Interesting Comment from Toyota...

I was talking about Smart cars, not pickups - that's a different topic.

From what I'm reading, Smart cars debuted in 2008 at the overwhelming price of $12k. Not sure where the market ended up but I wouldn't call $12k for a brand new car overpriced.

My only point is that "city cars" have been produced, marketed, and failed in the US in the past. I'm not saying that a small and cheap EV wouldn't be suited perfectly for cities, even in the US, I just wouldn't hold my breath in thinking it's going to solved everyone's problem regarding emissions. If truly left to the market without government persuasion, I doubt they'd have legs to stand on.

Edit - I'd just like to point out, even in 2008, $12 was probably 6 months rent at most for a brand new car. Hard to get much cheaper than that

 

As a former viola player, I have a special place for classical music in my heart. I also have a passion for old blues and jazz though, where the bass really shines along with the trumpet

 

Give the bass player some love....Was just listening to some Free " Mr Big" while wiping down the runner after washing.

After that was some....not 100% blues, but blues based, Humble Pie.

 

I'm sitting here listening to Louis Armstrong radio on pandora - I've got love for the bassist!

 

The $12k model was bare bones. You needed to go to the mid to high teens for the decent ones.

Honda Fit was a better deal at the time.

EVs make it possible to turn dismal eco boxes into hot hatches. It’s hilarious when people try to race our Bolt.

 

This is the problem though. A "hot hatchback" is not the same thing as a good city car. This is why the market squashed the Smart car. At least in the US, nobody wants true "reasonable" vehicles. Americans demand fun - which doesn't fit into the eco friendly environment until EVs can fit that niche

 

I also have a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart station on pandora for classical music but haven't listened to it as much lately. If I had to do it over, I'd probably pick the cello. Life doesn't give you many do-overs though

 

And EVs actually pack more fun per dollar when you take the car form factor.

The torque and acceleration is hilarious in the Bolt - it reminds me of my MkIV GTI with the 1.8T except you never have no shifting interrupting acceleration.

But then it gets a stupidly high MPG equivalent. Great economy and it’s hoonable.

Meanwhile, my neighbor has the Model 3 performance model. It is beyond insane - the acceleration is so hard that you can injure someone.

 

My user name could also have been “Is that a cello?”

 

I always wondered… if ICE vs Electric is purely an “environmental problem” (ie. climate change) and they really want to solve the “problem”… wouldn’t small ICE vehicles be the obvious solution?

A bunch of big electrical vehicles with massive batteries can’t possibly be the “environmentally friendly” alternative to a 1976 Fiat? I don’t know much about this stuff but… jeez. I know a little about oil and mining.

 

Small engines definitely could help in a way - but people won’t like them.

If you had an identical platform with a choice of a small gas engine or a decent EV system, people who drove them both would choose EV.

Having driven a Fiat 500 and the CA only electric version a decade ago, it was no contest. The torque is just amazing.

If there’s one thing I hate it’s the turbo 2.0 inline 4 that has taken over. It’s boring, and direct injection makes it sound like a diesel without it being as cool as a diesel.

Now, put the inline four from a sport bike in a car and that would sound awesome…

 

Everything is about money and control.

 

People buy the shit out of Corollas.

Not anyone who ever travels. Or, lives in an apartment. Or, has to park on the street.

Sure, EV's are fun to drive, as long as you have the means to charge them at home. But, there are still issues that need to get worked out before I'd ever own one. A major breakthrough in battery technology needs to happen before they will appeal to me, and many others I'm sure.

 

Corollas don't have a small engine - not by global standards.

Really what cities should do is incorporate charging into parking meters for urban dwellers. We live in what could be considered the suburbs or exurbs depending on what your perspective is, and honestly haven't bothered with public charging since our charger got installed at home. We've put about 10k miles on our Bolt in 7 months. Would have put more but I wanted to hit the 1k mile mark on the 4Runner as quickly as possible.

 

I don't see them being mandated as a practical matter.

At the same time, the best thing we could do would be to reclassify all trucks and SUVs as cars for CAFE purposes unless the trucks are used for commercial purposes, even if that means giving some relief in terms of CAFE targets.

When it comes to pollution and emissions, if I use a Ram 3500 for driving my family around town, why should that be subject to different regulatory treatment from a VW Jetta?

Let's also get rid of the Chicken Tax while we're at it.

 

Well, it's already happening in Kalifornia. The unelected CARB bureaucracy has now mandated 100% zero emission vehicles only by 2035. And more often than not the the other states will do the same as these crazies.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

 

"Ambitious but achievable", lol. I'd leave it at "ambitious."

I thought this only applied to new vehicle sales. Some people will probably go out of state to buy vehicles. Or, does it strictly ban people from owning and operating ICE vehicles altogether?

I still laugh at the use of the term "zero emission vehicle" when the production of EV's creates more emissions than the production of ICE vehicles. Not to mention, the emissions created by producing the electricity to charge them. And, unless the batteries actually end up lasting as long as or longer than comparable ICE vehicles, you have replacement batteries to add to the equation.

I'm in favor of options, and I'm in favor of progress. But, I'm not in favor of trying to legislate progress by taking away options. I'd rather see the product advance to the point where people actually want it.

We have a long way to go before EV's can really take the place of ICE vehicles. It could happen, eventually. But, I highly doubt we're going to be there in 12 years.

 

If that was the case why are EV sales tanking? No one wants them, especially used. Ford just announced that it is drastically reducing EV truck production. EVs make almost no practical sense. They might make people 'feel better' about the environment, but that's about it. Sure, they have great torque, but if you are stomping on the pedal you will lose range so fast you will be wondering why you are stuck in the middle of nowhere. Batteries, all batteries, will deteriorate between 1-2% a year, along with associated range. Do you know what it costs to replace an EV battery pack, if you can even find one? Do you live in a cold climate? If so your estimated range will plummet faster than Biden's job approval. Hot climate? Same thing. Other than that, EVs are great and I'm glad you like yours.

 

I live in a place that has hit -27F in the past five years.

I’m not worried about range because how many of us are driving more than 240 miles in a day?

Even if my range is cut in half. Still fine.

EV pickups are stupid. And have nothing to do with what you quoted.

Put a 1.3-2.0 liter powertrain in a vehicle - that is small to medium sized now. Apples to apples, the EV is far better to drive.

Even stomping on the go pedal and driving like I stole it, I still can pull at least 3.4 miles per kW.

At about $0.115/kWh, that means it costs me $0.0338 per mile, or $3.38 to drive $100 miles.

All these modern 2.0 turbo cars seem to require premium gas. Premium gas near me costs $3.74 per gallon as I write this. But let’s go with regular at $2.94 per gallon and use the VW GTI as a Benchmark that gets a combined 28mpg.

To go 100 miles, it would cost $10.50.

Given that we do 15k-20k miles per year, the Bolt costs $500-$675 a year to fuel, while the GTI would cost $1,575-$2100

So we save $1,000-$1,500 per year.

Top of the line Bolt is $33k. Can’t match a GTI perfectly but if you average the two closest, you get to $36k.

After 36 months and 15k per year, the residual value of the GTI is about $21k. Fuel plus depreciation for 15k per year comes out to $19,725.

Electric for the Bolt would come out to $1500. That means that the breakeven depreciation for the Bolt would be $18,225. As long as the Bolt is worth more than $14,775 after 3 years, I’m ahead.

That drops to around $13k if we go to 20k miles.

That’s just by year 3. Let’s not even talk about year 10. Basically, the only way to beat the math is to get a bare bones car, but then it’s a matter of not using the most expensive Bolt as a comparison point.

Oh, and that doesn’t include the $7,500 tax break. No point in spiking the football.

Buy what you want, but if you don’t know how to crunch numbers, then you will not come out ahead.

 

Saw that gm and Ford have lost billions on evs

 

Me. All the time.

I've driven 1378 miles in a day on a few occasions.

200+ in a day is pretty common for me.

I know I'm not typical, though.

 

Excuse me, I can crunch #s just fine. That's why I would never waste my money on an EV. Saving on the cost of fuel is only one factor. Your Bolt will eventually become a worthless brick. Unless you or whoever owns it in the future are willing to put a bunch of cash into replacing the batteries. And btw, I never questioned YOUR decision to get an EV. Only some of your sweeping generalizations. And did I hear those tax breaks are going away?

 

People that play bass rarely are.

I’ve done 750 miles in a day.

 

Even if it becomes worthless, I still come out ahead. That’s the funny part.