# Electric cars off to a big start in the wrong direction. IMHO



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 6, 2010)

Iv been following electric car development for 15 years. Im very pleased that almost every auto Manufacturer is jumping on the bandwagon with their version. Only problem is i think it would make sense to electrify the vehicles that use the most gasoline not the least. Electrify the pickups and the suvs, the 10 -14 mpg fleet, not the compact sedans getting 25-40 mpg already. I know they have to start somewhere but start plugging the dam at the biggest hole. Perhaps more attention should be on conversions until battery tech improves  and prices come down to include bigger vehicles from new.  Check out raser Ind at    http://www.rasertech.com  is doing that starting with the hummer and also doing suvs and pickup trucks getting some good results. I see a converted pickup truck in my future.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Nov 6, 2010)

I don't know.  My wife's Camry hybrid is no lightweight.  I find it faster than the V6 and it gets half again the gas mileage.  Not sure I would replace my 10 year old 3/4 ton Suburban with a hybrid version even if they made one.  I wish I had bought the diesel though.


----------



## Dune (Nov 6, 2010)

The main design premise for electric vehicles, including conversions, is to use the lightest possible vehicle, for the longest range possible. This has been the case for decades now, nothing new at all. If YOU need or want a heavy vehicle, go ahead and convert one.

By the way, battery tech is pretty phenomonal NOW. Costs are high, and will continue so, until mass marketing is acheived.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 6, 2010)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> I don't know.  My wife's Camry hybrid is no lightweight.  I find it faster than the V6 and it gets half again the gas mileage.  Not sure I would replace my 10 year old 3/4 ton Suburban with a hybrid version even if they made one.  I wish I had bought the diesel though.



Id love to convert my silverado 2500HD to electric with a range extender generator. I like the diesel version but i make a lot of short trips so electric would be ideal and diesel not so ideal for short trips.
Problem with car companies is they want to sell you a brand new electrified vehicle so the cost of a new car or truck is built in to going that route. Im sure a lot of people would pay 10-15G to convert their already paid for truck vs to buy new electric truck for perhaps 40-50G. RIght now the govt is throwing in $7500 tax credit to buy even a foreign imported nissan leaf,would we not be better served with that money paying for an american made conversion?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 6, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> The main design premise for electric vehicles, including conversions, is to use the lightest possible vehicle, for the longest range possible. This has been the case for decades now, nothing new at all. If YOU need or want a heavy vehicle, go ahead and convert one.
> 
> By the way, battery tech is pretty phenomonal NOW. Costs are high, and will continue so, until mass marketing is acheived.



"The main design premise for electric vehicles, including conversions, is to use the lightest possible vehicle, for the longest range possible."
This is true for the car companies but not the conversion company at the website that i referred to,they are going for the most gas guzzling largest vehicles probably cuz the need is great and they will have little competition in that area. they seem to be shooting for 40 mile AER, also by converting existing trucks you solve a huge expense issue of combining expensive batteries with a new truck cost. The gas saving will be much greater here cuz trucks and suvs simply use more gas.


----------



## Dune (Nov 6, 2010)

trump said:
			
		

> The gas saving will be much greater here cuz trucks and suvs simply use more gas.



I have a GMC 3500. The eight years I have owned it I average under 2000 miles per year. My wifes car is driven upwards of 20,000 miles per year. Her car uses aproximately half as much gas per mile as my truck. Which vehicle should I replace with electric first, to save the most gas?

In spite of what I say above, I agree that light and medium duty trucks are good targets for conversion. I also agree that it would be great to be able to apply the $7500 rebate to existing vehicle conversions, especialy since the write off applies to foriegn built vehicles as well as domestic. 
I think you have to agree though, that for now, the low hanging fruit is in getting as many internal combustion cars off the road as soon as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I think we are many years delayed in the process. Oil comapnies have done a fantastic job in delaying the availability of an affordable all-electric fleet.
Electric cars are particularly reprehensible to "conservatives" since the owners can produce their own fuel; no sale, and no taxes on the sale either. For this reason alone, one would think liberterians would be their biggest proponents.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 6, 2010)

Dune
I consider myself a conservative but im also a democrat so that my be a contradiction in terms,but im all for the concept of being Off the grid and independent in as many ways as possible.
I m also very excited about the electric cars coming out.(I check the GM volt website daily)  ,even though none of them meet my needs,they will meet a lot of commuters needs and shine a path to domestic energy production and less petroleum use overall. Im hoping all this new technology will trickle down to the van and truck market eventually. Cant think of a better setup than an electric car or truck in a garage whose roof is covered by solar panels.


----------



## btuser (Nov 7, 2010)

My wife drives 7 miles to work, after a detour to drop my daughter off.  She is the ideal candidate for an electric vehicle.  I have a 2500HD van and drive anywhere between 2 and 400 miles in day.  Sometimes I carry very little, and sometimes I carry over 1,000lbs in equipment.  Even with these requirements I think 99% of the time I could get away with a plug-in hybrid because I could run the generator to charge the batteries in between stops.

Sooooo, if I'm not driving on the road could I use an on-board diesel generator to charge batteries and be using off-road diesel?   Huge loss of jobs and tax revenue when electric vehicles get real.


----------



## begreen (Nov 7, 2010)

For light duty trucks, pure electric makes sense for utility vehicles that run a defined route and local distance daily. Smaller UPS and Fed Ex vans are examples. For medium weight trucks and the more varied use and distance requirements of an average SUV, a well designed hybrid may be more practical at this time.


----------



## jayd65 (Nov 7, 2010)

You can not make an electric car that you just plug in that is saves anything, you are just robbing peter to pay paul. Unless you are using clean energy to make the elctricity, such as nuclear, hydro, or wind, then you are  just sweeping the dirt under the carpet. Until then electric cars will not make a lot of sense.


----------



## elijah (Nov 7, 2010)

USA - Chevy Volt - range with electric power - 25-50 miles.
Japan - Nissan Leaf - range with electric power - 65-125 miles.

Just saying...


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

jayd65 said:
			
		

> You can not make an electric car that you just plug in that is saves anything, you are just robbing peter to pay paul. Unless you are using clean energy to make the elctricity, such as nuclear, hydro, or wind, then you are  just sweeping the dirt under the carpet. Until then electric cars will not make a lot of sense.



Does your theory take into acount the fact that electric motors are 90% efficient versus 20-30% for internal combustion engines? Electric cars use half the energy of gas models.  Additonaly the U.S. produces most of our electricity from domestic sources (national security). 

Finaly, many of us could produce our own electricity, gasoline is a little more difficult to manufacture at home.


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

elijah said:
			
		

> USA - Chevy Volt - range with electric power - 25-50 miles.
> Japan - Nissan Leaf - range with electric power - 65-125 miles.
> 
> Just saying...





Ford Focus electric, range 100 miles (USA)

Coda electric sedan, range 100 miles (USA)

Tesla Roadster and Model S, range 150 or 300 miles (USA)

What were you saying...?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 7, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> jayd65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How are you going to go about making all of that electricity?  I'd bet that the production, transmission losses and then converting it to DC for your car is going to be much less efficient than you think.

Matt


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Making the electricity is easy. Power plants are mostly idle during the hours when most cars would be charged. 

As to converting to DC, you would have a point, if transformer technology was still prevalent for charging purposes. Fortunately, it is not, having been replaced with highly efficient inverter tech.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 7, 2010)

Sorry, must not have been clear with my point.  The power plant most of us would be using is probably burning coal and probably isn't exactly "green".   I just did a google search and a site suggested the average coal plant's efficiency is only 31%.  (I hope they are a bit more efficient than that.) Then from there there would be losses from the power going down the line all the way to my house (the charging station), and converting the power will still not be a clean changeover...  It will still take energy to do it.  Then an electric car, using the numbers in post #11 (yours), has a motor that is 90% efficient.  I have to wonder if the process is any more efficient than an internal combustion engine that is 20-30% efficient.  I think what is happening is marketers are doing an excellent job of telling people half of the story.  And that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  They are paid to sell the product.  

I'm not saying that electric cars or hybrids are bad.  I agree with the above post that suggests pickups are a good place to start.  There is an awful lot of area under the bed that could be used to store a battery.  The same area with an 18 wheeler.  I think the torque that the electric motor could do wonders in getting a heavy load moving from a dead stop... the hardest job an engine has and where the most fuel is used.  One only has to look to diesel/electric trains for motivation.

Matt


----------



## jebatty (Nov 7, 2010)

Average US coal fired electric plant is about 30% efficient, and the most advanced coal fired plants (super critical) get close to 50%, which is about the theoretical maximum efficiency for converting one energy source to another. If the plant also provides heat from the cooling/waste water to industrial, commercial or residential users, the overall efficiency goes up, but very few coal/electric plants are situated to permit this. From that base efficiency, line loss (10-15%) must be deducted, and further deductions for the energy, labor, overhead, profit and distribution cost to get the coal to the generating plant. Then upon arrival at the end user, further deductions in most cases for wasted heat. In the end, net energy efficiency of coal/electric is abysmally poor, probably approaching 2% or so on the down side and maybe 10% on the upside. Finally, add in the hidden societal costs of CO2, acid rain, mercury, and other pollutants, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the long term coal has a substantial negative "efficiency."


----------



## elijah (Nov 7, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> elijah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only realistic competitor to the Leaf could be the 'global' Focus.

Magna International, HQ in Canada, took a Focus and converted it to an all electric design on their own time and presented it to Ford in '08 and Ford said 'We'll take it!'  Ford did nothing to invent this.  Price to be announced but is supposed to be competitive with the Leaf's $33,000 price tag.  This same EV technology and design from Magna is being sought by other manufacturers as well.

Coda sedan - base price 45,000 bucks!

Tesla roadster - base price 101,000 dollars!  Are you serious?  Lots of transmission problems (definitely the coolest looking of the lot, but not realistic in mass numbers)


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Average US coal fired electric plant is about 30% efficient, and the most advanced coal fired plants (super critical) get close to 50%, which is about the theoretical maximum efficiency for converting one energy source to another. If the plant also provides heat from the cooling/waste water to industrial, commercial or residential users, the overall efficiency goes up, but very few coal/electric plants are situated to permit this. From that base efficiency, line loss (10-15%) must be deducted, and further deductions for the energy, labor, overhead, profit and distribution cost to get the coal to the generating plant. Then upon arrival at the end user, further deductions in most cases for wasted heat. In the end, net energy efficiency of coal/electric is abysmally poor, probably approaching 2% or so on the down side and maybe 10% on the upside. Finally, add in the hidden societal costs of CO2, acid rain, mercury, and other pollutants, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the long term coal has a substantial negative "efficiency."



Right, because there is no polution from gas cars.


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

elijah said:
			
		

> USA - Chevy Volt - range with electric power - 25-50 miles.
> Japan - Nissan Leaf - range with electric power - 65-125 miles.
> 
> Just saying...



Chevy Volt, Hybrid, electric and gas, apple

Nissan Leaf, electric only, orange


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...mission-nominated-innovation-award-10874.html Problem seems to be solved. 
The Model S MSRP is $57,400 with a 300 mile range. Plenty of gas engine cars sell for far more.

The focus MSRP, $30,000.  Don't delude yourself into thinking japanese companies avoid doing business with China.

Clearly the cost of batteries will drop with mass manufacturing.


----------



## btuser (Nov 7, 2010)

I don't think the Feds are going to let an all-electric vehicle on the road.  Period.  There's no way they can control it.  There's no way you can tax it to pay for the roads (if indeed that's really where the money's going).


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 7, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> I don't think the Feds are going to let an all-electric vehicle on the road.  Period.  There's no way they can control it.  There's no way you can tax it to pay for the roads (if indeed that's really where the money's going).



The feds are already on board with the 100% imported all electric nissan leaf car that qualifies for their $7500(taxpayer funded) tax credit. Not only are they allowing it ,they are paying for it. Same with the cash for clunkers $4500 rebate, it too went to many imported foreign cars ,instead of american produced vehicles were it could have added to our GDP instead of our trade imbalance.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 7, 2010)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Average US coal fired electric plant is about 30% efficient, and the most advanced coal fired plants (super critical) get close to 50%, which is about the theoretical maximum efficiency for converting one energy source to another. If the plant also provides heat from the cooling/waste water to industrial, commercial or residential users, the overall efficiency goes up, but very few coal/electric plants are situated to permit this. From that base efficiency, line loss (10-15%) must be deducted, and further deductions for the energy, labor, overhead, profit and distribution cost to get the coal to the generating plant. Then upon arrival at the end user, further deductions in most cases for wasted heat. In the end, net energy efficiency of coal/electric is abysmally poor, probably approaching 2% or so on the down side and maybe 10% on the upside. Finally, add in the hidden societal costs of CO2, acid rain, mercury, and other pollutants, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the long term coal has a substantial negative "efficiency."



Id still prefer american made coal produced electricity over saudi arabia or Venezuela or Iranian produced oil as a national security policy as well as an economic security polic


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 7, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> elijah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Although i would probably not buy a toyota they did make a very good electric version of the RAV 4 called the RAV4-EV . THe ones that survived the buy back are still in use today with 125 mile range using a NIMH battery. Not bad for an SUV. THen chevron (AN oil company) bought the patent for the battery and effectively killed this electric SUV. Still cant believe that was legal. Now that li-ion batteries have come along toyota has once again announced they will start producing this model. No production date as of yet.


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

Close. More of the story here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries


----------



## Dune (Nov 7, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> I don't think the Feds are going to let an all-electric vehicle on the road.  Period.  There's no way they can control it.  There's no way you can tax it to pay for the roads (if indeed that's really where the money's going).



This is the one thing you have posted lately that I agree with.  This massive loophole is a gift from the feds, IF one buys an electric car AND generates their own electricity. 

It is a partial escape hatch from present day economic slavery, for those that choose to use it. Partial freedom is within our grasp. Make the choice!


----------



## spirilis (Nov 8, 2010)

Well when putting the efficiency of coal-fired power into perspective, the idea of burning anthracite at home doesn't seem far-fetched at all to me.  Not that I'm looking for a new stove (and mine burn wood) but I'm thinking a lot more about recommending them to folks around here who hate their obnoxious heat pumps.  The power around here mostly comes from coal power in WV/PA transmitted over long distances through the mountains.


----------



## Dune (Nov 8, 2010)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2759/are-electric-cars-really-more-energy-efficient

This is one of many, many articles debunking the myth that electric cars use more energy or polute more than gas cars. These rumors are always self serving, serving those interests that would profit from the elimination of electric cars. 

Please folks, google it yourselves if you are unsure.  Inspite of the ineffiencies of power generation, transportation and battery charging, electric cars save about half the energy.


----------



## semipro (Nov 8, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> I don't think the Feds are going to let an all-electric vehicle on the road.  Period.  There's no way they can control it.  There's no way you can tax it to pay for the roads (if indeed that's really where the money's going).



Good point about how we're going to pay for roads.  Alternative ways to pay road "taxes" are already in the works.  One scenario, and one I like, makes those that use the road the most pay the most.   This means heavy users (weight and mileage) like trucks, will pay much more than the average commuter.  It follows that the cost of transported goods, like motor fuel, will also cost more.   

Yes this requires electronic tracking though and the "big brother" issue that many worry about.  I can tell you its coming anyway in  the form of OEM and government supported safety programs like IntelliDrive.   

Also, if the Smart Grid becomes a reality, users may be taxed extra for electricity that goes to charging vehicle batteries as opposed to household use.


----------



## semipro (Nov 8, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2759/are-electric-cars-really-more-energy-efficient
> 
> This is one of many, many articles debunking the myth that electric cars use more energy or polute more than gas cars. These rumors are always self serving, serving those interests that would profit from the elimination of electric cars.
> 
> Please folks, google it yourselves if you are unsure.  Inspite of the ineffiencies of power generation, transportation and battery charging, electric cars save about half the energy.



What comments here and the link above tell me is that we'd be a lot better off if we generated our power locally or even regionally instead of going it three states away.  Imagine if PVs or other alternatives were cheap enough that every house had them. 

This would address most of the negative issues brought up here (transmission losses, coal combustion pollutions, national security, wear and tear on roadways, etc.) and hopefully without creation of other negative issues.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 9, 2010)

I see a nuclear future. We're mostly hydro here in the NW anyway.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 9, 2010)

Semipro said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed.  Think of all the schools, and public buildings, and other flat topped buildings that could house solar panels on their roofs.  When Edison was pushind DC, he was using mighty small engines to turn his generators.  I believe neighborhoods or towns could do the same fairly easily.

From another post I think that burning coal to directly heat houses is another good idea.  

Matt


----------



## Dune (Nov 9, 2010)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> I see a nuclear future. We're mostly hydro here in the NW anyway.



I see a nuclear winter. Check the link at post #73 https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/58038/P60/


----------



## SolarAndWood (Nov 9, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> When Edison was pushind DC, he was using mighty small engines to turn his generators.  I believe neighborhoods or towns could do the same fairly easily.



Too bad Tesla isn't around


----------



## semipro (Nov 9, 2010)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> EatenByLimestone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know... He was a pretty dangerous fellow.  I recall he browned out a good portion of the city with one of his experiments.  I'm not sure I'd want to be around when he was trying to transfer power through the air.


----------



## semipro (Nov 9, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> Semipro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another thing to consider WRT local (household) power generation is that most of it is originally direct current electricity.  Many household appliances (computers, TVs, heaters, pumps, etc) could easily operate on DC, in fact many do and have AC to DC power supplies to handle the AC provided from utilities.  The relative efficiency of many appliances could probably be improved if they operated on DC instead of AC.  Local generation would help with that also.  I can envision where homes will be built with both AC and DC outlets and appliances will be configured to operate on either.


----------



## Delta-T (Nov 9, 2010)

Semipro said:
			
		

> SolarAndWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i think anytime you push the frontiers of new technology there's bound to be some danger, and Tesla was pushing really hard. To think, when his initial efforts in sending electricity through the air didn't work as predicted he said "well, we just need to build it bigger". I think I would have enjoyed hanging with Nikola.


----------



## btuser (Nov 10, 2010)

I read an anecdote of him and Mark Twain.  They used to take x-rays of themselves, at levels so high they claimed it heated them up.


----------



## begreen (Nov 10, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Think of all the schools, and public buildings, and other flat topped buildings that could house solar panels on their roofs.  When Edison was pushind DC, he was using mighty small engines to turn his generators.  I believe neighborhoods or towns could do the same fairly easily.
> 
> From another post I think that burning coal to directly heat houses is another good idea.
> 
> Matt



DC lost to AC due to transmission losses. There were relatively small generating stations and many of them. Transmission losses meant that the power source had to be close by, meaning many generating stations and motors powering them. This was inefficient and polluting.


----------



## begreen (Nov 10, 2010)

On Sunday I get to test drive a Nissan Leaf for a couple hours. I don't really intend to buy one, but am curious about how good a job they've done. Stylewise, the car is a turn-off to me. Looks like a car sucking on a cod. But we'll see how it compares to the Prius for drivability.


----------



## semipro (Nov 10, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> EatenByLimestone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point in another post in this thread (and what brought up Mr. Tesla) is that AC is better when generation is further from usage like you say, line losses etc.  However, if we're generating DC at a local (rooftop) level, maybe we should reconsider the whole AC/DC thing.  Its less efficient to invert the DC to AC and then send it back into the grid than it is to use it as DC at home in appliances that can run on either source. 

You know Edison used to electrocute animals to demonstrate how dangerous AC was compared to DC.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 11, 2010)

I believe he cooked an elephant at one time.


Matt


----------



## Dune (Nov 11, 2010)

He also invented flouresent light bulbs, three phase electricity, radio, x ray, vacum tubes,coils, the tessla turbine and developed AC.

We really wouldn't be very far along with out him.


----------



## backpack09 (Nov 11, 2010)

Dont you worry about taxes on these electric cars.  They will find the tax money somewhere. Say rediculous registry fees for everyone, another tax on electricity, another tax for permission to use the roads.  

In taxachoosetts they would happily tax the air you breath if they could hire enough college professors to figure out everyones daily air consumption rates.

But I digress.

I will only buy an electric car if I can get one for less than 10k, with awd, and I can fix myself. Oh well, guess I am not getting one.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 15, 2010)

Backpack09 said:
			
		

> Dont you worry about taxes on these electric cars.  They will find the tax money somewhere. Say rediculous registry fees for everyone, another tax on electricity, another tax for permission to use the roads.
> 
> In taxachoosetts they would happily tax the air you breath if they could hire enough college professors to figure out everyones daily air consumption rates.
> 
> ...



I think they should continue to road tax imported fuels,and temporarily exempt home grown energy to affect the transition,if and when electric cars hit a predetermined market penetration say 50% (this figure is low considering our imported oil % is way above this figure) then figure out some sort of usage tax based on Miles driven and vehicle weight.


----------



## kinshipknight (Nov 22, 2010)

I'm also intrigued about what the road taxes are going to look like. Do vehicle taxes skyrocket? Does electricity get taxed?


----------



## Delta-T (Nov 23, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> He also invented flouresent light bulbs, three phase electricity, radio, x ray, vacum tubes,coils, the tessla turbine and developed AC.
> 
> We really wouldn't be very far along with out him.



funny how when I was in school they told us Marconi invented the radio......with only 17 or so of Tesla's patents (another one of those "you just can't believe everything you read" things). I think we have a lot to thank him for. That whole Niagara Falls thing has worked out pretty well I'd say.


----------



## SteveKG (Nov 25, 2010)

Backpack09 said:
			
		

> Dont you worry about taxes on these electric cars.  They will find the tax money somewhere. Say rediculous registry fees for everyone, another tax on electricity, another tax for permission to use the roads.
> 
> .





Here in Colorado, the State decided, couple yr. ago, that they didn't have enough $$$ coming if for road maintenance and related other stuff such as bridges, etc. So, the state legislature added $60 to each auto's annual registration fee. It is much higher for trucks, etc. So, all our registrations shot up in one smooth move. It is not stretch to figure that, should EVs take off here, the state will simply jack up registrations again. This increase is permanent, by the way. 

We have significant excess electricity being generated by our PV system. We could charge an EV. If it were so set up, the vehicle. However, we also must drive the Interstate to get to most stores, jobs, etc. from the mountains and foothills up here to some place such as Denver. It isn't gonna be less than 40 to 50 miles each way, plus any running around down there. Plus, steep hills running in six mile stretches along the highway, which eats up battery power. Long ranges for EV. Plus, we need a bit higher vehicle clearance from the road surface for those snowy days, and 4 wheel drive to get around on numerous days. I need a small pickup truck for hauling firewood, etc. Put it all together, [higher profile car with more drag, 4 wd which consumes more power] we are not even close to getting a reasonable EV that will fullfill all those requirements. Maybe some day, don't know about in my lifetime. 

Of course, there are many more people living in cities and suburbs who could use a different, EV, car.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 22, 2011)

The biggest obstacle to electric cars (like most green tech) is price. Only a handful of wealthy elites are going to buy an electric car that costs far more than a competitive, high efficiency gasoline car. Just as with a flashy roadster, they are doing it for show.

Most people without money to burn are going to keep their present cars, or buy an efficient gasoline car.

Unless Green products can compete economically, they are just trendy fashion.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 22, 2011)

The ford escape hybrid is the closest vehicle that meets my needs so when they come out with the plug-in version in 2012 ill take a look at it,after that i may look into a conversion of a silverado or hummer from razer ind.


----------



## Dune (Mar 22, 2011)

In some ways I like the leaf, with it's all electric 100 mile range, but I think I am going to go for the volt, eventualy they will likely upgrade the batteries for a longer range, and if you do need to run off to the city on short notice, you have the versitility. Additionaly the volt ICE should easily run on pure alcohol or compressed natural gas with minor mods.


----------



## begreen (Mar 22, 2011)

Haven't driven the Volt yet, but so far I like it a bit better, except for the 4 passenger configuration. Rumor is that they are working on making a less expensive version.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 22, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Haven't driven the Volt yet, but so far I like it a bit better, except for the 4 passenger configuration. Rumor is that they are working on making a less expensive version.



The volt has some serious flaws for a car to be considered a "luxury" version and I know given the consumer reports review I wouldn't buy one. You'd be better off with a Prius and a plug-in conversion.


----------



## begreen (Mar 22, 2011)

I've found CR to sometimes miss the point with car tests. And sometimes, like their Chrysler Corp minivan recommendations back in the late 80s were dead wrong wrt reliability and quality, so I take their reviews with a grain of salt, same as with most reviews. There was just too much opinion in their review for it to be the only criteria. For example, the winter testing battery mileage is about what I would expect in the worst case scenario they tested in. Missing was testing in warmer climate conditions. 

I'll wait for a year and see how it does. So far the chat in Volt user forums is pretty positive, but let's wait for some mileage to accrue. CR may be right, or they may change their mind in longer term driving tests. We'll see.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 22, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> In some ways I like the leaf, with it's all electric 100 mile range, but I think I am going to go for the volt, eventualy they will likely upgrade the batteries for a longer range, and if you do need to run off to the city on short notice, you have the versitility. Additionaly the volt ICE should easily run on pure alcohol or compressed natural gas with minor mods.



Leaf drivers are already getting stuck along the road when their state of charge runs out prematurely. Pretty much need a tow when that happens.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 22, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> I've found CR to sometimes miss the point with car tests. And sometimes, like their Chrysler Corp minivan recommendations back in the late 80s were dead wrong wrt reliability and quality, so I take their reviews with a grain of salt, same as with most reviews. There was just too much opinion in their review for it to be the only criteria. For example, the winter testing battery mileage is about what I would expect in the worst case scenario they tested in. Missing was testing in warmer climate conditions.
> 
> I'll wait for a year and see how it does. So far the chat in Volt user forums is pretty positive, but let's wait for some mileage to accrue. CR may be right, or they may change their mind in longer term driving tests. We'll see.



The late 80's were when Chrysler started making minivans and CR only had to go on previous reliability and based their recommendations on that. They also recommended the 1999 to 2004 Honda vans that had some serious transmission issues, but that doesn't make their recommendations wrong given the information they had.

Granted the volt just came out and long term reliability is not known, but given there are some very glaring problems with the volt for the price and they're claiming it's a luxury car just doesn't cut it. Like I said you'd be better off buying a new Prius and getting a battery conversion.

Couple that with many of Chevy's past reliability problems, I'm very skeptical of the volt.

Where's the 56 and 65 MPG cars they have in europe? Why hasn't the government concentrated on allowing those over here instead of spending billions propping up GM and the volt?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 22, 2011)

The prius wasnt so great the first year out and your still burning gas ALL THE TIME.  The volt is pretty unique in the car world right now as theres nothing out there to compare. Most of the new owners are thrilled with it and some have racked up quite a few gas free miles already.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 22, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> The prius wasnt so great the first year out and your still burning gas ALL THE TIME.  The volt is pretty unique in the car world right now as theres nothing out there to compare. Most of the new owners are thrilled with it and some have racked up quite a few gas free miles already.



Yes but at what cost? Even at $5.00 a gallon you could drive a Corrola or other compact more than 180,000 miles for the cost differential of a volt. I don't know about you but that's about 18 years of driving for me.


----------



## begreen (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't disagree that the Volt's price is too steep. Though an equivalently equipped $30K Prius with a $10K dealer installed HyMotion battery pack added comes out at almost the price of a Volt. The difference is not that great. However, driving tests seem to show the Volt handling better, so again, I'll wait a year and see. I want to rent a Volt and try it out. The Prius dropped in price and I think the Volt will too. There are other things that may make a large difference that you have to drive the car to tell how well they did with the Volt. Things like seating comfort, ergonomics, etc. don't always show up in engineering specs. The Prius is a good car, but it's not perfect in several areas. My wife is still uncomfortable highway driving in the Prius due to restricted rear visibility.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

TMonter said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps they are like me and would not drive a prius or corrola if it were free. Gas could be $10 a gallon and i would not consider stuffing my family in a phone booth on wheels to save a few dollars on gas. Im not interested in either one of these cars. Electric hummer or silverado perhaps.Even then i could probably save more money just paying for the extra gas. Every decision is not made as a cost benefit analysis.If it were Yugo would be the worlds best selling car cuz its the cheapest.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 23, 2011)

I've had serious problems with all of my GM vehicles. The final straw was the 1999 Corvette. It was a blast to drive, but had significant flaws that GM was aware of and failed to correct through the run of the C-5 generation.

If the taxpayer bailout isn't offensive enough, GM's pathetic appeals to patriotism and the utter dishonesty of their advertising should be. Thier entries in the major car mags have the appearance of being gushy 5-page acticles written by the magazine, when they are actually bought-and-paid-for advertisements written by GM marketing.

As has been pointed out above, the Volt numbers simply don't work for a common car. They appeal only to someone willing to overpay to ease their Green conscience -- and who fails to understand that the Volt burns coal......or splits plutonium.

General Electric is planning to buy a fleet of Chevy Volts -- many more than the public will buy. It will become another sub-standard GM product good only for fleet use, like their rental dross; Cavalier, Cobalt, Malibu, etc.

GM has placed enormous credibility on the commercial success of this questionable, overpriced concept, when they could have simply made a competitive hybrid. It may sink them yet.


----------



## Dune (Mar 23, 2011)

Sam, not all electricity is generated by coal or plutonium. Many of us are interested because we can generate electricity ourselves...have you tried making your own gasoline? Not exactly something readily scaled down to the backyard. As for G.M. quality, sorry about your negative experience. My first new G.M. truck lasted 350,000 miles. I presently drive a 1988 GM truck, with many original parts. My experience has been the polar oposite of yours.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 23, 2011)

Dune, I've never owned a GM truck, but I follow the industry enough to know that they are durable and well regarded. 

But GM depended on truck sales through the last few decades, while import competition cleaned their clock in the heart of the market; small and midsize cars. While GM floundered in this market, import competition built reputations for quality, economy and value (though not without a few hiccups; Toyota sludge, etc). Hyundai came from nowhere and in 10 years is beating GM at their 100 year old game.

GM still makes idiotic appeals to patriotism that only work with my father's generation, expecting people to settle for sub-standard family cars in order to support unproductive but American UAW workers, when many of these products are made outside the US anyway. Then there is the taxpayer bailout. We all own a Chevy Aveo (among the lowest regarded small cars) whether we want one or not. 

The Volt may be a pretty well built car, but it comes with the long history and well deserved public scorn that GM has built for itself. In my reading (auto, politics and green) public opinion runs 50 to 1 against the Volt.

But I'm all in favor of residential electricity generation. This is definitely coming and I fully support your goal to home charge your electric car or truck. I just don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

Its a wonder any domestic car company can survive at all with our own Govt working against them.  Case in point the $7500 taxpayer funded,china borrowed,  rebate going directly to the competition. Yes the US Govt is paying its citizens to buy a 100% imported car(nissan leaf) From a govt (japan) that has all but outright banned foreign cars from its streets. (by doubling the price)
It  would be a cold day in hell when other countries would give their taxpayers money to buy a 100% american made car.
When we all start collecting our Social Security it will be coming from US Govt collected payroll taxes, not from nissan of japan.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

TMonter said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the Volt were made in japan and imported CR wold be fawning all over it,as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Im not aware of any "serious flaws". The volt is not being marketed to consumers looking to buy the cheapest car available or to the die hard import cheerleaders. Considering the waiting list and dealers marking up well over list price,(in one case $20000) why should they sell it a penny cheaper. They could have asked for thousands more for the first year run and sold every one.


----------



## Dune (Mar 23, 2011)

Sam, in your research, read about the CAFE standards enacted by the Clintons, which Bush II canceled. This is one of the main reasons, combined with the BS write off for SUVs as work trucks. 

American companies built to the market at the time, when oil peaked, they were caught with there pants around their knees. You have to look at why though.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

American car companies have their share of faults, but its in our own best interest to fix them than it is to run out an buy a toyota.
I dont blame americans for buying foreign cars though, they dont set trade policy the govt does, Same as i dont blame the japanese and the koreans for NOT buying foreign cars as their Govt makes them double in price to discourage foreign car purchases. Our Govt does not do things based on our best interest,if they did we would have an energy policy for the last 30 years which we do not.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 23, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> If the Volt were made in japan and imported CR wold be fawning all over it,as the greatest thing since sliced bread.


 You might be somewhat right about CR. They have demonstrated a detectable bias over the years. They complained loudly about the central mounted speedometer in the Saturn Ion and then shrugged it off in the Toyota Yaris -- in the same issue, no less. But perhaps it's just years of conditioning by quality imports and junk domestic.



			
				trump said:
			
		

> The volt is not being marketed to consumers looking to buy the cheapest car available or to the die hard import cheerleaders. Considering the waiting list and dealers marking up well over list price,(in one case $20000) why should they sell it a penny cheaper. They could have asked for thousands more for the first year run and sold every one.



This is precisely what is driving anti Volt sentiment. Like it or not, GM is the "peoples" car company now -- we all own it -- and the Volt is the standard bearer for our new Obaman utopia. Meanwhile, utterly public-relations tone deaf GM is allowing the Volt to be percieved not as an answer for average Americans, but as a dealer gouging tool and play-thing for the guilty well-off. 

What kind of "income redistribution" is this $7500 tax credit? We are taking from the middle-class so some liberal can be seen driving his oh-so-correct Volt past the gates of his energy-guzzling big house.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 23, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> Sam, in your research, read about the CAFE standards enacted by the Clintons, which Bush II canceled. This is one of the main reasons, combined with the BS write off for SUVs as work trucks.
> 
> American companies built to the market at the time, when oil peaked, they were caught with there pants around their knees. You have to look at why though.



No disagreement -- the government was a co-dependant for the Detroit Three, and the SUV write-off was a gift to the UAW (although it was limited to to a few 6000+ lb vehicles and they did have to keep a work mileage log.) 

But the Asian imports weren't lulled or deterred. Using what we used to call American perserverance and ingenuity, they continued to engineer products that advanced the state of the art: in quality, durability and environmental responsibility. They won fiercely loyal customers, who to this day disregard the moderate improvements from Detroit.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> What kind of "income redistribution" is this $7500 tax credit? We are taking from the middle-class so some liberal can be seen driving his oh-so-correct Volt past the gates of his energy-guzzling big house.



Or his 100% imported nissan leaf.  The govt is paying the $7500 on the LEAF as well as the volt,That is sheer madness subsidizing the competition. 
The japanese Govt pretty much paid for all the R&D on the prius hybrid system ,so GM  is not the first car company helped out by their home Govt.  From what iv read the US govt would have paid out more money if they would have let GM and chrysler fail so it was a case of saving millions of jobs while spending billions either way. What did we get for saving AIG,which cost 4 times the GM tab.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

I may be a little bias toward GM because my family has driven and owned GM products for 45 years with excellent service.
I personally have been driving GM for 35 years with hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles, my daily driver  truck is a 1995 silverado just under 200,000 miles still runs and looks like a new truck. Iv had excellent service from GM cars as well but the last one was a 2002
pontiac firebird,loved it but was just too small for a growing family.   
It would be quite a feat if GM was building only "junk" and somehow i keep getting great service from my cars and trucks for 35 years.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 23, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> American car companies have their share of faults, but its in our own best interest to fix them than it is to run out an buy a toyota.



In our own best interest collectively? Or in our own best interest as individual heads of households with budgets? 

Let's fix American car companies by forcing them to be honest. I was a made-in-America loyalist and my GM cars were continuous trouble. 

I had an Oldsmobile that simply had no wiring to turn the radiator fans on with the AC -- it just wasn't there -- they overlooked it on assembly. At a stop, the AC condenser would predicably overheat  and blow out the freon line. There was no normal repair possible. The terminals and wiring were completely missing.

The C-5 Corvette has no servicable clutch bleeder -- it can't be reached up on top of the housing. C-5 clutches go bad and owners don't know why. The C-5 differential leaks on the left side, due to a design fault and GM has never redesigned it. They know it leaks and they issue TSBs with temporary fixes.

By comparison, my wife's Acura is pushing 4 years and 100,000 miles with zero problems. Best car I've ever owned. 

My son's 2 Mitsubishi sports cars have been excellent performers. No problems unrelated to wear or age. My own Mitsubishi Ralliart is trouble free.

Even my VWs (yes, loving VWs is an illness) have been more reliable than GMs. When my wife said one sports car had to go, it was easy to dump the problematic Vette and keep the GTI. (The GTI is my hot but whiny girlfriend.)

My responsibility is to my family first. I would not willingly lift a finger to aid GM or Chrysler. But I'm rooting for Ford.


----------



## begreen (Mar 23, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> samdog1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, the US govt. paid a very large sum to the big 3, Toyota and Honda in the late 90's to develop the hybrid. The big 3 took the money and eventually said, not practical. Toyota and Honda developed the technology. It's Toyota technology that is licensed by Ford.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 23, 2011)

Surely the country with the stealth fighter jets and all the aircraft carriers and the space shuttle is capable of excellence in automotive achievements,its not exactly rocket science.  Im not ready to turn  the  20%  of the ecomomy that is directly and indirectly related to the auto industry over to honda and toyota just yet.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 24, 2011)

Of course we are capable of making a world-class automobile. We haven't seemed to want to. It is pretty well documented why the Detroit Three struggle to be viewed as competent in the small/medium/and crossover family car segment (though Ford is making great progress).

Part of the problem is that opinions can last a lifetime and often affect the next generation as well. How many people declare "I will never buy an _____ again!"? That buyer and possibly his children are gone forever. The import OEM's real victory was in developing a passionate following while the domestics seemed content to rely on a dwindling, aging population with a dependable "buy American" bias.

I am afraid that the improvements at GM and Chrysler may come too late for the market that has shunned them for decades. Also, it seems obvious that Ford's refusal of the government bail-out money appeals to American's sense of self reliance, and has stigmatized the other two even further.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 24, 2011)

Worst truck i ever had was a 1999 toyota tacoma rust bucket,lousy MPG, dead springs, oil leaks, gas leaks , and all that at 85000 miles.
Its a good thing they had a high resale in 2008 when i dumped it. GM fixed the rust thing in the 80s dont know what took toyota so long,but as of the 99 the  frames were still disintegrating before your eyes. Loved my GM truck even more after that. 
Wife had a 2000 Pontiac grand am ,no trouble at all,then a 2002 firebird, no trouble at all, great car  Seems the trucks are pretty reliable but the cars were spotty depending which year, make, and model. Never personally had a bad one though.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 24, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> ).
> 
> Part of the problem is that opinions can last a lifetime and often affect the next generation as well. How many people declare "I will never buy an _____ again!"? .



Well you can put toyota in that space for me as one i will never buy again,there were so many design flaws in the 1999 tacoma model i owned it did not hold a candle to any GM truck i ever owned. For me its 5% patriotism and 95% dependable service and long life. Never a major repair in 35 years is a pretty good record. As far as cost goes toyota is coming out with their answer to the volt for 2012.
Its a prius with a plug-in 12 mile range battery said to be priced at $47,800 range. More money for less range ? I dont see that as setting the green world on fire,or serious competition for the volt either.  
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147324-toyota-plans-to-mass-produce-plug-in-prius-in-2012


----------



## jebatty (Mar 24, 2011)

And I'm on the other side. Owed Camry's since 1986, all but the 1986 bought used, currently own a 2005 and 2007; all driven to about 200,000+ miles; only 2 repairs other than ordinary maintenance.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 24, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> And I'm on the other side. Owed Camry's since 1986, all but the 1986 bought used, currently own a 2005 and 2007; all driven to about 200,000+ miles; only 2 repairs other than ordinary maintenance.



I think its safe to say GM has been making better trucks than toyota, cars on the other hand seem to favor toyota. Cost is another factor though, My tacoma was always needing new parts somewhere and they were very expensive,(as well as the truck itself)


----------



## TMonter (Mar 24, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> jebatty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on the truck. Also if there were a frame issue like Toyota had would you expect GM to step up and give refunds or replace frames? I wouldn't given their track record.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 24, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> Of course we are capable of making a world-class automobile. We haven't seemed to want to. It is pretty well documented why the Detroit Three struggle to be viewed as competent in the small/medium/and crossover family car segment (though Ford is making great progress).
> 
> Part of the problem is that opinions can last a lifetime and often affect the next generation as well. How many people declare "I will never buy an _____ again!"? That buyer and possibly his children are gone forever. The import OEM's real victory was in developing a passionate following while the domestics seemed content to rely on a dwindling, aging population with a dependable "buy American" bias.
> 
> I am afraid that the improvements at GM and Chrysler may come too late for the market that has shunned them for decades. Also, it seems obvious that Ford's refusal of the government bail-out money appeals to American's sense of self reliance, and has stigmatized the other two even further.



The real problem is the "improvements" GM and Chrysler have made still doesn't make more than 80% or their vehicles hold up to "import" models. Look at the long term reliability ratings of vehicles in the past 3 years to prove this out. American manufacturers still make junk and expect people to buy it and are shocked when they don't.

Pickups are about the only vehicles where US automakers have the advantage.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 24, 2011)

Ill stick with the truck that thats proven itself to me every day for 35 years and thats GM trucks. I tried a toyota truck just to see what all the fuss was about and it turned out to be a poor substitute for a real truck that can go to work every day in a contracting business and perform. CR rates the tacoma trucks when they are brand new, not 5 years later when their falling apart.  Perhaps if your just driving to bingo its fine if the frame dont fall off. I could never haul wood for the stove in it as after about 300 lbs in the back the rubber stops were bottomed out on the axle,yeh a real winner that 1999 toyota was. you can have em.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 25, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> Ill stick with the truck that thats proven itself to me every day for 35 years and thats GM trucks. I tried a toyota truck just to see what all the fuss was about and it turned out to be a poor substitute for a real truck that can go to work every day in a contracting business and perform. CR rates the tacoma trucks when they are brand new, not 5 years later when their falling apart.  Perhaps if your just driving to bingo its fine if the frame dont fall off. I could never haul wood for the stove in it as after about 300 lbs in the back the rubber stops were bottomed out on the axle,yeh a real winner that 1999 toyota was. you can have em.



No Trump the ratings from CR cover all years especially when looking at problems with past models.

Also you're comparing a Tacoma with a full sized truck and complaining about hauling?

Toyota stepped up  to the plate and has been fixing or replacing all of those defective vehicles, can you expect the US automakers to do the same?


----------



## SPhill (Mar 25, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> Also, it seems obvious that Ford's refusal of the government bail-out money appeals to American's sense of self reliance, and has stigmatized the other two even further.



That's my opinion, of course. ^

So who here would integrate this (essentially the political aspect of a product purchase) into their buying decision? If the Volt for instance would otherwise appeal to you, would the bail-out make a difference?


----------



## begreen (Mar 25, 2011)

Not one bit. I don't mix politics and cars.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 25, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> samdog1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In short? Yes. Why should I choose to use my dollars to reward/support a company run so poorly they needed bailed out?


----------



## drizler (Mar 25, 2011)

I don't know about all this US vs  Japanese qualty stuff but one thing rings true with any of them.  Avoid all new advanced technology cars like the plague the first model year or years.     Let those trendy, gotta have it now and keeping up with the Jones types put up with all the bugs and serious problems.   After a year or so most growing pains are worked out and you can expect something that will last and hopefully give reliable service.   I would also welcome electrics as the engines and most of the drive train should be a lot less complex than any form of ICE power train.


----------



## begreen (Mar 25, 2011)

Good point Driz. It is my primary concern with the Volt. It's a very complex machine. Toyota in the meantime has had 10 years to polish its equally complex design and come up with a remarkably trouble-free vehicle.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 25, 2011)

TMonter said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



THe toyota was rated as a half ton ,and i bottomed out with 4 cement blocks in the back,im quite sure the blocks were no more than 40-50 Lbs each so 200Lbs max (8x16) The rear springs are crap, plain and simple iv heard tundra owners(full size toyota trucks) say the same thing. THe truck was useless for hauling anything over 200LBs. THey do that so it rides like a car,yea it does ride like a car and hauls like one too. I have half ton GM trucks ,can carry a ton before they bottom out. 
You guys that say GM makes all junk,and toyota and everything foreign is so perfect and always reliable, its just BS. im here to tell you my experience side by side comparison owning both at at the same time. I listened to you guys before when i bought the toyota believing the hype, thinking they were so wonderful,well i tried it and it was a joke compared the any GM truck i ever owned. SO you can make all the excuses you want for the many design flaws in toyota trucks,you keep drinking the koolaid and ill keep what works for me. BY the way CR gave that 1999 a great rating so much for CR.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 25, 2011)

TMonter said:
			
		

> samdog1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Foreign makers take their Govts money all the time, the toyota and honda american cheerleaders dont seem to have a problem when they do it. Japans Govt paid for the R&D developing the Prius. They (Japan and south Korea)also put up restrictive import barriers making imported cars and truck twice the price so very few will ever be sold there. Japan had a cash for clunkers program ,guess what
 NO IMPORTS allowed.  Our govt took the less expensive route on the bailout knowing it would cost them far more to let the companies be liquidated than to save them, but im sure all you toyota lovers wold have liked to see millions of americans lose their jobs anyway and would not mind paying extra for it.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 25, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> TMonter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And CR was right. If you live in areas where road salts are not an issue the Tacoma and Tundra do not have frame rot issues. Like I've said before I have a neighbor with a late 90's Tacoma with no rust whatsoever. To be noted the frames were manufactured for Toyota here in the states and the problem frames were all by the same manufacturer.

I call BS on your spring example unless you had a defect. My neighbor with the Tacoma goes woodcutting all the time with me and loads his truck up with 1/2 to 1/3 a cord of wood with no issues of springs bottoming out. It certainly squats pretty good but it's not really meant for heavy hauling either.

I don't think GM makes all junk, but more than 50% of what they make is.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 25, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> TMonter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Considering Toyota makes many of there cars here with higher American parts content than most of GM's cars that is pure BS trump.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 25, 2011)

100% of the GM trucks iv owned were excellent trucks.Not 50%  Also 100% of the cars as well. I cant speak for others except many of my extended family who had exactly the same results. My brothers been driving GM cars and trucks for 45years same deal, just regular maintainance.  Iv owned other foreign vehicles  that were good  overall such as a subaru. As it stands100% of the toyotas iv owned were a poor excuse for a truck,and it was only 1 as i wont be buying another.  although there were some good qualities among the bad,the engine had plenty of power although the MPG was poor.And it developed a rear main seal leak at 86000 miles ,after the gas leak at 83000.  Talking to others with the same truck they claimed the springs were crap right from the factory best thing to do is just trash em and buy any aftermarket spring available. Im sure toyota corrected it at some point. I still think it(tacoma) is the best looking small truck available but good looks will only get you so far 
WHen i hear these guys say "iv owned x# of Gm s in row and they were all crap,its all BS ,what kind of idiot would keep buying on after another if they are having lots of problems.  GM dont sell 9 million vehicles a year because 50% of them are crap,or because every one is so patriotic.


----------



## Jutt77 (Mar 25, 2011)

I had a 94 Toyota 4x4 daily driver pickup that was absolutely bombproof. Little maintenance (changed oil occasionally), daily driving from Rollinsville CO to Boulder (60 miles of up and down a mountain) lots of 4 wheeling and no issues. Had around 200k on original engine/drivetrain. I'm not hatin on domestic cars either, I have a 92' F250 with 360k that I use to haul wood and stuff, but Toyota pickups (and Land Cruisers for that matter) are legendary for longevity and off road capability. When is the last time you've seen a GM truck used as a guide vehicle in the Australian outback?? Just asking. Here's an interesting article right along those lines: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/14/why-rebel-groups-love-the-toyota-hilux.html.  Also see the Top Gear/Toyota Hilux episode, even if you hate Toyota, its a really funny video.

So either Toyotas are actually ultra reliable or millions of consumers, off-road guides from Australia to Africa, and AK toting Al Queda fighters are full of sh*t.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 25, 2011)

Jutt77 said:
			
		

> I had a 94 Toyota 4x4 daily driver pickup that was absolutely bombproof. Little maintenance (changed oil occasionally), daily driving from Rollinsville CO to Boulder (60 miles of up and down a mountain) lots of 4 wheeling and no issues. Had around 200k on original engine/drivetrain. I'm not hatin on domestic cars either, I have a 92' F250 with 360k that I use to haul wood and stuff, but Toyota pickups (and Land Cruisers for that matter) are legendary for longevity and off road capability. When is the last time you've seen a GM truck used as a guide vehicle in the Australian outback?? Just asking. Here's an interesting article right along those lines: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/14/why-rebel-groups-love-the-toyota-hilux.html.  Also see the Top Gear/Toyota Hilux episode, even if you hate Toyota, its a really funny video.
> 
> So either Toyotas are actually ultra reliable or millions of consumers, off-road guides from Australia to Africa, and AK toting Al Queda fighters are full of sh*t.



I think all Major Mfgs make great cars and trucks ,and they all make some junk from time to time. THe car guy James healy said  In the ratings reports the difference between the NO1 car and the last one on the list is very small, sometimes less than 1%  .


----------



## begreen (Mar 26, 2011)

This is getting a lonnnng way off topic. Maybe time to take the car companies discussion to the can?


----------



## TMonter (Mar 26, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> This is getting a mile off topic. Time to take the car co. discussion to the can.



Fair enough. I just happen to think that given all the initial reviews of the volt and the very high price even with a $7500 rebate that it's simply not a viable car for more than 90% of people and certainly not all that pretty of a car. Really it's not all that innovative and they're hyping it up to be like it is.


----------



## begreen (Mar 26, 2011)

> Really itâ€™s not all that innovative and theyâ€™re hyping it up to be like it is.



Really? What other electric cars with a tightly integrated genset onboard are there? As an engineer you should understand the problems they've had to surmount better than most.


----------



## semipro (Mar 26, 2011)

I watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night for the first time.  Despite all the hype its fairly apparent that US car manufacturers are largely to blame for the problems their industry faces.  That said, I think GM is on the right track with the Volt.  Its hard to imagine that plug in (no engine) electric vehicles will soon become economically viable given "range anxiety" issues.  Plug in hybrids, such as the Volt, offer the best of both worlds albeit with a cost.  They offer the ability to run purely on utility power for most commuting requirements while enabling longer trips, optionally on bio-based fuels.  The plug in hybrid is presently the only realistic option that allows for the eventual use of renewable fuels for all modes of operation.  Its obvious we need to wean ourselves off of oil for a variety of reasons, a major one being national security.  

We should be using petroleum as a chemical feedstock not a fuel.  I believe that one day we'll look back and say "I can't believe that we actually *burned *petroleum products.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 26, 2011)

For all the GM bashers out there,Toyota is coming out with their answer to the volt ,here it is with its 15 mile range for $47000
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147324-toyota-plans-to-mass-produce-plug-in-prius-in-2012


----------



## Dune (Mar 26, 2011)

Semipro said:
			
		

> We should be using petroleum as a chemical feedstock not a fuel.  I believe that one day we'll look back and say "I can't believe that we actually *burned *petroleum products.



Yep, our generation will be laughed (or cursed at) at for burning oil. Not just burning it though, burning all of it. We will have to hope whales make a good come back. Drill baby, drill.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 27, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Good point Driz. It is my primary concern with the Volt. It's a very complex machine. Toyota in the meantime has had 10 years to polish its equally complex design and come up with a remarkably trouble-free vehicle.



Agreed. Toyota positioned the Prius as the face of the company -- highly efficient, forward thinking technology that would identify Toyota as the leader in innovation. Everything counted on making Prius reliability above reproach (a general perception Toyota already enjoyed). They largely succeeded and gained enormous Green credibility, to the extent that many consumers gave little thought to the consideration that Toyota also makes the Sequoia, Land Cruiser, GX and LX; full size SUVs of the sort that domestic OEMs were excoriated for daily. It was a tremendously sucessful joint engineering and marketing campaign.

I share your concern. GM may be wise to back away from positioning the Volt in the same manner, particularly since they don't enjoy the good graces of Consumer Reports. Opinions of CR differ among enthusiasts, but I tend to believe that their lackluster eval will have more traction with the public than Motor Trend's Car of the Year award.


----------



## begreen (Mar 27, 2011)

Some of the reviews for the Prius I and II were sour grapes too. The market proved the reviewers wrong.


----------



## Billy123 (Mar 27, 2011)

How does the heater work on the Volt?


----------



## drizler (Mar 27, 2011)

TMonter said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When it comes to frame rot Chevy is the KING.    Just look at the the rails right at the base of the dip where they round down under the cab.    That's where they rust out and crack every time.  The mud and salt catch in there and they rust out right there.    The 3/4 ton series is better because the frame is thicker so the rustout takes longer.    Don't even get me started on Chevy electrical problems bypassing fuses that lost contact and melted loose in the cheap fuse boxes.    I don't even bother fixing them anymore, just cut the wire and toss in a dollar inline fuse.     Speedometer clusters also love to conk out on Chevy's too as do the radios for whatever reason.   My buddy just got an 04 with 65K miles and it tossed the oil pump when his wife was driving it.   Burned up the engine because she didn't stop but who ever heard of a car with that low mileage blowing an oil pump and that was a 5.3 no less.  I never had any of these problems with any old Jap cars.     About the only thing I can fault the Jap cars with is rusting out a bit faster.    It's things like this that make me wonder why anyone would buy a volt for nearly double the price of a Prius (though I do hate that ugly assed rear end they have on them).   Just a bit fugly to me.  On the subject of the battery technology used by the Prius I read the report last year.   Those batteries are so good they will live the entire life of the car.  The failure rate was something like .0004%   which roughly translated to near perfection.  It means they have only lost a literal handfull to shorting out internally ect.    Not bad at all especially for new technology.


----------



## begreen (Mar 27, 2011)

Billy123 said:
			
		

> How does the heater work on the Volt?



Not sure, but I thought I read somewhere that it has a heatpump (AC run in reverse) for greater efficiency. When it gets below a certain temp, the engine comes on to help warm things up. Sounds like an ok solution for our climate, but not for really cold regions. The Leaf uses a straight resistance heater, which directly drains from the battery, therefore affecting range. They recommend preheating the car while it is plugged in to save power when untethered.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 27, 2011)

Its funny iv never had any of these  problems in 35 years of GM cars and trucks,or my family in 45 years, with the exception of rust in the 80s that just about all Mfgs had and fixed with the exception of toyota which was still  putting out rusting frames and bodies on their trucks right up top the 2000 model year. Just the usual  starter here,or an alternator there,exhaust pipe and muffler and regular maintainence such as oil changes.   

GM must have a special factory where they build cars and trucks just for me.

 No electrical problems,never an engine or transmission failure,never a rust problem since the 80s. Trucks all have from 175000 to 250000 miles,still going fine.
And i use these trucks for a contracting business for the last 23 years,not for going to bingo or commuting. 

As i said I think ALL Major Mfgs are putting out quality products today and ALL Mfgs have put out some junk in the past including toyota.
For the REAL story on the volt go to gm-volt.com to read excerpts of ACTUAL owners of the car before making UNinformed comments 
If toyota were to put a 40 mile range battery in its prius it would cost $50000 for all those carping about the price of the volt.


----------



## TMonter (Mar 27, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> Its funny iv never had any of these  problems in 35 years of GM cars and trucks,or my family in 45 years, with the exception of rust in the 80s that just about all Mfgs had and fixed with the exception of toyota which was still  putting out rusting frames and bodies on their trucks right up top the 2000 model year. Just the usual  starter here,or an alternator there,exhaust pipe and muffler and regular maintainence such as oil changes.
> 
> GM must have a special factory where they build cars and trucks just for me.
> 
> ...



Except it's not a 40-mile range. It's an average 27-32 mile range. 

Yes all cars have gotten better but when you look at reliability of US cars GM and Chrysler are at the bottom of the pack overall with Ford being upper middle.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 28, 2011)

If you read the ACTUAL post from volt owners on the gm-volt site many are getting between 50 and  60 electric miles on a regular basis.
Im sure you could get bad MPG with a prius or any car under certain circumstances,My toyota got bad MPG on every trip. 
Its the nissan leaf that had drivers stranded with a dead battery after only a fraction of the stated range,cant happen with the volt.

If you ck ten different rating lists you will find 10 different opinions,but it s not hard to find a top ten list with GM and ford and Dodges on it,these days.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=iqs&story=iqsCar


----------



## SPhill (Mar 29, 2011)

Ya gotta do better than JD Powers. They maintain a financial relationship with the businesses they are supposed to be independantly evaluating.

GM and the others pay for those awards and trophies. No credibility there.

San Francisco Chronicle, JD Power Cozy with Winners


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 29, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> Ya gotta do better than JD Powers. They maintain a financial relationship with the businesses they are supposed to be independantly evaluating.
> 
> GM and the others pay for those awards and trophies. No credibility there.
> 
> San Francisco Chronicle, JD Power Cozy with Winners



I do much better. I take my opinions from ACTUAL ownership experience of the vehicle im commenting on.
  As far as  CR i used to buy Products from their recommendations only to have them perform poorly and break down prematurely. I cancelled my subscription 5 years ago. Even when i was a member i never filled out their car survey. 
 Based on past experience if i were to buy a new truck today it would be a GM HD 6.6 Duramax  Diesel , truck is bulletproof No one has been able to match it since it came out in 2002. There are 2 in my family since 2002 and they rock.


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 29, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> . . . electric motors are 90% efficient versus 20-30% for internal combustion engines?



What does electric motor efficiency have to do with overall vehicle efficiency?  You lost me on that one.  Most electric power in the US comes from burning coal - that is mined and transported with equipment using petroleum.

A gas or diesel internal combustion engine runs on petro-products directly.  
An electric powered car runs on coal, gas, and diesel products - indiirectly.



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> Electric cars use half the energy of gas models.



I'd like to see some verifed facts and figures on that statement.   You are claiming that . . . all the energy involved in making such an electtic car - along with all the energy used to produce the acutal grid electricity - to get that car down the road - is in total 1/2 of what a gas or diesel car uses for the same task?  I do not believe that for one second.



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> Additonaly the U.S. produces most of our electricity from domestic sources (national security).



Yes, domestic coal mostly.  And if we had to greatly increase  our coal mining, coal transporting, and coal burning to fuel cars and trucks  -what do you think might happen to our coal supply?  Seems we already did that once with our "limitless" supply of domestic primary oil reserves.



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> Finaly, many of us could produce our own electricity, gasoline is a little more difficult to manufacture at home.



Hmmm.  Tell me how to do that please. I live in central New York and already have 7000 watts worth of solar-electric panels.  I cannot even run electric hot water heaters ,much less power electric cars and trucks.  Granted that if I lived in New Mexico, or Arizona  -I'd get much more from my solar array.  But, not all of us live in sunny areas.  To say "many of us" could produce that power seems to imply most of us live in sun and have the money to spend.


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 29, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> Its funny iv never had any of these  problems in 35 years of GM cars and trucks,or my family in 45 years, with the exception of rust in the 80s



Sounds like you are less demanding of your GMs than I am. Or perhaps you DID own special ones.

I've worked as a mechanic, off and on, since the 1960s.  Cars, trucks, HD diesels, heavy equipment, etc.

As to  brand-bias, I was a long-time Chevy and GM fan. 50s-early 70s.

That being said.  Let's see.  
GM camshaft failures 1970s up to the mid-80s.  Huge problem that did not happen with any other make.
GM valve-guide failures for the early years of non-leaded gas useage.
Chevy Vega aluminun-bore engines - built like a Briggs & Stratton lawn-mower engine.
70s Oldsmobile diesel engines built upon gas-engine platforms. Miserable failures until the new law-suit DX replacement engine came out in 1981.
GMs 4-6-8 gas engines. 
GMs over-drive automatic that came out in 1982.  The 700R4 that nobody had a good fix for until 1987 and up.
GMs head-gasket failures with the first-year 1982 6.2 diesels that were designed by Detroit Diesel.
GM 6.5 diesel trucks 1994 and up to late 90s - miserable electronic pump control failures with NO known fix for many years.

And yes, of course GM made some good stuff.

As to rust?  I live in two places.   Central New York and northern Michigan.  In both places, road salt is used winter and summer.   Ice control in the winter and dust control in the summer.  Rust is a big issue.  I just scrapped out a 2002 Dodge van due to severe rust.  I recently replaced a two-foot long section of frame rail in my 98 Chevy truck.  Had to do the same in my 95 Dodge truck. Note they are both 3/4 ton trucks with thicker frames then 1/2 tons.  My wife's 2003 Subaru has rust holes in it.  So - my conclusion?  They still rust.  Ford has a major recall going on right now with rear axles breaking from rust when less then 10 years old.

No brand-loyality inferred here except. . .   I am now a Ford fan simply because they are the only independent car/truck company in the USA and took NO bail-out money.  Funny that Ford's quality ratings are at an all-time high, while GMs are low.

If you think people only by GM because GM is the best - I suggest you look at the long history of poor quality issues for Mercedes and Audi over the years.  People who like the brand buy them anyway.


----------



## Dune (Mar 29, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since I don't have your computer skills you must bear with me a little.

First point, motor efficency. I don't know how I can explain it any better, but I will try. If your internal combustion engine is 20% efficent, and your electric engine is 90% efficient, then the electric motor with put more of the energy it uses into moving the car. Wasted energy in internal combustion engines is mostly heat, you know that they expel tremendous amounts of heat right? The reamainder of waste is mostly friction, the electric motor has only two bearings.

Second point;Electric cars use half the energy. This is a long known, well established fact. This includes the fact that electric generating plants are only about 30% efficeint. I have no interest in doing your homework for you. Do some research.

Third point, I am no proponent of burning coal. If you read more of my writing you would know that.

Fourth point; I didn't even mention solar power. There are many other ways to generate electricity. Google is your freind. We have members here who have systems far over 30 KW. 7 KW is a tiny system these days.


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 29, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> . Google is your freind. We have members here who have systems far over 30 KW. 7 KW is a tiny system these days.



Sorry chief, but NO, Google is not my friend.  In fact, Google can't even spell "Googol" correctly.  So their first post ever - had their name spelled wrong.  In case you don't already know GOOGOL is a big number and was the company name spelled wrong (and still is).

Google is a tool and like any tool can help and can hinder.  All depends on who is using it, why and how.  

My def of efficiency of a car goes something like this.  How well a fuel - where ever it happens to be in raw form - can be transformed into a car or truck taking us down the road.  There is a lot of stuff that has to go in that process, from start to finsh. The end-efficiency of an electric motor being compared to the end-efficiency of an internal combustion engine - in itself - is meaningless.

And about solar electtric?  If you think a 30KW system is the norm for a household, you and I are on different planets.  Hey, maybe your planet is better?

Solar incentives are offered by some states since few can afford solar-electric on their own.  Most such incentive programs do not allow a solar array that can provide more then 110% of annual useage.   So, if you think a 30KW system is normal to provide 110% useage to single-family households - your friends must be very wasteful and have houses like Al Gore's.


----------



## Dune (Mar 30, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like I said, solar is only one way to make electricity. Electricity is easier to make than gasoline for the average homeowner. You could choose to buy gasoline for the rest of your life, at ever increasing prices, or you can make an investment which will free you from energy costs. With the additional dramatic savings in maintainence costs of the electric car, long term payback is huge.


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> Like I said, solar is only one way to make electricity. Electricity is easier to make than gasoline for the average homeowner. You could choose to buy gasoline for the rest of your life, at ever increasing prices, or you can make an investment which will free you from energy costs. With the additional dramatic savings in maintainence costs of the electric car, long term payback is huge.



Explain please how you - with the present state of technology - can easily make enough energy to run and heat your home, propel your car/truck, etc.  Also tell me your plan to produce food for the masses with no petro-chemicals for fuel, fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides.

I've got a couple of hundred acres with a lot of wind, some sun, water-power etc. and it still is no easy task.  Many people live in apartments or 1/4 acre lots.  I think your are misinformed - or having pipe dreams.

As to your wld claims about "dramatic savings" with electric cars?  Hey, they have NO record yet of any savings.  So far, they've just eaten up a lot of tax-payer dollars.

As to electric cars being highly efficient?  Let's see.  Coal fired plants run 25-35% efficient buring coal.  5%-7% of that electricity lost through the grid.  Then you charge batteries in your car?  Batteries means another 10% loss.  Then wind drag at 2% more loss. Then rolling resistance another 4%-5% loss.  But wait - at the end your electric motor is 80%-90% efficient and you think that makes it all much better?


----------



## Dune (Mar 30, 2011)

I never said heat your home with electricity. I never said anything about providing food. I wouldn't even try to heat water with solar generated electricity, but apparently you have, or at least done the math. It is far more efficient to heat the water directly from the sun, and easy to acomplish as well. 

Think it is no easy task now, wait till we run out of oil. My father ran his fishing boat on wood chunks or gasoline or kerosene or diesel with in a one off engine. It is you who is sadly mis-informed.

If you really have the land with the wind, put up a bigger windmill and make some power. You can buy them any size you want, or, if you were a half decent mechanic, you could readily build your own. 

Any one who heats with wood could generate their own electricity with a gassifier, the same way my father ran his deisel fishing boat in Norway during WWII.

As to your complete ignorance regarding electric cars, really, check into Google. At one time, one third of all motor vehicles and many boats were electric. Electric vehicles have a very long track record, with reliability and low maintaince being among their highest virtues.

For the last time, the atmospheric carbon produced by driving an electric car is aproximatly half of that of a gasoline engined car. Deisel cars are about 50% more efficeint than gas, but are far less common in passenger cars. These are facts, not opinions to debate.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 30, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never had the problems you mention,did not own those particular vehicles. Any company selling 6 million + cars and truck a year will have issues with some models,just like toyota the only other company selling that many vehicles does. I dont care what anyone else buys or likes,im doing what works for me and has worked well for 35 years.
End of story.


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> I never said anything about providing food . . . It is you who is sadly mis-informed.
> . . . .If you really have the land with the wind, put up a bigger windmill and make some power. You can buy them any size you want, or, if you were a half decent mechanic, you could readily build your own.
> 
> Any one who heats with wood could generate their own electricity with a gassifier, the same way my father ran his deisel fishing boat in Norway during WWII.  . . . .  As to your complete ignorance regarding electric cars, . . . .



We all make decisions and form opinions on incomplete information.  You are overtly guilty of that when you accuse me of being "ingorant."  You know nothing about me, or what I might know.   It seems that somehow, you think by calling me ignorant, it somehow enhances your arguments?

Food is directly tied to energy use in this country, so I regard it as very relevant.   Shift corn production to alchohol fuel instead of food, and food prices go wacky.   When petroleum gets scarce and pricey - it effects it as a motor fuel and as an agricultural necessity.

In regard to gassification?  Yeah, it works for some things for some people. I've got a tractor and a 17KW genset that runs on wood-gas.  NO, not everyone can do it.  It takes fuel, equipment, and expertise.   If tomorrow . . . everybody decided to do it - many if not most in the USA would fail to find enough to burn.



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> As to your complete ignorance regarding electric cars,
> For the last time, the atmospheric carbon produced by driving an electric car is aproximatly half of that of a gasoline engined car. Deisel cars are about 50% more efficeint than gas, but are far less common in passenger cars. These are facts, not opinions to debate.



If they were facts set-in-stone, there would be an inexorable consensus with the leading experts in the field, and there is not.
And by the way, the best compression-igntion engines (that you call diesels) top out as 40% efficent, whereas gas engines top out at 30%.    Your figure of "diesels" being 50% more efficient then gasoline engines is not supported by any verified facts. 
Depending on the level of tech, and if DI, IDI, etc. , in the real world you can expect 10%-20% better fuel mileage with a diesel car or truck over an equal powered gas vehicle.  Since diesel often cost 40 cents more per gallon then gasoline in many states, there is often no monetary savings anymore.

We could also discuss "net-yields"here, in regard to commonly used fuels.  That changes all the time.  At this moment, coal and petro give the biggest bang for the buck.  When it comes to fuels we think are sustainable?  For now there are none known to exist .  

I'm curiuos what your plan is - to "easily" make . . . lets say 800 KWH of electricity, per month, for each of the near 7 billion people on this earth.  Same goes for making "easy" food, "easy" accessed fuel for cars and trucks,  "easy" heat for homes, etc.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 30, 2011)

There are some on this forum that heat their homes with electricity CHEAPER than burning wood  pellets. So either wood pellets are incredibly overpriced or electricity is not so inefficiently delivered after all.


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 30, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> There are some on this forum that heat their homes with electricity CHEAPER than burning wood  pellets. So either wood pellets are incredibly overpriced or electricity is not so inefficiently delivered after all.



You seem to be comparing "apples to oranges."  That is, "expensive wood pellets" versus "efficient electicity."   I doubt efficiency has anything to do with the reasons why . . . an end-user chooses one or the other.

Just because electricity is cheaper per BTU, than a certain fuel at the time when it hits a consumers wallet - does not imply anything about how efficiently it is produced or delivered.  All it reflects is price to the consumer.

When I got my driver's license, regular gas was 25-32 cents per gallon and most cars got around 10-15 MPG.  That being said, I would not look back and say "hey, they were efficient."

Right now, LP is twice the price per pound or gallon in the northeast- as compared to the southwest.  Does that mean LP is twice as efficient in the southwest?  I don't think so.  Just happens to cost less.  In some areas, just the state fuel taxes and artificial price controls are a determining factor.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 30, 2011)

Nothing better than a dueling tempest in a teapot! Why not find the things that you can agree upon that advance a sustainable energy future and energy independence for the US, as well as a safe world for living things, and then pursue that with a joint vengeance so that both the US and the world might be better off? Certainly, all the wasted "energy" in this tempest could be put to much better use.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 30, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Nothing better than a dueling tempest in a teapot! Why not find the things that you can agree upon that advance a sustainable energy future and energy independence for the US, as well as a safe world for living things, and then pursue that with a joint vengeance so that both the US and the world might be better off? Certainly, all the wasted "energy" in this tempest could be put to much better use.



You could post that tomorrow there will be water in the ocean, and someone on here will dis-agree with you.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 30, 2011)

Water has been discovered in the ocean! Check this out: 





> www.hugewaterfind.com


----------



## jdemaris (Mar 30, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Nothing better than a dueling tempest in a teapot! Why not find the things that you can agree upon that advance a sustainable energy future and energy independence for the US, as well as a safe world for living things, and then pursue that with a joint vengeance so that both the US and the world might be better off? Certainly, all the wasted "energy" in this tempest could be put to much better use.



I've been posting with easily verifed facts.  Not hyperbole.  Anybody that reads can pay attention, dispute, or disregard as they see fit.  Digital ink is cheap, and "not reading" is easy to do.

Some of this stuff, including stats can be very misleading.

If someone wants to discuss "efficiency", first the word itself has to be clearly defined. It can mean many things.

I'm not ignorant on the subject, but I also don't know everything.   There are many experts in these fields that disgree on many key points.

My take on the "subject" is this (the subject being sustainable energy to supply the present population with the present standard of living).

I do not believe it is even remotely possible with science and resources as known at present.   Without some sort of huge break-through - there are few options e.g. - a much lower standard of living,  much less people, etc. Fudge the numbers all you want and we are still living on borrowed time. 

Now - maybe there will be a huge break-through.  I still do not believe that we should squander what resources we have - while we wait for this great thing to happen. We squandered oil for years and we've squandered coal for years. 

Right now  - with the present state of technology and infrastructure in the USA, one dollar spent on energy efficiency will yield much more then a dollar spent on alternative energy or present resouces (more coal, oil, etc. )  And yeah, that can change and we ought to be working on both.  The USA has never had a genuine long-term energy plan that made any sense.  Still doesn't.

In the mean time, it might behoove a few people to . . .  to do their own work on systems for their own families - and maybe not go on vacation or buy a new snow-mobile this year.   If you do, don't brag about it and watch out for FEMA.  As of a few years ago, FEMA is authorized to sieze privately held resources for the "greater good" during times of emergency.  So, if power is gone for a month - and you've got solar or wind electric- don't leave your lights on all night and brag about it to the darkened world.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> Electric cars are particularly reprehensible to "conservatives" since the owners can produce their own fuel; no sale, and no taxes on the sale either.



To some degree, conservative's views of "green" cars and liberals views of "utility" vehicles are both culturally based and generated more by emotion than logic. Much of it is driven by the warring media and spread by emotional consumers of the media. Drivers of Suburbans and Priuses are shooting each other the bird, without considering that both vehicles meet specific needs. I don't believe independant thinkers of any persuasion fall for this.



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> For this reason alone, one would think liberterians would be their biggest proponents.



Libertarian conservative here and a strong proponent of individual independance, including private electricity generation.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 31, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> Electric vehicles have a very long track record, with reliability and low maintaince being among their highest virtues.



Electric drive has many benefits; it's smooth, near silent, torquey, efficient and produces no end user emissions. 

All of that is presently downgraded by the inability to carry a sufficient energy supply onboard. If we could erect a big shiny electrified ceiling over the country, then we could just install contacters on poles like the arcade bumper cars have.  :lol:  

When the Leaf depletes its energy supply it simply stops. When the Volt depletes its primary energy supply it reverts to a moderately efficient gasoline drive (30-ish mpg). The ICE is incapable of recharging the batteries; it merely runs in a charge sustaining mode of about 30%. In either case replenishing the primary energy -- even with an optional 240V line -- requires stopping for hours (proof that the Volt really is an electric car, not a hybrid). 

Conversely, it takes only minutes to refill a gas tank and that (I believe) is why hybrid vehicles are immensely more practical than electrics. With choices from the 2-seat CR-Z to the 8-seat Tahoe, hybrids are mainstream vehicles now. (So we can stop shooting each other the bird!)

I don't doubt that electric car range and charge time will improve, but there are significant battery and infrastructure challenges for at least 20 more years.


----------



## begreen (Mar 31, 2011)

Nissan has been making electric cars for many decades. The Leaf is just the first to hit American shores. 

Note, that the Volt is an electric drive car, it does not revert to ICE drive like the Prius when the battery is low. Instead an on board generator kicks in to provide electric motive power.

I hope it's not going to take 20yrs to see some big differences in battery and infrastructure. Charging networks are already going in on Interstate 5. And there are some very interesting developments on the battery and super-capacitor front that I hope we'll be seeing within 5 years.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 31, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> jebatty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well for once JD i agree with your entire post.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 31, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Note, that the Volt is an electric drive car, it does not revert to ICE drive like the Prius when the battery is low. Instead an on board generator kicks in to provide electric motive power.



I would agree that the Volt falls in the electric car category. When the battery is depleted the ICE does run primarily as power for the generator -- I shouldn't have called it "gasoline drive." Nonetheless, the net result is about 30-some mpg -- not that great for an advanced car.

Also, GM has been very evasive about the Volt's drive system. But do a little research on Charge Sustaining Mode. The ICE does in fact, drive the wheels directly when the load requires --  hills and such -- to the extent needed. 



			
				BeGreen said:
			
		

> I hope it's not going to take 20yrs to see some big differences in battery and infrastructure. Charging networks are already going in on Interstate 5. And there are some very interesting developments on the battery and super-capacitor front that I hope we'll be seeing within 5 years.



The tech will progress, but I think we will have three basic options; long range with long charging time, short range with short charging time, or charge sustaining mode with gasoline back-up. It will be interesting to see what the market chooses.


----------



## Dune (Mar 31, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Electric vehicles are not suitable for every consumer. The average driver drives just 30 miles a day. The volt, with a forty mile range would enable many people to seldom buy gas.  The leaf would also suit many people. 

What is suffiecient range to you? There was a lead acid electric vehicle produced by Dodge in the sixties with a 250 mile range. 

Dodge also built an 8000 pound service vehicle in the sixties with a 50 mile range, again with just lead-acid batteries. Since lead is the heaviest metal and lithium is the lightest, with lithium having an energy density of twenty times that of lead, possible range is not an issue, only cost is.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 31, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> The average driver drives just 30 miles a day.....What is suffiecient range to you?



The Leaf will do well in the city, where distances are short and charging stations will be nearby.

For those outside the city, 30 miles per day may also be fairly typical, but they need range for the trip to Grandma, vacation at the shore, etc. This is where the Volt's extended range mode proves its worth. If you use no gas at all during the week, then you can certainly afford a miiddling 30 mpg  for the weekend trip to Grandma in ERM.

Sufficient range to me, is 350+ miles, *and* energy resupply in 5 minutes to go another 350 miles.  



			
				Dune said:
			
		

> ....range is not an issue, only cost is.



Range is an issue because range is directly related to charging time. For the electric car to succeed, it has to appeal to the middle of the market, where Corollas and Civics live. It has to be practical to the one-car family, (or person). Three hours to recharge, even on a 240 V line, is not practical. It doesn't compete with a Corolla. This leaves (small pun there) the electric car as a second or third car for Mom's errands in a well-to-do family -- an indulgence.

Then as you said, there is cost. Even as battery tech improves, $30 to $40 thousand is simply out-of-reach for the one car family. There are too many high efficiency gas and hybrid choices that are practical and cost effective. The 2011 Hyundai Elantra gets 29 city and 40 highway, with say about $20000 left over to buy gas. At 15K miles/year that's about 9 years of gas even at $5/gal. 

It's pointless to argue "green" to  a lower-middle class family. Economy will win every time.


----------



## Dune (Mar 31, 2011)

Beacause you plan to drive 350 miles and then 5 minutes later drive another 350 miles? Sorry but that is hardly reasonable.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 31, 2011)

The point is that the gas or hybrid car will travel 350+ miles without an interruption for energy resupply (as opposed to 30, 50 or 100 miles electric).

Then that energy resupply will take only 5 minutes (as opposed to 3 - 8 hours for electric) to make the vehicle useful again.

....and yes, if you were traveling across several states, you might well want to drive 600+ miles per day.


----------



## Dune (Mar 31, 2011)

That is all good, but doesn't change the fact that for many drivers a 100 mile range is suitable.


----------



## Dune (Mar 31, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The best may top out at 40% and 30% respectively, but the average gas engine is just 20% efficeint, and the average diesel ( the common usage name all over the world, as well as the name of the inventer) is 30% efficient, a difference of 50%, in my world at least.  When I talk about the efficiency difference of diesel vs gas, I am commenting on the amount of energy wasted as heat, not horse power.

I didn't call you ignorant, look at what I wrote. The words I actualy use denote my meaning.

As for your final statement, 800KW/month x 7 billion, why would I or should I have a plan? I am simply advocating electric cars for those who may find them suitable. I don't claim to have solutions to the worlds problems. Furthermore, most of the world survives on much less energy than we consume in this country, so your math is bunk.
Why are you so antagonistic?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 31, 2011)

The large capacity NIMH battery may change the landscape when the patent runs out in 2014. IT powered the RAV4-EV for 120 miles a charge in early 2000s before chevron bought up the patent and pulled it from the market while suing toyota to stop production. THose early models are still on the road today holding up quite well.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 1, 2011)

Ford is coming out with their own all electric later THIS year.100 Mile range. Lots of choices coming.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 2, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> . . . average diesel ( the common usage name all over the world, as well as the name of the inventer)



Nope -it is NOT the name of the inventor.

Perhaps a minor point to some, but Rudolf Diesel did not invent the diesel engine, or did he even market the first one sucessfully.

I'll refer to the "diesel" as a compression-ignition engine  beyond this point to avoid confusion.

D. Clark of Enlgand invented, and marketted the first sucessfull compression-igniton engine.  This in 1878.  His design used the two-sroke-cycle principle and was supercharged.   This basic design later became the world-famous Detroit-Diesel.  Probably the most common compression-ignition engine in world-history.

In 1893, Rudolf Diesel attempted to demonsrate his first prototype, and it blew up. This was 15 years AFTER Clark's successul engine. 

In 1896, Rudolf Diesel's second attempt worked.   18 years AFTER Clark's.

The design was referred to as a "comprssion-ignition" engine for many years all over the world.  At some point - "diesel" got popular in some areas and spread . . .  and why . . . I have no idea.


----------



## Dune (Apr 3, 2011)

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldiesel.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/27495.aspx

Searched this for a while. Did find a Stuart who invented a low compression engine in 1892, but needed an igniton bulb, hence not a compression ignition engine. Found no reference to a Clark. 
Could you possibly provide a link? I do realize that the true inventer is not always credited. 

Could you possibly be talking about Otto, the inventer of the Otto cycle engine (1876) upon which the diesel is based?

I will keep calling it a diesel for now.


----------



## SPhill (Apr 3, 2011)

Dune is correct about Diesel. Here is why:

A.  "Clark's" engine was NOT compression ignition.  His name is Dugald Clerk
B.   Diesel INVENTED the compression ignition engine -- that is why it bears his name.
C.   Clerk gives FULL credit to Diesel for compression ignition.

The man "Clark" is actually *Sir Dugald Clerk*. He patented the 2-cycle, or Clerk Cycle engine in 1881. It was NOT a compression ignition engine. The mixture was ignited by a steady burning flame, allowed into the cylinder by a slide valve. Clerk calls the slide valve an "igniting valve".

This is taken from the book "_The Gas, Petrol and Oil Engine_", written by Sir Dugald Clerk (1886, last printing 1910):

(starting page 321) 


> The Clerk engine was invented by the author with the view of obtaining impulse at every revolution...
> 
> It was not till the end of 1880 that the author succeeded in producing the Clerk engine; before that time he had several experimental engines under trial, one of which was exhibited at the Royal Agricultural Society's show at Kilburn in July 1879. This engine was identical with the Lenoir in idea, but with *separate compression and a novel system of ignition*.
> 
> ...



Clerk himself gives full credit to Diesel for inventing the compression ignition engine, and he calls it a "Diesel engine":

(page 31)



> A most important development of the heavy oil engine is found in the *Diesel engine, in which air alone is compressed in the engine cylinder to such a pressure as to heat it above the ignition point of heavy oil.* When the air is at this high pressure and temperature the heavy oil is injected into it by air compressed to a still higher pressure. *The oil spray ignites as it enters and so power is produced*. Diesel began his work about 1892, and by determined perseverance he has produced a most interesting engine which is now used in considerable numbers and of high powers. Diesel's first engine was produced about the year 1895.



1886 book, "The Gas, Petrol and Oil Engine" by Dugald Clerk


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 3, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> Dune is correct about Diesel. Here is why:
> The man "Clark" is actually Sir Dugald Clerk. He patented the 2-cycle, or Clerk Cycle engine in 1881. It was NOT a compression ignition engine.



I suspect you don't have a lot of experience with primary-records searching and surname-spelling from the 1500s-1700s.   Standardized spelling of surnames is a somewhat new thing that came into full swing during the mid-1800s.   In fact, it was not uncommon for Europeans to have 2-3 surnames and sometimes . . . more or none.  It was also popular for one person to use different names depending on context, and sometimes they were based on family history and sometimes based on pure fiction (like many latter day movie stars do).    France was real big on this with "dit" or "ditte" names.

Tell me the one and only proper spelling for Henry Hudson, or Christopher Columbus, or Galileo Galilei, Giovanni da Verrazano,  Luigi Galvani  etc.  You won't find just one that was used when these guys were around.  

Think what you want -but from what I've seen and read over the years - there is absolutely NO consensus for "one spelling" for the guy I'm calling Clark.   So, call him Clerk, call him Clark, call him Dugie,  or whateve.  He is still the same guy - to say there is only one proper spelling is a big foolish.

As to who invented the diesel?  There is NO one answer.   To even come close, you'd need pages of word-definitons.  What does "ivnent" mean.  What does "diesel" mean.  What does "compression igntion" mean.  

Mr. Clark developed many engines; not just the one you cited from Wiki-whatever.  Several ran on oil, were forced-scavenged (supercharged), fired cold via some sort of precombustion chamber and hot bulb.  Some versions were reported to self-ignite once hot.  It was this design that got perfected over the years and evolved in the famous Detroit Diesel two-stroke-cycle "diesel."

Many modern-day indirect-injection "diesel" engines will not start without glow-plugs.  Yet, we still call them "diesels" I believe. 
And yes, they are not hot-bulb engines but . . . certainly cannot run cold with little "hot plugs" to help with ignition.

Otto did not invent the "Otto Cycle" either. That is clear - at least by my understanding of the word "invent."  Otto has a partner/underling who is given much of the credit for the Otto brand of engine.  Otto could not hold a patent because several people came before him.

Nikolaus Otto developed his â€œsilentâ€ four-stroke along with  Eugen Langen around 1876.
A four-stroke design invented and demonstrated in 1872 by Christian Reithman. 
A design for the four-stroke-cycle engine-type had been published even earlier  in 1861 by Gustav  Schmidt.

Rochas of France published papers and designs for a compression-ignition engine in 1862.

Disclainer: I was not around when these guys created their inventions. If I HAD been, I still would of had no way of knowing who really did what. History is full of credit being given out to what I'm going to call - the wrong people.

World history often gives a Bristish/Scottish doctor the credit for discovering that eating limes prevents scurvy in the 1700s.  Yet it is 100% clear - in the hand-written journals of Jacques Cartier and later, Samuel Champlain - that they were both taught how to cure scurvy with extracts of sassafrass trees and cedar trees and that started in the 1500s. They got the info from Indians - probably Huron-Wendats or some Algonquian-speaking sort near the St. Lawrence River.  It is one reason why Red Cedar is often named "tree of life", or AKA Abor Vitae.  It was these earlier discoveries that made Sir Walter Raleigh a rich man from harvesting sassafrass from the "new world" and selling it in Europe.

Hey if you think Diesel invented it all, that is your option.  I choose not to believe it for a second.


----------



## begreen (Apr 3, 2011)

True, Marconi didn't invent the wireless either, but he was a better entrepreneur than Tesla. Inventions are often a line of successive development. That's just the way it is.

Note, the Chinese fleet under Zheng He (early 1400's) was using citrus to prevent scurvy in the grand fleet. They knew of this long before the western world.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 3, 2011)

I'd like to see more diesel... actually a small diesel truck.

Matt


----------



## SPhill (Apr 3, 2011)

jdemaris, how's that reading and comprehension thing workin' for ya?

You don't need to do any records search. The man authored a number of engineering books, all still available today. He published those books under his name: Dugald Clerk. I provided you a link directly to his book "The Gas, Petrol and Oil Engine". It is photo scanned into a pdf. You can see the cover page with his name, for yourself.

Nothing was taken from a wiki. The quotes I provided are from Dugald Clerk's book. This book was reprinted several times between 1886 and 1910, the exact time that these engines were developed and put into service. He specifically credits Diesel with compression ignition AND he calls it the "Diesel engine". 

Clerk, Diesel and others were scientists. They defined "compression ignition" for you a long time ago. 

Dugald Clerk's entire book is available on-line. Read it.


----------



## begreen (Apr 4, 2011)

This thread has petered out and is drifting off topic. Digs at other members are not warranted or welcome. Closing thread.


----------

