$4.00/gallon gas coming? Bring it on...

Klayfish wrote: Chris, Definitely an advantage with the Volt. You can take a long trip, I can't. For me, it came down to money. The Volt lease was much more than the Leaf, and the Leaf can handle my needs with few exceptions. On those rare times, I'll just grab the family truckster.

yeah, for me, the Volt lease was about what I was already paying for my Mustang, so cost was a wash. And I don't have a family truckster. I have the dually that gets like 12 mpg and not worth it for long trips without the travel trailer in tow, and the MINI Cooper, which gets great fuel mileage, but has comically cruel rear seats for if we take passengers (like I did this last trip up to CT) and if we have passengers, it won't hold much in the way of baggages... We're actually thinking of replacing it with a pure EV when it's lease is up, as my wife doesn't drive very far or very often at all. Kind of wish that those cars that are available in California were available in the DC/MD area, as we'd love a Spark EV or a Fiat 500e. Probably means that the next gen Leaf will be the choice for us to sit alongside the Volt.

Sky_Render wrote: I want an electric car for my commute. I want one bad. But my commute is 60 miles round trip (closer to 70 if I leave the office for lunch or run errands), and my employer said that charging an EV at the office is *no bueno*. I also have to drive over two mountains between home and work, so that would drastically reduce the EV's range.

Well, going uphill will use up range, but coming down the other side will give most of it back.

I would totally rock a Chevy Volt, but it costs more than my Mustang. And it's a *Chevy*.

Well, yeah, if you lease it to sit alongside your Mustang, though you can save a lot of that money by not buying (anywher near as much) fuel. And the price of the car in a lease situation is more like $25-27k. No one pays $35-40k for one.

Chris_V wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Chris, Definitely an advantage with the Volt. You can take a long trip, I can't. For me, it came down to money. The Volt lease was much more than the Leaf, and the Leaf can handle my needs with few exceptions. On those rare times, I'll just grab the family truckster.

yeah, for me, the Volt lease was about what I was already paying for my Mustang, so cost was a wash. And I don't have a family truckster. I have the dually that gets like 12 mpg and not worth it for long trips without the travel trailer in tow, and the MINI Cooper, which gets great fuel mileage, but has comically cruel rear seats for if we take passengers (like I did this last trip up to CT) and if we have passengers, it won't hold much in the way of baggages... We're actually thinking of replacing it with a pure EV when it's lease is up, as my wife doesn't drive very far or very often at all. Kind of wish that those cars that are available in California were available in the DC/MD area, as we'd love a Spark EV or a Fiat 500e. Probably means that the next gen Leaf will be the choice for us to sit alongside the Volt.

Wow. Didn't realize that they were only in here Cali. There is also a Fit EV and a Focus EV.

Ford also have their CMax and Fusion Energi plug in EV/hybrids

Sky_Render wrote: I want an electric car for my commute. I want one bad. But my commute is 60 miles round trip (closer to 70 if I leave the office for lunch or run errands), and my employer said that charging an EV at the office is *no bueno*. I also have to drive over two mountains between home and work, so that would drastically reduce the EV's range. I am eagerly awaiting the next generation of electric cars in the hopes that they will have ranges approaching that of Tesla's. I would totally rock a Chevy Volt, but it costs more than my Mustang. And it's a *Chevy*.

Ford makes plug-in hybrids (extended range EV, whatever marketing term you want to throw at it) similar to the Volt if blue ovals give you a boner:

http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/trim/seenergi/
http://www.ford.com/cars/cmax/trim/energi/

Bryce

Vigo wrote: Yep, same concept. What's funny is that while there are people who think my driving is scary, i actually consider myself to be WAAAAY safer than the majority of car enthusiasts, EVEN the ones who wont go fast on the street! I will not get on a motorcycle, and (especially relevant to DaewooOfDeath's #2), my brief experience on a road course leads me to believe i would not be able to enjoy it due to the danger TO MYSELF.

110 on a highway is not safe. The way I drive on a racetrack is not safe. The difference is if a wheel falls off my car the absolute worst thing that can happen is I, who knew the risks, die or somebody else, who also knew the risks, dies. If a wheel falls off a car doing 110 mph on the highway, a lot of people who didn't sign up for anything have a very good chance of getting turned into hamburger.

I'm not trying to guilt you, and hey, maybe you are a super good driver who only does 110 mph on perfectly clean and well sited roads with expertly maintained equipment. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you actually do meet at least one or two of those conditions. But that element of informed consent is an important distinction for me. I am a shameless thrill seeker, but others shouldn't have to pay for that.

The other distinction, I suspect, has a lot to do with location. I am near three (soon to be four) racetracks. I also live downtown in a city of 1.8 million people. Driving on racetracks does not suck. Driving downtown in a big city does. Track days run me $75.

I'm not willing to trade my writers' groups, big city orchestras, nice stores, basketball leagues and general culture that only comes to major cities for better commuting conditions.

I would have to spend a lot of time and money on safety equipment just to get to a place i consider 'reasonably safe' but the value return would be total E36 M3 because i would only benefit from that car/effort/money during a tiny, narrow range of circumstances. Im a big lover of street cars (and pactical, utilitarian cars, honestly) and my opinion of a car goes down the more impractical it bceomes for me. I think that ties into Irish's statement about his opinion of cars being weighted by their competitiveness in autocross. What is important to some people is just NOT important to others. I guess all i can say is that im VERY glad that my enjoyment comes from things i can do CONSTANTLY, in almost ANY car, for VERY little money, and it's hard for me to imagine scaling my car hobby down to something that i could only enjoy a handful of days out of only one portion of the year while simultaneously dumping a ton more money into way less cars.

That's fine if you get enjoyment out of 6/10ths on the street, I certainly don't. And I have to say, under 110 mph on the highway 99% of the time is both not very interesting and really risky in my experience.

Also, for the record, I'd bet you have at least an order of magnitude more money into cars than I do.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: 110 on a highway is not safe.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

Vigo

110 on a highway is not safe.

Well you obviously are very limited in your driving experiences!

I worked for almost a year as a contractor for BMW in Bavaria. I mostly drove to several of their locations throughout the region. For trips to Munich I took the train.

When driving in Bavaria I used the Autobahns and cruised in the 120-130 (mph) range with a leased BMW 540i. I say cruised because that's about what most of the traffic usually ran there. There were a few who parked in the right lane at only 70 to 90 and the big trucks were limited and could be a real menace when one pulled out to pass another. But most mothers taking their kids to ball practice or school in their station wagons would travel about the same speed as I did. And there were a few in the high-roller cars that ran 150+ (mph) most of the time.

Guess what, THE ACCIDENT AND DEATH RATES ON UNLIMITED AUTOBAHNS ARE LOWER THAN ON ALMOST ANY SPEED LIMITED HIGHWAYS IN THE WORLD. In fact some "Greenies" were pushing for lower speeds to save resources, not to increase safety. THE LIMITED STRETCHES OF THE AUTOBAHNS HAD A HIGHER ACCIDENT AND DEATH RATE THAN THE UNLIMITED STRETCHES.

If we always aim for the lowest common denominator we will always have people texting, getting B.J.s, reading newspapers etc, rather than concentrating on their driving. I saw that happen to a small extent even in Bavaria.

Of course in much of the world if caught driving in the wrong lane, changing lanes without a signal, etc., you risk losing your license for months or for repeat offenders years, or even life!

Those who consider highway driving a privilege rather than an annoyance are much safer drivers. THE SAFETY PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER AREN'T THE SPEEDS WE TRAVEL. THEY'RE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BORED (LITERALLY TO DEATH) AT THE SPEEDS THEY ARE FORCED TO DRIVE HERE.

In reply to Rupert:

I will say there was a period in my life where I was routinely cruising at 90 actual miles per hour down I 94(traffic permitting), and generally driving like a maniac in town and on country roads, in a beat up Sunfire on H rated tires. My phone was on silent in the center console, both hands on the wheel, looking at least a mile ahead, etc. Now I've grown up a bit and decided to slow down, and find myself not paying enough attention to the road almost every time I go out.

Rupert wrote: THE SAFETY PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER AREN'T THE SPEEDS WE TRAVEL. THEY'RE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BORED (LITERALLY TO DEATH) AT THE SPEEDS THEY ARE FORCED TO DRIVE HERE.

Completely disagree. You're making an apples to oranges comparison. I haven't driven it, but my understanding is that the autobahn is nothing like our American highways. Most drivers in Europe, and I know for sure in Germany, have to go through much more training to get a license. Any numbnut here can get a license pretty easy. They take the responsibility of driving much more seriously than Americans do, and as you pointed out the penalties are much more severe than what we have here. So it's a very different world.

The problems here have nothing to do with being bored because they're forced to drive slowly. That's silly. In the umpteen accidents I've dealt with, I've never seen one that was caused because the driver was bored due to going slow. The accidents are because some nitwit tries to "beat the light" before it turned red, or was applying make up, or going too fast around a turn on a wet road, or changed lanes without looking, or feels NASCAR style drafting is a good street tactic. I can go on and on. In fact it was the relatively slower speeds that kept those drivers and their passengers from being killed.

Believe me, I'm not advocating that the highway speed limit here should be 45mph. However, if Americans drove at the same rate of speed they do in Europe without seriously modifying their driving skill and behavior the death toll would probably skyrocket.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to Rupert: I will say there was a period in my life where I was routinely cruising at 90 actual miles per hour down I 94(traffic permitting). My phone was on silent in the center console, both hands on the wheel, looking at least a mile ahead, etc. Now I've grown up a bit and decided to slow down, and find myself not paying enough attention to the road almost every time I go out.

Thanks for restating my point.

I am dubious of the idea that higher speed limits will redeem the People of Walmart and cause them to become proficient and attentive drivers.

Which is not to suggest that being more like Germany would be bad. Higher standards in driver education and licensing, road maintenance, vehicle condition standards... Sign me up! My limited driving experience driving in Germany was awesome.

Back on topic, I'd love to hear more about the Leaf and other similar stuff... Anybody driven a Cmax Energi? The Volt is compelling, but I wish it were more wagon-ey. I should look at one in person and see how deep it is under the hatch, and whether the dog could clear the jump to the hatch opening... If I had more parking I'd probably be working harder on convincing the other half of the household to pick up a Volvo wagon for road trips and using a Leaf or similar around town...

I got a response from a different dealer about the Leaf:

I am glad to hear your interest in the Leaf! It is very fun to drive and great on gas! ...

Rupert wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

Vigo

110 on a highway is not safe.

If we always aim for the lowest common denominator we will always have people texting, getting B.J.s, reading newspapers etc, rather than concentrating on their driving. I saw that happen to a small extent even in Bavaria. Those who consider highway driving a privilege rather than an annoyance are much safer drivers.

Please re-read this little section.

I'm the autocross-centric guy, not irish.

Oops!!! Sorry guys.

Edit to try to keep this back on topic

Hey now! I've gone way out on a limb to troll up this lively debate, don't go ruining it!

110 on a highway is not safe.

Depends. The times i do it, i feel more safe than driving in a busy urban center. Part of that is because i obviously dont try to do it in busy urban centers.

The other distinction, I suspect, has a lot to do with location. I am near three (soon to be four) racetracks. I also live downtown in a city of 1.8 million people. Driving on racetracks does not suck. Driving downtown in a big city does.

I understand and agree with that reasoning. That's one of the many reasons i feel tied to where i live right now, because it happens to be the only big city (2+million) that ive ever driven in that has a fantastic highway system that keeps you off the surface streets 75+% of the time, and has next to no traffic outside of rush hour except in specific problem areas (usually road construction). Our road system is basically 3 concentric rings with a bunch of spokes connecting them. Some of our highways are 5 and 6 lanes each direction. It's a beautiful thing.

I'm not willing to trade my writers' groups, big city orchestras, nice stores, basketball leagues and general culture that only comes to major cities for better commuting conditions.

And im not willing to trade my low-density big city (what some people call SPRAWL) for the kind of big city that S. Korea or Japan does or New York does. I'm more or less allergic to population density.

Also i agree in general with Rupert's point that driving in a way that doesnt demand your full attention is dangerous. My wife who just ran a stop light and T-boned someone would not have done that if she were involved in the act of driving. Instead she's thinking about other things (shopping, orchestras, culture, who knows!) and SHE is the kind of driver that's going to plow into you at 35 mph while i am carefully cruising around at 95mph on some highway somewhere.

Humans are hilariously bad at risk assessment and the way people talk about speed is just more evidence of that. There are so many circumstantial factors that are more significant to the safety of any given situation than the speed of ONE vehicle, but since speed is the easiest thing to quantify that's what people latch onto.

tuna55 wrote: I got a response from a different dealer about the Leaf: I am glad to hear your interest in the Leaf! It is very fun to drive and great on gas! ...

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Awesome.

I have a friend who has a Fit EV. He recently took a 370 mile trip. He had to stop midway for a three (3) hour recharge. But he loves it.

Rupert wrote: Well you obviously are very limited in your driving experiences! I worked for almost a year as a contractor for BMW in Bavaria. I mostly drove to several of their locations throughout the region. For trips to Munich I took the train. When driving in Bavaria I used the Autobahns and cruised in the 120-130 (mph) range with a leased BMW 540i. I say cruised because that's about what most of the traffic usually ran there. There were a few who parked in the right lane at only 70 to 90 and the big trucks were limited and could be a real menace when one pulled out to pass another. But most mothers taking their kids to ball practice or school in their station wagons would travel about the same speed as I did. And there were a few in the high-roller cars that ran 150+ (mph) most of the time. Guess what, THE ACCIDENT AND DEATH RATES ON UNLIMITED AUTOBAHNS ARE LOWER THAN ON ALMOST ANY SPEED LIMITED HIGHWAYS IN THE WORLD. In fact some "Greenies" were pushing for lower speeds to save resources, not to increase safety. THE LIMITED STRETCHES OF THE AUTOBAHNS HAD A HIGHER ACCIDENT AND DEATH RATE THAN THE UNLIMITED STRETCHES.

Perhaps now is a good time to run down the differences between what we were talking about and the autobahn.

1. Tougher licensing requirements in Germany, hence the lowest common denominator is much higher than in the US.

2. Vastly better vehicle inspections. Ah, but we grm guys are immune to that sort of thing, perfectly maintained machines we insist on having before taking to the highways. Oh wait - http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/the-most-ghetto-tastic-thing-youve-ever-fabbed-for-a-car/68972/page1/

3. The autobahn is full of people who are expecting you to drive 130 mph. If you are driving 130 mph on an American highway, you are going to surprise every one you come across and, if you are on a really fast stretch of road, your closing velocity will be 40-50 mph AT MINIMUM when you spring said surprise on your fellow motorists.

4. The de-restricted autobahn is well maintained and monitored by video. American highways generally aren't. This matters quite a lot. Running over a bit of debris at 65 mph is probably just going to be annoying. Running over debris at 130 mph is likely going to give you an opportunity to experience your car's safety features first hand.

If we always aim for the lowest common denominator we will always have people texting, getting B.J.s, reading newspapers etc, rather than concentrating on their driving. I saw that happen to a small extent even in Bavaria.

We should absolutely aim for roadways that are safe for the least skilled possible, licensed driver and inspected car. I don't care about making a point or holding up higher standards. I care about getting to my destination without incident.

So, we can either change the lowest common denominator or make laws that cater to the current lowest common denominator. The first option sure sounds nice, but will not work in contemporary US society. Here's why:

Unless you live in a few very expensive large cities, you must have a car to have a job. This means that if you want to get rid of those lowest common denominator folks, you need to figure out an alternative means of getting them to work. Ah, the bus or subway, perhaps? Good luck with that.

Of course in much of the world if caught driving in the wrong lane, changing lanes without a signal, etc., you risk losing your license for months or for repeat offenders years, or even life!

I'll bet those countries aren't effectively sentencing their bad drivers to indefinite unemployment when they do so. Low population density makes public transport really, really inefficient. The US has really, really low population densities.

Those who consider highway driving a privilege rather than an annoyance are much safer drivers.

This would be a much better argument if there was a practical alternative to them driving.

THE SAFETY PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER AREN'T THE SPEEDS WE TRAVEL. THEY'RE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BORED (LITERALLY TO DEATH) AT THE SPEEDS THEY ARE FORCED TO DRIVE HERE.

Speed isn't the only problem. It's one of the problems. Put simply, energy increases exponentially with speed. There are ways to make speed safe, but we don't really bother with them in the US.

As for your boredom theory, I'd love to see what you're basing this on. I'm, to say the least, skeptical.

I think boredom is bad word to use here. What Rupert means is at 60-70mph, in any newish car, you can (most of the time) get away with doing all sorts of E36 M3 that isnt driving the car and everything feels perfectly fine. When you're doing 100mph and passing trucks with closing speeds at 30+ mph it commands ALL your attention if you have any sense of self preservation whatsoever.

I'm with Daewoo on all of this. I'd love to see it change, but it wont.

I'm also one of the few enthusiasts on this forum who would glady move somewhere where a car is not needed. I'd like to start biking to work soon and have my car become purely optional.

Does anyone have any experience with the Ford CMax Energi or the Fusion Energi?

I got the Leaf tonight. $243 down, $0 down, 15kmiles, 24 months. Nissan VPP program rocks.

wait, but you're a libertarian, how can you take an incentive?

The government currently gives money to oil companies then subsequently taxes gas, along with local and state governments. There is no "free market" solution, so I did it regardless of this.

You leased a car? Aren't you the financial tightwad?

Yeah. It cost like $165 to gas up and maintain the Cruiser. It isn't long for this world. It's way cheaper than buying all but the cheapest car, and at that, you have a 5 year commitment rather than two. It also gives me an insurance against rising gas prices and against a dramatically improved EV technology in the future.

What, you're a hippe now?

No. I even have a Glock sticker on it already.

It's neat. Very neat. I'll enjoy it soon.

tuna55 wrote: I got the Leaf tonight. $243 down, $0 down, 15kmiles, 24 months. Nissan VPP program rocks. wait, but you're a libertarian, how can you take an incentive? The government currently gives money to oil companies then subsequently taxes gas, along with local and state governments. There is no "free market" solution, so I did it regardless of this. You leased a car? Aren't you the financial tightwad? Yeah. It cost like $165 to gas up and maintain the Cruiser. It isn't long for this world. It's way cheaper than buying all but the cheapest car, and at that, you have a 5 year commitment rather than two. It also gives me an insurance against rising gas prices and against a dramatically improved EV technology in the future. What, you're a hippe now? No. I even have a Glock sticker on it already. It's neat. Very neat. I'll enjoy it soon.

Your whole family fit in that car comfortably compared to the PT?

Sine_Qua_Non wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I got the Leaf tonight. $243 down, $0 down, 15kmiles, 24 months. Nissan VPP program rocks. wait, but you're a libertarian, how can you take an incentive? The government currently gives money to oil companies then subsequently taxes gas, along with local and state governments. There is no "free market" solution, so I did it regardless of this. You leased a car? Aren't you the financial tightwad? Yeah. It cost like $165 to gas up and maintain the Cruiser. It isn't long for this world. It's way cheaper than buying all but the cheapest car, and at that, you have a 5 year commitment rather than two. It also gives me an insurance against rising gas prices and against a dramatically improved EV technology in the future. What, you're a hippe now? No. I even have a Glock sticker on it already. It's neat. Very neat. I'll enjoy it soon.

Your whole family fit in that car comfortably compared to the PT?

No, we have the minivan for that. This is the secondary car.

In reply to tuna55:

Dude, congrats!!!! I will be following this development closely! (Our Leaf info packet just arrived today in the mail)

Very interested to see everyone's experiences with these...