Prius v (in 10 weeks) Outsells Chevy Volt for 2011

A tax-credit wasn't available until 2006 and the purpose was to spread the technology already well established.

Not acknowledging the big picture is illogical. A small number of owners with bragging rights doesn't actually reduce oil dependency if the rest are still only buying 30 MPG cars.
.

 

Recent studies show US wind capacity is 40x greater than current power demands and, in terms of energy, (e.g. see) http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full.pdf.
With that much electricity it could replace all petrol usage if it could be used for transportation.

And that's not counting Solar which could also produce more power than we currently use (don't recall the study) using just unforested/unplanted lands + near shore platforms. (Most power usage is near the coast and land there is more developed.. near-shore platforms are more viable then shipping the power from deep interior desert areas).

I said the faculty member was supported, not the particular report.
If you had read the actual report, like I did, you'd see the statement of conflict of interest on the front page saying:

Conflict of interest statement: The corresponding author has received research funding from Ford Motor Company and Toyota Motor Corporation; however, these funds were not used to support the research presented here, and these organizations did not participate in proposing, defining, guiding, supporting, or evaluating the research presented here.
​

So while they claimed NSF support, the faculty has a COI on the projects conclusion.

The study did not look at the impact of the funds interms of investments, but rather purchase. And its full of questionable assumptions (military costs for oil are almost 0). Most importantly it is is based on current costs for BEV/PHEV, where the goals of the investment is to help bring those costs down.

The goal of incentives is to encourage companies to move from pure R&D (like fuel cells or the EV1) into actual products that customers buy Rather than giving the GM or Ford R&D money, they give the customer the right to buy a car, and get the tax credit, but in effect that gives the manufacturer the ability to raise the price by the same amount and still get buyers. The EV price is higher now because they don't have the volume/scale and even with the tax credit, its getting people who can afford it to "invest" a bit more into the EV and PHEV manufacturing process. HV's don't need it any more.. they already used up tax credits that were allocated before.

Hybrids do NOT save more energy for most users. Many hybrids are much lower efficiency. A hybrid will in general burn much more gas than an EV or EREV and with proper accounting of Electricity generation use less energy. (You keep quoting fossil fuel efficiency and incorrectly claiming it applys to all electricity, which is just wrong. )

But even if some of the PHEV's currently use a bit more than some HVs (e.g. Karma is not as good as a Prius), the goals are to invest in a future with technology that supports sustainable/renewable energy. Gas is never "clean" or renewable, electricity can be.

 

Just for the record.... these numbers don't seem to make sense.

If the Volt uses 36,857 kWh of electricity it could drive around 100,000 miles according to the EPA estimate of 36 kWh / 100 miles. That leaves around 50,000 miles on gas over a 150k lifetime.

At the EPA combined estimate of 37 mpg, 50,000 miles would be about 1,350 gallons. A Prius v is rated at 42 mpg combined which would be around 3,570 gallons. So, the Volt would use 2,220 fewer gallons of gas.

However, many Volt owners might use gasoline almost entirely during long stretches of highway miles. The Prius v and the Volt have an identical EPA highway estimate of 40 mpg. A Volt driven those 50,000 miles at 40 mpg would be 1,250 which would mean an extra 100 miles of gas saved than at 37 mpg using the city/hwy combined estimate.

In much of California and other mild climate areas it isn't difficult to do 20% better than the EPA EV driving estimate on an annualized basis. I just averaged 30 kWh / 100 miles during the last 12 months and I'm charging at 120v which is 5-10% less efficient than charging faster at 240v (I also averaged 42 mpg gas-only over about 6,000 miles).

At just under 30 kWh / 100 miles you could drive 125,000 miles on that 36,758 kWhs leaving only 25,000 miles on gasoline at 40 mpg for only 625 gallons of gas used. That would be a reduction of 2,945 gallons versus the Prius v.

Even if the Prius v were also driven carefully and achieved 47 mpg (versus EPA of 42 mpg) it would still consume over 2,500 additional gallons of gas versus the Volt given your lifetime driving scenario.

 

It was The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the tax credit system to reward purchasers of hybrids, with 60K limit per manufacturer. I would say the goal and structure was more to get US manufactures to invest in the tech as well as spread the tech.

Your arguments are illogical because when the Prius launched people could have said it was a waste and we should just be doing higher-milage trucks. Your logic says that is what we should do now.. But as an individual a person has 1 or 2 choices for vehicles, and that is the only choice that matters. We cannot control the big picture, and only influence it by a small choice. That is why I said "fleet" does not matter.

In the big picture, HV are a minor fraction and EVs even smaller and hence neither really matter yet. HVs have done little to reduce oil dependency.
EVs have done less, but have a much greater long-term potential. But the incentives are not about what they have done, but investing in a future where they can do.



I'm glad to see the PiP come out, Toyota had a serious lead but then chose to just wait for others to catch up or leap frog them. If the PiP had come out in 2007 I'd be driving it not a Volt. I'm glad to see the Prius V as it may take away from the Minivan market which should just be killed.. but why did it take so long for a V to exist? At least with the PiP they can argue batteries were not ready.

 

Since Volt and Prius v are in different size class, you can't compare them directly.

I used the gas saving of 42 MPG Prius v against 22 MPG Venza crossover. For the Volt (1/3 gas and 2/3 electric), I compared with Cruze Eco auto 30 MPG.

 

Energy Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (plugin tax credit) reward up to $7,500 with 200k limit per manufacturer.

$3,150 on Prius x 60,000 = $189 million

$7,500 on Volt x 200,000 = $1.5 billion

$2,500 on Prius PHV x 200,000 = $500 million

Volt needs to save 3x more gas than Prius PHV to provide the same bang to tax payer buck.

 

It's 2012. The time has come to phase out traditional vehicles. We can control the big picture. We have already. Hybrids have come a long way... due to our contributions.

Whatever perspective you speak of is not what I see after 12 years of advancement. The time has come to wind down traditional vehicle production. Regular and plug-in hybrids are now to the point (for Toyota anyway) where that's becoming quite realistic.
.

 

Tsunami!

 

I agree hybrids have come a long way and I have personally benifited from your website (thanks).

I don't we are yet to the point of killing the ICE.. Even for toyota
According to
Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

The prius is (17th I think) and the camera + coralla are 520K units vs Prius 136K (rav4 is 132K). Don't think you'll see Toyota killing off their ICE production any time soon. Prius sales were down 3.2% for the year.

 

Nope,, the technology advanced in the Volt have to eventually save 3x more than the (very minimal) advances in the PHV. The Prius-> PHV was much less risky investment than the EREV of the Volt.

 

Winding down means significantly reducing quantity, so it will no longer be the majority choice. Hybrids will become dominant. They will be the source of business-sustaining profit... and ICE become an "alternative" vehicle.

There will continue to be demand, but guzzlers like big trucks will only be used when needed. Expensive gas will do that. Not being the daily driver means they'll last quite a bit longer. The market would become saturated if new production wasn't reduced. Inventory piles up when demand shifts. We've already seen that happen with GM several times now. Idling production becomes a big problem if it happens too often. That's a sign we've arrived at a point of change.
.

 

There is no shortage of offending remarks in this thread. A lot of ranting in this thread. Time will tell, ultimately the Volt will be measured against reports like this.

A report of Germany from cleanmpg.com!
Toyota Quality Best in Europe - CleanMPG Forums

 

I only hope your wish comes true and does so in the next say 10-15 years (w/the new cars sold then).

I think ALL cars and "trucks" should at minimum be mild hybrids or have some auto start/stop system. It just is so silly that conventional ICE cars idle away uselessly when stopped.

 

Completely agree! we now have smart phones, why not smart cars. IMO, the current configuration has not changed in more than 100 years.

 

Was just thinking how v's are becoming a regular sighting around here. Best looking wagon I've ever seen.

Hard to say if c will outsell the v. v is viable replacement for the 5 door family sedan. v costs more and doesn't accelerate as fast, but you pick up added versatility. How many buy Yaris-like cars? How many will enjoy freeway commute in c? Some, but liftback will still outsell it, maybe 2x.

The Volt? It's great that it goes 40 miles EV, but with cramped interior and $$ cost, limited sales until major improved redesign.

 

I don't know the state of affairs, but maybe they are struggling with making it work smoothly or the added cost to make it so. I know start/stop is being worked on.

 

Then they better fix the Volt chassis soon, cause it doesn't matter if the Volt can go 60 miles on a charge for $40k if you can't put 4 adults into the car. That car sits rear passengers like a 2 door coupe as in couped up. Why bother having 4 doors on that car?

You'd be amazed at how few green drivers care much about a 'more fun to drive' car. More fun to green drivers is 1) more practicality 2) less gas. Volt does pretty poorly on #1.

We are unfortunately going to be burning gasoline for many years to come. If the automakers knew that gas would definitively be gone in 20 years, for example, they would be tripping over their tongues to design cars now that run on something else.

But, what do you see on every commercial on television during all those football games?

>>> Conventional cars and trucks with 'best in class power.'

Much as we want to green the world, the big companies with the big bucks call the shots and that would be the energy and auto companies.

But, yes, vehicle electrification will continue at its pace. And the 'lowly' (in some people's minds) Prius will introduce more people to 'some amount' of electric driving than any other car in history.

 

I think it's going to be a few years unfortunately until adv. tech cars gain more foothold.

Unfortunately, too many drivers are still leadfoots. They still want to blast around town. Then there's the one's who need or think they need 4 wheel drive.

Gasoline costs may not start to hurt until the avg. driver is spending $50 per week on it. That still gives 'em 14 gallons to go drive 250 miles in their 18 MPG pickup.

 

OEMs know that they need different cars in 20 years. But they are all (except for Nissan & GM) waiting for someone else to take the plunge, do all the hardwork and then - they think - they will come in and just swoop the market share.

Once we have a BEV that can be driven on a charge for 3 hours on freeways and recharge in 15 minutes, ICE is dead. I expect to get there by 2020-25.

 

Not sure why you would compare a plugin with a hybrid.

We could also note that Cruze outsold Prius or some such orange-apple comparison.