How high did gas prices go during the 1973-74 oil embargo?
I remember gas prices prior to it in the 30 cent range ($1.60 adjusted for inflation). When I started driving in '78 gas was at 80 cents ($2.56 adjusted for inflation).
Not sure when it hit $1 a gallon but $1.10 in 1980 would be $2.76 adjusted for inflation.
I remember the first time I saw $2 a gallon gas, it was in 1982 and it was in the middle of nowhere Alaska. I think gas in the town near there was in the $1.40 range and about $1.20 on the base IIRC.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Every once in awhile, I'll see horse droppin's on the local bike trail. No big deal, really, but just imagine what it would be like if EVERYBODY had a horse! "
Yeah, and there'd be a bunch of stinky dead horses laying about as well.
But personally I can't see driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage, even if I can afford the fuel.
Gas mileage is a relative issue. To me only 30 MPG in an A4 or A6 Audi is atrociously poor. Just as 16 MPG in my Sequoia is poor. Neither vehicle should be getting such poor mileage. We are victims or our government regulators. There is no reason your Audi should be getting less than 40 MPG on diesel or my Sequoia getting 30 MPG on diesel. The people we have elected are in control of the oil spigot and do not want us to use less fuel. Whether driving a tin can like a Prius or a Hummer 1 like Ahnold. They want the gas tax dollars to keep flowing. None of them have the nerve to add a tax onto the high prices we are currently paying. If we all drove 50 MPG Yugos the price would be raised to compensate. I had a 2005 Passat Wagon TDI that got great mileage. I sold it for a profit. Enough profit to fuel my Sequoia for a couple years at least. When Congress gets serious about mileage,
By the way handling is a non issue with the current level of luxury SUVs.
The show stopper with diesels in the US are the stringent emission requirements for diesel engines. Next year we will see some of the next gen diesels on our shores that will meet the requirements. But of course, such technology will be very slow to work its way through our system since cars stay on the road for what?... maybe twelve years.
It's too bad that the refiners are stuck with refining ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Removing that extra bit of sulfur requires natural gas, which is also looking to become a pretty tight market within a couple of years.
As for taxes, we probably do need the gas tax to slowly move up in order to help us move to more energy efficient transportation. Increased taxes (yuk!) will make up the difference in falling gas prices (but as you mentioned, raising gas taxes would be fightin' words). In the UK gas is going for over eight bucks a gallon. We have it pretty sweet compared to those blokes.
But in any case, I believe that we are now in a permanent situation where demand will outstrip supply and hence the price pain. New petro projects coming on line will have to make up for countries with declining production and be sufficiently large to cover increasing demand as well. Since there are so many producing fields, it is nearly impossible to get a handle on the global decline rate from existing wells. But we do know that here in the States, even at a steady demand of around 20.5 mmbpd, we will need to import more petroleum to cover our own declining production. And based on various comments from Bush, Cheney, & company, I believe that they are aware of the plateauing of global oil production.
As for the handling prowness of the current level of luxury SUVs, I'm pretty sure that they are not nearly as nimble as a car with good tires and a lower center of gravity. I've put in lap time at Mid Ohio and have an appreciation of the advantages of good handling. No SUV is gonna weave through the cones or curves like a car with a good suspension and that translates into real world situations... like dodging around that stalled Yugo...
Maybe it was the dry weather, but there were numerous puddles (remember, dry weather) along the main street, and a large one at the end of a hike we took, with that odor hanging over everthing. Not my idea of "quaint".
The reason I'm negative about the Smart is that it does NOTHING better than any other $16K car you can buy, whereas the Zenn gets 245 MPG. Try and beat that. Even a bicycle can go 25 mpg, but it can't carry 13 cubic feet of stuff like a ZENN.
I'm not touting the ZENN. I can see its limitations but one has to see petroleum as a non-renewable item. The problem is that we price gas below what it's really worth, so people can't look at a ZENN and see the longterm value of it.
If your SMART used water and your ZENN ran on sand and there was a drought, suddenly the ZENN would start looking pretty good, no?
The reason I'm negative about the Smart is that it does NOTHING better than any other $16K car you can buy,
But its not a $16K car, its a $11.5K car, a big difference.
whereas the Zenn gets 245 MPG. Try and beat that.
The problem with that is they the number of miles that it will go is very limited and still requires the same number of gas powered vehicles than if you didn't have it.
So a two car family is basically trading two cars that get say 25 MPG and are driven 12K miles a year each and $13K for two cars that get say 25 MPG and are driven 10K miles a year each and one car that gets 245 MPG but is only drive a few thousand miles per year and $0.
The problem with it is that the range is so short that it cannot replace a gas powered car used for commuting. Hence it won't replace any car so a two car family becomes a three car family. The car has very limited uses (as you yourself stated) and is an added expense while not really reducing other expenses.
so people can't look at a ZENN and see the longterm value of it.
There really is no long term value to it if it cannot reasonably replace an ICE car. A car that has a 35 mile maximum range under optional conditions with fresh batteries that is used for short errand runs cannot reasonably replace an ICE car.
This thing is nothing more than a very expensive golf cart,
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Remember doing well under the speed limit holding up traffic on a bicycle is just as inconsiderate as doing it in a car. If traffic gets behind you be considerate and pull over.
I agree and I do when there is somewhere to pull over.
The "idiots" I was referring to are the ones who blast their horn when they're already halfway past and there was absolutely nothing impeding their progress from moving over to the next lane and safely passing.
I've found that the majority of drivers are okay when it comes to sharing the road. However, a few need to turn on their brain and show a little courtesy when driving a car and sharing the road with other vehicles, including bicycles.
And speaking of electric cars and high gas prices (were we?), I recently saw an ad in Popular Mechanics for a concept Chevy Volt. It starts out with, "Imagine a daily commute without a drop of gas." I had to laugh. I not only imagine it but I do it practically every day.
I wish I could find that pic a friend sent me years ago of the guy in China who was hauling a full size refrigerator strapped to the side of his bicycle. Who needs a ZENN?
... initially it should sell well 'cause it's just so cute. And rather than thinking of it as a "car", I prefer the metaphor of an "enclosed motorcycle".
So a two car family is basically trading two cars that get say 25 MPG and are driven 12K miles a year each and $13K for two cars that get say 25 MPG and are driven 10K miles a year each and one car that gets 245 MPG but is only drive a few thousand miles per year and $0.
Ah, but the cost isn't $0. The cost for battery replacement has to be figured into the operating cost versus gas and engine maintenance on a conventional car. I did the math and the battery replacement cost for an electric car for my commute was about twice as much as gas and maintenance. Unless China starts cranking out deep-cycle li-poly batteries for the same price that lead-acid deep cycle batteries go for now, the money isn't going to work out.
I still think a vital point is being missed here. The small electric car is meant to decrease....substantially....even replace....all the short term hops you do with gasoline cars.
So if you do a lot of short hops with your regular cars, then a ZENN is great. If you don't, then it's not for you.
The Smart just makes just as litte sense to me as a ZENN does to you, because it is not substituting one function for another, except for sizing.
In the same way the ZENN makes no sense if you aren't doing short hops with gas cars, the SMART makes no sense if you don't have to squeeze into tiny parking spaces, e.g., New York City. A parking meter or garage gives everyone the same amount of space.
My point? The SMART is just as limited in its way as the ZENN is in its way.
But a nice 4-door subcompact has few limitations for the majority of people. A SMART or ZENN has many limitations for a majority of people.
A Hyundai Accent is $11995 retail and it'll outperform or equal the SMART in every way. More room, better acceleration, 37 mpg HWY, 10 year warranty on powertrain, 110 HP.
I kinda like the idea of the ZENN. It would fit a lot of my needs perfectly, as my commute to work is only 3.5 miles, and most of my driving is probbably within its cruising range. Unfortunately, if I'm reading the specs right, it tops out at 25 mph! I'd get smeared the moment I pulled out of my driveway! :sick:
I still think a vital point is being missed here. The small electric car is meant to decrease....substantially....even replace....all the short term hops you do with gasoline cars.
At this point, I'm thinking that if you live someplace where everything is that close together, you don't need a second car.
talking about driving these "covered slow motorcycles", 25mph limits, short range, change the battery type transportation. Maybe we could find some links to some of the 1970's and the Jimmy Carter fireside chats. Let's all put on an extra sweater.
I'd rather get a 2nd job just to pay for a decent car with some power and style!
I'd rather get a 2nd job just to pay for a decent car with some power and style!
I don't think the idea behind a ZENN is for people who can't afford a decent car. It's more about that warm, fuzzy feel-good sensation you get when you hug a tree. :shades:
Well, that's the topic, but look around - cars are bigger (because more people buy SUVs and crossovers) and the fleet average has dipped (for the same reason).
Not to mention, I remember the 55mph national speed limits, and traffic today moves around a LOT quicker than in those days.
So big cars are moving around as fast as ever, if you ask me, $4 gas be darned.
Well if you had one person commuting to work in a regular car and one at home to take the kids to school, or maybe work at home, or work locally, that would make a ZENN practical.
But you're right, it is a purpose-built CITY CAR---that's all it's meant to do.
You GUYS are being very unfair. You haven't even seen a ZENN up close and personal and you "think" it's one of those crappy little canvas covered two-cycle scooters.
It's really a very REAL car inside and out. It's a tiny SUV kind of car with all the accoutrements you are used to in a regular car. It is in no sense spartan or self-flagellating.
I venture to say it is registered in CA as a golf cart. It is not legal on any road posted over 35 MPH in CA. The reason they limit it to 25 MPH is to avoid the crash tests. The reason the Xebra gets by with its 40 MPH top speed is the 3 wheels can qualify as a motorcycle. I cannot leave my street with a car such as the Zenn. My first cross street is posted 45 MPH. So what differentiates the Zenn from all the other little 25 MPH vehicles being sold in the USA. This is my choice in that class.
You are WAY off the mark here. You haven't seen a ZENN so one can't blame you. It's not a bare bones car like that ...that....THING you posted. It's a real car, and it is fully equipped. Again, it's a CITY CAR. You don't drive 45 mph on highly populated city streets.
Here's a YouTube video on it, about 4 minute video. It's not a golf cart. Enjoy!
Years ago, when I was a little kid, one of my neighbors built a scaled-down Model-A using a homemade chassis and a lawn tractor engine. Their kids used to tear around in the yard in it. He said it would probably top out around 30 mph.
Thinking about that got me wondering, if you built something based on a lawn tractor, what kind of fuel economy it would get? I'd say on average, a gallon of gas could get me about 1.5 hours of mowing time. Of course, running the blades no doubt saps a lot of power and fuel. And the thing's only geared to top out at around 5 mph. Still, I wonder, if you played around with the gearing and ditched the blades, and got the thing to top out at maybe 25 mph, what kind of economy it might get?
You know you couldn't stop with a simple eco-box mower - you'd get all caught up in the mods and the next thing you know, you'd be joining the US Lawn Mower Racing Association.
Looks like a decent little car. My question is still the same. IS it legal in CA on roads posted higher than 35 MPH. I do not know how you would get anywhere in So Cal without using a road posted 45 MPH. Outside of your own neighborhood. That is why they are listed as NEV (neighborhood electric vehicle). I wanted a GEM 5 years ago and ran into the DMV brick wall. The bottom line is CA does not want you to save energy. I like the looks of the ZENN. I think they have a good idea. You may be able to buy one here, just not get to the store with it.
That's a good question, I don't know. I have seen them here in my town running on city streets posted at 25 and 35 but I haven't seen one on a 45 mph posted street. I don't know the legalities of that. I'm sure ZENN does, though, since they have a dealer network in the US already.
I don't see why you couldn't stay in the right lane of a 45 mph posted street but probably not good for a one lane 45 mph street.
So if you do a lot of short hops with your regular cars, then a ZENN is great. If you don't, then it's not for you.
My point is that the ZENN costs almost $13K plus TTL, that will pay for more than enough gas to run my regular car for 60K miles of those short hops. It doesn't make any financial sense.
The Smart just makes just as little sense to me as a ZENN does to you, because it is not substituting one function for another, except for sizing.
In reality the Smart makes much more sense as a second car for a two car family as most two car families rarely have more than two people in the second car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There is a bail bond guy that cruises all over Santee in his Gem. It is almost all posted 45 MPH and 4 lane. I don't think he holds up traffic. I really don't think the CA tax people are wanting us to get by scott free on highway taxes. That was the main reason I wanted one. I think when they go over that NEV 25 MPH they have to pass all the crash tests. That would probably kill the ZENN. We are way over regulated in this country.
Like I said, cars of this type require more than punching on a calculator. They represent a change of behavior, of consumption, and their purchase supports other technologies.
Smart is the same old stuff, just less of it. It's a cassette instead of an 8-track.
Contrary to popular believe, the entire world is not economics driven. Marx thought so, maybe Greenspan did, but I don't. :P
They represent a change of behavior, of consumption, and their purchase supports other technologies.
But thats just the thing, its impact on consumption is very limited. For most families it would only save a very small percentage of the gas used. The same thing can be done by replacing your gas powered cars with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Smart is the same old stuff, just less of it. It's a cassette instead of an 8-track.
Ah but if I get a Smart it will suffice all my needs for my daily drive plus it will reduce my consumption far more than keeping my current car and getting a glorified golf cart for those short hops. Not only that but I will save a grand. :P
Contrary to popular believe, the entire world is not economics driven.
Actually it is, just that the economics are different for each person.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually it is, just that the economics are different for each person.
That is very true. When I was seriously looking for an electric vehicle for my errands, we had 3 vehicles already for the two of us to drive. It was more of a novelty for me. If economics were an issue with me I would own a used Civic or Corolla. I do not think you can justify a specialty vehicle of any type purely on economics. No way it will save you money owning two vehicles when you only drive one at a time. Insurance, interest and taxes will eat up any savings in energy.
I do not think you can justify a specialty vehicle of any type purely on economics.
But you can, economics is basically how you allocate resources. Most people try to work it out the get the most enjoyment while expending the least amount of their resources. For each person the amount of enjoyment differs for the same thing.
Some people might get a lot of enjoyment out of driving around a golf cart disguised as a car and saying how green they are.
But in a conversation like this one must hold on to standards to see if the vehicle makes sense to the general population. Hence we must use the standard does it make financial sense to buy the car and use it for short errands? the answer is no.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
ANYWAY -- the savings, if you drive 35 miles a day in the ZENN versus those same 35 miles in your SUV (you don't have to "give up" your SUV, just give it up on short hops), would be quite substantial in the course of a year. Do the math. About 15 gallons a week, 60 gallons a month, 720 gallons a year.
At $4 a gallon, that's substantial money. That's a 4-year pay-off more or less, way better than any hybrid. And of course the admiration and interest of all your friends.
At $4 a gallon, that's substantial money. That's a 4-year pay-off more or less, way better than any hybrid. And of course the admiration and interest of all your friends.
WIth my average of under 7000 miles per year it would take longer. It has a lot of visual appeal. When I test drove the Xebra, people were waving at us like we were rock stars, even in that funky little 3 wheeler.
In defense of it being a car not a golf cart. Most of the NEVs are open to the elements. This makes them less than ideal for shopping. You cannot lock up your purchases if you are going to more than one store. The ZENN seems to be a regular car in that sense. The only limitation for me, is regulations in places like CA. My 2.8 miles to town @ 25 MPH is more than adequate.
It is interesting to note that in Europe, the price of diesel is consistently and universally cheaper than gasoline, thus encouraging the use of the more fuel efficient diesel powered vehicles.
No as long as it has the speed and range of a golf cart all it is is a glorified golf cart. Little more than an enclosed golf cart.
Call me when the range id greater than 35 miles taking an hour and 24 minutes to get to,
ANYWAY -- the savings, if you drive 35 miles a day in the ZENN versus those same 35 miles in your SUV (you don't have to "give up" your SUV, just give it up on short hops), would be quite substantial in the course of a year.
The thing is you are not going to drive it 35 miles a day, you are going to drive it a few miles here and a few miles there, those short trips that maybe add up to 35 miles a month. Plus the fact that you don't give up anything means you are spending more. For the $13K that the Zenn costs I can pay for the gas for my short hops for many a year.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
obvious that the Canadian test-drivers were enjoying theirselves driving it around a tad. But 25 mph? Yikes. Funny, because in the little SE Arizona cowtown I live in I see guys driving their golf carts through town all the time. Must be legal then, right? How fast can a golf cart go? Depends?
The ZENN creator is on the right track, though, it looks like a novelty rig, one that Jack Nicholson could buy to buzz to Laker games in.
Oh, and the Smart that Russell Crowe drove in France in the movie 'A Good Day' did nothing but drove him nuts. I mean, he did a good job of showing his displeasure for that car even if he was just acting his displeasure. It is kind of cute but I don't buy a rig because it's cute. We get one rig at a time and a Cars-R-Us plastic toy like the ZENN and the SmartForSomebody are not that vehicle.
The ZENN isn't a toy. It is equipped, upholstered and finished just like a regular car.
25 mpg doesn't make something a "golf cart". Are bicycles golf carts? Is a Porsche 911 going 25 mph a golf car for that period of time? :shades:
BESIDES:
"Because of federal law, car dealers can’t legally sell electrics without a governor holding the top speed to 25 mph, but as explained by Gompertz, owner of EcoAuto, Inc., the buyer can easily and inexpensively modify the cars to go 35 mph once they own it."
Montana and Washington have passed laws allowing 35 mpg, and California has such a law in the works.
I don't know, however, how the increased speed affects the range, if it does or not.
PS: Not sure how Toyota got around this rule with the RAV4-EV, which goes regular highway speeds and had a range of 100 miles.
Some "experts" say we can expect diesel to remain fairly constant as gasoline prices climb. The U.S. market will have a lot of new diesel choices in the next year or so- including an Accord Diesel and several BMW models with diesel. Maybe the higher overall amount could help keep prices reasonable.....more likely, higher demand will raise the price, though!
Unfortunately, diesels are usually several thousand dollars more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. The Accord Diesel currently offered in European markets averages around 43mpg combined city/highway. The mileage difference would eventually offset the additional expense of the diesel powertrain, but it would happen much quicker if diesel was $.50 or so less than gasoline.
don't know, however, how the increased speed affects the range, if it does or not.
You bet it does. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Doubling your speed quadruples your power needs. The range on that thing at 35 mph is probably under 10 miles. The web site was careful to say "up to 35 miles" range, and was careful not to say that you could do that at 25 mph. Besides, if you do run it "up to 35 miles" on a charge every time, you'll be buying a new battery pack every year.
PS: Not sure how Toyota got around this rule with the RAV4-EV, which goes regular highway speeds and had a range of 100 miles.
Presumably, Toyota provided documentation certifying that the RAV4-EV would perform comparably in crash tests to the regular RAV4. The 25 mph limit is for vehicles that aren't crash-tested and certified to meet FMVSS regulations.
Well that makes sense. The RAV4-EV was actually a RAV4 that was converted, so it had all the features of the regular RAV.
If the ZENN could reach some economy of scale and be made in sufficient quantities, I bet the price could come down considerably. Given that it is designed only for city use, I don't feel the MPH criticism is valid. The car is not pretending to be for highway use or long distance. You can't criticize it for something it says it cannot do in the first place. It's more like take it or leave it.
35 miles would be fine for me. I can do all my shopping/mailing in about 10 miles, and haul my bike to the trails in about another 12 miles round trip, and movies and eats are just 3 miles RT, so I'm good to go electric as a second car.
I'm not prepared to pay $12,000 however.
But every effort takes us a little closer. If the ZENN could be sold for $7,500 and go 35 mph for 50 miles, that would be a winner I think.
Those numbers feel about right to me, for success.
As for SMART, I'd say if it could get 75 mpg and sell for $7.5K, that might work.
Comments
I remember gas prices prior to it in the 30 cent range ($1.60 adjusted for inflation). When I started driving in '78 gas was at 80 cents ($2.56 adjusted for inflation).
Not sure when it hit $1 a gallon but $1.10 in 1980 would be $2.76 adjusted for inflation.
I remember the first time I saw $2 a gallon gas, it was in 1982 and it was in the middle of nowhere Alaska. I think gas in the town near there was in the $1.40 range and about $1.20 on the base IIRC.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yeah, and there'd be a bunch of stinky dead horses laying about as well.
Gas mileage is a relative issue. To me only 30 MPG in an A4 or A6 Audi is atrociously poor. Just as 16 MPG in my Sequoia is poor. Neither vehicle should be getting such poor mileage. We are victims or our government regulators. There is no reason your Audi should be getting less than 40 MPG on diesel or my Sequoia getting 30 MPG on diesel. The people we have elected are in control of the oil spigot and do not want us to use less fuel. Whether driving a tin can like a Prius or a Hummer 1 like Ahnold. They want the gas tax dollars to keep flowing. None of them have the nerve to add a tax onto the high prices we are currently paying. If we all drove 50 MPG Yugos the price would be raised to compensate. I had a 2005 Passat Wagon TDI that got great mileage. I sold it for a profit. Enough profit to fuel my Sequoia for a couple years at least. When Congress gets serious about mileage,
By the way handling is a non issue with the current level of luxury SUVs.
It's too bad that the refiners are stuck with refining ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Removing that extra bit of sulfur requires natural gas, which is also looking to become a pretty tight market within a couple of years.
As for taxes, we probably do need the gas tax to slowly move up in order to help us move to more energy efficient transportation. Increased taxes (yuk!) will make up the difference in falling gas prices (but as you mentioned, raising gas taxes would be fightin' words). In the UK gas is going for over eight bucks a gallon. We have it pretty sweet compared to those blokes.
But in any case, I believe that we are now in a permanent situation where demand will outstrip supply and hence the price pain. New petro projects coming on line will have to make up for countries with declining production and be sufficiently large to cover increasing demand as well. Since there are so many producing fields, it is nearly impossible to get a handle on the global decline rate from existing wells. But we do know that here in the States, even at a steady demand of around 20.5 mmbpd, we will need to import more petroleum to cover our own declining production. And based on various comments from Bush, Cheney, & company, I believe that they are aware of the plateauing of global oil production.
As for the handling prowness of the current level of luxury SUVs, I'm pretty sure that they are not nearly as nimble as a car with good tires and a lower center of gravity. I've put in lap time at Mid Ohio and have an appreciation of the advantages of good handling. No SUV is gonna weave through the cones or curves like a car with a good suspension and that translates into real world situations... like dodging around that stalled Yugo...
I'm not touting the ZENN. I can see its limitations but one has to see petroleum as a non-renewable item. The problem is that we price gas below what it's really worth, so people can't look at a ZENN and see the longterm value of it.
If your SMART used water and your ZENN ran on sand and there was a drought, suddenly the ZENN would start looking pretty good, no?
Ah, the aroma! The flies! The boot scrapers!
But its not a $16K car, its a $11.5K car, a big difference.
whereas the Zenn gets 245 MPG. Try and beat that.
The problem with that is they the number of miles that it will go is very limited and still requires the same number of gas powered vehicles than if you didn't have it.
So a two car family is basically trading two cars that get say 25 MPG and are driven 12K miles a year each and $13K for two cars that get say 25 MPG and are driven 10K miles a year each and one car that gets 245 MPG but is only drive a few thousand miles per year and $0.
The problem with it is that the range is so short that it cannot replace a gas powered car used for commuting. Hence it won't replace any car so a two car family becomes a three car family. The car has very limited uses (as you yourself stated) and is an added expense while not really reducing other expenses.
so people can't look at a ZENN and see the longterm value of it.
There really is no long term value to it if it cannot reasonably replace an ICE car. A car that has a 35 mile maximum range under optional conditions with fresh batteries that is used for short errand runs cannot reasonably replace an ICE car.
This thing is nothing more than a very expensive golf cart,
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I agree and I do when there is somewhere to pull over.
The "idiots" I was referring to are the ones who blast their horn when they're already halfway past and there was absolutely nothing impeding their progress from moving over to the next lane and safely passing.
I've found that the majority of drivers are okay when it comes to sharing the road. However, a few need to turn on their brain and show a little courtesy when driving a car and sharing the road with other vehicles, including bicycles.
I wish I could find that pic a friend sent me years ago of the guy in China who was hauling a full size refrigerator strapped to the side of his bicycle. Who needs a ZENN?
Ah, but the cost isn't $0. The cost for battery replacement has to be figured into the operating cost versus gas and engine maintenance on a conventional car. I did the math and the battery replacement cost for an electric car for my commute was about twice as much as gas and maintenance. Unless China starts cranking out deep-cycle li-poly batteries for the same price that lead-acid deep cycle batteries go for now, the money isn't going to work out.
So if you do a lot of short hops with your regular cars, then a ZENN is great. If you don't, then it's not for you.
The Smart just makes just as litte sense to me as a ZENN does to you, because it is not substituting one function for another, except for sizing.
In the same way the ZENN makes no sense if you aren't doing short hops with gas cars, the SMART makes no sense if you don't have to squeeze into tiny parking spaces, e.g., New York City. A parking meter or garage gives everyone the same amount of space.
My point? The SMART is just as limited in its way as the ZENN is in its way.
But a nice 4-door subcompact has few limitations for the majority of people. A SMART or ZENN has many limitations for a majority of people.
A Hyundai Accent is $11995 retail and it'll outperform or equal the SMART in every way. More room, better acceleration, 37 mpg HWY, 10 year warranty on powertrain, 110 HP.
But it's NOT a golf cart---this is a very well equipped, comfy car. It looks "normal" inside and out.
At this point, I'm thinking that if you live someplace where everything is that close together, you don't need a second car.
I'd rather get a 2nd job just to pay for a decent car with some power and style!
I don't think the idea behind a ZENN is for people who can't afford a decent car. It's more about that warm, fuzzy feel-good sensation you get when you hug a tree. :shades:
Not to mention, I remember the 55mph national speed limits, and traffic today moves around a LOT quicker than in those days.
So big cars are moving around as fast as ever, if you ask me, $4 gas be darned.
But you're right, it is a purpose-built CITY CAR---that's all it's meant to do.
You GUYS are being very unfair. You haven't even seen a ZENN up close and personal and you "think" it's one of those crappy little canvas covered two-cycle scooters.
It's really a very REAL car inside and out. It's a tiny SUV kind of car with all the accoutrements you are used to in a regular car. It is in no sense spartan or self-flagellating.
I venture to say it is registered in CA as a golf cart. It is not legal on any road posted over 35 MPH in CA. The reason they limit it to 25 MPH is to avoid the crash tests. The reason the Xebra gets by with its 40 MPH top speed is the 3 wheels can qualify as a motorcycle. I cannot leave my street with a car such as the Zenn. My first cross street is posted 45 MPH. So what differentiates the Zenn from all the other little 25 MPH vehicles being sold in the USA. This is my choice in that class.
Here's a YouTube video on it, about 4 minute video. It's not a golf cart. Enjoy!
http://zenncars.com/index.html
Thinking about that got me wondering, if you built something based on a lawn tractor, what kind of fuel economy it would get? I'd say on average, a gallon of gas could get me about 1.5 hours of mowing time. Of course, running the blades no doubt saps a lot of power and fuel. And the thing's only geared to top out at around 5 mph. Still, I wonder, if you played around with the gearing and ditched the blades, and got the thing to top out at maybe 25 mph, what kind of economy it might get?
(Fun photos there, but a bit big to repost here)
Funny video.
$12,000 Candian dollars, or USD?
That said, I'm assuming Canadian given it was a Canadian show.
Something like that would actually work for me. I don't think speed limits go higher than 35mph on my commute.
People do go 50 so I'd probably get passed a lot.
I don't see why you couldn't stay in the right lane of a 45 mph posted street but probably not good for a one lane 45 mph street.
My comment was saying that ones wallet will be lighter by about $13K with this car as people will still keep their gas power cars.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My point is that the ZENN costs almost $13K plus TTL, that will pay for more than enough gas to run my regular car for 60K miles of those short hops. It doesn't make any financial sense.
The Smart just makes just as little sense to me as a ZENN does to you, because it is not substituting one function for another, except for sizing.
In reality the Smart makes much more sense as a second car for a two car family as most two car families rarely have more than two people in the second car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Smart is the same old stuff, just less of it. It's a cassette instead of an 8-track.
Contrary to popular believe, the entire world is not economics driven. Marx thought so, maybe Greenspan did, but I don't. :P
But thats just the thing, its impact on consumption is very limited. For most families it would only save a very small percentage of the gas used. The same thing can be done by replacing your gas powered cars with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Smart is the same old stuff, just less of it. It's a cassette instead of an 8-track.
Ah but if I get a Smart it will suffice all my needs for my daily drive plus it will reduce my consumption far more than keeping my current car and getting a glorified golf cart for those short hops. Not only that but I will save a grand. :P
Contrary to popular believe, the entire world is not economics driven.
Actually it is, just that the economics are different for each person.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is very true. When I was seriously looking for an electric vehicle for my errands, we had 3 vehicles already for the two of us to drive. It was more of a novelty for me. If economics were an issue with me I would own a used Civic or Corolla. I do not think you can justify a specialty vehicle of any type purely on economics. No way it will save you money owning two vehicles when you only drive one at a time. Insurance, interest and taxes will eat up any savings in energy.
But you can, economics is basically how you allocate resources. Most people try to work it out the get the most enjoyment while expending the least amount of their resources. For each person the amount of enjoyment differs for the same thing.
Some people might get a lot of enjoyment out of driving around a golf cart disguised as a car and saying how green they are.
But in a conversation like this one must hold on to standards to see if the vehicle makes sense to the general population. Hence we must use the standard does it make financial sense to buy the car and use it for short errands? the answer is no.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's really a nicely equipped car!
ANYWAY -- the savings, if you drive 35 miles a day in the ZENN versus those same 35 miles in your SUV (you don't have to "give up" your SUV, just give it up on short hops), would be quite substantial in the course of a year. Do the math. About 15 gallons a week, 60 gallons a month, 720 gallons a year.
At $4 a gallon, that's substantial money. That's a 4-year pay-off more or less, way better than any hybrid. And of course the admiration and interest of all your friends.
WIth my average of under 7000 miles per year it would take longer. It has a lot of visual appeal. When I test drove the Xebra, people were waving at us like we were rock stars, even in that funky little 3 wheeler.
In defense of it being a car not a golf cart. Most of the NEVs are open to the elements. This makes them less than ideal for shopping. You cannot lock up your purchases if you are going to more than one store. The ZENN seems to be a regular car in that sense. The only limitation for me, is regulations in places like CA. My 2.8 miles to town @ 25 MPH is more than adequate.
No as long as it has the speed and range of a golf cart all it is is a glorified golf cart. Little more than an enclosed golf cart.
Call me when the range id greater than 35 miles taking an hour and 24 minutes to get to,
ANYWAY -- the savings, if you drive 35 miles a day in the ZENN versus those same 35 miles in your SUV (you don't have to "give up" your SUV, just give it up on short hops), would be quite substantial in the course of a year.
The thing is you are not going to drive it 35 miles a day, you are going to drive it a few miles here and a few miles there, those short trips that maybe add up to 35 miles a month. Plus the fact that you don't give up anything means you are spending more. For the $13K that the Zenn costs I can pay for the gas for my short hops for many a year.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The ZENN creator is on the right track, though, it looks like a novelty rig, one that Jack Nicholson could buy to buzz to Laker games in.
Oh, and the Smart that Russell Crowe drove in France in the movie 'A Good Day' did nothing but drove him nuts. I mean, he did a good job of showing his displeasure for that car even if he was just acting his displeasure. It is kind of cute but I don't buy a rig because it's cute. We get one rig at a time and a Cars-R-Us plastic toy like the ZENN and the SmartForSomebody are not that vehicle.
25 mph tops?
Zero
Emissions
No
Noise
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
25 mpg doesn't make something a "golf cart". Are bicycles golf carts? Is a Porsche 911 going 25 mph a golf car for that period of time? :shades:
BESIDES:
"Because of federal law, car dealers can’t legally sell electrics without a governor holding the top speed to 25 mph, but as explained by Gompertz, owner of EcoAuto, Inc., the buyer can easily and inexpensively modify the cars to go 35 mph once they own it."
Montana and Washington have passed laws allowing 35 mpg, and California has such a law in the works.
I don't know, however, how the increased speed affects the range, if it does or not.
PS: Not sure how Toyota got around this rule with the RAV4-EV, which goes regular highway speeds and had a range of 100 miles.
Unfortunately, diesels are usually several thousand dollars more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. The Accord Diesel currently offered in European markets averages around 43mpg combined city/highway. The mileage difference would eventually offset the additional expense of the diesel powertrain, but it would happen much quicker if diesel was $.50 or so less than gasoline.
You bet it does. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Doubling your speed quadruples your power needs. The range on that thing at 35 mph is probably under 10 miles. The web site was careful to say "up to 35 miles" range, and was careful not to say that you could do that at 25 mph. Besides, if you do run it "up to 35 miles" on a charge every time, you'll be buying a new battery pack every year.
PS: Not sure how Toyota got around this rule with the RAV4-EV, which goes regular highway speeds and had a range of 100 miles.
Presumably, Toyota provided documentation certifying that the RAV4-EV would perform comparably in crash tests to the regular RAV4. The 25 mph limit is for vehicles that aren't crash-tested and certified to meet FMVSS regulations.
If the ZENN could reach some economy of scale and be made in sufficient quantities, I bet the price could come down considerably. Given that it is designed only for city use, I don't feel the MPH criticism is valid. The car is not pretending to be for highway use or long distance. You can't criticize it for something it says it cannot do in the first place. It's more like take it or leave it.
35 miles would be fine for me. I can do all my shopping/mailing in about 10 miles, and haul my bike to the trails in about another 12 miles round trip, and movies and eats are just 3 miles RT, so I'm good to go electric as a second car.
I'm not prepared to pay $12,000 however.
But every effort takes us a little closer. If the ZENN could be sold for $7,500 and go 35 mph for 50 miles, that would be a winner I think.
Those numbers feel about right to me, for success.
As for SMART, I'd say if it could get 75 mpg and sell for $7.5K, that might work.
For that kind of performance, the batteries alone would cost more than that unless you want a literal lead sled (1,000+ pounds).