Consumer reports "Volt doesn't really make sense"

[CosmicCowboy]

Gee, what a surprise...

Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington — Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric vehicle is on the cover of the April issue — the influential magazine's annual survey of vehicles — but the GM vehicle comes in for criticism.
"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a tough sell to the average consumer."

read more...


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110228/AUTO01/102280401/Consumer-Reports--GM’s-Volt-‘doesn’t-really-make-a-lot-of-sense’#ixzz1FMNJhCh7

[Wild Cobra]

No kidding. No surprise. I don't need someone else to tell me what I already know. I'm sure some do though.

[RandomGuy]

High pump prices rattle drivers and businesses (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gasoline_prices)

NEW YORK – High fuel prices are putting the squeeze on drivers' wallets just as they are starting to feel better about the economy. They're also forcing tough choices on small-business owners who are loathe to charge more for fear of losing cost-conscious customers.

Gasoline prices rose 4 percent last week to a national average of $3.29 per gallon. That's the highest level ever for this time of year, when prices are typically low. And with unrest in the Middle East and North Africa lifting the price of oil to the $100-a-barrel range, analysts say pump prices are likely headed higher.

Bryon Gongaware, an owner of The Floral Trunk and Gifts in White Bear Lake, Minn., didn't raise his $7 flower delivery charge when gas prices spiked in 2008, and he doesn't plan to do so this time, either.

"I don't think the economy is solid enough that you can be careless about raising prices," he said, standing among the flower clippings on the floor of the shop he has run for 21 years.

That means the extra costs that come from driving the store's delivery van 70,000 miles a year come from only one place: "right out of the bottom line," he said.

For drivers such as Robert Wagner, 51, a high school teacher from Thornton, Colo., the higher fuel costs mean cutting back on movies and dinners out for him, his wife and their two children. "We're very, very frugal right now," he said as he trickled enough $3.09-per-gallon gasoline into his Chevrolet Suburban to get him to his next pay day.

Analysts and economists worry that by lowering profits for businesses and reducing disposable income for drivers, high gasoline prices could slow the recovering economy.

Over a year, analysts estimate, oil at $100 a barrel would reduce U.S. economic growth by 0.2 or 0.3 of a percentage point. Rather than grow an estimated 3.7 percent this year, the economy would expand 3.4 percent or 3.5 percent. That would likely mean less hiring and higher unemployment.

Americans are less prepared to absorb the spike in gasoline prices than they were the last time prices rose this high, in 2008, because unemployment is higher and real estate values are lower, says David Portalatin, an analyst for the market research firm NPD Group.

It has been four months since gasoline rose beyond $3 per gallon. During that time, drivers have spent $14 billion more on gasoline than they did a year ago, Portalatin says.
-------------

[Wild Cobra]

So?

In the end, what's better? Cheaper to buy and maintain?

A $20k car that gets 25 MPG

A $40k car that gets 100 MPG

How long does it take to recoup $20k in gas?

[RandomGuy]

I have little doubt that the Volt really doesn't make a whole lot of sense now.

The Consumer Report article was pretty clear on the drawbacks of the vehicle.

Tactically, it is a bit of a mistake.

Strategically, it gives GM a lot of engineering and organizational experience with electric cars.

There are some interesting technologies in the offing that will vastly improve battery life/performance/wieght in the near future.

I think that GM's progressing along the learning curve for such cars is probably a good thing in the long run.

In the short run, if you get any protests in Saudi Arabia, even the Volt will start looking good. :spless:

[Wild Cobra]

In the short run, if you get any protests in Saudi Arabia, even the Volt will start looking good. :spless:
I wonder what has the supply to demand ratio off kilter the most. The problems in the Middle East, or the drilling moratoriums?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wonder what has the supply to demand ratio off kilter the most. The problems in the Middle East, or the drilling moratoriums?

do you really 'wonder'?

[CosmicCowboy]

I wonder what has the supply to demand ratio off kilter the most. The problems in the Middle East, or the drilling moratoriums?

Jeez, WC, don't intentionally act stupid. The drilling moratorium is just a pimple on the ass of the bigger problem of unrest in North Africa and the Middle East.

[Wild Cobra]

Jeez, WC, don't intentionally act stupid. The drilling moratorium is just a pimple on the ass of the bigger problem of unrest in North Africa and the Middle East.
Yet prices have been slowly increasing for months. I don't think that the Middle East issues have changed the pricing yet. I think the moratoriums have had a little effect, therefore I think it has the most between the two. I am far from certain of that though. Regardless, I see the biggest problem the value of our currency, losing ground to others and gold rising. Our price to purchase nearly all foreign good is increasing. Look at imported foods also.

You guys constantly jump to conclusions that I just have to shake my head at. Geroges posting especially shows that. He assumes since I add something else to consider, that i am stuck on that. I am not. I don't have enough information on both to decide which is the stroner influence between the two.

Now Cosmic, I consider you far more intelligent than the likes of George. Why do you so readily jump to asinine conclusions?

[MannyIsGod]

This thread really makesbit hard not to insult anyone.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder what has the supply to demand ratio off kilter the most. The problems in the Middle East, or the drilling moratoriums?

Translation:

"I would love to blame oil price spikes on Democrats/Obama"

(rolls eyes)

Sorry, it is rising demand coupled with instability in the Middle East.

10,000 new drivers every day in China that didn't own cars before, and all the other demands on oil energy that new demand from new wealth create.

The amount of demanded oil energy per capita rises VERY quickly as you improve your standard of living, so you can expect strong demand growth.

[RandomGuy]

This thread really makesbit hard not to insult anyone.


Only idiots would believe that.

[Marcus Bryant]

Diesel works for me.

[RandomGuy]

Yet prices have been slowly increasing for months. I don't think that the Middle East issues have changed the pricing yet. I think the moratoriums have had a little effect, therefore I think it has the most between the two. I am far from certain of that though. Regardless, I see the biggest problem the value of our currency, losing ground to others and gold rising. Our price to purchase nearly all foreign good is increasing. Look at imported foods also.

You guys constantly jump to conclusions that I just have to shake my head at. Geroges posting especially shows that. He assumes since I add something else to consider, that i am stuck on that. I am not. I don't have enough information on both to decide which is the stroner influence between the two.

Now Cosmic, I consider you far more intelligent than the likes of George. Why do you so readily jump to asinine conclusions?

1)

Gasoline prices typically fall in the winter and rise in the spring as refiners switch to more expensive summer blends of gasoline. Since 2000, prices in May have been 52 cents per gallon on average higher than in February, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Gas will get more expensive by the end of the summer. FWIW.

(edit)

1) A moratorium on new drilling doesn't really affect output much in the short term.
2) The US produces very little relative to the market overall to begin with.
3) The Middle east, on the other hand collectively produces a very large percentage of global export supply.

Not really a hard thing to wrap one's mind around, if one understand the underlying nature of the market.

[Wild Cobra]

Translation:

"I would love to blame oil price spikes on Democrats/Obama"

(rolls eyes)

No, see you also have that asinine assumption. I will go as far as saying it has some effect that I cannot quantify. Blame? No.


Sorry, it is rising demand coupled with instability in the Middle East.

Yes, the demand is rising and rising. Primarily from new Asian economic growth. Instability? I see that as an almost zero influence. Like I said in my last post, I don't know if it is stronger or weaker than the moratoriums. both are small in the scheme of things. Now the Middle east issues can suddenly change and cause a sudden price change. But it's not the case for the present. Prices have slowly been rising, or do you not notice until someone tells you they have?


10,000 new drivers every day in China that didn't own cars before, and all the other demands on oil energy that new demand from new wealth create.

Duh...

You can find in my postings 2 or 3, maybe more years back I pointed out how Asia, primarily China will cause just this. I think it was 1996 that China surpassed our fossil fuel usage.


The amount of demanded oil energy per capita rises VERY quickly as you improve your standard of living, so you can expect strong demand growth.
Why do you think you are telling me things I don't know?

All I did was say "I wonder" which of the two influences were the strongest. Now you bring in other factors... I don't see an argument against what I said. Instead, you use it as a way to insult me, unnecessarily.

[RandomGuy]

The simple fact is that globally we have been using it faster than we have been finding it.

Generally, large easy to drill and find oil deposits are being used up, leaving smaller and medium size fields to exploit, and those are more expensive to extract because you need more wells moving around to produce the same amount of oil as before.

This is why global production is topping out.

As has been explained and explained to you.

Limited to flat supply coupled with increased demand.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1366

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1533

[Wild Cobra]

Random...

Who cares, old news. We still aren't ready for something like the Volt. We should let natural engineering and development continue without subsidies. The same in the energy markets. The government should not be picking winners and losers when the free market does it better.

[RandomGuy]

All I did was say "I wonder" which of the two influences were the strongest. Now you bring in other factors... I don't see an argument against what I said. Instead, you use it as a way to insult me, unnecessarily.

Don't cry crocodile tears here.

Your past vitriolic statements concerning the current administration make such an intepretation of your words on that is rather easy for one to make, having seen them.

You bring it on yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't cry crocodile tears here.

Your past vitriolic statements concerning the current administration make such an intepretation of your words on that is rather easy for one to make, having seen them.

You bring it on yourself.
No, you are simply one who believes that statistics make facts.

[ElNono]

I'm saving $20 a week by switching from an older V8 jeep, to a newer V6 crossover... and the jeep used regular gas while the new car uses premium...

[Wild Cobra]

I'm saving $20 a week by switching from an older V8 jeep, to a newer V6 crossover... and the jeep used regular gas while the new car uses premium...
If you are making car payments, what would that $20/week be vs. a larger car payment for something like the Volt? That may be all that people see from going from an economy car to a super economy car.

Is it financially sound?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Random...

Who cares, old news. We still aren't ready for something like the Volt. We should let natural engineering and development continue without subsidies. The same in the energy markets. The government should not be picking winners and losers when the free market does it better.

wy not incentivise the developement of these types of vehicles? I would assume you would agree that we need to stop depending on oil from the ME sooner rather than later. Right?

[Wild Cobra]

wy not incentivise the developement of these types of vehicles? I would assume you would agree that we need to stop depending on oil from the ME sooner rather than later. Right?
Why not simply have a smaller government and stop asking for it to take from others to give what you want.

What does the consumer want? That's what the engineers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler should be competing for. Not government handouts. When there is a large enough market for alternate designs, it will happen.

[clambake]

wy not incentivise the developement of these types of vehicles? I would assume you would agree that we need to stop depending on oil from the ME sooner rather than later. Right?


Why not simply have a smaller government and stop asking for it to take from others to give what you want.

What does the consumer want? That's what the engineers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler should be competing for. Not government handouts. When there is a large enough market for alternate designs, it will happen.

your whole life is a rant. did you read the question?

[ElNono]

If you are making car payments, what would that $20/week be vs. a larger car payment for something like the Volt? That may be all that people see from going from an economy car to a super economy car.

Is it financially sound?

I didn't have a choice... the jeep died and I needed a car. That's probably not the cheapest deal I had, but the one that balanced out to a good deal.

The Volt makes sense as a technology development investment. I don't expect it to sell well at all, just cater to early adopters that don't mind paying a lot to have the newest tech. This is version 1 electric car for GM. The investment might finally pay off for version 10. You have to make the investment at some point though to remain competitive with other companies like Toyota that made the investment a long time ago (Remember the all-electric RAV4?)

[ElNono]

Why not simply have a smaller government and stop asking for it to take from others to give what you want.

What does the consumer want? That's what the engineers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler should be competing for. Not government handouts. When there is a large enough market for alternate designs, it will happen.

What the consumer wants changes quicker than the price of gas...
Volatility is something that has changed the landscape of the car market.
That's why it's important to invest in tech, so you can deliver quickly and give ample options to an ever changing market.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why not simply have a smaller government and stop asking for it to take from others to give what you want.

What does the consumer want? That's what the engineers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler should be competing for. Not government handouts. When there is a large enough market for alternate designs, it will happen.

so what I am getting is that you are so beholden to your political philosphy you would rather the US fall behind in this technology and become more beholden to ME politics.. ok.

[Wild Cobra]

your whole life is a rant. did you read the question?
Yes I read the question, but these incentives turn around to be tax breaks, which the likes of you, call subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't have a choice... the jeep died and I needed a car. That's probably not the cheapest deal I had, but the one that balanced out to a good deal.

The Volt makes sense as a technology development investment. I don't expect it to sell well at all, just cater to early adopters that don't mind paying a lot to have the newest tech. This is version 1 electric car for GM. The investment might finally pay off for version 10. You have to make the investment at some point though to remain competitive with other companies like Toyota that made the investment a long time ago (Remember the all-electric RAV4?)
Toyota has also had their own market and other Asian markets to develop their electrical vehicles in. They do pay more for energy there, hence, they have been able to market it better, as it makes better economic sense.

[Wild Cobra]

What the consumer wants changes quicker than the price of gas...
Volatility is something that has changed the landscape of the car market.
That's why it's important to invest in tech, so you can deliver quickly and give ample options to an ever changing market.
And do you think the corporations don't know this?

I say stop feeding the animals. Make them do it themselves. Stop making the corporation reliant on government incentives and subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

so what I am getting is that you are so beholden to your political philosphy you would rather the US fall behind in this technology and become more beholden to ME politics.. ok.
The USA is already behind. Always has been.

We need to fix problems at the root level, and stop these bandage proposals you liberals keep coming up with.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The USA is already behind. Always has been.

We need to fix problems at the root level, and stop these bandage proposals you liberals keep coming up with.

so the market has failed.. nice of you proving your own argument wrong :toast

[Wild Cobra]

so the market has failed.. nice of you proving your own argument wrong :toast
No.

Government is failing us. It needs to stop meddling.

[RandomGuy]

You insulted me unnecessarily.



You bring it on yourself



[Oh, yeah? You aren't smart enough to tell the difference between statistics and facts].

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

the free market does it better.

Like it did when it rewarded derivatives traders and hedge fund managers with huge bonuses for trading in credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities?

*that* free market?

[RandomGuy]

Toyota has also had their own market and other Asian markets to develop their electrical vehicles in. They do pay more for energy there, hence, they have been able to market it better, as it makes better economic sense.

Interesting statement.

Given that, are the following statements also applicable to that?

This gives them a headstart in designing and implimenting the manufacturing processes that bring cost/unit down.

This lower cost per unit can be leveraged into greater market share.

A simple yes or no to each will do.

[DMX7]

Like it did when it rewarded derivatives traders and hedge fund managers with huge bonuses for trading in credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities?

*that* free market?

You may think you've just exposed WC's illogical bullshit, but he likes to think he could be one of those hot shot wall street IBs, so he likely won't agree with you.

[RandomGuy]

And do you think the corporations don't know this?

I say stop feeding the animals. Make them do it themselves. Stop making the corporation reliant on government incentives and subsidies.

I think this narrow viewpoint misses the potential role of governments as "incubating" new technologies.

I don't think governments should pick and choose specific companies, that is a very very bad idea.

What a government *should* do, is decide on national priorities and provide incentives to nascent industries and technology.

I don't think choosing to emphasize a particular form of energy is "picking winners and losers".

You simply provide the environmental ground rules and let the free market determine which company does it best.

In this case, we simply encourage development of a technology that allows us to not have to add to our trade deficit through expensive imports of oil.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think this narrow viewpoint misses the potential role of governments as "incubating" new technologies.

I don't think governments should pick and choose specific companies, that is a very very bad idea.

What a government *should* do, is decide on national priorities and provide incentives to nascent industries and technology.

I don't think choosing to emphasize a particular form of energy is "picking winners and losers".

You simply provide the environmental ground rules and let the free market determine which company does it best.

In this case, we simply encourage development of a technology that allows us to not have to add to our trade deficit through expensive imports of oil.


why do you insist on picking winners and losers?


sincerely,
WC

[TeyshaBlue]

So?

In the end, what's better? Cheaper to buy and maintain?

A $20k car that gets 25 MPG

A $40k car that gets 100 MPG

How long does it take to recoup $20k in gas?

@ $4/gal, about 5.5 years assuming you drive 15k/yr.

That's not a bad return.

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes
LOL...

I guess we need to define "unnecessarily."

[Wild Cobra]

Like it did when it rewarded derivatives traders and hedge fund managers with huge bonuses for trading in credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities?

*that* free market?
No.

They went by regulations. Consumer needs to always be aware. The free market I'm talking about is that of actual tangible material and design. One that there are actual buyers and sellers.

You can find bad examples in any system. That doesn't make it the norm for all.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting statement.

Given that, are the following statements also applicable to that?

This gives them a headstart in designing and implimenting the manufacturing processes that bring cost/unit down.

This lower cost per unit can be leveraged into greater market share.

A simple yes or no to each will do.
Why should I disagree with that?

Yes.

[RandomGuy]

Yes I read the question, but these incentives turn around to be tax breaks, which the likes of you, call subsidies.

Any economist you would ask would say the same.

The underlying economic effect is virtually identical to an outright cash payment.

Never really understood why that concept is not one you accept.

[Wild Cobra]

I think this narrow viewpoint misses the potential role of governments as "incubating" new technologies.

I don't think governments should pick and choose specific companies, that is a very very bad idea.

What a government *should* do, is decide on national priorities and provide incentives to nascent industries and technology.

I can agree with that in general. However, it needs to be done as a leadership ideal, and not of political gamesmanship. That is the problem today with government meddling. It's political rather than practical.


I don't think choosing to emphasize a particular form of energy is "picking winners and losers".

It sure seems to be, at least the way the politicians play the game today.


You simply provide the environmental ground rules and let the free market determine which company does it best.

Except those ground rules are often extreme and agenda driven rather than actually looking out for the people. How many have you seen that are not simply playing into the game to get more votes?


In this case, we simply encourage development of a technology that allows us to not have to add to our trade deficit through expensive imports of oil.

If that was the case, then why do we limit our own energy production so much?

I have no problem with encouraging future development. However, when you give people Tax Credits after one company in trouble develops a design that the other two don't have... And reward that design... Are we not picking a specific company to reward?

I am completely against tax credits to begin with. I'm OK with tax breaks for incentives. Just not credits.

In the larger scheme of things, if our politicians truly were encouraging growth, they would remove the taxes on it. Tax consumption rather than production. Research and development is extremely costly. All through the process, the productivity of these groups are taxed. If the sale of the product was taxed rather than the development of it, such endeavors would be more desirable for a company to do. As it stands now, without a clear payoff in the horizon, USA research and development has really taken a backseat to other nations.

[Wild Cobra]

Any economist you would ask would say the same.

The underlying economic effect is virtually identical to an outright cash payment.

Never really understood why that concept is not one you accept.
You didn't understand the context of my statement that was purely directed at Clambake. I think he understood why I responded as I did, unless he's more an idiot than I take him for.

As for accepting the concept. A tax break can only take your taxes to zero. A tax credit can make it so you actually get money, more than was paid.

[RandomGuy]

Why should I disagree with that?

Yes.

So if a country has the foresight to predict higher and higher oil prices, and develops it renewables sector, its companies will benefit from a lead in technology and know how.

Those companies will be well positioned to enter the US market and outcompete US firms, who have not had similar backing from the US government.

Capturing market share early on in the life cycle of a new industry leads to HUGE advantages.

Given all this, I find your blanket opposition to pushing for renewables puzzling.

[RandomGuy]

If that was the case, then why do we limit our own energy production so much?

We don't. Your underlying assumption is flawed.

[RandomGuy]

Research and development is extremely costly. All through the process, the productivity of these groups are taxed. If the sale of the product was taxed rather than the development of it, such endeavors would be more desirable for a company to do. As it stands now, without a clear payoff in the horizon, USA research and development has really taken a backseat to other nations.

Interesting theory.

In the end, you still have to finance R & D through the sales of a given product.

I don't see how discouraging consumption in that manner, through VAT taxes, would make up for it.

It's a bit like shifting money from one pocket to ther other then saying you have more total money, IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

So if a country has the foresight to predict higher and higher oil prices, and develops it renewables sector, its companies will benefit from a lead in technology and know how.

Why should it be the tax payer dollars responsible for that? Let the companies decide for themselves if they want to invest in the future or not. Why do you believe the government can do it better, and for all? In a nation of various ideas, let the various ideas work and let the best one win.


Those companies will be well positioned to enter the US market and outcompete US firms, who have not had similar backing from the US government.

Tariffs are in the constitution for a reason.


Capturing market share early on in the life cycle of a new industry leads to HUGE advantages.

Yes, it does. Working with Intel in the past years doing rapid research and development with them has taught me allot in that arena. However, companies competing for market share can do it better than a single government mindset based on political agendas.


Given all this, I find your blanket opposition to pushing for renewables puzzling.

I'm not against renewable research and development. I'm against the authoritarian approach to market them.

When will you stop interjecting your negative bias into your assessments of me?

[Sportcamper]

The same person from Consumers Report who wrote the Volt article was doing research on toasters the week before…Now there is some technical data we all can believe in…:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting theory.

In the end, you still have to finance R & D through the sales of a given product.

I don't see how discouraging consumption in that manner, through VAT taxes, would make up for it.

It's a bit like shifting money from one pocket to ther other then saying you have more total money, IMO.
Ideas like "The Fair tax" deserve their own thread. Lean a bit more about it, and maybe my related remarks will make more sense.

[Wild Cobra]

We don't. Your underlying assumption is flawed.
Yes we do.

[Sportcamper]

Consumers Report best autos for 2011 has several Hyundai’s & Kia’s on the list…:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Yes we do.

Quantify it then.

"we limit energy production so much" seems to imply that we limit domestic energy production by quite a bit.

I have pointed out to you that the US holds 2% of known global oil reserves, and most of those are offshore, requiring some pretty hefty capital outlays. That and the fact that oil companies have yet to even get close to using up all the permits they have been granted by the government seems to indicate that the limit is not that of the government's restrictions.

The recent oil and gas boom from fracing has also gone on with little restriction.

The government pretty regularly approves mountaintop removal for coal, one of *the* more nasty things to do in terms of environmental damage.

Tell me how we "limit energy production" and quantify it to some small degree.

Or

Withdraw the assertion.

[Wild Cobra]

@ $4/gal, about 5.5 years assuming you drive 15k/yr.

That's not a bad return.
Well, if I take 15,000 annual miles for 5 years, that's 75,000 miles. 75,000 miles is 3,000 gallons at 25 MPG and 750 gallons at 100 MPG. The difference is 2,250 gallons which would need to be at $8.89 per gallon to make it work.

I use 5 years because of my expected lifespan of the batteries. Have different numbers?

[RandomGuy]

Consumers Report best autos for 2011 has several Hyundai’s & Kia’s on the list…:lmao

Not all that surprising.

Korea, using Japanese expertise and methodology, closed the quality gap that took the Japanese decades to do with American goods.

Used to be "made in Japan" meant cheap junk in the early 1980's. No so anymore.

So it is with Korean manufacturing now.

[Wild Cobra]

Quantify it then.

"we limit energy production so much" seems to imply that we limit domestic energy production by quite a bit.

I have pointed out to you that the US holds 2% of known global oil reserves, and most of those are offshore, requiring some pretty hefty capital outlays. That and the fact that oil companies have yet to even get close to using up all the permits they have been granted by the government seems to indicate that the limit is not that of the government's restrictions.

The recent oil and gas boom from fracing has also gone on with little restriction.

The government pretty regularly approves mountaintop removal for coal, one of *the* more nasty things to do in terms of environmental damage.

Tell me how we "limit energy production" and quantify it to some small degree.

Or

Withdraw the assertion.
First off, to quantify it? Too many variables.

As for the 2%... Doesn't matter. When you are at the edge of supply vs. demand, a very small change in either make a relatively large change in price.

As for government limiting our production... Come on. Don't tell me you don't believe that.

[Wild Cobra]

Consumers Report best autos for 2011 has several Hyundai’s & Kia’s on the list…:lmao
I don't know about Kia's but I have seen some real nice Hyundai's.

[Sportcamper]

Ever drive or work on a KIA...:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Ever drive or work on a KIA...:lol
No, never wanted one. Too small for my taste.

[RandomGuy]

Well, if I take 15,000 annual miles for 5 years, that's 75,000 miles. 75,000 miles is 3,000 gallons at 25 MPG and 750 gallons at 100 MPG. The difference is 2,250 gallons which would need to be at $8.89 per gallon to make it work.

I use 5 years because of my expected lifespan of the batteries. Have different numbers?

That is about right. Teysha's calculation didn't encapsulate the the important distinction is the difference between the two.

The other differences are a tad more hard to define.

Electric motors, even with a limited battery life, are cheaper and simpler than complex combustion engines.

It is entirely possible that, even with battery replacement, the electric motor's reliability will keep it from the breakdowns that a gasoline engine would be prone to at higher mileages.

The added bonus for me is that five years down the road, you would be able to take advantage of newer battery tech that would extend the life of a charge markedly.

Another point to remember:

You can either have gas at $8.89 to make it work out, or simply use the car twice as much.

If one uses the car for 30,000 miles/year, that would mean your break even point would be $4.44, not quite as far off.

[Wild Cobra]

That is about right. Teysha's calculation didn't encapsulate the the important distinction is the difference between the two.

The other differences are a tad more hard to define.

Electric motors, even with a limited battery life, are cheaper and simpler than complex combustion engines.

It is entirely possible that, even with battery replacement, the electric motor's reliability will keep it from the breakdowns that a gasoline engine would be prone to at higher mileages.

The added bonus for me is that five years down the road, you would be able to take advantage of newer battery tech that would extend the life of a charge markedly.

Another point to remember:

You can either have gas at $8.89 to make it work out, or simply use the car twice as much.

If one uses the car for 30,000 miles/year, that would mean your break even point would be $4.44, not quite as far off.
Yes, and who knows. Maybe within 5 years, batteries will be more reliable and cheaper. Some of them have toxic waste issues during development, recycling, and/or disposal. Funny how as expensive they are, we buy the batteries from other countries. How much would they be if they were manufactures under OSHA and EPA requirements? What type of ecological damage are we encouraging other countries to take?

[RandomGuy]

First off, to quantify it? Too many variables.

As for the 2%... Doesn't matter. When you are at the edge of supply vs. demand, a very small change in either make a relatively large change in price.

As for government limiting our production... Come on. Don't tell me you don't believe that.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

I have no doubt that environmental regulations limit the amount of energy we dig up/drill to some small degree.

You imply that degree is very large, and use that for the underlying assumption of your question.

I'm not asking for a down to the joule measurement, but a rough %.

How much higher would our fossil fuel production be in your mind if the big bad government would just get out of the way, as you advocate? 10%, 20%, etc?

What strains credibility is your seeming assertion that a country holding reserves of 2% of global supply could ever increase production enough to make a dent in overall global oil supplies.

As I said, either you can start to flesh out your assertion, or you can't prove it to some reasonable degree.

The burden is yours.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and who knows. Maybe within 5 years, batteries will be more reliable and cheaper. Some of them have toxic waste issues during development, recycling, and/or disposal. Funny how as expensive they are, we buy the batteries from other countries. How much would they be if they were manufactures under OSHA and EPA requirements? What type of ecological damage are we encouraging other countries to take?

A lot. We do similar for lead-acid batteries we use in our cars now, and for oil spills in all the places that drill for oil for the global market.

[MannyIsGod]

I would have thought it was common sense that if your main goal is to save money then a 40k vehicle is not your best option. That might just be my amazing analytical skills at work though.

[boutons_deux]

"40k vehicle is not your best option"

TCO is the calculation, not purchase price

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, if I take 15,000 annual miles for 5 years, that's 75,000 miles. 75,000 miles is 3,000 gallons at 25 MPG and 750 gallons at 100 MPG. The difference is 2,250 gallons which would need to be at $8.89 per gallon to make it work.

I use 5 years because of my expected lifespan of the batteries. Have different numbers?

Whoops...my bad. I was using a Purchase price differential of $10,000 instead of $20,000.:p:

[Sportcamper]

Purchasing a Volt has nothing to do about saving money…It is about saving the planet…Getting a leg up on electric vehicles which are here to stay…Not to mention cashing in on the 7500 Federal tax credit…

[coyotes_geek]

Purchasing a Volt has nothing to do about saving money…It is about saving the planet…Getting a leg up on electric vehicles which are here to stay…Not to mention cashing in on the 7500 Federal tax credit…

That's the biggest problem with the Volt. It costs taxpayers another $7,500 everytime GM sells one.

[TeyshaBlue]

Woof. Figure in that tax credit and my initial estimate was not too far off.

[Sportcamper]

Someone at work purchased the Nissan version…And there is nowhere to plug it in once he gets here…At least the Volt has more range…

[Drachen]

That is about right. Teysha's calculation didn't encapsulate the the important distinction is the difference between the two.

The other differences are a tad more hard to define.

Electric motors, even with a limited battery life, are cheaper and simpler than complex combustion engines.

It is entirely possible that, even with battery replacement, the electric motor's reliability will keep it from the breakdowns that a gasoline engine would be prone to at higher mileages.

The added bonus for me is that five years down the road, you would be able to take advantage of newer battery tech that would extend the life of a charge markedly.

Another point to remember:

You can either have gas at $8.89 to make it work out, or simply use the car twice as much.

If one uses the car for 30,000 miles/year, that would mean your break even point would be $4.44, not quite as far off.

What is being missed here is that in practice, most people are going to get better than 100 mpg. I know that if I owned one, It would be extremely rare that I use gas, if at all. So the gasoline costs would fall dramatically. However there would be an increase in electricity costs so one would need to find out the difference THERE, then use that difference to calculate the difference between the volt and an internal combustion engine.

Also, I read an environmental impact study on the life cycle impact of an electric car with a Lithium Ion battery that said the only way an internal combustion vehicle could compete in that area would be to get about 70 mpg.

I do, however agree with the premise of the article and I think the Leaf is a much better option anyway since it makes more fiscal and environmental sense. Leading to this truism. . .


I would have thought it was common sense that if your main goal is to save money then a 40k vehicle is not your best option. That might just be my amazing analytical skills at work though.

They teach you that in New Mexico? Their standards must be rising!

:lol

[RandomGuy]

No.

They went by regulations. Consumer needs to always be aware. The free market I'm talking about is that of actual tangible material and design. One that there are actual buyers and sellers.

You can find bad examples in any system. That doesn't make it the norm for all.

Unless of course the system you are talking about is related to a social safety net, then one bad example means the whole system is wrong.

Cognitive, meet dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

Stop making the corporation [sic] reliant on government incentives and subsidies.


Tariffs are in the constitution for a reason, [like protecting domestic firms from superior or cheaper foriegn products with incentives to be inefficient]

Dissonance, meet cognitive

[Wild Cobra]

Purchasing a Volt has nothing to do about saving money…It is about saving the planet…Getting a leg up on electric vehicles which are here to stay…Not to mention cashing in on the 7500 Federal tax credit…
Well, considering who makes the batteries and the environmental impact that likely occurs, seems to me it's more of a "feel good" thing rather than reality.

Am I wrong?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, you are wrong.

[Drachen]

Well, considering who makes the batteries and the environmental impact that likely occurs, seems to me it's more of a "feel good" thing rather than reality.

Am I wrong?

yes

link (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i33/8833news6.html)

And remember that these are essentially first (or second if you consider the Rav4e and the GM EV1) generation electric vehicles vs. the what, 100th gen internal combustion vehicles.

[RandomGuy]

What is being missed here is that in practice, most people are going to get better than 100 mpg. I know that if I owned one, It would be extremely rare that I use gas, if at all. So the gasoline costs would fall dramatically. However there would be an increase in electricity costs so one would need to find out the difference THERE, then use that difference to calculate the difference between the volt and an internal combustion engine.

Very good point, and one that should be noted in the debate. Since electricity in the US is supplied in no small part (51% or so, if memory serves) you are burning coal to power your car. Not the most eco-friendly trade off, if CO2 is a concern for the consumer.

Another interesting thing that one has to consider, is how easy it would be to steal electricity.

All you have to do is find a parking spot near some building with one of those little ubiquitous external outlets and hitch up.

Or, for example, bribing an electrician to bypass your home meter for the one circuit your car happens to charge on.

A ground level apartment with utilities included would also make for a cheap "fill up".

If all you need is an extension cord to do this, yikes.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah we discussed all of this. We talked about how the average person rarely drives more than the range on a daily basis, we talked about how it would be smarter to buy a 12k compact car if you're trying to save money on gas, and pretty much everything that has been brought up.

Spurstalk is nothing if not redundant.

[TeyshaBlue]

Very good point, and one that should be noted in the debate. Since electricity in the US is supplied in no small part (51% or so, if memory serves) you are burning coal to power your car. Not the most eco-friendly trade off, if CO2 is a concern for the consumer.

Another interesting thing that one has to consider, is how easy it would be to steal electricity.

All you have to do is find a parking spot near some building with one of those little ubiquitous external outlets and hitch up.

Or, for example, bribing an electrician to bypass your home meter for the one circuit your car happens to charge on.

A ground level apartment with utilities included would also make for a cheap "fill up".

If all you need is an extension cord to do this, yikes.

Yeah, but your charging times on 120V are pretty long...so the chances of getting a full 10 hour charge that way approach zero. Even then, using 120v, a full charge on the Volt costs about $1.60 per Car and Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_chevrolet_volt_full_test-road_test

That's pretty small change to even think about policing.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah we discussed all of this. We talked about how the average person rarely drives more than the range on a daily basis, we talked about how it would be smarter to buy a 12k compact car if you're trying to save money on gas, and pretty much everything that has been brought up.

Spurstalk is nothing if not redundant.

You lie!

[Wild Cobra]

Lithium mining: cleaner than coal, but…. (http://www.downtoearthnw.com/blogs/down-earth/2010/jan/28/lithium-mining-cleaner-coal/)

Now don't believe a blogger's compilation of information. How about this:

The Trouble with Lithium; Implications of Future PHEV Production for Lithium Demand (http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf); part of the executive summary:



Lithium Ion batteries are rapidly becoming the technology of choice for the next generation of Electric Vehicles - Hybrid, Plug In Hybrid and Battery EVs. The automotive industry is committed increasingly to Electrified Vehicles to provide Sustainable Mobility in the next decade. LiIon is the preferred battery technology to power these vehicles.

To achieve required cuts in oil consumption, a significant percentage of the world automobile fleet of 1 billion vehicles will be electrified in the coming decade. Ultimately all production, currently 60 Million vehicles per year, will be replaced with highly electrified vehicles – PHEVs and BEVs.

Analysis of Lithium's geological resource base shows that there is insufficient economically recoverable Lithium available in the Earth's crust to sustain Electric Vehicle manufacture in the volumes required, based solely on LiIon batteries. Depletion rates would exceed current oil depletion rates and switch dependency from one diminishing resource to another. Concentration of supply would create new geopolitical tensions, not reduce them.



The trouble with Lithium 2; Under the Microscope (http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf)

Now as green vehicles go, the volt is #12 of 12:

Greenest Vehicles of 2011 (http://www.greenercars.org/highlights_greenest.htm)

Now I had a source reference for the 2/3rds freshwater thing, but closed it. Not going through my history to find it again.

[Wild Cobra]

yes

link (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i33/8833news6.html)

And remember that these are essentially first (or second if you consider the Rav4e and the GM EV1) generation electric vehicles vs. the what, 100th gen internal combustion vehicles.
Hmmmm.....

So using up 2/3rds a nations regional freshwater to be the largest supplier of lithium is not a large environmental impact?

I'll bet the fish think otherwise.

[MannyIsGod]

Its too bad you can't find that source. Searching your history would likely take less time than the reply you make to this post.

[DarrinS]

They will probably sell well in California.

[RandomGuy]

Lithium mining: cleaner than coal, but…. (http://www.downtoearthnw.com/blogs/down-earth/2010/jan/28/lithium-mining-cleaner-coal/)

Now don't believe a blogger's compilation of information. How about this:

The Trouble with Lithium; Implications of Future PHEV Production for Lithium Demand (http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf); part of the executive summary:

The trouble with Lithium 2; Under the Microscope (http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf)

Now as green vehicles go, the volt is #12 of 12:

Greenest Vehicles of 2011 (http://www.greenercars.org/highlights_greenest.htm)

Now I had a source reference for the 2/3rds freshwater thing, but closed it. Not going through my history to find it again.

Lithium is not depleted when used to make batteries, unlike burning oil. That statement about depletion is spurious. Not sure where the author was going.

I think the "using 2/3 water" was probably a reference to ethanol production, or possibly to that of using water at power plants.

Since 75% of the US population lives within 100 miles of coastline or something like that, I think we can probably invest some in desalinisation, or will be forced to do that.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1562
Bioractor units working prototypes.

Mass. company making diesel with sun, water, CO2


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – A Massachusetts biotechnology company says it can produce the fuel that runs Jaguars and jet engines using the same ingredients that make grass grow.

Joule Unlimited has invented a genetically-engineered organism that it says simply secretes diesel fuel or ethanol wherever it finds sunlight, water and carbon dioxide.

The Cambridge, Mass.-based company says it can manipulate the organism to produce the renewable fuels on demand at unprecedented rates, and can do it in facilities large and small at costs comparable to the cheapest fossil fuels.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110228/ap_on_re_us/us_growing_fuel


Found that bit. They are taking a slightly different approach, read the full article for details. Not using algae but rather a different bug, with different charactoristics.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, but your charging times on 120V are pretty long...so the chances of getting a full 10 hour charge that way approach zero. Even then, using 120v, a full charge on the Volt costs about $1.60 per Car and Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_chevrolet_volt_full_test-road_test

That's pretty small change to even think about policing.
Yes, but that 16 kwh capacity only has a 45 mile range at optimum driving conditions, city. After that 45 miles, only gets 35 MPG... Now freeway is worse, at only 2.76 miles/kwh. How many people travel farther than maybe a 40 mile round trip, or any day. The IC engine surely kicks in before the battery is drained.

Lets just look at it the way. The Volt is rated at 2.81 miles per kwh. Many vehicles are rated at 28 MPG, so 10 kwh at 10 cents a kwh is $1.00 vs the price of a gallon of gas.

Does paying $1 per gallon equivalent work for most people when limited to 45 miles the first month, and capacity gets smaller and smaller as the battery life diminishes?

How many people have houses that can charge the thing at any decent rate anyway? What is the efficiency? The ratings above are what the car uses. Howver, it probably costs 12 KWHs or more to get a 10 KWH charge. A daily 12 KWH usage for 5 hours at 220 volts would require an 11 amp draw. Hope you turn your water heater and dryer off while charging, or rewire your house.

[ElNono]

Toyota has also had their own market and other Asian markets to develop their electrical vehicles in. They do pay more for energy there, hence, they have been able to market it better, as it makes better economic sense.

Toyota sells the bulk of their cars in the US. GM produces and sells cars in other markets as well. Car makers compete globally.

[Wild Cobra]

Toyota sells the bulk of their cars in the US. GM produces and sells cars in other markets as well. Car makers compete globally.
There is still a pretty big imbalance.

[Wild Cobra]

Its too bad you can't find that source. Searching your history would likely take less time than the reply you make to this post.
I can, but is it that important to prove? If my integrity isn't good enough for you, then I don't give a damn anyway. I will humor you and look, and add edit here.

---add edit---

The statement comes from Luka Erceg, Simbol Mining's president and co-founder. He is attempting to develop methods that are cost effective and environmentally friendly to lithium extraction.

Here is one link:

Mining lithium from geothermal 'lemonade' (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9881869-54.html)

[Drachen]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1562
Bioractor units working prototypes.

Mass. company making diesel with sun, water, CO2



Found that bit. They are taking a slightly different approach, read the full article for details. Not using algae but rather a different bug, with different charactoristics.

I read about them about 1 year ago. Love this company, they are even building their demo plant in Texas.

Just set them up next to a coal plant, but a hose from the smoke stack to one of these setups, and use the CO2 from that. :lol (yes I know its not that simple, but if the coal industry ever decides to implement the "clean coal" systems that they are advertising there would be a market for the sequestered CO2)

Lastly, and something I found to be PHENOMENAL is that this system can use fresh water, salt water, AND brackish water (thereby creating something to do with the brackish water left after desalination).

[ElNono]

There is still a pretty big imbalance.

What imbalance?

[ElNono]

Don't like the Volt? No problem, look for alternatives or wait for the Volt 2.0...
I have zero problems with GM investing in this tech though... they're only playing catchup at this point, and as the Prius has shown, there's a big market for good hybrid cars.

[Drachen]

Don't like the Volt? No problem, look for alternatives or wait for the Volt 2.0...
I have zero problems with GM investing in this tech though... they're only playing catchup at this point, and as the Prius has shown, there's a big market for good hybrid cars.

There is a mean looking Peugot that I wish were sold here. Zoe is the name I think.

[MannyIsGod]

I can, but is it that important to prove? If my integrity isn't good enough for you, then I don't give a damn anyway. I will humor you and look, and add edit here.

Yes it is and no your integrity is not good enough.

[TeyshaBlue]

There is a mean looking Peugot that I wish were sold here. Zoe is the name I think.

There is no thing as a desirable Peugot.:ihit

[Wild Cobra]

There is a mean looking Peugot that I wish were sold here. Zoe is the name I think.
I'll bet it would fail US crash test standards.

[Wild Cobra]

There is no thing as a desirable Peugot.:ihit
LOL...

I completely agree.

They used to make a good bicycle. I wonder if they still do?

[Sportcamper]

Well, considering who makes the batteries and the environmental impact that likely occurs, seems to me it's more of a "feel good" thing rather than reality.

Am I wrong?

I completely agree…They should sell well where I live…But eventually GM or Ford is going to get it right & make a practical & durable electric car for the masses…

[boutons_deux]

Even the "successful" Prius had to change batteries for $5K after a few years.

Batteries are the critical weakness. Too bad we're wasting $100Bs in bullshit wars rather than investing in R&D.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm currently really torn about what to do on a vehicle. The wife is currently in a "gas guzzling" hard loaded Eddie Bauer Expedition with only 67K miles thats paid for. It is a totally luxurious drive, seats 7, has DVD for the grandkids, etc. It gets 14/18mpg. I know gas is going to go up, the question is just how much.

So I'm looking at downsizing her into a smaller crossover that gets 18/25mpg, similar trim level but no DVD and only seats 5, so when the kids are in town with two baby seats it will mean taking two cars when we go out instead of one.

The numbers just don't make sense. She only drives about 12K miles a year. The difference in gas consumed is only about 225 gallons a year, or $75 a month difference in gas at $4 gas.

I'd have to give them my Expedition PLUS around $20,000 to swap.

Thats fucking insane. It just makes absolutely no sense financially.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't like the Volt? No problem, look for alternatives or wait for the Volt 2.0...
I have zero problems with GM investing in this tech though... they're only playing catchup at this point, and as the Prius has shown, there's a big market for good hybrid cars.

I guess you don't know that most of Toyota's electric technology was LEASED from GM many years ago...

[Drachen]

I'm currently really torn about what to do on a vehicle. The wife is currently in a "gas guzzling" hard loaded Eddie Bauer Expedition with only 67K miles thats paid for. It is a totally luxurious drive, seats 7, has DVD for the grandkids, etc. It gets 14/18mpg. I know gas is going to go up, the question is just how much.

So I'm looking at downsizing her into a smaller crossover that gets 18/25mpg, similar trim level but no DVD and only seats 5, so when the kids are in town with two baby seats it will mean taking two cars when we go out instead of one.

The numbers just don't make sense. She only drives about 12K miles a year. The difference in gas consumed is only about 225 gallons a year, or $75 a month difference in gas at $4 gas.

I'd have to give them my Expedition PLUS around $20,000 to swap.

Thats fucking insane. It just makes absolutely no sense financially.

Just you and the wife? Get a car. You said yourself that when the kids are in town, it will be two vehicles anyway, so get a car for your daily driver. Spend less up front and spend less on gas.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm currently really torn about what to do on a vehicle. The wife is currently in a "gas guzzling" hard loaded Eddie Bauer Expedition with only 67K miles thats paid for. It is a totally luxurious drive, seats 7, has DVD for the grandkids, etc. It gets 14/18mpg. I know gas is going to go up, the question is just how much.

So I'm looking at downsizing her into a smaller crossover that gets 18/25mpg, similar trim level but no DVD and only seats 5, so when the kids are in town with two baby seats it will mean taking two cars when we go out instead of one.

The numbers just don't make sense. She only drives about 12K miles a year. The difference in gas consumed is only about 225 gallons a year, or $75 a month difference in gas at $4 gas.

I'd have to give them my Expedition PLUS around $20,000 to swap.

Thats fucking insane. It just makes absolutely no sense financially.

Then why downsize? Just keep what you have right now. You already made the initial investment.

[Sportcamper]

Cosmic I seriously think that you should save the planet & unload that gas guzzling SUV for about 4k cash to a guy from LA…Next time you drive out to Orange County you can drop it off as well as getting rid of all that guilt…Think about all of the trees that die every day because you wont downsize…

[CosmicCowboy]

Then why downsize? Just keep what you have right now. You already made the initial investment.

Yeah, I'm leaning that way...I think the wife is getting guilted by our California son/DIL...I'm getting myself in "just say no" mode..

[ElNono]

I guess you don't know that most of Toyota's electric technology was LEASED from GM many years ago...

Link? AFAIK Toyota designed and leased their RAV4 EV vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV) in direct competition to GM's EV1 back in 96-97. The Prius is entirely a Toyota design.

The only thing that stopped Toyota was GM owning the patents to high-capacity NiMH batteries worldwide, which killed those cars back then.

GM eventually sold the patents to Chevron/Texaco...full story here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies)

IIRC, to this day Toyota still has to pay a patent licensing fee for NiMH batteries.

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad we're wasting $100Bs in bullshit wars rather than investing in R&D.

Why do you look to government for solutions? This is a job for the free market. Not your Nanny.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm currently really torn about what to do on a vehicle. The wife is currently in a "gas guzzling" hard loaded Eddie Bauer Expedition with only 67K miles thats paid for. It is a totally luxurious drive, seats 7, has DVD for the grandkids, etc. It gets 14/18mpg. I know gas is going to go up, the question is just how much.

So I'm looking at downsizing her into a smaller crossover that gets 18/25mpg, similar trim level but no DVD and only seats 5, so when the kids are in town with two baby seats it will mean taking two cars when we go out instead of one.

The numbers just don't make sense. She only drives about 12K miles a year. The difference in gas consumed is only about 225 gallons a year, or $75 a month difference in gas at $4 gas.

I'd have to give them my Expedition PLUS around $20,000 to swap.

Thats fucking insane. It just makes absolutely no sense financially.
Since it's paid for, my thought would be just get a smaller vehicle also.

[boutons_deux]

"This is a job for the free market"

then why isn't the (bogus) free market producing battery/storage solutions?

And will the free market spend $100B on battery technology?

[boutons_deux]

Long-Term Chevrolet Volt: 763 miles, By the Numbers

http://blogs.motortrend.com/long-term-chevrolet-volt-763-miles-numbers-7077.html

[Drachen]

There is a mean looking Peugot that I wish were sold here. Zoe is the name I think.

BTW, I messed up, it is a Renault, not a Peugot. Commence talking about how crappy Renaults are.

:lol

[Sec24Row7]

My new truck gets 12mpg average.

I love it.

[boutons_deux]

There's nothing wrong with Renault and Peugeot cars. They sell well around Europe, not just in France. It's just too hard and expensive to crack the US market.

All car mfrs know how each other builds cars, use the same quality measures, robots, and sub-contractors.

[RandomGuy]

I'm currently really torn about what to do on a vehicle. The wife is currently in a "gas guzzling" hard loaded Eddie Bauer Expedition with only 67K miles thats paid for. It is a totally luxurious drive, seats 7, has DVD for the grandkids, etc. It gets 14/18mpg. I know gas is going to go up, the question is just how much.

So I'm looking at downsizing her into a smaller crossover that gets 18/25mpg, similar trim level but no DVD and only seats 5, so when the kids are in town with two baby seats it will mean taking two cars when we go out instead of one.

The numbers just don't make sense. She only drives about 12K miles a year. The difference in gas consumed is only about 225 gallons a year, or $75 a month difference in gas at $4 gas.

I'd have to give them my Expedition PLUS around $20,000 to swap.

Thats fucking insane. It just makes absolutely no sense financially.

I would agree. If it works and is paid for, why bother changing it out?

Anybody who advocates you downsize is probably not considering the amount of energy involved in making a new car. If CO2 is a concern for such a recommendation, then you would be much better off keeping your existing vehicle until it really is falling apart.

The big factor is how much you drive it.

My wife has something that makes rather poor gas mileage, but she doesn't drive much at all, and is responsible for shuttling kids around to/from school, and groceries, so the extra expense is feasible and desirable.

I, on the other hand, regularly put 18-20k per year on my car, so the more expensive gas gets the more sense my little Corolla makes. 37.7mpg on average. Could getabout 10% better if I drove a bit slower, but meh. I could afford to get something bigger/better, but would rather have the $$$ and not let my ego do the shopping.

[CosmicCowboy]

My new truck gets 12mpg average.

I love it.

Yeah, that Raptor is badass. I'd love to "downsize" into one of those...

[CosmicCowboy]

If she REALLY turns up the heat I may propose this:

Keep the Expedition and buy one of THESE:

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/

Natural Gas is gonna be dirt cheap relative to gasoline in Texas for the foreseeable future. Let that be her daily "green" driver and still have the Expedition for rollin.

[boutons_deux]

IBM Working on EV Battery with 500-Mile Range

BM has invented a lithium-air battery technology that makes it possible to drive electric vehicles (EVs) for 500 miles (804 km) per charge.

Lithium-air battery technology is not new, but it does have the potential to achieve unusually high energy densities that rival that of all rechargeable batteries in use today. The reason why batteries with higher energy densities enable EVs to drive further is simply because they are lighter (they have a better gravimetric energy density).

Lighter batteries weigh down the vehicle less, so it requires less energy to drive a given distance. This translates into more energy being available for driving. Each kWh (kilowatt-hour) of energy takes you further.

IBM’s Lithium-Ion Battery Technology

IBM decided to start work on these batteries somewhat recently due to their great potential and discovered that the oxygen in the air is not only reacting with the carbon electrode mentioned, but also with the battery’s electrolyte.

So, physicist Winfried Wilcke and his colleague Alessandro Curioni at IBM’s Zurich research labs in Switzerland used the Blue Gene supercomputer to simulate extremely detailed models of the reactions using alternative electrolytes until they finally found a more suitable one, which is confidential.

Winfried Wilcke said: “We now have one which looks very promising.”

The hope is to have a full-scale battery prototype operation by 2013 and commercial batteries around 2020.


http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/15/ibm-invents-ev-battery-with-500-mile-range/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

============

Seems like a long way away. I wonder if US govt threw a few $10Bs at it (instead at defending oilco's empire) and brought some nano tech, would it make a difference.

[Nbadan]

Republicans have taken a poor position opposing GM...

Why Republicans are foolishly fighting the Chevrolet Volt


I’ve spotted quite a few Chevrolet Volts on the road over the past year or so, but I can’t recall seeing a single one with a bumper sticker carrying any sort of political message.

That makes me think Volt owners are buying them because the cars are highly fuel efficient, technologically advanced or fit the owners’ driving needs.

But to Republicans on the right, the Volt is an “Obamamobile” that exists only because of the dictates of government planners.
My gearhead friends are aghast. They can’t understand why a political party is demonizing a vehicle that represents some of the best automotive engineering innovation to come out of Detroit in decades.

http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/why_republicans_are_foolishly.html

[TeyshaBlue]

Republicans have taken a poor position opposing GM...

Why Republicans are foolishly fighting the Chevrolet Volt



http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/why_republicans_are_foolishly.html

lol..what a completely unsupported OP. Why did Haglund even bother to fire up the comp for that tripe?

BTW..he's spectacularly tardy with his meme.
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/former-president-george-h-w-bush-buys-chevy-192026852.html

[RandomGuy]

It would be interesting to use the recent thread about the new battery manufacturing technique to see what effect that the tech would have on the Volt.

The capacity size and weight of the battery packs can be found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

And one can use the cost per weight/capacity data from that article to estimate the current cost of the Volt's pack and the future cost of that pack, once the new manufacturing technique makes it into production.

[TeyshaBlue]

It would be interesting to use the recent thread about the new battery manufacturing technique to see what effect that the tech would have on the Volt.

The capacity size and weight of the battery packs can be found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

And one can use the cost per weight/capacity data from that article to estimate the current cost of the Volt's pack and the future cost of that pack, once the new manufacturing technique makes it into production.

Word. It's a gamechanger for EV's.:toast

[RandomGuy]

Don't forget about this either:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928035.100-shock-wave-puts-hybrid-engines-in-a-spin.html

[DarrinS]

The main thing hurting the Volt is that people don't want to buy it.

For 10K less, you can get a Chevy Malibu that gets around 33 mpg and is probably a much better vehicle.

[TeyshaBlue]

Here ya go RG...the thread where you started to foot out some of the potential gains:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192011

[TeyshaBlue]

The main thing hurting the Volt is that people don't want to buy it.

For 10K less, you can get a Chevy Malibu that gets around 33 mpg and is probably a much better vehicle.

If you can get the costs down (which can be done) and increase the range close to a conventional combustion engine (which looks promising from my previous post), then people will buy 'em....a gazillion of 'em.

[admiralsnackbar]

The main thing hurting the Volt is that people don't want to buy it.

For 10K less, you can get a Chevy Malibu that gets around 33 mpg and is probably a much better vehicle.

Can't speak to the quality of the car, but it is a rolling contradiction -- a zero-emmissions car for environmentalists that runs on coal-fed electricity. It may have charmed some soft-minded celebrities in Hollywood who think electricity comes from magic reactors in Rainbow City, but most people who are willing to be early-adopters for green transportation probably aren't that easily charmed.

Until solar cells and batteries become exponentially better, this car will continue to be a curiosity, and you can be sure petrochem corporations will try and keep any tech that would put them out of business out of the market until they figure out a way to make said tech replace the profit streams they would lose in the transition away from fossil fuel.

[DarrinS]

If you can get the costs down (which can be done) and increase the range close to a conventional combustion engine (which looks promising from my previous post), then people will buy 'em....a gazillion of 'em.



I agree. Most people that would be in the market for this type of vehicle are mostly interested in reducing their pain at the pump -- not trying to reduce their "carbon footprint" guilt. Those people aren't looking for 30K-40K vehicles.

[DarrinS]

But it's not just a GM thing.


Number of electric Ford Focii sold in Feb and March -- zero.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120417/AUTO01/204170368/Battery-powered-autos-proving-tough-sell?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[RandomGuy]

Here ya go RG...the thread where you started to foot out some of the potential gains:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192011

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

Can't speak to the quality of the car, but it is a rolling contradiction -- a zero-emmissions car for environmentalists that runs on coal-fed electricity. It may have charmed some soft-minded celebrities in Hollywood who think electricity comes from magic reactors in Rainbow City, but most people who are willing to be early-adopters for green transportation probably aren't that easily charmed.

Until solar cells and batteries become exponentially better, this car will continue to be a curiosity, and you can be sure petrochem corporations will try and keep any tech that would put them out of business out of the market until they figure out a way to make said tech replace the profit streams they would lose in the transition away from fossil fuel.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192011

They have gotten expoentially better. 2^2 better in the last few years in terms of cost per unit of energy.

This will continue as developed tech hits actual production lines, and efficiencies of scale with learning curves kick in to make it cheaper as we go along.

The economics are changing.

A good PV system on your garage to act as a charging station will go a long way towards obviating the need for power plants.

If you think about how much you spend on gas over ten years, and add that to the cost of the gas powered cars, adding a PV "fueling" system or an electric car makes sense.

[boutons_deux]

BigCoal and BigOil will do everything to hinder movement to solar and wind electricity. It will be subtle, secret, but the hindrance will be there.

eg, why isn't TX doing time-of-day metering and feed-in tariffs like other states and countries? My bet is coal and oil keep those options invisible in TX.

[RandomGuy]

Hmm...

(edit)

Strike that, you need 24 KwH per day. Big difference.

28 traveling days per month (commuting, weekend errands etc) ... 12 months...

You would need 8064 KwH yearly output to provide the energy.

I have a real-world quote of a system with a 34,000 KwH output with a total installed cost of roughly $38,000 after all is said and done.

8064 kwH yearly capacity, based on $1.11 per KwH means I could sink about...

$10K into a system that provides enough power to move me and my car around, with some to spare.

My yearly usage of gasoline is roughly $2000 based on the calculations in the previous thread.. (1500 miles, 3.8 dollars per gallon, 30 mpg)

Payback on this scheme would be about 5 years. Then it would be some serious gravy.

Get a smaller car, require less of a PV system, or sell power back to grid.

[RandomGuy]

The return on such an investment, i.e. avoided gasoline costs, would be essentially indexed to the price of gasoline, so it would rise with, or faster than, inflation.

I don't see oil getting cheaper, given the rise in demand from China/India.

Let Iran close the straights of Hormuz... I make my own transportation energy.

[TeyshaBlue]

BigCoal and BigOil will do everything to hinder movement to solar and wind electricity. It will be subtle, secret, but the hindrance will be there.

eg, why isn't TX doing time-of-day metering and feed-in tariffs like other states and countries? My bet is coal and oil keep those options invisible in TX.

They're doing time of day metering in my community.:huh

[Drachen]

The return on such an investment, i.e. avoided gasoline costs, would be essentially indexed to the price of gasoline, so it would rise with, or faster than, inflation.

I don't see oil getting cheaper, given the rise in demand from China/India.

Let Iran close the straights of Hormuz... I make my own transportation energy.

Sure, but your consumable providers don't at the moment.

Either way, pretty badass.

[CubanMustGo]

But it's not just a GM thing.


Number of electric Ford Focii sold in Feb and March -- zero.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120417/AUTO01/204170368/Battery-powered-autos-proving-tough-sell?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120417/AUTO01/204170368/Battery-powered-autos-proving-tough-sell?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
Number of Focii available in the retail market during that time: zero.


The Dearborn automaker plans a slow ramp-up as it begins production this spring for retail sales; the New York area and California are the first markets.

[Wild Cobra]

Chevy Volt:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/2012_Chevrolet_Volt_EPA_window_sticker_0483.jpg/800px-2012_Chevrolet_Volt_EPA_window_sticker_0483.jpg

Tesla motors Roadster:

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/05/rsz-Tesla-EPA-window-sticker-mpge-537x355.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Number of Focii available in the retail market during that time: zero.

Darrin gets pwned, saying something stupid.


SOSDD.

[Drachen]

Chevy Volt:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/2012_Chevrolet_Volt_EPA_window_sticker_0483.jpg/800px-2012_Chevrolet_Volt_EPA_window_sticker_0483.jpg

Tesla motors Roadster:

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/05/rsz-Tesla-EPA-window-sticker-mpge-537x355.jpg

not sure of the point here unless you are saying that the car that costs 150% more than the other car performs slightly better.

[TeyshaBlue]

not sure of the point here unless you are saying that the car that costs 150% more than the other car performs slightly better.

Volt-Hybrid
Tesla-Pure Electric.


Apples vs Parachutes. :facepalm

[DarrinS]

Number of Focii available in the retail market during that time: zero.


Meh,



Ford Motor Co. sold about 12 Focus Electrics in December and January to fleet customers — and none in February and March

[RandomGuy]

not sure of the point here unless you are saying that the car that costs 150% more than the other car performs slightly better.


The Roadster has a base price of US$109,000 in the United States


According to the U.S. EPA, the Roadster can travel 244 miles (393 km) on a single charge[12] of its lithium-ion battery pack, and can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) in 3.7 or 3.9 seconds depending on the model. The Roadster's efficiency, as of September 2008[update], was reported as 120 mpgge (2.0 L/100 km). It uses 135 Wh/km (21.7 kW·h/100 mi, 13.5 kW·h/100 km or 490 kJ/km) battery-to-wheel, and has an efficiency of 88% on average.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster


mmmmm... more data. I can use this to test my previous calculations.

[RandomGuy]

Given the range, I would guess that a great deal of the Roadsters' price and weight is batteries.

Shaving 1/2 from the price of the batteries per unit of energy, and a good percentage of weight would make the car a good deal cheaper. You would need fewer batteries, because you would not be moving as much mass. Synergy at work.

[Fabbs]

Aptera anyone? 200mpg.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/aptera-hybrid.htm

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/aptera-1.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

Aptera anyone? 200mpg.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/aptera-hybrid.htm

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/aptera-1.jpg

Not so much.

http://www.plugincars.com/aptera-motors-quits-closes-shuts-down-folds-electric-2e-110703.html

[Fabbs]

That sucks!
I saw a few as originally Apteras were built here in SD.
Seemed like a solid, honest org.
No wonder they failed. :lol
1 John 5:19

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you remember what they were saying the MSRP would be?

[Fabbs]

^^ yeah they has a lesser model that was starting at like 28K.
But almost everyone was holding out for their advertised much better-to-come model. Even that one was only gonna be like 40-45K.
Trunk space up the ass as they showed how two large surboards could fit in. Something like 14 grocery store bags no problemo.
Safety i think it far exceeded conventional vehicles as they proved this in verified crash testing. Yeah i was geeked and would have considered the newer upgraded version.

[TeyshaBlue]

Bad timing...trying to get off the ground when the economy crashed. That sucks.

[Fabbs]

Bad timing...trying to get off the ground when the economy crashed. That sucks.
yeah. My hard core RePub business associate thinks the oil co's were scared in 2008 when several of these high mileage cars were introed. He says that is what lowered gas to 1.85 (:lol:lol remember that towards the end of Bush2 :lol:lol).
But i don't think the oil pigs are scared of anything or anyone.
I am surprised that Aptera says they are only an investor check away from continuing while they list their current investors as one being Google.
Apparantly Google has said "enough" too.
Wonder if they hit up Boone Pickens?

[Drachen]

yeah. My hard core RePub business associate thinks the oil co's were scared in 2008 when several of these high mileage cars were introed. He says that is what lowered gas to 1.85 (:lol:lol remember that towards the end of Bush2 :lol:lol).
But i don't think the oil pigs are scared of anything or anyone.
I am surprised that Aptera says they are only an investor check away from continuing while they list their current investors as one being Google.
Apparantly Google has said "enough" too.
Wonder if they hit up Boone Pickens?

only if they make it run off of natural gas.

[Wild Cobra]

Volt-Hybrid
Tesla-Pure Electric.


Apples vs Parachutes. :facepalm
You only have 35 miles of electric driving from the Volt to get the 94 MPGe, after which you burn gas and get about 37 MPG. Withe the Roadster, you have a 245 mile range with electric, and at a slightly higher MPGe. I don't think I can do my daily routine with Volt between charges, especially when the low side of the electric range is 25 miles. Then there was the smog rating too. The rating of 6 I believe is worse than most modern gas only cars.

[CubanMustGo]

Meh,

Fleet customers != retail consumers. If I was a fleet owner, I wouldn't be buying something like this, either.

[TeyshaBlue]

"You only have 35 miles of electric driving from the Volt to get the 94 MPGe, after which you burn gas and get about 37 MPG. Withe the Roadster, you have a 245 mile range with electric, and at a slightly higher MPGe. I don't think I can do my daily routine with Volt between charges, especially when the low side of the electric range is 25 miles. Then there was the smog rating too. The rating of 6 I believe is worse than most modern gas only cars."


The smog rating is relative to the other cars in it's class. Has no comparison at all to pure internal combustion ratings.

[Wild Cobra]

The smog rating is relative to the other cars in it's class. Has no comparison at all to pure internal combustion ratings.
That may be true. I was thinking it had to do more with the engine turning on and off, never maintaining heat for the emission features to work at optimum, and the catalytic converter especially.

[DarrinS]

Fleet customers != retail consumers. If I was a fleet owner, I wouldn't be buying something like this, either.


Rental car companies are fleet customers.

[TeyshaBlue]

"May be true..." :facepalm

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Aboutratings.do

Please note that a vehicle's scores and SmartWay status reflect its environmental performance relative to other vehicles for model years with the same scoring thresholds only.

[Wild Cobra]

"May be true..." :facepalm

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Aboutratings.do

Please note that a vehicle's scores and SmartWay status reflect its environmental performance relative to other vehicles for model years with the same scoring thresholds only.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. What you said made perfect sense.

Does it also make sense of what I said about the emission features?

I didn't look, but do we know how the on-off cycle compares with a constant running engine? Most modern engines are near zero emission once they are at operating temperature. Do you fail to have an open mind, or do you also already know the answer to that?

[DarrinS]

BTW, I've seen charging stations at my local Santikos theater, but I've never seen any cars using them.

[TeyshaBlue]

I wasn't disagreeing with you. What you said made perfect sense.

Does it also make sense of what I said about the emission features?

I didn't look, but do we know how the on-off cycle compares with a constant running engine? Most modern engines are near zero emission once they are at operating temperature. Do you fail to have an open mind, or do you also already know the answer to that?

What I said was absolutely the truth.

The rest is unrelated to the smog rating index being discussed.

[Wild Cobra]

What I said was absolutely the truth.

The rest is unrelated to the smog rating index being discussed.
What about the total smog for driving 50 miles a day?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I simply pointed out the smog index for a different reason than you latched on to.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Then there was the smog rating too. The rating of 6 I believe is worse than most modern gas only cars."

Just stop.

[boutons_deux]

somewhat related

Myth Busters showed a much smaller motorcycle engine made a lot more pollution than a full sized car.

If the hybrid cars don't have emission control on their engines, they could be worse than non-hybrids.

[Wild Cobra]

"Then there was the smog rating too. The rating of 6 I believe is worse than most modern gas only cars."

Just stop.
Why?

If you know for a fact I am wrong, then say so, and please link if you know where to find the info. If you just think I am wrong, then say so.

I am not saying I'm right either. "I believe" is not anything definitive.

I am not saying this only because I saw a "6." As I pointed out, and it is my main reasoning, such hybrid engines do not maintain an optimum operational temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

FYI...

I started doing a little digging around on the internet. The Smog rating is for the came class of bar by size. Compact, sub compact, mid, etc. This number is the same rating scale for hybrids, gas, diesel, and multifuel.

I'll bet there are some gasoline only compact cars that do better than 6.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't get why people are acting like consumers only buy economically efficient cars. There's more to a car than how well it drives and how much it costs.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get why people are acting like consumers only buy economically efficient cars. There's more to a car than how well it drives and how much it costs.
I completely agree with that.

I'm thinking of buying a later model muscle car myself. I even considered a classic 1969 Cougar convertible last week.

I was discussing a car with some coworkers. Some are bent on fuel economy. I probably drive 500 miles a month max. Fuel prices don't hurt me much.

[Wild Cobra]

Tesha...

The rating the Volt has on Smog of 6 is nothing to write home about. Doing a little research, it just means the car produces 50% less smog than the average car for that model year. Knowing that now, I can almost guarantee there are gasoline cars that have a 7 or 8.

Smog rating of 6 is Bin 4 and California ULEV II rated. Smog 7 is Bin 3. Smog 8 is Bin 2 and California SULEV II rated which is 90% less than the average model year. I will assume Bin 3 is about 70% less.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-06/pdf/2011-14291.pdf)

Again, I'll bet if I walked around on some new car lost, I can find some non hybrid gasoline cars with a Smog rating of 7.

[TeyshaBlue]

The rating is relative only to the cars within it's class...ie a score of 6 for a hybrid is not better than a score of 5 for a non hybrid.
You cannot compare the two scores in any meaningful manner. The index is not a direct measurement. It is a rating of a cars position relative to a standard for it's class. You are demonstrably incorrect in your assumptions as I have already shown. Stop already.

Under the new system, two scores-one for smog-forming emissions, one for carbon-dioxide-will be given on new-vehicle window stickers. Both will be have a simple score system from 1 to 10, with 10 being the cleanest.

The new Smog Scores will correspond to real emissions classifications. For instance, a ULEV vehicle will receive a 5, PZEVs will be 9, and ZEVs will get a 10. Based on 2007 model year vehicles, most vehicles rated 4 and 5, though the numbers will migrate upward. The system is set to be revisited for 2012.

With the so-called Global Warming Score, it would be the first notification of any sort to be required on new U.S. vehicles that directly associates carbon dioxide emissions with global warming.

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f16a83c

[TeyshaBlue]

If you really want to figure this out, WC, dismiss the notion that these are meaningful scores in any manner other than a relative metric. Otherwise, it makes no sense that an Altima SL gets a better rating than a Sentra SpecV even though they use the same 2.5-liter QR25DE engine.

[RandomGuy]

Bad timing...trying to get off the ground when the economy crashed. That sucks.

Aptera got smashed because the market for new cars tanked, more than anything else in the recession per se.

The ideas and patents aren't dead. They just didn't get financing this time around.

Gas will continue to get more expensive.

At some point in the near future, I could see myself going the electric route for my daily commute.

[CosmicCowboy]

At some point in the near future, I could see myself going the electric route for my daily commute.

I love having electrics at the ranch. Once I get there my truck never moves again until I leave.

[boutons_deux]

If only the $2T wasted on Repug wars had gone into energy storage research.

a "War on (Electrical) Energy Storage", American LOVE wars on everything

[boutons_deux]

NGVs, Europe, AGAIN, way ahead of USA.

http://www.ngvaeurope.eu/european-ngv-statistics

[DarrinS]

I love having electrics at the ranch. Once I get there my truck never moves again until I leave.

Golf cart?

[Wild Cobra]

The rating is relative only to the cars within it's class...ie a score of 6 for a hybrid is not better than a score of 5 for a non hybrid.
You cannot compare the two scores in any meaningful manner. The index is not a direct measurement. It is a rating of a cars position relative to a standard for it's class. You are demonstrably incorrect in your assumptions as I have already shown. Stop already.

Under the new system, two scores-one for smog-forming emissions, one for carbon-dioxide-will be given on new-vehicle window stickers. Both will be have a simple score system from 1 to 10, with 10 being the cleanest.

The new Smog Scores will correspond to real emissions classifications. For instance, a ULEV vehicle will receive a 5, PZEVs will be 9, and ZEVs will get a 10. Based on 2007 model year vehicles, most vehicles rated 4 and 5, though the numbers will migrate upward. The system is set to be revisited for 2012.

With the so-called Global Warming Score, it would be the first notification of any sort to be required on new U.S. vehicles that directly associates carbon dioxide emissions with global warming.

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f16a83c
The information I researched, the link I posted, was the revision. From your link dated Nov 05, 2007:

The system is set to be revisited for 2012.
Top of the pages I linked:

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
You guys fail to give me credit for noticing there are difference that are critical.

Now the Greenhouse Gas Rating is the one that changes with vehicle/engine size and mileage. They separated the two completely.

They make engines that burn so clean today, that the air coming out is cleaner than what went in, in some areas, like LA.

[TeyshaBlue]

Nothing in that 110 page .pdf changed the classification system for the smog index that I can find. They are scored differently in different states, which invalidates the index as a comparitor.

[DarrinS]

The advertising for the Volt probably isn't helping either.


rAqPMJFaEdY

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing in that 110 page .pdf changed the classification system for the smog index that I can find. They are scored differently in different states, which invalidates the index as a comparitor.
Well, I didn't look at the history.

The smog rating is at the tailpipe. It rates various outputs. At first I thought it was by vehicle class, but I see that no where in the writeup.

Seriously. They make some real clean burning engines today. Larger engines, and especially those that don't cycle on and off, are capable of maintaining optimum heat for actions of the emission features.

As for being scored differently by state, I didn't see that. Where did you see it? What I read leads me to believe it is now standardized for all states.

[Borat Sagyidev]

These analysis really miss the point.

An electric drive train requires A LOT LESS MAINTENANCE than a single traditional combustion engine.

Heck there are hybrids on the road with 200k + miles that still don't need a brake change and the single most prevalent maintenance act is the battery packs can be had for less than $500 at times.

That 40k car can last 40 yrs with minimal maintenance.

Yes it costs a lot, I agree...it's expensive. It will come down in price at some point.
You can build your own an electric car for 5-10k+ including all parts and donor vehicle.

So go ahead and shell out 15k less for a F-150 that maybe will last a decade before it needs a major overhaul. They use electric motors on the drive trains on heavy machinery like trains for a reason.

[CosmicCowboy]

These analysis really miss the point.

An electric drive train requires A LOT LESS MAINTENANCE than a single traditional combustion engine.

Heck there are hybrids on the road with 200k + miles that still don't need a brake change and the single most prevalent maintenance act is the battery packs can be had for less than $500 at times.

That 40k car can last 40 yrs with minimal maintenance.

Yes it costs a lot, I agree...it's expensive. It will come down in price at some point.
You can build your own an electric car for 5-10k+ including all parts and donor vehicle.

So go ahead and shell out 15k less for a F-150 that maybe will last a decade before it needs a major overhaul. They use electric motors on the drive trains on heavy machinery like trains for a reason.

You sure are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims.

40 year product life? $500 battery change out? I'm throwing the bullshit flag on THOSE.

[Blake]

You sure are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims.

CosmicKettle

[boutons_deux]

I've heard the early Prius packs, replaced at 5 years, were $7K, totally wiping out gas savings.

The industry is pretty stupid now. Battery packs should be standardized, commoditized, sold at auto shops, Wal-Mart, everywhere, with equipement at POS to remove and insert them. eg, output of 48 V or whatever at standard terminals, no matter what's in the battery(energy) pack.

[CosmicCowboy]

Volt battery pack change out is $8000 right now.

[MannyIsGod]

He didn't say Volt though. He was talking about Hybrids on the road right now with 200k miles.

I'm not sure if he's right or not, but I didn't get the impression he meant a Volt.

[CosmicCowboy]

He didn't say Volt though. He was talking about Hybrids on the road right now with 200k miles.

I'm not sure if he's right or not, but I didn't get the impression he meant a Volt.

Hell, it costs more than that to change the batteries in my golf carts.

[TeyshaBlue]

So go ahead and shell out 15k less for a F-150 that maybe will last a decade before it needs a major overhaul. They use electric motors on the drive trains on heavy machinery like trains for a reason.

I drive a 19 year old Chevy S-10. I don't have to drive it, but I do because it just will not quit. Most trucks are holding out waaay longer than a decade.

[CosmicCowboy]

I drive a 19 year old Chevy S-10. I don't have to drive it, but I do because it just will not quit. Most trucks are holding out waaay longer than a decade.

X2

I've got 211,000 on my '02 2500HD 4X4 and still going strong. Didn't have to change brake pads till 200,000 either!...:lol

[Borat Sagyidev]

Volt battery pack change out is $8000 right now.


That's because those are from GM with a nice "jobs program" charge included.

Just wait for 3rd parties to get involved.

http://oldmizer.hubpages.com/hub/Prius-Battery-Replacement-Do-It-Yourself

[Borat Sagyidev]

I've heard the early Prius packs, replaced at 5 years, were $7K, totally wiping out gas savings.

The industry is pretty stupid now. Battery packs should be standardized, commoditized, sold at auto shops, Wal-Mart, everywhere, with equipement at POS to remove and insert them. eg, output of 48 V or whatever at standard terminals, no matter what's in the battery(energy) pack.

Toyota sells them at about $3k, which is still way overpriced for the material and tech involved.

You're right. The whole nice part of electric drive motors is that they are relatively simple, if the battery packs were made that way it would fall in line better.

I think some of you missed the point about electric drive. You need oil to make most combustion engine runs well and you have to change it periodically. There is a lot of friction throughout the drive train that leads to wear and tear.

With an electric drive, you can virtually eliminate a lot of those friction problems, even to the point of excluding a transmission. Fuel pump, Mass air flow sensor..radiator can be eliminated as well...the list goes on.

I have a electric motor fork lift from the 50's that still works like it was new. My 1990's diesel powered lift died in the early 2000's. Just my experience.

[jacobdrj]

The value of a car like the Volt is not in conventional terms that most of us can or would relate to. The value is 2 fold:

1) Those who can afford a Volt: Time has great value. More so than in the value judgements of the average car leaser. What I mean by that is: Being able to come home at night, and just 'plug in' rather than stop at a gas station, in rush hour, before getting home, is extremely tempting. Coming from an SUV, where fill-ups could be weekly, even driving under 40 miles a day, this can be a big plus. Particularly when telecommuting is not an option. For people with lucrative careers, this is less time wasted from clients. From people with a emphasis on family time, this is 1 less think you have to think about before waking up the next morning.

2) R and D. This is a 2nd generation product. Nowhere near the final iteration of an electric vehicle, let alone one with a generator backup. The lessons learned from this vehicle in real world situations will assist with the general adoption of the technology in the future.

[DarrinS]

That 40k car can last 40 yrs with minimal maintenance.



I'm highly dubious of this claim. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to be driving the same car 40 years from now. I'll prob be dead by then anyway. Doesn't matter -- we'll all be up to our necks in melted glacier water by then -- lol.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Second Wind: Air-Breathing Lithium Batteries Promise Recharge-Free Long-Range Driving--If the Bugs Can Be Worked Out

IBM-led research to create lithium-air electric vehicle batteries gets a boost from Japanese chemical companies toward the goal of 800 kilometers out of a full charge

By Larry Greenemeier | April 20, 2012 | 19

Share
Email
Print

lithium, oxygen,electric car, IBM, battery IN THE AIR: In this screen capture from an IBM computational simulation, scientists study the simulations of the interaction of an organic solvent electrolyte (propylene carbonate) with lithium ions (white) and oxygen near a surface of Lithium-peroxide (the planar structure near the bottom of the screen). Image: Courtesy of IBM Research-Zurich

Researchers predict a new type of lithium battery under development could give an electric car enough juice to travel a whopping 800 kilometers before it needs to be plugged in again—about 10 times the energy that today's lithium ion batteries supply. It is a tantalizing prospect—a lighter, longer-lasting, air-breathing power source for the next generation of vehicles—if only someone could build a working model. Several roadblocks stand between these lithium–air batteries and the open road, however, primarily in finding electrodes and electrolytes that are stable enough for rechargeable battery chemistry.

IBM plans to take lithium–air batteries out of neutral by building a working prototype by the end of next year. The company announced Friday it has stepped up development efforts by adding two Japanese technology firms—chemical manufacturer Asahi Kasei Corp. and electrolyte maker Central Glass—to the IBM Battery 500 Project, a coalition IBM established in 2009 to accelerate the switch from gas to electric-powered vehicles among carmakers and their customers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery

There more at the link.

I love IBM unlike shitty Apple who ties to do everything inhouse on their engineering projects and end up with shitty products on the whole, IBM makes multilateral projects that become industry standards. Its just a better way of doing business.

[spursncowboys]

I drive a 19 year old Chevy S-10. I don't have to drive it, but I do because it just will not quit. Most trucks are holding out waaay longer than a decade.

cars will go out way before trucks. Especially diesels.

[DMX7]

As the technology matures and economies of scale kick-in everything associated with it will become cheaper, but Big Oil will uses its puppets to mock it all it can for now. Naturally, repugs here are too stupid to realize that even if they don't want an electric car, they'll still benefit from a proliferation of them.

[Drachen]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery

There more at the link.

I love IBM unlike shitty Apple who ties to do everything inhouse on their engineering projects and end up with shitty products on the whole, IBM makes multilateral projects that become industry standards. Its just a better way of doing business.

I saw this too, but their goal timeframe is 2030. Something better will hopefully be around before then

[boutons_deux]

Lithium? Is there enough to support billions of batteries with acceptable cost?

http://lithiumabundance.blogspot.com/

[CosmicCowboy]

I saw this too, but their goal timeframe is 2030. Something better will hopefully be around before then

The iBattery will totally kick their ass by 2025...:lol

[RandomGuy]

These analysis really miss the point.

An electric drive train requires A LOT LESS MAINTENANCE than a single traditional combustion engine.

Heck there are hybrids on the road with 200k + miles that still don't need a brake change and the single most prevalent maintenance act is the battery packs can be had for less than $500 at times.

That 40k car can last 40 yrs with minimal maintenance.

Yes it costs a lot, I agree...it's expensive. It will come down in price at some point.
You can build your own an electric car for 5-10k+ including all parts and donor vehicle.

So go ahead and shell out 15k less for a F-150 that maybe will last a decade before it needs a major overhaul. They use electric motors on the drive trains on heavy machinery like trains for a reason.

Yup.

One does have to, as CC rightly pointed out, consider the full range of costs, such as battery pack replacement.

That said, recent breakthroughs mean that the costs of those batteries will go down by 1/2 every 5 years, this cost will be substantially less than it has been in the past.

If one amortizes the price of the batteries and adds that to the cost of fuel, which is reasonable given the battery life depends heavily on the usage, then it becomes a better comparison, IMO.

Batteries + electricity vs. oil, filters + gasoline

I would guess that if you did that calculation on a per mile cost, the costs probably are fairly close.

If one keeps in the back of one's mind that the cost of the latter will be going up, and the cost of the former will be going down, the economics will increasingly favor the electric vehicle.