Leased a Spark EV with the SAE Combo charging port on 6 Jan

[TonyWilliams]

It's also possible GM is serious about maintaining their sales of ridiculous gas-guzzlers by virtue of meeting these silly zero emission and White House mileage requirements and mandates put in by certain states. They'll do anything to keep the sale of the regular wasteful cars going...at any price. Developing an EV from a cheap platform is a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the gravy train they have elsewhere. That goes for all manufacturers frankly. The FIAT500E is a token car too.

Without those "silly rules", there wouldn't be a Spark EV and we wouldn't be having this little chat.

The "token car" thing does not apply to all manufacturers. Specifically, Nissan, Tesla, Mitaubishi and Renault are serious about electric cars and have sold a total of over 200,000 electric vehicles to date.

The Chevy Spark EV is built to comply with California Air Resources Board -Zero Emission Vehicle (CARB-ZEV). GM has built about 650 so far, since July 2013. If you buy one and ship it out-of-state, to be registered first in a non CARB-ZEV state, GM won't get the 3 credits for that car. GM is grossly clueless in this regard, as they bought more CARB credits from their competition last year than anybody else for cars they didn't produce in model years 2012 and 2013.

The dealer is a private entity, so CARB credits don't affect them even slightly. They dealer would sell one to the devil at his out-state-state residence if they could make a buck:


1) CARB-ZEV Compliance-only - cars like Toyota Rav4 EV, Honda Fit EV, GM Spark EV, Fiat/Chrysler 500e; built because the manufacturer is required to build EV's, and in pure compliance with the rules, the manufacturer makes just the minimum so that they can continue to sell high profit margin oil cars. Anything beyond that is generally in the form of press releases and not cars. These cars are typically sold at a significant loss to their respective manufacturer.

Typically optimized for "100 miles", but practically have closer to 70-80 miles, and can be 40-50 miles with cold weather. Making the car go double the 100 mile range only produces 25% more credit hence no compliance-only cars are 200 mile range. They generally don't have ANY quick charge option, or offer a optional quick charge option that doesn't have charge stations.


2) CARB-ZEV Compliance - cars like Nissan LEAF, and we hope BMW. These are cars that must be built because CARB requires it, however they are typically sold anywhere buyers can be found, generally with a profit motive. They are generally built on a dedicated (and expensive) chassis. Because they really want to sell these, all offer some sort of quick charge.


3) CARB-ZEV Non-compliance - cars like Tesla Model S and Mitsubishi iMiev, neither company is required to comply, yet they both make 100% ZEV's. Definitely, profit motive cars. They are generally built on a dedicated (and expensive) chassis. Because they really want to sell these, all offer some sort of quick charge.


************


For the 2015 and later model years, all these vehicle manufacturers must comply:

BMW, Fiat/Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Daimler/Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen must comply with the new 2012 and later CARB-ZEV requirements. Four additional manufacturers would also be required to comply with the ZEV requirements, but would be allowed to meet their obligation with PHEVs (so they aren't included, since they won't make a true ZEV). Note that neither Mitsubishi, nor Tesla are on the list even though they both offer electric cars. Renault, Citroen and Peugeot are not sold in the USA, so they are not required to comply, even though all three offer electric cars.


California Air Resources Board - Zero Emissions Vehicle (CARB-ZEV) compliant cars:

.. Manufacturer .. Model(s)
1. Honda - Fit EV and for 2015 and beyond, Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV)
2. Toyota - Rav4 EV / FCEV
3. Chry/Fiat - Fiat 500e
4. GM - Spark EV
5. Ford - Focus EV
6. Daimler - Smart ED / B-Class ED
7. BMW - i3
8. Nissan - LEAF
9. VW - eGolf
10. Hyundai - FCEV
11. Kia - Soul EV
12. Mazda - ??? EV

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, other than a hypothetical BEV covered with solar panels and taking a week or so to charge, there aren't any 'pure EVs with stored on-board and autonomous electrical power'. The only difference between a BEV and FCEV is how the energy which will make electricity is stored, because both of them access that electricity via a chemical reaction. I just don't get how technically-minded individuals such as yourself can keep saying that FCEVs aren't 'pure EVs', and some even go so far as to claim that FCEVs aren't EVs at all.

You make technically valid points. Since I do not support hydrogen for personal vehicle transport, I guess I need a way to identify battery electric cars.

 

[nozferatu]

Without those "silly rules", there wouldn't be a Spark EV and we wouldn't be having this little chat.

The "token car" thing does not apply to all manufacturers. Specifically, Nissan, Tesla, Mitaubishi and Renault are serious about electric cars and have sold a total of over 200,000 electric vehicles to date.

That's true...but they need to be enforced with more than loopholes...which is what I think the adminstration is doing. And the automanufacturers know this.

The only proper player for the masses in the US is Nissan. Tesla is a rich man's toy, Mistubishi doesn't...in my honest opinion, offer a proper EV other than their golf-cart, and Renault...well unless you want to consider the Nissan a Renault...isn't offered in the States at all.

The Chevy Spark EV is built to comply with California Air Resources Board -Zero Emission Vehicle (CARB-ZEV). GM has built about 650 so far, since July 2013. If you buy one and ship it out-of-state, to be registered first in a non CARB-ZEV state, GM won't get the 3 credits for that car. GM is grossly clueless in this regard, as they bought more CARB credits from their competition last year than anybody else for cars they didn't produce in model years 2012 and 2013.

Exactly my point...it's a token car and GM is betting on the most likely scenario that no one will take a Spark EV out of the region it was only intended to be sold in. For the most part, that's the case as most out of state folks here are complaining about not being able to get one.

The dealer is a private entity, so CARB credits don't affect them even slightly. They dealer would sell one to the devil at his out-state-state residence if they could make a buck:


1) CARB-ZEV Compliance-only - cars like Toyota Rav4 EV, Honda Fit EV, GM Spark EV, Fiat/Chrysler 500e; built because the manufacturer is required to build EV's, and in pure compliance with the rules, the manufacturer makes just the minimum so that they can continue to sell high profit margin oil cars. Anything beyond that is generally in the form of press releases and not cars. These cars are typically sold at a significant loss to their respective manufacturer.

I'll have to see proof of their losses before I buy that argument...taking their word for it is moot as that is what they would claim. Even if they are loses, they are grossly over-rated losses IMO. They want to act like they are doing the masses a favour by offering EV's when in fact that's what they should be concentrating on. However, year after year they'd rather poor millions into developing 1-2% efficiency gains on IC's and slap on "Efficient Dynamics" and other nonsense on their cars like BMW likes to do.

Typically optimized for "100 miles", but practically have closer to 70-80 miles, and can be 40-50 miles with cold weather. Making the car go double the 100 mile range only produces 25% more credit hence no compliance-only cars are 200 mile range. They generally don't have ANY quick charge option, or offer a optional quick charge option that doesn't have charge stations.


2) CARB-ZEV Compliance - cars like Nissan LEAF, and we hope BMW. These are cars that must be built because CARB requires it, however they are typically sold anywhere buyers can be found, generally with a profit motive. They are generally built on a dedicated (and expensive) chassis. Because they really want to sell these, all offer some sort of quick charge.


3) CARB-ZEV Non-compliance - cars like Tesla Model S and Mitsubishi iMiev, neither company is required to comply, yet they both make 100% ZEV's. Definitely, profit motive cars. They are generally built on a dedicated (and expensive) chassis. Because they really want to sell these, all offer some sort of quick charge.

Sadly true....and I think EV's could have far more range than they currently have and be sold for less.


************

For the 2015 and later model years, all these vehicle manufacturers must comply:

BMW, Fiat/Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Daimler/Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen must comply with the new 2012 and later CARB-ZEV requirements. Four additional manufacturers would also be required to comply with the ZEV requirements, but would be allowed to meet their obligation with PHEVs (so they aren't included, since they won't make a true ZEV). Note that neither Mitsubishi, nor Tesla are on the list even though they both offer electric cars. Renault, Citroen and Peugeot are not sold in the USA, so they are not required to comply, even though all three offer electric cars.


California Air Resources Board - Zero Emissions Vehicle (CARB-ZEV) compliant cars:

.. Manufacturer .. Model(s)
1. Honda - Fit EV and for 2015 and beyond, Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV)
2. Toyota - Rav4 EV / FCEV
3. Chry/Fiat - Fiat 500e
4. GM - Spark EV
5. Ford - Focus EV
6. Daimler - Smart ED / B-Class ED
7. BMW - i3
8. Nissan - LEAF
9. VW - eGolf
10. Hyundai - FCEV
11. Kia - Soul EV
12. Mazda - ??? EV

And I'm sure they will all do their bare-minimum share to reach these compliance rules.

 

[gra]

Tony, other than a hypothetical BEV covered with solar panels and taking a week or so to charge, there aren't any 'pure EVs with stored on-board and autonomous electrical power'. The only difference between a BEV and FCEV is how the energy which will make electricity is stored, because both of them access that electricity via a chemical reaction. I just don't get how technically-minded individuals such as yourself can keep saying that FCEVs aren't 'pure EVs', and some even go so far as to claim that FCEVs aren't EVs at all.

You make technically valid points. Since I do not support hydrogen for personal vehicle transport, I guess I need a way to identify battery electric cars.

There's nothing wrong with the existing terms, as BEV and FCEV adequately describe and differentiate them (even if all FCEVs currently use a battery for short power boosts and regen storage). I think the issue arises with your admitted lack of support for personal FCEVs (certainly a defensible opinion, and one which I fully shared until the last year or so), which causes you to look for distinctions that aren't really there. If you call them by their widely understood and accepted acronyms and avoid the urge to 'editorialize through description', I don't think the issue arises. At least, that's what I believe, and why I choose to use technically neutral terms like CCS rather than ones with editorial opinion imbedded, like 'Frankenplug'. That, and CCS is a lot quicker to type. Anyone who wants my editorial opinion can have it just by asking.

 

[corwin]

You all may be interested to know that I quick charged my Spark today at the efacec charger in Belmont today. This charger has been non-op for a couple weeks and I just dropped by to see if it was up and I really didn't need a charge at all. But I plugged in and charged for about 3 minutes. I'll give it a real test on Saturday.
-Corwin

 

[TonyWilliams]

... avoid the urge to 'editorialize through description', I don't think the issue arises. At least, that's what I believe, and why I choose to use technically neutral terms like CCS rather than ones with editorial opinion imbedded, like 'Frankenplug'.

I have been extremely successful in using "Frankenplug" as the catch all nomenclature to the farce that is CCS.

Ask anybody in the "industry" if they know what Frankenplug is... then you'll understand the rational. This little keypad holds power.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You all may be interested to know that I quick charged my Spark today at the efacec charger in Belmont today. This charger has been non-op for a couple weeks and I just dropped by to see if it was up and I really didn't need a charge at all. But I plugged in and charged for about 3 minutes. I'll give it a real test on Saturday.
-Corwin

You may be the first privately owned vehicle to EVER charge on a Frankenolug in the USA!!!

 

[TonyWilliams]

Without those "silly rules", there wouldn't be a Spark EV and we wouldn't be having this little chat.

The "token car" thing does not apply to all manufacturers. Specifically, Nissan, Tesla, Mitaubishi and Renault are serious about electric cars and have sold a total of over 200,000 electric vehicles to date.

That's true...but they need to be enforced with more than loopholes...which is what I think the adminstration is doing. And the automanufacturers know this.

I'm not sure what loopholes you're referring to. The rules are very straight forward. Also, the CARB-ZEV rules are not from "the administration" of the federal government, but instead the state of California.

I'll have to see proof of their losses before I buy that argument...taking their word for it is moot as that is what they would claim. Even if they are loses, they are grossly over-rated losses IMO. They want to act like they are doing the masses a favour by offering EV's when in fact that's what they should be concentrating on.

Read my write-up about the Toyota Rav4 EV compliance car and the costs to Toyota:

http://insideevs.com/will-toyota-cancel-the-rav4-ev/

 

[nozferatu]

Without those "silly rules", there wouldn't be a Spark EV and we wouldn't be having this little chat.

The "token car" thing does not apply to all manufacturers. Specifically, Nissan, Tesla, Mitaubishi and Renault are serious about electric cars and have sold a total of over 200,000 electric vehicles to date.

That's true...but they need to be enforced with more than loopholes...which is what I think the adminstration is doing. And the automanufacturers know this.

I'm not sure what loopholes you're referring to. The rules are very straight forward. Also, the CARB-ZEV rules are not from "the administration" of the federal government, but instead the state of California.

I'll have to see proof of their losses before I buy that argument...taking their word for it is moot as that is what they would claim. Even if they are loses, they are grossly over-rated losses IMO. They want to act like they are doing the masses a favour by offering EV's when in fact that's what they should be concentrating on.

Read my write-up about the Toyota Rav4 EV compliance car and the costs to Toyota:

http://insideevs.com/will-toyota-cancel-the-rav4-ev/

Just reading your article indicates tons of loopholes...the credits, the way they play off those and how they are now trying to use FC vehicles to meet mandates. This is one big game the automakers are playing and the rules are so vague in terms of how to meet the goals and what can be done to meet them, they get creative and take shortcuts instead of doing the right thing and actually building cars that are worth the weight.

The State ZEV mandates are state..true..but I'm talking about the Federal mandates as well for bumping up mileage requirements. And one way to do that is to build EV's....because the efficiency of IC's has, for all intensive purposes, topped out in current design form for most vehicles. Unless they all plan of following BMW's new "i" brand technology and replace steel and aluminium chassis's with carbon fiber based stuff, it'll never happen. My current car is about as efficiency as it'll come and this is a pint sized car.

The costs you mention are nothing more than guesses...there is no real data or official numbers to go buy which makes me suspicious when automakers whine about their costs of making EVs. I still hold the belief they are padding costs and making things overinflated. I honestly don't think it should cost as much as they claim to make an EV off of existing platforms. Fiat's claim of them losing $10K per car...complete rubbish IMO.

Also, the 200,000 vehicle figure you state...how does that compare to the IC vehicle numbers these manufacturers have sold?

 

[gra]

... avoid the urge to 'editorialize through description', I don't think the issue arises. At least, that's what I believe, and why I choose to use technically neutral terms like CCS rather than ones with editorial opinion imbedded, like 'Frankenplug'.

I have been extremely successful in using "Frankenplug" as the catch all nomenclature to the farce that is CCS.

Ask anybody in the "industry" if they know what Frankenplug is... then you'll understand the rational. This little keypad holds power.

Because you wish to demean it, and thus use a term in which you have embedded disdain and contempt. If I wished to do the same thing with CHAdeMO I could, as I once suggested over on MNL, constantly refer to it as the Godzillaplug (if I wanted to be totally politically incorrect that would be Godzirraprug), as it's huge, ugly, comes from Japan and doesn't play well with others (just ask Rodan), and never fail to include some editorial comment about what a PoS it is, assuming I thought that. I'm sure I could come up with something equally disdainful for Tesla's plug: hey, given their demographics, how about the PouponPlug?

Or I could just use their official designations, because when I'm talking about the technology itself I discuss it objectively, and keep the editorializing separate.

 

[Oberon]

I have been extremely successful in using "Frankenplug" as the catch all nomenclature to the farce that is CCS.

...
Because you wish to demean it, and thus use a term in which you have embedded disdain and contempt.
...
Or I could just use their official designations, because when I'm talking about the technology itself I discuss it objectively, and keep the editorializing separate.

Here here. This whole plug waving contest is completely counter productive as reading these forums gives the impression that EV charging is too complex, and that EV "experts" are a bunch of ass-biters.

It is unfortunate that the manufacturers are having a standards war, but that does not mean we need to look like a bunch of sandbox bullies and partisan weasels. Even without FC an electric car is a good choice for a much larger part of the market than it currently reaches. So why scare people away?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Specifically, Nissan, Tesla, Mitaubishi and Renault are serious about electric cars and have sold a total of over 200,000 electric vehicles to date.

... The costs you mention are nothing more than guesses...there is no real data or official numbers to go buy which makes me suspicious when automakers whine about their costs of making EVs. I still hold the belief they are padding costs and making things overinflated. I honestly don't think it should cost as much as they claim to make an EV off of existing platforms. Fiat's claim of them losing $10K per car...complete rubbish IMO.

Also, the 200,000 vehicle figure you state...how does that compare to the IC vehicle numbers these manufacturers have sold?

Some of the data in the Rav4 article was derived from quarterly reports from Tesla, like the $60.1 million to develop the Rav4 EV for Toyota. Other costs are clearly estimated, like the "glider price", but I'm not that far off on that. Determining the per unit cost of products sold to Toyota would simply be the reported income from Toyota divided by the Rav4 EV produced in the quarter.

You'll have to look up their oil car volume:

Nissan - 100,000 EV's
Tesla - 35,000
Renault - 35,000
Mitsubishi - 30,000 (all variants with Citroen and Peugeot)

 

[TonyWilliams]

... to be totally politically incorrect that would be Godzirraprug), as it's huge, ugly, comes from Japan and doesn't play well with others (just ask Rodan), and never fail to include some editorial comment about what a PoS it is, assuming I thought that. I'm sure I could come up with something equally disdainful for Tesla's plug: hey, given their demographics, how about the PouponPlug?

Or I could just use their official designations, because when I'm talking about the technology itself I discuss it objectively, and keep the editorializing separate.

Funny stuff. Given my context of watching GM try and STOP the CHAdeMO standard, and their German car maker buddies trying (not too successfully, BTW) to legislate themselves as sole master of EV quick charging in Europe, plus labeling both Tesla and Nissan as "niche players", blah, blah, blah.

Then, they never really planned to build any cars in volume anyway. No, it's Frankenplug.

 

[cwerdna]

Specifically, Nissan, Tesla, Mitaubishi and Renault are serious about electric cars and have sold a total of over 200,000 electric vehicles to date.

... The costs you mention are nothing more than guesses...there is no real data or official numbers to go buy which makes me suspicious when automakers whine about their costs of making EVs. I still hold the belief they are padding costs and making things overinflated. I honestly don't think it should cost as much as they claim to make an EV off of existing platforms. Fiat's claim of them losing $10K per car...complete rubbish IMO.

Also, the 200,000 vehicle figure you state...how does that compare to the IC vehicle numbers these manufacturers have sold?

Some of the data in the Rav4 article was derived from quarterly reports from Tesla, like the $60.1 million to develop the Rav4 EV for Toyota. Other costs are clearly estimated, like the "glider price", but I'm not that far off on that. Determining the per unit cost of products sold to Toyota would simply be the reported income from Toyota divided by the Rav4 EV produced in the quarter.

Yep, for instance, one can search for the Tesla's SEC filings relating to the Rav4 EV program. http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=422 has a snippet. Tony also stated some numbers at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=246544#p246544

As for nozferatu guesses, I'm almost certain he's wrong. Research and development, engineering, tooling, testing, validation, etc. to produce brand new parts and systems is EXPENSIVE. That cost is amortized over a large # of vehicle so that they can make a profit. http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/07/27/why-does-it-cost-so-much-for-automakers-to-develop-new-models/ can give you an idea. Compliance cars are VERY low volume, so there's not much to spread it out over.

For example, Nissan sold 320K Altimas in 2013 in the US (http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/2d040d06-cdd7-4b5d-a4b7-d23cfdd91e0c). And, I'd imagine that it's sold in other countries outside the US and that there numerous related Nissans (I suspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Altima#Fifth_generation_.28L33.2C_2013-present.29 isn't complete) for which to spread out this cost. That generation will be sold for several years. And, Nissan has the combined buying power of Nissan-Renault and can share some parts.

In contrast, from http://insideevs.com/january-2014-plug-in-electric-vehicle-sales-report-card/, the Fiat 500e has been estimated to have sold only 725 units. That has a TOTALLY different powertrain and numerous subsystems unique to EVs (HV battery, on-board charger, etc.) For example, what do you do about stuff that's normally driven by belts in an ICEV (e.g. power steering, AC compressor, alternator, etc.)? What about the free waste heat you got from the ICE? Not anymore. What about braking? On many EVs/PHEVs and all hybrids, using the brake pedal involves having to blend regenerative braking and friction brakes. (I've seen some documentation on the Prius' braking system, it's quite complicated.) You've got to buy/develop those systems.

If you watch the episode of http://green.autoblog.com/2010/04/08/ultimate-factories-chevy-volt-prototype-factory-now-on-itunes/, you'll see that building prototypes is VERY labor intensive and thus VERY expensive. And, those expensive prototypes have to be used for further development and many of them will need to be crash tested.

Look at the Rav4 EV videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/toyotaesqcomm/search?query=rav4 to see a bit of what I'm talking about in terms of R&D and engineering.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Look at the Rav4 EV videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/toyotaesqcomm/search?query=rav4 to see a bit of what I'm talking about in terms of R&D and engineering.

Toyota had 30 test mules and 100 crash tests.

 

[cwerdna]

And, to elaborate on how all the costs I mentioned earlier (R&D, engineering, testing, validation, tooling, etc.) can be amortized across many units. The Toyota 1NZ-FXE engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_NZ_engine#1NZ-FXE) has been used on the Prius from the 1st JDM version (NHW10) thru the Gen 2 (ended w/09 model year) Prius (NHW20). Prius sales reached 1 million in 08 (http://www.treehugger.com/cars/toyota-prius-hybrid-1-million-served.html) and 2 million in 2010, by which point the Prius switched over to the 2ZR-FXE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_ZR_engine#2ZR-FXE) w/the 2010 Prius than began sale in ~May 09. Prius sales have crossed 3 million (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/07/toyota-sells-3-millionth-prius/).

I had 2 cars w/the Nissan 3.5L VQ V6 engine. Look at its applications and imagine how many units were sold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VQ_engine#VQ35DE.

There was this alliance of 3 automakers to jointly develop engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Engine_Alliance. Look at their applications and imagine how many units were sold.

Then look back again at compliance car sales.

 

[nozferatu]

... to be totally politically incorrect that would be Godzirraprug), as it's huge, ugly, comes from Japan and doesn't play well with others (just ask Rodan), and never fail to include some editorial comment about what a PoS it is, assuming I thought that. I'm sure I could come up with something equally disdainful for Tesla's plug: hey, given their demographics, how about the PouponPlug?

Or I could just use their official designations, because when I'm talking about the technology itself I discuss it objectively, and keep the editorializing separate.

Funny stuff. Given my context of watching GM try and STOP the CHAdeMO standard, and their German car maker buddies trying (not too successfully, BTW) to legislate themselves as sole master of EV quick charging in Europe, plus labeling both Tesla and Nissan as "niche players", blah, blah, blah.

Then, they never really planned to build any cars in volume anyway. No, it's Frankenplug.

So GM and Nissan are not guilty or party to monopolizing their charger plug styles but GM is. Interesting.

I'm not a fan of GM or any other manufacturer...so I'm not defending GM in any way shape or form. But let's not pretend other manufacturers aren't in this game for everyone else's sake but their own.

 

[nozferatu]

And, to elaborate on how all the costs I mentioned earlier (R&D, engineering, testing, validation, tooling, etc.) can be amortized across many units. The Toyota 1NZ-FXE engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_NZ_engine#1NZ-FXE) has been used on the Prius from the 1st JDM version (NHW10) thru the Gen 2 (ended w/09 model year) Prius (NHW20). Prius sales reached 1 million in 08 (http://www.treehugger.com/cars/toyota-prius-hybrid-1-million-served.html) and 2 million in 2010, by which point the Prius switched over to the 2ZR-FXE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_ZR_engine#2ZR-FXE) w/the 2010 Prius than began sale in ~May 09. Prius sales have crossed 3 million (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/07/toyota-sells-3-millionth-prius/).

I had 2 cars w/the Nissan 3.5L VQ V6 engine. Look at its applications and imagine how many units were sold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VQ_engine#VQ35DE.

There was this alliance of 3 automakers to jointly develop engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Engine_Alliance. Look at their applications and imagine how many units were sold.

Then look back again at compliance car sales.

Until we see the books they have and the games the bean counters play, all of the costs you guys talk about is pure speculation. That's my take on it. I've worked in the manufacturing arena before and let me tell you, the numbers are fudged all the time and in a big way. It's quite easy to claim you have a new product when in fact it's based on something already in production but has a few tweaks to it...all for the purpose of jacking up costs and prices by claiming it's a new product.

 

[nozferatu]

I have been extremely successful in using "Frankenplug" as the catch all nomenclature to the farce that is CCS.

...
Because you wish to demean it, and thus use a term in which you have embedded disdain and contempt.
...
Or I could just use their official designations, because when I'm talking about the technology itself I discuss it objectively, and keep the editorializing separate.

Here here. This whole plug waving contest is completely counter productive as reading these forums gives the impression that EV charging is too complex, and that EV "experts" are a bunch of ass-biters.

It is unfortunate that the manufacturers are having a standards war, but that does not mean we need to look like a bunch of sandbox bullies and partisan weasels. Even without FC an electric car is a good choice for a much larger part of the market than it currently reaches. So why scare people away?

Well said Oberon...honestly if I didn't know better as a newcomer I'd say a few here are really putting off the EV thing for me...and I've got a decent understanding of vehicles and such in general. I'd only imagine someone who knows less or cares even less would simply walk out of here.

Besides...this is a Spark EV forum...not Rav4E forum or Fiat 500E forum or a Tesla forum. Sure we can make comparisons to other EV's for the sake of performance, room, comfort, etc....

 

[Nashco]

Yes, "those people" are called TROLLS in internet speak. I really think it hurts the EV cause more than they realize or intend. The few who come here and see that BS noise aren't put off of Spark EVs and swayed to AWeSomO, rather they decide an EV is a bad idea altogether.

Bryce