Electric cars - why such a big push?

[White & Nerdy]

It seems like, recently, there's been a massive push to make everyone drive hybrids and electric cars, as if everyone will die if we don't. But what all the ads fail to mention is that they don't work. Not yet, at least. Let's see...

Chevrolet Volt - LOL UR BATTERY ASPLODED. UMAD BRO?

Nissan Leaf - Even a year after beginning production (according to a cheesy advertisement with singing electical outlets), they're in such short supply that you can't even view colors and options (I checked) without registering first - and you can only get it in certain states, and there's no word that I can see about how long it'll take the get one. You'd think it was a new Ferrari or something.

Aptera 2h - Company went bust, probably because a. the car looks like something out of a cheesy movie and b. no one with any sense buys electric cars anyway.

Coda EV - Wait, what?

Fisker Karma - Significantly slower than other cars in its segment at only 125mph in the top end.

Tesla Roadster - significantly slower than the Elise it was based on, both on the straights and in the corners. Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of a sports car?

Now let's look at some hybrids.

Toyota Prius - Has nothing resembling fun to drive or handling. Also attracts more hate than Justin Bieber himself, and the extra initial cost over a similar pure-gas car will overshadow fuel savings for years. CVT just makes it even more horrible. What a waste of a 0.25 CD.

Toyota Camry Hybrid - Honestly, you could have stopped reading at "Camry" and still have seen the whole story.

Toyota Highlander Hybrid - This does nothing a midsize station wagon couldn't do just as well or better. With that in mind - it ain't green. Of course, considering the type of fake Mother Earth Heroes that buy Highlanders in the first place, the existance of a hybrid version isn't surprising.

Ford Fusion Hybrid - Heavier and more expensive, with a CVT to complete the misery.

Ford Escape Hybrid/Mercury Mariner Hybrid - See Highlander.

Porsche Cayenne Hybrid - See Highlander, but this one is really comical. Also possibly better offroad, but probably not enough to justify buying one.

Hyundai Sonata Hybrid - Heavy, expensive, and completely purposeless. Uncomfortable too.

Honda Insight - Honda makes a few good cars. This is not one of them. Teaming an uncommonly underpowered electric motor with an uncommonly underpowered engine ensured the car would have no or very little acceleration, but plenty of coarse, loud four-cylinder noise to remind you how slow you're going. That's not even getting into the stupid dashboard that glows blue when you drive in slow motion, the erratic auto-stop, or the interior so uncomfortable even an early J-Body could probably do better.

Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid/GMC Yukon Hybrid - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So, why? Mazda already proved with the HydrogenRE that an internal-combustion engine can run on both hydrogen and gasoline, changing between the two with a switch. So why not do that? You may point out that we already have hybrids in production, and they're similarly unaffected by lack of infrastructure. But I still see a few reasons as to why gas-electric hybrid is a sub-ideal power system for a car. For example, the batteries, and all the electronics needed to make the whole thing work, could possibly weigh more than an extra fuel tank and whatever else is needed to manage a dual-fuel system. Then there's the issue of regenerative braking and how it messes with the car's braking ability, possibly in a dangerous way depending on the situation and how the car's braking ability is modified. If you go the plug-in hybrid route to avoid regenerative braking issues, you get about 40 miles of full power (less when you're actually using full power), and it takes the better part of a day to recharge. Then there's batter disposal - when the car is wrecked, or thrown aside because it's no longer new enough, what kind of evil toxic contaminants will it leave behind? And safety, and long-term reliability, and just plain longevity. Bottom line, it just doesn't work.

Plus, hydrogen is literally everywhere. There is no way we could ever run out. Why not use it?

Or, why not use Smokey Yunick's hot-air engine? Back in the mid-80's, when he built a running prototype, it was already a mind-blowingly good idea. Stock, a Pontiac Iron Duke 4cyl had something like 80-90 horsepower and, in the Fiero, was rated at something like 30mpg. With Yunick's equipment installed, it gave something like 250hp and 50+ mpg. With the more advanced computers and materials now available, the potential is even better. Why haven't we heard more about that?

 

[Azuremen]

Wow, I haven't skimmed over so much ignorance in a while.

Hydrogen, as a combustible, isn't any more viable than gasoline because, especially right now, it is generated via petroleum products. Hydrogen is everywhere, but it is often bonded with other things, such as Oxygen. Separating those requires energy, and then the returns from an internal combustion engine are far less than just using the electric energy to run a motor directly.

Yunick's design has huge reliability issues, not to mention a lot of problems with the validity of the tests.

For plug-ins, most people don't commute more than 30 miles a day total, and many cities are beginning to add in charge stations. Rapid recharge systems can also bring batteries to 80% power in a relatively short time.

You seem to be focusing on performance figures for acceleration on cars that are mostly designed to be efficient, not fast. The Tesla is an exception in that it is a sports car, and it still performs very well for a car that they shoe horned batteries into. Not to mention the very low center of gravity.

Also, you forgot about another interesting electric car, the Tango, which I've seen do wonderful smokey burnouts in person. And the 1000 ft-lbs of torque on the model I was watching drag was pretty amusing.

 

[homeforsummer]

It seems like, recently, there's been a massive push to make everyone drive hybrids and electric cars, as if everyone will die if we don't. But what all the ads fail to mention is that they don't work. Not yet, at least. Let's see...

Firstly, why you couldn't have done this in one of the other electric car threads I'm not sure. Though I can't say I'm completely surprised you didn't search.

Quite how you think there's a "massive push" I'm not sure. Last time I checked, I could drive anything I liked. Buying a hybrid/EV is purely an optional process, just like everything else.

Chevrolet Volt - LOL UR BATTERY ASPLODED. UMAD BRO?

Unsurprisingly, you've not done your research on this one.

The NHTSA tested a Volt in its crash testing and awarded the car 5 stars, since it passed with flying colours. Three weeks later, a fire started in their warehouse because when they'd crashed the car heavily, the battery casing and cooling system had split and somehow combusted.

Two things spring to mind: One, I think three weeks is a suitable time to leave a vehicle once you've crashed it, and two, in an accident of such severity, I suspect that even if the car wasn't written off entirely, the battery would be one item replaced and therefore the car you get back would be no fire risk anyway. Let's face it, if you crashed your car into a concrete block normally you probably wouldn't get it back with the same engine, so why get it back with a damaged battery?

There have been zero recorded incidences of fire out on the road (and again if you do your research, every garage fire involving a Volt - all two or three of them - has been started by other factors, such as poor wiring, a home project beside the Volt, and not the Volt itself) but as a goodwill gesture Chevy has offered owners another Chevy in the meantime while they investigate. Only thirty-odd out of the thousands of Volt owners have taken them up on the offer.

Nissan Leaf - Even a year after beginning production (according to a cheesy advertisement with singing electical outlets), they're in such short supply that you can't even view colors and options (I checked) without registering first - and you can only get it in certain states, and there's no word that I can see about how long it'll take the get one. You'd think it was a new Ferrari or something.

It's a low-volume, specialist vehicle being built to order. In that respect it's very much like a new Ferrari, and it makes no sense to produce millions of the things when demand is unlikely to get that high for a long while.

Dealers still have vehicles available to test drive, and the rollout in different states is decided by how suited that particular state is to supporting a charging network. Many aren't, just yet.

Aptera 2h - Company went bust, probably because a. the car looks like something out of a cheesy movie and b. no one with any sense buys electric cars anyway.

Poor management. Two thousand people had put deposits down, so obviously somebody wanted the cars, and before they went bust they'd also started developing a regular four-door in order to make them eligible for the government's DoE loans for alternative fuel vehicles. Unfortunately for Aptera, they were only weeks away from getting the loan, but had run out of cash and had to file for bankruptcy.

As for "no one with any sense buys electric cars anyway", I suspect that things like actual facts will fall on deaf ears anyway and you're nothing more than an ill-educated troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue anyway.

Coda EV - Wait, what?

Not hit the market yet, so we have no idea of what it's like. That said, I'd agree with the "wait, what?" sentiment, as it's a dull thing to look at and not really where I'd like the industry to be going.

Fisker Karma - Significantly slower than other cars in its segment at only 125mph in the top end.

Because of course, all roads in the States have 150mph speed limits so 125 will be shameful at the local golf course.

Grow up. If its top speed is all you can comment on then you clearly know absolutely nothing about the car. Here, one of my colleagues has driven it. Go nuts.

Tesla Roadster - significantly slower than the Elise it was based on, both on the straights and in the corners. Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of a sports car?

An original Lotus 7 - basically responsible for every Lotus ever, plus half of the world's kit-car industry, had a 50bhp engine. That was a sports car, so why not a Tesla Roadster?

And that's before you consider your statement inaccurate anyway. The base Elise has around 120bhp, accelerates slower, and has and a top speed barely beyond the Tesla (and that's a sports car too. Shock!)

Now let's look at some hybrids.

Toyota Prius - Has nothing resembling fun to drive or handling. Also attracts more hate than Justin Bieber himself, and the extra initial cost over a similar pure-gas car will overshadow fuel savings for years. CVT just makes it even more horrible. What a waste of a 0.25 CD.

And yet, it sells in massive numbers, and is a huge success story for Toyota. Here's something funny - maybe people who buy them aren't interested in a car being fun to drive, and just want something incredibly economical, comfortable, quiet and reliable to drive every day?

Toyota Camry Hybrid - Honestly, you could have stopped reading at "Camry" and still have seen the whole story.

Once again, another high-selling vehicle.

Toyota Highlander Hybrid - This does nothing a midsize station wagon couldn't do just as well or better. With that in mind - it ain't green. Of course, considering the type of fake Mother Earth Heroes that buy Highlanders in the first place, the existance of a hybrid version isn't surprising.

...and again, Toyota sells them, granting it a point.

Ford Fusion Hybrid - Heavier and more expensive, with a CVT to complete the misery.

...and more economical, and CVT is a particularly efficient transmission.

Ford Escape Hybrid/Mercury Mariner Hybrid - See Highlander.

One of the most reliable vehicles on the road. Used by New York Taxi companies, several of whom have put well over 300,000 miles on their Escape Hybrids. Only five reliability issues have been logged from 190,000 battery packs.

But I still see a few reasons as to why gas-electric hybrid is a sub-ideal power system for a car. For example, the batteries, and all the electronics needed to make the whole thing work, could possibly weigh more than an extra fuel tank and whatever else is needed to manage a dual-fuel system.

If you're filling that tank with hydrogen, then I'll explain what's wrong with this below. If you're filling it with anything else, there's no tangible benefit over a hybrid.

Then there's the issue of regenerative braking and how it messes with the car's braking ability, possibly in a dangerous way depending on the situation and how the car's braking ability is modified.

I've driven several cars with regen braking. It's not the most pleasant sensation in the world, but it's livable and I'd love to see proof of this danger you refer to.

If you go the plug-in hybrid route to avoid regenerative braking issues, you get about 40 miles of full power (less when you're actually using full power), and it takes the better part of a day to recharge.

If better part of a day means "two to three hours even on a slow charge" then yes, it takes the better part of a day. Now consider how often during the average day you might have gaps of two to three hours. If you work, then you might have a gap of 8 hours, which sounds more than enough. Or 8 hours overnight when you're at home. Both of which are enough to charge a full electric car, let alone a plug-in hybrid with a smaller battery.

Incidentally, one Volt owner has found the 40-odd miles more than enough - he's used only half a gallon of gas in over 1,500 miles.

Then there's batter disposal - when the car is wrecked, or thrown aside because it's no longer new enough, what kind of evil toxic contaminants will it leave behind? And safety, and long-term reliability, and just plain longevity.

Longevity and reliability - see above, to my comments about the Escape. 300k miles and going strong. I'm also currently trying to contact the owner of a Civic Hybrid who has done 720,000 miles. And Honda UK, who have an Insight with 300,000 miles on it. In a one-liter car.

Disposal - irrelevant. All carmakers currently selling EVs and hybrids have a system of reclaiming the old batteries and recycling them. The rare earth metals used within can actually be used again, contrary to popular belief.

Bottom line, it just doesn't work.

Uneducated conjecture.

Plus, hydrogen is literally everywhere. There is no way we could ever run out. Why not use it?

Right, and now go find me an easy way of scooping hydrogen out of the air.

Done yet? How much have you got, none? Thought so. You could try electrolysis of water, but then you're using more electricity to extract hydrogen than you would get out of the hydrogen as a liquid fuel or in a fuel cell, so that's pointless. How about extracting it from natural gas? Well, you get natural gas from drilling for oil, so there's no real benefit there - you may as well just use the oil.

Bottom line, hydrogen is a waste of effort.

Or, why not use Smokey Yunick's hot-air engine? Back in the mid-80's, when he built a running prototype, it was already a mind-blowingly good idea. Stock, a Pontiac Iron Duke 4cyl had something like 80-90 horsepower and, in the Fiero, was rated at something like 30mpg. With Yunick's equipment installed, it gave something like 250hp and 50+ mpg. With the more advanced computers and materials now available, the potential is even better. Why haven't we heard more about that?

Partly because it didn't work with fuel injection, and partly because it was incredibly complicated. If it hadn't been massively flawed, we'd be using it today. And Smokey would be a very rich man.

As it is, modern techniques have taken us way beyond the potential of that sort of engine.

 

[E28]

You missed a few good hybrids:

Porsche 918
BMW i8
Jaguar C-X16

Admittedly, they are all concepts but are slated for production...

 

[Prince.M5]

It doesn't work? Actually you're wrong. Eventhough I don't really favour electric cars but the Honda Insight has been the best selling Honda in Malaysia this year. So far, no complaint has been filed. My uncle own one and yes it's underpowered but nowadays at least to some people, economy is what we all want. The car starts at MYR100k and that's actually very cheap for a medium sized eco-car plus with the economy that it offers, it's a very good buy!

The Prius is the same but comes a bit pricier than the Insight, also one of the best selling eco-car here. These cars are built to be economical and not for performance. So why bother about acceleration? The dashboard is a matter of taste. You don't like it, that's your problem mate... Thing is, the Insight is a good eco car!

 

[Prince.M5]

My apology for this one...

 

[Murcie_LP640]

You also have the Honda CR-Z which more than makes up for its "hybrid performance credentials" by being very good to drive (great manual shift, Japanese sportscar-like handling, and great steering and engine response in Sport mode combined with the 4.6L/100km economy in "econ" mode). It's currently sitting within the top 6 for Wheels Car of the Year.

I do freely admit that I am not a fan of electric cars or hybrids - although I do live in a rural area so they're not exactly ideal here anyway ('round here "VTEC Yo!" and my dad's Accord Euro exceed the mileage on many economy cars and some hybrids) - but they do work in a city environment where the average driver doesn't travel long distances at all. Top Gear's recent "semi-serious face" segment on electric cars (Nissan LEAF and Peugeot iON/Mitsubishi i-MiEV) does give a couple of concerns towards them though, especially with the battery pack lifespan. It's still really a technological "work-in-progress" though so it's not exactly surprising.

 

[Kylehnat]

Long-winded, pointless rant

Why a big push to get away from gasoline? Because one day it will be mostly gone, or at least prohibitively-expensive to use for personal transport. Whether that is next decade or 100 years from now makes no difference. We need to transition away from it, and that will take 15-20 years, realistically. And, THAT clock doesn't start ticking until the next "fuel" is chosen. Electric cars are a good middle-ground, if not a long-term solution. We have many different ways of producing electricity, and it is far easier to produce using renewable or sustainable methods. There is only one way to make gasoline on a large-scale, and that involves drilling for dinosaur blood.

I'm glad to see that more than a few automakers are offering electrics or hybrids, because it means we're starting to make a necessary change. Waiting for a REAL gas crisis to hit makes as much sense as seeing a hurricane coming for a week, and waiting for the raindrops to hit your town before buying your bottled water and canned soup.

 

[SuperShouden]

I also want to point out that Tesla has been working their butts off to make sure just the roadster worked properly before starting on their second car, the Model S. The Roadster has the longest range of any electric vehicle, and Model S is expected to have an even longer range, they've partnered with Toyota to use one of their factories to produce a more affordable, mass produced Tesla Bluestar. Part of the deal was that Tesla share their battery technology.

And the push...is because of money. Governments are offering very large incentives to companies that have at least one zero-emissions vehicle in their line up. Heck, even Tesla's about to release their family four-dour. That's why you have Ford and Chevy with hybrids and electrics. Chrysler had three EVs ready to go before they got bought by FIAT. But...FIAT has released concepts of hybrid Ferraris, so, chances are, they're going to want in on the incentives.

This is the "Green Age" and EVs are just a part of it.

 

[Adamgp]

I actually agree with W&N, to an extent.

I kind of like the hybrid idea, and see that as a better idea than pure EV. If only the cost of them would come down.

I was once actually thinking of getting one next year (Silverado/Sierra hybrid), but have since decided against it.

Range isn't so much of an issue with EV's anymore but they still have still have some big issues, cost, charge time, lack of features, etc. I just don't see pure EV's replacing ICE cars, atleast not in my lifetime.

 

[Kylehnat]

^If you only expect to live another 10 years, then maybe you're right.

 

[1241Penguin]

So you're putting down these cars based on what you think of them?

While I can't say for every single car as I've never even been inside most of them, I can tell you that the Camry Hybrid is a good car. It's comfortable and reasonably fast.

The only problems I see with electric and hybrid cars are their price, their longevity, and questionable eco-friendliness.

You and your stereotypes of cars.

 

[Adamgp]

^If you only expect to live another 10 years, then maybe you're right.

Replacing ICE cars on a large scale in 10 years? I'll believe it when/if (big if) it happens.

 

[homeforsummer]

Range isn't so much of an issue with EV's anymore but they still have still have some big issues, cost, charge time, lack of features, etc. I just don't see pure EV's replacing ICE cars, atleast not in my lifetime.

I'd tend to agree. They're unlikely to replace ICEs completely for quite some time, at least not every ICE vehicle (I can see delivery vans and city cars going all-electric in the not too distant future, price dependent). And you're right, there are currently range and cost issues, though many of those kind of issues very much depend on the individual's needs. Personally, I see cost as more of a problem than range. Many, many people would never get near the 100 mile range of many EVs each day, but if they can't afford them it's academic.

However, we're still at a very much "early adopter" stage.

W&N's post wasn't quite as measured as yours though. It came across much more as "ignorant troll", than "realist".

 

[Adamgp]

I'd tend to agree. They're unlikely to replace ICEs completely for quite some time, at least not every ICE vehicle (I can see delivery vans and city cars going all-electric in the not too distant future, price dependent). And you're right, there are currently range and cost issues, though many of those kind of issues very much depend on the individual's needs. Personally, I see cost as more of a problem than range. Many, many people would never get near the 100 mile range of many EVs each day, but if they can't afford them it's academic.

However, we're still at a very much "early adopter" stage.

W&N's post wasn't quite as measured as yours though. It came across much more as "ignorant troll", than "realist".

An EV with a 100 mile range would suit my normal commute just fine, but if I need to go further than that in 1 day I'm SOL. Most people lack the money/space for a 2nd ICE powered car for longer trips.

Again, (at least single-charge) range is no longer much of an issue with EV's, but cost, charge time, etc. still are.

 

[Azure Flare]

You left one out.

Well, its more of a KERS than an actual hybrid, but Porsche calls it that, so you have to believe it!

 

[White & Nerdy]

Unsurprisingly, you've not done your research on this one.

The NHTSA tested a Volt in its crash testing and awarded the car 5 stars, since it passed with flying colours. Three weeks later, a fire started in their warehouse because when they'd crashed the car heavily, the battery casing and cooling system had split and somehow combusted.

Two things spring to mind: One, I think three weeks is a suitable time to leave a vehicle once you've crashed it, and two, in an accident of such severity, I suspect that even if the car wasn't written off entirely, the battery would be one item replaced and therefore the car you get back would be no fire risk anyway. Let's face it, if you crashed your car into a concrete block normally you probably wouldn't get it back with the same engine, so why get it back with a damaged battery?

There have been zero recorded incidences of fire out on the road (and again if you do your research, every garage fire involving a Volt - all two or three of them - has been started by other factors, such as poor wiring, a home project beside the Volt, and not the Volt itself) but as a goodwill gesture Chevy has offered owners another Chevy in the meantime while they investigate. Only thirty-odd out of the thousands of Volt owners have taken them up on the offer.

OK, another problem. The massive battery packs turn the Volt into a four-seater, thus, it's a less practical design.

It's a low-volume, specialist vehicle being built to order. In that respect it's very much like a new Ferrari, and it makes no sense to produce millions of the things when demand is unlikely to get that high for a long while.

Dealers still have vehicles available to test drive, and the rollout in different states is decided by how suited that particular state is to supporting a charging network. Many aren't, just yet.

Well, that, then the the range issue. While true that some people have short-enough commutes, not everyone wants to be tethered to a 50-mile area around their home forever.

Poor management. Two thousand people had put deposits down, so obviously somebody wanted the cars, and before they went bust they'd also started developing a regular four-door in order to make them eligible for the government's DoE loans for alternative fuel vehicles. Unfortunately for Aptera, they were only weeks away from getting the loan, but had run out of cash and had to file for bankruptcy.

Whatever, bad luck I guess. Shoulda done the sedan first!

As for "no one with any sense buys electric cars anyway", I suspect that things like actual facts will fall on deaf ears anyway and you're nothing more than an ill-educated troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue anyway.

Actually, it's true. If you want to save money on fuel, go buy a used Honda Civic or something. They're everywhere and the cost is well within reach of anyone with a job. It's also low enough to overshadow fuel savings for quite a while, as I recall.

Not hit the market yet, so we have no idea of what it's like. That said, I'd agree with the "wait, what?" sentiment, as it's a dull thing to look at and not really where I'd like the industry to be going.

Probably pretty bad.

Because of course, all roads in the States have 150mph speed limits so 125 will be shameful at the local golf course.

Grow up. If its top speed is all you can comment on then you clearly know absolutely nothing about the car. Here, one of my colleagues has driven it. Go nuts.

It doesn't matter if you ever use the car's full speed. All that matters is, it's firmly at the high end of the market, it should have the speed to run with the rest of them. Low CO2 emissions aren't "statusable" (unless the people you work with are annoying enviro-snobs). Autobahn-worthy top speed is. And luxury cars are about status more than anything else, so the Karma basically exists for a very select crowd of annoying people.

An original Lotus 7 - basically responsible for every Lotus ever, plus half of the world's kit-car industry, had a 50bhp engine. That was a sports car, so why not a Tesla Roadster?

That was then, this is now. There were a lot of things the 7 didn't have that the Elise does. Just because the 7 was slow, doesn't mean we should go back in that direction...

And that's before you consider your statement inaccurate anyway. The base Elise has around 120bhp, accelerates slower, and has and a top speed barely beyond the Tesla (and that's a sports car too. Shock!)

And that brings up another point: the Elise doesn't sound like a Hoover either.

And yet, it sells in massive numbers, and is a huge success story for Toyota. Here's something funny - maybe people who buy them aren't interested in a car being fun to drive, and just want something incredibly economical, comfortable, quiet and reliable to drive every day?

Not interested in fun to drive? Even to those people, the Prius would be underwhelming. Everything I've read says it's like driving a computer, with no steering feel and mind-blowing amounts of understeer. Even someone who liked working in a cubicle would think the Prius too boring.

Incredibly economical? Then buy a used compact. Or a new one. The Prius is too expensive for the "economical" argument to make sense.

Comfortable? OK, fair point. Better than an Insight, I guess.

Quiet? Too quiet, until you need to accelerate hard. Then, because of the CVT, it sounds like someone revving a generator.

Reliable? OK, but it's not the only reliable car in the world. There are many cheaper, overall better cars out there that are still reliable.

Once again, another high-selling vehicle.

Actually, from what I've read, the gas-powered planet-murdering Camry outsells the hype-brid version by... a lot. When I said you could have had the whole story, I meant the Camry's lackluster... well... everything.

...and again, Toyota sells them, granting it a point.

That doesn't mean the people buying them are smart. If you want to be green, first thing's first, don't go out and buy a brand new cute ute.

...and more economical, and CVT is a particularly efficient transmission.

Also particularly annoying. VRRRRRRRR... mwahhhh... VRRRRRRRRRR... mwahhh...

One of the most reliable vehicles on the road. Used by New York Taxi companies, several of whom have put well over 300,000 miles on their Escape Hybrids. Only five reliability issues have been logged from 190,000 battery packs.

Something tells me there were better choices out there. A taxi isn't going to be going offroad, and neither is the typical Escape/Mariner driver. So that leaves cargo space, and a good ol' station wagon could have done that just as well, with better handling and fuel economy too. I don't know why no one likes wagons anymore, since the typical SUV/crossover is just a wagon with a lift kit.

I've driven several cars with regen braking. It's not the most pleasant sensation in the world, but it's livable and I'd love to see proof of this danger you refer to.

My thought was that, if the regen braking system did the wrong thing at the wrong moment, it could cause the driver to misjudge his braking distance or get caught off-guard, and thereby get him hit from behind or cause him to leave the road surface.

If better part of a day means "two to three hours even on a slow charge" then yes, it takes the better part of a day. Now consider how often during the average day you might have gaps of two to three hours. If you work, then you might have a gap of 8 hours, which sounds more than enough. Or 8 hours overnight when you're at home. Both of which are enough to charge a full electric car, let alone a plug-in hybrid with a smaller battery.

I've never heard of an electric car taking three hours to charge. I was thinking more like 8-12 hours, at least.

Incidentally, one Volt owner has found the 40-odd miles more than enough - he's used only half a gallon of gas in over 1,500 miles.

He must lead a very boring life if he never drives more than 40 miles at a time.

Longevity and reliability - see above, to my comments about the Escape. 300k miles and going strong. I'm also currently trying to contact the owner of a Civic Hybrid who has done 720,000 miles. And Honda UK, who have an Insight with 300,000 miles on it. In a one-liter car.

OK, fair point.

Disposal - irrelevant. All carmakers currently selling EVs and hybrids have a system of reclaiming the old batteries and recycling them. The rare earth metals used within can actually be used again, contrary to popular belief.

Hardly a perfect system. Not every car will be disposed of responsibly. People will inevitably dump them in junkyards or just somewhere out of the way and leave the batteries to the elements along with the rest of the car.

Right, and now go find me an easy way of scooping hydrogen out of the air.

Done yet? How much have you got, none? Thought so. You could try electrolysis of water, but then you're using more electricity to extract hydrogen than you would get out of the hydrogen as a liquid fuel or in a fuel cell, so that's pointless. How about extracting it from natural gas? Well, you get natural gas from drilling for oil, so there's no real benefit there - you may as well just use the oil.

Bottom line, hydrogen is a waste of effort.

I would still rather come up with ways to adapt existing technology to new power sources than be cursed to a life of CVTs and cars with no exhaust note (or BMW's automotive lip-synching idea, which is just as bad). And there are hydrogen cars out there right now, so the technology exists.

Not to mention, we tend to uselessly burn off the natural gas we get from oil drilling. Better to extract the hydrogen from it instead.

Just as there are ways to make electric cars work, there are ways to make hydrogen cars work. And given the range/driving experience issues with electric cars, I'd much rather have the latter.

Partly because it didn't work with fuel injection, and partly because it was incredibly complicated. If it hadn't been massively flawed, we'd be using it today. And Smokey would be a very rich man.

As it is, modern techniques have taken us way beyond the potential of that sort of engine.

OK, so just give up then. Resign yourself to a life of boring, slow, range-limited cars because you don't want to work towards anything else. I'm firmly convinced that Smokey's design could be made to work with fuel injection and computer controls, or even benefit from them. There are rarely any flaws that can't be worked out, and adapting Smokey's design would still be cheaper overall than completely redesigning infrastructure everywhere to make use of electricity instead of liquid power sources.

Also, Smokey wouldn't be a rich, rich man, becuase he's dead.

 

[SuperShouden]

I actually agree with W&N, to an extent.

I kind of like the hybrid idea, and see that as a better idea than pure EV. If only the cost of them would come down.

I was once actually thinking of getting one next year (Silverado/Sierra hybrid), but have since decided against it.

Range isn't so much of an issue with EV's anymore but they still have still have some big issues, cost, charge time, lack of features, etc. I just don't see pure EV's replacing ICE cars, atleast not in my lifetime.

Wow! You're getting a GM Hybrid...the most useless and pointless hybrids ever conceived. Seriously, the Hybrid Silverado gets 5 more mpgs in the city and 1 more on the highway. It's a full-sized truck. You don't put a hybrid engine in a full-sized 3-4 ton truck for the fuel economy. You do it for the added torque.

American hybrids suck for the most part. Like I said, the main reason any manufacturer makes a hybrid is for the money, and GM, being a government owned company, is the prime example of that. There's no real since that they want to help the environment. At least with Toyota and Nissan, you have the "save the world, drive one of our EVs or Hybrids," slogan. All you hear from the American companies is "Look, we have an EV...or we have lots of power."

If you're going to be a hybrid, don't buy American.

And I will admit, if I were going to spring for an EV, I'd save my money and get a Tesla. At least with a Tesla can travel between cities without needing to rent a hotel every forty miles. I mean, to visit my grandparents it's 600 miles...with the Volt that trip would probably take me three days just with all the stops to recharge. The Telsa Model S can do it in about one or two days with the 30-minute quick charge.

But, the main reason behind the 40 mile range is that, for the most part, that's all you'll need if your just traveling to work and back. It's not practical for longer trips, which is an are that Tesla has a monopoly on, at the moment....and the coolness factor.

So, I somewhat agree with W&N...but there's a lot of things I disagree with. Gasoline isn't going to be around forever. We can make what we have left last longer by switching to hybrids and EVs. Oil can still be used in making the body of the car and the other plastic bits. Also, but cutting our ties on foreign oil, gas prices should drop. (and perhaps wars like the war in Iraq would stop....probably not...but...it's worth a shot.)

 

[Kylehnat]

Replacing ICE cars on a large scale in 10 years? I'll believe it when/if (big if) it happens.

Yes, If every new car sold was an EV starting tomorrow, it would still be 20-30 years before most existing ICE vehicles are off the road. However, the public's mentality is asinine--"it will take too long, so screw it". It will take a long time, regardless of when we start. Whatever the next "fuel" is, it's going to require a massive time and money investment for infrastructure. This is already beginning, as auto makers are creating new drivetrains, and fuel companies are providing more options. This kind of effort should be encouraged, not dismissed as too expensive or too small to make a difference. The technology in new-energy vehicles will rapidly catch up and become more attractive to more people. Look at how cell phones have progressed in the last 10 years. In 2001, the thought of sling-shotting wingless birds at green pigs with the swipe of my finger was laughable. Imagining that my phone would remember where I parked was a creepy thought. But, that is the world in which we now live. There is nothing to suggest that car technology will not accelerate exponentially, as all technology does. The range issues will be sorted, the fuel-storage issues will be sorted, and the cost issue will be sorted. What we don't want is tons of new vehicles available for a good price, with nowhere to fill them up because the public thought it was a stupid idea 20 years ago.

 

[hawkeye122]

It doesn't matter if you ever use the car's full speed. All that matters is, it's firmly at the high end of the market, it should have the speed to run with the rest of them. Low CO2 emissions aren't "statusable" (unless the people you work with are annoying enviro-snobs). Autobahn-worthy top speed is. And luxury cars are about status more than anything else, so the Karma basically exists for a very select crowd of annoying people.

I was unaware that those in the motoring Mecca that is Alaska had an opportunity to frequent the Autobahn. Also, I can think of very few people stupid enough to purchase a Prius on the merit that it's "The fastest in its class"

Hardly a perfect system. Not every car will be disposed of responsibly. People will inevitably dump them in junkyards or just somewhere out of the way and leave the batteries to the elements along with the rest of the car.

Hardly a perfect system? What do people (namely 30+ year-olds who have lives and jobs) do when they want a New car? Take their old one (For this example, lets just use the Mid-life crisis. Someone trading in a Leaf for a GT-R) to the Nissan dealer, trade it in (This gives you a bit of a discount) and buy the shiny new car you want. But in the end, Nissan ends up with the car again! And if they say the batteries are recyclable, then they will probably do just that. Same with Toyota, or Ford, or GM.

 

[Adamgp]

Wow! You're getting a GM Hybrid...the most useless and pointless hybrids ever conceived. Seriously, the Hybrid Silverado gets 5 more mpgs in the city and 1 more on the highway. It's a full-sized truck. You don't put a hybrid engine in a full-sized 3-4 ton truck for the fuel economy. You do it for the added torque.

American hybrids suck for the most part. Like I said, the main reason any manufacturer makes a hybrid is for the money, and GM, being a government owned company, is the prime example of that. There's no real since that they want to help the environment. At least with Toyota and Nissan, you have the "save the world, drive one of our EVs or Hybrids," slogan. All you hear from the American companies is "Look, we have an EV...or we have lots of power."

If you're going to be a hybrid, don't buy American.

Yes, I was considering a GM hybrid. I would like a truck, and why wouldn't I consider a full size truck that gets better mpg city than an Honda Accord V6. 20/23 mpg vs 15/21 mpg for a non-hybid is a pretty big difference.

As for reliability, the 6.0 V8 in the hybrids is a very stout engine, and I've researched Silverado/Sierra forums and their are hardly any reported problems with the hybrids. If there are, it is covered under the 8 year/100k mile hybrid warranty, which just about every hybrid comes with.

My friend has owned a '06 Silverado Hybrid since new and it has been problem free with 150k miles on it now.

I haven't crossed it entirely off my list but the new Silverado/Sierra hybrids are only available as a crew cab/short box, and not the configuration I wanted. Maybe in the next gen.

I would prefer to buy American, hybrid or not.

 

[homeforsummer]

OK, another problem. The massive battery packs turn the Volt into a four-seater, thus, it's a less practical design.

I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps people who need more than four seats won't buy one then? And those that don't need more than four seats would probably be quite happy with them.

Incidentally, those two separate rear seats are actually pretty comfy. Well shaped, and you'll never be sliding across the centre when cornering.

Well, that, then the the range issue. While true that some people have short-enough commutes, not everyone wants to be tethered to a 50-mile area around their home forever.

The Volt is a range-extended EV, meaning it uses a gasoline engine to supplement the electric range. So the "tethered" range is a moot point. With other EVs, again - if they aren't suited to your journey, then you wouldn't buy one. Plenty of people are fine with a 100-odd mile range. That, and many current EVs are bought as second cars. During the week, people can use the EV, and if they do longer journeys at the weekend, that's what the other car is for.

Actually, it's true. If you want to save money on fuel, go buy a used Honda Civic or something. They're everywhere and the cost is well within reach of anyone with a job. It's also low enough to overshadow fuel savings for quite a while, as I recall.

Hybrids have been around for a decade or so. Why not buy a second-hand one of those and save even more money on fuel?

Probably pretty bad.

Again, I'm not personally a fan of the Coda and I don't think the company is going about hitting the market in the right way. Maybe it will be bad, but we can't be sure yet.

It doesn't matter if you ever use the car's full speed. All that matters is, it's firmly at the high end of the market, it should have the speed to run with the rest of them. Low CO2 emissions aren't "statusable" (unless the people you work with are annoying enviro-snobs). Autobahn-worthy top speed is. And luxury cars are about status more than anything else, so the Karma basically exists for a very select crowd of annoying people.

Firstly, I'll ask you to refrain from being an asshat and making assumptions about the people I work with. For the record, the guy who reviewed the Karma (did you bother watching it, incidentally?) owns an M5 and a 300ZX, and has a penchant for V8s, so he's not what I'd call an "annoying enviro-snob". He also - like many car journalists - gets to drive some pretty fantastic stuff on a daily basis.

And he still thinks the Karma is an excellent car. Go figure.

The Karma's top speed is largely irrelevant. People will buy it for the styling, the technology and the interior quality, which is beyond that of most cars in production today.

That was then, this is now. There were a lot of things the 7 didn't have that the Elise does. Just because the 7 was slow, doesn't mean we should go back in that direction...

Here's what you wrote:

"significantly slower than the Elise it was based on, both on the straights and in the corners. Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of a sports car?"

My response was pointing out that being slower (all relative of course - 4 seconds to 60mph isn't exactly snails-pace, and top speed is as irrelevant in the Roadster as it is in the Elise with which it shares a chassis) isn't that big a deal.

Much of the point of sports cars is fun. I know several Roadster owners, and they all find the car fantastic to drive.

And that brings up another point: the Elise doesn't sound like a Hoover either.

Nor does the Tesla, last time I checked.

Not interested in fun to drive? Even to those people, the Prius would be underwhelming. Everything I've read says it's like driving a computer, with no steering feel and mind-blowing amounts of understeer. Even someone who liked working in a cubicle would think the Prius too boring.

All conjecture, based on absolutely nothing at all. You're rating an economy car entirely on factors related to driving a sports car. Both unrealistic, and pretty dim-witted.

Incredibly economical? Then buy a used compact. Or a new one. The Prius is too expensive for the "economical" argument to make sense.

...or buy a used Prius, which is still better than any new compact on sale.

Quiet? Too quiet, until you need to accelerate hard. Then, because of the CVT, it sounds like someone revving a generator.

How can it be "too quiet"? If you buy a car to be relaxing and economical, you don't want noise. Again, you're judging an eco-car entirely on performance car criteria. Something no Prius owner does.

Reliable? OK, but it's not the only reliable car in the world. There are many cheaper, overall better cars out there that are still reliable.

Define "overall better", given that someone in the market for a Prius is looking for a quiet, 50mpg, easy to drive car. Given, in fact, that most owners want a Prius.

Actually, from what I've read, the gas-powered planet-murdering Camry outsells the hype-brid version by... a lot. When I said you could have had the whole story, I meant the Camry's lackluster... well... everything.

Lots of people only need a Camry. Some of them want a hybrid version.

I'm failing to understand how you seem so devoid of the concept that people require different things from a car.

Also particularly annoying. VRRRRRRRR... mwahhhh... VRRRRRRRRRR... mwahhh...

Irrelevant if you aren't driving it like a sports car. Most people on their daily commute will barely be able to hear it.

Something tells me there were better choices out there. A taxi isn't going to be going offroad, and neither is the typical Escape/Mariner driver. So that leaves cargo space, and a good ol' station wagon could have done that just as well, with better handling and fuel economy too. I don't know why no one likes wagons anymore, since the typical SUV/crossover is just a wagon with a lift kit.

If New York and San Francisco taxi companies thought there was something better, they'd be using it. We live in free countries, people have freedom of choice. They're using the Escape because it's the best car for the job.

And again, find me a vehicle you reckon could do better as a taxi, while doing twice as many miles to every gallon as a Crown Vic.

My thought was that, if the regen braking system did the wrong thing at the wrong moment, it could cause the driver to misjudge his braking distance or get caught off-guard, and thereby get him hit from behind or cause him to leave the road surface.

You make it sound completely unpredictable. It isn't. It's mildly inconsistent at very low speeds, and not even slightly enough to cause accidents.

It was enough for me to notice when I drove a Volt (I've not noticed it particularly in any other EVs, though I've not driven the Leaf yet) but you'd get used to it very quickly.

I've never heard of an electric car taking three hours to charge. I was thinking more like 8-12 hours, at least.

It depends completely on so many factors, but here's a good list of typical times.

If you were to literally plug something like a Nissan Leaf into a regular household outlet (like your TV or microwave, a charge from absolutely zero capacity would take about 10 hours. Cars with an even larger battery might take 12. It's hardly the norm though.

Most go for Nissan's home kit, which takes that down to 5-6 from absolutely zero capacity (and again, you'd have to max out on every journey to get it down to zero). Most charging points at workplaces or on the street vary between 3-6 hours. Fast charging posts (as found at every Nissan dealership) will do an 80% charge in about 20 minutes.

We were talking about the Volt before - with a smaller battery (with range for about 40-50 miles, rather than 80-100), cut all those times above in half. Apart from the fast charge, which the Volt doesn't do.

He must lead a very boring life if he never drives more than 40 miles at a time.

He has a job. His commute each way is less than 40 miles, and he's able to charge at work. Even if he couldn't charge at work, he'd still only need to use gasoline for 50% of his journeys.

It's pretty ignorant to assume someone has a "boring life" when you don't know anything about them.

Hardly a perfect system. Not every car will be disposed of responsibly. People will inevitably dump them in junkyards or just somewhere out of the way and leave the batteries to the elements along with the rest of the car.

Again, all conjecture. Manufacturers currently offering hybrids and EVs all have agreements to reclaim the vehicles at the end of their lifetimes. Maybe if you live out in the sticks and drive an old pickup then you'd be happy to dump it in the middle of nowhere when it dies, but people don't tend to do that in Palo Alto or similar...

I would still rather come up with ways to adapt existing technology to new power sources than be cursed to a life of CVTs and cars with no exhaust note (or BMW's automotive lip-synching idea, which is just as bad). And there are hydrogen cars out there right now, so the technology exists.

Again: You cannot judge every vehicle by the standards of a performance car. Some people want CVT, and don't want noise. People having what they want isn't automatically a bad thing, just because it isn't what you want.

Correction: There is one hydrogen vehicle currently out there, undergoing tests. The Honda FCX Clarity. Yes, the technology exists, it's just largely pointless and there are better options.

Just as there are ways to make electric cars work, there are ways to make hydrogen cars work. And given the range/driving experience issues with electric cars, I'd much rather have the latter.

It's much, much more difficult to develop hydrogen vehicles than it is battery-powered vehicles.

Hydrogen would also require a massive and incredibly expensive infrastructure. Putting up an electric charging post costs a few hundred dollars. GM struggled for two years and at a cost of $2 million to get a single hydrogen station installed in White Plains, NY.

Now multiply that cost by the 15,000-odd stations you'd need for a semi-reasonable filling network (for reference, there are roughly 280,000 regular gas stations in the U.S.)

Hydrogen does have benefits: Just not ones that can outweigh the massive disadvantages.

OK, so just give up then. Resign yourself to a life of boring, slow, range-limited cars because you don't want to work towards anything else.

More assumptions.

I'm very much interested in working towards solutions that work. A great many open-minded, incredibly intelligent people are doing just that, and part of my job is writing about their progress. I write about every new bit of alternative fuel technology that comes around, and I've seen a lot come and go when they weren't that good in the first place.

Smokey's design sounds, unfortunately, like it was one that never really had a future. Clever, yes, just flawed enough not to make it.

Also - I'm missing the bit where every car on earth has to be an electric vehicle? I don't recall mentioning that anywhere.

If you're going to be a hybrid, don't buy American.

That's a bit unfair, considering the aforementioned Escape Hybrid.

I mean, to visit my grandparents it's 600 miles...with the Volt that trip would probably take me three days just with all the stops to recharge.

Unfortunately you're suffering from the same mis-education on the Volt as White&Nerdy.

The Volt has a gasoline generator under the hood. Once your 40 miles EV range is up, you can do another 300 on gasoline. No charging stations around? Just fill it up with gas, and use it normally.

The Fisker Karma works on the same principle. As does the next red London double-decker bus.

I would prefer to buy American, hybrid or not.

That, of course, is the other thing - I can fully understand people wanting to keep their money in their own country.

 

[Adamgp]

Yes, If every new car sold was an EV starting tomorrow, it would still be 20-30 years before most existing ICE vehicles are off the road. However, the public's mentality is asinine--"it will take too long, so screw it". It will take a long time, regardless of when we start. Whatever the next "fuel" is, it's going to require a massive time and money investment for infrastructure. This is already beginning, as auto makers are creating new drivetrains, and fuel companies are providing more options. This kind of effort should be encouraged, not dismissed as too expensive or too small to make a difference. The technology in new-energy vehicles will rapidly catch up and become more attractive to more people. Look at how cell phones have progressed in the last 10 years. In 2001, the thought of sling-shotting wingless birds at green pigs with the swipe of my finger was laughable. Imagining that my phone would remember where I parked was a creepy thought. But, that is the world in which we now live. There is nothing to suggest that car technology will not accelerate exponentially, as all technology does. The range issues will be sorted, the fuel-storage issues will be sorted, and the cost issue will be sorted. What we don't want is tons of new vehicles available for a good price, with nowhere to fill them up because the public thought it was a stupid idea 20 years ago.

If every ICE vehicle is off the road in 30 years, I will be amazed. As I said, doubt it will happen in my life time. If it does, I will jump in my EV, drive over to your place and buy you a beer.

EV's still have some big issues to overcome.

 

[Azuremen]

If every ICE vehicle is off the road in 30 years, I will be amazed. As I said, doubt it will happen in my life time. If it does, I will jump in my EV, drive over to your place and buy you a beer.

EV's still have some big issues to overcome.

I doubt they will ever be completely off the road, but I can see 90% of commuter cars and such being EV in the next few decades.

 

[Adamgp]

I doubt they will ever be completely off the road, but I can see 90% of commuter cars and such being EV in the next few decades.

I doubt it. Unless their major problems are resolved.

 

[Azuremen]

I doubt it. Unless their major problems are resolved.

And again, what are you perceiving as a major problem for a car that isn't going to doing more than 40 miles a day 95% of the time?

 

[Danoff]

The "big push" is the result of government mandates for fuel efficiency across car lineups. Manufacturers are required to offer an array of cars that get an average of x mpg across the fleet. Gotta bring the average up by offering an EV.

That's the gist of it.

 

[marluxiaXI11]

There are stories of when the car first showed up in the late 19th-early 20th century about how most people didn't think it would replace horses. It's a similar story today with electric cars. As much as we may not like it the ICE powered car is coming to an end.

 

[SuperShouden]

That's a bit unfair, considering the aforementioned Escape Hybrid.



Unfortunately you're suffering from the same mis-education on the Volt as White&Nerdy.

The Volt has a gasoline generator under the hood. Once your 40 miles EV range is up, you can do another 300 on gasoline. No charging stations around? Just fill it up with gas, and use it normally.

The Fisker Karma works on the same principle. As does the next red London double-decker bus.

The Escape Hybrid gets an extra 3mpg over it's gas counterpart. So, a little bit better than the Silverado Hybrid, but still...3mph for an extra $2,000 - $12,000?

The Fisker is a hybrid Tesla. Seriously, Henrik Fisker designed the Tesla Model S and then promptly turned around and built the Karma. The Karma is slightly less than the Tesla...but I still would buy a Tesla over a Karma.

As for the Volt...I don't think I've ever heard of a hybrid like that before. It's and EV...but you don't have to use it as an EV. But, then again, it's a GM product, so I'm not expecting them to just go all EV right away. They did that once....and then promptly released the Hummer H2 at the end of the Pontiac EV1's life.

Personally, I think the Karma would be better as a gasoline powered car. But, Fisker's a jerk, so, I'd rather his cars just end up in the junkyard.

(Henrik Fisker does sound like the villain's name in a Bond movie or something.)

 

[Adamgp]

And again, what are you perceiving as a major problem for a car that isn't going to doing more than 40 miles a day 95% of the time?

Exactly, 95% of the time. What about the other 5%?