NYT says EV not worth it. Leaf = Versa

[GRA]

Nah, I don't overlook it, I'm well aware of it. Indeed, I've said many times here that until affordable BEV range increases considerably (with the accompanying price drop), they will remain primarily urban/commute 2nd cars for well-to-do, home-owning households, the definition of a niche vehicle. If you happen to fall within that niche, good for you! I can only hope that the next generation will meet my needs.

That does not describe me at all. We barely qualify as middle income and my Leaf is my primary source of transportation

Exceptions are inevitable. Please note the word 'primarily' immediately preceding my description of the typical BEV owner; it was included specifically to allow for exceptions.

 

[thankyouOB]

I am certainly aware of the effects of the recession (perhaps more directly than you), but note that auto sales increased considerably last year, from ~11m to about 12.8 million, and are apparently on track to increase again this year. And while the economy was booming when the Prius' sales took off, gas was also dirt cheap lessening any incentive to get a fuel-efficient car (and giving us hordes of Expeditions, Durangos et al, which are now, happily, being led off to the scrapyard).

I did read an article in the WSJ yesterday that mentioned that the average new car sold in March got something over 24 mpg (don't remember the exact figure), up from 20.8 four years ago, so people are responding to gas prices (and the cars are just getting more fuel efficient in general).

you talk allot about data in your posts, but seem to make up your own to prove your points.
Maybe, as I and others (including DAVEOLY) said, it is because times are tough.
here are the car sales data from Wards Automotive going back to 1997, the first year of the Prius. We are down more than 2 million units in 2011 from 1997.
(I have no idea where you get your 11 and 12 million figures from. Did you include all of North America or trucks?)

Year -- Cars
2011 -- 6,089,422
2010 -- 5,635,433
2009 -- 5,400,890
2008 -- 6,769,107
2007 -- 7,562,334
2006 -- 7,761,592
2005 -- 7,659,983
2004 -- 7,482,555
2003 -- 7,555,551
2002 -- 8,042,255
2001 -- 8,352,000
2000 -- 8,777,723
1999 -- 8,637,708
1998 -- 8,084,989
1997 -- 8,217,480

To find a year when fewer cars were sold in the US than in the years of the Great Recession, you have to go all the way back to:
1957 -- 6,033,000

I know, you are going to start examining this by percentage terms. go ahead.

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/historical/UsaSa01summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DaveEV]

(I have no idea where you get your 11 and 12 million figures from. Did you include all of North America or trucks?)

You have to include trucks. Especially since most of those "trucks" are used as passenger vehicles.

 

[thankyouOB]

(I have no idea where you get your 11 and 12 million figures from. Did you include all of North America or trucks?)

You have to include trucks. Especially since most of those "trucks" are used as passenger vehicles.

we could have an argument about how to parse trucks, but I dont think that changes the larger point of the Great Recession impacting sales. Go look at the data.
1997 had 2.5 million more combined truck and car sales than 2011.

 

[GRA]

(I have no idea where you get your 11 and 12 million figures from. Did you include all of North America or trucks?)

You have to include trucks. Especially since most of those "trucks" are used as passenger vehicles.

we could have an argument about how to parse trucks, but I dont think that changes the larger point of the Great Recession impacting sales. Go look at the data.
1997 had 2.5 million more combined truck and car sales than 2011.

As drees mentioned, my numbers are for light duty vehicles, which includes pickups, SUVs, and vans. The Ford F-150 pickup remains the best selling LDV in America, for the umpteenth year running. Here's the SAAR data for March, indicating LDV sales are on track to reach 14.3 million this year:

http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/default.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a year over year comparison for March:

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and here's the sales total for 2011:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513604577140440852581080.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you still contend that I'm making data up? If not, an apology is in order. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I do mind when you question my integrity.

 

[thankyouOB]

yawn.

you cant support your argument, so you get all huffy. did you go to the Breitbart school of argument?
I allowed for the fact that you might be including trucks in your term "auto sales." regardless, sales are still way down.

your argument fails to dispute the key point: sales in the Great Recession are way off from 1997, and any other year in the past three decades.

 

[Stoaty]

I think you who are Leaf owners in USA today with the steep price for this care compared to the fossil competition are true pioneers and earn my honest respect !

I wish I could claim credit here, but my choice of the Leaf was a financial one as well as an environmental one. My SV Leaf was about $22,500 after federal and California state rebates. I calculated that I would save over $11,000 in fuel costs (at $4.00 per gallon) over 100,000 miles compared to Toyota Camry. It also means I don't have to worry about a gasoline shortage developing or the price shooting through the roof--I will just drive my Leaf. The maintenance will probably be a lot cheaper than ICE (battery excepted), but by the time my battery loses enough capacity that it is not sufficient for my needs (8-10 years for me), I will probably be able to get a replacement for perhaps $5,000-7,000 so I can run for another 8-10 years.

 

[smkettner]

Forbes says Leaf has lowest total cost of ownership.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonr...tric-cars-cost-less-but-watch-the-assumptions

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

trying to get a good line on trucks but initial findings looks like only about 20-30% of truck sales are headed for domestic use. most are fleet purchases for use primarily to perform business function.

this is not an easy figure to run down as many people who are required to use a truck also use it for personal transportation. my brother in law was a prime example. when building bridges in OR (he was also laid off) he was provided a company truck, a Ford F-350 which got 10 mpg on a good day. he used it as his personal vehicle as well since his job required him to drive all over the Pacific Northwest including some jobs that required him to live away from home for extended periods. so hard to classify him as there are no doubt many others doing the same.

but that does not change the fact that truck sales have plummeted as well AND we have a heck of a lot more drivers today than 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

There is a LOT of motivation in this country to go green but for many, even ones with relatively high incomes, they have much less options than we do due to bad credit.

there is an article at PC about the New Car Market losing as much as 7 million potential customers by 2025 due to an estimated $3,000 increase in the cost of cars to meet new CAFE standards. now, how they got that number is anyone's guess but they said this would a change from $30,000 for new car today to $33,000 for a new car in 2025. its really just more FUD since i am guessing in 13 years, inflation will cover most of that difference.

 

[GRA]

yawn.

you cant support your argument, so you get all huffy. did you go to the Breitbart school of argument?
I allowed for the fact that you might be including trucks in your term "auto sales." regardless, sales are still way down.

your argument fails to dispute the key point: sales in the Great Recession are way off from 1997, and any other year in the past three decades.

So be it.

 

[GRA]

trying to get a good line on trucks but initial findings looks like only about 20-30% of truck sales are headed for domestic use. most are fleet purchases for use primarily to perform business function.

this is not an easy figure to run down as many people who are required to use a truck also use it for personal transportation. my brother in law was a prime example. when building bridges in OR (he was also laid off) he was provided a company truck, a Ford F-350 which got 10 mpg on a good day. he used it as his personal vehicle as well since his job required him to drive all over the Pacific Northwest including some jobs that required him to live away from home for extended periods. so hard to classify him as there are no doubt many others doing the same.

but that does not change the fact that truck sales have plummeted as well AND we have a heck of a lot more drivers today than 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

I agree that pickup trucks and vans are more likely to be used as work vehicles, which is why the original classification was made. But SUVs are primarily passenger vehicles, and it was the lobbying of auto companies that kept them classified as trucks so that they wouldn't have to meet the stricter mileage, emissions and safety requirements of passenger cars. As to sales, they are certainly down from the U.S. peak of 16.56m, which was reached in 2006, and then declined to 16.15m in 2007, 13.2 million in 2008 as the recession kicked in, 10.4 million as the recession bottomed out in 2009, and then rising since then to 12.8 million last year, with perhaps 14m or more this year (if nothing major happens).

While the population with a driving license is higher, demographic and social factors are changing sales patterns. As with gas company execs who have stated that they think they will never sell more gas in the U.S. than they did in 2006 (due to more efficient cars and people driving fewer miles), many auto execs doubt they will ever exceed the total of new car sales set then. This is due to a variety of factors, increased cost being one you mention below. There is also the fact which I think I mentioned upthread, that Gen Y teens see having a car as much less important to them than having an internet connection. Where Boomers and Gen X saw a car as giving them freedom to do things with their friends or as part of their image, Gen Y is 'with' their friends 24/7 via their phones, and look at cars much more as appliances than most of our generations did. Some of the difference is no doubt due to tougher regulations for teen driving, but while 80% of 18 yr-olds had driver's licenses in 1983, only 66% have them now, which scares the auto companies no end. I don't know how things were in your family, but the first car for a teen in mine was usually a hand-me-down from parents who'd bought a new car to replace it.

Add to that an aging population (many of whom drive little), better built cars that last longer, an increasingly urban population, higher prices (and economic worries) causing people to keep cars longer (as I mentioned up thread, new cars are being kept an average of 6 years vice 4.5 prior to the recession), and people driving less for a variety of economic and other reasons so cars don't wear out as fast, and there are many reasons why new car sales totals are unlikely to exceed 2006's.

There is a LOT of motivation in this country to go green but for many, even ones with relatively high incomes, they have much less options than we do due to bad credit.

there is an article at PC about the New Car Market losing as much as 7 million potential customers by 2025 due to an estimated $3,000 increase in the cost of cars to meet new CAFE standards. now, how they got that number is anyone's guess but they said this would a change from $30,000 for new car today to $33,000 for a new car in 2025. its really just more FUD since i am guessing in 13 years, inflation will cover most of that difference.

And fuel savings will likely cover most of the rest.