Fiat 500 Forum banner

141 - 151 of 151 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
I don't think it's pathetic necessarily (well maybe with the exception that the car cost that much to begin with), it's just a reflection that there really isn't a mass market for electric vehicles and knowing that, they keep cutting the price down. Look at the numbers in that article - over 150K vehicles sold and only 1500 of those were electric, doesn't take much to figure out they aren't selling.

But that price structure goes back to what I said above, why in the world would I spend nearly $40K for an electric version of a car that already gets good mileage as it is and costs nearly 1/2 the price? Eco-mindedness only goes so far and someone driving an economical gas powered vehicle can already claim that. What they should do is just eat the cost and sell them for about the same price as the gas powered versions. Take the loss up front and make up for it with government incentives or something. They aren't selling them anyway, so they aren't making money off of cars sitting on the lot - make the money back in interest loans, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
857 Posts
The link/chart linked above does show some surprising numbers and trends. First, it does combine plug-in hybrids along with pure BEV's, so you have to sort thru it to get to the BEV only data.
The Nissan Leaf is by far the star in that segment, with 63,925 units sold since it's launch in 2010. Next is the Tesla S at 31,300 over 3 years, which is very good numbers for a $80,000 car. My biggest surprise was the BMW i3 (+$40,000) which has sold 3104 units in only 4 months. Probably my next biggest surprise was the Smart ED with 2703 units sold in 2 years, mostly because it is such a small package vehicle. Another surprise is that Honda, a master at marketing, has moved only 1007 Fit electrics in 3 years. Then we have Fiat moving 3748 500e's in 18 months, and Ford moving a nearly identical 3957 of it's Focus Electric in 3 years.

Nissan and Tesla in moving over 95,000 pure electrics are the stars of the segment, and BMW is showing great promise in sales potential. Smart, Fiat, and Ford are battling each other in the middle (and all are trending towards lower sales/year) Honda and a host of other small players are but a drop in the bucket.

Nissan has publically said it is committed to building and selling the Leaf world-wide, and the economics of scale in doing that certainly help in making the car profitable (are you listening, Fiat?)

Nearly 200,000 BEV's getting sold is not a huge number of cars, but it is enough to support that many, many, people find it/they work for them. Do incentives play a role in that...of course they do, that's the point, to get the demand up to a point that BEV's make a good business case for manufacturers to build in sufficient and profitable quantities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
I don't think it's pathetic necessarily (well maybe with the exception that the car cost that much to begin with), it's just a reflection that there really isn't a mass market for electric vehicles and knowing that, they keep cutting the price down. Look at the numbers in that article - over 150K vehicles sold and only 1500 of those were electric, doesn't take much to figure out they aren't selling.

But that price structure goes back to what I said above, why in the world would I spend nearly $40K for an electric version of a car that already gets good mileage as it is and costs nearly 1/2 the price? Eco-mindedness only goes so far and someone driving an economical gas powered vehicle can already claim that. What they should do is just eat the cost and sell them for about the same price as the gas powered versions. Take the loss up front and make up for it with government incentives or something. They aren't selling them anyway, so they aren't making money off of cars sitting on the lot - make the money back in interest loans, etc.
What's "pathetic" to me is that's the frikkin' Ford Motor Company not Fiat. Talk about distribution and brand image. If THEY cant sell these with a $10,000 discount AND incentives, there's no real market for these things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
857 Posts
Interesting site

http://fueleconomy.gov

Of special interest is under the "about EPA ratings" tab, and then select the "beyond tailpipe emission" heading to get to a regional calculator that determines the comparative levels of CO2 in your area/zip code.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
But that price structure goes back to what I said above, why in the world would I spend nearly $40K for an electric version of a car that already gets good mileage as it is and costs nearly 1/2 the price? Eco-mindedness only goes so far and someone driving an economical gas powered vehicle can already claim that. They aren't selling them anyway, so they aren't making money off of cars sitting on the lot - make the money back in interest loans, etc.
First, they're not going to make it back on interest, because the spread isn't there, unless they jack them up artificially by 5 percentage points. Second, your point is quite right- the basic car get 40 MPG. WHAT THE F&&K DO YOU WANT?



The sheer volume of cars isn't going to make a dent in either gas consumption or bad air quality, so why is CA torturing OEMs for this? It's pure political vanity, and seeing the massive strides the IC engine has made in the past 10 years alone, in terms of MPG and emissions, they are better off leaving things alone.


The joke is that better air quality will come just from sending older cars to the crusher and replacing them with newer ones. The “environmentalists” will then claim the E vehicle policy did the job. All 15,000 of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
First, they're not going to make it back on interest, because the spread isn't there, unless they jack them up artificially by 5 percentage points. Second, your point is quite right- the basic car get 40 MPG. WHAT THE F&&K DO YOU WANT?



The sheer volume of cars isn't going to make a dent in either gas consumption or bad air quality, so why is CA torturing OEMs for this? It's pure political vanity, and seeing the massive strides the IC engine has made in the past 10 years alone, in terms of MPG and emissions, they are better off leaving things alone.


The joke is that better air quality will come just from sending older cars to the crusher and replacing them with newer ones. The “environmentalists” will then claim the E vehicle policy did the job. All 15,000 of them.
This is why I never understand how the older vehicles get exempted from emissions checks in states that require it. My 2012 Fiat has to get hooked up to an emissions machine, but my 1984 VW Vanagon does not - it makes no sense. The cars that are going to be polluting more are arguably going to be the older ones unless they've been maintained properly. I can understand if they were made before a time where catalytic converters were required, but heck, even my old '77 Buick Skylark had one of those on there and it was exempt from any checks. Oh well, it's all political like you said, what are you going to do? ;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #149
This is why I never understand how the older vehicles get exempted from emissions checks in states that require it. My 2012 Fiat has to get hooked up to an emissions machine, but my 1984 VW Vanagon does not - it makes no sense. The cars that are going to be polluting more are arguably going to be the older ones unless they've been maintained properly. I can understand if they were made before a time where catalytic converters were required, but heck, even my old '77 Buick Skylark had one of those on there and it was exempt from any checks. Oh well, it's all political like you said, what are you going to do? ;)

It does seem rather backwards doesn't it? :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
I also agree that the subsidies would be better justified retiring the worst polluters and gas guzzlers - no new technology needed and you get instant results. SAE did such a study many years ago. Those benefits would also naturally flow to the bottom of the economic scale where it is needed most. And theoretically it would trickle up to new car sales which tend to help the overall economy (though not necessarily the US economy).

Still... I leased a Chevy Volt in 2012. It cured my range anxiety. Rarely needed gas (even with ~40 mi range), and I grew to hate when the gas engine came on.

Our family drives 15,000 mi/yr, driving 300 days per year, that's only 50 mi/day average. That's BOTH cars total. The primary/commuter car (which has been electric since 2012) runs about 9k miles/yr and the 2nd car (gas) runs about 6k, including out of state trips.

Electric cars are perfect for commuting, especially in 2-car households where another vehicle is available for longer trips or hauling mass quantites.
Is that not a mass market???
 
141 - 151 of 151 Posts
Top