Can I possibly wait two years for an affordable EV and would I drive a Chevy?

An all-electric Tesla Model S on display at the Time Warner Center in midtown Manhattan is usually covered with fingerprints after the curious slam the doors and kick the tires.

Red Multi-Coat Paint is $1,500 extra, but that is one option I have to have.


I can't wait two years for an affordable all-electric car, whether it is from Tesla or Chevrolet.

And if I could, I don't think I'd settle for the Chevy Bolt, a 2017 model GM promises will cost thousands of dollars less than the Volt plug-in hybrid.

Have you seen photos of the Bolt concept, a stubby four door?

It doesn't compare to the elegant Tesla Model 3, another 2017 model with a range of 200 miles and an MSRP of about $35,000.

And the Model 3's big brother, the Model S 4-door luxury hatchback, is available now starting at around $70,000.

Battery guarantee

Originally, I reasoned I'd be happy with the base Model S with a 60 kWh battery and a range of 208 miles.

I'm retired, and can no longer drive that far without stopping to go to the bathroom or grab a cup of coffee to keep me awake.

Then, I looked at the warranty for the 60's battery and drive unit, eight years or 125,000 miles.

A step up is the Model S 85, which is about $10,000 more than the 60, and its battery and drive-unit warranty is eight years and "infinite" miles.

Do I want "infinite," or is 125,000 miles enough? I've only averaged 10,000 miles a year in my 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid.

I've configured a Model S 60 with a few options, but haven't put down a deposit. Teslas ordered now will be delivered in late April, the company Web site says.

From Auto Express, this is what a smaller Tesla Model 3 is supposed to look like when it come out in 2017. The car will have a range of 200 miles and cost about $35,000, the publication reported. Tesla calls the Model 3 image "mock-ups" based on Auto Express "speculation."

Negative press continues

Fifteen years and millions of hybrid and all-electric cars later, the media continue to view the green movement negatively.

Dee-Ann Durbin of The Associated Press is the latest reporter to warn buyers of electric cars it will take them decades to pay off "the premium" they shelled out when compared to a cheaper gas-powered vehicle.

When gas-electric hybrids were introduced, the media reacted with numerous articles on whether the green cars were "practical," given their higher prices.

I can't recall the media focusing on any other car, whether an econobox, gas-guzzling luxury sedan or super car, and warning owners it's unlikely they'll ever recoup their investment.

The environment?

And Durbin also is the latest automobile writer to completely ignore the less tangible environmental benefits of electric cars over those powered by the infernal combustion engine, which is hastening climate change.

What about the billions of gallons of gasoline saved by the drivers of millions of hybrids, and reduced air pollution. Don't they count for anything?

The AP reporter also doesn't calculate the substantial savings from discounts available to owners of green cars who commute daily to jobs in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and other states with toll roads.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 23, Christopher DeMorro, who writes for the Gas2 and CleanTechnica blogs, began a post this way:

"With a starting price of $70,000, the Tesla Model S undoubtedly is a luxury vehicle that only the upper crust of society can afford."

What would DeMorro say of a Mercedes-Benz performance luxury sedan costing nearly three times as much, that only "royalty" could afford it?

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.