Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
As far as vehicle build quality being better or worse than it was in the 1970s I think it all depends on what part of the vehicle you are talking about. 30 years ago the limiting factors in how long you could keep a vehicle were things like the engine and transmission. These have certainly improved dramatically. As far as build quality goes I'm not sure that has all that much to do with how long a vehicle is driveable. Poorly aligned fit and finish items were like that from day one and probably won't get much worse over time.
I think that it will be more than 5 years for EVs to make up a significant portion of auto sales. If in 10 years they accounted for 10% of sales I'd be impressed. But at that point the transition would probably accelerate. I don't think we'll see many ICEs in 20 years with the possible exception of trucks used for hauling. And they will hopefully be running on bio-diesel.
But they are driving more vehicles, so apparently the miles per vehicle is not increasing:
In concert with the growth in vehicles is a growth in vehicle miles of travel. The average vehicle miles traveled per household has grown from 12,412 miles per year in 1969 to 21,252 in 2001. Since the vehicle travel by household members is spread over more vehicles, annual miles for each individual vehicle is declining slightly.
from: National Household Travel Survey 2001
I am hopeful that EVs are plentiful in 5 years. I am not real optimistic. I thought they would have a battery solution 10 years ago and they are still messing with the same technologies. I am going up to test drive the Zap Xebra PU tomorrow. I was hoping to sell my GMC hybrid by now. I won't give it away so I may have to keep it. Maybe ship it to our place in Hilo.
An EV would be perfect for some of the smaller Hawaiian islands. Gas prices are extremely high, climate is benign (except for rust) and you don't drive far each day. Downside would be that electricity is also expensive in Hawaii.
During this same period the average annual miles driven per licensed driver has increased from 9,390 to 13,600.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/index.ht- - - ml
The government's figures in this regard are under Appendix D, Automobile Profile.
Instead, I just assumed that the statement in that report that "annual miles for each individual vehicle is declining slightly" was accurate.
Now the average commute is something like 32 miles one way in CA.
As for the test on the Zap Xebra PU, it is solar powered now. So if you don't use it a lot you never will have to pay for driving it. The panel on the rack is Solar PV cells.
http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4136
Sprawl may have lengthened the average commute.
Women are now working and commuting as well.
Lifetime employment is pretty much gone. Getting a better job may involve a commute..and with both partners working, moving to a new location in hampered as it may cause one of hte parties to have a longer commute anyway.
We are affluent and eat out more.
Gas and cars have been relatively cheap and reliable.
It is just so nice to drive these days. Quieter cars, prevelance of AC, great stereos...
Kids seem to have a lot of organized activities to be driven to these days...as contrasted to just playing games/sports in neighborhood as done in days past.
Just guessing here.
We will have to see how it plays out. I was thinking that if the Volt priced right and performs well..2010 right? that is about three years away. Others will be hot on its heels. So if oil isn't considerably cheaper and/or the global warming histeria doesn't chill...I think the demand could be bigger than one might think as the Prius has shown. Could be a lot of retrofitting on Prius's and other hybrids as well. So in five years it could be substantial...maybe not 10% though. Still, this filtering through process will take a long time. It all seems to come back to the battery or other storage/distribution device.
I don't think it's an earth shattering problem, it's just one that I had never even considered.
This of course is the driver's responsibility. EVs might lead to a little more horn-honking, who knows?
But seriously, a small audio device synced to the car speed or revs could easilly be done if this is a common complaint. ya, you could choose your car sound... Hemi-Cuda...63 Corvair..oh the possibilites.
Or how about one of those truck backup beepers that is constantly on? How anoying would that be during traffic time? :shades:
The car environment is definitely nicer than it was in the 70's. However I think that I enjoyed driving more back then. The stress induced by congestion more than offsets the nice stereo and AC, at least for me. I've been making essentially the same commute for almost 20 years. In that time the number of traffic signals that I have to go through has gone from 3 to 16 and rising. I don't think this trend represents an advancement in transportation.
I will welcome the EV. I was supposed to meet the guy selling the Xebra today and had other things come up. The dealer is about 40 miles from me.
Glad I bought some stock last month! It's at 126 now!
Since I've actually visited ZAP and bought one of their products, it felt okay to invest. I'd put money there before I'd put it in Tesla. ZAP, to me, has the Henry Ford idea---cars for the common man, whereas Tesla is catering to the rich and famous.
This is, ironically, the same "error" that car makers made in 1908. Some conceived as the future of the gasoline car as a product where you make a lot of money on a small production (like Ferrari); whereas Ford was one of the very few who realized that you can make a fortune by a small profit on a huge production. (presuming a large market is opening up of course).
So I'm betting on the ZAP business model for EVs.
They are both legitimate business models. The thing about new technology is that it typically isn't cheap. So even with a small profit margin the product will be outside the reach of the masses. In Teslas case you couldn't invest in them if you wanted to since they aren't publicly traded. In addition I suspect that they are actually losing money on the vehicles that they are currently selling. I guess the only way to have a smaller profit margin would be to lose even more money per vehicle.
Again, new technology starts out expensive. Look at the original plasma TVs introduced by companies like Sony and Panasonic. These cost upwards of $8k but now you can find a 50" plasma for around $1500 from lesser known companies like Vizio. This is the natural progression. Vizio could never have come first and never could have existed at all without the technology being developed for and adopted by the relatively small affluent segment of the population. If you want viable EVs for the mainstream you have to accept the necessity of the Tesla and welcome what they are trying to accomplish. If they succeed we will all benefit. Unfortunately Tesla just revised their original specs for the Roadster's range. It was 250 miles but after EPA testing they are now saying at least 200.
I'm encouraged by the fact that Tesla has now come to my home town of Detroit to build its next car, a family sedan, with the help of some of our engineering talent.
I feel certain Tesla will be belly up soon but I could be wrong. They'd better start building affordable cars very soon or that puny amount of capital they have will dry up mighty quick. So if their strategy is to build a no-profit showcase car to attract capital to build low cost cars, well that sounds workable--if risky.
Plamsa TVs were built by huge companies that had an enormous capital burn-rate. That ain't Tesla.
Push all my chips to ZAP please.
Don't misunderstand---I'm not debating how WORTHY a Tesla car might be, I'm just very skeptical it makes any business sense whatsoever. Basically they are hand-building Rolls Royces and even Rolls Royce went bankrupt doing that.
Still, it's hard to imagine that Ford would have had the money to buy out his investors, or to mass-produce the Model T, if he had not first built cars like the Model K.
Tesla has declared that their intention is to build affordable cars one day. The family sedan in the works will be a lot less expensive than the Roadster. Hopefully whatever comes after that will be downright cheap.
Go ZAP!!!!
PS
The dealer said that most of his sales were out of state. Not big sellers in San Diego
Maybe when my Segway dies...............:D
XEBRA---thanks for the road test! That's about what I expected. I think ideally an electric car in the $15,000 range would be perfect---but maybe a bit more substantial a car than what you are telling us about. Gee, if it could look and feel like a real car, go 50 mph and 50 miles a day with a 10 mile reserve, for $15,000 bucks, BINGO you got a winner! That way you could cross a large city, hop briefly on a freeway, and get back home.
I don't think that Tesla is hurting for capital, at least not right now. They don't seem to be aggresively soliciting investors. I've heard no word of an impending IPO. If you or I called them up and wanted to invest we'd be turned down. Here's a partial list of their investors. While some of them could be consider crusaders for a cause a lot of them are well established VC firms that are only out to make a buck and they aren't naive when it comes to the business world.
http://www.teslamotors.com/media/investors.php
I don't really see it as some competition between the ZAP approach and the Tesla approach. As an EV enthusiast I want them all to succeed. The fact that they both exist and will definitely be marketing to different segments will only accelerate the public's exposure to EVs. I say good luck to all of them.
How do you get more different than the Tesla Roadster?
Well supposedly Tesla has $60 million, or so says Forbes.
That's about one chip in Auto Business Poker.
I was just trying think of the last successful, still existing, start up company in the auto business? Wasn't it Walter Chrysler in 1924?
Again I'm not criticizing the product. It's very interesting.
Shiftright
Visiting Host
Actually, it's thousands. Something like 6,800. I think they've addressed the safety issues of Li-ion. The big questions that remain are the batteries longevity and whether or not the price can be driven down.
The primary weakness of an EV has always been its battery. That is still the case but battery technology is steadily improving, meaning this weakness is diminishing. With where we are right now in terms of batteries I don't think you can make an EV for the masses where this would be its only vehicle. So what? There are plenty of products on the market that aren't suitable for everyone. That doesn't make them irrelevant.
When Tesla first introduced the concept of this all electric roadster with a $90k price tag I was amazed at how much criticism was along the lines of how limited this cars market would be. Well their press releases stated that they hoped to sell around 500-700 cars a year. So I think the people at Tesla are well aware of the fact that the market is extremely limited and these criticisms are merely a statement of the obvious.
I was reading an interview with the founder of Tesla where he addressed this issue. He pointed out that the first refrigerators were an extravagance that only the rich could afford. EVs will gradually evolve into a viable replacement for ICE powered vehicles. With the cost of this technology it hasn't to start at the top (rich people) and work its way down (masses).
Well, I sure would not pay that, but haven't they pre-sold all of the planned 2007s? I think what they are doing is more likely to lead to mass marketable electric vehicles than putting out glorified golf carts. It looks like ZAP has come to the same conclusion:
http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4560
The Xebra PU is almost tempting at $11k as a novelty vehicle. No way you could justify it on fuel savings. The insurance alone on a vehicle is about what I spend a year on gas for my PU truck. The Zap-X should get some attention if it makes it to America. I waited for the Zap Smart diesel to arrive and it got sent in Canada. I am beginning to think that a fuel efficient vehicle is not in the cards for me.
PS
NO more Hybrids for me.
I don't think their planned 4 door sedan is going to be "plain jain". I also don't think they are expecting large sales numbers with this vehicle. In a recent interview with the owner he commented that their third vehicle would be of the basic people mover type. Off the top of my head I can't recall whether he mentioned a price but I think its safe to say it would be considerably less than $50k.
Well sure, but Ford and GM are profitless too, despite producing huge numbers of vehicles :surprise: .
Most companies do not make profits when they are just starting up.
Well GM has another problem---it's a huge organization that is shrinking and thus wasteful at present. The products can potentially generate profit. The Tesla sports car can't possibly no matter what, unless it sells maybe 25X the number each year (judging say from Ferrari or Viper production #s).
I always thought of "start up" as meaning gearing up a profitable product through its early stages--not burning up capital on a product that doesn't exist. The latter is an R&D company or a subsidized science project. Maybe Tesla investors are hoping to cash in on licensing some technology or other?
Good point. I'd guess that the average company isn't profitable in it's first three years. If there was no hope of Tesla ever making a profit that would be one thing but I doubt it's the case. Just look at the founders. These are people that have proven entreprenuerial skills. They wouldn't be wasting their time and money on a venture that had no shot of success.
There is another company, Phoenix Motorcars, that will be releasing an all electric sport utility truck (SUT) in California very shortly. This company along with its major collaborators on the project, Altairnano and UQM Technologies are also companies that have never made a profit. I doubt that ZAP has ever made a profit. The point is that as long as investors see future potential these companies will stay in business. Are these high risk investments? Absolutely but with high risk comes the possibility of high reward.
I don't see the current Zap products as cutting the mustard. If someone wants just runabout a few miles in the city, I can't see any reason (applicable to most people) to choose a Zap over an Aevo at about the same price.
Tesla seems to me to already be behind in battery tech. I guess they have some proprietary tech, but part of that is being obsoleted by the newer type Li-Ion batteries. I read there is another EV in the works that will do 0-60 in three seconds. I can see the Teslas selling in limited qtys but with other EVs/PHEVs coming on board, not sure what their outlook is. I think they better find a battery partner.
Pheonix seems to be the closest to having a practical product. I guess I have to give them the edge out of the non-major players.
Nissan just announced that they are stepping up their efforts for phevs and evs. At the least all these little startups have pressured the majors into taking electric a little more seriously.
While Tesla may not be able to claim absolute superiority in all regards they have jumped through a lot of time consuming hoops that others have not. As far as performance is concerned you need to keep in mind that Tesla's Roadster is just a RWD vehicle. I suspect that this 3 second 0-60 car is all wheel drive. Also, as battery technology gets better all EVs will get better.
I agree that the Phoenix Motorcar SUT seems to be the closest to what most of would consider a mainstream, marketable vehicle. At least on the surface. They state a price of $45k for this vehicle yet all the information that I've come across indicates that the Altairnano battery pack that it uses costs $70k. Obviously something doesn't make sense. This vehicle is currently only being sold in CA where apparently there is some enormous credit being offered for incorporating this type of vehicle into a fleet. I also know that Altairnano entered into an agreement where they now have a 16% stake in Phoenix Motorcars. My point is that we have a situation that is not at all straightforward. So its hard to say whether or not this particular vehicle is more or less viable compared to others.
In 1899 (that's not a misprint, yes 108 years ago) Camille Jenatzy broke the speed record for automobiles in a fully electric car going over 65 mph.
There are electric cars for sale right now that still can't go that fast!
Given that the Tesla has only doubled the speed in 108 years, I'd say electric car progress has been rather pokey compared to planes and trains and gas cars (the latter being about 5 times as fast as they were in 1899.
I think the most commendable aspect of the Tesla is not its technology or capabilities, but rather its ability to at least excite the public about electric cars again. For the last 100 years, they've been among the car world's most boring subjects.
But the Tesla has given the electric car some great PR, and I think this is even MORE important than the technology---in the sense of getting something started.
Nope.
this is from a posting elsewhere. Can you nutshell thses ZEV credits for me? I didn't see an explaination readilly available on my search. Is it state money right back to the manufacturer/distributer? The whole thing seems a bit insane.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269626.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269626.html
You don't "force" consumers. You must provide a product that consumers want at a price that they are willing to pay, a feat that EV technology has not accomplished.