digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at gas2.org

Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009

gas2.org — While we love hearing about sweet rides like the $100K Tesla Roadster, a functional and economical electric car made for the rest of us would be even cooler. This could be it: the Th!nk City electric car, a four-seater with 110 mile range, top speed of 65 mph, priced under $25,000, and available in the US next year.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tbk123, on 04/24/2008, -6/+31For that price, I'll take 2
    • StephC, on 04/24/2008, -2/+5Zenn Motor Company already sells good electric cars for under $17 000 in the U.S www.zenncars.com They're Canadian.
      • borninda818, on 04/24/2008, -3/+6It's ugly.
      • Wargalas, on 04/24/2008, -0/+12From Zenn's website: It is not approved for highway use.

        http://www.zenncars.com/php/08monroney_label.php

        They almost had a sale with me.
      • tsunamitomi, on 04/24/2008, -0/+11And it only has a range of 35 miles and isn't approved for highway speeds.
        • StephC, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1The cityZENN that's coming out can go upto 80mph and has a 250 mile range and a 5 min quick charge if u have the ultracapacitor charging abilit otherwise it's longer.
      • SourWorm, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3The regulated max speed is 25 mph ...
      • LXicon, on 04/24/2008, -0/+10check the zite for the "cityZENN" due out next fall using the EEStore ultracapacitors:
        80MPH, 250 mile range, recharge in 5 minutes!
        http://zenncars.com/
        • PubStomp, on 04/24/2008, -5/+05 minutes? impossible. if its 5 minutes then you could take a rest stop break every 250 miles and go forever
          • LXicon, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2it doesn't recharge by resting. you need to recharge the ultracapacitors with electricity.

            i'm not sure of the details, but my guess is the 5 minute recharge would be at a high voltage charging station (like an electric gas station). wall charging would probably be slower due to the current/voltage available in a home electrical system.
          • K3ITHK, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1And it isn't charging in full in that time. If you study the way that capacitors charge you'll find that they charge much more slowly (asymptotically) as they approach the max.
        • rholland356, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2The benefit of the 5-minute recharge is that your electric meter spins fast enough to purify uranium. So, you get double benefit. True, the wiring to your house tends to go red hot or even melt, but that's a small price to pay, eh?
          • yaddayaddayoda, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1Really. I mean most people wouldn't consider that they have a 200A 220V service to their home. It starts to lose a little attractiveness when you have to put in a whole new service entrance and panel, just to charge the car in quick charge mode. Give me slow charge any day, thanks.
      • brundlefly76, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4Before you go buying any electric car, you really need to read this month's Wired article on the Zap electric car company.

        http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine ...

        I know everyone wants to think that electric cars are magic transport messiahs which have been buried by evil car and oil industries, but the fact is that there is a LOT of snake oil in the electric vehicle market itself, and the capabilities and shortcomings of individual models of electric vehicles are often misrepresented by their corporate backers.

        • DarkShroud, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It depends on who makes the car. The electric cars put out by Ford & GM back in the 90's that weren't crushed still run like new over 10 years today. Which seems to be part of the reason these cars were killed off. The engines are now stronger & more efficient and so are the batteries. Back in '95 the EV1 batteries lasted 66-100 miles depending on the model. Now the batteries last 250 - 300 miles. I'm just tired of waiting for the Chevy Volt and what ever Ford puts out as long as it's a plug-in hybrid so I don't need to use any gas.
    • emeraldik, on 04/24/2008, -3/+9and it makes it all the way up to 25mph..
      • brundlefly76, on 04/24/2008, -2/+6Yeah I love the pretzel logic in the Zenn literature where they 'debunk' myths about electric cars:

        "Myth #5:
        Electric cars are not fast enough.

        ...the Zenn has a maximum speed of 25 MPH."

        Um, I think they just FACTUALIZED the myth, not debunked it!
        lol
      • gandhii, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1RTFA... 65mph (still pretty lame). Wouldn't want to get on the interstate in this car.
        • BrewBeau, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3RTFA... It's made for city driving, not for interstate driving.
    • foomojive, on 04/24/2008, -9/+5max speed of 25mph? no thanks.
      • Achilles2, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6110 mile range, top speed of 65 mph
        • BrewBeau, on 04/24/2008, -0/+9This article is so short and people still can't read it.
    • inkyblue2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+15don't forget to factor in leasing the battery pack from them for a $100-$300 monthly "mobility fee."

      i've brought this up on other sites and people ask for sources (apparently they lack access to google), so here are a few:
      http://www.forbes.com/technology/sciences/2008/04/ ...
      http://www.auto-it.co.uk/2008/03/does-think-city-a ...
      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2 ...
      http://motoring.sky.com/news_features/think-city-- ...
      • XTrek, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I'm not paying $25k+ and a $200+ monthly battery lease fee... This thing isn't a tivo. Perhaps I want to maintain my own battery. This business model won't work in the USA. It for sure won't work for me.
    • mattlohkamp, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5$100-$300 monthly battery, and $25k for the car? Are we using 'affordable' in the sense that someone, somewhere could afford it?
      • humperdeath, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Yes, this is so the battery is maintained and owned by the builder. it guarantees recycling. Besides, that is less than you pay for gas anyways. If a better battery technology arises, then you get upgrades as well.
    • weeeezzll, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I want the one in the hamster ball!

      http://www.think.no/think/Press-Pictures/Picture-g ...
    • h4k0r, on 04/24/2008, -0/+18That thing looks like a total turd. And leasing the battery pack for a "mobility fee". WTF is that all about? This is why electric cars still have not taken off yet. And 25k is not affordable if you look at how much more you can get for so much less. ***** a prius is 22k.

      Lets break down how affordable this really is
      The car is 25k and most American will need to finance that (ill assume people wont finance the tax on the car)
      25,000 over 72 months @5.5% = 408 and some change a month.
      Batter Pack Lease, call it 150 a month to be fair
      Insurance, call it 75
      408+150+75 = 633/month for people who cannot afford to put a down payment on the car. So 633 a month to save 200 a month in gas. And a car that you can only run errands in to boot. It also looks like you have to be under 6' to drive it
      Now the economy car
      I will use a Scion XD (27mpg city 33 mpg hw, also a PZEV or partial zero emissions vehicle) in the example due the similar shapes of the car
      Retail is 15k
      15,000 over 72 months @5.5 = 245/month
      Gas bill 150 a month
      Insurance 75
      245+150+75 = 470/month for a larger car that anyone can drive as far as their wallets can take them and they are saving 163 a month over electric.

      How affordable is this car, really.
      Take the Scion XD
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Clark Howard did a money analysis about the economy of driving a hybrid a couple of year ago. At the time, his numbers showed a regular economy car, including depreciation, would cost 44 cents a mile to drive. The Prius was 48 cents a mile. He went ahead and bought the hybrid for the green factor. Just so that you know that going in... it may not pencil out to be cheaper in the long run.
      • humperdeath, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Electric car get to use all carpool lanes. Saves many hours of time per week. Maybe you like to spend all day in your Scion, but I got better things to do. Also, buying this kind of car get you tax credits, so the $25k is reduced some.
        • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Carpool lanes are BS. If they opened them up to everyone, traffic would flow better for everyone (increasing efficiency for everyone).
    • mrASSMAN, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1This won't sell. Ugliness aside, it has a top-speed of 65mph, and that is in optimal conditions I'm sure, so more realistically it is 60mph or so, and since it is a limit, you can be sure that it'll have difficulty accelerating at those speeds which would make merging onto a freeway difficult and dangerous.. not to mention the question people rarely ask and manufacturers rarely answer: what happens when you turn on the heater?

      I'm guessing power decreases significantly in that situation or the mileage plummets to a level that may leave you stuck on the road. I won't even wonder about A/C, which would be a huge disadvantage for electric-powered cars due to the energy it would require. A/C is powered very efficiently in gas-power cars, but if you use any of these two necessities (heat/A-C), you've got a fundamentally dead ride--at least for now. Also, I'm sure the mileage/speed estimates were made in optimal conditions as well.. that means no headlights and no aggressive driving. Also: how well does it go up big hills? With heater and headlights on? With four people in the car?

      Now it's a good step, but the price at this point is still much too high. There aren't many people who will buy a $25,000 car just to drive in the city.. it just doesn't make any sense. Maybe this is why Ford sold the car.. they'll build a more sensible electric car in the future perhaps. Anyway, I'm more excited about the Chevrolet Volt. The Volt makes infinitely more sense than this car.
    • brundlefly76, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2There is no way in hell a $25k car with a TOP speed of 65 MPH will make a dent in the US market.

      By comparison the Prius is a $22k 105 MPH luxury sports sedan with unlimited range.

      Is the difference in carbon footprint between the two so enormous that you would be willing to pay $3000 extra to live with its serious limitations?



      • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1"luxury sports sedan"? Since when is a Prius a luxury car?
        • mesasone, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"by comparison" is the operative phrase.
  • bstory, on 04/24/2008, -4/+51They will probably get cheaper as time goes by - sweet
    • jmpeagle, on 04/24/2008, -1/+7not if commodities such as steel and oil (due to all the plastic and rubber) keep going up.
      • Step1Mark, on 04/24/2008, -6/+7Well then they should make it out of the USD. I hear you can print those like crazy.
        :)
    • Swarms, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5I own stock in the company that developed the battery so I have been following this for years. Just this morning they did a reverse split to list on a major stock exchange, and they released independent test results showing the battery got 77mpg in a Toyota Prius that didn't get any other modifications except their battery pack. They have also mentioned before that the battery can be between $1,200-$1,800 and are currently safer and cooler running than current NiMH batteries being used in hybrid cars.

      I can't read the article, but in case it doesn't mention it, the company is EnerDel ( A division of Ener1 Group). They plan to have the car running at full production by the end of 2008, and Th!nk is opening a US plant in 2009.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Sorry but 65MPH ?? They dont those going on the freeway do they?!

      The only major move to electric cars will be the Chevy Volt,
      over 100mpg,
      high speeds like a normal car,
      and travel over 600 miles without need to refill or plugin.

      The real company with the magic battery its A123 with its nano-dosed "phosphate iron lithium battery".
      This will change the world, will be slightly over 30K, and if we buy American - will make USA a leader again in the industry.

      PS- the battery is also eco-friendly and decomposes into "rust" - yes that's safe for those that dont know!
      • smoger, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5these cars aren't for drag racing. they're for taking one or two people to work or across town. 65mph is fast enough
        • yaddayaddayoda, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3Heck, our commute is lucky to hit 40 MPH on I-5 during rush hour. Most of the time, it's more like 20 MPH.
      • LonesomeFighter, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1if they wanted to drag race eco-friendly they would drive a Tesla. But 65mph is pathetic. Most highways I go on (North Eastern USA) the slowest speed is 74mph (lots go faster, but faster puts you at risk of police hatin)
      • qwertydvorak, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1the beauty of the chevy volt is the fact that it will lead to a plug in minivan. i am just wondering about towing capacity. i need the ability to tow a boat, railbuggy, the occasional car.
    • EasyThereKiller, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2I hate to be the dick, but what do you people think will power the electric plants that energize these cars?

      Probably Oil or Coal. This problem runs a lot deeper than electric cars.
  • Amazetbm, on 04/24/2008, -7/+71Now all we need to do is reduce the carbon output at the power plants and we're golden.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 04/24/2008, -7/+123Step one: Kill the nuclear power protesters.
      • Step1Mark, on 04/24/2008, -5/+76I thought step one was to cut a hole in a box?
        • PubStomp, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6no thats step two, you gotta get a box first...

          and a penis
      • ryan850, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9I think someone, a president perhaps, just needs to know how to communicate the pros and cons of nuclear. I didn't want nuclear until someone explained both sides to me. Now after more research I'm totally in favor of a regulated nuclear energy program.
        • hexydes, on 04/24/2008, -4/+11I think someone (perhaps everyone), needs to stop listening to people that are against nuclear power. They know very little about what they're talking about, and don't really want us to not use nuclear power, but in reality, just want us to stop using power altogether.
          • Jonjonr6, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1The problem is, the general idiot, er, general public, here's part of a bad story on the news regarding something, and immediately equates it to being a bad thing, and never really opens their mind. Chernobyl obviously didn't help win people over. It's just like with nano-technology. People think its unethical, not knowing a damn thing about what nano-technology actually is. And compounding the problems is some spin doctor trying to make a name for themselves by taking advantage of this (read Michael Moore or that Super-size me douche)
        • timusca, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3I work for a huge Nuclear project called the MOX Project and Bush completely backs it...
        • jeff303, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I think a president needs to learn how to pronounce "nuclear" first. Then we'll move on to the pros and cons.
      • maisteri, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Nuke the protesters!
      • thankyousir, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Step 2: ...
        Step 3: Profit
      • Cyberen, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1I can't believe this comment is being dugg up so much. Killing people for their opinion is the complete opposite of what "freedom of speech" is about. For god's sakes, what's wrong with you people?
        • LloydBentsen, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Dude, I believe the extreme nature of the comment was made in jest.
    • dougdiggerton, on 04/24/2008, -7/+2aka kill the economy.
      • ryan850, on 04/24/2008, -1/+21) Can you "kill" a dead horse. 2) It could be a huge benefit to our economy if we had a dot com type of boom with upstart energy companies. 3) Not reducing energy and oil use in the US is more that likely going to kill our economy eventually.
        • dougdiggerton, on 04/25/2008, -0/+11) you can kill an injured horse. 2) were talking about shutting down companies, and making it more costly for them to compete, not dot com booms. 3) that is not true, unless you are implying that global warming is caused by energy company emissions and the warming will literally kill everybody.
      • Amazetbm, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Um...no. Switch to nuclear power. A good portion of the spent fuel can be reprocessed into new fuel.
    • ahhell, on 04/24/2008, -5/+11Easy. Stop using ***** coal plants.
      • LonesomeFighter, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1what about tire burning plants? that ***** gives you cancer if you down wind.
    • minorthreat, on 04/24/2008, -10/+7dude... I think the economy is already dead. fed reserve printing off money like its nothing, the mortgage crisis, an ongoing failed war. Hell, fixing the carbon output of power won't hurt the economy as a single one of the other three issues and it will be the only issue that will produce something positive.. Hey, Im just thinking logically here..
      • Picaroon, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6If you were thinking at all, you wouldn't say something like "I think the economy is already dead."
        • MattB123, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4It's only MOSTLY dead!
        • mrwoody80, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1no if he was thinking he wouldnt start it off with DUDE.
      • bty2047, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Please educate yourself.
        If there is a recession, then a Central bank needs to shirt aggregate demand to the right by increasing money supply.
        This can be done by printing money, lowering the bank rate, decreasing the reserve rate etc.
        There will increase inflation, but a recession is much worse than a little inflation.
        Learn some economics please.
    • Pseudoscience, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5While reducing pollution is nice many miss the fact that beacuse the basic engineering of the electric car is quite simple its far less likely to need repairs and also as it uses electricity its more future proof as well.
      • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I would hardly say "far less likely". They require a lot of the same maintenance as a conventional car (ex. tires, suspension, heater, AC, etc...). Also, modern combustion engines are very reliable.
        • peranadigital, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Right you are ricksite. My 1970 Ford Capri is still running just fine 38 years after it was built and although it's 3 Litre v6 uses about as much fuel as a modern 3.5Litre engine, it's still a pretty handy little car. Do you really think these electric cars will still be usable in 40 years? Or do you think that, like electric windows and mirrors in every second car ever sold with them, these cars will stop working within just a few years.

          I'm all for electric cars but assuming that they're future proof is hopeful ignorance.
    • FaithclubDotNet, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Do not underestimate nanosolar.com exploding across the world. It won't drive electric prices down so much as keep them from rising.
    • FredFredrickson, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2I think nuclear power, combined with solar and wind, would easily solve the coal problem.
    • LightSpeed4, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3rofl at liberal goons thinking they can save the world by driving an electric car.
      • TheUserFactor, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3An electric car reduces demand for petroleum derivatives while creating less carbon dioxide pollution than a car with a gasoline engine. The single act of one "liberal goon" driving an electric car cannot in and of itself "save the world." Cumulatively, the effect of many, many people doing so can potentially help our economy and our environment. Any other questions I can answer for you?
        • LightSpeed4, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1yea, the lithium battery doesnt just disappear when it needs to be thrown away. It creates a waste that cannot be destroyed and harms the environment.
        • dareNmc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1well, not *much* less carbon dioxide. you will get at least 20% efficiency gas to ground in a regular car (w/hybrid much better). 55% is best efficiency of a power plant (some extra left over heat still, but...) then you lose 8% to the house, 5-10% in the charger, another 10% in the drive/motor/wiring so your down to 25% efficiency, and you haven't paid for the extra infrastructure, or batterys yet.
          So as others say, until nanosolar/others are letting us charge directly at your house with no grid.
          now getting a tiny little car is a good idea, like most electric cars, is where the gain really comes from.
        • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Telecommuting is an order of magnitude more efficient than the electric car. Saving the world with the electric car is a joke. It is a very small drop in a very large bucket.
          • TheUserFactor, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Don't tell me, tell the commuters who refuse to carpool or take the bus. I have done remote work since 2000.
    • joeanon, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3Nuclear is an idiots solution.

      Biofuels can easily produce enough oil to meet domestic needs and without competing with cropland.

      Throw in the diesel fuel cell and you have a REAL solution, that works now.

      As it stands. the current electric infrastructure cannot handle masses of people quick charging their cars. We need MAJOR amounts of new copper put into place.

      OR use biofuel fuel cells. You could even deliver diesel to home fuel cells or make power plants that use it.
      • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I agree that the current infrastructure can't handle the load. I have to correct you in that power lines are typically aluminum. If copper was required, I think an upgrade wouldn't be feasible as the copper supply is dwindling.
      • thallium205, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Oh yea? And what if there is a drought dumbass? Food prices will have to compete with energy prices.. do you want that? What about the poor countries that rely off of corn as food, we will starve them if we use ethanol... oh thats right. you dont give a *****.

        If we can store nuclear missiles, we can store Uranium sticks.
  • claybodie, on 04/24/2008, -2/+32I think they're fine if plugged in overnight, during off-peak hours...
    • Jynx97, on 04/24/2008, -4/+52If everyone has a car plugged in, there will BE no off-peak hours!
      • jmpeagle, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6I don't think they are going to replace the 150 million cars on the road overnight.
        • LonesomeFighter, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2if they did (minus my car)... that would suck because all the gas stations won't stay open for just me.
      • Enderplayer1, on 04/24/2008, -3/+11just get some solar panels then you don't even have to pay for the electricity.
        • Step1Mark, on 04/24/2008, -1/+7Some dude did this with his S-10 a while back. Its a really good idea for those light weight trucks because you can use the bed for battery storage and solar panels
          http://www.campbellot.com/electric-s10/
        • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Solar panels aren't going to provide enough energy to move a car/truck. Think about how much energy the sun would provide hitting a solar panel array on the back of a truck. Now think about how much energy it takes to move a truck. (A lot more) The S-10 uses the solar panels to power accessories, not to power the truck.
      • funsac22, on 04/24/2008, -6/+2I don't get how on-peak versus off-peak makes a difference. The electricity is used, it comes from the same source and generats the same amount of pollution. The only difference is it saves you some money during off-peak. But the idea here is not money,right? Isn't it the whole "good" for the environment thing?
        • nizzy1115, on 04/24/2008, -2/+11No, its money. ***** the environment.
        • funsac22, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3You probably dugg my comment down, but I had to digg yours up cuz that was too damn funny :)
        • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4The only reason off peak is an issue is because people are worried about capacity. Despite our power grid being more than able to handle tens of millions of electric vehicles as it sits right now. It couldn't handle converting all 200 million or so cars to electric all at once, but then again, we couldn't afford to switch 200 million cars to electric all at once either.
          Also they're not taking into account the buffering capacity of a few million batteries hooked up to the grid.
          Other than that, it's just cheaper to recharge a large battery at night because there is spare capacity. It lowers the cost per mile traveled.
        • jmpeagle, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1it's actually not the same source durng peak demand. Many places especially east of the Mississippi only operate their dirtiest coal plants during peak hours and then rely on the cleaner technologies during normal periods.
      • regularsteven, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5i love 'if everyone' arguments... sounds like my mum talking about *****
    • krische, on 04/24/2008, -1/+8What I would like to see implemented is solar panels on the roof. I mean think about it. Usually when you are driving, there is nothing over the car except maybe the occasional bridge, so it could be charging the car while driving. And think if you park it in a lot or the roof of a parking structure. It could sit in the sun all day and charge.
      • forcedfx, on 04/24/2008, -1/+10Solar panel technology is not currently able to absorb enough power to charge a vehicle with so little surface area. You would need a huge panel on top of your car or let it sit for days to recharge. Ever seen the solar racers in Australia? The entire top of the car is covered in solar panels and those cars weigh next to nothing.
        • Harabeck, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9I think he was just saying it could help a little and lower your plugged in time.
          • angers, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1why pay extra money for the solar panel--which would add unnecessary weight and potential drag to the car--when an overnight charge is enough?
        • smoger, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1i almost wonder if it would be possible to develop a folding panel that, when unfolded/attached, could lay on top of the whole car(not just the roof). thereby increasing surface area while it's parked outside of your office for 8 hours or more
        • nizzy1115, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4I don't think it would be cost effective.
      • angers, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2first of all, i doubt that the area of the roof would be enough to completely power the car. also, considering the fairly high prices of solar panels, it is my belief that it is simply more economical to strictly rely on overnight recharging.
        • krische, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1I just meant it would help a little. I never meant the car would rely on solar. Just something to help charge the batteries much like regenerative breaking.
          • yaddayaddayoda, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3It's a good thought, but it probably wouldn't be worth hauling the extra weight around, or the added drag.
      • bulgingbritches, on 04/24/2008, -1/+0Someone needs to get cracking on a more efficient solar panel. Just think if everyone had them on their roof tops, home and vehicle.
      • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1A more efficient solar panel wouldn't do crap. You have also have to make the sun brighter. Cars require way more energy than that provided by the sun hitting it.
    • pinchduck, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2During the summer, people will be running their A/C at night, as well. Electric cars just move the problem around, though emissions may be easier to deal with at a plant. Either way, with or without electric cars, we will need to bring more plants on line.
    • dlk289, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0edit...
  • vbullinger, on 04/24/2008, -3/+37Sweet! I may have to get a new car sooner than I thought, as they'll probably just yank these like they did the old electric cars we used to have in America: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-720274006 ...
    • borninda818, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7They cant do that again. Interest is WAY too high. Electric cars will make a comeback.
    • FrankTheTank17, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4That movie was incredibly biased. Even Toyota Execs admitted it being biased ( http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/12/mark_phelan_electri ... ) Yes, these cars will probably stay since the demand is high enough but back when the EV1 came out people weren't interested in them.
      • ryan850, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1Interesting that Toyota execs would say it's biased since they bash them in the movie also.. anyway i agree they do leave out some points.. like an electric car is basically running on at least 50% coal which is much worse than oil... (or in my state it's more like 94%+) ..
        • noahhoward, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4Wrong, the stack on a coal fired plant can be filtered and scrubbed unlike the exhaust of a car. The point is any power plant can produce power more effectively and cleanly than any car car.
      • jumico, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1People were interested. They all wanted to buy their leased cars but instead they decided to take them away and demolish them and act like they never existed.
        • FrankTheTank17, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Yes, people were interested, but the demand wasn't high enough. The reason they took away all the EV1s were that the demand was so low and they didn't want to waste time and money for support of a car they saw as a failed project. No company as large as GM would ever want to waste money supporting such a low selling car like the EV1. It's all about supply and demand, demand was so low GM didn't want to supply for it.
    • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Wait till 2010 or 2011 if you're thinking about an electric car. The stuff coming out right now is a crap shoot, might work, might not. The companies making them, might not be around in a couple years. By late 2010 to early 2011 we'll be able to see who's going to make it, and who's on shaky ground. Mainly because multiple major auto makers will have plug in hybrids out by then. That's the window the little companies have to either make it with a worthwhile product, or get hammered by the big boys.
  • kleenex1, on 04/24/2008, -18/+9I love how they named it after Nicola Tesla! Still, electricity is primarily created from coal plants, so I don't see it being to eco-friendly now, but give it time.
    • Cossa, on 04/24/2008, -0/+10RTFA. This car isn't named after Tesla. Tesla is a completely different company.
    • wefarrell, on 04/24/2008, -0/+10A coal plant is still way more efficient than an engine so while its not carbon neutral its a hell of an improvement.
      http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
    • brstilson, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Actually the pollution discharged by generating the extra electricity is a lot less than what would be generated by refining the oil, transporting the gasoline to gas stations, and burning it in the vehicle itself.
    • Harabeck, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Whatever the environmental issues, it will certainly get us off foreign oil. From here on out, oil production will continue to decrease...
      • dullly, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2You are an idiot and also you aren't really bright and you are stupid too.
  • SgtAl, on 04/24/2008, -25/+26Still not a 0 environmental impact vehicle. Used batteries and the factories that produce batteries are an environmental nightmare.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 04/24/2008, -5/+5Nope. Do your research.
    • bernandoo, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2so are refineries...
      • brstilson, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2and don't forget the pollution caused by tanker trucks that need to deliver the fuel to the stations.
    • nder, on 04/24/2008, -0/+22neither are your shoes, socks, nail clippers, etc that enable you to walk everywhere to attempt being environmentally benign.
      now, let's talk toilet paper...
    • Harabeck, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Maybe, but it helps get us off foreign oil. In the long run that will help our economy and give us a chance to work on the environmental issues.
    • borninda818, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6Get a bike.
    • DuffyDirect, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5so we can't use oil, we can't burn coal, nuclear power waste is too dangerous, and now we're not allowed to build batteries. Anything else?
    • Logicexe, on 04/24/2008, -0/+9One step at a time my friend. Just because we can't solve every single problem in one step doesn't mean we should just stay where we are.
    • gadgetlust, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2There's a saying - "The perfect is the enemy of the good".
      These comments prove it.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Wahhh! Wahhh! It has a much smaller impact than gas-powered cars, so quit your bitching and be glad for the improvement. Some people wont be happy until we're all living in caves again.
      • publiclurker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Um, homeless bears anyone?
        • Wesside, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah if we put all the bears out of their caves we're no better than...well than we are now.
    • go5go, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The fact that you/we exist is an environmental impact.
    • wildmXranat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1the fact worth noting is that with improved battery technology and capacitor research, we can extend the life of these vehicles by many years...that alone is much hopeful than facing rising Co2 emissions and oil shortages put together
    • baronsmeg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1while you are right, once you have the car, you are neat 0 impact. its a start that is greatly needed. we can move onto production, and power generation next. power production being easier of the two (but by no means simple) to fix.

      just remember anystep we make will not be an instant perfect solution. this whole climate/ polution problem is far to complex for that.
      • theDrizzle, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1it is nowhere near 0 impact. that is an impossibility...the power has to come from somewhere, so unless you're riding your workout bike to generate the power, you're still polluting.
    • digggggggggg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Well then we might as well go back to living in the woods and eating roots and berries.
  • ssn697, on 04/24/2008, -1/+14There is a very cool electric car dealer in Bozeman, carrying multiple brands (Smart, Zenn, etc.) several of which are under 25k. I am going to give one a try this summer.
    • greensky, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Bozeman, MT? I miss MacKenzie River Pizza...
    • Wargalas, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3How about you tell us who they are so we don't have to search around? :)
    • peestandingup, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and the Zenn cars go a whopping 35mph max.

      Thats OK for big city driving in traffic, but why not just get a bike or scooter instead??
    • paraparker, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0http://www.ecoautoinc.com/
    • specialbuddy1, on 04/24/2008, -3/+0Get a Prius. It's under 25K, gets same mileage and has more room. You can even spend 8k or so and get the extra battery pack that makes it a plugin hybrid.
      • AceTracer, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4Priuses use crappy NiCad batteries, and get no better mileage than a VW diesel. When they switch to Lithium and retool the car to work as a plug-in hybrid instead of just throwing the option in there as an afterthought it'll be worth mentioning but for now it's not even a very green car.

        Hell, I'd rather spend the $8k on a used ZAP.
        • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1People should be talking about the VW diesel the same way they talk about the hybrids. The TDI is awesome but it won't get you all of the perks of a hybrid (tax rebates, carpool lanes, etc...) because people think the hybrid is the panacea of global warming.
    • TBobes, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Or buy an electric car for 8k less....
  • Manny70, on 04/24/2008, -0/+13Nice! One step at a time in the right direction. Getting it available to a large segment of the population will make it financially viable to the manufacturers. More funds for r&d, they'll be perfecting the technology, and clean up all aspects of component parts production in a few years, hopefully. Thanks for sharing, Claybodie.
    • subliminalurge, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Might be good for people in large cities, but this car is pretty useless for a very large segment of the population. Most of my heavy fuel usage falls into one of two categories: Long trips which exceed this vehicle's range, and towing, which this would obviously be incapable of.

      I'm also troubled by what effect the heater might have on range. It gets extremely cold here in the winter, so not running the heat is out of the question.

      It's a nice idea, and a step in a good direction, but they have a ways to go before they have something that can actually replace a conventional car.
      • DuffyDirect, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Most fuel consumption on the roads is commuters driving to work, and yeah, the trucking industry. But that's why the entire freight railroad system has been revitalized and track laid and rebuilt this past decade.
      • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4Most of the population lives in urban area's. Yeah, the guy with a 90 minute highway commute isn't going to get near one of these things. But since the average commute is 7 to 9 miles, electric can cover that easily. You keep the gas burner in the garage for the weekend trips to the other side of the state or where ever you want to go, meanwhile getting 100+mpg from your electric that you spend 20-30 minutes in every day.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 04/24/2008, -6/+68Let's hope the oil companies don't decide to blow up the factory.
    • lpferris, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The oil companies are much dirtier than that. They don't bother with traditional terrorism, they buy patents and sue the electric car companies over them after the fact. It's all semi-legal, but dirty as hell.
  • jboitnott, on 04/24/2008, -12/+7As Pippin said in Lord Of The Rings, "I'm getting one!" (about pints though)
    • apackofmonkeys, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1For $25,000, you could get a lot of pints, though. This is a tough call for me....
    • h4k0r, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5FAIL!
  • Overmind12812, on 04/24/2008, -0/+57In an era where wind, solar, and alternative energy sources are expanding this is truly a step in the right direction.
    • SatansSpatula, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Do you *really* think that solar, wind, and "alternative energy" (white, tidal?) are going to be able to produce enough energy to propel us all around? Even if we cover the planet in solar panels, we won't gather enough energy that way. Maybe huge panels in space, beaming power back in the form of a high-intensity laser... Otherwise, nuclear, my friend, nuclear.
    • hbbodyboarder, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Ever thought about what happens to the batteries when the car goes to the junk yard?
      • caramba420, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1A Prius got into an accident in front of my buddy's work, and they had to call a hazmat team to come clean the ***** up.
    • caramba420, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0They're planning on building a 300 MW solar plant in New Mexico that will cost 1.6 billion. That means for what we've already spent in Iraq ($600 bln) we could be generating 112.5 GigaWatts of electricity. That's about 10% of total electricity production in the US, which is about 1075 GW at any given moment.
      Have a nice day!
  • Modestexcuse, on 04/24/2008, -2/+8That's a great start! It's hard to believe that Ford sold the design and rights...oooopps! I think it will do great here. I've also heard the Smart Car is coming. Can anyone confirm this?
    • LocalDocal, on 04/24/2008, -2/+4Frankly, I don't think Ford made that big of a mistake. Aside from having a top speed of 65MPH, the article says that this car is made optimally for driving on average small drives, and it suggests that when planning for a trip, you take the 'gas guzzling SUV' instead. So uh, you're supposed to keep two cars? One for regular driving and one for when you want to take a trip?

      Furthermore, it says the benefits are 'obvious' and declined to mention them, but again, I really don't see these obvious benefits.
      • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2In 1996 60% of US households owned 2 cars or more. Since then, it's gone up. So a owning a daily commuter car and a long distance trip vehicle is more than reasonable to expect.
        • LocalDocal, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Those households with multiple cars have multiple cars because there are more than one person who has to drive somewhere at separate times. Lets take for example a household with two cars, if one were to listen to this article, then that household is supposed to own three cars: two of the electric car (for daily commutes) and an extra SUV for trips.

          The point I'm trying to make is that the article seems to be suggesting that people keep the electric car for regular commutes and keep an extra SUV lying around just for trips, which is a ridiculous idea. Yes, a lot of US households have multiple vehicles, but nobody keeps an extra vehicle around for a single purpose, especially if that purpose happens to be vacation.
    • GeauxLSU, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Saw a Smart on the road in the US this weekend.....It was a convertible.
    • specialbuddy1, on 04/24/2008, -2/+0According to their site it's gas only. Sat in one of these at the Detroit Auto Show. Should call the company Sucker because that's what you are if you buy one. You can get 4 door vehicles that get similar gas mileage and have probably double the room. I never did get the point of this vehicle. I know they are coming out with an electric version but it will be 35,000 dollars. No thanks.
      • stubear, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0I saw them all over the place in Paris and if you've ever seen the parking situation in Paris you'll understand the appeal of the Smart Car.
        • specialbuddy1, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Well I don't live in Paris and all of the parking spaces in the states are designed to fit a normal vehicle so parking shouldn't matter. The thing is a death trap. Short wheelbase and snow do not mix. Not practical, get a Prius or diesel VW Golf if you want something eco-friendly and practical. This just seems like a waste of money or something you would buy if you wanted to try impressing someone. I'm not ripping on the vehicle in the article, just the Smart. I've sat in it, seen it, touched it. Absolute crap. Buy a Yaris. Sorry but the "Smart" name just pisses me off because it's not true at all.
          • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2I agree, you get more with the Yaris. The fuel efficiency is about the same as the Yaris. Check out the reviews for yourself. I own a Yaris and have been satisfied. I get 29/39 city/highway. I wish I would have bought the manual, would be even better.
          • stubear, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Oh, I don't really care for the SmartCar but street parking is Paris is perfect for it. I actually live in Boston and drive a Jeep Liberty, though the SmartCar would be a good car to park downtown. Excellent in the snow as long as the stupid f'ing Yaris and Prius drivers keep off the roads and out of my way.
    • orxor, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1What's so special about the smart car? The MINI Cooper gets much better gas mileage and is actually pretty spacious inside and has excellent performance.
    • mddleNameIsEarl, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0> Can anyone confirm this?
      There's already a Smart dealership open for business here in Venice, CA. I've seen a handful of them driving in the local area.
  • newznozzl, on 04/24/2008, -0/+14I would be more inclined to get the "Open": http://www.thinkev.com/think/content/view/full/289 (but Wikipedia says it has no plans on putting it into production; wonder why it's listed on their site?).

    Top speed is listed at only 62 MPH, which is going to kill it for commuters I would think, at least in the area where I live (65 normal). Which is too bad - I'd love to get something like this that I could do the 10 mile drive to downtown, and then drive on side streets. If I LIVED downtown, then I wouldn't need a car.
    • staxofmax, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Exactly. Bump the top speed up to 85 MPH, keep the range at speed at least 100 miles, then we'll talk. For the market this thing seems aimed at, mass transit would do the job in a much more environmentally friendly manner.
      • mrgreen4242, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1WTF do you need to go 85mph for? I can see wanting 70mph, the speed limit in most places, but 85? If you're spending to much on gas right now, just try slowing down to the speed limit, it'll do wonders for your fuel economy.
        • cawpin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The speed limit on I-17 going north out of Phoenix is 75. I usually drive ~80. You can't have the limit right at what people are going to drive.
        • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The speed limit between Denver and Colorado Springs is 75mph. It's a common commuter path between two major cities where it's very common to hit 85mph.
        • staxofmax, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1It's worth paying a dollar extra in gas per day if I can cut 10 minutes out of my commute.
      • warsql, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1If it can't go 85 on flat land, I wouldn't trust it in my hilly area.
    • glucoseboy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Not if you're commuting in San Francisco or Los Angeles. I'd be happy if I could average 62 MPH.
    • Sean42, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Dude, youre talking about 3 mph. Just leave for work 0.83 seconds earlier.
  • i70CuDa, on 04/24/2008, -1/+12There are companies that will do a full conversion for about 7k. One here in southern california caters to Mercs, porsches, and some other sports cars. the amazing thing is the performance. Since the max power is made at practically 0 RPM, you get excellent 0-60 times. Range is about 120 mi.
    • cawpin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5"Since the max power is made at practically 0 RPM, you get excellent 0-60 times."

      No, max power is made at max RPM in an electric motor. You're thinking max torque which is at stall, aka 0 rpm.
      • i70CuDa, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3You're right, i meant max torque at 0. still who doesn't like the idea of a bunch of torque in an instant
    • cybrguy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Soo... how about someone post the name of one of these companies that refurb cars to use electric perpulsion.
      • i70CuDa, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1just do a google search and several will come up
    • Armitage2k, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, 120 miles is JUST about right for my commute.. now I can drive to work without the radio or air conditioning on, because if I use it, I will never make it back home again! Replace all that extra space in the back with 2 more HUGE batteries, THEN I will be impressed.
  • borez, on 04/24/2008, -1/+10Lets hope they don't go the same way as the EV1
  • Exhibitionist, on 04/24/2008, -1/+31It's coming out next year people. Not this year, but next year. No, you can't get one now. You'll have to wait a bit longer. Just a little bit longer. But it's gonna be soooo worth it. Just remember, you can't have one now. It'll be here "next year"...
    • cybrguy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1And that makes me sad... Honestly I would rather plop down 5-8k for a kit to convert my car into an electric vehicle. I would only need 70mph and 50 miles of range.

      And I would of course demand the new fast charging "SCiB" batteries. I could stop at a friends house/gas station/outlet of any sort, plug in, charge the car for 5-20 minutes(depending on avaliable amperage@110Vac) So if I could get the car to drive 200 miles on one charge it would become a feesible long road trip vehicle, with the bonus of minimal maintenance road trips would cost you about 5-10 cents per mile instead of 30-70 cents per mile.

      http://www.shivaranjan.com/2007/12/12/scib-super-c ...
    • FasmTrout, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Let me get this straight: it'll be out next year?
  • sustainablogger, on 04/24/2008, -0/+12Even when powered on coal, electric cars are still greener because of engine efficiency. It's still not ideal -- powering them on renewables is a much better solution -- but this is a step forward.
    • markp93, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I need to put coal into my car now? :)
      • caramba420, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0He's referring to the bulk of electricity in the US coming from coal. So, the answer is yes, put some coal in your gas tank. I want to see what happens.
  • Jsmuli2, on 04/24/2008, -17/+11Buying these cars supports terrorism which means you are un-American.

    Come on America! Wake up and start supporting your oil companies!!! NOTHING IS MORE AMERICAN THAN THAT!
    • Bukowsky, on 04/24/2008, -4/+2reading your comment just made me a little more stupid. Thanks!
      • Jsmuli2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5OK I didn't want to say this but I WAS BEING SARCASTIC!!

        Thanks, now I feel dirty.
        • Professr, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2We know you were being sarcastic, we just didn't agree with your sarcasm or feel that this thread was the proper place for it.
          • Jsmuli2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Who's "we?"

            Also, I made the comment in reference to the fact that the electric car was due in 2000, you know, it was on display in DC during the Clinton Admin, then suddenly it disappeared. So, from that I figure it's just plain old un-American to want to move away from oil...At least that's how the Bushies make it sound.

            This thread is a perfect place for my sarcasm, welcome to the internets.
    • DeFex, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5If you didn't catch the sarcasm, your condition must have pre-dated the comment you read.
    • dullly, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Thnak youi for thr insight
  • BradyDale, on 04/24/2008, -2/+6Where I'm from, we get our electricity from one of the US's few nuclear plants, so it would be totally emissions free. And, anyone, can't they clean up smog from power plants better than they can from cars? I don't really know, but a single source seems better.
    These are cool, but $25K is a lot of money. I also couldn't find anything on how much it costs to install a recharging station at your house. You'd have to do that, too, right?
    • therightside, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Over 100 is a few?
      • phybere, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Let's see, we have over 300,000,000 residents in the US.... so that's 1 nuclear power plant to every 3,000,000 residents. I'd say we have a few.
        • therightside, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1And there are 8 trillion ants in North Dakota, so the square root of......
    • funsac22, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Too bad Three Mile Island's Media BS wiped out the ability to create more Nuclear power plants. Nuclear is the absolute most efficient, safest and cleanest for of energy available to us. Every fossil fuel burning plant should be shutdown and replaced with Nuclear. Even the biggest nuclear disaster (Chernobyl) claimed less lives (
      • cybrguy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2True, true.

        We had foolish government leaders cut off our own balls when it comes to our long term energy policy, when they outlawed re-processing nuclear fuel. It takes what was a 500-1500 year supply of nuclear fuel and cuts it down to 40-80 years, + or - a bit.
      • caramba420, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, nuclear power isn't actually all that efficient when you factor in the energy consumption of mining, then enriching the Uranium. The energy required to built nuclear power plants is also a great deal greater than that required for traditional plants. The costs are also prohibitive. The only reason that nuclear power has come close to achieving price parity with fossil fuels is that the construction of the existing power stations was heavily subsidized. Granted, it's still more eco-friendly than belching coal smoke into the sky.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Naw dude you just plug it into your neighbors outlet.
    • cybrguy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2all the electric vehicles on the street today are designed to pull from 15-20 amp 110Vac circuits. If you wanted to do a fast charge car then maybe you would want more than just 15A at 110. You could easily utilize 100A at 220Vac circuit while charging 1000 Amp Hours(12Vdc) worth of batteries if they were the new SCiB batteries. http://www.shivaranjan.com/2007/12/12/scib-super-c ...

      To see how long it would take to charge- 90 amp hours at 110 roughly(total capacity of 1000AH of 12V batteries, about what a mid sized electric vehicle would have)
      So a 100 amp 220V circuit would give you 90/200=.45hours. So it would take approx .45 hours to charge your car with a 100 amp 220 circuit, which is something you won't find at home. It would take 6 hours on a standard 15 amp circuit if you maxed it.(so probably 7.5 hours on a 15 amp, 5 hours on a 20 amp circuit.

      (ok I went overboard but I had fun with the numbers)
      • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1"a 100 amp 220 circuit, which is something you won't find at home" I have one coming into my house. Many homes have 200-400 amp service. Granted, it is being used for other things. I wouldn't say you can find it at home. If you have an electric furnace, you could share the circuit with a car charger.
      • soulkitchen, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Tell me if I have this right. Assuming that they are equipped with SCiB...
        Regular vanilla electric service (110A) = 6 hours to full charge?
        (220A) or better service = 45 min to full charge?
        Follow up question: What is the lifetime of these batteries and how much is the replace?
  • KraftDinner101, on 04/24/2008, -1/+16How can people who live in apartment buildings charge their car? I don't see this being an option for them for a long time.
    • Quickdood, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Very long extension cords... Or apartment buildings could just put outlets next to assigned parking spots and meter them.
      • bulgingbritches, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I was thinking of a long extension cord to the neighbor's house....... Still his electricity and wireless interpr0n.
    • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3The same way camp sites and trailer parks do it now. A post with a meter on it next to the parking spot. I'm pretty sure it'll take an electrical engineer all of about 5 minutes to design a metering box with a keypad or card reader.
      • evilrobotted, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0yeah, but it could take the city 10 years to budge on funding that sort of thing.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 04/24/2008, -2/+12A car is useless for me. I need a truck.
    The people driving these projects assume everyone lives in cookie-cutter houses near a city ala Edward Scissorhands, and a vehicle is only used for commuting to work and hauling a bag of groceries.

    Also, does anyone know if the additional cost of electricity is less than the cost of gasoline? I've never seen that addressed. Electricity sure ain't free.
    • Manhigh, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure about the efficiency of these vehicles, but I've seen the equivalent for the Chevy Volt to be under $1/gal, given the average national electricity rates.

      Still though, I want a car with unlimited range, with fillups or recharges that don't last much more than 5-10 minutes tops. Either make them locomotive-esque hybrids where fuel just charges the batteries, or have some sort of towable APU that provides power for longer distances.

    • brstilson, on 04/24/2008, -4/+6you have the extra cost of generating a bit more electricity from steam turbines that are over 90% efficient, or

      the cost of extracting the oil + the cost of transporting the oil to the refineries + the cost of refining the oil into gasoline + the cost of transporting the gasoline to the gas stations + almost $4 a gallon to buy the gas

      Electricity is cheaper.
      • DoubtingThomas, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Wow! I think you may forgotten quite a few steps to get to the steam for the turbines. Extracting coal, transporting coal, etc.
        • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Who said it had to be coal? We do have solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear plants using steam. Either way, the power plant has a more efficient engine than any home owner will ever have, and they buy their fuels in bulk quantities that no home owner is going to afford. Electricity is not only cheaper, you can make it yourself.
        • brstilson, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Which come from sources much closer to the power plants and thus require less transportation getting them there. After electricity is generated, no more pollution is required to send it anywhere in the country. After gasoline is refined, the process of transporting it and burning it add the extra pollution.
    • forcedfx, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Yes, electricity is a much cheaper option than gas. If you have roommates though it'd be a bitch to charge 3 cars at once along with dividing up the electric bill.

      "Well, I only drive 5 miles to work but you drive 20..." etc.
    • nder, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Actually, they're not looking at the commercial usage/handyman angle at all, and are instead looking at the majority of short distance commuters, especially those driving solo. As trying to modify the behavior and impact of a larger group tends to lead to a larger benefit overall, for everyone.

      As for the electricity/ gas cost offsets, you've just not looked for it. It's been cited numerous times, numerous places the past few decades. In short, in most all locales, the electrical usage is less than or on par with the cost of gasoline.

    • fotoman, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/phoenix-s ...
      • cawpin, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2I'm sure he meant he needs a truck that doesn't look retarded.
      • HarryBauzonia, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Cool!
        Too bad this one looks like an Aztek, but at least I know the concept is out there now. I appreciate the link.
        • ricksite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The Aztek is an awesome car. It makes every other car look more attractive!
    • caketank, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4The people driving these projects don't assume any such thing. They target a market whose driving consists mostly of commuting to work and hauling groceries, because a) that's what the technology is up to and b) that really is an awful lot of people.

      I'm sure you'll get your electric truck eventually, but cities are going to be full of electric commuter cars well before that happens.
      • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4They're working the tech from both angles really. They're just now greening up the 100ton hauler trucks used in mining operations by using similar set ups to diesel/electric trains. Typical work trucks are going to be one of the hardest challenges. High power usage in a small heavy duty vehicle. Cars they can cheat by going light weight carbon fiber etc. The big hauler trucks are already the size of trains anyway. It's squeezing the two together that's rough.
    • thatguyfred, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1The market is for the daily grinders getting by in the city. Not people who need to haul loads or push/pull something. I'm sure they will begin to cater more to that consumer if this begins to take off and the technology is refined.
    • Abram730, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Electric costs way less then gas. If you have solar panels on your roof you can charge up for free.

      I've seen electrics with 2000 fp torque... So there is power there.

      Hybrid trucks also have the advantage of being generators.
      Chevrolet's hybrid Silverado has four 20-amp-rated outlets.
    • Abram730, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2here is that 2000 fp torque all electric
      http://digg.com/autos/EVS23_Droolworthy_all_electr ...
  • 1jaxstate1, on 04/24/2008, -9/+19I don't know who defined the word affordable, but it's not 25k for a small car. Once these things start hitting the "used car" lots, then we will see them take off. And with a top speed for 65 mph, this care will be great, as it can also be used as a coffin, when some ***** going 90 runs you off the road.
    • phybere, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6Personally I've always considered the people doing 65mph on the highway the assholes.
    • atruskot, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Anybody traveling 90mph+ would probably only do so on a 4 lane highway or larger. So instead of running people over the faster car could just pull out to the other lane and pass.
      And 65 is plenty fast enough for any car that drives in the US. Keep in mind that this car is design for short commutes, such as the daily drive to work... its not designed for cross country traveling or any driving where you'd be on the highway for extended periods of time.
    • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+425k is pretty good if you consider the 100-200 a month in gas that you won't be spending. As oil prices rise, the value will increase too.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Or you mean some ***** going 65 in the fast lane...
    • smoger, on 04/24/2008, -0/+61jaxstate1: i presume you're one of the jerks who doesn't understand that the left lane is for faster traffic.
      • citizen782, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty certain the majority of the time it's the slow drivers who have a hard time realizing they're in the wrong lane. Out of fear, stupidity, or stubbornness refuse to move to the right. Therefore many faster drivers pile up behind them and are forced to pass on the right.
    • TheUserFactor, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Automobile accidents occur either directly or indirectly because of operator error. At higher rates of speed, the probability both of being involved in an accident as well as being injured or killed in that accident goes up, up and up. Driving too slowly for the surrounding traffic also increases the probability of auto accidents, particularly in the presence of motorists who are exceeding the speed limit.
      If the United States didn't have a 19th-century public transit system, we might have fewer cars on the road.
  • PawLuxury, on 04/24/2008, -3/+3They have to do something, I heard we will see $6.00/gal
    I'm not going to buy anything in the future that's less than 30-35mpg
    • smoger, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1"i hadn't heard that"
    • fishbert, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1It's already the equivalent of $6/gal in some European countries. (has been for quite some time)
      I welcome it... maybe then there won't be so many commuters driving all by their lonesome in extended-cab trucks, minivans, SUVs, etc. That just blocks visibility for the rest of us and increases the danger for anyone not also driving a vehicle with a bumper 2 feet off the ground.
  • Ganja420, on 04/24/2008, -7/+2Jason Calacanus has a Tesla ordered, therefore, it is totally lame
  • aenima987, on 04/24/2008, -9/+5it's pointless unless your electricity comes from a clean source
    • krische, on 04/24/2008, -3/+10Power plant pollution regulation is much easier than regulating car pollution.
      • brstilson, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Plus refinery pollution and tanker truck pollution.
        • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1All combined they're still a lot easier to regulate and clean up than trying to chase around 200 million cars.
    • Harabeck, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Dont forget we need to get off of foreign oil. We can use coal in the interim.
    • mrgreen4242, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Not only is centralized electrical generation more efficient, but it puts a layer of abstraction between people and their daily fuel source. Youand 10,000 of your neighbors buy an electric car now, and it uses coal derived electricty. Then your local power company builds a wind/solar/tidal/nuclear plant and all of a sudden all 10k cars are fossil fuel free. If you all bought gas cars, and then a new car that didn't use fossil fuels became available a couple years later, there's a 10+ year latency before you get all those gas cars off the road.

      Point is, this is just one step in many to "go green".
      • LloydBentsen, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1What exactly is the economic incentive for the local power company to build a wind/solar/tidal/nuclear plant when they already have a working coal plant?
  • farkis, on 04/24/2008, -29/+4Can anyone help, my car's making a stuttering noise, it sounds like this:

    PA PA PA OBAMA PA PA PA OBAMA PA PA PA OBAMA LOSS
    • kipmartin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+10thats the same noise your mom was making while i shaved her back last night.
      • Ometoch, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3ooooh sick BURN!.... now go back to middle school and let the adults leave comments k thx bye
      • celkin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3The following response is 100% relevant:

        OWNED!!!
  • satanatnmtedu, on 04/24/2008, -1/+18$25K is not affordable, especially if you are keeping your SUV for longer trips (like mentioned in the article). I bought a 4 years old Prius for $10,000 - it doesn't have the same limitations as this electric car. And, the number of used Prius's available will be comparable to the production levels for this car.
    • Shelter22, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Amen. $25,000 for a car that probably won't last 10 years is nothing special. Spend 3-4 grand on a used Toyota or Honda and drive it until the wheels fall off. Rinse and repeat.
    • specialbuddy1, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3$10,000 for a used Prius? Where do you live because I can't find a 2004-2005 model for under $15,000.
    • thedogfatherx, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I was going to write the same thing. 25K is not "affortable." I don't care what anybody says.
      • smoger, on 04/24/2008, -1/+125,000 is very affordable for many people. i'm 26 and i have $35,000 worth of vehicles($20,000 + $15,000), and that's not even mentioning the interest on my car loans. my whole point is don't think your individual situation dictates that of "most" or "all" people. (and i realize that mine doesn't either.. but for the majority of adults working full time, 25,000 should not be hard to afford)
        • Photokon, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2lol you are retarded. Buy 35k worth of cars, pay the interest on the loans for them, profit! Lol, that is retarded.

          Hint, the medium income is about 45k in America. Having a car be more than half your medium income is not affordable.
          • fishbert, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1median... not medium.
            oh, and the median income for one person ("...more than half your medium [sic] income...") is, by definition, whatever the income of that person is -- it's a worthless statistic for a sample of 1.
    • fishbert, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Why would anyone keep an SUV for longer trips? For how infrequently most people exceed 110 miles in their day-to-day driving, why not just rent something for the occasional longer trip? The same goes for people who drive trucks because they want to be able to haul something maybe once every 6 months.
  • EwMo, on 04/24/2008, -9/+4Lets check where the electricity comes from...
    Power plants that make fossil fuels.
    Move the pollution from the road to the plants.
    It's foolproof!
    • krische, on 04/24/2008, -2/+5But its much easier to regulate polution on the few thousand power plants in the US, compared to the tens (hundred?) of millions of different cars in the US.
    • brstilson, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4No, no, no, do your homework.

      The steam turbines in power plants are far, FAR more efficient than an internal combustion engine due to the fact that it's using most of the energy from burning coal (heat) to directly create energy. Steam generators typically hit over the 90% efficiency mark, while internal combustion engines are usually less than 25% efficient because most of the energy (heat) is wasted, dissipating through the radiator and engine/exhaust components.
      You also have to realize that gasoline is responsible for more than just the pollution it gives off when burnt. Not only does the fuel itself pollute, the process for refining it from oil pollutes as well. It also has to get to the gas station via a tank truck, so more pollution from the truck is added to the mix.
      The process of refining, transporting, and burning gasoline throws a lot more pollution into the air than a coal power plant will generating a few extra kilowatts.
    • kipmartin, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1power plants have a lower carbon footprint and they dont run entirely on fossil fuels, either.
    • mrgreen4242, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Aside from the existing improvements of efficiency of coal plants over a gas ICE, you get "free" green upgrades without changing the car. When wind power gets cheaper than coal for you, a utility company will build a wind farm and all of a sudden your, and all the other EVs in your area, will be carbon neutral.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0I'm investing in power
  • funsac22, on 04/24/2008, -4/+6110 mile round trip... That would JUST barely get to work and back and 65mph top speed should, maybe not get me killed by tractor trailers. But the benefit I guess is it will not use gas but instead electricity from fossil fuel based power plants that are more damaging to the environment than the gas burning engines... Technology can not efficiently produce "clean" power yet.
    • heiroglyph, on 04/24/2008, -3/+9You live 55 miles from work and drive it every day? That's your problem right there.

      When did this become a viable option, regardless of gas prices?
    • mrgreen4242, on 04/24/2008, -0/+21) There's no evidence to support the idea that fossil fuel (aka coal) fired plants are more environmentally damaging that gas engines. Aside from the fact that large plants can much more easily capture their pollutants and carbon than can a relatively small mobile power generation system, they're just way more efficient at capturing energy from the burned fuel. 90% compared to about 25%...

      2) Clearly this car isn't meant for you. You need a long range vehicle. MOST PEOPLE DON'T, though, so while this sort of thing won't benefit you directly, it will indirectly - less gas used means lower prices. More EVs mean less gas used. You, apparently, use a lot of gas, so this will help you in the long run. Stop bitching.
    • jimchou, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1Yes, the 55 miles to work is a problem. Not just environmentally - think how much of your life you're wasting on the commute... it's sad. You should move closer to work or get a job closer to your house.
      • smoger, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2it's not that easy for a lot of us. i'm not as far as funsac22, but i am pretty far(30miles each way). moving to the area i work in would cost me more in rent than what i'd save in gas(yes, it's THAT pricey here), and take me away from my friends/family(so i'd still be driving back to the old area 3 or 4 nights a week anyway). to compensate i drive a comfortable car(since i spend 2 hours a day in it), and when i can afford it will be getting one with better gas mileage. wish that next car could be a Yaris, but most car manufacturers dont realize that people MIGHT want small cars that are comfy, so Mini will have my money instead(30mpg combined).
      • funsac22, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Yup. I am 47 miles each way. Moving closer means I must make a ton of more money or live in a ghetto and either place I live is a congested, over populated nightmare. Not to mention, the closer to the city I get the more tax goes up and everything else. Moving a little closer is a viable option, getting a closer job, heh, really is easier said than done. Trust me, I hate my commute, if I could shorten or take mass transit I would. The mass transit is a joke out by me. 2.5 hour each way by train, takes me 50 minutes by car. Parking sucks @ $300/mon so the train does turn out to be cheaper.

        Now smoger mentions a Mini, that is _EXACTLY_ what i was thinking of picking up used for my daily commute. I am currently driving a 9 year old bmw 328i, while it gets me 30mpg if I grandma it, in reality I get ~27mpg, so a small Mini (claimed 37mpg on regular fuel) would be a big help.
  • jcastillo81, on 04/24/2008, -1/+13Don't be hatin', people. We gotta start somewhere.
  • JFallon126, on 04/24/2008, -4/+4365 mph limit? There are some highways where going that slow might be dangerous compared to everyone around you.
    • mrgreen4242, on 04/24/2008, -2/+21) It's called the THINK CITY, isn't it? No designed for open highway travel, I suspect.
      2) The speed limit most places is 70mph, with trucks being limited to 60mpg or so. If driving 65mph is dangerous they need to start enforcing the traffic laws there.*

      * I've been thinking that we need to go back to the 55mph speed limits to save fuel anyways. Ya, it's nice going 70 when you have a long way to travel and you want to get off the road, but with gas nearing $4/gallon it's time to do whatever we need to cut back.
      • Mahoney07, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3"* I've been thinking that we need to go back to the 55mph speed limits to save fuel anyways. Ya, it's nice going 70 when you have a long way to travel and you want to get off the road, but with gas nearing $4/gallon it's time to do whatever we need to cut back."

        GTFO hippie
      • AngelBunny, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1if you want to drive that slow then simply stay in the very right hand lane and never move farther over. why would you want to make it a law so everyone else suffers?
        if we consume less gas it will not change the price of the gas. this isn't an oil shortage like in the past. it is just inflated oil prices.
  • leerayIG88, on 04/24/2008, -6/+1I'm going to buy a electronic SUV.
  • Ghoztt, on 04/24/2008, -13/+8WTF? Ever watch the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car" ?

    The Electric car already came 9 f%cking years ago. And it was faster than this one.
    HELP! I'M SURROUNDED BY MORONS!
    • SilasTomorrow, on 04/24/2008, -1/+13You must be standing in the Hall of Mirrors...
    • danger127, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6That movie was terribly one sided.
    • mrgreen4242, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1It was also a lot more expensive. They leased the EV1 for about $450/month... and I'm not sure they were even able to turn a profit on that, it was a test model so the pricing could have been set around projected costs. Anyways, a car that leases for 36 months at $450 has a sticker price in the $35,000+ range, and this was 9 years ago, so that's a $40,000+ car easily.

      At $25k, this car is substantially cheaper, which in turn sort of explains the limitations it has. Once the EV market starts to take off, and it is about to, there will be lots of options for speed, range, size, etc. The increase in demand for the cars will also kickstart even more development in battery manufacturing which will lead to both new discoveries, improved processes, and also just more economy of scale which will drop the cost of one of the more expensive parts of an EV, the battery pack.

      As an aside, if they sold an even cheaper model of this car that had a 60 mile range and a top speed of 55mph that used a cheaper, less high tech battery solution (and also would likely need a less complex power inverter system, and a less powerful motor) that came in at
  • supercooladdict, on 04/24/2008, -5/+8What makes you think electricity prices won't go up if more people choose electricity over gasoline? stupidity?
    • nder, on 04/24/2008, -3/+460 years of data to look at perhaps?
      Can you recall offhand the last major spike in electrical costs nationwide, not attributable to war, or economic collapse.

      • supercooladdict, on 04/24/2008, -4/+1Can you recall offhand a time when the majority of vehicles ran off of electricity? Probably not. I think that answers your question.
        • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Being the largest monopoly in the country, the price of power is also regulated. So no, it won't spike. Also as the price of electricity rises, it becomes more economic to install home power generation. Not only lowering demand, but creating extra power in the process.
        • nder, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1No, it doesn't. But it does show your inability to argue your point effectively. As well as your inexperience with infrastructure, electrical energy usage over the past century, and several other key factors you're not considering in your assumption.
          But by all means, feel free to parrot. I rather miss my 486 and Soundblaster.
    • geneticlone, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2apparently you don't live in california :P
    • merper, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Cars will be charging during off hours for one.
    • CedEx, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3The beauty of electricity is that you can make it yourself if you're smart enough. You can't make gasoline at home.
  • Forsakenmantra, on 04/24/2008, -10/+2The problem with electric cars is they really do nothing to stop the pollution and energy use. Think about it. The power you are using to charge your battery has to come from somewhere. So long as the power plant by your house is burning coal or anything not 'green', i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, all you are doing is relocating your energy use to the power plant causing it to produce more pollution. If you have 10,000 people not using cars but charging their cars at night, you would just be causing the power plant to work harder, thereby causing more pollution. This is just a *****, 110 mile round trip waste of time and resources if you ask me.
    • Forsakenmantra, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1I like how I'm being dugg down because I'm not jumping on the latest green bandwagon. I often have to drive longer than 110 miles in one day and there isn't a power plant near my house that isn't coal. What we should be working on is converting our terrible inefficient power plants into ones that actually do work, oh and stop ruining all the worlds food. :D
      • Corvidae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+21) You have an insane commute, this vehicle is NOT made with you in mind. And most likely won't be for decades to come.
        2) power plants put out far less pollution per watt than you car ever will.
    • LXicon, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2electric cars use less enegry to do the same amount of work as a gas powered car. that, and giant electric power generators are more efficient than a small car engine. you need less power generated and that power is generated more effciently.
    • russellphilip, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2That is true, but like LXicon said...think of the difference between having central AC versus several window AC units. The central AC is more energy efficient when you are cooling the whole house. Likewise, the powerplants are much more efficient at energy output than car engines.
    • Forsakenmantra, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Alright, well you guys do make some good points, however a lot of power plants pollute much worse than your car does. On top of the greenhouse gases and such that come out of cars, coal plants especially emit a lot a other harmful toxins, which of the worst is probably radiation due to the fact that the majority of coal contains uranium atoms that get released into the atmosphere when burned.

      "A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium."

      You can't tell me that's better than what your car emits.
      • Atomic05, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You aren't paying attention. Of course a power plant is going to put out more toxins than a single car, but think about how many cars you can power with a single plant, and how many toxins those cars would put out on their own. On top of that, you're not only getting the individual pollution of the cars but also what the plant is still putting out. The plant, overall, is far more efficient and environmentally friendly on its own than a fleet of fossil-fuel cars, and it's easier to regulate too. Also, with the advance of renewable power plants (solar, wind, etc) and incredibly efficient nuclear plants, we'll see the ratio of power output to waste material go down even further.
  • citizen782, on 04/24/2008, -2/+7As positive a step as this is, Americans by and large will still not adopt the electric cars being manufactured right now. Most people drive on major highways with Semi's and F-150's all over the road. Electric cars must be light and small therefore the safety standards have almost always been sub-par. High command seating positions are one of the main reason large trucks and SUV's were so popular before the gas crunch. People don't like feeling that they're putting their lives at risk commuting to work in a cute little plastic car.
  • joessandwich, on 04/24/2008, -1/+25Can we please get back the electric cars that DON'T look lame? Since when does supporting electric cars mean that I want an ugly car?
  • zm5k, on 04/24/2008, -2/+29Affordable my ass. Read the small print. In addition to all the other costs you don't own the battery. You have to pay 200 Euros (over $300) PER MONTH as a fee.
    • kalvinb, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1One of these days companies will learn that not only does it have to be environmental, it also has to be economical. I will buy a second car when the price of the car is less than the cost of gas it saves.

      I pay about $300 a month for gas. I can't see how a $400+ car playment plus a ~$300 fee is economical.
    • AsylumAleikum, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Not to worry - a sucker is born every minute.
    • trougnouf, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3What small prints? Learn to read the full-size prints first, it says you CAN pay 200/month for the maintenance, insurance, and even the electricity your car consume. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
  • OfNumbers, on 04/24/2008, -7/+2Yeah, THAT is going to be the next craze in the homeland of Cadillac and Ford SUVs, plus Hummers, etc... The car that looks just like every other asian model our market has ALREADY rejected decades before in advance.<