 |
Antwar Saloon Get me a beer, dammit.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cavemanjed
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 442 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:08 pm Post subject: chevy volt |
|
|
Cost before the tax credit 41,000, after subsidization 32,500.
The Volt can travel 40 miles on its battery charge and an additional 340 miles on a gasoline-powered generator.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072705834_pf.html
In contrast for equivalent money
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2011/3/328iCoupe/Default.aspx
328i Coupe
Starting at $36,200 MSRP
3.0-liter, inline 6-cylinder engine
230 horsepower
Rear-wheel drive
28 mpg hwy
Your tax dollars at work. Apparently bailing out GM results in a POS electric car that no one will buy. I'm guessing for 30-40k I'm gonna pick the Beemer that will result in getting way more ass, and probably still run after 75k miles.
Cavemanjed _________________ Life will kill ya...but not as fast as Obamacare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lance

Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 304 Location: Frisco, Tx (north Dallas)
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You do realize that the development of anything BMW was probably very heavily subsidized as well. Or any car from any country for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AUSKAR

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 1780 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a Volkswagen GTI. I loved that car so much that when I wrecked the last one I bought an almost identical one. This one, though, is pretty much stock, not fixed up. _________________ Visit my web site at LloydDistrict.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Xiahou

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 2398 Location: Nebraska
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cavemanjed
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 442 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You do realize that the development of anything BMW was probably very heavily subsidized as well. Or any car from any country for that matter. |
Yes, but their tax dollars subsidize something useful that will sell, at least in the case of a BMW. Also, we not only subsidized design and production but we will be subsidizing any purchaser as well, so we are taking it on the front and the back end of the deal. _________________ Life will kill ya...but not as fast as Obamacare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Darren
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 639
|
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Those Tesla electric cars look nice. But, for 100k, they should. They run on death rays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lance

Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 304 Location: Frisco, Tx (north Dallas)
|
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cavemanjed wrote: | | Quote: | | You do realize that the development of anything BMW was probably very heavily subsidized as well. Or any car from any country for that matter. |
Yes, but their tax dollars subsidize something useful that will sell, at least in the case of a BMW. Also, we not only subsidized design and production but we will be subsidizing any purchaser as well, so we are taking it on the front and the back end of the deal. |
You just can't compare an electric car in its first year of production against a freaking BMW. Arguments about whether we should be subsidizing things at all aside, it's probably the right place to do any subsidies. We're talking a very limited production run on a very new technology. Everyone rolling out electric has been subsidized at some level. When BMW rolls out a new plant for a new car they are heavily subsidized. Perhaps not on a continuing basis, but that's just a matter of how the subsidies are paid.
As for the Prius, I get 42 mpg. In my saturn, which was a bit smaller and definitely not as nice, I got 29 mpg doing the same driving. Not a huge improvement, but that's a real world mileage comparison of stop and go driving without the driver trying to drive efficiently. The Saturn for comparison was the cheapest, highest mileage vehicle of the Saturns. The prius is the nicer version of the 2007's. It has far more acceleration than the Saturn, btw, since the 40hp electric is available in full regardless of the current speed of the car.
In driving across Texas on I-10, I get 48mpg at 70mph and 44 mpg at 80mph (love that stretch of 80mph speed limit). Part of the problem with my mileage during my commute is that I face a slow steady incline (a few feet per mile, but definitely uphill) for 12 miles to the midpoint of my trip and then a steady decline. It's not enough to accelerate the car on the downhill but it's enough to keep the gas going more than it should. All measurements include having the AC on. My brother tops 50mpg in El Paso where he drives the rolling hills and doesn't use the AC.
The worst mileage I get is driving to and from the corner store. When the car first starts going, it won't go all electric for the first couple of minutes. Presumably this is for stress reasons on some system that needs to warm up a bit. This means I can get to the store and use gas the entire way at speeds that would have been all electric if the car were already moving. If I do a whole lot of driving like this, mileage drops to 36mpg. So if you only ever run to the store, church, school in very short trips then the mileage is very comparable to a high mileage car of the same size and would be surpassed by one of the very light compact high mileage cars.
For my driving, I'd seriously consider a volt. My commute was 48 miles per day, which is nearly possible on all electric. It would be extremely efficient in 90% of all my other driving to and from the store.
The Tesla looks nice too. Expensive, but that tech is sure to find its way into other cars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cavemanjed
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 442 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can absolutely compare the two. As a consumer Chevy wants me to shell out 40k for a Volt, so as a consumer I get to go ok is your vehicle worth 40k and what kind of car can I get for comparative money? Oh shit, a bmw is only 36k?! Which immediately makes my wtf meter peg; why would I spend 40k on a volt? Then I notice the volt only goes 40 friggin miles on an electric charge, so in essence its still a gasoline powered car that produces a hell of a lot less power, has probably half the performance, isn't near as nice on the interior, etc... so as an economic value, it sucks.
As a taxpayer I get to bitch because I think Its crap that we're subsidizing it, even if GM weren't owned by the government. If the English/Germans/Japanese/whomever else want to subsidize their industries, whatever, I could give a crap, its their country. And the whole logic behind subsidizing "green" stuff is asinine anyway. _________________ Life will kill ya...but not as fast as Obamacare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jeffg
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1188 Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think any company producing something as complicated as a practical battery powered vehicle can do it without assistance.
How else would you do it?
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lance

Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 304 Location: Frisco, Tx (north Dallas)
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cavemanjed wrote: | | I can absolutely compare the two. As a consumer Chevy wants me to shell out 40k for a Volt, so as a consumer I get to go ok is your vehicle worth 40k and what kind of car can I get for comparative money? Oh shit, a bmw is only 36k?! Which immediately makes my wtf meter peg; why would I spend 40k on a volt? Then I notice the volt only goes 40 friggin miles on an electric charge, so in essence its still a gasoline powered car that produces a hell of a lot less power, has probably half the performance, isn't near as nice on the interior, etc... so as an economic value, it sucks. |
A BMW is an established car using established tech in full production run.
A Volt is a limited production car using tech which has no underlying infrastructure.
If your'e going to compare like that then, "A BMW is a waste, I could get 2 scions for that price."
You're using as argument that there are different cars for different functions to justify the general statement that the Volt (a car in limited production) is a ridiculous concept. To a person
Chevy doesn't want you to buy a volt. They want you to buy one of their cars and a volt probably isn't their best margin car. Even at 40k they are probably still losing money. They don't make just one car for everyone.
But these cars need to get out there on the road, get some miles on them and be refined. If we waited until cars were perfect and being produced in the millions, we wouldn't have any cars. The government has a long history of subsidizing R&D in various manners. Subsidy of regular production is standard practice through the automotive industry in all nations. If you want to bitch about subsidy, it really has nothing to do with the Volt specifically.
"Apparently bailing out GM results in a POS electric car that no one will buy."
So, you expect them to deliver something never before invented and do it for a cost less than something which has been sold for decades, already has plants built and is in full production? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cavemanjed
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 442 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If your'e going to compare like that then, "A BMW is a waste, I could get 2 scions for that price." |
Exactly, that is a valid economic argument. It's about opportunity cost. Just as its a valid economic decision to expect comparable performance and value out of the Volt for the same economic and performance value of a BMW. They are both 4 door sedans of about the same body size and weight. They are comparable products. I'm not comparing an SUV to a compact car.
I get to bitch about a subsidy period, for the sole reason that I am a taxpayer, I get to bitch about farm subsidies too if I so choose. GM wants to produce an electric car more power to them, its their decision as a producer. But don't expect me to smile and pat them on the back after taking billions in bailout money and using that to produce something that is under-engineered and not ready for market without MORE taxpayer money to make it attractive to a potential buyer.
| Quote: | | So, you expect them to deliver something never before invented and do it for a cost less than something which has been sold for decades, already has plants built and is in full production? |
You bet your ass I do. Just like 99.9% of the products and goods invented and made before today were. Your argument is that Henry Ford should have never made a model T without a subsidy, because the infrastructure to breed, tame and ride a horse for a reasonable cost existed prior to that.
If Chevy wants to be a market entrant with disruptive technology then that disruptive technology better be of comparable or better economic value to a consumer then the current technology. If they choose to enter the market prior to that they deserve to get kicked in the teeth for a stupid business decision.
And Auskar, I agree with you turbo-diesels are a great technology, and it is very much under used. _________________ Life will kill ya...but not as fast as Obamacare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Xiahou

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 2398 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know personally why anyone buys new to tell you the truth. Hell wait a year get all but one's year performance out of it if you kept it for the life of the vehicle and it would still divide out substantially cheaper.
40,000$ is 10-20 good used cards for us. That would last a lifetime. It gets you from point a to point b. Anything more is for show. 40000$ for a car that would have trouble doing my daily commute let alone in the snow of winter is a laughable joke. _________________ Where are you John Wayne when we need you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alpern Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xiahou wrote: | | I don't know personally why anyone buys new to tell you the truth. |
I never buy used. I have very little automotive skill, and don't trust that I'd be able to judge a good used car from a bad one. I've owned 3 used cars in my life, all were shit cars that broke down completely within a year and after the endless repairs they went through they all cost far more per mile driven than any new car I've ever owned. _________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - John Brunner |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Xiahou

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 2398 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
really wow, since 1990 when I started driving. We have spent lets see...
2000 on first car in 1990 (still in High school) on a 1979 cutlass supreme had it for 7 years and sold it.
3500 on a 1991 Cutlass supreme in 1997 had it for 10 years
2500 on a 1977 Suburban had it for 5 years (1998-2003) sold due to gas prices (454 big block tends to drink it)
600 on a 1986 Safari van for 5 years (2003-2008)
4000 on a 1996 Astro (had it for last 5 years still running fine)
100 on hand me down 1996 Escort bought off parents since they got a 09 escape. Current driver
0 - 92 Berreta Father in law found in field got it running by flushing lines farmer gave it to him to get it off land. Got an offer of 500 for it now sitting in our driveway hopefully sold in a couple of days. Still can drive fine.
So in 20 years we have spent for the two of us 12,700. That and the fact we sold the suburban for me than we bought it for. Same with my cutlass (79) The 86 astro got 300 scrap out of it.
To each his own but finding a good mechanic you trust is all it takes. I know how to change oil and some very basic 101 car stuff like changing wipers. But I don't even bother doing that. We just find a good small town mechanic never go to large dealer ones and they keep them running spot on for very reasonable fees.
We commute about 60+ miles between the two of us a day.
For used just take it to a mechanic you trust on a test drive. Have them give it the once over. a 4 thousand dollar used can easily give you 8+ years treated right with regular oil changes etc.
Again to each his own but for barely half the cost of a new (let alone the MUCh cheaper insurance) we have driven for 20 years on 15000 lets say for two cars (throwing in mechanic bills 3k estimate in 20 years)
less than 1000 a year. _________________ Where are you John Wayne when we need you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bluewolf

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1638 Location: Afghanistan AKA The Stink
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have only purchased 1 car in my life.
2000 Hyundai elantra that i purchased new for 12000.
after it was paid off i spent another 8k tricking it out into a fast and furious rice burner.
I loved that car with a passion... I would NEVER have purchased it used LOL.
Bottom line for me is I have to enjoy the car. a car is not just a seat that moves you from point to point its an extention of character in my oppinion. _________________ Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.
--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AUSKAR

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 1780 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly. A car is not just a seat that moves. Not for me. For some people it is, but not for me. _________________ Visit my web site at LloydDistrict.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Huxley

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 522 Location: Aurora
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Different priorties in life dictate what car you buy just as much as how much money you have to spend on it. Xia's strategy on buying used cars is both sound and admirable to me, only perhaps in 10 years he'll be driving a used electric car instead.
Whether it's a Chevy Cobalt or a Lexus GS, as someone who's been in the automotive design business for a while I can tell you that both cars, while varying wildly in price, are nowadays days designed to last the same amount of time; 10 years. If I submit a design to Ford or Honda and tell them that this part has a R90/C90 (Reliability/Confidence) rating over 12 years, they'll send the design back and tell me that it's too expensive, make it last 10 years. Ten years is what society in North America currently bears out for the reliability of a vehicle, it's been like that for the last 20 years or so and it's one of the standards in design that's allowed Japanese companies to change the landscape of the automotive industry in North America (Yes, of course, not the only reason!). Chevy's repeated inability to reach that 10 year target consistently over their entire product range is another reason for the change as well, but why state the obvious.
The evolution of the electric car and variants of it rely mainly on the oil industry's ability to keep oil at a barely acceptable price. Their loss of control over the price of oil over the last 10 years reflects strongly on the progress of alternative fuel based vehicles, and allowed cars such as the Prius to extend a foothold into the market. My company is developing an electric car in a joint venture with Ford; it's launching next year in direct competition with the Chevy Volt. Within 2-3 years there'll be a pleothra of choices of alternative based vehicles, within 10 it'll be down to a choice between a reliable 7-9 manufacturers. The BP spill disaster will only expediate the launch of the reliable electric vehicle, I guess the oil industry was only able to stall the development of it a hundred years or so. _________________ It Goddamn counts all the Goddamn time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alpern Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Huxley wrote: | | The BP spill disaster will only expediate the launch of the reliable electric vehicle, I guess the oil industry was only able to stall the development of it a hundred years or so. |
You don't think the lack of decent batteries was the culprit? I think the rise of things like cellphones and laptop computers drove great leaps in battery technologies which really helped make electric cars feasable. Hell, they had all electric cars when i was a kid. They were tiny and had a range of like 5 miles. It was all about the batteries, man. _________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - John Brunner |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Huxley

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 522 Location: Aurora
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course it's all about the batteries. Intrestingly, according to Wiki, the theory behind modern day Lithium-ion batteries was first proposed by M.S. Whittingham at Binghamton University, at Exxon, in the 1970s. And then it.... died. What a shocker. A scientist on an oil company's payroll proposes a revolutionary portable power source that one day may be an alternative to the combustion engine, and it gets dropped. It took studies outside North America for the concept to really germinate and take hold, and society lost 10-20 years of development time in the process. Lobbyists sponsored by the Oil industry are amongst the most powerful in both our countries. Grant money that could have gone to alternative fuel research I'm sure has been diverted to other avenues of research for decades. If the oil industry had had a better grip on oil production the last 10-15 years we'd have great cellphones, cars with huge engines (look at the revival of the V8 engine in the early 90's.) and we likely would not be having this conversation. _________________ It Goddamn counts all the Goddamn time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AUSKAR

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 1780 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Everything I read said the batteries couldn't live up to the test.
My theory is that when "alternatives" cost about the same price to operate as the current alternative, you will see more choices. That's what happened when we switched from whale oil to petroleum based products and fossil fuels. Whale oil gradually became more expensive and it "made sense" to switch to petroleum. The same thing will happen when we switch from petroleum to hydrogen, wind, water, tidal, and so on.
Electric cars still need energy made from something, somewhere, somehow... _________________ Visit my web site at LloydDistrict.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Huxley

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 522 Location: Aurora
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AUSKAR wrote: | Everything I read said the batteries couldn't live up to the test.
My theory is that when "alternatives" cost about the same price to operate as the current alternative, you will see more choices. That's what happened when we switched from whale oil to petroleum based products and fossil fuels. Whale oil gradually became more expensive and it "made sense" to switch to petroleum. The same thing will happen when we switch from petroleum to hydrogen, wind, water, tidal, and so on.
Electric cars still need energy made from something, somewhere, somehow... |
Nothing to argue with there at all, it's always going to take time to optimize anything.
I was in Europe recently and found some of the differences in modes of transportation quite intriguing:
- It took me 2 days to realize my rental car was a turbo diesel (Audi A5 Coupe). It was Automatic so I never bothered to look at the revs, I only realized it didn't take gas when I became concerned that the fuel level seemed to be dropping too slowly. It was quieter than most diesels here, was 25 cents cheaper a liter to use, and 80% percent of cars on the road there seem to use it. Is it cleaner than gas when you factor in the effiency? Dunno.
- Scooters abound in Europe like locusts. The shitty, polluting 2-stroke is slowly being replaced by 4-stroke and Li-Poly based scooters. I saw people setting up solar panels when they plarked ther scooters, dunno how practical that is but it's happening. Scooters are even more prevalent in China and India, as well as the electric bike. _________________ It Goddamn counts all the Goddamn time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alpern Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Huxley wrote: |
- Scooters abound in Europe like locusts. The shitty, polluting 2-stroke is slowly being replaced by 4-stroke and Li-Poly based scooters. I saw people setting up solar panels when they plarked ther scooters, dunno how practical that is but it's happening. Scooters are even more prevalent in China and India, as well as the electric bike. |
Much lower population density, and much fewer families and kids. I bet all of hte people on scooters were single. I see them around my University, too, but never with a carseat on the back. _________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - John Brunner |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wes Janson
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 532 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The basic problem with batteries is, and always will be (barring incredible breakthroughs in technology), their energy density. Car & Driver's March edition had an interesting story with some numbers in it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q1/electric_supercars_audi_e-tron_tesla_roadster_m-b_sls_amg_edrive_charge_to_production-feature
Such as:
| Quote: | | Audi claims the 53-kilowatt-hour battery pack powering the e-tron is good for a 154-mile drive. However, the car uses only 42.4 kWh of its total output for propulsion, in order to lengthen the life expectancy of the battery. That total usable capacity of the battery pack, which weighs more than 1000 pounds, contains the same amount of energy as about 1.2 gallons, or eight pounds, of gas. In the Benz, three 16-kWh lithium-ion battery packs add up to 48 kWh, the energy equivalent of about 1.3 gallons of gas. |
In other words, in terms of energy densities, those battery packs have roughly 1/100th of the density of regular gasoline. 1000 pounds of weight added to a vehicle to equal the same result at just over a gallon of gas.
Consider the list of energy densities of systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lance

Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 304 Location: Frisco, Tx (north Dallas)
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wes Janson wrote: | The basic problem with batteries is, and always will be (barring incredible breakthroughs in technology), their energy density. Car & Driver's March edition had an interesting story with some numbers in it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q1/electric_supercars_audi_e-tron_tesla_roadster_m-b_sls_amg_edrive_charge_to_production-feature
Such as:
| Quote: | | Audi claims the 53-kilowatt-hour battery pack powering the e-tron is good for a 154-mile drive. However, the car uses only 42.4 kWh of its total output for propulsion, in order to lengthen the life expectancy of the battery. That total usable capacity of the battery pack, which weighs more than 1000 pounds, contains the same amount of energy as about 1.2 gallons, or eight pounds, of gas. In the Benz, three 16-kWh lithium-ion battery packs add up to 48 kWh, the energy equivalent of about 1.3 gallons of gas. |
In other words, in terms of energy densities, those battery packs have roughly 1/100th of the density of regular gasoline. 1000 pounds of weight added to a vehicle to equal the same result at just over a gallon of gas.
Consider the list of energy densities of systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density |
While the number you list are true, the weight of an electric motor is considerably less than an gas engine and its accompanying accessories (exhaust, cooling, etc...).
Also, comparing total values of energy is misleading because an electric converts into kinetic energy much more efficiently. The 1.2 gallons worth of energy in that 1000 pound battery is probably equivalent to 3+ gallons worth of energy on the road. This difference is especially true in stop/start driving.
Yea, batteries are heavy. Yea, they're not here yet. But they are close enough that for some styles of driving (to and from the store, little old lady to church once a week, etc...) are viable. With the promise of economies of scale and future development, and hopefully some infrastructure for quick charging, we may not be too far off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wes Janson
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 532 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lance wrote: | | Wes Janson wrote: | The basic problem with batteries is, and always will be (barring incredible breakthroughs in technology), their energy density. Car & Driver's March edition had an interesting story with some numbers in it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q1/electric_supercars_audi_e-tron_tesla_roadster_m-b_sls_amg_edrive_charge_to_production-feature
Such as:
| Quote: | | Audi claims the 53-kilowatt-hour battery pack powering the e-tron is good for a 154-mile drive. However, the car uses only 42.4 kWh of its total output for propulsion, in order to lengthen the life expectancy of the battery. That total usable capacity of the battery pack, which weighs more than 1000 pounds, contains the same amount of energy as about 1.2 gallons, or eight pounds, of gas. In the Benz, three 16-kWh lithium-ion battery packs add up to 48 kWh, the energy equivalent of about 1.3 gallons of gas. |
In other words, in terms of energy densities, those battery packs have roughly 1/100th of the density of regular gasoline. 1000 pounds of weight added to a vehicle to equal the same result at just over a gallon of gas.
Consider the list of energy densities of systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density |
While the number you list are true, the weight of an electric motor is considerably less than an gas engine and its accompanying accessories (exhaust, cooling, etc...).
Also, comparing total values of energy is misleading because an electric converts into kinetic energy much more efficiently. The 1.2 gallons worth of energy in that 1000 pound battery is probably equivalent to 3+ gallons worth of energy on the road. This difference is especially true in stop/start driving.
Yea, batteries are heavy. Yea, they're not here yet. But they are close enough that for some styles of driving (to and from the store, little old lady to church once a week, etc...) are viable. With the promise of economies of scale and future development, and hopefully some infrastructure for quick charging, we may not be too far off. |
Looking at the numbers closely, the normal Audi R8 gets approximately 450 miles out of a tank of gasoline. In comparison, the electric version's range is somewhere between 60 and 154 miles before recharging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lance

Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 304 Location: Frisco, Tx (north Dallas)
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wes Janson wrote: | | Lance wrote: | | Wes Janson wrote: | The basic problem with batteries is, and always will be (barring incredible breakthroughs in technology), their energy density. Car & Driver's March edition had an interesting story with some numbers in it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q1/electric_supercars_audi_e-tron_tesla_roadster_m-b_sls_amg_edrive_charge_to_production-feature
Such as:
| Quote: | | Audi claims the 53-kilowatt-hour battery pack powering the e-tron is good for a 154-mile drive. However, the car uses only 42.4 kWh of its total output for propulsion, in order to lengthen the life expectancy of the battery. That total usable capacity of the battery pack, which weighs more than 1000 pounds, contains the same amount of energy as about 1.2 gallons, or eight pounds, of gas. In the Benz, three 16-kWh lithium-ion battery packs add up to 48 kWh, the energy equivalent of about 1.3 gallons of gas. |
In other words, in terms of energy densities, those battery packs have roughly 1/100th of the density of regular gasoline. 1000 pounds of weight added to a vehicle to equal the same result at just over a gallon of gas.
Consider the list of energy densities of systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density |
While the number you list are true, the weight of an electric motor is considerably less than an gas engine and its accompanying accessories (exhaust, cooling, etc...).
Also, comparing total values of energy is misleading because an electric converts into kinetic energy much more efficiently. The 1.2 gallons worth of energy in that 1000 pound battery is probably equivalent to 3+ gallons worth of energy on the road. This difference is especially true in stop/start driving.
Yea, batteries are heavy. Yea, they're not here yet. But they are close enough that for some styles of driving (to and from the store, little old lady to church once a week, etc...) are viable. With the promise of economies of scale and future development, and hopefully some infrastructure for quick charging, we may not be too far off. |
Looking at the numbers closely, the normal Audi R8 gets approximately 450 miles out of a tank of gasoline. In comparison, the electric version's range is somewhere between 60 and 154 miles before recharging. |
If you're going to compare range capabilities, do it. If you're going to compare energy densities, I'm going to respond that it's a useless metric comparing the two since they are converted with different efficiencies.
Also, when you compare the 1000 pound battery pack but don't count the weight of the gas tank and fuel lines against the "energy density" of a gas powered car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|