Toyota’ success with its Prius hybrid has been noyable.
The car has long passed a million sales worldwide, racking up over 10,000 sales in the US in November alone.
Indeed Toyota’s achievements with the car played a significant role in inspiring Bob Lutz to push for GM to build the Volt and share some of the Japanese automaker’s green cred.
The new 50 MPG 3rd generation Prius is crushing sales of competitor Honda’s Insight 6 to , and starts at a base price of $22,400.
Recently Toyota announced plans to sell a plug-in version of the Prius with a roughly 10 to 12 mile electric range, 5 kwh lithium ion pack, and 62 MPH top electric speed in 2012, at an “affordable” price point.
Continuing to build on its momentum is a report that the automaker is readying a brand new subcompact hybrid entry, which will be unveiled at the Detroit Auto Show next month.
Little is known about the car except for a couple of teaser images and that it will be based on the Yaris platform. If a smaller gas engine is mated to the current hybrid synergy drive system, in a lighter body and aerodynamic shell, it is quite likely the new vehicle could exceed 50 mpg average fuel economy. Sources indicate the car is production intent and will be launched in Japan in 2011, and the US in 2012.
What the car will be called and how much its will sell for remain unknown.
Source (Detroit News)
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:25 am)Around a year or so ago, I remember hearing something about Toyota expanding their Prius line to 3 models. Perhaps there’s another announcement on the heels of this one.
For this sub-compact, it will be interesting to see how low they can get the cost. Maybe they’ll do away with the geek dashboard.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:27 am)This will be very nice I am sure. Another small car.
Gas savings will really start once serious electrified SUVs are being produced (and desired) in large numbers.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:28 am)Interesting development. Toyota already has the light weight Yaris with a 1.5 L gasoline engine @ 30+ mpg. The only reason for pumping the efficiency higher in this sub compact is if Toyota is betting on $4+ per gallon gasoline prices in 2012.
=D~
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:42 am)Small cars are catching on in the US, but there is a limit to the size. I don’t think these sub compacts will become popular. It is too big of a step! I look at a car of that size as a coffin on wheels.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:51 am)Or when this relatively recent SUV fashion fad gets replaced by something else.
In 1993, most women would be caught dead in anything that remotely resembled a truck, but by 2003, they were lining up in droves. What’s up with that?
The vast majority of SUV owners don’t drive off-road or tow anything, so a minivan or station wagon would work just as well and save a lot of fuel. But many women these days wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan or station wagon.
So we need some new fashionable fuel efficient vehicle to replace the SUV. Something that can seat 6 people and/or some cargo.
Perhaps the Orlando has a shot, if it’s marketed right. They need to advertise this as a car for mountain climbing, skiing, camping, surfing, bringing a big-screen TV home from the store, going out to dinner with friends, etc. – anything but housewives and kids. Reverse psychology is the key here…
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:25 am)The perception that big cars are always safer – that’s a myth. The thing that makes a car safe is it’s ability to crumple. That’s what absorbs the impact. SUVs and Pick-ups have rigid frames to deal with off-road abuse, so they don’t crumple as well is a crash.
-5
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:48 am)no shortage of idiots who buy SUV, Hummers etc for safety …plus the spoiled consumers in US want this & that ..and on perception rather than merits ..well let them pay the higher gas prices ..
On the other hand ..it makes no sense to buy hybrids ..sure gets better gas mileage but darn difficult to maintain except at the dealership who make bundle of profits on maintenance ..I rather wait for the EV next year or Volt ..but why the price so high? it has far less components than ICE ..I know battery but next 2-3 yeras the price of the batteries should come down ..but to pay 40K for Volt is too steep for an average family …
+6
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:48 am)This is good news, as I see it.
If Toyota is producing variants of the synegy drive, the people at GM that wish to do the same with different versions of the Volt, eg Orlando, Converj etc., will have an easier time getting their projects past the BOD, and upper management. My 10c worth..
Has Plug? Have sale.
LJGTVWOTR
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:51 am)Inevitably you’ll get someone who will say “I’d rather be in the SUV in an SUV-Subcom head on”. And they’d be right due to the negative G’s the Subcom occupants would be subjected to. But, all you have to do is look at the stats. Vehicle head-on’s are a tiny minority of accidents. In fact, the majority are between vehcile and stationary object. That’s where light weight and well designed crumple zones is exactly what you want.
So, to the SUV/bigger-betterer-vehicle troll-tards, I just disarmed you like that baby I took the lollipop from.
+6
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:58 am)No shortage of idiots who call people idiots for buying what they need or want. They have a Battery 40 Mile AER 100 MPG average Hummer conversion available now along with full sized pickups as well so people with the means do not have to be stuffed in an eco-box to get good fuel economy and be planet friendly.
+5
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:00 am)I agree that crumple zones are important, but it’s also the structure of the “cage” around the passengers. My daughter was broad-sided by a pickup AND an SUV at the same time, and her Prius was destroyed, but saved Jenn’s life! It was amazing.
Having said that, I’m not sure that most Americans are ready for the sub-compact to replace their larger vehicles. The distances here vs Europe/Asia are just too different.
I think Toyota’s motive may be more related to the competition to get their overall fleet mpg’s higher than anyone else. Maybe GM’s advertising is having an effect too. JMO’s
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:02 am)I always get a chuckle when people call people names for calling people names! lol
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+5
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:05 am)Even though i can handle $10-15 a gallon gas if need be i till don’t like buying it from our enemies and sending 3/4 of a $trillion out of the country every year. I would pay a hefty premium for an electric FULL SIZED car or Truck. Im sure there are plenty of others like myself out there to make it worthwhile for the car companies to do so.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:07 am)What’s with all the name calling, this early on a Sunday morning?
Just an observation.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:08 am)Classy response.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:09 am)I think they want to increase their hybrid sales in Europe.. over there the Prius is bigger than the optimal car. The Yaris is far from being a micro car, very practical size… it may become very popular if gas gets up over $4 again.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:13 am)I make it a rule not to dismiss and demean those who have a different opinion than myself but these people who like to bash everyone who chooses not to stuff themselves and their families into an eco-box to save a few dollars on gas really boil my blood.
Im as green conscious as anyone ,but im not about to trade my own and my children s safety and comfort for a few gallons of gas.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:14 am)Well said. I just wish that the new Toyota had a plug. Competition drives innovation.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+5
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:19 am)Even though we’re a very diverse group, there’s no reason to be uncivilized just because we disagree. That’s one of the strengths of this site that makes it more enjoyable than many others, and you evidenced it in your reply to Willis. Once two people get shouting at each other, neither hears anything. Thanks.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+5
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:19 am)Physics 101, inertia…see the linked video for an example.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/04/14/automobiles/1194839442710/crash-test-smart-fortwo.html
The Fortwo experienced twice the deceleration force as the Mercedes.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:22 am)How about a Raser converted pick up ?, it may actually sell well but people will complain. I’m guessing the conversion would run about $50k additional for 50 mile range EREV.
http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/the-electric-h3
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:22 am)For those wanting or needing a larger ride check out http://www.rasertech.com Iv been following the volt for years but this is even better,although i would rather buy this from GM if i had a choice.
GM was the first to hybridize big SUVs but for that kind of money($50000) Id rather a little all electric range.
-1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:24 am)And a gold star to the first “SUV/bigger-better-vehicle troll-tard”. I toooooold you so.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:28 am)Raser plans on doing pickups ,if you read their entire site ,but they started with a hummer in order to make a statement. I think GM should have kept the hummer and electrified it. Jusy my 2 cents.
-3
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:31 am)It’s troubling that the report here says something entirely different.
The press release states 13.5 miles.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:31 am)There is a very large push to electrify the larger vehicles first, because the fuel savings are so much more substantial.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:34 am)Aren’t there a few different testing standards? Maybe that explains the difference. I honestly don’t know.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:36 am)nah distances are not the problem in US ..most people drive 90-95% of the time 40-50 commute plus some errands ..but folks in US are used to the old ways ..no concern for the environment or adapt to the changing times ..agree hate to send billions to arab world but many in US dont see it that way they are too spoiled & want this or that ..Europe has gas $7-8/gallon & they put the taxes into mass transit but here gas is cheap & no $$$ for transit ..I hope world catches up to the EV & make an example of getting off the oil & stick it to those arabs ..
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:37 am)Yes, their press release based on the JP08 system. In the US I’ll be very surprised if the plug-in Prius gets more than 10 AER. Chalk it up to Toy trying to bamboozle people in a desperate attempt to sabotage as many Volt sales as possible. Business as usual from a company who didn’t just drop the ball, but seemingly consciously threw the ball away.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:38 am)As for another dedicated hybrid, that makes perfect sense.
Besides the well-proven market advantage, there’s the obvious benefit of not having to compromise due to size & shape limits/excess of an pre-existing body style.
Long-Term that’s how you’d end up phasing out traditional vehicles anyway.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:39 am)Agree 100% Most on this site including myself are very respectful of those who do not share their opinion on everything. Unless of course they choose to insult half the people on the site right out of the gate. USATODAY forums are notorious for those who are looking to degrade rather than share ideas.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:40 am)The two problems with SUVs/pickups is the tendency to roll and accident avoidance, they are actually not that safe. Accident avoidance is agility and most important the ability to stop.
Lots of improvements in rollover protection in recent years, I believe the new Cruze will have exceptional roof crush resistance due to fancy steels used in the roof supports, emergency crews have to use new tools to cut thru it.. all vehicles are much safer than they used to be, at the expense of lots and lots of extra weight.
Here is an interesting chart on rollover chances.. most could be avoided if people would slow down. Speed kills.
http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=1be9e66aeee35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:40 am)Maybe it should be argued that bigger vehicles are better suited to protect occupants from falling space debris as well. Quick poll: anyone who has ever been involved in a head on car accident, please post.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:42 am)Because the hybrid Yaris will weigh considerably less than the Prius, it is reasonable to guesstimate the mileage at 6% better than the Prius, or about 53 MPG overall. As for a name, I would offer up “Frius” because it frees us from burning oil.
-1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:46 am)Who’s desperate? The numbers look fairly realistic…
11 kWh = Volt usable capacity
3.56 kWh = Prius plug-in usable capacity
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:48 am)Note: Only those who have *survived* would be able to respond. (g)
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:49 am)The problem with small cars and the crumple effect is that they crumple once. Take a look on the Internet for multiple impacts to a Smart or other small car and then tell me that I would not be safer in an SUV. One video shows the Smart surviving a 60mph hit 30/30 by both cars. Then on the second impact the Smart flew into the air about six feet and there was little left when it hit the ground. The inspectors stated that the driver and passenger of the Smart may have survived the initial impact but would have been seriously hurt, but they would not have survived the second impact, or the landing. Small cars are safer than SUV’s is a myth. Small cars cannot handle multiple impacts.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:49 am)Why are you troubled John?, its a well accepted number.
Range in an electric car is very dependent on who is driving.. it would be better if we all got on the same page and used the same test. I propose we all use the Japanese 06 cycle, the Volt would get like 80 miles on that one
The Volts usable capacity is 8kwh, guaranteed for the first 10y/150k miles, probably much longer in Canada.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:53 am)There is also the issue that America’s population is aging. Many people just can’t curl-up and un-curl to get in and out of a tiny vehicle, to say nothing about being able to ride for 40 miles while curled up. JMO.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:53 am)LOL — a “troll-tard” huh? Never been called that before…but thanks for the gold star!
Dave does have a valid point with crumple zones and energy absorption, they do matter–size alone doesn’t guarantee your safety, which was Dave’s point. In the link below, choose the 2009 Malibu VS. the 1959 Bel Air crash test. (WARNING, painful to watch, the Bel Air is mint!)
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/safety-recalls/carcrashtest/crashtestvideo.htm?INTKEY=ConsumeristLinks
The Fortwo did about as well as can be expected, however there just wasn’t a-lot of crumple zone to absorb the impact. This was amplified by the fact the Mercedes had a significant inertial advantage in this impact…that’s just physics.
As with everything in life…it all depends and it only takes 1 head-on impact to kill you!
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:56 am)Unless the small car is impacted twice in the same accident, this seems like a moot point. They are basically “totaled” in the first impact and have to be replaced.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-2
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:57 am)But you are IGNORING the CLEAR FACT that vehicle head on crashes are exceedingly rare. What about that are you missing? I like the guy who said we should also argue for which vehicle give better protection from space junk. Its almost as valid as the head-on scenario. Sheesh!
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:01 am)Don’t fret, Willis, He was probably just distracted from your point by the name-calling.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:04 am)History.
Study it.
We have already seen this scenario of estimates play out.
-2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:08 am)Really? Is it really possible for someone to be so easily distracted? Oh yea, it is: deathpanel claims, emails supposedly rendering climate change void, Toyota claiming 15AER for the plug-in Prius…
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:13 am)Let’s just say that it doesn’t help the discussion.
Thanks.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:13 am)The Volt has both an ICE and a battery, this dual cost has to be higher than a car with just one source of power. Hybrids by definetion are more expensive to produce. Only when battery prices come down, will the true benefits of the pure BEV be realized.
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:16 am)Back on topic, all automakers need to provide a diverse offering of fuel-efficient (and smog+carbon cleaner) vehicles.
A small FULL hybrid can be that ideal balance of performance & price.
It’s realistic now for a sub-compact. The original Prius was smaller and the hybrid components have shrunk since then.
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:17 am)And battery prices will only come down when they are being manufactured in great numbers, so the Volt is a bridge to many good things.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:22 am)Hybrid trucks make a lot of sense — you save a lot more gas going from 12 MPG to 22 MPG than you do going from 50 MPG to 100 MPG. The Ford Fusion which is a full sized car gets great gas mileage. But so far there haven’t been a ton of people who are interested either in hybrid trucks or full sized cars. A few but not that many are prepared to pay the price premium. You have to think there are even fewer who would be willing to pay the premium for an EV Ford Expedition.
But let’s also keep in mind that size doesn’t have to be synonymous with poor gas mileage. A truck constructed from lighter weight materials with a more aerodynamic shape would move further with less energy than a much smaller brick.
My beef with SUVs — which BTW since about 2000 have been going away fairly rapidly and being replaced by CUVs — is that they handle like garbage and perform about the same. CUVs are somewhat better but they can’t handle the added load on the car chassis. Most people don’t know this but if you put four people in the Lexus CUV and add a couple of suitcases you’re overweight.
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:23 am)Size does matter, i killed a 160LB deer with my extended cab GM truck ,at 40 MPH head on. I could not find a single scratch on the truck outside of some blood on the bumper and tire. A prius would not fare very well in a head on with my truck either.
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:24 am)Crash test video
Yaris vs mid size
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu95gB04VC4
=D~
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:26 am)LOL, I’m overweight without the 4 people and suitcases. Gotta work on that (g).
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:27 am)I think GM needs to come up with some really good, inexpensive hybrids like this new Toyota … to go along with the Volt. Designing a 70 mpg (power split) hybrid is probably doable for GM these days after all their R&D in the past few years. Car sales are booming in China right now I hear. GM could sell a bunch of Yaris-sized hybrids over there if they can design a good one. The rest of the world too.
GM needs a FULL stable of cars and small SUVs for people to choose from. In the early years, the Volt will probably be viewed as “a high end green car” … the ultimate in the next generation of electrified cars that are evolving.
GM needs to have at least one really good, highly touted small car hybrid and one small SUV hybrid to compete against the Prius (and this new Yaris-based hybrid). GM needs to cover the hybrid car and small hybrid SUV segments AND the higher end Volt/Converj ER-EV segment … priced from $18,000 to $80,000. Hopefully, they have the technology and resources to do this. GM needs to “go toe to toe” with Toyota, Honda and VW in every segment they think they can compete vigorously in. Toyota especially. They are THE company that GM needs get dead serious about competing with.
-7
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:28 am)Sure it does. It helps to weed out the functionally retarded. But now I see we are arguing the merits of larger vehicles in deer crashes. I guess the space junk has just been trumped. As is seemingly procedure in our culture these days… retards FTW!
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:28 am)Randy: I would pay a hefty premium for an electric FULL SIZED car or Truck. Im sure there are plenty of others like myself out there to make it worthwhile for the car companies to do so.
Hybrid trucks make a lot of sense — you save a lot more gas going from 12 MPG to 22 MPG than you do going from 50 MPG to 100 MPG. The Ford Fusion which is a full sized car gets great gas mileage. But so far there haven’t been a ton of people who are interested either in hybrid trucks or full sized cars. A few but not that many are prepared to pay the price premium. You have to think there are even fewer who would be willing to pay the premium for an EV Ford Expedition.
=================
Yes but take that same SUV or full sized truck or hummer and add electric to achieve 100MIle per gallon average mileage as per raser tech and you will get a lot more people on board, the 20 mpg MPG GM hybrids are just not enough for the extra mnney spent.
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:28 am)I agree with you that the Volt is a bridge to good things, but not exactly with larger scale battery production. The problem is that 50% of the cost of batteries is in raw materials, and increasing production means demand for the raw materials increase, which has a tendency to drive up prices of the raw materials.
More likely, if EVs show great promise, we’ll see more products, say something like lithium-air batteries, which will drive down prices by using a lot less raw materials.
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:31 am)Small cars–advancing conventional/hybrid technology vs plug ins
If Toyota could bring this one in for the high teens $ and 60 mpg ish then from a purchase/operatin cost standpoint it will keep any comparably sized plug in option at bay up until gas hits $6 or $7.*
Not trolling here, I’m just saying. . . conventional (see Ford’s diesel econetic) and low cost hybrid (see Honda Insight, Toyota’s new offering) offerings are going to make it very tough for Li-ion plug in cars (plug in hybrid or BEV) to gain a foothold based purely on economics.
*My comparision is assuming a $340/kwh battery price and retaining 80% of original battery capacity at year 7 for the plug in. (optimistic assumptions, imo)
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:35 am)Personally I like small cars, not so small that they do not have a decent crumple zone, or a motor so small it will burn itself out highway driving. Small cars generally are better for avoiding accidents than larger ones. But I don’t push my preference on others.
As power generation moves away from consumming coal, oil, and uranium, the cost of electricity will be entirely infrastructure, the actual energy source will be free or nearly so. This SHOULD bring us to an era of plentiful low cost energy. When that day comes, people will be able to drive large battery powered SUVs with a clear concience of non-polution and at low cost.
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:36 am)I see we are batting around the big car versus small car again, with some folks saying bigger is better and others denying it because bigger is thought to cause more harm to the environment. Studies have shown that cars that weigh less than 2900 lbs do not fair as well has heavier vehicles, but the same studies show that vehicles that weight at least 3600 lbs are as safe as any vehicle. So do not put your kids in vehicles that weigh less than 2900s, until the vehicle mix on the highway trends down so the likely hood of mixing it up with a 5000 lb SUV is diminished.
-2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:37 am)Here, let me put it another way on the off chance some of the retards here are salvageable:
Percentage of crashes in US that are head-on, vehicle-vehicle: 2. That’s right, 2%, TWO PERCENT.
So in those 2% of crashes, it is usually better to be in the bigger vehicle.
The other 98% of the time, not so much.
Add to that the fact, yes FACT, that smaller vehicles have a greater chance at avoiding an accident all together. Be it due to maneuverability, or simply mindset of driver, the facts be the facts. Which car is more betterer, the big one, or the one with a greater chance of NOT being in an accident in the first place? I await the genius responses to that one. (my cousin/wife done been involved in 10 headons with the combine, and she done won every time!)
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:38 am)tagamet
Your not going to win the name calling argument with some people, they are not here to share ideas ,just let em spout off for a while until they get tired and go fight with their wife or something, you know the type, all those who do not share their opinion fall into some lower class
of _________ insert insult of choice here.
Best regards
Happy holidays
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:42 am)I didn’t know that the materials were that high a percentage of the battery cost. Still, if the production costs can come down 30%, it’s substantial.
I totally agree that new and exciting discoveries are being seen almost weekly. We live in very interesting times and I hope that our great-grand children will be looking back at the days when ICE vehicles were actually the majority of cars on the road.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:48 am)I’m not ignoring anything; I’m merely pointing out that in a frontal impact, inertia matters. The crash test video I showed was a Mercedes sedan in a front offset impact with a Fortwo that had crumple zones designed into the structure. The Fortwo faired poorly, the Mercedes did not all things being equal. Furthermore, no where did I state that SUV’s are inherently safer…you read that into my first post. SUV’s are more prone to rollover due to a higher CG, so it all depends.
As for the odds of having a head on collision, that depends also. Fortunately, they are less common compared to fender benders because they are also the most violent. My point is it only takes one, and I assure you the odds of having a head on collision with a drunk driver on the highway are higher than your being hit by space junk.
That said, life is all about choices and risk. You are free to make your own.
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:49 am)Related:
A Two-Stroke Revival, Without the Blue Haze
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/automobiles/20STROKE.html
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:49 am)I see this new Toyota as something that will attract younger buyers and urban dwelling buyers. I think it’s a calculated, intelligent move on Toyota’s part.
How should GM counter? Don’t chase Toyota; instead, go and conquer the other end of the market spectrum where older, successful, upscale buyers reside and high margins exist – and fill it with Voltec products. Get things rolling with the Converj. Expand the Converj line with a luxury sport sedan with high style and performance. Perhaps a luxury utility model as well. The idea here is to build image, prestige and eventually volume, and make money doing it.
I’d submit that as battery technology improves and production volumes rise, hybrid vehicles like the Prius will lose their cost advantages over Voltec-type vehicles. And when this happens, I believe the Voltec EREV concept will supplant hybrid technology. As costs drop, lower level auto markets will open up for Voltec vehicles – and GM needs to be prepared to hit them hard when the time comes to do it.
In summary, choose a top-down strategy and let technology and volume growth lead the way towards mass market acceptance.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:51 am)I know. I always start off seeing people as good or at least salvageable, and obviously, some are not. Anyone replying to Willis is just inviting more abuse and providing he/she an opportunity to spew. I just click -1 and move on.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-5
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:02 pm)Awww shucks, that ain’t so neighborly! Let me ask you this, if you can wrestle yourself away from my intentionally caustic snippets, is the information contained in the bulk of my comments in error? If so, a negative vote is acceptable. If not, a negative vote is emotional sour grapes, and expose that person as being a reta…um…infantile. Just saying!
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:04 pm)Let us see How Nissan prices its Leaf ..if below $20-25K should sell like hot potatoes …100 miles range on single juice what is there not to like ..well 1 more year & we sill know ..anyone knows what price Nissn has in mind on Leaf …seems to me just ideal EV for urban areas ..plus some cities in US are now considering providing incentives to install charging stations ..
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:11 pm)The stumbling block for the LEAF will be infrastructure. To the extent that cities get on board, the LEAF should do well. Without the infrastructure, range anxiety rears it’s ugly head and it is limited to the role of “urban commuter” or second car. JMO.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-9
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:12 pm)Hey Tag, let me explain the caustic nature of my comments in this thread. You see, the argument of bigger is better has long past the point of reasonable discourse. The science/numbers have been in for years. So those who continue the argument are either intentionally ignorant, or actually retarded. Of course, the science/numbers might be the result of a global hoax by scientists bent on controlling our existences through taxes and socialism, or something like that.
So, for settled facts, I take great pleasure in viscerally denigrating those who chose to ignore them. They deserve it, for the entirety of human knowledge is available with only a few milliseconds response time. There is no more excuse for ignorance.
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:14 pm)I’m not going to get into the debate of whether or not people should buy SUVs/big trucks. However, if people continue to buy them, the biggest fuel savings will come in improving their mpg rather than eking more out of a subcompact. Simple math. Taking a Tahoe from 15/21 to 21/22 will likely result in a larger savings in gallons of gas used compared to taking a Yaris (29/36) and giving it 20ish more mpg. Avoiding these misperceptions is why we should switch to gallons per 100 miles as our rating metric!
Now of course you save a lot more when someone switches from an SUV to a compact… but I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to get most people to do so until gas is insanely expensive.
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:18 pm)Let’s hope Toyota successfully solves the brake problems with the new Prius before marketing the subcompact hybrid:
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/12/nhtsa-tracking-braking-loss-on-prius-hybrids/
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:19 pm)I really doubt that 50% number, the raw materials used to make batteries are oil (plastics), aluminum, lithium and manganese (in the case of the Volt).. none of those are expensive or rare at all, probably less than 3% of the cost of the battery. The expensive parts (and what you probably mean) are the specialized films such as the anode, cathode and separator.. these are expensive high tech films manufactured with great care, purity and complexity. These expensive items are becoming cheaper thru mass production and expertise.
Nickel and Iron are also popularly used in battery manufacture, cobalt is being phased out due to cost and safety of cells.
-1
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:25 pm)3 years later, supporters still don’t have a compelling argument beyond pointing out vague technical references.
The current FULL hybrid system can deliver 100 km/h of electric-only drive. Altering the PSD components to favor faster EV would do what? Tell me the outcome differences. The optimization we see for them now is subject to change, just like Volt’s engine later.
There is no clear winner. But lack of diversity will impair business. There will be loss where a market is not fulfilled. What will GM offer as efficiency vehicles other than Volt itself? Larger? Smaller? Cheaper? Something that doesn’t require a plug?
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:25 pm)Yes, exactly. The combination of these 2 is what makes the car safer in a crash. Size and weight has nothing to do with it. And this is reflected in the crash tests.
Check out this 160 MPH crash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h2iqmliVMk
and the interview with the driver afterward.
The rest of the car breaking away in bits helps to cushion the impact, but the strong carbon fiber cage protected the driver, which is why she was able to walk away and joke about it later.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:29 pm)$15,760??
____________
” While the Prius has a starting price of $22,400, the subcompact, which will be built on the Yaris platform, will be sold for about $15,760. The new Toyota will compete with a rumored hybrid version of Honda’s Fit subcompact.”
http://chattahbox.com/technology/2009/12/26/toyota-to-unveil-new-concept-subcompact-hybrid-at-auto-show/
/ouch, that’s going to leave a mark
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:29 pm)There are millions of households that have more than 1 car. The Leaf can fulfill that second car market and be years before it is saturated.
+3
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:31 pm)One of the things i like about the volt is that it will be largely american made. And it will largely run on american made electricity.
=======
Whereas a prius is 100% imported running on 75% imported oil.
The prius may be green for the environment ,but most of the green that pays for it does not stay in america.
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:33 pm)I don’t doubt that a bit and certainly *welcome* the LEAF and any other vehicles that move us toward the electrification of transportation.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:49 pm)yep our dodge RAM bounced off their Omni (yes the smaller car pushed the larger truck). Too slow to really say anything, about 20mph, muddy ruts pulled us together. Too long ago to remember the damage, truck wasn’t damaged at all, I know the windshield cracked on the car, not sure about what else (no crumple then). My knee still aches, wasn’t buckled up.
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:53 pm)May the new year be a great one for all people and to the domestic auto companies.
Dec 27th, 2009 (12:58 pm)Whatever Toyota wants to do to get fuel efficiency up in a ****very**** small vehicle is likely not as important or impressive, say, by designing another 7 or so mpg’s into a subcompact that ought to have gotten about 40 mpg without hybridization in the first place.
ccombs and Tag are on the right track that the larger vehicle mpg’s ought to be the focus of an all out fuel efficiency attack.
However, if the subcompact is going to need a very high priced EV component at around 130,000 miles, then what has been gained if it could have been designed to go 200,000 miles fairly trouble free? It is these kinds of **very small** vehicles that ought to be made to last that extra 70,000 (economically-feasible) miles or so, so that they can be passed down in the family, or be resold to a friends’ or neighbor’s son or daughter as their first car (driven carefully). (So they can go out to look for work).
For these very old technologies like hybridization, better longevity can certainly be designed into them for all that is now known about these old technologies, by the OEM if desired. (Subcompact often means sub-quality all too often).
But will the extra hybridization costs “up-front”, as well as the end-of-life economic risks down the line, both be tolerable as compared to something that gets just 40 miles per gallon as a conventional ICE?
These are the questions most buyers will be asking I’d bet.
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:01 pm)If a trailer truck were to hit me, I’d much rather be in an SUV than in a sub compact. This may only be psychological, but that’s the way most people think.
+3
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:06 pm)Thanks for posting this important link, Dave! As a physicist, I’m always troubled by the frequent erroneous claims here (and elsewhere) that occupants of small cars will survive crashes as well as those in larger ones. It’s simply not true —there’s no getting around the fact that the kinetic energy of a moving vehicle (E = 1/2MV^2) must be dissipated in a crash and that larger, more massive vehicles with longer/larger crumple zones can better absorb or dissipate this energy. I urge anyone who doubts this to take 2 1/2 mins to watch the excellent link above —listen carefully to the president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety who narrates the video.
+7
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:06 pm)The vast majority of drivers in the U.S. travel faster than 100 km/h (62 MPH) on the highway.
I agree. I have nothing against the Prius drive system. The Prius is the best hybrid car out there, bar none.
But when it comes to plug-ins, that’s where we diverge.
Think of it this way, when I say the words “mild hybrid”, I’ll bet you have an emotional response. Mild hybrids are not really like full hybrids, but many people are confused into thinking they’re similar, which is frustrating for people who understand the difference.
But when it comes to plug-ins, the tables are turned. The Prius is a mild plug-in. The low AER means you still need frequent trips to the gas station, and the 62 MPH electric only drive limitation means that most drivers will use the gas engine for highway driving. But since it has a plug, many people will be confused into thinking it’s the same thing, which is very frustrating for people who understand the difference.
This is what makes the Prius a mild plug-in. To be clear, I have no problem with the planetary gear system. My problem has to do with the small battery and the low power electric motors.
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:23 pm)I have hit deer twice in the last 5 years, causing significant damage to my vehicle on both occasions. Most of the people that I know have also hit deer at some time or another. Deer collisions are actually quite common in some parts of the US.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:23 pm)Nice analysis.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:24 pm)I completely agree with you DaveG, that the words “mild plug-in” ought to be repeatedly expressed here on this site as the principle descriptor for it.
Maybe Toyota could somehow increase the peak speed by 5 or so mph, and, allow for provisions for a parallel “add-a-pack” so as to be able to go 26 or so electric miles.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:31 pm)Yes, exactly.
Right. The more mass, the more kinetic energy must be dissipated in the crash, so larger vehicles must be able to crumple more to have equal safety.
The problem is that SUVs and pickups have rigid frames to deal with off-road abuse, so they don’t crumple as well.
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:41 pm)IMO this little hybrid will mostly steal sales from potential Prius buyers. Those who are looking for the highest mileage hybrid may choose this new model over the Prius.
+6
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:43 pm)A lot of what you are saying is factually incorrect, or simply your opinion with no supporting facts at all. When you post like that and then needlessly insult people, the small valid points that you do make are overshadowed by the insults, rending them irrelevant. In fact, I would be willing to bet that most of the people reading this thread think your posts are utterly worthless. If that’s what you are going for then congratulations, you’ve made your point!
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:46 pm)So?
The point is to significantly BOOST efficiency at at affordable price, which is exactly what the system delivers.
The concept of “range” doesn’t apply directly. For that matter, the term “mild” doesn’t mean anything. It’s really a measure of kWh input and kW output.
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:46 pm)Close, but the point is that with a larger vehicle, when you head-on a smaller vehicle, your dv/dt is smaller, since the big vehicle does not STOP, but instead goes “through” the smaller vehicle. Therefore the kinetic energy does not need to be absorbed.
The smaller vehicle actually “bounces” backward during the collision, so the small car is not only dissipating its own kinetic energy, but also some of the energy delivered by the larger vehicle.
Head on between larger vehicles will be more severe, since both have higher energy AND they have stiffer frames, but small vs. big, big typically wins.
-2
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:49 pm)Market growth.
Offering choice.
With such a significantly different interior size, they will be mutually exclusive.
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:52 pm)Regret still not having a Tech-FAQ yet?
Now you understand why I nagged so much.
Should have taken the advice…
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:55 pm)I’m sure it’s only a matter of viewpoint, but “mild” seems to me like the perfect descriptor for the plugin Prius.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:56 pm)Right. I would actually go a bit higher, 75 MPH all electric, and 30 miles AER. That would be a full plug-in. With a Prius like that, I would only have to go to the gas station every 2-3 months.
But housing a battery big enough for 30 miles AER, and doing that properly for handling, crash safety and durability, that would require a new chassis, so it wouldn’t really be a Prius anymore.
In other words, plug-ins really should be a different model, not an option on an existing model.
And this is another case where the tables turn on the Prius. Toyota designed the Prius as a whole different model, not a hybrid option on the Corolla, and this is what makes the Prius a great car. Similarly, to make a great plug-in, Toyota really needs a whole new model, not a mild plug-in option for the Prius.
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (1:57 pm)I am sure whole people are not going to shift to small cars but all who drive big does not need big cars, A 5 seater or a 7/8 Seater / Truck is needed for families but the second cars can be small (like commuter cars ). The people choose small cars look for fuel economy as a big factor. Small premiums also have a market but it all will be based on the fuel economy – no body will a small car because they have to spend same as a big/medium car ). Starter and commuter cars are going to be small if they make real economic sense.
There are more factors than safety in case of choosing a big car/SUV over a small car, some are is visibility, comfort etc etc.
50+ mpg yaris will be good as all around the world gas is not cheap as US ( even in Canada we pay $4.00 + a gallon (BC) ).
As this a GM Volt forum : I think GM is still on the catch up game, and Toyota is extending its lead. GM needs 50+ (70 to be leader as of now ) mpg strong hybrids on less money. As i pointed before may be a BAS+ Sparc or a BAS+ Cruze may help but people are not crazy on simple hybrid ( like IMA or BAS).The new generation is gadget crazy and they look for the space shuttle appearance and a lot gadgetry controls.
Again if you see, the missing area of GM is hybrids on popular cross overs like Traverse, Acadia, Enclave, Equinox,Terrain etc ( strong portfolio area ), They have to maintain Malibu, Impala going better with mpg styles etc.
They have to improve the City mpg ( ex: equinox city mpg to a 34 mpg level to beat current competition )
Great is not enough when every one is Great and trying to be Greater. Need to go to Greatest to survive/Win.
Out of Topic :
Was going thought some sites on aeromodds and got inspired (ex: Pillsbug) . Some old designs seems very much desired to come back and make new way to new designs :
http://yankandpaste.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-green-car-aero-car-and-insperations.html
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:03 pm)Vehicle head-on’s are a tiny minority of accidents. In fact, the majority are between vehcile and stationary object.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:08 pm)In 1977, my 76 Olds Starfire was driven off-road by me in the snow (not by choice). I took out 50 ft of fence, a mailbox, some bushes, and smacked sideways into a tree which destroyed the front-end (the front bumper ’5-mph’ system completely detached from the car). I was informed by the cops that I spun around three times. The car being only 6-months old was repaired. This is a fairly small car. I was going about 60 when I left the road.
I walked away unharmed.
In 1992, I was rear-ended in my ’88 Cougar by an ’88 T-bird. They are exactly the same mass and the impact destroyed both cars. I was stopped for a left turn. The other driver was speeding (over 50mph). The impact bent the roof and detached the rear axel of the Cougar. My seat collapsed (as it was designed to do) and I ended up in the back seat. (The bushel of steamed crabs in the trunk were turned to mush.) The T-bird’s engine was pushed off the frame and the hood completely detached. Everything in front of the engine on the T-bird was destroyed. (Radiator, condenser, bumper system, lights, etc.)
Everyone walked away.
I didn’t need major medical care for either accident. In the rear-ender I had some soft tissue damage in my back which healed.
In both accidents, I was wearing a seat-belt. Neither car had air bags Machinery is replaceable, humans are not.
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:11 pm)Congratulations on escaping injury! I feel really sorry for those crabs though. (g)
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:13 pm)Ok, but we were discussing the differences between small and large vehicle head on collisions.
The majority of all accidents are minor fender benders, and the structure would make no difference in the outcome, based on injury. But, it’s the severe crashes that typically take lives, and that’s what we are most concerned with, at least regarding this discussion.
-3
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:15 pm)Bigger is better in a head on, bigger is better in a head on, over and over again, as if it means anything at all. Simply amazing.
So, in the chance that you are in an accident, and the further 2% chance that it is a head-on, and the further chance that you are in a substantially larger vehicle than the one you head on, you will be better off. Yes, we all know this already. Its been said about 30 times above, with me being the first in post #9.
If that incredibly remote possibility is enough risk for you to rationalize driving an SUV or large pickup, you are clearly insane. That’s not an insult, it is an astute observation, nothing more.
Another thing the rest of you have to ask yourselves is, is it acceptable for someone like that to consume a disproportionate amount of a limited and critical resource, causing you to have to deal with the externalities like excessive pollution, all the way to larger global conflict? Should that clearly insane person have the “right” to do that simply because they have the credit cards to do so with?
Just asking.
And oh, to the person talking about deer crashes, the size of your vehicle is not going to make much difference unless you’re on a motorcycle. What makes a difference is the profile of the vehicle. Why? Most injuries due to large animal strike are due to the animal flipping over the hood and through the windshield. Many SUVs and minivans are actually MORE prone to this than small aerodynamic cars. The less of an angle at the windshield/hood interface means a greater chance of the animal glancing off and over the windshield. Again, SHEESH!
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:33 pm)Most fatal crashes are not head-on collisions.
Multi-car pile-ups, running into the back of an 18-wheel truck, swerving to avoid something and then running off the road into a stationary object – these are the more common fatal crashes, and the rigid frame of an SUV or pickup makes them more dangerous in these types of crashes.
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:37 pm)+1, You are a TRUE blessing to this site!
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:42 pm)I just watched for the first time “Who killed the Electric Car”. I highly recommend it. A pretty well balanced presentation. There was a “fact” or two that did not seem right (like how can a gallon of gas that weighs 6 pounds put 19 pounds of CO2 into the air). But it presents the issue from many different viewpoints. I definitely will watch it over and over (got as a DVD for Christmas).
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:51 pm)BTW, one thing from the movie was a mechanic who remarked how dirty his hands got just handling parts in the maintenance of ICE’s, but how clean he was when working on an EV.
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:51 pm)Cars that weigh less than 2900 lbs are more dangerous than cars that weigh 3000 or more pounds. The second controlling factor is driver age. Young folks like small cars and they drive them aggressively. So if you look at fatal accidents, you see that young folks in small cars are at high risk. And this is across the whole spectrum of accidents, not just head-ons. And so to repeat the obvious, do not put your kids in small cars or powerful cars, because speed kills, and it kills more effectively in small cars.
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:52 pm)Once again, really nice ‘n concise. And, that’s the best explanation so far regarding overall feasibilities for plug-in Prius I’ve seen to date. Thanks DaveG.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:52 pm)what is so expensive or hard to maintain on a hybrid? no difference at all.. please dont spread mis-information.
Dec 27th, 2009 (2:58 pm)Where I am at most collisions are between a vehicle and a moose. The bigger your vehicle the bigger your chance of survival. You want to hit the moose in the body, so it does not fall into your windshield. Driving 400 miles to go shopping is a routine, good luck spending 6 hours in a Yaris. Snow also tends to fall in winter. A foot in the driveway overnight is more like a rule. Temps of below -30F also frequent, so that rules out everything electric. So what I really need is something a little bigger then Hummer. More like a hybrid between a Hummer and F450. Right now a GLK is just a commuter.
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:02 pm)We actually had this discussion about two years ago, and it got a little crazy. Thanks for the link Dave. Listen people and keep an open mind. All things being equal, assuming both cars are well built, a larger car offers better protection than smaller cars. Just watch this video. We could argue this all day but it won’t change the fact that a large well built car is going to be safer crashing against a small well built car. This is why boxing has weight classes.
Hawk
+4
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:04 pm)With Toyotas aggressive supplier cost reductions planned of 30%
Yes that’s the letter they sent supliers as a demand for 2013 model year.
Don’t expect anything quality out of Toyota in future…….
In the Mid 80′s and early 90′s they were “Golden” and untouchable by competion in the quality stakes.
Now they are about to make their bigest mistakes, resulting in poor quality products, fed up customers, lower sales – end of Toyota ?
CEO Toyoda speach was spot on this year – he’s a very wise man and suprised he had the guts to say it.
But alas they are still heading down the well worn path to bankruptcy with their latest supplier discount demands – it appears…
They still have time to mend there ways but will they?
Competition is good.
Besides the Volt is still a superior design
Best for the New Year ALL
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:05 pm)You married your cousin??
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:08 pm)Thanks, JohnK. You too.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:12 pm)The one thing that the movie makes very clear is the *passion* people shared about the EV1 – and the angst over it’s crushing.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:13 pm)Are you serious about Toyota demanding a 30% reduction in the cost of their parts from their suppliers??! Yikes!! That’s scary when they are talking about some very unique EV component designs, and, Toyota customers have become so accustomed to that previous quality. Very financially scary indeed.
(Maybe this explains the extremely cheap and transmission-damaging “starting”/very low quality batteries that have the Toyota name on them along with the word (a warning IMTO) “Starting”).
When these cheap batteries fail, they DO NOT FAIL SAFE TO THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION (SOLENOIDS).
+4
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:15 pm)To the poster Willis
Among the previous posters in this thread are many who are gentlemen and ladies, people who give thought to the issues, people who are considerate of disparate points of view. You have received acknowledgement and discussion of your points of view. Rather than recognize some intelligent folks choose to differ with those points of view, you engage in insults.
You sir have worn out this reader’s patience. Take a healthy dose of STFU.
+3
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:16 pm)LOL, well that explains a *LOT*!
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:25 pm)Steve,
Over a year ago, I was told to do the same thing on this very site, so I know how it feels. It’s better to just -1 and move on. Some posters thrive on pushing buttons. JMO.
Be well, and Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:29 pm)I can’t wait to see the sequel:
“During an interview with CBS News, director Chris Paine announced that he would be making a sequel: Who Saved the Electric Car?,[2] later renamed Revenge of the Electric Car.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
Note that GM has given director Chris Paine unprecedented access to details on the Volt development.
More info here:
http://revengeoftheelectriccar.com/about/
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:35 pm)Although I’m curious about the sequel, I hope that GM is portrayed fairly regarding the Volt’s development.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:40 pm)I think I would take the Yaris in a 50mph head on crash with a pickup. That would be a 67 pickup with no seat-belts, air bags or collapsible steering column. I of course would be wearing my seat belt. What I am trying to say is new cars are safer than old. Racing cars are even safer, if they do cost more. Safety cost money, everybody plays the odds as soon as they get in a car.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:40 pm)All throughout the “Who killed the electric car?” movie, I was always looking for there to be some technical angle regarding the issue, which there never was. If Mr. Paine is given access to the technical side of the story, then it ought to be a “blockbuster”. Maybe he could spend some time in the intro regarding the limitations of technology of fifteen years ago, as a set of a group of limitations for back then. I think that would present the finest balance after all.
-10
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:54 pm)(click to show comment)
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:55 pm)I saw a Honda add some time ago that says it would save so many tons of CO2, I found the whole thing peculiar. 1st if it weighs tones how does it float away???
I reversed the math and found a pound of gas was 3 pounds of CO2. I have never seen it explained but I would guess that each pound of gas pulls 2 pounds of oxygen out of the air. If I remember correctly a good air fuel mixture would be 14 to 1. So it is plausible.
As for the rest of the glass in the sky stuff, I have not figured it out. If we add a 100 or so parts per million of CO2 we must have subtracted a similar amount of oxygen. Both clear orderless gasses.
I think the net effect would be we have to run our engines a little bit leaner.
Cheers
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (3:57 pm)Every time I play the movie, my wife gets highly upset that electric cars are not widely available. Her ‘commute’ is less than 5 miles per day. She could go a week driving a Volt on battery alone without plugging in. She also thinks Prius and Insight (and Leaf) are butt-ugly, so, no sale there even if plug-in.
I agree that the movie is about EV1 activists more than anything. It’s a shame that those cars were crushed, but, they were basically prototypes and GM could not afford to support them as a lease or even as a purchase. Can you imagine how much an x-of-800 limited edition EV1 would be worth today?
Fortunately, Volt is rising from the ashes of EV1 and I expect to see at least one (hopefully two, or, a matched set) in my garage by 2013.
The hard-to-explain part is why Volt ‘only goes’ 40 miles and EV1 went 100 per charge. I think once we see a Volt in person and test-drive it, the sale will just be paperwork. I got a couple years or so to work out the other details
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:07 pm)You’re right that when the weight of 2 oxygen are united in combustion with the carbon atom in gasoline, you get the twenty pounds of co2, which holds heat a lot more than just the oxygen. Also, there might be another additional 12% carbon dioxide produced to produce that gallon of gas at the refinery. In addition to that, the transportation of both that gas in the form of crude from the other side of the planet, as well as the co2 produced in delivering that refined gasoline to your tank are valid additions. Finally, if we need not go to the filling station (for 78% of drivers), then all that energy used to power the filling station are not attributable to EV mileages. CO2 reductions can become exponential with EV miles for vehicles that are designed and build to last a really long time especially.
The weight of all combined atmospheric gasses is 14.7 pounds per square inch. They all mix and disperse at the molecular level all over the planet. The higher the proportion of carbon dioxide, the warmer the entire combined gasses can become, and, in fact are. The really big deal is where Greenlands ice sheet rate-of-loss may exceed the salinity-density of the North Atlantic, and other issues.
Volt is getting here none too soon.
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:14 pm)Lots of talk today about big vs. small vehicles. How about this: Why not electrify mass transit busses? When I was young, the busses in the city of Dayton OH were electric and ran from overhead “tracks”. Assuming running overhead tracks is undesirable, putting fairly large battery packs on a bus is not that hard, they can be rigged for quick change at stations that could charge at whatever rate is feasible. Just seems so EASY to do. And the speed range is obviously limited. Regenerative braking might be a big factor, so much so, that it might be better to use a flywheel than batteries to recapture the regenrative energy.
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:15 pm)I think that you have a LOT of company – waiting (impatiently) to purchase our Volts. Our family is on the other end of the spectrum from your wife – we have a 30 mile drive to get “anywhere” outside of our small town. Fortunately, most of our driving is now “discretionary”, but we’ll *still* benefit mightily from the Volt.
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:32 pm)Still a few days left in this year, but never too early to wish everybody the best in the coming new year. The very best to everyone (yes, even you Willis).
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:34 pm)If you really want to know about small car safety . . .
People buy small cars even though they can be deadly
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm
/another inconvenient fact of physics about small cars is that smaller cars are less visible than larger ones, so you’re a little more likely to have your right of way violated.
+3
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:36 pm)I don’t like quoting the EPA because they are part of the government and therefore liars, however…
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon
CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm
A gallon of gas is a very, very concentrated source of carbon. If you expand that carbon out using two oxygen atoms, it adds up pretty quickly.
This is what makes gasoline so compelling as a mobile energy source. You can basically throw away 70% as waste heat and still be very convenient and economical.
I think it is backwards (meaning obsolete) that we are still thinking about moving 3500 pounds of metal and plastic to get 200 pounds of human from here to there. There has got to be a better way.
Information Technology types shouldn’t have to go anywhere to do their job. The government must also create incentives to use zero cars and zero fuel where there is opportunity to do so.
I could actually work from home given the choice. I sit in my cubicle and email/phone people in the same building (sometimes one row over from me). It wouldn’t (doesn’t) matter if my physical body is in the cubicle or in my home office. It’s all a matter of changing the corporate mindset. Web 2.0 hasn’t even had the surface scratched yet.
. soapbox dismounted .
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:40 pm)That is the part I do not get. When is somebody going to do a mythbusters type of demonstration where a insulated box of CO2 is warmed up and compared with a similar box of oxygen? Or of various mixes as you suggest.
I would like to get off of our addiction to imported oil. A simple gas tax would be unpopular. Maybe the CO2 tax would supplant the gas tax? Whatever. It is not working. The price of carbon credits or going down for whatever reason. So why not just skip all this carbon stuff and tax imported oil? It is a lot easier to visualize dollars going oversees to our enemies than some sort of glass in the sky. The results would be the same.
Cheers
+4
Dec 27th, 2009 (4:55 pm)My child is actually retarded. She can take steps, but even if she could learn to walk, she would not throw her hands out if she fell. She can scoot around quite efficiently. She can only take nutrition through a g-tube on her tummy, pediasure and now ensure. She can’t talk but by emoting she can let you know exactly how she feels. She is very slow in reaction to physical stimulus especially, but a moment of kind attention brings an instantaneous smile.
Compared to commenter Willis, and anyone else dull and shallow enough to think retard is a clever ad hominem, she is quite poised and sophisticated. She is more mature and secure at 13 than they could ever imagine.
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:04 pm)My commute is more in the sweet spot for Volt vs BEV. I drive 42 miles per day in commute-mode and another 5 or so in other trips. I could do some charging between trips however. My problem with using a pure BEV is that I need to travel on longer trips (400 to 600 miles round trip) several times a year. A Volt would work for all driving that I do.
Technically, so would a Prius, however, I ain’t driving no butt-ugly Prius! Tesla ‘S’ looks interesting, but, the volume will be so low that it will be impossible to get one.
+4
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:10 pm)Your daughter is blessed to have parents as sensitive and caring as you. I worked with special needs kids and their parents for 34 years, so I know a lot of great families, who all grow from each other.
Best wishes for a very Happy New Year for you and yours.
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:10 pm)And to you and yours as well!
-10
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:17 pm)(click to show comment)
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:17 pm)LOL, when I was “helping” my daughter shop for a Prius, I asked the salesman to tell me something *bad* about the Prius (since the sales pitch had been all “good”). He couldn’t come up with something, so he called the owner of the lot and asked HIM. Without missing a beat, the guy said “Well, it’s *UGLY*!” We all laughed and she bought the car.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:34 pm)Yes, some sort of tariff on imported oil is the best solution.
But any a tax increase won’t be politically possible during a recession. What’s more, oil prices are currently on the rise, and at $78 / barrel the price is already high enough to start enabling alternative transportation.
We should also remember that the real enemy of alternative transportation is cheap oil, like we had earlier this year when gas was under $1.50 / gallon. With oil prices that low, companies that make alternative transportation products can easily go out of business, and that really kills private investment in this area.
So what we need is to keep oil prices from going down. Specifically, a floor tax of $70 / barrel on imported oil. If world oil prices go below $70 per barrel, import tariffs would be raised to get the price back up to $70. This would keep OPEC from pulling the rug out from under alternative transportation with cheap oil prices.
The idea is not to raise taxes, but rather to prevent cheap oil.
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:38 pm)Not spreading rumors ..saw the prius under the hood ..not easy to reach anything tight spaces …for my Honda Civic I do oil change, spark plugs replacemtn, air filter, battery etc ..lot easier to maintain yourself ..but a hybrid it is lot complicated & very tight …on the other hand EV will have lot less components to maintain ..so EV like Leaf wud florish once the infrastructure is in place ..I may travel 2-3 times a year long distance ..just rent & manufcaturers like Nissan etc cud make it a part of contract to rent hybrids etc 2-3 times a year for longer commute…if Leaf is reasonable priced ..my gut feel it willdo very well…
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (5:43 pm)The big technical reason was the $1 a gallon gas.. and a two seater?, people dont buy two seaters.
The 18.7kwh 1300lb battery pack did not help either.
Dec 27th, 2009 (6:03 pm)Could help it along by having a 2cent tax per gallon. Then adding another 2cents to the tax every month. Would give people a time to adapt, and still be cheaper than Europe.
Dec 27th, 2009 (6:11 pm)Exactly!
Cheap gas is the real enemy of plug-ins.
Here’s a graph of gas prices going back to the 1970s, adjusted for inflation:
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
Notice the areas when gas prices were below $2/gallon, and think about the huge vehicles popular during those times. Then look at when prices were higher, and think about the alternative fuel and efficiency initiatives that started then.
Bottom line: We need to set a minimum price for foreign oil. Around $70 / barrel would be a good place to start.
Dec 27th, 2009 (6:24 pm)That would be raising taxes, which would be politically impossible during a recession.
Also, if gas prices naturally rise to $4 / gallon, then additional taxes would be unnecessary, and harmful to the economy. But if gas prices fall to $1.50 / gallon like they did earlier this year, then a gas tax of $1 / gallon would be OK.
So I’m talking about a floor tax, and at a trigger that’s below the current price, so there would be no taxes near-term. And since only 44% of our oil consumption is gasoline, we might as well set the floor tax on oil in general. And since many people are only concerned with foreign oil, we could make it a floor tariff on imported oil, and not for domestic oil. Since 2/3 of our oil is imported, it would have the same affect.
Alternative transportation starts becoming viable at around $70 / barrel, so set the floor tariff there. Oil is currently $78 / barrel, so there would be no new taxes near-term.
Dec 27th, 2009 (6:36 pm)Well said Roy. The average household owns 2.28 cars. One can be an ICE and the other a BEV. Millions and millions of BEVs could be sold without anyone feeling range anxiety.
Dec 27th, 2009 (7:17 pm)No new taxes. How are they going to pay down the debt? Inflation also hurts.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (7:21 pm)We have a strange system, we tax gas at the pump but give oil companies tax breaks and subsidies. I have heard that these tax breaks and subsidies are hundreds of millions of dollars, is this true?
We should start by not giving tax breaks and subsidies to oil corporations.
Why does the government aid the most wealthy?
Dec 27th, 2009 (7:48 pm)Poor deer…Didn’t know it was so common.
Dec 27th, 2009 (7:58 pm)Why spend so much on gas when synthesized dilithium crystals will soon be readily available to power cars ?
Dec 27th, 2009 (7:59 pm)That is one very seriously good idea! Someone ought to very easily fulfill that suggestion to have about five clear plastic boxes with various atmospheric mixes that were the formulations in the past climate ages, (as analyzed and proven-out by the trapped air bubbles in prehistoric ice core samples), and then, apply the exact same BTU’s to all of them. Time the heat retention of all of them so it can be proven to us all.
Very excellent suggestion RedHHR!!
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:06 pm)#1 I propose that any car unable to complete City Cycle EPA(EV mode) be called a mild Plugin Hybrid. Any car able to complete the City EPA but not the HWY be called a strong Plugin Hybrid. Any car able to do both can be an EREV.
#2. Mass and size equal safety. All other things the same, the larger more massive car us safer. Statistics btw support this… Go to the FARS database. Although Light Trucks are involved in more accidents per mile than normal cars, thier death and injury rate is less.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:12 pm)If we taxed imported oil, guess who it would be that handles that tax money? Instead, it might be more efficient to reduce oil subsidies and redirect those funds to EREV vehicle manufacturing subsidies. Also, maybe direct help at the closing table as well instead of the entire amounts of all those subsidies to oil.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:26 pm)Seems a little strange to keep riding the “Hybrid” train. What happened to the EV they are working on?
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:26 pm)Because they have the best lobbyist. Ah, I actually do not know what they pay in taxes. However it could be argued that some of our military budget supports big oil.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:28 pm)Do you think a Volt with 5 mile AER would be abetter choice for GM’s first ER-EV?
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:33 pm)It would help convince me, in my mind CO2 is a byproduct. Think I will send an email to Mythbusters.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:37 pm)That would work also. Anybody know the numbers?
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:37 pm)OK. So you and me OR four people and a couple of suitcases!
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:48 pm)New trucks are much safer than old trucks. New cars are safer than old trucks. Someplace there is a balance. New technology is safer, just like NEW STEEL is stronger than OLD STEEL. It is not just mass.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:48 pm)That sounds about right (g).
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:50 pm)I have found that there are no shortages of idiots who seem to know what other people need and should drive.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:52 pm)I think there are many accidents that involve two or more cars and simple physics cannot be thrown out. Heavy and large cars are safer.
+3
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:53 pm)All this chit chat about global warming, When the last ice age ended, the world was covered mostly by ice or extreme deserts. Winters were much longer and harsh and summers weren’t exactly bikini weather. I’m not that convinced that a little global warming is a bad thing. The biggest danger to our happy existence is overpopulation. About 20,000 years ago there were only 10,000 or so folks. Now we’re closing in on 7 billion. There’s just not enough animals to make clothing to keep everyone warm if it gets colder.
Dec 27th, 2009 (8:57 pm)You guys are pretty safe, eh?
Cheers
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:03 pm)Dave G, your comments on the perception of the Truck is so right.
Right now the CUV is a good model. Its really not a truck but it is taller than a car so that you don’t have to curl up to get in (if you are tall or large).
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:08 pm)Sounds like logic to me. All we need is a machine that makes food.
Cheers
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:10 pm)More like “built for comfort” (g).
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:13 pm)If you think about it, the electric cars barely make economic sense now and had no chance back then.
The Volt adds an $8000 dollar battery and another $10,000 worth of electrical “stuff” so that you can go 30-40 miles electric before starting to burn gas (ie: you save about 1 gallon of gas for a small car). Basically, for $18000 extra dollars you have a car that saves you a gallon of gas per day.
When you pay an additional $18,000 up front for a car it would take along time to recoup that by saving 1 gallon of gas per driving day. With gas at $1 per gallons for the EV1 days, it’s no wonder the car could not stand on its own. Even today, EV’s face an uphill battle (with $3 gas) and need Gov’t subsidies.
The EV1 was great but when CARB pulled the mandate, they killed the electric car. GM could have, should have and would have only produced this money losing car with a mandate in place.
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:24 pm)The CO2 issue could not be looked at in a simple experiment. The issue has to do with wavelength dependent radiation absorption and scattering properties and not the warming up of the gas itself.
Also, Water Vapor is a much more potent green house gas than C02. If the atmosphere was full of CO2 (displacing the water vapor), the earth would cool. Of course we would all die with no 02.
It has been shown that the IPCC panel ignored water vapor (assumed the cloud cover would remain constant) in their man made warming models and this has been shown to be a fatal flaw.
For those interested in one of the leading theories from a previous post.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/50_years_of_cooling_predicted#65269
And to get an idea of what the cosmic ray issue is. See this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:25 pm)So I have been poking around Mythbusters when I should be watching the Mille Mille on TV. So I posted on one of their threads…
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=6941912904&f=7501919888&m=33419378001&r=50319577301#50319577301
So if you have thoughts on CO2, make a post. I did mention GM-VOLT.
Cheers
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:37 pm)So what would the simple experiment show? I agree the climate is complicated, however the issue being discussed is CO2. Just like the UN and Al G present.
Would it be bad to see a Mythbusters show?
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:51 pm)Careful! The EPA will be regulating cloud cover next. Just a thought.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:57 pm)I suspect that the issue is too politically sensitive for the mythbusters to take it on. JMO.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:58 pm)Related(?):
Expert: Lithium Ion Batteries Will Help Hybrids More Than Electric Cars
http://www.hybridcars.com/components/expert-lithium-ion-batteries-will-help-hybrids-more-electric-cars-26284.html
——
“HybridCars.com: Why will the new breed of lithium ion batteries be a bigger benefit to conventional hybrids rather than plug-in hybrids and electric cars?
German: The next generation of lithium ion batteries will reduce the cost of the battery pack for conventional hybrids, but they’re not going to reduce the cost of the battery pack for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. In effect, these batteries will increase the cost differential between conventional hybrids and plug-in hybrids. That’s going to make it harder for plug-in hybrids to compete with conventional hybrids.”
——
“What’s your feeling about the cost per kilowatt-hour of lithium ion batteries? What are they now and where do they need to be?
I thought they were $1,000 per kilowatt-hour, but I’m hearing that it may be more like $700. It’s hard to determine the long-term price potential. They shouldn’t have much trouble getting down to about $320 per kilowatt-hour. It’s going to take a while, but with higher volumes and better production methods, $320 is achievable in the 2018 to 2020 time frame.
The real question is how low can you drive it. I’ve seen some people suggest that the lowest could be $250 to maybe $175.”
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (9:58 pm)If you raise taxes during a recession, that can stifle growth, which means business and individual incomes go down, which can actually reduce the amount of tax revenue long term.
But if you just cut taxes all the time, then you won’t have enough money to pay the bills, and the debt increases.
So the trick is to find a way to raise revenues that will not harm the economy. A floor tax on gas or oil would be perfect for this. If world oil prices decline, then the floor tax would automatically increase, so the price would stay the same.
Remember that when plug-ins start going mainstream, world oil demand may decline, which would lower world oil prices considerably. If this happens, tax revenues from a floor tax may be considerable, and that could help with the debt. This is a great scenario, and it’s not impossible.
And by the way, once companies start hiring again, it will also help a lot if the government can lower spending. Both parties are guilty here, regardless of their rhetoric.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:08 pm)I woke up a dead thread, they did do it. It was on the Science Channel. From what I gather 100% CO2 ended up one degree celsius warmer.
-1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:09 pm)We’ve waltzed around this bush many times on this site. My thoughts remain that the ends don’t justify the means. JMO.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:13 pm)My suspicion was wrong then (g). So with 100% co2 we’d be a degree warmer and 100% dead then?
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:22 pm)Tax now, usage goes down, price per barrel drops, Arabs get less money and the cost to the consumer remains the same?
HeHe
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:32 pm)When the ICE gets older and you decide to buy a new vehicle which would it be, a hybrid like Prius or a Volt? I see the best combination of vehicles to be a Volt EREV and a BEV like the Leaf.
Assuming of course that GM doesn’t have a BEV on the market (not likely): more likely that GM will have a BEV with better technology than Leaf.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again and Happier New Year.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:35 pm)Current cost is $1000 per available kilowatt-hour, and this assumes only 50% of the total battery capacity is available. This figure is for the whole battery pack, not just the cells. So the Volt’s battery pack costs around $8000.
This figure comes from the CEO of CPI, the company that currently assembles the Volt battery packs. In the same article, he says battery pack prices will drop to 1/4 to 1/2 of what they are now over the next 5-10 years. So by 2020 the Volt’s battery pack should cost around $2000.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html#more
Here are the relevant parts of the interview:
• First, … the ratio of end-of-life to beginning-of-life is 75%.
• Second, the AT application is sized for a 70% depth of discharge…
• Third, … stringent requirements on the validation of the individual cells.
• Fourth, a vehicle pack battery pack has non-cell costs such as a monitoring system.
All four of these items together justify … approximately $ 1,000/available kWh… In the next 5-10 years we should be able to come down by an incremental 2-4x …
Since some people have trouble understanding engineering-speak, I will decode here: The first and second bullets together say that only 50% of the total battery capacity is available for use (75% of 70% is very close to 50%), which aligns exactly with the Volt’s battery pack. The fourth bullet says that he’s talking about the whole battery pack, not just the cells. So $1000 per available kilowatt-hour corresponds to $500 per total kWh. And that should go down to around $125 per total kWh by 2020.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:46 pm)And you’ll need one that makes water also!!!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 27th, 2009 (10:52 pm)Hey Tagamet, thanks for your 34 years of service.
Professionals like yourself and the charity and support of the good people of America give families like us a somewhat normal life.
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:08 pm)You got it.
What’s more, I’m talking about a $70 / barrel floor import tariff on foreign oil. So oil that is extracted here would not be subject to the floor tax.
And remember that the current price of oil is $78 / barrel, so this would not affect current gas prices. The tariff would only go into effect if world oil prices drop below $70 / barrel.
I believe this is something that everyone can get behind. It encourages investment in alternative transportation. It encourages investment in U.S. oil fields. And it doesn’t increase gas prices, it just keeps it from decreasing. How would the politicians kill this?
And for those that say oil will never go that low again, I heard the same comments during the summer of 2008, and then oil prices dropped from $140 to $40 per barrel within the next 8 months.
+1
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:11 pm)No problem – it’s all about the kids. Every single one of them is a blessing.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-1
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:20 pm)I know that you think that this is a good idea that “everyone can get behind”. Guaranteeing that gas prices will never improve, is not something that will help America. People in every income bracket will be hurt, but the lowest income folks will be impacted the most. Everything we BUY is transported. Price fixing was tried by Pres Carter and was spectacularly unsuccessful. Inflation ran amok.
Again, I agree with the “ends” but they don’t justify all of the ancillary damage. JMO.
Happy New Year!
Tagamet
/Night all.
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:42 pm)That was completely different. Carter used a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, and they retaliated, which was a disaster.
As for hurting people, I truly believe volatile prices hurt more in the long run. If people know how much something is going to cost, they will find options that fit that. What’s more, a U.S. floor tariff may help to stabilize world oil prices, which might help avoid the boom-bust type economic cycles we’ve been seeing.
Also, keep in mind that I’m talking about a $70 / barrel floor. The current price is $78 / barrel, and gas prices are fairly reasonable. So I’m not talking about freezing gas prices at some high rate. The real issue is to keep gas prices from falling to ridiculously low rates that threaten our investments in alternative energy and U.S. oil fields.
For example, look at what OPEC has done over the years. In the early 80′s when ethanol was gaining ground, they opened the spigots and lowered prices. Then again in the 90s when hybrids and EVs were gaining traction, OPEC set the lowest prices in history, which killed the EV1, and most hybrids (only Toyota stuck with it). So if the Volt and other EREVs get a firm foothold in the market, what’s to stop OPEC from doing it again?
If American car companies are to make major investments in plug-ins, they will need some guarantee that OPEC won’t pull the rug out from under them, again…
Dec 27th, 2009 (11:49 pm)Yep it’s 30% by 2013
Here is the link …..
http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-to-cut-parts-spending-by-30-percent.html
+1
Dec 28th, 2009 (12:44 am)I’m in a very positive mood, so i’m not saying this for just the sake of being negative, but this car sucks. The wheel overwhelms the picture.
This car will be something the size of a smart that gets the kind of mileage the smart was SUPPOSED to get, which STILL isn’t going to make it a high volume seller. Smart-size cars will never appeal to a large majority of the US population. They’ll wait until technology will bring efficiency to their mid size vehicle before they’ll embrace it, rather than buying a subcompact to have their high mileage NOW…which in my opinion is a good thing! Innovation happens because companies are serving what the consumer wants in order to get them to voluntarily reach into their pockets and give then money for a car. There’s nothing profound about bragging about efficiency gains in your country or area when all you’re doing is enacting laws that kick down the allowed size of everyone’s cars and engine displacement. Anyone can be dumb enough to think of that. Most consumers will wait for the 50 MPG to reach the mid-size class instead of moving down in size to get that 50 MPG sooner. (1st gen honda insight, perfect example).
But alas, i hope the toyota smart-killer car is well made and at least makes its owners happy! The very few urban-only dwellers that actually buy one. This car will not be groundbreaking and will not sell in high volumes, because it’s tiny. A mini cooper is the smallest that most people can stomach.
Dec 28th, 2009 (1:34 am)This is one of those arguments where you first construct a straw man and then knock it down. I’m not sure that anyone is saying that smaller is necessarily better, or that “occupants of small cars will survive crashes as well as those in larger ones”. What they’re saying is that the data establishes that small vehicles are not necessarily any worse than larger ones.
The available studies clearly indicate that, within a vehicle style, larger may be better, but sometimes it’s not, and some styles, like pickup trucks and SUVs, have much higher death rates than other styles like sedans.
This more or less sums up the research results: Large cars and minivans dominate among vehicle models with very low death rates. The models with the highest rates are mostly small cars and small and midsize SUVs, many of which also have high rates of death in single- vehicle rollover crashes. The model with the highest death rate of all — the two-door, two- wheel-drive Chevrolet Blazer with 308 driver deaths per million registered years — also had the highest rollover death rate (251 per million).
To put things in perspective, the death rate for drivers of a Ford Escape, a small sedan, are about 40% LOWER than the death rate for drivers of the very large (and heavy) Ford F-250 or the Dodge Ram 2500 four wheel vehicles. And the death rate for drivers of the VW Passat are almost 90% less — which means that you increase your chances of dying 10X by trading in a Passat for an F-250. (The death rates for the vehicles were 62, 114, 119, and 16 deaths per million registered vehicle years).
Not only are some vehicle styles safer than others, it also appears that some models in the same category are much safer. For example, while a Chevrolet Tahoe is a very heavy vehicle, you’re four times safer in the much lighter weight RAV4 than you are in the Tahoe (18 vs. 75).
Basically there lots of things going on and there are many variables. Focusing on mass as THE major factor behind occupant safety seems misguided. If you want to be as safe as possible drive a luxury sedan or a big minivan. After that it’s something of a crap shoot.
Dec 28th, 2009 (1:55 am)You’re right that setting prices by fiat never works, but to be historically accurate price and wage controls were instituted by President Richard Nixon in 1972. It was supposed to be for 90 days but ended up being in effect for three years or so. How could you forget? LOL
Inflation did run amok but Carter effectively ended it when his appointee to the Federal Reserve, Paul Volker, choked the economy with extraordinary high short term interest rates. Usually in politics no good deed goes unpunished, and this was no exception — ending inflation cost Carter the election in 1980 as the economy tanked. (To Reagan’s credit he did reappoint Volker in 1983 despite interest rates which hit 20%, but to his discredit he didn’t reappoint him in 1987 because Volker wasn’t buying the financial deregulation kool aid being peddled by Wall Street).
+1
Dec 28th, 2009 (3:15 am)That’s a good question. I guess it will be up to each household. I believe by the year 2030, EREVs will no longer be sold because BEVs will be capable of 400 mile ranges with a quick charging infrastructure in place. I suspect for a while one car in the family will remain an ICE and the other a BEV.
Dec 28th, 2009 (6:36 am)http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
This web site has an excellent video display of the migrations of early man.
90k years ago man finally escaped Africa thru the Straits of Grief.. ocean levels were much lower then..
74k years ago super volcano Mt Toba (in Sumatra) erupted, this caused a 6 year nuclear winter and an instant 1000 year ice age.. there was a dramatic population crash to less than 10,000 adults, volcanic ash up to 5 meters deep covered India and Pakistan.
Europe thawed about 52,000 years ago and man was finally able to move in.
25k years ago man crossed the Bering Land Bridge and finally arrived in North America.
About 22k years ago another ice age hit and N America, Asia and N Europe were depopulated.
These migrations have been tracked thru mitochondrial DNA drift, and archeology.
Dec 28th, 2009 (6:46 am)Its not that simple, the best way is to figure out the whole budget of solar energy that the earth receives from the Sun, what we retain and what bounces back into space. CO2 has a been a popular villain lately because it retains some of the heat attempting to bounce off but recently many scientist think that clouds are more effective in bouncing sunlight back into space than was previously thought.
With higher temperatures you get more cloud cover, thus keeping the influence of CO2 down and the world does not overheat as much.
CO2 induced major global warming is a scam at worst or a major goof at best.
Unfortunately the Sun has been cooling off (light output) for the last few years, and this is the scary part..
Dec 28th, 2009 (7:12 am)Herm is making the point that I was trying to make. Things are not simple enough for a benchtop experiment in plastic boxes. I am also reading that cloud effects are dependent on the elevation of the clouds also. Some reflect incoming energy back to space while others forme the greenhouse (blanket) effect that C02 is blamed for.
One thing to keep in mind is that clouds are plentiful and do change with climate changes (feedback). This was ignored in the original IPCC report and now many downplay this.
Also C02 is simply a trace gas and the doomsday projections of temperatures running away all rely on positive feedback mechanisms which have not turned out to be true. Most things in nature are naturally stable.. If the feedbacks were all positive, we would all surely be dead already. If the temperature rises, more C02 would come out of the ocean and the temperature would rise and more C02 would enter the atmosphere and the temperature would rise and other positive feedbacks would kick in, etc. etc.. with no end in site. In reality, natural feedbacks tend to bring things back into equilibrium. For instance, temperature rise may lead to more cloud cover which might block more sunlight (I have no data on this its just an example). This type of feedback is more likeley than the positive feedbacks proposed by Al Gore.
Along time ago we were at 300 ppm C02 and now we are at around 380 ppm. Lets say 400 ppm. That means for every 10,000 air molecules, we have gone from 3 C02 molecules to 4 C02 molecules per 10,000. This alone is not going to destroy the earth.
Another important point of physics to remember is that the effect of C02 is logarithmic in this role and that most of the effect is already in place. This means that doubling the C02 from 3 to 6 molecules per 10,000 (a huge change in C02 that no one is predicting) does not double the effect of the C02. In fact, it only makes a minor difference.
The only thing I am certain of in this whole debate is that the science is far from settled. An observation that seems clear to me is that this issue is being pushed by Big government types who seem more interested in the taxing issues than actually solving a problem.
+1
Dec 28th, 2009 (7:59 am)I am an amateur astronomer so I spend a lot of time outdoors at night.. when the sky is clear at night you know it will get cold as the ground radiates (infrared light) the heat away.. but if its cloudy it will stay warm all night long.
Mostly scientists that know what side of their bread is buttered I think.
Dec 28th, 2009 (8:03 am)Manipulating prices (through taxes or whatever method) does not work.
In this example, you set the taxes to ‘kick in’ if oil goes below $70 (set a floor). The oil distributors will just keep the price at $70 and keep the change. If you set the price too low (set a ceiling), the producers can’t make any money and there will be shortages.
Dec 28th, 2009 (8:43 am)Re: range anxiety. Suppose that you have a BEV that has, say 50 mile range. It is only a matter of time till you “run out” of charge. What if you could buy a small (all things are relative) battery that could allow you to limp home. It would be the equivalent of a 5 gallon gas can.
+1
Dec 28th, 2009 (11:41 am)The Yaris is actually quite popular in SoCal, as I have reported before. The 5 door version is a pretty neat little car, as much as i hate to admit it. A hybrid version with better mileage than a Prius will sell quite a few units, IMHO.
I keep suggesting a similar car on the Spark platform. Hey GM:
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
Dec 28th, 2009 (12:24 pm)Remember that oil is a world market, so I doubt you scenario is likely. But even if it is, that’s OK. The point is to prevent low oil prices that destroy our investments in alternative energy.
Nobody’s talking about a ceiling, only a floor.
Note that this idea of a floor tax isn’t new. GM’s former CEO also suggested it. In order for car companies to make significant investments in plug-ins, they need to know that OPEC won’t pull the rug out from under them, again.
Dec 28th, 2009 (1:53 pm)True, however, this needs to be infixed with the words “if you really need a truck”. Anyone who drives around with truck nuts clearly doesn’t need a truck, since they’d have a real 2-1/8″ steel ball in the receiver hitch if they were actually tow-hauling. Same with SUVs that don’t routinely fill up the seats and/or go offroad.
Your argument definitely holds for my step-brother-in-law who is a builder. He regularly uses his truck to tranport tools and materials, and he really does need a full-sized truck to get through a hard day’s work.
But it doesn’t hold for my stepsister (his wife) who uses a Durango to haul an 8-year-old and an 18-month old. Trading the Durango for a more reasonably sized car (or minivan) for family hauling would be a trivial and cheap way to go from 12mpg to 25mpg, without compromising safety and all weather capability (AWD Toyota Sienna, anyone?). Such a vehicle would probably save them a boatload of money on maintenance costs, too. Getting rid of the Durango really would be the low-hanging fruit when it comes to efficiency. But I sometimes get the feeling that my stepsister is one of those people who thinks that driving an oversized vehicle with an American nameplate is her patriotic duty or something… I try not to ask about it, though, because I value family harmony — and because the accounting practices required for their business actually does tell them how much the Durango is costing them.
Dec 28th, 2009 (4:38 pm)stole this from the Prius chat forum.. this may be what the car could look like:
http://www.shinyshiny.tv/2-toyota-hybrid-x-concept.jpg
Dec 28th, 2009 (5:25 pm)I Have to research the present hybrid reliability and what they look like and the conditiion they are in at 10 years and 100K miles…my Buicks all look like new and are extremely reliable at 100K miles. We have put well over 200K on our three Buicks with very little in repairs. Our last two GM vehicles were 13 and 17 years old and looked very good and still ran very good when traded in. They even had their original exhausts. Yes original exhausts. Ownership costs were well below anything published.
That is my only concern with these battery hybrid vehicles. Sure they work and use less fuel… but at what cost? Getting 50mpg but what about the extra 1,000 parts in the hybrid vehicle? It takes energy to make these parts… and they have to be maintained. The Volt technology is interesting because it is all electric. You could leave out the ICE… or put in a hydrogen fuel cell … not so in other Hybrids.
Dec 28th, 2009 (8:48 pm)The Toyota Prius seems to be doing well, but you do hear of problems with Honda hybrid batteries.. apparently their batteries are being worked too hard, overheat and fail.. sometimes due to hypermilers going beyond the intended design, perhaps a more primitive design compared to Toyota. Honda recently reprogrammed many of their older cars to not use the battery so hard, as a result mpg has dropped and this is the basis of the recent class action lawsuit against Honda hybrids.
Here is one of the many threads on the subject:
http://ecomodder.com/blog/replacement-hybrid-battery-costs-plummet/
Dec 29th, 2009 (12:11 am)I’ll help you out with a data-point. 2004 Toyota Prius, 112k miles, looks good, drives well. It’s picking up some minor squeaks and rattles, but still better than any other vehicle I’ve owned at 112k miles. Mileage was diminished by installing normal-rolling-resistance tires, but is otherwise holding steady. It’s mostly my wife’s car, and I plan to change the tires for a proper set of high-efficiency tires any time now.
Battery costs about $1300 to replace. We’re not anywhere near needing the battery replaced.
I haven’t run the numbers, but I don’t think the extra embodied energy and complexity is a big deal. You’ve got to compare the Prius against what you would have bought otherwise. While most people who haven’t actually driven a Prius like to compare it to a Yaris or a Fit, the Prius isn’t really competing with entry-level cars. For instance, my wife would probably have bought a fairly large Volvo sedan if she hadn’t purchased the Prius — and a car made out of that much steel has to have a high embodied energy. Remember that casting steel is an energy-intensive process, and that high-precision processes (like winding motors or building electronics) don’t fundamentally require a lot of energy. So, if you were going to buy a Mercedes E-Class and you bought a Prius instead, the sheer savings in mass might make up for the difference in embodied energy.
Another other advantage of the Prius is that, if you show up at a place where the valets expect to park your car, those E-Class drivers will think you’re greenwashing your lifestyle, rather than a cheap bastard who likes to drive around in a $25k hatchback. This can save you a lot of money long-term, in addition to the savings on the fuel and the maintenance (as compared to every other car that’s ever been in my driveway).
Dec 29th, 2009 (11:18 pm)Its a tiny car, thats what I think gives the improper perception of electrics/hybrids. When people think energy efficiency they think tiny and a huge compromise. This car (looks) like it does nothing to change that perception.
Thats why I am so firmly behind the Volt, its a normal looking sedan that can COMFORTABLY fit you and passengers. The volt alone does so much to change the paradigm that the electric car has to be a compromise.
Dec 30th, 2009 (1:28 am)Heh, Heh, maybe they’ll call a wee version of the Prius the “Weeus”
Dec 31st, 2009 (7:40 pm)Hey Martin,
Thanks greatly for that link. If ever there was one singular auto part that they had not even consider cutting the quality (likely I’m far too late for this advice to do any good), is NEVER CUT QUALITY IN YOUR OEM BATTERY!! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.
All processors are CRITICALY-DEPENDENT upon a battery that fails safe to to software. While Toyota has their processors set to a very high tolerance for battery internal faults, the down side to that is that if a cheap battery is installed, then there are absolutely going to be catestrophic failures that would otherwise be preventable for the lack of the OEM spending $14 more on each battery.
This error isn’t going to stay unknown, and, the Toyota customer that uses a Toyota branded “starting” battery (or a cheap Wal Mart battery, or any other battery with the word “Start…” in its label), that is correctly to be blamed for the taking out or the automatic transmission when it fails along with the battery conductance test failure (esp. greater than a 60% tolerance failure in remainding CCA’s).
You battery manufacturers ought to be paying strict attention to this valuable site, so you can warn these OEM’s of the pending peril of their customer’s automatic transmissions (insufficient flux density at the solenoids with thicker fluid within change intervals from high summer heat fluid-thickening), and, be sure to get their signatures on a “hold harmless” clause in your contracts with them if they cheapen your contracts by this absurd 30%!!