Waiting for the electric cars

The car I drive is the most stolen car for 2007 in the US, and number 2 on the list here in California. I can see why – this little Honda gets around to the tune of 37 mpg. On the cheapest gas. While that might sound pretty good, and is better than almost every non-hybrid new car this year (WTF?), it is still only two-thirds of what I got in the Insight (54 mpg for 50k miles). I still kick myself for having leased instead of purchased that car.

I recently checked out the EPA fuel efficiency rankings of new cars. Truly scary that with all the focus on high gas prices and economy car sales booming while SUV sales (and resale values) crater, my old Honda can spank most of them. The Yaris is a sporty little car – I got to ride in one when a friend rented it. The hatchback version, not the sedan. Seemed like a perfect car for college kids, and those needing to park in tight spots regularly. Still, the EPA listing on it is only 32 mpg combined, but it looks like real drivers are getting closer to 39 mpg.

One of the more disappointing finds is that the smart car fortwo coupe only gets 36 mpg (EPA combined, but likely 39 real world) and it requires premium gas. Why would anyone buy one over a normal Honda Civic?

And where are the super efficient diesels? Next year’s Jetta is listed at 34 mpg combined – with the price premium of diesel, where is the benefit? This little car from VW, denoted One Litre as it is able to go 100km on 1L of fuel, reminds me of the Insight. But 8.5 hp? I hope they at least put a two cylinder engine in the production version. I could live with “only” 140 mpg or so. Efficiency like that would make the sacrifices worthwhile. Along similar lines, I hope the 1/x concept car from Toyota makes it to production. (I love the fish pictured in the logo at this site!)

Still, I fear we are doomed. This NYT story quotes drivers who don’t care about mileage, but are just avoiding seeing $100 when they fill up:

Families that were accustomed to the convenience of sport utility vehicles are having to cut back as well. Colleen Hammond of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, loves packing her three kids and all their soccer gear into her 2000 GMC Yukon XL. But she hates paying $160 to fill the 38.5-gallon tank. Last month, she parked the Yukon in her driveway and borrowed her friend’s Toyota Land Cruiser.

“I don’t know if it gets better gas mileage, but I like her car because it costs $100 to fill it,” said Ms. Hammond, 40. “I think $100 for a tank of gas is cheap now.”

Many consumers whose tanks would easily swallow $100 worth of gas refuse to pump that much at once, just to avoid the trauma.

“Usually I don’t let it get real empty so that I don’t have to see that $100 on the pump,” said Bob Hammond, 61, of Chesterland, Ohio, who drives an Avalanche. “It’s a mental thing.”

Seems like Detroit would just put in smaller tanks so people wouldn’t have to put in so much fuel at one time =). Actually, then maybe people would realize they DON’T need 400 mile range all the time. This should help the adoption of battery electric vehicles.

As for the push for more hybrids and plug in hybrids, I think the Volt is going to “save” GM by bankrupting it. I truly hope that it makes it to market as a functional car for under $45,000 but that might be tough for GM to do and still make money. They might have enough clout to try and get some form of tax breaks for buyers to help sales.

Looking at the sheer volume of petroleum based liquid fuel used in the US for transportation, it seems fairly obvious that without some sort of earth shaking breakthrough in algae oil or cellulosic ethanol, the future of auto transport has to be electric. Hopefully battery technology will improve somewhat, but the hard truth is that electric vehicles will never have the flexibility, utility, and ease of use (fast refueling) that petrol cars have.

There are very few electric cars that can be purchased in now in the US. Many that are available are NEVs, that is, they cannot legally go on roads with speed limits above 35 mph. The Tesla roadster looks awesome but is too expensive, and Tesla may not survive unless it partners with a larger auto maker (hello, Chrysler??). There are a couple of other electric supercars in the works, the Fisker and the Lightning, but I have not heard anything about them recently. (Update – the Lightning may begin shipping next year, for the bargain basement price of 120,000 pounds. Makes the Tesla seem cheap!) (Update 2: The Fisker Karma will begin production in 2009, and will be a hybrid. Apparently that was announced in January, but I thought this model was to be all-electric.) There may be a few electric minis coming to California, but apparently they will be leased like the Honda FCX fuel-cell vehicle. Soon smart will have an electric car that will be highway legal. Problem is, top speed of 100km/hr and limited range of up to 100 miles. Pricey to boot – there is a monthly charge (covers battery replacement but also insurance) on top of the cost, which is 14,000 pounds in the UK, so close to $30,000 if no changes are made (or rebates available).

Testing of the Volt turned up the fact that aerodynamics are the most important factor in range:

Before taking AutoblogGreen and others to the design studio on Monday, Frank Weber, the Vehicle Chief Engineer for the Volt, talked about the effect of aerodynamics and other factors on vehicle efficiency. Driver behavior is clearly a factor for both traditional and electric cars. Beyond that, on traditional cars, factors like mass, aero drag and rolling resistance come into play in that order. In testing and simulation GM has found that for electrically-driven vehicles mass actually drops to third on the list behind aerodynamics and electrical loads with rolling resistance coming in fourth.

Working from the Volt’s forty mile target range, it has been determined that a 400 lb. swing in mass only has a two-mile effect on range on the city driving cycle and only a one mile effect on the highway. While every mile and pound counts, this turned out to be much smaller than the effect of aerodynamic drag. Intuitively, most people expect that aerodynamic drag has an impact on the range and efficiency of a vehicle at highway speeds.

This of course is true with a forty count reduction in drag coefficient (for example going from .300 to .260) having a six mile impact on range at highway speeds. The impact at city speeds is the big surprise. Here the same aerodynamic drag reduction causes the range to increase by four miles, more than double the effect of a 400 lb. weight reduction.

This implies that the shape of very efficient cars will be rather limited, and may not be the design that muscle car types will want. It will be along the lines of the VW 1L car or the Honda Insight. How high will gas prices have to go before they are widely accepted?