# Hybrid cars in ski area



## jack97 (May 4, 2014)

I went thru the purchase of a used car scenario recently so I was noticing what was available in the used car market. Used hybrids are coming into my price range, just wondering if you or someone you know drives a hybrid during the winter to ski area and how they handle in the snow. What type acceleration it has in cold weather driving.


----------



## joshua segal (May 4, 2014)

A total aside, but Killington announced they are installing charging stations this summer for the all-electric cars.


----------



## twinplanx (May 4, 2014)

joshua segal said:


> A total aside, but Killington announced they are installing charging stations this summer for the all-electric cars.



That's pretty sweet actually, but I was under the impression Hybrids have issues with the cold. Don't know? 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## jack97 (May 4, 2014)

newest model hybrids (gas and electric engines) made by toyota and ford have plug ins. that way the gas engine is not the only means to charge the battery. 

Prices for these new models are still on the steep side. It would irk me to buy something that expensive and have a large depreciation within months.


----------



## Edd (May 4, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> That's pretty sweet actually, but I was under the impression Hybrids have issues with the cold. Don't know?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



Lowers their mileage. 

I was seriously considering it 4-5 years ago but my drives into ski country were a factor. After test driving the 2nd generation Prius I decided on a Forester instead. I didn't expect to be wowed by the test drive but I plainly disliked it. The few hybrid 4x4s out there are too rich for my blood but hopefully there'll be something out there for me when I'm in the market in 5 years or so. 


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## Savemeasammy (May 4, 2014)

Have you considered diesel?  Our vw gets upper 30's low 40's for mileage.  We haven't had issues with the cold, and the torquey engine does well with the hills.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VTKilarney (May 4, 2014)

I'm not sure about the used market, but Consumer Reports did a study a couple of years ago that showed that almost no Hybrids saved drivers enough gas to recoup the higher expense of the vehicle itself.  The best deal, IIRC, was a VW diesel.  Also, make sure that the batteries are not going to need replacement at some point at your expense.

While I don't own one, I have been VERY impressed with the VW diesels.  Diesel engines have come a LONG way since the 1980s.  My only complaint is that VW does not make the Passat or Jetta with a diesel engine and AWD (at least when I last looked a couple of years ago).

I believe the Audi A-3 has a diesel option - or will soon.  Does the Mazda CX-5 have one yet?


----------



## abc (May 4, 2014)

What are hybrid good for? High mileage commuter? Travelling saleman?

Saving the planet is all well and good. But I'm not one who has a large pot of "play money" to throw at a social cause. I need a REAL advantage for owning a hybrid car. Can the saving in operating cost more than offset the high purchase price during the ownership of the car?


----------



## VTKilarney (May 4, 2014)

abc said:


> Can the saving in operating cost more than offset the high purchase price during the ownership of the car?


 It's not quite as bad as I remembered: http://consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/hybrids-diesels-do-they-save-money/index.htm

You should also keep in mind that driving patterns can play a big role in actual fuel economy for hybrid vehicles.  As a general rule, the more steady speed highway driving you do, the less benefit you will experience from a hybrid power train.

There is also a raging debate as to whether or not the overall environmental impact is lower with a hybrid vehicle - even with their improved fuel economy.


----------



## jack97 (May 4, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I'm not sure about the used market, but Consumer Reports did a study a couple of years ago that showed that almost no Hybrids saved drivers enough gas to recoup the higher expense of the vehicle itself.  The best deal, IIRC, was a VW diesel.  Also, make sure that the batteries are not going to need replacement at some point at your expense.



def agree that a new car, a hybrid will never recoup the cost. Not sure about the used car market, I saw hybrids close to gasoline prices. The unknown was maintenance or repair cost for a hybrid with high mileage. Most likely with other companies going into the hybrid market, the used market will change in a few years.


----------



## jack97 (May 4, 2014)

abc said:


> What are hybrid good for? High mileage commuter? Travelling saleman?
> 
> Saving the planet is all well and good. But I'm not one who has a large pot of "play money" to throw at a social cause.



Since this will save us from "living dangerously", I would love to hear from the AGW believers about their hybrids or diesels when going to ski country.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 4, 2014)

I own a Prius. I save a ton of money.  I can get 65mpg driving on the highway with little effort.  In the winter, I can get 55mpg on the highway.  It definitely pays off in fuel savings.  I have taken it skiing.  But I would be concerned in bad weather.  It sucks in the snow.  I can't even make it up my driveway in the snow!  I use a Jeep this year to go to the mountains.

I use 50% less fuel then I used to with a Honda Accord.  I put a lot of miles on the car, so it works out for me financially to be a win.  I save almost $2500 per year in gas.


----------



## dlague (May 4, 2014)

My brother in law had a Prius and while it was great on gas he often could not use it when roads were snowy and after couple if years traded it in!   I do not have a hybrid but my 8 cylinder SUV shuts down 4 cylinders when it dies not need it. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Savemeasammy (May 4, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Since this will save us from "living dangerously", I would love to hear from the AGW believers about their hybrids or diesels when going to ski country.



I don't fit your description, but we bought a tdi for the improved fuel economy (which is off set some by the cost of diesel fuel), and also for the perceived longevity of the engine.  I am hoping for a relatively low cost of ownership.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hawkshot99 (May 4, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> I own a Prius. I save a ton of money.  I can get 65mpg driving on the highway with little effort.



Comments like this are very common when talking about mileage claims.  Pretty much ALWAYS way over claiming the #'s.  I find it very hard to believe you are getting 16mpg better than the Toyota #'s(which are usually quite hard to achieve in anything less than perfect conditions.)

I drive a truck that if Im lucky Ill get 19mpg out of.....


----------



## steamboat1 (May 4, 2014)

joshua segal said:


> A total aside, but Killington announced they are installing charging stations this summer for the all-electric cars.



Powered with cow manure.


----------



## abc (May 4, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> It sucks in the snow.  I can't even make it up my driveway in the snow!  I use a Jeep this year to go to the mountains.


I'm not quite understanding it. Does it have poor traction tires? I can't imagine the hybrid power output is so poor it can't make it up a driveway, if it can make it up the highway on ramp...


----------



## jack97 (May 5, 2014)

abc said:


> I'm not quite understanding it. Does it have poor traction tires? I can't imagine the hybrid power output is so poor it can't make it up a driveway, if it can make it up the highway on ramp...



I knew someone who bought a prious when it was first introduced. He said it was a light weight car and can feel it veer on windy days on the highway. I can easily understand not making it  up on driveways if the front tires do not have enuf weight on the car. 

I've been driving small economy cars for well over 30 years. Over the years, companies are making them lighter to past a fleet mpg mandate I guess. I've noticed even some of the cars are having trouble making up a reasonable incline with little snow. I'm on my second civic after putting over 200k on the first and that car can go thru reasonable snow cover.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2014)

I drive a Mazda 3 which is a light car.  With snows and a manual transmission the car is very capable in snow, even on hills.  I avg about 34 mpg combined in winter and 36 in the summer with a heavy foot.  Hell of a lot more fun to drive than a Prius to.  You could probably get a 2012 for a good price.


----------



## xwhaler (May 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I drive a Mazda 3 which is a light car.  With snows and a manual transmission the car is very capable in snow, even on hills.  I avg about 34 mpg combined in winter and 36 in the summer with a heavy foot.  Hell of a lot more fun to drive than a Prius to.  You could probably get a 2012 for a good price.



What yr Mazda 3 DHS? 2.0L or 2.3?  My commuter daily driver is an 06 3 w/ auto trans and 2.0 L and I do 95% highway miles averaging around 31/32 mpg. Still rolling great at 165k


----------



## Glenn (May 5, 2014)

Hybrids are equipped with low rolling resistance tires. This helps with MPG, but they're not that great for handling. But most people who by these cars aren't getting much of a thrill out of the off-ramp. Low rolling resistance tires have a harder rubber compound. This is exacerbated when the cold weather rolls in. Low rolling resistance tires are not good in the snow. If you plan to take a hybrid skiing or just drive it where it snows, get snow tires. I've seen hybrids with stock tires stuck on some pretty low pitch hills.


----------



## abc (May 5, 2014)

Glenn said:


> Hybrids are equipped with low rolling resistance tires. This helps with MPG, but they're not that great for handling. But most people who by these cars aren't getting much of a thrill out of the off-ramp. Low rolling resistance tires have a harder rubber compound. This is exacerbated when the cold weather rolls in. Low rolling resistance tires are not good in the snow. If you plan to take a hybrid skiing or just drive it where it snows, get snow tires. I've seen hybrids with stock tires stuck on some pretty low pitch hills.


Ah! That explains it. 

How are the stopping distance of those "low rolling resistance tire"? In the rain?

(Being a mtn biker, I'm particularly aware of how tires affects "performance", aka speed, braking, cornering. I have "quiver" of tires the way many of you have quiver of skis)


----------



## ChicoKat (May 5, 2014)

We live in Campton NH and our Subraru Outback wagon with snow tires was great. My opinion it is the best car for New England winters unless you really need the use of 4 wheel drive for other purposes. The hybrid is the socially responsible way to go and your gas mileage will be infinite as it sits in your driveway all winter!


----------



## steamboat1 (May 5, 2014)

Glenn said:


> Hybrids are equipped with low rolling resistance tires. This helps with MPG, but they're not that great for handling. But most people who by these cars aren't getting much of a thrill out of the off-ramp. Low rolling resistance tires have a harder rubber compound. This is exacerbated when the cold weather rolls in. Low rolling resistance tires are not good in the snow. If you plan to take a hybrid skiing or just drive it where it snows, get snow tires. I've seen hybrids with stock tires stuck on some pretty low pitch hills.


This is true with any car. Snow tires are made with a softer rubber that coupled with the difference in thread design offer much better traction in snow. The only downside to snow tires is you will lose a little in gas mileage. With my car (Subaru Outback Sport) I lose about 2-3 mpg highway with the snow tires on..


----------



## spring_mountain_high (May 5, 2014)

abc said:


> I'm not quite understanding it. Does it have poor traction tires? I can't imagine the hybrid power output is so poor it can't make it up a driveway, if it can make it up the highway on ramp...



wife has one and it absolutely sucks in the snow...light engine, not enough weight on front wheels...also, there is zero feedback from the engine to the pedal so you have very little feel for what the wheels are doing...even with good tires it has difficulty with even moderate hills in the snow, and if you are trying to go uphill from a full stop, well forget about it


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> * Consumer Reports did a study a couple of years ago that showed that almost no Hybrids saved drivers enough gas to recoup the higher expense of the vehicle* itself.



When I was getting my MBA, this was my final project!   I arrived at the same conclusion.  

They ranged from, "bad deal" to "throwing away a ****load of money" for a small low-performance vehicle.   Gas has increased in price since then, and the technology has improved, but my WAG is that there's probably still not a hybrid vehicle made that saves the buyer money.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I'm not sure about the used market, but Consumer Reports did a study a couple of years ago that showed that almost no Hybrids saved drivers enough gas to recoup the higher expense of the vehicle itself.  The best deal, IIRC, was a VW diesel.  Also, make sure that the batteries are not going to need replacement at some point at your expense.
> 
> While I don't own one, I have been VERY impressed with the VW diesels.  Diesel engines have come a LONG way since the 1980s.  My only complaint is that VW does not make the Passat or Jetta with a diesel engine and AWD (at least when I last looked a couple of years ago).
> 
> I believe the Audi A-3 has a diesel option - or will soon.  Does the Mazda CX-5 have one yet?





abc said:


> What are hybrid good for? High mileage commuter? Travelling saleman?
> 
> Saving the planet is all well and good. But I'm not one who has a large pot of "play money" to throw at a social cause. I need a REAL advantage for owning a hybrid car. Can the saving in operating cost more than offset the high purchase price during the ownership of the car?



Diesels are best if you do a lot of highway miles. If you do lots of city driving a hybrid is a better option. Not sure about hybrids. but the breakeven on a diesel is 4-5 years depending on how much you drive.

Supposedly the new VW Sportwagon will have available AWD and Diesel. The holy grail for me (as long as there is a 6sp too), but I'll believe it when I see them in the showrooms.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 5, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Comments like this are very common when talking about mileage claims.  Pretty much ALWAYS way over claiming the #'s.  I find it very hard to believe you are getting 16mpg better than the Toyota #'s(which are usually quite hard to achieve in anything less than perfect conditions.)
> 
> I drive a truck that if Im lucky Ill get 19mpg out of.....



VW Diesels tend to over perform the official mileage estimates. And the mileage on Diesels gets better as the engine breaks in. Mine is listed as 41mpg hwy. In the summer when I'm doing pure hwy I can easily get 45-46 on a drive.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 5, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> *Comments like this are very common when talking about mileage claims.  Pretty much ALWAYS way over claiming the #'s.*  I find it very hard to believe you are getting 16mpg better than the Toyota #'s(which are usually quite hard to achieve in anything less than perfect conditions.)



Yup.

As a rule of thumb, hybrid cars get approximately 20% less MPG than their sticker claims and standard cars get something like 5% to 10% MPG less than their sticker claims.  

This is not altogether surprising.  When your #1 sales pitch is "gas savings", it's likely to be the #1 thing the manufacturer lies about.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, hybrid cars get approximately 20% less MPG than their sticker claims and standard cars get something like 5% to 10% MPG less than their sticker claims.
> 
> This is not altogether surprising.  When your #1 sales pitch is "gas savings", it's likely to be the #1 thing the manufacturer lies about.



My Subaru gets considerably better mileage than what was advertised.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 5, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> *My Subaru gets considerably better mileage than what was advertised.*



As Hawkshot noted, people always say this, but it's almost impossible.

Do you not drive your car in Winter?  
Do you never use the AC or heat?  
Do you only drive on nice warm days, with zero wind and only after testing the temperature of the pavement you're driving on? 
 Do you go unrealistically long stretches without ever applying the brakes?
Do you never go faster than 55 or 60mph?

Because those are the favorable conditions used for MPG stickers, and it's highly unlikely that you can beat them.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> As Hawkshot noted, people always say this, but it's almost impossible.
> 
> Do you not drive your car in Winter?
> Do you never use the AC or heat?
> ...



Really don't care what you think. The car was rated 27mpg highway when I bought it. With snow tires on the car I get 28mpg highway. With all season tires I get 31mpg highway. This is on long drives to VT. using the Taconic State Pkwy. which many of you know isn't exactly flat.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> When I was getting my MBA, this was my final project!   I arrived at the same conclusion.
> 
> They ranged from, "bad deal" to "throwing away a ****load of money" for a small low-performance vehicle.   Gas has increased in price since then, and the technology has improved, but my WAG is that there's probably still not a hybrid vehicle made that saves the buyer money.



I think your analysis is wrong about the Prius.  I'm saving $2500 per year in gas.  The incremental cost of the car isn't even $2500 higher than standard car.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 5, 2014)

I think I have averaged about 52mpg over the lifetime of the car so far.  I can achieve 65mpg commuting to my work, a very long distance almost all highway.  This is in the spring and fall.  In the winter, with the heat, I can get mid 50's.  I drive the speed limit of 65 mph.  

The best I have done is 68mpg commuting to work by going 55mph, accelerating while driving downhilll and slowing down while driving up hill.

I used to be a Masshole driver going 80 to 90mph to work and back.  I started driving the speed limit with a Honda Accord and was able to average 31mpg, which was above sticker. Way less stress.

Of course, I should not work so far from my house.  That would be the green thing to do.

Subarus are great for north country.  My other car is a Jeep Wrangler and that does really well in the snow.


----------



## VTKilarney (May 5, 2014)

Wasn't there a big change a couple of years ago in the way that the automakers could report MPG estimates?  Maybe this is why vehicles meet or beat MPG estimates now.


----------



## Edd (May 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Wasn't there a big change a couple of years ago in the way that the automakers could report MPG estimates?  Maybe this is why vehicles meet or beat MPG estimates now.



Yeah there was. Can't remember if it was before or after but Hyundai and Ford both got called out for claiming unrealistically high mileage on certain models.  


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, hybrid cars get approximately 20% less MPG than their sticker claims and standard cars get something like 5% to 10% MPG less than their sticker claims.
> 
> This is not altogether surprising.  When your #1 sales pitch is "gas savings", it's likely to be the #1 thing the manufacturer lies about.


This isn't true....One of my cars is a 2013 Prius. The sticker calls for 48 hwy 50 city. 48 hwy is dead on unless you drive 55mph. City I have gotten over 70mpg for the entire tank of gas but I can't drive like that all the time the average city is around 55 to 60 mpg for me. The car has plenty of power 130 HP and will do over 115 mph...The car is super stable in the wind and at high speeds due to the 2nd best production aerodynamics made...............That said it sucks in the snow. My biggest problem with it is that you cant turn off the traction control so it cuts power when the tires spin and you can come to a stop on a hill. I only take it to the hills in fall and spring when I know the roads will be clear


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2014)

xwhaler said:


> What yr Mazda 3 DHS? 2.0L or 2.3?  My commuter daily driver is an 06 3 w/ auto trans and 2.0 L and I do 95% highway miles averaging around 31/32 mpg. Still rolling great at 165k



2012  2.0L - first year of "Skyactiv"

Jess has a 2013 with 2.3L.  She's averaging closer to what you do.  I'm guessing the improvement in fuel economy is due to the lighter weight of the newer models and longer gear ratios.


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> As Hawkshot noted, people always say this, but it's almost impossible.
> 
> Do you not drive your car in Winter?
> Do you never use the AC or heat?
> ...


 I can't disagree more....I have gotten better then sticker in every car I own.


----------



## 2Planker (May 5, 2014)

My  '06 A4 Quattro is rated at 29mpg on the highway and easily gets 33+....   I drive 65-70 w/ the cruise on, and run on Blizzaks from Thanksgiving till April.  2.0 four cyl. turbo w/ a 6 spd stick - Best winter combo out there !


----------



## bobbutts (May 6, 2014)

Prius gets great MPG if you take minutes to go from 0-30 at every single light from what I can gather.
I propose, you got an efficient car, use full throttle more.


----------



## Glenn (May 6, 2014)

abc said:


> Ah! That explains it.
> 
> How are the stopping distance of those "low rolling resistance tire"? In the rain?
> 
> (Being a mtn biker, I'm particularly aware of how tires affects "performance", aka speed, braking, cornering. I have "quiver" of tires the way many of you have quiver of skis)



I'm sure they're a bit different, but I can't say how much for certain. Tirerack.com probably has some good info there. 

Low rolling resistance tires tend to be on: any car with a hybrid drive-train and any car that has an "eco" badge or uses the word "environment" in their advertising.


----------



## abc (May 6, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Prius gets great MPG if you take minutes to go from 0-30 at every single light from what I can gather.
> I propose, you got an efficient car, use full throttle more.


Well, since everything being equal, a hybrid car even at full throttle will use less fuel to go from 0-30 than a regular car. 

The question is more on what compromise the lighter hybrid with "low rolling resistant tire" is. I think that's what the OP was trying to get at too. If the cause of poor winter performance of hybrid is ONLY due to tires, can you put snow tires on a it to have your cake and eat it too?


----------



## pcampbell (May 6, 2014)

Wow I get like 20-22mpg in my Outback.  However... it's a 750 ft climb  back from just about anywhere, all severe service and "city" driving.

How are the roads there? Suspension takes a beating here and reasonably priced parts  seems to be something that is nice to have.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 6, 2014)

abc said:


> * If the cause of poor winter performance of hybrid is ONLY due to tires*, can you put snow tires on a it to have your cake and eat it too?



It's not, it's mainly attributable to gas usage.  Hybrid cars "sticker MPG" are conducted under optimal conditions, and that includes temperature.  And the effect causes a larger drop in MPG for hybrid cars than it does for regular cars.

 The other thing to consider is the gas itself.  The winter blend of gas is less energetic than the regular blend, so you get whacked there a bit too.


----------



## x10003q (May 6, 2014)

Diesel is a great choice for highway miles, but they are also better than gas for local driving also (same vehicle). There is a premium when you purchase a diesel, but you get that back when you sell a diesel. The range on a diesel might allow you to drive to the ski area and back without having to fill up with expensive north country diesel. The VW TDI diesels are known for being able to exceed the EPA highway numbers without using hypermiling techniques. 

Diesel engines also last longer than gas engines so depending on how long you run cars this might be a factor.


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 6, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not, it's mainly attributable to gas usage.  Hybrid cars "sticker MPG" are conducted under optimal conditions, and that includes temperature.  And the effect causes a larger drop in MPG for hybrid cars than it does for regular cars.
> 
> The other thing to consider is the gas itself.  The winter blend of gas is less energetic than the regular blend, so you get whacked there a bit too.



Many prius drivers block a portion of the grill and achieve almost the same gas mileage as they did in the summer..although I dont bother with that.


----------



## ceo (May 6, 2014)

I've long thought that charging stations at ski areas were a great idea. Actually, that applies to any destination one might drive some distance to and leave the car parked for a while, that's within one-way electric car range but not round-trip.


----------



## abc (May 6, 2014)

ALLSKIING said:


> Many prius drivers block a portion of the grill and achieve almost the same gas mileage as they did in the summer..although I dont bother with that.


Why?


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 6, 2014)

For those that say people over claim there mpg


----------



## wa-loaf (May 6, 2014)

abc said:


> Why?



In the cold the engine heats up faster and doesn't work as hard to stay warm. Cold engines burn more fuel.


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 6, 2014)

abc said:


> Why?



Why I don't do it or why do they?


----------



## x10003q (May 7, 2014)

ceo said:


> I've long thought that charging stations at ski areas were a great idea. Actually, that applies to any destination one might drive some distance to and leave the car parked for a while, that's within one-way electric car range but not round-trip.



There are lots of logistical problems with refueling electrics. The main one is getting to the ski area. The Tesla with the big battery has a range of around 200 miles with the heat on and below freezing temps. It takes 30 minutes to get 170 miles of range at a Tesla Supercharger Station. I am about 250 miles from Killington. If there is no supercharger station at my 200 mile range limit, I better hope there is one within the 200 miles of Killington so I can recharge. If there is only one 170 miles from Killington, I have to use it even though I have only traveled 80 miles from my home. This adds as much as a 1/2hour to the trip. 

At the ski area, where are the charging stations located? Do you get to park in the Killington lot plugged in all day? If your car recharges in an hour are you going to have come off the mountain and move it? What about overnight guests? Do they plug in at their townhouse/condo/lodge or do they plug in at the ski area? How do you get around if you can only recharge at the ski area? 

The current battery range and refueling system does not work for me. Maybe it gets figured out in the future.


----------



## abc (May 7, 2014)

ALLSKIING said:


> Why I don't do it or why do they?


Wa-loaf explained it. Thanks.


----------



## abc (May 7, 2014)

x10003q said:


> At the ski area, where are the charging stations located? Do you get to park in the Killington lot plugged in all day? If your car recharges in an hour are you going to have come off the mountain and move it? What about overnight guests? Do they plug in at their townhouse/condo/lodge or do they plug in at the ski area? How do you get around if you can only recharge at the ski area?
> 
> The current battery range and refueling system does not work for me. Maybe it gets figured out in the future.


I believe they can be charged from household electric outlets. But it might take all night. The supercharge station are the fast chargers so you can charge up quickly and go. 

So You should be able to plug in at the townhouse/condo/lodge. Now, if this electric car business gets popular, condo/lodging MAY put a meter on those plug-ins and charge for it? I don't know


----------



## Rowsdower (May 7, 2014)

The battery electric model isn't really feasible. It just moves energy demands into electricity generation, and the current technology isn't capable of filling the current usage patterns of gasoline automobiles. Outside of a very very niche market it doesn't make any sense. Tesla only sold about 6,500 cars last quarter. That's tiny, and even they admit they'll reach the demand ceiling around 7,500-10,000 sales/quarter, and that's including sales overseas.

I know people like Musk like to paint the reason we're not all driving electric cars as some sort of conspiracy by big auto manufacturers to protect their business, but there's a much simpler explanation: there's no feasibility or profitability in mainstreaming electric cars.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 7, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> The battery electric model isn't really feasible. It just moves energy demands into electricity generation, and the current technology isn't capable of filling the current usage patterns of gasoline automobiles. Outside of a very very niche market it doesn't make any sense. Tesla only sold about 6,500 cars last quarter. That's tiny, and even they admit they'll reach the demand ceiling around 7,500-10,000 sales/quarter, and that's including sales overseas.
> 
> I know people like Musk like to paint the reason we're not all driving electric cars as some sort of conspiracy by big auto manufacturers to protect their business, but there's a much simpler explanation: there's no feasibility or profitability in mainstreaming electric cars.



THIS IS STUPID.  Why is Tesla on fire?

Electricity is better than foreign oil which results in wars and caring about places in the Middle East.   Electricity costs currently result in equivalent of 99 mpg.  Old plants are going offline.  Demand will rise.  Clearly, energy plants need to be constructed in the future.  

I would much rather have a local industry to this country producing electricity than foreign supplies.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 7, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> THIS IS STUPID. * Why is Tesla on fire?*



It's a problem with the batteries.


----------



## abc (May 7, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> Electricity is better than foreign oil which results in wars and caring about places in the Middle East.


Well, how much of the electricity were generated using foreign oil?


----------



## wa-loaf (May 7, 2014)

abc said:


> Well, how much of the electricity were generated using foreign oil?



Most of our electricity is generated by coal and natural gas.


----------



## x10003q (May 7, 2014)

abc said:


> I believe they can be charged from household electric outlets. But it might take all night. The supercharge station are the fast chargers so you can charge up quickly and go.
> 
> So You should be able to plug in at the townhouse/condo/lodge. Now, if this electric car business gets popular, condo/lodging MAY put a meter on those plug-ins and charge for it? I don't know



Super Charger Stations are 30 minutes to get to 170 miles. That will be fun on a Friday night with 2 kids in the back. With household it takes a lot longer to charge.

Plugging in at a townhouse/lodging could be a problem if there are no outlets near the parking. I wouldn't want some renter running a 100 foot extension cord fire hazard from my townhouse sucking on the electric.


----------



## Rowsdower (May 7, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> THIS IS STUPID.  Why is Tesla on fire?
> 
> Electricity is better than foreign oil which results in wars and caring about places in the Middle East.   Electricity costs currently result in equivalent of 99 mpg.  Old plants are going offline.  Demand will rise.  Clearly, energy plants need to be constructed in the future.
> 
> I would much rather have a local industry to this country producing electricity than foreign supplies.



Translating energy usage for transportation to electricity generation would require a massive amount of new capacity. Not to mention the demand on non-renewable sources where 80%+ of that energy would come from. Think natural gas is cheap now? Wait until its the primary energy source for transportation, home heating, and electricity generation, not just in the US but globally. Whatever replaces fossil fuels is going to be so out of the box we haven't even reckoned on it yet. It would need to make current renewables orders of magnitude more efficient. That kind of technology doesn't exist yet, at least not in any form that can be feasibly implemented. 

And by "Tesla is on fire" I guess you mean their stock prices. Please. It's overvalued and overhyped. Musk will make a bunch of money and the status quo will go unchanged like every other flash in the pan experimental venture into "revolutionizing" personal transportation. The fact remains that the company isn't even planning on boosting production beyond 10,000 units for delivery/quarter as the demand isn't there.

But hey, this is why investments into research are so important.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 7, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Translating energy usage for transportation to electricity generation would require a massive amount of new capacity. Not to mention the demand on non-renewable sources where 80%+ of that energy would come from. Think natural gas is cheap now? Wait until its the primary energy source for transportation, home heating, and electricity generation, not just in the US but globally. Whatever replaces fossil fuels is going to be so out of the box we haven't even reckoned on it yet. It would need to make current renewables orders of magnitude more efficient. That kind of technology doesn't exist yet, at least not in any form that can be feasibly implemented.
> 
> And by "Tesla is on fire" I guess you mean their stock prices. Please. It's overvalued and overhyped. Musk will make a bunch of money and the status quo will go unchanged like every other flash in the pan experimental venture into "revolutionizing" personal transportation. The fact remains that the company isn't even planning on boosting production beyond 10,000 units for delivery/quarter as the demand isn't there.
> 
> But hey, this is why investments into research are so important.



I guess I am the stupid one.  So electric cars eventually just make up some small piece of market.


----------



## Rowsdower (May 7, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> I guess I am the stupid one.  So electric cars eventually just make up some small piece of market.



I'm not discounting that they won't someday supplant gasoline powered vehicles. It's just that in their current form its not feasible, which is why it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## x10003q (May 7, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> THIS IS STUPID.  Why is Tesla on fire?
> 
> Electricity is better than foreign oil which results in wars and caring about places in the Middle East. .




Oil companies are lobbying hard to change the restrictions on exporting US oil. The US is awash in oil. 



DoublePlanker said:


> Electricity costs currently result in equivalent of 99 mpg.  Old plants are going offline.  Demand will rise.  Clearly, energy plants need to be constructed in the future.
> 
> I would much rather have a local industry to this country producing electricity than foreign supplies.



Electricity cost *do not *result in the equivalent of 99mpg. The EPA has calculated 1 gal= 33.7kWh. The costs are different all across the US. The Tesla currently has an 89 mpge combined.


----------



## abc (May 7, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> But hey, this is why investments into research are so important.


Commercial product research has a very long odd. Majority of them won't generate profit. But the one that works will make the owner (and his backer) very very rich.

Investors to all the other failed research will lose their money. Anyone who think otherwise is delusional (doesn't mean "investment advisor" won't pedal them though). 

A lot of the research used to be funded by tax payer money (e.g. man on the moon). When the government research money dried up, they tried to rope investors in. That's why the strange government funded private venture going on all over the place (not saying Telsa is)


----------



## jack97 (May 8, 2014)

abc said:


> Commercial product research has a very long odd. Majority of them won't generate profit. But the one that works will make the owner (and his backer) very very rich.
> 
> Investors to all the other failed research will lose their money. Anyone who think otherwise is delusional (doesn't mean "investment advisor" won't pedal them though).
> 
> A lot of the research used to be funded by tax payer money (e.g. man on the moon). When the government research money dried up, they tried to rope investors in. That's why the strange government funded private venture going on all over the place (not saying Telsa is)



I do not know of a case where in recent times, private investment got the whole rolling on new tech. In the past, such as the electric grid the government had to step in and help it out. Even for the recent high tech boom we had for the last twenty years, venture capital would leverage matured research initially funded by the government. That's their mode of operation, they do usually do not have funds to start things from the ground up. 

All electric motors have a ways to go.... I was seriously thinking about the hybrids but its still too costly for an all season vehicle let alone for three season. It might have ease the financial burden if they still had a tax credit or better increase the tax credit. But the current admin will increase energy cost even more so... that's the irony of the situation.


----------



## abc (May 8, 2014)

jack97 said:


> I do not know of a case where in recent times, private investment got the whole rolling on new tech.


But that's my point!

In the past, taxpayer money funded the bulk of research that ultimately become commercial success. But those money is drying up faster than the snowmaking pond in November! 



> Even for the recent high tech boom we had for the last twenty years, venture capital would leverage matured research initially funded by the government. That's their mode of operation, they do usually do not have funds to start things from the ground up.


Look back into the recent history of the internet boom, private company funded research did contribute significantly to the success of our economy if not the company that sponsored it: Bell Lab (Unix) & Xerox (GUI) comes to the top of list. Though it took a government funded research to help make the whole thing takes off: the www part (born in CERN, a government funded research facility)


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 8, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> *Think natural gas is cheap now?* Wait until its the primary energy source for transportation, home heating, and electricity generation, not just in the US but globally.



Ten or twenty years from now people will marvel at how cheap natural gas stocks are now.  Get involved.



DoublePlanker said:


> I guess I am the stupid one.  So electric cars eventually just make up some small piece of market.



I wouldnt call you "stupid", that's a bit harsh.  What it sounds like is you have swallowed the false and over-promised and over-hyped benefits of these current alternative energies (solar, wind, hybrid cars, etc..), put forth by politicians and others who financially benefit from them.



jack97 said:


> *I was seriously thinking about the hybrids but its still too costly for an all season vehicle let alone for three season.* *It might have ease the financial burden if they still had a tax credit or better increase the tax credit.* But the current admin will increase energy cost even more so... that's the irony of the situation.



Which goes right to our debt (not that those who push for these "tax credits" care a whit about financial debt).  

No thank you.


----------



## Glenn (May 8, 2014)

I think we'll need to see improvements in the grid before we can look at electric cars in a broader sense. If everyone who owns a car is plugged in at night, it's going to create a helluva load on the grid. It'll be like those days when it's hot and A/C usage is high. Oh, and they'll find a way to tax it to. With technology, it probably won't be that hard to figure out if the juice is going to your dryer or your car.


----------



## abc (May 8, 2014)

Glenn said:


> I think we'll need to see improvements in the grid before we can look at electric cars in a broader sense. If everyone who owns a car is plugged in at night, it's going to create a helluva load on the grid. It'll be like those days when it's hot and A/C usage is high. Oh, and they'll find a way to tax it to. With technology, it probably won't be that hard to figure out if the juice is going to your dryer or your car.


They already have something and it's far simpler than that, peak/off-peak pricing. 

When I bought my current house, my home inspector handed me a sheet of calculation with the time it takes to recoup the cost if I choose to buy a timer for my water heater to take advantage of off-peak rates. It didn't take very long. (though I ended up buying a programmable thermostat for the home heating part first). 

If a lot of people owns electric car, the current "peak" period load would go up. But if power company can make a bigger gap at peak/off-peak rate to entice people to put a timer on their car battery charger. That thing draws a lot more juice so the saving will be bigger. I bet a lot of people will do just that, set the timer to charge in the middle of the night to save on electric bills. That would have the benefit of balancing the power need fluctuation of the grid overall.

Electric cars aren't the magic bullet some advocates want to population to believe. But it DOES have many benefits. Trouble is, there's so much trash talk in the news out there people can't figure out what's real and what's just hype, which is quite unfortunate. It doesn't help any one who's trying to get the technology accepted by the average user.


----------



## Domeskier (May 8, 2014)

How long before Tesla starts charging to use its supercharger stations?


----------



## steamboat1 (May 8, 2014)

How does one charge their car if they live in the city & have to park their cars blocks from their residence? I mean it's great if you own a home with a driveway with somewhere to plug in but the majority of people living in the city are either apartment dwellers or live in brownstones with no driveway.They don't have access to an electrical outlet on the street. Isn't the big advantage of electric cars supposed to be for short commute city driving?


----------



## Scruffy (May 8, 2014)

OTOH, electric cars can be a form of energy storage for renewable energy. One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is the sun does not shine at night and the wind does not always blow. How to capture the energy so that it can be distributed when needed is one of the cruxes. A fleet of batteries in cars owned by the public can serve as a mass storage device. Of course, that would mean charging your car during peak times.


----------



## abc (May 8, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> OTOH, electric cars can be a form of energy storage for renewable energy. One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is the sun does not shine at night and the wind does not always blow. How to capture the energy so that it can be distributed when needed is one of the cruxes. A fleet of batteries in cars owned by the public can serve as a mass storage device. Of course, that would mean charging your car during peak times.


I don't think night time is peak time.



steamboat1 said:


> How does one charge their car if they live in the city &* have to park their cars blocks from their residence*?


If they park in random street location, no I don't see any option. 

But actually more people park their car in a commercial garage. So they should be able to charge in the garage. Garage may charge a different rate for electric cars, or they may not since most electric cars are smaller and take up less space which offsets the expense of electricity.


----------



## Scruffy (May 8, 2014)

abc said:


> I don't think night time is peak time.



I didn't say that! reread!


----------



## abc (May 8, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I didn't say that! reread!


You mean charging during peak GENERATING time! i.e. during the day. OK, I got that wrong. 

However, day time is usually also the peak energy consumption time too. Don't see the point of adding car battery charge to the load. 

The issue with many of the new renewable power generating technology isn't to USE the surplus energy but rather store them to be fed back into the grid when the power plant isn't generating. Car batteries doesn't really have much to do with that.


----------



## Scruffy (May 8, 2014)

abc said:


> You mean charging during peak GENERATING time! i.e. during the day. OK, I got that wrong.
> 
> However, day time is usually also the peak energy consumption time too. Don't see the point of adding car battery charge to the load.
> 
> The issue with many of the new renewable power generating technology isn't to USE the surplus energy but rather store them to be fed back into the grid when the power plant isn't generating. Car batteries doesn't really have much to do with that.



What if you could store surplus renewable energy at the consumer end? If you get enough electric cars sucking on the grid when renewables are peaking, you solve the storage problem, and the electric company has made a sale in the process. The tricky part is, the peak production time for reneables ( at least with solar and wind ) is usually peak usage for everything else. The problem to solve is segmenting and pricing the recharge of the electric car differently during peak renewable production times to incentivise consumers to 1) buy electric cars and 2) to charge during the day for a reduced rate.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 8, 2014)

I just remember how I got very high mileage in Prius on highway.  The technique is to constantly vary speed.  Accelerate to something like 70mph then coast to 55 mph.  Do this repeatedly.  Try to accelerate going downhill.  Avoid accelerating going uphill.  I found this to be a bit of work and sometimes other cars get in the way.  But this is how I was able to achieve much higher fuel economy.  The car does ok with cruise control set to 65mph but does much better by varying speed between 70mpg and 55mph.  I think due to getting more coasting time.  Perhaps I will try this soon to see what I can get.


----------



## abc (May 8, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> What if you could store surplus renewable energy at the consumer end? If you get enough electric cars sucking on the grid when renewables are peaking, you solve the storage problem, and the electric company has made a sale in the process. The tricky part is, the peak production time for reneables ( at least with solar and wind ) is usually peak usage for everything else. The problem to solve is segmenting and pricing the recharge of the electric car differently during peak renewable production times to incentivise consumers to 1) buy electric cars and 2) to charge during the day for a reduced rate.


Power companies offer differential pricing reflecting the mis-match between generating pattern and usage pattern. 

Right now, the pricing structure is reflecting a flat, time independent generating technology. Hence the reduced rate at night when usage is low. 

If renewable ever become the dominant generating technology, the pricing structure WILL BE reversed. The peak rate will be applied at night when usage outstrips generation. People will be re-programming their hot water heater to fire during the day instead. That's a energy storage device by default.

And yes, those owning electric cars will TRY to charge it during lower rate period. But many of them won't be able to, because they're DRIVING the car during the day.


----------



## bobbutts (May 8, 2014)

Yup, having that big bank of batteries allows you to store power and use it later for any purpose.  Of course, most people like to use it for driving their ev, but there are other uses available, and they may become more popular.


----------



## Rowsdower (May 8, 2014)

What ever happened to hydrogen fuel cells? Weren't those supposed to be the next big thing?


----------



## abc (May 8, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Yup, having that big bank of batteries allows you to store power and use it later for any purpose.  Of course, most people like to use it for driving their ev, but there are other uses available, and they may become more popular.


Well... only if you're REALLY, REALLY sure you won't be needing to use that car!


----------



## Scruffy (May 8, 2014)

abc said:


> And yes, those owning electric cars will TRY to charge it during lower rate period. But many of them won't be able to, because they're DRIVING the car during the day.



Right. Technology and inovation will be need to be harnessed to address logistical issues.


----------



## Scruffy (May 22, 2014)

A fun read. Of course they don't take in consideration the price dif between gas and diesel and the price dif of the cars, but hey... details, details.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/feature...a-luxury-car?dclid=CMD3sNHsv74CFc_COgodJH8A1A


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 22, 2014)

^ I didnt get this part.



> *to be fair to the Prius, I eliminated any of California's enormous elevation changes*.



Is the Prius unable to climb well?


EDIT:  Though this part I found offensive.  Even my full size SUV beats that by a few seconds for god's sake.



> *Prius (0-60 in 10 seconds)*


----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2014)

10 seconds doesn't surprise me.  Most non-turbo 4 cylinder compact cars don't do much better than 9 seconds.  Very few of them better than 8 as most of them have 150HP or less.


----------



## AdironRider (May 22, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> 10 seconds doesn't surprise me.  Most non-turbo 4 cylinder compact cars don't do much better than 9 seconds.  Very few of them better than 8 as most of them have 150HP or less.



I think you would be surprised for the most part these days. While sub 8 is still relatively quick, most NA cars these days are doing around 8 - 8.5 seconds at worst. 

My FJ Cruiser does it in low 7's, and its slow for an SUV. 10 seconds is getting to be to slow to keep up with modern day traffic, hence why we always get stuck behind some assbag doing 60 in the left lane shitting out rainbows and unicorns from the tailpipe.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2014)

I wouldn't be surprised.  I own a Mazda3, which tends to be one of the faster fuel economy based compacts and it does about 8 seconds.  It's quick to get to 45, but the last 15 it's pretty slow.  It's the way the gear ratios are configured to maximize economy in the 45-65 mph range.

2014 Toyota Corolla CVT - 9.1 seconds
2014 Honda Civic CVT - 8.8 seconds (9.9 for the Hybrid)
2013 Nissan Centra - 9.1 seconds
2013 Hyundai Elantra - 9.5 seconds
2013 Chevy Cruze - 9.4 seconds

All of these cars have faster models, but that's not in the same buyer segment as a fuel economy interested Prius buyer.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 22, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> *10 seconds is getting to be to slow to keep up with modern day traffic, hence why we always get stuck behind some assbag doing 60 in the left lane shitting out rainbows and unicorns from the tailpipe*.



I literally laughed out loud.  

Yeah, I couldnt care less if someone wants to buy a car that saves the equivalent of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of global gasoline production during its' useful lifetime if it makes them feel like (or look like as marketing studies demonstrate) they're saving the planet.  Different strokes for different folks.   What I DO care about are the ones with the mentality, that, gosh DARN it, I'm entitled to do 55mph in the fast lane.  Had that happen just yesterday on the way home from work on a 2-lane highway in NJ (Route 22) which always has a crowded rush hour slow lane.  Nothing I could do.


----------



## jack97 (May 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah, I couldnt care less if someone wants to buy a car that saves the equivalent of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of global gasoline production during its' useful lifetime if it makes them feel like (or look like as marketing studies demonstrate) they're saving the planet.  Different strokes for different folks.



I'm more thinking about a hybrid in terms of money. Feds and Mass may levy more taxes b/c they and the sheeple who vote them in got sold on this AGW nonsense. In the end, every one will feel the pain of higher fuel prices. 

My take on this is.... if used hybrids are cheap enuf, it may save me some money. My days of driving fast are over given I had to be a role model for someone I care about.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I literally laughed out loud.
> 
> Yeah, I couldnt care less if someone wants to buy a car that saves the equivalent of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of global gasoline production during its' useful lifetime if it makes them feel like (or look like as marketing studies demonstrate) they're saving the planet.  Different strokes for different folks.   What I DO care about are the ones with the mentality, that, gosh DARN it, I'm entitled to do 55mph in the fast lane.  Had that happen just yesterday on the way home from work on a 2-lane highway in NJ (Route 22) which always has a crowded rush hour slow lane.  Nothing I could do.



I drive 80 on the highway.  I average about 500 miles per tank.  It cost me $45 to fill that tank from empty today.  I hate the slow drivers in the left lane as much as the next guy.  I drive an efficient vehicle for my own personal money savings, nothing more.   When you average over 25K miles per year as I do, the savings ad up.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 22, 2014)

As I stated before in this thread, I drive a Prius and it works for me as a commuter vehicle, long distance driving for vacations, and driving around town.  Obviously, it is not the best performing car.  But it gets SPECTACULAR gas mileage if driven properly.  I have averaged 52mpg since I purchased it.  I can get 60+ in good conditions, 50+ in the winter with the heat on.  This is barely trying.  I do keep it 65-70mph on the highway.  I don't gun it from 0 to 60.  I can get high 50's in the winter by trying harder or mid 60's now in good conditions by trying harder.

I used to be a Masshole who drove 80-90 mph and would gun it off the line to gain speed.  I love to drive.  But in commuter traffic, this was just getting me stressed out.

What I have found by gunning it to accelerate is that it does not really save any time especially in traffic.  So many people either pass me or gun it off the line only to be caught  by me at the next traffic light, stop sign, or bunch of cars in traffic.  I started not gunning it when I tried to optimize my gas mileage for the Honda Accord and achieved above sticker 31mpg.  So then I figured that the Prius would work better for my driving style.

As I stated, I am saving nearly $2500 per year in gas.  Yes, I drive a lot.

The Prius was not that expensive.  The incremental cost for this particular hybrid was not much more.  

So, for me, its a win.  I understand its not for everybody.  Hell, my wife had a Porsche.  I've had muscle cars and sports cars in the past.

But, in my commuter mentality, this Prius works for me dollar wise to save gas.

Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## fbrissette (May 22, 2014)

jack97 said:


> I'm more thinking about a hybrid in terms of money.



I'm with you on this one.  I haven't yet seen a convincing argument that hybrids are actually eco-friendly.   You put in electricity that is mostly made out of gas and coal and once you add the significant environmental cost of batteries (both manufacturing and disposal) you end up with an expensive underpowered car (not counting Tesla) that may not be that environment-friendly.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 22, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> I'm with you on this one.  I haven't yet seen a convincing argument that hybrids are actually eco-friendly.   You put in electricity that is mostly made out of gas and coal and once you add the significant environmental cost of batteries (both manufacturing and disposal) you end up with an expensive underpowered car (not counting Tesla) that may not be that environment-friendly.



In terms of money, I SAVE A SHITLOAD OF MONEY driving a Prius.  I made a PURELY economic decision.  So far, it is working out BETTER than expected since I actually get BETTER gas mileage than advertised.

I agree its not all its cracked up environ wise when you consider the manufacturing.

And its a sucky car to drive in snow.  Otherwise, its a great car.


----------



## fbrissette (May 22, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> In terms of money, I SAVE A SHITLOAD OF MONEY driving a Prius.  I made a PURELY economic decision.  So far, it is working out BETTER than expected since I actually get BETTER gas mileage than advertised.
> 
> I agree its not all its cracked up environ wise when you consider the manufacturing.
> 
> And its a sucky car to drive in snow.  Otherwise, its a great car.



By expensive, I meant with respect to the acquisition cost.  I fully agree that the choice of going hybrid should purely be based on the assumption that it will end up being cheaper in the long run. People should not fool themselves into thinking they are saving the environment.


----------



## x10003q (May 23, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> A fun read. Of course they don't take in consideration the price dif between gas and diesel and the price dif of the cars, but hey... details, details.
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/feature...a-luxury-car?dclid=CMD3sNHsv74CFc_COgodJH8A1A



There is some cheap diesel (3.55/gal) near me. Most of the other diesel is 3.70/gal to 3.99/gal. The RUG is 3.40gal -3.60/gal. Prem is priced 3.70/gal to 3.99/gal.

I would rather go with a diesel than a hybrid.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2014)

x10003q said:


> There is some cheap diesel (3.55/gal) near me. Most of the other diesel is 3.70/gal to 3.99/gal. The RUG is 3.40gal -3.60/gal. Prem is priced 3.70/gal to 3.99/gal.
> 
> I would rather go with a diesel than a hybrid.



Interesting

Regular 87 octane around the NH Seacoast right now is $3.50 - $3.65.  Diesel is up around $4.  My observation over the last few years is that diesel is always about 50 cents more per gallon than 87 octane unleaded throughout northern New England.  

I wonder if it's a tax issue as to why diesel can be found in Jersey for nearly the same price as regular gas.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 23, 2014)

I'm always amazed at how many Prius owners claim to beat (or _slaughter _in some cases in this thread) Toyota's posted Prius gas mileage attained on their test track under optimal conditions.  That's amazing.  Especially since it's been debunked by more than a few reputable vehicle publications.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> I'm more thinking about a hybrid in terms of money. Feds and Mass may levy more taxes b/c they and the sheeple who vote them in got sold on this AGW nonsense. In the end, every one will feel the pain of higher fuel prices.



That's an interesting ideological point in how people view these things.  People on the left looks at Hybrids and think they're helping the ecology.  People on the right looks at Hybrids and think they're hurting the economy.



fbrissette said:


> I'm with you on this one.  I haven't yet seen a  convincing argument that hybrids are actually eco-friendly.   You put  in electricity that is mostly made out of gas and coal and once you add  the significant environmental cost of batteries (both manufacturing and  disposal) you end up with an expensive underpowered car (not counting  Tesla) that may not be that environment-friendly.



I'm with you 100% on this.  I dont even think it's disputable.  What it shows is that as per usual, money, politics, and marketing win the day.  If you took a poll, I bet 75% of people would say the Prius etc.... is environmentally friendly.


----------



## x10003q (May 23, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Interesting
> 
> Regular 87 octane around the NH Seacoast right now is $3.50 - $3.65.  Diesel is up around $4.  My observation over the last few years is that diesel is always about 50 cents more per gallon than 87 octane unleaded throughout northern New England.
> 
> I wonder if it's a tax issue as to why diesel can be found in Jersey for nearly the same price as regular gas.



I am not sure why I am finding diesel at that price. The taxes in NJ on fuel have been the same since the early 1990s. Maybe there is less demand due to many homeowners switching from oil to natural gas for heat in out area? 

If you drive 25k miles a year you should consider a diesel for your next ride.


----------



## Harvey (May 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> People on the right looks at Hybrids and think they're hurting the economy.



I admit I didn't read the whole thread. What is the argument for hybrids hurting the economy?


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 23, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *I wonder if it's a tax issue as to why diesel can be found in Jersey for nearly the same price as regular gas.*



The tax on diesel is currently only 2¢ higher in New Hampshire than it is in New Jersey, so it cant be that.

That said, the price of gas is going up in July in New Hampshire due to a scheduled 4.2¢ tax increase.   Have fun with that.



Harvey said:


> * What is the argument for hybrids hurting the economy?*



There are several reasons having mostly to do with tax subsidies.   Federal subsidies which essentially go straight to the National Debt due to lost tax revenue for future payments.  Then you have state subsidies on top of that even (REMARKABLY) in states like California which are outprojecting bankruptcy.  

Look at it this way.  You have an unpopular hybrid selling for $30,000.  But after the $7,500 Federal tax subsidy it's $22,500. That's an eye-popping 25% off!!!! :-o   

Now imagine you bought that same car in Illinois (another state in financial hell projecting insolvency).  You get a $4,000 tax subsidy on top of that, so now your $30,000 car is $18,500 or *39% off*!- 100% of which is paid for by the government.

There are other reasons too, including "investments" (i.e. tax subsides) to the manufacturers etc..., but we wont go into those.


----------



## Domeskier (May 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> There are several reasons having mostly to do with tax subsidies.   Federal subsidies which essentially go straight to the National Debt due to lost tax revenue for future payments.  Then you have state subsidies on top of that even (REMARKABLY) in states like California which are outprojecting bankruptcy.



I thought the party line was that tax breaks are great for the economy...


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> That said, the price of gas is going up in July in New Hampshire due to a scheduled 4.2¢ tax increase.   Have fun with that.



Doesn't bother me all that much for two reasons.

1. There hasn't been an increase since 1991

2. Gas varies as much as 15 cents or more depending on what station you go to.  I paid $3.49 yesterday.  This morning I drove by a place the next town over charging $3.63.

4 cents isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## bigbog (May 23, 2014)

Would rather see some hydrogen demos, but I think they're still in testing.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 23, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> *I thought the party line was that tax breaks are great for the economy*...



Two things:

1) You need to learn the financial difference between a tax break and a subsidy.
2) Not all tax breaks are_ "great for the economy"_.  Almost all subsidies are bad for the economy.



deadheadskier said:


> *4 cents isn't that big of a deal.*



For deadheadskier personally?  That I buy.    
For the economy of New Hampshire?  It's a negative. 

And per that other thread that delved into prognosticating the future of New Hampshire, you can expect the next tax increase on gas in New Hampshire to come a helluva lot sooner than 23 years from now.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2014)

maybe, maybe not

I don't have the same economic crystal ball of facts like you do


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 23, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't have the same *economic crystal ball* of facts like you do



I wish I had one of those.  Sounds way sexier than GDP forecasts, Case-Chiller indexes, and BLS & Census data.


----------



## Domeskier (May 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) You need to learn the financial difference between a tax break and a subsidy.
> 2) Not all tax breaks are_ "great for the economy"_.  Almost all subsidies are bad for the economy.




You need to look into getting refund from whomever tried to teach you finance.  There is absolutely no economic difference between reducing the tax rate on some activity and subsidizing it by providing a deduction for it.  They have the exact same effect on government revenue and the exact same effect on your pocket book.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm always amazed at how many Prius owners claim to beat (or _slaughter _in some cases in this thread) Toyota's posted Prius gas mileage attained on their test track under optimal conditions.  That's amazing.  Especially since it's been debunked by more than a few reputable vehicle publications.



Just look up hypermiling.  Those techniques make it possible to exceed EPA ratings for almost any car.  Even just adopting a couple of ideas from that can improve fuel economy drastically.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 23, 2014)

Chrysler CEO admits they lose $14,000 on every electric car sold.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/chrsyelr-ceo-evs-idUSL1N0O71MS20140521


----------



## AdironRider (May 23, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> Just look up hypermiling.  Those techniques make it possible to exceed EPA ratings for almost any car.  Even just adopting a couple of ideas from that can improve fuel economy drastically.



Dude, hypermiling is a joke. Its a totally great idea to turn the car completely off on the highway doing 80 to save a couple tenths of a gallon....But Prius drivers tend to think its the right way to drive. 

Appears Double Planker is that guy doing 60 in the fast lane.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 23, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> You need to look into getting refund from whomever tried to teach you finance.  There is absolutely no economic difference between reducing the tax rate on some activity and subsidizing it by providing a deduction for it.  They have the exact same effect on government revenue and the exact same effect on your pocket book.



Next time either say:

A) Gotcha, I didn't realize there's a substantial conceptual difference between a "subsidy" and a "tax break". 

or:

B)  I intentionally misused the term "tax break", because I was trying to be clever (since that's pretty much what I try do on this site)

Instead of attempting to redefine the context of what you said in the first post, which was incorrect, with your second post.  

My money is on answer 'B'.


----------



## Domeskier (May 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Next time either say:
> 
> A) Gotcha, I didn't realize there's a substantial conceptual difference between a "subsidy" and a "tax break".
> 
> ...



Meh.  Distinguishing tax breaks from tax subsidiaries may be politically expedient, but they're one and the same thing from the point of view of Treasury and any rational agent.


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 23, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Dude, hypermiling is a joke. Its a totally great idea to turn the car completely off on the highway doing 80 to save a couple tenths of a gallon....But Prius drivers tend to think its the right way to drive.
> 
> Appears Double Planker is that guy doing 60 in the fast lane.


All you have to do to shut down the engine in a Prius is let off the gas....Not to hard.


----------



## Harvey (May 24, 2014)

I usually hypermile (sorta) one tank when my wife gets a new econocar just to see what I'll get.  Her Civic (manual) I got 44.5 out of it on highway drive. I could push that car and get close to 40 so it really wasn't worth it to spend all day driving carefully to save 4 bucks.

Not sure what the EPA ratings are on a Prius.  My wife doesn't drive carefully (for mileage) but she's not putting the hammer down much either. Worst mileage is winter - maybe 45. Summer more like 55.

BTW IMO true hypermiling is dangerous.


----------



## AdironRider (May 24, 2014)

ALLSKIING said:


> All you have to do to shut down the engine in a Prius is let off the gas....Not to hard.



If you know what hypermiling is I think you get my point.


----------



## fbrissette (May 24, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> If you know what hypermiling is I think you get my point.



Is hypermiling the technique by which your commute takes 15 minutes longer and where you piss off dozens of drivers to save 1.50$ ?


----------



## AdironRider (May 24, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Is hypermiling the technique by which your commute takes 15 minutes longer and where you piss off dozens of drivers to save 1.50$ ?



Thats the least of it. The so called "advanced techniques" go over tailgating trucks, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.


----------



## Scruffy (May 24, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Thats the least of it. The so called "advanced techniques" go over *tailgating trucks*, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.



I don't hypermile, I don't even have a prius .. but had to laugh at tailgating trucks. Like, a truck would never tailgate a anyone, no sir never seen a F350 withing two feet of the bumber of a prius doing 85 mph .. nope never happened... :lol:


----------



## AdironRider (May 24, 2014)

Im talking big rigs, not brodouches in jacked up 350's.


----------



## Scruffy (May 24, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Im talking big rigs, not brodouches in jacked up 350's.



OK Gottcha .. "brodouches!" I love it. Just curious? Do they even have cars one would bother hypermiling with in Wyoming?


----------



## abc (May 24, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I don't hypermile, I don't even have a prius .. but had to laugh at tailgating trucks. Like, a truck would never tailgate a anyone, no sir never seen a F350 withing two feet of the bumber of a prius doing 85 mph .. nope never happened... :lol:


It is nonetheless dangerous. 

Do it long enough, you'll get yourself killed sooner rather than later.


----------



## abc (May 24, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Thats the least of it. The so called "advanced techniques" go over tailgating trucks, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.


Actually, turning the engine off when "cruising on highway" doesn't save gas. Unless the highway happens to be going downhill. And even then, it may not save gas. 

It actually take MORE energy to accelerate so if you let the speed drops on level ground, you're wasting gas!


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 24, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Meh. * Distinguishing tax breaks from tax subsidiaries may be politically expedient, but they're one and the same thing from the point of view of Treasury and any rational agent*.



Yes, much like the net effect of a person closing his/her $10,000 account with a bank has the same effect as a robber stealing $10,000 from same bank at gunpoint.  Doesn't alter the fact that one behavior is generally accepted to have a more negative effect than the other. 

 Though it doesnt shock me that you dont understand this, as conflating "tax break" with "subsidy", has become a rather successful marketing effort in Washington.  It's all just, _"more of our money that the government sadly doesn't get since they could use it better than we could"_ to some.




AdironRider said:


> Thats the least of it. *The so called "advanced techniques" go over tailgating trucks, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.*



It's not even, "me first", it's behaviour that can get people killed.  I'd rather some doofus text-while-driving than hypermile.



abc said:


> Actually, turning the engine off when "cruising on highway" doesn't save gas. Unless the highway happens to be going downhill. And even then, it may not save gas.
> 
> *It actually take MORE energy to accelerate so if you let the speed drops on level ground, you're wasting gas!*



Not enough information to complete answer.

If you're coming off a decent decline and you can coast at speed for a good chunk of level real estate before needing to accelerate, that would definitely use less gas (at least I'm pretty sure, seems like common sense to me).


----------



## Domeskier (May 25, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, much like the net effect of a person closing his/her $10,000 account with a bank has the same effect as a robber stealing $10,000 from same bank at gunpoint.  Doesn't alter the fact that one behavior is generally accepted to have a more negative effect than the other.
> 
> Though it doesnt shock me that you dont understand this, as conflating "tax break" with "subsidy", has become a rather successful marketing effort in Washington.  It's all just, _"more of our money that the government sadly doesn't get since they could use it better than we could"_ to some.



Well, at least we are making some progress.  You are finally acknowledging your error in trying to distinguish between tax breaks and tax subsidies from a financial perspective and are now, as as last resort, trying to draw some unprincipled moral or legal distinction between the two.  Allow me to save you any further effort at backpedalling and cut to the heart of your position:  "tax breaks" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez approves of; "tax subsidies" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez disapproves of.  You're welcome.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 25, 2014)

Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that  it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals  or businesses. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of  wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses.


----------



## Domeskier (May 25, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that  it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals  or businesses. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of  wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses.



Except that BG is talking specifically about _tax_ subsidies, which, by definition, are accomplished through tax reductions.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 25, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Except that BG is talking specifically about _tax_ subsidies, which, by definition, are accomplished through tax reductions.



That would be called a tax credit not a subsity. Different animal.


----------



## Domeskier (May 25, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> That would be called a tax credit not a subsity. Different animal.



No - he is correct at least that far.  The government can subsidize economic activity through the tax code using any means at its disposal - tax credits, deductions or rate reductions.  Where he goes wrong is thinking that (some) rate reductions are not economically equivalent to subsidies.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 25, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Except that BG is talking specifically about _tax_ subsidies, which, by definition, are accomplished through tax reductions.



A tax subsity is something the government pays out (ie. farmer tax subsity). A tax cut or credit reduces the amount of money the government takes in. Two vastly different concepts.


----------



## Domeskier (May 25, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> A tax subsity is something the government pays out (ie. farmer tax subsity). A tax cut or credit reduces the amount of money the government takes in. Two vastly different concepts.



No.  The agricultural subsidies you are talking about are direct payments from the government.  They are not tax subsidies.  Tax subsidies are creatures of the Internal Revenue Code - credits, deductions, exemptions, etc. that mimic the effect of direct subsidies without actual expenditures (as opposed to tax expenditures).


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 26, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Well, at least we are making some progress.  You are finally acknowledging your error in trying to distinguish between tax breaks and tax subsidies from a financial perspective and are now, as as last resort, trying to draw some unprincipled moral or legal distinction between the two.  Allow me to save you any further effort at backpedalling and cut to the heart of your position:  "tax breaks" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez approves of; "tax subsidies" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez disapproves of.  You're welcome.



You're way off the reservation of subjects you should be speaking about as an authority. 

 Again, you "think" you know what you're talking about, so much so that it's clear in my mind that you GENUINELY believe you're correct.  You're not.  

And your insertion of a Strawman argument after your first post in this thread doesn't seem to be fooling anyone here.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 26, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> *
> 
> Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that  it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals  or businesses.
> 
> A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of  wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses.*



Correct.     And this relates correctly to the hybrid vehicle subsidy specifically being discussed. [/End of Story]

And frankly, not a very complex story.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2014)

and around and around we go


----------



## steamboat1 (May 26, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> No.  The agricultural subsidies you are talking about are direct payments from the government



No shit Sherlock.


----------



## Domeskier (May 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're way off the reservation of subjects you should be speaking about as an authority.
> 
> Again, you "think" you know what you're talking about, so much so that it's clear in my mind that you GENUINELY believe you're correct. You're not.
> 
> And your insertion of a Strawman argument after your first post in this thread doesn't seem to be fooling anyone here..



You can bluster all you want, but it does not change the fact they your initial response to my quip displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic financial and economic concepts.  Either you really lack a basic understanding of finance and economics or your head is so far up your party line that any intellectual honesty you might had was lost somewhere in its colon.


----------



## Domeskier (May 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Correct.     And this relates correctly to the hybrid vehicle subsidy specifically being discussed. [/End of Story]
> 
> And frankly, not a very complex story.



So the backpedalling continues.  LEt me refresh your memory.



Harvey said:


> I admit I didn't read the whole thread. What is the argument for hybrids hurting the economy?





BenedictGomez said:


> There are several reasons having mostly to do with tax subsidies.



Don't try to pretend now that this is a conversation about direct subsidies.  I find it hard to believe you are as dense as Steamboat.


----------



## Domeskier (May 26, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> No shit Sherlock.



Then they have no place in a discussion about the economic equivalence between tax breaks and tax subsidies, genius.


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 26, 2014)

I had to get gas today in my Prius.....


----------



## Rowsdower (May 26, 2014)

ALLSKIING said:


> I had to get gas today in my Prius.....



I had to get gas in my Prius to get gas today. 

meta


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 26, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> You can bluster all you want, but it does not change the fact they *your initial response to my quip displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic financial and economic concepts.  Either you really lack a basic understanding of finance and economics* or your head is so far up your party line that any intellectual honesty you might had was lost somewhere in its colon.



I'd like to take back my prior assumption that you understood the important fundamental difference between a "tax break" and a "subsidy", and were just trying to be cute/clever in your first post.

You actually don't understand the difference.*

*EDIT:  Alternatively, you're just trolling me by playing dumb.


----------



## Domeskier (May 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd like to take back my prior assumption that you understood the important fundamental difference between a "tax break" and a "subsidy", and were just trying to be cute/clever in your first post.
> 
> You actually don't understand the difference.*
> 
> *EDIT:  Alternatively, you're just trolling me by playing dumb.



I understand perfectly well how the distinction you are referring to might appeal to people who lack a basic understanding of the fundamental concepts of finance and economics, especially among those who share your political outlook.  However, the fact remains that, from a financial perspective, there simply is no difference.  Since your inability to defend the distinction yourself is quickly becoming tedious, allow me to spoon feed you the only plausible (albeit ultimately flawed) argument for it: although tax breaks and tax subsidies have an identical impact on both taxpayers and the Treasury, tax subsidies are bad because they have the effect of sustaining economic behavior that would otherwise be economically unviable, whereas tax breaks are good because they allow private economic actors determine how resources should be allocated.  The fundamental flaw in this argument is this: if we accept the definition of "tax break" that it assumes, we immediately realize that there cannot be any such tax breaks (short of eliminating taxes altogether).  It is a fundamental fact of economics that any meaningful change to the tax code will have the effect of subsidizing some economic behavior over another.  The very fact of taxation necessarily alters market behavior.  Once we accept government involvement in private markets, we cannot plausible defend a distinction between tax reductions that artificially subsidize some sector of the economy from those that do not.


----------



## o3jeff (May 29, 2014)

How long do the batteries last and what do they do with them after?


----------



## jack97 (May 31, 2014)

Interesting news article about London's problem with diesel fuel. 

London pollution

Emission Test


IMO, they have it wrong, they should be promoting this to further make people docile and controllable.


----------

