2019 Model 3 2019 Long Range Autopilot Nav Pano Blind 55k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

Tesla's ZEV credit allotment changing under new CARB rules

Could the California Air Resources Board (CARB) be taking a $55-million bite out of Tesla Motors' profits? The state regulator, which grants zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits for automakers making plug-in vehicles, is planning to reduce the number of credits generated by each Model S battery-electric sedan from seven to four, Bloomberg News reports. That means the California-based automaker will have fewer credits to sell to big buyers such as General Motors and Chrysler, who don't make enough ZEVs on their own to comply with state mandates. While the selling price for these credits isn't disclosed (they're private transactions), the market was a lucrative one for Tesla, which generated $129.8 million in revenue from California zero-emissions credit sales and about another $65 million selling US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) credits last year. All told, California and federal zero-emissions credit sales accounted for about 10 percent of Tesla's sales last year. A Tesla representative didn't immediately respond to a request from AutoblogGreen for comment. This issue first came up last year when CARB hinted that it wouldn't give Tesla credit for having a battery-swapping option as it's method for quick-fueling compliance. Tesla, which appears to have been preparing for just this scenario, has been collecting revenue on credits since 2010 and achieved its first-ever profitable quarter in the first quarter of 2013 because of such credits. While the maximum number of zero-emissions credits a vehicle could garner was increased from seven to nine in the new rules, Tesla can't take advantage of that because it meets neither of the most stringent criteria: that the car in question is rated to go more than 300 miles on a full tank or battery and be able to be "filled up" (or fully charged, in this case) within 15 minutes. Those are more hydrogen fuel-cell-like targets, but Tesla has the EVs that come closest to meeting them.

Even hardcore Tesla fans can get stranded sometimes

Driving a few laps around the Las Vegas Motor Speedway in a Tesla Model S can be quite a treat. Driving between Los Angeles and Las Vegas? Sometimes, not so much. The fine folks at Teslarati had the good fortune of taking the all-electric luxury sedan for a few spins around the racetrack near Sin City, and found that the Tesla handled "quite well" and was able to reach a top speed of 110 miles per hour on one of the straightaways. And the car turned in a best time of two minutes and 17 seconds around the 2.4-mile circuit. Still, the car started limiting its own power as early as its second lap, and by the seventh lap or so, the car brought down its power capacity to about 25 percent in order to conserve juice. The drivers were able to make do because a Tesla Supercharger fast-charging station was 11 miles away and they could get a good charge in about an hour. Less of a treat was the car's performance between Vegas and Southern California. Despite being big Tesla fans (the driver writes for Teslarati, after all), the unexpected appearance of 35-mile-per-hour headwinds and the totally expected elevation changes between Las Vegas and Barstow, CA proved particularly problematic. The driver slowed down to 40 mph and dropped the Model S' power consumption to something in the 400-500 wh/m range, but still, our intrepid explorers ran out of juice and were stranded beside the road until Tesla kindly arranged for a tow. D'oh!