Cheap Gas Fuels Switch From Electric Cars To SUVs 622
schwit1 points out news that's sure to clash with Earth Day narratives: drivers who bought hybrid and electric cars are switching back to SUVs at a higher rate than ever. Quoting:
According to Edmunds.com, about 22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and EVs in 2015 bought a new SUV. The number represents a sharp increase from 18.8 percent last year, and it is nearly double the rate of 11.9 percent just three years ago. Overall, only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012. Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent. ... Edmunds calculates that at the peak average national gas price of $4.67/gallon in October 2012, it would take five years to break even on the $3,770 price difference between a Toyota Camry LE Hybrid ($28,230) and a Toyota Camry LE ($24,460). At today's national average gas price of $2.27/gallon, it would take twice as much time (10.5 years) to close the same gap.
Progressive Fix 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax gas and spend the proceeds on "green" R&D.
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Eliminate any exceptions to the CAFE standard for SUVs.
Background: The SUV class of vehicle only exists because it was a loophole in the CAFE standards. Automakers had to meet a 'fleet average' fuel economy for every vehicle they sold.
That meant Chevy needed to produce and sell a significant number of fuel-economical vehicles for each gas guzzler they sold. That requirement alone forced the Station Wagon almost entirely out of the market, because Chevy wants to sell heavily equipped pickup trucks to people who want them (will spend lots of extra $$) and not just to people who need them. Also to sell vettes and other crap.
The SUV loophole was that 'light sport utility vehicles' were exempt from the fleet average calculation, so the manufacturers sold the hell out of them.
Eliminate the SUV loophole and the big bloated turds would be gone quickly. Soccer moms ignoring the road because they're texting need to drive minivans with little engines, not pigiron.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Eliminate the SUV loophole and the big bloated turds would be gone quickly. Soccer moms ignoring the road because they're texting need to drive minivans with little engines, not pigiron.
You do realize most modern 'SUVs' are just hatchbacks with more ground clearance than a normal car and AWD, right? Oh, no, obviously not given your sexist, classist, knee-jerk rant.
Ours gets the same MPG around town as our Civic.
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:5, Informative)
On average, car-based SUVs (which are usually classed as "CUVs") get almost car-efficiency, but truck-based SUVs, the only ones worth owning as true sport utility vehicles, still lag behind cars.
I think that the exemptions for SUVs and trucks need to be eliminated entirely when under a certain GVWR, and that basically "half ton" trucks in the form of Class 1 light trucks sold as lifestyle trucks need to meet this standard. "three quarter ton" trucks sold as Class 2 trucks need to meet a fairly stringent standard too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you want to review your numbers. I see compact and sedans seeing a 15 to 20% more efficient combined fuel consumption. Is that equal to no difference to you?
SUVs in order of efficiency:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg... [fueleconomy.gov]
Small and Family cars:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg... [fueleconomy.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, my Prius averages me about 60 mpg over the last 45,000 miles. The curb weight is 3,042 lbs., or 1.521 tons, so it averages 39.45 ton miles per gallon. A Chevy Suburban, for example, averages 5.61 ton miles per gallon. Weight for weight, a Prius is 7 times more efficient than a Suburban.
Yes, I'm sure it is...
How many Prius would you need to carry 7 people, plus 7 suitcases of stuff, plus tow an 8,000 lb trailer?
I own a Yukon XL, which is the GMC version of the Suburban. I have 3 kids and often have 1 or 2 more kids with me, with my wife, that is 7 people. We also have plenty of room in the back behind all those people for stuff, and we can tow a camper behind that as well.
We took a vacation last year, loaded up the truck for a road trip, it was comfortable and everyone had their stuff an
Re: (Score:3)
Make and models please. I have a hard time believing your SUV does better than your Civic unless you Civic is 15 years old and out of shape or your SUV is the smallest in it's class.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg... [fueleconomy.gov]
I took the most fuel efficient SUV and compared it to the least efficient and the most efficient CIVIC. Keep in mind the SUV is using a variable gear ratio which increases it's efficiency further giving it an advantage. If you go down the list of SUVs the next one in the last is 3MPG less efficie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, fuel efficiency is not the only problem with SUVs. That extra ground clearance makes them awful for road visibility because it's much more difficult to see through or around them from a regular sized vehicle, so every SUV on the road makes driving more dangerous for everyone.
And, when I was driving my mid-engined sports car, I couldn't even see past a Volvo, because my eyes were level with its door handle. Should they be banned, too?
Basically, your argument reduces to 'WAH! WAH! WAH! ME NOT LIKE! WAH! WAH!'.
Re: (Score:3)
All in all, every time I see an SUV on the road I have to assume that the driver is a huge jerk, because only a huge jerk would choose to endanger other people's lives just for the sake of their comfort and convenience.
Well, maybe that's kind of true in San Fran... But there are places (and times) in the world that when you see a Prius, you should assume that the driver is a total moron...
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the ticket artificially punish car manufactures for giving people what they want. The CAFE standards are broken for sure but sin taxes are never fair. Shift it to a purchase tax, that is transparent to the buying they know that their government is taken their money and for what supposed reason. See how long before people call for it's repeal vs these invisible taxes on companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Though costs are artificial already, the low prices generally pay are dependent on those costs being picked up elsewhere rather than personal or industrial responsibility kicking in. For instance, raw material extraction keeps its costs low by having local residents around the facilities bare it. If they actually had to pay for the land and property they damaged the cost of things like steel would skyrocket, but instead individual
Re: (Score:2)
Eliminate any exceptions to the CAFE standard for SUVs.
And while they are at it, find a way to get EV owners to pay their share of taxes for road maintenance, now covered largely by the gas tax.
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
And keep in mind that the EV owners, who do not pay gas tax, are driving relatively heavy vehicles.
Chevy Volt (small car) weighs more than a Honda CRV (SUV)
Tesla S (sedan) weighs more than a Ford F-150 (full-size truck)
Re: (Score:3)
I would love to see you pull up numbers to prove what you have stated, but just checking the Tesla, I see you are full of shit. The F-150 weighs between 4154 and 4930 lbs, the Tesla weighs 4647. The Tesla could weigh more than a F-150 with a tiny engine. The F-150 also just went through a weight reduction of switchign to all aluminum panels, so it weighs significantly less now than its competitors.
4,920 to 5,675 lbs 2015 Toyota Tundra, Curb weight
4,689 to 5,433 lbs 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Curb wei
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Full of shit? In every case, I typed the model into Google, and took the lowest number. The rest of the weight are for options, so they are not relevant.
The ones I mentioned were because the Volt and CRV had already been discussed. I have an F-150, and it the best selling vehicle in the US for the past 32 years. (source: wikipedia) I chose the Tesla because some people cream their pants green whenever they hear that word.
Tough shit that Ford is making an aluminum F-150. Good for them. The Tesla is also aluminum, so it is an apples-vs-apples comparison.
That said, here are the numbers right from the manufacturers:
Ford F-150 4x2 = 4,050 LBS source: http://www.ford.com/trucks/f15... [ford.com]
(Note that even their tiny engine has 325 HP and 375 ft-lbs of torque, which is necessary for a truck)
-vs-
Tesla S = 4,647 LBS source: http://www.teslamotors.com/sup... [teslamotors.com]
(If the Tesla has higher horsepower, it is only useful for making the owner's dick get hard.)
Honda CRV = 3358 lbs source: http://automobiles.honda.com/c... [honda.com]
-vs-
Chevy Volt Base Curb Weight = 3786 lbs source: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-... [chevrolet.com]
Despite what you want to believe, the numbers are what they are. And I just wasted a half-hour looking them up for you.
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
None of these vehicles have a substantial impact on roads, though. Heavy trucking accounts for the vast majority of road wear.
That said, I have no problem with paying to help maintain the roads even if my contribution to their wear is practically nonexistent. I benefit from our highway infrastructure because even if I never drive on them, I almost certainly use products and commodities that are transported over them.
Keep the gas tax, maybe even increase it, to pay for the problems that fossil fuel consumption causes.
Add a new, independent road maintenance fee that's based on vehicle weight and miles driven.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a true fact, or a truthy sounding one?
I always got the impression the station wagon nearly disappeared because people started viewing them as clunky and boring and didn't want them.
Now, the auto industry has never consulted me about trends, so I actually have no idea.
Seems like everybody has a cross over or a hatchback these days. And I sill laugh my ass off when I see someone with a sedan or coupe who is trying to cra
Re: (Score:3)
Is that a true fact, or a truthy sounding one?
Station Wagons were classed as cars SUVs as light trucks. So yes the cafe standards did kill them off. Yes it was a problem because they served a niche.
Re: (Score:2)
Just bought a 4-cyl mid-size SUV that gets twice the mileage as the 6-cyl minivan it replaces. That may be the exception rather than the rule, but I live in Utah, and there are a lot of fucking minivans here, and they all have big engines. Not every SUV is an Escalade or an H3.
Re: (Score:3)
SUVs aren't exempt. They're classified as light trucks by CAFE, instead of as cars. The 2011 CAFE standard was 24.1 MPG for light trucks, 30.2 MPG for cars. (Which if you search for another post I'm about to make, isn't as big a difference as you'd think.)
If you eliminated SUVs, most people who really want SUVs would probably just buy minivans or picku
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, not exactly. If you look at the current Jeep lineup they are happy to put underpowered 4-cylinder engines into the low end of the line for each vehicle. Since they really suck to drive with the 4-cylinder it must be their way of getting to that fleet average mark.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Corvettes get pretty decent fuel economy (almost 30 MPG highway), especially now that they've got cylinder deactivation. Between the low weight, low aerodynamic drag, and tall gearing, they've got almost all the right characteristics of an economy car. The only thing holding them back is the huge, sticky tires.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience the main difference between a minivan and an SUV is that the minivan has more room for stuff, on the positive side, and a less rugged chassis (which is sometimes a negative). If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the minivan because you can haul plywood in it, which you can't do in a typical SUV.
Rational Fix 101 (Score:3)
Tax gas and spend the proceeds on "green" R&D.
Seems pretty rational to me. You could even just spend the proceeds on our deficit or even just lower taxes because of the revenue.
The government doesn't even need to subsidize R&D spending if gasoline taxes made the price of gas reflect its true cost to society. $8/gallon gas would make our cars more efficient real quick. Obviously we wouldn't want to go to that level overnight because of its impact on the shipping industry, but over a decade or so our economy could shift to use more locally raised foo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the huge difference is that progressives are concerned about real problems, and the ignorant conservatives are concerned about imaginary enemies and preserving superstition. There's really no comparison with the conservatives completely off the rails from hate-radio, wingnut blogs, and Fox News.
Glad to see, you have divine revelation on your side and issues like the budget, taxes, illegal immigration, and the shrinking middle class aren't real problems for you.
Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. progressives are right, conservatives are wrong, and there's absolutely no need to address anyone else's issues because Truth. Which is exactly what the GP was complaining of, but with respect to both extremes.
Meanwhile the people actually involved purchased a hybrid before switching to an SUV, which suggests that they're neither stereotypically conservative nor stereotypically progressive. There's valuable objective information embedded in that problem, yet you want to focus on which of the stereotypes is superior to the other.
Way to miss the point, as well as a shining opportunity to address the real world concerns and behavior of the 'middle.'
Re: (Score:3)
1. conservatives are interested in protecting things like rule of law (such that people are treated equally by the state), free speech, protection against unlawful searches and seizures (basically what's in the bill of rights). These are the things that make this country stand out from the rest, and they are damned important. All it takes is one look at the different kinds of hell socialism has wrought in other nations to see that, from the spineless stagnation and cultural self-loathing in sweden, the UK,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Progressives want you to smarten up. You want to do them physical harm. That's the difference between civilized people and people like you.
Here's what I think of when I think of "progressives" [foundry.tv]. And this. [kym-cdn.com] These people would be more than happy to harm you if you don't "smarten up" and conform to their world view, so don't you dare think you have some sort of moral high ground to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
The progressive mantra is
Be Reasonable Do What We Tell You
It has nothing to do with smartening anyone up
Re: (Score:2)
This small minded holier than thou mentality is exactly why I want to kick all Progressives in the teeth.
Progressives are liberal idiots who are every bit as bad as the Teabaggers. While the Teabaggers are Fascists, Progressives are Authoritarians who want the Government to impose their ideologies on everyone else by dictating how we live our lives through bans, criminalization and punitive taxation. Essentially, just one big platform telling us what to eat, what to drink, and how to do it while they loudly proclaim how we need to respect THEIR rights -- while they respect no one else's.
The Tea Party are Fascists? Fascists believe in a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government. This is totally opposite from what the Tea Party actually supports, which is Smaller Government, less intrusive laws, lower taxes and "getting the government out of your life, business etc. " "Taxed Enough Already" is why they picked "TEA", well that and the relationship to the Boston
Re: (Score:2)
They do buy us a step in the right direction.
"I know it needs to be done, but it's no use doing anything until we have a 100% perfect solution." is what opponents put out to keep any progress from happening. Make sure the chicken/egg debate never gets settled by telling both sides the other has to go first.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical progress is great and will help the situation, 'progressive' politics will not. Renewables will not be enough, so where are the nuclear plants that are needed to cleanly power all these electric cars? Oh right, nuclear is bad too according to the same people who want to curb fuel use with punitive taxation. "It's no use doing anything until we have 100%" is the implied argument from them, not me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax gas...
The obvious solution, since the gas tax was pegged at a fixed *price* so long ago that it is no longer sufficient to even fund the Highway Trust Fund. When gas was expensive a few years ago, it should have been easy to implement a "floor price" for gasoline to encourage investments in alternative energy by removing the risk of dropping gas prices in the future killing the ROI (e.g., if gas drops below a certain price, the tax would adjust to buoy it to a minimum level). And the tax should logically be pegge
1000 times (Score:5, Insightful)
We've read this a 1000 times. Stupid people think prices will be low forever. A year later said people cry they are paying $250 a week for gas. Can't fix stupid.
Re:1000 times (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It gives them a reason to blame a hated politician or party (even though prices have been bouncing all over since the 70's).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, stupid people think that buying a $60k electric car to save money makes more sense than buying a $20k Civic.
But it would appear that they've now realized what a load of hype electric cars were, and wised up.
Re:1000 times (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've read this a 1000 times. Stupid people think prices will be low forever. A year later said people cry they are paying $250 a week for gas. Can't fix stupid.
So what about people who buy that electric car and find out that their electric rate is going up? Not to mention that the electric car costs more per mile to drive over it's life and is less comfortable, less safe and limited in range.
Personally, I'd advocate moving towards Natural Gas powered cars myself. It's cheap, it's US sourced, and the price is likely to be low for the next decade according to most knowledgeable individuals who project such things. It's the benefit of Fracking....
Re: (Score:3)
Well the $60K figure isn't fair- that's the (low end) cost of a Tesla, which is a genuinely nice car, something you might compare to a BMW. They also sell several electric cars in the $20k-$30k range - they're about as comfortable and safe as any other car in the price range.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need to have a crystal ball. The price drop only happened because Saudi Arabia wanted to assert its dominance in the global market. With higher fuel prices, North American companies were investing in more expensive extraction methods that only become profitable when prices are high.
Saudi Arabia has been keeping its production down to drive up fuel prices and decided that enough was enough. They didn't even ramp up production to full capacity and it's been causing oil companies in North America to
Buying cars based on fuel price... ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Buying cars based on fuel price... ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Because paying $540 dollars a month is better than paying $580 a month.
The other fact is that pure gas cars are getting really good milage. The Mazda 6 is rated at 40mpg on the highway. The new CX-5 CUV is over 30mpg hwy.
My Chevy Cruze is averaging over 33 mpg for me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
gas cars are getting really good milage.
Relative to what? A '98 Mercedes E-class gets 30 mpg on the highway, but that's still "good" for a small car in 2015? Meanwhile a diesel Fiat Panda had been getting 70+ mpg for like 20 years.
Re:Buying cars based on fuel price... ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
The other fact is that pure gas cars are getting really good milage. The Mazda 6 is rated at 40mpg on the highway. The new CX-5 CUV is over 30mpg hwy.
Those are highway mileages. Anything with regenerative breaking will beat pure gas cars around town where there's a significant amount of brakeing.
Re: (Score:2)
my commute is all freeway with almost no stop and go.
Again this is for me personally.
Re:Buying cars based on fuel price... ugh (Score:5, Informative)
Your Imperial gallon is larger than a US Gallon.
So he Mazda 6 gets 46 mpg on gas in UK terms.
The Chevy Cruze Diesel gets over 55 mpg.
Also the US uses a different testing method than the EU so often the same car with the same engine will get better ratings in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in the size of a "gallon" alone means that 45 mpg in the UK translates to about 37 mpg in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buying cars based on fuel price... ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
For most people, especially ones with NEW cars, the cost of fuel is such a small portion of TCO that gas mileage is almost inconsequential within reason. People get psychotic when gas swings one way or another because people are idiots, who cannot ignore the 20-80 dollars they spent today in favor of focusing on the 500 dollars they pay every month.
Maybe they shouldn't assume that fuel cost is the reason people got rid of their electrics. Maybe they got tired of the low range, or the length of recharge times, or the inability to haul large items (they are in for a surprise on how little you can put in an SUV, though). Maybe they got tired of having one car for fuel economy and one car for everything else.
The article is trying to paint a picture that people who switch are shortsighted idiots, but there are many other far more likely reasons that people switched.
It does make one feel better about one's own inferior intellect if one paints everybody else as an idiot.
Slashdot Quote: The first version always gets thrown away.
Re: (Score:2)
I once read a joke that if people were forced to spend 5 minutes a week, every week, staring at the price of yogurt in the supermarket, then we would all get upset when the price of yogurt went up. So it's not that gasoline is a huge part of the budget for a new car buyer, but it is an unavoidable reminder that gets thrown in their face each and every week that you are spending more and more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrid != EV (Score:4, Insightful)
An owner of a Lexus hybrid-SUV trading it in on a non-hybrid SUV is one thing.
But I very much doubt that there's a line of Leaf or Tesla owners trading their EVs for SUVs.
Re: (Score:2)
But I very much doubt that there's a line of Leaf or Tesla owners trading their EVs for SUVs.
Probably not Tesla, but Leaf owners tend to be younger, and many single. Many get married, have kids, and decide to move to an SUV. Sounds very plausible. I doubt it is fuel cost alone, but rather functionality and changing needs or desires as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I long for the day I can buy something like a leaf but with wife and three sons it'll have to be after the kids grow up and move out. I went from 2 door to 4 door to cross over with three row seating.
!switching back (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA is beyond dumb. It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household. Many people have one EV and one ICE car.
EV sales are rising fast. Few people switch back after getting one and realizing how great they are, mostly because they did their homework and made sure it suited them before spending tens of thousands of dollars.
This. (Score:3)
TFA is beyond dumb. It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household. Many people have one EV and one ICE car.
This.
Also, I have yet to see an EV or Hybrid which is suitable for a soccer mom.
People should also realize that the yellow carpool stickers are no longer available for hybrids... to get the new white stickers, you have to be either a plug-in, hydrogen, or LNG fueled.
Re: (Score:3)
Err.. whut?
There are lots of hybrid SUVs, from small Toyota Highlanders to the enormous Tahoe/Yukon. Lexus and Mercedes if you are into conspicuous consumption.
Honda has the Odyssey.
Chrysler will have a hybrid Minivan coming out next year.
Now is the time to buy a EV/Hybrid, while the market is soft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household.
The numbers reported are based on trading in their EV for and SUV, a switch, not those that keep one and buy a second vehicle. You could be right, but you have no data to show that they own a second EV at the time of trade in.
Re:!switching back (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA is beyond dumb. It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household. Many people have one EV and one ICE car.
EV sales are rising fast. Few people switch back after getting one and realizing how great they are, mostly because they did their homework and made sure it suited them before spending tens of thousands of dollars.
Um, No.... From the article "about 22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and EVs in 2015 bought a new SUV". These are direct trade-ins, not the purchase of a second car.
Life changes. People who are single or a couple who have smaller cars, no matter what type, will buy a bigger car when they have kids, get married, etc. I'm willing to bet that this explains a good percentage of this.
Other explanations might include buying SUVs to tow new recreational toys such as a boats, snow mobiles, etc. There aren't many hybrids on the market that are set up for towing.
These calculations for are so stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My Camry Hybrid is quieter, smoother, and has over 30 extra HP compared to the 4 cyl Camry.
What HP does it get compared to the 6 cylinder?
I'm driving a rented Nissan Pathfinder while my (Score:5, Insightful)
car is being repaired. Ridiculous! 20 MPG and every time I step on the brakes or the gas it rocks back and forth like a rocking chair. It seats about as many people as a sedan and can carry only slightly more junk than a sedan. Why do people want to drive these things? They aren't attractive, they don't stop/go fast, they can't carry much stuff. I don't get it.
I don't understand why so many people want to drive pickups either. In a pickup you can only haul stuff you care about in decent weather. I get it if you're a farmer or ranch hand and need to haul messy stuff year round, but why would anyone else want to drive a truck? And why is it that the bigger the pickup, the greater the odds that they will back into parking spaces?
Re:I'm driving a rented Nissan Pathfinder while my (Score:5, Funny)
but why would anyone else want to drive a truck?
So they can tell their friends they won't help them move.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people want to drive these things? They aren't attractive, they don't stop/go fast, they can't carry much stuff.
Can't speak for the pathfinder, but I have a 2015 Ford Explorer XLT & it rocks. We get a ton of snow in the winter, so AWD is a very nice convenience. Also, the height of the vehicle is helpful for seeing other traffic over snowbanks at intersections.
The EcoBoost V6 has plenty of spunk -- enough that the local sheriff's office & the state police have some in their fleet [ford.com], and I have a ton of hauling space if I put down the 2nd & 3rd row seats. Right after we got it, we bought a new kitchen sink,
Re:I'm driving a rented Nissan Pathfinder while my (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lot of truth in that. I have a Dodge Grand Caravan. I hate it with every fiber of my being, but it is the ideal vehicle in many ways except self esteem. It can carry longer items (up to 10') easier than my truck, it can carry more things inside than most SUVs - and all the back seats fold down to make a large flat cargo space in under a minute. It gets mid-20s gas mileage on the open road. It will *comfortably* seat 6 adults and still have room for a weekend of luggage, or four golfers with a weekend of luggage and 4 sets of clubs.
The only real down sides are
it is not good in snow/ice conditions. Though, to be fair, my wife's Subaru is still better in bad weather than my 4WD truck.
it cannot compete with a small car for fuel efficiency (if you're travelling with 4 or fewer passengers)
it sucks the very life out of your soul as a driver and owner
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why so many people want to drive pickups either. In a pickup you can only haul stuff you care about in decent weather. I get it if you're a farmer or ranch hand and need to haul messy stuff year round, but why would anyone else want to drive a truck? And why is it that the bigger the pickup, the greater the odds that they will back into parking spaces?
I used to drive a pickup with a foldable/removeable bed cover. It allowed me to carry more than I could in a SUV and allowed me to transport stuff in bad weather. It was very handy while I was in college (about 400 miles from where I lived) and whenI was moving around in grad school. My friends in grad school also solicited my help for moves several times as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I live four miles from a lake anything capable of towing a boat or getting me to a good fishing spot is nice.
Woohoo we win, hippies!! (Score:5, Funny)
Love,
The Oil Industry
P.S. We secretly own Whole Foods. You dumb fucks have been giving your money to us all along.
Growing up (Score:2)
Not about saving money (Score:4, Informative)
For the people I know with Leafs and Volts it's about doing their bit to reduce pollution and CO2 output, not saving money.
Re: (Score:2)
Recently had hybrid loaner (Score:2)
Well, the hybrid had stop-and-go feature, had regenerative bakes and and new engine grill shutters for supposedly better highway mileage. Over a week of communing, it saved me about 5$ in gas. Underwhelming to say the least, especially when hybrid is at $5000 premium over my model.
People are not good at abstract thinking (Score:2)
No real comparison (Score:2)
SUVs aren't necessarily the huge behemoths they once were. The current big fad in SUV's is small crossovers. For example, the top-selling car in the US is the Honda CRV, an "SUV" that's something like a hatchback Civic with raised suspension. It gets 29mpg, which isn't too bad at all. There's a large number of these SUVs that get mileage in the upper 20s/gallon.
Gas isn't free(as in beer), Many charge points are (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, people are obviously uninformed or misled on how EV's are, in the most important ways, superior automobiles for the daily use:
1) ZERO MAINTENANCE (except for breaks & tires, wipers/fluid)
2) Vastly fewer points of failure - NO: fuel pumps, alternators, starters, automatic transmission(unless you count a 1 speed transmission), main seals, mufflers, fuel injectors, heater cores, etc., etc...
3) Electricity is far cheaper than any gas any where every day.
4) Used EV's are SUPER CHEAP right now - http://goo.gl/ZAJV81 [goo.gl]
5) EV's are super quiet, peaceful, meditative.
I really hate reports like this (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Combine two things that are sort of similar but not really - e.g. EVs and hybrids or tablets and e-ink e-readers
2) Make a statistical claim about the combined group - 'People are leaving EVs and hybrids", "Tablets and E-readers bad for sleep/eyes"
3) Forget to mention one of the two in the headline - 'People dump EVs', 'E-readers bad for sleep/eyes"
By combining the two, this report doesn't really tell us anything useful. I'd love to know the different rates of people abandoning EV or hybrids, as I think they are two very different propositions.
Hybrids, at the end of the day, are simply a different way of building efficient petrol/diesel powered cars. From what I've heard that efficiency has been a lot less in real life, with milage claims for things like the Prius not really living up to the hype. With ever more efficient petrol engines on the market, and gas prices so low, the efficiency improvements have to be pretty significant to make a big difference and to offset the higher cost of buying many hybrids.
EVs on the other hand are a totally different beast, and the reasons people might give up on them are different. Are people buying EVs and then finding range is more of a problem than they thought? Did they have problems finding charing points? Was overnight, at-home charging not good enough for them? Etc, etc.
In addition, this report talks about the number of people who are trading in their EVs/Hybrids for something else. But that doesn't really tell us anything about how much people like EVs and Hybrids as it only includes people who are switching. It doesn't provide any analysis of how many people are keeping their EVs for longer.
What's most annoying is that there are genuinely interesting questions to be asking about the EV and hybrid market, but this data isn't really answering any of them well.
All I Know (Score:2)
I will not buy a new car unless it's fully electric. I made that vow when I was first able to drive, and have bought used ever since. My car has only twice been made in the same decade I live in, and I'm fifty years old. I've been able to afford a new car for some time, but not a new electric one... yet.
No surprise here (Score:2)
I am moving out of the country and I was trying to sell my smart ForTwo. Then I realized there was no market for a gas efficient commuter car.
CarMax offered me a whopping $3700 under Edmonds trade in price and $6200 under dealer retail price. Obviously CarMax thought this car would be hard to sell.
Not worth the price point (Score:2, Informative)
Even if gas price increases is it worth it? (Score:2)
Stupid People Continue to be Stupid (Score:2)
We are a foolish nation of consumers who can't seem to think past tomorrow. I can't wait for the economic collapse that follows.
People are going to lock themselves into large vehicles again, and when the prices adjust accordingly, they won't be able to pay their bills and we will see 2008/2009 all over again on a smaller scale. Please oh please, let people not be shocked by this. I know I won't be.
The hard truth... (Score:3)
is that Americans will always drive big cars and trucks. We like big roads and wide open spaces. We like the space and utility that a truck offers. We like the feeling of security that driving a big hulking SUV offers.
Hybrids and electrics are a nice idea but for many people they are wholly impractical. Too small, too expensive compared to a gas powered equivalent, limited hauling capability. The high mileage ratings are for city driving. Once you get out on the freeway the advantage is lessened. For a lot of Americans, their daily commute is on the freeway.
Frankly, if I was looking for a vehicle that got great gas mileage I would buy a diesel. Better highway mileage, less complex than an hybrid, proven long term reliability.
Well... (Score:3)
That translates out to:
"Given the option, people will buy the vehicle they actually want, rather than settling for for electric/alt-fuel vehicles."
Why do people like these things? (Score:2)
I'm driving a Chevy Traverse SUV as a rental while my car is in the shop, and the handling is crap, it's a pain to move and park and I can't wait to get rid of it and get my car back!
It's mind blowing that these lumbering beasts are so popular. Give me a nimble sporty car any day!
It's not just cheaper gas (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are the EPA figures [fueleconomy.gov] for a 2004 3L 4WD Toyota Highlander, a 2015 3L 4WD Toyota Highlander Hybrid, and a 2015 Prius. Say you'd previously owned the 2004 Highlander and were looking to replace it. If you looked only at MPG, you'd think the Prius saves you a lot more gas than the Highlander Hybrid. The Prius gets 31 more MPG while the Highlander Hybrid only gets 9 more MPG.
But MPG is the inverse of fuel economy. Scroll down to "Annual Fuel Cost". The 2004 Highlander is estimated to cost $1900/yr in fuel. The Highlander Hybrid $1300/yr. The Prius $700/yr. In other words, switching to the Highlander Hybrid saves you $600/yr. Switching to the Prius saves you $1200/yr. The Highlander Hybrid gives you 50% the fuel savings of a Prius despite "only" getting a 9 MPG improvement vs 31 MPG improvement. How can this be? Because MPG is the inverse of fuel economy. Every time you double MPG, you save half the fuel you did in the previous doubling.
A lot of people laughed when hybrid trucks and SUVs first came out. If you want to save gas with a hybrid, why are you buying a big truck instead of an econobox like the Prius? But they were being deceived by MPG being the inverse of fuel consumption. If we as a country want to reduce fuel consumption, it's actually the low MPG vehicles like trucks and SUVs whose fuel economy you want to improve first by hybrid-izing them. They're the ones burning a disproportionately large amount of fuel, so improving their mileage first will save more fuel. Economy cars already burn so little fuel that making them a hybrid gets you little improvement. e.g. Dropping a hybrid in a 35 MPG economy car to get 50 MPG only saves you $350/yr by EPA estimates. While dropping the hybrid in a 19 MPG SUV to get 28 MPG saves you $600/yr. In other words, each SUV-buyer you can convince to buy a hybrid SUV instead saves nearly twice as much fuel as each environmentalist you convince to switch from their already-efficient car to a Prius.
If we really want to save gas, we should be concentrating on ways to improve the mileage of pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans, and tractor trailers (actually most of their cargo should be shifted to trains, but that's another argument). The rest of the world uses liters/100 km to avoid this misconception about fuel economy.
Natural variation? (Score:3)
Anecdotal example: I drive a pickup truck, and I have owned it for 11 years. It is on its way out soon, and I can't wait to get a small car as I am tired of having something that costs so much to fill up, has bad traction on snow/ice, and is hard to navigate in tight parking lots. But then maybe after xx years in a compact, I'll buy another truck...
Article is really about hybrids (Score:3)
The actual article is titled "Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Struggle to Maintain Owner Loyalty". Shame on Slashdot for not getting even the title correct, since it has little bearing on electric vehicles.
The example in the article claims a 10-year payback at current fuel prices for a Toyota Camry hybrid. It doesn't say how many miles/year that is based on but I've tried to recreate the calculation, and I think it must have been 13,000 miles/year driving, which is far fewer than some people drive. And this is based on 41 MPG combined for the hybrid model compared to 28 MPG for the standard Camry, a difference of just 13. (This gap widens to 18 if you do mostly city driving.)
And worse, no comparable example is quoted for electric vehicles, which can have an effective MPG in triple digits. Given that some EV's are not much more than similar hybrids in cost these days, EV's offer a far better value proposition. Pure hybrids aren't that attractive for either environmental or cost reasons, given that the mileage improvements are modest over their standard counterparts. I wouldn't be surprised if some hybrid owners were trading in for SUV's, but I'd also expect to see hybrid owners trading for pure EV's. Hybrids without charging ability or significant battery storage are going to get squeezed out of the market.
(Disclaimer: I drive a Chevy Volt, and I love my car.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite as great, but there are beginning to be options for not crap, and not insanely priced electric cars. The VW eGolf and the Ford Focus both spring to mind - they both look just like normal every day cars, and are built to fairly reasonable quality standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we can get cleaner electricity generation, exchanging a gasoline burning car for one powered by coal/natural gas fueled power plants doesn't really solve the problem. In fact, it may make the problem worse, at least in the short term given the fuel they burn.
That being said, we do need to have better alternatives to gasoline in our cars. And Tesla is a part of moving the technology forward. This is a very good thing. But it's only one small part of the solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Speak for yourself. Eighty percent of my region's power is generated by carbon free sources - mostly hydro, with a bit of wind and nuclear. The rest of you either need to get more solar where it's sunny and bright most of the year, or for those with a less than ideal climate, kick the hippies in the nuts and start building some nuclear plants. Nuclear waste is a problem, but a manageable one... the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
Of course, you're correct in that if your electricity still comes from coa
Re:/me is waiting for the cheaper Tesla baby! (Score:4, Interesting)
My point was really that electric cars are only one part of the solution. If you don't look at the whole system, you may be just exchanging one kind of pollution for another. If you can get clean energy to power your electric car, then you're doing it right. But if you're exchanging gasoline for coal to power your car, you're not helping as much as you think you are.
It's like all of those people claiming ethanol is such a great fuel because it's clean burning and renewable. What they don't understand is that many of the new ethanol plants in the heartland burn tons of coal to produce that ethanol. So the ethanol they produce isn't what I would call as much of a "net positive" as other alternatives.
They already have batteries good for 10 years... (Score:5, Informative)
Let me know when Toyota starts shipping hybrid vehicles with batteries that actually retain their ability to recharge to a usable capacity for 10+ years.
They've been shipping those batteries... since 2001. See this 10 year checkup from Consumer Reports:
http://www.consumerreports.org... [consumerreports.org]
Moreover, Toyota made it so that you can replace individual battery cells, instead of only being able to replace everything at once. My GF's Prius needed a few cells replaced, and the price was quite reasonable. ($250? I forget the exact number.)