Actually I believe they could, but they are not currently equipped for that.
Well, so far so good, and we ARE saving $1000 a year, which will help in our retirement next year AND we are driving about 80% on wind & solar generated electricity
(which was the real point in buying what we had mistakenly thought was a financial splurge).We also have a 1999 Windstar minivan for hauling things locally for a side business we have, going to the recycling center, and for when we need a 2nd car. We drive it about 1000 miles a year. It also has a hook up and electrical connection for towing, but we’ve never used it.
These guys I knew, members of the Fox Valley EV Association, to which I referred were very smart, well-educated, and had read up on the issues extensively. Some of them were engineers. Not dumb-bunnies as you might suspect.
They say it is highly unlikely that the Volt battery will ever need to be replaced. At most it might need to be repaired. I think it would have to be totaled in an accident to have to be replaced.
Did you even read the article I posted?
I skimmed it.
Everything that I have read has said that electric vehicles will not be economical until at least 2030. If you know of a source that claims otherwise, please post it. You keep responding with anecdotal evidence.I skimmed it.
It’s assuming buying a new EV, but if one were to do a conversion, there wouldn’t be such an upfront cost, as the article claims AND you can sell the engine or buy a car which has a blown & destroyed engine to start the project.
Furthermore, the upfront cost of a pure EV (maybe not a Volt) should be a lot LESS than an ICE car, since they are much more simple. In fact they were some of the earliest cars invented, and even a Volt-like car, the Krieger, was invented over 100 yrs ago (see theswedishtiger.com/296-scotts.html). Before the automatic ignition, EVs were a favorite among city dwellers over the smelly, hard-to-start, less safe ICE crank cars.
I would have been happy to get an EV with crank down windows, and everything very cheap, since that is what we were used to. The only high-tech feature I’d want is the regenerative breaking, which makes a lot of sense.
Higher costs are only partly due to the batteries (which probably only adds some $2000 additional manufacturing costs); it’s more a matter of economies of scale that EVs are more expensive, plus for some reason they think they have to make them very fancy with all the high-tech totally non-essential gadgetry. For some reason they think EVs will only appeal to rich folks.
Quite frankly we consider our Volt a luxury car, compared to the old clonkers we’re used to. Knowing that this would be our last car, and having saved many $1000s from doing the EC (environmentally correct) things for 25 years (saved over $2000 just from the $6 low-flow showerhead), plus saving untold $1000s by living within 1 mile (sometimes within 2 miles) of work since the early 70s (to save resources for future generations), we decided to “splurge” on our last car.
However, I did an Excel spreadsheet after buying the Volt, comparing it with the Ford Taurus hubby had wanted. One of the factors I included was a better resale price after 7 or 8 years, also the price of gas increasing over time (more relative to the 100% wind & solar electricity we use). I also accounted for less range as the battery became less efficient over the years.
In Jan 2012 when our 1998 Ford Taurus started leaking so much repairs would greatly outweigh its worth, we started used car shopping bec the new version of Taurus was just too big and gas-guzzling for us. We couldn’t find a used Taurus in our area (say 2005 or newer), so we started looking at other used and new cars. What we found was the used fuel-economy cars like Prius, and even non-hybrid Toyotas and Hondas were very costly compared to the non-fuel-economy bigger cars.
I finally steered hubby to the Chevy place and when he saw I had tricked him into looking at the Volt he gave out a curse word under his breath. Being a good Catholic, he immediately repented, then thought, “why not let her have what she wants.” And that’s how we got the Volt
My spreadsheet came out that within 7 or 8 years our savings with the Volt & better resale value would equal the costs for a hypothetical used Taurus (which would have much higher repair costs without the new car warranty…and we knew well about those costs, having been paying them on used cars our entire 45 years of marriage). Then after those 7 to 8 years, we’d be saving more on the Volt.
OK, you’ll point out that the battery warranty will expire in 8 years, but we will have only driven 40,000 to 50,000 miles by then, so I expect our Volt battery will last another 8 years or more (since they did tell me it was designed and meant to last the car’s lifetime). Maybe by then the battery could use some reconditioning to bring it up to snuff. Also battery technology will have improved by then AND costs would have come down.
Here is an interesting discussion of a person’s Volt & its battery after the 8 year warranty is up in 2020 – gm-volt.com/2013/04/24/replacing-my-chevy-volt-battery-in-2020/
Except the price of gas isn’t increasing over time. Also, you have to keep in mind that gasoline engines and cars are becoming more and more fuel-efficient, because that is what people want. Gasoline is still one of the most efficient and low-cost energy sources on the planet. Until that changes, I really don’t see an increase in demand of electric vehicles.
We’re all happy that the Volt meets your particular needs - low range, few miles/year, etc - but please don’t make the mistake of thinking that it is the perfect fit for everyone else. Also, please remember that most of the cost of that Volt isn’t paid by the customer, but by the rest of the taxpaying public. The same people who are continuing to pay the taxes that Volt owners avoid to support the road infrastructure.I skimmed it.
It’s assuming buying a new EV, but if one were to do a conversion, there wouldn’t be such an upfront cost, as the article claims AND you can sell the engine or buy a car which has a blown & destroyed engine to start the project.
Furthermore, the upfront cost of a pure EV (maybe not a Volt) should be a lot LESS than an ICE car, since they are much more simple. In fact they were some of the earliest cars invented, and even a Volt-like car, the Krieger, was invented over 100 yrs ago (see theswedishtiger.com/296-scotts.html). Before the automatic ignition, EVs were a favorite among city dwellers over the smelly, hard-to-start, less safe ICE crank cars.
I would have been happy to get an EV with crank down windows, and everything very cheap, since that is what we were used to. The only high-tech feature I’d want is the regenerative breaking, which makes a lot of sense.
Higher costs are only partly due to the batteries (which probably only adds some $2000 additional manufacturing costs); it’s more a matter of economies of scale that EVs are more expensive, plus for some reason they think they have to make them very fancy with all the high-tech totally non-essential gadgetry. For some reason they think EVs will only appeal to rich folks.
Quite frankly we consider our Volt a luxury car, compared to the old clonkers we’re used to. Knowing that this would be our last car, and having saved many $1000s from doing the EC (environmentally correct) things for 25 years (saved over $2000 just from the $6 low-flow showerhead), plus saving untold $1000s by living within 1 mile (sometimes within 2 miles) of work since the early 70s (to save resources for future generations), we decided to “splurge” on our last car.
However, I did an Excel spreadsheet after buying the Volt, comparing it with the Ford Taurus hubby had wanted. One of the factors I included was a better resale price after 7 or 8 years, also the price of gas increasing over time (more relative to the 100% wind & solar electricity we use). I also accounted for less range as the battery became less efficient over the years.
In Jan 2012 when our 1998 Ford Taurus started leaking so much repairs would greatly outweigh its worth, we started used car shopping bec the new version of Taurus was just too big and gas-guzzling for us. We couldn’t find a used Taurus in our area (say 2005 or newer), so we started looking at other used and new cars. What we found was the used fuel-economy cars like Prius, and even non-hybrid Toyotas and Hondas were very costly compared to the non-fuel-economy bigger cars.
I finally steered hubby to the Chevy place and when he saw I had tricked him into looking at the Volt he gave out a curse word under his breath. Being a good Catholic, he immediately repented, then thought, “why not let her have what she wants.” And that’s how we got the Volt
My spreadsheet came out that within 7 or 8 years our savings with the Volt & better resale value would equal the costs for a hypothetical used Taurus (which would have much higher repair costs without the new car warranty…and we knew well about those costs, having been paying them on used cars our entire 45 years of marriage). Then after those 7 to 8 years, we’d be saving more on the Volt.
OK, you’ll point out that the battery warranty will expire in 8 years, but we will have only driven 40,000 to 50,000 miles by then, so I expect our Volt battery will last another 8 years or more (since they did tell me it was designed and meant to last the car’s lifetime). Maybe by then the battery could use some reconditioning to bring it up to snuff. Also battery technology will have improved by then AND costs would have come down.
Here is an interesting discussion of a person’s Volt & its battery after the 8 year warranty is up in 2020 – gm-volt.com/2013/04/24/replacing-my-chevy-volt-battery-in-2020/
Good point. I forgot about that. It really isn’t fair that people who drive electric vehicles can avoid the gas tax. As more and more people drive electric vehicles, the government is going to have to do something about the gas tax.
How many people in the U.S. drive electric cars, I wonder? And where do they recharge the battery when it runs low?
Well, CA heavily incentivized folks to go to high mileage and electric cars through exorbitant taxes on gasoline, only to find that —unlike sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco— these actually worked!! Folks did change to use less gasoline which lowered gas tax revenues. Their solution thus far-- INCREASE THE TAXES!! In fact, gas taxes are now calculated by comparing the actual revenues with target revenues and then adjusting the taxes to reach the target in the next year. (Forgive me if my math is wrong but…) Say, this year the state only brought in 90% of projected revenues for the gas tax, they’ll then up the taxes for the next year to ~110% of this year’s so next year will hit the target. Which kind of lessens the incentive for us all to shift to high mileage vehicles. They realize that as more folks move to electric vehicles, it will get worse so they’re seriously considering a mileage tax as well. Which also lessens the incentive for moving to electric vehicles. One more thing they’ve realized, is that only the top ~5% of the population can afford electric vehicles, yet they have a huge subsidy. So, they were only subsidizing folks who could afford the vehicle without a subsidy. So CA was considering making the electric vehicle subsidy ‘means tested’, i.e. you get less of a subsidy the more you make, don’t know whether that went forward as a proposed change to the law or was just being considered.
I believe that is why I said “As more and more…”. People who don’t use gas don’t pay the gas tax. That means that people who drive electric vehicles on public roads get to use the roads without paying for them. They are freeriders.
A mileage tax will require a more powerful and invasive government too.
One can only hope within 20 years, we are ALL freeriders.
It’s almost 2015 and time to stop our dependence on fossil fuels for the Earth’s sake, and for our future’s sake.The use of fossil fuels led to the greatest advancement is quality if life for mankind in the History of the world. If not for excessive regulation the US would now be energy dependent. if not for excessive regulation the US could ship more coal to developing countries who desperately need it.One can only hope within 20 years, we are ALL freeriders.
We would all be better off without the Department of Energy. Well, not all, but consumers and taxpayers would be better off.
Agreed.
20 years down the road, who is paying for the upkeep on the roads and bridges all of these magical vehicles will be using?One can only hope within 20 years, we are ALL freeriders.
Don’t forget I have to pay for people to pollute the earth and harm and kill people on April 15th, by way of the huge tax-breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels, not to mention military protection, etc. And the people buying dirty and harmful electricity, gas, and gasoline aren’t paying for the harms (on into the future) they are causing – others are paying with their money and ill health.