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

RE: Incorrect
By BRB29 on 4/25/2013 11:30:08 AM , Rating: 0
Then buy it in December.


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.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














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