Another electric car fail: Nissan Leaf needs 4 charges to go 180 miles [Archive]

c1ue

01-04-12, 01:05 PM

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/12/29/taxpayers-leaf-four-recharging-stops-needed-go-180-miles

Consumer Reports has painted an ugly picture (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably) of the Nissan Leaf, as did an early enthusiast based in Los Angeles, who described his frustrations (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/17/hollywood-liberals-love-ev-everyone-else-not-so-much) with the heavily subsidized, all-electric car in a recent column.Now comes what must be the definitive example of the Leaf’s impracticality – this time from a (still) hard-core advocate, whose 180-mile Tennessee trek to visit family over the holidays required four lengthy stops to keep the vehicle moving.

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, set out from Knoxville on Monday with his wife and son, headed for the Nashville area. His plan (appropriately) was to follow Interstate 40 West, where a series of Cracker Barrel restaurants – equipped (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/03/country-cookin’-can’t-overcome-lengthy-ev-charging-times) with so-called “fast” vehicle chargers (if you want to call 30 minutes or more “fast”) along the route – would provide an electricity security blanket as the Leaf’s charge diminished.

Only problem was, the Leaf’s charge dropped more rapidly than promised. In what has to be a public relations disaster for Nissan, Smith’s EV was unable to travel no farther than 55 miles on any leg of the trip – and for the most part, much less. The company, and its government backers, proclaimed (http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/faq/list/charging#/leaf-electric-car/theBasicsRange/index) the Leaf was “built to go 100 miles on a charge” (large print), with a footnoted disclaimer (small print) that it travels shorter distances (like, 70 miles) if the air conditioning or the heater is used. Turns out even that was an exaggeration.

It was about 35 degrees in the Volunteer State when Smith departed Knoxville on Monday, and Mrs. Smith and his five-year-old son apparently were not willing to forgo heat in order to make the EV cause look good. A trip that should take – according to map Web sites (http://g.co/maps/6sh9g) – less than three hours, ended up lasting six hours for the Smiths because of all the stops they had to make. The approximate intervals where they paused for recharging were as follows:

Knoxville to Harriman: 45 miles
Harriman to Crossville: 31 miles
Crossville to Cookeville: 31 miles
Cookeville to Lebanon: 50 miles
Lebanon to destination in Antioch, just south of Nashville: 22 miles

Hence the Smiths required four recharges in order to travel approximately 180 miles. According to the account (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111226/NEWS01/111226001/Electric-car-gets-better-mileage-from-Crossville-Cookeville?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p) in The Tennessean, they experienced their first “hair-raiser” range anxiety before they even reached Harriman.

“The display on the dashboard of their Nissan LEAF showed a drop in available range from 100 miles to about 50, when they had only traveled about 40 miles,” reported the Gannett-owned newspaper, which also owns USA Today, a cheerleader of all “clean” energy projects regardless of viability.

If the specs promised by Nissan and Leaf advocates were to be believed, the Smiths should have been able to travel about 25-30 miles past Harriman (where it took 20 minutes to boost the battery to 80 percent) before they’d need a recharge, even when using the car heater. But because of the limited availability of so-called “fast chargers” (440 volts, 30 minutes), the intermediate stop was necessary in order to climb the upcoming Cumberland Plateau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_Plateau) and reach the next Cracker Barrel “fast charger” in Crossville. The chargers (which, by the way, don’t work for the Chevy Volt and won’t for many future EVs (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/19/doe-bet-ev-charging-technology-puts-taxpayers-reverse) planned for release) are sparse because they cost $40,000 each, and companies like Ecotality (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/13/how-shaky-obama-bet) apparently can only do so much with the $115 million Department of Energy grant it received to deploy the equipment.

At Crossville, according to The Tennessean (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111226/NEWS01/111226001/Electric-car-gets-better-mileage-from-Crossville-Cookeville?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p), the Smiths’ battery gauge failed them again. The reading at Harriman said they could go another 70 miles, but after 31 miles, the gauge indicated they only had 20 miles of range remaining. Obviously that wasn’t to be trusted.

“It was a little nerve wracking,” Stephen Smith told the Nashville-based newspaper. “I’m finding the range is not 100 percent accurate.”

But heading west from Crossville, according to Smith, would not be as taxing on the Leaf: “Cookeville will be about the same distance but it will be flat or downhill.” It turned out his battery gauge maintained accuracy on that leg of the trip, but when he reached Lebanon (50 miles), he found that the Ecotality “Blink” fast-charger at the Cracker Barrel was, uh, on the blink (he should have known that was possible (http://www.plugincars.com/ecotality-electric-car-charging-leader-hits-snags-107895.html), if not likely). So instead he had to plug in to another slower charger at the restaurant, which took an hour to boost the battery enough (they hoped) to travel the remaining 22 miles to their destination.

The Smiths arrived at their destination in Antioch with what the Leaf told them was six miles of range remaining. All that after an anxiety-filled six-hour trip that was more than twice as long as it would take in a gasoline vehicle, which could probably have been accomplished with a single stop for a bathroom break.

The Smiths’ experience echoed that of a Consumer Reports reviewer (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably) and Los Angeles columnist Rob Eshman (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/17/hollywood-liberals-love-ev-everyone-else-not-so-much), who called his Leaf his “2011 Nissan Solyndra.” Eshman, editor-in-chief of The Jewish Journal, experienced the same gauge inaccuracies and range anxiety that came from traversing hills and mountains and the use of his air conditioning in hot, smoggy L.A.

“My life now revolves around a near-constant calculation of how far I can drive before I’ll have to walk,” Eshman wrote. “The Nissan Leaf, I can report, is perfect if you don’t have enough anxiety in your life.”

Of course, you won’t hear words like that from the lips of passionate “Green” energy advocate Smith, who chalked up the experience (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111227/NEWS11/312270031/Nissan-Leaf-takes-long-journey-Tennessee) to being an “early adopter” and a pioneer.

“It’s good knowing we didn’t use a drop of oil getting down here,” he said. He must have had a similar fuzzy feeling on his return trip (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111229/NEWS21/111229025/Nissan-LEAF-Knoxville-Nashville-trip-mission-accomplished-), which "only" took five hours, since the Lebanon charger was working later in the week.

As for the heavily coal-generated electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority that powered his trip, well, let’s not go there. Let’s just pretend that windmills and solar panels could have just as easily done the trick, if the EPA and Department of Energy would just do their jobs and eliminate all coal power plants and “invest” billions more taxpayer dollars in “renewables” deployment.

As for “why Tennessee” as part of this EV system rollout, you might ask? Thanks be to taxpayers there, also, as Nissan has in its back pocket a $1.4 billion federal loan (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/03/country-cookin’-can’t-overcome-lengthy-ev-charging-times) to retrofit a plant in Smyrna – just outside Nashville – to mass-produce the Leaf. As company CEO Carlos Ghosn has said publicly (http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/24/nissan-exec-promises-record-sales-long-government-incentives-continue), Nissan will produce EVs wherever government will produce the financial incentives.

And that’s what it takes in order for the “Green” energy industry swindle to survive.

01-04-12, 01:59 PM

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/12/29/taxpayers-leaf-four-recharging-stops-needed-go-180-miles

You may recall this from the section in my book The Postcatastrophe Economy: Rebuilding America and Avoiding the Next Bubble (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842638?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwitulipcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1591842638)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwitulipcom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1591842638 on pure electric vehicles:

"Other limitations are heating and cooling the passenger compartment. The passenger compartment of an auto is an especially difficult space to cool: it’s a kind of rolling glass greenhouse with usually dark surfaces inside that collect heat. Car air conditioners have the capacity of home air conditioners. They consume prodigious quantities of energy. For an electric car, that translates into vastly reduced range if the batteries are used to power the A/C in the summer. Heating an electric car in the winter is even worse. It’s equivalent to shorting out the batteries to heat an element to warm the passengers. Having to choose between the heat or running out of power needed to get home from a trip that was not carefully estimated by the driver beforehand is enough to make the electric car a non-starter as a replacement for pure internal combustion or hybrid cars."

I go on to say:

"Motorcycle riders are not heated or cooled. Motorcycles are an ideal application of pure electric power. Santa Cruz, California–based Zero Motorcycles, founded by Neal Saiki, makes the only pure electric motorcycles that are true substitutes for gasoline powered bikes. They are quiet and are screaming fast. With a range of only 60 miles and needing four hours to charge, they are not intended to as sole source of personal transportation."

I bought a Zero S in May 2011. I have gone 60 miles on a charge as advertised but only by avoiding hilly terrain and fast acceleration, and staying on back roads with speed limits of 30MPH or less. Typically I get 40 miles in agressive riding, plenty to get me to meetings in Boston and back from the burbs. The power gauge is highly accurate but the battery recharges in 2.5 not 2 hours with a second charger as advertised.

The new Zero S shipping next month is more promising as a fossil fuel burning motorcycle replacement. It's 40 lbs heavier but range has more than doubled due to an upgraded battery with twice the power density of the old battery, a new power control system, and a power recovery system that has two benefits. One of the drawbacks of the early Zero models is that all braking has to be done with the brakes. The bike coasts like a bicycle rather than a motorcycle that slows when the throttle is turned down and the drive train works against engine cylinder compression. The new Zero S is more like a real motorcycle with motor braking that additionally recharges the battery. The independently verified range is now 114 miles versus 40, meaning you can likely get as much as 130 and in heavy use around 100. That's four hours of average 50MPH riding, longer than riders will want to do at a stretch on a small 340 lb bike without a break when the battery can be topped off anywhere there's a 15AMP 120VAC plug, laptop style. The battery is rated for 3,000 recharge cycles giving the battery a 300,000 mile lifespan.

So, pure electric passenger cars, no. Pure electric vehicles are only viable as fleet delivery vehicles that make short range trips from a single location. But pure electric motorcycles will succeed in the market as battery power density, motor efficiency, and energy recovery improves.

thriftyandboringinohio

01-04-12, 02:03 PM

jpatter666

01-04-12, 02:10 PM

The battery is rated for 3,000 recharge cycles giving the battery a 300,000 mile lifespan.

So, pure electric passenger cars, no. Pure electric vehicles are only viable as fleet delivery vehicles that make short range trips from a single location. But pure electric motorcycles will succeed in the market as battery power density, motor efficiency, and energy recovery improves.

Cool! We saw electric motorbikes all the time in Asia. They made my head swivel in a constant 360 since they were so quiet (and the owners often ran them up on the sidewalks) you hardly knew they were there until they were literally on top of you.

thriftyandboringinohio

01-04-12, 02:21 PM

...they were so quiet (and the owners often ran them up on the sidewalks) you hardly knew they were there until they were literally on top of you.

I've seen this discussed for hybrid and battery autos, they can sneak up on pedestrians. Some advocate little sound makers at the front playing the typical sounds of a standard auto.

thriftyandboringinohio

01-04-12, 02:39 PM

...So, pure electric passenger cars, no. Pure electric vehicles are only viable as fleet delivery vehicles that make short range trips from a single location. But pure electric motorcycles will succeed in the market as battery power density, motor efficiency, and energy recovery improves.

I'm more optimistic about pure electric cars. They might succeed in a niche as short-range urban runabouts where public transportation is lousy (that's all the second tier cities in the US ). If petroleum prices take another leg up, they'll near price parity with gasoline cars.

01-04-12, 02:48 PM

Many years ago we had a similar experience with Chrysler G-Vans in package delivery service.
They were advertised as having a 25 mile range, but were dead as a kipper on a cracker after about 8 miles. Came back to base on a tow truck day after day.
When confronted, advocates finally admitted the max range was only achieved on a test track under highly artificial conditions. Steady speed of about 20 mph, no hills or start-stop, no strong winds...
In actual real -life city traffic in LA, they got about 1/3 of max range.

There just is not much energy in a battery, compared to chemical fuels like gasoline.
Still, a Nissan leaf would do my daily 20 mile commute very nicely.

As I mention in my book, moving vehicles long distances cheaply is all about power density and nothing comes close to gasoline and diesel fuel -- not LNG or ethanol and not batteries of any kind. What the "green" movement people won't admit is that petroleum happens to make the perfect transportation fuel, quite aside from the fact that it was conveniently buried in the ground for us to dig up and burn, a pre-charged liquid battery. This is why I never once use the term "green energy" in my book. It's nonsense. When it comes to energy use for transportation, the only green that matters is money. As petroleum becomes more scarce, transportation will consume an ever larger part of both PCE on the consumer balance sheet and profits on the balance sheets of producers as a production input cost. The only question is the rate of increase and whether the transition is smooth or choppy. My Peak Cheap Oil Cycle theory says: choppy.

thriftyandboringinohio

01-04-12, 03:01 PM

..petroleum happens to make the perfect transportation fuel, quite aside from the fact that it was conveniently buried in the ground for us to dig up and burn, a pre-charged liquid battery. ..

Yup. I spent a few years of my life doing serious technical research on alternative motor fuels and we proved exactly that.
If you sat down and wrote a functional specification for the perfect vehicle fuel, you would describe diesel.

01-04-12, 03:06 PM

Cool! We saw electric motorbikes all the time in Asia. They made my head swivel in a constant 360 since they were so quiet (and the owners often ran them up on the sidewalks) you hardly knew they were there until they were literally on top of you.

The Zero makes enough sound from the drive belt and other components that I've never experienced a startled pedestrian. That said, I'm considerate and don't zip up to pedestrians on crosswalks.

Gasoline motorbike riders often tell me that the quiet electrics are dangerous. This is the "Loud Pipes Save Lives" fallacy. The belief is that auto drivers are more likely to avoid hitting a loud motorbike because they are more aware of the presence of a loud bike. Not so. The auto driver may be aware that there is a loud bike somewhere nearby but if they can't see it they might hit it trying to get away from the noise. Worse, the loud motorcycle driver is making so much noise that he can't hear other vehicles around him, only his own vehicle. He is 100% dependent on locating other vehicles by sight. On an electric you can locate other vehicles both by sight and sound as you can on a bicycle.

The most common phrase heard after a collision between a car and a motorcycle is the car driver's lament: "I didn't see him!" The most important safety consideration for motorcycle riders is to be seen, not heard. Avoid blind spots and wear bright, even garish clothing. My Zero S additionally has ultra-bright LED strips on the sides that make it hard to not see.

01-04-12, 03:11 PM

Yup. I spent a few years of my life doing serious technical research on alternative motor fuels and we proved exactly that.
If you sat down and wrote a functional specification for the perfect vehicle fuel, you would describe diesel.

I drive a BMW 335D (diesel). With a range of 460 miles and real world mileage of 36MPG, BMW 3 Series handling, 0-60 5.6 seconds, is as close a perfect car as I have ever owned.

thriftyandboringinohio

01-04-12, 03:48 PM

I drive a BMW 335D (diesel). With a range of 460 miles and real world mileage of 36MPG, BMW 3 Series handling, 0-60 5.6 seconds, is as close a perfect car as I have ever owned.

Diesel, #2 kerosene, and Jet A are all essentially the same thing. Cars, heavy trucks, jet aircraft and room heaters all run beautifully on this marvelous stuff.
If we weren't running out of it worldwide and choking on the exhaust fumes in some places there would be no reason to seek alternatives.

bill

01-04-12, 07:15 PM

-moving vehicles long distances cheaply is all about power density and nothing comes close to gasoline and diesel fuel -- not LNG .

http://www.joc.com/suppliers/gas-companies-plan-lng-truck-fueling-network

Diesel prices exceeding $4 a gallon are renewing and raising interest in natural gas, which currently sells for about $1.50 to $2 less than diesel, Clean Energy said.
Economists and energy analysts expect more interest innatural gas in years to come, as increasingly volatile markets lead to spikes in oil and fuel prices.
“Natural gas is our ace in the hole,” energy market analyst and University of Calgary professor Philip K. Verleger, Jr., told truckers at the trucking industry SMC3 conference in June (http://www.smc3conference.com/).
“Natural gas will remain below $40 a barrel for years to come,” said Verleger, who has studied oil and other energy commodity markets since the 1970s.
Verleger told SMC3 he expects natural gas to retain its price advantage over diesel for at least a decade.

http://www.ngvjournal.com/en/stations/item/5683-clean-energy-and-chesapeake-team-up-to-develop-150-lng-truck-fuelling-stations-

To support “America’s Natural Gas Highway”
Stations (http://www.itulip.com/en/stations)
12.07.11

Clean Energy and Chesapeake team up to develop 150 LNG truck fuelling stationsThrough its newly formed subsidiary Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation (CNGV), Chesapeake Energy Corporation is investing USD 150 million in Clean Energy Fuels initiative, which is focused on building infrastructure to supply heavy-duty vehicles running on LNG. The stations will help bear the growing transition by major shippers and trucking operators from diesel to natural gas fuel.
http://www.ngvjournal.com/images/stories/flexicontent/l_estadosunidos-cleanenergy_chesepeakeweb-12jul.jpg

With this major alliance, both Clean Energy and Chesapeake aim to accelerate the development of “America’s Natural Gas Highway”, an important fuelling network that will involve the opening of about 150 LNG stations, located at strategic truck-stop locations along interstate corridors in the United States.

“This new initiative is in addition to our growing development program of stations serving local fleets in the refuse, transit, airport, municipal and regional trucking markets around the country,” explained Andrew J. Littlefair, president and CEO of Clean Energy.

Many of the fuelling stations will be co-located at Pilot-Flying J Travel Centers already serving goods movement trucking across the country. Clean Energy has an agreement with privately held Pilot Travel Centers LLC of Knoxville (http://www.itulip.com/en/stations/item/2784-clean-energy-to-install-truck-fuelling-facilities-) (Tennessee) to build, own and operate public access, compressed and liquefied natural gas fuelling facilities at agreed-upon Pilot-Flying J locations.

Source: Clean Energy Fuels / Chesapeake Energy Corporation

thriftyandboringinohio

01-04-12, 10:41 PM

In one of our studies we ran 10 LNG buses in service in Houston. The engines run very well on LNG and emissions are low. However....
It's a cryogenic fluid. Boil-off is an issue if the vehicle stands over a weekend. There is also the practical safety concern that it is a colorless odorless gas.
Our little fleet had one explosion, we were lucky and no one was hurt.
The energy to refrigerate the gas is substantial and should be considered in any fair accounting of costs. So should fuel taxes, which are today only applied to diesel and gasoline.

Despite these drawbacks, I'm supportive of LNG and all the other viable alternate fuels (propane, methanol, ethanol..) because they give us options and can help wean us off petroleum.
We must be honest, though, about the true total costs and drawbacks.
One should look up the definition of BLEVE and admit the possibility for LNG and propane.

Here's a good video of one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xf3WKTwHpIU

01-05-12, 09:08 AM

My family has a Altima Hybrid - and anyone who drives a Hybrid could tell you that an all electric car just isn't practical

The Altima Hybrid required approximately 25,000 miles of use before the Hybrid battery began to work efficiently and deliver 31-35 MPG of performance. The Altima has a 20 gallon tank and will take you 600-700 miles depending on your driving style/terrain/and heating needs.

Our Hybrid seems to run an A/C cooling unit without impacting MPG performance. Winter is the challenge for the Hybrid and keeping the cabin heated will negatively impact the Mileage because the source of heat is the engine.

Electric cars are a classic demonstration of an illusion presented by Politicians without any care for the facts of science. Until, there is some massive break through in Battery technology - pursuing an all electric car is idiotic. Why can't we society be happy improving the hybrid and crating a Diesel powered hybrid as mentioned in EJ latest book would be a fantastic step. We spend the bulk of our weekend travel in our Hybrid and we love the gas mileage.

The Political class loves to get society hooked on impossible goals that defy reality and science.

The best part of buying the Altima a $3200 Tax credit - right off the top of our Tax bill for 2010.

c1ue

01-05-12, 01:44 PM

You may recall this from the section in my book The Postcatastrophe Economy: Rebuilding America and Avoiding the Next Bubble (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842638?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwitulipcom-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=1591842638)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwitulipcom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1591842638 on pure electric vehicles:

Indeed.

The conclusions in the PostCatastrophe Economy are quite reasonable, the problem is that actual policy being carried out seems based more on hype and subsidies to lobbying corporations than any coherent objective goal.

As time goes by, stories such as the listed electric car experience are only reinforcing points which you, I, and many others have repeated futilely and ad nauseam.

I do not expect this situation to change.

I bought a Zero S in May 2011. I have gone 60 miles on a charge as advertised but only by avoiding hilly terrain and fast acceleration, and staying on back roads with speed limits of 30MPH or less. Typically I get 40 miles in agressive riding, plenty to get me to meetings in Boston and back from the burbs. The power gauge is highly accurate but the battery recharges in 2.5 not 2 hours with a second charger as advertised.

Indeed, I also have a shorter ranged but equally positive experience with an electric scooter.

However, the problems with the scooter are very similar to that of electric motorcycles: safety and convenience.

Ultimately were either of our vehicles gasoline, the relative economy would just just as pronounced - motorcycles can routinely achieve 100+ mpg. This would fix the convenience aspect while the safety aspect will never go away.

As petroleum becomes more scarce, transportation will consume an ever larger part of both PCE on the consumer balance sheet and profits on the balance sheets of producers as a production input cost. The only question is the rate of increase and whether the transition is smooth or choppy. My Peak Cheap Oil Cycle theory says: choppy.

Indeed, and the equation in the US is much more disturbing because the sheer distances involved both due to population (lack of) density and the inland transportation network/distribution network mean a very high level of intrinsic transportation fuel consumption irregardless of price.

The best part of buying the Altima a $3200 Tax credit - right off the top of our Tax bill for 2010.

Hybrids are fine vehicles, but even with the tax credit are far from economical.

The Altima Hybrid 2011 costs $26,800 of which the tax credit returned a bit under 12%, and has a rated 35/33 mpg.

The Altima non-Hybrid 2011 costs $20,270 but is has both a significantly more powerful engine (175 hp vs. hybrid 148 hp) with a worse mpg in city driving (23/33).

However, beyond the horsepower, there are significant differences between the 2 vehicles:

<tbody>

Gasoline
Hybrid

* Width
70.7 in.
70.7 in.

* Height
58.0 in.
58.3 in.

* Length
190.7 in.
190.7 in.

* Ground clearance
5.4 in.
5.8 in.

* Front track
61.0 in.
61.0 in.

* Rear track
61.0 in.
61.0 in.

* Wheel base
109.3 in.
109.3 in.

* Cargo capacity, all seats in place
15.3 cu.ft.

10.1 cu.ft.

* EPA interior volume

116.0 cu.ft.
110.8 cu.ft.

* Gross weight
4279 lbs.

4537 lbs.

* Drag Coefficient
0.31 Cd
0.31 Cd

* Curb weight
3180 lbs.

3470 lbs.

</tbody>

The Hybrid is both heavier and less interior volume available, as well as a smaller engine. The smaller engine compensates for the greater weight, presumably.

Even taking into account the tax credit, and assuming 100% city driving, the price difference would take more than 64000 miles of city driving in order to equalize out of pocket cost (calculated at $3.5/gallon).

In other words, you don't get the value of the extra $3,330 spent via improved mpg until you've driven well over 64000 city miles.

California uses a 55 city/45 highway ratio for its calculations - a similar ratio for an average 15000 miles driven per year in the US yields a payback period of 7 years and 8 months.

Hardly a slam dunk.

01-05-12, 02:08 PM

c1ue

01-05-12, 02:17 PM

Nissan Altima - purchase was because we drive lots of miles per year - 21,000-22,000 and we keep cars until there is nothing left. The car that our Altima replaces was a 1996 Nissan with 204,000 miles.

I certainly hope it works out for you. Unlike the 1996 Nissan, there is the issue with battery pack deterioration.

More fun with hybrids: besides a class action suit by Honda hybrid owners, this person is suing because her 2006 hybrid's mpg rating was falling already by 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gFGPnswvepM#!

jpatter666

01-05-12, 02:18 PM

Nissan Altima - purchase was because we drive lots of miles per year - 21,000-22,000 and we keep cars until there is nothing left. The car that our Altima replaces was a 1996 Nissan with 204,000 miles.

The EPA Highway number doesn't do a good job of considering how advantageous a Hybrid is for East Coast summer traffic jams.

Having a car with a range of 600-750 gallons (no external tanks required) is simply awesome. Have you ever own a car with this kind of range????

One summer we headed for Rhode Island and opted to take our conventional i35 instead of the hybrid. This 6 hour journey was full of lots of stop and go traffic, on ramps and off ramps, and lots of city driving when we reached our destination. EPA numbers are as useful as the number put out by the Feds on inflation.

I had a Honda CRX HF in college. 50mpg and this was the late 80s.

I clearly remember a trip down to Florida for Spring Break. A Porsche blew by us on the way down. A few hours later, Porsche blows by again, this time honking as they recognized the car.

The *third* time the Porsche came up, they drove next to us with some serious stares for some time trying to ascertain if this was the same car.

I fondly remember that car -- for a poor college kid it was great. I do recall having to use third gear to get up any decent mountains/hills however......

01-05-12, 02:33 PM

My experiences with Nissan over the last ten years have been terrific.

When our Infiniti i35 had 135,000 and was 7 years old we had engine trouble - the fix was engine sensors that cost me $500 installed. I called Nissan, faxed the receipt, and they mailed me a check that very week.

BTW- what was my alternative to buy one of those self accelerating Prius hybrids death mobiles.... ;-)

davidstvz

01-05-12, 03:23 PM

I got a 2010 Altima... I really liked the CVT, but I wish there were more options like that Honda CRX-HF I just read about. I have a bad habit of accelerating as fast as the car will allow me to and I know that wastes some gas. Oh well, the car is fully paid off and I'm going to hang onto it until the wheels fall off. I do very little driving... 9,000 miles a year so far and that includes a 1,000 mile road trip, several 200 mile round trips to my parents house, and several 100 mile round trips to practice with my band once every few weeks. In my "normal" life, I probably only do 6,000 a year... and I just moved 30% closer to where I work.

lakedaemonian

01-05-12, 03:59 PM

I had a Honda CRX HF in college. 50mpg and this was the late 80s.

I clearly remember a trip down to Florida for Spring Break. A Porsche blew by us on the way down. A few hours later, Porsche blows by again, this time honking as they recognized the car.

The *third* time the Porsche came up, they drove next to us with some serious stares for some time trying to ascertain if this was the same car.

I fondly remember that car -- for a poor college kid it was great. I do recall having to use third gear to get up any decent mountains/hills however......

In conversations I have with friends about things like fuel economy.....I often refer to the Honda CRX HF.

I reckon it all comes down to weight.

Compare the 80's CRX HF with a current Honda Civic hatchback......all that extra weight to carry around can't be an easy mountain for engineers focused on fuel economy to climb.

It would be great to see a car made out of affordable mass volume carbon fibre with the WEIGHT of an 80's Honda CRX HF, the SAFETY of a current car(at least "one-off" accident safety), and a modern, high fuel efficiency small displacement diesel engine......target 1500 pounds...half the average weight of current cars.

100 MPG would be EASY.

We've owned a 2nd hand Prius....good car....great fuel economy....but I don't like it's complexity....mechanical/electrical failures can be incredibly expensive....we sold it before it had an inevitable catastrophic($) failure.

My wife now drives a Nissan March.....a bit less fuel economy.....but substantially simpler car(and good safety rating)

I drive a Mitsubishi Triton diesel ute/pickup if I'm not on a motorbike......I get roughly double the fuel economy of a US petrol pickup truck.

charliebrown

01-05-12, 04:14 PM

and I just moved 30% closer to where I work.

+1 on that one.

If we would restore the employer/employee relationship, where we could work long term for a single employer, I would move 3 miles away. (That is the closest affordable housing). Not only does it save gas, it saves a ton of time. I currently live 13 miles away, but will not move closer because you never know how much time you have left.

If .gov would let housing crash, maybe all the people who moved to ex-urbia because it is the only place they can afford to live, would move closer to their jobs too.

Cash for clunkers destroyed a lot of vehicles that short commuters would love to own. My cube mate only lives 3 miles away. He could drive a hummer here, and use less gas than a prius drive from my house.
Think of your aunt Millie who loves big sedans and only drives on Sunday.

c1ue

01-05-12, 04:50 PM

BTW- what was my alternative to buy one of those self accelerating Prius hybrids death mobiles.... ;-)

It all depends on what your motivation for buying the Hybrid was.

If it was saving the environment, it is thoroughly unclear if the net lifetime energy expenditure of the hybrid is in any way less than a comparable non-hybrid vehicle.

If it was saving money via higher mpg - again the equation is rather murky, even with the tax credit.

If it was to lock in your fuel costs by pre-paying a big chunk of it up front - the hybrids/EVs are best in this category.

And of course, there is fashion.

I really liked the CVT, but I wish there were more options like that Honda CRX-HF I just read about.

The problem I have with a CRX-HF is the same problem I have with riding a motorcycle: your chance of getting killed and/or injured due to other bad drivers or even just bad luck are greatly increased.

As I've noted many times, injuries in motor vehicle accidents are a direct function of the energy split between the 2 vehicles. A driver in a gigantic truck which weighs 3x as much as the small economy car, in a collision with same will experience less than 1/4 the energy if 'only' 1/3 the force.

For a motorcycle vs. the average car, the energy/force difference is more like 10x/5x.

Of course, if we really needed to conserve gasoline, all we have to do is driver slower: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/21399-How-to-reduce-gas-consumption-75-with-zero-capital-investment?p=219022#post219022

lakedaemonian

01-06-12, 01:12 AM

While it's not worth debating the physics of ACCIDENTS...it's also not worth debating the physics of ENERGY REQUIRED to move a vehicle weighing 2 tons compared with a vehicle that weighs only 1 ton.

Private vehicle sizes/weights have yo-yo'd in the last 40 years...up, down, up.

Motorcycles, on average, have exploded in size/weight and displacement/power as well...to the point where a "small" motorbike today is roughly the displacement/weight/size of the largest motorbikes made in the 1960's.

Vehicles like the Ford Excursion and Hummer are like species that went extinct because they failed to adapt to a changing environment.

I suspect those two models are much like canaries in the coal mine....and will be followed by possibly quite a few other less fuel efficient models over time.

While I agree that safety is a BIG issue for many in choosing to go with a larger, less fuel efficient car over a smaller, lighter more fuel efficient car.....I think that cost/benefit relationship will change, substantially for many by the end of this decade.

Motorcycling is still mostly a leisure activity in the west...it could potentially return as a genuine means of transport again for a small but fast growing minority.

But I suspect the "answer" will be lightweight carbon fibre uber efficient diesels(at least outside the US where large private fleets of diesel vehicles exist).

I think it ties in really well with what's been discussed on iTulip with inflation via declining quality/quantity.

In the case of private cars and motorbikes, I believe it will include a big chunk of lower quantity/weight.

We are already seeing a distinct change in consumer behavior within the industry as they shift down a gear economically.....and design focus moving forward is focusing increasingly on developing market/smaller displacement vehicles.

I think the safety concerns will fade a bit with decreasing discretionary income and transportation afffordability....people will suck it up.....what choice will they have?

I can easily envisage a LOT of 1-2L diesel cars and 500-750cc commuter motorcycles.........electric motorbikes are an interesting field.....I would agree with EJ it is likely to gain far more traction far more quickly in motorbikes than in cars.

Unfortunately, the motorbike industry seems to be shining a bit too much light on things like lightweight motorbikes powered by scuba tank compressed air...I reckon that's a dry hole if I ever saw one.

c1ue

01-07-12, 12:17 PM

Vehicles like the Ford Excursion and Hummer are like species that went extinct because they failed to adapt to a changing environment.

I dunno about you, but I still see quite a number of these on the road. And more importantly, I still see huge numbers of SUVs like Explorers, personal vans, F250 and above type pickup trucks with no dirt on them anywhere, and so forth. This ignores all the delivery trucks, the 18 wheelers shipping to warehouse stores, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to be able to drive a small, fuel efficient car. My first car, a Datsun 210 station wagon, was an eggshell with a hamster under the hood. It was great fun, was reliable, had excellent gas mileage (for the time), but I'd never drive something like that today. Put in a modern diesel engine and no doubt the fuel economy would increase 50% or more.

Before that happens again, I'd want to see some type of segregation by vehicle weight and/or speed on major roads where speed becomes a deadly factor.

lakedaemonian

01-08-12, 04:46 PM

I dunno about you, but I still see quite a number of these on the road. And more importantly, I still see huge numbers of SUVs like Explorers, personal vans, F250 and above type pickup trucks with no dirt on them anywhere, and so forth. This ignores all the delivery trucks, the 18 wheelers shipping to warehouse stores, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to be able to drive a small, fuel efficient car. My first car, a Datsun 210 station wagon, was an eggshell with a hamster under the hood. It was great fun, was reliable, had excellent gas mileage (for the time), but I'd never drive something like that today. Put in a modern diesel engine and no doubt the fuel economy would increase 50% or more.

Before that happens again, I'd want to see some type of segregation by vehicle weight and/or speed on major roads where speed becomes a deadly factor.

I'm in the US a few times a year...and admittedly, unnecessary big vehicles still seem to be in huge abundance up there.

Way down here in NZ, where incomes are relatively lower and fuel prices are relatively higher.....the number of unnecessary big vehicles is far lower in my opinion....lots of reasons for that....but it could be a VERY rough indicator of where the US could be a bit down the track when it comes to personal transportation.

There was some limited niche media attention on the rising resale values of those old/small/fuel efficient cars like CRX HF, Geo Metro, etc. that are still road worthy....but I would guess it's all bottom of the market stuff.

I reckon most folks feel the same as you(I do as well...as soon as our first child was born I went out and bought a 2nd hand Merc S Class..the epitome of big/safe).

Terrible fuel economy, but we could afford it....what got us was the difficulty for my wife parking in "shrinking" parking spaces and the increasing comments she received about the car and what people perceived of her in driving it.

But as people get squeezed between rising energy prices and little to no wage inflation....some choices will have to be made....and I think those choices will include less consideration for perceived safety and more consideration towards fuel efficiency, affordability, and total cost of ownership.

You can't argue against the laws of crash physics......but you can't escape average future family finances either.

The one thing I do expect to see is some bigger commercial vehicles.....I doubt fuel efficiency of rail will be able to be leveraged TOO much moving forward as so much track has been irreparably removed...so I think we will see a push for greater economy of scale/fuel efficiency with commercial road vehicles pushing boundaries for lowering the cost of moving a KG/kilometer or pound/mile.....more cantilevered road trains.

shiny!

01-08-12, 05:46 PM

lakedaemonian

01-09-12, 06:04 PM

Be careful, EJ. Oblivious "cage drivers" abound. My husband wore a reflective green safety vest when he rode and they still didn't see him. Twice. My scooter gets 88 mpg, but I don't dare ride it anymore.

Why can't we get the same high mileage diesel engines in the U.S. that they have in Europe? I got a 2012 Hyundai Accent hatchback. It gets about 38-40 hwy and 33-35 mixed city/hwy. I hear there are diesels in Europe that get over 50 mpg. I would love something like that. The only diesel cars here that I'm aware of are the VW's, but they're expensive and prone to expensive engine repairs.

I miss my '86 Crown Vic. After Cash for Clunkers parts got hard to find.

I THINK the reason for the lack of diesel powered cars compared to Europe/Australasia/elsewhere might be partly due to refining infrastructure/capacity?

There are some great cars available in Europe/Australasia that supposedly get 70+ MPG(depending on how you measure fuel economy)....but at least an honest 60MPG...all baby diesels.

As far as riding motorbikes goes......meh.......nothing fun or worth doing in life comes without some degree of risk.....you can mitigate the risk of riding motorbikes thru the aforementioned hi-viz clothing......new safety gear.....defensive rider training...and constant situational awareness.....learning how to quick stop/evade risk on a motorbike is a critical skillset.....especially in the wet.

I believe riding a motorbike makes you a better(or at least more cautious/respectful driver) car/truck driver.

I'm a believer in motorbikes making a BIT of noise as well(but nothing obnoxious).....I would disagree with EJ that a noisy motorbike impairs the rider's hearing or distracts other drivers.

One problem I would have with the electric motorbikes is their NOT making enough noise......I would NOT want to be riding one and sitting in a driver's blindspot.

shiny!

01-10-12, 11:31 AM

I THINK the reason for the lack of diesel powered cars compared to Europe/Australasia/elsewhere might be partly due to refining infrastructure/capacity?

There are some great cars available in Europe/Australasia that supposedly get 70+ MPG(depending on how you measure fuel economy)....but at least an honest 60MPG...all baby diesels.

As far as riding motorbikes goes......meh.......nothing fun or worth doing in life comes without some degree of risk.....you can mitigate the risk of riding motorbikes thru the aforementioned hi-viz clothing......new safety gear.....defensive rider training...and constant situational awareness.....learning how to quick stop/evade risk on a motorbike is a critical skillset.....especially in the wet.

I believe riding a motorbike makes you a better(or at least more cautious/respectful driver) car/truck driver.

I'm a believer in motorbikes making a BIT of noise as well(but nothing obnoxious).....I would disagree with EJ that a noisy motorbike impairs the rider's hearing or distracts other drivers.

One problem I would have with the electric motorbikes is their NOT making enough noise......I would NOT want to be riding one and sitting in a driver's blindspot.

Yeah, I want one of those 60+ MPG diesels.

When it comes to bikes, the problem with car drivers is they don't "see" what they aren't looking for. I've talked to numerous motorcycle cops who all tell me the same thing: many car drivers simply don't "see" bikes even when they're looking right at them. They're looking for other cars, and the bikes just don't register in their brains. Add to this unawareness cell phone usage, medications, loud radios and other distractions, and it's very dangerous.

If you have a bike, get a LOUD horn.

Prazak

01-10-12, 01:30 PM

I THINK the reason for the lack of diesel powered cars compared to Europe/Australasia/elsewhere might be partly due to refining infrastructure/capacity?

I think it's due to tax policy. My unscientific observation within Europe is that diesel is always cheaper at the pump than unleaded. Not a lot cheaper, EUR1.40 instead of 1.50 per liter. Since fuels are taxed so heavily in Europe I've always assumed the difference at the pump is a policy decision to tax diesel slightly more lightly than unleaded, creating demand that manufacturers supply. In the U.S. it seems that diesel is always twenty cents or so more at the pump.

In France my Ford Galaxy TDI minivan, seating seven, gets 44 MPG on the highway once all the conversions are made from kilometers to miles, Euros to Dollars, liters to gallons. In the U.S. my Honda Odyssey gets 21 MPG on the highway. I often bemoan the fact that Ford doesn't offer the Galaxy in the U.S., let alone a TDI version. Next year they'll bring the C-Max over from Europe, but rather than offer a diesel version, as they do in Europe, they will introduce it as a hybrid. Fortunately automakers, particularly the Germans, are slowly beginning to introduce more diesels into the U.S. market (the Audi Q3 is one that I'm keeping an eye on).

lektrode

01-22-12, 04:43 PM

OH BOY!!
this is a good one (mr c1ue, you've done it again ;) - we even get EJ for 'no extra charge' - but why is it eye always find em just as i've burnt up my allottment of 'tulip time for the day!?

back later when have more time, since, as some might guess, these kind are my faves (well... sides gold, the political economy, crony capitalist exposez and general campaign muckraking), but have to take advantage of the wx oppty of the moment, so TA TA for now!

lakedaemonian

03-18-14, 04:52 AM

You may recall this from the section in my book The Postcatastrophe Economy: Rebuilding America and Avoiding the Next Bubble (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842638?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwitulipcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1591842638)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwitulipcom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1591842638 on pure electric vehicles:

"Other limitations are heating and cooling the passenger compartment. The passenger compartment of an auto is an especially difficult space to cool: it’s a kind of rolling glass greenhouse with usually dark surfaces inside that collect heat. Car air conditioners have the capacity of home air conditioners. They consume prodigious quantities of energy. For an electric car, that translates into vastly reduced range if the batteries are used to power the A/C in the summer. Heating an electric car in the winter is even worse. It’s equivalent to shorting out the batteries to heat an element to warm the passengers. Having to choose between the heat or running out of power needed to get home from a trip that was not carefully estimated by the driver beforehand is enough to make the electric car a non-starter as a replacement for pure internal combustion or hybrid cars."

I go on to say:

"Motorcycle riders are not heated or cooled. Motorcycles are an ideal application of pure electric power. Santa Cruz, California–based Zero Motorcycles, founded by Neal Saiki, makes the only pure electric motorcycles that are true substitutes for gasoline powered bikes. They are quiet and are screaming fast. With a range of only 60 miles and needing four hours to charge, they are not intended to as sole source of personal transportation."

I bought a Zero S in May 2011. I have gone 60 miles on a charge as advertised but only by avoiding hilly terrain and fast acceleration, and staying on back roads with speed limits of 30MPH or less. Typically I get 40 miles in agressive riding, plenty to get me to meetings in Boston and back from the burbs. The power gauge is highly accurate but the battery recharges in 2.5 not 2 hours with a second charger as advertised.

The new Zero S shipping next month is more promising as a fossil fuel burning motorcycle replacement. It's 40 lbs heavier but range has more than doubled due to an upgraded battery with twice the power density of the old battery, a new power control system, and a power recovery system that has two benefits. One of the drawbacks of the early Zero models is that all braking has to be done with the brakes. The bike coasts like a bicycle rather than a motorcycle that slows when the throttle is turned down and the drive train works against engine cylinder compression. The new Zero S is more like a real motorcycle with motor braking that additionally recharges the battery. The independently verified range is now 114 miles versus 40, meaning you can likely get as much as 130 and in heavy use around 100. That's four hours of average 50MPH riding, longer than riders will want to do at a stretch on a small 340 lb bike without a break when the battery can be topped off anywhere there's a 15AMP 120VAC plug, laptop style. The battery is rated for 3,000 recharge cycles giving the battery a 300,000 mile lifespan.

So, pure electric passenger cars, no. Pure electric vehicles are only viable as fleet delivery vehicles that make short range trips from a single location. But pure electric motorcycles will succeed in the market as battery power density, motor efficiency, and energy recovery improves.

http://gas2.org/2014/03/16/first-9-days-life-2014-zero-sr/

Interesting review on the new Zero SR

lakedaemonian

06-19-14, 02:10 AM

Major motorcycle manufacturer, and the last one you would expect(Harley-Davidson), is joining the pure electric motorcycle market:

http://project.harley-davidson.com/

http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/harley-davidson-livewire-photos/

don

06-23-14, 09:05 AM

<header id="story-header" class="story-header" style="position: relative; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Whispering Harleys

By DEXTER FORD<time class="dateline" datetime="2014-06-19" style="font-size: 0.6875rem; line-height: 0.75rem; font-family: nyt-cheltenham-sh, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-left: 12px;">JUNE 19, 2014</time>

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/06/22/automobiles/22harley-slides-slide-BSHF/22harley-slides-slide-BSHF-jumbo.jpg</header><figure class="media slideshow promo lede layout-large-horizontal" id="slideshow-100000002953403" data-media-action="modal" aria-label="media" role="group" itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemid="http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/06/22/automobiles/22harley-slides-slide-BSHF/22harley-slides-slide-BSHF-jumbo.jpg" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" style="margin: 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; width: 555px; float: left; clear: left;">
Harley’s Electric Prototyp

</figure>

Sales of electric motorcycles are just a tiny slice of a market that totals about 370,000 road-legal motorcycles a year in the United States, but Harley-Davidson, the proudly American maker of rumbling, brawny heavyweights, is hinting that it would like to change that.

On June 24, the Milwaukee-based company will introduce its Project LiveWire Experience, a traveling event that will offer licensed riders a chance to try an electric Harley. The program, for which some 30 prototype electric motorcycles were built, heads from New York to Chicago and will then work its way along Route 66 to Santa Monica, Calif., stopping at dealerships and other locations along the way. Details on scheduling and sites are available at project.harley-davidson.com (http://project.harley-davidson.com/).

Harley-Davidson is certainly not the obvious candidate to lead the movement toward a whisper-quiet, electron-motivated future. The 111-year-old company has thrived by selling a line consisting mainly of retro-style bikes that recall models from a half-century ago.

In recent years, though, the downturn and the inevitable aging of its boomer customers made it clear that survival would depend on more diverse market appeal. The company recently introduced two smaller, more modern models, the Street 500 and Street 750, designed to appeal to younger customers around the world.

The LiveWire Project is the next major effort, and one that could put Harley ahead of its global competitors in the race to make a commercially successful electric machine. American companies like Zero and Brammo have introduced innovative and attractive bikes, but the high price of lithium-ion batteries and the small number of brand dealerships has limited growth.

Harley-Davidson says it has no plans at this time to produce and sell the LiveWire to the public. Still, it has clearly made a significant investment in bringing the prototypes up to the expected levels of style, performance and finish necessary before letting the public try them (and then splashing their impressions all over the Internet).

The goal, Harley said, was to create a machine with the personality and desirability that existing electric motorcycles lack.

“It’s ultimately a challenge about whether riding an electric motorcycle can be an emotional experience or only a rational one,” Mark-Hans Richer, Harley-Davidson’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer, said.

“To be a true Harley, it has to have character,” Mr. Richer said. “It has to be cool. It has to make you feel something important about yourself.”

Mr. Richer added that a static display of the bike was not sufficient. “We didn’t want this sitting on a turntable somewhere, with an attractive model standing around handing out brochures,” he said.

The LiveWire was designed and developed in Harley-Davidson’s Wauwatosa, Wis., product development center and hand-built in the center’s basement.

Harley is not disclosing the range, power, acceleration or top speed of the experimental LiveWire machines.

“We’re not getting into spec wars at this time,” Mr. Richer said. “The point is how you feel riding it.”

As it happens, the character of an electric bike aligns well with the expectations of Harley customers, who are used to engines that cruise happily at low r.p.m.

“An electric motor creates a lot of low-end torque,” Mr. Richer said. “We find people very pleasantly surprised by that.”

The demonstration bikes will be charged using 240-volt Level 2 chargers, taking about 3.5 hours to fully replenish the battery pack, according to Jeff Richlen, chief engineer of product development.

While he would not reveal the capacity of the lithium-ion battery pack, the charging time and the motorcycle’s overall weight of 460 pounds suggest a pack of 12 to 14 kilowatt-hours — a little less than a Chevrolet Volt.

The silent operation of electric motorcycles is an attraction to many customers, but in this respect, as in so many other areas, Harley-Davidson has gone its own way. The electric motor, which can be seen as a machined-aluminum cylinder under the bike, is positioned fore-and-aft. The gears it uses to send power to a single-speed transmission are intentionally designed to make a distinctive sound. The final drive to the wheel is by a belt, typical of gasoline Harleys.

“It sounds like a turbine when you are on the bike,” Mr. Richlen said. “And from the side, as it goes past, it sounds like a jet.”

seobook

08-04-14, 01:47 AM

shiny!

08-04-14, 11:20 AM

And, the trend is ...

Trucks, SUVs boost US auto sales (http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/08/02/auto-sales-rise-led-suvs-and-trucks/Rx1LHTrGRzSYxCvc50ZDhI/story.html)

"Sport utility vehicles are back, and last month, they helped bolster nationwide sales across the auto industry.
...
July marked the 11th straight month that SUVs and trucks have outsold cars, according to Edmunds.com, the longest streak since 2005."

When we should be conserving and hoarding every drop of oil for the next generation, wasteful gas guzzlers continue to outsell fuel-efficient little cars. All because of two things:

regulations that allow SUVs to circumvent MPG requirements of cars,

and people who should know better lying to Americans about the extent of our unconventional oil reserves.

The waste will continue until the music stops, then everyone will say, "no one could have seen this coming."

Slimprofits

08-04-14, 10:00 PM

Milton Kuo

08-04-14, 10:15 PM

Everyone that I've ever asked that doesn't actually haul anything around (obviously not a scientific poll) says they drive those big ass SUVs and trucks because it makes them feel safer, being "higher up". I call BS on this and would wager that it's an ingenious line invented in a marketing department that consumer quickly learned to parrot.

I believe those people you've spoken to are telling the truth. If you have to get into an accident, it's better to be in an M-1 Abrams tank than a Mini Cooper. Also, SUVs seems to beget more SUVs. As more SUVs are in the fleet, it becomes more difficult to see around these cars. The only solution for some people is to drive a car that is even bigger and higher up off the ground.

I really thought that once gasoline stayed at $3+/gallon that these things would be gone for good or would at least be carrying four or more passengers. A small consolation is that many of these things actually get halfway decent gas mileage these days.

lakedaemonian

08-04-14, 11:41 PM

Milton Kuo

08-05-14, 01:07 AM

Surely at some stage those "petrol insurance premiums"(paying more to feel safer) will become untenable with the biggest of vehicles for average folks.

Don't hold your breath. When the SUVs first started sprouting up like mushrooms in 1998 and $0.899/gallon gasoline, I hoping the SUV thing was a fad and would go away. I'm still waiting for it to go away. As for average people being priced out, the housing bubble has made abundantly clear to me that Americans would rather die than give up their "stuff." I suspect many people would rather live out of their land barges than drive something smaller.

This talk of "stuff" and unnecessarily big cars reminds me of something I heard a few weeks ago: "It's amazing how much money you can make off of poor people." Even after being here on iTulip for a few years now, that comment was still a revelation to me. Evidently, it is possible to squeeze blood out of rocks! :)

lakedaemonian

08-05-14, 02:17 AM

seobook

08-05-14, 02:36 AM

I believe those people you've spoken to are telling the truth. If you have to get into an accident, it's better to be in an M-1 Abrams tank than a Mini Cooper. Also, SUVs seems to beget more SUVs. As more SUVs are in the fleet, it becomes more difficult to see around these cars. The only solution for some people is to drive a car that is even bigger and higher up off the ground.

I really thought that once gasoline stayed at $3+/gallon that these things would be gone for good or would at least be carrying four or more passengers. A small consolation is that many of these things actually get halfway decent gas mileage these days.

About twelve years ago I was turning on a corner where it was about a 120 degree corner. A lovely SUV was (likely illegally?) parked right on the corner, so there was no way to actually make the turn and stay in the lane without smashing that SUV. Someone who was in the other lane coming the other way was a fairly aloof driver and was hugging the center line. I did my best to stop while hoping to not get rear ended, nonetheless a 1 inch paint scratch = a $600 fail for me. Ever since that day I've looked down on tinted window SUVs parked on the corner.

As long as the SUV doesn't tip over they are likely safer, but if you flip then all that weight which was working for you suddenly starts working against you. And momentum being what it is, they are harder to stop to avoid accidents from happening.

When the SUVs first started sprouting up like mushrooms in 1998 and $0.899/gallon gasoline, I hoping the SUV thing was a fad and would go away. I'm still waiting for it to go away. As for average people being priced out, the housing bubble has made abundantly clear to me that Americans would rather die than give up their "stuff."
I think so much of this is a failure to connect A to B. The problem is not seen as the gas consumption, but the gas price itself. It being "expensive" is a temporary condition.

"It's amazing how much money you can make off of poor people."
I think Don posted a link here a week or two back to a NYTimes article about subprime auto loans that echoed subprime mortgages.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/in-a-subprime-bubble-for-used-cars-unfit-borrowers-pay-sky-high-rates/

like subprime mortgages before the financial crisis, many subprime auto loans are bundled into complex bonds and sold as securities by banks to insurance companies, mutual funds and public pension funds — a process that creates ever-greater demand for loans.
not only are some of the loans for cars at inflated prices, but now all sorts of junk fees are being added into the auto loans
http://online.wsj.com/articles/gm-financial-says-justice-department-subpoenaed-documents-1407165787

In June, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency noted that the average amount of an auto loan was greater than the value of the car during the fourth quarter of 2013, as lenders bundled the costs of extended warranties, credit life insurance and dealer-installed accessories into contracts.

that last quote was from a recent article about the US DoJ investigating subprime loans from 2007.

plenty of advertising and marketing and salesmen promoting the value of those junk add ons, but who makes money when pitching the counter view? nobody. that's why it's only at iTulip (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/634-How-Much-of-Your-Car-Should-You-Finance-Zero-percent). ;)

nobody could have seen it coming TM

"The Jones'(average American consumers) can consume longer than you can remain prudent(or sane?)."
perhaps add to that ... and when the music ends, you'll be footing the bill. :D

Ghent12

08-09-14, 11:58 AM

Don't hold your breath. When the SUVs first started sprouting up like mushrooms in 1998 and $0.899/gallon gasoline, I hoping the SUV thing was a fad and would go away. I'm still waiting for it to go away. As for average people being priced out, the housing bubble has made abundantly clear to me that Americans would rather die than give up their "stuff." I suspect many people would rather live out of their land barges than drive something smaller.

This talk of "stuff" and unnecessarily big cars reminds me of something I heard a few weeks ago: "It's amazing how much money you can make off of poor people." Even after being here on iTulip for a few years now, that comment was still a revelation to me. Evidently, it is possible to squeeze blood out of rocks! :)
Many Americans might be poor by American standards, but all Americans, even the homeless, are uber-rich compared to other standards. Wealth can be defined in absolute terms or relative terms and everyone would do well to maintain an objective perspective on the subject.

SUVs are here to stay because they offer so much of what Americans value. Principally, they offer freedom. Even ardent socialists, ones that despise their fellow free man, crave and exercise their freedom regularly. I'm not just talking about the optics of being higher up, which is probably pretty significant psychologically, but also the notion that the SUV offers a single source of escape, should the need or desire ever arise. An SUV owner can reasonably assume that they can take the entire family away for a week or more anywhere at any time, and that mere possibility is a truly American expression. It's the same concept behind gun ownership specifically for self-defense--it's the idea which is so appealing far above and beyond any statistical likelihood or probability. It's why electric cars limited to commuter ranges can never take any significant market share, and it's why preferences for gas-guzzlers of all stripes are fairly resilient to changes in the cost of gasoline.

Americans are rich beyond the dreams of their distant ancestors, and will express their wealth in typical American fashion.

Milton Kuo

08-09-14, 01:05 PM

Many Americans might be poor by American standards, but all Americans, even the homeless, are uber-rich compared to other standards. Wealth can be defined in absolute terms or relative terms and everyone would do well to maintain an objective perspective on the subject.

The wealth of Americans has fallen by an astonishing amount in the past decade or so when when compared to other standards. In the early 2000s, I was able to purchase one Canadian dollar for about USD $0.65, one Swiss franc for about USD $0.75, one Euro for about USD $1.00, eight Chinese yuan for USD $1.00, or one British pound for about USD $1.60. I was fortunate enough to actually travel to all of those places when they were relatively inexpensive.

As all of us here on iTulip know, all currencies depreciate in absolute terms and some currencies depreciate more than others. Here's how many of each of the aforementioned currencies one US dollar will buy today:

CAD 1.00 = USD $0.91; the Canadian dollar has nearly 50% more purchasing power against the USD
CHF 1.10 = USD $1.00; a Swiss franc is now almost 50% more expensive than it was
EUR 1.00 = USD $1.34; the Euro is 34% more expensive than it was
CNY 6.16 = USD $1.00; the Chinese yuan is 30% more expensive than it was
GBP 1.00 = USD $1.67; the British pound and US dollar have depreciated approximately the same amount

While the average and poor American is better off than people in the nations of Africa or other basket case countries, I really don't consider that a valid comparison. That's setting the bar low and not worthy of a great country. The truth of the matter is that an unbelievable amount of purchasing power (wealth) has been stolen from Americans: blatantly via the Wall Street bailouts and surreptitiously via high inflation through QE and ZIRP. But rather than buckling down and saving money (and maybe read some books to improve their minds to be able to recognize that an unworthy Congress should be voted out of office), Americans are going into debt, with tremendous encouragement from the Fed, to maintain an unrealistic rate of consumption.

I've always viewed my fellow Americans as terribly wasteful and the SUV is probably the worst example of American excess. In the past, Americans truly were wealthy enough to spend money on single-passenger minibuses that got lousy gas mileage to flaunt their wealth just as we all flaunt our well-manicured lawns. A good number of Americans are poor today because, in addition to the government and Federal Reserve stealing from them through fiscal and monetary scams, Americans spend tremendous amounts of money on things that do not improve their standards of living at all. For the vast majority of Americans who drive SUVs, they would suffer no reduction in quality of life or comfort if they chose to drive a nice sedan or coupe instead.

Ghent12

08-09-14, 10:37 PM

While the average and poor American is better off than people in the nations of Africa or other basket case countries, I really don't consider that a valid comparison. That's setting the bar low and not worthy of a great country. The truth of the matter is that an unbelievable amount of purchasing power (wealth) has been stolen from Americans: blatantly via the Wall Street bailouts and surreptitiously via high inflation through QE and ZIRP. But rather than buckling down and saving money (and maybe read some books to improve their minds to be able to recognize that an unworthy Congress should be voted out of office), Americans are going into debt, with tremendous encouragement from the Fed, to maintain an unrealistic rate of consumption.

I've always viewed my fellow Americans as terribly wasteful and the SUV is probably the worst example of American excess. In the past, Americans truly were wealthy enough to spend money on single-passenger minibuses that got lousy gas mileage to flaunt their wealth just as we all flaunt our well-manicured lawns. A good number of Americans are poor today because, in addition to the government and Federal Reserve stealing from them through fiscal and monetary scams, Americans spend tremendous amounts of money on things that do not improve their standards of living at all. For the vast majority of Americans who drive SUVs, they would suffer no reduction in quality of life or comfort if they chose to drive a nice sedan or coupe instead.
I don't disagree at all that Americans have made significant losses in terms of purchasing power relative to other countries, nor will I necessarily disagree that wealth accumulation in America has been dampened significantly by fiscal and monetary policies of government and semi-government institutions. However, comparing American wealth to other countries at present and comparing it to previous time points are not the only ways to compare wealth or to measure wealth. In absolute terms which are as objective as is possible on such a subjective thing as wealth, American wealth continues to increase. An SUV isn't merely a wasteful show or expression of excess, it is a form of wealth accumulation. While the price may creep up and keep pace with or exceed monetary inflation, it is generally true that comparing a vehicle to even last year's model is typically an exercise in futility, leave alone comparisons to models five or ten years old. Contrary to what you seem to believe a nice car, sometimes especially a flashy one, does increase the standard of living for a great many Americans. Vehicles tie in with so many other aspects of life besides mere transportation that to discount the choices Americans make is to discount hard reality.

As an example, I can tell you that had I not purchased a brand new Mustang GT years ago by going into some significant debt and instead purchased a modest/nice sedan for the purpose of efficiently taking me from point A to point B, my quality of life would very likely be substantially lower. I'll let you speculate as to how, but it should be fairly obvious.

aaron

08-09-14, 11:14 PM

Americans spend tremendous amounts of money on things that do not improve their standards of living at all.

I could not understand why people spent all that money on an SUV or fancy cars either. If you do not know what you are missing than it does seem so wasteful. A BMW and a Camry both get you from A to B. The difference is one is enjoyable to drive while the other is enjoyable get out of . 10% of your waking life might be spent in your vehicle. The "tremendous" amount of money has been worth it every day. I only regret I was so conservative in my auto purchases 10 years ago.

Milton Kuo

08-10-14, 01:49 AM

Vehicles tie in with so many other aspects of life besides mere transportation that to discount the choices Americans make is to discount hard reality.

That's sad but true in so many ways.

As an example, I can tell you that had I not purchased a brand new Mustang GT years ago by going into some significant debt and instead purchased a modest/nice sedan for the purpose of efficiently taking me from point A to point B, my quality of life would very likely be substantially lower. I'll let you speculate as to how, but it should be fairly obvious.

Ahahaha! Understood! ;_TU

Milton Kuo

08-10-14, 02:01 AM

I could not understand why people spent all that money on an SUV or fancy cars either. If you do not know what you are missing than it does seem so wasteful. A BMW and a Camry both get you from A to B. The difference is one is enjoyable to drive while the other is enjoyable get out of . 10% of your waking life might be spent in your vehicle. The "tremendous" amount of money has been worth it every day. I only regret I was so conservative in my auto purchases 10 years ago.

By the way, you quoted me, not Ghent12.

But I was not suggesting that people ditch their SUVs for adequate cars (Camry) or crappy cars. Something like a BMW sedan or coupe is what I would consider a pretty nice ride.

The only appeal I see in driving an SUV is that it is useful a person who typically has a lot of passengers (this is the rarest use case, at least in Houston) or it's a bigger gun in the arms race to drive the biggest, heaviest vehicle on the road to better your odds of survival in the event of a collision with another vehicle.

Of course, perhaps it's just me. I'm highly resistant to advertising and find that oftentimes, advertisements have the exact opposite effect on me. I've had friends tell me that driving a sports car makes them feel young while driving a minivan makes them feel old. I've never had any such emotions driving any car. My opinions are coldly objective: the car is a POS, it's pretty nice, or something in between.

lektrode

08-10-14, 12:07 PM

....
The only appeal I see in driving an SUV is that it is useful a person who typically has a lot of passengers (this is the rarest use case, at least in Houston) or it's a bigger gun in the arms race to drive the biggest, heaviest vehicle on the road to better your odds of survival in the event of a collision with another vehicle.

Of course, perhaps it's just me. I'm highly resistant to advertising and find that oftentimes, advertisements have the exact opposite effect on me. .....

+1
but the SUV thing is more perspective than anything else, IMHO Mr K - 'it all depends', as it were - on things like WHAT are you needing to haul around with you = a lifestyle aspect (stuff like camping, fishing, boating, skiing eqpt - esp with kids and dogs)

WHERE are you hauling stuff: in a urban/metro 'hood - or out in the wild wild west, climbing over 10-12000 foot mountain passes - where a loaded-up wagon with 4cyl engine doesnt quite git it - esp out on the interstate, where yer getting practically run over if yer not going at least 75

HOW MANY are going with you and HOW LONG of a voyage are ya headin out on

typing as one who has been weekend-trek'g in a small wagon (4cyl, maybe getting 28-30mpg, but when all loaded up with all the above mentioned stuff, gets more like 21 - never mind when humping it all up/over mtn passes...)
something like a chevy suburban - which these days are touted as getting 20+ on the open road - starts to make lots of sense, vs much smaller vehicles - and must say i'm tempted to buy one - altho a sprinter van with the mercedes diesel is really more my style - and i'm told these get upwards of 26mpg

so guess 'it all depends' on what one is going to be doing - sides driving around the 'hood looking for a parking stall at the mall, eh?

Milton Kuo

08-10-14, 01:57 PM

WHERE are you hauling stuff: in a urban/metro 'hood - or out in the wild wild west, climbing over 10-12000 foot mountain passes - where a loaded-up wagon with 4cyl engine doesnt quite git it - esp out on the interstate, where yer getting practically run over if yer not going at least 75

HOW MANY are going with you and HOW LONG of a voyage are ya headin out on

I'm not suggesting that all large cars and trucks have no use. However, at least in Houston, practically no one climbs 12,000 foot mountain passes, goes off-road through a forest, or whatever. If you're ever around here, take a look and see for yourself. Almost without fail, it's one person (on the weekdays) or a three or four person family (on the weekends) in a car going on paved, concrete roads to some air conditioned place with a paved concrete parking lot.

For doing work and hauling stuff, most everyone around here drives a pickup truck or a modified one with a covered cargo area.

I guess it's pretty obvious by now that SUVs are a pet peeve of mine. In 1998 or thereabouts when gasoline fell to $0.899/gallon, I thought to myself, "What a great place this country is! Where else but the United States of America could a finite supply, critical resource such as gasoline actually fall in price over time?" I suppose I should have seen it coming but rather than enjoy the savings and continue to find ways to conserve a depleting resource, large numbers of people took the savings from the cheaper gasoline and spent it all and then some on cars that got lousy gas mileage last seen in the 1970s.

Nevermind the risks that these vehicles pose to their drivers and to other vehicles. I worked at a company where a very bright young man died because the SUV he was in rolled over. The young man suffered a head injury while the other three passengers escaped relatively unharmed. This was before the revelation of the Firestone tires and Ford's complicity in not disclosing a problem. Everyone thought it was just bad luck that they just somehow lost control of the car. There were no drugs or alcohol to have impaired the driver.

I also once was on a freeway when an SUV pointlessly sped to get ahead of me (I was already doing close to 70 MPH) in relatively busy traffic. In the lane right of me and slightly ahead by less than a car length, imagine what went through my head when I saw one of his tires blow out. Fortunately for everyone in the vicinity, his car pulled to the right where there was no traffic and he was able to eventually regain control of his car and drive it onto the shoulder. No one was injured and the driver was merely out a few hundred dollars for new tires.

I currently have a very short daily commute so this doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to. However, if I had to commute a long distance in heavy traffic, I'd seriously consider spending the money to join the arms race of bigger, heavier vehicles. Either that or buy a Mercedes-Benz S-class car which is really good at protecting its passengers in crashes. :)