I'm guessing that's like 50 years less than gasoline, amirite?

MisterTweak: There are other reasons to buy a car than the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the car, smitty. If there weren't, it would be hard to explain the Corvette. Or Mustang. Or Ferrari.

/bought my car for totally practical reasons, though.
//14psi of boost is for safety.

Yeah - but *other than* being a smug d-bag; I can't think of a single other reason that explain someone wanting to buy a Chevy Volt.

What if we just wanna, y'know, do our part?

LOL.

Fiesta vs Fiesta SFE I understand, but Volt vs Cruze Eco?

OK, they're sorta-similar size sedans by GM but the Volt is pretty upscale. It's not a Cruze-with-extra-battery-attached.

There's something seriously wrong with that chart...no mpg is listed for the volt, and for the leaf whose comparison is nearly identical in terms of mpg (34ish vs N/A), the fuel savings in dollars is shown as nearly triple. Somebody farked up the math.

Newsflash: pioneering first-gen technology comes at a premium.

/good luck with that line of reasoning when cars with equivalent technology start going for less than $25k, subby

Additionally, those numbers seem to be for a relatively conservative 10,000 miles per year. Would be nice if their little chart pointed that out...

Fark_Guy_Rob: Yeah - but *other than* being a smug d-bag; I can't think of a single other reason that explain someone wanting to buy a Chevy Volt.

...ever test drive one?

=Smidge=

why does the Camry show up twice at different prices?

Rezurok: There's something seriously wrong with that chart...no mpg is listed for the volt, and for the leaf whose comparison is nearly identical in terms of mpg (34ish vs N/A), the fuel savings in dollars is shown as nearly triple. Somebody farked up the math.

Look again. The chart is showing the the time to pay the difference in cost between a hybrid and a standard version for that particular model.

So for the VW Jetta, you see a difference in model cost of around $400 between the standard and the TDI. It only takes a year for the fuel savings to pay for the difference.

For the Ford fiesta, the difference is about $600. The $23/year in fuel savings takes it a long time to pay the difference.

In short, the chart sucks.

Is that before, or after obamessiah drives gas prices to the 7 bucks a gallon as he and his energy tw-t want it to be at?

MisterTweak: There are other reasons to buy a car than the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the car, smitty. If there weren't, it would be hard to explain the Corvette. Or Mustang. Or Ferrari.

/bought my car for totally practical reasons, though.
//14psi of boost is for safety.

Those cars can get you laid by a woman who shaves her legs.

ongbok: Doesn't this hold somewhat true for most hybrids that are currently being built?

If only the TFA had a nice little chart that showed the break-even times of popular hybrids...

I never would have guessed that better fuel economy couldn't make up for a $12k price difference. I wish they had compared the Yaris to the Veyron. Now I don't know which one I should buy.

the good thing about an article like this, is it reminds people that THIS is about how accurate ANYTHING coming from the media is. This is about how much of the story they present and how much is right in any article.

Outlander Engine: Rezurok: There's something seriously wrong with that chart...no mpg is listed for the volt, and for the leaf whose comparison is nearly identical in terms of mpg (34ish vs N/A), the fuel savings in dollars is shown as nearly triple. Somebody farked up the math.

Look again. The chart is showing the the time to pay the difference in cost between a hybrid and a standard version for that particular model.

So for the VW Jetta, you see a difference in model cost of around $400 between the standard and the TDI. It only takes a year for the fuel savings to pay for the difference.

For the Ford fiesta, the difference is about $600. The $23/year in fuel savings takes it a long time to pay the difference.

In short, the chart sucks.

This.

Plus considering that with my driving pattern I'd use maybe all of one tank of gas a year if I could afford a Volt. Given most peoples' driving patterns they'd see a similar dramatic lack of gas purchasing most of the year as well. It's also one of their higher end cars, probably more comparable to an Impala than the Cruz (their second to cheapest car) they're comparing it to. Given the 10,000 mile distance driven per year that Rezurok figures the chart is assuming, and the chart's own $3.85 per gallon, the Impala is going to be costing you close to $1,000 more per year in gas that you just don't have to buy in the Volt. I didn't factor in the cost of electricity, but if you have it plugged in at home to charge overnight that's actually supposed to be pretty damn cheap. And the Impala doesn't cost all that much less than a Volt to begin with.

THE VOLT WILL BURST INTO FLAMES AND BURN YOU AND YOUR WHOLE FAMILY ALIVE THE SECOND YOU START THE ENGINE!!!1!!1111!!!one!

It's true. I read about it on the internet in a joint study published by BP and Exxon/Mobil. And they even had a special about it on Fox News!

I don't understand what they think the average person's daily driving habits are. The Volt vs the Cruze Eco is only a $446 fuel savings per YEAR? How far do they think people drive per day?

My round trip to and from work is 40 miles. My mother's is about 5 miles. There's a lot of grey in between for other people.. Obviously expensive, first gen car technology that's range dependent isn't for everyone. This article leaves out way too much info.

Outlander Engine: So for the VW Jetta, you see a difference in model cost of around $400 between the standard and the TDI. It only takes a year for the fuel savings to pay for the difference.

...

In short, the chart sucks.

Not only that, but googling around a bit reveals that the Jetta/Jetta TDI are only those MSRPs at considerably different trim levels/package options. That's beyond suck and straight into outright dishonest.
=Smidge=

It's a feature.

Yanks_RSJ: MisterTweak: There are other reasons to buy a car than the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the car, smitty. If there weren't, it would be hard to explain the Corvette. Or Mustang. Or Ferrari.

/bought my car for totally practical reasons, though.
//14psi of boost is for safety.

Those cars can get you laid by a woman man who shaves her legs.

Mustangs are driven by girls.

Outlander Engine: Rezurok: There's something seriously wrong with that chart...no mpg is listed for the volt, and for the leaf whose comparison is nearly identical in terms of mpg (34ish vs N/A), the fuel savings in dollars is shown as nearly triple. Somebody farked up the math.

Look again. The chart is showing the the time to pay the difference in cost between a hybrid and a standard version for that particular model.

So for the VW Jetta, you see a difference in model cost of around $400 between the standard and the TDI. It only takes a year for the fuel savings to pay for the difference.

For the Ford fiesta, the difference is about $600. The $23/year in fuel savings takes it a long time to pay the difference.

In short, the chart sucks.

Exactly. The chart (and headline) are completely misleading. They should have compared all models to the best selling vehicle model in America, or some other statistical control.

mongbiohazard: Outlander Engine: Rezurok: There's something seriously wrong with that chart...no mpg is listed for the volt, and for the leaf whose comparison is nearly identical in terms of mpg (34ish vs N/A), the fuel savings in dollars is shown as nearly triple. Somebody farked up the math.

Look again. The chart is showing the the time to pay the difference in cost between a hybrid and a standard version for that particular model.

So for the VW Jetta, you see a difference in model cost of around $400 between the standard and the TDI. It only takes a year for the fuel savings to pay for the difference.

For the Ford fiesta, the difference is about $600. The $23/year in fuel savings takes it a long time to pay the difference.

In short, the chart sucks.

This.

Plus considering that with my driving pattern I'd use maybe all of one tank of gas a year if I could afford a Volt. Given most peoples' driving patterns they'd see a similar dramatic lack of gas purchasing most of the year as well. It's also one of their higher end cars, probably more comparable to an Impala than the Cruz (their second to cheapest car) they're comparing it to. Given the 10,000 mile distance driven per year that Rezurok figures the chart is assuming, and the chart's own $3.85 per gallon, the Impala is going to be costing you close to $1,000 more per year in gas that you just don't have to buy in the Volt. I didn't factor in the cost of electricity, but if you have it plugged in at home to charge overnight that's actually supposed to be pretty damn cheap. And the Impala doesn't cost all that much less than a Volt to begin with.

Well, to be fair the article in fact states that it's for 15,000 mile distances. However, for the electric vehicles that doesn't seem to add up. The leaf, for instance, when you divide out savings over the vehicle it's compared to you get a savings of 290 gallons of gas, or about 10,000 miles at the stated mileage of the comparison vehicle. For the volt, I have no farking clue how they got those savings. Either they're taking cost of electricity into account at an unspecified (and seemingly inflated) rate, which makes no sense considering the chart says it lists fuel savings, or the chart is completely fubar.

I thought they quit making the Volt and were going to speak no more about it?

I'll have to pass that along to the two Volt owners that apparently live within 50 miles of me. I drive around 300 miles a week. I've seen more Teslas on the road than I've seen Volts.

Pants full of macaroni!!: I thought they quit making the Volt and were going to speak no more about it?

What actually happened is that they misjudged supply vs. demand (yes, sales were slower starting up than they expected, mostly due to "it will burn you alive" FUD bullshiat) and so they shut down the factory for a few weeks. This is actually somewhat common in bad economic times--the company I worked for shut down for three weeks at the end of last year to drive down inventories. However, sales have picked up dramatically, and they had to reopen a week earlier than expected.

The DBS: I'll have to pass that along to the two Volt owners that apparently live within 50 miles of me. I drive around 300 miles a week. I've seen more Teslas on the road than I've seen Volts.

I've seen three Volts over all so far on the roads here around Portland, but two of them were this past week. On the other hand, I saw three Nissan Leafs just today.

ongbok: Doesn't this hold somewhat true for most hybrids that are currently being built?

Pretty much. It's often the cost of replacement battery packs that do it or at least negate a large chunk of the savings made.

Saying that, from a mechanical perspective, could someone run a Volt for 27 years or is it like the Smart car where it's engine dies after 50,000 miles and needs a new one?

/Smart owners, save your rage, we had one. Three engines.
//Never so happy as I was seeing that little shiatbox Mk1 get crushed.

I work at home and my wife drives 2 miles to work, what is this gas price problem you speak of ?

There is no way to predict the fluctuations in gasoline prices. This chart is completely useless. in 27 years the gas prices could be $40/gallon for all we know.

AdolfOliverPanties: ghare: Yanks_RSJ: MisterTweak: There are other reasons to buy a car than the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the car, smitty. If there weren't, it would be hard to explain the Corvette. Or Mustang. Or Ferrari.

/bought my car for totally practical reasons, though.
//14psi of boost is for safety.

Those cars can get you laid by a woman man who shaves her legs.

Mustangs are driven by girls.

You are dead to me.

Unless you are talking about new Mustangs.

Old mustangs, 64-69, are the best car in the world.

Oh yeah...crappy suspension, 4 wheel drum brakes, gas tank IN the trunk, ram assist power steering, crappy interiors...greatest car in the world.

Be honest, the only thing 1st gen Mustangs had going for them is the body styling.

And don't forget the massive environmental devastation that the battery factories are producing!

Does that include the cost of replacing the battery every 10 years?

I have a VW TDI. Fill it up every 2 weeks and probably save $1600/year over my Subaru.

And it's amazing to drive.

Zeno-25: Newsflash: pioneering first-gen technology comes at a premium.

/good luck with that line of reasoning when cars with equivalent technology start going for less than $25k, subby

Like right now. The Honda Insight or CR-Z for instance.

Thisbymaster: Does that include the cost of replacing the battery every 10 years?

No one has any idea what batteries will cost in 10 years. Plus, the lifespan of batteries will increase, so there is no "every" 10 years.

Plus, most likely the "dead" battery will be worth quite a bit as well.

But let's hear it for FUD!

scanman61: AdolfOliverPanties: ghare: Yanks_RSJ: MisterTweak: There are other reasons to buy a car than the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the car, smitty. If there weren't, it would be hard to explain the Corvette. Or Mustang. Or Ferrari.

/bought my car for totally practical reasons, though.
//14psi of boost is for safety.

Those cars can get you laid by a woman man who shaves her legs.

Mustangs are driven by girls.

You are dead to me.

Unless you are talking about new Mustangs.

Old mustangs, 64-69, are the best car in the world.

Oh yeah...crappy suspension, 4 wheel drum brakes, gas tank IN the trunk, ram assist power steering, crappy interiors...greatest car in the world.

Be honest, the only thing 1st gen Mustangs had going for them is the body styling.

The coupes are ok, though they do look a bit like a two by four on wheels. But oh, the '65 and '66 fastback...
And you could get front discs, at least in '66. My mom's '66 had them (coupe, 289, auto trans). No vacuum assist though. Later on, she had a Maverick with four wheel drums, and she kept insisting it had power brakes because drum brakes are self energizing, and she was used to the hard pedal effort of non boosted front discs.