backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on Feb 10 at 10:24 AM

The Kia Soul EV can travel up to 100 miles on a charge

The number of electric vehicles available in the U.S. market is soon to grow by one. Kia Motors today announced the 2015 Soul EV, which is the fully electric version of its very popular Soul (a vehicle that was fully redesigned for the 2014 model year).
 
The Soul EV features an 81-kW electric motor that is good for 109 hp and a respectable 210 lb-ft of torque. However, even the generous amount of torque isn’t enough to make the Soul EV anything other than slug-like in acceleration — the company is quoted 0-60 times of “fewer than 12 seconds.”
 
Top speed for the Soul EV is 90 mph; so don’t expect to be able to keep up on the highways in and around the Atlanta area (unless there are a couple of inches of snow/ice on the ground, then you’ll be just fine). The vehicle uses a 27 kWh, air-cooled battery which features 96 lithium-ion polymer battery cells.

 
Kia says that the range of the Soul EV is anywhere from 80 to 100 miles, although “internal testing” has shown that the vehicle is capable of surpassing 100 miles on a charge. Given Hyundai/Kia’s recent penchant for exaggerating mileage claims, we’ll wait for the reviewers to verify these claims.
 
Recharging the 360v battery pack (from empty) can be accomplished using a standard 120v outlet, but that will take 24 hours. The recharging time, however, can be cut down to just five hours with a 240-volt outlet.

 
Besides the reduced performance and driving range compared to its gasoline-powered sibling, the Soul EV also loses three inches of rear seat legroom (36 inches versus 39.1 inches) and 5.1 cu ft of rear cargo space (which now stands at 19.1 cu ft).
 
The Soul EV is set to launch later this year; official pricing and EPA official EPA figures will be released closer to launch.

Source: Kia Motors



Comments     Threshold


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

Poor platform choice.
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 11:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
The primary downside of an electric vehicle is its range... so why would Kia choose an inefficient platform for conversion?

The Soul has a drag coefficient of ~0.38. Slapping on a grill block, underbody panelling and aerodynamic wheel covers may have gotten them down to ~0.35, which is still subpar. I guess they're pigeonholing it as a city car.

Hopefully someone, someday will come out with an electric car that is actually *efficient*. A sedan version of VW Up! Lite seems like a no brainer.




By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 11:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
EDIT: sedan --> four door


RE: Poor platform choice.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2014 12:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
So every EV has to be an ugly bubble car?

They took a popular existing model of theirs and converted it to an EV.

Since they're only doing this to get around CAFE and other green-based mandates, it only makes sense they invested as little money as possible and convert one of their vehicles to an EV. In that regard, the Soul works as good as any /shrug


RE: Poor platform choice.
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Every *efficient* electric vehicle has to be a "bubble car." Packaging requirements and mother natures dictates the shape.

I agree with you assessment of why they chose that platform. A Soul makes a poor EV, but a reasonably marketable government-mandated EV.


RE: Poor platform choice.
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
My goodness, the typos... EDIT, where are?


By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
you :)


RE: Poor platform choice.
By JediJeb on 2/6/2014 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
For EVs to actually take off they will have to be offered in many shapes and sizes, not just the most efficient ones. At least the Soul will have a little room inside for bulky items if you need to transport them. Some people would give up a little efficiency for convenience. If they still hit the 100 mile per charge target it will be a good trade off in my opinion.

Back in the 70s my uncle worked on some of the first EV to see practical use, the electric mail jeeps. He was an EE for General Electric and it was a big project back then during the oil embargo. For the puttering around postal workers did when delivering mail, they did ok. Once gas was cheaper though, they became impractical so they didn't go any where on the project. If they would have had anything other than lead acid batteries then, who knows what might have been.


RE: Poor platform choice.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2014 8:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
The way I see it now, unless we're talking a Model S, most EV's are basically city cars without the range do to significant highway driving. Since aerodynamics play no real part in city driving, a brick like the Soul is as good of an EV as any other I would think.


RE: Poor platform choice.
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 8:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
The shape is very important to the testla, it looks absolutely great. I'm guessing a lot of Testla's sells come from the look at me factor kind of like buying an 80,000 dollar Mercedes.


RE: Poor platform choice.
By Samus on 2/8/2014 1:03:22 AM , Rating: 1
I especially like the "government mandated EV" part.

Because when you consider some car companies, like Mazda for example, they currently have the highest CAFE compliance of all manufactures and the highest fleet fuel economy.

But in the next few years, irregardless of this, they will be forced to make an EV or pay fines.

It's a fucked up world like that.


RE: Poor platform choice.
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 12:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think something like the Ford Focus was a better starting point. I kind of like what BMW is doing though and designing an electric vehicle from scratch.


RE: Poor platform choice.
By Solandri on 2/6/2014 5:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Soul has a drag coefficient of ~0.38. Slapping on a grill block, underbody panelling and aerodynamic wheel covers may have gotten them down to ~0.35, which is still subpar. I guess they're pigeonholing it as a city car.

Drag coefficient is independent of size. To get the actual drag, you have to multiply the wind-facing surface area by the drag coefficient.

In other words, a small car with a high drag coefficient can have less drag than a big car with a low drag coefficient. So the mere fact that it has a high drag coefficient doesn't automatically mean it's a poor platform choice. I'm not familiar with Kia's lineup so can't say for sure. But it may well be that for the size, sales volume, and price point, the Soul was the best of their vehicles to turn into an EV.


By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 11:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
You are right about size, but changing the size pretty much changes the market segment. One of the one-man pods from the Shell Efficiency Contest would be even better! :)

My point is that EVs are currently so marginal because they are built on inefficient platforms. Build a "Prius" of the EV world and you might have something rationally compelling. The problem is that "might" isn't a very compelling reason to fund new vehicle development...

By the way:

The correct term you are referring to is "drag area" = Cd * A

The actual drag force = 0.5 * air density * velocity^2 * frontal area * Cd


The ultimate part time electric delivery vehicle?
By CaedenV on 2/6/2014 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
The only time I ever see hamster wagons on the road is when they are used by companies. Catering, flower shops, fix-it people, and other light duty delivery services love these things because they have a decent amount of storage space (when the back seats are folded or removed), have a very low entry cost, and get relatively decent mileage around town compared to other vehicles with similar capabilities. Oh, and they look somewhat stylish too which is sometimes important for these types of businesses.

An electric version, could offer very cheap fuel prices, while still getting enough range to make a few deliveries every day. The big question is going to be the entry price. Kia Soul has always been fairly affordable, and if the EV follows suit then they may have a decent number of sales for a 'compliance vehicle'.




By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 9:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
It makes more sense the the geek squad beetles.


By wolrah on 2/8/2014 11:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
I leased one myself last year pretty much for that reason. I wanted cargo space and reliability at a reasonable price, which basically meant one of the toastermobiles (xB, Element, Cube, Soul) or a Transit Connect.

The Element went out of production, the xB was a lot more expensive, the Cube was underpowered as hell, and the Transit just felt too much like a fleet vehicle from the driving perspective.

I think I got the best one variant of the Soul. The larger motor, 6 speed manual, and basically nothing else as far as options go. It's not fast, but it surprised people at the local drag strip when I was consistently knocking off high 16 second runs while launching terribly (damn thing wheelhops like nothing else). Rowing my own gears also helps keep it fun to drive. I tested a slushbox '14 Forte at the same time and couldn't stand it.


I can see this selling
By Flunk on 2/6/2014 11:05:11 AM , Rating: 3
If this is cheap enough (and that is KIAs thing isn't it?) I can see this selling to people who just want it as a run about. Either people who don't drive much or as a family's second car.

If KIA can't sell a cheap-enough electric car I would hazard to guess that no one can at this point.




By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
If you drive little, then depreciation matters much more than fuel cost, making an electric vehicle would an illogical choice.

Electric cars are currently technology demonstrators. Outside of government mandates/support, most models have little rationale for existing.


.net error?
By purerice on 2/7/2014 4:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody else having errors when you try to preview replies?

Keep getting: "Server Error in '/' Application."

Thankfully Microsoft doesn't design the power trains for these cars or you'd stall every time you change gears.




Waiting for....
By GotThumbs on 2/10/2014 10:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
an EV for around $5,000 if it looks like the KIA to use SOULly (Pun intended) for my daily work commute.

It doesn't have to be pretty or sporty to get me to and from work, but I'm NOT willing to shell out any more of my money for a box.

Now If I could afford a Tesla S, I'd be driving one now. Very cool car and its great seeing more on the road these days.

~Best wishes keeping what you earned.




So....
By FITCamaro on 2/6/14, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By Flunk on 2/6/2014 11:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
If they hit the right price point, it will sell. People care about saving money and electricity is a lot cheaper than gas.

The whole greenwashing thing isn't the reason people buy these. At least not most people.


RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/14, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/6/2014 12:10:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Most people don't buy a vehicle simply for point A to B.


Actually, a lot of people buy vehicles for simply A to B. Why else would someone want to buy a dull Camry, Accord, Altima, Civic, or Corolla? These are best selling cars in America; all in the top 10 for 2013.

As for hybrids, the Prius is in the top 20 for sales in the U.S. with 234,000 units sold in 2013.


RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/14, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By Murloc on 2/6/2014 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
A to B for the whole family and in perceived safety though.


RE: So....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/6/2014 5:36:24 PM , Rating: 4
Do you know the type of people that buy those subcompacts you mentioned? Mostly singles or DINKs.

For the typical American family with prototypical 2.5 kids, the midsize sedan is entry point (I'd say that compacts like the Civic/Corolla just barely make the cut for family duty).

How else do you explain why the Camry has been the best selling car in America for something like 19 out of the last 20 years? The most bland, dull, boring to drive, cheap-ass interior vehicle in its class. No one aspires to own a Camry, they just buy one because it "works" despite their being a half a dozen superior midsize sedans on the market.

The next step up for A-B transportation for American families would be compact crossovers, and wouldn't you know it -- what are the two other vehicles in the top 10 that aren't pickups? The Ford Escape and Honda CR-V. You think someone buys a CR-V to go off-roading or spin around the track? Nope, they buy it because it's a practical vehicle that gets mom/dad to work and shuttles the kids to soccer practice and to Trader Joe's.

After that, the rest of the A-B transport market for families is consumed by mid-size crossovers/SUVs.


RE: So....
By purerice on 2/7/2014 4:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
I do not disagree with your main point, but you speak of the Camry as if it is a vehicle people settle for. I had to rent a car recently for a few days and took a Camry thinking, exactly as you said, "A-B, boring, bland" and safe enough.

Compared to my usual ride it was smoother, quieter, +30% fuel economy, +100% fuel range, etc. My existing ride has a couple more years in it but my Camry rental experience was enough for me to consider one as my next vehicle.

It's roomy enough to make kids in the back seat and roomy enough to put the kids you made in that same back seat. Good enough for me.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 5:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's roomy enough to make kids in the back seat and roomy enough to put the kids you made in that same back seat. Good enough for me.


Ah... but most people would prefer the more expensive minivan. You can fold the seats down and lay flat. Much easier to make babies that way.


RE: So....
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 12:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
A few more dollars? Have you seen the price of gas? I'm guessing someone commuting in a low mileage vehicle could easily spend $80 a week.


RE: So....
By Solandri on 2/6/2014 5:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
The average commute vehicle in the U.S. puts on about 15,000 miles/yr. That's 288 miles/week. If gas is $4/gal, then:

A 25 mpg sedan will need $46/week of gas.
A 50 mpg hybrid will need $23/week of gas.
Net difference of $23/week.

And this is an extreme case. More likely a small commute vehicle is going to be closer to 35 mpg, at which point the hybrid will save you just $10/week.


RE: So....
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 8:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
You should have used my 18mpg Tacoma as your starting point.


RE: So....
By purerice on 2/7/2014 4:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I may be totally off the wall here, but I think just maybe a Tacoma and Kia electric might just possibly be in different classes.


RE: So....
By Spuke on 2/6/2014 5:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A few more dollars? Have you seen the price of gas? I'm guessing someone commuting in a low mileage vehicle could easily spend $80 a week.
$80 a week? Maybe if you're driving a 1 ton to work everyday. The actual cost difference isn't that great between a not so good mpg car and a moderately good mpg car. Most people driving Camry's/Accord's are not going to change to a Prius because the Camry gets good enough fuel economy. Most people I know that own Prius' were going from a low 20 mpg car or truck and really wanted that 50 mpg (most of them have higher than average commutes) car.


RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2014 8:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$80 a week? Maybe if you're driving a 1 ton to work everyday. The actual cost difference isn't that great between a not so good mpg car and a moderately good mpg car. Most people driving Camry's/Accord's are not going to change to a Prius because the Camry gets good enough fuel economy. Most people I know that own Prius' were going from a low 20 mpg car or truck and really wanted that 50 mpg (most of them have higher than average commutes) car.


Thank you! This was my freaking point.

Why do people try and pretend we're on a different planet whenever cars are discussed here? I AM a car buyer. I know goddamn well what goes through the mind when you choose a vehicle.

If the price of gas was that big of a factor, we would see a hell of a lot more hybrids on the road and EV's. The best selling vehicle in the country wouldn't be a truck every year, and crossovers would be rare as hell.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
A significant portion of total sales are trucks (where hybridization has little advantage) and fleet purchases (where consumer buying logic doesn't hold).

Electric is selling poorly because it offers a no cost advantage. Their limited range negates their lower fuel cost over fossil-fuel vehicles. The cost-of-ownership under low utilization is weighted towards depreciation, where electric can't compete.

Hybrids aren't a panacea. but they are encroaching on the sales of mainstream car purchases. Camrys and Accords are being hybridized and their market-base is skewing towards the Prius family. The Prius is the top-selling car in California... and as they say, as goes California, so goes the nation.


RE: So....
By Nutzo on 2/6/2014 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and as they say, as goes California, so goes the nation.


I live in California and that's the scariest thing I've read in years.

The cost advantage of electric cars is largely an illusion, and they are mainly sellign because of the huge taxpayer subsidies and the ability to drive them solo in the carpool lane.

Even Hybrid don't make sense for many people due to the long payback time. If you mainly drive at 55 MPH or better on the freeway, you are better of with a desiel or high milage gas car.

I drive 95% city, with most of that in heavy rush hour traffic. I have a hybrid, but it will still take years to break even compared to just buying a 4 cyl getting 1/2 the milage.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...and that's the scariest thing I've read in years.


You and me both.

I agree about electric cars in today's market, but not hybrids. Your hybrid should incur less depreciation, making its higher purchase price mostly irrelevant.


RE: So....
By JediJeb on 2/6/2014 3:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
I can say for me depreciation is the last thing I look at, mostly because once I am ready to trade vehicles there is nothing left and it was depreciated as much as it is going to several years before.

Heck I drive a vehicle till the wheels fall off, then glue them back on and drive it some more. :)


RE: So....
By Spuke on 2/6/2014 6:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Prius is the top selling car in CA solely because you can drive solo in the car pool lane. Remove that and those people will go back to driving a regular car. Also, look at actual sales of cars, 4.7% were hybrids last year. That's not encroaching on anything.


RE: So....
By boeush on 2/6/2014 8:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prius is the top selling car in CA solely because you can drive solo in the car pool lane.
False.

That was the case for the first few years after the 2nd-gen Prius came out. It's been about 3 or 4 years since the Prius' carpool privileges expired. Nowadays, to the best of my recollection solo carpool privileges in CA are reserved for plugin hybrids, pure electrics, and biofuel and CNG vehicles. Granted, there's a plugin variant of the Prius, but I haven't heard any news lately about it outselling the 'regular' Prii...
quote:
Also, look at actual sales of cars, 4.7% were hybrids last year. That's not encroaching on anything.
You're suffering from severe shortsightedness. The more hybrids sell, the cheaper they become to make and maintain (and the more initial R&D expense they recoup), and with every model generation the more refined the technology becomes. That's the whole point of initial government subsidies which are then gradually pulled back; once the industry gains enough momentum and inertia, it becomes a self-sustaining process. Hybrids are the future, non-hybrids the slowly fading past.


RE: So....
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 8:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
Of that 4.7% they are almost all prius's, so Toyota is doing alright on it.


RE: So....
By Solandri on 2/6/2014 6:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A significant portion of total sales are trucks (where hybridization has little advantage)

Trucks benefit the most from being hybridized. Say converting to a hybrid increases MPG by 50%. And say you drive 12,000 miles/yr and gas costs $4/gal.

A 33 MPG sedan will burn 364 gal/yr @ $1455/yr
A 50 MPG sedan hybrid burns 242 gal/yr @ $970/yr
A net savings of $485/yr

A 18 MPG SUV will burn 667 gal/yr @ $2667/yr
A 27 MPG SUV hybrid burns 444 gal/yr @ $1778/yr
A net savings of $889/yr - almost twice as much as the sedan!

This all comes back to MPG being the inverse of fuel economy. The high MPG vehicles are the wosrt place to add fuel efficiency improvements. You want to put the improvements in the low MPG vehicles if you want to make the biggest impact.

The misconception that hybridizing trucks is pointless is propaganda from the environmental movement which doesn't want you buying a truck in the first place. If we were making policy based on sound math rather than ideology, the first vehicles we would hybridize would be commercial trucks. They make up just 8% of the vehicles on the road, but account for roughly half the country's fuel consumption. Even a modest 10% fuel efficiency gain for them (they don't do as much stop and go driving) would have a huge impact on the country's oil requirements.

Then we would hybridize the personal trucks and SUVs. Then the luxury sedans. Then the regular sedans. Finally we would hybridize the econoboxes and subcompacts last. They already used very little gas. Making them use even less doesn't really gain you much.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 12:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but I think you are confusing:

a) hybridization with efficiency
b) vehicle efficiency with MPG

Hybridization isn't inherently efficient. In fact, most hybrids have worst maximum efficiency for a given operating condition. All things equal, a Prius with a manual transmission would get better highway MPG. The total package is what counts, and in many types of vehicle hybridization adds no (or even subtracts!) value.

Also, vehicle efficiency isn't measured in MPG. It's really an esoteric mathematical equation combining MPG, velocity and payload. This is lost on the average consumer because velocities are limited by law and payload is measured in seats. Work trucks trucks operate in an environment where velocity and payload are more apparent to the operator.

Consumer Joe might see "sedan A" @ 35mpg being more efficient than "sedan B" @ 25mpg. Worker Bob might see "truck A" @ 10mpg & 2,500lbs payload being more efficient than "truck B" @ 15mpg & 1,500lbs payload.

Another way of thinking about the problem. A scooter gets 55mpg @ 55mph carrying one person. A Prius gets 55mpg @ 55mph carrying one person. Which vehicle is more efficient?


RE: So....
By Dorkyman on 2/7/2014 12:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get your point.

I think the only metric that matters is this: drive vehicle A for a month. Drive Vehicle B for a month. Compare overall costs--depreciation, direct operating costs (fuel, maintenance), insurance, opportunity cost (interest lost on cash that wouldn't have been spent by buying cheaper vehicle).

The lower-cost vehicle that meets your transportation needs wins.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 5:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
My point was that hybrid trucks don't exist because of rational logic, not political "greenwashing." He's right that improving low-efficiency vehicles pays the greatest dividends... but he's made two mistakes in supporting his argument:

a) hybrid != efficient
b) high MPG != efficient


RE: So....
By retrospooty on 2/6/2014 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... This reminds me of this old commercial with the "2 door spec" rental car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxZoNJjb0wg

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


RE: So....
By silverblue on 2/6/2014 11:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
The current Soul models go from 0 to 60 in between 10 and 12 seconds, and have power outputs of between 124 and 138bhp depending on engine and gearbox. This is hardly going to be any worse if you're talking city driving, really, and it's only a small car (which also bears a slight resemblence to the Suzuki Swift). The current crop of engines are being tweaked for efficiency and emissions for the new model so I wouldn't hold out any hopes for better performance. As such, this model is on the slower end, but won't be a significantly worse performer.

The range is a bit disappointing, but considering you can charge such cars for pennies, that's pretty much the only advantage considering the point you've made concerning the batteries.


RE: So....
By Spuke on 2/6/2014 6:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current Soul models go from 0 to 60 in between 10 and 12 seconds, and have power outputs of between 124 and 138bhp depending on engine and gearbox.
Um no. Current Soul's go anywhere from mid 8's to high 7's 0-60. 130 to 164hp.


RE: So....
By hpglow on 2/6/2014 11:55:47 AM , Rating: 4
Fit as usual you provide everyone with a completly ignirant analasis of the subject. You really should just stick to listening to conservitive talk radio.

Electric cars do make sense for some people. They don't make sense for people who have to travel long distances regularly or have to go 80+ on the expressway. However, plenty of people drive 10 miles to work through mostly city traffic. Yes there are problems with these vehicles like cost range and charge time. I don't own an electric but I imagine the two biggest benefits are the cost of electrisity and not having to stand at a pump when its -11 out.


RE: So....
By hpglow on 2/6/2014 11:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
Also Kia is Korean not Chineese.


RE: So....
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 12:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Plus no trips to the dealership for regular service.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, but the only regular service nowadays is oil/filter @ 10,000 miles and air filter @ 30,000.

For most people, we're talking ~1.5 service trips every year.


RE: So....
By JediJeb on 2/6/2014 3:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Dealership maintenance. Now that is a really big waste of money. If people are worried about cost of ownership, they would avoid the dealership shop like the plague.


RE: So....
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 8:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and no, oil changes air filters and what not you can go anywhere. With a transmission flush you run a bit of a risk of them putting the wrong transmission fluid in your tranny. I know for a fact that if you put the wrong tranny fluid in a nissan CVT the transmission is toast. Your could always go to the dealership and buy the right stuff and take it to your favorite shop though.


RE: So....
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/6/2014 12:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
Would you mind providing a logical analysis on why current electric vehicles make sense for some people?

Someone driving 10 miles to work everyday probably puts few miles on their car, making fuel costs much less important. Not having to pump gas is a marginal benefit, but only if you own a garage or have equally convenient access to a power socket.


RE: So....
By bigi on 2/6/2014 12:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
Same 'people'
same bitching
same "arguments"

every time EV comes out.


RE: So....
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 8:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, I'm using the same arguments on the plus side, so not bitching.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














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