New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Death of the Electric Car

trapdoor

Governor
Except that
The Volt has an economic reason for being purchased
No it doesn't. It's lower fuel mileage will not pay for the difference in price between it and a similar-sized compact car during the lifetime of the car.

The Volt is not nearly as expensive as the Doble was (thanks BTW, didn't know about the Doble)
The Doble wasn't marketed to the same niche as the Volt. It was a hand-built luxury car, similar to a Rolls-Royce in its market niche, so while the Volt isn't as expensive, it's an area where the Volt isn't analogous. To compare the Volt in that way, you'd have to go back and compare its cost to another compact offered in the name of good fuel economy and mass production -- say, the original KDFwagen (Volkswagen Beetle). The Volt is too high priced in that niche.

The INfrastructure for cars is much broader now than when the Doble was around
Immaterial.

So the comparison isn't close to apt
.


Both cars are marketed to niche markets and cost more than their competition, and as a result, are unlikely to be successful in the market.

Personally, I'd love to have the Doble powerplant in a modern chassis. I think it could be mass produced using modern materials cheaply enough, and being external combustion it would be a low emitter (you could even power its boiler with hydrogen).
 

degsme

Council Member
trapdoor said:
The Volt has an economic reason for being purchased
No it doesn't. It's lower fuel mileage will not pay for the difference in price between it and a similar-sized compact car during the lifetime of the car.
That depends on how long you keep it and how high gas prices go.


As you point out the Doble was a luxoury vehicle, that's a fickle market. The Volt actually could well pay for itself if most (90%) of your driving is city driving. If you really are looking for economics in that setting, a car of any sort is the wrong thing to buy. Because it's cheaper to take mass transit and rent a car for long hauls.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Well there was also that stupid idea that we can slap a different label and some options on the same car and call it "luxoury"... It really is the fastener count. And that was one of the big innovations from Honda and Toyota. Instead of screwing on a fender with 10 machine screws - each requiring a locking nut, that if it went wrong, became a source of an annoying rattle, they instead came up with 4 positive connection, one way snaps. Yes you had to replace the whole fender if it got dented, but they figured out that this was CHEAPER than pulling the dents.

The thing that really really really pissed me off about the Suburban - was not the 1970s interior (though that bugged me) but there was something in the way the suspension was designed so that when you accellerated hard and then let off the gas, the right rear suspension let out a "BONK" that sounded like something was falling off. When I brought it into the dealer and asked them to check that - their answer was "Suburbans have been doing that for years"!!!???!!!

WTF!!!???!!! - you have something that in a then $30k car (now $70k) has been an aesthetic problem for years and you don't have a fix???!!!???
I hadn't heard of the "number of fasteners" angle, but it makes perfect sense. The measure I've heard in the past, was "man hours to build" (or something like that). Back in the 90's when the Ford Taurus was all the profitable rage, I remember reading a comparison between it and Chevy's competitor - the Lumina. It was said that it took around 30 man hours to build the Taurus and 65 to build the Lumina. Of course it makes sense that the product requiring fewer man hours would be more profitable. But, the equally critical point was that fewer man hours - as a result of more thoughtful engineering, made for a better finished product as well.

So as to fasteners, I remember having to - in the same week - remove the driver's door panel on my '91 Nissan 240SX and a friend's '91 Mitsubishi Eclipse. The difference was dramatic. The Nissan panel had (2) fasteners and came off and went back on, in one big piece. You couldn't help but put it back on perfectly. The Mitsubishi on the other hand, had at least (10) fasteners. In order to put that one back on, you had to carefully align each piece - sometimes just guessing as to the proper alignment - and carefully torque each screw to non-rattle tightness, but not so tight that you distorted or broke something.

That Nissan was one of the best cars I've ever owned. I wish I could find another, but the kids have turned 'em all into drifters. The Mitsubishi on the other hand, was a falling-apart rattletrap, after about 60,000 miles.
 

degsme

Council Member
Fasteners drives Man Hours to build... vs. the other way around. That was part of what the CPDA study found. That even in a car that had more assembly time but fewer fasteners, the reliability numbers were higher.
 

trapdoor

Governor
That depends on how long you keep it and how high gas prices go.
At current gas prices, and given the typical 5 to 7 year lifespan of a daily driver.

As you point out the Doble was a luxoury vehicle, that's a fickle market. The Volt actually could well pay for itself if most (90%) of your driving is city driving. If you really are looking for economics in that setting, a car of any sort is the wrong thing to buy. Because it's cheaper to take mass transit and rent a car for long hauls.
Industry average annual driving is 15,000 miles per year. The Volt costs $40K. It's twin, the Chevy Cruze, can serve as a decent comparison. It costs roughly half that amount. Let's be generous and set the gas price at an even $4 per gallon (a little higher than the current national average), and and the price of the Cruze at $20,000, and the lifespan of both vehicles at seven years.

Each car will drive 105,000 miles. The standard Cruze makes 36 mpg (and we'll stick with the optimistic gas mileage posted on the window sticker for purposes of the comparison. You will spend a total of $11.666.66 in gas over the 105,000 miles.

The Volt makes an EPA estimated 93 mpg. It will burn $4,516.12 cents in gase over the lifespan of seven years, a "savings" of about $8,000. You will not make back the $20,000 more that you spent on the Volt in the typical usage of the car.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Fasteners drives Man Hours to build... vs. the other way around. That was part of what the CPDA study found. That even in a car that had more assembly time but fewer fasteners, the reliability numbers were higher.
In addition to fasteners, there have been leaps and bounds in valve-spring technology that have vastly improved engine reliability, especially for high-RPM small motors. Little things do indeed mean a lot.
 

degsme

Council Member
At current gas prices, and given the typical 5 to 7 year lifespan of a daily driver.
Daily drivers are up to 10 years .

Industry average annual driving is 15,000 miles per year. The Volt costs $40K. It's twin, the Chevy Cruze, can serve as a decent comparison. It costs roughly half that amount. Let's be generous and set the gas price at an even $4 per gallon (a little higher than the current national average), and and the price of the Cruze at $20,000, and the lifespan of both vehicles at seven years.

Each car will drive 105,000 miles. The standard Cruze makes 36 mpg (and we'll stick with the optimistic gas mileage posted on the window sticker for purposes of the comparison. You will spend a total of $11.666.66 in gas over the 105,000 miles.

The Volt makes an EPA estimated 93 mpg. It will burn $4,516.12 cents in gase over the lifespan of seven years, a "savings" of about $8,000. You will not make back the $20,000 more that you spent on the Volt in the typical usage of the car.
But again that's not accurate. Because if you drive it 75% in the city "short haul". That means that 75% of the time you don't use Gasoline at all since you are 100% EV. and 25% of the time you get 90MPG (highway). So your annual cost is 5,000 miles at 90 mpg = 56 gallons or $222. Times 7 $1,555 For a savings of $10,600. And with $7,500 tax rebate ($13,500 if you live in CA) you are within $3k of breaking even.


And if you hold the cars for 10 years - which is more of what people are doing today - your Cruze milage goes up to 150k with a gas cost of $16,666 (and its really going to average more like $5/gal over 10 years so that really is $20,000). Using your 93 mpg calc that puts you at $6,451 in gas costs for a $10,221 savings PLUS $7,500 in tax rebate and you just about broke even. At $5/gal AVERAGE over 10 years (its going up like it or not) using your calcs your gas cost is $8,064 for a cost savings of $11,936 Plus $7,500 in tax rebate, puts you within $500 of break even

And if your driving is 75% urban the numbers go even higher. Your 10 year 150,000 milage gas costs are between $1,111 and $1,390. Vs $16,666 - $20,000 for the Cruze. that's a savings of between $15,555 and $18,610. Plus the $7,500 rebate and you are IN THE BLACK by between $3,000 and $6,000


Yeah it does pay off.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Daily drivers are up to 10 years .
Expanding it to 10 years would only add about $2,000 to the difference. It's still not enough to make up the $20,000 in additonal money spent.


But again that's not accurate. Because if you drive it 75% in the city "short haul". That means that 75% of the time you don't use Gasoline at all since you are 100% EV.
And now you're trying to skew the numbers in favor of the hybrid. Sorry -- that's not a valid way to make the argument, and it's only true regionally in any case. Almost no one where I live has that short-haul urban environment. If they did, they'd probably bicycle.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Expanding it to 10 years would only add about $2,000 to the difference. It's still not enough to make up the $20,000 in additonal money spent.




And now you're trying to skew the numbers in favor of the hybrid. Sorry -- that's not a valid way to make the argument, and it's only true regionally in any case. Almost no one where I live has that short-haul urban environment. If they did, they'd probably bicycle.
It makes sense for the under 35 miles a day crowd, which would include millions of folks. Here in TN we have an additional 2500 tax credit, so 10k total, and I am driving a Cruze as a demo and it lists for almost 26 grand, obviously a guy that drive 100 miles a day probably wont save enough to make it worthwhile, but the Volt is agood first step toward making us less dependent on imported oil. A Volt owner could still get to work in the event of another oil embargo from OPEC.
 

degsme

Council Member
In addition to fasteners, there have been leaps and bounds in valve-spring technology that have vastly improved engine reliability, especially for high-RPM small motors. Little things do indeed mean a lot.
Well except that Chevy et. al. didn't start to take advantage of that until the late 1990s. By then their reputations were pretty much shot.
 

fairsheet

Senator
At current gas prices, and given the typical 5 to 7 year lifespan of a daily driver.



Industry average annual driving is 15,000 miles per year. The Volt costs $40K. It's twin, the Chevy Cruze, can serve as a decent comparison. It costs roughly half that amount. Let's be generous and set the gas price at an even $4 per gallon (a little higher than the current national average), and and the price of the Cruze at $20,000, and the lifespan of both vehicles at seven years.

Each car will drive 105,000 miles. The standard Cruze makes 36 mpg (and we'll stick with the optimistic gas mileage posted on the window sticker for purposes of the comparison. You will spend a total of $11.666.66 in gas over the 105,000 miles.

The Volt makes an EPA estimated 93 mpg. It will burn $4,516.12 cents in gase over the lifespan of seven years, a "savings" of about $8,000. You will not make back the $20,000 more that you spent on the Volt in the typical usage of the car.
I'm not sure where you came up with your various assumptions trapdoor, but I'll suggest - without choosing them out one by one, that each of them fudges the actual facts at least a tad, in favor of the case you're trying to make. Just a coupla for instances, the avg. yearly mileage is 13.5K not 15K and the average paid for a Volt is around $35K, not $40K and so on.

BUT...the fact that you (or your source) has stretched every average indice in order to make your outcome more dramatic, isn't dispositive in any case. For the Volt, or the Leaf, or even the Prius aren't marketed to the "average driver" and they don't need to be, in order to be highly succesful and relevant.

Let's consider just one indice - "miles driven". The fact is that many millions of Americans' average trip is 40 miles or less. Those drivers would buy virtually no gasoline. So...if we took the actual cost of that Volt, times the actual cost of the little gas they would buy, times the fact that buyers of this sort of car keep them longer than 7 years....all of a sudden, your anti-Volt case doesn't look so good, at least for THOSE drivers.

And sure, the Volt isn't cost-appropriate to ALL of a year's 12 million potential new car buyers. But it IS cost-appropriate to a quarter of a million, or half a million, or maybe a million or two. And whatever....that's one helluva significant market.
 

degsme

Council Member
It makes sense for the under 35 miles a day crowd, which would include millions of folks. Here in TN we have an additional 2500 tax credit, so 10k total, and I am driving a Cruze as a demo and it lists for almost 26 grand, obviously a guy that drive 100 miles a day probably wont save enough to make it worthwhile, but the Volt is agood first step toward making us less dependent on imported oil. A Volt owner could still get to work in the event of another oil embargo from OPEC.
And if your workplace has a "plug in" (as more and more are doing for the tax credits) you can be a 70m/day driver and never have the gas kick in.

And that's 75% of an urban driver's driving. yes it skews the numbers WAY IN FAVOR of the Plug In Hybrid.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Another place we may steer ourselves wrong in terms of comparing the cost-efficiency of one automotive technology with another, is that we tend to assume that for the sake of our proximate argument, cost is dispositive. For instance above, we see a comparison between a Volt and a Cruze. Elsewhere in the past, we've seen similar comparisons between the likes of Corolla and a Prius.

When we compare costs in this manner, we accept it as a given that the consumer "must" make the cost/rational choice. But of course, consumers of cars have NEVER been constrained by pure efficiency considerations. If they were, there'd be no Lexus, or BMW, or Lincoln. Nobody "needs" these tatted-up marques and none represents the most efficient alternative. YET...consumers buy millions of them.
 

degsme

Council Member
Another place we may steer ourselves wrong in terms of comparing the cost-efficiency of one automotive technology with another, is that we tend to assume that for the sake of our proximate argument, cost is dispositive. For instance above, we see a comparison between a Volt and a Cruze. Elsewhere in the past, we've seen similar comparisons between the likes of Corolla and a Prius.

When we compare costs in this manner, we accept it as a given that the consumer "must" make the cost/rational choice. But of course, consumers of cars have NEVER been constrained by pure efficiency considerations. If they were, there'd be no Lexus, or BMW, or Lincoln. Nobody "needs" these tatted-up marques and none represents the most efficient alternative. YET...consumers buy millions of them.
That's an excellent point FS. Because if car buying was purely an economic exercise, Porsche, BMW, Lexus and Audi would be out of business.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Degs -- no argument there. GM went downhill badly from the late 70s until at least the late 1990s. They make great cars now, but it's hard to regain a lost reputation.

I may buy a 1967 El Dorado or Toranado. Front wheel drive, 350 horspower, and air conditioning to chill a meat locker.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I'm not sure where you came up with your various assumptions trapdoor, but I'll suggest - without choosing them out one by one, that each of them fudges the actual facts at least a tad, in favor of the case you're trying to make. Just a coupla for instances, the avg. yearly mileage is 13.5K not 15K and the average paid for a Volt is around $35K, not $40K and so on.

BUT...the fact that you (or your source) has stretched every average indice in order to make your outcome more dramatic, isn't dispositive in any case. For the Volt, or the Leaf, or even the Prius aren't marketed to the "average driver" and they don't need to be, in order to be highly succesful and relevant.

Let's consider just one indice - "miles driven". The fact is that many millions of Americans' average trip is 40 miles or less. Those drivers would buy virtually no gasoline. So...if we took the actual cost of that Volt, times the actual cost of the little gas they would buy, times the fact that buyers of this sort of car keep them longer than 7 years....all of a sudden, your anti-Volt case doesn't look so good, at least for THOSE drivers.

And sure, the Volt isn't cost-appropriate to ALL of a year's 12 million potential new car buyers. But it IS cost-appropriate to a quarter of a million, or half a million, or maybe a million or two. And whatever....that's one helluva significant market.
Actually, most of those numbers were FMA numbers. (For those of you who don't watch the great Showtime series "House of Lies" "FMA" means "from my ass."). I found a website with the prices of the cars, and apparently the industry standard average annual mileage has changed -- it used to be 15,000. If the numbers skew in favor of my argument as a result, it's strictly coincidental. I venture to say that even based on 13.5K miles per year, you still won't spend an addtional $15,000 on gas in the Cruze compared to the gas used in the Volt, and you have to spend that amount to make the Volt worth the additional money.

I don't disagree with you when you say, "For the Volt, or the Leaf, or even the Prius aren't marketed to the "average driver" and they don't need to be, in order to be highly succesful and relevant," except for the part about "highly successful." To be highly successful, you have to sell a lot of units. To sell a lot of units, you have to appeal to the average driver. These cars, as manufactured and sold today, have a very solid niche market among people willing to spend extra money to show how good and green and environmentally righteous they are -- but let's not pretend that that market is anything more than a niche.
 

degsme

Council Member
Actually, most of those numbers were FMA numbers. (For those of you who don't watch the great Showtime series "House of Lies" "FMA" means "from my ass."). I found a website with the prices of the cars, and apparently the industry standard average annual mileage has changed -- it used to be 15,000. If the numbers skew in favor of my argument as a result, it's strictly coincidental. I venture to say that even based on 13.5K miles per year, you still won't spend an addtional $15,000 on gas in the Cruze compared to the gas used in the Volt, and you have to spend that amount to make the Volt worth the additional money.
Actually over 10 yeears, if you are doing urban driving for 75% of your driving. Yes you will save the money and be in the black.

Gas prices are only going to go up. so a $5/gal average for the next 10 years is pefectly CONSERVATIVE

And since most of the driving WILL USE ZERO GAS - and not the 93mpg you are looking at (that's what a PlugIn Hybrid does) that savings is rather dramatic.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Actually, most of those numbers were FMA numbers. (For those of you who don't watch the great Showtime series "House of Lies" "FMA" means "from my ass."). I found a website with the prices of the cars, and apparently the industry standard average annual mileage has changed -- it used to be 15,000. If the numbers skew in favor of my argument as a result, it's strictly coincidental. I venture to say that even based on 13.5K miles per year, you still won't spend an addtional $15,000 on gas in the Cruze compared to the gas used in the Volt, and you have to spend that amount to make the Volt worth the additional money.

I don't disagree with you when you say, "For the Volt, or the Leaf, or even the Prius aren't marketed to the "average driver" and they don't need to be, in order to be highly succesful and relevant," except for the part about "highly successful." To be highly successful, you have to sell a lot of units. To sell a lot of units, you have to appeal to the average driver. These cars, as manufactured and sold today, have a very solid niche market among people willing to spend extra money to show how good and green and environmentally righteous they are -- but let's not pretend that that market is anything more than a niche.
Trapdoor, I hope I didn't come across as too nit-picky as to your numbers. That wasn't my intent. I was going more to my idea that the numbers can't be applied too broadly and I can see that you picked up on that.
 

degsme

Council Member
Degs -- no argument there. GM went downhill badly from the late 70s until at least the late 1990s. They make great cars now, but it's hard to regain a lost reputation.
See I would like to believe that. I really would. But I drove SOOO many sh!tbox GMs from Avis over the last 20 years, and my experieince with my '89 Suburban was so crappy (no other vehicle did what it did, but the quality SUCKED) that I just have a hard time getting over that. (See I'm not rational all the time either). My GF has a Toyota Rav4. And its the classic Toyota. A bit noisy, rattles a bit, but all sorts of things about it are nice and it JUSK FVCKING WORKS.
 

fairsheet

Senator
See I would like to believe that. I really would. But I drove SOOO many sh!tbox GMs from Avis over the last 20 years, and my experieince with my '89 Suburban was so crappy (no other vehicle did what it did, but the quality SUCKED) that I just have a hard time getting over that. (See I'm not rational all the time either). My GF has a Toyota Rav4. And its the classic Toyota. A bit noisy, rattles a bit, but all sorts of things about it are nice and it JUSK FVCKING WORKS.
Every marque and every model, goes through "cycles". There are points in the cycle where the manufacturer's imperative is sell the brand and points where having sold the brand, it can "rest on its laurels" and seek to wring more profit out of the brand. It behooves the auto consumer to know where the car he's considering buying, is in that cycle.

I'll suggest that the likes of GM, Chrysler, and Hyundai are in the "proving themselves cycle". Therefore, (depending on the model) their offerings may be good buys. In order to reestablish their brand, or in the case of Hyundai, to establish their brand, they need to offer somewhat more value than their competitors.

Other marques, like say...Toyota, Honda, and VW are in more of a "resting on their laurels" phase. That doesn't mean they're BAD values. It just means that they don't need to be quite the values of some of their competitors.

For a useful illustration of these cycles that most would be familiar with, we can track the up-down-up life cycle of the Ford Mustang, from 1964-1/2 to 2013.
 
Top