Chevy Bolt concept - 200 mile range, $30,000

[zapta]

Normal cost (petrol+parking) is about £25, cost for me today was about £2.50.

The magic of government freebies, somebody else is paying for the free loaders and non economic technologies.

Oh man Zapta. Don't you ever tire of saying the same thing over and over again?

Not at all, as people are leaching on others and then come here to brag about it.

[Corporate666]

I don't see how you can own the car - the finance company is holding the title, aren't they?

No. I own the car, the finance company is basically providing a loan that is secured against the car. If I default on the loan, they can take the car back and sell it to cover the outstanding loan. It's the same as if I took out a bank loan and just handed that money to Nissan, except that the terms are better because Nissan throw in a bit to get the rate to 0% and they know that the asset the loan is secured against has good resale value.

But the finance company is holding title to the car, so they own it until such time as you satisfy the amount they paid the manufacturer for the car.

I know it sounds something like semantics... but it's analogous to a lease in the USA.  You contract to own the car for a period of time and at the end of that term, you must either hand the car back or pay off the balance on it.  I'm curious... if the final "agreed upon buyout price" is $16k on a $40k car... are you paying $1,000/mo ($24k in total) or $1,667/mo ($40k in total).

If $24k, it's the same as a lease in the USA.  I wonder if there is some legal stuff going on whereby it's the same thing just with a different name - like how interest is "banned" in the arab world.

[Corporate666]

The noise is a combination of tyre/road, wind and engine. Even the quietest engines get loud at 60-70 mph. In a Leaf you can talk quietly and the other person can hear you, even at motorway speeds.

Even road noise is lower in a Leaf as the battery pack acts as shielding. It's so quiet that the headlights have to be an unusual shape to deflect air around the wing mirrors, because it was found to be annoying.

I just bought a new car - a "luxury barge" as opposed to my previous 2-seater sports car.  The problem (one of many) of my previous car is that it was tiring to drive, largely because there was so much road noise.

Point being - people underestimate how nice it is to drive a quiet car.  And you're absolutely right - most of that noise is tires and wind.  It's actually pretty cool that EV's are so quiet engine-wise that the tire and wind noise become significant factors. 

[mtdoc]

Not at all, as people are leaching on others and then come here to brag about it.

But  you and your cohorts continue to ignore facts presented that contradict your thesis and fail to provide any facts to support your thesis.  Do you think repeating yourself without supporting evidence is going to convince anyone of anything?

So - your thesis is that those driving EVs are "leeches" because they don't pay taxis on gasoline, correct?

Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:

In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue. But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.

So who are the leeches?

BTW - that NRC study also found that EVs produced slightly more nonclimate -related damages due to fossil fuel electricity production and the manufacture of the motor and batteries. But of course those things are taxed and the taxes are not avoided by the drivers of EVs. And of course if you live in an area with predominately hydro power or other non fossil fuel electricity production you avoid that.

[Skimask]

Direct, tangible connection (eg. somebody somewhere has a pile of receipts to prove it) ->>>  In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue.

Non-Direct, Non-tangible connection (eg. how do we know it wasn't bovine flatulence causing these issues?)  ->>> But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.

Kinda like saying smoking kills.  Prove it.  Give me hard, concrete, factual statements that support that.

[mtdoc]

Kinda like saying smoking kills.  Prove it.  Give me hard, concrete, factual statements that support that.

The link between ill-health and burning of gasoline and diesel fuel was established long ago. But just like the tobacco companies for years ignored the evidence, so it is with this...

[zapta]

Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:

In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue. But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.

So who are the leeches?

Fossil fuel energy helps our health more than it damages. How do you think hospitals are powered, drugs are delivered and food is produced. Check the history of human life expectancy and see how it went up as we increased usage of fossil fuel.
As for leaching, just check the earlier posts here and you will find the proof.

If EV is such a great technology it should win on its own merit. Relying so much  on government freebies and leaching on others  suggest it's not.

[Corporate666]

Maybe for some the life of the car isn't that much of a concern, cars seem to be treated like consumables these days, if you expect car to last > 5 years you are seen as being mildly delusional, if I buy a car, I expect it to still be working albeit with a bit of maintenance along the way without costing an internal organ in 15 - 20 years time like they always have done.  With EV's and battery packs, I am not sure that they will be.

It may be crazy that cars are seen this way, but it's just the reality of the modern world.  I hear a lot of people saying things like "you can buy a 1992 Honda Civic for $800 and overall you will save SO much money!".  I don't get that mindset... a car is critical to most of our lives (certainly here in the USA where our country is very spread out and it's not feasible to have public transport to suburbs).  You can lease a brand new car for $150 per month, and if you do that you'll never need to buy tires or pay for brake jobs or any maintenance other than a few oil changes and maybe a set of wiper blades.  Unless money is super tight such that $150/mo is too much, I don't see why people would deal with older cars that have no warranty and may need expensive repairs unexpectedly when they can turn their transport needs into a fixed cost, and also always drive a brand new late model car and always have the latest features.

[Corporate666]

Fossil fuel energy helps our health more than it damages.

You could say exactly the same thing about EV's and the subsidies thereof.

How do you think hospitals are powered, drugs are delivered and food is produced.

By energy.  And ALL of our energy ultimately comes from the sun (except nuclear and, arguably, hydro). 

Check the history of human life expectancy and see how it went up as we increased usage of fossil fuel.

You're mixing correlation with causation.  Energy usage is a result of societal advancement, not the cause of it.

If EV is such a great technology it should win on its own merit. Relying so much  on government freebies and leaching on others  suggest it's not.

The exact same thing can be said of education, home ownership, the oil industry, the banking industry, the airline industry, etc.  If one were to take that belief to it's logical conclusion, we would have suffered complete economic collapse in 2008 that we wouldn't have recovered from since.

So it's really a case of which pet projects we support.  And there is always an argument that can be made for why any given subsidy is bad or good.

[Skimask]

Kinda like saying smoking kills.  Prove it.  Give me hard, concrete, factual statements that support that.

The link between ill-health and burning of gasoline and diesel fuel was established long ago. But just like the tobacco companies for years ignored the evidence, so it is with this...

I'm not saying there aren't dangers when combining the above items, just prove the solid link.  If it's so well known, where said link?  All I see is studies.
Prove smoking causes lung cancer.  Maybe it was that whiff of mold from that musty stump in the woods when I was a kid.
Prove driving my truck causes ill-health.  Been driving the same truck since '03.  Broke my pelvis, arm, and bruised a bunch of ribs last year.  Must've been because the tailpipe was pointed into the wind.  (nope, dumbass me fell off a ladder, then fell on the same ladder, then fell off the same damn ladder again!  )

[MacAttak]

The link between ill-health and burning of gasoline and diesel fuel was established long ago. But just like the tobacco companies for years ignored the evidence, so it is with this...

I'm not saying there aren't dangers when combining the above items, just prove the solid link.  If it's so well known, where said link?  All I see is studies.
Prove smoking causes lung cancer.  Maybe it was that whiff of mold from that musty stump in the woods when I was a kid.
Prove driving my truck causes ill-health.  Been driving the same truck since '03.  Broke my pelvis, arm, and bruised a bunch of ribs last year.  Must've been because the tailpipe was pointed into the wind.  (nope, dumbass me fell off a ladder, then fell on the same ladder, then fell off the same damn ladder again!  )

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=link+between+ill-health+and+burning+of+gasoline+and+diesel+fuel

A few pages of studies published in respected medical journals and hosted by respected universities and other organizations who make it their business to research and understand environmental science doesn't qualify as a "solid link"?

[zapta]

Fossil fuel energy helps our health more than it damages.

You could say exactly the same thing about EV's and the subsidies thereof.

Well, at least we agree that the demonizing of fossil fuel is foolish.

Check the history of human life expectancy and see how it went up as we increased usage of fossil fuel.

You're mixing correlation with causation.  Energy usage is a result of societal advancement, not the cause of it.

Virtual any major technology we have was enabled and energized by fossil fuel. To say that fossil fuel shorten our life while it enabled life expectancy never seen before is ridicules.

[mtdoc]

Fossil fuel energy helps our health more than it damages.

You could say exactly the same thing about EV's and the subsidies thereof.

Well, at least we agree that the demonizing of fossil fuel is foolish.

Why do you assume that those ready to move beyond 19th century technology and working to promote less harmful alternatives which do not rely on finite resources are demoniizing fossil fuels?

Were those promoting solid state electronics in the 1960s demonizing tubes?  Were those promoting use of surface mount components demonizing through hole technology?  Knowledge advances.

Check the history of human life expectancy and see how it went up as we increased usage of fossil fuel.

You're mixing correlation with causation.  Energy usage is a result of societal advancement, not the cause of it.

Virtual any major technology we have was enabled and energized by fossil fuel. To say that fossil fuel shorten our life while it enabled life expectancy never seen before is ridicules.

You've created a straw man. Saying something has harmful effects is not the same as saying it has no benefits.

I agree with you Zapta in that societies technological advancement and the rapid (and unsustainable) expansion of the human population would not have been possible without the discovery and utilization of fossil fuels - primarily oil.  But the notion that this means we should continue to devote all our subsidies  towards only fossil fuels, ignoring their downsides, pretending that they'll last forever, pretending that burning them does not have harmful effects on human health and the environment makes no sense. 

The incessant insistence on ignoring the costs of fossil fuels and touting their benefits while harping on the costs of alternatives and ignoring their benefits is transparently political.

And once again - the facts presented regarding the question of who is "leeching" from who are ignored.

[zapta]

Virtual any major technology we have was enabled and energized by fossil fuel. To say that fossil fuel shorten our life while it enabled life expectancy never seen before is ridicules.

Why?

Because it enabled the longest life expectancy in human history. That's why.

[nctnico]

Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:

In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue. But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.

So who are the leeches?

Fossil fuel energy helps our health more than it damages. How do you think hospitals are powered, drugs are delivered and food is produced. Check the history of human life expectancy and see how it went up as we increased usage of fossil fuel.

You cause and effect analysis is flaky. If we invented nuclear power before fossil fuels you could have said the same about nuclear power (and  solar energy, wind energy, etc).

[Wilksey]

Am I the only one who thinks having a speaker on the outside of a car just so you can hear it coming is ludicrous?

What happens if/when that speaker fails? For example, if it is a safety device, which, it would be, 2 or 3 days after the MOT / Service it fails, you have a year effectively to drive it around without a speaker.  Is there anything inside of the car that tells you if this is not working?

I am not trying to "find faults" I am just curious, as if it is "law" I do not think his is working, it's a 63 plate car (>=Sept 2013 for those outside of the UK).

[tom66]

Other safety systems fail. Brake lights. Reverse light (usually only one of them, too.) Or the headlights. Or the indicators. 

I imagine that if it became a serious problem you'd have two of them. Or they would be readily replaceable.

[Skimask]

It's hard to compare because US gallons are smaller than UK gallons, and petrol in the US is ridiculously cheap.

Oh ya, forgot about the gallon difference.  I've been to Europe/Asia/etc.  I've always said we pay way too little for petrol compared to the rest of the world.  When gas hit $5/gallon a few years ago, I was trying to explain to folks that we're just catching up to the rest of the world.

In any case, 54MPG is well above the rated amount for that car according to Google, so well done.

The thing is, to get that kind of mileage you must have had to drive fairly slowly and carefully. It's also an old car, with poorer safety features and few comforts as far as I can tell. I have health issues that would prevent me driving something like that such a long way, even if I wanted to.[/quote]
Nope, right about on par.  '88 Chevy Sprint Metro.    I do have a light right foot and don't push much above the speed limits, but at the same time I'm not doing to drive 45 in a 65 either.  That's just plain dumb.  Safety-featureless...pretty much   But I also don't drive on seriously busy highways, etc.  Not really worried about it much.  And it's just me, and I've got nobody to impress, etc.etc.etc.  And ya, I do work on it a fair amount compared to my new cars.  The thing eats front half-shafts & tires every couple of years (12" tires spin pretty fast down the highway).  On the spreadsheet, I'm still wayyy ahead.  If I didn't have spare time, probably would turn the thing into pop cans and get a new car.

[SeanB]

Here they were branded as Daihatsu Charades. Have you had the fuel pump push rod replaced yet? They wear and then short stroke, which gives the impression the pump is faulty when it is just not getting the full stroke off the cam shaft. Shaft wear or cam wear, but the shaft is more likely as the pump end is poorly lubricated. Braze a pip on the end and it is as good as new. There are still a lot running around, and they are quite nice and reliable.

[Skimask]

Here they were branded as Daihatsu Charades. Have you had the fuel pump push rod replaced yet? They wear and then short stroke, which gives the impression the pump is faulty when it is just not getting the full stroke off the cam shaft. Shaft wear or cam wear, but the shaft is more likely as the pump end is poorly lubricated. Braze a pip on the end and it is as good as new. There are still a lot running around, and they are quite nice and reliable.

HA!!!!!
Just fought that battle last fall, not 6 months ago...for about 2 months.  The thing would run fine up to about 45MPH.  Put it under any heavy load, would start bucking, spitting, overall, bleh, no power.
Borrowed the fuel pump off my parts car.  No fix.  Borrowed the carb off my parts car.  No fix.  Replaced all the fuel & vacuum lines.  No fix.  Set the float level wayyy to high.  No fix.
Finally grabbed the rod out of the engine and the one out of the parts engine.  Hmmm...not even 1/8" difference between the two.  But the stroke is so short, even a 1/16" difference makes a big difference.
For grins, I hot-wired in a low pressure fuel pump.  Magically fixed the whole problem.
Don't remember what the exact dimensions were that I found online, but I ended up taking a couple of old valve pushrod out of a small block engine (Buick 350 I think), cutting and grinding it down, etc.  Don't know how long it'll last since the tips probably aren't hardened, but I made 4 of them total.  Next time it acts up, I'm set.

[SeanB]

Old problem with those, and you can now look for Daihatsu spares to get a replacement front grille. Braze on tip works well for a long time as it self lubricates on the pump end.

[drakke]

I used to own a 1987 Chevy Nova that gets like 35 mpg, made in the 1980s.

We haven't made a lot of progress over the last 30 years.

26mpg in the city, 34mpg on the hwy and those were idealized driving conditions. Today's ratings are based on 'real' world conditions.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/277.shtml

The advanced are immense - better crash protection, reliability, reduced maintenance costs, better performance (braking, acceleration etc), reduce environmental impact in manufacturing, recyclability etc.

Even if you compare to cars from 5 years ago there has been significant progress.

[Skimask]

Old problem with those, and you can now look for Daihatsu spares to get a replacement front grille. Braze on tip works well for a long time as it self lubricates on the pump end.

The Daihatsu's grille's are the same as the regular Chevy Sprint (trapezoidal headlights).  I've got a Chevy Sprint Metro, old square headlight style, not a Chevy Metro, not a Geo Metro, but a Chevy Sprint Metro (also known as the Chevy Sprint ER from '85-'87).  Won't fit.  Relatively rare model.  Shorter duration, higher lift cam, WOT switch set actually close to WOT rather than the usual ~75% throttle position, taller 5th gear, no A/C, no options, 2 door only, blah blah blah.  And those 12" tires just make it all that much more pleasant down the highway @ 65MPH...when I can get it going 65MPH!

[Derick Freese]

What do you mean by a Wide Open Throttle switch?  Does it have nitrous? 

[coppice]

There has been a lot of bullshit spread around about the batteries, people saying they won't last. There are people pushing a lot of miles on Leafs, using them as taxis, and they have no problems with degradation. Tesla state that their cells are rated for 3000 full cycles, which is 900,000 miles, and they have tested up to 750,000 miles with 86% capacity remaining.

Its is unreasonable to extrapolate what might happen to a Leaf battery pack based on experience with the Tesla ones. The Tesla packs are far more complex, because Tesla think the simpler type of pack in the Leaf will be troublesome.

I don't mind paying for a nice car, I like to travel in comfort and style.

Style? You drive a Leaf.