EvansvilleLeaf said:
GRA said:
EvansvilleLeaf said:
Now price up an extra 80ft/lbs of torque
An extra 80 ft. lbs of torque for a Versa would cost a hell of a lot less than an extra 300+ miles of range for a BEV (Versa 1.8SL HB 28/34 mpg x 13.2 gal tank). Which does a mainstream consumer consider more valuable?
Unless he is either a) someone who has access to only one car and must make long trips at frequent and unpredictable intervals or b) a fricking idiot, then it is the attribute that is used every single time he presses the accelerator, that makes his car smoother, more responsive and more enjoyable to drive, rather than the one that makes absolutely no difference to his life beyond plugging in every couple of days rather than gassing up every week or so. We all know that the vast majority of consumers take few trips that the Leaf cannot handle, and do so predictably. We all know that more drivers are in multi-car households than single car households. Sure it's easy to find a povery-level travelling sales rep in Wyoming who lives alone but has kids living with his ex-wife 65 miles away and preen that an EV won't work for him, but nobody's saying it has to There are enough multi-car families and drivers with few needs for long haul trips to keep EV capacity tapped out for decades.
What you're trying to do is make value related only to accessory features, rather than driving comfort and enjoyment. By that metric, you could compare a loaded Versa on an equal basis to an M3 too.
Well to take these in order, your option 'a' exactly describes my car usage, a single-car household that uses a car for frequent out of town trips (and not at all in town, which makes me non-mainstream). As to the rest of that paragraph, I've never argued that a BEV for commuting and urban use doesn't make sense for many multi-car families, only that these same families remain unconvinced that it's worth it to them.
As to your final point, no, I'm not talking only about accessory features and ignoring driving comfort and enjoyment. But you were crediting an electric motor's inherent characteristic of maximum torque as a feature compared to the Versa (or most any ICE), while not also treating the inherent characteristic of an ICE's high energy-density liquid fuel (and its infrastructure) as a feature compared to the low energy density (and lack of infrastructure) of any currently available BEV. This is not an honest comparison.
Sure, I like an EV's quietness, lack of vibration, torque from a standing start, etc., but they aren't worth more to me than the ability to go wherever I want when I want, drive 300+ miles non-stop, refuel in 5 minutes and do it again, while not having to worry that heater/AC use may make me unable to get to my destination with nowhere to charge. If the positive features of a BEV are valuable to me I can afford to buy an ICE with most of them (and pay for the privilege), but no current BEV can provide me with the range @ speed, utility and convenience of an ICE which I require, at ANY price.
When you say you can compare a Versa to an M3, sure you can, but what you gain with the extra cost of an M3 doesn't require the sacrifice of the other features the Versa provides, they're in addition to them. Whereas comparing a BEV to any ICE requires tradeoffs of one set of advantages for another. EV owners consider the trade worthwhile, mainstream consumers don't as yet. As the performance of EVs improves, their price falls and the cost of fossil fuel transport increases, more and more people will think the tradeoffs are worthwhile.
if you really believe that features such as the ability to recharge at home is such a major convenience, ask yourself this: If you had two BEVs selling for the same price, one a Leaf as is, another exactly the same except that it could only recharge it at these places (i.e. not at home), which would be more likely to sell? Obviously, the 40% of the population that doesn't have access to an outlet at home would opt for the latter choice, but I'm talking about the other 60% of the population.
