With new diesel cars driving up demand, I wouldn't think diesel prices would drop relative to gasoline. Diesel also is high CO2 emissions fuel, so it could well be taxed more, rather than less.
I had the same thought, i.e., that the Europeans taxed diesel less than gasoline, and in fact that is why I used the "strategy" word in the title of my remark.
Now, why is it that we have not as yet adopted a similar tax strategy toward diesel fuel in the US? One would think that is an obvious win/win situation:
Win No.1: Use less petroleum in the aggregate.
Win No. 2: Accordingly, reduce the total of air pollutants.
In the USA it is a different mindset. Our Congress are direct extensions of the lobbyist with the deepest pockets. If you look at the situation in the UK where diesel is more than gas you can kind of understand the problem. The UK has a surplus of gasoline. In the refining of crude oil you get different products. To refine enough diesel for the demand in the EU there ends up to be a surplus of gas, which they sell to us. The oil companies are doing a balancing act in this country to not end up with more diesel users than the supply of diesel. We have a lot more trucks, tractors, jets, buses, trains, home heating and heavy equipment using the diesel supply, than does the EU.
Congress goes along with the anti diesel thinking, because when people use less fuel they get less taxes. CA has additional taxes on diesel to discourage the use. There is no mandate in our Congress to use less oil. They only play word games to appease those that are worried that we will run out. They adopt energy policies like the last one that all we are seeing is more ethanol in our gas and lower mileage in our vehicles. What has it gained US?
Given that it is designed only for city use, I don't feel the MPH criticism is valid.
I would say that the MPH criticism is very valid. Even in city use many, if not all, main streets have speed limits over 25 MPH. I would hate to be in a golf cart doing 25 tops on a city street with a speed limit of 35 with traffic going at 40. An even scarier thought would be pulling out into that traffic.
The only way the the 25 MPH limit would not be an issue is if you stayed on the side streets.
35 miles would be fine for me. I can do all my shopping/mailing in about 10 miles......
Thats all and well but for the price and the fact that I have to keep my gas powered car it doesn't make sense. I could take the $12K plus and use it to pay for the gas that my gas powered car would use in making those trips and save thousands. If I wanted to save gas I can get a car with better mileage when it comes time to replace my car.
If the ZENN could be sold for $7,500 and go 35 mph for 50 miles, that would be a winner I think.
Sorry but I would think that for most people to consider an electric vehicle it would have to have the speed and range of link this for a reasonable price.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry but I would think that for most people to consider an electric vehicle
That is the key. I don't think most people will consider an EV, just as most people are no longer interested in the hybrids. Only a few that for one reason or another want something different. It could be to make a statement or just need cheap transportation in their location. There are more and more very large retirement communities being built in the warmer climates. My tax man moved to "The Villages" in Florida. 40,000+ homes and 28 golf courses. He has hardly driven his RX300 in over a year. All he uses is the NEV that came with the home. So I do see a market for the ZENN and others of that type. Maybe not in the CA suburbs with their high speed surface streets. I don't see a market for the Tesla past 100 vehicles. Who wants to sit on 6000 AA batteries that could explode.
I don't think most people will consider an EV, just as most people are no longer interested in the hybrids.
I think people will consider an EV if it meets most of their needs as a car. Say that it was able to go what most people average in a week and have a decent reserve on a single charge and have a reasonable price. I would seriously consider an EV that gets 250 miles on a single charge and costs under $25K.
As for hybrids I think there would be a bigger market for them if they had met their expectations. In the future there might be a bigger market.
Who wants to sit on 6000 AA batteries that could explode.
Yeah who wants to sit on a dozen gallons of fuel that could explode.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's not a "golf cart". The ZENN is a fully equipped, regular automobile, a 3 Door Hatchback, fully enclosed, with automotive-grade aluminum alloy space frame, and ABS body panels, full interior, heater, wipers, remote, sun roof, power windows, power locks, stereo.
There's nothing particularly dangerous about driving such a car at 25 mph on a 35 mph road. We all do it every day.
Its a glorified golf cart I saw one and wasn't impressed. And despite what you say there is something very dangerous with driving 25 or less on a road where traffic is going 40+. Just ask the Amish.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No I said "with a speed limit of 35 with traffic going at 40."
Okay find me a golf cart with all those features I mentioned and I'll shut up.
A friend of mine who lives downstate bought one for his parents to use on their farm. Its enclosed has leather seats radio but no sunroof (although I do believe you can take off body parts if you want). And I think it goes 30 MPH and he paid a heck of a lot less.
when it gos faster and further than a golf cart call me.
speaking of the Amish....oh, let's not go there....
The Amish drive slow vehicles and have a hard time with cars because cars come up on the so fast the driver really doesn't realize how fast they are approaching.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm confused as to why anyone would give consideration to this car. Why would an electric vehicle get a waiver with regard to safety options? I agree with gagrice's earlier comments about the government imposing too many weight adding safety options. A comparison of this car with ANYTHING available currently in the US market is invalid. One would have to make the same lightweight vehicle (1200 lbs) with a gasoline engine that topped out at 25 mph (or perhaps 40 mph because the reduced torque in a gasoline engine would require more power to match the electric vehicle acceleration). Only then could one make a valid mpg comparison with the electricity equivalent mpg. I'm all in favor of electric vehicles and I imagine it would still win out in terms of equivalent mpg, but we have never seen the true efficiency potential of the gasoline engine because of all the marketing crap that gets added to a vehicle which reduces the potential mpg. I can guarantee that an auto company can make a 1200 lb gasoline-powered vehicle that can get 70+ mpg for less than $15 K (and if someone wants to wager, maybe I'll even make that offer and do it myself). Why would these vehicles not be considered attractive relative to the electric vehicle?
I want my Zenn (or other electric car) to come with a solar array. I suspect that solar would charge my car fine for at least 8 months out of the year here in usually sunny Boise. With with my southern exposure I don't think I'd have to plug it in to Idaho Power very often.
There's been a commercial boomlet 2 miles away and I can now run half my errands just popping down there. The library is another mile away. Downtown Boise is ~8 miles away but I can get there on surface streets - the speed limit starts at 45 for 3 blocks, then hits a parkway that has a 40 limit (although many of us speed at 50). After that the pace is a real 35mph until the last 2 miles where 30 is the norm.
The ski hill is another story - it's 50 miles round trip from my house - at least the road is usually clear. They tried to build a tram from town up there back in the 60's but the cost was prohibitive.
But yeah, I could see myself tooling around the neighborhood either in a glorified golf car or a Zenn.
refills delivered from the manufacturer right to your door. As I understand it from the video this car is not licensed to sell yet in the country it's manufactured in, Canada?
Truedat?
I think they did a pretty good job of body designing the little micro-electric car.
Solar charger for a ZENN would be really easy to install yourself. Very simple. Apparently, people are already fully charging their ZENNs this way.
So let's see a photo of that golf cart. Especially the power windows and locks and doors and hatch and stereo and fully upholstered interior and headliner? And this is completely street legal?
Don't THINK so!
EV vs. GAS: Good point about comparing lightweight low speed EVs ONLY to lightweight low speed ICE cars; however, the whole marketing point is renewable energy, such as solar charging (a wall socket isn't strictly "renewable energy" is it, unless it comes from sun, wind, etc?)
One has to factor, I think, the "feel good marketing" into the buyer's equation, whether you personally agree with it or not. Some people believe in it.
LOST WITH WHY MY CAR. SOUNDS, LIKE IT BLEW A ROD OR SOMETHING, JUST BECAUSE I DROVE THROUGH SOME WATER? MAKES NO SENSE TO ME, ANY BODY HAVE ANY IDEAS AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE PROBLEM,.I AM THINKING MAYBE IDLER PULLY BEARING OR THE BELT TENTIONER (SPELLING) GOT WATER BEHIND IT AND BURNED A BEARING ? MAKE ANY SENSE? HELP IF ANY ONE HAS AN IDEA
Whoops! You're in the wrong place. Here's a link to a good place to post your question. Ask about "hydro-locking", which is what I think happened to you.
Yes, looks quite credible but it's not really ready to roll like the ZENN. But the performance levels are far superior to ZENN. (it claims to be freeway-capable).
it says it has an 80 mile range, which is 'twice the normal range of the average commuter". That's an interesting fact. Didn't know that.
Cheapest one seems not to exist yet, projected price $18,500 or something like that.
However, given its size and narrowness, it is being marketed as a "city car" and size is one of its more useful selling points.
The concept looks attractive to me, with one seat in Front and one in the back. I guess the ride may offer little compliance as they need to keep it right. I looked over the concept some time ago and it looks like they are at a standstill
As you say, looks like a dream unless an investor with big money steps in.
Why would an electric vehicle get a waiver with regard to safety options?
I don't think the EVs being disussed here do get a waiver, which is why they're speed limited. While a little off topic, to me a better question is why aren't motorcycles required to meet the same safety standards as regular vehicles? The fatality rate for motorcycles is 20 times that of regular passenger vehicles. It's far more dangerous to ride a motorcycle than it is to drive without a seatbelt yet not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, riding a motorcycle isn't. Some of the EVs that may soon be hitting the roads will have 3 wheels and be classified as motorcycles. This will make them legal for highway use without having to comply with any crash test standards. Seems kind of inconsistent and convoluted to me but that's our government.
One would have to make the same lightweight vehicle (1200 lbs) with a gasoline engine that topped out at 25 mph (or perhaps 40 mph because the reduced torque in a gasoline engine would require more power to match the electric vehicle acceleration). Only then could one make a valid mpg comparison with the electricity equivalent mpg.
I disagree. Yes there is no ICE equivalent to the ZENN but there are some ICEs that could be used as a comparison to the Tesla Roadster, which gets the equivalent of 100+ mpg. That's one of the nice things about electric motors. You don't sacrifice efficiency for power. In fact more powerful electric motors typically achieve slightly greater efficiency. Bottom line is that when you're talking about efficiency there is no comparison between an EV and an ICE. And even if an ICE was comparable in this regard that doesn't change the fact that we cannot produce enough oil domestically. We can produce enough electricity.
The comparison is how much gasoline do I put in a car and how much does it cost to travel X miles versus how many kWh of energy do I consume to go the SAME distance in the electric vehicle. In the US, 80 % of the energy comes from hydrocarbon sources so the CO2 comparison can be directly compared and correlated into a gasoline equivalent for the electric vehicle. In countries with a high amount of nuclear power, solar or wind energy, electric vehicles are very attractive in that the 80 % factor will be significantly reduced.
I agree on the motorcycles. I also don't know why motorcycles don't have to have a small catalytic converter and an automatic choke.
My primary point is what are we really trying to do here. Are we simply promoting alternative energy to promote one or several companies alternative energy companies to "Big Oil" financial status and looking cool in the process, or are we really trying to do save reserves and reduce CO2 output. If a government or a person REALLY wanted to reduce gasoline consumption, then it is very easy to do and it can be initiated WITHOUT conversion to alternative energy sources (although alternative energy would help). Even if automobiles are fully converted to electric vehicles, marine fuels will still be used to power ships (which by the way have up to 4 % sulfur currently), jet fuel will still power airplanes and diesel fuel will still power heavy equipment. The petroleum industry isn't going anywhere. However, if global warming is real and/or if there are finite oil reserves, then the concept of efficiency needs to be looked at more seriously. If the answer to the question is that we are really trying to look cool by using alternative energies which in the end wind up consuming more energy, then I support the promoters of doing nothing and enjoying the staus quo. However, if everyone (or at least 95 % of the population) agrees that fuel must be conserved, then some real simple and straightforward approaches can be taken that can get to that goal. That is where government comes into play (or doesn't) to set the sails in a certain direction.
I don't think Global Warming is in doubt anymore. What's in doubt is what percentage of it is man-made, and what percentage is natural cyclical clmate change. From all I've read, we are a factor and thus we can make a difference.
There's one more question - if one accepts GW is real and (partially) man-made, what are the benefits of a specific regulation/mandate/etc? There are 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' things one can be required to do. Given the huge increase in China/India economies, car driving, and, in particular, coal burning, it is not an easy question to address. The image of a bunch of ants trying to control a log as it floats down the rapids comes to mind...
Sure we CAN produce more electricity. But we ARE not. Economic and population growth at least regionally is outpacing the production of electricity. It takes some years before enough electricity plants could be built and brought on-line.
So if we had a substantial number of plug-in rechargeable EV's there is no way we could keep them charged during peak demands (charging overnight only?) And I believe CA is in as bad or worse shape than NE, in regards to electricity supply.
And of course our electricity energy source comes from the same bucket of fossil fuels. Do you want your coal to run the electricity plant, or it could be converted to oil? http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0816-wsj.html
Nobody is claiming that EVs are pollution free. Most people know that the vast majority of the power in this country is generated by coal and natural gas powerplants. These powerplants operate at a higher efficiency than an ICE so there is still less CO2 being generated. But that would be the next step, to clean up our power supply. At least there is the potential to do this with electricy. The ICE is a dead end in that regard.
And as I've previously stated, even if there was no environmental benefit derived from transitioning to EVs there would be the significant benefit of being less dependant on foreign sources.
I'm personally not a big fan of conservation. Basically I don't see the point. It might allow us to delay an oil crisis, which will make it a form of procrastination since we tend not to act until a crisis is upon us. As far as conserving energy in general there is no need to. Energy is abundant. It's simply a matter of conversion to a more useable form.
The majority of the oil used in this country goes towards powering our personal vehicles. The other applications that would still use diesel could potentially transition to bio-diesel. Jet fuel would be the biggest challenge because of the cold temperatures but there is currently work being done on this financed largely by Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines. I agree that the oil industry will be around for a long time but we do have the potential to gradually reduce our dependence.
So if we had a substantial number of plug-in rechargeable EV's there is no way we could keep them charged during peak demands
I think it would take many, many years before PHEVs or EVs made up even 1% of the vehicles on the road. More than enough time to deal with their potential impact on the grid. So I see tihs as a non-issue. According to the groups that are responsible for managing the grid they claim that there is enough excess capacity right now to accomodate a fleet made up of 80% EVs if they are charged at off peak hours. So the capacity is already there its just a matter of getting people to use it at the right time. This will be done by pricing.
Do you want your coal to run the electricity plant, or it could be converted to oil?
There is no way that converting coal to oil will allow you to travel further in an ICE than you would have been able to go in an EV with the electricity generated from that coal. So the answer is yes, If we must use coal I'd rather it be used to generate electricity, not produce oil.
I think it would take many, many years before PHEVs or EVs made up even 1% of the vehicles on the road.
I agree. PHEV's and EV's are then not a solution to $4/gal gas which should happen in the next few years. That is why I wonder why it keeps getting brought up as an alternative to the ICE when gas does hit this mark. Yes it is an alternative to an individual, but not to society.
But since it keeps getting brought up ... I thought I would address the electricity generation issue.
More than enough time to deal with their potential impact on the grid. I think we'll have enough trouble keeping up with population growth. If current trends continue there will be another 100 million people in this country by 2030, living the American lifestyle.
right now to accomodate a fleet made up of 80% EVs if they are charged at off peak hours. Then EV's better have a range greater than 200 miles, or else they'd get charged during use. I thought the plan was to have a 10-minute recharge station?
So the answer is yes, If we must use coal I'd rather it be used to generate electricity, not produce oil. I don't see an EV being produced anytime soon that can replace the capabilities of my ICE car anytime soon. On a cold morning with defroster, radio, lights, and heaters going, powering AWD how much is my range and acceleration reduced? Can I drive 100 miles like that with no worries in an EV? I'd pay much more for gasoline or diesel, unless the EV is as capable in power, range, and refueling ease.
I agree. PHEV's and EV's are then not a solution to $4/gal gas which should happen in the next few years
As far as society as a whole is concerned there are no short term solutions to $4/gal gas. There are things that the individual can do right now to reduce his fuel bill but I'm not getting the sense that we care enough about gas prices at the present to actually impose any kind of self sacrifice. Just because a solution may take years to realize it's benefits is no reason it shouldn't be pursued. That's the kind of short sighted thinking that got us in this situation to begin with.
I'd pay much more for gasoline or diesel, unless the EV is as capable in power, range, and refueling ease.
That's certainly a popular point of view. On the other hand I'd pay more for an EV unless the ICE is as capable in terms of efficiency and minimizing impact on the environment. As far as refueling ease I'd actually give the edge to the EV. From my perspective it's easier to plug-in every night then it is to visit a gas station once a week. The range issue is definitely an advantage for the ICE. But if you're regularly driving over 100 miles a day then with $4/gal gas you've still got a problem. Also, when we actually start seeing gas shortages then the unlimited range of an ICE will no longer be a given.
Then EV's better have a range greater than 200 miles, or else they'd get charged during use. I thought the plan was to have a 10-minute recharge station?
Yes I do envision 10 minute re-charge stations for the rare occurence that a driver of an EV exceeds the range of his battery pack. If you think that this would have much impact on peak grid demand then you must think that the typical motorists travels more than 200 miles on a regular basis. A driver of a PHEV would never have to charge during peak hours.
I think we'll have enough trouble keeping up with population growth. If current trends continue there will be another 100 million people in this country by 2030, living the American lifestyle.
Energy usage does not track linearily with population growth. Appliances, light bulbs, HVAC systems, etc., are constantly getting more efficient. If I'm not mistaken CA uses less electricity today than they did 10 years ago despite having a larger population.
If I'm not mistaken CA uses less electricity today than they did 10 years ago despite having a larger population.
I'm not doubting you, but that would be interesting to see. I do know there were rolling brown-outs and blackouts a year or 2 ago, for several weeks.
Also consider that as you're talking about increasing electricical generating capacity, the trend is going to be to decrease the nuclear generation we have.
Most of the nuclear plants in this country are nearing or past their engineered life-span, and we really should be shutting them down. So we should be losing elec. generating capacity, if we follow thru and shutdown nuclear plants when they should be. An example would be "Vermont Yankee" which has increased output 20% because of the shortage in capacity, and this is in a plant that is near the end of its life (35 years old). So we are accepting higher safety-risks to meet peak demands.
Maybe EV recharging would have to be limited to 12-6am, and that is not going to work for everyone 100% of the time. (There are many people who work 2nd and 3rd shifts and would need to recharge during the day.) In the next 15-20 years there is not going to be an excess of electrical power.
I see a silver lining here. California, Texas and Florida make up 1/4 of the USA's population. Af the old folks in Florida give up their Cadillacs, that'll save a bundle of gas, which can then be sent to Texas to burn at an unprecedented rate, which will drive up the price of gas through scarcity, and thereby forcing the huge California market to mandate the sale of a certain % of electric vehicles, forcing automakers to build workable ones, which we then can all buy.
I'm all for expanding our nuclear energy capacity. I believe the Sierra Club is actually in agreement here. I think the current administration is also pushing for this so maybe it will happen.
That sounds familiar. I think CA mandated ZEV cars once before then pulled the rug out from under GM on the EV-1. Set electric vehicle research back 10 years.
Maybe some individual members agree but Wikipedia says "The Sierra Club opposes building new nuclear reactors, both fission and fusion, until specific inherent safety risks are mitigated by conservative political policies, and regulatory agencies are in place to enforce those policies."
Is it better to have radioactive elements scattered al about in the ground naturally, or to extract them and use them in 1 place. Having had a radon reduction system under my house, I'm not so concerned if they were extracted and used for energy at a plant, and then stored.
It's also funny how oil is okay when it is natural, but once man touches it, and spills a little it is horrible pollution!!
So if we had a substantial number of plug-in rechargeable EV's there is no way we could keep them charged during peak demands (charging overnight only?)
How about this? A system such as solar panels on your garage roof that during the day charges a capacitor which in turn charges your EV overnight. With such a system will greatly reduce the amount of energy you take off the grid.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"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"
Maybe so, but we are just as much victims of our own voracious appetites for more and more speed. Family cars (and large SUVs) have gone from 0-60 in 15 seconds, to 12 seconds, to 10 seconds, and now rapidly closing in on 8 seconds. Meanwhile, cars primarily designed to be fast are now "slow" if they can't get to 60 in less than 5 seconds. For what, this crazy race to excessive speed, I ask you?
While I'm sure many of you will have an answer or answers to my rhetorical question, I will tell you one penalty of this trend that we are all paying: poor gas mileage in the fleet at large. And I agree with you that 17 mpg in ANY vehicle short of a school bus is atrociously poor, and 30 mpg in a 4-seat sedan like the A4 is crap too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"In the first 10 months of the year, Prius sales were up 67.6 percent from a year earlier to 150,272."
"Take the Toyota Camry Hybrid. Its 10-month sales surged 47.5 percent "
"The Ford Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid also saw sales jump"
"A good balance between fuel economy and price remains the top selling point for hybrid vehicles, recent sales numbers show.....Jesse Toprak, an analyst with the consumer Web site Edmunds.com, says buyers' priorities have shifted."
People are more mindful now of gas prices than any time in the last 25 years, come new car time. Not surprisingly, of course.
I think higher gas prices will open the way to mass acceptance of alt technologies like EVs. People will want that 100-mile range in their commute vehicles though. 35 miles is on the low side. Tesla, I believe, intends to have vehicles with normal ranges on a single charge.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I hate to complain but EV's get 0MPG since they don't use any gas at all nor any fuel in the typical sense as in onboard fuel. The EV forums debate all this stuff and I'm sure golf carts and the ZENN and all sorts of other EV's are wonderful for some people but does so much of that topic belong in this forum? :sick:
My point is less people are looking at hybrids and or buying them. The last survey I read on buyers said of 50% looking at a hybrid less than 2% bought one. THEY ARE STILL WAY OVER PRICED. July 20 2007: 3:06 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The percentage of car shoppers considering hybrid vehicles has declined in the past year, according to a survey released Tuesday by J.D. Power and Associates.
Fifty percent of new vehicle shoppers surveyed said they are considering a gasoline/hybrid electric vehicle. That's down from 57 percent last year.
And yet more recently than that survey by several months, we find that hybrid sales for the year are way up.
Actually, the article I linked went into depth on the dynamics of it, and it seems the luxury hybrids aren't doing as well. But they break down the "pay-back" of a hybrid purchase, and yes I use that term loosely, and using the Camry as an example, they come up with a 4-year timeframe in which the typical driver will save enough gas to pay for the price difference between it and a comparably equipped Camry 4-cylinder.
Anyway, I do think gas prices are still on the minds of buyers out there, and an examination of hybrids is just one of the many ways they are tackling and prioritizing the problem in their new car purchases. That is why we need to have a full complement of diesel options, alt technology developments, and a gasoline fleet that uses a LOT less gas than it does now.
Another headline today was that the automakers' alliance has essentially thrown in the towel and conceded that they can't stop the Congressional energy bill in its current form and they will have to meet a combined CAFE standard of 35 mpg by 2020. So hopefully we will see lots more fuel-frugal choices come on the market in the next decade. FINALLY.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"That sounds familiar. I think CA mandated ZEV cars once before then pulled the rug out from under GM on the EV-1. Set electric vehicle research back 10 years."
IIRC, California created the the PZEV rating giving into intense pressure from the auto industry. My understanding is that tailpipe emissions from a PZEV are less than what a barely legal conventional powerplant would emit to power an EV for the same distance. Nothing in CARB's action FORCED the manufacturers to kill their EV programs. They did that all by themselves.
The PZEV rating did have a positive effect. It encouraged the boom in the vastly more practical (given the current state of the art) hybrid electrics. There are a lot more hybrids on the road now than there would be EVs if the rule had been unchanged, and the bad taste left in people's mouths from being FORCED to live with the limitations of the EV-1 would done more damage to EVs in the long run, IMO. The PZEV rating reduced pollution, which is all that CARB had authority to require in the first place.
I will tell you one penalty of this trend that we are all paying: poor gas mileage in the fleet at large.
Why is it that when a manufacturer increases the power of a certain model there is rarely a reduction in mpg? In fact, more often than not the mileage also improves. A lot of people comment that instead of making a vehicle 25% more powerful why not make it 25% more efficient, as if this trade-off really exists.
Honda and Toyota both make 4 and 6 cylinder versions of their Accord and Camry. The 6 cylinders have over 40% greater displacement. Over 30% greater power and weigh 100-200 lbs more than their 4 cylinder counterparts. Pretty significant as far as I'm concerned. Yet there is only a 10% difference in mpg. To me that indicates a vehicles power rating is not all that big a factor when it comes to its mpg rating. Why should it be? 2 identical cars travelling down the road at 70 miles an hour might require 40 hp to maintain that speed. Now if one of these cars has a 300 hp engine and the other a 100 hp engine there's no law of physics that states the 300 hp will produce 40 hp less efficiently than the 100 hp.
The rate an engine burns fuel is a function of the power it is producing, not the power it is capable of producing.
that cars like the A4 might get "crap" economy for their size and displacement is that they're still relatively powerful cars that are engineered to be pushed hard. Therefore, things like the transaxle, brakes, cv joints, etc are most likely beefed up. Beefed up components generally tend to sap power, so the only way to overcome that is to put more power through them, and that's going to take its toll on fuel economy.
Also, while it's a small car, an A4 isn't exactly light. At 180 inches long, it's not much bigger than a Corolla or Civic, but at 3428 pounds (Edmunds), it weighs about as much as my Intrepid. Heck, there were 1980 Caprices that were lighter than the A4! Also, Edmund's is listing the fuel economy for the 2007 A4, 200 hp 2.0 turbo, 6-speed manual, at 23/34.
If you're comparing something like this to economy cars like a Corolla or Civic, then yeah it's going to look bad. But, compare it to 3400-3500 pound cars with roughly 200 hp, and I'd say 23/34 is pretty darn good. And with the CVT, it's rated at 24/32. In comparison, my Intrepid, which weighs about the same and has the same hp, was only rated at 20/29. And 4-cyl automatic models of the Accord and Camry were rated around 24/34 before the new rating system went into effect.
Comments
Now, why is it that we have not as yet adopted a similar tax strategy toward diesel fuel in the US? One would think that is an obvious win/win situation:
Win No.1: Use less petroleum in the aggregate.
Win No. 2: Accordingly, reduce the total of air pollutants.
Congress goes along with the anti diesel thinking, because when people use less fuel they get less taxes. CA has additional taxes on diesel to discourage the use. There is no mandate in our Congress to use less oil. They only play word games to appease those that are worried that we will run out. They adopt energy policies like the last one that all we are seeing is more ethanol in our gas and lower mileage in our vehicles. What has it gained US?
I would say that the MPH criticism is very valid. Even in city use many, if not all, main streets have speed limits over 25 MPH. I would hate to be in a golf cart doing 25 tops on a city street with a speed limit of 35 with traffic going at 40. An even scarier thought would be pulling out into that traffic.
The only way the the 25 MPH limit would not be an issue is if you stayed on the side streets.
35 miles would be fine for me. I can do all my shopping/mailing in about 10 miles......
Thats all and well but for the price and the fact that I have to keep my gas powered car it doesn't make sense. I could take the $12K plus and use it to pay for the gas that my gas powered car would use in making those trips and save thousands. If I wanted to save gas I can get a car with better mileage when it comes time to replace my car.
If the ZENN could be sold for $7,500 and go 35 mph for 50 miles, that would be a winner I think.
Sorry but I would think that for most people to consider an electric vehicle it would have to have the speed and range of link this for a reasonable price.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is the key. I don't think most people will consider an EV, just as most people are no longer interested in the hybrids. Only a few that for one reason or another want something different. It could be to make a statement or just need cheap transportation in their location. There are more and more very large retirement communities being built in the warmer climates. My tax man moved to "The Villages" in Florida. 40,000+ homes and 28 golf courses. He has hardly driven his RX300 in over a year. All he uses is the NEV that came with the home. So I do see a market for the ZENN and others of that type. Maybe not in the CA suburbs with their high speed surface streets. I don't see a market for the Tesla past 100 vehicles. Who wants to sit on 6000 AA batteries that could explode.
I think people will consider an EV if it meets most of their needs as a car. Say that it was able to go what most people average in a week and have a decent reserve on a single charge and have a reasonable price. I would seriously consider an EV that gets 250 miles on a single charge and costs under $25K.
As for hybrids I think there would be a bigger market for them if they had met their expectations. In the future there might be a bigger market.
Who wants to sit on 6000 AA batteries that could explode.
Yeah who wants to sit on a dozen gallons of fuel that could explode.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There's nothing particularly dangerous about driving such a car at 25 mph on a 35 mph road. We all do it every day.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Okay find me a golf cart with all those features I mentioned and I'll shut up. :shades:
speaking of the Amish....oh, let's not go there....
No I said "with a speed limit of 35 with traffic going at 40."
Okay find me a golf cart with all those features I mentioned and I'll shut up.
A friend of mine who lives downstate bought one for his parents to use on their farm. Its enclosed has leather seats radio but no sunroof (although I do believe you can take off body parts if you want). And I think it goes 30 MPH and he paid a heck of a lot less.
when it gos faster and further than a golf cart call me.
speaking of the Amish....oh, let's not go there....
The Amish drive slow vehicles and have a hard time with cars because cars come up on the so fast the driver really doesn't realize how fast they are approaching.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
http://zenncars.com/specifications/specs_index.html
There's been a commercial boomlet 2 miles away and I can now run half my errands just popping down there. The library is another mile away. Downtown Boise is ~8 miles away but I can get there on surface streets - the speed limit starts at 45 for 3 blocks, then hits a parkway that has a 40 limit (although many of us speed at 50). After that the pace is a real 35mph until the last 2 miles where 30 is the norm.
The ski hill is another story - it's 50 miles round trip from my house - at least the road is usually clear. They tried to build a tram from town up there back in the 60's but the cost was prohibitive.
But yeah, I could see myself tooling around the neighborhood either in a glorified golf car or a Zenn.
Truedat?
I think they did a pretty good job of body designing the little micro-electric car.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
So let's see a photo of that golf cart. Especially the power windows and locks and doors and hatch and stereo and fully upholstered interior and headliner? And this is completely street legal?
Don't THINK so!
EV vs. GAS: Good point about comparing lightweight low speed EVs ONLY to lightweight low speed ICE cars; however, the whole marketing point is renewable energy, such as solar charging (a wall socket isn't strictly "renewable energy" is it, unless it comes from sun, wind, etc?)
One has to factor, I think, the "feel good marketing" into the buyer's equation, whether you personally agree with it or not. Some people believe in it.
Whoops! You're in the wrong place. Here's a link to a good place to post your question. Ask about "hydro-locking", which is what I think happened to you.
LINK:
Technical Questions
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
http://www.commutercars.com/
http://www.commutercars.com/downloads/brochures/TangoBrochure20060815.pdf
are they still in the market ? Looks like a valid EV
it says it has an 80 mile range, which is 'twice the normal range of the average commuter". That's an interesting fact. Didn't know that.
Cheapest one seems not to exist yet, projected price $18,500 or something like that.
However, given its size and narrowness, it is being marketed as a "city car" and size is one of its more useful selling points.
But again, it's still mostly dreams, looks like.
I guess the ride may offer little compliance as they need to keep it right.
I looked over the concept some time ago and it looks like they are at a standstill
As you say, looks like a dream unless an investor with big money steps in.
I don't think the EVs being disussed here do get a waiver, which is why they're speed limited. While a little off topic, to me a better question is why aren't motorcycles required to meet the same safety standards as regular vehicles? The fatality rate for motorcycles is 20 times that of regular passenger vehicles. It's far more dangerous to ride a motorcycle than it is to drive without a seatbelt yet not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, riding a motorcycle isn't. Some of the EVs that may soon be hitting the roads will have 3 wheels and be classified as motorcycles. This will make them legal for highway use without having to comply with any crash test standards. Seems kind of inconsistent and convoluted to me but that's our government.
One would have to make the same lightweight vehicle (1200 lbs) with a gasoline engine that topped out at 25 mph (or perhaps 40 mph because the reduced torque in a gasoline engine would require more power to match the electric vehicle acceleration). Only then could one make a valid mpg comparison with the electricity equivalent mpg.
I disagree. Yes there is no ICE equivalent to the ZENN but there are some ICEs that could be used as a comparison to the Tesla Roadster, which gets the equivalent of 100+ mpg. That's one of the nice things about electric motors. You don't sacrifice efficiency for power. In fact more powerful electric motors typically achieve slightly greater efficiency. Bottom line is that when you're talking about efficiency there is no comparison between an EV and an ICE. And even if an ICE was comparable in this regard that doesn't change the fact that we cannot produce enough oil domestically. We can produce enough electricity.
I agree on the motorcycles. I also don't know why motorcycles don't have to have a small catalytic converter and an automatic choke.
My primary point is what are we really trying to do here. Are we simply promoting alternative energy to promote one or several companies alternative energy companies to "Big Oil" financial status and looking cool in the process, or are we really trying to do save reserves and reduce CO2 output. If a government or a person REALLY wanted to reduce gasoline consumption, then it is very easy to do and it can be initiated WITHOUT conversion to alternative energy sources (although alternative energy would help). Even if automobiles are fully converted to electric vehicles, marine fuels will still be used to power ships (which by the way have up to 4 % sulfur currently), jet fuel will still power airplanes and diesel fuel will still power heavy equipment. The petroleum industry isn't going anywhere. However, if global warming is real and/or if there are finite oil reserves, then the concept of efficiency needs to be looked at more seriously. If the answer to the question is that we are really trying to look cool by using alternative energies which in the end wind up consuming more energy, then I support the promoters of doing nothing and enjoying the staus quo. However, if everyone (or at least 95 % of the population) agrees that fuel must be conserved, then some real simple and straightforward approaches can be taken that can get to that goal. That is where government comes into play (or doesn't) to set the sails in a certain direction.
Been there done that (link). :shades:
One little stroke placed in the right spot can move you over a good six feet and dodge all sorts of bullets.
Sure we CAN produce more electricity. But we ARE not. Economic and population growth at least regionally is outpacing the production of electricity. It takes some years before enough electricity plants could be built and brought on-line.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/09/new_- englands_electricity_crisis/
So if we had a substantial number of plug-in rechargeable EV's there is no way we could keep them charged during peak demands (charging overnight only?) And I believe CA is in as bad or worse shape than NE, in regards to electricity supply.
And of course our electricity energy source comes from the same bucket of fossil fuels. Do you want your coal to run the electricity plant, or it could be converted to oil?
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0816-wsj.html
And as I've previously stated, even if there was no environmental benefit derived from transitioning to EVs there would be the significant benefit of being less dependant on foreign sources.
I'm personally not a big fan of conservation. Basically I don't see the point. It might allow us to delay an oil crisis, which will make it a form of procrastination since we tend not to act until a crisis is upon us. As far as conserving energy in general there is no need to. Energy is abundant. It's simply a matter of conversion to a more useable form.
The majority of the oil used in this country goes towards powering our personal vehicles. The other applications that would still use diesel could potentially transition to bio-diesel. Jet fuel would be the biggest challenge because of the cold temperatures but there is currently work being done on this financed largely by Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines. I agree that the oil industry will be around for a long time but we do have the potential to gradually reduce our dependence.
I think it would take many, many years before PHEVs or EVs made up even 1% of the vehicles on the road. More than enough time to deal with their potential impact on the grid. So I see tihs as a non-issue. According to the groups that are responsible for managing the grid they claim that there is enough excess capacity right now to accomodate a fleet made up of 80% EVs if they are charged at off peak hours. So the capacity is already there its just a matter of getting people to use it at the right time. This will be done by pricing.
Do you want your coal to run the electricity plant, or it could be converted to oil?
There is no way that converting coal to oil will allow you to travel further in an ICE than you would have been able to go in an EV with the electricity generated from that coal. So the answer is yes, If we must use coal I'd rather it be used to generate electricity, not produce oil.
I agree. PHEV's and EV's are then not a solution to $4/gal gas which should happen in the next few years. That is why I wonder why it keeps getting brought up as an alternative to the ICE when gas does hit this mark. Yes it is an alternative to an individual, but not to society.
But since it keeps getting brought up ... I thought I would address the electricity generation issue.
More than enough time to deal with their potential impact on the grid.
I think we'll have enough trouble keeping up with population growth. If current trends continue there will be another 100 million people in this country by 2030, living the American lifestyle.
right now to accomodate a fleet made up of 80% EVs if they are charged at off peak hours.
Then EV's better have a range greater than 200 miles, or else they'd get charged during use. I thought the plan was to have a 10-minute recharge station?
So the answer is yes, If we must use coal I'd rather it be used to generate electricity, not produce oil.
I don't see an EV being produced anytime soon that can replace the capabilities of my ICE car anytime soon. On a cold morning with defroster, radio, lights, and heaters going, powering AWD how much is my range and acceleration reduced? Can I drive 100 miles like that with no worries in an EV? I'd pay much more for gasoline or diesel, unless the EV is as capable in power, range, and refueling ease.
As far as society as a whole is concerned there are no short term solutions to $4/gal gas. There are things that the individual can do right now to reduce his fuel bill but I'm not getting the sense that we care enough about gas prices at the present to actually impose any kind of self sacrifice. Just because a solution may take years to realize it's benefits is no reason it shouldn't be pursued. That's the kind of short sighted thinking that got us in this situation to begin with.
I'd pay much more for gasoline or diesel, unless the EV is as capable in power, range, and refueling ease.
That's certainly a popular point of view. On the other hand I'd pay more for an EV unless the ICE is as capable in terms of efficiency and minimizing impact on the environment. As far as refueling ease I'd actually give the edge to the EV. From my perspective it's easier to plug-in every night then it is to visit a gas station once a week. The range issue is definitely an advantage for the ICE. But if you're regularly driving over 100 miles a day then with $4/gal gas you've still got a problem. Also, when we actually start seeing gas shortages then the unlimited range of an ICE will no longer be a given.
Yes I do envision 10 minute re-charge stations for the rare occurence that a driver of an EV exceeds the range of his battery pack. If you think that this would have much impact on peak grid demand then you must think that the typical motorists travels more than 200 miles on a regular basis. A driver of a PHEV would never have to charge during peak hours.
I think we'll have enough trouble keeping up with population growth. If current trends continue there will be another 100 million people in this country by 2030, living the American lifestyle.
Energy usage does not track linearily with population growth. Appliances, light bulbs, HVAC systems, etc., are constantly getting more efficient. If I'm not mistaken CA uses less electricity today than they did 10 years ago despite having a larger population.
I'm not doubting you, but that would be interesting to see. I do know there were rolling brown-outs and blackouts a year or 2 ago, for several weeks.
Also consider that as you're talking about increasing electricical generating capacity, the trend is going to be to decrease the nuclear generation we have.
Most of the nuclear plants in this country are nearing or past their engineered life-span, and we really should be shutting them down. So we should be losing elec. generating capacity, if we follow thru and shutdown nuclear plants when they should be. An example would be "Vermont Yankee" which has increased output 20% because of the shortage in capacity, and this is in a plant that is near the end of its life (35 years old). So we are accepting higher safety-risks to meet peak demands.
Maybe EV recharging would have to be limited to 12-6am, and that is not going to work for everyone 100% of the time. (There are many people who work 2nd and 3rd shifts and would need to recharge during the day.) In the next 15-20 years there is not going to be an excess of electrical power.
Everybody wins! :P
Everyone keeps glossing over the waste issue.
It's also funny how oil is okay when it is natural, but once man touches it, and spills a little it is horrible pollution!!
How about this? A system such as solar panels on your garage roof that during the day charges a capacitor which in turn charges your EV overnight. With such a system will greatly reduce the amount of energy you take off the grid.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Are you related to that guy who used to go around the country eating DDT, LOL?
Maybe so, but we are just as much victims of our own voracious appetites for more and more speed. Family cars (and large SUVs) have gone from 0-60 in 15 seconds, to 12 seconds, to 10 seconds, and now rapidly closing in on 8 seconds. Meanwhile, cars primarily designed to be fast are now "slow" if they can't get to 60 in less than 5 seconds. For what, this crazy race to excessive speed, I ask you?
While I'm sure many of you will have an answer or answers to my rhetorical question, I will tell you one penalty of this trend that we are all paying: poor gas mileage in the fleet at large. And I agree with you that 17 mpg in ANY vehicle short of a school bus is atrociously poor, and 30 mpg in a 4-seat sedan like the A4 is crap too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Are you sure?
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/ANA06/712030340/1186- - /BREAKING&refsect=BREAKING
Published today, it says things like
"In the first 10 months of the year, Prius sales were up 67.6 percent from a year earlier to 150,272."
"Take the Toyota Camry Hybrid. Its 10-month sales surged 47.5 percent "
"The Ford Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid also saw sales jump"
"A good balance between fuel economy and price remains the top selling point for hybrid vehicles, recent sales numbers show.....Jesse Toprak, an analyst with the consumer Web site Edmunds.com, says buyers' priorities have shifted."
People are more mindful now of gas prices than any time in the last 25 years, come new car time. Not surprisingly, of course.
I think higher gas prices will open the way to mass acceptance of alt technologies like EVs. People will want that 100-mile range in their commute vehicles though. 35 miles is on the low side. Tesla, I believe, intends to have vehicles with normal ranges on a single charge.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
July 20 2007: 3:06 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The percentage of car shoppers considering hybrid vehicles has declined in the past year, according to a survey released Tuesday by J.D. Power and Associates.
Fifty percent of new vehicle shoppers surveyed said they are considering a gasoline/hybrid electric vehicle. That's down from 57 percent last year.
Actually, the article I linked went into depth on the dynamics of it, and it seems the luxury hybrids aren't doing as well. But they break down the "pay-back" of a hybrid purchase, and yes I use that term loosely, and using the Camry as an example, they come up with a 4-year timeframe in which the typical driver will save enough gas to pay for the price difference between it and a comparably equipped Camry 4-cylinder.
Anyway, I do think gas prices are still on the minds of buyers out there, and an examination of hybrids is just one of the many ways they are tackling and prioritizing the problem in their new car purchases. That is why we need to have a full complement of diesel options, alt technology developments, and a gasoline fleet that uses a LOT less gas than it does now.
Another headline today was that the automakers' alliance has essentially thrown in the towel and conceded that they can't stop the Congressional energy bill in its current form and they will have to meet a combined CAFE standard of 35 mpg by 2020. So hopefully we will see lots more fuel-frugal choices come on the market in the next decade. FINALLY.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
IIRC, California created the the PZEV rating giving into intense pressure from the auto industry. My understanding is that tailpipe emissions from a PZEV are less than what a barely legal conventional powerplant would emit to power an EV for the same distance. Nothing in CARB's action FORCED the manufacturers to kill their EV programs. They did that all by themselves.
The PZEV rating did have a positive effect. It encouraged the boom in the vastly more practical (given the current state of the art) hybrid electrics. There are a lot more hybrids on the road now than there would be EVs if the rule had been unchanged, and the bad taste left in people's mouths from being FORCED to live with the limitations of the EV-1 would done more damage to EVs in the long run, IMO. The PZEV rating reduced pollution, which is all that CARB had authority to require in the first place.
Why is it that when a manufacturer increases the power of a certain model there is rarely a reduction in mpg? In fact, more often than not the mileage also improves. A lot of people comment that instead of making a vehicle 25% more powerful why not make it 25% more efficient, as if this trade-off really exists.
Honda and Toyota both make 4 and 6 cylinder versions of their Accord and Camry. The 6 cylinders have over 40% greater displacement. Over 30% greater power and weigh 100-200 lbs more than their 4 cylinder counterparts. Pretty significant as far as I'm concerned. Yet there is only a 10% difference in mpg. To me that indicates a vehicles power rating is not all that big a factor when it comes to its mpg rating. Why should it be? 2 identical cars travelling down the road at 70 miles an hour might require 40 hp to maintain that speed. Now if one of these cars has a 300 hp engine and the other a 100 hp engine there's no law of physics that states the 300 hp will produce 40 hp less efficiently than the 100 hp.
The rate an engine burns fuel is a function of the power it is producing, not the power it is capable of producing.
Also, while it's a small car, an A4 isn't exactly light. At 180 inches long, it's not much bigger than a Corolla or Civic, but at 3428 pounds (Edmunds), it weighs about as much as my Intrepid. Heck, there were 1980 Caprices that were lighter than the A4! Also, Edmund's is listing the fuel economy for the 2007 A4, 200 hp 2.0 turbo, 6-speed manual, at 23/34.
If you're comparing something like this to economy cars like a Corolla or Civic, then yeah it's going to look bad. But, compare it to 3400-3500 pound cars with roughly 200 hp, and I'd say 23/34 is pretty darn good. And with the CVT, it's rated at 24/32. In comparison, my Intrepid, which weighs about the same and has the same hp, was only rated at 20/29. And 4-cyl automatic models of the Accord and Camry were rated around 24/34 before the new rating system went into effect.