The only people I know who have an electric car own or have pre-ordered Teslas. They are all status symbols. I don’t know anyone who needs an electric car. Maybe the problem is just as much lack of demand as it is lack of big auto commitment?
I've seen lots of Bolts in Silicon Valley in the past few months, far more than Model 3s in fact. And if you just stuff their seats with memory foam, they're quite comfortable to drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgxWTOnVn8
but I await the Camaro/Mustang/Challenger equivalent electric car at roughly the same price point before I'll switch. The acceleration is just too useful for highway merges and other assorted road nonsense that's increasingly my daily commute experience.
The Model 3 is about as fast as a BMW 340i, and probably similar to a V6 Mustang or Camaro.
I drive a Prius and I'm rarely able to use its full power on a highway merge because I'm stuck behind slowpokes who think it's reasonable to merge at 40mph. If I owned a Mustang I'd be constantly frustrated at never being able to use it to its full potential.
Sure, that's on par with base $25K Camaros/Mustangs. It's not on par with the sort of Camaro/Mustang one can procure for ~$50k or the same price as a Model 3 that isn't barebones (and I just tried to config one on Tesla's web site and alas you can't so I can't give an exact number here).
For ~$50K, ICE sports cars are sub 4 seconds. That said, it is on par with low-end sport coupes so I see some of the appeal. It's just not appealing to me.
I'm with you. I'm a car nut, and I'd love a bare-bones performance EV. The instant torque sounds amazing.
Just give me something that's affordable, reliable, as light as possible and all-weather capable. It's fine to cut corners on interior materials and gadgets. Keep the electric windows, just give me the torque!
We've already had plenty of pointless discussions about the word "affordable" on HN. If you want to cast aspersions on "a very particular demographic", be my guest.
And this is why I listen to car people about cars, not techies. I drove a Bolt, I like the Bolt, but it's no sports car. To put this into perspective, do you make your SW/HW decisions based on the suggested content from Twitter/Facebook?
Indeed I did. I like the Bolt. If I lived in a city, I'd probably buy one right now. But sport mode != sports car. Just like Elon Musk != Skunk Musk...
Yes he did, apparently you didn't read the bit about wanting the torque, which electric cars have from 0-20, and then peter out (except Teslas).
For a mainstream electric car, the Bolt is exceptionally good in driving more like a 2009ish Rav4 than a 2017ish Kia Soul, but it's no sports car, even in sports mode. But in a world where people think a Scion FRS is a sports car, I can understand the confusion.
I came very close to a Bolt for these reasons. My local power generator offered a $75 discount on the charger, plus free charging for the car on weekends. That's enormous: I could charge on weekends and drive 238 miles for free during the week. As a local commute or grocery getter, it's hard to beat free miles.
Interesting. Made me think of how now in Australia we have so much solar installed that wholesale electric spot pricing can go $10k+/MWh negative during some parts of the day. Wondering if one day they'll be willing to pay consumer electric sinks... EV charging is perfect.
Yes, any place with a lot of solar (daytime) loves having electric cars plugged in during the day, and any place with a lot of wind (which often blows strongest at night) loves having electric cars plugged in at night.
And if the car has a big battery and doesn't need to charge to full all of the time, you can use solar or wind predictions to choose when to charge.
And with some "smart grid" upgrades that are proposed, a busy electric grid could even "borrow" power from that big battery of a sitting car (with nowhere else to be) in periods of high demand and then repay what it borrowed, plus "interest" once demand drops.
I agree. If you're buying anything more expensive than the $13k Nissan Versa, you're buying features you don't need. So saying people don't need an electric car so there's no point in buying them is kind of a silly statement.
I think you are vastly underestimating what some people use their vehicles for. Where I drove today would have totaled a Nissan Versa. Trucks and other utility vehicles have their place.
Yes, and the wide variety of all-electric trucks and utility vehicles on the market prove that your use case is a direct and unquestionable comparison to what we're talking about right now, which is vehicles that are directly comparable to a Tesla or Bolt or Volt or Leaf.
You know, I think the Prius is really underrated as a pickup truck.
Indeed, and that's why I was careful to say "most." There certainly are legitimate needs for fancier vehicles. But I'd guess 95% of personal vehicles purchases go beyond what the buyer needs. Which is totally fine!
No need for me to quibble with your sentiment. The question is: if they don't solve a problem, why buy one? Prius offered people clean hands, and not much more. When gas is cheap the price of fuel isn't a big motivator, and Detroit is happy to churn out SUVs. So unless the state changes current market conditions I see no reason why people would choose to buy these electric cars.
But it demonstrates less demand than 400,000 people buying actual cars for their sticker price. $1000 is pocket change for the buyers of new cars and how many of those in the long run take delivery of a vehicle remains to be seen, plenty of people give up their slot once the time arrives to pay up the remainder.
I have an electric car and I know many people have electric cars. Each have their own motivations, for some people it is to save on gas. Others for carpool access, while still others are for environmental reasons. I doubt Nissan Leaf is a great status symbol
For sure. I see a lot of leafs around town and around the neighborhood. Its an unapologetic econobox. No problem with that. If I had to drive 101 upstream everyday, I'd go get a cheap used leaf in a heartbeat.
A friend had a Bolt and likes it a lot. Of course lots of Teslas around, too. Tesla has range, and is stylish. Bolt has range. Leaf goes from point A to B for a modest subset of points.
> Leaf goes from point A to B for a modest subset of points
That could be great for some people, but for more people a 10-year old Toyota Corolla would also be great. That's the problem, there isn't a compelling reason beyond interest in new technology or eco-sensibility to buy one of these cars.
I have a plug-in hybrid (Toyota Prius Prime) which may not exactly count (though if the Volt does...), but here in Portland OR I see a huge number of Nissan Leaf-s. They can be bought used for a song, making them an ideal in-town car.
I have a lovely internal combustion sportscar that Dom Toretto or his wife (were they real) would enjoy driving.
And if anyone can deliver the same performance for $50,000 (or less) I'll transition to electric. GM says 2020, Ford says (I think) 2023. And meanwhile, Teslas are nice, but I hate their interiors with the whole one.big.screen and they cost too much. All IMO of course.
Just a reminder-- there were 1.15M light vehicle sales in the US last month[0].
The total for all of these EV cars put together is a drop in the bucket.. 12000/1.15M = 1%. So if big auto has a problem, they have a lot of time to figure it out.
I'm coming at this from another domain, measuring IPv6 uptake. I've been doing this for over 10 years now. The initial demand curve, was severely depressing. It was painful to watch technology sitting at 1% growth. The thing is, that in a logistic supply curve, the moment of change when something where the best-fit is linear, and it goes into its exponential phase, its completely unpredictable. You can stab at it, but its really best defined in arrears, after the fact.
So we're on 1% of monthly sales against ICE? We might still be on 1% in 3 months time, or 6. But the progression from 1% to 5% to 16% to 40% will be interesting. It might not happen that way, but in other domains, the uptake curve is abrupt.
(and it doesn't have to reach 100%, there is no must here, and its not a physical law bound thing either: its a supply curve, a logistic curve.)
The thing about tech uptake is that it faces very few hard physical limitations on growth.
I mean, if Tesla were facing as few physical limitations (literally can't build cars fast enough) as IPV6 uptake, they'd have sold millions of cars by now.
Despite the Bolt being MT car of the year in 2017, I found it very hard to get a test drive. Some local Chevy dealers pretended not to know about it, which is ludicrous: their business, and maybe their only value as middleman, is to know every vehicle in the catalog forward and backward and then to leap to get me what I ask for.
When I pointed out they were sitting on MTCOY the response was: don't believe everything you read. Really?
Finally, after about 6 months of trying, I finally got a test drive in January, and the salesman was knowlegeable and was ready to sell one from a local inventory pool. His observation was, while there are still some lifetime unknowns (8 yr/100 kmi warranty on the battery) it probably wouldn't ever need as much maint as an ICE car.
And that might be part of the dealers' problem: the service side of the business is going to take a hit in the long term. In the short term, the ICE assembly lines will need retooling, after giant investments in 100 yo methods.
The service part of is a good observation. As far a I know dealers make a lot of their money from service and they will certainly be unhappy to lose that income.
A while ago someone posted the maintenance schedule of their electric car and it was almost laughably short. Not much money to make there for the dealers.
saying the EV requires less service when all data you have is a couple years of very low production runs, sold mostly at markets where the car will be a 2nd or 3rd car... is a little far fetched.
I had the same experience with first Volt I leased. I knew more about the car than the salespeople and they kept trying to sell me something different. Even vehicles that were a lot cheaper.
They were going out of their way to not sell/lease that car I walked in there to get.
That 3 year lease was great and now I own one outright that I bought used with 15,000 miles on it in perfect condition after 1 year...for about $15k. The car is fantastic and while I’m sure the Tesla is nicer, the price point is too good. Car dealers and even used car dealers seem to hate them for some reason.
Maintenance has been easy and sport mode may or may not have resulted in a couple of speeding tickets.
It might not be accurate to accuse GM dealerships of not wanting to sell Bolts, and don't forget that it's a specialty, low-production vehicle, either way you slice it. Specialty cars are usually handled by one person in a dealership, or only at a bigger dealership in a region. Since everyone else is still motivated to sell cars for their own personal commission, they get greedy and try to convince you they know what's best for you since the specialty salesperson is much more likely getting the sale.
You'll experience the same run-around for custom BTO cars and low production halo models.
The argument here is that the Bolt shouldn't be a specialty, low-production vehicle. It has won major car awards, and priced right in a market sweet spot. Dealerships should have them front-and-center and should be talking up how awesome they are.
It might not be a "conspiracy" that sales people aren't hyping what is likely still a low margin, hard to sell car, but they should at least know what it is if people ask.
The problem is more about customers and their habits. Cars are more expensive and people make less money.
The business model for selling new cars is about leases and long loans — most new car loans are 60 months or longer. The increased capital cost of an EV is a barrier for the people selling the car, as consumers give zero shits about TCO.
There are also many many segments where EV are a bad idea. People who rent, people who live in cold places, people who travel for road trips. It’s a complex sale, and the people can do the math to figure out the TCO can also figure out that a Honda Accord has a lower TCO with less risk. Even the Tesla risk factor is high — the car may last 10 years, but the company has a significant chance of being gone.
Of course, there's a specific use case for the EV. The same dealer also had $76,000 Corvettes on the floor: like the EV they're maybe costing more and offer less utility. The Bolt cost around $37k--maybe 30 while the incentive lasts--and seats four plus cargo in the hatchback so it's maybe bigger than an Accord for a similar price.
This Elon Musk quote in one of the linked blogs is insightful:
"But the CARB credits are only effective at a production rate of about 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a year. So that’s why you’ll see, mark my words, it’s not going to be any higher than that for the Chevy Bolt. That’s on order of 25,000 units a year…"
There were 50% more BMWs sold this January than all electric cars combined.
I have a hard time believing any headstart on sales alone will be representative.
Technology, services (including charging) are definitely advantages of pioneers like Tesla by the way, the only non-"big auto" member of the top ev sellers list.
I bought a Tesla primarily for the Supercharger network. Any other EV is DOA if you need to long distance travel in a reasonable amount of time (I do like the Leaf and Bolt, but they are not practical outside of a commuter car).
The operating costs are less than half of the Tundra pickup truck it replaced.
I leased a Ford Focus Electric for 2 years before purchasing a used Tesla. After just a few months it became apparent that the Focus was just a compliance car afterthought. Instead of putting a little thought into battery placement, they simply threw it into the hatchback which reduced storage and left little weight in the front of a front wheel drive car. Instead of converting the engine compartment into a frunk, there was a mass of loosely placed tubes and wiring. The result was a car with limited storage that was downright dangerous to drive on a wet road due to lack of traction, with an effective range of about 50 miles (hope you don't have to use your heater or AC). Ford Sync was also absolutely miserable to use - slow, unintuitive and clunky.
On the contrary, the Tesla has been an absolute joy (perhaps even more so after driving the Focus for 2 years). The performance, interface, supercharging, storage, aesthetics and customer service are IMO far superior to any other electric vehicle on the market today or even announced for release in the next few years.
On the flip side, their hybrid offerings (Fusion, Lincoln MKX) feel pretty solid. The smooth drive and handling of my Fusion hybrid feel pretty close to what I imagine a Tesla would (smooth quiet acceleration while on battery, but it also feels just as smooth when the ICE kicks in due to the eCVT [totally different technology than the older belt-driven CVTs]). Oh, and sync has been updated now to not use Microsoft embedded anymore. But the mapping and voice control still sucks bad (I usually use Android Auto, which works like you'd expect in 2018).
But their plugin hybrid version of the Fusion does feel like a minimal effort compliance product, due to the battery taking up too much trunk space (eliminating the possibility of folding down the rear seats for trunk passthrough), and virtually no electric-only range.
2) Acceleration is improved (I smoked a Porche Boxster between 2 very long lights).
3) Sync3 is better, and they support Android Auto/ Apple Carplay.
4) DC Fast charging support = 30m recharge ( we have one at my office) to about 80% from near-zero.
Some things are unchanged / still suck: traction due to it not being 4wd - is the same. Battery position is the same (really unfortunate since it kneecaps the benefit of having a hatchback. The radio always comes on if I disconnect CarPlay - I wish I could disable it from every getting AM/FM as I find it mostly ads and useless.
That said, I still really enjoy the car. It's more fun than my old Prius, still fits 5 (3 kids in back) and I never visit a gas station. Of course, I'm on the list for a Model 3.
I have a totally different conclusion from it: U.S. electric car industry is stuck while everyone in the world is rushing to fill the market. Worldwide growth in 2017 was ca. 58%.
I don't think electric car manufacturers are considering the huge amount of the US population that lives in the Midwest/Northeast part of the country.
In the winter the decreased battery life (especially when running the heater) could be a deal breaker for many people. Also, most electric cars being manufactured are compacts, which would do a poor job of handling snowy roads even considering the increased torque of an electric motor.
Norway and the US aren't directly comparable like that, though. For one, the kilometers traveled per capital for Norway is about half of the kilometers traveled per capita in the US.
It's really hard to say "Norway is cold, Minnesota is cold, they're basically the same place!".
That being why I wound up going with a hybrid RAV4 in the Southwest. I really need an awd where I live, but I still want to try to lower my footprint. The local dealership had plenty of inventory and knowledge. (Granted, it’s still an ICE. They’re not losing the service model. Even Toyota’s said they don’t think the BEV will replace the ICE)
America is a tough nut to crack. People like BIG cars, the roads are kinda crappy, fuel prices are lower than in Europe or Japan and travel distances are long.
I wouldn't want to drive a Nissan Leaf in rural Maine.
GM has most of its EV facilities in Michigan (Detroit), so they have some skin in the game of supporting the Midwest winter lifestyle. Winter testing was very important to them when building the Volt, according to the documentary Revenge of the Electric Car.
We own a 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (PHEV)
Cost after 7500 tax credit was comparable (slightly higher) than gas only variants with dealer discounts.
Winter mpg(e) was fairly unimpressive, about 24mpg(e) combined. Chrysler programmed (?) the car to run heavy on the gas engine when temperatures drop. There are no settings or overrides like the Volt (my only other PHEV experience)
As it is warming up mpge is climbing up to 34mpge, however we havent owned it for a summer or long enough during the warm season to comment on long term warm mileage. Overall we are satisified. Our utility rates are about 11 cents per kWh. We came from an Odyssey that could barely manage 19mpg around town, so 34+ all the while utilizing cheaper electric rates as fuel makes me happy. We don't drive much highway other than roadtrips. The one we have taken resulted in about 27mpg, which was slightly better than our Odyssey could do, but nothing earth shattering.
Driving in pure electric is interesting and even though the electric motor alone produces nowhere near the horsepower as the V6 it still performs well.
I almost feel sorry for the automakers though in making PHEV vehicles. They are complicated and I assume yield alot of complicated questions at the dealer level. If Tesla made a van, I would have strongly considered it, however the model X didn't meet our needs.
It does pure-EV. Advertised range in pure-EV is about 30-36 miles. We have only owned it since October 2017. The actual range we get in pure-EV has been about 20ish give or take a few miles either direction.
My comment related to the gas engine is under cold temperatures. Chrysler doesn't let you control any aspect of how the gas engine turns on or is utilized. From what I understand most the PHEV give you the ability to somewhat override the car. Ie set a preference for the gas engine to come on or tell the car that you want "max EV range." The Pacifica does what it wants to do in terms of gas/electric hand-off. It seems to be heavily temperature dependent. I'm sure Chrysler programmed it to use gas when its cold as its more efficient to warm up/heat the cabin when cold using the gas engine. I would say based upon one winter's experience. Anything much under 35/40F will result in significant usage of the gas engine no matter the electric charge.
When it was in the mid-20s here (not uncommon) my wife could drop the kids off at school and make her round trip commute (11 miles) and it would use the gas engine significantly during that trip to warm up the van.
That being said, we just did errands over the weekend and it used 100% EV until the battery was depleted - the temperature was 50+ outside the entire time.
> If Tesla made a van, I would have strongly considered it
I'm certain the reason they don't is that it would either have a sub-100 mile range (like the actually existing Nissan NV200e electric van), or it would have a 10 000 lbs curb weight and cost well north of $200k.
I mean, at highway speeds air resistance is what you're spending your gas/electricity on fighting against.
For a Model S, measured drag coefficient and projected frontal area imply that to maintain 70 mph for one hour you're spending 10 kWh.
For a Ford Transit van, the drag coefficient doubles and the projected area increases by a whopping 5x, so you're looking at 100 kWh spent to maintain 70 mph for one hour.
This implies an electric full-size van with the range of a Model S would require at least 600 kWh of battery capacity installed, giving a battery weight alone of 7500 lbs (3500 kg)!!!
I think the answer is simpler than that; minivans aren't sexy. Tesla is focused on gobbling up potential BMW and Audi buyers who have the budget for a fully loaded X5 or Q7 and aren't willing to give up the sex appeal (at least until kids 2-3 come along).
A Ford Transit van is a pretty big leap for someone who wants a vehicle to cart around kids, pets and their associated gear.
The 2017 Chrysler Pacifica offers a drag coefficient of 0.30 vs. 0.24 for the Model X. Given Tesla's aggressive reduction in drag and frontal area on the Model X (with respect to other SUVs) I expect they could get away with a much more modest bump in battery capacity if minivans became the next hot ticket.
You're right that minivans aren't sexy. And that the Model X has significantly better aerodynamics than a X5 or a Q7. But it doesn't match the carrying capacity of either.
I mean, with a Q7 you can carry your three kids with just two seat rows, so you can still fit two strollers and enough luggage for a three week holiday in the trunk. With a Model X, not so much. And thanks to the fancy doors, forget about compensating with a roofbox.
It's more comparable to a BMW X4 or a Mercedes GLC Coupe. And even then, the Model X is almost 90 inches wide, same as a H1 Hummer, as opposed to 77 inches for the "bigger" Q7.
From an engineering standpoint it seems like it is just a weight and packaging problem to me.
The Pacifica PHEV weighs about 5,000lbs depending on configuration. I think the only deficit it really has to the Model X is drag co-efficient but Chrysler was working with a given shape. Given a unique platform not shared with a gas variant they could design for a specific co-efficient as needed.
I don't really know the specs of the Model X, however Google says it weighs maybe 300lbs more than the Pacifica. Those aren't unsurmountable differences - especially if the price range is going to be 80k+.
I think the biggest difference is that Tesla knows it won't sell enough vans to make it worth their development time :)
> I think the only deficit it really has to the Model X is drag co-efficient
No, the projected area is also worse. Air resistance is proportional to drag coefficient multiplied by projected area. Since both are worse, the best estimates I could find is that the Pacifica has almost twice the overall air resistance of a Model X.
It's not as bad as the 6x difference between a Model S and a Ford Transit, but it would still mean almost half the range at a given battery capacity.
Conversely, an electric Pacifica with the range of a Model X would be about 1000 lbs heavier.
Im no longer so sure, that battery driven electric cars are the future. Electric cars are- but i would bet right now on fuel cells. They have all the bons- less energy conversion steps (methan, ethanol or hydrogen beeing used), a better conversion rate and energy density.
Actually thats the one thing i dont get- why nobody places a fuel cell bet on the scale tesla does with the giga factory.
The data by brand comes, I think, from motor vehicle registration data. That means out the door and on the road in customer hands.
Manufacturer-provided data often counts cars as they are produced. The original article also says that Tesla data is "estimated".
79 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadbut I await the Camaro/Mustang/Challenger equivalent electric car at roughly the same price point before I'll switch. The acceleration is just too useful for highway merges and other assorted road nonsense that's increasingly my daily commute experience.
I drive a Prius and I'm rarely able to use its full power on a highway merge because I'm stuck behind slowpokes who think it's reasonable to merge at 40mph. If I owned a Mustang I'd be constantly frustrated at never being able to use it to its full potential.
For ~$50K, ICE sports cars are sub 4 seconds. That said, it is on par with low-end sport coupes so I see some of the appeal. It's just not appealing to me.
Just give me something that's affordable, reliable, as light as possible and all-weather capable. It's fine to cut corners on interior materials and gadgets. Keep the electric windows, just give me the torque!
For a mainstream electric car, the Bolt is exceptionally good in driving more like a 2009ish Rav4 than a 2017ish Kia Soul, but it's no sports car, even in sports mode. But in a world where people think a Scion FRS is a sports car, I can understand the confusion.
Interesting. Made me think of how now in Australia we have so much solar installed that wholesale electric spot pricing can go $10k+/MWh negative during some parts of the day. Wondering if one day they'll be willing to pay consumer electric sinks... EV charging is perfect.
And if the car has a big battery and doesn't need to charge to full all of the time, you can use solar or wind predictions to choose when to charge.
Yes.
https://i.imgur.com/d3JBn9t.png
https://electrek.co/2017/02/03/tesla-controllable-charge-loa...
You know, I think the Prius is really underrated as a pickup truck.
A friend had a Bolt and likes it a lot. Of course lots of Teslas around, too. Tesla has range, and is stylish. Bolt has range. Leaf goes from point A to B for a modest subset of points.
That could be great for some people, but for more people a 10-year old Toyota Corolla would also be great. That's the problem, there isn't a compelling reason beyond interest in new technology or eco-sensibility to buy one of these cars.
I imagine you live in the USA where gas is insanely cheap? think about people paying > $6USD/gallon.
And if anyone can deliver the same performance for $50,000 (or less) I'll transition to electric. GM says 2020, Ford says (I think) 2023. And meanwhile, Teslas are nice, but I hate their interiors with the whole one.big.screen and they cost too much. All IMO of course.
The total for all of these EV cars put together is a drop in the bucket.. 12000/1.15M = 1%. So if big auto has a problem, they have a lot of time to figure it out.
0. http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Edit: Corrected.. thanks to sremani for pointing out the error.
So we're on 1% of monthly sales against ICE? We might still be on 1% in 3 months time, or 6. But the progression from 1% to 5% to 16% to 40% will be interesting. It might not happen that way, but in other domains, the uptake curve is abrupt.
(and it doesn't have to reach 100%, there is no must here, and its not a physical law bound thing either: its a supply curve, a logistic curve.)
I mean, if Tesla were facing as few physical limitations (literally can't build cars fast enough) as IPV6 uptake, they'd have sold millions of cars by now.
Despite the Bolt being MT car of the year in 2017, I found it very hard to get a test drive. Some local Chevy dealers pretended not to know about it, which is ludicrous: their business, and maybe their only value as middleman, is to know every vehicle in the catalog forward and backward and then to leap to get me what I ask for.
When I pointed out they were sitting on MTCOY the response was: don't believe everything you read. Really?
Finally, after about 6 months of trying, I finally got a test drive in January, and the salesman was knowlegeable and was ready to sell one from a local inventory pool. His observation was, while there are still some lifetime unknowns (8 yr/100 kmi warranty on the battery) it probably wouldn't ever need as much maint as an ICE car.
And that might be part of the dealers' problem: the service side of the business is going to take a hit in the long term. In the short term, the ICE assembly lines will need retooling, after giant investments in 100 yo methods.
A while ago someone posted the maintenance schedule of their electric car and it was almost laughably short. Not much money to make there for the dealers.
They were going out of their way to not sell/lease that car I walked in there to get.
That 3 year lease was great and now I own one outright that I bought used with 15,000 miles on it in perfect condition after 1 year...for about $15k. The car is fantastic and while I’m sure the Tesla is nicer, the price point is too good. Car dealers and even used car dealers seem to hate them for some reason.
Maintenance has been easy and sport mode may or may not have resulted in a couple of speeding tickets.
You'll experience the same run-around for custom BTO cars and low production halo models.
It might not be a "conspiracy" that sales people aren't hyping what is likely still a low margin, hard to sell car, but they should at least know what it is if people ask.
The business model for selling new cars is about leases and long loans — most new car loans are 60 months or longer. The increased capital cost of an EV is a barrier for the people selling the car, as consumers give zero shits about TCO.
There are also many many segments where EV are a bad idea. People who rent, people who live in cold places, people who travel for road trips. It’s a complex sale, and the people can do the math to figure out the TCO can also figure out that a Honda Accord has a lower TCO with less risk. Even the Tesla risk factor is high — the car may last 10 years, but the company has a significant chance of being gone.
"But the CARB credits are only effective at a production rate of about 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a year. So that’s why you’ll see, mark my words, it’s not going to be any higher than that for the Chevy Bolt. That’s on order of 25,000 units a year…"
Actual Total Bolt sales for 2017 … 23,297.
I have a hard time believing any headstart on sales alone will be representative.
Technology, services (including charging) are definitely advantages of pioneers like Tesla by the way, the only non-"big auto" member of the top ev sellers list.
The operating costs are less than half of the Tundra pickup truck it replaced.
On the contrary, the Tesla has been an absolute joy (perhaps even more so after driving the Focus for 2 years). The performance, interface, supercharging, storage, aesthetics and customer service are IMO far superior to any other electric vehicle on the market today or even announced for release in the next few years.
But their plugin hybrid version of the Fusion does feel like a minimal effort compliance product, due to the battery taking up too much trunk space (eliminating the possibility of folding down the rear seats for trunk passthrough), and virtually no electric-only range.
1) Range is 110mi (winter: 80, summer: 130)
2) Acceleration is improved (I smoked a Porche Boxster between 2 very long lights).
3) Sync3 is better, and they support Android Auto/ Apple Carplay.
4) DC Fast charging support = 30m recharge ( we have one at my office) to about 80% from near-zero.
Some things are unchanged / still suck: traction due to it not being 4wd - is the same. Battery position is the same (really unfortunate since it kneecaps the benefit of having a hatchback. The radio always comes on if I disconnect CarPlay - I wish I could disable it from every getting AM/FM as I find it mostly ads and useless.
That said, I still really enjoy the car. It's more fun than my old Prius, still fits 5 (3 kids in back) and I never visit a gas station. Of course, I'm on the list for a Model 3.
In the winter the decreased battery life (especially when running the heater) could be a deal breaker for many people. Also, most electric cars being manufactured are compacts, which would do a poor job of handling snowy roads even considering the increased torque of an electric motor.
It's really hard to say "Norway is cold, Minnesota is cold, they're basically the same place!".
on a general note:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardiness_zone#/media/File:201...
http://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-norway-plant-hardiness-...
I wouldn't want to drive a Nissan Leaf in rural Maine.
As it is warming up mpge is climbing up to 34mpge, however we havent owned it for a summer or long enough during the warm season to comment on long term warm mileage. Overall we are satisified. Our utility rates are about 11 cents per kWh. We came from an Odyssey that could barely manage 19mpg around town, so 34+ all the while utilizing cheaper electric rates as fuel makes me happy. We don't drive much highway other than roadtrips. The one we have taken resulted in about 27mpg, which was slightly better than our Odyssey could do, but nothing earth shattering.
Driving in pure electric is interesting and even though the electric motor alone produces nowhere near the horsepower as the V6 it still performs well.
I almost feel sorry for the automakers though in making PHEV vehicles. They are complicated and I assume yield alot of complicated questions at the dealer level. If Tesla made a van, I would have strongly considered it, however the model X didn't meet our needs.
My comment related to the gas engine is under cold temperatures. Chrysler doesn't let you control any aspect of how the gas engine turns on or is utilized. From what I understand most the PHEV give you the ability to somewhat override the car. Ie set a preference for the gas engine to come on or tell the car that you want "max EV range." The Pacifica does what it wants to do in terms of gas/electric hand-off. It seems to be heavily temperature dependent. I'm sure Chrysler programmed it to use gas when its cold as its more efficient to warm up/heat the cabin when cold using the gas engine. I would say based upon one winter's experience. Anything much under 35/40F will result in significant usage of the gas engine no matter the electric charge.
When it was in the mid-20s here (not uncommon) my wife could drop the kids off at school and make her round trip commute (11 miles) and it would use the gas engine significantly during that trip to warm up the van.
That being said, we just did errands over the weekend and it used 100% EV until the battery was depleted - the temperature was 50+ outside the entire time.
I'm certain the reason they don't is that it would either have a sub-100 mile range (like the actually existing Nissan NV200e electric van), or it would have a 10 000 lbs curb weight and cost well north of $200k.
I mean, at highway speeds air resistance is what you're spending your gas/electricity on fighting against.
For a Model S, measured drag coefficient and projected frontal area imply that to maintain 70 mph for one hour you're spending 10 kWh.
For a Ford Transit van, the drag coefficient doubles and the projected area increases by a whopping 5x, so you're looking at 100 kWh spent to maintain 70 mph for one hour.
This implies an electric full-size van with the range of a Model S would require at least 600 kWh of battery capacity installed, giving a battery weight alone of 7500 lbs (3500 kg)!!!
A Ford Transit van is a pretty big leap for someone who wants a vehicle to cart around kids, pets and their associated gear.
The 2017 Chrysler Pacifica offers a drag coefficient of 0.30 vs. 0.24 for the Model X. Given Tesla's aggressive reduction in drag and frontal area on the Model X (with respect to other SUVs) I expect they could get away with a much more modest bump in battery capacity if minivans became the next hot ticket.
I mean, with a Q7 you can carry your three kids with just two seat rows, so you can still fit two strollers and enough luggage for a three week holiday in the trunk. With a Model X, not so much. And thanks to the fancy doors, forget about compensating with a roofbox.
It's more comparable to a BMW X4 or a Mercedes GLC Coupe. And even then, the Model X is almost 90 inches wide, same as a H1 Hummer, as opposed to 77 inches for the "bigger" Q7.
The Pacifica PHEV weighs about 5,000lbs depending on configuration. I think the only deficit it really has to the Model X is drag co-efficient but Chrysler was working with a given shape. Given a unique platform not shared with a gas variant they could design for a specific co-efficient as needed.
I don't really know the specs of the Model X, however Google says it weighs maybe 300lbs more than the Pacifica. Those aren't unsurmountable differences - especially if the price range is going to be 80k+.
I think the biggest difference is that Tesla knows it won't sell enough vans to make it worth their development time :)
No, the projected area is also worse. Air resistance is proportional to drag coefficient multiplied by projected area. Since both are worse, the best estimates I could find is that the Pacifica has almost twice the overall air resistance of a Model X.
It's not as bad as the 6x difference between a Model S and a Ford Transit, but it would still mean almost half the range at a given battery capacity.
Conversely, an electric Pacifica with the range of a Model X would be about 1000 lbs heavier.
[1] http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2018/02/u-s-auto-sales-brand-ra...