To a very large degree, the western half of the country was settled by steam-powered cars. Nobody thinks of bringing them back, because they’ve all been replaced by more economical diesel-powered hybrids (which in fact run entirely on electric in many populated areas).
I meant just the steam engine in general. It was an invention that was a huge success that revolutionized the entire world, but we don’t use it much any more. You can’t say it was “a failure” merely because it’s not in widespread use at the moment.
Although, if you were transported back to 1910, say, you would probably disagree about steam cars. The only real drawback to them was that they took a long time to build up a head of steam, so you had to think ahead (or have your chauffeur think ahead). Again, they were much more refined than the gasoline cars of the day. I don’t think you can even imagine what a pain in the rear it was driving a gas car with manual mixture and timing controls and a non-synchronized transmission that could break your arm while trying to crank it. Supposedly Alfred Sloan, who built GM, could barely drive any of his products. Whereas steam and especially electric cars were as simple to drive as a modern automatic. Cost was the only way gas cars could compete and it wasn’t until the huge V10 and V12 roadsters could compete in ease-of-use (since their ridiculously high-torque engines minimized shifting) that they fully displaced steam and electric.
- Yes I can. ** Steam cars were a failure.** See? Moreover, the fact that steam and electric cars were not in widespread use, is proof itself that they were, are, a failure. Steam and electric cars simply cannot compete with gasoline powered cars. Price, performance, ease of use, ease of refueling, reliability in all weather and road conditions, etc. has proven gasoline cars far superior to anything else. Only an idiot would buy an electric or steam car. (admittedly, there ARE some idiots out there, so a few people/idiots will end up buying them )
- Nope! You are wrong. My family in 1910 hated Steam cars, and hated steam tractors, and hated electric cars. My family, in 1910, or thereabouts, used horses, and then gasoline powered cars. The ONLY cars my family ever had were gasoline engine cars. Nobody in my family ever had, nor ever wanted a steam nor electric car. I have driven Model T’s and they are great, and fun, to drive, so much so, that I am going to buy another one in the not too distant future.
I’m saying the steam engine as an invention, not steam cars specifically. You know, James Watt, industrialization, the railroad, all that? You can’t (defensibly) say just because an invention isn’t used today that it was somehow a failure.
And this is sort of my whole point in continuing to argue this increasingly unrelated tangent. You’re trying to frame it as if the electric car was some sort of also-ran to the gasoline car, whose 80 year hiatus from large-scale production is somehow evidence on its face of the whole concept’s inferiority. The Betamax to the gas car’s VHS, as it were. But this is not the case. The electric car is a very different beast from the gasoline car and the fact is that changes in society and improvements to the gasoline car led to its decline, so as changes in society and improvements in the electric car are now poised to lead to its revival.
Model T’s are fun to drive today because they’re a quirky nostalgic challenge. Fun for a Sunday drive perhaps, but if you’re not into that funky charm, it would get old quick. Nobody back then would have voluntarily driven one regularly if they had the choice of a simple-to-operate electric. They drove gas cars because they couldn’t afford electrics, didn’t have access to the electric infrastructure or they didn’t fit their rural lifestyle. Electrics mostly filled an urban niche, then as now, but they did so extremely well.
There’s no way to frame it other than to say the electric car has been, for the entire history of the automobile, an also ran. Except for the very first introductory models, no electric car has been able to compete with a liquid fueled car in performance or economy.
Even today, with all the scientific advances from the last 100 years, the only mass marketed battery powered car on the market is the Nissan Leaf. The Leaf will be able to go ~ 100 miles on a charge, and it’ll take you 8 hours of charging (220V @ 40amps, per Nissan’s website) to be able to go another 100 miles.
The only thing that makes the Leaf viable is a willingness to overpay for products that are perceived as eco-friendly.
Personally, I don’t think that batteries are the answer. They are an inherently limited technology in the realm of transportation, unsuited for widespread use.
But that would take care of over 90% of all the driving I do. It is easier for me to plug in the car every night than to gas up every week. The price may not be right for me to buy one, and it may only be practical because my wife drives a gas car, but so what? The price will come down for batteries. The charge time will either get better, or you will have the option of swapping it out. In 2010 electric is a small niche. That can change. Look at what Tesla is doing. Their sedan is comparable to a BMW or Cadillac and will go several hundred miles on a 40 minute charge. They even have swappable batteries. There are charging stations popping up all across the country, and they increase as time goes by.
Will electric eliminate gasoline in the next 10 years? I would be shocked if it did. Will it have a significant chunk of the market. I think so. I would guess between 20 and 40 percent.
I laughed out loud reading that cite.
**Farah notes that even in very cold winter temperatures its still possible to hit 40 miles of EV range, and says ranges “anywhere from from 32 to 40 without difficulty” are likely depending on drivers preferences for cabin heating. **
Considering they reported actual returns of 28 miles on a charge they must expect the [del] beta test team [/del] consumer to freeze their ass off to achieve the distance quoted.
Gasoline is indeed a very energy dense substance. The ICE may be a bit inefficient but very little can compete with gasoline powered vehicles while gas is cheap and plentiful and the cost of its carbon is not taxed. Sure, there are consequences to our reliance on the substance and our consequence dependence on other counties to sell it to us and our being at the mercy of their control over the price … but right now a gas powered vehicle has more utility for the dollar for more people than either EVs or PHEVs/EREVs.
If our becoming less dependent on other countries to supply our fuel has no utility to you.
If you scoff at climate change.
If you think that the world will continue to be able to supply gas at these prices as economies recovery and as China and India become car cultures as well.
Me, I’d rather fuel my car on energy we produce here, be it from nuclear, natural gas, wind, geothermal, solar, or as is most typical still, coal - which we got plenty of.
I would not bet against gas prices skyrocketing over the next several years. Of course ironically the best defense against skyrocketing gas prices is taking actions to limit demand: every EV sold is that much less demand for gasoline. The odd thing is that the people who should most want to see EVs become a sizable segment both here, and even more so in the emerging car culture of China, are those who wish to keep driving ICE vehicles with inexpensive gas. The more others fuel their vehicles off the grid the less demand there is for gas, the less likely it is that gas prices will rise.
That’s all well and good but the Volt does not replace an ICE powered vehicle. It’s not going to be produced in numbers that matter. It’s a waste of government money.
We all want the same end result, fuel efficient energy independence with lower co2 output. Lets put the money toward a technology that will pay for itself using existing infrastructure and technology (cough diesel).
Did you know that when you turn on a gasoline-powered car in a cold climate you have no heat whatsoever for several minutes at least?
Again, like I mentioned above, gasoline cars don’t do particularly well in cold weather either (diesels do even worse, BTW). I always give my S.O. a hard time because when during the winter she drives my Honda the 5 miles to work instead of riding her bike. Since it’s all slow backstreet driving and the car is just warming up when she gets there, we end up getting closer to 10 MPG instead of the 35 it gets on longer trips. And plus the crankcase fills up with that terrible milky watery stuff if you don’t take it out on a longer trip once a week or so.
Being able to go 28 miles on electric in the dead of winter, with the luxury of instant-on electric heat sounds great to me!
Yeah. I’ve got some very gasoline-intensive hobbies, and I’m always puzzled at how some people who are into things like racing or classic cars or offroading seem to feel threatened by alternative vehicles and EV’s in general. As far as I’m concerned, EVs mean more gasoline for my thirsty V8-powered classic and my 4x4 truck.
Would you suggest to a customer that their mileage would be better if they didn’t use the heater? The difference between real world miles that they admitted to and freeze your ass off mileage is a 43% reduction in utility. Why suggest the mileage won’t go down when in fact, it will.
My Saturn produces usable heat in a minute of driving and will roast me out of the car without affecting the fuel economy. Roast I says.
Do car makers suggest to customers that their mileage would be better if they don’t use the air conditioner? Yep, and yet air-conditioned cars have still somehow caught on. And going 4 to 12 miles less on no gas hardly qualifies as a 43% reduction in utility in my book-- it’s no reduction whatsoever in utility because you still get where you’re going and only a very small reduction in efficiency because you still get most of your drive done on electric only.
Sounds like you’re in a warmer climate than I am! Still, even in warm weather it takes a normal car around 5 minutes to get up to operating temperature while idling or only doing city driving. It’s much longer during the winter, even if you start to get some heat relatively soon. Until your car is warmed up, your fuel economy is suffering and your engine is wearing out faster.
Obviously cars have long since improved to the point that neither of those factors is that big a deal, but you can’t (defensibly) claim that the fact that you’re going to get slightly less electric-only range shows what a terrible car the Volt is when every car on the road suffers drastic performance reductions in cold weather. Again, like we’ve been harping on over and over again, the Volt is best for people who do mostly short trips. These are also the same people who’s normal gasoline-powered cars suffer the most in the winter. GM, the DOT and the census bureau all seem to think that this is a pretty big chunk of the driving public.
It’s absolutely a reduction in utility. The car doesn’t do any better than my Saturn off battery on the highway. If it’s not on battery it’s a flaming waste of money. And actually it’s greater than 42% when you consider it’s suppose to be capable of 50 miles on a charge. That’s a 78% reduction of utility for winter driving. If that were my car I’d go from 32 mpg to 18 mpg around town. :eek:
The Volt is best for people who can’t afford a Tesla but still want to overpay for a hybrid. I fully support anybody who wants to buy one but leave the rebate out and make a donation to the save a highway fund equivalent to the yearly road taxes no longer paid.
Make that about a 44% reduction. The winter comparison with my car is correct.
Okay, so firstly, let’s pretend you normally have a 40 mile commute, which you can squeeze out all-electric during the summer. You’d be getting 60 MPG on the electric-only portion (again, that’s your pessimistic number-- I think it’d be better). But old man winter rears his head and, shoot, you’ve got to run the gas engine for 12 miles of your commute. So the first 28 miles is 60 MPG so you burn .46 gallons of gas (worth of electricity). Then the gas engine fires up (and lets say it only gets 30 MPG because it’s cold out) and you burn another .4 gallons over the next 12 gallons. So you burnt the equivalent of .86 gallons on your 40 mile commute-- still almost 50 MPG, which is still pretty damn good (and only a 16% reduction). And, again, with your weirdo logic that arrived on the 60 MPG electric figure, as gas prices inevitably creep upwards, the fuel economy skyrockets. Plus even a 28 mile range still means most people can do their commutes all electric.
Furthermore, I find your argument that the car is a waste of money if you’re not on batteries every second bizzare. You don’t use your car to its full capabilities all the time. As a transportation mode, the main thing that separates your Saturn from a golf cart is that the Saturn is capable of highway speeds. And yet you only drive at highway speeds part of the time! Does this mean your Saturn is a flaming waste of money when you’re at street speeds?
I don’t use my Saturn as a golf cart so I missed your analogy there. The flaming waste of money is tax money. buy the car for $41,000 and pay an extra $200 in fuel taxes a year and $8,000 for replacement batteries. Knock yourself out.
Oh, and I recalculated the equivalent mileage in my area and it would be 84 mpg on charge so your example would be 28 miles at 84 or .33 gallons plus 4 miles at 33 mpg or .12 gallons (my guess for the ice) for a total of .45 gallons which would give 71 mpg for the average trip to work of 32 miles round trip. I don’t see how that’s saving any money for a Taurus level car that costs $49,000 over a driving lifespan of 150,000 miles.
It’s not an argument that it isn’t cost effective. The argument is who pays for it?
Oh. Well then we’re back at arguing whether this is a good move for GM/the government, not whether it’s a good car for a car buyer.
I would still contend that, if the government’s goal in running GM is to make it profitable and divest itself of it, the Volt is at least a decent gamble. Like I mentioned wayyyy back at the beginning of the thread, GM’s sales problems are mostly image. A high-profile prestige car like this is a pretty good marketing investment (cheap compared to GM’s overall marketing budget!), and the chance of it being profitable and getting a leg up on a new technology would just be added bonuses. Just like the Prius did for Toyota on all three counts.
Sure, I guess the government could just keep GM and use it to crank out small diesel econoboxes and sedans and, yes, our short-term fuel-economy improvement for the bucks would be better. But diesel is a dead-end technologically and doesn’t have the PR potential-- I would argue that innovative projects like the Volt have a much better chance of helping return GM to profitablilty in a timely manner than cranking out government-subsidized economy cars.
How is a limited run, government subsidized car going to make GM profitable? We might as well save time and mail checks directly to investors. And keeping in mind all the other GM nuggets of innovation that litter the ground what are the odds this one blows up in their face too?
The Volt would replace more than 80% of the gas powered driving for its owners, some much more, those much less probably wouldn’t buy one.
No, it isn’t going to produced in a large first years run. And at these prices it isn’t for the bulk of us.
Get prices down a little and sell more volume and prices can come down more and volume goes up. As more are on the road there is more incentive for putting out a greater number of strategically located fast charge stations which gives it more utility.
And prices I think will be dropping faster than you may think. In three years the costs have gone down from an expert’s best guess of $1000/kWh for the Volt’s initial run, to $400/kWh for Project Better Place’s most recent contract to purchase. The battery makers have invested in extremely large production lines. The first few batteries off are very expensive indeed. They have done it worldwide in anticipation of EV batteries being a relatively high margin line. But all this capacity means that they have sunk costs that they must recoup with using that capacity for volume. These batteries will quickly become commoditized. Going from the recent $400/kWh down to $250/kWh as that happens is not at all unreasonable. The price of these cars suddenly become much more competitive, especially if gas prices do go back up.
Diesels are fine. They do not however address the issues I raised in as significant a way, not at least until our diesel supply is mostly biodeisel, and we are farther from that than we are from affordable EV’s I think. And that industry is getting some government seed money too.