MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
of western engineering unstoppable tidal wave, who needs oil any more ... it's hard to resist the appeal of a slightly dull car that costs 30K and gives you free journeys
**** me thats impressive. Probably the first electric car actually worth buying.
And for that reason, I'm out.25 - 50 miles of pure battery driving and ...
Up to 310 miles with extended range with on-board generator
25 - 50 miles of pure battery driving and ...
Up to 310 miles with extended range with on-board generator
And for that reason, I'm out.
Because you cant be bothered to stop for petrol at 310 mile intervals, rather than 4-500 mile intervals? Even if it cuts your consumption to 1/4?
impressive technology but the price point is still too high
say £15K more than a similar diesel car
That would buy around 10000 litres of fuel, enough for - maybe - 100K miles?
that's obviously not anywhere near the whole story but it's a simple sum a lot of folks will do
Read a road test in 'Car' magazine a few months ago, where they drove one a coupla thousand miles in the States, recharging where they could overnight. Got somthing like 35 mpg overall. Which seemed like a big ole waste of time...... After all, my wifes 207 diesel cost 12k new and has 55mpg on the trip at the moment......
I'm a bit more excited by the Renault Zoe.... Pure electric, 130 mile range, recharges in 1/2 an hour all for 13.5k.....
25-50 miles of pure battery driving...
for my commute in the country, 30 miles a day, that means free travel !
if i was about to buy an audi estate or something (not, unfortunately), then i'd be in a right pickle for the first time, whether to buy this vauxhall.
will check out the 'zoe' shame about the name?
I fear that in real world use you won't get anywhere near the claimed mpg. All it serves to do is give company car drivers a lower BIK.
Look at the Fiat 500 twin air. On the EU rollers test run that it's optimised for it does 70mpg. Real world magazine tests suggest it'll do 45mpg. Assuming either do save you money it'll take years to recoup, if ever.
or my commute in the country, 30 miles a day, that means free travel !
if i was about to buy an audi estate or something
if you were buying an Audi estate, it would be unlikely to be for purely commuting
you really need to do the sums against something more comparable
How far did the magazine testers do each day? Most people don't drive very far each day. The car makes a lot of sense if you can do your usual commute on the battery only.
not at £30K it doesn't
The theory is sound. Any engine has an rpm and load range where it will work at its most fuel efficient in pure petrol in, energy out terms. Driving normally you might do well to be in that range 5% of the time. Use the engine to run a generator, and it can be in it 100% of the time.
Edit: sounds like the engine is a 1.4 and there is some kind of direct drive mechanism. To run an engine to generate electricity at max efficiency, you'd probably be looking at a tiny 10 to 15hp job to cruise at 60 and put some juice in the battery pack.
30 odd grand odd is way too much though. Unless you're doing insane mileage or intend to keep the car for a very long time, a bluemotion or similar is going to be cheaper.
VW blue motion golf - 65 mpg easily without having to think about trying to be frugal
Mini diesel clubman claimed - 72 mpg never got above 58 without driving like a saint
Mitsubishi electric car - 92 mile range - dealer got squeaky bum time when I did 40 miles on a test drive
Electric's not there yet stuck with VW diesels there fantastic 67 miles each way to work so I've tried every decent combo
See all these new cars are pretty cool but with all these electronic and battery technologies the rate of advancement should be pretty rapid.
I a year, maybe 2 there may be a big jump forward in mpg returns. That makes me want to spend a little longer making a decision. Eventually you have to step in and decide and buy but i wouldn't want to buy one now for only 2 years into its lifespan there is something more amazing and saving you more long term that the 2 years spent on a normal car is paid back.
But why is it when they come up with something (relatively, for cars anyway) groundbreaking they let the first year Designer in to basically **** up the basics...
Fancy touch-sensitive buttons, cabin with pillar-obscuring views, spoiler low enough for speedhumps, crap ride etc.
For Anyone who isn't looking at a new £30k car it won't make (financial) sense, but for those that do and also only cover shortish distances (and looking at the expensive newish cars parked in the station car parks when I go into London) - a lot of people will consider one.
When they start producing one that looks as timeless as a 911 with decent performance to boot ill be interested. Sadly I can't ever see myself having 30+ thousand to spend on a car
[i]Sadly I can't ever see myself having 30+ thousand to spend on a car [/i]
But it isn't aimed at people like ourselves, who either can't or won't (current car was £42k new, and I paid £2.5k four years ago) spend that kinda money. But to really make the difference they need people like us to buy it s/h in the future.
And you see a lot of older Prius's, so Toyota must have done something right.
A lot will depend on the lease cost. If it comes in under £350 a month, they'll do well from people who pay for their own fuel in their company car. Combined with the 5% BIK tax it may be more attractive to people who want to support new technology.
It's a pitty that the look and feel of the car are both a bit clunky, so the driver experience won't yet prise people from their 3 Series'.
And you see a lot of older Prius's, so Toyota must have done something right.
Thats because the batteries only have a life span of around 7 years and cost £12k to replace.
or my commute in the country, 30 miles a day, that means free travel !
So your electricity is free too and the massive depreciation and running costs of a £30k car are unaccountable too 🙄
For my personal ecomomy, a plug in lease car would be perfect. I've got a short commute, which I pay fuel for (when I can't cycle), and get paid 16p per mile for work miles, for which I also pay fuel. My employer pays for the lease, maintenance and insurance. As long as the lease falls roughly within what they're prepared to pay, I'm quids in.
That said, I'm tired of driving white goods, so will proably pay the extra for something fun this time.
If any of you read EVO, Metcalf had one recently, selection of twitter quotes.
Interesting car the Ampera, achieved 37miles on battery during 62mile journey. Used 0.7gal of fuel driving like a loon so that's '87.9mpg'
biggest issue with Ampera is mpg when battery used up but got closer to 50mpg this afternoon
137 mile round trip in Ampera today, full battery to start but no charge at lunch stop. Av 47.3mpg (35miles was on battery). Disappointed
An Ampera? “I'm disappointed..” Correct; seems to only makes sense if your journey is mainly on battery power 🙁
Ampera best EV I've driven but price will always be the issue as you're buying a car with 3 engines & huge battery
Doesn't sound like the answer. Where did you get 235mpg from?
When they start producing one that looks as timeless as a 911 with decent performance to boot ill be interested.
For the money, you could have yourself a used 911, and run it...
It does seem like an excessive outlay. But I suppose we should be thankful people are willing to spend it. Otherwise development would cease. So it's all for a good cause.
Though I'm still not massively convinced by the electric car in general.
"So your electricity is free too and the massive depreciation and running costs of a £30k car are unaccountable too'
i read it costs a pound to charge it overnight
Doesn't sound like the answer. Where did you get 235mpg from?
I imagine the figure is derived by sticking the distances that a person typically drives in a histogram, recording the fuel consumption of those over 30 miles then dividing that by all the miles driven.
I'm a bit more excited by the Renault Zoe.... Pure electric, 130 mile range, recharges in 1/2 an hour all for 13.5k.....
Sounds impressive!
/googles - Ah..
The battery pack is £70 a month on top. Renault argues that electricity is cheap and you'd probably spend £70 a month on petrol on your normal supermini.
Wow, awesome, so i [b]only[/b] have to spend [b]£30k[/b] to get [b]free[/b] journeys, where do i sign.......... 😉
The MPG is false because it ignores the energy already in the battery. If we all switch to electric cars we'll need an awful lot more power stations.
Thats because the batteries only have a life span of around 7 years and cost £12k to replace.
Lol, every time someone comes out with that the cost gets higher and the lifetime gets shorter 🙂
- typical Prius battery lifetime is that of the car, lots of people having done 2-300k miles on the same battery
- there are failures like any other component but they are on individual cells which are cheap to replace
- there are far more second hand batteries available from crashed cars than there are failures
- the battery is not a consumable item like it is on your laptop
Re the ampera - I think the petrol engine is not connected to the wheels, but I could be wrong. I like the idea - many people do daily journeys of less than 40 miles, so that would work out nicely. As for the mpg figures on petrol - hard to say. If you did 40 miles on battery and then drove 20 on petrol, does it try to re-charge the battery as well as drive the car? That would make economy look bad. It would be better if you could select distance mode before you started a long trip to avoid that situation.
The govt mpg tests don't work properly with cars with big batteries - neither do the US EPA ones, I think they are working on better tests.
Though I'm still not massively convinced by the electric car in general.
Well - it's perfect for city driving or short journeys, cost notwithstanding. However they are expensive and you'd need another car to do long trips, which makes it an extremely expensive nicety. Of course there are many people who have a second car that never leaves the city, but they are usually cheap not £25k. This is where I think the Ampera could win, because it's one car that does both things.
A Golf might do 65mpg but it's not a direct comparison because it depends how you drive the car. If you commute 30 miles every day and do 5k miles of say leisure driving, you'd be paying for 12k miles of diesel at 65mpg (not that you'd get that commuting) costing £260. If you used an Ampera you'd be paying for 5k miles at 45mpg (if that's what it does) costing say £150. One would assume the cost of the electricity would come in under £100, anyone have figures?
I commute 67 miles to salford on a regular basis and get 65 mpg in a golf blue motion diesel 1.6
that's doing 70mph on motorway for 50 miles, 10 miles of country lanes and the rest stop start through traffic to the centre of manchester / salford.
EV / Hybrids only really work on the city stop start leg that's where the benefit is, but for the costs etc... they're not significantly beneficial in costs etc...
I've tried to think of all options and have even approached company to pay for electric charge point in the car park, they can benefit from good CSR, but its just not worth it at the moment as the tech isn't there. Although I do feel it does need people to buy these vehicles to advance the tech.
EV / Hybrids only really work on the city stop start leg that's where the benefit is
Not really, the newer Prius can get 65-70mpg and that's using petrol which is cheaper and better for the environment. Ours gets better economy on motorways than round town, as all cars do. It just doesn't go down as much in town as other cars.
I get an average of about 50mpg out of my Prius, and most of my journeys are short, stop start in town. It's least economical when it hasn't warmed up. On an 80 mile round trip between Norwich and Ipswich it averages about 75mpg. A Plug in Prius, or and Ampera would cost me next to nothing in town and do nearly twice the mpg on a run. That's quite compelling. They're pretty dull though.
If the predominantly fossil fuels used to make the electricity for electric cars were taxed like vehicle fuel then electric cars would cost more to run than conventional cars.
My figures are aproximate but, Fossil fuel power stations are about 30 to 50% efficient, with internal combustion engines about 20%. Even after the power transmission losses, I can see why the argument that electric cars are more environmental should stand true, and cheaper once the technology improves.
[img] 
[/img]
Not a bad looking car either
Just wish they could make electric cars look like this:
[img] 
[/img]
My figures are aproximate but, Fossil fuel power stations are about 30 to 50% efficient, with internal combustion engines about 20%.
Sources? Not much difference IIRC with both at around 33%, I'll do some Googling now.
IFP Petrol engine 36%, diesel 42%.
NETL US oal fired powerstation: 32.5%. Gas stations are more efficent, up to 49%, but if you are charging at night you'll hopefully be on coal or nuclear.
My Smart CDi has averaged 67.3mpg over 27000 miles mostly driven on narrow hilly country lanes, if I take it on au longer run I can get into the mid 70's. The idea of an electric car appeals to me as I work at a power station and a free top up when I get to work would be handy, but the price of the car would have to come down a long way.
The best fossil fuel power stations are just under 50% efficient. Then, typically:
The national grid plus local distribution domestic network is 93% efficient. Li ion battery charging is 98% efficient. Electric cars are 88% efficient.
So absolute best case scenario an electric car is actually 40% efficient. In any weather when you need the car's heating the efficiency drops as there isn't the waste heat available as in a 35% efficient diesel car. That's ignoring cradle-grave efficiency. If you're going to burn fossil fuels then combined heat and power is a good solution but complex to implement - except in cars where we've had it for about a century...
The best fossil fuel power stations are just under 50% efficient
You are ignoring the duty cycle - ie how the engine is used. Trundle around London all day and you'll still be 40% efficient in an electric car, but your IC efficieny will plummet in terms of mpg. Electric motors are a much better fit for that kind of usage. However IC engines are more practical for longer journeys currently. Which is why the Ampera is such a damn good idea.
It's also worth remembering if the country's generating capacity increases to 20% renewables or whatever the target is, then your electric car is also using 20% renewable energy, as opposed to 0-5% if you are using petrol or diesel. You don't have to do anything.
the batteries only have a life span of around 7 years and cost £12k to replace.
Eh? Are you talking about the Ampera (which hasn't come out yet so I'm not sure where you get the lifespan and future cost figures from) or the Prius (for which your 'data' is utter nonsense).
When they start producing one that looks as timeless as a 911 with decent performance to boot ill be interested. Sadly I can't ever see myself having 30+ thousand to spend on a car
So an ultra-efficient, high performance car that looks as good as a 911 and costs less than 30 grand? You don't ask for much! 😉
If you're going to look at power stations, don't you also need to factor in how much energy is used to actually get the petrol to the pumps too?
Interesting car the Ampera, achieved 37miles on battery during 62mile journey. Used 0.7gal of fuel driving like a loon so that's '87.9mpg'
That's some dodgy maths there. 62-37=25 miles run on petrol. This equates to 37mpg which is not stunning.
This equates to 37mpg which is not stunning
Unless it was also recharging a flat battery at the same time. See, I'd want some control over how much battery it used vs how much petrol. If for example you knew you were going to finish your journey in a city you'd want to save all your battery power for then.