Yes, that is the better question but in this economy do you think messing with the “sin tax” is even on the table? Alternatively, how bad would things be if, in addition, there was >$4/gallon gasoline?

@ terk184,

Yeah, I want a Tesla-like vehicle but not necessarily a Tesla (it’s cool but I don’t like Musk, the Tesla’s battery technology is antiquated compared with more recent developments and I’m not a fan of using aluminum for chassis structures). It’s all about the batteries. If that technology matures more rapidly (Lithium-titanate, for example) then there are fewer barriers to overcome. An electric car can be and eventually will be superior to fossil fuelers, no question. But the limiting factor has been batteries. Get that and the market is automatic.

Simply put, there are two kinds of modern Gas Electric, or “hybrid”, drive trains.

The first is the Parallel Hybrid, typified by the TOYOTA PRIUS and the HONDA INSIGHT. These use an electric motor to back up the gas engine and even provide some propulsion at low speeds. The motor and the engine, if not fully integrated into each other are certainly bolted to the same transmission. The electric motor is never really very powerful and in the case of the PRIUS and the INSIGHT backs up a small and underpowered, for the size of the vehicle, gasoline engine. To date no one has bothered to try a Diesel in a Parallel hybrid but then it would not yield much improvement as a Diesel engine can already get F/econ that is very competitive to the Parallel Hybrid. Plus a Parallel hybrid, in order for that electric motor to make any sense at all, must be coupled with a large, heavy and expensive battery array. The cost of DIESEL fuel looks like a hindrance but is still much less than the cost of the Parallel hybrid drive system over the span of 5-10years.

Because of this many doubter point to this short fall as why all Hybrids are a “crock”. Truthfully, I see no great future for Parallel hybrids.

Second is the Serial Hybrid. This is a much simpler system using the gas engine to run a generator to provide the electric power for the electric motor(s). Because of this simplicity, a large expensive battery array is NOT required. You can have a smaller more fuel efficient engine running the generator (getting an easy 50-60 mpg) while having the performance of electric motors and you do not have to carry anything other than a starer battery for the generator.. The motors can also be much more robust that we have seen in cars like the TESLA Roadster because you are concerned with draining the batteries. The technology is so simple and easy to develop for that it was tried by GM in the 1960′s but low gas prices and the looming muscle car wars killed that faster than Nader killed the CORVAIR – even if Serial Hybrids, like the CORVAIR (from 1965 on), was the better choice.

The problem comes in when you have the PR and Marketing people calling a car “plug-in” Hybrid. A Plug-in hybrid is any hybrid, Parallel or Serial, in which you can plug it in to a wall socket and recharge the on board battery array off the power grid. The problem really is that it is a major change in the way most people are willing to live with their cars and it sounds like you HAVE TO plug in the car to get ANY use out of it. That is not true but it is not what is being espoused by automakers.

This is what makes the cars seem like vaporware because the batteries still cost thousands of dollars, adding an easy $15K to the cost of VOLT, weigh hundreds of pounds, issues concerning safety and safety education about the batteries are not being addressed, and most telling is that no one is talking about recycling these batteries. While Lithium Polymer are recyclable, recycling batteries has never been as easy as recycling your old soda and beer cans. When all these are addressed fully then being a Plug-in hybrid will make sense.

If fact, I would give batteries about another 10-15 years while the most conservative estimates for Fuel Cells are 20-30years. The engineers putting these machines together know better than the politicians who are trying to pick a winner. In fact, only HONDA is really trying to make an effort with FUEL CELLS outloud and not because they think it will rule the day. NOTHING HONDA has ever done first or most publicly has ruled the day in the auto industry. This is like BETA chasing VHS. FUEL CELLS have no future in cars. In homes definitely but not in cars.

Further FUEL CELLS are only 80-90% more efficient than a comparably powerful Internal combustion engine. Batteries are already several times and potentially many magnitudes better than that. A car getting 20 mpg with and ICE would get 38mpg (90% improvement) with Fuel Cells, but would get something on the order of 125mpg with Batteries (calculating energy density and use of that energy).

The Government will not back a foreign company when the issue are the domestic companies. one it is a waste of time and would be go directly against OBAMA’s statement to back the US auto industry which is increasingly looking like that does not include bailing out GM and CHRYSLER. I would wish more attention given to TESLA, APTERA, and other US automotive start ups frankly. If two old trees like GM and CHRYSLER can not be saved, then foster that new growth.

Is it too early to change the name to Obama’s task farce?

I can guarantee failure, none of them have any real knowledge in an industry that’s some of the most complicated, impossible to predict as there can be. Some good cars don’t sell all the time, no one can explain it, but it happens. Sometimes good companies fail as well and it’s beyond their control. I look at GM as a pretty good company that may fail – not at their fault, but it happens and you can’t stop it.

It’s time to let Chrysler do whatever it wants, I think its inevitably dead, so it can do any last ditch efforts it wants to pull it back. No government funding though. It’s dead as far as I know. Any funding they allocate to them should goto Ford for being a good sport. They deserve some low cost loans, or at least refunds on the interest they pay over GM and Chrysler from the private loans they have to pay over everyone else.

GM is trickier, many businesses rely on them building their vans and cars for fleets. Let them go bankrupt but be sure to not let it fail completely.

Calling it this is confusing because it instantly implies that you MUST plug it in and charge it up to drive it. As a Serial Hybrid, the Volt can live without the batteries and get over 60mpg and cost around $25K. The Batteries add About $15K to the car out of hand. It would also weigh several hundred pounds less. You get a car about the size of a Malibu that gets double the miles per gallon.

If GM is so serious about the VOLT being a success they should strongly consider ditching the batteries as standard equipment and put the CADILLAC CONVERJ back on the schedule with the batteries as standard there.

terk184, as a non-early adopter, I would buy one once proven in (i.e. I just recently became fully accepting of hybrids).

The better question is: At what price of gas/diesel would you not be willing to drive a pure petroleum based vehicle? Once this is understood, Obama can raise the sin tax to match to force people to change.

Market – Sure. In the big cities and for people who would get one for the wife. Or for people who do nothing with their vehicle besides go to work and the grocery

Government – No! Laissez Faire! Let the market decide what it wants. I don’t want the next generation of cars to be designed and built around politcal agendas, hokey global warming theories and such. Let the people decide what they want to buy. I am for pulling out of our consumption of OPEC dino juice though. I believe you can do that in a number of ways and still build a vehicle that people actually want and can use.

Who here is interested in buying an electric car?

Who thinks there is a market for electric cars?

Who thinks the govt. should be involved in making or influencing product decsions?