Herculodge

Are Rumors About the Nissan Leaf's Battery Replacement Costs True? $1,600? Whoa!

Responding to Gary's remark that he heard a Leaf's replacement battery is $1,600o as we discussed the viability of alternative energy cars, David writes:

Here's some info on battery replacement for the Nissan Leaf:

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/09/30/nissan-addresses-leaf-battery-life-replacement-costs/

 

Comparing the Volt, Leaf, and Prius

 

Thanks, Gary:

Here's a good article comparing the Volt, Leaf and Prius. There are some charts at the bottom showing how clean the electric power is for each state, and which car technology creates less CO2.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1108_2011_chevrolet_volt_vs_2011_nissan_leaf_vs_2011_toyota_prius_comparison/viewall.html

 

Environmentalism Is a Tough Nut to Crack That Requires Complex Thinking, Not Ideology

Addressing Bill B's observation that a lot of environmentalism is a shell game, Bill Without a B, writes from another angle, showing two smart thinkers whose analysis defies simple political ideology:

This is from a different Bill.

I remember when amber turn signals were first required on new autos. My father, a former highway patrolman, felt intruded upon by government regulation. I thought it was a potentially beneficial requirement, and I still think it is a good thing. I mention this because of the constant harping on what is wrong with electric cars. I hear we should have diesels. I sure hope they have improved markedly, because I get a hell of a headache when I am trapped behind one. The local school buses are abominations that mean I won't go anywhere between 7 & 8 AM.

Then the pollution of power plants comes up. Do people have any idea how much pollution exists as a result of oil driling? There is a regular stream of stories about ruined rivers and wetlands in Africa, but maybe that oil is far enough away that it does not matter. There is also the benefit of having battery operation in town, where concentrations of vehicles and crowding add up to breathing misery. Buses belching billows of black smoke are one of my first memories of being in a city. Did not like.

The efficiency of charging batteries at night is never mentioned. Power plants run all night. They can't be turned completely off, so there is a real opportunity to charge up with electricity that would otherwise be wasted. If I could go 40 miles on electric power, over half my driving would be covered.

Do I like coal burning power plants? No, but I can't change that. There is too much money behind the current energy setup. The energy business owns too many elected officials for much change to occur unless crisis-driven.

Finally, all those folks in golf carts attract very little of the opposition electric cars get. Is there just jealousy or resentment over somebody else having the latest toy first? All this reminds me of the way PC people carp about Apple products. I'll keep my MacBook thank you very much, and I looked at a new Prius yesterday. And yes, I do think Bill Maher's calling it the Pious is very funny.

 

Are "Green" Cars Based on Relocating Pollution to Somebody Else's Back Yard?

Addressing to the points about just how green "green" cars are, Bill writes:

This article points out that an electric car burns coal for power-- if that's where the electricity comes from.

Of course, far too much practical environmentalism is really just relocating the pollution to somebody else's back yard. An electric vehicle is excellent for this; you can have a nice clean car in SoCal and the pollution is emitted in one of those honkin' huge coal fired power plants in Nevada that I seem to remember driving past last time I drove out that way-- which was a long, long time ago, so if I'm wrong, I'll gladly let you correct me. "See me, I don't pollute!" And the smoke darkens the sky a hundred miles away.

 

Can You be Sure a "Green" Car Is Really Green?

 

Thanks, Tom:

Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?_r=1&hp

Is There a Conspiracy to Keep Diesel Autos Out of the US Market?

Regarding Neil's argument for more diesel cars, Keith writes:

Diesel is well suited to producing torque at low/steady speeds. Precisely what is required to turn the generator in a hybrid. Gasoline is best at producing HP (quick acceleration)at a variety of speeds.

Therefore the real question is why are we not receiving Diesel powered hybrids? The answer is that there is collusion between government and industry to keep Diesel off of the market.

Diesel is produced with less refining than gasoline, therefore lower cost to produce. Diesel is priced at or above premium gasoline due to taxation.

Take away the taxation and Diesel is the runaway winner at a lower cost than gasoline and providing one-third additional mileage per unit.

The taxation was applied during the fuel embargo of 1974/5 precisely because people were beginning to switch to Diesel. Oil companies lose profit on Diesel.

Additionally the government is hell-bent on electric vehicles. They know that if Diesel were widely available people would not buy in to electrics.

The scheme is to move as much of the market as possible to electric vehicles. Once the electric market is saturated then you will see increased Diesel, but not at the cost of electrics.

Beyond that, without proper authorization no one may travel beyond their normal sector. Electrics serve to keep people within their sectors. Diesels with their extended range tend to promote wild-west mentality and driving beyond one's authorized sector.

 

Does Diesel Makes More Sense Than Hybrid?

 

 

Addressing the majority of hybrid car owners not buying a hybrid again, Neil writes:

This is something I have felt and advised people of since the first Prius and Insight started selling. My mechanic friends can't stand these cars. I feel that hybrid technology has a long way to go before it makes any sense from a practical point of view. The economy can be almost equaled by modern gas engines, and equaled or bettered by modern diesels. Look at the numbers that the Hyundai Accent is putting up, and then look at the price. Add to that a much lower level of complexity, and to me it's a no-brainer. Now, in my case, I do more highway and 45-50 2-lane driving than city driving, so it works better for me. Diesels are more popular in Europe than gas engines these days. It might have been similar here, if the US auto industry hadn't killed diesel back in the 80's by producing diesel engines that were so bad that they had to buy them back in many cases. The other advantages are that diesel is lower maintenance, and longer lasting when maintained correctly. I watched my brother, who drives for a living, run a 99 Jetta TDi up to about 300,000 miles and the new owner is still going strong in it. I wonder how much it would cost someone to maintain a Prius through 300,000 miles of maintenance. If it makes it. My question for Toyota is this: You deigned a very aerodynamic body, and a super-efficient gas engine for the Prius. What would the numbers be without the hybrid add-ons? I'll bet higher than most people would expect. Honda tried to push their Civic Hybrid past the limits for decent battery life. When they "fixed" it with a software upgrade, the milage dropped so far that many of the owners sued Honda as they were getting about the same milage as the standard Civic. (http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/16/honda-civic-hybrid-small-claims-lawsuit-winner-trying-to-stop-cl/ ) Whoops!

Is the Hybrid Car a Rube Goldberg Doomed from the Start?

 

 

 

Addressing the post about two thirds of hybrid car owners NOT wanting to get another hybrid, Bill writes these cogent remarks:

It's hard to believe that, long term, a car with two drive systems is a better solution than a car with one. If you want efficiency, a diesel gives you almost the same mileage (about the same on the highway, a bit less around town) in a simpler package using technology that's been proven for decades. But US drivers "won't buy" diesels. Darned straight we won't, when nobody but VW will sell them to us. VW seems to have no trouble selling them, though. Funny thing, that.

The Chevy Volt makes more sense to me because it is an electric car with an onboard backup generator, rather than the Rube Goldberg solution of having an electric motor and IC engine in parallel, using both at the same time, switching in this and switching out that. The Volt's system is also more in line with what has proven to work in the real world. The one vehicle I can think of which used a combination IC and electric drive system for decades was the combat submarine. There too they started out with the IC and electric systems in parallel, but by the late 1920s they'd figured out that didn't work. Instead, they went over to the motors driving the props all the time, with the internal combustion engines only used to charge the batteries- the system the Volt uses. That worked best then and will probably still work best today. If you want to go hybrid at all, of course.

 

Two Thirds of Hybrid Car Owners Wouldn't Buy Again

 

 

Very surprising LA Times article about customer dissatisfaction with hybrid cars. Who would have guessed?

For me, while I like the gas mileage, hybrids seem rather soulless and don't grip the reptilian part of my brain. 

On a related note, one of my friends says there's a hybrid available at his work, a government car, and everyone avoids it. They choose the non-hybrid models. 

2013 Toyota Avalon Is Stunning . . . And Manly

I heard on the latest Autoblog podcast that the 2013 Toyota Avalon was designed with independent creativity from its designer, unprecedented at conservative Toyota. So I had to find pics of the new Avalon. One word, stunning.

I want one.