The perfect plug-in for city folk?

Where a plug-in electric car makes a lot of sense

So, a new Chevy Volt ad finds the Volt telling its gas-guzzling parents that it’s electric. Even when the Volt is at the gas station converting gasoline into electricity, I wonder? Maybe.

Nevertheless, it’s this EV focus that makes it so interesting how many Nissan Leafs are blowing around my neighborhood compared to Chevy Volts.

Technically, GM can claim the Volt is an electric car. For 40 miles the Volt uses nothing but grid-powered electricity, before using an onboard generator to turn gasoline into electricity. Consequently, does it really matter whether that gasoline powers the wheels directly via an engine, or whether the engine converts that gasoline into electricity?

Is gasoline-derived electricity really that much worse than coal-derived electricity?

Of course it is, at least in most circumstances. The fact is, if you’re charging your EV at night, during off-peak hours, in most areas of the US, that energy is much cleaner than converting gasoline into electricity. Likewise, a plain old hybrid like the Prius can use that gasoline more efficiently.

Still, just because the Volt isn’t an efficient EV when powered by gasoline doesn’t mean it’s not an EV. It’s just not a great EV when powered by gasoline.

Which is why I’m guessing that more in my neighborhood are gravitating towards to the Leaf versus the Volt.

My Highland Park neighborhood is about 6 or 7 miles away from the heart of downtown Los Angeles. Even if you have to venture all the way deep into West LA, it’s still only a 20 mile drive. Sure it takes 2 hours to traverse that 20 miles, but with regenerative braking, etc., I’m sure the Leaf’s range is sufficient, even with the AC on high the whole way there and back.

Ultimately, for urban Angelos, the Leaf’s electric range is quite sufficient for most LA commutes.

If you live deep in one of the Valley’s; however, the Leaf’s range could be a problem. For those, that gasoline-powered electricity is a nice backup.

Not that I don’t also see a number of Volts in my neighborhood, but the Leaf is definitely outnumbering the Volt, and that surprises me. But really, it shouldn’t. For most commuters in my neighborhood the Leaf makes greater financial sense than the Volt.

Of course, in a neighborhood — a section of America — where the Prius is easily one of the most common vehicles, it shouldn’t really be surprising that early plug-in adopters are smart enough to realize that the Leaf, and pure electrics, make a lot of urban sense.

For those out in the sticks — I mean the suburbs — the Volt probably makes a lot more sense. Of course, I’ve never understood how it makes sense to live 30,40, 50 miles+ from the city, yet still work in the city. And in such situations, overall, I bet that hybrids like the Prius make more sense. Add a natural gas option, such as the Toyota FT-Bh hybrid suggests, and I don’t think it’s even close.

Regardless, early studies forecast that plug-in hybrids will rule America, but I wonder. The fact that so many Nissan Leafs are blowing around my neighborhood makes me wonder whether plug-in hybrids, or range extended EVs, will come up on the short end of the sales stick long term.

If a pure plug-in doesn’t make sense, then a non-plug-in hybrid probably makes the most sense.

Then again, we live in an automotive culture where making sense just doesn’t make much sense.

40 mpgs in the real world? LOL!

Of course consumers want a 60 mpg truck that costs the same as a 15 mpg truck

The other day on GreenCarCongress  I came across the latest Consumer Federation of America (CFA) study that suggests that the citizenry are on board with the government’s plans to increase CAFE standards through 2025. Comments to this post, 0.

Just a few posts below was another study that suggests that the government is going to whiff big time on CAFE, at least in terms of real world greenhouse gas emission reductions, for instance, all while spending too much buck for too little bang. Last I saw, 18 comments to this post.

Join the herd. No controversy. Question the herd and you’re the moron.

Fortunately, I love playing the moron these days.

According to the government, hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and the Ford Fusion hybrid return their hybrid costs in around 2 years. Again, that’s according to the government, and the same people figuring out the future of CAFE — as well as its benefits — now through 2025.

So why isn’t hybrid technology everywhere?

For years consumer study after consumer study has demonstrated that American consumers really want hybrid cars. In fact, GreenCarCongress has posted dozens upon dozens of studies over the last few years proving that the far majority of consumers are ready to buy hybrid cars, now, yet the sales data has consistently been absolutely contrary to these consumer studies — for many, many years now.

If the government’s analysis of hybrid car cost-effectiveness is correct, coupled with these consumer studies, shouldn’t the Fusion hybrid have been outselling the conventional gas-guzzling Fusion many years ago? Shouldn’t Prius sales be blowing Camry sales out of the water? I mean based on consumer studies and government analysis, automakers should be building at least 50 percent hybrids today — because that’s what consumers claim they want, right?

Or at least that’s what consumer studies claim, because the real world sale’s data consistently tells an entirely different story.

Listen, I know I’m trying to simplify a complex story, but……c’mon! Yes, automakers aren’t yet building a diverse enough portfolio of hybrid cars, but consumers aren’t really stepping up to the plate either.

So, now we’re supposed to believe that Americans really do want more fuel efficient cars, especially smaller ones, and they’ll be willing to pay more upfront to buy better long term fuel economy because another consumer study says so?

This time it might be different, because automakers will now be forced to stop squashing technologies that can turn 15 mpg pickup trucks into 40 mpg pickup trucks without raising prices and that will still drive HUGE profit margins. It’s not that technologies haven’t been there, it seems, but that automakers have just been too lazy to try to meet real world consumer demand. They just need a big push to do the obviously more profitable thing.

Get real. If you ask me, groups like the American Consumer Federation don’t really know anything about consumers, at least not automotive ones.

Even worse, it’s simply a fact that the Federation cites fuel economy numbers that the Federation has to know are complete fabrications, scientifically proven, gross exaggerations of reality. If not, then the ACF are completely incompetent and their results should not even be published on a site as respectable as GCC.

AAA, for instance, claims that as CAFE increases, it becomes less accurate in the real world. The 2016 CAFE requirements, now already law, will be at least 30 percent less fuel efficient in the real world according to AAA, for example. The likes of Edmunds and AutoWeek have come to similar conclusions. 30 percent inaccurate!?! Yet, these are the numbers — the foundation of consumer savings — being sold to citizens via groups like the ACF?

Moreover, not one comment on GCC? No questions asked?

Apparently, now that every single consumer study on hybrid cars has been wrong for so long, it’s time to cast a new web of lies in a different direction: the undeniably positive, and consumer demanded, upcoming CAFE requirements. But it’s not lies, despite the 30 percent error, minimally, to start.

Why question that? 30 percent is pocket change, clearly.

Ironically, on the other hand, GCC also posted a new right-winged study by the Brookings Institute et al — and this objectivity is why I love the editors at GreenCarCongress –  that claims new CAFE requirements could potentially be very counter-productive.

What? Despite the consumer studies? How can that be? Obviously that can’t be right. Since their politics — the Brooking Institute — reside on the right, they’re wrong, right.

Now, I’m not defending the Brookings report, although there are at least some valid points in the study, but I agree the study’s conclusions are debatable.

Yet, on the other hand, when a consumer study makes claims that some people want to believe, but that are similar to a decade of hybrid claims that have been tragically incorrect — based on numbers that are minimally 30 percent wrong –  why is there no debate? No comment?

While I’m for increasing US fuel economy, if it’s going to be done through CAFE, shouldn’t the first step be making CAFE transparent, or at least valid in the real world? Why does the government enable such deception?

It seems we’re all liars when it comes to fuel economy. Consumers want it, of course, as long as they don’t have to give up anything or pay extra. Automakers lie about it. Isn’t everything a 40 mpg car today? Likewise, the government likes to pretend it’s doing something, yet it can’t even start with transparency and honest.

We’re all just a bunch of liars when it comes to fuel economy, and we wonder why US energy policy has been so ineffective for so long?

An Model X Teaser. $30,000 plug-in next?

To be followed by a Tesla pickup truck?

MotorTrend via Autocar is reporting that Tesla is planning a BMW M3 Series plug-in to come some time after the Model X launches in late 2013/early 2014. While the new Tesla plug-in will be smaller than the M3, it will also offer a smaller price tag, possibly as low as $30,000 for the base model.

And a Tesla pickup truck might not be too far behind.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many details regarding either new electric vehicle, but the potential $30,000 price sure is compelling, especially if that’s pre tax credit — assuming there still is a tax credit.

At $30,000 and tax credit eligible, I think this new Tesla could potentially post Prius-like sale’s figures.

Simply can’t wait to hear more about this story. This development isn’t going to mainstream plug-in cars, but it would sure put Tesla much further along than I would have imagined by 2015.

Of course, I’m speculating on 2015, but based on the Model S launch and the subsequent Model X launch, a 2015 launch would make sense in that timeline.

MotorTrend

The key to electrification.

Had GM focused on a Model S-like plug-in, rather than the Volt, would they be more successful?

I never liked ex GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz and co-father of the Chevy Volt until I met him. Even then I often haven’t agreed with him, I love his tact, or lack thereof. Lutz shoots from the hip and makes no excuses.

And Lutz’s latest target is the idea that Tesla is such a smarter EV player than GM and the rest of the Big 3.

Recently another Forbes contributor, as Lutz also is these days, claimed the early success of the Tesla Model S proves that Tesla is the best automaker in the EV game — an assertion I agree with to some extent.

But not Lutz, whom spent the decade between the launch of the Prius and the launch of the Chevy Volt constantly ridiculing and mocking the Toyota Prius. Ironically though the success of the Prius and the boldness of Elon Musk and the Tesla Roadster did push Lutz towards becoming the baby daddy of the Volt.

If you look at the way Lutz sees the auto industry — a perspective most don’t appreciate. He makes some interesting points.

Lutz summarizes “Tesla produces a nice car for a social elite that can afford $80-110K transportation. That’s a thin market, where innovation is rewarded, but prone to being discarded with equal speed when the next must-have “gold Rolex” comes along. Don’t confuse it with what Detroit does for a living.”

For GM and Detroit scale is the ONLY thing that matters, and Lutz is right. Initially offering the Volt as a much more elegant, top of the line Cadillac wouldn’t have helped GM more than its current Chevrolet iteration. In fact, it would have made the Volt less successful.

Surprisingly, the Chevy Volt is more about scale than what many might believe, in the short to midterm at least, and Chevy Cruze sales prove that fact conclusively.

Bob Lutz is no dummy. Despite Lutz’s Prius hate, Lutz has always been tuned into the fact that the Prius brought in many Toyota buyers that bought something other than a Prius. And the Volt has helped GM do the same.

Similarly, Lutz — and apparently Elon Musk — know that range anxiety is a very real issue. That’s why Musk is building electric cars with much greater range than the Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus electric or Honda Fit EV, for instance. Likewise, Lutz and GM’s Jon Lauckner also took a different plug-in approach — an approach that offered real market differentiation. And have no doubts, Lutz is a master marketer. Unrefined, yes, but still a master.

In my opinion the Chevy Volt was a masterful move for GM based on the options available at the time. Of course, as a foreign oil independence zealot, I’m terribly disappointed with the Volt. It’s been obvious for a long time that the Volt wouldn’t be enough anytime soon. It’s a chip in the electrification game, but also a marketing ploy.

But is that really much different than any other automaker?

No, including Tesla, because when it comes to the scale required to truly make an impact, Tesla isn’t even remotely close to offering up a solution. In fact, GM is far, far, far ahead.

That’s no rip on Tesla. While I’ve been opposed to Fed funding for Fisker, I’ve been 100 percent behind funding for Tesla. Elon Musk is a proven out-of-the-box thinker. A disruptive technology entrepreneur. Musk could be the kind of innovator that redefines the automotive segment and personal transportation, but he’d still have to partner with the Big 3 as quickly as possible in order to make that technology truly matter.

At the end of the day concepts like global warming and US energy independence are dependent upon scale at a level most simply can’t comprehend.

So be inspired by Tesla’s innovating ways — I sure am — but the Big 3 are still the most important outlet for the success of the plug.

Save thousands on a BMW hybrid now.

Looking to save some money on a hybrid?

The 4th of July and after is often the best time of year to buy a car. New models are arriving and old models are being discounted.

Unfortunately, when you watch the car commercials, there’s always an * hybrid model not included when it comes to the best deals.

However, according to Forbes, there are several hybrid cars available with offers of cash back or special financing.

Hybrid cars on the list include the Ford C-Max hybrid, Ford Fusion hybrid, Kia Optima hybrid, Buick LaCrosse eAssist, and the BMW ActiveHybrid 7.

Check your local dealership for cash back and financing deals on hybrid cars in your area and compare them to Forbes.

Much cheaper Volt battery packs by 2025

Is plug-in success more dependent upon psychology than technology?

After reading the details of a new McKinsey study on lithium-ion battery costs from now through 2025 that forecasts dramatically lower lithium battery prices, I asked Should America go all in plug-in cars on Soultek.com this morning.

So, should America go all in on plug-ins?

Because of manufacturing improvements, better materials, etc. McKinsey finds that battery pack costs should decline from $500 to $600 per kWh today to about $200 by 2020 and $160 by 2025.

Sounds great, right?

Yet, the AutomotiveNews suggests that would reduce Chevy Volt battery costs from $8,000 today, to $2,560 in 2025 — a number not even big enough to replace the current federal tax credit for the Chevy Volt.

Sure, GM and other automakers will find additional ways of reducing costs on plug-in vehicles like the Volt, such as better battery management systems. Consequently, coupled with these battery cost forecasts, maybe GM can offer a Volt in 2025 that’s a couple thousand less than a Volt today after tax credits.

Would that be enough to make plug-ins THE mainstream solution?

Based on today’s sales numbers it seems a little difficult to make that claim. Of course, add much higher gasoline prices and, maybe.

Certainly, plug-ins will get cheaper and more cost-competitive, especially for those willing to think a few years down the road — something most Americans seem to have a hard time doing.

But, are the costs projected by this study enough for the US to bet the farm on plug-ins? Or does this study prove that a battery technology beyond lithium-ion will be required to mainstream plug-ins?

Or, is the real impediment to the plug-in revolution purely psychological?

If mild hybrids don’t make sense now, will they ever?

Where do mild hybrids fit in?

Conventional hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and the Ford Fusion hybrid are great rides, but the extra upfront costs of these hybrids scare many consumers away. Even if these cars are more cost-effective than their conventional offerings after a few years, most consumers simply can’t overcome that higher MSRP barrier.

And that’s why mild hybrid cars could make a lot of sense.

Mild hybrids also increase vehicle fuel economy. Sure, the savings aren’t as great as with conventional, full hybrids, but the costs are easier to reconcile — at least compared to full hybrids. But compared to full hybrids, these mild hybrids just don’t offer enough fuel-economy-improving pop.

On the other hand, mild hybrids also don’t provide enough sizzle versus conventional gas-guzzlers. How many are really going to pay a grand or more extra for a couple extra MPGs?

Not many.

By 2020, GM has suggested that mild hybrid cars could become GM’s base powertrain. That sounds good, because there would no longer then be any conventional gas-guzzler comparison. And the improvement in fuel economy across GM’s fleet would be very notable.

Coincidentally; however, that’s also the same time that Toyota is predicting the Prius will outsell the Camry. If that happens, will mild hybrids have a chance?

I bet the 2020′s won’t be the era of mild hybrids. Full hybrids will begin to rule as plug-ins finally start to gain some traction.

If there is a time for mild hybrid cars, it’s right now. Unfortunately, the biggest automotive advocates of mild hybrid technologies appear to have no interest in mainstreaming these vehicles when they could matter most. That, sadly, makes it seem clear that these vehicles have no real future.

c hybrid offers best residual value compared to all hybrids and plug-ins

How does plug-in depreciation compare to hybrids?

Obviously, no one wants to buy a new car and then drive off the lot and suddenly realize its worth drastically less than what was paid. Unfortunately, all new cars lose value as soon as the dealer hands you the keys, which is why savvy financial folks, such as Warren Buffett, only buy slightly used cars.

And residual value after 5 years is an even scarier number.

So do hybrid or electric cars hold their value better?

ALG’s Eric Lyman recently told Cars.com that, overall, hybrid cars hold their value better than plug-ins. Take away tax credits, and the numbers aren’t even close.

Overall, the Toyota Prius c takes top honers, with 44 percent residual value after 5 years. The regular Prius came in second at 42 percent.

The Chevy Volt — after the tax credit — is the top plug-in at 36 percent. Take away the tax credit; however, and the Volt drops to 32 percent. The Nissan Leaf came in at 31 percent, but only 23-24 percent without the tax credit.

Ultimately, it comes down to the battery. As the battery in plug-ins degrades over time, so do the values of plug-ins, especially in pure plug-ins. Fortunately, much work is now being done to find new ways of extending the life of plug-in batteries, such as in back up power systems. As these secondary uses of plug-in batteries become successful, the residual value of plug-ins could increase.

$10,000 or less?

But neighborhood electric cars could have potential

Aside from less interest in cars compared to previous generations, another reason millennials are driving less is because many parents are in no hurry to give their kids the keys to the car. Perhaps one day this over-protective attitude could lead to real interest in Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs).

In order for that to happen, however, NEVs such as Greentech Automotive’s MyCar will need some serious price reductions.

While parents might not mind handing over the keys to a 25 mph vehicle that is only allowed on roads with speeds of less than 35 mph to their 16 year olds, most won’t want to fork out $18,000 for such a vehicle.

Until those costs come down; however, NEVs might still find a home outside of the US, or in rich, gated communities. Which is Greentech’s goal, at least for now.

Nevertheless, I do like the concept. With new safety features, even small two seat commuter vehicles can be made very safe, and limiting the speed of these vehicles — and also the roads they can legally traverse — only makes these cars that much safer. Such vehicles could be a great introduction to driving.

So, there is logic behind the MyCar, but maybe it’s the design that is the real stumbling block to a cheaper product.

Or, maybe battery-powered vehicles are just too expensive without breakthroughs, even if tiny.

At a few European auto shows last year, a number of automakers showcased NEV concepts. None looked like a small version of a more conventional car. Instead, each felt entirely more futuristic. Perhaps such designs could offer cheaper production systems, greater safety? Besides, NEVs are a great way to transform — to rethink — personal mobility.

On the other hand, GM’s EN-V looks more like a glorified rickshaw. But if that helps keep down costs — with safety still ensured — then that might be the right direction. Give it auto-drive and make it a mobile smartphone on wheels, and the kids won’t even need a license.

But it can’t cost $18,000. For $18,000, there are some great, real cars available. Hence the MyCar needs to do a better job of breaking the transportation mold.

Then again, that might be a moot point today. It’s quite possible — highly probable — that the technologies for cost-competitive neighborhood electric cars just aren’t quite ripe enough yet.

Source: NYTimes

If only we could all drive a Fisker plug-in. LOL!

Or just an oxymoronic phrase for rich wankers?

If you’re going to buy a luxury vehicle, there is no doubt that buying a green luxury vehicle is better than buying a traditional luxury vehicle.

But can luxury ever really be sustainable, or green?

To be honest, I’d like to own some super fast Porsche or Ferrari.

Would I drive it regularly? No, but every once in a while a man needs to temp fate. At least that’s my nature.

But then, why do I need to own such a vehicle?

Couldn’t I just rent one at track that ensures that my devilish needs only kill myself rather than other innocent victims if I go just a bit too far?

Somehow this idea of luxurious sustainability is just silly to me. In fact, it makes me want to punch Leo DeCaprio straight in the face, but that’s just the Highland Park vibe overwhelming me. Seriously, I think Leo has all the right intentions. But I still want to give him a fat lip.

Of course, the HLP is changing, and I should too. Seriously, next time I go to Johnny’s or The York he’ll probably be there.

Anyway, if you can afford a $100,000 car, are you really living a sustainable life? Maybe.

But making the kind of money that enables one to buy a $100,000 vehicle seems unsustainable by nature. At this point I’m always reminded of the very end of Schindler’s List.

Nevertheless, there are arguments, such as from Tesla’s Elon Musk — easily my hero in the battery-powered space — that suggest that the luxury segment is the key to electric vehicle viability.

Maybe. Or, is it that electric vehicles are the key to the next generation of disruptive profit margins? And here I think maybe I want to give Elon a fat lip too. And then a hug. But a fat lip first.

All too often I hear this argument, that if not for the rich, none of us would have cell phones or LCD screen TVs. Bullshyt. But even if I’m wrong, the world is such a happier and content place because of either cell phones or LCD screen TVs?

I don’t know. Again, I go back to Schindler. One man’s luxury is another man’s suffering ( Or woman’s — sorry ladies).

Without doubt, sustainable luxury is better than just luxury, but the idea that luxurious sustainability is the key to saving the planet is a little unscrupulous, at least in my not very humble opinion.