If you want a Smart car, buy it now. USA Today says 30,000 reservations for the cute little things have been abandon now that gas prices have gone down, and the dealerships are left with a large inventory. You should be able to get a really good price.
My mother has one and just loves it. Great mileage, everybody thinks they are so cute, and most importantly, when you park it in the garage, you still have plenty of room left over.
You could not pay me to drive one of those POS.
An older couple in my neighborhood got one, last I saw it was being towed back to the dealer.
The price point was too high on those. You can save $10-20,000 buying a car with only 1-2 less MPG. Takes a lot of driving to make up that difference.
That and I would never feel safe driving a car with my head up against the back window, 2 inches in front of the rear bumper. Get rear ended by a large truck and get your head knocked off.
33/41 just isn't very impressive considering the fairly light weight and little bitty engine.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf
Bring over a diesel Smart that gets 50+ mpg, has a decent transmission and doesn't get scary on the B.A. and then they'd have something worth selling to us.
Just wondering. How much do they sell them for ?
The new Volkswagen Jetta gets 32/45 (tested, not just specs) and it has two more doors.
$15-$20k in local inventory.
http://www.smartcentertulsa.com/new-smart.php
My wife's Scion XB gets around 32 and is huge inside. Two children's seats in the back and a stroller in the boot with plenty of room for groceries.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 25, 2009, 03:08:07 PM
$15-$20k in local inventory.
http://www.smartcentertulsa.com/new-smart.php
That's nuts. I was thinking maybe 8 to 12k.
Best of luck un-loading those things. A motorcycle has as much protection.
Are all of these Smart cars lime green? I always see a green one on Lewis around 41-51st but I'm not sure if it's the same car or if there are several.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 25, 2009, 03:10:38 PM
My wife's Scion XB gets around 32 and is huge inside. Two children's seats in the back and a stroller in the boot with plenty of room for groceries.
My friends have one of the previous generation xBs. It is quite roomy inside, and has plenty of rear legroom even for a taller person. Cons: It has the automatic, so it's slow, and the ride in the back seat is rough.
Quote from: bugo on March 26, 2009, 10:13:06 PM
My friends have one of the previous generation xBs. It is quite roomy inside, and has plenty of rear legroom even for a taller person. Cons: It has the automatic, so it's slow, and the ride in the back seat is rough.
It's the only car we've ever owned that a big person can actually cross their legs in the back seat. The ride is stiff, but it's really responsive and corners very well for a box on wheels.
Smart Cars look kind of dumb to me. I think I actually feel safer on my Harley, at least if I get hit, I'm not trapped in a rolling coffin.
I appreciate the effort being made into Smart cars. But here are the facts: You can get a Honda Fit for about the same money as a Smart car. The Honda will have vastly more interior room, will have the good reliability of a Honda product (where the Smart is unproven), and the fuel efficiency is not much less than the Smart's.
And Honda is rolling out its new Insight hybrid in a few weeks that can sells for thousands less than the Prius and gets nearly 50 miles per gallon.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 27, 2009, 11:47:01 AM
Smart Cars look kind of dumb to me. I think I actually feel safer on my Harley, at least if I get hit, I'm not trapped in a rolling coffin.
You're actually safer in that so-called "rolling coffin" than being used as a human projectile during a motorcycle crash.
Please tell me you wear a helmet.
100% more rolling and 100% less coffin.
I think they are cute and thats what matters lol. I think my next car will be a scooter of some sort though. Something to zip around mid-town and downtown in.
I reeeeally like this deco/retro looking one. Just need to find out what it is and where I can get one. ;D
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5484/vespascootersweb.jpg)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 27, 2009, 12:01:06 PM
You're actually safer in that so-called "rolling coffin" than being used as a human projectile during a motorcycle crash.
Please tell me you wear a helmet.
Motorcyclists generally are not an overly rational lot. I usually wear my helmet. I do have a lapse every now and then.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 27, 2009, 01:24:47 PM
I think they are cute and thats what matters lol. I think my next car will be a scooter of some sort though. Something to zip around mid-town and downtown in.
I reeeeally like this deco/retro looking one. Just need to find out what it is and where I can get one. ;D
That looks like a classic Vespa or Lambretta. They're still in production, but they are the Cadillac of motor scooters and fetch high prices.
http://www.vespaok.com/new_vehicle_list.asp?sid=&Manufacturer=363&Category=12&CatDesc=Scooters (http://www.vespaok.com/new_vehicle_list.asp?sid=&Manufacturer=363&Category=12&CatDesc=Scooters)
Yes that is a classic Vespa (1967 I believe). You will spend alot for it. There are several copies available that you can purchase very reasonably. They feature robust reliable engines. I don't think you would want this one.
(http://www.greenpacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/classic-vespa-scooter.jpg)
It looks nice but features a 2 stroke engine that burns oil and gasoline mix, and belches a lot of smoke.
(http://www.classicgarage.net/Images/vespa-engine.jpg)
I would consult the folks over at the scooter store. They're a nice couple and have some great bikes that look just like the old ones but feature modern reliability.
If you have green concerns, Scooters are not very green.
Keep in mind that a scooter engine, even a modern one, has no emissions controls, so even though you are burning far less fuel, you are expelling many times more pollution. They are on about the same plane as a 4 cycle lawn mower engine. They legally emit "5.7 times more CO than cars, nearly 24 times more unburned hydrocarbons, and infinitely more NOx [Nitrogen oxides].
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2009, 09:46:45 AM
If you have green concerns, Scooters are not very green.
Keep in mind that a scooter engine, even a modern one, has no emissions controls, so even though you are burning far less fuel, you are expelling many times more pollution. They are on about the same plane as a 4 cycle lawn mower engine. They legally emit "5.7 times more CO than cars, nearly 24 times more unburned hydrocarbons, and infinitely more NOx [Nitrogen oxides].
The Straight Dope science column dealt with this issue a few days ago in its typically comprehensive fashion. Direct quotes:
"So what's the takeaway here? Scooters emit more pollution, but they help the planet overall by adding less to greenhouse gas buildup. Or, to put the matter in more downbeat terms, your choice is between choking in the city or dying from mass climate change.
"But let's not be defeatist. Any way you slice it, scooters are less resource-intensive than cars. Less stuff goes into making them. They take less energy to operate. They're smaller and lighter than cars, so you can crowd a lot more of them onto the streets or into parking lots. They tear up the roads less. OK, maybe in a northern climate scooters aren't so practical for year-round use, and they can't haul much cargo, so they're not going to replace cars altogether. But with resources becoming scarcer, we're heading for a more densely urbanized future, and little vehicles make more sense than big ones. Once the infrastructure's in place, a scooter would make the perfect plug-in electric, which solves the pollution problem."
More here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2852/whats-better-for-the-environment-a-scooter-or-a-car
Well that sucks. Surely there are some that have a modicum of emissions controls on them... Especially in this day and age. Just seems odd that they dont. May take a look at the electric ones and see how those run. Though with a cursory glance,,, the 4 stroke engines are supposed to be "low emissions" and they are saying that they do put a lot less CO2 into the air. A couple full tanks in the average suv will put more pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere than many a scooter weighs lol. They may not be as clean per gallon as a car, but they burn a lot less gallons. Over all, its as one person put it... a low-emissions scooter will make as much difference as a party cracker in a nuclear war.
You know, there's always the "meat powered motorcycle":
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1381/1057771805_b091ef8b57_m.jpg)
Given a choice between buying gasoline or buying, say, a fresh garden salad with a vinaigrette dressing, five cheese lasagna, home made bread still warm from the oven, and a nice pilsner to accompany it all, which is more fun?
Although here at the unstately Wagner ranchero, it's probably going to be home made chili and bread today (after I walk to the grocery for bread flour) with a Sam Adams Honey Porter as accompaniment.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 28, 2009, 10:28:52 AM
Once the infrastructure’s in place, a scooter would make the perfect plug-in electric, which solves the pollution problem."
As long as our electricity mostly comes from fossil fuels, it doesn't solve the pollution problem. It merely transfers it to another location. Due to the low energy use in general, it does help.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 28, 2009, 06:55:14 PM
As long as our electricity mostly comes from fossil fuels, it doesn't solve the pollution problem. It merely transfers it to another location. Due to the low energy use in general, it does help.
It does in the sense that big power stations can be more easily retrofitted to produce cleaner energy than millions of cars, but here in Oklahoma, since most of our electricity is generated with coal and natural gas, it's not much better at this point.
Quote from: nathanm on March 28, 2009, 11:39:18 PM
It does in the sense that big power stations can be more easily retrofitted to produce cleaner energy than millions of cars, but here in Oklahoma, since most of our electricity is generated with coal and natural gas, it's not much better at this point.
Agreed, large electric plants are more efficient. They produce less polution because they are more efficient and because the emissions can be better controlled. There are transmission losses but the overall efficiency is probably still better.
I just wanted to call attention to the fact that electric power does not generally
solve the polution problem. Electricity does not come out of nowhere for free. Pretty much anything will leave a footprint of some kind. Hydro covers land with water. Wind power can be unsightly and noisy as well as a hazard to birds. The windmills need to be where the wind is. A costly power grid will need to be expanded. Solar absorbs energy that would otherwise hit the ground. Does that make the ground cooler? Of course fossil fuels have their own problems. The point is that nothing is really free, some just cost less than others.
The good thing about electric/hybrid cars for the city is that there is no fossil fuel motor running at stop lights.
Quote from: Ed W on March 28, 2009, 01:35:01 PM
You know, there's always the "meat powered motorcycle":
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1381/1057771805_b091ef8b57_m.jpg)
Given a choice between buying gasoline or buying, say, a fresh garden salad with a vinaigrette dressing, five cheese lasagna, home made bread still warm from the oven, and a nice pilsner to accompany it all, which is more fun?
Although here at the unstately Wagner ranchero, it's probably going to be home made chili and bread today (after I walk to the grocery for bread flour) with a Sam Adams Honey Porter as accompaniment.
Meat powered!!! You got a karma for that one...
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 29, 2009, 09:45:05 PM
The good thing about electric/hybrid cars for the city is that there is no fossil fuel motor running at stop lights.
They are at a great advantage in stop and go driving, but for highway use (say a person commuting from BA or Bixby to downtown), the only real savings comes from the smaller engine in a hybrid.
It seems like some big solar thermal plants could be very workable in the western part of Oklahoma. We're probably too wedded to the fossil fuel industry despite their largely abandoning us for Houston to do it, though. The nice thing is that it's pretty dry most of the year and it's much closer than the deserts of NM and Arizona to southeastern population centers. And adding more solar into the mix would do nicely for greening electric vehicles.
We also need to build at least a couple of nuclear power plants for base load generation, although a sufficiently large solar thermal plant can keep generating electricity for several hours after sunset using the residual heat in the working fluid, helping us through the peak evening demand.
Of course, all of this is predicated on major grid upgrades in this country. We need more HVDC transmission lines. They're much more efficient both in power loss and the required conductor size for a given amperage. Right now we waste somewhere around 40% of the electricity generated. If it takes the big stick of government to get the electric companies to spend the money to save the money, so be it.
On that note, distributed wind generation would be nice. Small scale turbines that only offset part of a building's electricity use would still be a big gain environmentally and economically in that it would reduce load on the transmission infrastructure.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2009, 11:37:30 PM
Of course, all of this is predicated on major grid upgrades in this country. We need more HVDC transmission lines. They're much more efficient both in power loss and the required conductor size for a given amperage. Right now we waste somewhere around 40% of the electricity generated. If it takes the big stick of government to get the electric companies to spend the money to save the money, so be it.
We're starting to get a bit off topic here but.. AC vs DC. The great Westinghouse vs Edison debate. I'd have to go back to my books on transmission losses to say anything quantitative beyond saying that low voltage losses are more significant than most people realize. That's why we have the high voltage transmission lines. AC is easy to step up and down using transformers. DC is not quite so easy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 30, 2009, 12:46:54 PM
That's why we have the high voltage transmission lines. AC is easy to step up and down using transformers. DC is not quite so easy.
Yes, I'm quite aware of transmission losses increasing with amperage. :)
It is true that without modern technology, converting DC voltage relies on things like rotary converters and other large mechanical devices. AC was by far the better way to go for long distance transmission. These days, with semiconductor based transformers, DC can be stepped up or down pretty much as easily as AC, and you gain quite a few benefits when using DC, including less loss for a given amperage and wire gauge. (and the need for less wire).
DC has its uses.. Anyway, the great thing about electric cars is that most of them could be charged off peak at night. The transmission grid probably wouldn't need a major overhaul for that. I am unsure at what point the charging power would cause the higher priced power plants to come online. But anything under that would be fine. Now if everybody charged their cars on the hottest time of the day we would have a problem. As far as "selling power back to the grid" well that is kind of stupid honestly unless prices for electricity were REALLY REALLY high. I certainly wouldn't want to come out from work to find out that I didn't have any charge in my batteries but I made $2.50.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 30, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
As far as "selling power back to the grid" well that is kind of stupid honestly unless prices for electricity were REALLY REALLY high. I certainly wouldn't want to come out from work to find out that I didn't have any charge in my batteries but I made $2.50.
You don't sell power from your car's battery, you sell it from the wind turbine on your roof when it's done charging your car. (Or the solar cells or whatever)
Although to my mind, distributed generation is more important because I'm fairly certain that our electricity infrastructure will receive maintenance and upgrades about like Oklahoma's roads, which is to say too little too late. Generating at the point of consumption requires less of the transmission and distribution network.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 30, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
DC has its uses.. Anyway, the great thing about electric cars is that most of them could be charged off peak at night. The transmission grid probably wouldn't need a major overhaul for that.
My late (died last fall) uncle said that a mass exodus to electric cars could not presently be supported by the electric companies and the grid. He was well respected in the Electrical Engineering field. Fortunately, the car population cannot change that fast. It does mean that a major overhaul in the electric transmission grid probably would be necessary.
Here is a video if you haven't seen it of a crash test of a Smart by the British TV show 5TH Gear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s)
The late 80's Honda CRX-HF got 40mpg city, and 50 hwy.
I'll take one of those over a "smart" car any day.
Makes me wonder why Honda stopped making them. I have my theories...
Quote from: Hawkins on April 01, 2009, 01:13:35 PM
The late 80's Honda CRX-HF got 40mpg city, and 50 hwy.
I'll take one of those over a "smart" car any day.
Makes me wonder why Honda stopped making them. I have my theories...
My ex and I had an '89 CRX si. I loved that little car. I believe it was 29 city/38 hiway. We averaged about 34 in that car.
Quote from: Hawkins on April 01, 2009, 01:13:35 PM
The late 80's Honda CRX-HF got 40mpg city, and 50 hwy.
I'll take one of those over a "smart" car any day.
Makes me wonder why Honda stopped making them. I have my theories...
Because somewhat bigger cars at the time were selling much better and were more profitable?
I'm not going down the conspiracy road. Sorry.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 01, 2009, 02:44:41 PM
Because somewhat bigger cars at the time were selling much better and were more profitable?
I'm not going down the conspiracy road. Sorry.
Perhaps you are right. I mean, its not like the car companies, tire companies, and oil barons actively worked toward buying up all the nation's trolley systems to promote their products.
Wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal)
;)
--
Quote from: Hawkins on April 01, 2009, 04:36:04 PM
Perhaps you are right. I mean, its not like the car companies, tire companies, and oil barons actively worked toward buying up all the nation's trolley systems to promote their products.
Wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal)
Maybe GM should start making Streetcars/Trolleys. The rubber tire companies could re-start some steel companies. Trolleys have tires, they are steel. Oil barons could become electric barons.
Quote from: Hawkins on April 01, 2009, 01:13:35 PM
The late 80's Honda CRX-HF got 40mpg city, and 50 hwy.
I'll take one of those over a "smart" car any day.
Makes me wonder why Honda stopped making them. I have my theories...
If the CRX were built under the current safety standards, it would probably weigh 500 pounds more than the 80s model, which would kill the fuel economy.
Quote from: bugo on April 02, 2009, 01:14:40 AM
If the CRX were built under the current safety standards, it would probably weigh 500 pounds more than the 80s model, which would kill the fuel economy.
Subaru gets 5-star crash safety ratings, but they are making their cars lighter. They have all-wheel drive all the time, however, and high gearing. Thus, they get terrible gas mileage.
Honda is an industry leader, and if they wanted to, they could have kept up with the CRX's gas mileage numbers. Instead, they made a hybrid (the Insight), and made it super ugly and weird looking.
Its as if they were onto something there, but didn't want too many of them sold at the time. There was no reason not to make a normal-looking Honda CRX or Civic a hybrid from the start, but oddly, the U.S. population has been slowly eased into this line of thinking.
Not understanding why Honda made their first hybrid, the Insight, look so stupid, I can only come up with conspiracy theories. Not major ones, just something along the lines of oil company deals and kickbacks that are paid in 10-year contracts to stall certain developments.
I could be wrong, but I can't understand the slow development of hybrid vehicles in any other terms at this point.
I can't understand the lack of development of electric cars either. With the average commute of the Tulsa driver, there is no reason for these little "Smart Cars" not to plug into a wall and have a limited range on them. They would get people to work and back home everyday, and they wouldn't have to buy ANY gas for them.
But producing a battery-powered car is a big NO NO in the industry, although I suspect they would sell such vehicles in droves. GM had a good one in test stages, but canceled it.
--
I can't remember where I read it but the hybrids were made to look different (ugly) to set them apart from regular vehicles for people wanting to make a statement about their green-ness.
Battery technology still has a way to go before people buying electric only cars in droves would buy a second one. Cheap to run until you need to replace the battery set. I've heard it will be thousands of $ to replace the batteries even in a Prius. Haven't heard any numbers for the Honda.
Electric cars make good sense for short range vehicles. It remains to be seen what it will actually cost to run them compared to gasoline or diesel powered cars. I expect the immediate cost to be a lot less but it won't be nearly free. It sitll takes energy to go down the road.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 02, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
I can't remember where I read it but the hybrids were made to look different (ugly) to set them apart from regular vehicles for people wanting to make a statement about their green-ness.
Battery technology still has a way to go before people buying electric only cars in droves would buy a second one. Cheap to run until you need to replace the battery set. I've heard it will be thousands of $ to replace the batteries even in a Prius. Haven't heard any numbers for the Honda.
Electric cars make good sense for short range vehicles. It remains to be seen what it will actually cost to run them compared to gasoline or diesel powered cars. I expect the immediate cost to be a lot less but it won't be nearly free. It sitll takes energy to go down the road.
The battery stack in the Prius lasts over 100k and costs $2,500 to replace. Toyota makes great electronic components. I believe you also have to pay a disposal fee for the battery. Not to big of a hit.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 03, 2009, 06:11:02 AM
The battery stack in the Prius lasts over 100k and costs $2,500 to replace. Toyota makes great electronic components. I believe you also have to pay a disposal fee for the battery. Not to big of a hit.
I agree, $2500/100,000mi isn't too bad. I remember hearing about $7500. I could be totally wrong on the $.
That's enough to keep me away. An all-but-guaranteed -extra- $2,500 over the ordinary expenses plus the higher sticker price (compared to e.g. a Corolla)? No, thanks. I'll hold out until the overall cost of ownership makes it worth it.
http://www.truedelta.com/comparisons201/Prius-vs-Corolla-price-comparison.php?session_code=
Heck, the higher initial cost and higher fuel cost of a diesel makes things tricky enough and that's all fairly mature technology. The hybrids are yet unproven. How old is the oldest Prius? How do they hold up to treatment by people who aren't hippies?
;)
Quote from: buckeye on April 03, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
That's enough to keep me away. An all-but-guaranteed -extra- $2,500 over the ordinary expenses plus the higher sticker price (compared to e.g. a Corolla)? No, thanks. I'll hold out until the overall cost of ownership makes it worth it.
http://www.truedelta.com/comparisons201/Prius-vs-Corolla-price-comparison.php?session_code=
Heck, the higher initial cost and higher fuel cost of a diesel makes things tricky enough and that's all fairly mature technology. The hybrids are yet unproven. How old is the oldest Prius? How do they hold up to treatment by people who aren't hippies?
;)
The Scion gets about the same mileage (better on the highway). Has an awesome warranty, and has more space. The Hybrids are still just marketing and status. Until they significantly overcome the MPG of conventional vehicles they will only be an image car.
Quote from: buckeye on April 03, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
Heck, the higher initial cost and higher fuel cost of a diesel makes things tricky enough and that's all fairly mature technology. The hybrids are yet unproven. How old is the oldest Prius? How do they hold up to treatment by people who aren't hippies?
;)
Unproven? Compared to what?
The Toyota Prius first went on sale in Japan in 1997 and worldwide in 2001. The first Honda Insight is a 2000 model (which I drive), thus making it available in 1999. This is technology that's a decade old, at least.
The Prius has one of the highest satisfaction rates of any car on the road, and Toyota has been selling them like crazy for years. There are Prius taxicabs all that have the original battery packs with 300,000 miles on them.
Better yet, the 2010 Prius' mileage has improved to 50 miles per gallon overall on the EPA ratings. That's an increase. In real-world driving by Road and Track, they were getting 64 to even 70 miles per gallon.
Quote from: Hawkins on April 02, 2009, 11:39:21 AM
Subaru gets 5-star crash safety ratings, but they are making their cars lighter.
Is a 2009 Subaru lighter than an equivalent 1989 model?
Quote
But producing a battery-powered car is a big NO NO in the industry, although I suspect they would sell such vehicles in droves. GM had a good one in test stages, but canceled it.
If you are into conspiracy theories, look no further than the EV1.
I know this is an old topic, but with the discussion of electric cars in this topic I wanted to add some info about an electric car that I have seen recently in Scottsdale. While the range is not the best, 25 miles on a charge, it is an interesting idea, and they are available for purchase.
http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/xebra-sedan (http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/xebra-sedan)
At the Promenade Mall here in Tulsa they have several electric cars on display. About $12000, but with tax credits, this and that, rebates etc. that actual cost can be as low as $2000. They get up to 60 miles on a charge, are convertibles, are street legal, and kinda look like a smart car. The problem: top speed is 25 mph. Making them worthless as transportation in most cities (including Tulsa). Top speed of 45mph would be great for many people, but 25 mph doesn't cut it.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 12, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
At the Promenade Mall here in Tulsa they have several electric cars on display. About $12000, but with tax credits, this and that, rebates etc. that actual cost can be as low as $2000. They get up to 60 miles on a charge, are convertibles, are street legal, and kinda look like a smart car. The problem: top speed is 25 mph. Making them worthless as transportation in most cities (including Tulsa). Top speed of 45mph would be great for many people, but 25 mph doesn't cut it.
I would get one for short shopping trips but at 25mph everybody would get really pissed off.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 12, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
At the Promenade Mall here in Tulsa they have several electric cars on display. About $12000, but with tax credits, this and that, rebates etc. that actual cost can be as low as $2000. They get up to 60 miles on a charge, are convertibles, are street legal, and kinda look like a smart car. The problem: top speed is 25 mph. Making them worthless as transportation in most cities (including Tulsa). Top speed of 45mph would be great for many people, but 25 mph doesn't cut it.
Basically a glorified golf cart. Probably would be a big hit in Sun City, Az.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 12, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
At the Promenade Mall here in Tulsa they have several electric cars on display. About $12000, but with tax credits, this and that, rebates etc. that actual cost can be as low as $2000. They get up to 60 miles on a charge, are convertibles, are street legal, and kinda look like a smart car. The problem: top speed is 25 mph. Making them worthless as transportation in most cities (including Tulsa). Top speed of 45mph would be great for many people, but 25 mph doesn't cut it.
This is one I would consider and since it's classified as a motorcycle I could drive it in the HOV lane.
http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-alias (http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-alias)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 12, 2009, 02:18:22 PM
Basically a glorified golf cart. Probably would be a big hit in Sun City, Az.
I hate it any time I have to drive through Sun City. The golf cart drivers think they own the road. The problem we have in the north part of Phoenix that we live in since we are close to a lot of open desert, are the ATV and Rhinos that people drive on the road. The larger ATV's and the Rhino types are classified as a motorcycle as long as they have lights and signals they can be driven on the road.
Wow...forgot about this one.
Quote
Quote from: buckeye on April 03, 2009, 11:32:46 am
Heck, the higher initial cost and higher fuel cost of a diesel makes things tricky enough and that's all fairly mature technology. The hybrids are yet unproven. How old is the oldest Prius? How do they hold up to treatment by people who aren't hippies?
Wink
Quote
Unproven? Compared to what?
The Toyota Prius first went on sale in Japan in 1997 and worldwide in 2001. The first Honda Insight is a 2000 model (which I drive), thus making it available in 1999. This is technology that's a decade old, at least.
I thought the proximity of the two ideas in my post might give enough of a clue... Folks will just have to puzzle this one out on their own.
QuoteThe Prius has one of the highest satisfaction rates of any car on the road, and Toyota has been selling them like crazy for years.
Self righteous people do tend to have a very high opinion of their own decisions.
QuoteThere are Prius taxicabs all that have the original battery packs with 300,000 miles on them.
Got some references for that one? My Uncle Earl has owned a Datsun pickup since the 70s, never had an oil change and he runs it on a mix of White Lightning and Coleman camping fuel. 672,000 miles and counting.
QuoteBetter yet, the 2010 Prius' mileage has improved to 50 miles per gallon overall on the EPA ratings. That's an increase. In real-world driving by Road and Track, they were getting 64 to even 70 miles per gallon.
I've opined with this kind of mileage already in consideration.
-----
Still just waiting for a truly viable all-electric road car to hit the market. I'll miss the sounds and experience of the ICE but electric cars will be great. Max torque starting at 0 rpm, eh? Acceleration limited by traction, I hope all wheel drive is prevalent. :)