Another BS hit piece on EVs

Dude I HATE Yahoo reporting. Almost everything Yahoo prints is a non-story. I've considered not visiting yahoo.com. I've already done that with CNN.com.

Do you really believe the media anyway?

 

The ONLY point in that article that I could agree with, was that they felt the electrics would catch on more in Europe, Japan, China due to the proximity of cities to each other. It's not as spread out there as it is here, and I really do think that it's going to be the biggest obstacle to overcome. It's going to take quite the cultural shift before people realize that part of the journey is getting to your destination, not how fast you can make it there.

 

Nice comment. I'm surprised the author responds to comments.

A lot of times when I come across published news stories, I don't even read the article. I skip straight to the comments. They're much more candid and indicative of what our society needs/wants. There are exceptions, however. This happens when a specious article evokes so much emotion (and intentionally so), that the majority of commenters are compelled to agree with the article. The result is irrational comments. It's sickening how the media can manufacture consent so easily.

 

I also think that when EV's start doing 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, they will catch on!

 

White Zombie = 0-60 in 1.8s...

 

Dude I HATE Yahoo reporting.


Dude . . .Yahoo doesn't have any reporters. They assemble news stories from other sources, most notably the Associated Press. The AP is a legitimate news organization.

 

What part of the quote in the OP was factually inaccurate ? My only complaint would be that they omitted the best choice for someone who prizes both fuel conservation and the family pocketbook: the Prius.

 

the gm ev-1 was not a flop as reported in the story

 

pappyt,
Perhaps that is a matter of perspective, but so far as I know, GM was unable to produce the EV-1 for profit. Maybe they could/should have continued with the car as a loss leader, or for PR purposes, or in hopes that future models would eventually become profitable. I don't tell corporations how to run their business.

My take on the EV-1 history is that GM made the cars to comply with CARB; and when they finally got the strict ZEV mandate thrown out by litigation, the EV-1 was toast. GM is an evil, miserable corporation, but the EV-1 was a failed business case. Note that no other car company was able to make a profitable EV at that time. Heck, we are not even sure it can be accomplished today.

 

I've found that most "reporting" isn't just straight reporting. It's reporting with a specific spin on what they are reporting. This is what really drives me nuts. Then again, if places reported straight facts, they wouldn't be able to get people worked up from the get-go to read all their articles.

I think my biggest gripe to this, is comparing a Leaf to a Mazda 3/VW Golf and saying it's going to take over 10 years to re-coup the cost difference. Notice, they never actually posted how they came to this conclusion. Did they totally take out the cost of maintenance on those vehicles or just compare the "fuel" savings? There's more to the break-even point than just that. Of course, I'm sure they'd take dealer estimate prices for the Leaf and compare it to DIY prices for the ICE vehicles.

Then they turn around and say that Diesel has a 1 to 8 year payback period. Again, no reporting on conclusion to that figure. Isn't Diesel still typically around a $3k price differential? Diesel is typically about 30-40 cents/gallon more expensive here, also.

I don't know as much about the internals and everything, but I clearly felt that was more of an opinion piece than anything. I'm not saying that it didn't have facts to it, but they reported it in a way to push their agenda.

 

they might not been able to make a"profit". but as far as i know all the people that leased the cars were willing to buy the cars for what gm listed them at the end of the lease. all of them and gm was hell bent on destroying them no matter what.i think that to many investors in gm at the time had to many ties to to oil companys

 

I am not sure what you call comparable, but e.g., I compare a LEAF to a Prius or a Matrix, and the out-of-pocket costs are nowhere near the same.

I am not anti-EV, the purchase price differences are simply there, and a lot. Factor in uncertainty with new tech, and the not small likelihood of battery failure way before the ~250k miles one can expect with a well made ICE car, and the costs cannot be ignored by 99% (?) of the population.

 

I'll start with the simple things first, caffeinekid:

1. Electricity costs
2. Loan costs for the additional money up front
3. Real world cost rather than msrp

Depreciation is unknown, but not forgotten. I 'solve' it my calculating costs based on cradle to grave ownership. You think the traction battery is going to last ~250k miles ?

Next, how much money should a reasonable consumer allot for new tech, in a car with no track record, from auto companies with spotty (at best) reliability records ?

 

Tough to call it a failed business case when GM refused to sell them to the few demanding to buy them even at a premium. And eventually GM had all of the crushed.

Its a story of oil money corrupting absolute. Much like today.
Corrupt Legislation passed to further oil rights at the expense to consumer and enviroment. Not much has changed in the last 10 years.

And once Ovionics sold the battery rights to Chevron not a word heard from since concerning battery development.