Chevy Spark EV More Powerful Than Gasoline Version

[Guest]

Chevrolet's Spark minicar may not have been showered with positive reviews so far, and it may not exactly create the kind of enthusiasm it needs to succeed.

Chevy Spark EV More Powerful Than Gasoline Version : Read more

 

[CaedenV]

This is what I hate about auto makers and EV cars:
People with the money to purchase a $40,000 car are not going to consider a base model EV. Or if they buy it, it is just to say that they have an EV and they never drive it, which is way more wasteful than just buying a gas guzzler in the first place.
On the other end of the spectrum are people like me who would love an EV, or super high mileage commuter car. The problem I am running into is that the EVs have 0 features, but a high price tag, while the 40mpg commuter cars have a ton of features, but with a lower but still relatively high price tag. Even with $5/gal gas you would never see a break-even point on an EV compared to a similarly featured gas car right now. It completely defeats the point for the end user, and limits it to the rich and the idealistic.

Tesla has it right. Build a freaking sweet car with an electric motor, and then price it similar to other cars with similar feature sets. Get the tech in the hands of those who will use it, this will create demand, which will get more cars on the road and built, which will get the manufacturing better and cheaper, and then a few years down the road we can have relatively cheap $20,000 electric cars perfect for day commutes (something Tesla is also working on).

And screw the environment, electric cars are not going to save the environment/trees/whales/children/etc. We need to get off oil and onto electricity for other reasons. We can produce electricity any number of ways, and if one way fails to pan out then we can move to a different medium to make power. With gas we are stuck with one medium, and will therefore help fund the crazies in the world that try and dictate oil prices. So gas ties us to oil (or synthetic gas via coal), where as electricity can be found with anything that can burn, or solar, kinetic energy (hydro). The sheer number of options will ensure that prices stay low because there can be competition between mediums.

 

[lindethier]

This right here ^

 

[kellybean]

Is this going to be another tax payer funded boondoggle failure like the Volt.

 

[kawininjazx]

These tax incentives are driving me nuts. You are taking like 35% of my income and giving it to rich people so they can get solar panels and electric cars?

 

[danwat1234]

If you want a smaller fast commuter "car" then look at Lit Motor's C-1 2 wheeled self balancing electric car. They claim 220 miles on a charge but I still can't see where they are going to fit any batteries. They claim it'll be around $20K at first and $16K eventually.

 

[DRosencraft]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]This is what I hate about auto makers and EV cars...[/citation]

You are partially right, but you miss a lot of points. No, electric cars are not going to solve all environmental problems, but cars are a huge contributor due to their being a huge consumer of oil, so getting people off a gasoline car and into an EV is the best course of action. As for the Tesla, the problem with it is that it's not that great. It gets a lot of press for being an electric sports car, but like your own example shows, people who can afford one are more apt to be able to afford the gas that goes with a better car for the same price category. Yes, most "affordable" EVs are actually fairly expensive, but they aren't "overpriced" since they are usually sold at very low to negative margins. The basic fact is that an EV battery is a very expensive piece of equipment, and account almost entirely for the difference in price from the gasoline equivalent. And unfortunately what is most aerodynamic is not always the prettiest to look at.

Now, a little math. Assuming 20 total miles a day for travel to and from work and the store or what have you, at the current national average of $3.29 a gallon, and a 40mpg car, that is about $600 a year (assuming gas never goes back up, your car never drops below 40mpg or somehow spikes above it, and you maintain a yearly average of about 7300 miles). It will take a while for an EV to recoup the price over a gasoline car. But again, a major part of that is because the battery and other tech is very expensive. It's the real reason battery powered cars died the first time around.

Push it now, because if you wait it'll just be more expensive then. Get the tech out there, get it used, have the kinks worked out and production standardized, and then the price comes down. The premium shrinks to near nothing. We need to think of these cars in the same vein as computers. Ram used to be ridiculously expensive, until enough use and pressure brought the price down. Give it some time.

 

[loops]

I am in the market for a new car and would love to go as green as I can. But my math tends to look like this:

Monthly payment + gas = ____
Monthly payment + charge = ____

If at the end of the day, I will buy the car that cost me less per month to own and run. When see car that are over 15k the gas option tends to look better. This is why some have said that gas needs to be taxed more so ppl will be forced into EVs.

 

[croc4]

electric vehicles are all well and good, but the biggest problem I see is how are we going to deal with the toxic batteries once they die?, I have not heard anything about this dark side of EV's, maybe it will spawn another industry once we hit critical mass, but in the mean time will the dead batteries be properly disposed of or just dump in a manner that they leach in to the soil and ground water?, based on 'stellar' human behaviour they has been proven over and over I think we better get used to the taste of lithium ;-/


croc4

 

[madjimms]

I want a car that currently does not exist, but I'll throw it out anyway.

Volkswagen Golf R32 TDI/Hybrid. That way I'll get AWD & excellent fuel economy.

Or an AWD MK1 Rabbit TDI :-D

 

[zakaron]

Such is the case with any new technology. I remember when plasma TVs were $10,000+ and they suffered horribly from burn in. CD-R drives were $1000 for single speed writing.

I'm not opposed to new car technology, but I don't want to take too many steps backward either. My other issue is that I will NOT drive a car that doesn't have an H pattern shifter and a clutch pedal. I tried automatics before and hated it. I couldn't wait to go back.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]drosencraft[/nom]You are partially right, but you miss a lot of points. No, electric cars are not going to solve all environmental problems, but cars are a huge contributor due to their being a huge consumer of oil, so getting people off a gasoline car and into an EV is the best course of action. As for the Tesla, the problem with it is that it's not that great. It gets a lot of press for being an electric sports car, but like your own example shows, people who can afford one are more apt to be able to afford the gas that goes with a better car for the same price category. Yes, most "affordable" EVs are actually fairly expensive, but they aren't "overpriced" since they are usually sold at very low to negative margins. The basic fact is that an EV battery is a very expensive piece of equipment, and account almost entirely for the difference in price from the gasoline equivalent. And unfortunately what is most aerodynamic is not always the prettiest to look at. Now, a little math. Assuming 20 total miles a day for travel to and from work and the store or what have you, at the current national average of $3.29 a gallon, and a 40mpg car, that is about $600 a year (assuming gas never goes back up, your car never drops below 40mpg or somehow spikes above it, and you maintain a yearly average of about 7300 miles). It will take a while for an EV to recoup the price over a gasoline car. But again, a major part of that is because the battery and other tech is very expensive. It's the real reason battery powered cars died the first time around. Push it now, because if you wait it'll just be more expensive then. Get the tech out there, get it used, have the kinks worked out and production standardized, and then the price comes down. The premium shrinks to near nothing. We need to think of these cars in the same vein as computers. Ram used to be ridiculously expensive, until enough use and pressure brought the price down. Give it some time.[/citation]
Electric cars are not going to solve any environmental problems. For one thing, all they do is shift WHEN the pollution is generated, they don't end it. How do you charge an electric vehicle? On a wall charger, powered more than likely a coal plant. The pollution is merely generated indirectly when the car is in the driveway rather than when it being run. And let's not forget battery disposal. There is no such thing as an environmentally friendly battery. EV's are like Apple products, merely a status symbol, not a solution to anything.

The fact is EV vehicles is nothing new. There were battery powered cars a hundred years ago. What we need is to encourage people to truly innovate, to get new technology going, but in this day and age, it won't be happening any time soon.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]zakaron[/nom]Such is the case with any new technology. I remember when plasma TVs were $10,000+ and they suffered horribly from burn in. CD-R drives were $1000 for single speed writing.I'm not opposed to new car technology, but I don't want to take too many steps backward either. My other issue is that I will NOT drive a car that doesn't have an H pattern shifter and a clutch pedal. I tried automatics before and hated it. I couldn't wait to go back.[/citation]
Problem is, this is not new technology.
http://www.vanishedamericana.com/transportation/proof-that-electric-cars-are-nothing-new/
Yep, that's right, an EV back in 1907. Maybe the battery is different, but the tech is essentially the same and it's not that new.

 

[Be0wulf22]

[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]These tax incentives are driving me nuts. You are taking like 35% of my income and giving it to rich people so they can get solar panels and electric cars?[/citation]

Just had solar panels installed on my home 2 weeks ago. Thanks for your donation!

 

[jacobdrj]

The value of the electric car is actually greater for those whose time is more valuable. They don't have to stop at a gas station = more time to make money doing whatever it is that they do. The convenience factor for the not quite super-wealthy is where these cars need to be marketed to. Not to Joe-Six-Pack...

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]The value of the electric car is actually greater for those whose time is more valuable. They don't have to stop at a gas station = more time to make money doing whatever it is that they do. The convenience factor for the not quite super-wealthy is where these cars need to be marketed to. Not to Joe-Six-Pack...[/citation]
Ok, I don't even know where you think it's more convenient.

Even a fast charging station for an EV means a 30 minute stop to take the battery to just 80%. That's a lot longer than it takes to fill up a car. Also, most EV's have a range of about 40 miles. This makes it LESS convenient, and adds to the concern that they may not be able to do what they need to do if they have to drive more than anticipated.

 

[robochump]

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Ok, I don't even know where you think it's more convenient.Even a fast charging station for an EV means a 30 minute stop to take the battery to just 80%. That's a lot longer than it takes to fill up a car. Also, most EV's have a range of about 40 miles. This makes it LESS convenient, and adds to the concern that they may not be able to do what they need to do if they have to drive more than anticipated.[/citation]

Thus most electric cars are regulated as grocery geters or short commutes. Any elec car should not be primary transport and most likely best suited as a 2ndary car, except for the Chevy Volt so far.

 

[sundragon]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]This is what I hate about auto makers and EV carseople with the money to purchase a $40,000 car are not going to consider a base model EV. Or if they buy it, it is just to say that they have an EV and they never drive it, which is way more wasteful than just buying a gas guzzler in the first place.On the other end of the spectrum are people like me who would love an EV, or super high mileage commuter car. The problem I am running into is that the EVs have 0 features, but a high price tag, while the 40mpg commuter cars have a ton of features, but with a lower but still relatively high price tag. Even with $5/gal gas you would never see a break-even point on an EV compared to a similarly featured gas car right now. It completely defeats the point for the end user, and limits it to the rich and the idealistic.Tesla has it right. Build a freaking sweet car with an electric motor, and then price it similar to other cars with similar feature sets. Get the tech in the hands of those who will use it, this will create demand, which will get more cars on the road and built, which will get the manufacturing better and cheaper, and then a few years down the road we can have relatively cheap $20,000 electric cars perfect for day commutes (something Tesla is also working on).And screw the environment, electric cars are not going to save the environment/trees/whales/children/etc. We need to get off oil and onto electricity for other reasons. We can produce electricity any number of ways, and if one way fails to pan out then we can move to a different medium to make power. With gas we are stuck with one medium, and will therefore help fund the crazies in the world that try and dictate oil prices. So gas ties us to oil (or synthetic gas via coal), where as electricity can be found with anything that can burn, or solar, kinetic energy (hydro). The sheer number of options will ensure that prices stay low because there can be competition between mediums.[/citation]

Technology doesn't start out cheap. This is the beginning and it's always expensive till the tech matures and becomes cheaper.

The first cell phones were ridiculously expensive and $1-3/min - I know because my rich friend in high school had one in 1989... Today they are a commodity
The first flat panel monitors and TV were ridiculously expensive... Today, they are a commodity that's cheap...

This example can be repeated.

Car companies have not invested in battery and hybrid tech since the start of the century because there wasn't a need - economically oil was cheap and abundant. Profit rules in capitalism. Now it's becoming more and more an issue to use foreign oil so we are starting alternatives.

Give it 10 years and see what's out there. Battery, super conductor, motors, efficiency/V are all getting better... My R/C car from 1988 had a 1200 mah battery, today the same cells in the more modern version carry 4500 mah and that's basic tech, not advanced tech.

The prices will drop and eventually the Chinese will make them for nothing and then we'll b*tch about something else that's expensive.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]robochump[/nom]Thus most electric cars are regulated as grocery geters or short commutes. Any elec car should not be primary transport and most likely best suited as a 2ndary car, except for the Chevy Volt so far.[/citation]
Except what an expensive proposition for a secondary vehicle. Not to mention, who drives this secondary car? The stay at home mom, who after doing all the things she has to do all day may have to drive her child to the doctor unexpectedly, but then has to worry about the fact that she has already driven 30+ miles and going to the doctor and back would be more than the charge she has left? Or the dad and mom who work and have to do something unexpectedly for their job at the last minute?

The problem with EV's now is the same problem they had 100 years ago, practicality. You don't get as much range, and a long recharge time, which hampers usability and convenience. Not to mention an exorbitant price tag.

EV's are not new tech, they are not the wave of the future. They are a relic idea of a century ago. Yes, it would be nice to get off oil. Yes, it would be nice to not use the same technology that we have been using to power our cars for a hundred years and our planes for 50 years. But it's going to require true innovation and people willing to invest the time and money into researching and developing new technology.

 

[sundragon]

[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]These tax incentives are driving me nuts. You are taking like 35% of my income and giving it to rich people so they can get solar panels and electric cars?[/citation]

*gets on soap box*

Let me put a little perspective on this

NOTHING COMES FOR FREE... If you're a US citizen, you live in the richest, arguably most powerful Republic on the face of the earth...

Your/OUR taxes pay for clean water systems, roads, an army, navy, air force, a proper rule of law, air and pollution regulations, police, health regulations so you don't buy bad drugs, the FBI, CIA, NSA...

$0.02 of your taxes go to subsidize electric cars... LOL

Go live in Iran, where my family fled - you pay less taxes and it's f*cking heaven!

People in this country pay less tax than any other developed country and they still b*tch...

*gets off soap box*

 

[Wisecracker]

You look good on that soap box

Toyota is laughing at General Motors for abandoning the EV/hybrid in the 1990s ...

all the way to the bank.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]drosencraft[/nom]Push it now, because if you wait it'll just be more expensive then. Get the tech out there, get it used, have the kinks worked out and production standardized, and then the price comes down. The premium shrinks to near nothing. We need to think of these cars in the same vein as computers. Ram used to be ridiculously expensive, until enough use and pressure brought the price down. Give it some time.[/citation]

The price of RAM dropped for a variety of reasons. First was the technology matured and the methodology behind producing that technology matured. The latter happened because of basic supply and demand. Initially only a few specialized manufacturers which had invested huge amounts of money into developing or licensing the patents to produce the machinery that would eventually produce the RAM could make it. Now there are dozens of such manufacturers. Competitition drove the various companies to devise cheaper ways to produce the same techonology and initial R&D costs were recouped.

Invention became innovation and thus the price to produce dropped.

However, until recently there was a major push to produce higher and higher capacity RAM modules with higher and higher speeds. Again, initial R&D costs added to prices and consumers were willing to pay. Companies got away with charging high prices because consumers had been conditioned to pay it. After all, each generation was cheaper than the last so profits could remain high.

However now that manufacturers have begun to reach technological limits for performance (quantum mechanics is a cruel mistress) they begun to use size and price to differentiate themselves.

At the same time, consumers, due to the relatively paltry difference in performance between generations nowadays, are less inclined to upgrade. This is reflected and enforced by Windows system requirements, which have stayed the same, even going down slightly, for three iterations now.

Software hasn't caught up to what hardware can do because the vast majority of what consumers want to do now and in the future can be done with current hardware. Technological limits being what they are and all.

Now to bring this back to your point; Unlike RAM, which has had a known essential purpose for almost as long as computers have existed, the battery powered car is an attempt to reinvent something that works fine by producing a product that is in almost all ways inferior to competing products.

It's a technology that is not in any way ready for prime time yet is being sold at a ridiculous premium. As you said, the Tesla sports car, the best case scenario for the technology, is inferior to products in its price range.

Until battery technology advances by leaps and bounds (something that has largely stagnated for several years now as for some odd, unexplainable reason several different industries have refused to invest the nessesary money to develop an alternative) a battery powered car is a pointless waste of money.

20 minutes to charge a battery that lasts for only 70 miles when it takes less than 5 to fill the tank of a car that can easily go 250 or more? Pointless. Wasteful. Meaningless.

Anyone who pays the money for one of these cars, including the Tesla, is attempting to fund a company's R&D despite the fact that there is next to no reason to believe the companies will actually put that money toward research and development of technology that would make electric cars practical.

 

[sundragon]

[citation][nom]Wisecracker[/nom]You look good on that soap box Toyota is laughing at General Motors for abandoning the EV/hybrid in the 1990s ...all the way to the bank.[/citation]

Thanks

You're spot on about GM failing... Sigh

 

[g-unit1111]

The value of the electric car is actually greater for those whose time is more valuable. They don't have to stop at a gas station = more time to make money doing whatever it is that they do. The convenience factor for the not quite super-wealthy is where these cars need to be marketed to. Not to Joe-Six-Pack...

Not really true, I just bought a new vehicle and I had two different salesmen tell me this. If you do an excessive amount of highway driving you want a turbo diesel (Volkswagen Passat) or a fuel efficient gas engine (Altima, Camry, Sonata, etc). If you do a lot of stop and go driving (California... :lol: ), then you want an EV like the Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Spark, or a plug-in hybrid like the Toyota Prius or the Chevrolet Volt. Me, I do more of the former so I wound up going the fuel efficient gas engine route.

 

[invlem]

The price premium for EV's are absurd, get a diesel like the TDI or a fuel efficient gas engine and you're already up in the 45+MPG range, and you can drive 10x longer distances than the EV's.

Diesel engines for VW are about a $1000 premium over the standard gas engines, much different than the $12,000+ premium they're asking on EV's.

Based on my current yearly driving habits (mostly commuting to work), I drive an average of 16,000 miles / year at 45MPG is roughly $1200/year in gas with current prices. Or about 10 years of driving before the EV makes its money back.... (I drive a Golf TDI)

The prices need to come down before this makes economical sense for the average consumer. I mean, who can really afford to spend that much money on a car they really only can drive within town. Due to the range limitations you're basically forced to have a gas powered car in addition to your EV... so why bother with the EV at all?