backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by talikarni.. on Apr 30 at 3:50 PM

Spark EV can go 82 miles on full charge

Back in November of last year, Chevrolet started talking up its new Spark electric vehicle. One of the more interesting things that Chevrolet offered up about the small electric vehicle was that it would have impressive performance, being able to reach 60 mph in under 8 seconds.
 
Chevrolet also announced the retail pricing for the vehicle at $32,495 before the $7500 federal tax credit. After that tax credit is applied, the new Spark EV would sell for under $25,000.
 
Chevrolet has offered up some additional information about the Spark this week. The EPA estimated electric driving range for the Spark is 82 miles on full charge. The EPA gives the vehicle a combined city/highway fuel economy equivalent of 119MPGe.

Chevrolet says that the Sparky EV could save owners as much as $9,000 in fuel costs over five years.

“Being able to provide our customers with the best overall efficiency of any retail EV has always been a key target for the Spark EV engineering team,” said Pam Fletcher, GM executive chief engineer for electrified vehicles. “We’re poised to deliver to the market an EV that’s not just efficient, but also thrilling to drive thanks to the 400 lb-ft torque output of its electric motor.”

The Spark uses a 21 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that carries an eight-year or 100,000 mile warranty. The Spark will also be the first vehicle to have an option for the SAE combo charger for DC Fast Charging. This charging capability will be available shortly after launch and will allow the Spark EV to recharge to up to 80% of its total capacity in only 20 min. Chevrolet says the vehicle could handle multiple DC Fast Charges each day. Standard charging takes under seven hours using a dedicated 240 V charger. The vehicle comes standard with a 120 V charge cord.
 
The vehicle is set to go on sale this summer in California and Oregon before a broader rollout at a later date.

Source: GM



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By 91TTZ on 4/25/2013 11:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
Why do automakers insist on making these horrible looking small cars? On paper, the specs often seem attractive and the cars often seems practical. But then I see them and I'm instantly repulsed. They look really awkward. So bad, in fact, that I wouldn't even consider buying one.




By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 11:28:22 AM , Rating: 4
because they are making small city cars where space is limited, parking sucks, and it's mostly likely to be used by only one person. Being on the economy range also won't help its aesthetics. There are plenty of people who finds these cars attractive, you're not one of them. You're just no used to them. Go to Europe and see for yourself how ugly they can really get.

If you want to get a good looking EV then buy a Model S


By Mint on 4/25/2013 8:19:13 PM , Rating: 3
The Zoe looks amazing, and is basically Renault's take on the Leaf platform that they worked together on with their alliance.

They're also pricing it in a much better way: Sell the car at a low price, but ask for monthly payments to lease the battery, sort of like a gas substitute.


By Souka on 4/26/2013 2:06:42 PM , Rating: 1
Meh.

I get about 50mpg in my 2004 prius.

it's a 4 door... much bigger car, and I can drive 600 miles on a tank... and fillup in just a few minutes at any gas station on my drive.

Spark? oohhh... 70 miles (rated, not actual) and I gotta charge...nice.

Lets' not forget the 25k price up front. I paid 7k for my prius...I'm already 18k ahead :)

If you only drive short distances your savings with an electric are reduced because of the reduced mileage.

I put about 13k miles/year on my car... doing that with a Spark would be soo painful because of the constant need to charge.


By Mint on 4/26/2013 3:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not defending the Spark EV. It's overpriced and undersized.

In the UK, a Renault ZOE sells for £14k and you pay £93/mo to lease the battery for 12k miles/yr. A Prius would cost you £22k and £100/mo in gas to go the same distance.

(1000 miles/mo / 50MPG = 20 US gallons = 76L, avg gas cost of £1.35/L)

Your comparison of a used car price with a new one is just stupid.


By Mint on 4/26/2013 3:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to include electricity cost in there, but even if total running costs are £30/mo higher for the ZOE, you're not going to make up £8k difference for over 15 years.


By Dr of crap on 4/25/2013 12:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
Yes agreed.

WHY not make it MORE aerodynamic, lower to the ground, almost sports car like.
Oh wait, with most of the US FAT, no one could get into it that's why.

But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 1:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!
It's to fool people into thinking there's more room in them than there actually is. And BTW, I actually like the Sparks looks and with a 84 mile range, it would be just barely enough to suit my current needs. And on top of that, it's not dog slow either.


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 2:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
it's not to fool anyone. Go measure it.


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 2:39:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's not to fool anyone. Go measure it.
Don't need to measure anything. A taller car WILL give one the impression of more room. But unless you're tall, the extra height is unused and irrelevant.


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 2:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
I mean these vehicles are not tall. They are short and smaller in overall dimensions. The ground clearance remains the same. They seem taller in that respect.

Why don't they change it? lots of reasons but i can sum it up to "the physical world didn't change size because your car is smaller"


By 91TTZ on 4/25/2013 4:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
They are tall. They're marketed as being "tiny" cars but when you park an older car next to them you realize just how big they are. They're much larger than the small cars of the past.

This Spark is 61 inches tall.

For reference:

My 300ZX is 49.6 inches tall.
A Dodge Neon is 55 inches tall
A Toyota Corolla is 54 inches tall
A Dodge Caravan was 64 inches tall.

This thing's height is closer to a Dodge Caravan than a Dodge Neon.


By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
None of the cars you listed are anywhere near this car's class. Even the Neon and Corolla are a step or two above it.

I agree with the previous poster, they make these so ugly: small yet tall which makes them look ridiculous. I was behind a smarttwo or whatever it is called and couldn't see over it. It was about as tall as the crossover in front of it. It's like they took the middle of a crossover and cut off the trunk and hood area.


By FITCamaro on 4/26/2013 8:57:49 AM , Rating: 3
That's kind of his point. A car in the sub (heck, micro) compact class is far taller than cars in the sub-compact class and even midsize class. And it's not far off from a vehicle that is a minivan.

But this has everything to do with crash standards. Nothing more. Bumper heights have been raised. Forcing automakers to adjust the design of their cars to meet new safety standards so the car will sell.


By FITCamaro on 4/26/2013 8:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
And I think it's utterly insane that we now have vehicles with wheel wells large enough to fit 30" rims INSIDE the wheel well.

Makes me want to throw up when I see it.


By AssBall on 4/26/2013 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah i'd much rather see a cadillac with 13" bronzed chromies on it...not.

The physics of larger tire size:
Better braking
Better mileage
Better ride
Better wear

You might lose some handling and pay a bit more, but to be realistic the 405 is not Leguna Seca.


By sigmatau on 4/26/2013 8:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
I don't believe you lose handling. You gain handling. Maybe the ride quality diminishes, but in terms of grip on the road, it is enhanced.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 10:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
None of the cars you listed are anywhere near this car's class. Even the Neon and Corolla are a step or two above it. I agree with the previous poster, they make these so ugly: small yet tall which makes them look ridiculous.


I am the previous poster. The other cars I listed are supposedly "larger", yet they're shorter.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 7:50:40 AM , Rating: 3
why are you comparing new cars with old cars? I can easily say all new cars are generally much bigger than its predecessors. Nice way to try and win an argument.

EVs are also a bit taller due to the fact that they have a huge battery underneath. But in general, cars are just much taller and bigger these days. The change started with bumper safety regs.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 11:10:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
why are you comparing new cars with old cars?


I'm comparing it to older cars primarily because companies claim that they're returning to fuel efficient "small" cars instead of the gas-guzzling big SUVs and boats we used to drive before. I'm showing you that these new "small" cars aren't actually small at all. The problem is that over time, automakers moved their compact cars upmarket to get more profits, resulting in those compacts becoming mid-sized cars. They then replaced those spots in their lineups with new compacts which are really tall and bubbly.

But let's compare the non-EV Spark with other new cars:

2013 Spark: 61 inches tall.
2013 Cruze: 58 inches
2013 Civic: 56 inches
2013 Corolla: 58 inches
2013 Scion Tc: 56 inches
2013 Accord: 57 inches
2011 Crown Victoria: 57 inches
2013 Cadillac CTS: 58 inches

As you can see, the Spark is STILL a tall car. Not only is it taller than compacts, it's taller than full size cars including giant boats like the Ford Crown Victoria and Cadillac CTS. The Spark doesn't just look tall because it's short, it IS tall.

quote:
Nice way to try and win an argument.

Arguing against reality. Nice way to try to lose an argument.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 12:39:51 PM , Rating: 3
How many times do i have to say this. EVs have their batteries underneath the seat/floorboard. That's a few hundred pounds of batteries. It has to go there.

Given that the clearance has to be the same as any other passenger cars, do you see why it has to be a few inches taller?
The headroom clearance and seat has to remain the same also.

Same cabin height + same ground clearance + added battery space = slightly taller vehicle. It looks like it's only taller by a few inches so what's the big deal?

It is not a marketing trick, it is by design constraints.

When you make full size cars, you give it more leg rooms and trunk space so it is. The extra size is mostly horizontal rather than vertical. The BMW 3 series is virtually the same height as the BMW 7 series. The main difference being interior space extended horizontally.

Comparing height when it's within a few inches of each other is irrelevant when the length of the cars you listed have a significant delta.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 3:11:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How many times do i have to say this. EVs have their batteries underneath the seat/floorboard. That's a few hundred pounds of batteries. It has to go there.


You keep saying it because you have really poor reading comprehension. I've already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning but you can't see it. So now I have to be more blunt and direct, which comes off as rude.

1. This car is a continuation of a line of cars that have always been pretty tall. They've been tall long before an electric version was even offered.

2. This car's current model didn't offer an electric version until 2013. It's been gas or diesel up until now, yet the car was still the same height. The height did not change in the electric version.

3. GM obviously knows how to make a lower profile electric car because their EV1 was only 51 inches tall (a full 10 inches shorter than this beast)

Since I've established that 1) this line of cars has always been tall and 2) the current model was tall before an electric version was offered and 3) other GM electric cars were shorter, I can confidently say that you're wrong about the tall height being due to it being electric.


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 2:17:41 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
WHY not make it MORE aerodynamic, lower to the ground, almost sports car like. Oh wait, with most of the US FAT, no one could get into it that's why.

They are very aerodynamic in terms of coefficient of drag. They are not tuned aerodynamically for stability because it won't be driven fast like a sports car. If you look up high speed sports cars, it actually has much higher coefficient than a prius.

quote:
But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!

These smart cars are low to the ground. They don't look like it because they are very short and small overall. Your perception makes it look higher off the ground than it actually is.

They cannot make them wider on that short of a wheel base because it will be unstable and cause more drag.


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 2:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They cannot make them wider on that short of a wheel base because it will be unstable and cause more drag.
Yes they can and have and lower CG does NOT make a car more unstable. It does the opposite. These cars are tall to give the impression of roominess, that's all.

Wheelbase comparison
Chevy Spark: 93.1 inches
Pontiac Solstice: 95.1 inches

Track comparison
Chevy Spark: 55.5/55.7 inches
Pontiac Solstice: 60.1/60.7 inches

Overall width comparison
Chevy Spark: 62.9 inches
Pontiac Solstice: 71.3 inches


By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 3:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
I never said lowering drag will increase unstability. Making a car look good and stable requires wind tunnel to shape the body for down force and also how it flows on the sides and underneath. Normally, it adds a bit more drag for obvious reasons. These little cars are meant for efficiency so they just go for the lowest drag while meeting safety regs. If you don't believe me then drive one of these things at 80 mph. I have, it's scary as $%#@ and every gust of wind feels like it's going to blow you away.

And what is your point with these dimentions? It says that the Spark is a smaller car.

What those dimensions doesn't tell you is that the solstice actually have much more overhangs past the wheel base. A solstice is a much longer car overall, not just the wheel base.

Next time, at least try to be more convincing.


By Solandri on 4/25/2013 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's worth pointing out that lower drag coefficient doesn't automatically mean lower drag. To calculate actual drag, you multiply the drag coefficient by the surface area of the profile the car presents to the wind, times a few constants.

So if it's taller, that's going to increase the profile's surface area and increase the drag. Maybe even enough so there's higher drag despite the Cd being lower. (Likewise, a narrower body will reduce drag.)


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 6:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's worth pointing out that lower drag coefficient doesn't automatically mean lower drag. To calculate actual drag, you multiply the drag coefficient by the surface area of the profile the car presents to the wind, times a few constants.
X2 yep


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 5:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said lowering drag will increase unstability.
Don't you read what you write? You said making a short wheelbase car, wider would make it unstable. It does not. I referenced my own car as an example of a car that's wide and has a short wheelbase. Those two combinations happen quite a bit on sports cars which are very stable compared to typical cars. Your statement was overgeneralized.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 8:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you know what you wrote so I'll quote it for you.

quote:
Yes they can and have and lower CG does NOT make a car more unstable. It does the opposite. These cars are tall to give the impression of roominess, that's all. Wheelbase comparison Chevy Spark: 93.1 inches Pontiac Solstice: 95.1 inches Track comparison Chevy Spark: 55.5/55.7 inches Pontiac Solstice: 60.1/60.7 inches Overall width comparison Chevy Spark: 62.9 inches Pontiac Solstice: 71.3 inches


When tuning in a wind tunnel. You can go for stability or efficiency or most likely a combination of both. The priority for this car is efficiency because that's the whole point of the car. If you don't tune for stability then any big gust of wind will make the vehicle unstable at high speed.

Yes wheel base does matter for stability at high speed. Have you ever try driving a car that has a nearly squared wheel base? You will spin out very quickly. The only good thing is that you will have a very small turning radius.

And again all passenger cars meant for daily driving have pretty much the same ground clearance. The interior also need to have a certain amount of space for headroom clearance. The overall dimensions are smaller. So yes, a shorter car overall will look taller because they are shorter.
And please don't start listing sports cars and supercars will low ground clearance. It is clearly not meant for buying groceries and driving through pothole littered roads.


By Omega215D on 4/26/2013 2:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
Larger diameter wheels would be better though, they should at least do that.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 7:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
larger diameter wheels create more rolling resistance. All these hybrids/EVs normally have skinny wheels for efficiency.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 2:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Wider tires create more rolling resistance, but larger diameter tires do not.


By boeush on 4/25/2013 8:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But still lower those damn cars, Fit, Aero, Spark, ect - why are they ALL tall and skinny, make them sort and WIDE!
You must live in a place where the land and roads are flat as a pancake. Where I live, there are hills and drainage ditches -- and yeah, even speed bumps and pot holes. And with that in effect, I absolutely hate low-to-ground cars, with a passion. They do nothing but scrape and scratch on the pavement all over the place, even when pulling in/out of inclined driveways onto the street at 3 mph. They're also a pain to park because you're constantly afraid of slamming your bumper into the curb or the concrete limiter at the end of your parking space.

Oh, and wide cars? Much more of a pain to park and get in/out of on packed parking lots and compact parking spaces. Much more of a pain to maneuver in tight quarters. At least, these factors are important when you don't live out in the middle of nowhere...


By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's one thing to have a low clearance sport car and another to have a chopped off SUV-freak that has 6.7 inches of ground clearance. Now that is insane! I remember owning a 98 Honda Accord that had just under 4 inches of ground clearance, which was higher than most competitors, and I thought it made the car look a little odd. I think they have gotten worse since then. But, come on, 6.7 inches of clearance for a small turd? That is small SUV territory.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 11:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where I live, there are hills and drainage ditches -- and yeah, even speed bumps and pot holes. And with that in effect, I absolutely hate low-to-ground cars, with a passion.


Nobody is proposing that these cars be low to the ground like a Lamborghini. A reasonable ride height like a Corolla, Civic, or Cruze works just fine in the city. I see cars like that all the time in Philly.

I don't think you realize just how tall cars like the Spark are. They're much taller than your average car. It's not an illusion, it's actually taller than Civics, Accords, big-ass Buicks and Cadillacs. It's near crossover/minivan territory.


By Manch on 4/25/2013 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
CAFE. Selling these helps their avg.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 5:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do automakers insist on making these horrible looking small cars?


The answer is simple: They're being forced to by the Government!

Vehicle engineering is far more complex than the average person comprehends. Everything is a compromise, because ultimately in the end, you are limited by physics in what you can do with a given automotive design.

It's a very long and complicated process, but basically for whatever reason, when you set out to have the ultimate design goal of maximum fuel economy; you end up with a gay looking bubble car.

Look, I don't know why, but that's just the way it is apparently. /shrug


By Spuke on 4/25/2013 5:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
Some is marketing though. Because of the Prius, people now associate goofy looking cars with fuel efficiency (which was Toyota's whole point in the design of the 2nd gen Prius). I did say it looked ok before but that was before I knew it was 61 inches tall. It looked tall but I didn't realize it was THAT tall.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 11:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vehicle engineering is far more complex than the average person comprehends. Everything is a compromise, because ultimately in the end, you are limited by physics in what you can do with a given automotive design.


But the thing is that automakers are able to make larger cars than the Spark that still are much shorter than the Spark.

For instance, GM's Cadillac CTS is 57 inches tall but the Spark is 61 inches tall. There's definitely no technical reason why the Spark needs to be that tall. It's taller than a Ford Crown Victoria.

I don't expect it to be low like a sports car, but it can be made much shorter than it is. A Chevy Cobalt is 56 inches tall. A Cruze is 58 inches tall. You get the point.

I agree with Spuke that it's due to marketing and the fact that people now associate goofy looking cars with fuel efficiency.


By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 1:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Most cars are roughly the same height. The exceptions are SUV/trucks, sports cars, etc...

This car is slightly higher than the average car due to the sheet of battery underneath and heat sink. That is all

The size of the car is usually determined by it's horizontal length, not its height. In fact, there's more delta between width of cars than height.

Why didn't they shrink the height with the rest of the car? because you didn't shrink and neither did the rest of the world.

Your argument is weak and annoying. Quit it.


By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 3:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This car is slightly higher than the average car due to the sheet of battery underneath and heat sink. That is all


You are entirely and absolutely wrong. 100% wrong.

As I have CLEARLY pointed out a few times to you, this car's electric version just came out now in 2013 and yet the gas version was the same height. Also, the previous model of the car (which had no electric version at all) was still a tall beast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chevrolet_Matiz_...

You are obviously out of your league arguing with me. You lack the automotive knowledge to participate in this debate, but you also lack the awareness to know you're outclassed. It's like a lap dog attacking a pit bull and then getting torn to shreds. Spectators want to look away but it's too entertaining not to watch.

quote:
Your argument is weak and annoying. Quit it.


You're just dumb. I don't know any other way to say it. You keep posting incorrect information thinking that you have a point, yet you don't. You really should stop posting in car threads but you lack the judgment to do even that.


By zodiacfml on 4/25/2013 11:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
because it is sold in other parts of the world.


By thurston2 on 4/26/2013 6:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you're just seeing your reflection in the monitor.


By jjmcubed on 4/28/2013 1:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
They look horrible because each brand has to have their "brand identity" applied to each example. Chevy brand identity is horrible, and I'm a Chevy guy.


Incorrect
By maevinj on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By maevinj on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 11:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
who cares when you get it back in a couple weeks?

It doesn't matter unless you're planning on paying all cash for it. Even then it still wouldn't matter as you'll get that money back almost instantly.

They're working on legislature to have it instantly at the dealership now.


RE: Incorrect
By maevinj on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By Spuke on 4/25/2013 1:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You still don't get the 7500 back in a tax refund. It's merely applied as a credit of taxes paid.
X2, there are different types of tax credits but the EV one ONLY applies to tax liability. In other words, if you have $7500 of tax liability then you get the entire $7500. If you have less then you get less and you can't apply the remainder to the next years taxes. BTW, this applies to your ENTIRE tax liability for the year meaning any federal taxes you've paid throughout the year plus the amount you pay at tax time.


RE: Incorrect
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2013 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
It does matter because you're financing the full amount.

There should be no tax credit in the first place anyway.


RE: Incorrect
By Manch on 4/25/2013 2:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chevrolet says that the Sparky EV could save owners as much as $9,000 in fuel costs over five years.


It should read:

Chevrolet says that the Sparky EV could save owners as much as $7,500 in fuel costs over five years by fleecing tax payers.


RE: Incorrect
By Ammohunt on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 3:19:03 PM , Rating: 1
because if you can't afford this vehicle then you are not even paying that much taxes. A person making 30k pays 2.6k in taxes. A person making 100k will pay 19k in taxes. That's just federal only.

Usually a person making 30k will pay after 2k or less a year after everything. A person making 100k will pay 20k after everything.

Then you figure in the fact that the guy making 100k pays into social security $6200 while the guy making 30k pays only about 2k. In the end, they'll probably receive the same social security paycheck since it is capped at a pretty low amount.

So in summary
1. If you make more then you pay A LOT MORE
2. If you make less then you pay MUCH LESS
3. You both enjoy the same freaking government benefits of equal value.

Don't blame wealthier people because you can't get ahead in life. There's always someone ahead of you. Just be happy man.


RE: Incorrect
By Ammohunt on 4/25/2013 3:39:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't blame wealthier people because you can't get ahead in life. There's always someone ahead of you. Just be happy man.


You misread my post i fall into #1 I am already successful just don't like paying for the deadbeats in our society or their cars/welfare/etc..


RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 10:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
then what are you complaining about? the deadbeats can't afford this. The people that can are pretty much paying way more than this 7.5k

If a city decides to repave the road in your neighborhood and it cost them 300k of taxpayer's money, you don't see other people complain. Everybody pays man, it's society. Sometimes you get more and sometimes less, but overall everybody is getting about the same. Except for the ones cheating the government of course.


RE: Incorrect
By Ammohunt on 4/26/2013 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
Don't get it do you? Road maintenance is something different entirely! its an acceptable use for tax when its for share infrastructure. Why should i have to pay for the neighbors car/food/housing i thought communism was declared dead? its alive and well in the west.


RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 1:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure you don't get it. The government provides a wide variety of services. I'm 100% sure you are using something that I'm not using. I can argue all day about how it's stupid and I don't have to pay for you to enjoy your life. If you don't like it then do something about it. Stop whining about EVs, that is a very small part of the budget as it is.


RE: Incorrect
By Ammohunt on 4/26/2013 2:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
No its quite clear that you don't understand the differences between infrastructure and government fluffing select consumer markets with taxpayer money. This has nothing to do with EV's I had the same issue with the gas car credit scheme a few years back.

Government is meant to provide for the common good tell me how does subsidizing EV's only for those that purchase them do that exactly?


RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 3:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
it increases sales and further fund more R&D for a more mature design of EV.


RE: Incorrect
By Manch on 4/27/2013 5:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's nonsense. If the government wanted to use this money to further R&D costs, then they could hand it out as a grant like they do with a lot of things. This tax credit is nothing more than a political ploy to forcibly alter market conditions for the benefit of those that funded their elections


RE: Incorrect
By boeush on 4/25/2013 8:01:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kinda makes someone like me wonder why i work my ass of to earn a decent salary earning the privilege to pay taxes which is used to buy EV's for people that don't pay taxes.
Yeah, because people who don't pay taxes (have no income) are the type of demographic who habitually purchases $30,000 new cars. I hope your salary isn't conditioned on critical or logical thinking skills... otherwise your company would be getting a very raw deal.


RE: Incorrect
By Manch on 4/27/2013 5:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah bc you never see a jr enlisted member with no money buy an expensive @$$ car and drown themselves in debt. I sure there are examples in the civilian world as well with the younger kids just starting out biting off more credit than they can chew.


RE: Incorrect
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2013 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 3
And the word you're looking for is legislation. Not legislature. The legislature is who passes legislation.


RE: Incorrect
By GulWestfale on 4/25/2013 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
it's a chevy spark (a rebadged daewoo matiz econobox) for over 30 grand... you have got to be kidding me. even at 25 grand, why would you want to drive something like that? you could get a used M5 or E55 for that amount... why get a korean econobox? have you lost all hope in your life?


RE: Incorrect
By Spuke on 4/25/2013 2:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you could get a used M5 or E55 for that amount
C'mon man, two totally different markets here.


RE: Incorrect
By mcnabney on 4/25/2013 2:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is my complaint too.

The battery is big cost in an EV and this car only packs a 21KWh battery. LiIon batteries cost about $500/KWh - so the battery only costs $10k. It is going into a $10k car frame, so the price should be around $20k, not $40k.

(I get the $10 price of the 'car' portion by taking a $15000 subcompact, subtract the large cost of engine, fuel system, exhaust... and add the small cost of the motors in/by the wheels)


RE: Incorrect
By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
OMG, that made me laugh so hard. I was looking at one when I bought a Camaro and thought who buys these little turds? What was even funnier is that they had it near the corvettes and more than a few stopped to check it out.


RE: Incorrect
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2013 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
You can also get about 100 42" LCD TVs for the same price, why would anyone buy a Spark??

It's an equally irrelevant comparison. The Spark EV is good for saving fuel. A used M5 gets about 14 mpg on premium.


RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 10:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
lol people don't buy used M5s and E55s because when something breaks, so does their bank account. Never mind the horrible fuel economy.


RE: Incorrect
By 91TTZ on 4/26/2013 11:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking that the primary intention of this car isn't to satisfy consumers, but rather the government. With the new CAFE regulations, it often pays to have a car in your lineup that doesn't sell but increases the overall MPG of your lineup.

So what they do is take the smallest car they have, give it great MPG regardless of cost and let it sit there. Even if they sold only 1 of these, having the car in their lineup raised their fleet fuel economy.


RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
The primary intention of the car is EV development and a tech "me too". The avg vehicle fleet mpg also accounts the # of vehicles sold.

You can't sell 100k of a 25mpg vehicle and 1k of a 35mpg vehicle and say you have an avg of 30mpg in your fleet.

EV is the future. The gov is pushing it, people are agreeing with it, manufacturers are refining them with each iteration.

The whole industry had already agreed since hybrids started that it was going to be a stop gap solution for the transition to full EV or hydrogen vehicles.


RE: Incorrect
By Dukeajuke on 4/25/2013 1:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. The tax credit comes off sales price at the dealership. My wife bought a hybrid 2 years ago using the Federal tax credit...


RE: Incorrect
By maevinj on 4/25/2013 2:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
You may want to look at your bill of sale/invoice again.


RE: Incorrect
By mcnabney on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 3:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
How are you going to say it's a giveaway to the upper middle class when that money is probably from them lol.

The lower class typically pays less than the benefits they receive if you think about it. The difference in taxes paid between someone who makes $30k and someone who makes $100k is more like 10x.


RE: Incorrect
By maevinj on 4/25/2013 3:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
The person making 30k isn't putting in enough to reap the benefits of the full 7500. If they paid 1000 in federal taxes from their paycheck, and they still owe the governemtn 500, then they would only get 500 from the 7500. It's a tax credit. Say for somebody like me that pays around 10k+ in federal taxes a year. i would befenit because I could take the full 7500 tax credit.
There for it is a giveaway to the upper middle class because they can actually use the full tax credit.


RE: Incorrect
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2013 5:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
No just many of them are paying $0 at the end of the tax year anyway and then if they have kids they're getting money back on top of it.


RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 10:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the point. The wealthier will always end up paying much more taxes.

If you are complaining about being poor and paying for the rich then it's false because they pay multitudes more than you.

If you argue that you are middle class then you're pretty much getting your money back.

If you argue that you are wealthy and paying for other wealthy people buying this car then it's retarded. Some people will benefit more from certain things than others. Overall, it'll even out unless you're cheating the system. There's a few bad eggs but most people don't cheat the system.

Either way, this is not really that unfair. If you want unfair, go bust the fat people cheating for welfare.


RE: Incorrect
By maevinj on 4/25/2013 2:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Up to" is the critical modifier. The federal incentive is usually referred to as a flat $7,500 credit, but it's only worth $7,500 to someone whose tax bill at the end of the year is $7,500 or more. If the buyer of a Volt, a Nissan Leaf or any of the other eligible vehicles owes, for example, only $5,000 in income tax for a particular year, that's all the tax credit will be. Uncle Sam's not writing a refund check for the other $2,500. And an unused portion of the credit can't be applied against the following year's taxes.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-ins-and-ou...


RE: Incorrect
By Spuke on 4/25/2013 2:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not true. The tax credit comes off sales price at the dealership. My wife bought a hybrid 2 years ago using the Federal tax credit...
It does not. It's not a rebate. What you probably got was a manufacturers or dealers rebate. Tax credits apply to taxes you PAY or have PAID. There is no other way this works. See the IRS's website on this or your tax person.


Price
By Ammohunt on 4/25/2013 11:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Far to expensive for what it is..pass.




RE: Price
By Rage187 on 4/25/2013 2:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
you don't want to pay $25,000+ for a $10,000 car?


RE: Price
By mcnabney on 4/25/2013 2:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
The saving comes from the 'energy cost' of the EV at about 3 cents per mile. My Nissan Sentra gets about 12 cents per mile.

So driving 15k miles in the EV will cost $450 while the gas powered Sentra costs $1800. $1350 a year saving over five years is $6750, which is close to their claims. Now if the life of the car is ten years that saving is around $12-13k, which is pretty much the ENTIRE price premium of getting a little car in EV versus gas. Once you add in the opportunity cost (you are paying for the savings all up-front) and this is a bad financial idea.


RE: Price
By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
You can get a base Camaro for that mang.


RE: Price
By Mint on 4/25/2013 8:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
They're not going to sell many of these. It costs substantially more than the Leaf while being a smaller car with less equipment.


Their math seems to be off
By 91TTZ on 4/25/2013 11:39:26 AM , Rating: 1
They say it can save you $9000 in fuel costs over 5 years.

The average gas price is $3.50.

9000/3.5 = 2571 gallons

Now let's compare this electric version to the gas version of the same car that gets 32/28 mpg:

2571 x 32 = 82,272 miles

Over 5 years, that would be 16,454 miles per year.

It looks like their math doesn't work out even if you assume that it costs absolutely nothing to recharge this electric version (which is completely unrealistic).




RE: Their math seems to be off
By ERROR666 on 4/25/2013 11:44:44 AM , Rating: 1
they assume that avg new car gets 23mpg. It's on the label. So it looks different now, although still way too optimistic. Inreality I think you might be able to save some money, just not as much money. At thesame time you'll drive a piece of shit car.


RE: Their math seems to be off
By Ammohunt on 4/25/2013 2:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to factor in the price difference between models which buys a lot of gas. Economically this car just does not make sense on the other hand, environmentally its a tree hugging win!


RE: Their math seems to be off
By robert5c on 4/25/2013 2:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
check my post below doing the math, i'm not sure why people say this doesn't add up...


RE: Their math seems to be off
By Mint on 4/25/2013 8:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Save $9000 over the average new vehicle"

A 32 MPG car would have a sticker on it that also declares savings of a few grand over the average.


Clown Car
By btc909 on 4/25/2013 3:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's a 32K clown car that claims to get 82 miles but will probably get 75-76 for most drivers.




RE: Clown Car
By xti on 4/25/2013 4:19:08 PM , Rating: 1
they could have called it the chevy turtle. then people would have put a thin mask around it and paint it ninja turtle colors.

MARKETING BABY...chevy owes me 500k for the idea.


RE: Clown Car
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2013 5:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
On very hot or cold days it'll get less than that. Will be lucky to get 50-55 most likely.


on your own
By DockScience on 4/25/2013 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who pays $32 grand for this horrid little box deserves it.

Just leave our children out of it and pay for it with your own money, not money THEY will have to pay back.




By ballist1x on 4/26/2013 9:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
and the battery is due to pack up in 8, how does this effect resale value? How much is electricity to power this thing? With demand for electricity due to increase, then the cost will also increase...

So ther actual saving will be much much lower in terms of a total cost of ownership and on top of that you have to own the fugliest of small hatch backs to achieve a hella small saving.

Its called a false economy and it's misleading.




Do the Math
By talikarni on 4/30/2013 3:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Spark has a 21 kWh battery

Figure a 20 kWh charge...
Los Angeles area households paid an average of 23.2 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity in March 2013.

If you only drive to and from work at most 75 miles round trip:

18 kWh used per day = 540 kWh per month or 6500 per year.

This comes out to $4.18 per (realistic) single charge per day, an extra $125 per month on your power bill or at least an extra $1500 per year.

But if you look at it realistically needing 3 charges per day for shopping, socially, etc:
$12.54/day, $375/mo., $4500/yr

Now if you compare to a gasoline vehicle driven the same amount (around 75 miles per day, $4/gal CA prices):
15 mpg = 5 Gal used, $20/day
25 mpg = 3 Gal used, $12/day
35 mpg = 2.1 Gal, $8.40/day
50 mpg = 1.5Gal, $6/day

Even with the realistic shopping and social stops along the way, these Electric vehicles cost-wise are not really any better than a gas/diesel vehicle that can get 25-30 mpg. Add in the need for longer trips even within the same state and that 82 mile limit, even if stretched to 90 miles, means you spend more time charging than driving, versus at least with a gas/diesel vehicle, you can get at least 350-500 miles between fueling. Stopping for restroom breaks and such every 90 minutes, which would be charging time for the EV, means you can spend 3-5 minutes filling up/peeing and be on your way again....... versus waiting minimum 20-60 minutes for the EV to charge.
A single 300 mile trip averaging 60 mph you could easily do in 5 hours with a fueled vehicle. Yet with this EV and the need to charge, that 5 hours is stretched to at least 8 hours.

Sure, low range EVs (under 150 miles per charge) may make sense for people as a commute car within the vehicles range.... but add in all the normal every day additional driving such as shopping, groceries, taking and picking kids up from events, social events, and so on, the EVs are less appealing. But for only commuting, no kids, no life, then sure it makes sense.




$9000 over 5 years????
By AssBall on 4/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By KillerNoodle on 4/25/2013 10:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
The sticker clearly states that the numbers are based on 15,000 miles a year.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By AssBall on 4/25/2013 2:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Then how on earth could you save 9k with a 119 mile per gallon car? The estimate is retarded.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By mcnabney on 4/25/2013 2:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
Easy, they compare the cost of owning the EV with the cost of owning a Hummer H1.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By robert5c on 4/25/2013 2:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
have you even attempted that math?

15,000 x 5 = 75,000 miles
using the 23 mpg average car figure

75,000 ÷ 23 = 3260.9 gallons used
75,000 ÷ 119 = 630.25 equivalent gallons used (also consider as cost of the electricity)

3260.9 - 630.25 = 2630.65 gallons saved, or not used.

so...
2630.65 x $3.50 = $9207.27 dollars not spent, saved.

according to the FTC average price of a new car sold in the US is $30,000, so lets just say similar since depending on what your taxes look like you'll either pay a little less or a little more on this car.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By AssBall on 4/25/2013 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Saving more is the new spending less!

Get a grip.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By robert5c on 4/25/2013 3:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
to add to the last point about the average car.

i know some say this is a 15k car being sold for 25-32.5k.
i was just trying to show against the baseline average owner how they got their figure.

i think we can safely assume this is should be a better trim then the base $12,995 Chevy Spark, as usually hybrid and EVs try to be. better performance is a plus. so the best comparison may be the EV spark vs gas higher trim at $16,820. With a avg combined figure of 35 you save only $5294.

Therefore up to 75,000 miles if you choose the gas version you do cost less, only after 115,000 miles does the EV potentially save you money.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By AssBall on 4/26/2013 4:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
These "Assumptive" savings are ignoring so much though .

Do you commute in Raleigh or Billings. Trust me the maintenance difference on esp light EV's is enormous.

How much do you pay for a a 6hr Charge? How much for gas. What kind of driver are you?

Do you like being shut inside an econobox for 42 hours a year extra (estimated time commuters waste in US cities). (how many dollars is that potentially)?

I'd be surprised if 2% of the people who buy this "save" anything over driving a Corolla.

Estimates based on restricted data are assumptions.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By Flunk on 4/25/2013 11:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
The interior space is surprisingly good for a car of it's size. You'd be surprised, I'm 6'4 and I can adequately drive one(the gas version at least), although I'm not sure I would buy one. I can see why people would want one of these as a second car for a two-car family, particularly if they're not very tall.

You are right on one thing though, the MPGe is a ridiculous measurement.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 11:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
it's a good city car :)
84 miles is more than enough in a day. In DC, a typical day of commute takes 2-3 hours and only about 30 miles or less.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By ERROR666 on 4/25/2013 11:39:49 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really think you can get 84 miles out of it in city traffic? Good luck to you. 84 miles are easy going miles on a straight road with minimal wind, at 45-50 mph with no ac, closed windows, etc...
Now, if you sit in trafic for 3 hrs it really doesn't matter how many miles you're doing.. You're still using ac, radio, motor, breaks and steering.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 11:55:32 AM , Rating: 1
EVs are most efficient in city traffic. Like I've said, there's no city folks that drive more than 50 miles a day unless they're taxi drivers. You can sit for a very long time in an EV before it needs recharging. You might want to do some research first before talking silly.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2013 12:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're still using more energy in stop and go as opposed to cruising. Speeding up takes more energy than maintaining speed. Plus when you're not moving, the car is still using power for the radio, AC, and other electronics.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 9:11:35 AM , Rating: 2

Yes it does but low speed is much more efficient than high speed also. Drag/air resistance is also not a problem at low speed. Most of your energy goes into propelling the actual vehicle instead of pushing the air. EVs also only have 1 gear. For the motor to spin faster, the energy requirements is not linear to motor speed. As the motor spin faster, it actually becomes less efficient.
You don't ever wonder why hybrids gets better city mpg than highway?

Radios and other electronics actually eats up very little energy. AC is actually not as much of a problem as heating.

In EVs, the AC doesn't have to work as hard. There is no engine that heats up the car and there is no piping underneath that also transfer some of that heat into the cabin. The AC itself is in an engine bay that is not hot.

Heating is and has been a problem. In cold environments, you lose some battery capacity already and then you have to use more energy to heat up everything. It takes a lot more energy to heat a cabin from 30F to 70F vs cooling from 95F to 75F.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2013 12:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
I spent just under $1400 in 9 months with my Cruze last year going around 19,000 miles (and using premium fuel btw). So factored out for the year that is around $1900.

So it's possible.


RE: $9000 over 5 years????
By HoosierEngineer5 on 4/25/2013 12:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
If Lutz gets his way, you'll be saving about a million dollars a year in 20 or 30 years.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki