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

The Death of the Electric Car

justoffal

Senator
Well in your case you would do well to own a leaf. The range is compatible with your driving habits. I would own one myself if the rage was just slightly better. I like the idea of a totally non smoking vehicle with no spark plugs and no fuel storage at all.....

I am glad the numbers work for you .... it is indeed good to see someone at least trying to fight back against the onslaught. Eventually I believe we will necessarily have to re-collapse the urban sprawl back in to the more efficient living models of the past.
 

justoffal

Senator
Actually I am aiming low with that estimate.

IT is based on the rough calculations of energy needs as forecast by the annual increase and the schedule of obsolescence looming over the plants that are currently operating.
 

justoffal

Senator
Having said that I have also tried to imagine how crowded Urban and inner city with multiple dwelling will set up enough charging stations for car owners. Seems nearly insurmountable unless one has a personal driveway.
 

trapdoor

Governor
yeah but 40 years ago you were not a "preferred customer".... the point that FS and I were talking about was how GM, Chrysler and to a lesser extent Ford, got stuck in the mentality of churning metal through customer's hands and making the profit on the financing side. And how they carried that MENTALITY (though not the customer service side) forward as the Japanese and German cars focussed on improving quality.
Thankfully, 40 years ago I wasn't a customer at all (I was 9). You are basically correct (albeit I think you're oversimplifying in some areas) about the companies making more money on financing cars than on the car product itself, and allowing the quality of the product to fall. But at least part of the blame for that lies at the feet of high production prices driven by two areas -- a very high wage scale for U.S. auto industry employees, and a much higher set of federal regulations of safety and emissions standards. It was easy for car companies to make money in the 50s and 60s, off the sale of their cars. All they had to do was design and build them, and offer them for sale. They didn't have to design or build them with a bumper that would stand a 10 mph impact, shoulder harnesses, catalytic converters, or CAFE standards. While all of these may be good things, they are definitely things that reduce profitability for the manufacturer -- so they cut corners to cheapen the product. Other country's car makers, especially the Japanese, found compliance easier and didn't have to (at the time) attempt to compete for the upscale market and larger cars. They stole a niche, the economy car market, that was underserved by American companies, and then expanded based on high profitability found in that market. And their higher profitability, on a per unit basis, came from lower wages and from externalizing their benefits as government programs (which American automakers paid as part of their contracts with the UAW).


I admit the American cars had a lot more "get up and go"... but Bang For Buck, from the late 60s onwards, US MFGs started steadily losing the quality war - precisely because they did not think it was a meaningful battle.
Here we fundamentally agree, and that's why I say it remains a credibility issue. The American vehicles I've test driven today are fully as high-quality as their foreign competition, but too many people remember when they weren't.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Well in your case you would do well to own a leaf. The range is compatible with your driving habits. I would own one myself if the rage was just slightly better. I like the idea of a totally non smoking vehicle with no spark plugs and no fuel storage at all.....
A Leaf would also serve my own driving habits, but it wouldn't serve the rest of my life. Like most Americans, I buy a car that reflects my individual tastes -- and for me, that means a Mustang or Camaro, because I like the additional power and superior handling of a sports car, and a can't afford a Corvette or an exotic.

I am glad the numbers work for you .... it is indeed good to see someone at least trying to fight back against the onslaught. Eventually I believe we will necessarily have to re-collapse the urban sprawl back in to the more efficient living models of the past.
OK -- first give us the decent, clean cities of the past. The neighborhood where I lived from birth to age 5 is now a crime-ridden ghetto on the east edge of Kansas City. Until then, people will need to commute, and that commute is going to be done with cars. No utopia awaits in the foreseeable future.
 

justoffal

Senator
Good points...

A confession. Recently ...last year I picked up an 88 Lincoln town car. It had the small eight ( 302 cid ) but I did a few things to it like a speed chip, hot plugs and hydrogen intake infusion...heh heh.

It was fun for a while..but I am pragmatic and just couldn't justify the expenditure on gasoline. But lemme tell ya it was pure fun stomping on that gas pedal going up the Mass Pike. That sucker ate up the road at 100 mph without so much as a twitch in the front end......call it the middle aged crisis.
 

degsme

Council Member
trapdoor;294724OK -- first give us the decent said:
Um hint - the cities of the past were neither particularly clean nor decent. That a particular neighborhood has changed does not alter this.

Secondly, this is a "chicken and egg" question. The hollowing out of many urban cores is a DIRECT RESULT of massive subsidies to low gasmileage cars. So in fact, raising CAFE standards and higher gas prices will change this. And in cities like Seattle, SFO and even LA, it is. Exurbs are losing appeal.
 

degsme

Council Member
Good points...

A confession. Recently ...last year I picked up an 88 Lincoln town car. It had the small eight ( 302 cid ) but I did a few things to it like a speed chip, hot plugs and hydrogen intake infusion...heh heh.

It was fun for a while..but I am pragmatic and just couldn't justify the expenditure on gasoline. But lemme tell ya it was pure fun stomping on that gas pedal going up the Mass Pike. That sucker ate up the road at 100 mph without so much as a twitch in the front end......call it the middle aged crisis.
And for me, I'm driving a 13yo beater because I expect my life circumstances to change in 9-12 mos (major relocation) and it doesn't make sense to spend the $$ on a newish car for that short a period of time. Particularly when the energy consumption of BUILDING the car outweighs any fuel efficiency savings I will get over what I have. IN fact I'm about to get rid of the more modern car and go back to driving my 1966 , two tone convertible Bug...
 

trapdoor

Governor
And for me, I'm driving a 13yo beater because I expect my life circumstances to change in 9-12 mos (major relocation) and it doesn't make sense to spend the $$ on a newish car for that short a period of time. Particularly when the energy consumption of BUILDING the car outweighs any fuel efficiency savings I will get over what I have. IN fact I'm about to get rid of the more modern car and go back to driving my 1966 , two tone convertible Bug...
If you really cared about the environment, you'd sell that gas-guzzling (by modern standards) Bug and buy something along the lines of a Geo Metro on the used market. The VW I owned was a little bigger-engined than the '66 model, with the 1600 cc engine (necessary for the post-catalytic converter era when it was built), and it made about 23-25 mpg. My guess is that's slightly worse than your Beetle, which probably makes (highway) about 28 mpg. A late 80s Civic or a mid-90s Metro will make mileage that good in town.

But you don't want to make that purchase, not because the numbers aren't right, but because you like the old Beetle -- it's fun. Well, my Mustang is fun, too, and makes better mpg than your Beetle.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Um hint - the cities of the past were neither particularly clean nor decent. That a particular neighborhood has changed does not alter this.

Secondly, this is a "chicken and egg" question. The hollowing out of many urban cores is a DIRECT RESULT of massive subsidies to low gasmileage cars. So in fact, raising CAFE standards and higher gas prices will change this. And in cities like Seattle, SFO and even LA, it is. Exurbs are losing appeal.
Except that this argument rests on the idea that there were somehow "subsidies" for cars, and there never were. This is just you attempting to redefine "subsidies" as you attempt, from time to time, to redefine "welfare" so that it incorporates everything from highway to defense spending.

Building roads isn't a subsidy to cars, Degs -- we already built roads before we had cars.
 

degsme

Council Member
Except that this argument rests on the idea that there were somehow "subsidies" for cars, and there never were.
Oh Trap there absolutely were. From road building without tolls, to pipeline development for fuel transfer, to subsidies for drilling oil, to de facto subsidies in the form of permitting the externalization of many of the costs of refinement and emissions etc.

And while we built roads, we
1) did not build as many
2) did not pave them to the standards needed by cars.

Those changes were subsidies since the costs were not reflected in the cost of the cars.
 

justoffal

Senator
Hey....VW made one hell of a vehicle my friend...... it may have been designed by Hitler but the damn things could not be killed! I distinctly remember a friend who had a bright Orange bug telling me that she was getting close to 30 mpg and that was way back when it didn't really matter! Drive the wheels off of that thing buddy and have a blast!
 

degsme

Council Member
Hey....VW made one hell of a vehicle my friend...... it may have been designed by Hitler but the damn things could not be killed! I distinctly remember a friend who had a bright Orange bug telling me that she was getting close to 30 mpg and that was way back when it didn't really matter! Drive the wheels off of that thing buddy and have a blast!
I plan to. I'm on my 3rd engine, 2nd Trannie, 2nd roof, and my ex gave me a present of a diamond tuck leather interior. On a sunny day its a blast.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Hey -- for what its worth I never said I didn't LIKE Beetles -- although frankly I'd rather have a Karmann Ghia, but that's because I don't like the "perched on the edge of the theater seat" ride position in a regular Beetle.

Another thing is, despite the fact that they were designed in Germany, the old air-cooled Beetle isn't a very good cold weather car. My Dad had a '66 when I was a kid and we used to joke that we should light candles on the dashboard for heating and defrosting purposes.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Oh
Trap there absolutely were. From road building without tolls, to pipeline development for fuel transfer, to subsidies for drilling oil, to de facto subsidies in the form of permitting the externalization of many of the costs of refinement and emissions etc.
The last time I checked, most of the roads built without tolls were paid for via fuel taxes -- which is a negative-subsidy to driving cars (if we're going to abuse the word subsidy in this way). Higher fuel taxes don't promote individuals driving cars, they discourage individuals to drive. Hardly a subsidy. The actual subsidies for mineral development pre-date the use of petroleum, and were meant as two things -- economic stimulus and the development of strategic minerals (coal, initially) for defense. They had nothing to do with cars, and continued to have almost nothing to do with cars even once petroleum became an exploited mineral.

And while we built roads, we
1) did not build as many
2) did not pave them to the standards needed by cars.
The changes to accomodate cars, however, did not come as a subsidy to the car companies, but because the car-driving public became large enough to make demands for such changes. Ford had already sold millions of cars when this started to take place, let alone Chevrolet, Firestone, Rickenbacker, Studebaker and more than 2100 other marques that rose (and sometimes fell) before there was a single interstate.

Those changes were subsidies since the costs were not reflected in the cost of the cars.
Those changes were not reflected in the costs of the cars, but were reflected in the costs imposed on the drivers of cars, via higher fuel taxes, in some cases direct road-funding taxes, licensing fees, etcetera. All of these add up to making the cost of auto ownership higher, and a higher cost is a disincentive, not an incentive, to purchase cars. Indicating that publicly demanded infrastructure improvements are a subsidy to industry is a reach even for you, Degs. It's like arguing that the interstate system (put in place for defense-related logistics reasons) is a subsidy to the beer industry because it facilitates interstate transport of beer.
 
Top