2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But I do drive that much. I've done many financial comparisons with EVs and hybrids vs. ICE cars, and depending upon the car chosen and at level of mileage it is used for, some EVs or hybrids at least do pay off within the lifetime use of the vehicle. A few years ago I ran a life cycle financial comparison of a Tesla S vs. my E90 to 200,000 miles. The Tesla came out about $20K more expensive to run to 200,000 miles. Get that $20K out of the price of the Tesla, and things even up. Get more than $20K out of the price, like the Bolt possibly will, and the equation reverses. For me, if the financials work out to be even or slightly in favor of the EV, then it's on my list for consideration. But the situation is I have several cars to drive long distances, so a 200-mile range EV just for my daily commute makes sense. And as anyone who owns a BMW knows, the reason BMWs are expensive to own is because the need to have a 2nd car to drive while the Bimmer is in the shop.

But like I stated before I like EVs because it's plain to see the manual transmission is on it's way out and EVs mostly are single gear transmissions, so they don't shift at the wrong time. And because the price of electricity remains constant over time (yeah I know, O'Bama is trying to screw that up too) unlike gasoline, which is priced purely based on political reasons.

So you ran the financials and based on this bought it as a 2nd car? Seems like doing it this way has virtually no chance of coming out very positive when you consider all of the costs of each vehicle (initial cost/lease, gas/electricity, maintenance/repair on both, insurance and registration).

I also question why electricity should remain constant over time, assuming it will also go up, why shouldn't it? It's made of coal and natural gas, and the infrastructure still has to be maintained. No gas prices are not just based on political reasons. U.S. became one of the biggest producers in the last couple of years, obviously part of it affecting prices. Iran's about to join the mix and further increase supply.

[Fundguy1]

Agreed. The tesla example assumes you will get it for $20,000 more off the price than the e90. Consumer reports, who I loathe, recently revised their call on the car saying it had frequent repairs. You need to factor those in too. Specialty repair guy. High cost of parts. Then dud you include battery replacement which you'll need to do in 200,000 miles? A few thousand laptop batteries need to cost more than the car is worth when it's 15tvyrs old if they even make the correct batteries by then. Result, the car is totaled st 200k. The e90 isn't.

No range
Costly frequent repairs
Totaled
20k price premium
Need to own to 200k to even make these numbers work

Sounds like a winner to me.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

So you ran the financials and based on this bought it as a 2nd car? Seems like doing it this way has virtually no chance of coming out very positive when you consider all of the costs of each vehicle (initial cost/lease, gas/electricity, maintenance/repair on both, insurance and registration).

I also question why electricity should remain constant over time, assuming it will also go up, why shouldn't it? It's made of coal and natural gas, and the infrastructure still has to be maintained. No gas prices are not just based on political reasons. U.S. became one of the biggest producers in the last couple of years, obviously part of it affecting prices. Iran's about to join the mix and further increase supply.

No, I used my E90 total life-cycle costs since the day it was new. Let's set a definition... life-cycle costs means the purchase price of the car, including bank financing costs (i.e. cost of the loan), and all operating costs for gasoline, maintenance and repairs.

In 2014 I ran the financial comparison of a new Tesla S (2014 MY) against my known E90 life-cycle cost up to 200,000 miles. In early 2014 I was well past 200,000 miles, but I chose the cutoff of the cost comparison at 200,000 becuase I had a complete set of gasoline purchase data in my spreadsheet. I keep a detailed record of gas purchases for all my vehicles (a habit my older brother got me into when I first started driving). I've owned my E90 since new. I special ordered it so when I took delivery the E90 had 3 miles on it. I keep a record of all maintenance and repair costs, everything, tires, oil changes, new parts, etc., so I know exactly what the total life-cycle cost is for my E90 (right now it is at $95K for 293,000 miles - $36K of that is just gasoline).

For the Tesla the financial costs are projected but based on the same life-cycle costs discussed above. Since the Tesla is electric, it is easy to calculate the projected electric fuel costs, and maintenance is pretty easy since it's pretty much just tires (I assumed the same wear rates as the E90). If you read the fine print on Tesla's website, they recommend a $600 service inspection every 12,000 miles and you can pre-purchase the maintenance plan at the time you buy the car, so I included that cost as the maintenance for the Tesla against my real data for my E90.

The Tesla came out about $20K more expensive in life-cycle cost. Now that said, the Tesla S is not in the same class as an E90 obviously, but at the time in 2014 it was the only EV that had a 200-mile range, which is what I need for my daily commute (with some spare mileage thrown in). I used a purchase price of the Tesla at an effective price (after the tax rebate) of about $68K. The Tesla is really a 7-Series class car, so if you run my comparison against a 7-Series then the Tesla is competitive in total life-cycle cost. Throw in a Chevy Bolt at $35K, which puts it onto the price class of a low-end F30 320 (both you can consider fuel efficient daily drivers) and I think the Bolt compares well with an F30 at total life cycle costs.

As far as electricity costs go, if you look over time, electricity price per kilowatt is really consistent. The national average is about 11 cents per kilowatt and has been for years. But more important, electricity rates are heavily regulated at the state level (because it is a monopolistic utility - politically dependent you can say, but in the favor of the consumer), so electricity rates are constant. Gasoline prices are not constant and far from it. Since I have detailed gas price records and fill up every two days mostly, gas prices fluctuate greatly in short periods of time. I've seen 15-cent price increases at the same gas station in the same week. And the higher the gas price the more susceptible it is to fluctuation. Electricity doesn't fluctuate at all, and even better, charging over night gives an even lower price per kilowatt.

Sorry to say but gasoline is politically priced. Oil was at $120 a barrel just 2 years ago, it's now less than $30/barrel. Gasoline (oil futures) is a traded commodity, which allows the price to fluctuate as it does. It is obvious that the price of oil is politically motivated and not market based. Every liberal will tell you oil is a declining resource and that the price is dependent upon the availability of oil, but when you look at the per barrel price, that axiom just doesn't pan out. Food for thought... milk costs more per gallon than gasoline.

Sorry to geek out on this, but I'm a car geek; I admit it.

[Sedoy]

^ well said, I agree

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sorry to say but gasoline is politically priced. Oil was at $120 a barrel just 2 years ago, it's now less than $30/barrel. Gasoline (oil futures) is a traded commodity, which allows the price to fluctuate as it does. It is obvious that the price of oil is politically motivated and not market based. Every liberal will tell you oil is a declining resource and that the price is dependent upon the availability of oil, but when you look at the per barrel price, that axiom just doesn't pan out. Food for thought... milk costs more per gallon than gasoline.

Sorry to geek out on this, but I'm a car geek; I admit it.

Why would you conclude this? Gasoline is not politically priced. At least not by US policy makers. It is a market driven commodity. Politicians have only a mechanisms they can use to manipulate oil prices.
1. The strategic oil reserves
2. Access to oil on federal lands
3. Taxes
4. Regulations

The first is used by Politicians to add oil to the market reducing prices slightly in the event the supply is temporarily restricted due to foreign nations cutting supply, a refinerygoing off line etc. It can lower prices a small amount for a short term. Bush used this to combat the speculators who had driven the price of gas into the high $2 range.

The second is used to cut off potential oil supplies. Since 32% of the world's oil reserves are on US federal lands, this can dramatically increase prices. Obama used this to drive gas prices into the $4 a gallon range to get us into Chevy volts, and then he and his entire cabinet took promo photos in volts.

Taxes are used to fund government spending. They are typically much higher in Democrat governed states and are controversial as they are considered a tax on the poor.

Regulations can be eased or increased to make oil and energy more easy and cost efficient or more expensive and costly to produce. Obama increased regulations just like he shut down the federal lands to increase prices of oil, gas, coal, and other carbon based energy.

Under Bush, prices spiked because traders speculated higher prices based on election predictions, conflicts in the middle east, and refinery damage from hurricanes. Bush lowered them as best he could freeing up strategic reserves but was widely blamed and criticized by the left for not clamping down on the speculators with regulations and allowing prices to approach $3 for a gallon of gas.

Obama early on in his first term shut access to oil on federal lands including restricting offshore production. As a result, prices climbed and a barrel of oil went to close to $120 and gas went up to $4+ a gallon. This hurt the economic recovery as oil and energy price increases made it more expensive to manufacture and transport goods, and gas and home electrical prices spiked. The energy companies cleaned up and the left was silent as he said it was part of slowing carbon emissions. That bs as the number one emitter of carbon emissions is cows.

The current prices are lower though as an indirect result of this. When the prices spiked, it made fracking economically feasible. At the time frackers needed $75 a barrel oil prices to make money. With oil over $100 a barrell, fracking exploded on private land, mostly in the Dakotas, and US production increased dramatically. This cut into OPEC's profits. OPEC retaliated by flooding the market with oil in an effort to reduce prices to put the frackers out of business. This is where we are now.

The future of oil prices at this point are not clear. Frackers have improved their technology to the point that they are profitable at about $50-55 a barrel. They are holding fast waiting for OPEC to cut production. OPEC is trying to outlast the frackers in a game of chicken but many of its members and citizens of their countries are not pleased with the current lower revenue coming into their countries from the low prices so they can't last forever. And finally the newly elected president if republican will almost certainly reopen the federal lands permanently keeping oil prices low long term. If a Democrat is elected expect prices to creep back into the 70-80$ a barrel range and gas in the $3 range. If it's a Republican, expect $50 a barrell long term.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

[David70]

Also agree, well done. If replacing a gas driven car with an electric I think it can make reasonable financial sense, not sure I would compare a Bolt with a 3 series but that's debatable as I have never been in the Bolt. I would probably compare a Bolt to a Fit/Civic, not a 3 series and then gas/maintenance/original price goes down on the gas car. Trying to justify an electric Chevy and comparing it to a BMW (not known as a good financial decision) makes the numbers look better. My original question was whether this turned into another car or replaced a car. As an additional car I don't understand it at all, if really trying to save money I think there are better choices but an inexpensive electric isn't a horrible idea.

Still not seeing how oil prices around the world are all political when a huge part of the world that has oil could care less about what we think or want. Most of the oil producers want oil to be high and the ones that don't produce want it to be low. Who is this organization that is controlling it? 10 years ago we didn't produce nearly as much oil as we do not and as said above, OPEC (main Saudi Arabia) is flooding the market with oil to keep market share and put the fracking industry out of business.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by David70

Also agree, well done. If replacing a gas driven car with an electric I think it can make reasonable financial sense, not sure I would compare a Bolt with a 3 series but that's debatable as I have never been in the Bolt. I would probably compare a Bolt to a Fit/Civic, not a 3 series and then gas/maintenance/original price goes down on the gas car. Trying to justify an electric Chevy and comparing it to a BMW (not known as a good financial decision) makes the numbers look better. My original question was whether this turned into another car or replaced a car. As an additional car I don't understand it at all, if really trying to save money I think there are better choices but an inexpensive electric isn't a horrible idea.

Still not seeing how oil prices around the world are all political when a huge part of the world that has oil could care less about what we think or want. Most of the oil producers want oil to be high and the ones that don't produce want it to be low. Who is this organization that is controlling it? 10 years ago we didn't produce nearly as much oil as we do not and as said above, OPEC (main Saudi Arabia) is flooding the market with oil to keep market share and put the fracking industry out of business.

+1 More compare it to a Chevy Cruze or Ford Focus but same same as a civic.it ain't an F30 or Mercedes.

[Red Bread]

Not like a no option 320i or especially a fwd CLA is a party on wheels. Hell, I'd take a Focus over either.

And for practical purposes, things like part throttle 0-40 runs, a Bolt will be much quicker than a Cruze or Focus, even an ST.

You still haven't driven an electric car, have you?

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Not like a no option 320i or especially a fwd CLA is a party on wheels. Hell, I'd take a Focus over either.

And for practical purposes, things like part throttle 0-40 runs, a Bolt will be much quicker than a Cruze or Focus, even an ST.

You still haven't driven an electric car, have you?

I said earlier, the only reason electrics are worth buying is they have great initial acceleration. I prefer 60-100 or 35-80 etc myself. From a monry, practicality, or environmental standpoint they suck. Yes, I've driven a golf cart, rather I3. Lol

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I said earlier, the only reason electrics are worth buying is they have great initial acceleration. I prefer 60-100 or 35-80 etc myself. From a monry, practicality, or environmental standpoint they suck. Yes, I've driven a golf cart, rather I3. Lol

Ha, they are a little golf kart-ish. Doesn't make any sense for your use, in the same way a Miata doesn't make sense for my kid schlepping duties. But I still kind of like both.

I think as we continue to see 50% and greater range improvements over model years, electric cars are going to be a tough environmental sell over their lifespan, at least until range gets to a viable ICE replacement level. But the same was true when we went out replacing Mr. Ed.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Why would you conclude this? Gasoline is not politically priced. At least not by US policy makers. It is a market driven commodity. Politicians have only a mechanisms they can use to manipulate oil prices.
1. The strategic oil reserves
2. Access to oil on federal lands
3. Taxes
4. Regulations

The first is used by Politicians to add oil to the market reducing prices slightly in the event the supply is temporarily restricted due to foreign nations cutting supply, a refinerygoing off line etc. It can lower prices a small amount for a short term. Bush used this to combat the speculators who had driven the price of gas into the high $2 range.

The second is used to cut off potential oil supplies. Since 32% of the world's oil reserves are on US federal lands, this can dramatically increase prices. Obama used this to drive gas prices into the $4 a gallon range to get us into Chevy volts, and then he and his entire cabinet took promo photos in volts.

Taxes are used to fund government spending. They are typically much higher in Democrat governed states and are controversial as they are considered a tax on the poor.

Regulations can be eased or increased to make oil and energy more easy and cost efficient or more expensive and costly to produce. Obama increased regulations just like he shut down the federal lands to increase prices of oil, gas, coal, and other carbon based energy.

Under Bush, prices spiked because traders speculated higher prices based on election predictions, conflicts in the middle east, and refinery damage from hurricanes. Bush lowered them as best he could freeing up strategic reserves but was widely blamed and criticized by the left for not clamping down on the speculators with regulations and allowing prices to approach $3 for a gallon of gas.

Obama early on in his first term shut access to oil on federal lands including restricting offshore production. As a result, prices climbed and a barrel of oil went to close to $120 and gas went up to $4+ a gallon. This hurt the economic recovery as oil and energy price increases made it more expensive to manufacture and transport goods, and gas and home electrical prices spiked. The energy companies cleaned up and the left was silent as he said it was part of slowing carbon emissions. That bs as the number one emitter of carbon emissions is cows.

The current prices are lower though as an indirect result of this. When the prices spiked, it made fracking economically feasible. At the time frackers needed $75 a barrel oil prices to make money. With oil over $100 a barrell, fracking exploded on private land, mostly in the Dakotas, and US production increased dramatically. This cut into OPEC's profits. OPEC retaliated by flooding the market with oil in an effort to reduce prices to put the frackers out of business. This is where we are now.

The future of oil prices at this point are not clear. Frackers have improved their technology to the point that they are profitable at about $50-55 a barrel. They are holding fast waiting for OPEC to cut production. OPEC is trying to outlast the frackers in a game of chicken but many of its members and citizens of their countries are not pleased with the current lower revenue coming into their countries from the low prices so they can't last forever. And finally the newly elected president if republican will almost certainly reopen the federal lands permanently keeping oil prices low long term. If a Democrat is elected expect prices to creep back into the 70-80$ a barrel range and gas in the $3 range. If it's a Republican, expect $50 a barrell long term.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

All of what you said points to oil prices (i.e gasoline) are politically motovated and influenced, whether it is US policy, for Foriegn policy, or commerical policy. It is not market-driven pricing action. I was never confused. I was accurate.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Also agree, well done. If replacing a gas driven car with an electric I think it can make reasonable financial sense, not sure I would compare a Bolt with a 3 series but that's debatable as I have never been in the Bolt. I would probably compare a Bolt to a Fit/Civic, not a 3 series and then gas/maintenance/original price goes down on the gas car. Trying to justify an electric Chevy and comparing it to a BMW (not known as a good financial decision) makes the numbers look better. My original question was whether this turned into another car or replaced a car. As an additional car I don't understand it at all, if really trying to save money I think there are better choices but an inexpensive electric isn't a horrible idea.

Still not seeing how oil prices around the world are all political when a huge part of the world that has oil could care less about what we think or want. Most of the oil producers want oil to be high and the ones that don't produce want it to be low. Who is this organization that is controlling it? 10 years ago we didn't produce nearly as much oil as we do not and as said above, OPEC (main Saudi Arabia) is flooding the market with oil to keep market share and put the fracking industry out of business.

When looking at a car from the perspective of passenger volume and transportation ability, it's fair to compare a 320i to the upcoming Bolt. I'd bet the Bolt and the 320i, as like the Cruze and Focus, all fall into the same class size. The Bolt prices (if the projected price holds true) comparitively to the 320i then because of the fuel cost being lower for the Bolt, it comes out ahead in total lifecycle cost, not even counting maitenance. Yup, the Bolt may not look like or be a sports sedan, but neither is a 320i. The 320i is an economy car. It is marketed as "near luxury" but it's far from that too; it's BMW's version of the Civic.

OPEC is very much cares about what we think and want.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

All of what you said points to oil prices (i.e gasoline) are politically motovated and influenced, whether it is US policy, for Foriegn policy, or commerical policy. It is not market-driven pricing action. I was never confused. I was accurate.

The political motivated is OPEC country policies, not US. If that's what you mean yes. US government doesn't typically meddle in this and can't except for my earlier exceptions. I was refuting the notion that prices are down because it's an election year or that Obama should 6get credit for the price drop. Both are patently false.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Agreed. The tesla example assumes you will get it for $20,000 more off the price than the e90. Consumer reports, who I loathe, recently revised their call on the car saying it had frequent repairs. You need to factor those in too. Specialty repair guy. High cost of parts. Then dud you include battery replacement which you'll need to do in 200,000 miles? A few thousand laptop batteries need to cost more than the car is worth when it's 15tvyrs old if they even make the correct batteries by then. Result, the car is totaled st 200k. The e90 isn't.

No range
Costly frequent repairs
Totaled
20k price premium
Need to own to 200k to even make these numbers work

Sounds like a winner to me.

I didn't say the Tesla S was a winner. I said it was a looser. The need for battery replacement is not clearly understood in my opinion. The research I've done via asking a few people I know with high-mileage hybrids and SAE papers I've read, is inconclusive about battery life. I know of three people with 150,000 mile plus hybrids and still have the original battery providing nearly the same storage capacity as when new. Tesla originally did offer a plan for pre-purchase of a battery after the 120,000 mile warranty expires, but I believe Tesla recently changed to a lifetime battery warranty. It's a good question and one of the reasons that has kept me from getting a hybrid in the past several years. I'm probably as or more conservative than you and I laugh at the saving the planet crap, but if the numbers prove that an EV for my needs (200,000 mile minimum life cycle) works out even or less in total life cycle cost, then that's what will most likely sit in my carport next.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

The political motivated is OPEC country policies, not US. If that's what you mean yes. US government doesn't typically meddle in this and can't except for my earlier exceptions. I was refuting the notion that prices are down because it's an election year or that Obama should 6get credit for the price drop. Both are patently false.

I'm speaking of political motivation regardless of political party or country. Meaning oil prices are not purely market driven, but influenced by politics.

[Fundguy1]

Batteries last 120- 200k typically fromy what I've heard. Factor in the cost of these, depreciation, etc, economically Its doa. As for the political changing fuel prices, yes. The whips we've seen has been political. Going up from obama, down from Saudi and OPEC. I'm concerned about the average long term price which will be 50 a barrel if a Republican is elected, 75 a barrel I'd Democrat. That and correcting the falacies that prices are down because it's an election year or because Obama did it. He's actually probably furious they are which makes me warm inside.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

When looking at a car from the perspective of passenger volume and transportation ability, it's fair to compare a 320i to the upcoming Bolt. I'd bet the Bolt and the 320i, as like the Cruze and Focus, all fall into the same class size. The Bolt prices (if the projected price holds true) comparitively to the 320i then because of the fuel cost being lower for the Bolt, it comes out ahead in total lifecycle cost, not even counting maitenance. Yup, the Bolt may not look like or be a sports sedan, but neither is a 320i. The 320i is an economy car. It is marketed as "near luxury" but it's far from that too; it's BMW's version of the Civic.

OPEC is very much cares about what we think and want.

So if you are comparing a Bolt to a BMW 320 things look positive financially but if you compare the Bolt to a loaded Civic they don't? My main draw to the 3 series is the handling, RWD platform, and with other engines, the engine so this isn't a car I would compare to the Bolt. The only thing I see similar to each of them is the size.

Ownership costs for 5 years for a 320i - $45,583
Ownership costs for 5 years for a Civic sedan EX (loaded but without leather)- $26,226
Ownership costs for 5 years for a Leaf SL (think loaded to compare to loaded Civic) - $40,079 - They didn't take the tax credit which I think you still get so with $7500 off - $32,579

I used the Leaf as it is the closest car that I know of, also expect similar costs.

If just going off financials I don't see it working out. I did this pretty quickly is there something fundamentally wrong with it?

http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/3-series/...3/cost-to-own/
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2...7/cost-to-own/
http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/leaf/2...4/cost-to-own/

[Fundguy1]

Yes. Using the BMW is silly. It's a different class of car.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

That and correcting the falacies that prices are down because it's an election year or because Obama did it. He's actually probably furious they are which makes me warm inside.

I have been trying to figure out why the media doesn't cover why oil prices are where they are. Saudis are playing games. They are shutting down all the medium and small oil producers. Once economies recover and demand increases(which it will), gas prices are going to be enormous. This will happen under the next President, so they will get blamed for it.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Batteries last 120- 200k typically fromy what I've heard. Factor in the cost of these, depreciation, etc, economically Its doa. As for the political changing fuel prices, yes. The whips we've seen has been political. Going up from obama, down from Saudi and OPEC. I'm concerned about the average long term price which will be 50 a barrel if a Republican is elected, 75 a barrel I'd Democrat. That and correcting the falacies that prices are down because it's an election year or because Obama did it. He's actually probably furious they are which makes me warm inside.

But most cars are crushed before they get to 120k, much less 200k miles, so what's the point of talking about battery life when most cars last seven years and are disposed of.

You can argue that the heavy metals and Chinese manufacturing plus charging on natural gas or coal is worse than an ICE, but no point in arguing about extra long term life when most ICE's don't last any longer than an initial battery would.

I used to rail against Priuses and the lack of actual environmental upside, but even the first gen are largely still on the road, something that certainly can't be said of most cars from that era, much less BMW's.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

But most cars are crushed before they get to 120k, much less 200k miles, so what's the point of talking about battery life when most cars last seven years and are disposed of.

You can argue that the heavy metals and Chinese manufacturing plus charging on natural gas or coal is worse than an ICE, but no point in arguing about extra long term life when most ICE's don't last any longer than an initial battery would.

I used to rail against Priuses and the lack of actual environmental upside, but even the first gen are largely still on the road, something that certainly can't be said of most cars from that era, much less BMW's.

The average age of vehicles in the U.S. has climbed to a record 11.5 years, according to research firm IHS Automotive.

Consumers are now driving cars they bought new for 77.8 months before selling them, he said. That’s an increase of 26 months since the start of 2006. Used car drivers hold onto their vehicles for an average 63 months before disposing of them, a 25-month increase since early 2006.

There are now almost 258 million light vehicles on U.S. roads, a 2% increase from last year, according to IHS. But the U.S. is adding more new cars than it is scrapping older vehicles. About 120 million of those vehicles are 6 to 14 years old.

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...729-story.html

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by David70

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...729-story.html

Did I miss any reference to mileage? I drive a lot less than I did in 2006, for an n of 1 result.