sales figures: Nissan Leaf & Chevy Volt
February 2011 Chevy Volt sales: 281
January 2011 Nissan Leaf sales: 87
February 2011 Nissan Leaf sales: 67
Charles Ghosn, the CEO of Renault, predicted that their Nissan division would sell 500,000 all-electric Leafs by 2013. In other words: 154 down, just 499,846 to go.
Chevrolet intends to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011. Then bump up production to 25,000 in 2012. And if all goes as planned, they'll manufacture 60,000 in 2013. Oh wait, GM just announced that they intend to produce 120,000 Volts in 2013.
These executives are either lying or stupid. The problem isn't the technology, the problem is the price: $41,000 for the Chevy Volt (the price drops to about $35,000 if you take into account the federal tax credit.) Ultimately that's the catch-22: the folks complaining the loudest about $3.75/gallon gasoline are tightwad cheapskates. So how do you sell a $41,000 Chevy sedan to a tightwad cheapskate?
Are electric vehicles the cars of the future or a total flop? Ten years from now, will everyone be buying these? Anyone care to offer some predictions?
do you have a source? those are awful figures.
however, this is a repeat of an old story, it has all happened before.
So cheaper AND more convenient.
The all electric car has so far to go.
(Plus they look ugly and their mother dresses them funny)
Quote: odiousgambit
do you have a source?
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/01/gm-sells-281-chevy-volts-february-nissan-67-leafs/
And thecesspit is correct about range being important. When my wife and I take a car trip, the vehicle better be able to get us 650 miles in a day and be ready to get us around where we want the next day -- maybe another 650 miles. If I never wanted to go out of town, maybe I would consider an electric vehicle, but I have one vehicle for my wife and me to share, and I can't justify having a second ($40K+) vehicle just for running around town -- one car for the whole job.
In fact 41k buys you a LOT of car even in some of the more high end marques. I think I could buy a basic 1-series Beamer for 40k.
Quote: thecesspitNot just price : the range is shitty on the electric motors.
The electric cars have a bad reputation for their range ("shitty" in the parlance of our times) but I'm not sure this bad reputation is fair. David Undercoffler, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times test-drove the Nissan Leaf for a week, and he routinely drove 85 miles between charges. If your home is within 35 miles of your workplace, then the Nissan Leaf's 85 mile range ought to be adequate for daily commutes.
Based on Southern California Edison's rates, Mr. Undercoffler says that each charge cost him slightly more than $5 in electricity. Can your car go 85 miles on $5 worth of gasoline?
I'm not saying that the Leaf is worth the $32,780 that Nissan charges for it, but if they could get the price down to $20,000, the Leaf would be a real bargain.
The LEAST "green" thing you can do is feed the new car monster, be it fossil fuel or electric, when there are millions of perfectly good cars that have already had resources devoted to their manufacture.
Cities need more routes where they can drive these NEV's that go up to 30mph. They make more sense as second cars.
Is it practical yet for everyone no. However that does not mean it will never be. When aluminum was first produced it's cost was more than gold and no one thought it would ever be a viable option to steel. Now everything is made of aluminum.
Face facts the oil reserves are worse than we thought thanks to Wikileaks. The terrorist kingdom of Saudi Arabia is about a decade away from dry. Good thing I say.
Quote: renoThe electric cars have a bad reputation for their range ("shitty" in the parlance of our times) but I'm not sure this bad reputation is fair. David Undercoffler, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times test-drove the Nissan Leaf for a week, and he routinely drove 85 miles between charges. If your home is within 35 miles of your workplace, then the Nissan Leaf's 85 mile range ought to be adequate for daily commutes.
I don't buy a car to JUST to commute daily. I buy one to travel, and also commute. I also have nowhere to recharge a car even if I did decide a hybrid was a good idea (and one day I may), as the infrastructure just isn't there for apartment and town house dwellers.
Quote:Based on Southern California Edison's rates, Mr. Undercoffler says that each charge cost him slightly more than $5 in electricity. Can your car go 85 miles on $5 worth of gasoline?
Nope, but I don't pay a 10k premium for it either. 85 miles is probably about $15 of gas in my current car (up here where Gas is more expensive than down there). $10 extra per 100 miles -> 100,000 before it pays for saved gas.
Quote:I'm not saying that the Leaf is worth the $32,780 that Nissan charges for it, but if they could get the price down to $20,000, the Leaf would be a real bargain.
I agree. 20k starts to hit certain sweet spots. The the trade of between a short range and long range makes sense, and a hybrid which does 85 on a charge and 400 on the highway isn't so bad.
Quote: thecesspitI don't buy a car to JUST to commute daily. I buy one to travel, and also commute. I also have nowhere to recharge a car even if I did decide a hybrid was a good idea (and one day I may), as the infrastructure just isn't there for apartment and town house dwellers.
Quote:Based on Southern California Edison's rates, Mr. Undercoffler says that each charge cost him slightly more than $5 in electricity. Can your car go 85 miles on $5 worth of gasoline?
Nope, but I don't pay a 10k premium for it either. 85 miles is probably about $15 of gas in my current car (up here where Gas is more expensive than down there). $10 extra per 100 miles -> 100,000 before it pays for saved gas.
I agree. 20k starts to hit certain sweet spots. The the trade of between a short range and long range makes sense, and a hybrid which does 85 on a charge and 400 on the highway isn't so bad.
Hybrids don't need a charging station only electric cars do.
Quote: Wavy70Quote: thecesspitI don't buy a car to JUST to commute daily. I buy one to travel, and also commute. I also have nowhere to recharge a car even if I did decide a hybrid was a good idea (and one day I may), as the infrastructure just isn't there for apartment and town house dwellers.
Quote:Based on Southern California Edison's rates, Mr. Undercoffler says that each charge cost him slightly more than $5 in electricity. Can your car go 85 miles on $5 worth of gasoline?
Nope, but I don't pay a 10k premium for it either. 85 miles is probably about $15 of gas in my current car (up here where Gas is more expensive than down there). $10 extra per 100 miles -> 100,000 before it pays for saved gas.
I agree. 20k starts to hit certain sweet spots. The the trade of between a short range and long range makes sense, and a hybrid which does 85 on a charge and 400 on the highway isn't so bad.
Hybrids don't need a charging station only electric cars do.
The Chevy Volt is a plug-in electric hybrid.... it can be plugged in and charged from a standard socket. It can also recharge form the gas engine, but I -think- it works better to use mains (certainly would use less gas... :))
Quote: thecesspitThe Chevy Volt is a plug-in electric hybrid.... it can be plugged in and charged from a standard socket. It can also recharge form the gas engine, but I -think- it works better to use mains (certainly would use less gas... :))
I was about to chide you for being wrong, but you are right. It is different from previous hybrids in that it emphasizes more the electric motor IIRC.
Quote: thecesspit85 miles is probably about $15 of gas in my current car (up here where Gas is more expensive than down there). $10 extra per 100 miles -> 100,000 before it pays for saved gas.
In July 2008, the U.S. average peaked at $4.12 per gallon. By December 2008 the national average for unleaded had plummeted to just $1.61 per gallon.
The national average on March 3, 2011 is $3.43/gallon. A month ago the average was $3.11/gallon. This volatile market is a real gamble...
Quote: odiousgambitI was about to chide you for being wrong, but you are to right. It is different from previous hybrids in that it emphasizes more the electric motor IIRC.
I did have to check... :) I don't mind being told I'm wrong. It happens enough at work.
Quote: renoThe electric cars have a bad reputation for their range ("shitty" in the parlance of our times) but I'm not sure this bad reputation is fair. David Undercoffler, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times test-drove the Nissan Leaf for a week, and he routinely drove 85 miles between charges. If your home is within 35 miles of your workplace, then the Nissan Leaf's 85 mile range ought to be adequate for daily commutes.
Based on Southern California Edison's rates, Mr. Undercoffler says that each charge cost him slightly more than $5 in electricity. Can your car go 85 miles on $5 worth of gasoline?
I'm not saying that the Leaf is worth the $32,780 that Nissan charges for it, but if they could get the price down to $20,000, the Leaf would be a real bargain.
85 is probably under very good weather conditions. In the northeast the cold will kill the range half the year. In places like Vegas the A/C will kill it. 85 miles is an average, with a 35 mile commute that gives you only 15 miles of "play." Suppose you want to go somewhere after work. It had better be close or you are out of luck. Get some snow like we had here last week and spin your wheels and you may very well be walking. Road construction causes a detour? Hope it is short. And 85 is an average--battery range is sure to go down over time.
So you pay $10,000 more for a Leaf than another subcompact. I drive a subcompact would take about $12 of gas to get that far at $4/gal. So fudge a little both ways and say you save about $8 per hundred miles. $80 per thousand. $800 per 10,000. Looks like it would take almost 150,000 miles to make the cash back. Before considering time value of money. Without all the hassle of waiting 8 hours for a charge. Without having to rent a real car if I want to visit friends in Buffalo like I am tomorrow. Plus as others mentioned many people do not have access to charging.
And they think 500,000 people will buy these things every year?
Probably the greatest energy conservation could be achieved by a return to 19th century when most young working men lived in SRO or Single Room Occupancy units near downtown, where they could walk to work, and could easily purchase food on the street.
Quote: pacomartinPresident GW Bush just bought a Chevy Volt. Obama has pledged to buy one when he leaves the White House. So maybe sales will pick up.
As people have said, the price and charging availability for electric right now is putting it at the level of people who aren't as impacted by gas price spikes (Presidents, etc). If you are actually suffering because of high gas prices (renters, lower-middle class, large families), you probably can't afford, have the ability to garage-charge, or fit your family in an electric. So if the people who need a gas price break can't afford the car, and the people that can afford it aren't the ones that the "$$$ saving" is designed for, who will buy these cars? Answer: A couple hundred car enthusiasts or status-seekers. See last months sales...
Quote: cclub79So if the people who need a gas price break can't afford the car, and the people that can afford it aren't the ones that the "$$$ saving" is designed for, who will buy these cars?
You need something to get to the airport where your jet is parked.
Quote: pacomartinYou need something to get to the airport where your jet is parked.
And they care about the inconvenience of charging up their car/saving money on gas why?
7,671 Volts sold in 2011, with 603 in January and 1,023 in February of 2012.
about 9,500 Leafs sold in 2011, with 800 sold each in January and February of 2012.
Sales are picking up, dramatically. The Volt had a safety issue that was vindicated late last year, and it appears that the sales pipeline is full for the Leaf
California has passed a law allowing these cars into HOV lanes, which is quite meaningful.
The Prius only sold 5,800 units in its first year in North America, and 16,000 in the following year.
---
These cars are kind of icons for the upper middle class and the rich who have the money to spend and care for the environment (as was the Prius). As a pure economical decision, it doesn't make sense to buy these cars. People who buy these cars are making a statement.
There are plenty of people whose view on cars are purely utilitarian. If I had the money to renovate my basement or spend an extra $25K on a car because of its luxurious features, I'd take the basement. That's why I drive a Honda Civic.
Quote: boymimboIt's getting better:
7,671 Volts sold in 2011, with 603 in January and 1,023 in February of 2012.
about 9,500 Leafs sold in 2011, with 800 sold each in January and February of 2012.
Sales are picking up, dramatically. The Volt had a safety issue that was vindicated late last year, and it appears that the sales pipeline is full for the Leaf
California has passed a law allowing these cars into HOV lanes, which is quite meaningful.
The Prius only sold 5,800 units in its first year in North America, and 16,000 in the following year.
Good--now lets stop giving tax credits for buying them and let them compete on their merits.
Quote: boymimboThese cars are kind of icons for the upper middle class and the rich who have the money to spend and care for the environment (as was the Prius). As a pure economical decision, it doesn't make sense to buy these cars. People who buy these cars are making a statement.
Boymimbo, you have hit it right on the head. There are many of these cars going to rich folks making a statement or car geeks that think it is cool. Economically they don't make sense & environmentally they don't make sense either. I believe 88% of 2010 US Electric production was done via "clean burning" coal (what a joke), oil & natural gas. Not sure any of those meet the Lefts requirements for Enviromentally Friendly!
So why exactly are we giving these rich purchasers $7500 to $10,000 in tax incentives that you and I pay for so they can have their "statement" car?
Nat Gas is the gasoline/oil alternative that I think is going to work. There are some fueling stations out there already and you can fuel up at home if you have a Nat Gas line into the house & get a filling pump. I know, it still doesn't work for the renters w/o garage access but it does solve the 85 mile range issue.
Honda Civic gets 38MPG on the highway and holds 8 GGE (Gasoline Gas Equivalents).....that is decent range even if combined city/highway MPG is only 31. And right now in So. Cal. Nat Gas can be picked up for $2.10 per GGE (we are paying $4.30 for reg gasoline right now) which means at 38 MPG you go 90 miles for $5 of Nat Gas and have a fuel cost per mile of less than $0.06/mile.
The Leaf doesn't even beat that and you don't have to be home to recharge on your 91st mile. Even the Prius at 50 MPG with $4.30 gasoline is at $0.09 per mile in fuel costs (and the batteries last how long?)
With recent finds in Nat Gas in this country we put how many folks in good paying jobs here in the USA if we push Nat Gas in energy policy and start getting ourselves off our Middle East dependence.
Why don't Ford & GM start putting out a consumer version of their Nat Gas fleet trucks and build a Nat Gas Focus/Cruze? Until then I agree with the poster that recommends a Golf TDI at 40MPG....it makes more sense than a Prius or any other alternative vehicle out there as you don't pay such a huge premium and the fuel is available in most filling stations.
Quote: Paradigm
Why don't Ford & GM start putting out a consumer version of their Nat Gas fleet trucks and build a Nat Gas Focus/Cruze? Until then I agree with the poster that recommends a Golf TDI at 40MPG....it makes more sense than a Prius or any other alternative vehicle out there as you don't pay such a huge premium and the fuel is available in most filling stations.
Supposedly they are working on this. I don't see being able to fill the vehicle from your gas line at home as that is too dangerous. Key is if they can get a tank that will hold gasoline or natural gas at the same time, maybe two bladders inside the same tank?
As it is now, the Obama Administration wants to starve us of electricity by running coal burning power plants out of business. This is crazy. Right now clean coal tech and shale oil/gas fracking are on the verge of making North America energy independent. But the administration wants to allow none of it. It is as if we are starving with a refrigerator full of food but he has the key to the padlock on it.
Quote: ParadigmBoymimbo, you have hit it right on the head. There are many of these cars going to rich folks making a statement or car geeks that think it is cool. Economically they don't make sense & environmentally they don't make sense either.
The Leaf doesn't even beat that and you don't have to be home to recharge on your 91st mile. Even the Prius at 50 MPG with $4.30 gasoline is at $0.09 per mile in fuel costs (and the batteries last how long?)
With recent finds in Nat Gas in this country we put how many folks in good paying jobs here in the USA if we push Nat Gas in energy policy and start getting ourselves off our Middle East dependence.
Why don't Ford & GM start putting out a consumer version of their Nat Gas fleet trucks and build a Nat Gas Focus/Cruze? Until then I agree with the poster that recommends a Golf TDI at 40MPG....it makes more sense than a Prius or any other alternative vehicle out there as you don't pay such a huge premium and the fuel is available in most filling stations.
EPA tool entitled: How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler . It tells you where your electricity comes from.
The only real solution is to start building denser cities (10 gigajoules = 66 gallons of petroleum)
Quote: pacomartinThe only real solution is to start building denser cities (10 gigajoules = 66 gallons of petroleum)
pacomartin, I am not immediately convinced that the data in the graph indicate a cause-and-effect relationship between urban density and energy consumption. On the other hand, the data seem to suggest (on first glance) that there may be a cultural relationship to both transportation energy consumption and urban density. The cities within each continent tend to be closely clustered in energy consumption and closely clustered in urban density, with Hong Kong and Moscow being the outliers.
However, comparing North American cities with Australian cities, there is not much noticeable difference between urban density even though there is a sizable difference in transportation energy consumption. My first inclination is to believe that Australians tend to use less transportation energy than North Americans, whatever it is due to. Just looking at those two continents suggests that energy use could (theoretically) be cut in half by something without any change at all in urban density. The other side of this may be seen in the European cities, even disregarding Moscow, in that they have a three-fold variation in urban density with only a 75% variation in energy consumption, so packing the people in tighter doesn't really seem to be the big game changer.
I suspect that a big factor is that Americans prefer the flexibility of automobiles taking us wherever and whenever we want, without having to conform to the schedules of others, except for the very-long-distance travel that encourages air transport. If we all were willing to go all places locally via mass transport, there would likely be an energy savings at a loss of personal convenience, something Americans do not often favor.
I think the data may suggest that North Americans might save some energy if they adopted lifestyles and attitudes like the Europeans or Asians, but I am not yet convinced that going for super-dense urban areas is either the solution or something that could be accomplished without major cultural shock.
Quote: Doc
However, comparing North American cities with Australian cities, there is not much noticeable difference between urban density even though there is a sizable difference in transportation energy consumption. My first inclination is to believe that Australians tend to use less transportation energy than North Americans, whatever it is due to. Just looking at those two continents suggests that energy use could (theoretically) be cut in half by something without any change at all in urban density. The other side of this may be seen in the European cities, even disregarding Moscow, in that they have a three-fold variation in urban density with only a 75% variation in energy consumption, so packing the people in tighter doesn't really seem to be the big game changer.
I suspect that a big factor is that Americans prefer the flexibility of automobiles taking us wherever and whenever we want, without having to conform to the schedules of others, except for the very-long-distance travel that encourages air transport. If we all were willing to go all places locally via mass transport, there would likely be an energy savings at a loss of personal convenience, something Americans do not often favor.
I think the data may suggest that North Americans might save some energy if they adopted lifestyles and attitudes like the Europeans or Asians, but I am not yet convinced that going for super-dense urban areas is either the solution or something that could be accomplished without major cultural shock.
Good observation. I agree that density is a factor, but there is not a one to one correlation. Tokyo and Amsterdam use similar amounts of energy, despite a 2:1 difference in density. I'm sure part of that is because of the extremely long commutes that Tokyoites face. I guess there is too much density, since it means there is no affordable place to live in center city.
A lot of it has to do with habits. When the big British supermarket chain opened up shopping centers in Western USA, there marketeers were shocked at how many stores Americans go to on a routine basis. It was double or triple what their customers do in the UK. I'm sure part of that is relatively cheap gas. People drive around looking for bargains, while the British figure they will eat up any savings in gasoline. In addition Americans go to more movies, more restaurants, more bars, etc. than their British counterparts.
Certainly Australians use the highest amount of aircraft fuel per capita as anyone on earth. But that is an accident of geography. Everywhere they want to fly is far away.
While it is very unlikely that America can build European or Asian style cities, there is a lot to copy in Canada. Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto all have higher densities. Even the highest density American cities like San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Chicago and Boston are considered some of our finer cities.
I think there is a high percentage of Americans that can't walk to anything from their homes (except the park or for exercise). They have no stores, bars, fast food, friends or restaurants within walking distance.
The number of cars in Moscow went from sixty per thousand residents in 1991 to three hundred and fifty in 2009. With such a huge change in less than two decades, traffic is horrible. But it is still below any American city.
Greensboro 758
Seattle 743
Nashville 733
Kansas City 726
Indianapolis 721
Charlotte 719
Minneapolis 719
Denver 717
Raleigh 708
St Louis 698
Sacramento 697
Cincinnati 692
Portland 692
Pittsburgh 683
Cleveland 679
Orlando 673
Detroit 668
Milwaukee 664
San Diego 663
Salt Lake City 661
San Francisco 658
Washington 657
Atlanta 654
Boston 634
Las Vegas 627
Dallas 625
Phoenix 609
Philadelphia 604
San Antonio 601
Miami 599
Los Angeles 595
Chicago 591
Houston 590
New York 472
Changing the subject: drivers of the all-electric Honda Fit will receive free collision insurance from Honda. (Notice I used the word "drivers" not "owners". That's because Honda is only leasing the vehicle, they refuse to sell them! Uncool. Perhaps Honda is worried about the longterm reliability of the battery? Perhaps they want to recall them all for research purposes so that the next generation is even better? They're only making 1,100 electric Fits, which is a small batch for a company as big as Honda.)
But here's the other good news about the market for all-electric vehicles: the manufacturers keep improving their range and charging times. Nissan's Leaf has been around the longest: it has a 73 mile range, but takes 7 hours to charge. The newer Honda Fit has an 82 mile range with a charging time of just 3 hours.
Quote: Wavy70Face facts...
I'm fresh out ;) But opinions? I got plenty of those.
85 miles on $5 of energy? How about a VW Lupo? 70mpg diesel, diesel's around $3.70 here, that's 95 miles on $5. Plus the range is 10 times greater, plus it "recharges" in about 3 minutes, plus it looks a damn sight better, plus is costs a third (new, when it was produced) of what these electron boxes do now. Whatever an electric car does, a petroleum car can do better - if the demand is there. "Lupo? Never heard of it and they don't even make it anymore!" Fine, Fiat 500. 71mpg diesel, and I even see them here in pickup country.
So let's see. High polution, as all new cars are, to make. Worse mileage than a small diesel. Same polluting source of fuel. Daily range of a horse. Vulnerable to accessory use and temperature. Only available in econo-box size. It'll take 100,000+ miles to make your gas money back, and that's if you never have to replace the battery. And you will. More than once. Sign me up?
13,500 Volts sold in 2012? I'm surprised it isn't 13.5.
I'll end with some words from Clarkson, who always has a way of putting such things -
On engine noise:
"And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved,
built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse
than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of
your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is,
you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer."
On the environmentalists who drive them:
"But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt
genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the
G-Wiz and the Tesla, don’t work at all because they are just too
inconvenient.
The only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates. And that the cash this generates can be used to develop something a bit more constructive."
Source: BBC Top Gear (Sundays at 8 on BBC2)
Quote: FaceI'll end with some words from Clarkson, who always has a way of putting such things -
"But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the G-Wiz and the Tesla, don’t work at all because they are just too inconvenient. The only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates. And that the cash this generates can be used to develop something a bit more constructive."
The 1200 lb Model T with a engine produced 20 hp for a top speed of 40–45 mph and had fuel economy on the order of 13–21 mpg. The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol and had a 10 gallon tank.
So the original urban vehicle got relatively decent mileage by having low performance variables.
I think that the electric vehicle technology has also inspired a generation of much more efficient gasoline vehicles.
Quote: FaceWhatever an electric car does, a petroleum car can do better
This is true now and it will be true forever. The Tesla Roadster takes 3.7 seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. A Lamborghini Sesto Elemento can do it in 2.5 seconds. Losers drive Teslas. Winners drive Lamborghinis.
Quote: ClarksonThe only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates.
Toyota sold 247,000 Priuses in the first quarter of 2012, making it the third most popular car in the world as measured by sales volume. And every buyer was a sanctimonious fool. And a madman.
Quote: renoThis is true now and it will be true forever. The Tesla Roadster takes 3.7 seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. A Lamborghini Sesto Elemento can do it in 2.5 seconds. Losers drive Teslas. Winners drive Lamborghinis.
It also costs $2,000,000 more. $2mm into an electric car, probably any electric car (Gee Whiz included), and I bet cash money you could break 2 sec.
But drop $20k from the price, change "Lambo" to "Caterham R500", and your point still stands. The Tesla is interesting. But it is not good.
Quote: renoToyota sold 247,000 Priuses in the first quarter of 2012, making it the third most popular car in the world as measured by sales volume. And every buyer was a sanctimonious fool. And a madman.
I cannot think of a reason to own a Prius other than ignorance or posturing. But, like paco alluded to, these battery boxes have begun something. Perhaps, like most early cars, they'll be abandoned as a lost cause. But, also like the early cars, some breakthroughs will occur and leave us better off.
Quote: FacePerhaps, like most early cars, they'll be abandoned as a lost cause. But, also like the early cars, some breakthroughs will occur and leave us better off.
Quote: Department of Energy Specs
2013 Chevy Volt running on gasoline 35 mpg in city & 40 mpg Highway MSRP: $39,145
2013 Chevy Cruze Eco (only gasoline) 28 mpg in city & 42 mpg Highway MSRP: $19,680 - $20,875
2013 Chevrolet Cruze Eco: 1.4 L, 4 cyl, Manual 6-spd
2013 Chevy Volt: 1.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (variable gear ratios)
Chevy Volt
Miles per Gallon Equivalent 1 gallon of gasoline=33.7 kw-hr
Electricity 98 mpg equivalent where 35 kw-hrs/100 mi
So assuming gasoline is $2.80 per gallon, and electricity is 10 cents per kw-hr that means
Chevy Cruze costs 10.0 cents per mile for fuel in the city
Chevy Volt costs 2.86 cents per mile for "electric fuel" in the city
So to save 7.14 cents per mile of city driving you are paying nearly double the price, and in addition the extra money is buying a battery with no resale value.
If your accountant advised you to go into an investment like this, the proper response would be to shoot him.
But we only hope that some of the technology in the Chevy Cruze Eco came from the development of the Chevy Volt.
Purely on a personal note, I find the cars a little creepy the way they glide around. I think they should be required to play music in a parking lot so you don't walk in front of one.
A Chevy Cruze Eco is estimated to cost $1750 to operate on gasoline. If you had a nuclear fission device that cost $10,000 to purchase, and it ran for 6 years and then cost $500 to dispose (6 years * $1750 = $10,500) you could still argue that the gasoline was cheaper since you are losing the time value of the money.
But instead you are paying closer to $20K and only reducing the yearly fuel cost from $1750 to $950 (savings of $800 per year). At the end of 6 years those batteries are worthless.
I have to figure out how to make money on middle class guilt.
Quote: renoIn August, sales of the Chevy Volt reached an all-time high: 2,831 vehicles sold. The Nissan Leaf didn't do so well in August: just 685 were sold. Some 13,497 Volts have been sold in 2012, whereas only 4,228 Nissan Leafs have been sold in 2012.
Changing the subject: drivers of the all-electric Honda Fit will receive free collision insurance from Honda. (Notice I used the word "drivers" not "owners". That's because Honda is only leasing the vehicle, they refuse to sell them! Uncool. Perhaps Honda is worried about the longterm reliability of the battery? Perhaps they want to recall them all for research purposes so that the next generation is even better? They're only making 1,100 electric Fits, which is a small batch for a company as big as Honda.)
But here's the other good news about the market for all-electric vehicles: the manufacturers keep improving their range and charging times. Nissan's Leaf has been around the longest: it has a 73 mile range, but takes 7 hours to charge. The newer Honda Fit has an 82 mile range with a charging time of just 3 hours.
News stories have said Volt sales are being charged up (pun inteded) by government purchases. If they would stop subsidizing the purchase price of all electrics and hybrids would fall.
As to the Honda Fit, this is not a new idea. Chrysler tried turbine engines, and let their owners use the cars for free back in the 1960s. Like electrics, turbines had some logic behind them for efficiency, but in the real world the negatives could not be overcome by the few positives.
The sad thing about the Volt is that GM took what should be a good idea then needlessly complicated it. Locomotives proved dieselelectric was the way to go 60+ years ago. Had GM put a gaselectric where the gas engine never drove the wheels it might have worked. But being GM they put a complicated planatery gear to allow both power sources to provide power. Why not just a small engine charge the battery by running at peak efficiency?
Quote: AZDuffmanBut being GM they put a complicated planatery gear to allow both power sources to provide power. Why not just a small engine charge the battery by running at peak efficiency?
This would also be better for the car itself. Electronic motors provide a constant torque over a large range of speed - there would be no need for gears at all.
Quote: pacomartinSo assuming gasoline is $2.80 per gallon, and electricity is 10 cents per kw-hr that means
Chevy Cruze costs 10.0 cents per mile for fuel in the city
Chevy Volt costs 2.86 cents per mile for "electric fuel" in the city
So to save 7.14 cents per mile of city driving you are paying nearly double the price, and in addition the extra money is buying a battery with no resale value.
If your accountant advised you to go into an investment like this, the proper response would be to shoot him.
This is the the only reason I can somewhat appreciate the electric movement. Your numbers are based on "today". Who knows what the future holds. I can appreciate them trying to suss out range and power issues now, when it's not a big deal, as opposed to later, when it's too late.
Quote: pacomartinPurely on a personal note, I find the cars a little creepy the way they glide around. I think they should be required to play music in a parking lot so you don't walk in front of one.
Agreed. And in this day and age of people constantly biking/jogging with earbuds in, I forsee another swell law from the infinite wisdom of our legislators.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe sad thing about the Volt is that GM took what should be a good idea then needlessly complicated it. Locomotives proved dieselelectric was the way to go 60+ years ago. Had GM put a gaselectric where the gas engine never drove the wheels it might have worked. But being GM they put a complicated planatery gear to allow both power sources to provide power. Why not just a small engine charge the battery by running at peak efficiency?
Another shamless Top Gear plug, but they did this, too. They tried making their own electric sports car after being inspired in their Tesla episode. The first was straight battery; it ran out of juice in the middle of a city and had to sit there in traffic while they ran extension cords from a restaurant across the street. They then made a diesel-electric, with a shop generator hooked up and charging their drive battery. It worked all day (until the exhaust fell off and the three of them were killed).
I think the problem with this in the real world is it loses the shiny green lustre intended by these cars. As has been pointed out, there is no reason whatsoever you could possibly make a factual decision that green cars are better based on cost, or range, or eco-friendliness. It's pure posturing, a symbol in your driveway. But a diesel-electric, while viable, doesn't fit that mold, so we don't have them.
A Real Hippie buys a used, diesel VW-type car that does no extra environmental damage to make, gets great mileage, and is cheaper than the dirt it drives on. A Poser buys a highly destructive Prius, that gets crap mileage, and pays out the nose for it (as he should). I just wish WE didn't also have to pay for it.
I have to believe there's another reason for the time it's taking to up our mileage. I'm no engineer, I'm not even much of a mechanic, but if I didn't care for the resale value of my Silverado, I bet I could up the mpg from 20 to 25 by making less than $5,000 worth of changes (changes that, if done during production, would be cheaper than the current process).
Ford has been really impressive also with their Fusion hybrid at $27,000, their Focus Pure Electric and their CMAX SUV. I ordered a gas Fusion, but with the 1.6L turbo engine and six speed manual tranny. I will have to wait until October for delivery, as very few are ordering stick shifts on their full size cars.
The Volt is just overpriced with all the jazz that Ford is producing.
It is one of the rules consumers are not allowed to see. We will be monitoring and unless we observe you doing 60 MPH in
3rd gear or lower, actions will be taken. We have an obligation to make a profit, just like casinos.
Quote: buzzpaff" A Real Hippie buys a used, diesel VW-type car " you meant VAN, I am sure !
"Van down by the river." Sorry, when I think of a VW van that skit is what pops into my head. Favorite SNL skit ever.
Quote: PaigowdanI ordered a gas Fusion, but with the 1.6L turbo engine and six speed manual tranny. I will have to wait until October for delivery, as very few are ordering stick shifts on their full size cars.
Dan, that is going to be a sweet ride.....I love what Ford has done with the Fusion for 2013. That and the fact they are stilling sellling the 2012 model at a record pace right before a major re-design.
Ford stock is still cheap even with last week's run up above $10.....get it while you can with a ten-handle!
Quote: Face
I have to believe there's another reason for the time it's taking to up our mileage. I'm no engineer, I'm not even much of a mechanic, but if I didn't care for the resale value of my Silverado, I bet I could up the mpg from 20 to 25 by making less than $5,000 worth of changes (changes that, if done during production, would be cheaper than the current process).
There are all kinds of things that can be done. Start/Stop engies are the best example. Gas spent idling at a traffic light is 100% wasted and gives 0 MPG. They use it in Europe but in the USA the automakers figure we will not "accept" it. So we waste gas idling.
Back in AZ i did a week long experiment. I shut off the engine at every traffic light and put the car in neutral or shut it off during long coasts to a red light. (here in PA that would be suicidal, out there nothing but long, straight road.) At the end of the week I checked my mileage gain. Went up about 5 MPG, or in simple terms I got in the city what I get on the highway more or less.
Remember, this is just simple hypermiling. Say at factory level install and real-world (ie: less) start/stop you got even 3MPG. Why don't they do something so simple? Could it be it is sexier to pay a $5K premium for a hybrid than $100 for start/stop?
Quote: AZDuffmanThere are all kinds of things that can be done. Start/Stop engies are the best example. Gas spent idling at a traffic light is 100% wasted and gives 0 MPG. They use it in Europe but in the USA the automakers figure we will not "accept" it. So we waste gas idling.
Back in AZ i did a week long experiment. I shut off the engine at every traffic light and put the car in neutral or shut it off during long coasts to a red light. (here in PA that would be suicidal, out there nothing but long, straight road.) At the end of the week I checked my mileage gain. Went up about 5 MPG, or in simple terms I got in the city what I get on the highway more or less.
Remember, this is just simple hypermiling. Say at factory level install and real-world (ie: less) start/stop you got even 3MPG. Why don't they do something so simple? Could it be it is sexier to pay a $5K premium for a hybrid than $100 for start/stop?
That's one of many, and even that's more complex than what I was thinking. If we go with semi-complex, why not chipping? A hundo and change bought me a box for my bike. With the push of a button I could load different maps, turning it from a relative putter with crazy mileage to a full on banshee with worse mpg than a muscle car. For guys like me that need a truck (and there are tens of millions of us), how nice would it be to "push for 5 extra mpg" on the daily drive, yet have the capability to "push for torque" on the 10 days a year you tow a boat? The tech is already there, and it's dead cheap. So, why not?
And there's SuperMax, SuperDuty, SuperCab...why not SuperSaver? Why not a stripped out, bare bones rig? Take the ideas of supercars (lessen, lighten, and unload) and apply it in an economical fashion. Lose the double reenforced beds you can lift the truck by, since most people carry a couch at most. Lose the triple reenforced frames you can drop a ton of cargo into, since most people don't drop anything into it. Lose the power seats, power windows, a/c compressor, lose the rear window in favor of Lexan, lose the 200w Pioneer sound system, the SatNav, the DVD player and in-headrest TVs, lose the steel body in favor of Saturn-style rubbermade panels, lose the gearing fit for towing towns to the next county....viola! 5 extra mpg, no change to production, no rigorous engineering, and holy crap, it even costs $5k less to make! So, why not?
None of these are profound, earth-shattering ideas, but over time, they'd make a difference. I think, with no education whatsoever, I could make a 250hp V8 truck get 30mpg. Why can't they? Or, more aptly, why won't they?
Quote: Face
And there's SuperMax, SuperDuty, SuperCab...why not SuperSaver? Why not a stripped out, bare bones rig? Take the ideas of supercars (lessen, lighten, and unload) and apply it in an economical fashion. Lose the double reenforced beds you can lift the truck by, since most people carry a couch at most. Lose the triple reenforced frames you can drop a ton of cargo into, since most people don't drop anything into it. Lose the power seats, power windows, a/c compressor, lose the rear window in favor of Lexan, lose the 200w Pioneer sound system, the SatNav, the DVD player and in-headrest TVs, lose the steel body in favor of Saturn-style rubbermade panels, lose the gearing fit for towing towns to the next county....viola! 5 extra mpg, no change to production, no rigorous engineering, and holy crap, it even costs $5k less to make! So, why not?
None of these are profound, earth-shattering ideas, but over time, they'd make a difference. I think, with no education whatsoever, I could make a 250hp V8 truck get 30mpg. Why can't they? Or, more aptly, why won't they?
They already make the bare-bones trucks you are talking about. Usually called "WT" or "Work Truck" model or similar name. Stripped down, few options, V-6. They sell mostly to fleets as today's buyer wants the goodies. As to reducing the frame reinforcement and load capacity, if people want that they can buy a car. Those are fairly complex changes and would be hard to pay back the tooling.
In the end, the automakers sell what sells.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey already make the bare-bones trucks you are talking about. Usually called "WT" or "Work Truck" model or similar name. Stripped down, few options, V-6. They sell mostly to fleets as today's buyer wants the goodies. As to reducing the frame reinforcement and load capacity, if people want that they can buy a car. Those are fairly complex changes and would be hard to pay back the tooling.
In the end, the automakers sell what sells.
I have a WT. 4,100lbs and 19 mpg =/
