AFAIK in a electric car, the motor and his surrounding infrastructure is cheap compared to an thermal combustion motor. The 'only' problem is the storage where the cost, mass, capacity and longevity is hard to compare with a simple tank filled by fuel. I am confident that at some point an innovative solution will open the path of way to overcome this limitation at an acceptable level for a bigger chunk of the car mass market.
And I would welcome it... get the cost down and the majority of my issue with EVs goes away.
Range remains an issue, but for a second car and a lot of other people, that one is less important than the cost.
The CTS is a step in the right direction, but the mileage could be better. The base model does a claimed 20city/30highway. So, you can probably expect 23, 24. I expect you could find a less expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicle that had all those toys. The memory seat stuff is cool though.
Sure, I could always find something less expensive, but a Caddy is on my bucket list...:)
For less money, but with most of the technology, a new 2015 Mustang GT Premium would do the trick. About $20K less money, but a much less refined vehicle...
I am not attempting to troll by asking this question, but I am curious: what percentage of the miles driven in that Yukon have just 1-3 people, and little luggage? What percentage of the miles are driven with 7 people, 7 suitcases, and an 8,000-lb trailer?
It is a fair question...
I would have to say that a bunch of the time, it indeed has 1 or 2 people in it, but equally so, it has 4 to 5 people in it.
Just today I took the kids to an event that was about 30 min each way, total distance was 46 miles, I averaged exactly 17 MPG on that trip, thus burning about 3 gallons of gas, give or take.
Could I have taken my 3 kids in something smaller? Sure, I could have, but I wouldn't want to. They have room to spread out and have their own space, have their stuff, and enjoy the ride. Which is of course the other part, that truck is made for highway cursing, it is quite comfortable at 75 mph with the cruise control set and the music playing.
Tomorrow afternoon I am driving to the bike shop, my son's rear tire blew last weekend and broke the rim, so we're having it fixed. It is handy to be able to toss it in the back of the truck, it wouldn't fit in a small car like a Prius. Of course, it would fit in a minivan as well, but that actually doesn't accomplish anything, a Toyota Sienna Limited AWD gets a mixed MPG of 19 MPG, just 2 MPG worse than my truck, and it sucks to drive.
Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about? Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.
You got modded up, but that is no surprise, lots of tech people from California are on this web site, bunch of idiots who would bankrupt the USA if allowed to.
If you think you're so good, why don't you form your own country, it would be amusing to watch.
Bugger off loon.
I could say the same thing to you. You're an idiot, plain and simple.
It would be a very sad day indeed if our desire to have nicer things went away.
There is nothing "to get over", nice things are... nice...
There isn't anything there you can't do with a Civic, or a Golf, or etc.
You're mistaken, you really are...
Oh poor me! I can't have leather seats! I can't have a 4WD system that does nothing but add weight and give me the false sense of security that it will help me slow down faster!
:) Oh yes, I'm a horrible person for wanting leather seats... you probably think I'm just evil for wanting them air conditioned as well.
4WD isn't for slowing down, but you know that... you're assuming that I don't... and we all know what assuming makes you...
You don't get it. You don't see that you're being massive spoiled self-centered selfish asshole. You have put your own wants over the needs of others, for no other reason than that you can.
I get it just fine, you're jealous... you can't afford nice things so you don't want anyone else to have them either...
My wants do not take away anyone else's needs, that is all in your head...
Trying to reduce the decision of whether or not to buy an EV down to cost alone ignores many of the things that factor into why a person chooses one car over another. Therefore, saying it doesn't make sense to buy an EV given their cost isn't a very convincing argument.
The sales numbers of EVs would seem to indicate that it is...
The trouble with all these different metrics is that it really comes down to "How much extra will I pay if I get the gas guzzler that allows me to comfortably use the vehicle for its intended purpose over a more fuel efficient vehicle."
I suspect too many people on sites like this sit down and do math on specs, features, and what they think needs to be in a vehicle, without understanding how people actually buy cars.
The majority of vehicles (this is backed up by a LOT of industry research) are purchased emotionally. People go to the dealer and say, "oh, that blue one looks nice, how much is that one?"
Yes, a subset of customers now shop on Edmunds.com and know everything about the car, more than the sales people generally do, but they aren't the majority.
MPG doesn't tell the whole story... even difference in MPG doesn't - even a percent difference doesn't. One needs to know whether another vehicle could perform the necessary tasks, and if so, if the total cost of ownership is higher for one than the other - sale price, gas, maintenance costs, etc.... and to know the monthly gas, that would depend on driving habits.
No, one doesn't need to know that, if they did, Ford would have no market for the Mustang, a vehicle which makes zero sense from ANY numbers point of view. It is purely about the fun.
For your vehicle which currently averages 17 MPG, you are correct that an average minivan from 2014 would get a combined 20 MPG to 24 MPG depending on the make/model. So, a minivan would be between 3 and 7 mpg better. That's between 18% and 41% improvement over your vehicle. Granted, for your purposes and income level, that's probably not a big deal. For someone commuting hours a day, maybe that percentage improvement would matter - maybe not.
A fully loaded Toyota Sienna, which is as close as you can come to my truck, gets 19 MPG average, or just 2 MPG better than my truck. It is a really close wash and frankly anyone buying either one doesn't care about 2 or 3 MPG. That is like saying people are buying a Tesla Model S to save on gas.:) Maybe a Leaf, sure... but not a Model S...
Stow-n-go is one of the best vehicle inventions of all time. It allows for one vehicle to work as a seven passenger around-town vehicle, a four or five passenger road trip vehicle with room everyones' stuff, or a two person cargo van. If you don't need to go off-road and don't need to tow a second vehicle on a trailer behind it then those Mopar minivans are just about perfect for families.
A lot of people can't accept this, they think it's some affront to their machismo to drive a minivan.
It is a shame that Stow-n-go is only on those really crappy Dodge minivans. Have you seen the offset crash test results? Really, really bad.
As for the machismo thing, you're playing into stereo types, my wife doesn't like minivans either. Give them 4WD and a small block V8 and actually make them fun to drive and she'd be more interested.
Don't misunderstand me, I respect the space and ease of use of a minivan, we used to own a 2009 Honda Odyssey, nice vehicle. But it isn't fun to drive, it is boring.
How often? Everyday on your commute to work? How many miles do you have 7 people in your Yukon compared to how many you have just 1?
I work from home, so I don't commute anywhere.
Back a few years ago when I didn't work at home, my drive to work was about 20 min each way.
Of course, once I got to work, I often took people out to lunch, or had to take stuff out to a customer, or pick stuff up.
---
What is missing is that I am fully aware that for many people, a small cheap car makes sense, and that's fine. More power to you.
What YOU'RE missing and a lot of other people here are missing is that many people actually use their larger vehicles.
The constant comments here from people mocking larger vehicles is coming from amazingly closed minded people who can't see past themselves who think everyone is like them. They aren't.
I'm well aware that everyone isn't like me, you should try considering that they aren't all like you either.
And that's the problem: one buys an SUV or minivan for the few times a year they need one (or "just in case"), and then drive it around town the rest of the year when it's overkill.
That sounds nice, except it isn't true... maybe in your world, but not everyone lives there...
Most parents that I know that own a SUV or minivan use it constantly for its intended purpose...
I found your point interesting. I we have to replace all the fossil petroleum by synthetic fuel, how costly will be to do so compared of the same amount of electric energy ?
Unknown, but since it hasn't been tried at large scale, no one else knows either.
I wondering how much a energy a given surface can generate in one year if it was used to grow organic stuff (taking water and insecticide in the process) and then distilled into usable fuel, vs if the same given surface was used to produce electricity using solar panel and wind power plant.
I'm sure that solar and wind would be better, you don't have to convince me of that.
Until you add up the cost of changing everyone over to electric cars.
Don't get me wrong, EVs are fine in many cases, until someone has to pay for them. Get the cost down and one issue is solved.
Sort of like driving drunk, or firing a gun into the air in a city: the odds you'll actually kill someone are low, sure, but it's just that sort of needless risk that societies form in order to remove.
Those are examples of things that I must "NOT" do... not things that I HAVE TO DO.
That is the key difference.
You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.
That is the problem.
Thankfully, I'm secure living here, we are not going to go down that road, so for now I don't have to worry about it.
The Chevy Cruz is an inexpensive vehicle that gets decent mileage. That doesn't mean that someone might not be quite happy to spend the extra money on an eGolf or even the EV version of the Chevy Spark. By all accounts these are fun cars to drive.
You and I have different ideas of what is "fun to drive". A 2015 Ford Mustang GT is "fun to drive", the above cars are cheap commuter econoboxes.
No crime in being that, but fun to drive? Bleh...:)
And while the range might be a problem for lots of people, for others it isn't. For example we are a two car family but I ride my bike to work most days. We've even wondered if we really need two cars. I doubt that both of us would ever need to drive more than 75 miles on the same day. Plus I expect that the range of these vehicles will improve with time.
We are currently a one vehicle family, mostly due to walking to work is easy for me, since it is in my home.
We are debating buying a second vehicle this summer, there are times it would be nice to have.
Could we work with the range issues of a EV? Yes, for our second vehicle, you bet.
But I still am not going to get one. Why? Because none of them are interesting.
A Leaf? Bleh, ugly and too small.
A Tesla? Nice looking, but WAY, WAY too expensive.
A Spark/Focus/Escape/Fusion EV? Meh, while they would technically work, none of them make financial sense over the gas versions, and I wouldn't buy any of them anyway.
I've debated buying a new Mustang GT, I drove one a few months ago and the engine is crazy powerful and the ride is MUCH improved over prior models, but I have 3 kids and it only seats 4 people, we all can't fit in it.
Another option is a 2016 Ford Explorer Platinum, now that they have married the luxury of the Limited trim to the power of the Sport trim. AWD and 3.5L V6 Twin-Turbo, that thing should be fun to drive (I've driven the Sport, which has the same engine).
I've never bought a new car in my life and I'm 50 so I'm not really the target market for any of these vehicles anyway.
I didn't used to either, but you might run the numbers again if you haven't done it for awhile. Vehicles now hold their value better in the 3-5 year mark more than they used to. It no longer saves as much as you'd think buying used. At least not a 3 year old vehicle.
I bought my 2011 Ford Explorer Limited and paid just under invoice for it, at about $41K. I traded it in this year to the dealer when I got my new Yukon, they gave me $29K for it. To drive a $41K truck for nearly three years? About $400 a month. That is darn cheap, and a WHOLE lot cheaper than leasing it would have been.
Look at what 3 year old Explorer Limiteds are going for, they aren't that much less than brand new ones, and they'll lose value over time as well.
You might end up paying $300 a month buying a 3 year old version and driving it to 6 years, but it will be out of the bumper-to-bumper warranty for that time (lots of electronic stuff to break) and it will have wear and tear on it.
To me, 25% more money each month, $100, less than my cell phone bill, to get a brand new one that I can order how I like and no one has driven it but me (mine had 6 miles on it when I took delivery, fresh off the truck) is well worth that.
As to the issue of an EV version of the Ford Explorer, I think it's pretty clear that the technology doesn't currently exist to make such an ordinary SUV attractive at the high price you'd have to pay. There are plenty of high end hybrid SUVs though that get rave reviews.
I agree with the first part, that the price of the Explorer with the range as an EV that it would need to sell would be beyond what people will pay in numbers that matter.
As for the last part, I disagree. The truth is, vehicles like the Lexus LX450h make no sense from an economic point of view, they may never recover their higher purchase price in saved gas.
Even the Hybrid Tahoe is gone, they sold so few of them because they were pointless, saving nothing in real terms of fuel, their payback period was infinity as it exceeded the expected useful life of the vehicle.
he problem is that the article doesn't specify what type of SUV these people tend to switch to. Is there any regard to fuel economy or not? Are they getting small SUVs or big ones? Are they getting FWD models or AWD?
The article also speculates that cheaper gas prices are the motivation behind the switch to SUVs but it doesn't back that up. While I suspect cheaper gas is part of the reason it may or may not be the main reason for these buyers to switch.
It could be:
1. larger family 2. desire for AWD after recent snowy winters 3. improved economy means people are buying boats and other things that need towing 4. Range with the EV was a problem 5. Mileage wasn't as good as expected 6. Just didn't like the vehicle and wanted something different
There is also speculation as to why these people bought hybrids in the first place but again we don't really know if the ones who switched got EVs and Hybrids because they expected to save money, because they were concerned about the environment, or because they liked the way they drove.
And further they mixed EV owners with Hybrid owners so we don't really know which percentage of each switched.
^ This is worth quoting, because you're 100% correct. There isn't enough information to really tell anything from what was linked...
my 1992 F250 7.3 needs a new block (cavitation) and my 1997 A8 quattro is on its second transmission and has had a shitload of leaks addressed and is still leaking and our 2000 Astro has had both engine and transmission rebuilt, so actually, very frequently AFAICT.
Those are old vehicles, of course they'll have issues...
A 20 year old EV is likely to be scrap anyway, with the pace of new technology...
People like you are why GM makes shit.
No, GM makes the stuff they do because of a long history of it caused by more issues than can be described here.
It has gotten better, the fit and finish of the newer vehicles is miles ahead of where it was 20 years ago. Check out what Consumer Reports has to say about the new Impala, it is better than the Toyota Camry in many ways.
It's not really the cost of oil changes, although those are annoying. It's the high chance that an engine or gearbox will go tits up, or just require major maintenance for a re-seal.
Yes, but how often does that happen?
Frankly, I've never had it happen and likely never will.
Even back when I drove trucks longer, my old Tahoe ran for nearly 200k miles needing only spark plugs and fluid changes.
The powertrain warranty on modern vehicles is quite long, my GMC has a 5 year, 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Since I'm not likely to keep it beyond 5 years, it is not material to me.
I'm looking forward to when EVs become cheap in the way that gas cars are cheap... to acquire.
If you can get me a Yukon XL for $75K that has all the stuff on it that mine has, in a EV form, with 400 miles of range and the quick charging of the Tesla, I'm all over that.
Let me know when that happens. I suspect it might not be within my lifetime, but I'd be happy to be surprised.
Nobody is trying to take it away, just make it conform to the same emissions standards as other passenger vehicles.
It is not reasonable to expect a 7 passenger, 3 ton truck that can tow 4 tons, to get the same fuel economy as a 4 seat econobox.
It is always going to burn more fuel, just due to the size and weight.
Now, should it get better economy? Sure... I'd love to see it lose 700 lbs the way the F-150 did, and I would imagine that will happen in the next version...
They could do it with a small engine like Ford is offering in the F-150 these days, and some weight reduction like Ford is doing in the F-150 these days. So basically, when GM catches up to Ford (hahaha)
The Ford's biggest problem is the lack of a big engine. The Expedition only offers the Twin-Turbo V6, which is a nice engine (I've driven it), but it doesn't compare to the 6.2L engine in my Denali. 420HP, 460 ft/lbs of torque, it is very nice for getting on the freeway and merging into traffic.
If the Expedition offered the 5.0L V8 from the new 2015 Mustang, I think they'd have a winner on their hands.
Big engines can get good economy, my truck does nearly 24 MPG straight highway, and that is at 75 MPH. It sucks in the city with starting and stopping, but at 75 MPH running on just 4 cylinders, it just loafs along. Now 24 MPG on the highway would suck for something smaller, but this is not a small car. I can load it up with people and stuff and it more or less gets the same economy. Maybe 1 MPG less if at max gross, but that's it.
Even if a Prius gets 48 MPG, if I need two of them to carry everyone and all the stuff, then I haven't saved anything, now have I?:)
Texans insulting Californians for water management is quite ironic, at least to anyone who ever reviewed the history of the Dust Bowl. Texan mishandling of water and agriculture were key contributors to the Dust Bowl drought and economic and agricultural ruin of the 1930's. I'm afraid that California is headed the same way, but but it seems unfair to castigate other states for a problem Texas has itself had so profoundly.
No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.
You just love stating opinions as facts, don't you?
You will find a great deal of resistance to your views, because a great many people don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot do with kids.
You're probably one of those idiots who supports the one-child policy of China, aren't you? Why don't you go live there if you love heavy handed government so much?
And that's why, under the law, you and your spawn are free to continue your miserable existences in your own parallel world, ostracized and isolated from the rest of us.
Please, please, please stay in that messed up state of California, where you can't balance a budget, manage water resources, or do anything else right...
Don't come to Texas, you're not welcome here with your commie views...
Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge./quote.
If I actually get Ebola or the Measles, then yes, I should stay away from society until I get better.
The lack of a vaccine is not a sickness. So with all due respect, you can go pound sand.
Thankfully I don't live in a state like CA that is so messed up, why don't you try and balance your budget before you tell people how to live their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK in a electric car, the motor and his surrounding infrastructure is cheap compared to an thermal combustion motor. The 'only' problem is the storage where the cost, mass, capacity and longevity is hard to compare with a simple tank filled by fuel. I am confident that at some point an innovative solution will open the path of way to overcome this limitation at an acceptable level for a bigger chunk of the car mass market.
And I would welcome it... get the cost down and the majority of my issue with EVs goes away.
Range remains an issue, but for a second car and a lot of other people, that one is less important than the cost.
The CTS is a step in the right direction, but the mileage could be better. The base model does a claimed 20city/30highway. So, you can probably expect 23, 24. I expect you could find a less expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicle that had all those toys. The memory seat stuff is cool though.
Sure, I could always find something less expensive, but a Caddy is on my bucket list... :)
http://www.windingroad.com/art...
For less money, but with most of the technology, a new 2015 Mustang GT Premium would do the trick. About $20K less money, but a much less refined vehicle...
I am not attempting to troll by asking this question, but I am curious: what percentage of the miles driven in that Yukon have just 1-3 people, and little luggage? What percentage of the miles are driven with 7 people, 7 suitcases, and an 8,000-lb trailer?
It is a fair question...
I would have to say that a bunch of the time, it indeed has 1 or 2 people in it, but equally so, it has 4 to 5 people in it.
Just today I took the kids to an event that was about 30 min each way, total distance was 46 miles, I averaged exactly 17 MPG on that trip, thus burning about 3 gallons of gas, give or take.
Could I have taken my 3 kids in something smaller? Sure, I could have, but I wouldn't want to. They have room to spread out and have their own space, have their stuff, and enjoy the ride. Which is of course the other part, that truck is made for highway cursing, it is quite comfortable at 75 mph with the cruise control set and the music playing.
Tomorrow afternoon I am driving to the bike shop, my son's rear tire blew last weekend and broke the rim, so we're having it fixed. It is handy to be able to toss it in the back of the truck, it wouldn't fit in a small car like a Prius. Of course, it would fit in a minivan as well, but that actually doesn't accomplish anything, a Toyota Sienna Limited AWD gets a mixed MPG of 19 MPG, just 2 MPG worse than my truck, and it sucks to drive.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
I use the cargo space in the back of my truck every week, I haul my 3 kids every day, and sometimes 1 or 2 more kids as well.
That is why I own it.
Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.
You got modded up, but that is no surprise, lots of tech people from California are on this web site, bunch of idiots who would bankrupt the USA if allowed to.
If you think you're so good, why don't you form your own country, it would be amusing to watch.
Bugger off loon.
I could say the same thing to you. You're an idiot, plain and simple.
That's a "want" not a "need". Get over it.
It would be a very sad day indeed if our desire to have nicer things went away.
There is nothing "to get over", nice things are... nice...
There isn't anything there you can't do with a Civic, or a Golf, or etc.
You're mistaken, you really are...
Oh poor me! I can't have leather seats! I can't have a 4WD system that does nothing but add weight and give me the false sense of security that it will help me slow down faster!
:) Oh yes, I'm a horrible person for wanting leather seats... you probably think I'm just evil for wanting them air conditioned as well.
4WD isn't for slowing down, but you know that... you're assuming that I don't... and we all know what assuming makes you...
You don't get it. You don't see that you're being massive spoiled self-centered selfish asshole. You have put your own wants over the needs of others, for no other reason than that you can.
I get it just fine, you're jealous... you can't afford nice things so you don't want anyone else to have them either...
My wants do not take away anyone else's needs, that is all in your head...
You're lucky to be able to be so selfish and stupid and get away with it, in most places in the world, you'd be killed by your own beliefs.
The same can be said for you... your beliefs would also get you killed in other places, so that door swings both ways...
Evil?
Yes, it is.
You're an idiot.
I feel the same way about you, so what's your point?
Trying to reduce the decision of whether or not to buy an EV down to cost alone ignores many of the things that factor into why a person chooses one car over another. Therefore, saying it doesn't make sense to buy an EV given their cost isn't a very convincing argument.
The sales numbers of EVs would seem to indicate that it is...
http://insideevs.com/monthly-p...
For 2014, 123,049 plug in EVs were sold in the US and this is a decent rise over the sales rate in 2013.
That sounds good, until you consider that ALL car sales in 2014 went up, it was a good year.
How good? Honda, all by itself, in the MONTH of December, sold 137,281 vehicles. EVs are a rounding error in vehicle sales.
How much so? 16.5 million new vehicles were sold in the US in 2014. EV sales were less than 1% of new vehicles sold.
How about this... Ford sold more F-150 Pickup trucks... In CANADA, in 2014, than all the plug in EVs sold in the US all year.
---
I get it, tech people and eco people love EVs, but it would seem that no one else does. The sales don't lie.
The trouble with all these different metrics is that it really comes down to "How much extra will I pay if I get the gas guzzler that allows me to comfortably use the vehicle for its intended purpose over a more fuel efficient vehicle."
I suspect too many people on sites like this sit down and do math on specs, features, and what they think needs to be in a vehicle, without understanding how people actually buy cars.
The majority of vehicles (this is backed up by a LOT of industry research) are purchased emotionally. People go to the dealer and say, "oh, that blue one looks nice, how much is that one?"
Yes, a subset of customers now shop on Edmunds.com and know everything about the car, more than the sales people generally do, but they aren't the majority.
MPG doesn't tell the whole story... even difference in MPG doesn't - even a percent difference doesn't. One needs to know whether another vehicle could perform the necessary tasks, and if so, if the total cost of ownership is higher for one than the other - sale price, gas, maintenance costs, etc.... and to know the monthly gas, that would depend on driving habits.
No, one doesn't need to know that, if they did, Ford would have no market for the Mustang, a vehicle which makes zero sense from ANY numbers point of view. It is purely about the fun.
For your vehicle which currently averages 17 MPG, you are correct that an average minivan from 2014 would get a combined 20 MPG to 24 MPG depending on the make/model. So, a minivan would be between 3 and 7 mpg better. That's between 18% and 41% improvement over your vehicle. Granted, for your purposes and income level, that's probably not a big deal. For someone commuting hours a day, maybe that percentage improvement would matter - maybe not.
A fully loaded Toyota Sienna, which is as close as you can come to my truck, gets 19 MPG average, or just 2 MPG better than my truck. It is a really close wash and frankly anyone buying either one doesn't care about 2 or 3 MPG. That is like saying people are buying a Tesla Model S to save on gas. :) Maybe a Leaf, sure... but not a Model S...
Stow-n-go is one of the best vehicle inventions of all time. It allows for one vehicle to work as a seven passenger around-town vehicle, a four or five passenger road trip vehicle with room everyones' stuff, or a two person cargo van. If you don't need to go off-road and don't need to tow a second vehicle on a trailer behind it then those Mopar minivans are just about perfect for families.
A lot of people can't accept this, they think it's some affront to their machismo to drive a minivan.
It is a shame that Stow-n-go is only on those really crappy Dodge minivans. Have you seen the offset crash test results? Really, really bad.
As for the machismo thing, you're playing into stereo types, my wife doesn't like minivans either. Give them 4WD and a small block V8 and actually make them fun to drive and she'd be more interested.
Don't misunderstand me, I respect the space and ease of use of a minivan, we used to own a 2009 Honda Odyssey, nice vehicle. But it isn't fun to drive, it is boring.
How often? Everyday on your commute to work? How many miles do you have 7 people in your Yukon compared to how many you have just 1?
I work from home, so I don't commute anywhere.
Back a few years ago when I didn't work at home, my drive to work was about 20 min each way.
Of course, once I got to work, I often took people out to lunch, or had to take stuff out to a customer, or pick stuff up.
---
What is missing is that I am fully aware that for many people, a small cheap car makes sense, and that's fine. More power to you.
What YOU'RE missing and a lot of other people here are missing is that many people actually use their larger vehicles.
The constant comments here from people mocking larger vehicles is coming from amazingly closed minded people who can't see past themselves who think everyone is like them. They aren't.
I'm well aware that everyone isn't like me, you should try considering that they aren't all like you either.
And that's the problem: one buys an SUV or minivan for the few times a year they need one (or "just in case"), and then drive it around town the rest of the year when it's overkill.
That sounds nice, except it isn't true... maybe in your world, but not everyone lives there...
Most parents that I know that own a SUV or minivan use it constantly for its intended purpose...
I found your point interesting. I we have to replace all the fossil petroleum by synthetic fuel, how costly will be to do so compared of the same amount of electric energy ?
Unknown, but since it hasn't been tried at large scale, no one else knows either.
I wondering how much a energy a given surface can generate in one year if it was used to grow organic stuff (taking water and insecticide in the process) and then distilled into usable fuel, vs if the same given surface was used to produce electricity using solar panel and wind power plant.
I'm sure that solar and wind would be better, you don't have to convince me of that.
Until you add up the cost of changing everyone over to electric cars.
Don't get me wrong, EVs are fine in many cases, until someone has to pay for them. Get the cost down and one issue is solved.
You have no guarantee of a disease free environment, and it isn't my job to provide it for you.
You want to mandate that the state should force me to inject myself with stuff that I don't like.
Frankly, you can take a long walk off a short pier with that attitude.
Sort of like driving drunk, or firing a gun into the air in a city: the odds you'll actually kill someone are low, sure, but it's just that sort of needless risk that societies form in order to remove.
Those are examples of things that I must "NOT" do... not things that I HAVE TO DO.
That is the key difference.
You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.
That is the problem.
Thankfully, I'm secure living here, we are not going to go down that road, so for now I don't have to worry about it.
The Chevy Cruz is an inexpensive vehicle that gets decent mileage. That doesn't mean that someone might not be quite happy to spend the extra money on an eGolf or even the EV version of the Chevy Spark. By all accounts these are fun cars to drive.
You and I have different ideas of what is "fun to drive". A 2015 Ford Mustang GT is "fun to drive", the above cars are cheap commuter econoboxes.
No crime in being that, but fun to drive? Bleh... :)
And while the range might be a problem for lots of people, for others it isn't. For example we are a two car family but I ride my bike to work most days. We've even wondered if we really need two cars. I doubt that both of us would ever need to drive more than 75 miles on the same day. Plus I expect that the range of these vehicles will improve with time.
We are currently a one vehicle family, mostly due to walking to work is easy for me, since it is in my home.
We are debating buying a second vehicle this summer, there are times it would be nice to have.
Could we work with the range issues of a EV? Yes, for our second vehicle, you bet.
But I still am not going to get one. Why? Because none of them are interesting.
A Leaf? Bleh, ugly and too small.
A Tesla? Nice looking, but WAY, WAY too expensive.
A Spark/Focus/Escape/Fusion EV? Meh, while they would technically work, none of them make financial sense over the gas versions, and I wouldn't buy any of them anyway.
I've debated buying a new Mustang GT, I drove one a few months ago and the engine is crazy powerful and the ride is MUCH improved over prior models, but I have 3 kids and it only seats 4 people, we all can't fit in it.
Another option is a 2016 Ford Explorer Platinum, now that they have married the luxury of the Limited trim to the power of the Sport trim. AWD and 3.5L V6 Twin-Turbo, that thing should be fun to drive (I've driven the Sport, which has the same engine).
I've never bought a new car in my life and I'm 50 so I'm not really the target market for any of these vehicles anyway.
I didn't used to either, but you might run the numbers again if you haven't done it for awhile. Vehicles now hold their value better in the 3-5 year mark more than they used to. It no longer saves as much as you'd think buying used. At least not a 3 year old vehicle.
I bought my 2011 Ford Explorer Limited and paid just under invoice for it, at about $41K. I traded it in this year to the dealer when I got my new Yukon, they gave me $29K for it. To drive a $41K truck for nearly three years? About $400 a month. That is darn cheap, and a WHOLE lot cheaper than leasing it would have been.
Look at what 3 year old Explorer Limiteds are going for, they aren't that much less than brand new ones, and they'll lose value over time as well.
You might end up paying $300 a month buying a 3 year old version and driving it to 6 years, but it will be out of the bumper-to-bumper warranty for that time (lots of electronic stuff to break) and it will have wear and tear on it.
To me, 25% more money each month, $100, less than my cell phone bill, to get a brand new one that I can order how I like and no one has driven it but me (mine had 6 miles on it when I took delivery, fresh off the truck) is well worth that.
As to the issue of an EV version of the Ford Explorer, I think it's pretty clear that the technology doesn't currently exist to make such an ordinary SUV attractive at the high price you'd have to pay. There are plenty of high end hybrid SUVs though that get rave reviews.
I agree with the first part, that the price of the Explorer with the range as an EV that it would need to sell would be beyond what people will pay in numbers that matter.
As for the last part, I disagree. The truth is, vehicles like the Lexus LX450h make no sense from an economic point of view, they may never recover their higher purchase price in saved gas.
Even the Hybrid Tahoe is gone, they sold so few of them because they were pointless, saving nothing in real terms of fuel, their payback period was infinity as it exceeded the expected useful life of the vehicle.
he problem is that the article doesn't specify what type of SUV these people tend to switch to. Is there any regard to fuel economy or not? Are they getting small SUVs or big ones? Are they getting FWD models or AWD?
The article also speculates that cheaper gas prices are the motivation behind the switch to SUVs but it doesn't back that up. While I suspect cheaper gas is part of the reason it may or may not be the main reason for these buyers to switch.
It could be:
1. larger family
2. desire for AWD after recent snowy winters
3. improved economy means people are buying boats and other things that need towing
4. Range with the EV was a problem
5. Mileage wasn't as good as expected
6. Just didn't like the vehicle and wanted something different
There is also speculation as to why these people bought hybrids in the first place but again we don't really know if the ones who switched got EVs and Hybrids because they expected to save money, because they were concerned about the environment, or because they liked the way they drove.
And further they mixed EV owners with Hybrid owners so we don't really know which percentage of each switched.
^ This is worth quoting, because you're 100% correct. There isn't enough information to really tell anything from what was linked...
my 1992 F250 7.3 needs a new block (cavitation) and my 1997 A8 quattro is on its second transmission and has had a shitload of leaks addressed and is still leaking and our 2000 Astro has had both engine and transmission rebuilt, so actually, very frequently AFAICT.
Those are old vehicles, of course they'll have issues...
A 20 year old EV is likely to be scrap anyway, with the pace of new technology...
People like you are why GM makes shit.
No, GM makes the stuff they do because of a long history of it caused by more issues than can be described here.
It has gotten better, the fit and finish of the newer vehicles is miles ahead of where it was 20 years ago. Check out what Consumer Reports has to say about the new Impala, it is better than the Toyota Camry in many ways.
It's not really the cost of oil changes, although those are annoying. It's the high chance that an engine or gearbox will go tits up, or just require major maintenance for a re-seal.
Yes, but how often does that happen?
Frankly, I've never had it happen and likely never will.
Even back when I drove trucks longer, my old Tahoe ran for nearly 200k miles needing only spark plugs and fluid changes.
The powertrain warranty on modern vehicles is quite long, my GMC has a 5 year, 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Since I'm not likely to keep it beyond 5 years, it is not material to me.
I'm looking forward to when EVs become cheap in the way that gas cars are cheap... to acquire.
If you can get me a Yukon XL for $75K that has all the stuff on it that mine has, in a EV form, with 400 miles of range and the quick charging of the Tesla, I'm all over that.
Let me know when that happens. I suspect it might not be within my lifetime, but I'd be happy to be surprised.
Nobody is trying to take it away, just make it conform to the same emissions standards as other passenger vehicles.
It is not reasonable to expect a 7 passenger, 3 ton truck that can tow 4 tons, to get the same fuel economy as a 4 seat econobox.
It is always going to burn more fuel, just due to the size and weight.
Now, should it get better economy? Sure... I'd love to see it lose 700 lbs the way the F-150 did, and I would imagine that will happen in the next version...
They could do it with a small engine like Ford is offering in the F-150 these days, and some weight reduction like Ford is doing in the F-150 these days. So basically, when GM catches up to Ford (hahaha)
The Ford's biggest problem is the lack of a big engine. The Expedition only offers the Twin-Turbo V6, which is a nice engine (I've driven it), but it doesn't compare to the 6.2L engine in my Denali. 420HP, 460 ft/lbs of torque, it is very nice for getting on the freeway and merging into traffic.
If the Expedition offered the 5.0L V8 from the new 2015 Mustang, I think they'd have a winner on their hands.
Big engines can get good economy, my truck does nearly 24 MPG straight highway, and that is at 75 MPH. It sucks in the city with starting and stopping, but at 75 MPH running on just 4 cylinders, it just loafs along. Now 24 MPG on the highway would suck for something smaller, but this is not a small car. I can load it up with people and stuff and it more or less gets the same economy. Maybe 1 MPG less if at max gross, but that's it.
Even if a Prius gets 48 MPG, if I need two of them to carry everyone and all the stuff, then I haven't saved anything, now have I? :)
Texans insulting Californians for water management is quite ironic, at least to anyone who ever reviewed the history of the Dust Bowl. Texan mishandling of water and agriculture were key contributors to the Dust Bowl drought and economic and agricultural ruin of the 1930's. I'm afraid that California is headed the same way, but but it seems unfair to castigate other states for a problem Texas has itself had so profoundly.
That was 80 years ago, you're messed up today...
Your ideas are evil, plain and simple...
No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.
You just love stating opinions as facts, don't you?
You will find a great deal of resistance to your views, because a great many people don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot do with kids.
You're probably one of those idiots who supports the one-child policy of China, aren't you? Why don't you go live there if you love heavy handed government so much?
And that's why, under the law, you and your spawn are free to continue your miserable existences in your own parallel world, ostracized and isolated from the rest of us.
Please, please, please stay in that messed up state of California, where you can't balance a budget, manage water resources, or do anything else right...
Don't come to Texas, you're not welcome here with your commie views...
Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge./quote.
If I actually get Ebola or the Measles, then yes, I should stay away from society until I get better.
The lack of a vaccine is not a sickness. So with all due respect, you can go pound sand.
Thankfully I don't live in a state like CA that is so messed up, why don't you try and balance your budget before you tell people how to live their lives.