It’s a $40,000 car based on the Cruze platform, you can get a top of the line Cruze for (MSRP) $25,000 that has every bell and whistle the Volt does.
You want to compare it to a Lincoln MKS, maybe? or a Cadillac CTS? In what way does the Volt compare favorably with those luxury cars, except on sticker price?
The trouble with the Volt, and electric cars in general right now, is that they are touted as being… frugal purchases. Save money on gas. Look at these huge MPG values. The reality is that they are luxury cars, with the luxury of being first on the block with the new technology.
No, you have. Electricity hasn’t lost the race because its legs were tied together. Electricty has lost the race because electricity is morbidly obese and barely suitable for walking, much less running (power situations like driving that require an easily mobile and high energy density power source).
I’ve been reading about electric cars since Jimmy Carter was president. And pretty much every article would have something like the following. Your typically daily compute cost the driver 5 dollars in gas. But with our electric car it only cost 50 cents to charge it up and drive the same distance! Think how much money you will save on gas!
Then, if the article was being realistic they would then tell you “yeah, but the batteries cost a gazillion dollars, weigh a ton, take forever to charge, have a rather limited range and don’t last that many miles/years”.
So, electric car manufacturers have from day one had good motivation to make the batteries much better (as well as other stuff) because if they COULD many folks WOULD switch to electric to save some money on gas.
You fixation on regulation of the electric industry makes no sense. Maybe electricty would have been cheaper without it (then again I don’t get the impression that the people in the industry are laughing all the way to the bank like some seem to do in other industries).
But electricity as a source of power has been CHEAPER than gasoline/diesel for a long time. And for many uses it makes sense. My well is powered by an electric motor. So is my AC, my fans, my refrigerator, and my washer and dryer. If my electricity was way over prices those things would be powered by internal combustion engines instead.
So, electricity to power motors IS cheaper. As long as you don’t have to STORE it.
Which brings us back the batteries again. Please explain how electricity being cheaper would have greatly accelerated battery development.
Your arguement about regulation of the power industry only makes sense if your typical article about the electric car went like this: We have great batteries, we can make these cars cheap. But alas, the cost of the electricity itself is so high we just can’t compete with gasoline on a mpg vs kilowatt hour per mile comparision. If only one day electricity becomes cheaper than gasoline then maybe the electric car will have its day.
The history of the electric car is not that. Its the exact opposite really. This stuff about regulation is irrelevant.
I’m guessing that most, (not all), of you are too young to remember when a simple digital watch that did nothing but show the current time, (no alarm, no stopwatch, no timer, no backlight), cost well over $150. Now, when my strap breaks, it is cheaper to buy a replacement watch with all those extra features for around $6 than a strap for $10. (And $150 in the late 1960s was more than two weeks’ pay at minimum wage while $6 is less than one hour’s pay, today.) Handheld calculators went through a very similar cost depression. The $5.89 pocket calculator at the drug store, today, has more functions than the $200+ calculator from around 1970–and people bought those.
If, (admittely a big if), despite the economics of the car, GM can get enough Volt buyers that they can ramp up production, costs will come down to the point where the economics will become more competitive. In the meantime, since other carmakers are also looking for that same niche, GM feels the need to keep some sort of vehicle in production, (on which they can learn more about the engineering and production issues for real-life vehicles), so that they are not left behind when the economy of scale finally makes such vehicles salable to the public.
except for that whole electric motor and that huge battery.
you can drive for up to 50 miles without using any gas.
it’s not about “being frugal,” it’s about “consuming less energy.” Even if we concede that electricity is generated using fossil fuels, the losses going from wall to battery to electric motor are still better than the miserable efficiency of a gasoline engine.
Yep, the only thing that makes this a luxury car is that it’s priced like one and it’s electric. Cripes, it can only fit two in the back seat! If you want to compare it to other $40,000 cars, it doesn’t compete and if you compare it to other cars its size, you can get a top-trim, fully-loaded vehicle for almost half the price.
The race is still ongoing. This is at least the third push that I’m aware of for electric vehicles. I am extremely confident that electricity will win out.
There are enormous hidden costs to oil as well, you just don’t count them. Well, we’re starting to now.
It isn’t a fixation. It was addressing a very specific point that electricity and fuels have never been on equal footing. It wasn’t a claim that if they were on equal footing electricity would dominate (though I also happen to think that is true in the long run). It’s hard enough to defend my own points without you making them up for me.
I have made no particular claim about the price of electricity. I have made claims about the profits of electric companies. I have supported my position by pointing out the massive regulation around electricity distribution. Oil and electricity have never been on equal footing. I don’t know how they could ever have been on equal footing without also crippling the oil industry the same way.
I think the costs you are willing to ignore for oil are vastly larger than the costs you’re willing to count for electricity. I think that’s why we’re seeing another push for electric vehicles. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m 36 and I expect in my lifetime that electric vehicles will eventually dominate. I don’t know if now is the time.
Why would I try to defend an argument I never made?
Is there any data on how dangerous the Volt would be in an accident? I’d hate to think of the rescue service digging me out of a pile of batteries and battery acid.
And how does that have anything to do with the cost of electric cars, the chevy volt, and consumers choosing to buy or not buy these things based upon such things as initial invest, operating cost, and long term reliabilty?
That was my mistake I guess. I thought your arguement actually had something to do with these things other folks were actually talking about.
They don’t use lead acid batteries, so the acid thing won’t be a problem. It’s more a discharge issue (if a rescue person is cutting into the car at the wrong place and with the wrong tools, there there is the potential for ZAP!! Also, I assume there is the possibility of a short in the right circumstances, which would probably ruin your whole day. My WAG is that the dangers are no more than the possibility that your fuel tank might explode due to leaking gasoline, though). The batteries are in a sealed ‘pack’ in the ones I’ve seen, so there isn’t a lot of chance you’ll be buried under a pile of the things. I suppose in a really weird accident you might be crushed by the battery pack, but then you could be crushed by the ICE as well under the right circumstances, and my (again WAG) is that the probabilities are probably similar.
Outside of being cool and awesome, how do these things benefit the consumer? They are simply an alternate method of making the metal box called a car move from place to place. They are also a tradeoff, a “typical” $40,000 car has much better performance than the Volt, will provide more luxurious appointments than the Volt, and don’t have to be plugged in every night.
Interesting thought… consume less. Twice as much work goes into building a Volt than goes into building a Cruze. Yet the Volt gets to be called environmentally friendly. You’re trading off the additional resources that go into building an expensive high-tech car for the future cost of gasoline.
This reminds me of comics where the wife comes home with armloads of stuff crowing about how much money she saved today.
Do you get to count the cost of supporting dictatorships, political instability, and exerting military force against oil? The cost of spills? How much do we spend making mufflers for every vehicle instead of just dealing with emissions at power plants (assuming an all-electric vehicle not the Volt per se)? The costs of oil are massive, they’re just spread out and hidden. Why don’t you count them, too?
I don’t have the 240V charger at home yet. Usually, when I’m home at the end of the day, I have the 8 to 10 hours overnight to fully charge. So, I’m not sure I’m going to get one. I can (and often do) charge up at work. There is a standard plug in our parking lot, and I just plug it in. I’ve noticed a few 240V charging stations popping up around town. Haven’t needed one yet, but I think in the next 12 months they’ll be more common at malls, downtown areas, etc.
2002 called and wants its hybrid hysteria back. The Prius has been around for over 10 years now and has proven to be just as safe as any comparable car. There’s nothing about the Volt that would suggest otherwise. The car won’t electrocute you and every fire department in the country knows to avoid cutting through the electrical conduits (which are labeled).
It cost me a lot less per mile for electric movement than it would for gas movement. Also, I get to use other people’s electricity when I charge at work, at the airport, etc.
I’ve had non-electric $40,000+ cars. None have had more “luxurious appointments” than the Volt. But, I’ll agree it’s not for everyone. It wouldn’t even be for me if we didn’t own another car for times we need more than four in the car, or when we want to go on longer trips.
How does a Corvette benefit the consumer? Other than the monster engine, its not any better apportioned than a cheap midsize, and it’s not allowed to go any faster on public roads. Ergo, only smug idiots who have been hoodwinked by marketing buy Corvettes.
Beyond the most basic economy car, car buying decisions are not rational. Heck, the decision to buy new versus used is not rational. People buy new cars because something about the car talks to them. It could be as simple as having a car that is perceived as reliable or is fast or has some assemblage of luxury gizmos or flashy branding or styling. Some people use expedition-capable 4x4’s for nothing more than taking their kids to soccer practice. But for some segment of the population, the ability to use little to no gas is every bit as appealing as the above reasons, even if there’s no particularly rational basis to it. As far as automotive irrationalities go, its a pretty begnin one.
I really wish I could afford one. My commute is 8 miles one way and we have a second vehicle available for longer family trips. I also already have 220v in my garage. The idea that Chevy would make this a luxury vehicle instead of an “everyman” vehicle seems dumb. Maybe that’s why they aren’t selling many. Besides sports cars, people are used to thinking that fuel efficient = small and cheap, while luxury = big and usually worse mileage. It’s going to be hard to change that, especially now that you can get a Prius C for half the cost of a Volt.
That does kinda seem silly doesn’t it? Its cheap to operate but it cost a fortune! I guess they figure the smug market is bigger than I need to save money market?