Foxnews: First Leaf Owner Still Happy after 15k miles

[GaslessInSeattle]

...
Once in a while they do a factual story, so they can point to it to show how they are "fair and balanced"

That appears to be the strategy, though I'm slightly optimistic that we might be about to turn the tide... if I close my eyes and click my heels.

a few years back, Faux allowed pro EV/alternative energy/government intervention "propaganda". You kind of wonder for a second if this isn't an SNL spoof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-jOiSgbmhc&feature=player_embedded

 

[EVDrive]

Ridiculous, just when you think Bill has a brain that computes common sense and that he is forward thinking, he flips a switch and goes looney toons. Interesting video.

...
Once in a while they do a factual story, so they can point to it to show how they are "fair and balanced"

That appears to be the strategy, though I'm slightly optimistic that we might be about to turn the tide... if I close my eyes and click my heels.

a few years back, Faux allowed pro EV/alternative energy/government intervention "propaganda". You kind of wonder for a second if this isn't an SNL spoof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-jOiSgbmhc&feature=player_embedded

 

[SkiTundra]

O'Reilly's obnoxious and often a blowhard. I can't stand to watch his show. However, I'm not sure I see a problem. In the '08 clips he's touting alternative fuel options (flex, electric, etc.), including the then upcoming Volt. He's also saying that IF WE ARE going to bail out the auto companies, let's at least push them to develop more fuel efficient vehicles. I don't think there's a problem with any of that.

In the '11 clips he's saying that GM got a ton of subsidy to build the Volt and screwed it up. Which so far appears pretty true. Nissan are selling Leaf's about as fast as they can build them, Chevy dealers have Volts languishing in their lots.

If you want to pick on Fox, there's no shortage of things to criticize them for such as:

http://crustylogic.com/2010/06/620/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[caffeinekid]

We haven't had broadcast or cable TV in our home for about 10 years now, so I am not really in tune with the whole pro/anti-Fox thing, but I did happen to notice the use of "limited range" as opposed to RELATIVELY limited range. That alone hints of not being fair or balanced. This just seems like the same old typical infotainment that has been around as long as I can remember.

 

[GRA]

We haven't had broadcast or cable TV in our home for about 10 years now, so I am not really in tune with the whole pro/anti-Fox thing, but I did happen to notice the use of "limited range" as opposed to RELATIVELY limited range. That alone hints of not being fair or balanced. This just seems like the same old typical infotainment that has been around as long as I can remember.

Didn't watch the clip, but why would it be necessary to specify 'RELATIVELY' limited range to be fair and balanced? 'Relatively' is assumed as all range limits are relative, and in talking about AFVs everyone would be comparing range to the standard, i.e. a gas/diesel-fueled ICE/HEV. I'm incapable of driving my ICE around the world unrefueled; would I be expected to state that my car has relatively limited range (compared to say a notional EV with an on-board nuclear reactor)?

What matters is not the relative range, but whether or not that range imposes significant practical limitations on usage in the prevailing conditions. That is certainly the case for single-car household BEVs at present compared to ICE/HEVs, and sometimes so for multi-car households too.

 

[Stanton]

Well, except for her comment that it's range is 100 miles which we know is closer to 60 or 70.

It's only 60-70 miles if you drive on the freeway around 70-75mph, or it's really cold, have many hills, or high winds. If you drive in the city and do a little hypermiling, 100 miles is obtainable.

+1

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Well, except for her comment that it's range is 100 miles which we know is closer to 60 or 70.

It's only 60-70 miles if you drive on the freeway around 70-75mph, or it's really cold, have many hills, or high winds. If you drive in the city and do a little hypermiling, 100 miles is obtainable.

It is true you can drive further if you stick to surface streets. Problem is if you're going 100 miles, you probably aren't doing it on surface streets, unless you're delivering pizzas.

 

[SanDust]

In the '11 clips he's saying that GM got a ton of subsidy to build the Volt and screwed it up. Which so far appears pretty true. Nissan are selling Leaf's about as fast as they can build them, Chevy dealers have Volts languishing in their lots.

Nissan got a subsidy in the form of low cost loans to build the Leaf. AFAIK GM didn't get a subsidy to build the Volt. As far as sales is concerned, the Volt outsold the Leaf in Q4 2011 (every month actually) and so far in 1Q of 2012. So no, he wouldn't be even remotely right.

 

[caffeinekid]

We haven't had broadcast or cable TV in our home for about 10 years now, so I am not really in tune with the whole pro/anti-Fox thing, but I did happen to notice the use of "limited range" as opposed to RELATIVELY limited range. That alone hints of not being fair or balanced. This just seems like the same old typical infotainment that has been around as long as I can remember.

Didn't watch the clip, but why would it be necessary to specify 'RELATIVELY' limited range to be fair and balanced? 'Relatively' is assumed as all range limits are relative, and in talking about AFVs everyone would be comparing range to the standard, i.e. a gas/diese-fueled ICE/HEV. I'm incapable of driving my ICE around the world unrefueled; would I be expected to state that my car has relatively limited range (compared to say a notional EV with an on-board nuclear reactor)?

What matters is not the relative range, but whether or not that range imposes significant practical limitations on usage in the prevailing conditions. That is certainly the case for single-car household BEVs at present compared to ICE/HEVs, and sometimes so for multi-car households too.

Even in the case of the dinofuel-powered equivalent it is relative as most drivers commute well within the energy storage capacity of the Leaf on a daily basis. And that includes single vehicle households. Ultimately, this vehicle is not marketed for road trips. Does Fox have segments on the towing capacity of Corvettes despite their "limited" seating?

 

[SkiTundra]

In the '11 clips he's saying that GM got a ton of subsidy to build the Volt and screwed it up. Which so far appears pretty true. Nissan are selling Leaf's about as fast as they can build them, Chevy dealers have Volts languishing in their lots.

Nissan got a subsidy in the form of low cost loans to build the Leaf. AFAIK GM didn't get a subsidy to build the Volt. As far as sales is concerned, the Volt outsold the Leaf in Q4 2011 (every month actually) and so far in 1Q of 2012. So no, he wouldn't be even remotely right.

I believe Leaf sales have been constrained by production, Volt sales by lack of buyers. We'll start to get a truer picture when TN has been producing for a bit.

Chevrolet and it's suppliers have received about $1.8 billion in grants and $1 billion in loans directly in support of the Volt, all at taxpayer expense. If they had produced some significant technical advancements like better batteries or efficient motors with this money it could possibly be justified, but I'm not aware of any new tech they developed. How much taxpayer subsidy did Nissan receive and from who for the Leaf? Mitsubishi for the iMiev? Tesla thus far for their cars?

 

[SanDust]

Chevrolet and it's suppliers have received about $1.8 billion in grants and $1 billion in loans directly in support of the Volt, all at taxpayer expense. If they had produced some significant technical advancements like better batteries or efficient motors with this money it could possibly be justified, but I'm not aware of any new tech they developed.

OMG. You're just using the absurd Mackinac right wing propaganda report. It adds everything but the kitchen sink into those numbers, including every and any government deal related to loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. (And even Mackinac admits the number is grossly inflated because for various reasons many of the government deals won't materialize). So the number isn't near $1.8B. Moreover, if you apply the same logic to the Leaf you'd count all the tax breaks the state of Tennessee gave Nissan and its suppliers, along with the federal loans to any supplier, and the CARB rebates, and the federal tax credits, and anything else you can gin up, and you'd end up with a much larger figure. Heck Nissan alone got $1.4B in federal support for the Leaf, not counting the tax breaks it got from the state and not counting federal or state support for suppliers or customers.

As for technological advancement, you can create a BEV in your garage. An EREV represents an entirely new level of technology. As for production, it's hard to believe that Nissan couldn't make tens of thousands more Leafs by this point, if in fact it thought it could sell them. It's not as if there aren't any orphan Leafs or that you have to pay MSRP or above to get one.

Nissan is going to have to learn how to sell the Leaf. Last year was easy. Lots of pent up demand, a $5000 CARB rebate, and HOV lane access. The direct order process didn't hurt either. This year there is growing competition, the CARB rebate is down to $2500, and both the Volt and the PIP qualify for a $1500 rebate and HOV access. Volts may not be selling well in some areas of the country but Leafs aren't selling there at all. High gas prices combined with HOV lane access also means that in CA many Chevy dealers are complaining about a lack of, not too much, Volt inventory. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=713&start=1040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; And this despite all the FUD about fires, lack of demand, bad MPG, and so forth thrown out there by Fox News and the rest of the mindless right wing blogger community.

 

[GRA]

We haven't had broadcast or cable TV in our home for about 10 years now, so I am not really in tune with the whole pro/anti-Fox thing, but I did happen to notice the use of "limited range" as opposed to RELATIVELY limited range. That alone hints of not being fair or balanced. This just seems like the same old typical infotainment that has been around as long as I can remember.

Didn't watch the clip, but why would it be necessary to specify 'RELATIVELY' limited range to be fair and balanced? 'Relatively' is assumed as all range limits are relative, and in talking about AFVs everyone would be comparing range to the standard, i.e. a gas/diese-fueled ICE/HEV. I'm incapable of driving my ICE around the world unrefueled; would I be expected to state that my car has relatively limited range (compared to say a notional EV with an on-board nuclear reactor)?

What matters is not the relative range, but whether or not that range imposes significant practical limitations on usage in the prevailing conditions. That is certainly the case for single-car household BEVs at present compared to ICE/HEVs, and sometimes so for multi-car households too.

Even in the case of the dinofuel-powered equivalent it is relative as most drivers commute well within the energy storage capacity of the Leaf on a daily basis. And that includes single vehicle households. Ultimately, this vehicle is not marketed for road trips. Does Fox have segments on the towing capacity of Corvettes despite their "limited" seating?

What matters to a single-car household is not the average daily range requirement, it's the extreme range. If I'm a single-car household, what difference does it make if my normal day's driving is within the Leaf's range, if my driving on the weekend exceeds that? I either need a car that can handle both jobs or I have to rent, which involves time, money, and inconvenience, i.e. practical limitations. And I'd be willing to bet that single-car households are much more likely to be renters and/or city-dwellers, and thus can't install an L2 charger and often have no way to charge at home or nearby, more practical limitations. BEVs like the Leaf have a niche where they're practical and could be seen as a reasonable choice by a large % of possible owners, but in most cases that niche doesn't include single-car households.

 

[Randy3]

Our local news took the first portion of this Fox News report, then edited out the last portion and added in a section where a different news person states that the EV's haven't sold well because they don't have sufficient range. It's like the Fox corporate people didn't like the original and wanted to add more negative comment to it. Then they offered the newly edited version to the affiliates.

 

[SkiTundra]

OMG...

I was simply responding to your comment that the Volt had received no subsidies, when in fact it's received considerable subsidies.

 

[GRA]

Semi-OT, front page article in the S.F. Chronicle today:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/19/MTJA1NL8OD.DTL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, writing a positive article about EVs in general in the Bay Area is as much preaching to the choir as Limbaugh et al do with their audience.

 

[thankyouOB]

Our local news took the first portion of this Fox News report, then edited out the last portion and added in a section where a different news person states that the EV's haven't sold well because they don't have sufficient range. It's like the Fox corporate people didn't like the original and wanted to add more negative comment to it. Then they offered the newly edited version to the affiliates.

exactly.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

All these hybrid/EV buyer interviews where owners cite the privilege of jumping the HOV lanes as the number one advantage is disheartening. Hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles do nothing to reduce traffic as intended by the HOV lanes. This is pure social engineering; maybe they should hand out ice cream cones to Priuses and EV's at traffic lights too.

 

[Sasparilla]

I'm quite surprised by the carping about this.
If they were really out to get EV's they'd not have posted this article & video. Writing about a happy customer, how dare they.

I don't find the carping surprising at all based on what Fox News has broadcast previously with regards to plug-ins.

I think for alot of us our eyes and ears have been scorched by what Fox News has done to the Leaf initially and the Volt in particular recently. Maybe some of the public push-back they've been receiving lately is having an effect.

The fact that they were so pro-plugin (how important the technology was to get off oil) and especially on the Volt in 2008 and then how totally opposite they were after that implies some obvious (and thoughtless) guidance from the folks deciding what to allocate expensive air time to - as to how this technology should be shown depending on the political weather of the moment.

If they decide to start having above board "news" about plug-ins that get us off foreign oil (i.e. the truth) that'll be great - the section of the population that is their viewership won't be exposed to a constant stream of anti plug-in propaganda...those folks might start seeing the vehicles as good things, but I'll wait and see.

Here's a nice reminder of one of their previous Leaf interviews:

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/12/19/fox-news-attacks-first-nissan-leaf-owner-engages-hate/

Here's a nice montage of Fox pieces on the Volt:

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/08/2...lming-hatred-for-the-chevy-volt-watch-this-n/

 

[Fabio]

Fox "news" is a propaganda machine for the right wing.
They have claimed (in a 2003 Appellate Court) that they are not obliged to report the truth:

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

The appellate court agreed with the Fox lawyer and Fox reported the news as vindication.

If they decide to start having above board "news" about plug-ins that get us off foreign oil (i.e. the truth) that'll be great - the section of the population that is their viewership won't be exposed to a constant stream of anti plug-in propaganda...those folks might start seeing the vehicles as good things, but I'll wait and see.

 

[Nubo]

Well, except for her comment that it's range is 100 miles which we know is closer to 60 or 70.

It's only 60-70 miles if you drive on the freeway around 70-75mph, or it's really cold, have many hills, or high winds. If you drive in the city and do a little hypermiling, 100 miles is obtainable.

It is true you can drive further if you stick to surface streets. Problem is if you're going 100 miles, you probably aren't doing it on surface streets, unless you're delivering pizzas.

It's surprising how often you can find streets that parallel a freeway for a good distance and don't have an untoward number of stops. Sometimes the name changes several times as you pass through various townships, but the street continues. I drove down to San Jose this Sunday, 75 miles via freeway, but took such a parallel course for half the distance so as to reduce the amount of charging I'd need for the return trip. As it turned out that efficiency came in pretty handy as some strong winds were blowing and ate into my range once I did join the freeway.