Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
One more thing. Since you'd be primarily charging at home and leaving every day with what equates to a half tank (150 miles) I see no need for charging stations on every corner as is the case with gas stations. If you're traveling over 150 miles then chances are you will be on an interstate or at least a state highway. These are the places that charging stations need to be located. The total number required will be significantly less than the number of gas stations. I also think its a little easier and cheaper to transport electricity than it is to transport gasoline. Anyone that doesn't realize EVs are the future has their head in the sand or maybe someplace else.
And if you believe that order of charge rate can be achieved in a chemical battery of capacity longevity and cost acceptable for an EV, then you may be interested in this bridge that I have for sale......................
And, if we suspend disbelief and postulate such a magical battery, the charging current would be so great as to require drastic changes to utility infrastructure, not to mention the connectors and interconnecting cables at the vehicles themselves.
It may be fun to imagine a world of the Jetsons, but EV technology is closer to that of the Flintstones in relation to gas vehicles.
When you start considering charging stations around the country you are negating one of the supposed advantages of the EVs. Overnight charging when there is surplus power.
1. Local use only, all electric with range of ~100 miles.
2. Limited distance use, all electric with range of something like ~300-500 mi.
3. Universal use, ~100 mile range electric with onboard diesel (or gasoline) generator for extended distance trips.
2 or 3 would be extra cost options over the base local use. This would be kinda of like optional engines in current vehicles, but with a different purpose...extending range rather than increasing acceleration.
Well sure, but not sure what that has to do with my post :confuse: .
" Local use only, all electric with range of ~100 miles. "
Maybe I presumed too much there, but usually "local use" mean restricted speed in an EV, otherwise why would it be "local"?
I'm not sure I understand. Charging stations around the country will just provide the freedom for making long trips. It won't preclude you from taking advantage of home re-charging the vast majority of the time. And the fact that home charging can't be accomplished in a few minutes is not really important. Most people will put less than 50 miles per day on their vehicles. That's a couple hours of charging to top you back off. If you're charging your car while you sleep why would you care whether it took 5 minutes or 5 hours?
Even if these fast charge stations aren't quite as fast as filling up with gas that isn't necessarily going to turn people off to the idea. Imagine you had 2 gas pumps. One that charged $3/gallon and one that charged $1/gallon. Now let's say the pump that charged $3 could dispense gas four times as fast. I suspect the $1/gallon pump would still see a lot of business.
You have more knowledge than I do on just how much current it would take to charge a battery for a 150 mile run.
I am a big fan of the idea of a local use EVs. Capable of freeway speeds. I just don't have any idea of how it would be practical for an only vehicle. If trips past the normal range were necessary.
Maybe a small black box nuclear generator would be the answer. Just take it in for a new fuel rod every 15 years like the Nuclear Carriers.
Actually an area that is getting some interest is using gas-micro turbines in a series hybrid application. GM actually did this with the EV1 in the late 90's. Who says the domestics are incapable of powertrain inovation?
http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm
Well it's not, but many of us have more than one vehicle in the family, anyway.
Also, though it's not likely to be appealing to most, if a limited range electric is one's only vehicle, then a rental car could be used for those few times a year that you go on a longer trip. It is possible that someday it could end up cheaper to do this than to own a car of one type or another with unlimited range.
My arbitrary suggestion was a 100 mile range electric only as I assumed that the majority of people commute 25 miles or less each way, so this would be a sagety factor of 2. I guess if that were available I would seriously consider it and maybe you would not. I have never even had a 50 mile round trip work commute, it was once 22 miles each way for a few years...now it's 9.5 miles.
It would be tough for someone in an apartment without a garage to own an EV also. Unless the employer will let them charge their car on the company dime.
The real kicker is we do not have any EVs that are practical as a commuter. I cannot see people lining up to buy a limited use vehicle for $40k plus. Except in Hollywood where money is no object.
In my youth, in a time of more stable employment (23 years with one company), I might have made the same argument that you have, but after 3 layoffs, 4 companies and 9 different work locations in a dozen years, my perspective has changed. After 8 years in one location, my 15 mile commute became 30 miles and remained near that for 7 years, but at different locations and directions from home. In addition I often had/have to travel to client sites as much as 15 mi from work. In that time I have worked with many people who were commuting much farther, some as much as 100s of miles and staying in hotels or appartments during the week (which I did for 4 months). Not desirable but unavoidable in many fields.
My commute is now 15 miles, but I would be a fool to assume that it will remain so and would be even more foolish to own a car that was limited to even a 150mi range.
I don't believe that. The research I've done indicates that the average CA 2-way commute distance is around 33 miles. An EV with a 100 mile range might only be perfect for around 75% of CA drivers, still a fairly sizable market. IMO, CA is the state where EVs will be the most quickly adopted. The rest of the country might take notice and laugh at the moonbeam treehuggers while they're leaning back on their hemis,sucking down a bud and complaining about why the government doesn't provide them with $1/gallon gas.
http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=615
That sure does not seem like enough time to cover 50 miles and is in line with the national average, as indicated in this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098
Which says: commuters...report an average one-way commute time of 26 minutes (over an average distance of 16 miles)
But let's presume it IS accurate. Then, I'd be more apt to find the statistic about average time behind the wheel each day, as more useful...104 minutes. Forget the "commuter". Let's talk about everybody here.
So let's say the EV runs 104 minutes at 30 mph....that's about 50 miles....and you'll need a reserve in your EV of course, for freeway speeds, etc....so I think 100 mile range is absolute minimum for most people.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2003/R04T040.htm
If not, maybe you could put some effort into finding some data to back up your contention that "everyone" drives 50 miles (or whatever) to work
Anyway...a 100 mile range was my, sort of arbitrary, suggestion that started this debate over how far people commute. I was not thinking this type of vehicle would appeal to everyone or even to the average, but instead would appeal to people who just do not put that many miles on their car...or, perhaps more likely, on one of their cars.
The real point of the suggestion was not the specific figure but rather the idea that maybe their will be different range options in the electric vehicle market, akin to engine options in the conventional vehicle market. The intent was not to start a debate on how far people commute or how much the average person drives. Whatever those figures are, there will still be a significant number of people who could live with a limited range eletric vehicle, if the price were right. However, even if they could live with it they may still choose not to go that route.
I commute 9.5 miles and my wife commutes 11 miles and we really do not do much driving beyond that, other than an occassional trip. I certainly don't think everyone drives as little as we do, but I also don't think we are the only ones with driving habits like this.
"50 mile commutes are a way of life in California."
Meaning, that for many people, that's what they do each day. And I think that's an accurate statement as far as it goes.
What we'd need to do is a poll in Sonoma or Marin counties for the mass commute to Silicon Valley, or just about anyone in Los Angeles. That'd give you very different anecdotal evidence for that particular "way of life".
My point was that the market for EVs are affluent people commuting to really good jobs, and I firmly believe those types of people commute a long distance in California.
Census Bureau is also anecdotal information...very rough stuff. Not good enough for marketing EVs, was my point as well. Too all-encompassing--lumps together every conceivable commuter as if they all had 'one way of life'. But they don't.
Ever heard of Temecula, Ca? It used to be a little farm community halfway between L.A. and San Diego. Now it's an overcrowded, overdeveloped suburb with daily traffic jams.
Why? Because you can still buy a starter home there for $350,000 -- which the goofs in CA consider a bargain. So they commute 60 miles each way to work in their city jobs, and think that they're somehow beating the system. They fail to realize that they ARE the system.
The point is, people can complain all they want about long commutes or the price of gas, but talk is cheap. Most of the complainers don't DO anything about it (like change jobs, move, or buy fuel efficient cars), so commutes stay long and the price of gas goes higher.
As long as people complain about something, yet continue to do it, buy it, or submit to it, that 'something' will stay the same.
Anyway, that's the philosophical side of things. Here's the reality:
As a previous post pointed out, it's not in the interest of gov't to require fuel efficiency because they make money off the gas tax. That's the REAL reason we're not all driving 60 mpg cars today.
The gas tax makes the federal government part of the problem, not part of the solution. Congress continues to put forth the ruse of the CAFE standards, but the truth is that they're in bed with OPEC just as much as the oil companies are. D.C.'s interest is simply to bilk as much money out of us as they can, while maintaining the system that allows them to do so.
That system comprises a small oligopoly of car makers whose products use 100-year-old propulsion technology that depends on a foreign source of energy. They spent 50 years developing the system to benefit themselves. They're not just going to give it up.
Why do you think Congress made diesel emission restrictions so tough that Volkswagen had to stop selling new TDIs in the U.S. last year, while at the same time they increased the tax benefits of owning 5,000 lb. gas-guzzling trucks?
Why do you think the Justice Department won't prosecute oil and gasoline producers under the RICO statutes for raising prices based on fraudulent excuses like a flooded refinery in Kansas or "fears of terrorism" in Nigeria?
Why do you think GM seized and destroyed all the EV1s on the road?
And you can forget any help from the Live Earth crowd. They don't really want to stop pollution, they just want to tax it.
So don't get your hopes up over a 60 mpg Accord. Sure, we'll see one .... someday .... maybe 12 years from now. Meanwhile, the tax industry will have figured out a new way to charge us money in place of the gas tax, so we'll all still be paying them. Haven't you already heard politicians floating the idea of an "odometer tax?"
In case you haven't, it started three years ago in California. Politicians decried the "declining revenue" that was the result of more fuel efficient cars burning less gasoline. So they proposed the idea of taxing car owners on the number of miles they drive, presumably ON TOP of the gas taxes they already pay. Now that idea is gaining traction on a national level.
Of course, that would negate any benefit of owning a fuel efficient car. But what does that matter to politicians? "The Environment" and "CO2" are just talking points. Taxes are what really matters to them.
Follow the money.
Oil companies can make just as much money on diesel fuel as on gasoline and if you think government will run out of ways to get revenue, I find that hard to believe.
As gas prices have gone up, so has the annual number of miles driven. I think if all cars got 40 mpg, Americans will just drive more.
I suspect EVs will have a greater effect on the amount of fossil fuel consumed than diesels will, but there will be far more diesels than EVs in the immediate (next ten years) future.
Visiting Host
I want one of these:
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=52
Not sure I'd be happy with 0-60 in almost 14 seconds though. That could start reminding me of my Mercedes 300D---where if you got stuck in the right lane of a freeway going up hill, you were pretty much trapped there. Zilch for passing power.
Who knows what the actuals are.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/new_toyota_yari.html
IMO, the gasoline excise tax is one of the fairest, least cumbersome and least expensive taxes that we are subjected to. My only problem with it is that the feds turn around and use these highway funds as a mechanism for coercing states to adopt policies that they might not agree with. For instance I believe that several years back Nevada wanted to raise its speed limits. The feds told them that they would withold highway funds if they did this. I believe that is definitely wrong and probably un-Constitutional on some level.
It's also unconstitutional for any government to take a homeowner's property for public use "without just compensation." But the Supreme Court recently ruled that a city could seize homes and turn the property over to a private developer who would use the land to build more expensive homes.
See, the local government will get more tax money from the new land owners, so that makes it okay to take it from the old land owners. That's the new definition of "public use."
All home owners are equal, but some home owners are more equal than others.
But back to the gas tax; Congress trifled over an 18 cent per gallon tax, while OPEC managed to impose a 2 dollar per gallon tax on all of us in just a few years. Gas used to be $1/gal, now it's $3/gal. OPEC is making a new fortune off the same old stuff.
That $2/gal. could be getting spent in this country, but instead it funnels back to the middle east, which helps finance the people who want to kill us. Meanwhile, we all lower our standard of living to pay the new tax.
And Congress keeps voting itself pay raises. Well, not really. See, they didn't actually vote FOR the raise, they just didn't vote AGAINST it.
So it's all okay.
When I look at those two prices ($1/gal and $3/gal) the one that seems the most out of whack was the $1 we were paying about 6 years ago. That represented a historic low when factoring for inflation. If gas prices had gone up steadily with inflation for the past 40 years then we'd be paying around $2.40/gal. Granted that's considerably less than we are paying but looking at the $1 price somewhat skews the reality of the situation.
As far as it being the same old stuff, well that's true but other factors have changed. I could have bought affordable oceanfront property in San Diego 40 years ago. That's no longer the case even though the property is the same old stuff. There's only so much oil and the number of people that want it has increased dramatically over the last 6 years. That trend is not likely to change anytime soon as long as oil represents the only game in town.
I note that after more than a century of development the only EV actually available for mere mortals to purchase in the USA (barring golf carts) is the rather limited and costly Meyers NMG (alias Corbin Sparrow). And that $25,000 will buy you a 75mph, one person, enclosed 3 wheel motorcycle with a range of 25-30mi (for a limited # of cycles after break-in and before batteries deteriorate, etc.)
For 35 years I've listened, read and heard proclamations that the EV is just on the horizon (if not "here and now", as in a 1994 utility brochure), yet they are nowhere to be had. Life is too short to waste it in quixotic pursuits (or stand in line)
EVs and hydrogen cars suffer from the same problem, Storage. The latest I have read the Civic FCX is still over $1,000,000 to build. Honda leases a very few to select customers at $500 per month. The current range for the hydrogen FCX is 210 miles. The FCX is an EV using hydrogen to generate the electricity in the car. It may be more practical than batteries.
The challenge is getting the cost from $1 million down to $25k where the competition lies.
http://www.carspace.com/blogs/fenderbender
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
it is interesting, isn't it, that electric cars built 100 years ago (!!!!) advertised a range of 80 miles on a charge? (1907 Detroit Electric). One factory-sponsored car allegedly was reported to have gone over 150 miles in an experiment. Didn't say what speeds, though.
Detroit Electric went out of business in 1939. They never built lots of cars though, only a few thousand a year as I recall.
Detroit Electric did pioneer the all-weather car however, since closed cars were very rare in the early 1910s. Imagine the range of this car had they used expensive aluminum or had plastics like they do today? They had to rely on heavy wood for the bodies. For a while, Willys made closed bodies for them, so the EVs had normal louvered hoods that I guess where actually trunks.
set a speed record of 105.882 km/h (65.792 mph)
Not sure what the current (ooo... pun alert) electric vehicle speed record is :shades:
Apparently it did...according to this ad: http://www.econogics.com/ev/detroad1.jpg
Also, if wikipedia can be believed, the top speed was 20 mph.