Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

andres3

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

A friend a few houses from ours has a 2012 Lexus SUV. He was away for about a month, when he got back he started it up and it ran really rough. He went to the store and when he got back he decided to look under the hood. He found 3 mice homes, and the mice had chewed off the insulation in the wiring. They ate one coating off of every unit of wiring. The cost to repair the wiring will be $5400. Some may be covered by insurance. The Lexus dealer has seen this happen a few times. Apparently Toyota used something in making the wiring that the mice like to eat....they don't eat the wiring in other cars.

I'll have to rethink considering a Lexus or Toyota product.

Sounds like a reliability problem. Using the soy based insulation has been a known problem. I surprised the CR evaluations haven't noted that... hmmmm.

Notice the deflection by the toyota company in the Freep\Press article:
"Toyota released a statement when contacted by the Free Press.

“Rodent damage to vehicle wiring occurs across the industry, and the issue is not brand- or model-specific. We are currently not aware of any scientific evidence that shows rodents are attracted to automotive wiring because of alleged soy-based content," the company said."

Here's more. But this soy wire problem has been mentioned for quite a while for certain reliable brands.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2018/05/07/rats-rodents-cars-vehicles/578398002/
"Brian Kabateck is taking on Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., over the issue.

The Los Angeles attorney is involved in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Albert Heber of Indiana, whose 2012 Tundra had its soy-based insulated wiring chewed through by rodents three times, the first in 2013. Total damages were about $1,500 — damages that Kabateck said Toyota wouldn't cover under warranty.

"Our contention, why soy is certainly — it's laudable — they're trying to be more green, at the same time, it's becoming a potential food product for rats," Kabateck told the Free Press, adding that he believes rats find it "delicious."

Kabateck said once it started its investigation, it learned that Toyota and some other vehicle manufacturers started using a soy-based product as an insulation for wiring under the hood about a decade ago, probably in an effort to make vehicles more green and to get rid of older-style, petroleum-based wiring insulation.

He said he has heard that in the past, rats periodically chewed through wires in vehicles for nesting materials and to sharpen their teeth. But, he said, "we think the addition of soy in the insulation has taken the episode of rats chewing through the wires through the roof."

Kabateck said while Toyota claims this is not more likely to happen with soy-based than petroleum-based products "we continue to have a hard time believing that" based on the number of people calling the firm and its own investigation, including talking to service employees and others at dealerships.

He didn't have a specific number of people impacted, but said it's possibly "tens of thousands affected." The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Heber and owners and lessees of 2012 to 2016 model year Toyota vehicles. A similar lawsuit was filed against Honda in 2016 and dismissed later that year by the plaintiffs, according to federal court records in California.

Kabateck said he's not looking for billions of dollars from the automaker. He wants the people who have paid out-of-pocket to be reimbursed and a change in the policy and plan so that the warranty would cover this type of damage.

Albert Heber of Indiana owned a 2012 Toyota Tundra
Albert Heber of Indiana owned a 2012 Toyota Tundra and had its soy-based insulated wiring chewed through by rodents three times, the first in 2013. Total damages were about $1,500 -- damages that attorney Brian Kabateck said Toyota wouldn't cover under warranty. (Photo: Albert Heber)
Often, this type of damage isn't covered under warranty. Some insurance companies may cover it if owners pay the deductible, while others won't, and folks often are left paying out-of-pocket.

Kabateck said the damaged materials are replaced with the same soy-based products the rodents chewed through. He said there is an additive that could be added to the soy that would make it less attractive to rats.

Blaming vandalism from animals and pinning it on "reliability" is a bit too tough on Toyota for me. However, maybe in the manual they need a warning box "don't allow rodent infestation where you park this car!"

Mr_Shiftright

qbrozen said:

Looks like a mazda concept

More like a 400+ HP Trash Compacter.

pensfan83

bwia said:

Would you believe, yet another breach on my closed savings account, this time for $2,000 leaving the account with a $2,000 debit balance. The bank said that they are aware of the breach and the check will bounce.

While I can appreciate their initial response, I can identify two major weaknesses at Citizens Bank. Their password protection is extremely weak as they do NOT allow special characters such as (#, $, *, %, etc.) as part of the password. Only letters and numbers are permitted.

Secondly, they do not employ a two-step authentication system. Even my small bank in the Caribbean where I keep a small amount money for household expenses requires this. What a shame that their IT people are not more proactive to preempt these vulnerabilities.

Upon learning your account information was compromised they should have shut it down immediately to prevent further carnage. The fraudsters presumably had the necessary information to drain the account (routing number and account number) so merely changing your login and password was akin to putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm.

Mr_Shiftright

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

At 135 feet per second at 90 mph, you don't have all that much time to make the "right" decision. Just having your brain kick in will require maybe 200-250 feet, before anything actually happens. Then you're on (or around) the obstruction in another 3.7 seconds. So whatever you decide, you'll only have one chance to be right.

All this assumes that you were 100% dialed in behind the wheel prior to the incident appearing.

Not a lot of slack in your scenario, and certainly not a time to be driving in a relaxed manner.

And if you've made the wrong decision, at 90 mph you could be seriously dead.

driver100

qbrozen said:

driver100 said:

I got a long email on how EVs are very costly to run. The first part was the current grid could only support about 3 EVs per block, otherwise we need all new infrastructure.

I am not that knowledgeable about all this, so I am copy and pasting the main section for your consideration. If you can find holes in the article than point them out, I am not saying it is true or not.


Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and
he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted
only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
"Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran
on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the
16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.


It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging
Time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of
electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.
The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned ,
so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a
gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32
Mpg = $0.10 per mile.


The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to
do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs
more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to
drive across the country
************************************************************
Like I say, this could be misinformation from the web - imagine that - but even if it is half true.....it is worth knowing about.

$1.16/kwh?? Where the hell does he live?! I pay 13.8 CENTS.

I also find his mpg calculation very suspect. And, hell, considering how much he thinks electricity is, I don't put much stock in how he calculated mileage. DoE rates the Volt at a combined 42 mpg with the engine running.

Oh, and 10-hr charging time is through 110 volt. Obviously, there are far faster methods available.

According to google, electricity in British Columbia costs:
Our residential usage charge is a two-tiered Conservation Rate. You pay 8.29 cents per kWh for the first 1,350 kWh you use over an average two-month billing period. Above that amount, you pay 12.43 cents per kWh
I think Ontario has the highest rates at:
he off-peak rate (weekends and holidays, and weekdays 7 p.m.-7 a.m.) is now 8.7 cents per kWh, the mid-peak rate (weekdays 7 a.m.-11 a.m. and 5 p.m.-7 p.m.) is 13.2 cents per kWh, and the on-peak charge (weekdays 11 a.m.-5 p.m.) is now 18 cents per kWh

The average price in the USA is:
The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour

So, his $1.16kwh is way too high. He probably meant it to be 16 cents or 11.6 cents per kwh. or about $2 to go 25 miles....instead of $18. I wonder if the $1.16 was done by accident or on purpose?

driver100

"snakeweasel"
Not sure, would like to see it in another color.

........another color? I thought that was a black and white photo!

qbrozen

driver100 said:

According to google, electricity in British Columbia costs:
Our residential usage charge is a two-tiered Conservation Rate. You pay 8.29 cents per kWh for the first 1,350 kWh you use over an average two-month billing period. Above that amount, you pay 12.43 cents per kWh
I think Ontario has the highest rates at:
he off-peak rate (weekends and holidays, and weekdays 7 p.m.-7 a.m.) is now 8.7 cents per kWh, the mid-peak rate (weekdays 7 a.m.-11 a.m. and 5 p.m.-7 p.m.) is 13.2 cents per kWh, and the on-peak charge (weekdays 11 a.m.-5 p.m.) is now 18 cents per kWh

The average price in the USA is:
The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour

So, his $1.16kwh is way too high. He probably meant it to be 16 cents or 11.6 cents per kwh. or about $2 to go 25 miles....instead of $18. I wonder if the $1.16 was done by accident or on purpose?

considering the other misinformation in his statement, I'm willing to bet on the latter.

driver100

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

driver100

qbrozen said:

driver100 said:

According to google, electricity in British Columbia costs:
Our residential usage charge is a two-tiered Conservation Rate. You pay 8.29 cents per kWh for the first 1,350 kWh you use over an average two-month billing period. Above that amount, you pay 12.43 cents per kWh
I think Ontario has the highest rates at:
he off-peak rate (weekends and holidays, and weekdays 7 p.m.-7 a.m.) is now 8.7 cents per kWh, the mid-peak rate (weekdays 7 a.m.-11 a.m. and 5 p.m.-7 p.m.) is 13.2 cents per kWh, and the on-peak charge (weekdays 11 a.m.-5 p.m.) is now 18 cents per kWh

The average price in the USA is:
The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour

So, his $1.16kwh is way too high. He probably meant it to be 16 cents or 11.6 cents per kwh. or about $2 to go 25 miles....instead of $18. I wonder if the $1.16 was done by accident or on purpose?

considering the other misinformation in his statement, I'm willing to bet on the latter.

I'd normally pass that email on to friends that may be interested, but, I don't like to pass on inaccurate fake news information. One reason I posted here was because I knew you guys would analyze it, tear it apart, and find any faults, and you did.

driver100

Talking about appliances....has anyone seen the new line of G.E. Big Boys Appliances?
https://youtu.be/vZRzJJcq6Rs

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

At 135 feet per second at 90 mph, you don't have all that much time to make the "right" decision. Just having your brain kick in will require maybe 200-250 feet, before anything actually happens. Then you're on (or around) the obstruction in another 3.7 seconds. So whatever you decide, you'll only have one chance to be right.

All this assumes that you were 100% dialed in behind the wheel prior to the incident appearing.

Not a lot of slack in your scenario, and certainly not a time to be driving in a relaxed manner.

And if you've made the wrong decision, at 90 mph you could be seriously dead.

My definition of "identify" the hazard means your brain has already kicked around the problems and made a course of action already. So if you are identifying hazards at 750 to 1,000 feet away you have plenty of time to take several courses of action.

Also, hazards moving at 0 MPH are too rare to seriously consider on an Interstate with 6 lanes in each direction in the conditions I've described (light traffic). Usually, the hazard is someone going 70-80 MPH in the far left lane, which provides a speed differential of less than 15 MPH most of the time. With light traffic you can pass left, pass right, slow down, and many more "correct" options.

andres3

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

How do you explain Germany having about the same rate as Canada then? They definitely drive faster than us.
60% of the Autobahn remains limitless even today. Another 7% or so is at 130 KPH which is faster than 99% of US Freeway speed limits. That's 2/3's of high-speed Autobahn. I'd agree they have enforcement that cares little about speed, and much about safety. The opposite of US law enforcement.

driver100

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

How do you explain Germany having about the same rate as Canada then? They definitely drive faster than us.
60% of the Autobahn remains limitless even today. Another 7% or so is at 130 KPH which is faster than 99% of US Freeway speed limits. That's 2/3's of high-speed Autobahn. I'd agree they have enforcement that cares little about speed, and much about safety. The opposite of US law enforcement.

How do I explain it?
To get a license in Germany, you are required to take tons of driving lessons, including several where you're taken on the actual Autobahn and put into real, high-speed traffic. Drivers must receive basic first-aid training, and on top of that, you still have an incredibly difficult multiple choice exam and the road test.

All of this can take up to six months to finish up, if it's all done successfully, and it could cost over $2000.

If you want to drive in Germany you need to be dedicated, which makes for better drivers. And better drivers means fewer accidents, fewer accidents means fewer deaths: Germany has far fewer motor vehicle-related fatalities (about 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to 11) than the US.

andres3

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

How do you explain Germany having about the same rate as Canada then? They definitely drive faster than us.
60% of the Autobahn remains limitless even today. Another 7% or so is at 130 KPH which is faster than 99% of US Freeway speed limits. That's 2/3's of high-speed Autobahn. I'd agree they have enforcement that cares little about speed, and much about safety. The opposite of US law enforcement.

How do I explain it?
To get a license in Germany, you are required to take tons of driving lessons, including several where you're taken on the actual Autobahn and put into real, high-speed traffic. Drivers must receive basic first-aid training, and on top of that, you still have an incredibly difficult multiple choice exam and the road test.

All of this can take up to six months to finish up, if it's all done successfully, and it could cost over $2000.

If you want to drive in Germany you need to be dedicated, which makes for better drivers. And better drivers means fewer accidents, fewer accidents means fewer deaths: Germany has far fewer motor vehicle-related fatalities (about 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to 11) than the US.

What I wanted to point out is the Canadian way isn't the only way. However, the US way is getting people killed at about double the rate we should be at. Time for change!!!!!!!!

Mr_Shiftright

The autobahn rules are way more strict than Americans would tolerate. You can't even drive on the Autobahn without an inspection, and you can't stop on the Autobahn for any reason. No excuses. And you have to carry proper safety equipment. AND you are German, so you are already a better driver than most Americans. AND the autobahn is in much better condition than American roads.

So with no inspection required, lousy road surfaces, a high rate of incompetence = very few Americans should be driving at 90 mph on a public road IMO.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

The autobahn rules are way more strict than Americans would tolerate. You can't even drive on the Autobahn without an inspection, and you can't stop on the Autobahn for any reason. No excuses. And you have to carry proper safety equipment. AND you are German, so you are already a better driver than most Americans. AND the autobahn is in much better condition than American roads.

So with no inspection required, lousy road surfaces, a high rate of incompetence = very few Americans should be driving at 90 mph on a public road IMO.

So your saying we should tolerate people running out of fuel on the freeway and other forms of incompetence?

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

The autobahn rules are way more strict than Americans would tolerate. You can't even drive on the Autobahn without an inspection, and you can't stop on the Autobahn for any reason. No excuses. And you have to carry proper safety equipment. AND you are German, so you are already a better driver than most Americans. AND the autobahn is in much better condition than American roads.

So with no inspection required, lousy road surfaces, a high rate of incompetence = very few Americans should be driving at 90 mph on a public road IMO.

Mr S, you could also add people know how to drive on the Autobahn, for one thing they stay in the right lane EXCEPT to pass. Fines for tailgating are heavy, people here would never get used to that. You don't see crazy zig zagging in and out because people there would not put up with it.

One thing I noticed in several countries.....England, Germany, and surprisingly China, cars and trucks are never dented or have rust. They are usually clean and in perfect condition - I think there are rules but there is also a level of pride. I have seen some trucks and cars in the U.S. and especially in Florida that don't even pass a visual inspection let alone a mechanical one. Wheels ready to fall off or wobbly, coated in dirt, missing parts, rusted out, belching smoke, bald tires etc.

fintail

Maybe a traffic density issue or something. From my experiences in the lower mainland, there's likely no superior driving skill at play, sometimes it isn't what I would call a first world experience - and I am saying that from the eastside Seattle suburbs. Driving in Burnaby or Richmond can be especially hilarious.

Insurance in BC and ON also seems quite expensive compared to my area.

driver100 said:

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

Mr_Shiftright

Obviously we do tolerate it. It's a done deal and it's not going to get better anytime soon. I chalk it up to a cultural thing.

ab348

driver100 said:

One thing I noticed in several countries.....England, Germany, and surprisingly China, cars and trucks are never dented or have rust. They are usually clean and in perfect condition - I think there are rules but there is also a level of pride. I have seen some trucks and cars in the U.S. and especially in Florida that don't even pass a visual inspection let alone a mechanical one. Wheels ready to fall off or wobbly, coated in dirt, missing parts, rusted out, belching smoke, bald tires etc.

Meanwhile in Russia...

https://www.patreon.com/posts/meanwhile-in-24558936?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

jmonroe1

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

One thing I noticed in several countries.....England, Germany, and surprisingly China, cars and trucks are never dented or have rust. They are usually clean and in perfect condition - I think there are rules but there is also a level of pride. I have seen some trucks and cars in the U.S. and especially in Florida that don't even pass a visual inspection let alone a mechanical one. Wheels ready to fall off or wobbly, coated in dirt, missing parts, rusted out, belching smoke, bald tires etc.

Meanwhile in Russia...

https://www.patreon.com/posts/meanwhile-in-24558936?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

Looks like another made for the internet flick to me.

jmonroe

driver100

That Russian car works pretty well considering..........

[Deleted User]

This week I traveled to Belgium for business and rented a Toyota C-HR. Traffic around Brussels is bloody awful and I spent a total of about 4 hours in gridlock over the course of a couple of days when traveling around.

On my last day and when heading to the airport, and once again in traffic, the car in front of me came to a sudden stop. I was traveling about 25ish mph at the time and I saw it happening, so I modulated the brake to avoid a collision but also use up a little space between us so the stop wouldn't be so aggressive.

The car had different ideas. As I was braking the car suddenly alarmed, and then took over braking with as much force as it could muster. I could hear the tires strain against the asphalt and was pushed hard into my seat belt. I tried pumping the brakes but the car wouldn't release control. Not until we hit a full stop about 8 feet behind the car in front did the car finally let go, and about then I noticed the car behind was within inches of colliding into me. Understandably they were none too happy, and I'm just glad it was a normal car and not one of the many lorries on the road at the time.

Talk about a close call. I'm a little wary of Toyota auto braking now.

explorerx4

@tyguy,
My truck has automatic braking when the adaptive cruise is on. The first time it activated it caught me off guard and it works really aggressively.

abacomike

explorerx4 said:

@tyguy, My truck has automatic braking when the adaptive cruise is on. The first time it activated it caught me off guard and it works really aggressively.

My S450 has automatic braking when backing up and the sensors detect another vehicle or pedestrian coming from the left or right with imminent collision predicted.  Same automatic braking for imminent front vehicle or pedestrian collision or cross traffic or pedestrian frontal collision.  The automatic braking also works when adaptive cruise is engaged.

These safety features are a blessing to me, personally, because the have saved me from serious accidents in the last 15 months since I got the car.  Amazing features.

carnaught

@tyguy, I’d be more wary about Toyota auto braking if I had a collision.

cdnpinhead

From the front, you're right; from the rear, not so much.

[Deleted User]

I’m good with auto braking systems that work well, but when they risk accidents more than they prevent them, as I witnessed, I’m less of a fan.  Subaru Eyesight is outstanding.  The Tesla is too new to know, but so far I like it.  The Toyota was downright scary....way too aggressive.

driver100

What would the Suburu do differently?
My friend was in the back seat of a Tesla. The driver was showing off a bit, letting the car drive on it's own while his hands were up in the air. The car in front stopped suddenly and his Tesla began to stop suddenly....he was going to curve around the car in front and he started to go to the right....but, I guess the Tesla still had the car in front in it's sights and it came to a quick stop. The guy behind the Tesla was going to follow it to the right but when it stopped he continued to go around, leaned on the horn and gave the finger wave as he went around. I'd say the Tesla owner had little say in what happened, but he created a big problem.

I like the concept of auto-braking and would probably prefer it...but, I don't think it has been perfected yet.

suydam

driver100 said:

I got a long email on how EVs are very costly to run. The first part was the current grid could only support about 3 EVs per block, otherwise we need all new infrastructure.

I am not that knowledgeable about all this, so I am copy and pasting the main section for your consideration. If you can find holes in the article than point them out, I am not saying it is true or not.


Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and
he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted
only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
"Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran
on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the
16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.


It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging
Time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of
electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.
The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned ,
so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a
gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32
Mpg = $0.10 per mile.


The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to
do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs
more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to
drive across the country
************************************************************
Like I say, this could be misinformation from the web - imagine that - but even if it is half true.....it is worth knowing about.

That would indeed be massive misinformation, picking the worst case scenario every single time. We routinely get 45 mile range on our Volt. Highway is a bit worse, traffic areas a bit better. Much of our charging is free. In town we generally use no gas. We are on a trip now. We had a gas tank about 2/3 full so we topped it off before leaving. On a 5 hour trip we used $15 worth of gas. I’m charging overnight, as I will the following night, and so we may use maybe another $15 on the return trip. I’m sleeping or having breakfast here, so who cares if it takes 12 hours? The charging at the hotel is free. And if this hotel had a proper charging station it would take 4 hours, the norm almost everywhere. Even if I charge at home, I think it runs me $50 per year at our electric rates to drive completely gas free. And the Volt did not cost 46k! The price after all rebates was more like $35k, and then we got the $7500 federal credit even though leasing, a $750 Costco card, and $450 back from the state in electric rebates (which paid for the car registration). It was cheaper to lease the Volt tha. The Cruze.

venture

driver100 said:

What would the Suburu do differently?
My friend was in the back seat of a Tesla. The driver was showing off a bit, letting the car drive on it's own while his hands were up in the air. The car in front stopped suddenly and his Tesla began to stop suddenly....he was going to curve around the car in front and he started to go to the right....but, I guess the Tesla still had the car in front in it's sights and it came to a quick stop. The guy behind the Tesla was going to follow it to the right but when it stopped he continued to go around, leaned on the horn and gave the finger wave as he went around. I'd say the Tesla owner had little say in what happened, but he created a big problem.

I like the concept of auto-braking and would probably prefer it...but, I don't think it has been perfected yet.

I haven't driven the Toyota, but my Legacy will begin to apply the brakes if needed but will also release the brakes if the object moves out of the way or if I steer out of the way. A few times someone has cut in front of me, or crossed my path, rather closely and it will begin to apply the brakes and releases when enough room is acquired. I haven't had it make the car come to a complete stop...yet anyway.

The rear automatic braking has saved my bacon twice.

driver100

suydam said:

driver100 said:

I got a long email on how EVs are very costly to run. The first part was the current grid could only support about 3 EVs per block, otherwise we need all new infrastructure.

I am not that knowledgeable about all this, so I am copy and pasting the main section for your consideration. If you can find holes in the article than point them out, I am not saying it is true or not.


Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and
he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted
only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
"Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran
on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the
16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.


It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging
Time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of
electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.
The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned ,
so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a
gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32
Mpg = $0.10 per mile.


The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to
do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs
more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to
drive across the country
************************************************************
Like I say, this could be misinformation from the web - imagine that - but even if it is half true.....it is worth knowing about.

That would indeed be massive misinformation, picking the worst case scenario every single time. We routinely get 45 mile range on our Volt. Highway is a bit worse, traffic areas a bit better. Much of our charging is free. In town we generally use no gas. We are on a trip now. We had a gas tank about 2/3 full so we topped it off before leaving. On a 5 hour trip we used $15 worth of gas. I’m charging overnight, as I will the following night, and so we may use maybe another $15 on the return trip. I’m sleeping or having breakfast here, so who cares if it takes 12 hours? The charging at the hotel is free. And if this hotel had a proper charging station it would take 4 hours, the norm almost everywhere. Even if I charge at home, I think it runs me $50 per year at our electric rates to drive completely gas free. And the Volt did not cost 46k! The price after all rebates was more like $35k, and then we got the $7500 federal credit even though leasing, a $750 Costco card, and $450 back from the state in electric rebates (which paid for the car registration). It was cheaper to lease the Volt tha. The Cruze.

Great info suydam. You are correct, it is a real case of distorting the figures to make your point, or at least stretching the facts to make a worst case scenario. He wasn't far out on the cost of the car as $35K would be about $46k Canadian. He is saying although you don't pay the $7500 federal credit and the $400 state rebate that is still an expense we all pay....we don't for gas. I didn't print his whole email but another major point is a portion of the money we pay for gas goes to pay for roads etc.....cars that run on electricity don't pay that fee.

In your example you are using a best case scenario too, which is fair, but, not everyone wants to stop overnight at a particular place and they may not get a free charge where they stay.

In the real world the truth lies somewhere between your two examples......but, I think what the guy wrote makes us realize there is another side to the story that we should consider.

driver100

venture said:

driver100 said:

What would the Suburu do differently?
My friend was in the back seat of a Tesla. The driver was showing off a bit, letting the car drive on it's own while his hands were up in the air. The car in front stopped suddenly and his Tesla began to stop suddenly....he was going to curve around the car in front and he started to go to the right....but, I guess the Tesla still had the car in front in it's sights and it came to a quick stop. The guy behind the Tesla was going to follow it to the right but when it stopped he continued to go around, leaned on the horn and gave the finger wave as he went around. I'd say the Tesla owner had little say in what happened, but he created a big problem.

I like the concept of auto-braking and would probably prefer it...but, I don't think it has been perfected yet.

I haven't driven the Toyota, but my Legacy will begin to apply the brakes if needed but will also release the brakes if the object moves out of the way or if I steer out of the way. A few times someone has cut in front of me, or crossed my path, rather closely and it will begin to apply the brakes and releases when enough room is acquired. I haven't had it make the car come to a complete stop...yet anyway.

The rear automatic braking has saved my bacon twice.

Thanks for explaining. How did the rear braking save you?
Backing out is always dicey at best.....can't see if parked between SUVs or trucks, cars or people go by without noticing a car is reversing etc. I find it difficult but in the C250 which doesn't even have a back up camera I TRY to be extra careful when doing those things. I guess what I am saying is maybe you are less careful with these warning devices than you would be if you didn't have them. Though they are helpful, they may not have actually "saved" you.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

I have to say that on our trip to Toronto last summer that traffic moved slower in Canada than in the U.S. Not only were the speed limits lower but traffic stayed closer to the speed limit in Canada then in the U.S. Even on the expressways in Toronto they drove a bit slower than they do in most U.S. cities.

graphicguy

Our Acuras have the safety braking, also. I think every car company has their own version and they all work and adjust a little differently. It took me a day or so to get the adjustments the way I wanted them. But, once I did, the jerkiness of automatic braking hasn’t reared its head.

Still not sure I like all the autonomous features like autonomous driving, braking, cruise, lane keep, etc. But, I think those features are becoming standard in just about all cars these days.

I’m ashamed to admit I use autonomous driving while I reach in the back seat, or search for something in the center console. It is convenient, though.

venture

driver100 said:

venture said:

driver100 said:

What would the Suburu do differently?
My friend was in the back seat of a Tesla. The driver was showing off a bit, letting the car drive on it's own while his hands were up in the air. The car in front stopped suddenly and his Tesla began to stop suddenly....he was going to curve around the car in front and he started to go to the right....but, I guess the Tesla still had the car in front in it's sights and it came to a quick stop. The guy behind the Tesla was going to follow it to the right but when it stopped he continued to go around, leaned on the horn and gave the finger wave as he went around. I'd say the Tesla owner had little say in what happened, but he created a big problem.

I like the concept of auto-braking and would probably prefer it...but, I don't think it has been perfected yet.

I haven't driven the Toyota, but my Legacy will begin to apply the brakes if needed but will also release the brakes if the object moves out of the way or if I steer out of the way. A few times someone has cut in front of me, or crossed my path, rather closely and it will begin to apply the brakes and releases when enough room is acquired. I haven't had it make the car come to a complete stop...yet anyway.

The rear automatic braking has saved my bacon twice.

Thanks for explaining. How did the rear braking save you?
Backing out is always dicey at best.....can't see if parked between SUVs or trucks, cars or people go by without noticing a car is reversing etc. I find it difficult but in the C250 which doesn't even have a back up camera I TRY to be extra careful when doing those things. I guess what I am saying is maybe you are less careful with these warning devices than you would be if you didn't have them. Though they are helpful, they may not have actually "saved" you.

One example, that I stated in here previously, was the time I had two 11 year-old girls at Dairy Queen at night. I took them there after their gymnastics class.

When we were leaving they were acting like two 11 year-old girls. While trying to retain my sanity I started backing up. A black F-150 had pulled in right behind me and it was hard to see. The car came to a complete stop. I forget what happened the other time. I think I did something stupid.

Any more, with all the SUVs and pickups, I think I would rather back out and let the cross traffic warning do its thing. Pulling out you have to take a chance and hope someone coming along will either beep or stop. When leaving some place like Lowes in particular.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

How do you explain Germany having about the same rate as Canada then? They definitely drive faster than us.
60% of the Autobahn remains limitless even today. Another 7% or so is at 130 KPH which is faster than 99% of US Freeway speed limits. That's 2/3's of high-speed Autobahn. I'd agree they have enforcement that cares little about speed, and much about safety. The opposite of US law enforcement.

How do I explain it?
To get a license in Germany, you are required to take tons of driving lessons, including several where you're taken on the actual Autobahn and put into real, high-speed traffic. Drivers must receive basic first-aid training, and on top of that, you still have an incredibly difficult multiple choice exam and the road test.

All of this can take up to six months to finish up, if it's all done successfully, and it could cost over $2000.

If you want to drive in Germany you need to be dedicated, which makes for better drivers. And better drivers means fewer accidents, fewer accidents means fewer deaths: Germany has far fewer motor vehicle-related fatalities (about 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to 11) than the US.

What I wanted to point out is the Canadian way isn't the only way. However, the US way is getting people killed at about double the rate we should be at. Time for change!!!!!!!!

"Be the change you wish to see in the world" - definitely not Gandhi

venture

graphicguy said:

Our Acuras have the safety braking, also. I think every car company has their own version and they all work and adjust a little differently. It took me a day or so to get the adjustments the way I wanted them. But, once I did, the jerkiness of automatic braking hasn’t reared its head.

Still not sure I like all the autonomous features like autonomous driving, braking, cruise, lane keep, etc. But, I think those features are becoming standard in just about all cars these days.

I’m ashamed to admit I use autonomous driving while I reach in the back seat, or search for something in the center console. It is convenient, though.

I really like the adaptive cruise control and reverse automatic braking. Not really a fan of the rest.

suydam

driver100 said:

suydam said:

driver100 said:

I got a long email on how EVs are very costly to run. The first part was the current grid could only support about 3 EVs per block, otherwise we need all new infrastructure.

I am not that knowledgeable about all this, so I am copy and pasting the main section for your consideration. If you can find holes in the article than point them out, I am not saying it is true or not.


Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and
he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted
only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
"Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran
on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the
16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.


It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging
Time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of
electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.
The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned ,
so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a
gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32
Mpg = $0.10 per mile.


The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to
do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs
more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to
drive across the country
************************************************************
Like I say, this could be misinformation from the web - imagine that - but even if it is half true.....it is worth knowing about.

That would indeed be massive misinformation, picking the worst case scenario every single time. We routinely get 45 mile range on our Volt. Highway is a bit worse, traffic areas a bit better. Much of our charging is free. In town we generally use no gas. We are on a trip now. We had a gas tank about 2/3 full so we topped it off before leaving. On a 5 hour trip we used $15 worth of gas. I’m charging overnight, as I will the following night, and so we may use maybe another $15 on the return trip. I’m sleeping or having breakfast here, so who cares if it takes 12 hours? The charging at the hotel is free. And if this hotel had a proper charging station it would take 4 hours, the norm almost everywhere. Even if I charge at home, I think it runs me $50 per year at our electric rates to drive completely gas free. And the Volt did not cost 46k! The price after all rebates was more like $35k, and then we got the $7500 federal credit even though leasing, a $750 Costco card, and $450 back from the state in electric rebates (which paid for the car registration). It was cheaper to lease the Volt tha. The Cruze.

Great info suydam. You are correct, it is a real case of distorting the figures to make your point, or at least stretching the facts to make a worst case scenario. He wasn't far out on the cost of the car as $35K would be about $46k Canadian. He is saying although you don't pay the $7500 federal credit and the $400 state rebate that is still an expense we all pay....we don't for gas. I didn't print his whole email but another major point is a portion of the money we pay for gas goes to pay for roads etc.....cars that run on electricity don't pay that fee.

In your example you are using a best case scenario too, which is fair, but, not everyone wants to stop overnight at a particular place and they may not get a free charge where they stay.

In the real world the truth lies somewhere between your two examples......but, I think what the guy wrote makes us realize there is another side to the story that we should consider.

Just a couple of further points. Many hotels now have at least the 4 hour chargers. Most are free for guests, but even if they charged (a rarity), it would cost maybe $1.50. As to your other point, most visitors are staying at hotels, so they’re parking their cars overnight whether gas or EV. As to gas taxes, California is now charging EV owners a surcharge to make up for the gas taxes we don’t pay.
And I did forget how much vehicles of all kinds cost in Canada.
I’m still trying to decide whether an all EV vehicle is right for me. Since I live in a condo I can’t install a fast charger, so the extra range might not work out for me. The Volt is a good combination. And it’s a great car to drive.

driver100

Good comments about the auto braking and backing up. I don't like the car taking over but in those cases it could be a big advantage....so I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I wonder how many accidents could be avoided if the car could recognize STOP signs, yellow and red lights....and automatically stop if you missed it?

driver100

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

I have to say that on our trip to Toronto last summer that traffic moved slower in Canada than in the U.S. Not only were the speed limits lower but traffic stayed closer to the speed limit in Canada then in the U.S. Even on the expressways in Toronto they drove a bit slower than they do in most U.S. cities.

You were in heavily populated areas where traffic moves slow a lot of the time. But, generally speaking, we have got bad drivers, but, not as wild as I see in Florida. Also roads are designed better, here you have fast moving traffic and people are cutting across or in front of you. A native Floridian explained it to me that first they build the new houses, then they try to figure out how to make the roads handle it....in most places it is the other way around.

One other things, I see way more police cars at home and my guess is fines are much larger. Very few uninsured drivers back home. In Florida the posted speed on I-75 is 75mph....I would say the average car is going between 82 and 86, and I rarely see anyone being stopped for speeding.

andres3

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

The autobahn rules are way more strict than Americans would tolerate. You can't even drive on the Autobahn without an inspection, and you can't stop on the Autobahn for any reason. No excuses. And you have to carry proper safety equipment. AND you are German, so you are already a better driver than most Americans. AND the autobahn is in much better condition than American roads.

So with no inspection required, lousy road surfaces, a high rate of incompetence = very few Americans should be driving at 90 mph on a public road IMO.

Mr S, you could also add people know how to drive on the Autobahn, for one thing they stay in the right lane EXCEPT to pass. Fines for tailgating are heavy, people here would never get used to that. You don't see crazy zig zagging in and out because people there would not put up with it.

One thing I noticed in several countries.....England, Germany, and surprisingly China, cars and trucks are never dented or have rust. They are usually clean and in perfect condition - I think there are rules but there is also a level of pride. I have seen some trucks and cars in the U.S. and especially in Florida that don't even pass a visual inspection let alone a mechanical one. Wheels ready to fall off or wobbly, coated in dirt, missing parts, rusted out, belching smoke, bald tires etc.

Germans don't have special DNA (sorry to the Germans here).

You take away left lane camping, and weaving/passing right/zig zagging would be all but eliminated. Thinking something like CA having a 97% compliance rate with our seat belt laws. That would be us with proper enforcement of "Keep Right Except to Pass," and "Slower Traffic Keep Right."

Also, tailgating would be around 97% eliminated as well IMHO.

I think people naturally prefer to pass on the left when other slower traffic keeps right.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

I have to say that on our trip to Toronto last summer that traffic moved slower in Canada than in the U.S. Not only were the speed limits lower but traffic stayed closer to the speed limit in Canada then in the U.S. Even on the expressways in Toronto they drove a bit slower than they do in most U.S. cities.

As compared to free-flowing low-traffic periods I"m guessing? Hard to drive slower than gridlock in say, Los Angeles, for example.

andres3

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

90 mph swerves are fun, too.

Who said anything about swerving? If you identify a hazard 750' away you'll have plenty of time to maneuver over one lane slowly; even at 90 MPH (which is rounding up).

The death rate on Canadian roadways is less than half that of the United States — 5.2 per 100,000 residents versus 11.6 here — and even accounting for the fewer miles driven by the average Canadian compared to an American, Canada has 43 percent fewer traffic fatalities per billion kilometers traveled.

And, I doubt it is because we drive faster....if anything, I would say we drive slower and law enforcement is stronger.

I have to say that on our trip to Toronto last summer that traffic moved slower in Canada than in the U.S. Not only were the speed limits lower but traffic stayed closer to the speed limit in Canada then in the U.S. Even on the expressways in Toronto they drove a bit slower than they do in most U.S. cities.

You were in heavily populated areas where traffic moves slow a lot of the time. But, generally speaking, we have got bad drivers, but, not as wild as I see in Florida. Also roads are designed better, here you have fast moving traffic and people are cutting across or in front of you. A native Floridian explained it to me that first they build the new houses, then they try to figure out how to make the roads handle it....in most places it is the other way around.

One other things, I see way more police cars at home and my guess is fines are much larger. Very few uninsured drivers back home. In Florida the posted speed on I-75 is 75mph....I would say the average car is going between 82 and 86, and I rarely see anyone being stopped for speeding.

Speaking of rare stops for speeding, how often have you seen someone pulled over for left lane camping & impeding?

And @snakeweasel please don't rehash your "you don't know what they were pulled over for" argument. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Pretty much everyone here has been pulled over for speeding before, so we all know exactly what it looks like.

Mr_Shiftright

I think driving training is demonstrably better in Germany than in the U.S., and this accounts for their (apparently) better driving skills. They don't even eat or drink in their cars as a rule.

I can always tell a good driver in the USA, because they are so conspicuous. You notice things like good lane discipline, anticipating traffic moves in advance, good signaling, decisive patterns of acceleration and braking, good trailing distances, infrequent brake lights----I notice those things in other cars.

roadburner

My father was taught to drive by an Indy 500 riding mechanic; he always stressed that 99% of the time a hard braking application was due to the driver not paying attention; failing to anticipate the situations that are developing down the road.

qbrozen

roadburner said:

My father was taught to drive by an Indy 500 riding mechanic; he always stressed that 99% of the time a hard braking application was due to the driver not paying attention; failing to anticipate the situations that are developing down the road.

Or when racing, like in the Indy 500.

dino001

driver100 said:

One other things, I see way more police cars at home and my guess is fines are much larger. Very few uninsured drivers back home. In Florida the posted speed on I-75 is 75mph....I would say the average car is going between 82 and 86, and I rarely see anyone being stopped for speeding.

Used to be 70 mph maximum statewide on interstate, they just raised the upper limit, but I have not seen 75 mph anywhere around Tampa yet.

Mr_Shiftright

Some years ago, a braking system was presented whereby the tail lights would show amber when the driver lifted off the gas for a certain number of seconds---it signal that he was coasting or downshifting.