The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: slamuel on September 22, 2015, 07:15:44 AM
-
Thoughts on buying some now or in the near future?
My guess is that they hit rock bottom sometime over the next 6 months, but end up rebounding long term.
-
Here is Kashmani's prediction:
1) VW will settle the U.S. claims for somewhere between $1 and $10 billion.
2) In the long term, VW will lose market share in the U.S. because it loses its diesel sales. (Many people buy VWs for the 2.0 TDI, which is arguably the best engine ever built.)
3) The fine will not be enough to kill VW in the U.S.
4) If I should be wrong, the U.S. government may or may not try to collect from VAG in Germany and VAG will survive.
5) If I should be wrong on that, VW will survive in China, which is its most important market anyway.
6) All in all, the shares are probably a good bet right now, but I am not a gambling man, so I will stick to my index funds.
7) Overall, this highlights how ridiculous U.S. regulations for diesel cars are. I am even stuck with a friggin' gasoline engine in my Smart because the diesel does not meet U.S. emission regulations. Go figure...
-
Here is Kashmani's prediction:
1) VW will settle the U.S. claims for somewhere between $1 and $10 billion.
2) In the long term, VW will lose market share in the U.S. because it loses its diesel sales. (Many people buy VWs for the 2.0 TDI, which is arguably the best engine ever built.)
3) The fine will not be enough to kill VW in the U.S.
4) If I should be wrong, the U.S. government may or may not try to collect from VAG in Germany and VAG will survive.
5) If I should be wrong on that, VW will survive in China, which is its most important market anyway.
6) All in all, the shares are probably a good bet right now, but I am not a gambling man, so I will stick to my index funds.
7) Overall, this highlights how ridiculous U.S. regulations for diesel cars are. I am even stuck with a friggin' gasoline engine in my Smart because the diesel does not meet U.S. emission regulations. Go figure...
I disagree. This is pretty bad for VW. Perhaps the regulations are ridiculous, but they clearly conspired to break the law. There might be criminal charges that come out of this. The CEO may very well end up stepping down. European regulators are going to be investigating if they were skirting the regulations in their markets as well.
VW is already the largest car maker worldwide. Where they were struggling, and needed to do better was the US. This isn't going to help them in that market, obviously. Not a lot of upside on this huge conglomerate, and potentially a lot of downside. Don't catch this falling knife.
-
Biggest question i have is how far this will spread. Yesterday it was 500,000 vehicles in the north american market. Now it's spread to 11million. If they knowingly and deliberately screwed with emissions testing throughout all markets this puppy could have a long way to fall. If this the worst of it than the brutal ~40% drop in share price could be a great entry point into the largest automaker.
how pervasive is this??
-
Biggest question i have is how far this will spread. Yesterday it was 500,000 vehicles in the north american market. Now it's spread to 11million. If they knowingly and deliberately screwed with emissions testing throughout all markets this puppy could have a long way to fall. If this the worst of it than the brutal ~40% drop in share price could be a great entry point into the largest automaker.
how pervasive is this??
That's my question too. It was one thing to consider Ford of GM stock at the bottom of the economic cycle. They had almost no place to go but up, and had huge upside. People weren't buying cars at that time, but people have to buy cars eventually. It was a risk sure, but manageable and a clear upside.
I'm not seeing a clear upside to the VW mess. They will lose a US marketshare right off the bat. How do you get that back? Not easy. Lots of advertising, discounts, dealer incentives, etc. Those things eat profits. Next, they have some large, but unknown liabilities in the forms of fines and recalls. That's money they can't spend on advertising, discounts, dealer incentives, and R&D for future models. This could ding their profits for a long period of time.
-
Here is Kashmani's prediction:
7) Overall, this highlights how ridiculous U.S. regulations for diesel cars are. I am even stuck with a friggin' gasoline engine in my Smart because the diesel does not meet U.S. emission regulations. Go figure...
I disagree on this point. Yes, the US does evaluate diesels differently than Europe for a good reason. Smog, something many Europeans cities don't have to deal with but a city like LA does. US regulations specifically target smog producing compounds like nitrogen oxides.
Article about diesels and smog in France:
http://gizmodo.com/smog-is-forcing-france-to-rethink-its-love-of-diesel-1548333776
-
Well, it is a very big deal, but I don't think it kills VW.
I'm basing that on a couple of things. The most relevant examples I can think of are Exxon and BP. Both dumped a huge amount of oil. Both faced heavy fines. Both had stock prices that took a hit, and if you got in at the bottom or near the bottom you've done OK. BP never got low enough for me, and I suspect it will be the same with VW. Both could have faced very steep criminal charges. This VW thing seems like it is alot more intentional, but I'm not sure if that will make all that much difference for the company. There may be a guy who goes to jail or whatever, but none of us mere humans really matter to the companies.
As far as car companies going out of their way to hurt the environment, I don't know of anything similar. Aside from the general condition that it is kind of their whole business model.
But yea, I had the same thoughts, "missed my chance to get a diesel" and "maybe now's a good time to buy VW stock."
I bet they survive though, just because car companies in the past have been caught essentially conspiring to kill actual people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy) and had no significant fallout from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy
If it is true that their diesels simply cannot meet the emissions standards, then that will definitely hurt their competitiveness in the US, as previously mentioned in the thread. The VW diesels are very popular as pretty much the only diesel passenger car option. So any buy decision would need to assess their willingness and capability to innovate a new way to compete. I think they can.
-
Well, it is a very big deal, but I don't think it kills VW.
I'm basing that on a couple of things. The most relevant examples I can think of are Exxon and BP. Both dumped a huge amount of oil. Both faced heavy fines. Both had stock prices that took a hit, and if you got in at the bottom or near the bottom you've done OK. BP never got low enough for me, and I suspect it will be the same with VW. Both could have faced very steep criminal charges. This VW thing seems like it is alot more intentional, but I'm not sure if that will make all that much difference for the company. There may be a guy who goes to jail or whatever, but none of us mere humans really matter to the companies.
As far as car companies going out of their way to hurt the environment, I don't know of anything similar. Aside from the general condition that it is kind of their whole business model.
But yea, I had the same thoughts, "missed my chance to get a diesel" and "maybe now's a good time to buy VW stock."
I bet they survive though, just because car companies in the past have been caught essentially conspiring to kill actual people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy) and had no significant fallout from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy
If it is true that their diesels simply cannot meet the emissions standards, then that will definitely hurt their competitiveness in the US, as previously mentioned in the thread. The VW diesels are very popular as pretty much the only diesel passenger car option. So any buy decision would need to assess their willingness and capability to innovate a new way to compete. I think they can.
That article doesn't have a great deal of detail though. It's peppered with citations needed for the vast majority of the claims. It's hard then to quantify how bad that was versus 11 million vehicles and setting aside $7.2 billion dollars "just in case of lawsuit".
I get it car companies have killed people through defects. This is entire governments that have been lied to. I'm not trying to say lives don't matter but fucking with governments can lead you into some hot water.
I don't think they'll fold all the way but they're going to be very very hurt from this IMO.
-
Yeah, I agree this isn't the end of VW or anything. The main question was if this was an investment opportunity. To which, I say "Hell NO!" I'm not sure I'd want to hold ANY car companies at this moment. How many others are doing this? Better believe everybody is getting a once over by the EPA and California.
-
Yeah, I agree this isn't the end of VW or anything. The main question was if this was an investment opportunity. To which, I say "Hell NO!" I'm not sure I'd want to hold ANY car companies at this moment. How many others are doing this? Better believe everybody is getting a once over by the EPA and California.
Ok, but then ask yourself this: Who's going to win in this situation? I expect the number of cars sold in the US over the next 2 years to be approximately as much as those sold over the last two years. I expect more cars to be sold globally. If VW get's hammered over this.... which car company sells more?
-
But yea, I had the same thoughts, "missed my chance to get a diesel" and "maybe now's a good time to buy VW stock."
As long as they're not forced to buy back and destroy the cars entirely, this might be a good chance to get a slightly-used diesel cheap. Especially if you're willing to have a tuner "fix" the ecu after the recall is done (and you live somewhere that doesn't do emissions testing of diesels).
Keep in mind a few things about this:
- Just because the cars fail to meet crazy EPA regulations, doesn't mean their emissions are bad on an absolute scale. They're still almost certainly way cleaner than any car made in the '90s, for example.
- NOx doesn't even matter everywhere; it's only relevant in places that have excess VOCs for it to react with. If there's already excess NOx in the air, the rest of it will just sit there and not create ozone.
- Reasonable people can disagree with the EPA while still caring about the environment. Arguably, these cars are cleaner than gasoline cars even despite the NOx because they put out less CO2.
Personally, I think this could be an opportunity: if the car isn't going to meet EPA specs anyway, you might as well re-engineer the emissions system so it can properly run 100% biodiesel! (Coincidentally, that would make the emissions even better for everything except NOx. In particular, SOx would drop to zero because biodiesel doesn't have any sulfur to begin with and it would become carbon-neutral because the fuel is coming from the short-term carbon cycle, not geologic deposits.)
-
We can use VW's Audi brand as an example. In the mid-80s, the Audi 5k had acceleration problems, much like Toyota did a few years ago. While the allegations were probably exaggerated or even false, the perception of quality caused their sales to plummet by ~80%. The brand didn't recover until 2000.
VW sold 366k cars last year in the US and about 30% of those sales were diesels. Given the PR and fines and recalls, their US sales could take years to recover.
Summary: Buying now, or in the near-to-mid future, is very risky.
-
Yep. I would not touch VW with a 10 foot pole. The market is rough for autos even when they don't deserve it. Ford should be going through the roof and its not. Ford is very strong domestically too and it still gets no love right now.
VW better get ready to bend over.
They did some dirty crap. That wasn't an accident. It wasn't an oops. It was a seriously organized criminal move to illegally take market share in areas they had no business being if thats where their standards were. They "juiced" and won some medals. Well those are revoked now. Boot them the hell out if they can't respect our laws. 10-40x worse then they were supposed to be. Seriously?
Corolla, Focus, Cruz, and Elantra will mop us the sales.
-
And if they are willing to cheat on something this big, what other corrupt stuff are they doing?
-
The value of investing in VW depends on your investing philosophy. If you view stocks as essentially gambling than it might be OK to buy when the stock is in the dumps and await for the inevitable recovery. Though in this case the recovery may take a while. It depends on how many lawyers and cash VW throws at US regulators and politicians and how much cash is pumped into U.S. advertising to resurrect Volkswagen's reputation. And if VW has any future product good enough to trump that reputation.
If you're a value investor you're looking for a good, solid, profitable company that will go the distance. What constitutes "good" may be debatable but honesty and integrity is key. Volkswagen LIED deliberately and maliciously. What other lies have they told that may pop out of hide investors may regret? Everything in their prospectus is suspect.
Myself, I don't think they're even a good gamble.
On the other hand I found out Tesla employs only about 3k people and can pump a car out to the customer directly in a week or so. By comparison BMW employs well over 100k but cars are avilable to a dealer only over a course of months (though via them to the customer immediately). So maybe Tesla is still a good buy.
-
If you look at similar situations in the past (ex: BP spill) you often see some pretty extreme overreaction on the downside so there is certainly the potential of making some money on a bounce.
The main issue here is that VWs mistake wasn't an accident or caused by negligence/chance, it was a malicious and complex project whose only purpose was to deceive regulators. The question is whether they can claim ignorance and pin it on a fall guy.
-
If you look at similar situations in the past (ex: BP spill) you often see some pretty extreme overreaction on the downside so there is certainly the potential of making some money on a bounce.
The main issue here is that VWs mistake wasn't an accident or caused by negligence/chance, it was a malicious and complex project whose only purpose was to deceive regulators. The question is whether they can claim ignorance and pin it on a fall guy.
you raise a good point, but I still see one major difference between BP and VW here:
BP's main product (oil) is a commodity, so once cleanup, fines and lawsuits got sorted out everyone was still buying oil from them at market price. In fact, everyone kept buying BP oil even when the Deepwater Horizon was front-page news. People can choose not to buy a VW car in a way they can't choose to not buy BP oil (BTW BP's fueling stations are independently owned so boycotting them doesn't hurt the publicly traded company). Besides the 11-million-and-climbing recalls VW is doing they may have to discount their current cars for years.
Remember the Firestone/Ford Explorer fiasco a little over a decade ago? Firestone made crap tires that Ford installed on all of their already-tippy Explorers and a few dozen people died during rollovers (often caused by tire blowouts). Ford had to discount all of their explorers and dealers offered 4 brand-new Micheline tires just to get inventory to sell, and the Explorer lost the spot as the best-selling SUV. It seems VW has a much steeper hill to climb than Ford and Firestone did then.
-
It looks like a value stock now. No reason not to grab a bit.
Remember Toyota, BP, and others. It has worked out!
-
It looks like a value stock now. No reason not to grab a bit.
Remember Toyota, BP, and others. It has worked out!
CEO just announced his resignation. One of the things Warren Buffett says is to buy companies with good management teams. VW would pretty much be the opposite of that at this time. The CEO claims he didn't know about this. How much more is going on at VW that the guys at the top supposedly didn't know about? VW management is either inept or corrupt. When it comes to investing, I prefer the crooks here on Wall Street. At least they know how to not get caught...they steal your money before you've even made it!
-
Check out this link on the resignation announcement. The money quote is at the bottom.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/23/us-usa-volkswagen-idUSKCN0RL0II20150923 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/23/us-usa-volkswagen-idUSKCN0RL0II20150923)
Environmentalists have long complained that carmakers game the testing regime to exaggerate the fuel-efficiency and emissions readings of their vehicles. European politicians on Wednesday voted to speed up rules to tighten compliance with pollution limits on cars.
European car association ACEA said that so far there was "no evidence that this is an industry-wide issue".
But Societe Generale analysts said that while the uncertainty prevailed, the whole autos sector was likely to be “dead money” for a while.
-
seems to me it would be a good time to buy a TDI. with everyone pissed at them the hipsters will be dumping them and prices should be lower.
ML
-
seems to me it would be a good time to buy a TDI. with everyone pissed at them the hipsters will be dumping them and prices should be lower.
ML
You want to buy a car that's not California street legal?
-
seems to me it would be a good time to buy a TDI. with everyone pissed at them the hipsters will be dumping them and prices should be lower.
I worry about will be required to make TDIs pass the EPA standards which have been in place since 2007. I'm betting whatever it is, the driving performance will suffer, and possibly greater maintenance.
Also - I thought hipsters had fixie bikes. When did they start buying diesels?
-
I worry about will be required to make TDIs pass the EPA standards which have been in place since 2007. I'm betting whatever it is, the driving performance will suffer, and possibly greater maintenance.
Also - I thought hipsters had fixie bikes. When did they start buying diesels?
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-owners-arent-going-like-fixes-diesels/
Ya the options look grim.
-
I worry about will be required to make TDIs pass the EPA standards which have been in place since 2007. I'm betting whatever it is, the driving performance will suffer, and possibly greater maintenance.
Also - I thought hipsters had fixie bikes. When did they start buying diesels?
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-owners-arent-going-like-fixes-diesels/
Ya the options look grim.
Oof. Hello civil suits.
-
Interesting addendum to this story. About two months ago I almost bought a 2009 VW Jetta diesel wagon.
The price was right and the car was in great shape - it just fell through because I had to go out of town before we finalized the deal and someone else swooped in.
now i'm wondering if I saved myself or missed an opportunity. It's still the same car, but perhaps I would have been entitled to compensation if I had bought it before the story broke. OTOH, if I owned it now I might be required to do some performance-sucking adjustment and my resale would be toast.
Only time will tell...
-
You want to buy a car that's not California street legal?
[/quote]
Since I don't live or drive in California, or any other state that's adopted the CARB rules, and thus have no reason to register a vehicle where said rules apply, whether my car meets the CARB rules is a non-issue for me. Such probably holds true for other people who don't live in CARB states.
-
You want to buy a car that's not California street legal?
Since I don't live or drive in California, or any other state that's adopted the CARB rules, and thus have no reason to register a vehicle where said rules apply, whether my car meets the CARB rules is a non-issue for me. Such probably holds true for other people who don't live in CARB states.
Umm, ok cool story. But my reply was directed to ML. Who lives in California.
-
Remember the Firestone/Ford Explorer fiasco a little over a decade ago? Firestone made crap tires that Ford installed on all of their already-tippy Explorers and a few dozen people died during rollovers (often caused by tire blowouts). Ford had to discount all of their explorers and dealers offered 4 brand-new Micheline tires just to get inventory to sell, and the Explorer lost the spot as the best-selling SUV. It seems VW has a much steeper hill to climb than Ford and Firestone did then.
Totally off topic... but that's not exactly what happened. Ford engineered that vehicle badly. They had the tire right up next to the exhaust. Then they had a very low suggested inflation pressure. This all was okay, but was right there at the edge of what works with physics. Take a handful of people that don't check tire pressure and let the tires get too low. Now run this at highway speed right by a hot exhaust and they're going to blow.
There wasn't anything wrong with the tires. Ford pushed hard to make everyone think so. In fact, they extended the recall to almost every Ford truck to make the tire appear to be the problem. I had an Expedition... which NEVER had issues, and I got 5 (not 4) free tires.
-
I can see the argument in favor of investing in VW, but I want no part of the company. It's about honesty.
I bought BP after the gulf oil spill. I still own it today. To me it looked like the general human errors that cause so many accidents were at the root of the spill. There was negligence, one hell of a technical challenge to cap the well, and a thoroughly botched and tone deaf response in the media by the company. But I never thought they were doing things that would make someone stand up and say "Holy shit! How did they think they'd get away with that?" The BP spill was no doubt a disaster but it was somehow so human. It was people losing sight of the big risks arising from seemingly small issues and decisions.
VW on the other hand is high up management and engineers conspiring to knowingly commit fraud. That's a massive failure of leadership on a whole other level. It's grossly immoral and I want no part of a company with that management culture.
-
This whole situation makes me wonder how many other car companies do the same. It was a piece of software that kicked in during testing only, correct? Is it an industry standard so to speak, or has every other company smart enough not to go there? It just seems odd to me that no other brand thought that reaching emissions standards was a hardship in the long term, yet VW did. I expect this will get answered soon, but it will be interesting to keep an ear out.
-
seems to me it would be a good time to buy a TDI. with everyone pissed at them the hipsters will be dumping them and prices should be lower.
I worry about will be required to make TDIs pass the EPA standards which have been in place since 2007. I'm betting whatever it is, the driving performance will suffer, and possibly greater maintenance.
Also - I thought hipsters had fixie bikes. When did they start buying diesels?
Most of the hipsters around here have Priuses or Leafs. However, there are some who like diesels for the biodiesel aspect. Most of them -- like me -- have older ones that aren't affected by this because they were made before the stringent emissions standards.
...which brings me to my next point: even if you refused or circumvented the recall, these TDIs are still probably equal or cleaner than the ones made in 2006 and earlier. Their emissions are really not that bad -- and in particular, they're still probably better than many relatively-new vehicles, especially larger ones. I see no reason why there should be huge moral outrage over the emissions (as opposed to the deception, for which outrage is justified) when there isn't outrage against continuing to drive cars designed for old emissions standards, like I do (my TDI is a '98, and my oldest car is a '90).
This whole situation makes me wonder how many other car companies do the same. It was a piece of software that kicked in during testing only, correct? Is it an industry standard so to speak, or has every other company smart enough not to go there? It just seems odd to me that no other brand thought that reaching emissions standards was a hardship in the long term, yet VW did. I expect this will get answered soon, but it will be interesting to keep an ear out.
VW's engine was pretty unique: it was the only new diesel engine (that I know of) that avoided use of urea injection (even the closest competitor, the Chevy Cruze Diesel, bit the bullet and uses it). With urea injection, meeting NOx standards is much easier so there'd be no need to cheat.
There's still the pressure for everybody else to meet (gasoline-engine) emissions standards, but that's not nearly as difficult as meeting the EPA's diesel standard. Although I suppose, with competitive pressures, you never know...
To bring this back around to "investor alley," I wouldn't be surprised if Bosch ends up under particular scrutiny since they (I think) make the ECUs for VW cars.
-
If you want to buy VW, look at some long dated out of the money options, where you can define the downside risk and keep it small, and if you turn out to be right, perhaps make a good bit compared to the risk you took. If you can't see at least a 3:1 reward/ risk ratio here, don't make the trade.
Only buy and hold the VW stock if you love the company and would want to hold it for a long time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I disagree. This is pretty bad for VW. Perhaps the regulations are ridiculous, but they clearly conspired to break the law. There might be criminal charges that come out of this.
Interesting question will be who else is doing this.
VW make the best small diesel engines, if they had to cheat to meet US standards who else was cheating.
Funnily enough this has been so standard in the computer industry, having drivers that detect benchmarks and return exaggerated scores, that reviews refer to the scores as bogomarks
-
Interesting question will be who else is doing this.
VW make the best small diesel engines, if they had to cheat to meet US standards who else was cheating.
BMW is getting some attention. Not clear if they'll be able to explain the discrepancy or not.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bmw-disputes-report-its-x3-also-failed-emissions-test-1.3241472
-
I would avoid legacy car companies in general. The market is going to be substantially electric pretty soon, and move towards self-driving vehicles. Tesla and Apple and Google are all working to massively disrupt the legacy industry. Maybe people won't own individual cars. But they will definitely be a lot more software-driven (literally). And only a couple legacy companies are actively embracing electric vehicles. The laggards are going to be scrambling to compete with Tesla et al. Apple has 3 times as many people working on their car concept than Tesla did when it had its IPO. Nissan Leafs aren't the same sleek and designed vehicles that Teslas are and an Apple car would be. But if you drive one you will realize that gas guzzlers pale in comparison. Can you imagine how many people would want to buy some dirty, loud, vibraty, Taurus when a smooth, instant torque, quiet, clean, and Apple-branded car is available, and requires almost no maintenance and is cheaper to drive? Electric cars are the near future.
-
Electric are the future.
The question is who can manage the global supply chain, delivery, dealer and service network - Toyota/VW or Apple/Amazon/Google
How different is mass market car making compared to high margin high end consumer electronics?
-
VW's engine was pretty unique: it was the only new diesel engine (that I know of) that avoided use of urea injection (even the closest competitor, the Chevy Cruze Diesel, bit the bullet and uses it). With urea injection, meeting NOx standards is much easier so there'd be no need to cheat.
There's still the pressure for everybody else to meet (gasoline-engine) emissions standards, but that's not nearly as difficult as meeting the EPA's diesel standard. Although I suppose, with competitive pressures, you never know...
To bring this back around to "investor alley," I wouldn't be surprised if Bosch ends up under particular scrutiny since they (I think) make the ECUs for VW cars.
It is surprising to me that they made it past inspections without use of urea injection at all. The fact that they didn't use urea should have immediately raised some red flags. In the heavy truck industry International tried to come up with an engine that could do this, but failed and that failure just about destroyed International. I wonder if part of the reason International thought it was possible was because VW was able to do it for passenger cars.
It really is messed up that VW, but this kind of thing isfairly common in the auto industry (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/23/) fairly common in the auto industry. All the more reason to ride a bike!
GM ignition switches-this one actually killed people, but is harder to prove that someone knew about it.
Toyota brake accelerating-Toyota knew about it and covered it up
DaimlerChrystler bribed government officials across Africa, Asia and eastern Europe over a 12-year period to gain government contracts (they discovered it through an internal audit).
These are all in the last 5 years. The article I linked includes a much longer list.
-
Can you imagine how many people would want to buy some dirty, loud, vibraty, Taurus when a smooth, instant torque, quiet, clean, and Apple-branded car is available, and requires almost no maintenance and is cheaper to drive? Electric cars are the near future.
I feel there's a ton of people that are turned off by sleek and quiet, even though I don't understand it - just think about all of the people buying giant trucks or Jeep off roaders and use them to commute and get to work each day - but I think that once electric cars are ubiquitous, one generation later there probably own't be many people left with the mindset of "the good old days" with an emotional attachment to loud/dirty cars
-
Sleek and quiet is fine, but electric cars are in no danger of supplanting internal combustion due to the simple fact of range.
Nobody's going to be able to drive a Tesla cross-country without stopping for more than a couple minutes at a time, any time soon. And that's what it'll take to get most people to take electrics seriously as their primary car.
-
seems to me it would be a good time to buy a TDI. with everyone pissed at them the hipsters will be dumping them and prices should be lower.
ML
Funny - I was having the opposite reaction. I would expect slightly used TDIs to go up in value now that the new ones cannot be sold any longer and they will become rare. I would not be surprised if almost-new TDI's would trade at sticker price for a while. Consider history: 20-year old Mercedes diesels are still selling for a price premium. And here in Canada, there is a sub-culture importing 15-year old Delicas from Japan because they are diesel 4WD vans. Heck, even first-generation Smarts are still selling for a premium because they are diesel and the new ones are gasoline. Most customers would pick reduced fuel consumption and higher torque over lower emissions every time.
If you can have an engine that gets 5 litres per 100 km, would you voluntarily sell it just because it cannot be driven in California? I for one, would hold onto mine for dear life if I owned a TDI right now. Frankly, I am kicking myself for having decided to delay my car purchase until 2016 and having missed the boat. As a diesel fan, I am in mourning now as another one bites the dust...
-
seems to me it would be a good time to buy a TDI. with everyone pissed at them the hipsters will be dumping them and prices should be lower.
ML
Funny - I was having the opposite reaction. I would expect slightly used TDIs to go up in value now that the new ones cannot be sold any longer and they will become rare. I would not be surprised if almost-new TDI's would trade at sticker price for a while. Consider history: 20-year old Mercedes diesels are still selling for a price premium. And here in Canada, there is a sub-culture importing 15-year old Delicas from Japan because they are diesel 4WD vans. Heck, even first-generation Smarts are still selling for a premium because they are diesel and the new ones are gasoline. Most customers would pick reduced fuel consumption and higher torque over lower emissions every time.
If you can have an engine that gets 5 litres per 100 km, would you voluntarily sell it just because it cannot be driven in California? I for one, would hold onto mine for dear life if I owned a TDI right now. Frankly, I am kicking myself for having decided to delay my car purchase until 2016 and having missed the boat. As a diesel fan, I am in mourning now as another one bites the dust...
That depends on various governing authorities. If you no longer can pass inspections, they're likely to tank in value.
-
...which brings me to my next point: even if you refused or circumvented the recall, these TDIs are still probably equal or cleaner than the ones made in 2006 and earlier. Their emissions are really not that bad -- and in particular, they're still probably better than many relatively-new vehicles, especially larger ones. I see no reason why there should be huge moral outrage over the emissions (as opposed to the deception, for which outrage is justified) when there isn't outrage against continuing to drive cars designed for old emissions standards, like I do (my TDI is a '98, and my oldest car is a '90).
The moral outrage is because the emissions levels seen during testing were that bad. The cars w/o ad-blue in particular were over early 90s emissions levels for diesels. It's possible they were approaching early 80s diesel emissions levels. Those with adblue were better, but still worse than 2006 emissions requirements.
Nobody's going to be able to drive a Tesla cross-country without stopping for more than a couple minutes at a time, any time soon. And that's what it'll take to get most people to take electrics seriously as their primary car.
It depends on the person. The 90D can go ~280 miles to empty at a 70mph cruise, which is 4 hours. Real world is probably ~3.5 hours on average to keep that ~35+ mile buffer, but that's still about how often my wife and I stop on long distance trips. At this point the limit is more supercharger access/spacing than range IMO, but if you want to drive for 6 hour stretches, then you'll probably need to wait for a 135D.
-
...which brings me to my next point: even if you refused or circumvented the recall, these TDIs are still probably equal or cleaner than the ones made in 2006 and earlier. Their emissions are really not that bad -- and in particular, they're still probably better than many relatively-new vehicles, especially larger ones. I see no reason why there should be huge moral outrage over the emissions (as opposed to the deception, for which outrage is justified) when there isn't outrage against continuing to drive cars designed for old emissions standards, like I do (my TDI is a '98, and my oldest car is a '90).
The moral outrage is because the emissions levels seen during testing were that bad. The cars w/o ad-blue in particular were over early 90s emissions levels for diesels. It's possible they were approaching early 80s diesel emissions levels. Those with adblue were better, but still worse than 2006 emissions requirements.
Oh wow, really?! I know my '98 is a better car than the '09+s in general, but I didn't realize it has better emissions too!
-
Apple has 3 times as many people working on their car concept than Tesla did when it had its IPO.
Source for this? Personally I find the idea that Apple would make a car completely unbelievable. Even less likely than the idiotic, 5 year+ apple TV rumors.
And google don't make cars, they just put software in them. Unless you count a video render...
Developing, making, certifying (turns out..), advertising, shipping and selling cars is hard, unsexy work with low margins. I seriously doubt any of the companies you mentioned have any interest in doing it. Tesla only exists because Musk throws his billions at it, and some nerd hype over owning the new and shiny (I mean the car makes zero financial sense. I can buy 100 years worth of gas for my prius for the price of a tesla..)
-
(I mean the car makes zero financial sense. I can buy 100 years worth of gas for my prius for the price of a tesla..)
That's because it was (and is) Tesla's business plan to develop a high-priced, low-volume car for the super rich, in order to fund the development of a mid-priced, mid-volume car for the pretty rich, in order to fund the development of a low-priced, high-volume car for the masses (see WBW: How Tesla Will Change the World (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html#part3)). The current financial suboptimality of purchasing a Tesla does not negate forummm's argument about the role Tesla is playing and will be playing in the already-underway total disruption of the automobile industry.
-
Aye, and following Tesla's rise is interesting just because Musk will openly talk about the issues they face from the entrenched car companies. They have to go to state legislatures and lobby to have exceptions to laws put in to protect the legacy companies.
Also, the idea of an apple car is hilarious to me. Meet the iSedan. Luxurious comfort for you and your family, stylish design, full time online genius support, free engraving, all for the low low price of $197,000.00. You can get it in any color, as long as it's shiny white plastic.
-
(I mean the car makes zero financial sense. I can buy 100 years worth of gas for my prius for the price of a tesla..)
That's because it was (and is) Tesla's business plan to develop a high-priced, low-volume car for the super rich, in order to fund the development of a mid-priced, mid-volume car for the pretty rich, in order to fund the development of a low-priced, high-volume car for the masses (see WBW: How Tesla Will Change the World (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html#part3)). The current financial suboptimality of purchasing a Tesla does not negate forummm's argument about the role Tesla is playing and will be playing in the already-underway total disruption of the automobile industry.
yes I am aware of their business model. Although they seem to have taken a step in the other direction with the model X
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/09/tesla-model-x-pricing-revealed-and-its-not-cheap/
The elusive model 3 is further and further off..
Whether they will ever make it to the level where their car is price competitive (rather than just "nerd-cred competitive") we'll just have to wait and see. I'm not holding my breath. And I don't see much reason why other, traditional car companies can't make it there first.
I'd classify myself on the geek spectrum, but this swooning over apple/google/tesla/amazon as tech gods than can jump in and disrupt and fix anything if they only bothered is a slight pet peeve of mine. E.g. Apple sells phones and their big innovation this time was a camera that makes gifs. Google sells ads and occasionally makes a phone OS that occasionally works. I'm not sure that's who I'd count on to revolutionize the car industry.
-
Aye, and following Tesla's rise is interesting just because Musk will openly talk about the issues they face from the entrenched car companies. They have to go to state legislatures and lobby to have exceptions to laws put in to protect the legacy companies.
Also, the idea of an apple car is hilarious to me. Meet the iSedan. Luxurious comfort for you and your family, stylish design, full time online genius support, free engraving, all for the low low price of $197,000.00. You can get it in any color, as long as it's shiny white plastic.
If you're talking about what I think it is (no direct sales?) I have a correction; those laws were in place to protect car dealers, not companies. In fact they were put in place to prevent the car makes from having monopoly on sales of their vehicles. Or something, I don't fully understand the reasoning behind it. But yes, it is stupid.
-
Apple has 3 times as many people working on their car concept than Tesla did when it had its IPO.
Source for this? Personally I find the idea that Apple would make a car completely unbelievable. Even less likely than the idiotic, 5 year+ apple TV rumors.
And google don't make cars, they just put software in them. Unless you count a video render...
Developing, making, certifying (turns out..), advertising, shipping and selling cars is hard, unsexy work with low margins. I seriously doubt any of the companies you mentioned have any interest in doing it. Tesla only exists because Musk throws his billions at it, and some nerd hype over owning the new and shiny (I mean the car makes zero financial sense. I can buy 100 years worth of gas for my prius for the price of a tesla..)
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/09/apples-goal-of-1800-employees-for-project-titan-more-than-triples-what-tesla-had-prior-to-their-ipo.html
Prices are dropping. The next version of Tesla will be $35k. Leafs are cheaper than that now (with less range). The Gigafactory will produce as much battery capacity by itself as the entire world does now. That economy of scale alone will drive prices down on the batteries. The battery is the expensive part now. And that has already been dropping in price at 8-10% per year.
-
I'm not sure that's who I'd count on to revolutionize the car industry.
We don't have to count on them to single-handedly carry out the revolution, just to instigate it. The legacy auto companies happily milking the status quo are not going to act as their own catalyst for change.
-
Electric are the future.
The question is who can manage the global supply chain, delivery, dealer and service network - Toyota/VW or Apple/Amazon/Google
How different is mass market car making compared to high margin high end consumer electronics?
I think Apple has proven that they can manage global supply chain and they already have a network of stores. Selling a car is a little different--but not that different. And their marketing and brand is literally the best in the world. Tesla's demonstrated that you don't need dealers, and that a small car company can produce the safest cars in the world. And when Apple's lobbying muscle gets involved, along with citizens demanding to buy the hot new Apple car, some of those state laws that protect dealership franchises from competition will be repealed.
Sleek and quiet is fine, but electric cars are in no danger of supplanting internal combustion due to the simple fact of range.
Nobody's going to be able to drive a Tesla cross-country without stopping for more than a couple minutes at a time, any time soon. And that's what it'll take to get most people to take electrics seriously as their primary car.
People already stop for about 10 minutes to gas up on a long trip. Today Teslas can charge up another 150 miles in 30 minutes. That's not so inconvenient already. And the speed is going to get faster and batteries will grow in capacity and drop in cost. You really shouldn't drive for more than a couple hours without taking a break anyway--for safety.
-
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/09/apples-goal-of-1800-employees-for-project-titan-more-than-triples-what-tesla-had-prior-to-their-ipo.html
Prices are dropping. The next version of Tesla will be $35k. Leafs are cheaper than that now (with less range). The Gigafactory will produce as much battery capacity by itself as the entire world does now. That economy of scale alone will drive prices down on the batteries. The battery is the expensive part now. And that has already been dropping in price at 8-10% per year.
All rumors and speculation, from stock pumping people who are wrong more often than not. We have no proof apple is making a car. Actually, just writing that made me laugh. Apple car, yeah right..
Nobody knows what the next version of the Tesla will cost either. The Volt has a 16 kWh battery and cost more than $35k. The Leaf has a 24 kWh battery and an MSRP of $30k! The Tesla 3 would need to have at least 2x that (range of ~150 mi). Yes I'd like it to be cheaper, but there's a difference between blind hope and being realistic.
-
Sleek and quiet is fine, but electric cars are in no danger of supplanting internal combustion due to the simple fact of range.
Nobody's going to be able to drive a Tesla cross-country without stopping for more than a couple minutes at a time, any time soon. And that's what it'll take to get most people to take electrics seriously as their primary car.
People already stop for about 10 minutes to gas up on a long trip. Today Teslas can charge up another 150 miles in 30 minutes. That's not so inconvenient already. And the speed is going to get faster and batteries will grow in capacity and drop in cost. You really shouldn't drive for more than a couple hours without taking a break anyway--for safety.
First, you say that as if a group of people traveling together can't simply switch drivers and keep going.
Second, having to stop every 150 miles is ridiculous. Most gasoline cars can go more like 300-400 miles on a tank of gas. (Diesels can do even better: my '98 Beetle TDI can go 600-700 miles on a tank, and B4 Passat Variant [i.e., wagon] TDIs have been known to get close to 1200! I once drove my Beetle from Atlanta to the western suburbs of St. Louis, Missouri before having to refuel.)
Third, having to stop for 30 minutes is ridiculous. Stopping for 10 minutes for gas is OK because people need about that long to go to the bathroom and buy snacks. Doing that and then having to wait another 20 minutes for the damn car to finish charging, however, would not be acceptable.
Finally, what the [hypothetical at this point] Tesla can actually do [in optimal conditions, with zero margin for error] is irrelevant. What matters is what people think it can do, and until people think an electric car will be able to get them to their vacation destination three states away with the same amount of speed, time and convenience that their internal-combustion car can do now, they're not going to replace it with an electric. They're just not.
-
those laws were in place to protect car dealers, not companies. In fact they were put in place to prevent the car makes from having monopoly on sales of their vehicles. Or something, I don't fully understand the reasoning behind it. But yes, it is stupid.
It wasn't as stupid in the 1940/50/60s. You start a dealership, advertise, build up a local customer base etc and the car company can then look at which areas were doing well and open their own stores and close down the dealerships.
It would be like trying to build a chain of Apple dealerships knowing that Apple could open an Apple store in your city and stop supplying you.
Now that there is a wider choice of cars and ways of buying them, the idea of a single manufacturer franchise makes about as much sense as a cinema chain owned by a single studio.
-
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/09/apples-goal-of-1800-employees-for-project-titan-more-than-triples-what-tesla-had-prior-to-their-ipo.html
Prices are dropping. The next version of Tesla will be $35k. Leafs are cheaper than that now (with less range). The Gigafactory will produce as much battery capacity by itself as the entire world does now. That economy of scale alone will drive prices down on the batteries. The battery is the expensive part now. And that has already been dropping in price at 8-10% per year.
All rumors and speculation, from stock pumping people who are wrong more often than not. We have no proof apple is making a car. Actually, just writing that made me laugh. Apple car, yeah right..
Nobody knows what the next version of the Tesla will cost either. The Volt has a 16 kWh battery and cost more than $35k. The Leaf has a 24 kWh battery and an MSRP of $30k! The Tesla 3 would need to have at least 2x that (range of ~150 mi). Yes I'd like it to be cheaper, but there's a difference between blind hope and being realistic.
I don't think Apple needs people to pump its stock. They already print money. The Volt is an entirely different car. It's much more expensive to have both an electric and conventional engine in the same car.
I think if you did some research on battery prices you'd come to a similar conclusion. They are dropping faster than people thought--even a couple years ago. And about to drop even more with the increased production about to come online in the next few years. The cost of the raw materials for batteries is tens of dollars per kWh. Improving the cost of production is dropping that from mid hundreds ($600ish) down to low hundreds today (probably $150-200ish for Tesla). There's plenty of room to drop further, and even to use cheaper materials. The 250-300 mile 85kWh battery could be under $10k in 10 years. Electric engines and car bodies are inexpensive. With that battery price you can easily have a profitable 200-300 mile car for $20-25k. And you would rarely need that extra battery capacity. And in 5-10 years there will be a pretty thorough network of very fast charging stations. Tesla already has Superchargers pretty much covering the national interstate system. I met a guy who's driven 108,000 miles in his Tesla all around the country. And he has the smaller 60kWh battery.
-
Second, having to stop every 150 miles is ridiculous.
I've never been with a group of people that could last more than a couple hours (i.e. 150 miles) before a bathroom break. Maybe driving by yourself you wouldn't need one. But then you should be taking more rest stops for safety.
Third, having to stop for 30 minutes is ridiculous. Stopping for 10 minutes for gas is OK because people need about that long to go to the bathroom and buy snacks. Doing that and then having to wait another 20 minutes for the damn car to finish charging, however, would not be acceptable.
This sounds pretty whiny. Being slightly inconvenienced for 20 minutes twice a year. A 500 mile day (which is a lot of driving) could be accomplished with only a stop for lunch (which should take 30 minutes anyway), a stop a couple hours later, and a stop for dinner (again, over 30 minutes). So you would be adding 20 minutes to that middle stop for the whole day. And if you stopped for lunch for an hour you wouldn't need the middle stop. And that's only assuming they don't increase charging speed (which I'm sure they will).
-
until people think an electric car will be able to get them to their vacation destination three states away with the same amount of speed, time and convenience that their internal-combustion car can do now, they're not going to replace it with an electric. They're just not.
These are the same people that think they need a full size pickup truck because once a year they need to haul a Christmas tree or buy a 4x4 because they once visited Washington and it snowed. They are going to keep buying F150s no matter what.
The people who buy a reliable grey Japanese sedan and can't tell you what brand it is - they are going to buy electric, and around the world there are a lot more of them
-
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/09/apples-goal-of-1800-employees-for-project-titan-more-than-triples-what-tesla-had-prior-to-their-ipo.html
Prices are dropping. The next version of Tesla will be $35k. Leafs are cheaper than that now (with less range). The Gigafactory will produce as much battery capacity by itself as the entire world does now. That economy of scale alone will drive prices down on the batteries. The battery is the expensive part now. And that has already been dropping in price at 8-10% per year.
All rumors and speculation, from stock pumping people who are wrong more often than not. We have no proof apple is making a car. Actually, just writing that made me laugh. Apple car, yeah right..
Nobody knows what the next version of the Tesla will cost either. The Volt has a 16 kWh battery and cost more than $35k. The Leaf has a 24 kWh battery and an MSRP of $30k! The Tesla 3 would need to have at least 2x that (range of ~150 mi). Yes I'd like it to be cheaper, but there's a difference between blind hope and being realistic.
I don't think Apple needs people to pump its stock. They already print money. The Volt is an entirely different car. It's much more expensive to have both an electric and conventional engine in the same car.
I think if you did some research on battery prices you'd come to a similar conclusion. They are dropping faster than people thought--even a couple years ago. And about to drop even more with the increased production about to come online in the next few years. The cost of the raw materials for batteries is tens of dollars per kWh. Improving the cost of production is dropping that from mid hundreds ($600ish) down to low hundreds today (probably $150-200ish for Tesla). There's plenty of room to drop further, and even to use cheaper materials. The 250-300 mile 85kWh battery could be under $10k in 10 years. Electric engines and car bodies are inexpensive. With that battery price you can easily have a profitable 200-300 mile car for $20-25k. And you would rarely need that extra battery capacity. And in 5-10 years there will be a pretty thorough network of very fast charging stations. Tesla already has Superchargers pretty much covering the national interstate system. I met a guy who's driven 108,000 miles in his Tesla all around the country. And he has the smaller 60kWh battery.
I certainly hope you're right. Since we just got our prius it'll be another 10 years until we're looking for a replacement so we'll see then.
FYI I didn't mean Apple is pumping it's stock, but Morgan Stanley.
The whole range/charging break is a bit silly. Almost every household has two cars. And 98% of the days they're used for 50 miles or less. At first, one electric car would be plenty for almost everyone. With a secondary one for longer trips. I love when people argue "but-but, cross country road trips!". How often to most people do that? At least here on the north east most people vacation on the jersey shore, which is <150 mi from NYC. NY> boston is also less than one full charge of the tesla.
-
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/09/apples-goal-of-1800-employees-for-project-titan-more-than-triples-what-tesla-had-prior-to-their-ipo.html
Prices are dropping. The next version of Tesla will be $35k. Leafs are cheaper than that now (with less range). The Gigafactory will produce as much battery capacity by itself as the entire world does now. That economy of scale alone will drive prices down on the batteries. The battery is the expensive part now. And that has already been dropping in price at 8-10% per year.
All rumors and speculation, from stock pumping people who are wrong more often than not. We have no proof apple is making a car. Actually, just writing that made me laugh. Apple car, yeah right..
Nobody knows what the next version of the Tesla will cost either. The Volt has a 16 kWh battery and cost more than $35k. The Leaf has a 24 kWh battery and an MSRP of $30k! The Tesla 3 would need to have at least 2x that (range of ~150 mi). Yes I'd like it to be cheaper, but there's a difference between blind hope and being realistic.
I don't think Apple needs people to pump its stock. They already print money. The Volt is an entirely different car. It's much more expensive to have both an electric and conventional engine in the same car.
I think if you did some research on battery prices you'd come to a similar conclusion. They are dropping faster than people thought--even a couple years ago. And about to drop even more with the increased production about to come online in the next few years. The cost of the raw materials for batteries is tens of dollars per kWh. Improving the cost of production is dropping that from mid hundreds ($600ish) down to low hundreds today (probably $150-200ish for Tesla). There's plenty of room to drop further, and even to use cheaper materials. The 250-300 mile 85kWh battery could be under $10k in 10 years. Electric engines and car bodies are inexpensive. With that battery price you can easily have a profitable 200-300 mile car for $20-25k. And you would rarely need that extra battery capacity. And in 5-10 years there will be a pretty thorough network of very fast charging stations. Tesla already has Superchargers pretty much covering the national interstate system. I met a guy who's driven 108,000 miles in his Tesla all around the country. And he has the smaller 60kWh battery.
I certainly hope you're right. Since we just got our prius it'll be another 10 years until we're looking for a replacement so we'll see then.
FYI I didn't mean Apple is pumping it's stock, but Morgan Stanley.
The whole range/charging break is a bit silly. Almost every household has two cars. And 98% of the days they're used for 50 miles or less. At first, one electric car would be plenty for almost everyone. With a secondary one for longer trips. I love when people argue "but-but, cross country road trips!". How often to most people do that? At least here on the north east most people vacation on the jersey shore, which is <150 mi from NYC. NY> boston is also less than one full charge of the tesla.
We've had no ICE car for a year now. The only time we went for a drive too long for our Leafs was in the middle of our trip to Canada, so we rented an ICE anyway (driving for 3-4 days to get there, then again to get home, would have been impractical anyway). I only charge my car about once per week. DW about 2x. It's plenty of range. Even with the limited infrastructure available now we could get from Atlanta to Nashville with a Leaf if we wanted to. When we were there last year there was coincidentally a quick charge station across the street from our hotel (Cracker Barrels seem to have them around here).
-
Second, having to stop every 150 miles is ridiculous.
I've never been with a group of people that could last more than a couple hours (i.e. 150 miles) before a bathroom break. Maybe driving by yourself you wouldn't need one. But then you should be taking more rest stops for safety.
Third, having to stop for 30 minutes is ridiculous. Stopping for 10 minutes for gas is OK because people need about that long to go to the bathroom and buy snacks. Doing that and then having to wait another 20 minutes for the damn car to finish charging, however, would not be acceptable.
This sounds pretty whiny. Being slightly inconvenienced for 20 minutes twice a year. A 500 mile day (which is a lot of driving) could be accomplished with only a stop for lunch (which should take 30 minutes anyway), a stop a couple hours later, and a stop for dinner (again, over 30 minutes). So you would be adding 20 minutes to that middle stop for the whole day. And if you stopped for lunch for an hour you wouldn't need the middle stop. And that's only assuming they don't increase charging speed (which I'm sure they will).
I'm going to disagree here. Most of my travel is local and in town, but when we make a road trip, we move on down the road. We just did a 4 hour run to St Louis with no stops. When we drive to Texas the goal is to stop for a restroom break when the gas runs out. Especially when running through the night, I wouldn't look forward to stopping for 30 minutes at a go.
That's not to say that electric can't take off for this reason, but I think it is safe and common to go more than 150 miles without a stop.
-
Everyone has seen a trolly run with a contact bar for electricity. An electric car's contact with come out when needed and will point down to a single electric rail that will only exist on interstate highways. Long distance check. Possible check. Needs to happen check. A meter will be relayed via satellite link and rail components will be stored via computer and billed monthly.
-
Another possibility is that you'll be able to rent a larger battery if the 20 minute stops are too much for you. Or they could upgrade the charging speed so it's a 5 or 10 minute stop to put another 200 miles in. Or you could rent some kind of hydrogen fuel cell or even an gas generator for trips that charges the battery as you drive.
Teslas are also designed so that the entire battery can be swapped out in 90 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XdiGMIUxeY
There are a lot of options.
Or you could just deal with it for 20 or 40 extra minutes a couple times per year.
-
Oh wow, really?! I know my '98 is a better car than the '09+s in general, but I didn't realize it has better emissions too!
Only compared to diesel VWs, at least for now. Once they fix the problem and/or buyback the cars, you're outa luck. :D
First, you say that as if a group of people traveling together can't simply switch drivers and keep going.
Second, having to stop every 150 miles is ridiculous. Most gasoline cars can go more like 300-400 miles on a tank of gas. (Diesels can do even better: my '98 Beetle TDI can go 600-700 miles on a tank, and B4 Passat Variant [i.e., wagon] TDIs have been known to get close to 1200! I once drove my Beetle from Atlanta to the western suburbs of St. Louis, Missouri before having to refuel.)
Third, having to stop for 30 minutes is ridiculous. Stopping for 10 minutes for gas is OK because people need about that long to go to the bathroom and buy snacks. Doing that and then having to wait another 20 minutes for the damn car to finish charging, however, would not be acceptable.
Finally, what the [hypothetical at this point] Tesla can actually do [in optimal conditions, with zero margin for error] is irrelevant. What matters is what people think it can do, and until people think an electric car will be able to get them to their vacation destination three states away with the same amount of speed, time and convenience that their internal-combustion car can do now, they're not going to replace it with an electric. They're just not.
Every 150 miles on average is a bit on the low side, every ~200-250 miles is more likely. I can certainly understand not getting a Tesla if you drive for 400-700 miles stretches and don't want to stop for more than 10 minutes in between. There are some people who do mind those delays like you do, and other people who don't. Just because some people wouldn't buy an EV doesn't mean there won't be a market for them. Different people prioritize different things.
-
I suspect ICE will phased out for consumer use by ever tightening emission standards.
Commercial and military applications will keep them around a bunch longer, but getting rid of the consumer ICE will be a good start and will buy us time to work out the issues with long haul/remote service applications.
-
Or you could just deal with it for 20 or 40 extra minutes a couple times per year.
Forum, your arguments on driving range has been pretty consistent in fitting how you THINK people should act and not, as Jack points out, how they ACTUALLY act. Most people should also get rid of unnecessary expenses and save for retirement, but they don't. It's not like Jack is disagreeing with you on if Tesla is a good product, he's merely point out reality. See:
Finally, what the [hypothetical at this point] Tesla can actually do [in optimal conditions, with zero margin for error] is irrelevant. What matters is what people think it can do, and until people think an electric car will be able to get them to their vacation destination three states away with the same amount of speed, time and convenience that their internal-combustion car can do now, they're not going to replace it with an electric. They're just not.
-
There are people who hold the view Jack mentioned, but there are also plenty of people who don't. If anything it's the cost of the cars more than the time spent (super) charging that's keeping some people on the sidelines. Still there's plenty of demand and Tesla sells every car they build.
-
There are people who hold the view Jack mentioned, but there are also plenty of people who don't. If anything it's the cost of the cars more than the time spent (super) charging that's keeping some people on the sidelines. Still there's plenty of demand and Tesla sells every car they build.
I don't think there's that much demand - it probably depends on the company you keep - if it's highly educated/wealthier, I think it might be more demand than the national/global average
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country#Global_outlook
"The United States is the leading market with a stock of over 290,000 plug-in electric cars sold since 2008, representing 41% of global sales." - and the US EV market is less than 1% of total new car sales
The market share of electric vehicles is pretty tiny still, but who knows if it'll grow to become something significant?
-
That's accurate, but Tesla also has at this point, ~10% of the luxury car market. Demand is great for the product, but they also aren't competing outside of the luxury car market yet.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/04/tesla-nabs-8-of-the-us-luxury-car-market.aspx
If the S continues to do well, the X sells as well as reservations indicate it will, and the gigafactory come online, the model 3 will probably take a big chunk of market share unless other manufacturers step up their game. Plug-ins are also growing faster than hybrids did, so there's a good chance both will continue to capture market share over the next decade or so.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085724_electric-cars-sell-faster-than-hybrids-did-at-same-point
-
Or you could just deal with it for 20 or 40 extra minutes a couple times per year.
Forum, your arguments on driving range has been pretty consistent in fitting how you THINK people should act and not, as Jack points out, how they ACTUALLY act. Most people should also get rid of unnecessary expenses and save for retirement, but they don't. It's not like Jack is disagreeing with you on if Tesla is a good product, he's merely point out reality. See:
Finally, what the [hypothetical at this point] Tesla can actually do [in optimal conditions, with zero margin for error] is irrelevant. What matters is what people think it can do, and until people think an electric car will be able to get them to their vacation destination three states away with the same amount of speed, time and convenience that their internal-combustion car can do now, they're not going to replace it with an electric. They're just not.
Reading both Forummm's and Jack's responses (as well as the others who have chimed in) and I have to say I agree with both commenters... and perhaps that's an important detail that's being overlooked. Forummm is correct that the vast majority of drivers do not need to drive more than 150mi at a time for the vast majority of their trips, and that those very few trips a year when a range greater than 150mi is required there are lots of solutions (waiting another ~10 minutes, auxillary batteries, better charging technology, etc). Jack's certainly got a great point that its' what people's perception of what they need that matters. My parents are prime examples - they have two cars (one a large SUV, one a civic) but declined to buy a Leaf when given a great opportunity strictly because they were worried they'd need to someday both need to drive an extended distance and for whatever reason the SUV wouldn't be available (to my knowledge this has never, ever happened to them).
Anyway, back to my point.... there's always the subset of Americans who want to buy the massive F150 so they can easily bring their christmas tree home once a year, but that may be irrelevant. What's needed is enough people who will realize that they almost never need the longer range/faster refueling. It's probably not even that large a percentage of the driving population... 10%? 15%? If that happens (marketing slang: inertia) then charging stations become more prevolant, every fuel station wants to have at least a couple 'charging points', chain restaurants will put in chargers (it's already sort of happening in many spots) and perceptions will change.
Melennials seem to be a convinceable demographic. They're not as into owning cars as every other generation, they have veyr low car-brand loyalty and they are less enthralled with 'car-culture' in general.
-
Id like to hear from anyone that has a VW TDI what kind of real life mileage do you get. Is it not enough to keep you a VW owner or are you a principled person. that would cut off your nose in spite of your face?
ML
-
I'll continue to drive my 7K lb stinky diesel truck my employer pays the fuel for. Had it for 10 years and can count on one hand the number of tanks I have paid for.
ML
-
Id like to hear from anyone that has a VW TDI what kind of real life mileage do you get. Is it not enough to keep you a VW owner or are you a principled person. that would cut off your nose in spite of your face?
It's been a while since I drove my '98 TDI (I still need to finish fixing it), but it gets 50+ MPG. It's totally worth keeping because it can use 100% biodiesel, which means I can still be an eco-snob despite the soot, and is fun to drive (it's not stock...).
-
I have a 2008 Ford Focus SES five speed manual. Original owner. It's about 10k less than a VW TDI. If I drive it nice and don't speed I will get 38-42 mpg with 87 gasoline. If I drive like an AHole and blast my AC I get 32 mpg. Did I mention I still have my original brakes at over 150k miles.
VW is in for some pain. Focus and Corolla have only gotten better. They look a lot better these days too
-
(Many people buy VWs for the 2.0 TDI, which is arguably the best engine ever built.)
Come on! The LS series? The GM 3800 series? They live basically forever, can handle massive modification and boost, and so on.
-
Id like to hear from anyone that has a VW TDI what kind of real life mileage do you get. Is it not enough to keep you a VW owner or are you a principled person. that would cut off your nose in spite of your face?
ML
My 2003 Golf GLS TDI has gotten a max of 47 MPG on the highway during road trips, and is presently getting a bit over 41MPG in the city, and that's needing a new set of injector nozzles. That's only going to get better once the nozzles are replaced. I have no intention of getting rid of the car. Wtih those numbers, I can go a whole day of driving between fill-ups when on a road trip, and more than two weeks between fill-ups when commuting about the city. With the information I've seen regarding the VW emissions affair, that only applies to the Mk 6s with the 2L common-rail engines, not the earlier Mk3, 4 or 5.
I do feel bad for those with affected cars. To be promised one thing, only to find out you were lied to is really upsetting. I just hope people don't end up screwed by the whole affair -- ending up with worse performance and economy than a Mk4 o4 5 once ECU changes are in place, being forced to surrender the car, or similar badness.
-
http://www.khou.com/story/money/business/2015/09/30/harris-county-files-100-million-lawsuit-against-volkswagen/73070106/
I guess the county figures they have standing because pollution? I don't really know. Imagine every county doing something similar though, there are lots of counties...