasing credits. It's bad energy policy, and bad tax policy.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
They absolutely are cheaper to drive: the incremental cost per mile driven will be lower on just about any electric car than the equivalent hybrid, and lower on a hybrid than an equivalent conventional car. They just aren't necessarily cheaper in total cost of ownership (this depends on a lot of circumstances), where the difference in sticker price is plainly obvious. They are no more dishonest than advocates for anything else.
The subsidies for the consumption of oil aren't free either (including providing security for supply lines, making pollution and consumption of resources essentially free, tax credits for oil companies, and direct subsidies), so it is not obvious that subsidizing the adoption of technologies likely to reduce oil consumption is bad energy policy or bad tax policy. The stated purpose of tax credits is to encourage taxpayers to take actions that are in the public interest but are not economical in the market (of course there's often brib^H^H^H^H lobbying involved too). So you can equally argue that any policy is bad policy. Get the gov't to stop subsidizing fossil fuels (including the lack of a value placed on leaving the resource in the ground), then we can talk about removing subsidies for technologies that reduce this consumption.