Did you call and ask for engineering samples for a car? Try it. See what they say.
You persist in regurgitating what you've read, but you won't take the one step that removes all doubt. You want to call me ignorant because I don't believe what these people have written? I can certainly call you ignorant of the economics behind producing, deploying, and maintaining an automobile. I am not. I have worked in system acquisition and had to define these things from a logistics perspectivek and deal with the consequences of my decisions.
So, let's ask a few engineering questions - how far will that electric car go in Michigan when it's -20F outside? 120 miles? Nope. Why do you think they chose California and Arizona for testing? Because it never gets too cold and the batteries don't lose as much of their capacity to loss of thermal activity. How about in your own state of New York? Batteries going to work well upstate in the winter? How about asking those people who routinely buy batteries with 50% more capacity than they need in summer just to get the engine to turn over and start in the winter when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground. Ignorant? Me? Please. There's a WHOLE LOT more to this than you realize, and it's NOT just the conspiracy theorists you've cited.
Nobody ever said that these vehicles are for everyone in all climates and all living situations. However, to make such a general statement as "the market didn't embrace them" is absolutely ludicrous. The "market" wasn't even aware of them. EVs are not for everyone. But neither are coupes, SUVs, crossovers, sedans, diesels, etc etc etc. Everyone should have the right to make the choice that's right for them and their situation if the technology exists. Not everyone wants or needs AWD, just like not everyone wants or needs a V8 powering their car. To imply that the market wasn't "ready" for EVs back in 2000 is a flat out lie, to be blunt. They were not marketed effectively and hardly marketed at all.
I suppose the people that actually were able to buy their Toyota Rav4 EVs in 2002, who STILL own them to this day, are all part of this supposed conspiracy that you speak of. Just a simple search on google brings up several links to current owners of EVs who say that they are all still running fine and going strong, 6 years later:
How can you call it a lie when PEOPLE DIDN'T BUY THEM. The Prius didn't take off in California until they got HOV status with a sticker and one person in the car ALONG WITH the tax incentive the State allowed. Then Hollywood bought them and everyone stylish had to have one.
Maybe you think a certain way because you don't remember history. I remember seeing small fuel efficient cars sitting on showroom floors and selling below cost so manufacturers could meet their CAFE standards. Electric vehicles have NEVER offered the same level of amenities, the same convenience, and the same value their gasoline counterparts offered. I read every single review on electric vehicles when they came out because I thought they were cool technology. EVERY SINGLE REVIEW said, it's cool, it's high tech, and IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE.
The RAV4 even in it's gasoline incarnation isn't a stellar selling vehicle. Extending YOUR preference to the masses and claiming there is a big unsatisfied demand is foolish at best. Do you really believe the car makers don't do market research? Do you really believe electric cars are "new?" I saw one at the Monroeville Mall in Pennsylvania - a pre-production prototype put there to gather public interest and justify the next round of spending necessary to put them on the road in significant numbers. Maybe you'd like to guess when this was? 1976! So this approach has been tried MANY times in the past, and EACH TIME they have failed to capture a significant market share.
Business works on SALES. If you are not selling, your business is dying. Electrics HAVE NOT SOLD HISTORICALLY. This is not conjecture, it's fact. No matter how many conspiracies you would like to cite, the fact remains: any manufacturer MUST SELL enough units to recover the cost of development and on-going support. IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
So, again, I say - IF THE MARKET IS READY THIS TIME, electrics may have a chance. If it is not - they won't.
Most performance mods need a watch and timed course to demonstrate actual improvement. Few deliver the advertised claims. Many are actually worse than stock. The best performance mods are made to the driver.
Emotional arguments - They're not just for chicks anymore.
How can you call it a lie when PEOPLE DIDN'T BUY THEM. The Prius didn't take off in California until they got HOV status with a sticker and one person in the car ALONG WITH the tax incentive the State allowed. Then Hollywood bought them and everyone stylish had to have one.
Maybe you think a certain way because you don't remember history. I remember seeing small fuel efficient cars sitting on showroom floors and selling below cost so manufacturers could meet their CAFE standards. Electric vehicles have NEVER offered the same level of amenities, the same convenience, and the same value their gasoline counterparts offered. I read every single review on electric vehicles when they came out because I thought they were cool technology. EVERY SINGLE REVIEW said, it's cool, it's high tech, and IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE.
Of course people didn't buy them, because THEY WERENT AVAILABLE FOR SALE. What part of that do you not understand? The EVs that were offered up by GM, Toyota, Nissan, & Honda were ONLY made available for lease. The ONLY company to sell them was Toyota, and that was for ONLY 8 months in 2002 and ONLY in Southern California WITHOUT any promotion or advertising for them whatsoever. And you're telling me "I" don't remember history? These are facts.
I chuckle at your statement "electric vehicles never offered the same level of amenities, the same convenience, and the same value" as their gasoline counterparts. I find it VERY convenient to never have to stop at a gas station, change my oil and oil filter, change my air filter, get tuneups, etc etc. I find buying a vehicle at $42,000 in 2002 (which is roughly what the RAV 4 EVs sold for) and reselling it for $65,000 a few years later to be a GREAT value. I don't know about you, but I don't know of any other vehicles that actually increase their value over time. And it's pretty much common knowledge across the industry that hybrids have a tremendous resale value over ICE vehicles.
As far as your claim that EVs didn't have the same amenities as ICE cars, well that's just ridiculous. They were absolutely 100% comparable to their non-EV counterparts in what they offered up at that time. These were not luxury EVs
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobuxracer
The RAV4 even in it's gasoline incarnation isn't a stellar selling vehicle. Extending YOUR preference to the masses and claiming there is a big unsatisfied demand is foolish at best. Do you really believe the car makers don't do market research? Do you really believe electric cars are "new?" I saw one at the Monroeville Mall in Pennsylvania - a pre-production prototype put there to gather public interest and justify the next round of spending necessary to put them on the road in significant numbers. Maybe you'd like to guess when this was? 1976! So this approach has been tried MANY times in the past, and EACH TIME they have failed to capture a significant market share.
Business works on SALES. If you are not selling, your business is dying. Electrics HAVE NOT SOLD HISTORICALLY. This is not conjecture, it's fact. No matter how many conspiracies you would like to cite, the fact remains: any manufacturer MUST SELL enough units to recover the cost of development and on-going support. IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
So, again, I say - IF THE MARKET IS READY THIS TIME, electrics may have a chance. If it is not - they won't.
Funny you say that, because every EV available for lease at the time were snatched up. Again, they were never sold. GM never sold their EV1s. They only leased them. There were people protesting outside GM headquarters who wanted to buy their EVs, but GM WOULD NOT SELL THEM TO THESE PEOPLE. Why? probably because there was NO PROFIT to be made at the time and they knew that they would make more money selling off the tech to Chevron. There is more money in ICE vehicles because batteries are simply more expensive to produce. Only up until recently has Toyota started making a profit off of the Prius. So, from a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense why the car manufacturers didn't and don't really want to sell EVs. There's much more profit to be made in ICE vehicles.
But please, don't try to convince me that there is little to no market for PHEVs and EVs. If people don't even know these vehicles exist, how can they possibly be blamed for not wanting them?
Maybe you think a certain way because you don't remember history. I remember seeing small fuel efficient cars sitting on showroom floors and selling below cost so manufacturers could meet their CAFE standards. Electric vehicles have NEVER offered the same level of amenities, the same convenience, and the same value their gasoline counterparts offered. I read every single review on electric vehicles when they came out because I thought they were cool technology. EVERY SINGLE REVIEW said, it's cool, it's high tech, and IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE.
The RAV4 even in it's gasoline incarnation isn't a stellar selling vehicle. Extending YOUR preference to the masses and claiming there is a big unsatisfied demand is foolish at best. Do you really believe the car makers don't do market research? Do you really believe electric cars are "new?" I saw one at the Monroeville Mall in Pennsylvania - a pre-production prototype put there to gather public interest and justify the next round of spending necessary to put them on the road in significant numbers. Maybe you'd like to guess when this was? 1976! So this approach has been tried MANY times in the past, and EACH TIME they have failed to capture a significant market share.
lobux -- 1976!?!?!?!?! do you remember what the price of gas was in 1976!?!?!??!?!?!?
The planned eco-friendly fleets of GM and competitors
General Motors has a lot of company. Practically every automaker on the planet is being forced to make cars and trucks that pollute less and go farther on a tank of fuel. Here is what GM and its main rivals have in the pipeline.
• GM (GM). The Chevrolet Volt is the sexiest green car in GM's arsenal. Due in November, 2010, the sedan will charge up in six hours and run for 40 miles before a small gasoline engine fires up and recharges the battery, extending the range to 600 miles. On such longer trips, GM says it will get 100 miles per gallon. Insiders say future generations may offer different battery sizes; smaller and cheaper ones for people who commute less than 40 miles and bigger ones for road-trippers. GM says the Volt will sell for $30,000 to $45,000. And the electric bill? GM says it will cost $150 to $300 a year to keep it charged, about one-sixth the cost to gas up today's cars. GM is also pushing harder into hybrids. An 80-mpg version of the Saturn Vue SUV arrives next year. It will be the first plug-in hybrid in the U.S.
• Toyota (TM). It already has the Prius and five other hybrids selling in the U.S. The company plans to lease a limited number of plug-in hybrids by 2010 and put its gasoline-electric hybrid system into more models. Its next-generation hybrid cars should be launched the same year. They will get better fuel economy and cost less.
• Honda (HMC). It's the contrarian. While Honda aims to launch another hybrid compact by 2010, it also has plans for clean diesel engines in anything larger than a Civic. It thinks clean diesel, which can boost fuel economy by more than 25%, is a more cost-effective solution than hybrids. Honda's conventional engines already beat most rivals when it comes to fuel economy.
• Nissan (NSANY). CEO Carlos Ghosn bought Toyota's hybrid system for the Altima family sedan. But in two years Nissan will replace it with one that's home-grown. Plus, in 2010, Nissan plans to start selling electric cars worldwide. They will use technology similar to GM's.
• Ford (F). GM's crosstown rival is pushing its Eco Boost engines, which generate plenty of power and better fuel economy. And by the end of the decade two more hybrids will join the Escape SUV in Ford's gasoline-electric lineup.
• Honda (HMC). It's the contrarian. While Honda aims to launch another hybrid compact by 2010, it also has plans for clean diesel engines in anything larger than a Civic. It thinks clean diesel, which can boost fuel economy by more than 25%, is a more cost-effective solution than hybrids. Honda's conventional engines already beat most rivals when it comes to fuel economy.
boy, I hate to see Honda going this route with diesel fuel selling for almost $1 more per gallon.....BUT if they can use B100, I'm might be willing.
I like the idea of the solar paneled charging, But plug in charging. If masses buy this, i dont know how electric companies can keep up. Also for the most part, it might not be any trade off. Working for the electric company in NY, we dont manufacture power any more, we just buy it and distribute it. Power we get mostly comes from Gas Turbines in Queens, Nuclear Power in Indian Point, and Water Powered Turbines at Niagara Falls. During the summer, many people experience brown outs and black outs becuase increased use of power during the day (i.e. Air Conditioners). I don't know how much power these cars need to draw, but if the masses start buying, more power will need to be generated. Meaning more Feeders will have to be put in, meaning more work, meaning higher electric bills, meaning more gas and nuclear power needs to be generated. I couldnt tell you how many people are trying to shut down nuclear power plants. Now i am basing this off ALOT of people buying these plug ins, But i dont know how these Plug ins are the end all be all of gas problems.
boy, I hate to see Honda going this route with diesel fuel selling for almost $1 more per gallon.....BUT if they can use B100, I'm might be willing.
Agreed. They're going down the wrong path. Diesels are definitely not the answer here and neither are fuel cells. The FCX Clarity is bound to be a flop, as there is not an infrastructure for such a vehicle and there probably won't ever be. I think in general Honda makes very poor business decisions, like discontinuing the Insight for example. With gas prices at $4/gallon, why REDUCE your hybrid fleet? The Civic Hybrid is nice and gets good mileage, but no where near where the Insight got. Any yea, maybe the demand for a 2-seater is limited, but there's still a market for it. I know of at least 3 people that would be interested in a new Insight right about now, but alas, they're no longer available
Agreed. They're going down the wrong path. Diesels are definitely not the answer here and neither are fuel cells. The FCX Clarity is bound to be a flop, as there is not an infrastructure for such a vehicle and there probably won't ever be. I think in general Honda makes very poor business decisions, like discontinuing the Insight for example. With gas prices at $4/gallon, why REDUCE your hybrid fleet? The Civic Hybrid is nice and gets good mileage, but no where near where the Insight got. Any yea, maybe the demand for a 2-seater is limited, but there's still a market for it. I know of at least 3 people that would be interested in a new Insight right about now, but alas, they're no longer available
Revisiting Darrell Dickey's statements in that Sierra Club post, I am bothered by his claim to charge his RAv4EV from solar panels on his garage. Something here's just not right.
If he commutes to work in the car, he is charging it after he returns home. Solar panels don't work well at night.
If his PV's are feeding a battery during the day that then transfers energy to his car battery overnight, he's losing massive amounts of hard-won energy to inefficiency.
I don't know what the power requirements are for the RAv4EV, but some electrics require up to 70 amps @ 220v if the battery is deeply discharged. Of course that's the current draw at the beginning of the charge cycle. As the batteries come up, that initial load falls off. That kind of current for the first hour or two is simply not available from a few panels on the roof of your garage. Think a whole neighborhood covered in PV's.
There's got to be more to this story than is being told here. It just sounds a little fishy.
Revisiting Darrell Dickey's statements in that Sierra Club post, I am bothered by his claim to charge his RAv4EV from solar panels on his garage. Something here's just not right.
If he commutes to work in the car, he is charging it after he returns home. Solar panels don't work well at night.
If his PV's are feeding a battery during the day that then transfers energy to his car battery overnight, he's losing massive amounts of hard-won energy to inefficiency.
I don't know what the power requirements are for the RAv4EV, but some electrics require up to 70 amps @ 220v if the battery is deeply discharged. Of course that's the current draw at the beginning of the charge cycle. As the batteries come up, that initial load falls off. That kind of current for the first hour or two is simply not available from a few panels on the roof of your garage. Think a whole neighborhood covered in PV's.
There's got to be more to this story than is being told here. It just sounds a little fishy.
true, maybe he sells to the grid during the day (peak usage) making money, then plugs in at night during off-peak usage....but it doesn't say that.
lobux -- 1976!?!?!?!?! do you remember what the price of gas was in 1976!?!?!??!?!?!?
about .60 a gallon!!
Yeah, I do remember - it was $0.85 a gallon. I also remember minimum wage was $1.65. So in terms of real dollars, it's slightly worse now but may not hold true if the price really does go over $5 a gallon. Making $20k a year back then was really good money. I remember thinking to myself, I just need to make $10 a hour and life will be truly grand.
Most performance mods need a watch and timed course to demonstrate actual improvement. Few deliver the advertised claims. Many are actually worse than stock. The best performance mods are made to the driver.
Emotional arguments - They're not just for chicks anymore.
Toyota sold 134,863 vehicles in the US last month of which 21,757 were Prius, and Prius sales increased 21% over same month last year. Camry sold 40,016 nearly twice the number of units at a 1.2% increase. Yaris sales increased 56.7% over same month last year to 11,434. Looking at these numbers, where do you think the smart investor will spend his money?
What kind of impact do you honestly think 100 people on a waiting list for the Insight generates in the marketing department of any automobile manufacturer? If it were 100k, then it would be obvious the market is failing to meet the desires of the motoring public. Just because these vehicles suit your needs doesn't mean the rest of the buying public is thinking the same way.
Sorry guys, all this talk of pent up demand is nothing more than talk. These companies are in business to turn a profit - to show value to their shareholders not to placate environmentalists. Unfortunately, I again say - if the market is ready
I think I'll go drive my Supra - which I could have sold at a significant profit for the last 10 years - and no electric will outrun any time in the near future. When we all turn to communism and no one can own anything that is petrol powered, then I'll see the value in electric transportation over no transportation. Right now, the value just isn't there and neither is the market.
Most performance mods need a watch and timed course to demonstrate actual improvement. Few deliver the advertised claims. Many are actually worse than stock. The best performance mods are made to the driver.
Emotional arguments - They're not just for chicks anymore.
Toyota sold 134,863 vehicles in the US last month of which 21,757 were Prius, and Prius sales increased 21% over same month last year. Camry sold 40,016 nearly twice the number of units at a 1.2% increase. Yaris sales increased 56.7% over same month last year to 11,434. Looking at these numbers, where do you think the smart investor will spend his money?
What kind of impact do you honestly think 100 people on a waiting list for the Insight generates in the marketing department of any automobile manufacturer? If it were 100k, then it would be obvious the market is failing to meet the desires of the motoring public. Just because these vehicles suit your needs doesn't mean the rest of the buying public is thinking the same way.
Sorry guys, all this talk of pent up demand is nothing more than talk. These companies are in business to turn a profit - to show value to their shareholders not to placate environmentalists. Unfortunately, I again say - if the market is ready
I think I'll go drive my Supra - which I could have sold at a significant profit for the last 10 years - and no electric will outrun any time in the near future. When we all turn to communism and no one can own anything that is petrol powered, then I'll see the value in electric transportation over no transportation. Right now, the value just isn't there and neither is the market.
Didn't you say your father-in-law owns a Texaco gas station in another thread? I guess that might explain your loyalty to ICE vehicles.
Since you're so quick to downplay the success of the Prius, do you realize that the Prius is the 3rd best selling vehicle of all Toyota products? It is currently #3 out of 25 models. In fact, Toyota sells just as many Prius's per month as the entire Lexus division. And that's despite a very polarizing design.
What kind of impact do you honestly think 100 people on a waiting list for the Insight generates in the marketing department of any automobile manufacturer? If it were 100k, then it would be obvious the market is failing to meet the desires of the motoring public. Just because these vehicles suit your needs doesn't mean the rest of the buying public is thinking the same way.
lobux - 100 people are waiting for a USED car of which only 13000 were produced...not a 2008 Yaris.
I wasn't making a point with the insight just helping out another poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobuxracer
Sorry guys, all this talk of pent up demand is nothing more than talk. These companies are in business to turn a profit - to show value to their shareholders not to placate environmentalists. Unfortunately, I again say - if the market is ready
I think I'll go drive my Supra - which I could have sold at a significant profit for the last 10 years - and no electric will outrun any time in the near future. When we all turn to communism and no one can own anything that is petrol powered, then I'll see the value in electric transportation over no transportation. Right now, the value just isn't there and neither is the market.
I know this isn't saying much but you think you're smarter than the guys over there at GM building the Volt? And everyone at Nissan getting ready to introduce EV's in 2010? and all the other EV's + hybrids coming out in the next couple of years?
what's it gonna take? $20 a gallon gas? normally, its better to be proactive instead of reactive; but we're already past that point.
oh -- let's just send our president to beg for more oil, yep that's a good idea...
Linear Mode
