can we replace the gas-guzzling SUV yet?

[iNow]

It isn't uncommon to need to haul more than 5 people (many couples have more than three kids). "Seating" for 5 people; but only two car seats (required by law) really means I can only carry four people if I have children. If I had three children (not uncommon), I should not buy this vehicle.

 

Ermm... The specific car GDG referenced seats seven (7) people.

 

 

http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php

[SH3RL0CK]

Ermm... The specific car GDG referenced seats seven (7) people.

 

 

http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php

 

You are right, but now I'm confused. I only see a maximum of five seats for the model S the best image showing the interior is http://www.teslamotors.com/media/image_library.php?catId=72157615861202561 . How can it possibly seat seven people comfortably? Are we putting the two children in the trunk? Is that safe (how could it be during a rear collision)? I'm not sure I like that idea... sounds more like an exagerated sales pitch.

 

Safety concerns aside, it still cannot carry as much as a SUV; or even perhaps other cars. Nor can it do so (for $50,000) at a clear economic advantage over a SUV, and clearly at a disadvantage to a hybrid.

Edited June 12, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[iNow]

You are right, but now I'm confused. I only see a maximum of five seats for the model S the best image showing the interior is http://www.teslamotors.com/media/image_library.php?catId=72157615861202561.

 

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6/

The car fits seven people and their luggage: five adults and two children in rear-facing seats under the hatch inside, with luggage in the boot up front.

 

If not people, it can fit a mountain bike with its wheels still on, a surfboard and a 50-inch television at the same time.

 

 

 

[SH3RL0CK]

Kids in the trunk, interesting concept. I thought we had stopped doing that in the 70's. Has this car passed all the required collision tests? I guess I have to assume it has.

 

That said, interesting.

[iNow]

Trunk's in the front. Also, by law, it must pass safety standards, so I'm not too concerned. Sure... You're not cruising around in a steel reinforced Hum-vee with bullet proof armor, RPGs, and a 50-caliber turret on top, but it's still a safe form of transportation for your family.

 

 

 

San Carlos, Calif.-based Tesla Motors Inc. designs and manufactures electric vehicles with exceptional design, performance and efficiency, while conforming to all North American and European safety, environmental and durability standards.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nor can it do so (for $50,000) at a clear economic advantage over a SUV, and clearly at a disadvantage to a hybrid.

You're taking a slightly myopic view of the economics. Up front cost, you're right... there's a $25K difference. However, let's run some numbers.

 

 

Telsa Motor Electric vehicle... Cost of gas = $0.

 

Standard SUV... Has a fuel tank which holds about 20 gallons... gets (let's be generous here) 20mpg. Current cost of gas (let's go conservative) $2.50. So, each time you fill up, it costs you (again, on the conservative side) $50. You get about 400 miles per tank.

 

To make up the up-front cost difference in the vehicles ($25K), all you'd need to do is fill up the SUV ~500 times. That translates to 20,000 miles worth of fuel based on calculations above. So, in less than two years (traveling about 200 miles per week), you've paid for the difference. For you, it would go faster, as you suggested you travel up to 300 miles in shorter trips/more frequently. In which case, you'd pay the difference in one year taking an average of 400 miles per week.

 

Note that, you'll have to pay for gas forever with your SUV, and the price of gas keeps going up. On top of that is the environmental impact, which comes with its own set of economic concerns.

 

The point being, the difference in price for the Tesla is actually FAR lower when you extend your economic considerations past the front end payment.

Edited June 12, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Syntho-sis]

The question on whether we want to use it or not depends mostly on feasibility on manufacturing cost to produce the cars. I believe if this factor is taken away, most likely it's possible to see green cars making its way to the market.

 

You also need to consider how many people have their hands in the production of the gas guzzlers...

 

How much money they are actually making.

 

Also the mentality of the American people. Many seem to be angered at the suggestion of a paradigm shift concerning both, how we take care of the planet, and the technology we use in our daily lives.

 

In other words, anybody that wants to invest in the well-being of future generations and more effiecent technology is a "tree-hugger."

[SH3RL0CK]

I question your methodology. First, I prefer to use miles per gallon estimates rather than miles per tankful. Miles per gallon estimates are better established. Also, just for kicks, lets compare apples to apples; a SUV is not comparable to the tesla. Although they will both "seat" seven, you could do the same with a regular car or hybrid by tricking out the trunk as tesla has done. I very seriously doubt the tesla can carry the equivalent weight that a SUV can (it can't; the suspension isn't big enough). The tesla to a standard car and to a hybrid car.

 

You're taking a slightly myopic view of the economics. Up front cost, you're right... there's a $25K difference. However, let's run some numbers.

 

 

Telsa Motor Electric vehicle... Cost of gas = $0.

 

Cost of electricity = ? Certainly less than gas, but how much less? And how much will be charged for a battery swap when it is needed?

Standard SUV... Has a fuel tank which holds about 20 gallons... gets (let's be generous here) 20mpg. Current cost of gas (let's go conservative) $2.50. So, each time you fill up, it costs you (again, on the conservative side) $50. You get about 400 miles per tank.

I'm not sure why you are calculating based on a full tank, rather than the better established miles per gallon estimates in my previous posts...

At a conservative $5 per gallon, this ($25k price difference) can buy 5k gallons; at a conservative 20 mpg milage this is equivalent to an 100,000 miles of travel.

 

Taking a standard car of 30 mpg; this gets 150,000 miles. Taking a typical hybrid of 50 mpg; this gets you 250,000 miles. As long as the price of gas is less than $5 per gallon, you will do even better.

 

To make up the up-front cost difference in the vehicles ($25K), all you'd need to do is fill up the SUV ~500 times. That translates to 20,000 miles worth of fuel based on calculations above. So, in less than two years (traveling about 200 miles per week), you've paid for the difference. For you, it would go faster, as you suggested you travel up to 300 miles in shorter trips/more frequently. In which case, you'd pay the difference in one year taking an average of 400 miles per week.

 

See the above calculations based on better established mpg estimates

Note that, you'll have to pay for gas forever with your SUV, and the price of gas keeps going up.

note that the car has exceeded its normal life before the price differential (even at $5 per gallon) is covered

On top of that is the environmental impact, which comes with its own set of economic concerns.

environmental concerns are important. Do you realize that hazardous heavy metals and other noxious chemicals are used in the batteries? What happens to the environment in the inevitable car crashes?

The point being, the difference in price for the Tesla is actually FAR lower when you extend your economic considerations past the front end payment.

I disagree. See the math above.

[iNow]

Cost of electricity = ? Certainly less than gas, but how much less? And how much will be charged for a battery swap when it is needed?

I can pretty much guarantee you all of these will be less than the cost of gas. This is ESPECIALLY the case if the homeowner has a solar or wind generation setup on their home. No matter what, though, even with todays grid, the cost will be less.

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car1.htm

To compare the cost per mile of gasoline cars to this electric car, here's an example. Electricity in North Carolina is about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour right now (4 cents if you use time-of-use billing and recharge at night). That means that for a full recharge, it costs $1 (or 50 cents with time-of-use billing). The cost per mile is therefore 2 cents per mile, or 1 cent with time-of-use. If gasoline costs $1.20 per gallon and a car gets 30 miles to the gallon, then the cost per mile is 4 cents per mile for gasoline.

 

Clearly, the "fuel" for electric vehicles costs a lot less per mile than it does for gasoline vehicles.

Now, at least DOUBLE the cost per gallon of fuel in the example above, since that's more inline with todays costs, and you see just how big the difference is. Now, put up some solar on your home, and you abate the entire cost of recharge altogether.

 

I'm just saying, no matter how you slice it, the battery option is cheaper once you move past myopic consideration of up front costs only.

 

 

 

Taking a standard car of 30 mpg; this gets 150,000 miles.

Right, but you said SUVs, and I don't know of any getting more than 30 mpg.

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/most-fuelefficient-suvs-306/overview/

 

 

 

As long as the price of gas is less than $5 per gallon, you will do even better.

And, how long do you suppose we'll be enjoying gas at less than $5 per gallon? Five, maybe six more years? Come on...

 

 

And sure, batteries can cause environmental issues. I never argued that they couldn't. However, it's much easier to mitigate those issues than the continued problems from the exhaust of burning petroleum. Also, I can't think of a single car accident I've ever seen/heard about where the battery spilled everywhere. I'm sure it happens, and would be of a higher likelihood in battery cars, but if that's the crux of your argument, you fail. There is simply no comparison between the exhaust fumes our petroleum based vehicles emit and the possible heavy metal spillage from the occasional car accident where battery powered cars are involved.

 

Anyway, sure... SUVs are neat... and make certain stuff easier, but I don't think they're as obligatory and unreplaceable as you seem to suggest.

[SH3RL0CK]

Ok, iNow we clearly disagree, so let me restate my cost arguement.

 

$25,000 in extra cost buys a lot of gasoline. Lets say $5 per gallon (twice the price now) as an average over the life of the car. (This assumes that at the current price of $2.50 per gallon, the price triples to $7.50 per gallon in a linear fashion by the end life of the car...a very conservative assumption.) This yeilds 5,000 gallons of gasoline that could be bought instead of buying the car.

 

Now 5,000 gallons of gasoline will result a milage of:

 

SUV (20 mpg) = 100,000 miles.

Car (30 mpg) = 150,000 miles.

Hybrid (50 mpg) = 250,000 miles.

 

This isn't a comparison between the relative price of gasoline or electricity. I'm assuming here the electricity is free (which it isn't and neither will the battery swap be free. Nor for that matter will your solar panel installation be free.).

 

This means you could have bought for your car and all the gas you need. Period. Or instead you simply bought an electric car. And now you must still buy the electricity/battery swaps. So I'm saying no matter how you slice it, the gasoline option is cheaper.

 

And a car, I might add, which has some potentially serious drawbacks (e.g. can't go further than 300 miles without a battery swap or charge for example).

 

This car simply doesn't make financial sense to me. However if the above math doesn't add up to your liking, go ahead and buy this car based upon your assumptions. Or go ahead and buy it to save the environment if you'd like; I have no objection to you buying whatever car you want.

[GDG]

Yes, this is a good start. I'd consider it for to and from work; but I'm not completely sold.

 

It isn't uncommon to need to haul more than 5 people (many couples have more than three kids). "Seating" for 5 people; but only two car seats (required by law) really means I can only carry four people if I have children. If I had three children (not uncommon), I should not buy this vehicle.

 

Three hundred miles is good to and from work; but I occasionally need to go further than that...and "up to" concerns me if I need to go, say, 250 miles in the rain. A quick charge and battery swap is good; but the places that have these aren't readily available on the road. If I use it to drive a lot (perhaps I use it to travel for work) I should not buy this vehicle.

 

What if I need to carry a large amount of "stuff" with me? This car isn't as capable as an SUV. If I will, even occasionally, need to haul "stuff" I should not buy this vehicle.

 

Most importantly, the cost of $50k is very high; I can buy a different vechicle for $25k; leaving me $25k to buy the extra gas. At a conservative $5 per gallon, this can buy 5k gallons; at a conservative 20 mpg milage this is equivalent to an 100,000 miles of travel. This car could even cost me more than buying a gas-guzzelling SUV (let alone an efficient Prius) and it has much less capability than a SUV.

 

Certainly, one can think of many excuses for owning an SUV, like perhaps the sudden desire to drive off-road, but I can't agree with most of yours.

Cost: The Suburban starts at $41K; Lincoln Navigator starts at $51K; Lexus SUVs range from $36.8K to $75.9K; the Porsche Cayenne ranges from $45K to $124,800. Sure you can probably find SUVs or SUV-like vehicles for cheaper, but the Tesla is well within the SUV price range, particularly considering the acceleration. Yes, you can get a Prius for less, but that isn't an SUV either, and meets even fewer of your requirements.

Gas Mileage: Suburban - 14-20 mpg to 10-15 mpg, depending on model; Navigator - 14-20 (for base model); Lexus - 18-24 to 12-18, depending on model; Cayenne - 14-20 mpg (for base model), 12-19 for the Turbo. So, it looks to me like 20 mpg is the top mileage for most SUVs. In contrast, it costs $4 to completely charge a Tesla.

Capacity: Seats 5 + 2 child seats, plus the trunk in front. I do have three children, and never had problems with a standard sedan: this seats even more. Or, if you're not hauling as many people, fold down the back seats. As far as I can tell, they haven't published the luggage capacity, other than to say that it is more than most sedans. Personally, if I had to haul around more stuff than that on occassion, I'd just rent a truck for that day. I can see if you were a building contractor, and had to move full sheets of plywood daily: in that case, you drive a pickup truck. Otherwise, this is just an excuse.

Range: Drive 300 miles, then take a break for 45 minutes while you charge the batter back up to 80%. After driving 300 miles, you probably need a 45 minute break. How often do you drive 300 miles without seeing a gas station? Any gas station will also have an electrical outlet.

 

It seems to me that most people who like SUVs do so either because (a) they consider them fashionable, and this fits with their image or concept of status, or (b) they enjoy the "emperor of the road" feeling of driving something that massive around on the streets. And many people justify them because they pull a boat twice a year, or spend a week in the mountains once a year. I prefer to drive something more ecological 98% of the time, and rent a truck only when needed. I have no use for an SUV at all.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

environmental concerns are important. Do you realize that hazardous heavy metals and other noxious chemicals are used in the batteries? What happens to the environment in the inevitable car crashes?

 

The Tesla uses lithium ion batteries; completely recyclable, and not classified as hazardous waste. Spilled gasoline, on the other hand, is much more hazardous.

[Mokele]

traveling about 200 miles per week

 

Is that an accurate figure? That's nearly 30 miles a day. Maybe it's hard for me to imagine, since 30 miles is "out of state" for me in any direction (or 'into the ocean' if headed south), but that's some serious commuting.

[Phi for All]

Is that an accurate figure? That's nearly 30 miles a day. Maybe it's hard for me to imagine, since 30 miles is "out of state" for me in any direction (or 'into the ocean' if headed south), but that's some serious commuting.

Sure it's accurate. I did half that at my last office job, and that was close, just 7.5 miles from home, and I considered that short commute, 17 minutes one way.

 

One thing that's not being considered is that the Tesla and EVs in general only have a small following at this point. Once electric cars and their infrastructure become more established, the costs are going to come down with competition.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Phi for All

[iNow]

This car simply doesn't make financial sense to me. However if the above math doesn't add up to your liking, go ahead and buy this car based upon your assumptions. Or go ahead and buy it to save the environment if you'd like; I have no objection to you buying whatever car you want.

That's where we differ, I suppose. I, in fact, DO have a problem with you and others buying cars that are more detrimental to my health and the well-being of my children (hell... detrimental to the vast majority of life on our entire planet... a well understood detriment... and a detriment that we KNOW is occurring and we KNOW how to avoid... I just see it as pure irresponsible selfishness, and... to be frank... completely childish and myopic).

 

Either way, I've got a motorcycle. Gets 55 mpg, and is really fun, too. When I need more, I get into my Lexus, but I try to limit it since it's simply not "necessary" most of the time. Fancy that.

 

Regardless of where we each stand on this issue, I'm not yet ready to completely dismiss the possibility of having an SUV that accomplishes all you need AND doesn't need petroleum, but some people... they call me a dreamer, and I'm not the only one.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is that an accurate figure? That's nearly 30 miles a day. Maybe it's hard for me to imagine, since 30 miles is "out of state" for me in any direction (or 'into the ocean' if headed south), but that's some serious commuting.

 

My girlfriend and her mom both travel 45 miles EACH way for work (all pretty much still within the same city)... 90 miles round trip... plus errands. Multiply that by 5 days... 400-500 miles every single week... EACH... 800-1,000 miles weekly across the two of them. It adds up, and electricity's cheapness becomes rather apparent in a hurry viewed in that context.

Edited June 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[John Cuthber]

Sure there were. They were called "wagons", and while they didn't use fossil fuels, they were actually *worse* in terms of energy efficiency because, well, there's no "off" switch on the horse or horses needed to pull them.

 

The need to move large objects, or large quantities of objects, to very specific places (moreso than rail or boat, at least) has been around since the dawn of agriculture, and will continue long after cars are all electric. The issue is how to make those same vehicles more ecologically friendly and energy efficient.

 

A (literally) 4 horse-power wagon hardly counts as a gas guzler.

Imagine the manure problem if a typical vehicle was drawn by 100 horses.

That's the essential problem here; too much energy use.

[JohnB]

Is that an accurate figure? That's nearly 30 miles a day.

I generally clock up over 300 klms per week. It's not hard.

 

As to the SUV thing. Personally I think it's bollocks. Unless you regularly drive off road there is nothing that an SUV can do that a station wagon can't. As for pulling a boat or caravan, sedans and station wagons have been doing that for decades.

 

I see points both for and against the Tesla car. The against being mainly that if rear ended, your two "rear facing" kids are going to lose their legs. You want to move 7 people? Get a mini bus.

 

The second is this claim

The car fits seven people and their luggage:

Might be true provided nobody has anything bigger than an overnight bag.

 

Also, who gives a rat if it can do 120 mph? There are no roads in Oz where such speeds are legal. "Yea, I've got a car that does 120. Of course there's nowhere I can drive it at that speed." Bit of a waste of time really.

 

Rather than trying to make an electric that does everything an IC car can do, make one that does what electric does best. Commute.

 

What's wrong with having two cars? An IC for long trips and a cheap electric for commuting?

 

I'd love to be able to buy one that gets 100 klms per charge and charges overnight while it's at home. So long as it has A/C and a radio/CD/MP3 player, I'm happy. I only want it for commuting, I've got the Ford for long trips.

[insane_alien]

What's wrong with having two cars?

 

cost.

 

there a lot of families who can barely afford the running costs of 1 car never mind two. and i'm not talking merely about the fuel, the insurance and tax and MOT and servicing.

[Mokele]

As to the SUV thing. Personally I think it's bollocks. Unless you regularly drive off road there is nothing that an SUV can do that a station wagon can't. As for pulling a boat or caravan, sedans and station wagons have been doing that for decades.

 

However, there's also not that much difference in gas mileage, either. A bit of googling shows station wagons getting in the teens and low 20's, comparable to an SUV. So why would they be a better choice? It seems as if you're stuck with poor gas mileage if you need to move any appreciably large objects around.