And how long would it take for the gas savings to offset the difference in cost between a Volt for $30K (base MSRP with the 10K credit) and something like a $17k Cruze (base MSRP)?

My guess is THAT is why you don't see those kinds of commercials.

 

Eh....answering my own question...lol.

According to the EPA, the most gas-guzzling Cruze would cost you just under $2000 per year in fuel (I'll use $2k just to make the math easier). If you never put a drop of gas in the Volt (ie...electric only), it will cost $648 per year (I'll use $600 just to make the math easier. That is a difference of $1400 per year. Given a base MSRP difference of $17k, it would take over 12 years to make up the difference.

Of course, if gas prices were to double, then something over a bit more reasonable 6 years would be the result.

Yup....betcha that's why they don't show those kind of numbers...

Source: Fueleconomy.gov

 

Sweet! GM can raise the price 3 grand now!

 

WINNER, winner; chicken dinner!

. . . what's the life expectancy of these batteries again? I think I recall seeing a Top Gear with a Leaf and they said depending on how much charging you do and how much the battery is drained on average that the battery would last you 6-10 years and cost 7,000 Pounds to replace.

 

Gas prices in these parts just climbed above $4/gal. They're predicting $5/gal by the end of the summer. At $5/gal my 15mpg Tahoe just isn't cutting it as a daily driver. However its paid for and I can't justify the cost of a new car, even if it does get 30mpg. I also did the math on fueleconomy.gov. I just realized that the Volt requires premium fuel too boot!

Taking into account $5/gal for regular, and $5.50/gal for premium, the improved mpg of the Cruze or Volt over my Tahoe would take 10 and 14 years to make up the difference. Now while I don't expect my 10 year old, 155k mile Tahoe to last that long, there sure should be a cheaper alternative.

I even consider a used car like a 2003-2005 Impala, which I could probably pick up for about $5500. The numbers are a little better, braking even in ~3.5 years.

Maybe I need to start taking the train to work.

 

Not a bad way to travel. I'm going to NIAS the frist week of april and a round trip ticket from my AO is 162 bucks. Granted its a 9 hour trip each way but I think to and fro in the Mustang would be about 300-350 bucks in gas since my car only gets around 240-260 miles on a tank with a mix of driving mostly on the highway. Lost of stop and go and that drops to a 220-230 miles before Everybody gets out and walks.

Sigh... the good old days with the 300hp GT and upwards of 28 mpg on the highway (maximimized fuel economy)

 

Yea, that's the economics of it, but there are somethings that can't be calculated economically. First is the emissions, EV's do pollute less than regular gas cars. Not a big deal in many parts of the country, but states like California would be all for it.

The other thing is a EV has a more promising future than the combustion engine. EV's just need electricity, which is a never ending resource technically speaking. (Once renewable resources gain momentum) Gasoline... we are estimating the amount of profitable oil left is around 50 years.

 

Coercion means giving you no choice. I don't see any coersion here....No one's making you buy a Volt. You're still perfectly free to buy that big 4wd Suburban for those daily 2 block trips to the beauty salon.

In this case, you're getting a $10,000 tax break. A item I'd think would give you (of all people) a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

I think the Volt is still competitive on a lease (assuming you would get a better deal than GM initially offered). They come better equipped than a Cruze, too, so you can't really quote the base price as apples to apples.

-Geoff

 

No one is claiming that Volt version 1 makes economic sense. But we have to start somewhere, and the gov't subsidy gives it a low enough price so people will start buying and manufacturers will keep developing. It may be Volt version 2 or 3 before this starts winning cost/benefit analysis, but at least we're moving towards version 2 and 3. The sooner we can get this technology up and going and sorted out for cheap the better. Thats the real aim of all of this. Or we could throw it all away and wait for STHTF before getting started. I'd rather see the US lead the way toward energy independence.

 

FTR, I'm not argueing whether or not Volt is a good idea, or about emissions, or anything else. I just stuck the numbers out there - they don't make sense for me right now (and I mostly drive a 14 mpg hemi truck....yuk....but its paid for....). I concur completely on the idea that cars like the Volt are good for the technology side. Oil is indeed finite (how finite is another story), and we do need to be putting less crap into the air (though I believe global warming is waaaaayyyy overblown). It's just that we're not there yet, which is why the advertising doesn't tout money saved (because you're not).

Electricity was mentioned above...our outdated grid is going to become another issue if we don't do something about it. Nucleur power, more efficient wind/solar, bio-fuel, whatever. Burning more coal probably isn't the long term answer as it is still one of the most polluting sources of electricity out there (though it is relatively cheap, and we have it in abundance).

Sure would like to have a 25-35 mpg 2014 Ford Ranger....might part with some bucks for that....

 

The price premium vs fuel economy doesn't make sense for any "hybrid" type vehicle really.

Of course Volt is sort of a trendy tech car though since it is somewhat novel. If you don't like the price the Fisker Karma will only be $102,000 when it finally comes out.

 

This didn't jump out at me earlier, but holy crap that's a really high average household income! That alone is quite an accomplishment for chevrolet. Households that make that kind of dough are rolling in a BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, or maybe a Caddy, NOT Chevrolets!

 

Well, the Volt is $17,000s more car than the Cruze. But if gas-mileage was your only concern, there you go.

 

Funny; the Bush party already tried to do that with corn and ethanol subsidies which....literally sent boxes of crackers, cereal, etc made from cornmeal through the roof.

Too many people look at the Volt as a definitive answer to foreign energy dependency and reducing overall greenhouse emissions. NO. It's not.

It's an exploration into a production-viable EV that reduces range-anxiety (one of the most common deterrents of EV adoption) with a gas motor. It has government support because politicians like when they've got a big car company behind them, and big car companies love when politicians shove government money into their coffers.

It's a big political tool, it's a neat car, but it's not the answer to the world's car problems. It's expensive, it doesn't exactly save money, but it sure does save gas (and help minimally from a financial standpoint, especially if you lease one) if you're like me and all your trips (which add up to about 1,000 miles/month or more than $200/month in gas) on electricity.

A Mac is a computer just like the Volt is a car. Can you buy something cheaper that does almost exactly the same thing? Yeah. That's why this country is so great. You could live in Russia or whatever and be clamoring at the next piece of **** Lada that's been approved for sale to the peasant people. lol

So here's the thing. You don't like it? Don't buy one, and the government won't spend any money helping you out. But if someone else does--too f*cking bad.