Future spotted

Josh wrote: Well, I'd bet almost nobody is paying 40k for this car. The lease terms are very attractive, the $350 a month that a Volt leases for is a pretty typical payment for a nice midsize car, and when you factor in the $100+ you can save in fuel every month, it becomes a bargain.

First off, almost nobody that leases a car is gaining anything financially. Leases are typically a major loosing proposition for all but a very, very few. The sticker is still north of $40K. For that money I could get a NICE Jetta TDI and a miata for the days (months) the Jetta is in the shop.

Josh wrote: and when you factor in the $100+ you can save in fuel every month, it becomes a bargain.

Saving $100 a month over what? The H2 they traded in? Yes. The Civic, Yaris, Leaf, VW TDI, or Dodge Lancer? Nope. It's EPA ratings are decent. Popular Mechanics got 32 city, 36 hwy in extended (read, no A/C, driving like a grandma) mode. My 1992 300D get's 34 or so on the highway when keeping it at about 70 or so (not much above I have to admit). Factor in the premium fuel the volt needs and my benz is at least as economical and a Civic is more so. Now, factor in that I don't expect a cruiz to still be runnin strong when it has 276,000 miles on it and I can get my car service anywhere, or more importantly, I can do the work myself.
I'm not trying to quell my envy here. I just don't see how they've made that much progress. I was very excited when I heard about the Volt since it was an idea I always thought was great. An engine as an onboard generator, not connected to the wheels. Then you find out that GM was, misinforming us and the engine IS connected to the wheels.

if I drive like a grandma.. no aircon, 65mph, windows slightly cracked, sunroof up (not open) and the rear windows opened to expel any air that gets in.. I can hit 36mpg in my Ti.

one thing that really gals me...and I mean REALLY is that a diesel Polo gets 80mpg (Top Gear verified). Can't buy one in in US and I don't know about Canada. These hyper mileage cars that work in the real world are already here folks. But yet we continue to insist on this hybrid or plug-in crap that honestly just isn't ready for prime time IMO. If these others cars were available, I bet almost nobody would choose a Prius, Leaf, or Volt. I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to think that something is up

Rant off

mad_machine wrote: the batteries and disposal there of is the one thing all the psuedo greenies seem to be missing. Heck, most of the true greenies seem to be missing it too.

The batteries are recyclable, and are worth enough it's unlikely very many of them will be simply tossed away.

DrBoost wrote: The volt does nothing for me. Why would anyone pay $40,000 for a GM front wheel drive (neon4891 hit the nail on the head) that get's the same fuel economy as quite a few other economy cars out there. I mean, my 20 year old benz get's well over 30 on the highway and that seems to be what the mags are getting out of them in the real world. Same goes with the pruis.

My 2011 Elantra is averaging 42 mpg over the past 7000 miles, looks better, and cost a mega $16.500. Has better headroom and legroom, 100K warranty, 148hp and weighs just 2660lb.

Game over Chevrolet.

Loved that little car. I think the Elantra just might be the best little car I've driven this year. Hmmm. well, with the exception of the RS3 Sportback maybe

I just picked up a CT 200 h (Lexus) hatchback. Looks great, but its soul was snatched by zombies.

Not saying it's the greatest invention in the history of motoring, but it does make sense for a lot of people. Maybe you're too smart to ever lease a car, but a lot of people (most of them?) just want to pay a number every month and have a car that works when they need it, and preferably new enough to still present well to other people. For those people, the Volt does everything they need for a monthly out of pocket that's competitive with nearly any truly comparable vehicle.

Most of the arguments against it presented here seem to be strawmen such as the ever present complaint about the environmental effects of the batteries, or misplaced rage/fear that if cars like this ever succeed, the next step might somehow involve the government taking away our precious right to internal combustion.

I get it, efficent cars are (usually by necessity) boring appliances, so nobody here is predisposed to like them. But honestly, we'd all be better off if the guy next door who buys a Camry every 3 years because his addled brain can't handle thinking about a car more than once every 2.4 months bought some other equally boring but respectable vehicle that used half as much energy instead.

T.J. wrote: I parked my Miata next to a CR-Z the other day at the grocery store. I think rearward visibility must be tough in those things. Very tall back end. I've not driven one, but just looking at them makes me wonder why they exist. It is really neither a sports car or a practical economy car best I can tell. I couldn't see buying one of them over something with enough people and cargo space to be useful. Why get a CR-Z instead of a Fit, Fiesta, or Mazda 2? Just because it has a bigger battery so it shows you are doing your part to save the planet?

I am one of those idiots that likes the CR-Z. Why? It accomplishes just about everything that I want a car to accomplish. I like that it only has two seats. I only drive myself 99% of the time, and it projects that I don't have any kids and really don't want any. Maybe I should get one of those cartoony family decals on the back, and only have a single male on the glass. I really like the ergonomics; the car fit me like a glove. I like the standard features; it has everything that I want, and nothing I don't. It's available with a manual transmission. I still haven't driven one, but when I sat in it at an auto show, I couldn't help but take a second, and third look.

The CR-Z doesn't do it all, but it does everything that I want a car to do. While it may not be practical for a family of four, it is quite accommodating for a family of one.

MitchellC wrote:

T.J. wrote: I parked my Miata next to a CR-Z the other day at the grocery store. I think rearward visibility must be tough in those things. Very tall back end. I've not driven one, but just looking at them makes me wonder why they exist. It is really neither a sports car or a practical economy car best I can tell. I couldn't see buying one of them over something with enough people and cargo space to be useful. Why get a CR-Z instead of a Fit, Fiesta, or Mazda 2? Just because it has a bigger battery so it shows you are doing your part to save the planet?

I am one of those idiots that likes the CR-Z. Why? It accomplishes just about everything that I want a car to accomplish. I like that it only has two seats. I only drive myself 99% of the time, and it projects that I don't have any kids and really don't want any. Maybe I should get one of those cartoony family decals on the back, and only have a single male on the glass. I really like the ergonomics; the car fit me like a glove. I like the standard features; it has everything that I want, and nothing I don't. It's available with a manual transmission. I still haven't driven one, but when I sat in it at an auto show, I couldn't help but take a second, and third look. The CR-Z doesn't do it all, but it does everything that I want a car to do. While it may not be practical for a family of four, it is quite accommodating for a family of one.

Fair enough, but what does it do that a MINI does not?

It appeals to me. However, I think that Honda was targeting an audience slightly larger than one, so I imagine that they were trying to increase their market spectrum with the hybrid drivetrain, in a package that doesn't scream turtleneck sweater. Did they compromise utility for style? Probably yes. Did they compromise the electric motor's power to achieve a certain price point while maintaining the market's expectations of amenities? Probably yes.

I don;t have anything against more effcient cars. I just do not like how Hybridz are the one being rammed down our throats.

As for being boring.. an efficent car does not have to be boring. If you took an already fuel effient car and gave it the capibility to stop and turn on par with the best of the sports cars... it would be even more effecient as it would not have to slow as much or for as long before going around a corner

sanman wrote: I didn't even know the Fiskers were on the road yet. They are sexy.

I live between their design center and the El Toro Marine Base where Top Gear US is filmed. It was early in the morning so they were going to the photo shoot you're seeing in all the magazines now.

I was blazing down the Atlantic City Expy at about 85mph this past Friday nite when what looked like anElise came blasting past. As it went by my son yelled "Dad IT'S A TESLA!!"

Sure enough... they are real.

mad_machine wrote: As for being boring.. an efficent car does not have to be boring. If you took an already fuel effient car and gave it the capibility to stop and turn on par with the best of the sports cars...

... it would end up being so tiny, noisy, and harsh that it wouldn't fulfill the needs and desires of more than 1% of the population, thus your conjecture is pointless, because nobody is ever building that car, because manufacturers typically have to sell a few of them to make production of a new model worthwhile.

I honestly don't understand some people's imperative to hate cars that they personally don't want to own to the point that they feel other people whose needs they do meet shouldn't own them either. As an internal combustion enthusiast, I wish all the people who couldn't care less about driving would just stop wasting MY damned gasoline already :).

Living seventy miles from work just seems unfathomable. That is a huge chunk of time each day spent on the road.

Does anyone know where we could find data on the energy use associated with the life cycle of different types automobiles? I am talking about the the amount the of energy need to manufacture it, maintain it , operate it and dispose of it?

I keep hearing these arguments about the extra energy associated with the batteries for Hybrid and Full electric cars and I would like to see some real data collected and crunched by people without an axe to grind.

I suspect, but do not know, that the energy consumed to actually use a vehicle during its useful life is far and away the largest part of that equation. Some additional energy needed to produce and dispose of a more efficient could have huge payoffs in terms of overall energy consumption during the car's life cycle.

Speaking of new cars, I saw a brand new Fiat 500 on the road Sunday.

Type Q wrote: Does anyone know where we could find data on the energy use associated with the life cycle of different types automobiles? I am talking about the the amount the of energy need to manufacture it, maintain it , operate it and dispose of it?

There was a study out of MIT on exactly that:

On the Road in 2020

It's quite a bit to digest in whole, but this is probably the most relevant nugget, from Ch. 5, p. 11:

On the Road in 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies said: It is evident that the embodied energy in the vehicle materials is a small portion of the life- cycle energy use of the vehicle today -- about 7%. However, as future cars move to higher fuel efficiency, and incorporate more sophisticated materials to reduce vehicle weight, the embodied energy becomes a much more significant fraction of overall life-cycle energy use. For the electric car (14%); the diesel hybrid (18%); the CNG hybrid (16%); and the H2 fuel cell (15%), it represents a more significant portion of life-cycle energy use.

Unsurprisingly, as vehicles use less fuel in operation, they proportionally use more of their total life-cycle energy in the production phase. Some of that difference is due to higher embodied energy in producing more advanced vehicles, more is due to the fact that the overall energy use is reduced, therefore production becomes a bigger piece of the pie. Just to say, it's not necessarily a bad thing that alternative fueled vehicles use a higher proportion of their total lifecycle energy in production, after all, a vehicle that used no fuel whatsoever in operation would show 100% embodied energy.

Josh wrote:

Type Q wrote: Does anyone know where we could find data on the energy use associated with the life cycle of different types automobiles? I am talking about the the amount the of energy need to manufacture it, maintain it , operate it and dispose of it?

There was a study out of MIT on exactly that: On the Road in 2020 It's quite a bit to digest in whole, but this is probably the most relevant nugget, from Ch. 5, p. 11:

On the Road in 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies said: It is evident that the embodied energy in the vehicle materials is a small portion of the life- cycle energy use of the vehicle today -- about 7%. However, as future cars move to higher fuel efficiency, and incorporate more sophisticated materials to reduce vehicle weight, the embodied energy becomes a much more significant fraction of overall life-cycle energy use. For the electric car (14%); the diesel hybrid (18%); the CNG hybrid (16%); and the H2 fuel cell (15%), it represents a more significant portion of life-cycle energy use.

Unsurprisingly, as vehicles use less fuel in operation, they proportionally use more of their total life-cycle energy in the production phase. Some of that difference is due to higher embodied energy in producing more advanced vehicles, more is due to the fact that the overall energy use is reduced, therefore production becomes a bigger piece of the pie. Just to say, it's not necessarily a bad thing that alternative fueled vehicles use a higher proportion of their total lifecycle energy in production, after all, a vehicle that used no fuel whatsoever in operation would show 100% embodied energy.

Another one: http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

This report analyzes energy use from the cradle to the grave, taking into account that used by engineers commuting to work, etc etc- it goes deep. It may be why the Jeep Wrangler uses less energy per mile than the Prius allegedly- no new technology in the Wrangler.

I read that it takes about 50% more energy to create an equivalent hybrid car as normal car. The example said that at the 35000 mile mark the total energy paths cross, and from there on out the hybrid is more energy efficient. I wish I knew where that was to cite it.

For the hybrid haters- I'm certain there's some fuzzy math here, but isn't Porsche going faster with their hybrid cars than with the "normal" ones?

Teh E36 M3 wrote: Another one: http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

I wish I didn't have to point out the utter absurdity in comparing the output of a single-proprietor non-credentialed, non-peer-reviewed, nonacademic, for-profit bullE36 M3 factory with the work of one of the top science and engineering universities on the planet, but here I am...

How do you really feel about it?

Don't hold back. I assume whoever E36 M3 in your cheerios this morning will be back tomorrow.

I assume you read the report and have deemed it scientifically invalid. Quick work. I haven't gotten into their methodology, raw data, or even read the report as thoroughly as I would have were I here to prove something. It's another set of data that shows that old technology (Wrangler) costs less to produce over x time frame. That makes basic sense to me. New technology (Prius) costs much more in development. That makes basic sense to me. I'm not sure about the "lifetime" costs of each of the vehicles, but if you look at the trends, the higher tech vehicles start costing less for each successive year. Makes sense to me.

The really sexy data point for the media and people who like to cherry pick is that the Wrangler uses less lifetime energy than the Prius. It doesn't tell the whole story though, and that's the part where you need to fill in how you feel about developing technology to make autos more efficient to the end user.

Why would I buy a Model T Ford when my Horse costs less, can compost my field, and I can eat it when it dies?

The Volt is the future---like it or not.

Keep in mind the Model T wasn't as good as a new Bugatti Veyron ---- time will improve electric and hybrid cars. The more R&D spent on them, the better they will become.

I'm glad they exist, they are leading the way towards more efficient transportation for the masses. This is a good thing.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

Joe It's a reasonale alternative to the future. That does not mean it WILL be the future. Remember that the Model T also has both electric and steam power technology back at the turn of last century.

One nagging problem to electric cars is materials. Is there enough copper for the motors? There's enough for generators, sure- but you need a lot more for a larger motor. Then the batteries- both litium and nickel are not exactly abundant.

A major overlooked advantage to the ICE is cheap sources of iron and aluminum.

I'm glad they exist as well, points out that we need to at least think about it for a while. But unless R&D make some pretty amazing advances, well....

For it to be "the future"- figure 200-300M cars to be able to support over about 15 years of production (between Europe and the US, we consume close to 30M cars annually, so that number is actually quite low- should be closer to 500M cars over 15 years for it to be "THE FUTURE". there's plenty of steel and aluminum to do that, since we already are.

So I'll won't hold my breath for the "The Volt is the future-- like it or not" line.

I see your point that it may not be a silver bullet.

The Volt and hybrid technology are steps in the right direction. We have some pretty smart folks designing our cars. The longer this technology has to develop, the better it will get, and the cheaper they will be to produce.

As far as the granola stigma goes.....I love the fact that being "green" is now a status thing. I'd rather have all the status mongers driving Priuses than Hummers.

Teh E36 M3 wrote: I assume you read the report and have deemed it scientifically invalid. Quick work.

I don't have to - a lot of people a lot smarter and more qualified than me have already done it. Unfortunately, even though this particular nonsense "study" has been thoroughly discredited, it keeps getting hashed back up, because it was written with the intent of saying exactly what a lot of people want to believe, regardless of reality.

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

http://green.autoblog.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

http://www.evworld.com/library/rmi_hummerVprius.pdf

http://www.denialism.com/labels/George%20Will.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2186786

It's the definition of a strawman argument. Baseless claims made in full knowlege of their ridiculousness by dishonest people trying to create the appearance of a debate where anyone who examines the claims can easily determine that there isn't one. If you can't tell, this sort of misdirecting, unaccountable junk science angers me to the core, because so many people fall for it, and even having to explain why it's total lunacy elevates it to a status in public discourse that it doesn't remotely deserve.

Joe Gearin wrote: Why would I buy a Model T Ford when my Horse costs less, can compost my field, and I can eat it when it dies? The Volt is the future---like it or not. Keep in mind the Model T wasn't as good as a new Bugatti Veyron ---- time will improve electric and hybrid cars. The more R&D spent on them, the better they will become. I'm glad they exist, they are leading the way towards more efficient transportation for the masses. This is a good thing.

This was the point I was trying to make, regardless of the outcome of the results of a study I posted (before I was assaulted by Terry Tate here...).

Josh- it's not like they were claiming there was no such thing as global warming... just take it easy. If you would read my post again- I simply pointed out that the study showed a correlation between how much time and energy was spent on design and production of technology vice re-use of old stuff. I'm not saying we should all go out and buy jeep wranglers because they have the lowest energy cost per mile. That's silly.
I'm not going to read all the counterpoints to the study, because I do have concerns with it myself- I'm also not waving it around making claims that hybrid technology is a bunch of bullE36 M3. If you have problems with the study, then point them out. Specifically.
I don't like the condescending 'tude of your posts. Have a beer and chill, man.