Electric Cars: Drivers Love 'Em, So Why Are Sales Still Low?

cartechboy writes "The electric car challenge is what insiders call "getting butts in seats" — and a lot of butts today still belong to humans who are not yet buying electric cars. The big question is: Why? Surveys show drivers are interested in electric cars--and that they love them once they drive them. EVs also cost less to maintain (though more to buy in the first place) and many experts say they're simply nicer to drive. So what's the problem? Disinterested dealers, uneven distribution, limited supplies, and media bias are some potential challenges. Or maybe it's just lousy marketing--casting electric cars as a moral imperative or a duty, like medicine you have to take."

Comments

2 Words

[Rhyas]

Infrastructure

Range

Re:2 Words

[robot256]

The $30k EVs--at least the ones that actually sell--are far from "econoboxes". They come with all the bells and whistles of similarly priced cars, and serve the same purpose if you get one that matches your lifestyle. Buy a Chevy Volt for and you won't have range anxiety, but you'll be among drivers who go an average of 900 miles between gasoline fill-ups. Buy a Nissan Leaf (like my own), and you may have to borrow a gas car or ride with a friend once in a while, but never have to worry about oil changes.

Re:2 Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Note also that even for gasoline engines you have reduced performance in cold weather... for many of the same reasons.

False.
Gasoline engines are more powerful in cold weather because cold air is more dense than hot air. Cold/dense air means that more air makes it into the cylinder. As every gearhead knows, more air = more power.
About the only time this wouldn't be the case is right upon startup, before the motor temps start climbing. Fluids will be cold and harder to move throughout the engine. After 30-45 seconds, this becomes a non-issue.

Re:2 Words

[hawguy]

Note also that even for gasoline engines you have reduced performance in cold weather... for many of the same reasons.

False.
Gasoline engines are more powerful in cold weather because cold air is more dense than hot air. Cold/dense air means that more air makes it into the cylinder. As every gearhead knows, more air = more power.
About the only time this wouldn't be the case is right upon startup, before the motor temps start climbing. Fluids will be cold and harder to move throughout the engine. After 30-45 seconds, this becomes a non-issue.

Of course, more power doesn't necessarily translate to better fuel economy.

That dense air also works against you on the road:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-the-fuel-economy-o

Finally, a vehicles aerodynamic drag is proportional to air density. On a 70-degree-F day, the density of the air is 16 percent lower than on a day with temperatures around 0 degrees F. Although this makes little difference in urban driving, it could account for a highway mileage per gallon reduction of 7 percent on the colder day (including a 1.5 percent allowance for improvement in fuel efficiency at the higher engine load).

Re:2 Words

[FlyHelicopters]

They do? Which one? The Tesla Model S? What car do you think it compares to in terms of price, luxury, size, etc?

For the 80K price, I could buy a pair of Cadillac XTS's!

Re:2 Words

[AliasMarlowe]

anyhow, in finland I never noticed that much of a difference in fuel range from +30c to -30c.

Agreed. Most of the apparent range difference between summer and winter is attributable to differences in the wheel diameter. Usually studded winter tyres are less compliant with the road, thus having a greater effective diameter, even if their nominal diameter is about the same as summer tyres on the same car. The odometer on cars is just counting revolutions of the wheels, so a difference in effective diameter of a couple of percent gives a comparable effect in apparent fuel economy. The engine is working slightly less hard for the same apparent distance.

On our cars (both diesels), the apparent economy difference between summer (10C to 30C) and winter (-30C to -10C) is less than 8%, about half of which is due to the compliance and diameter of the tyres. It's easy to check the accuracy of the odometer by passing through the roadside speed checks at a constant 80km/h according to the speedometer. The speed indicated by the roadside radar gives the error in the speedometer.

I never noticed any particular difference when using the same tyres all year around (in Canada) on a car with a petrol motor. Then again, fuel in Canada was so cheap it was almost an irrelevancy and I didn't track economy much. Here, the price of fuel is more significant, being about US$8 per US gallon.

Re:2 Words

[icebike]

Charging and range is the problem.

If you pocket the the $3500 and go for Altima over the Leaf, you can drive it across the state and across the nation, and the money you save will buy you 30,000 miles worth of gas.

Re:2 Words

[SternisheFan]

If we don't have reasonably priced electric SUVs today, remember the electric car was purposely killed off in the U.S. back in the 1990's. There could have been a push then that would have led to a mostly electric vehicle society by now. Blame the people in power then (and still today) if you don't have cheap, sensible transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

Re: 2 Words

[The Wannabe King]

Actually, cold weather is good for long term battery life. The capacity loss in winter is only temporary. I don't know which Scandinavian country you are from, but here in Norway Leafs are very popular and the batteries keep very well.

Range. That's #1.

[Tugrik]

The three year lease on my Nissan Leaf is over in a few months. I absolutely adore the car. It's been the best commuter vehicle I've had in all ways but one -- range. This is the biggest complaint of all those I've shown it to, as well. Many of the co-workers and friends who have ridden in my car over the years want one! Then they hear what the range is like and they lose interest.

My daily round trip (+lunch) comes in at just under 50 miles. With the highway speeds in my area (75 and up) and putting slightly better tires on it instead of the no-traction-in-rain stocks that I went through all too quickly, my real-world run-until-empty range is about 65 miles (When new with the super-eco tires and driving 65 on the freeway, I could get closer to 80-85 miles of range). This means that by the time I get home I can go back out to shop and return, and that's about it. I cannot use the Leaf for longer weekend runs, road trips, or even for the once every three weeks that I have to commute from San Jose to San Fran (about 120mi round trip). Therefore I have to have a second gas-powered car.

Being that I work in Silicon Valley, owning one gas car and leasing an electric car alongside is feasible. With how much I save on gas the lease is nearly 75% covered anyway. With my office soon installing chargers at work my range will extend considerably. But for most of my friends having more than one car is out of the question, budgetary-wise, and the limitations of a car that can only go about 65 miles before it has to charge for 5 hours (my usual L2 charge is 4h:40m or so, overnight) are just too restrictive. With L3 chargers being few and far between, and often having a cost associated with their use, they don't help much. So, no EV for them.

When my lease is up I'll probably try to get a Toyota RAV-4 EV. It supposedly has a real-world range of over 110mi - nearly double my Leaf. It's more affordable than the Tesla models, and more important to me, I can fit in it (I'm very tall-torso and short-legged; I simply can't get in the sports-car-low roof line of the Model S, and no Model X's exist that they will let a consumer sit in to see if they fit!). I'm bummed that Nissan hasn't found a way to 2x the range of the Leaf, or I'd gladly stick with that model. The Tesla-drivetrain RAV4 is still more expensive than I like, but it'll fit my EV driving needs far better.

When battery technology increases enough that 150+mi range EVs are Leaf-level affordable _then_ you will see sales take off in the urban areas. Any advancements in fast-rate (L3 or better) charging will help that too. Until then, for all of their benefits and wonderfulness to drive, they'll remain a niche for packed-urban-area dwellers who can afford to have a second, dedicated commute car.

Re:money?

[Roger W Moore]

Not if it's range is a few hundred km and the recharge time is 30+ minutes. Many of us may use our cars for in-town trips much of the time but we still want them to be able to go on long distance journeys a few times a year for family holidays. This, plus the current cost, are the only reasons we've not gone electric.

Re:dirty and not affordable

[Beeftopia]

Electricity generation in the US, by energy source.

"Coal 37%
Natural Gas 30%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 5%
Petroleum 1%"

Re:I'll buy one...

[JoeMerchant]

One big issue I have is battery life.

I'm driving a 14 year old pickup truck, and a 23 year old sports car, both purchased brand new. Ya know the most common replacement component in both? Batteries.

Yes, Lithium-Ion / Fe whatever is different from lead-acid. Do you hear any electric car company making a claim that their multi-thousand dollar battery packs are going to last anywhere near 14 years? How about 23?

Re:I'll buy one...

[JoeMerchant]

They already do to the tune of $7500 per EV.

Re:money?

[FlyHelicopters]

I think you got it backwards... The poster talking about Hertz was saying that you can buy an EV car to drive around town, when you need to drive cross country 1 or 2 times a year, rent a gas car from Hertz.