Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Will Green Cars Be Exciting To Drive And Enjoyable To Own?

1…2122242627…32

Comments

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,136
    edited May 2013
    The Economist, having gone a little mainstream over the past decade, is a fairly credible source IMO. I don't read it diligently, but I haven't noticed any analysis of green cars published there yet.

    For bias in news coverage, you'll probably find less via Al Jazeera than through ANY domestic news source. American news channels, major and minor, are just corporate and/or political mouthpieces. Many sources out of Germany, France, and Sweden are similar.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    that "little bias" comment was a joke, right? ....right?

    Taken in the light that you have not brought forth any source that addresses where our tax dollars are going.

    I think there must be some dignified economic journals where we could get solid, sane information

    They may steer clear of any kind of controversial subject matter. A person would have to have their head in the sand to not believe the waste on the green agenda is not controversial.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    that's not the point. The point is that any article that starts out as a partisan witch-hunt immediately loses all credibility, regardless of which party is witch hunting which other party. The very headline demotes the article to trash level journalism.

    Words can have emotional sway.

    Consider the difference between:

    "government waste"

    "government spending"

    OR

    "billions lost" vs. "billions spent on"

    OR -- the classic "begging the question" E. G.

    "Why is the (fill in your president here) administration such a lousy venture capitalist?"

    Calling 2013 the "information age" is an insult to information IMO.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You have given a lot of reasons not to accept partisan sources. Just none to use those sources along with sources from the other points of view. Refusing to accept anything that seems to be partisan IMO is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

    So far you have failed to offer a source on the money spent on the green agenda that is impartial. Even your own opinions were very partisan IMO.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited May 2013
    I still think you are still missing the point. A head-hunting article has an agenda and is immediately suspect. Once I spotted 3 or 4 obvious bonehead mistakes in the article I decided it was a waste of time. It's not the "partisan" nature of it, it's just how bad it is and how emotionally wrought. It is not intelligently presented. Basically, it stinks. :P

    I suppose one *could* argue that somewhere in that article is a sustainable fact, but really, why does a reader have to pick through the oceans of debris to find a morsel?

    Why would a person go to say a website called "10 Hateful Things About American Cars", and expect to find anything about how good American cars are?

    But to be honest, I never read anything from known propaganda outlets. These aren't news sources. it's just biased "churn". Same old crap. I don't regard them as serious sources of information. (see fictitious example above)

    Here's an article from FORBES, which generally does not have an agenda dictated to it by its owners, that it pretty interesting, on green energy:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2012/03/20/investors-are-making-money-on- - - - - -renewable-energy/

    What the article suggests is that the government spending in this area was, in fact, a very good kickstart, even with its hits and misses.

    I also read THE WEEK quite a bit, as it presents a news article and then lists commentary excerpts from various counter-balancing sources, pro and con.

    Great mag that I think you would really like!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Here's an article from FORBES, which generally does not have an agenda dictated to it by its owners, that it pretty interesting, on green energy:

    I also consider Forbes a reasonable source of information. Difference is you read something entirely different between the lines than I did. I see how GE made bundles on solar energy after getting gigantic gifts from US the tax payers. I also remember right after they got the cash they closed their solar factory in Colorado. So much for green energy creating jobs. Just cash for the fatcats.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2012/07/03/breaking-ge-solar-laying-off-em- ployees-in-colorado/

    Then I read this little tidbit in your article:

    Across the spectrum of clean energy opportunities, investment reached a record $260 billion worldwide in 2011 and for the first time since 2008, the U.S. surpassed China in clean energy investment.

    Hmm, so we passed up China spending on Green energy. Of course they did not point out we had to borrow the money from China to beat them.

    What I see as wasted tax dollars you see as a good way to spend OPM. It pinpoints our differences, and the polarization of our nation.

    I have never said investors were not getting rich off of the Green Agenda. The Stock market is at an all time high. So is our lack of decent jobs in this country. The Green Agenda was and is a LIE. Most of the jobs created are already history.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Actually we don't borrow that much from China. China owns less than 10% of our debt and Japan owns almost as much.

    Again, you aren't thinking longterm here. The very idea of government investment in green energy is to kickstart it into commercialization.

    Which is what is happening. Government VC is like private VC..it's a wave, an idea, and it goes rolling on and on.

    For an aticle to pick out one or two rotten apples and condemning the tree is, again, just witch-hunting. It's like saying "The DotCom Bust!".

    Well in fact, dot.com is very much with us.

    Definition of "Witch Hunt" --"a conclusion in search of only those facts which support the conclusion previously arrived at. "

    Some new car companies failed (Fisker); some succeeded (Tesla); others are yet to be born.

    What's REALLY interesting is that the new breed of hybrid/hybrid electric/electric cars are getting so competent. They are, for the first time, "real cars". :)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Which is what is happening. Government VC is like private VC..it's a wave, an idea, and it goes rolling on and on.

    That is where you are totally in the dark. Private VC is put up by someone willing to lose their own money if the idea is a failure. Government VC is putting up money that those handing it out have NO vested interest. It is Other People's Money they are spending.

    some succeeded (Tesla); others are yet to be born.

    Well we have come full circle. You say Tesla has succeeded I say they are a failure without my tax dollars. That is not success. Any business can continue with unlimited funds. How long do we continue to subsidize Tesla so a few fatcats can drive around looking GREEN?

    What's REALLY interesting is that the new breed of hybrid/hybrid electric/electric cars are getting so competent.

    Are they truly GREEN?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited May 2013
    We may be sharing the "darkness" :P ---many of the firms listed as getting government "grants" (some were in fact loans, not grants) ALSO RAISED PRIVATE CAPITAL along with the other assistance.

    So, in fact, many ventures on that list risked private as well as gov'mint monies.

    Like I said, junk articles leave out all the really interesting details.

    RE: "GREEN" -- that's a good question---the term "green" has been rendered somewhat flippant by the media, because it is, once again, a term with lots of nuance and complexity.

    I think the most accurate answer is that unless the primary energy source were renewable, then it really shouldn't be termed "greener"----maybe "green-ER" would be better.

    EVs are not 'green' because...what generates the electricity? If that electricity were solar, or wind power, then yeah, that's pretty green. If it were coal, not so green but greener than shoveling coal into the trunk of your car and burning it, yeah.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    EVs are not 'green' because...what generates the electricity? If that electricity were solar, or wind power, then yeah, that's pretty green.

    I think we are pretty close on this subject. What I don't like about solar or wind is the devastation in China to produce the REE required to build all these so called green sources of renewable energy. How long will they last? Maybe 25 years until we need to make more. The media and proponents try to push them as truly renewable when the upfront expense to the environment may or may not be mitigated by the energy they produce. There is NO perpetual motion, and NO free lunch. Ethanol from Corn may be the best example of green agenda gone astray.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yes ethanol was a boondoggle from the get-go, but we could all see that coming as soon as Big Ag put their toe in the water. That was not only OLD tech, it was BAD OLD tech.

    At least the solar, wind and electric tech is very interesting. One has the sense that it has a viable future.

    That's why TESLA is a watershed, regardless if it succeeds or not. I mean, the Wright Brothers didn't dominate the aviation industry--they pretty much made some money and bailed out early.

    The TESLA proved that EVs needn't be homely, incompetent, short-range backyard inventions. The Tesla was/is as good as a "real car".

    It's the old saying---the pioneers get arrows in their backs and the settlers farm the land afterwards.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited May 2013
    The TESLA proved that EVs needn't be homely, incompetent, short-range backyard inventions. The Tesla was/is as good as a "real car".

    I agree on those points. I just see it as corporate welfare. I can get behind R&D through Universities and even a few major corps with a proven track record. Just like ethanol and big Ag, I see these money handouts more as pork and paybacks than viable R&D capital. I watched so much waste in Alaska via the Pork brought home by our Senator and Representative that it made me sick. The Green agenda is nothing more than pork IMO. IF we were flush with cash it may not bother me so much. We are floating in debt that will soon bite US in the behind.

    Sure Wind and Solar have some merit. If it was a viable energy source it would not need all the subsidies. We went through this in the late 1970s with $billions wasted on Wind farms that are now defunct. Take the money put up the windmill and when it quits file for bankruptcy.

    If you happen to get near a Wind Farm walk under neath and smell the dead birds and bats. No small problem.

    http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/

    More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

    Each death is federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind energy company has been prosecuted, even those that repeatedly flout the law.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/obama-administration-gives-wind-farms- - -pass-on-eagle-deaths-prosecutes-oil/

    Not just from Fox.

    http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/opinion/wind-farms-are-killing-our-eagl- es/article_f32dd6b3-324d-5f9a-8748-f34b722cc272.html
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Nope, they are both Fox News hatchet-journalism. The second article obviously copied the first, which rather illustrates my complaint against the dismal state of US media---not only is agendized misinformation (or badly researched information) disguised as "news", but then it is copied and disseminated adding to further confusion.

    In the old days, in the golden age of journalism, it might take a reporter working on this story perhaps 3 months and 5-6 follow ups to find out exactly what is going on with wind farms, eagles, the government and all the rest of it.

    when we have to start politicizing wildlife, we are starting to get ridiculous IMO.

    It's like when UAW workers started attacking japanese cars with hammers--remember that?

    what the UAW needed to be doing at that time was convincing American automakers to build better cars.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I guess that would include NPR as well. I first read about wind farms killing raptors in my Audubon magazine. Here is NPR saying the same as Fox etc.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=183826798

    It's like when UAW workers started attacking japanese cars with hammers--remember that?

    Now it is the Korean companies they would like to bring down, with complaints about subsidies. Now does that sound like the pot calling the kettle black?

    http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/15046/how_mississippi_lavished_subsidies_o- n_nissan_as_workers_got_the_shaft/#.UaKvJiEj_i8.facebook
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited May 2013
    It's not the same story exactly. Well it is just a copy of a copy of a copy, but notice the headline difference:

    NPR Headline: "Wind Farms Get Pass On Eagle Deaths"

    Fox Headline: "Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies"

    Also the Fox story is truncated, leaving out much of the complexity and duality of points of view on the subject that NPR included.

    The IN THESE TIMES article is produced by a socialist website, (shame on you, do your friends know you're reading this? ;) ) and here again we have an interesting bias on what's happening in the auto industry:

    In These Times Headline reads: " Mississippi Lavishes $1.3 Billion in Subsidies on Nissan as Workers Get the Shaft"

    However, the Clarion Ledger (one of the original sources) used THIS headline:

    "Report: Nissan job creation lags"


    Like I said, unless you go back to original sources, all you're getting is very biased propaganda.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Like I said, unless you go back to original sources, all you're getting is very biased propaganda.

    Unless of course the original source was written with an agenda. I try reading all I can find on any given subject and then I am not always sure I have found the truth. The more information we have access to the more spin is involved. So on the subject of, what will power these millions of Tesla sports EVs? I went to your local rag. I have read interesting pieces in there from time to time. Here it is clear they would like to white wash the facts on wind power to further the agenda. Notice in reporting the decline in bird kills they don't theorize that it could be the wind farm has forced the birds from their native hunting grounds.

    For decades, wind turbines straddling the Altamont Pass have generated clean electricity for California - at the cost of killing thousands of birds.

    The tall, grassy hills, raked by stiff winds in spring and summer, offer prime hunting territory for owls, hawks and eagles. Focused on spotting prey, many birds soar straight into the spinning blades of turbines.

    But efforts to curb the bloodshed may be starting to work.

    A new study suggests that the number of eagles, kestrels, burrowing owls and red-tailed hawks killed at Altamont each year has fallen roughly 50 percent since 2005. Reaching that level has been a long-term goal of local environmentalists and government officials, as well as the energy companies running turbines in the pass.

    http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Altamont-Pass-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-4- 230640.php

    Or this long dissertation claims the new generation wind generators are safer for birds more deadly for bats.

    The bottom line is we have Corporations all in cahoots with the Federal government that are killing US and the planet. Be it Monsanto, GE, Syngenta or the Eco Nuts pushing for EVs with no thought of the ramifications.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2013
    I remember getting a call when I was in my mid-20s and living in Memphis and a friend got in a four car wreck and her car was getting towed. She needed a ride and had a bunch of junk in the car. So I drove over and the cars were blocking most of the intersection and people were sitting dazed on the curb. I pulled up to her car in my Jeep and unloaded her gear into the CJ-5.

    The next day the paper ran a pic with the note in the story "A fifth car was involved in the accident". Well, I guess parking close to the wreck to transfer junk was being "involved".

    And if the paper interviewed the drivers, they likely got four widely differing versions of the wreck.

    That was the first time I ever got a call from a "car phone". Ham guy with a repeater site, circa 1977 or so.

    Up in Ontario today north of Toronto - seen a few dozen windmills and lots of solar panels. Also the usual complement of Prii and 450h's.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    those are just fringe people--serious ecology people favor a balanced approach to energy resources, with solid science behind it. The wacky gearheads might get the press, but there's a lot of quiet and sane talent working on the problem.

    and really, the American people have hardly rushed to buy EVs---they've fallen rather flat if you ask me. People are smart enough to figure out that EVs aren't everything they were pumped up to be.

    Most interesting is that lots of young people living in big cities (and cities are growing rapidly in population) don't even WANT cars.

    So I see the EV market as a short term rental/car share sort of thing, for the urban environment.

    The business model for EVs might not even be outright ownership.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited May 2013
    those are just fringe people--serious ecology people favor a balanced approach to energy resources, with solid science behind it. The wacky gearheads might get the press, but there's a lot of quiet and sane talent working on the problem.

    They have a lot more stroke in CA than common sense ecologist.

    I do agree that the rush to buy Tesla and high priced EVs, will be very short lived. Only so many people that have the money and garage space for a future museum piece. Did Leno buy one?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well northern CAL is the hotbed of environmentalism and you just don't see many EVs here. Hybrids are the big ticket item in Marin, parts of East Bay and Silicon Valley. Central Valley could care less. Different culture.

    As for San Francisco, owning a car is brutal. SF makes it as painful and as difficult as possible to use a car. And this is a city where the public transportation pretty much sucks. Worst of both worlds.

    I think enterprises like Zipcar are quite popular though.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Well northern CAL is the hotbed of environmentalism and you just don't see many EVs here. Hybrids are the big ticket item in Marin, parts of East Bay and Silicon Valley. Central Valley could care less. Different culture.

    Somewhat of an understatement. So CA to the Southern Los Angeles border is more fiscally conservative. Protecting the environment is a good thing, but not at any cost. I have seen a lot of Nissan Leafs, but never a Tesla or Fisker. The Leaf fills a sweet spot for commuters with a 30 mile each way commute. With the new lower price I would expect them to sell more. At least as long as the tax payers pick up $7500 of the selling price. I see the Chevy Volt has about reached its saturation point. Down from last April and declining each month this year.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited May 2013
    I think you will see more Tesla sedans down your way in the near future. After all they are being made just a few hundred miles away.

    I don't think a case that holds any water could be made for SoCal being more fiscally Conservative, but yes, certainly more conservative with a small c. We could probably fairly say that they are fiscally different, in how they spend money, but they both spend it freely.

    It's interesting to use the word "cost" when talking about environmental issues, because it is rarely discussed how destruction of environment carries a "cost" as well, monetarily, I mean. The absence of this aspect of "green" works both ways--the cost of not protecting something and the cost of protecting something.

    It may, in fact, be GOOD business to protect something, if one can look far enough ahead. If we don't develop cleaner energy cars, some other country will, and then sell them to us and clean our clocks.

    1980s redux.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    We could probably fairly say that they are fiscally different, in how they spend money, but they both spend it freely.

    Way too freely for my way of thinking. On all the wrong projects and programs. I was thinking as a comparison to North of the Orange county line. Not really the right thread for the subject.

    It may, in fact, be GOOD business to protect something, if one can look far enough ahead. If we don't develop cleaner energy cars, some other country will, and then sell them to us and clean our clocks.

    1980s redux.

    I think the Germans and Japanese are still cleaning our clocks. Comparing a $100k Tesla to a Leaf or Prius does not show any kind of superior thinking on our part. And the Germans are destroying US with their diesel options. I think MB is really serious with their new offerings. The GLK250 Bluetec will be a killer and the soon to be sold E250 BLuetec will secure Mercedes at the top of the Luxury market. The salesman I talked to yesterday said they were real happy with all but the S350 Bluetec. The GL350 Bluetec are in such short supply they get full MSRP with no problem.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It's interesting to use the word "cost" when talking about environmental issues, because it is rarely discussed how destruction of environment carries a "cost" as well, monetarily, I mean. The absence of this aspect of "green" works both ways--the cost of not protecting something and the cost of protecting something.

    It is an interesting subject for sure. I see the cost to the environment differently than those that have gone willy nilly into growing corn for ethanol. I see the destruction of the Gulf being the immediate result. I see the destruction of clearing woods to grow corn. I see the clearing of the land in So America and Africa to grow crops for fuel. Best guesstimate is 100 years to mitigate the destruction of the forests.

    You know how I view the cost of alternative energy with little regard for the destruction caused in the manufacturing and operation of these chosen alternatives. There is always a cost involved to everything man does. I don't think the people we have elected are doing a good job of total cost analysis. Only doing what their corporate puppeteers tell them to do. And most of the sheep go along fat dumb and happy.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Missed this story a while back:

    "I especially love dropping out of "Eco" mode, which extends range but reduces responsiveness, and into "D" (for "drive") mode, which is like lighting off an afterburner. I have lots of fun powering up steep hills while the BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes and hot Mustangs drop behind me. That electric-drive torque is a real kick."

    One Year in an Electric Car
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    So, the short version is: "I love it, my wife doesn't, it's really cheap to run, fun to drive, and make sure you own a second car and don't travel too far from home".

    Did I cover everything? :P
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    But for planning purposes, it's best to assume the range is 73 miles

    That would be the exact anecdote of the one owner I have talked to. His wife has a 70 mile round trip to San Diego every day. She usually plugs it into the charger in the Navy parking garage where she works. A couple times she came out to find it unplugged and sitting about down a third. That does not give her much cushion for the mostly uphill return drive. She had to be towed once due to an unscrupulous fellow EV owner.

    Reed: This is a question I wish I were asked more often because the answer is so awesome. It costs me about $2 for my daily 63-mile commute compared to the $8 it used to cost to cover the same distance in my 2007 Honda Fit Sport.

    I would be curious as to his utility company and their after midnight rates. SDG&E just implemented a drop back to tier one rate for EVs on a separate meter over night. That is 19 cents per KWH. Using the EPA estimate the cost in San Diego would be $3.47 for a 63 mile round trip. Still good, but hardly a good deal when you can buy a Passat TDI for a lot less money and do the same 63 mile trip worry free for about $5. Then take it on vacation which would be near impossible with the Leaf. Don't forget the extra $1000 per year for insurance owning a commuter only vehicle. The insurance for the Leaf alone would pay his total diesel bill for the 11k miles he drove. Very poor ROI for an EV. Try to sell that puppy when it has 100k miles on it. The only real smart thing he did was lease it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    You gave me an interesting thought.

    Would it be a reasonable generalization to say that quality electronic things depreciate faster than quality mechanical ones?

    Let's say electric motor scooter vs. $5000 racing road bicycle.

    If that's a reasonable generalization, might it apply to gas vs. EV cars? Does anyone really know the market for used EVs yet?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    There probably isn't enough info yet - wait until those cheap Leafs come off lease.

    There is this - check the battery and brakes:

    Edmunds.com Advises Used Hybrid Car Shoppers
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I can just see the Craigslist ads now: "...and don't worry about the batteries..these old Altima Hybrids can go 500,000 miles, no problem!"
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Would it be a reasonable generalization to say that quality electronic things depreciate faster than quality mechanical ones?

    I think electronics with no moving parts can last much longer. How many people have 25 year old TVs that still have a decent color picture? And how many of those have a remote that still works well?

    EVs present a very stable idea with few moving parts compared to say a hybrid or an ICE vehicle. I think the real issue is the newer Li-ion Batteries. They are not holding up like the Ni-MH batteries in most of the hybrids. We know that both Honda and Nissan have had premature degradation in their batteries. If you figure a 100k miles is fair time to depreciate a vehicle then anything past that is gravy. How long will the automakers back up their depleted batteries before calling it quits on EVs? The major problem is heat. So if you live in a hot climate don't buy an EV.

    I just got my 2011 Nissan Leaf back from a two week stay at the dealer to replace a failing battery cell. I have had my Leaf for almost two years now and 17,000 miles.

    Nissan said, they detected from my charging records that they had identified an individual cell that was not performing as they expected.

    As Leaf owner George Whiteside commented, "Pushing that 'Yes' button [to accept the Carwings Terms of Service and permit Nissan to monitor the Leaf remotely] suddenly doesn't seem like such an inconvenience!"

    It is worth noting, however, that the new base trim level for the U.S.-built 2013 Nissan Leaf--known as the Leaf S, and priced at $28,800 plus delivery--does not include the Carwings remote connectivity system.

    Perhaps dealership sales staff will use stories like these to suggest that buyers move up from the Leaf S to a higher trim level, in order to have the remote monitoring?

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082848_nissan-leaf-electric-car-reports-own- -battery-cell-failure-via-carwings
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    " So if you live in a hot climate don't buy an EV."

    Also, if you live in a cold climate don't buy an EV, since batteries lose power in cold temperatures. That leaves climates where the temperature is just right, such as the San Diego area. What color is your EV, Gary?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Yes, San Diego is an ideal climate for an EV. Sadly the cost of electricity makes them less than great. If the cost of solar was feasible and you worked nights so they charge during the day it may have worked as well. I can think of a lot of choices better than buying a $30k EV and spending $30k on a solar system to charge it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    TOKYO (AP) -- Toyota Motor Corp. said Wednesday it is recalling about 242,000 of its Prius and Lexus hybrid vehicles due to problems with their braking systems.

    The recall applies to about 233,000 Prius vehicles made between March and October 2009 and about 9,000 Lexus HS250h models made between June and October 2009.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_TOYOTA_RECALL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HO- ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-05-06-32-58
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited June 2013
    Meanwhile Chrysler says no problem and has no plans to recall 2.7 million Jeeps.

    Chrysler Refuses To Recall 2.7 Million Jeeps, Despite Pressure From Feds

    Gonna be fun when a Prius with no brakes makes a JGC go boom. :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    We used to have a saying about this type of situation:

    "When there's a defect in their cars, the Japanese call their engineers and the Americans call their lawyers".
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    What do the Germans do. I am about to get a green, clean diesel from Mercedes. The new GLK250 Bluetec. Fun to drive and save the planet. :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well I don't know about saving the entire planet (but thanks for trying), but you WILL save on fuel vis a vis a comparable gas vehicle.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Does your state extract enough tax from EV and Hybrid drivers? Time for them to pay their share along with bike riders.

    image
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    EV buyers have long received a federal tax credit of $7,500, but with the passage of Washington state's House Bill 2660 last year, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

    Eager to recoup some of the money lost to those opting for zero-emissions motoring, the state of Washington is slapping people with a $100 annual tax for driving an electric such as the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and anything they've cobbled together in their garage. However, plug-in hybrids such as the Toyota Prius Plug-In and Chevrolet Volt, with its range-extending engine, are exempt from the tax (so are neighborhood EVs that can't exceed 35 mph), mainly thanks to automaker lobbying.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/tech/innovation/electric-vehicle-taxes
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    EV advocacy groups don't seem to have a problem with that tax.

    Bicycles I think are different though because a bicycle doesn't really put any wear and tear on a road.

    I'd pay a bicycle tax for financing bike lanes, however. But not at the moment, because all I'd get for my bicycle tax is the privilege of being killed...

    There's a Big Stink in New York City right now over the "Bike Share" program (short term bike rental stations throughout the city).

    The problem with it is that NYC has very little infrastructure for bicycles--so it just put 3,000 more bikes on the road with not an inch more in bike lanes.

    If I were KING, I'd give everyone over 65 who logged 100 miles a week on a bicycle a break on their Medicare insurance premiums. :P
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Bicycles I think are different though because a bicycle doesn't really put any wear and tear on a road.

    CA and many other places have spent millions on bike only paths. Those should be paid for by those that use them. Around here they are a huge problem on the many two lane highways with no real bike lanes marked. The highway closest to me is posted 50 MPH and many places the bike lane marking is less than a foot wide before the edge of the pavement. On weekends 100s of bikers use these back highways. The bike riders will be 3-4 abreast taking up the entire traffic lane. Forcing drivers to wait or cross the double yellow to pass them. I like riding my bike. I stay on the residential streets or off road.

    Hybrid taxes in Nebraska when first introduced with the Prius were not very well accepted.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,704
    Adding taxes on regular hybrids is a bad idea, to me. We ponied up added $$ up front, accepting a looooong payout, to get improved mpgs and reduce gas consumption (a huge national goal, I seem to remember), with no impact on the electrical system.

    Simply comes down to cowardly politicians - won't dare raise the gas tax a dime or two (that's all it would take), but have no problem passing a tax most folks (non hybrid drivers) will accept.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I would not mind them raising the gas tax a dime or two. From past experience most gas tax is wasted on everything but maintaining roads, highways and bridges. We just had a $800 billion stimulus that was sold to the American public as a job creator and infrastructure maintenance program. Last I read only about $3 billion has been spent on fixing roads and bridges.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited June 2013
    The stimulus wasn't enough, was the problem IMO. Should have been about 3X that IMO.

    But you are right---infrastructure is crumbling.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited June 2013
    They are repaving a bridge deck a few miles away so they have an automated one lane setup going.

    I think it's the only red light within 15 miles of my house. :D

    Used Karmas are cheap I hear.

    2013 Tesla Model S: Tesla Model S vs. Fisker Karma
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I want nothing to do with "range anxiety". I'm not going to spend that kind of money so I can bite my nails trying to get home. So if forced to choose at gunpoint, I'd have to pick the Fisker, warts and all.

    Actually I'd rather have a Chevy Volt.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I'd consider a Volt, but only if the total cost-of-ownership were comparable or, preferably, lower than the Cruz over 100,000 miles. It'll take a major battery technology breakthrough over the current lithium ion batteries for that to happen.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think the Cruze diesel will be a game changer for Chevy and the Volt. If the Cruze Diesel can get 46 miles on a gallon of gas, the cost to drive 25 miles in San Diego today would be $2.04. To drive the Volt on our electricity would be $2.99 for 25 miles. If you go to Premium gas it gets a lot worse with the Volt. Not to mention the Cruze diesel is $14k cheaper than the Volt. That will buy about 170,000 miles worth of diesel. Could be why Chevy just dropped the price of the Volt by another $4000.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It'll take a major battery technology breakthrough

    Unless Elon Musk comes up with something, it's hard to imagine an EV being anything more than a niche city car (and a small niche at that).
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles