Why electric cars will not work.

Type Q wrote:

Chris_V wrote: Why ANYONE even puts a brain cell to use complaining about how they aren't perfect for everyone is beyond me, as it's a completely irrelevant argument. it's like complaining that Mazda is stupid for making an MX5 because it won't tow your 4 horse trailer.

Chris, When are you going to get it through your thick head that because I either don't understand or am not the intended market for any vehicle or technology, the entire concept is invalid, Not only is invalid but and I am superior human being because I pointed out that it is not perfect for what I perceive my need to be. Don't you anything about internet discussions. You must one THOSE people (everyone insert a social or political group you dislike)

Hahaha!

Nice.

I didn't say "EV". I DO think that on the whole, it would be better for society if we DIDN'T believe we NEEDED 3-4000lb vehicles to get a person around. I'd suggest that high gas prices would "encourage" people to look at energy efficient options (not necessarily EV, nor new) and rethink the current norm.

I don't buy the hype that is "Global Warming (tm)". But I DO believe that we each have some social responsibility to be aware of (and attempt to control) our consumption. I also feel the same way about driving "Cat lightened" vehicles on a daily basis...FWIW

Gas is not "bad". I didn't say OR imply it. I do believe that gross consumption of resources is, at the very least, unwise. ergo (IMHO): expensive fuel to encourage people to buy and desire efficient vehicles and therefore drive vehicle development at the manufacturer level. As long as "we" keep buying 4klb vehicles that suck excessive resources, that's what manufacturers will supply. And I don't blame them.

I'm always amazed at the fuel efficient "good cars" the europeans get...and buy. Those choices are largely driven by expensive fuel, but I don't think they're "suffering" because they can't afford to commute in a 3/4 ton truck.

I drive any of a number of gas powered cars every day (though I just added a diesel to the fleet). My choices are (frankly) largely driven by cost of ownership based on my 100mile commute.

Sparetire wrote: And why is it desireable (let alone ethical) to force people to drive an EV through taxes? Because it will stop global warming? Because it make some group feel good? Because god wills it? Because the government is so trust worthy and competent? Will it be better for the environment to dramatically increase the demand for rare earth elements, increase the stress on an antiquated power grid running to a large extent on coal, and forcing the production of tons opon tons of new vehicles the require mining, refining, etc and basically penalizing anyone who does not have the ability to buy one? Most vehicles will get charged at places of employment during the day because they will want to be sure they can get home while stopping for groceries, not at night. This is especially true if/when the cost of electricity goes up due to the increased demand and people try to get free fuel from work rather than their garage outlet. So that grid will certanly be under a tremendous strain. This idea that gas is bad and government control is good simply does not compute.

njansenv wrote: I didn't say "EV". I DO think that on the whole, it would be better for society if we DIDN'T believe we NEEDED 3-4000lb vehicles to get a person around. I'd suggest that high gas prices would "encourage" people to look at energy efficient options (not necessarily EV, nor new) and rethink the current norm. I don't buy the hype that is "Global Warming (tm)". But I DO believe that we each have some social responsibility to be aware of (and attempt to control) our consumption. I also feel the same way about driving "Cat lightened" vehicles on a daily basis...FWIW Gas is not "bad". I didn't say OR imply it. I do believe that gross consumption of resources is, at the very least, unwise. ergo (IMHO): expensive fuel to encourage people to buy and desire efficient vehicles and therefore drive vehicle development at the manufacturer level. As long as "we" keep buying 4klb vehicles that suck excessive resources, that's what manufacturers will supply. And I don't blame them. I'm always amazed at the fuel efficient "good cars" the europeans get...and buy. Those choices are largely driven by expensive fuel, but I don't think they're "suffering" because they can't afford to commute in a 3/4 ton truck. I drive any of a number of gas powered cars every day (though I just added a diesel to the fleet). My choices are (frankly) largely driven by cost of ownership based on my 100mile commute.

I went back and re-read your original post, I was obviously off in la-la land regarding the EV thing, sorry. I am totaly with you on using less as a general principal.

We would be miles better off if people did not buy a massive vehicle capable of traversing the Kalahari with the air-con full blast to go 30 miles to work on a freeway. I seriously got into an argument with a freind once about it. The basic gist of my position was that its pretty stupid to sacrifice handling, fun factor, mileage, purchase cost, etc for the sake of being able to handle that trip to Home Depot once a year without help. Freind got an SUV. Hates it. Wants a small-midsize car now. Smugness factor up about 100% for me.

The thing that really kills me is that if such vehicles (SUVs) ran diesels, they would have more TQ and probably get mid 20s or beter mileage save for the horrible PM traps introduced in mid 2007. Guys with pre-07.5 TDs will get low 20s MPG when not towing easaly in 8000LB trucks with the aero of a brick. Imagine what a nice 300 WTQ Explorer with a 4Lish TD would get.

BUT. Taxes are not the way to do it. Nor are regs. The regs regarding diesels are a nightmare both financially and in terms of the environment.

The way to do it is with an educated population. I truly beleive that. Look at all the major successes of smaller vehicles with some actual character lately. Shoot the Focus was a hit because it was one of the few contemporary domestic compacts that did not suck in terms of its chassis or transmission. That was during the height of the SUV wars. With gas prices where they are now I already see the used lots scrambling to get rid of the SUVs. And peoples attitudes have changed a lot over the last couple years regarding spending in general.

My guess is that if you had a lot of really good Colorado-sized trucks out there running a 3L TD for 25K getting high 20s MPG on the highway with 300Ft/LBs of TQ, people would gobble them up. And thats not a hard vehicle to build with current technology. Shoot an old 4BT Cummins could acomplish that in a 3800Lb vehicle. But with the current regs, the emmisions side of it would be a nightmare, hence nobody is doing it. Sucks.

Sparetire wrote: My guess is that if you had a lot of really good Colorado-sized trucks out there running a 3L TD for 25K getting high 20s MPG on the highway with 300Ft/LBs of TQ, people would gobble them up. And thats not a hard vehicle to build with current technology. Shoot an old 4BT Cummins could acomplish that in a 3800Lb vehicle. But with the current regs, the emmisions side of it would be a nightmare, hence nobody is doing it. Sucks.

1.. They make a diesel colorado, it's called the DMax

1. I worked in the diesel industry for a while. Take a look at the studies on how many deaths in London are attributed to diesel soot every year. It will surprise you. Similar studies have shown that being a truck driver in the US will shorten your life due constant exposure to diesel exhaust.. Hence the emissions regs..

1) I need to get out more.

2) London is also one of the most congested cities in the world for traffic. I wonder how many deaths in LA are attributed ot gasoline powered car exhaust.

3) I need to read more.

njansenv wrote: I'm always amazed at the fuel efficient "good cars" the europeans get...and buy. Those choices are largely driven by expensive fuel, but I don't think they're "suffering" because they can't afford to commute in a 3/4 ton truck.

And then when they can afford it, they buy big. Big BMWs, Audis, Mercedes, Land Rovers, etc. And get a European/UK person to move to the US and the majority seem to buy big the moment they can.

Damn right the Euros buy big ol' fuel hogs as soon as they hit the US shores. I saw more than one HEMI Commander going back to Germany with people who worked with Daimler, Bayer and other German companies with a presence here in Chucktown. Don't make the mistake of thinking those V12 powered fuel hogs like the S600 are only sold here, either.

Back to 'full' EVs: until there is a high enough storage density to make them practical for all the uses the average person will put a vehicle through, they ain't gonna make the big time. Nope. Sorry. No way. Ain't gonna happen. That CitiCar someone linked a pic of earlier is a perfect example of the challenges the EV industry faces when trying to build something that will eke out a toehold in the automotive marketplace. The vast majority of car buyers are going to look at them, the forest of question marks will grow and they will decide against it.

And that's a shame; there is a lot of potential in EV's. There's a guy down here who built and autocrossed an electric Miata. Yep, you read that right. It was pretty cool (and competitive as well) but it had to be towed to and from the events. Highly impractical. Unfortunately, it was destroyed in a fire in the garage complex at the guy's condo. The fire department tried to blame the electric car for the fire's origin, it was later found to have not been possible.

Hybrids are probably the best solution at this time. Toyota has proved that with the Pious, er, Prius and Honda with the Insight. Not to mention the Escape hybrid. At least it's a step in the right direction: excellent fuel mileage while still providing Mr and Ms Schmucky McSchmuckington with a vehicle flexible enough to meet their varied needs.

Diesel hybrids would be even more fuel efficient and the technology already exists; see diesel electric locomotives. The particulate filters and low sulfur fuels are helping to clean up the emissions and if you ever get a chance to drive one of Mercedes' Bluetecs you won't feel much of a difference from a gas engine.

There are already variable compression diesels which can run on ethanol and gasoline being tested in buses etc in Europe, this may be the particulate emission solution. I see no reason why, given the current march of technology, the CAFE couldn't be in the mid 40's in 20 years. It will just take a real sea change in people's attitudes toward diesels and hybrids.

Jensenman wrote: Damn right the Euros buy big ol' fuel hogs as soon as they hit the US shores.

Most of my customers with conversion vans or Cadillacs (the big, fat, puffy kind) are, shall we say, not local in origin.

Jensenman wrote: Back to 'full' EVs: until there is a high enough storage density to make them practical for all the uses the average person will put a vehicle through, they ain't gonna make the big time. Nope. Sorry. No way. Ain't gonna happen. That CitiCar someone linked a pic of earlier is a perfect example of the challenges the EV industry faces when trying to build something that will eke out a toehold in the automotive marketplace. The vast majority of car buyers are going to look at them, the forest of question marks will grow and they will decide against it.

As I pointed out. There are 200 million+ registered vehicles in the US alone. 190 million drivers. Even if 99% of them said "hell no" there's still a market for 2 million cars. How many do you think Nissan can make in one year?

Why do we require EVs to be perfect for everyone before they are considered viable? We don't do it for any single other car made!

The old Citi Car posted failed because it isn't a real car, with a real warranty, by a real manufacturer. using it's success or failure has no bearing on what a real production EV can do in the market. the number of pre-orders for the Nissan leaf alone is more than all the previous city electric cars sold over the years in the US COMBINED. That's pretty telling.

alfadriver wrote: What's really funny about this- if you live close enough to work that you can bike, then fuel cost becomes pretty light, no matter what you drive. So it becomes even LESS likely that you'll want an EV. You'll want a single car that can do more than commute, and since your commuting $$ are small between a subcompact and a full sized truck (relatively speaking)- more tend to get the larger vehicle.

It's funny... I COULD bike to work, the 12 miles I drive to work is nothing but a 45 minute trip on a bike for me... BUT I would need to ride along a VERY busy county highway that would quickly reduce me to the gruesome side of the statistics bar.

Trust me, I can and often do ride 10 to 20 miles a day on my mountainbike.. I can do 60+ if need be.. but what is the sense of being in shape if they have to scrape my body off the windsheild of a car that was not paying attention because he was busy doing 70mph in a 50zone (the average speed on that highway.. no place for the cops to hide and run radar)

Personally, because it is a 12 mile commute each way, I have been considering building an electric lo-cost as my commuter

yeah, my commute is 14 miles round trip and none of the roads are bike/walking frindly. Walking woul take a coupl ehours, and biking would just be dangerous. And, I commute daily with my wife and I can guarantee that she won't want to go to wark as a manager with bike helmet hair and sweat on hot days, and soaking wet on rainy days, and freexing her ass off on winter days.

Oh, and carry her purse and laptop computer on the bike in those weather conditions.

Same holds true for motorcycles.

Bicycles and motorcycles are fine for pleasure use. Not going to commute that way.

You both realize that my point wasn't that we should bike to work, right?

It was a relative distance point. Short commute = low gas cost whether it be an F150 or a CRX HF. Even at quadruple the cost of the HF, the F150 will be cheap for a 5 mile drive one way.

E

probably not actually.. it does not matter if you are driving 5 miles or 50.. the CRX is going to sip fuel while the 150 is going to guzzle it.

You are going to feel it everytime you fill it up... 30bucks for the CRX and double or more for the F150?

It does make difference how far your commute is.

I have 40 mile one way commute. I drive a 2002 530 BMW. It is an ideal mix of comfort, sporty handling, size for family trips car seat etc, and get me just about 28-30 mpg given my route and driving style.

I also have 99 Dodge V10. This has 65k miles on vs 105 for the BMW. Right now I have the space to store both my daily driver, a car for my wife and a dedicated tow vehicle. I really can't use the dodge as daily driver since it only gets 13 mph empty. Give my 80 mile round trip its too expensive. However... I work was 5 miles away then I could save money by selling the BMW and driving the gas hog. Why keep the gas hog? I need a tow vehicle.

Now I could get a diesel truck instead, but it would take me 120k miles just to pay off the extra cost of the diesel option. I would not even begin to pay off the difference between 11 year old truck vs a new one.

EV's do have place, but going "main stream" is hard. Some people are ok with multiple cars for mutiple tasks. Some just want 1 car to do it all. EV's are in fact just like sports cars. They have a limited purpose. You use it for that purpse and it works .Try to force it to do other things and you find it hard to live with.

mad_machine wrote: probably not actually.. it does not matter if you are driving 5 miles or 50.. the CRX is going to sip fuel while the 150 is going to guzzle it. You are going to feel it everytime you fill it up... 30bucks for the CRX and double or more for the F150?

If you only do it once a month, and think you need a truck, I'm sure that the realtive cost of gas will be factored. Yea- it may be $120/mo vs. $30, but I spend $120/mo commuting in a Miata.

IMHO, the shorter the drive, the more likely you'll convince yourself that the mileage isn't a big deal.

And the longer you drive, the more likely you'll convince yourself that luxury is a big deal.

There's a middle distance where cost hurts enough but luxury isn't a need. That's the realistic market.

Eric

Didnt read the thread but there was a pretty hilarious call on Car Talk a while back about a woman whose Prius was constantly attacked by wild turkeys in her driveway..

joepaluch wrote: EV's do have place, but going "main stream" is hard. Some people are ok with multiple cars for mutiple tasks. Some just want 1 car to do it all. EV's are in fact just like sports cars. They have a limited purpose. You use it for that purpse and it works .Try to force it to do other things and you find it hard to live with.

DING DING DING!!!! Give that man a see-gar and his choice of prizes from the top shelf.

Unfortunately, in today's world where people may drive 10 miles back and forth to work each day and then have a sudden need to go 2000 miles round trip on a tight schedule (death in the family perhaps) a 13 MPG crew cab truck, although it is a gas hog, becomes much more practical than an EV. Yeah it sucks but there it is. That is what most people are looking at.

Nissan can get a wad of pre orders for Leafs but for the most part they will still be curiosities, same as Smart cars are here in the Great Satan. Every time I have ever seen a Smart in someone's driveway, it's sitting next to some kinda gas hog. Or even something near and dear to the GRM community's heart, the Miata. When people have kids, yards that need mulch etc, the Miata gets sold or sits in the garage with a cover over it (the same way old Brit cars used to wind up). The gas hog carries the booger machines to school, goes to Lowe's, goes to Chuck E Cheese's, etc.

THERE is reality.

Jensenman wrote: Unfortunately, in today's world where people may drive 10 miles back and forth to work each day and then have a sudden need to go 2000 miles round trip on a tight schedule (death in the family perhaps) a 13 MPG crew cab truck, although it is a gas hog, becomes much more practical than an EV. Yeah it sucks but there it is. That is what most people are looking at.

I've actually thought about a situation such as this. You know.. It probably would be cheaper to get the leaf and drive it every day and then rent a minivan when you need to drive far for a trip. It would be far less convenient, but cheaper in the long haul. (which people really don't look at)

ignorant wrote: ...far less convenient, but cheaper in the long haul.

Doesn't sound too ignorant to me. Kinda makes plenty sense..

Years ago, during the gas crisis in 78 a friend traded in her car to get an "economy" car with better gas mileage. There was nothing wrong with the current car and she thought she was doing it to save money. The reality was instead of no car payments and worse fuel mileage, she wound up with thousands of dollars annually in car payments balanced by roughly $600 in fuel savings. As has been poited out in previous posts, change won't happen quickly for a number of reasons, pure economics being just one. As a disclaimer, let me say that I have been an advocate of small fuel efficient cars since the 1960's and the majority of the time since have driven cars with fuel economy in the 30+ mpg range.

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Unfortunately, in today's world where people may drive 10 miles back and forth to work each day and then have a sudden need to go 2000 miles round trip on a tight schedule (death in the family perhaps) a 13 MPG crew cab truck, although it is a gas hog, becomes much more practical than an EV. Yeah it sucks but there it is. That is what most people are looking at.

I've actually thought about a situation such as this. You know.. It probably would be cheaper to get the leaf and drive it every day and then rent a minivan when you need to drive far for a trip. It would be far less convenient, but cheaper in the long haul. (which people really don't look at)

If I actually had the money to buy a leaf I would be tempted to build a range extender trailer.