Chevrolet Unveils 200-Mile Bolt EV At Detroit Auto Show 426
MikeChino writes Tesla, take cover – General Motors is taking aim at the affordable electric vehicle market with the brand new Chevy Bolt, which was just unveiled at the 2015 Detroit Auto Show. The all-electric vehicle is able to travel 200 miles on a single charge, and it will cost about $30,000 – which puts it squarely in the ring with the Tesla Model 3. According to the article, "Chevrolet is planning to launch the Bolt EV in 2017, and inside sources say that it will be available in all 50 states."
Bolt or Volt? (Score:5, Insightful)
nope (Score:5, Informative)
Re: nope (Score:5, Funny)
Re: nope (Score:5, Funny)
Ah okay. So maybe the Chevy Dolt is coming too then.
That's what they call the buyer.
Re: nope (Score:5, Funny)
Ah okay. So maybe the Chevy D'olt is coming too then.
Homer FTFY
Re: nope (Score:5, Funny)
The post apocalypse 4 legged version. Eats grass (biomass), exhausts fertilizer, very green edition.
Re: (Score:3)
If you set the tail on fire that takes care of the methane right there. Also makes the Colt run faster.
Does that not change the name from Colt to Pinto?
Re: (Score:3)
And don't forget the Chevy Jolt. Runs on highly caffeinated cola.
Re:nope (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop spreading misinformation. There is a driving scenario where a) the vehicle is operating in "charge sustain" mode (i.e. battery is flat, or user has selected "Hold") and b) the vehicle is being operated at relatively high speeds (> ~50 km/hr) with low torque requirements (i.e. roughly constant speed). In this very specific driving scenario, you are correct, there is a mechanical connection between the gas engine and the wheels.
However, in all other driving conditions, there is no mechanical connection. In stop-and-go traffic around down or on the highway during rush hour, in charge sustain mode, the gas engine will drive a generator motor, the electricity from which feeds the traction motor and the battery -- this is a series hybrid configuration. Under any driving condition while in "charge deplete" mode (i.e. drawing from the battery), the gas engine never turns on, making it operate purely as an EV. An important point to note is that the vehicle is able to achieve is full performance capabilities -- acceleration, top speed, and braking -- under purely electric propulsion without the gas engine ever turning on. This is the distinction that makes it more than just a series+parallel hybrid.
Re: (Score:2)
s/around down/around town/
s/achieve is full/achieve its full/
Re: (Score:3)
This is correct. For most people if you never run out your charge the only time the engine will turn on is as a precaution against stale fuel.
The Volt is an Extended Range Electric Vehicle. The presence of fuel so it can be used on long trips is great. I took mine on several trips greater than 350 or so miles and being able to refuel on those rare occasions was really helpful.
Most hybrids like the Prius are just very powered down to get as much as possible out of a gas engine. The Volt is like driving a car
Re:nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Take another re-read (and a chill pill, while you're at it). I never said it was a pure EV -- I said it operates as one when in charge deplete mode. While the systems are different than what we've been using with automatic and manual transmission gasoline cars for years, they are actually not that complex [youtube.com]. Three clutches that only mate when speed-matched (which means low-wear, so they should last the life of the vehicle) and a fixed planetary gear set. Much simpler than an automatic transmission.
Re:nope (Score:5, Insightful)
The general problems are the design trade offs that occur any time when there is a direct mechanical linkage between the internal combustion engine and the drive train. The reason is because you are most likely forced to use an engine that has some greater variability in torque and rotational speed than would be necessary if there was no direct linkage.
Why does this matter? Because it likely reduces overall system efficiency. For maximal efficiency, you are better off having an engine that is custom paired to the generator, meaning that it runs at a very confined torque range and rotational speed to maximize generation of electricity since electrical generators generally work most efficiently at a specific rotational speed and fall off on either side of that speed.. This of course requires that the amount of electricity generated is enough to drive the electric motors alone (i.e. no battery support in the case that the battery is dead). By adding a direct mechanical linkage, the engine is likely to require operation over a wider range of speeds and torque and is less likely to be optimized.
Based on the specific conditions that you had indicated for when the mechanical linkage occurs (constrained torque scenario), it is possible that they were able to marry the best of both worlds in terms of efficient engine design, but I'm skeptical. Also, this setup would presumably mean that the individual drive wheels are not directly driven by electrical motors and that there is a drive shaft and differential of sorts in between the electric motor and the wheels. This likely also reduces overall efficiency than a direct drive scenario (i.e. electric motors directly connected to the individual drive wheels).
Re:nope (Score:5, Informative)
The general problems are the design trade offs that occur any time when there is a direct mechanical linkage between the internal combustion engine and the drive train. The reason is because you are most likely forced to use an engine that has some greater variability in torque and rotational speed than would be necessary if there was no direct linkage.
Why does this matter? Because it likely reduces overall system efficiency. For maximal efficiency, you are better off having an engine that is custom paired to the generator, meaning that it runs at a very confined torque range and rotational speed to maximize generation of electricity since electrical generators generally work most efficiently at a specific rotational speed and fall off on either side of that speed.. This of course requires that the amount of electricity generated is enough to drive the electric motors alone (i.e. no battery support in the case that the battery is dead). By adding a direct mechanical linkage, the engine is likely to require operation over a wider range of speeds and torque and is less likely to be optimized.
Why all this "likely" talk? The video I linked to is the first in a series of presentations by Pamela Fletcher, the head of GM's electric drive train division. She talks about the trades and the systems design that led to what we have now; it's really pretty interesting. Basically they started out with exactly what you want: a traction motor driving the wheels directly, and a generator motor attached to an ICE, with only electricity flowing between them. Then they said "hey wait a second, electric motors are less efficient at higher RPM; can we use this second electric motor to reduce the speed of the first through a high gear ratio, thus improve overall efficiency at high speeds? By golly we can!". That is why the generator motor is able to couple to the traction motor at high speeds to drive the wheels together.
The fact that there is a mechanical linkage when you then enter charge deplete mode is actually a by-product of wanting the ICE connected to the generator motor, but also wanting the generator motor connected to the planetary gear set. It's not something that was baked in from the start as a "core ideal" or goal, it was something that came about as the result of a number of other trades.
The biggest downside to going this route is that there are intermediate periods of time where the ICE will be free-wheeling, which means they required a throttle assembly. If the generator motor were always attached to the ICE output shaft, you wouldn't need a throttle, because you could just cap the RPM using back torque from the generator motor.
Based on the specific conditions that you had indicated for when the mechanical linkage occurs (constrained torque scenario), it is possible that they were able to marry the best of both worlds in terms of efficient engine design, but I'm skeptical. Also, this setup would presumably mean that the individual drive wheels are not directly driven by electrical motors and that there is a drive shaft and differential of sorts in between the electric motor and the wheels. This likely also reduces overall efficiency than a direct drive scenario (i.e. electric motors directly connected to the individual drive wheels).
After warming up, the ICE is generally operating at wide-open throttle (peak efficiency for a given power output). Its RPM is capped by the torque put on it by the generator motor and, when in that situation, the planetary gear set. By adjusting the flow of current (and thus the torque) between the two motors, and using the battery as a buffer for transient events, they can adjust the output power of the engine simply by adjusting its output RPM. Keep in mind that the electric motors are not lossless and neither is charging/discharging the battery. Any power going from the ICE output shaft to the drive shaft mechanically is not subject to the losses of going through two electric motor
Re:nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. I would have a Model S if I could afford it. The Volt is a really good compromise though -- most of the time I get by on pure-electric, and it is so smooth and so quiet that I am never going back to a plain ICE car.
Re:Double nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Dismissing it "just a hybrid" is no more accurate than calling it an electric car. It's runs as an electric car until the all-electric range is exhausted -- about thirty miles -- and then runs like a hybrid. Parallel mode may kick in to drive the wheels if the battery is exhausted and it needs the extra push. Since the average driver [ridetowork.org] drives twenty-nine miles a day (some more, some less, YMMV) it means that most days many (maybe most) people wouldn't need to use gas at all. The 2016 Volt [autoblog.com] gets fifty miles all-electric range on a charge, so the number of people this would cover goes up. I drive a 2012 Volt and I need to make a long drive (about 200 miles) once a week, so most electric cars would not do it for me, but the Volt makes the drive by switching to gas and runs most of the rest of the week off the battery. As far as dependability goes, J.D> Power [thenewswheel.com] gives them top marks. I can tell when my Volt goes into parallel mode and it rarely happens, so the "complex" system you're concerned about does not receive a lot of wear and tear.
I suppose that it could be argued that plug-in hybrids like the Volt are just a stop-gap measure until we have charging stations available and fast-charging batteries to shorten the time a recharge takes, but I rather like how my "stop-gap" is working out.
Re:Double nope (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly right, but your sensible viewpoint doesn't belong anywhere on a blog site, apparently. No, you can't completely describe the Volt as a plug-in hybrid, EV, series or parallel hybrid, or whatever--it's a Volt and there's nothing else exactly like it.
I read this forum having come from other EV forums where readers are complaining endlessly that the Volt isn't a true EV, that it has far too limited range, that it was designed as a parallel hybrid and should've been a series hybrid, etc. Folks. This is all new stuff. If you want to change the world, stop posting drivel that drives away readership.
And BTW I'm sure GM would've loved to have released an EV in 2010 with 200+ mile range, one hour charge times, and a sub-$25k price. The reality is that it wasn't practical in 2010, and may be only barely practical today given the economics involved and the state of the technology.
The Volt is a great stop-gap. It gave us something to buy these past four years while we wait for more advanced EV's to become feasible and hit the market. The drivetrain is complex, but apparently has a very low failure rate. The ICE will run frequently or continuously in extreme conditions, but most drivers can expect lifetime averages well over 100 MPG driving in real-world conditions. Why can nobody simply call this what it is: A technical coup for GM.
Re:Double nope (Score:5, Insightful)
I drive a Volt. You've probably seen the back side of it if you drive around San Diego. Yep, it's very zippy in the 0 to 50 mph range. It is pretty rare that the engine drives the wheels. I have had it for 2 1/2 years and have 50k miles on it. The finish, interior and performance are the same as the day I bought it. GM did an outstanding job on this vehicle. The maintenance costs are extremely low. I've changed the oil twice and not because the car was telling me to. I just got uncomfortable not changing the oil. The brake pads are at 99%. They rarely get used. After driving around, you can touch the brake pads and they will still be cold. The engine in the Volt is really more like a generator. Nothing too complicated about that. The only problem this car has is the ignorant who put forth a worthless opinion that others then parrot as fact. I'd buy another Volt in a heart beat. Oh wait, I did, for my wife. It drives as well as mine does.
Re: (Score:2)
It was that or Dolt.
Re:Bolt or Volt? (Score:5, Informative)
they are 2 totally different cars. But the new volt is looking pretty awesome, this bolt kinda looks like a mix between the BMW i3 and the chevy spark
Re: (Score:3)
Umm thats looks like a Dodge Dart with an Acura front end.
The Volt isn't going away (Score:3)
Is this to presume that they'll discontinue the Volt? The names are so similar I could see confusion here...
No they are not discontinuing the Volt [slashgear.com] as they just updated it to have a longer electric-only range (50 miles), 5 seats instead of 4, and improved acceleration and styling.
Of course the next GM electric vehicle will be the Chevy Jolt probably...
Color? (Score:3, Funny)
On a positive note, I suppose gaudy orange could be considered an anti-theft feature.
Competition? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the article, "Chevrolet is planning to launch the Bolt EV in 2017, and inside sources say that it will be available in all 50 states."
Yea, they get to sell in all 50 states, but not Tesla. Competition my ass.
Re:Competition? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Republicrats and Demicans are just about the same. Pretending otherwise is childish. Both create laws to protect their buddies.
Bolt (Score:5, Funny)
So will you need a special washer to clean it?
Are you crazy? (Score:3)
You'd have to be nuts to try and wash an electric car.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be nuts.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be nuts.
This is a useless thread.
Re: (Score:3)
Missing the bold, you screwed it up.
Star Bolt? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how Star (Yamaha) motorcycles, maker of the Star Bolt, feel about this.
http://www.starmotorcycles.com... [starmotorcycles.com]
grepping dict/words? (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're gonna search dict/words for ^.olt$, done and done? That won't get confusing.
Seriously, bolt and volt are going to be pronounced the same by huge numbers of people. Chevy is pretty much champion of not thinking things through?
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, Chrysler already has the Colt, so for the next one GM will be forced to go with "Dolt".
How about Jolt? That would be electricity-related, and it would accurately reflect both GM's build and ride quality.
How fast to charge. (Score:2)
200 miles is good for nearly most commuters. However if you are going on a trip you will still need to recharge midway. How long will it take you to charge up?
For 30k I hope you have a full charge in under 10 minutes
Cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla would seemingly need the battery cost reductions from their "GigaFactory" to get the cost of their 200-mile electric car down to $35,000, and Chevy is going to sell a 200-mile EV for $30,000 without those cost reductions?
Something's gotta give to pull that off.
Re:Cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla would seemingly need the battery cost reductions from their "GigaFactory" to get the cost of their 200-mile electric car down to $35,000, and Chevy is going to sell a 200-mile EV for $30,000 without those cost reductions?
Something's gotta give to pull that off.
Well, no one said they were planning on making a profit selling it. Could be propped up by other sales, just to push competitors out. Or maybe to game the "fleet average" fuel economy numbers.
Re:Cost? (Score:5, Informative)
Tesla would seemingly need the battery cost reductions from their "GigaFactory" to get the cost of their 200-mile electric car down to $35,000, and Chevy is going to sell a 200-mile EV for $30,000 without those cost reductions?
Something's gotta give to pull that off.
Nissan's 2016 LEAF is going to have a 200+-mile range, and will also be sub-$30K.
Re: (Score:3)
That's going to kill the resale value of the existing Leafs, so if you want a short-range electric vehicle at a good price, there are going to be some great deals in the next two years.
Re:Cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's going to kill the resale value of the existing Leafs, so if you want a short-range electric vehicle at a good price, there are going to be some great deals in the next two years.
That's why I leased my LEAF. Not because I predicted this particular change, but because I knew significant improvement would be coming. EV technology is improving rapidly.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they're planning to use Tesla's Gigafactory as a supplier.. From what I hear Tesla plans to sell excess batteries to the open market --not just for their own vehicles. The whole point of the Gigafactory is to drop the worldwide price of Li-On batteries by 30%.
"planning on launching in 2017" (Score:2)
Ironically for cars that don't run on gas, this and the Tesla model E are both just vapourware.
And the convertable version will be a... (Score:5, Funny)
...Molt?
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your servers.
Re:And the convertable version will be a... (Score:5, Funny)
That's horrible advice! I just kicked over my server rack and now my boss is furious.
Auto Dealerships to distribute the Big 3 autos... (Score:2)
It's not that NADA is against the idea of the of a Green (ish) vehicle. They just don't care for vehicles being sold outside the "system".
Great news for domestic consumers. As with the influx of Japanese cars in the first threatening invasion against their U.S. counterparts, this is likely to spur production of more efficient domestic autos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Auto Dealerships to distribute the Big 3 autos. (Score:5, Informative)
which seems poised to place this vehicle in front of more potential customers than the Tesla.
Meh. Tesla sells every single car it makes and has a waitlist backlog months (or years for the M/X) long. That is with NO advertising. Whoopdy do, more eyes.
Additionally, Tesla has the (current) checkmate of the supercharger network. I know that likely won't be free to the M/3, but I assure you it does a great job of squelching range anxiety... something the other guys remain hobbled by.
And for the commuters... I welcome *ANY* (safe) electrical vehicle at any price range. We will fix the coal/gas power plants later, and it will be transparent. Lets get these ICE cars out of here. WAAAY too much energy lost in the ICE reaction. Especially for city driving, regenerative braking is a lifesaver... think of not only individual vehicles, but city busses... large vehicles ideally suited for high torque electrical motors, where regenerative braking can recover a lot of that.
Has anyone looked at the pictures? (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone looked at the pictures?
The one key thing I think Tesla has right, is that the Tesla S looks like a Nice Car. Its styling is very classy and sharp, does not look out of place next to a BMW 7 series or Mercedes. This Bolt looks like a Spark or an economy hatchback, very 'edgy' but clearly it's a 'look at me' car.
Even the Volt did better in that regard, the Volt looks close to a Cobalt in appearance, so that you don't have to wonder why someone would want to be seen in it.
Seems the automakers are focusing on gaudy instead of cool.
And for our ethnic customers... (Score:4, Funny)
The Chevy "Oy-GeValt"...
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all day.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll stick with my Schmuick.
Schmuck/Buick, you see... ah, to hell with the lot of you.
Concept vs. Reality (Score:5, Funny)
Given the original Chevy Volt concept looked like this [wikimedia.org] and the production looked like this [wikimedia.org]. I fully expect the Bolt to go from this [vox-cdn.com] to this [balkantravellers.com].
Re: (Score:3)
More like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
The Dodge Colt...
Oh good Lord (Score:3, Interesting)
What does a Tesla have, that *ALL* other electrics don't? Style. The Tesla cars look great, like cars you WANT to drive. The others - Chevy, Ford, Nissan, all scream "Hey I'm a cheap piece of shit with an electric motor!" The other electric manufacturers are all sitting around the boardroom table, scratching their heads in befuddlement as to why their sales numbers aren't through the roof. They are fighting Tesla's direct sales model tooth and nail, all the while people are jumping through hoops to get their butts in the seat of a Model S. Seems they should stop trying to race each other to the bottom, and start by designing a car people might actually want, rather than the car that's cheap to build but looks like ... this.
I hope they succeed, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, they'll need a high-speed charging network that will allow for long-distance road trips. Public charging infrastructure is too slow to realistically allow for a trip that is further than what one can do on a single charge. Granted, with 200 miles instead of 40, this is significantly better than what's out there now, it's still not good enough for someone that wants to occasionally take their car on a multi-state road trip. Tesla's supercharger network gives them a competitive advantage, and GM will need something similar. Tesla has said that they are willing to share access, but it has to be on their terms. If GM is willing to buy in on that, we might see a Bolt capable of using Tesla superchargers - this would solve this issue for GM.
Second, the established dealer network has no interest in selling EV's. Most of their profits come from after-market service, and EV's have (theoretically) significantly less service needs. To this end, the dealers are motivated to push traditional ICE's over EV's in virtually every case. This is the major reason why Tesla does not use the traditional dealership sales model. No car salesman will direct you to a Bolt - you'll only get one if you come in specifically wanting one and push past their sales tactics to get you into something else. Buyers of the Nissan Leaf have reported resistance to and sometimes outright hostility from dealerships over wanting to purchase an EV. Unless GM is somehow able to break the dealership cartel and begin direct sales themselves, this issue won't be overcome anytime soon.
Another thought: at $30,000, I strongly suspect it is priced as a loss-leader, meaning it is being sold under cost. Tesla needs the economies of scale of their massive battery factory they call their "gigafactory" now under construction in Nevada in order to achieve a $35,000 price point for the Model 3. It seems unlikely to me that GM has managed to bring the cost down so much without a gigafactory of their own. It seems likely to me that the Model 3, at $5000 more expensive, will be superior to the Bolt in virtually every respect (Tesla has repeatedly said that their 200 mile range will be a real-world figure, while the Bolt's 200 mile range will probably be an ideal figure in perfect conditions, though I'd love to be proven wrong about the Bolt).
All this assumes that GM actually delivers as promised, which is far from guaranteed.
That said, more competition in the EV space is a good thing, so I hope the Bolt does at least well enough for GM to continue research in the area.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla's advantage with their charging network is hardly decisive. GM probably could buy Tesla outright with their coffee and bagel budget. Putting up a network of charging stations would not be a challenge for a company with their resources, even on the heels of a bankruptcy.
I'd say execution on the concept will be their biggest challenge. As Jeremy Clarkson once said of an American car - "It's just that everything inside looks like it was made by the lowest bidder." He said it about a Chrysler, but it
Re:I hope they succeed, but... (Score:4, Funny)
At $200/share, Tesla's market cap is about $25 billion dollars. GM buys that much coffee and bagels? No wonder they went bankrupt recently.
Re:I hope they succeed, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another thought: at $30,000, I strongly suspect it is priced as a loss-leader, meaning it is being sold under cost. Tesla needs the economies of scale of their massive battery factory they call their "gigafactory" now under construction in Nevada in order to achieve a $35,000 price point for the Model 3. It seems unlikely to me that GM has managed to bring the cost down so much without a gigafactory of their own. It seems likely to me that the Model 3, at $5000 more expensive, will be superior to the Bolt in virtually every respect (Tesla has repeatedly said that their 200 mile range will be a real-world figure, while the Bolt's 200 mile range will probably be an ideal figure in perfect conditions, though I'd love to be proven wrong about the Bolt).
I won't argue the point that the Tesla 3 is likely to be superior to the Bolt. I really like the Teslas I've seen to date. However, I do question why you find it hard to believe that the $30k target will be such a significant problem for GM? Yes, Tesla hopes to achieve their price range based primarily upon the battery gigafactory, but given their distribution issues in various states and the general scale of their automotive manufacturing capability, they cannot reasonably expect to sell as many vehicles in the near to mid term (next 5 to 10 years) as GM does. GM can use their current scale to achieve cost reductions on the procurement of parts for the entire car, leverage lots of already engineered subsystems, and also are likely to have increased cost reductions in car assembly, rather than pinning the cost reduction primarily upon the batteries. Basically these are two different avenues to get an EV cost down to a "reasonable" level.
Re:I hope they succeed, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
GM's Michigan battery plant (joint with LG) that makes the batteries for the Volt and the upcoming Bolt (according to the WSJ) has only the capacity to make batteries for 20,000 Bolts *or* 60,000 Volts, which means the initial production runs of the Bolt is likely significantly lower than 10,000 vehicles per year. If they want to make many more Bolts, they have to build about 5.5-6 gigawatt-hours of production capacity per 100,000 vehicles. Their current plant needs expansion just to hit a little more than 1 gigawatt.
The Tesla Gigafactory is expected to make 35 gigawatt-hours of cell production and combined with another 15 gigawatt-hours from Panasonic's factories, they represent a doubling of the world's lithium ion production from 2013. Until GM/LG or others announce, finance, and build plants of that size, they won't have the batteries in any large quantity.
Tesla take cover? LMFAO (Score:4, Interesting)
Tesla got the highest score ever at Consumer Reports. It is a better car the a Porsche Pan Am in every respect. The bitter irony is that GM designed a Tesla like skateboard platform with modular bodies that they shelved because the are run my MBAs trying to squeeze profits by bullshit instead of design.
-F34nor
Good luck (Score:3)
Hopefully, there are enough people who can think beyond the current dip in oil prices to keep interest up in electric cars. Oil just isn't a good long-term solution, and the sooner we can get cars off it the better.
If they could get the range up to 300+ miles, have a usable quick charge capability, and still keep it affordable, I'd go electric in a heartbeat.
Vaporware (Score:3)
Re: Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm as big a fan of TDIs as anyone, but I think you're overselling it a bit. You really mean "with only regular maintenance." Otherwise, that no-maintenance TDI is going to fail at about 20k or so due to lack of oil changes, or at least at around 80k or so when the timing belt snaps.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a pretty big fan of TDI myself (go tdiclub!), but reality can be harsh. I purchased a 2000 beetle three years ago, at 220,000 miles. The first owner probably didn't like it, sold it after two years, with at least ten shop visits. I forget the exact mileage and cost, but not all of it was covered by warranties. The second owner had it for the intervening years and maybe 200,000 miles. She took it the dealership when necessary, I think the repair bills over the first 12 years totalled $16,000.
I finall
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My dad bought a 2001 Prius. Everyone told him the batteries would die with in 8 years. Nope, 2013 and it runs like the day he bought it.
Re: Only 30 Grand? (Score:4, Informative)
Diesels are extremely cheap to maintain and last an extremely long time. Getting 200-300k miles on a diesel engine with no maintenance is common
You're 25 years out of date (i.e. we're not talking about your great uncle's ultra-reliable W123 [wikipedia.org] anymore). There's every likelihood that one of these new German diesels (with their myriad failure-prone sensors and crappy wiring harnesses) will have you constantly headed back to the dealership for repairs, at least until the factory warranty runs out.
Re: (Score:3)
Electric cars need neither a clutch nor transmission -- the most expensive piece of a car to repair.
My damn 2013 VW TDI manual just had the clutch die at 52,000 miles, so these things can vary in longevity.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. Diesels require expensive maintenance. They typically will last far longer than a gas engine if they get that maintenance regularly but if you skimp on maintenance you'll get burned badly. A lot also depends on who makes the diesel. I don't know who makes the Ford Powerstroke engines but they have serious problems with bad injectors and even if you DIY the parts are pricey as well. The Dodge uses a Cummins diesel which generally are insanely reliable but it's essentially a big truck diesel de
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only 30 Grand? (Score:4, Informative)
In america, we call "petrol" and "diesel" gas.
No, no we don't. We call gasoline ("petrol" is itself meaningless slang, since it is short for petroleum) by the name "gas" and we call diesel fuel "diesel".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It would be easy to get that fire started if you poured on a little diesel gas first
Re: (Score:2)
However there are a lot of places where you can charge an all electric vehicle for free. How many places can you get your diesel for free? That will drive down the cost of ownership.
Re: (Score:3)
I am talking legit places. My work has lots of spots designated for EVs with multi hour limits on them for charging.
Also what you claim will get you sued.
Re: (Score:3)
Also what you claim will get you sued.
As with the Carrie Underwood song, it'll also get you in jail for vandalism. Congratulations on essentially buying the dude a new EV, because that's what you'll be lucky to come out with between jail, court, lawyers, fine, and lawsuit.
Yep, only 30 Grand (Score:3)
Wow, only $30,000 for a car with less than half the range of my $27,000 Volkswagen TDI? Where do I not sign up?
Wow a fossil fuel powered, noisy and polluting car with expensive fuel. Where do I not sign up?
Seriously, I even like diesel cars (I've owned several) but your argument is nonsense. Just because it doesn't fit what you need/want doesn't mean it isn't a great solution for other people. This would make a terrific commuting car for lots of people, myself included. I could refuel it MUCH cheaper than any diesel car on the market. Furthermore it has fewer moving parts and as such has a good chance of being
Re: Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Informative)
Just for reference, the average-priced car is unaffordable by the average-income household [thedetroitbureau.com].
Re: Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Informative)
While that makes sense, the claim of the article is that car prices are rising relative to household income -- in other words, it implies that the average new car used to be affordable, that it now is no longer so, and that it's continuing to become increasingly unaffordable.
This, I can agree with. There's no legitimate reason why cheap, lightweight cars like the Honda CRX (better fuel economy than a modern Prius... in 1988!) are effectively no longer allowed to be made. (And before somebody tries to use something like an Elio as a counterexample... it's not. It's a damn motorcycle.)
That's a strawman argument: the average household can indeed afford a $200 per month car payment, but that $200 per month is only enough to get you a cheap, lower-than-average car! The article never made any claim that the average household couldn't afford a car at all; only that it couldn't afford an average one.
It's also a strawman for a different reason: the minimum wage is not $1980 per month! First of all, $1980 / 160 hours (full time for a month) = $12.375 per hour, which is simply wrong. Federal minimum wage is actually $7.25 per hour, which would add up to $1160 per month. Second, federal minimum wage is per hour, not per month, and most minimum-wage workers aren't allowed by their employers to work a full 160 hours per month even if they want to, so the minimum "monthly" wage is even less than that.
car prices have been decreasing (Score:5, Interesting)
While that makes sense, the claim of the article is that car prices are rising relative to household income -- in other words, it implies that the average new car used to be affordable, that it now is no longer so, and that it's continuing to become increasingly unaffordable.
Actually, car prices have been increasing at a MUCH lower rate than inflation or other costs due to automation of factories, better designs, electronics prices dropping, etc.
For example:
In 1996 I bought a NEW Honda Accord for $22,500
In 2015 you can buy a much better equipped Honda Accord for around $25,000
That's a 10% increase over 19 yrs! It's actually a decrease in price if you consider what you're getting for the cost (i.e. much more HP, MPG, safety, etc)
For reference...in that same time period, movie ticket prices have doubled, gas prices have tripled, housing prices have doubled.
Re: (Score:3)
So in Canada, the "typical" minimum-wage job is full-time?
This is not a reasonable assumption. 15% of the budget "might" be reasonable for total transportation costs (vehicle purchase + insurance + fuel + maintenance
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just for reference, $30k is the average price of a new car in the US, and considering that it's using technology that's ahead of the curve I don't think that's terrible. This isn't to say that I'd rush out to buy one though.
I rather use the mean, not the average. I'd guess the high end prices skew the average.
Re: Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mean" is the same as "average" . People who think otherwise have learned just enough math to be dangerous but not enough to do anything useful.
Possibly you wish to invoke the "median."
Re: (Score:3)
Is your Volkswagen TDI all electric? No, then why the fuck do we care about your car?
Because far more capable gasoline cars are available at a lower price, so no sane person would buy one of these unless they expect the price of diesel to make up the difference in the time they own the car.
And, with the price of oil collapsing, this is a really bad time to be releasing a new electric car.
Re:Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I enjoy filling up the tank and spending ~$20 atm, I know this is a very short term thing.
No one will admit to it, ( and of course I have no proof of it, so is pure speculation on my part ) but either OPEC is trying to destroy the US Shale-Oil business by pushing the price of oil through the floor, or they are working with the US to punish certain OTHER ( *cough* Russia *cough* ) countries who rely heavily on oil exports to fund their economy.
As soon as the whole Ukraine thing calms down, expect oil to make the jump back to the ~$80 / barrel range shortly thereafter.
Re:Only 30 Grand? (Score:5, Informative)
No one will admit to it,... but either OPEC is trying to destroy the US Shale-Oil business by pushing the price of oil through the floor.
It's really weird that you feel like no one will admit to it, and that it's speculation "on your part". This is widely known. It is not a secret. It is a workable and working strategy. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality. I've seen probably a dozen articles on it, and it's the topic of discussion on both NPR and conservative talk radio. Rest assured, the price will rise again.
The saudi's paid some very smart investment analysts to determine the burn down rate of new wells, pipelines and capacity in north america, and compare that to global markets. Their reserve value will outlast the shale oil investment costs, you can be sure. They also decided to punish the other OPEC states for previous non-cooperation in price fixing at the same time, and this will cause those competitors to deplete reserves faster too. It's a triple win for them. Win/win/win.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, I think everyone recognises that electric vehicles are still relatively expensive but that doesn't mean they are without merit. They cost more upfront but significantly less to operate. In certain locations they also qualify for grants and reduced road charges / taxse. e
Re: (Score:3)
I think the Saudis and other OPEC leaders have made it pretty clear that they are targeting low oil prices to kill the new production in North America from shale oil and tar sands. Once they force all those plains state oil operations into bankruptcy, they'll move prices back up.
It seems like they will probably be successful. I am pretty sure I remember reading that $60 per barrel was the point at which these newer oil recovery technologies become profitable.
Won't work (Score:3)
Once they force all those plains state oil operations into bankruptcy, they'll move prices back up.
Such a tactic wouldn't work. Even if they somehow did force the existing shale oil operations into bankruptcy the assets don't go away. They'll just be bought up by some other oil company for pennies on the dollar and when the price of oil goes back up they'll start pumping again. There really would be no long term point in such a strategy. The oil is still there and eventually it will become economical to pump it out of the ground.
Re:Only 30 Grand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the answer is a giant coal power plant, that coal power plant is much more thermally efficient than your Golf TDi. The cold TDi's engine is around 34% efficient (and that's ignoring the fact that a petrol car has a much more significant gear box and transmission than an electric, and hence loses more there, it's likely to only about 15% efficient at the wheels). Meanwhile thermal efficiency for power plants is around 60% and electric cars have thermal efficiencies around 80%, so in total about 48% thermally efficient at the wheels. That is, for the same power, an electric car will burn 3 times less fossil fuels, even if you assume that it is 100% powered by fossil fuel power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Although this begs the question, is it more efficient to burn natural gas, to spin a turbine, to make electricity, to put into a battery to spin a driveshaft; OR would it be better to just burn the natural gas in an ICE on the vehicle itself?
It w
just wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The whole story is a tragedy. Because they were getting so close to release (they were literally just a couple months away from shipping their first units and were flush with cash), the majority stakeholders (Idealab) decided to override the founders and bring in a new management team. So they spent a lot of money on this executive search team, which came up with this guy from Detroit, Paul Wilbur, whose previous career in auto firm management consisted of running two consecutive companies into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.... (Score:3)
What's the 0-60mph times?
Torque can you burn tires with this?
Does it look cool, or just another boring family car?
Like "FROZEN" yogurt (Score:5, Funny)
They will sue, it is Disney.
What's next, suing over the DVD release of Back to the Future because of the lightning "BOLT" harvested for its 1.21 GW of raw chronomeddling power? Even Disney realizes that some lawsuits can be dispensed with in motions for summary judgment. Disney has no more of a case about this than it would have about "FROZEN" yogurt unless it depicts Elsa on the packaging or otherwise implies endorsement. Lawyers would advise Disney to just "LET IT GO".
Re:Price needs to come down (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear-powered car (Score:3)
I'm just as jazzed at the possibility of a nuclear-powered car, or solar or wind for that matter.
That's the "efficient" part of electrics - they run on whatever the current source of power generation is, which means that in 10 years (if every /. story from the last two decades can be believed), you may get to run your Bolt on nuclear fusion. The only differences from Doc's converted DeLorean is that (1) it won't be mounted to your car (2) it won't travel through time (except in the boring, linear, forward-o
Re: (Score:3)
What are you complaining about? For your laptop battery to last 200 miles, you only have to be averaging 50 mph.