2015 Mustang to be debut December 5th!

[NickF1011]

 

Who said it would be cheap?

 

It would need to be cheap (at least relative to the others who are looking at implementing similar technology soon, like Porsche) in order to capture any sort of worthwhile market.

 

 

Electric cars are probably far more likely and worth the investment. Hybrids are going to quickly die and MPG (or MPE) will be attained electronically without the hybrid engine. Ford would be better suited to pull of something cool like Tesla. As it is hybrid's are a silly investment, you're not saving money on gas because you're basically paying for several years of gas by purchasing the car at a premium over it's regular gasoline counterpart. Factor in expensive battery replacements and they REALLY make little sense.

 

Electric cars are definitely more relevant and a better move for future market demands. And to those complaining of Tesla catching on fire, 1 in 750 regular gasoline cars catches on fire. 1 in 2500 Tesla do. It's all media spin and hype.

 

You are campaigning for electric cars, but then say one of the downsides of hybrids is expensive battery replacement?

[3FordFamily]

 

It would need to be cheap (at least relative to the others who are looking at implementing similar technology soon, like Porsche) in order to capture any sort of worthwhile market.

 

 

 

You are campaigning for electric cars, but then say one of the downsides of hybrids is expensive battery replacement?

 

The technology is improving, and with all electric components I can't imagine they would be as much of a mechanical disaster as hybrids. At least if you buy an all-electric car, you're not investing in dead technology that's going nowhere, which is where I see hybrids.

 

Same battery problem though, same issue of "pre-paying" for your gasoline OK OK energy (MPE though not MPG). BUT something like the Tesla is 1) fast 2) attractive 3) not old technology

[NickF1011]

 

The technology is improving, and with all electric components I can't imagine they would be as much of a mechanical disaster as hybrids. At least if you buy an all-electric car, you're not investing in dead technology that's going nowhere, which is where I see hybrids.

 

Same battery problem though, same issue of "pre-paying" for your gasoline OK OK energy (MPE though not MPG). BUT something like the Tesla is 1) fast 2) attractive 3) not old technology

 

Mechanical disaster? Toyota's Prius has been one of the most reliable vehicles in its stable the past several years. I would say all current electric car technology is no less of a dead-end. I doubt you'll be able to find anywhere to plug in a Tesla 25 years from now.

[3FordFamily]

 

Mechanical disaster? Toyota's Prius has been one of the most reliable vehicles in its stable the past several years. I would say all current electric car technology is no less of a dead-end. I doubt you'll be able to find anywhere to plug in a Tesla 25 years from now.

 

I would wager a serious bet that this will not be the case.

 

Toyota Prius are ugly as sin, no fun to drive, and will never capture an audience concerned with performance and appearance. Only people who wish to make political statements and illogical purchases (without running a cost analysis).

 

And the worst part is they're not green at all. The batteries alone are terrible for the environment. This will likely all get better in time, but it's really a statement of "I am an idiot" each time I see one. Inco Mine in Sudbury Ontario is where they smelt the nickel for the Toyota Prius batteries. It is so devoid of life for long distances that NASA tests moon rovers there. Then, the battery makes a round-world trip on a carrier ship.

 

Add in the disposal of these batteries in the next few decades, and a hybrid is a disaster for the planet.

 

AT LEAST the Telsa is fast and attractive. I mean financial sense? It makes little. But most people in the market for a fast and attractive car care little about how much "financial sense" it makes. We are after smiles per gallon! if we can get MPG at the same time well that's cool too!

Edited November 25, 2013 by 3FordFamily

[Deanh]

 

The technology is improving, and with all electric components I can't imagine they would be as much of a mechanical disaster as hybrids. At least if you buy an all-electric car, you're not investing in dead technology that's going nowhere, which is where I see hybrids.

 

Same battery problem though, same issue of "pre-paying" for your gasoline OK OK energy (MPE though not MPG). BUT something like the Tesla is 1) fast 2) attractive 3) not old technology

pure electrics have one major fault...range limitations....and that would kill it for me.....and I dont want to be stuck in a snow drift with a dead battery that drianed whilst I was attempting to reach a charge station...

[3FordFamily]

pure electrics have one major fault...range limitations....and that would kill it for me.....and I dont want to be stuck in a snow drift with a dead battery that drianed whilst I was attempting to reach a charge station...

 

I imagine there will be easy solutions available,

For one, If I recall the new Tesla can go nearly 300 miles on a "tank". That's pretty sufficient. Put that up against any of the cars it competes with in the segment (many with gas guzzling v8) and it's really a non-issue, IMO.

 

If I understand correctly you can plug them in at home, so why not charge at home? (The confusion i think is that people think you can only "fill up" at Tesla stations - not true it's just "Free" at these stations.)

[akirby]

You're still advocating fully electric vehicles that have even larger batteries but saying hybrids are bad because you have to replace the batteries. That's totally illogical.

 

Hybrids are here to stay because they have infinite range with current infrastructure and 10 minute refueling. You won't have that capability with electric vehicles for decades.

 

And a Fusion hybrid is only about a $2K premium over the regular Fusion. The hybrid mkz is the same price as the non hybrid.

Edited November 25, 2013 by akirby

[NickF1011]

I would wager a serious bet that this will not be the case.

Since there is no established single cross-brand standard for charging stations, it's extremely likely at this point that the early adopters will get frozen out at some point once a standard does get implemented.

 

Toyota Prius are ugly as sin, no fun to drive, and will never capture an audience concerned with performance and appearance. Only people who wish to make political statements and illogical purchases (without running a cost analysis).

I won't argue with your characterization of the Prius, but its fun-to-drive factor wasn't what was at debate. Fact is Toyota sells a ton of them every year.

 

And the worst part is they're not green at all. The batteries alone are terrible for the environment. This will likely all get better in time, but it's really a statement of "I am an idiot" each time I see one. Inco Mine in Sudbury Ontario is where they smelt the nickel for the Toyota Prius batteries. It is so devoid of life for long distances that NASA tests moon rovers there. Then, the battery makes a round-world trip on a carrier ship.

Not this argument again...

 

Add in the disposal of these batteries in the next few decades, and a hybrid is a disaster for the planet.

They are recyclable.

 

AT LEAST the Telsa is fast and attractive. I mean financial sense? It makes little. But most people in the market for a fast and attractive car care little about how much "financial sense" it makes. We are after smiles per gallon! if we can get MPG at the same time well that's cool too!

The fact that people buying luxury sports cars don't care about the financial sense of them is exactly why the electric toy Tesla isn't selling in larger quantities -- they'll simply buy a gasoline-powered car that performs even better.

[3FordFamily]

You're still advocating fully electric vehicles that have even larger batteries but saying hybrids are bad because you have to replace the batteries. That's totally illogical.

 

Hybrids are here to stay because they have infinite range with current infrastructure and 10 minute refueling. You won't have that capability with electric vehicles for decades.

 

And a Fusion hybrid is only about a $2K premium over the regular Fusion. The hybrid mkz is the same price as the non hybrid.

 

We can agree to disagree. Hybrids will disappear and electric cars will take off. I am not advocating that hybrids are bad because you have to replace the batteries. I am advocating that due to the batteries they're not green. Sure, electric cars have larger batteries but in the case of the Tesla, if you read what I said, they're not ugly and they're fun to drive and comfortable to drive.

[NickF1011]

We can agree to disagree. Hybrids will disappear and electric cars will take off. I am not advocating that hybrids are bad because you have to replace the batteries. I am advocating that due to the batteries they're not green. Sure, electric cars have larger batteries but in the case of the Tesla, if you read what I said, they're not ugly and they're fun to drive and comfortable to drive.

So being pretty and fun to drive somehow makes the batteries more green or makes the batteries not being green somehow less important?

[3FordFamily]

Since there is no established single cross-brand standard for charging stations, it's extremely likely at this point that the early adopters will get frozen out at some point once a standard does get implemented.

 

 

I won't argue with your characterization of the Prius, but its fun-to-drive factor wasn't what was at debate. Fact is Toyota sells a ton of them every year.

 

 

Not this argument again...

 

 

They are recyclable.

 

 

The fact that people buying luxury sports cars don't care about the financial sense of them is exactly why the electric toy Tesla isn't selling in larger quantities -- they'll simply buy a gasoline-powered car that performs even better.

 

Tesla makes financial sense over many cars in it's class, because it costs less, is faster, and is cheaper to maintain (and if you include gas it's even more the case cost to own is significantly less). I am not saying I am going to buy a Tesla, but I would consider it if I had 106k to play with. Given other contenders at that price point, it is a solid option.

 

Prius do sell a lot, again - it is a political statement in most cases and a case of greenwashing. If you replaced every car in the world with a hybrid it would affect emissions in such an minuscule amount that it's almost immeasurable over the next 100 years. Am I saying that carrying about the environment is bad? Absolutely not. We should all do our part. I commend those who care for the environment more than their own "American Dream". It's noble. However, it's not really much of a solution, rather a bandaid.

 

Electricity is dirty to create in any capacity in and of itself, which is why I wouldn't buy electric to be "green", either. Want to go green? Buy a small displacement small vehicle, ride your bike to work.

[3FordFamily]

So being pretty and fun to drive somehow makes the batteries more green or makes the batteries not being green somehow less important?

 

I never claimed either battery was green. Not sure where this assertion is derived. I simply explained why I would personally consider ownership of a fully electric car (namely a Tessla because I care not for either high MPG offerings) over a hybrid.

Edited November 25, 2013 by 3FordFamily

[NickF1011]

I never claimed either battery was green. Not sure where this assertion is derived. I simply explained why I would personally consider ownership of a fully electric car over a hybrid.

Your railing against the battery in hybrids was initially because they were expensive to replace. They are certainly no less expensive to replace in an electric car. It stands to reason they would be even more expensive, since they use larger batteries. So what were you trying to say with that argument?

 

Then you rail against hybrids by saying they aren't green because the batteries create waste. Are you suggesting electric cars don't create the same waste? They likely create more since they use larger batteries. You were just throwing it out there as a red herring against hybrids when the same argument (as bad an argument as it is) would apply to electric vehicles too.

 

Electric vehicles could be a viable mainstream alternative at some point. But that point isn't today. It won't be 5 years from now. It likely won't be 15-20 years from now either. They exist now as eco-friendly showpieces for companies and as toys for the wealthy who really don't care about any of the long-term implications of the technology.

[akirby]

You said hybrids were going to die because they weren't green due to the batteries. Then you said fully electric vehicles (which have bigger batteries) were better.

 

Either you don't understand what you're saying or you're not doing a very good job explaining yourself.

[akirby]

If electric vehicles were so great, why aren't you driving a Leaf? You can get one for $259/month with only $1500 down.

[3FordFamily]

You said hybrids were going to die because they weren't green due to the batteries. Then you said fully electric vehicles (which have bigger batteries) were better.

 

Either you don't understand what you're saying or you're not doing a very good job explaining yourself.

 

No I said buying them because they're green is stupid because of the batteries. I also stated that if I bought a hybrid or electric car it would be because of it's "green" attributes. I eluded to this three times now. You may want to fine tune your critical reading and comprehension skills before attempting to belittle someone.

 

Additionally, I did adjust my signature as it was rather excessive and large. If it still takes up too much space then we're back to a browser/screen settings conversation as the photos are on one line on my screen.

 

If electric vehicles were so great, why aren't you driving a Leaf? You can get one for $259/month with only $1500 down.

As discussed earlier, I am not a proponent of most electric/hybrid vehicles as they're still hideous, slow, not fun to drive, etc. please see the emboldened information above.

I will add to my reasoning that many of these high MPG vehicles are also not very safe. All of the gas savings in the world are irrelevant if you are dead and unable to reap the benefits.

EDIT: before you tell me the Prius is relatively safe, let me remind you I said "most". The Prius is still Hideous, a political statement, lacks peppy performance capabilities, and is not fun to drive. These are my buying criteria. They don't have to represent everyone else's. This may be why other vehicles are available on the market.

Edited November 25, 2013 by 3FordFamily

[Deanh]

 

Tesla makes financial sense over many cars in it's class, because it costs less, is faster, and is cheaper to maintain (and if you include gas it's even more the case cost to own is significantly less). I am not saying I am going to buy a Tesla, but I would consider it if I had 106k to play with. Given other contenders at that price point, it is a solid option.

 

Prius do sell a lot, again - it is a political statement in most cases and a case of greenwashing. If you replaced every car in the world with a hybrid it would affect emissions in such an minuscule amount that it's almost immeasurable over the next 100 years. Am I saying that carrying about the environment is bad? Absolutely not. We should all do our part. I commend those who care for the environment more than their own "American Dream". It's noble. However, it's not really much of a solution, rather a bandaid.

 

Electricity is dirty to create in any capacity in and of itself, which is why I wouldn't buy electric to be "green", either. Want to go green? Buy a small displacement small vehicle, ride your bike to work.

ok, heres a little reality check...Teslas are NOT cheaper to maintain in the slightest, heavy car...what about brakes? tires will wear quicker too those are wear items, even Musk was selling a Maintenence program for over $600 per YEAR...ive yet to have a ICE car Ive spent that miuch a year on average....where people come up with that less mantenence crap is beyond me...oh, it comes from Musk himself, so it MUST be true....now dont get me wrong, i like the car, BUT, its overpriced ( and STILL doesnt make a profit ) over-rated and overhyped, either by Musk himself, the Tesla Groupies of people that bought inflated stock...my prediction is they will be swallowed up relatively soon...

Edited November 25, 2013 by Deanh

[3FordFamily]

Your railing against the battery in hybrids was initially because they were expensive to replace. They are certainly no less expensive to replace in an electric car. It stands to reason they would be even more expensive, since they use larger batteries. So what were you trying to say with that argument?

 

Then you rail against hybrids by saying they aren't green because the batteries create waste. Are you suggesting electric cars don't create the same waste? They likely create more since they use larger batteries. You were just throwing it out there as a red herring against hybrids when the same argument (as bad an argument as it is) would apply to electric vehicles too.

 

Electric vehicles could be a viable mainstream alternative at some point. But that point isn't today. It won't be 5 years from now. It likely won't be 15-20 years from now either. They exist now as eco-friendly showpieces for companies and as toys for the wealthy who really don't care about any of the long-term implications of the technology.

 

Perhaps I wasn't succinct in my rebuttals as apparently two of you now misunderstand. Allow me to paraphrase.

 

My rally against hybrids - because they're ugly, expensive to replace the batteries, slow, not fun to drive, many not safe to drive and not truly green.

My rally against electrical cars (less the Tesla because it meets many of my own buying criteria) - See above. Same criticism as with hybrids. The only added benefit is that I disagree with your premise that they're not the future of automobiles and will largely remain a luxury and will become insignificant in the future. Just a difference of opinion I agree with you on ALL OTHER counts.

 

I am well aware, as said above that neither is truly green. Which is why I said if green is part of your decision-making process in purchasing a vehicle, you should probably avoid most hybrids AND electric cars. If you re-read my posts I swear it's evident that I don't say either one is necessarily cost-effective or green (just that the Tesla as a case study makes more sense based on my buying criteria)

 

ok, heres a little reality check...Teslas are NOT cheaper to maintain in the slightest, heavy car...what about brakes? tires will wear quicker too those are wear items, even Musk was selling a Maintenence program for over $600 per YEAR...ive yet to have a ICE car Ive spent that miuch a year on average....where people come up with that less mantenence crap is beyond me...oh, it comes from Musk himself, so it MUST be true....now dont get me wrong, i like the car, BUT, its overpriced ( and STILL doesnt make a profit ) over-rated and overhyped, either by Musk himself, the Tesla Groupies of people that bought inflated stock...my prediction is they will be swallowed up relatively soon...

Can you do me a favor and quote where I said the Tesla is cheaper to maintain than Hybrids? I DID say the Tesla is likely cheaper to maintain than a High end Mercedes or BMW in that price point, based on early reports. Reality and initial proposed reliability can vary, for sure. And Tires? Since I was comparing it to V8-powered performance cars in it's price range, I suspect all of them have trouble in this arena! :D

 

You may be right about it not being a success, as I agree with the mod's other point that most people buying a performance car in that price range care little about MPG. I can see it going either way though. And not making a profit may indeed be a true criticism, I admittedly know little about the price and cost structure of production. I assume it has been highly subsidized (meaning we already bought it before we buy it I.E. taxes and government inefficiency). That being said, you can make a case that nearly nothing "makes a profit" if you truly include all costs to product until several years on the market anyway, as entrants to the market have high costs.

Edited November 25, 2013 by 3FordFamily

[akirby]

When you have to explain what you meant to 3 different people within just a few posts then maybe you should take a closer look at what you're typing instead of implying we have comprehension problems.

 

Nobody is going to buy electric vehicles en masse until they can get a full recharge anywhere in the country in 15 minutes or less. Until that happens they won't be accepted as mainstream vehicles.

[Deanh]

 

 

Perhaps I wasn't succinct in my rebuttals as apparently two of you now misunderstand. Allow me to paraphrase.

 

My rally against hybrids - because they're ugly, expensive to replace the batteries, slow, not fun to drive, many not safe to drive and not truly green.

My rally against electrical cars (less the Tesla because it meets many of my own buying criteria) - See above. Same criticism as with hybrids. The only added benefit is that I disagree with your premise that they're not the future of automobiles and will largely remain a luxury and will become insignificant in the future. Just a difference of opinion I agree with you on ALL OTHER counts.

 

I am well aware, as said above that neither is truly green. Which is why I said if green is part of your decision-making process in purchasing a vehicle, you should probably avoid most hybrids AND electric cars. If you re-read my posts I swear it's evident that I don't say either one is necessarily cost-effective or green (just that the Tesla as a case study makes more sense based on my buying criteria)

 

Can you do me a favor and quote where I said the Tesla is cheaper to maintain than Hybrids? I DID say the Tesla is likely cheaper to maintain than a High end Mercedes or BMW in that price point, based on early reports. Reality and initial proposed reliability can vary, for sure. And Tires? Since I was comparing it to V8-powered performance cars in it's price range, I suspect all of them have trouble in this arena! :D

 

You may be right about it not being a success, as I agree with the mod's other point that most people buying a performance car in that price range care little about MPG. I can see it going either way though. And not making a profit may indeed be a true criticism, I admittedly know little about the price and cost structure of production. I assume it has been highly subsidized (meaning we already bought it before we buy it I.E. taxes and government inefficiency). That being said, you can make a case that nearly nothing "makes a profit" if you truly include all costs to product until several years on the market anyway, as entrants to the market have high costs.

 

I didnt make any reference to what you were comparing it too, ICE or HYBRID, ........., it was in response to post #61, maybe our wores got crossed......... as for being cheaper than BMW or Mercedes, I beleive it would be comparable, at least short run, maybe after 5 or so years yes...especially given $165 oild changes BMW charges post free maintenence....STUPID...tesla isnt survivng on profits from their sales, it is coming from EV credits ( temporary, and apparently are as high as $35k per S model sold...wonder what happens when THAT gos away? ) and the most fragile, overpriced stock I have seen in years....

[3FordFamily]

I didnt make any reference to what you were comparing it too, ICE or HYBRID, ........., it was in response to post #61, maybe our wores got crossed......... as for being cheaper than BMW or Mercedes, I beleive it would be comparable, at least short run, maybe after 5 or so years yes...especially given $165 oild changes BMW charges post free maintenence....STUPID...tesla isnt survivng on profits from their sales, it is coming from EV credits ( temporary, and apparently are as high as $35k per S model sold...wonder what happens when THAT gos away? ) and the most fragile, overpriced stock I have seen in years....

 

You are correct, I am sure Tesla assumes they will be able to "lower their bottom line" by then, but history shows this rarely happens when things are subsidized.

[rmc523]

 

I imagine there will be easy solutions available,

For one, If I recall the new Tesla can go nearly 300 miles on a "tank". That's pretty sufficient. Put that up against any of the cars it competes with in the segment (many with gas guzzling v8) and it's really a non-issue, IMO.

 

If I understand correctly you can plug them in at home, so why not charge at home? (The confusion i think is that people think you can only "fill up" at Tesla stations - not true it's just "Free" at these stations.)

 

His point was traveling beyond that range is an issue (on a trip or something) - electric charging stations are not that prevalent across the country yet, rendering a journey beyond that 300 mile range (or, more realistically 150 miles out and 150 miles back). Around town or whatnot, sure, you can charge it at home every night or every few days or whatever, but otherwise, there isn't the infrastructure to support electric vehicles on a widespread basis yet - both because of the simple lack of charging stations, and also the time it takes for the batteries to charge. As with anything, however, we'll see more charging stations pop up, and charging times will decrease, rendering electric vehicles more practical to a more widespread audience. That's why you see Tesla creating the quick charge and battery swap stations in an attempt to bridge the gap until then, and also make the Model S more viable to people.

[jpd80]

 

You are correct, I am sure Tesla assumes they will be able to "lower their bottom line" by then, but history shows this rarely happens when things are subsidized.

I dunno so much, assistance to hybrid development has seen huge advances in batteries and electronics that now make BEVs possible.

 

People are only interested in hybrids and BEVs if the price is low enough to attract them, a lot of people seeking virtually

low or no cost running don't want to give those savings back in the form of higher retail prices.

That's why "electric" cars like Volt are chained to providing aggressive leasing.

Edited November 26, 2013 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I disagree w/3FF's contention that the future is electric vs. hybrid vehicles.

 

There are several points of contention:

 

1) The notion that electric vehicles are less mechanically complex is true to a most limited extent. ICE motors are, by this point in time, basically sealed units for the first five to six years of ownership. They are more complex than an electric motor, but they are tightly manufactured and extremely reliable over their first 100k miles.

 

2) The electron. Storing energy in the form of an abundance of electrons is incredibly inefficient because electrons don't like to be near other electrons. Energy density is a major concern in a vehicle which is limited both in the amount of weight it can carry and the amount of space available. Chemical energy stored in molecular bonds is significantly more efficient.

 

It may be argued that time will make battery storage more efficient, but there is a lower bound on this. Lithium already has, to all intents and purposes, the highest possible charge density of any element. You're not going to see a great leap in charge density from lithium-ion batteries.

 

3) Recharging/refueling. There is a trivial increase in refuelling time from a 10 gallon tank to a 20 gallon tank. It takes twice as long, but the time in both cases is measured in minutes. This is because energy stored in chemical bonds results in more or less stable material that can be transferred from point 'A' to point 'B'. Whether it's firewood or gasoline, you are transferring chemical compounds, not individual electrons. With recharging, you are not transferring material from one point to another, you are transferring electrons. And this is considerably more difficult. A guy with a bucket and a funnel can refill a gas tank. Try pouring a bucket of electrons into a battery!

 

Amusingly, the best solution to the charging question seems to be quick-change battery replacement, which at least gets you back to moving materials instead of electrons. Attempting to charge a battery quickly requires both a battery that is capable of being charged quickly (not all are) and a very high amperage electric feed. Tesla's so called 'high speed' charging stations provide the energy equivalent of perhaps six gallons of gas in 30 minutes, or roughly 20 times longer than the time required to pump 6 gallons of gas. It's possible that time may improve the ability to charge, but here, again, you are bumping up against the limits of ion-based batteries. Chemical reactions can only take place so quickly. There are no chemical limitations to the amount of gas that can be pumped at any one time.

 

I have no idea what the future of transportation looks like. I expect that hybrid technologies such as regenerative braking, start/stop, and some electromotive assist will become standard over time, as all these technologies have the benefit of recapturing lost energy and preventing the loss of energy. PFI was once a 'performance' option. It's not any more because it was a far superior means of delivering gas to the combustion chamber. There's no reason to assume that technologies that are used on 'green' cars will not become mainstream, as any number of performance and luxury technologies have gone mainstream.

Edited November 26, 2013 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Add to the above that electrification of vehicles to whatever degree is heavily tied to fuel pricing and without either a strong monetary incentive

or expensive gasoline or both, there is virtually no compulsion for buyers to move to hybrids let alone electric vehicles.