Tony Williams' CARB-ZEV Compliance Rating Scale

[TonyWilliams]

Thanks for the post.

If a manufacturer is deluded into believing that FCEV's are the end-game, are they being hostile, or just naïve?

I think for CHAdeMO founding members Toyota and Honda to not even make CHAdeMO optional on their car is probably the ultimate "don't make them too successful" middle finger salute to EV drivers.

I suspect that mindset will carry over to hydrogen cars. Obviously, the hydrogen cars will only be sold in California, and the credits are just too juicy to pass up over a battery electric (typically more than double per car).

That all ends in 2018, when the "super" credits for hydrogen fall to match battery electrics with similar range. I doubt Honda or Toyota will come back to pure electric in 2018 or shortly thereafter, however.

For Hyundai, I believe they actually are testing and trying everything, with fellow South Korea manufacturer Kia being the official battery electric test company.

 

[surfingslovak]

Manufacturers who volunatarily made EVs
Mitsubishi, Tesla, Nissan

Manufacturers who voluntarily made PHEVs
GM

the rest are compliance vehicles to either a lesser or greater degree.

I'm not sure if I agree. That list is quite arbitrary, which might be fine as a personal opinion, but not as a measuring stick. Also, where is CODA and Fisker? Aptera? The Think? How about the 1st gen smart?

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think the answers to those questions are incredibly meaningful, but seriously, if you can buy a BEV (not lease) in 50 states and get warranty service, and it's not supply constrained, then it's not a compliance car. I can't call the Focus EV a compliance car, even though Ford is openly hostile toward it.

Guys, remember the rules? I didn't make them, CARB did, and they chose which companies had to comply.

Ford is most definitely on that list. The idea is to rank them as to who would make these cars even if they didn't have to.

Again, the only ones that are specifically NOT compliance are Tesla and Mitsubishi (and Coda not long ago).

 

[TonyWilliams]

Manufacturers who volunatarily made EVs
Mitsubishi, Tesla, Nissan

Manufacturers who voluntarily made PHEVs
GM

the rest are compliance vehicles to either a lesser or greater degree.

I'm not sure if I agree. That list is quite arbitrary, which might be fine as a personal opinion, but not as a measuring stick. Also, where is CODA and Fisker? Aptera? The Think? How about the 1st gen smart?

Except Coda, (Fisker doesn't count, as they had no pure ZEV), Aptera, Think and 1st gen Smart specifically never had to be built for compliance.

Guys, the list is NOT plug in vehicles... It is pure ZEV which is the stumbling block so many manufacturers have and what CARB specifically requires. Right now, the requirement is 0.79% pure ZEV credits for the model year(s).

The manufacturers listed are those that SPECIFICALLY must comply.

 

[ydnas7]

I'm not sure if I agree. That list is quite arbitrary, which might be fine as a personal opinion, but not as a measuring stick. Also, where is CODA and Fisker? Aptera? The Think? How about the 1st gen smart?

agree, I was limiting it to the larger players, and I forgot about the 1st gen smart, (In my country - Australia - for plug-ins there is only i, Leaf & Volt)

> Tony
to get really pedantic, Honda Fit is not CARB compliant because its not the road for 5 years.

My understanding of CARB ZEV reg was that the vehicle needs to be on the road for 5 years, as such a 3 year lease is insufficent unless it is renewed to 5 years. So technically Honda is like Mitsubishi, their EVs generally don't qualify but for different reasons. You could say, that because Honda didin't allow their FIT EVs to be CARB ZEV that they bought the credits from Tesla, because the Tesla is CARB-ZEV compliant.

 

[TonyWilliams]

> Tony
to get really pedantic, Honda Fit is not CARB compliant because its not the road for 5 years.

My understanding of CARB ZEV reg was that the vehicle needs to be on the road for 5 years, as such a 3 year lease is insufficent unless it is renewed to 5 years. So technically Honda is like Mitsubishi, their EVs generally don't qualify but for different reasons. You could say, that because Honda didin't allow their FIT EVs to be CARB ZEV that they bought the credits from Tesla, because the Tesla is CARB-ZEV compliant.

Never heard of that issue! Do you have a link?

The quantity of pure ZEV's is reasonably straight forward from the previous two years sales. They can make up credits in a subsequent year, and in September each year, they can "adjust" their data from the annual May report.

Never heard of a 5 year deal. The Rav4 EV wouldn't qualify then, either. Or the LEAF !!!!

I think you're wrong :ugeek:

 

[TonyWilliams]

Methinks Tony has been told such-and-such car is not a compliance car one too many times! :lol:

Tony, how do you know Honda gets a "NO" for "E. Harass owners when their car is out of state with a warranty claim?"

Hey, this is a public posting... If you've heard of that from Honda, lets hear it!

I know for a fact that Toyota does, and they are really kind of *ssholes about it.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Sorry, if I can't get it in KS or nearby then it's a compliance car regardless of the rest. Just my 2 cents.

Well, you can get both a Tesla Model S and a Mitsubishi iMiev there, and neither are compliance cars.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony,

Why leave off a letter for the model names and substitute with an * ?

Otherwise I applaud the effort. Your rating scale is exactly what I am thinking of (and more) whether or not I consider a manufacturer's EV efforts to be merely-just-for-compliance or not.

Also, perhaps we should leave the Mazda Demio off this list, and only "F*cus" on cars already being sold here, and those that are likely to be sold here in the near future. Otherwise we should just include other not-for-America EVs like the Renault Zoe.

Renault is not on CARB's manufacturer's compliance list. Mazda is. The manufacturers listed are exactly and specifically those that must comply. It is neither arbitrary, nor capricious; no more, no less.

What other issues would you include?

I edited the vehicle names because this forum kept adding links to their respective forums which messed up my table formatting.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Wait, have there been out-of-state warranty claims on the Fiat 500e, Fit EV, or Spark?

Heck, I doubt it. But, there will be, and I'm sure the results will become public. Toyota does tell you in advance that they are going to harass you with warranty claims and service if your job moves you out of California, etc. Most folks and to sign a form with this proclamation.

So, it would be handy to know if any other compliance manufacturers make their customers sign such a document.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... Everyone is coming out with compliance vehicles in CA, but nothing officially out of CARB states.

That will change, because the the "traveling credit" scheme becomes limited soon. Then, these manufacturers will have to actually sell cars in other CARB states or pay fines and buy credits (or stop selling altogether in those states).

Imagine the howl from some folks if they couldn't buy their favorite oil burner because of some California rule !!!!!

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

U. BMW - i3 .......................... ??? ..... NO .... ??? .... NO ... ??? ... ??? (Frankenplug?)

Although the ActiveE does double duty as a compliance and field trial car, the i3 will be sold, not just leased. It should also be available in all markets, and not only 7 cities like the ActiveE. Both of these statements can be confirmed directly or indirectly. Warranty handling is something that remains to be seen. The ActiveE had very limited parts availability, but the handling of claims and issues was prompt and generous. Let's hope that this attitude won't change as the manufacturer graduates from a compliance to a production car.

I gave i3 a straight "NO" score, just like the LEAF.

 

[jhm614]

I think you should also add the criteria "Only sold in minimal numbers to meet CARB requirements".

 

[TonyWilliams]

If the LEAF is a compliance vehicle so is the Tesla, as both their manufacturers are in the business of selling CARB-ZEV credits.

Tesla is required to comply with selling ZEV credits, or face fines and the possible ceasing business in the state of California. Nissan is.

It's not complicated, and the list is self explanatory.

 

[ydnas7]

Never heard of that issue! Do you have a link?

The quantity of pure ZEV's is reasonably straight forward from the previous two years sales. They can make up credits in a subsequent year, and in September each year, they can "adjust" their data from the annual May report.

Never heard of a 5 year deal. The Rav4 EV wouldn't qualify then, either. Or the LEAF !!!!

I think you're wrong :ugeek:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.1_Clean.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
page 14

(D)Multiplier for CertainZEVs.2009through 2011 model-yearZEVs, excluding NEVs or Type 0 ZEVs,shall qualify for a multiplier of 1.25 if it is either sold to a motorist or is leased for three or more years to a motorist who is given the
option to purchase or re-lease the vehicle for two years or more at the end of the first lease term.
Thissubdivision1962.1 (d)(5)(D)multiplier will no longer be available aftermodel year 2011.

also page 12 etc..

so as long as its either sold or available for 3+2 years of lease its OK. so LEAF and RAV 4 and Spark etc are all OK, if its available for sale, then the leases become OK. Its not stated as a 5 years deal, but that is what 3 + 2 =

 

[blackmamba]

So, here is the criteria:

B. Converted car (not built on a purpose built EV chassis)?

Not relevant now. Maybe in 2020, but not now.

EVs are still novelty to the average Joe. What matters now is - does it work. Does it perform, is it reliable, is it safe, etc. Spark EV is an example of a converted car that does the job.

The Leaf had compromises - load space was not flat, footroom for back seat passengers was cut short thanks to battery placement. Not to mention its lack of TMS, which one would think would be the path followed by a manufacturer creating an EV to simply comply with CARB.

 

[RonDawg]

Renault is not on CARB's manufacturer's compliance list. Mazda is. The manufacturers listed are exactly and specifically those that must comply. It is neither arbitrary, nor capricious; no more, no less.

What other issues would you include?

Fair enough about the Zoe, but the Demio EV is Japan-only. Has Mazda USA indicated a desire to bring it across the Pacific? Mazda's own PR people don't mention selling it anywhere else: http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2012/201207/120706a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

Renault is not on CARB's manufacturer's compliance list. Mazda is. The manufacturers listed are exactly and specifically those that must comply. It is neither arbitrary, nor capricious; no more, no less.

What other issues would you include?

Fair enough about the Zoe, but the Demio EV is Japan-only. Has Mazda USA indicated a desire to bring it across the Pacific? Mazda's own PR people don't mention selling it anywhere else: http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2012/201207/120706a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know what Mazda will bring to California and other CARB states, but I do know that they will either bring something real soon, or they will start buying credits and paying fines (or not selling cars in California).

Again, the list of manufacturers is from CARB, not me. Mazda must comply, Renault does not have to.

 

[donald]

Tony, can I just clarify precisely why you constructed the list?

Seems to me it is trying to distinguish which manufacturers are making EVs simply because they are making EVs, and who are doing it only because they are being forced to do it?

Is this the underlying purpose of the thread?

It's interesting that the EV-1 was being designed by GM before the CARB rules of the 1990's. GM seemed to be years ahead, and could've maximised their advantage, but then dumped it.

My overriding concern is that what GM said at the time was actually the reality - that too few people were interested in EVs. Yeah, I know the stories, people begging to buy them but getting short-shrift from sales people, and lists of people signing up to buy back their EV-1's. But if the market did approach saturation at only a few hundred owners in the 90's, maybe the market for EVs will begin saturating, once up to the 100,000's or so, this time around too.

... I digress ...

Anyhow, if it is your purpose to demonstrate the only company who has really shown a commitment to EVs without the need to be obliged to do it by legislation, then I agree that it is Nissan-Renault. The Leaf would have made less sense if it wasn't for a larger programme that could deliver into Renault as well and, of course, Renault is under no such mandated obligations to make EVs whatsoever. It all comes down to one man, as far as I can see - Mr Ghosn. I doubt Nissan-Renault would have gone off towards EVs if it had not been for him personally pushing their $5bn investment in it so far.

In one way, we can cheer that he made EVs a reality in their own right, other than it being mandated under duress on us (because otherwise I think we would be looking at vehicles of a much lower standard - otherwise they would have been made just good enough to satisfy CARB, whereas this way, Nissan-Renault are presenting hard competition to the rest, which raises their game). However, whether there is a market need really big enough to swallow up EVs and turn a profit, without Gov subsidies, I have to say I still have considerable doubts. It is essential to hit volumes of scale, and for the technology to be capable of being pushed towards full commercial viability.

I think it will take quite a long time still before we have the right technology at the right price being delivered to a market big enough to justify the economies of scale. If it doesn't happen in the next 10 years, and I'm only 50/50 on thinking it will, then maybe it'll never happen.

 

[surfingslovak]

If it doesn't happen in the next 10 years, and I'm only 50/50 on thinking it will, then maybe it'll never happen.

What do you think could be a viable alternative path forward?