I am trying my best to limp my car along for 2 more years in hoping to be able to buy a plug in hybrid. I could care less about the eco debate... Quite honestly, when it comes down to it, people are going to do things that save them money. For me, I want to save money and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I commute 60 miles a day, and the cost of gas per month at the current cost is well over $200 (with a 25 mpg average car). I 'suspect' that the electric car/plug in hybrid might be our ticket to buy some room in the production/demand cycle of oil, dropping those prices heavily, and ending the 'we are running out of oil' argument.

so, the Chevy Volt, which has a 40 mile charge range, then kicks in with a 3 cylinder Deisel engine to power the batteries for the rest (at 50 MPG at that point) seems like a pretty good option. My driving would net me an average of 140 MPG, and the additional charge to my electric bill would be around $10 a month (I only pay 3.something cents a KWh after 9 PM). I think they are targeting this vehicle in the 30-35k range, making it an slightly higher than average cost car.

The savings per month in gas would be considerable, and would narrow the gap significantly from the lower cost lower MPG cars that would be an alternative, but I would still jump at the opportunity to reduce the need for foreign oil.

How many others of you out there are considering this? I am really turned off to the normal hybrids, because their cost and my driving style (mostly highway) really reduces the actual benefit of having one.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 2:14:41 PM

no

11/21/2007 2:17:26 PM

didnt read any of it.
but just get a geo/saturn/honda

they will all get near 40mpg.

and they are inexpensive

11/21/2007 2:18:25 PM

its not just about the MPG. Its looking for an alternative to the oil driven energy crisis, and having a diversification of the energy we use.


Of course, I should have realized this was being posted in the wrong forum. I suppose many here are going to be biased to the internal combustion engines, being 'garage' frequenters.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 2:19:25 PM

They're dumb except where the majority of power comes from nuke or hydro-electric or wind farms, otherwise you're still burning some form of carbon to make the power.

11/21/2007 2:27:24 PM

I'd consider it for a commuter if they give a big tax credit to offset the cost. The torquey electric motor could be cool as long as it can make a quick dash to 100MPH or so. I just don't see myself dropping 35k on a Chevy Volt without some sort of subsidy.

I'm also not entirely convinced that anything electric is environmentally any better than burning fossil fuels. The electricity has to come from somewhere and I think the batteries are going to be a big environmental hazard. It's definitely something I'd have to research more before I took a stance on it.

I have considered switching everything to biodiesel. I'd only go through the time and expense of setting up a biodiesel lab if I could get a lot of benefit from it. I'd go with a diesel truck, diesel boat (Correct Craft is currently testing diesel versions of the Ski Nautique), diesel car, and possibly even a diesel generator to power the house and sell power back onto the grid if I go that route. While not the best thing for the environment, it does clear my conscience on reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing wasted energy.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : l ]

11/21/2007 2:31:39 PM

if you get the right diesels just run them on raw filtered veggie oil everything will smell delicious and you don't need all the lye to make it.

11/21/2007 2:54:11 PM

Yeah, but the trouble of running two tanks and two sets of lines for the diesel and SVO is almost as bad as just setting up the biodiesel lab in the first place.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : l]

11/21/2007 3:05:07 PM

Quote :

"They're dumb except where the majority of power comes from nuke or hydro-electric or wind farms, otherwise you're still burning some form of carbon to make the power."

I dont care about the 'carbon' use. I dont buy into all this global warming bull shit. What I do think is better for the consumer right now is a diversification AWAY from a single fuel source for transportation, and coal is not as squeezed as oil (last I checked). So your point about 'carbon' use is moot as far as I am concerned.

11/21/2007 3:23:54 PM

i keep reading that biodiesel has lower nox emissions than regular (dont really have data to back it up, tho)

also, you can just buy biodiesel rather than having to set up a lab..

11/21/2007 3:34:51 PM

Quote :

"I dont buy into all this global warming bull shit."

wow...

11/21/2007 3:55:05 PM

Yeah, that is rather impressive.
Ahmet

11/21/2007 3:55:40 PM

Dude Air conditioning causes global warming they don't call them heat pumps because they make heat vanish....if nothing else... for every new air conditioned building the rest of the world gets that much warmer.

hahaha

no seriously though... its like natural selection... its not really something you can choose to believe in or not.

I am concerned more with pollutants than "global warming"

there are plenty of areas in this world that are un inhabitable because they're too cold.

11/21/2007 4:00:58 PM

Quote :

"also, you can just buy biodiesel rather than having to set up a lab."

yep, but it's expensive.
http://biofuels.coop/nc-b100-map/

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : l]

11/21/2007 4:59:37 PM

^^^^

what, you think just because some bleeding heart liberals won't shut up about it that means we're actually causing global warming? The same people said we were in a global cooling crisis 30 years ago and we were doomed to an ice age by now.


On a more serious note, how much $$ would be added to your house electric bill by charging the batteries?

11/21/2007 5:05:41 PM

Quote :

"Quite honestly, when it comes down to it, people are going to do things that save them money. For me, I want to save money and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I commute 60 miles a day, and the cost of gas per month at the current cost is well over $200 (with a 25 mpg average car)."

all this coming from a man who owns an airplane!

sorry, man, had to do it.

11/21/2007 5:23:54 PM

People converting to non gas powered vehicles actually helps my cause with the airplane. The less people use oil, the more affordable its going to be in conversion to gas, and the cheaper for me to fly. I will be increasing my efficiency.

Speaking of airplanes... The engine in the airplane is 1-3 years from overhaul. I have been researching the deisel conversions, but nothing is certified for my plane. The deisel saves about 3-4 gallons an hour...

11/22/2007 6:37:30 PM

Quote :

"They're dumb except where the majority of power comes from nuke or hydro-electric or wind farms, otherwise you're still burning some form of carbon to make the power. "

You realize a power plant is 21232132 times more efficient than a car engine right?

11/25/2007 12:15:30 AM

According to my calculations the power plant is 2132154.23572 times more efficient....

11/25/2007 8:46:58 AM

null pointer

11/25/2007 11:33:02 AM

Quote :

"On a more serious note, how much $$ would be added to your house electric bill by charging the batteries?"

less than $2-3 dollar bucks per charge

especially if you can get an industrial rate and only charge it at night

Quote :

"You realize a power plant is 21232132 times more efficient than a car engine right?"

thermally, a car is only about 30% efficient (that is for new cars, older ones were ~20%)

steam power plants are >50%

11/25/2007 12:29:47 PM

Im waiting on this plug-in

11/25/2007 2:41:59 PM

Quote :

" I suppose many here are going to be biased to the internal combustion engines, being 'garage' frequenters."

no, it's not that, at least for me.

i'd never do it because it would be FAR more cost effective to just get a cheap commuter. I mean, I could get a 35 mpg Miata or MR2 for $2500-3000 that would be way more fun, to boot. Motorcycles are another option. Reducing our oil consumption is all well and good, but there's a limit as to how much I'll pay...and that limit is very small. I'm much more concerned with my own finances.

11/25/2007 4:37:24 PM

Personally I think the whole lithium-ion and/or -manganese whatever cells that they've been producing the past couple of years will get much cheaper and effective. They've been pretty good, but ultimately you're still using energy (coal, gas, nuclear) to produce the electricity so it's sort of moot about the global warming stuff. I'm thinking (and it probably won't happen in my lifetime) that once charging stations (and faster charge rates) become relatively standard and widespread the hybrid/pure electric cars will take off. The technology is there but implementation and demand can't bring it out until the shift from internal combustion occurs. Diesels are good for now, but if everyone switched to that, that would jack up the cost way too high. I'd need some decent specs and looks from the car, not to mention a reasonable cost for it, to truly switch over.

11/25/2007 5:57:44 PM

Quote :

"you're still using energy (coal, gas, nuclear) to produce the electricity so it's sort of moot about the global warming stuff."

you must be retarded to include nuclear in that statement

an energy source that produces no greenhouse gas

11/25/2007 6:29:49 PM

I deleted a whole paragraph that was more atuned to the ecosystem stability since this focused on the car really, but the basics of it are that you still produce excess heat/entropy/waste from the processing of it from radiation to eletricity in the macroscale, and all bundled together still leads eventually to some global warming and pollution. That and the hippies and radicals will always be against the radiated waste and possible safety of the plants. It was more looking at energy production thats cleaner with less resistance to bitchy people. Not saying nuclear isn't cleaner, but I think there's better alternatives.

[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2007 7:05:13 PM

Screw that. I want a nuclear powered car.

11/25/2007 8:20:35 PM

I'm afraid this is all we have for now.

11/25/2007 8:23:48 PM

WRT to the nuclear, the co-founder of GreenPeace is pro-nuke. http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa

Here's a plug-in hybrid you can buy today http://www.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/detail.php?id=458961


-- Dave

11/25/2007 9:22:04 PM

i cant believe no one has told you just to go to http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html

you can convert almost any hybrid vehicle on the market today into a plugin hybrid. Costs a few thousand bucks, which is well worth it for getting a used car.

no need to wait till 2010 for a new option either, the Saturn Vue in 2008 should have a plugin option from the factory.

Yes you should do it, this SHOULD have been how all hybrids worked from the beginning.

11/25/2007 9:47:28 PM

Quote :

"but the basics of it are that you still produce excess heat/entropy/waste from the processing of it from radiation to eletricity in the macroscale, and all bundled together still leads eventually to some global warming and pollution. That and the hippies and radicals will always be against the radiated waste and possible safety of the plants. It was more looking at energy production thats cleaner with less resistance to bitchy people. Not saying nuclear isn't cleaner, but I think there's better alternatives."

well then if you are going to worry about the

Quote :

"produce excess heat/entropy/waste"

you might as well go back to the stone age because there is no way that any source that doesnt produce that excess heat/entropy will give you the energy density that you need to get the 10^21 J that the world needs every year

ill give you the waste because the us is stupid...if we reprocessed it, most of the bad stuff is gone...there needs to be a policy change, but i dont see it happening

Quote :

"Yes you should do it, this SHOULD have been how all hybrids worked from the beginning."

im almost glad this wasnt done because there are some grid capacity issues that could result if a whole bunch of cars were added to the mix during a peak time (summer heat waves)

if plug in hybrids really take off, this is something that is going to have to be fixed

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason : 

11/26/2007 11:20:12 AM

When the Audi A1 hits the market, if I can afford it (which I doubt I will be able to at launch even if they hit their target base of $25K), I would *strongly* consider that particular plug-in hybrid.

11/26/2007 11:48:02 AM

Quote :

"When the Audi A1 hits the market, if I can afford it (which I doubt I will be able to at launch even if they hit their target base of $25K), I would *strongly* consider that particular plug-in hybrid."

any idea if its going to be available in the US?

id also like a SMART Roadster plug-in

11/26/2007 2:01:41 PM

Quote :

"less than $2-3 dollar bucks per charge especially if you can get an industrial rate and only charge it at night"

From my calcs, with my current rate (time of use with demand factor), a nightly charge would cost me no more than 50-75 cents. A daytime charge would cost about 60-80 cents. Getting 40 miles on that charge, comparing to current. About 1-2 cents a mile. Would mean I would spend anywhere from $2.50-$5.00 to go 250 miles. How can anyone not find this hugely attractive?

Quote :

"no, it's not that, at least for me. i'd never do it because it would be FAR more cost effective to just get a cheap commuter. I mean, I could get a 35 mpg Miata or MR2 for $2500-3000 that would be way more fun, to boot. Motorcycles are another option. Reducing our oil consumption is all well and good, but there's a limit as to how much I'll pay...and that limit is very small. I'm much more concerned with my own finances."

Thats fine as well. Something I'll also consider. Increasing your efficiency is pretty effective.

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 4:09:53 PM

Quote :

"How can anyone not find this hugely attractive?"

Well, there are a few other things to consider. What about the future cost for battery replacement? How long will those batteries last (how much use will you get out of them) until you have to replace them again? And what if the electric motor goes bad. How much for that?

And to top it off, if it is a hybrid you still have water pumps and other misc. maintenance issues that come with a combustion engine to look after.

11/26/2007 4:18:28 PM

From everything I have been reading, Chevy has talked about giving a generous warranty on the batteries (I think i read 10 years, but maybe not). They dont want people worrying about it. I think the better option is to lease the batteries, so it is a fixed cost, and there are regular service intervals. I'm no electrical engineer, but I thought electric motors were incredibly reliable. The motor charging the battery, in the Chevy, is a small deisel (again, very reliable and long lasting).



EDIT: Planning on 8-10 year warranty:
http://www.gm-volt.com/

I would expect a pro-rated warranty, but maybe not.

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 4:23:55 PM

I would drive an all electric all day.. or rather, till I needed to plug it in. I saw "who killed the electric car" and it kinda opened my eyes a bit.. great documentary for anyone... check it out.

Give me this, and I will race ANY fool on here...



[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 1:08 AM. Reason : 2nd pic]

11/27/2007 1:06:42 AM

^ impressive, and there are some great things about an electric motor from a performance standpoint (perfectly linear power delivery, no or minimal shifting allows you to be very smooth in the twisties), but it's $100k and what, 600 POUNDS heavier than the Elise from which it was derived? That's a HUGE increase from the 1975 lbs the Lotus weighs in at, which is a big part of that car's appeal (not to mention it's less than half the cost of the Tesla).

Also, I haven't seen any 1/4 mile numbers for it...it seems like they cherry picked the ratio for 1st gear to make a max-performance sprint from 0-60...I have a feeling that the performance might suffer badly past 60 mph.

Another limitation with an electric sports car is that efficiency and performance are even more conflicting with an electric motor than they are with a gasoline engine. Electric motors are most efficient when operating at 100% capacity--quite unlike gas engines who's thermodynamic efficiency plummets when being pushed hard. With range being a huge limiting factor for electric cars, it's natural to put the smallest possible motor in the car that gives useable performance. Drivers will be driving their quite underpowered (by gasoline car standards) cars around with the pedal to the metal--but that's more energy efficient (for an electric car) than giving it a big enough motor to provide performance equivalent to its gasoline brethren, then having drivers operate it at part-"throttle" most of the time (the way we drive our gasoline-powered cars).

Building an electric car with real performance requires some real compromising in terms of efficiency (relative to max-efficiency type electrics...don't know how gasoline would stack up), because electric motors simply aren't happy being run at 25% capacity, yet their motors will have to be grossly oversized (relative to what's NEEDED to operate effective as a minimal-performance, max efficiency commuter).



in short, electric tech is progressing, but it's not there yet.


and i'll race you and your Tesla for money in either my Evo or an Elise.

11/27/2007 1:36:11 AM

here are the gear ratios


Type: 2 speed electrically actuated manual transmission with final drive; constant mesh gears and inertia lock key type synchromesh
Gear Ratio Overall
First 4.20 : 1 14.3 : 1
Second 2.17 : 1 7.4 : 1
Final Drive 3.41 : 1
Reverse reverse direction of motor

redline is 13,000 RPM....

max speed is 125, elise is like high 140's... I would guess somewhere around 110 you might pass me, but at that point does it matter?? Only edge I would have is I used no gas where you would be getting like 10 MPG... if that.

11/27/2007 1:46:17 AM

Quote :

"Would you consider plug in hybrids?"

Of course.

11/27/2007 1:49:50 AM

Quote :

"Give me this, and I will race ANY fool on here... "

and you'd lose to a few people, myself included.

11/27/2007 2:00:32 AM

asdf

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 2:09 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/27/2007 2:05:44 AM

^^^^ it's also WAY heavier than the Elise. WAAAAAAY heavier. Handling would surely suffer a lot, and while it has 50 more hp (substantial at the relatively modest power levels both of those cars have), I think the extra weight would more than offset it.

While the Tesla doesn't have the benefit of being able to store potential energy in the flywheel and dump the clutch off the line, it makes maximum torque right off the line. That's an advantage in a drag racing launch--I suspect it might be quicker than the Elise by a couple of tenths of a second from 0-60...but in the quarter-mile (the metric that counts), I suspect the Elise would beat it without much trouble.

Regardless, those cars aren't really about drag racing...and the Elise would murder it when the pavement got twisty.

Also, it's academic if for no other reason than price--for substantially less than what the Tesla costs, you could purchase several cars that would crush it in any performance contest. The only reason to buy one is because you just want the most performance you can get from an electric, and don't care how much it costs.

It's impressive no doubt, and from the standpoint of advancing the state of the art, I'm glad someone built it, but electrics are simply not ready to play ball with the big boys yet. They can't even compete with the bang--much less the bang for the buck.

...but I will say that they've come a helluva long way. Maybe in another 10 years they'll be a truly competitive alternative.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 2:10 AM. Reason : oh, and yes. speeds beyond 110 mph matter in a sports car. I hit that speed prob weekly.]

11/27/2007 2:08:49 AM

and just to be clear, my Exige gets 28mpg on the highway in REAL USE.

11/27/2007 3:12:50 AM

that really isn't that impressive for a car that small

although it's impressive for a car with that performance

11/27/2007 3:41:17 AM

Quote :

"and just to be clear, my Exige gets 28mpg on the highway in REAL USE."

s2000 is right about that level with the roof down.

30 with it up


guess the CD changes a bit

11/27/2007 8:04:47 AM

^^and let us not forget Corvettes can get low 30s on the highway no problem.

Quote :

"I saw "who killed the electric car" and it kinda opened my eyes a bit.. great documentary for anyone... check it out."

Oh geez

11/28/2007 1:33:09 PM

bttt

6/30/2008 1:21:17 PM

Seriously they're no better for the environment but we do have way more coal than oil.

6/30/2008 1:54:02 PM

Quote :

"Would you consider plug in hybrids? "

only if it looks like a 3-wheeled spermatozoid

6/30/2008 3:11:17 PM