Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
So if cost per mile is your only criteria for purchase, a VW TDI would be a better choice. If you are interested in zero tailpipe emissions as many EV advocates neither the xA or the VW TDI would be acceptable.
I do agree that the EVs with Li-Ion batteries being promised are not going to be competitive with gas or diesel cars. I would imagine a set of batteries will buy you a nice xA.
(On the other hand, if you really meant .07 cents - which would be .0007 dollars, that comes out to $10 per year. Probably not what you meant.)
Anyway, $1000 would buy me a whole new lead-acid battery pack - which I would normally change only every 2 to 5 years.
The Phoenix is indeed for sale, but only to fleets. So far, only PG&E has received any (four). I only used it as an example since you didn't want to accept any current EVs on the road as evidence.
Summary: It appears we will just have to disagree on this. My position, based on my experience with past and current electric vehicles, is that EVs have much lower powertrain maintenance costs. Your position is that future EVs will probably have much higher powertrain maintenance costs, equal to ICE cars. But exactly why or how this will happen is unknown. Correct?
Of course the Phoenix ($45,000), and the Zap-X ($60,000), and the Tesla ($80,000) are expensive cars. New technology always is. Somebody had to buy the $10,000 PCs of the 1980s so you can type on a $1000 PC today.
$30,000 electric cars are also in the works from Zap, Miles, and Tesla.
I expect healthy skepticism of the following statement, but I will be buying one of these cars when I can - because I know from my own experience that the dramatically lower fuel cost, maintenance cost, and longer vehicle life will more than make up for the price differential over the lifetime of the car.
As for future maintenance costs, my point really wasn't WHICH car will have the lower costs to maintain---my point was that with ICE being so efficient, even IF the EV has lower maintenance costs, it won't be enough to matter to anyone.
So I'd even grant you your point that EVs will cost less to maintain, but then counter with "but not enough for anyone to care".
New technology doesn't always go from more expensive to less expensive--sometimes it just stays expensive and then fails. Those prices for the Phoenix and Zapp are ridiculous for what you get. I'd rather have your little EV van and add some stuff to it. The TESLA at least give you fabulous styling and performance, even if you'll probably end up with an inoperative pile of parts in five years with nobody to fix it.
And just to demonstrate that I am not "anti-EV", I own substantial (for me) stock in an electric car company, but I'm betting not on lower maintenance to sell the EV, but rather lower fuel costs and stricter emissions laws.
xA a polluter? Compared to what? That's a mighty harsh term for a car getting up to 40 mpg and meeting all 2006 emissions and safety standards and going 400 miles on a tank of fuel. Take THAT, puny EVs!
Visiting Host
Going 400 miles on a tank of gas is a bragging point. Never having to go to a gas station is another. Which characteristic is most impressive depends on the type of driving you typically do.
BTW, The 2006 xA's pollution rating is abysmal.
Scion xA
If and when an EV exists that proves me wrong at competitive cost, I'll buy it. But I'm not holding my breath.
Also bear in mind that maintenance costs are frequently folded into warranties and service plans. This doesn't mean those charges are free.
So, like anything else, you mileage will vary. The EV will keep its low maintenance costs over its entire lifetime, and doesn't need subsidized warranty plans to do so.
I have to take issue with one more thing:
...that with ICE being so efficient...
There are few things in the technology world less efficient than an ICE engine. At optimum speed and load, an ICE is maybe 25% efficient. City driving can reduce this to under 10%.
Electric motors can top 90% efficiency, and have very wide powerbands, so the efficiency is affected very little by driving styles. Electric cars also have no need to idle, and even braking energy can be partially recouped.
If the EV has regenerative braking then the wear and tear on the mechanical brakes (rotors, pads) will be significantly less. These regenerative braking systems have been around for a while now. To the best of my knowledge they have not been problematic.
The argument reminds me of the architectural professor who was teaching why Roman aqueducts were so "badly designed"...until one student pointed out that they are still standing.
As for the xA's emissions, all I can say is that if every car in America was an xA, there would be a dramatic drop in gas consumption and overall pollution from cars. So why bad rap a car that is helping to alleviate the situation? I don't get this line of thinking.
As for maintenance, my friend owns a Toyota RAV4-EV (made by Toyota). It's a full size SUV with 100+ mile range. He's had great luck, low maintenance, etc.
However, if his battery pack fails, it will cost him $26,000 for a new set. (that's not a typo).
So any "predictions" about future EV maintenance presupposes a) a major manufacturer and b) reasonable repair costs. Right now, both these are pure fantasies IMO.
This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the engine - it has everything to do with the energy density of the fuel.
There's a reason that subways and trains use electric motors. The power-to-weight and size ratio is unbeatable, and they make very efficient use of energy.
The limiting factor in electric cars is not the motor, it's the energy storage capacity of the batteries. Gasoline, even when it's burned inefficiently, is pretty hard to beat for energy density.
The storage capacity of a large EV battery pack is at best just the equivalent of a a gallon or two of gasoline. The electric car does its best to get the most use out of it by operating in an efficient manner.
This is why the EV problem has always been focused on the batteries. Solve this problem, and the rest is easy.
The NIMH batteries in the RAV4 EV are great, many of these vehicles have well over 100,000 miles on the original batteries. However, NIMH is the most expensive battery technology out there. It's a shame - I don't think it has to be, and it may have something to do with the fact that the patents are controlled by an oil company.
If I owned a RAV4 EV (I wish I did), I would instead try to assemble my own replacement batteries from smaller NIMH cells available on the surplus market at a much lower price - I did this with my electric lawnmower, which required a $300 replacement battery. Instead I made one from surplus cells for about $30. Of course, an EV is a MUCH bigger project than this.
Some EV hobbyists have been using these LiFePO4 cells from China, which are priced close to lead-acid battery prices:
http://everspring.net/product-battery.htm
If you look at the chart on that page, you will see how much more expensive NIMH is than any other battery tech. An annoying problem, to be sure, but I would personally try to engineer a different battery technology into the vehicle rather than spend $26,000. Maybe competition will force Cobasys to lower NIMH prices in the near future.
If not, aging RAV4 EVs will be adopted by hobbyists like myself (I can hardly wait) who will adapt it for newer and cheaper battery technology.
You know I don't get it either. Your xA pollutes more than the VW Beetle Diesel. Yet they will allow people to buy a new Scion in CA but not the VW TDI. Makes NO sense at all. And the Beetle TDI puts out 25-40% less GHG than the Scion xA. It also uses about 40% less fossil fuel.
It's rather disheartening though, that Toyota could not sell a lot of these (only about 1500 I think) and so this is why I think cars like Tesla, Phoenix, etc will fail.
People talk a good game but when it comes time to fork over $50,000 for an EV, they just won't do it in numbers large enough to encourage manufacturers. Same with GM's EV. They "killed" it because the market wasn't there.
I firmly belive a market IS there (and I've put my money up as a bet) but not for $50,000 and above. The EV has to be affordable, and we can't have $25,000 battery pack replacement costs to freak out potential customers.
This is not really correct.
The RAV4 EVs were leased, not sold - and were ultimately destined for the crusher, just like the EV1s. The difference between Toyota and GM was that Toyota listened to its customers and allowed some of them to be sold when California's program ended. I would be quite surprised if Toyota had any that they were willing to sell left over.
Like the EV1, there was unfilled demand for the RAV4 EVs. This is most evident whenever one comes up for auction on eBay. Example:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00020&segmentID=4
This one sold for $67,300, an eBay RECORD PRICE for a secondhand vehicle. That's twice what Toyota sold it for. Every Toyota EV that sells on eBay sells for ridiculous prices. (If any EV1s were left, they would, too.)
...when it comes time to fork over $50,000 for an EV, they just won't do it in numbers large enough...
But GM and Toyota didn't even try. GM offered no vehicles for sale, and pointedly ignored customers who wanted to buy them. Toyota offered a few leftover vehicles as an afterthought, and only in response to public pressure.
...Same with GM's EV. They "killed" it because the market wasn't there.
How would they know? How would you know? GM never offered to sell a single vehicle. Marketing studies from this period do show significant demand for cars like the EV1 and RAV4 EV. Example:
http://www.greencars.org/pdf/gcimarketing.pdf
I agree with you that high prices are a serious deterrent. But Tesla seems to be meeting their sales objectives. Ebay auctions suggest that GM and Toyota could have sold their vehicles at Tesla-like prices. In fact, take a look at all the used EVs that sell on eBay. Even very old vehicles, with significant limitations, sell for good prices.
Why didn't GM try to sell them? They didn't want to demonstrate the demand for EVs.
That is your opinion, however, I believe that GM did not want to bear the obligation and cost to support a product for a small (minuscule in the larger scheme) market of enthusiasts even though a few would pay exorbitant prices for it. It was a business decision not to undertake additional risk and I believe it was one of the few good ones that GM has made, given their precarious financial position. Toyota was/is in a better position to support their EV, buy PR and convince their stockholders that it was worth the price.
The Cobasys/ECD Ovonics patents on NiMH technology have already started to expire. But I don't think that Toyota tried to steal this technology. Toyota's battery manufacturer was/is Matsushita Corp.(Panasonic). And they had developed their own NiMH battery technology and probably felt like they weren't infringing on anyone's patents. The world court had a different opinion. It's too bad because in terms of energy density the Panasonic batteries were superior to the Cobasys batteries. Also, one of the main reasons these batteries are so expensive is the high price of Nickel.
Okay then--- They couldn't lease more than 1500. Same point---low demand. Why didn't leasees knock the doors down in huge numbers?
You can buy an RAV4-EV for much less than that eBay price. That's a "cherry-pickin'" price. The going rate is about $35,000--$40,000. I tend to track these prices, so that's what I think anyway. Still it's a good resale to MSRP ratio!
I cant' imagine GM passing up a profitable new product. That sounds totally implausible to me.
I wonder if we substituted "Edsel" for EV-1 or RAV4-EV if anyone would believe the conspiracy theory.
I think it's more like the companies involved saw no compelling reason to produce the car.
What if response to the EV-1 or RAV4-EV was the same as it was with the Prius?
To me, it was just the free market talking....the demand met the supply at a pretty low number. Reason? As you say, the price.
...I cant' imagine GM passing up a profitable new product. That sounds totally implausible to me.
well of course, this is one of those issues that has been beaten to death already. If I were a lawyer making my case in court, I would first show GM's state of mind:
"Expecting a Fizzle, G.M. Puts Electric Car to Test" (cover story, Matthew Wald). New York Times, January 28, 1994.
Here's a quote from the article:
General Motors is preparing to put its electric vehicle act on the road, and planning for a flop.
With pride and pessimism, the company, the furthest along of the Big Three in designing a mass-market electric car, says that in the face of a California law that requires that 2 percent of new cars be "zero emission" vehicles beginning in 1997, it has done its best but that the vehicle has come up short.... Now it hopes that lawmakers and regulators will agree with it and postpone or scrap the deadline.
GM expected, and wanted to fail. This is not how you would present your product to the press if you wanted to succeed. So how did the car do at introduction?
Before the EV1 came about, GM built 50 of it's Impact prototype electric cars for consumer testing.
From "The Car That Could" by Shnayerson and the Wald NY Times article:
Against GM's perverse expectations, the Impact release was a huge success. GM's Sean McNamara organized the Preview program, in which the 50 cars would be lent for 1-2 week periods to consumers who agreed to log their experiences. McNamara expected at most eighty volunteers in Los Angeles but closed the phone lines ahead of schedule after 10,000 calls [Shnayerson, p. 182]. In metropolitan New York, 14,000 calls were logged before the lines were prematurely closed [Shanayerson, p. 182; Wald 1994]. Drivers' response to the cars was overwhelmingly favorable, as were reports in car magazines. Motor Trend reported: "The Impact is precisely one of those occasions where GM proves beyond any doubt that it knows how to build fantastic automobiles. This is the world's only electric vehicle that drives like a real car." They called the car's ride and handling "amazing," praising its "smooth delivery of power".
When the Impact was an unexpected hit, they made it as hard as possible to lease the EV1, making prospective drivers pass a battery of tests to get on a waiting list, which grew longer and longer.
Lets talk about those few thousand on the EV1 waiting list. 5000 people may not seem like much. But remember the car was only offered for sale in one corner of the US. What if the car was offered for sale in the whole country, or the whole world? If we extrapolate that number upward from the population of California and Arizona, that could have been over 50,000 Americans trying to get an EV1. If the car was available worldwide, it could then have been well over 100,000 people. Yes, of course this is pure speculation. I wish we knew what the demand would have been.
Is that a lot of car buyers? Well, 100,000 cars is the entire yearly output of some car makers.
Keep in mind, also, the fact that these 5000 people had to jump through hoops to be on this waiting list, hoping to get a lease. This was not an easy list to get onto. Mel Gibson complains in the WKTEC movie about having to fill out all kinds of interviews and paperwork, even submit a resume just to lease a car.
Imagine if the car had actually been offered for sale, and made easy to obtain!
What was GM's motivation for wanting to fail? I suspect it was resistance to having their business dictated to them by California; reluctance to explore a market that could have a difficult-to-predict effect on their conventional business; and perhaps even a little pressure from the oil companies they do business with as well. I know this last point may be disputed, but GM must have had some motivation for selling their control of the NIMH battery patents to Chevron/Texaco at the end of the EV program.
I'm sure this will generate a variety of opinions. Speculate away.
I'm reluctant to buy into conspiracy theories including the one involving Chevron and the NiMH patents. However I've never been able to figure out or seen a plausible explanation as to why Cobasys wouldn't allow Panasonic to keep manufacturing these 95 Ah batteries. They allowed them to continue manufacturing smaller batteries for a licensing fee, why not do the same with this larger format battery? Cobasys also chose not to manufacture them. So what was the value of this patent when it came to these large format batteries if not to keep them off the market? When you talk about a $26k replacement battery pack for the RAV4 EV that is assuming you could even get one, which I kind of doubt.
People may line up for a low cost trial or heavily subsidized lease but how many of those are actually willing to pay the real price of the car?
I'd be willing to take a free or heavily subsidized trial of the Tesla car. Let me lease one for, say, $200 per month and I'll think about it, tell me I have to buy it for $100,000 and forget about it.
That's funny. Can you even lease a Ford Focus for $200/month. But I agree that demand would be quite high at that price.
Honda is going to start offering the FCX next year. This is a 100% electric vehicle. It just uses hydrogen as opposed to batteries for energy storage. I don't know what it will cost to lease or buy but their initial production costs are several hundred thousand per unit. I'm guessing the price to the consumer won't be that high but it will probably exceed your $200/month budget. Do the people at Honda have even the slightest clue about running a business. Maybe you could drop them a line or at least sell any stock that you might own.
This would be GM's choice. But I must point out that no car is sold at a price that will recoup its development cost quickly.
New models are routinely sold at a loss to build a customer base and market share.
In fact, large auto companies like GM or Ford are the only entities that can do this - they can afford to delay profitability and give the new model time to build an audience.
Little car companies can't do this. Tesla can't sell roadsters at $30,000 while waiting for volume sales - and therefore factory production - and therefore economies of scale to kick in. They would be bankrupt in months. This is why little car companies nearly always fail.
This is precisely the reason many people would like to see a major car company make a commitment to an EV.
One thing is for sure. Whatever development money was spent is water under the bridge. As long as cars can be sold for more than their build cost, they are more profitable to sell than to not sell. Crushing cars that people want to buy is not going to recoup any of your costs.
No, but it will stop the expenses and liability associated with continued support of those cars. The only potential gain is PR and a company must judge whether that is worth the expense.
I notice that GM didn't crush all of its Corvairs - or Ford crush all of its Pintos. Crushing every last one of your cars - while pretending that you're not - is pretty much unprecedented. That sort of activity raises eyebrows, and it should.
The idea that there are major ongoing expenses or liabilities associated with selling off a few used cars is quite a bit of 'PR' in itself. Ford and Toyota both relented and sold some of their EVs with no apparent disastrous effects. Exactly what sort of legal liabilities are we talking about, anyway?
If GM has to stock some parts, save a few donor vehicles. Charge outrageous prices.
First is says that GM purposely wanted the EV-1 to fail, and yet they then launch a product that everyone raves about?
HUH?
If the product was supposed to fail, I'm sure GM would have made it as bad as possible (something GM is quite good at doing).
I find this all to be revisionist daydreaming.
The EV-1 didn't "fail"--it wasn't ready for market in the first place. It was a lease deal and an experiment, like the Chrysler Turbine Car.
The EV-1 was as good as it could be at the time, as evidenced by the fact that all the kings horses and all the king's men haven't made a better EV since.
But I do agree, GM really lost a great opportunity to further develop the EV-1 for their "green image".
As for crushing the EV-1s, I would have done the same for liability reasons. I see no evil intent in that either. Remember, Toyota's EV was a fully developed RAV platform.
If the product was supposed to fail, I'm sure GM would have made it as bad as possible (something GM is quite good at doing).
I suspect that GM expected this vehicle to fail so management's wishes were irrelevant given that the outcome was considered inevitable. They did have some pretty sharp engineers working on this project and if these guys take any pride in their profession they are going to try and produce a good vehicle regardless of any ulterior motives or hidden agendas that might exist. I believe the final product exceeded management's expectations. I also believe that a lot of people are surprised about the long life these NiMH battery packs turned out to have.
The EV-1 was as good as it could be at the time, as evidenced by the fact that all the kings horses and all the king's men haven't made a better EV since.
I actually think the RAV4 EV was better. Certainly when the first Teslas are delivered in a few months that will represent a significant raising of the bar. At least in terms of range, performance, and features. Certainly not in terms of price but the EV-1's price was artificial.
I'm glad you agree that it makes no sense. I didn't invent that newspaper coverage.
Gm didn't expect it to succeed, as the newspaper articles show. The engineers who actually built it were the ones that made it a great product.
I'm sure GM never intended to make crappy products when they wound up with them. This was a mistake that went the other way.
That's what makes this such a great story.
...revisionist daydreaming.
Hey, be nice. I am quoting actual sources. Again, I do not make stuff up. If you want to rebut, present some evidence yourself.
The story still makes no sense if the implication was that GM management wanted the product to fail. I think that his patently false.
The best "evidence" is that a) leasees agreed to lease the vehicle and b) they whined when GM took them back as per the contract.
Well DUH.....
PS: As for the Tesla, I think anybody with half a brain and an MBA can hire great technicians and engineers, burn millions in venture capital and put $100K price tag on a car. I bet I could do that :P Gimme a shot, coach!
Are you even remotely familiar with who's running Tesla? They do have investors but they have also put a decent chunk of their own money into this endeavor. These are self made multi-millionaires or billionaires, which might indicate a degree of business savvy. Tesla may very well fail in which case you could have achieved the same level of success had you been allowed to run this company. However if I'm a current investor in Tesla I'm not inclined to give you a shot.
No, but it will stop the expenses and liability associated with continued support of those cars.....
What pray, could this liability possibly be ? Tell me Daysailer ? You're the expert.
The EV-1 used electric motors and lead acid batteries that are typically the technology found in many many thousands of forklift trucks and has been for years. I can't remember any news story regarding "forklifts on the rampage" or "forklifts running amok" to encourage this fear.
And while we are at this liability game , how is it no-one talks about the very real dangers of hydrogen vehicles ? As I wrote before, are we going to exit a supermart one day and face a parking lot full of potential Hindenburgs ?Anyone who gets even a little perturbed at the damage that an EV-1 can do should have denigrated towards a raving lunatic by now on just thought of the ramifications that could transpire with just a simple hydrogen leak in an apartment block basement parking area.
T2
You are perfectly entitled to this opinion.
I would like to point out that the newspaper article was from 1994, contemporary with the launch of the EV program. I don't know what reason the NY Times would have for printing a bunch of anti-EV info about GM's car, unless it came from GM itself, as the article suggests. The article itself is here, at the bottom of the page:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation- /index.html?query=STANDARDS%20AND%20STANDARDIZATION&field=des&match=exact
If you click on it to read the whole article, unfortunately, you will be prompted to pay a fee.
It is like the current Civic hydrogen cars that are being leased for $500 per month. Those cars cost well over $100,000 per pop. It is all PR and image. GM blew the chance to get some good press. Sell the ones that people wanted. The charging station for the home was also expensive. They pulled out the ones here in San Diego that I knew about.
Sure I'm familiar with the Tesla. Fabulous gadget. Nice reviews of the prototype. But what makes it any more sacred than any of the other hundreds of undercapitalized independent automakers in past history? Was not the McLaren F1 fabulous? The Tucker?
Geez, do some people think just because it's an innovative EV you aren't allowed to hold it up to the light of sober scrutiny? They have (right now) a counter-intuitive business modelIMO. An ultra-expensive green car for the rich? That doesn't make sense. A low priced high volume EV using their current battery technology? That doesn't make sense.
All I'm saying is that $45 million dollars is one poker chip in the automotive game 2007. They'll need ten times that to even stand a chance of survival IMO. Nissan spends more than that in ads each year.
Tesla hasn't even delivered a car yet!
My gut feeling about Tesla? Lots of WOW factor but slim chance of success as volume car producer. I think they are planning to develop their technology and then "flip it" over to a major manufacturer.
I see this as best case scenario for their venture and I wish 'em luck.
I've said nothing to warrant your snide comment. Unless you've just awakened from a 40+ year nap, you should be aware that our litigious society holds manufacturers liable for most anything that happens to whatever they've ever produced.
Assuming that the above speculation is true, then it would seem that the only other seemingly reasonable motivation GM might have for not pushing forward with the EV1 was the fact that there was a need to support a huge recharging infrastructure due to the vehicles having such a limited range and a unique recharger.
In my opinion, the only real stumbling block for more global acceptance of the EV1 was the unique recharger which limited the ability to adopt the EV1 anywhere other than the limited testing area.
Since the Tesla is being developed with a greater range and the ability to be recharged from standard 110 and 220 electrical outlets, then it seems like they've at least addressed a couple of the major concerns with having an electric vehicle. Since Telsa is not being given the huge supporting funds from the government, they must price their vehicle so that they are eventually able to recover their development costs, plus aren't they using some materials to reduce weight which are much more expensive than that used in the EV1's body. Since only the fairly wealthy can afford a vehicle which can't serve as their only vehicle, it seems to me that marketing to this market is a smart way for Tesla to get started.
I doubt that we will see in our lifetime an EV that's affordable and that can be an individuals only vehicle without compromise. Even though the architecture is more complex, I believe that a PHEV is what will receive the greatest market acceptance for many years to come.
Tesla's raised more than 45 million and they are talking about an IPO next year. If Tesla fails it won't be due to lack of funding. It will be because they won't be able to compete with the major manufacturers should they choose to enter this market. If that happens and Tesla Motors played a part then they have still accomplished something significant.
They have (right now) a counter-intuitive business modelIMO
What exactly would be a more intuitive business model? Mass production of an EV with Camry-like style, utility and price? Not too realistic. I guess they could have made inexpensive, short range, limited speed neighborhood vehicles. That's already being done and so far it's a business model that hasn't proven itself. On top of that the founders of Tesla are self proclaimed "car guys". They wanted to produce something that they'd like to drive. And yes they are rich so that also factored into their perspective. It turns out there are a lot of rich people in this country. If you only plan on producing ~1000 vehicles per year it will take a long time to saturate your potential market.
I agree, the whole episode didn't make much sense.
...An ultra-expensive green car for the rich? That doesn't make sense.
Henry Ford made cars for the rich before he made cars for the masses. I am pleased that Tesla has come to my home town, Detroit, to recruit talent for their next car. Perhaps they are trying to follow in Henry's footsteps.
Actually, NO.
It's all RESEARCH.
It's putting a conceptual car on the road and getting real, LIVE, REAL-WORLD experiences for deciding how cars of the near future will be built.
It has very little at ALL to do with "image" and "PR" although there is nothing wrong with using it for that. All carmakers need good PR and a good image - it helps SELL CARS which it the goal of the company, after all.
It's cool stuff and it's on the horizon, not in fantasyland.
It weighs 4774 pounds, nearly twice what the Tesla, for example, weighs. The weight is mentioned in this article:
http://news.windingroad.com/auto-news/gm-sequel-will-be-a-chevrolet/
If enough batteries were added to an electric vehicle to get the weight up to nearly 5,000 pounds, that car would have a heck of a driving range. Maybe even close to 1,000 miles.
Maybe somebody should demo a car like that.
I guess you could stick enough batteries into a vehicle to provide for an extremely long range. I personally would not be interested in this for several reasons. If I rarely if ever needed this range it would just result in me carrying around extra weight, which would reduce my efficiency. It would also add to the cost, which would again seem wasteful if I never used this range. While I'm not an expert on batteries I do know that they all have a self discharge rate. It seems to me the bigger the battery pack the more energy will be discharged while the batteries are just sitting there.
Again, just my personal opinion but if I can re-charge overnight at home I don't care if my EV can go over 200 miles. Even if this was my only vehicle on the very rare occasions that I needed to go further I'd either rent a traditional vehicle or plan my roadside recharging around meal times. For me it wouldn't seem like a huge inconvenience. Most people consider paying $3/gallon to be an inconvenience and they do this on a regular basis. So it's all about trade-offs.
THE car of the future is totally silent, emissions-free — and were it for sale would cost you a cool £1 million, a bit steep for a modest, unexceptional three-door hatch. Except that the FCX, Honda’s ultra-clean fuel-cell car, has a lot going for it, not least its fuel-cell technology that allows it to run without any exhaust emissions, though Honda concedes that its development has cost the equivalent of 100 Honda Civics
Honda FCX
Of course Ferrari makes cars for the rich, so that biz model is proven correct, but Ferraris are not EVs.
I think Tesla will become a licensing firm, like Lotus Engineering or something like that.
Brains or a good product hardly means "success"...not without the elements of LUCK and OPPORTUNITY. Plenty of "good ideas" fail with the very best minds behind them.
It's on the road now as a TEST BED to see what works well, what can be improved, what might break, what is performing better in use than it did in the lab, etc.
It's PROGRESS. Just like the Insight was a "proof of concept" car, the FCX is the hydrogen version of "proof of concept."
All the while, Honda engineers are working on ways to bring the costs down.
I would not personally advocate for an EV with a 3000 pound battery pack either, but the argument against carrying around all that extra weight applies to the FCV as well.
A battery EV is more efficient all around, especially considering the inefficiencies of extracting, transporting, and storing hydrogen. As much as I hear pure EVs derided for heavy battery packs and low energy density, hydrogen is even worse, because of all the extra hardware the FCV has to carry around.
My understanding is that the Honda FCX weighs around 3,700 lbs. Let's say that it's about the same size as a Civic. I don't think that is any heavier than a Civic would be if you gave it enough batteries to go 270 miles. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch that this FCX could potentially be offered with either a fuel cell stack and hydrogen storage tanks or just a bigger battery pack. What other difference would there be? Like the Chevy Sequel this vehicle is not being powered by the fuel cell but by the battery pack. The fuel cell only recharges the batteries.
I'm not advocating fuel cells over batteries. I'm an EV proponent, not a battery or fuel cell proponent. These energy storage devices will continue to improve and whichever one can deliver the best combination of efficiency, range, size, weight, cost, reliability, safety, will win out. And the winner today may not be the winner 20 years from now. Any company that is furthering FCV development is also advancing EVs in general and I'm totally supportive of their efforts Especially a company like Honda, which seems to be more innovative than most.
Yes, I know - the point is that this was how Henry got started - how he attracted investors - how he could then afford to build cars for the masses. You want to attract some wealthy investors? Build cars for them.