Just to add one to ecarfan's list:
- These ~80 mile cars earn the CARB ZEV credits that the automakers need. There is no extra credit for making cars that exceed that level of range.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Volkswagen E-Golf
- Thread starter Adm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
- These ~80 mile cars earn the CARB ZEV credits that the automakers need. There is no extra credit for making cars that exceed that level of range.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
It is amazing how cleanly most plug-in offerings match the CARB and federal incentives. But just to clarify, the automakers CAN get extra credit for exceeding ~80 miles of range (for which they get 3 credits). They can get a 4th credit if they DOUBLE the range.
Of course, to double the range, they can't just stuff batteries in to an existing platform; they'd have to build something unique. That's an awful lot of work for just one more credit, especially given the other factors that ecarfan mentioned. I am pretty sure that a few of the more-serious automakers will do this (Nissan, BMW, GM) but it may take a little while.
Adding more credits for intermediate levels of range would 1. encourage automakers to make cars with more range, 2. come closer to parity with the insane number of credits they get for building H2 cars, 3. not mess up any existing plans. All in all, a simple way for CARB to accomplish their mission. But CARB, as always, seems intent on setting the rules according to what reluctant automakers tell them is "possible" and ignoring anybody else's input. I agree CARB shouldn't insist on the impossible, but wish they'd take the automaker's self-interests to heart when evaluating their testimony.
Last edited:
If the car has at least 200 miles range they get 1, count it, 1 extra credit. (Same for 100 miles with fast refueling.) As proven by the woeful inadequacy of the MS60 with Supercharging, 200+ miles range with DC fast charging is only 1/3 better than an 80 mile BEV.
Heh, took me a few reads to catch the dripping sarcasm in that. Well stated.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Not trying to offend you, but I don't think the California CARB credits were the major influence in VW's thinking behind the range of the e-Golf. Remember, it also sells elsewhere - like Europe, China etc. :wink:
As the e-Golf wasn't designed from the ground up as an EV, its battery has to fit into the space of the fuel tank/drivetrain assembly/exhaust system. That limits the size of the battery considerably. I don't think they could get a lot more range crammed into that space, at least with current battery tech. Oh and by the way, I have driven the e-Golf for more than 100 miles on a single charge, without even trying very hard. The "official" certified range might be in the 80s, but the realistic driving range under normal (i.e. no extreme weather conditions, no sole highway speed driving) mixed conditions is definitely at least 100 miles.
I'm looking forward to try the e-golf as a second car for my family. I just hope my local VW dealer will carry it. My local Kia dealer refuses to carry the Kia EV. You'd think a Southern California dealer would have it, but well.......
I'm willing to bet that there is a Kia dealer within the EV's single charge range that will sell one to you.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm willing to bet that CARB rules were near the top of the list of design considerations for all of the following German cars that are (or will be) sold in many countries.
- BMW i3
- M-B B Class ED
- VW eGolf
I'm not saying that it is anywhere near the only consideration, but clearing the range hurdle to get the credits CARB offers is a significant first step. The question then becomes the trade-off for adding more range than that. Weight, volume, and cost are all on the CON side of the PRO/CON list. They (all legacy automakers producing EVs) apparently don't have a lot of motivation to go beyond the range dictated by CARB.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
And I can only say I think you overestimate the importance of the Californian CARB rules on cars which sell the majority of their volume in other markets worldwide. I think VW sells x-times as many e-Golf in Europe (especially Norway comes to mind) or China than in California.
I think the only car that might fit your description is the B class ED, as that was especially designed with California as a prime market in mind.
When someone does such a great job of adding more miles per charge, shouldn't they be rewarded well like double credits for double range and 4 times credits for tripe range etc. That will be more exciting and challenging for the manufacturers and they will be rewarded for their innovations and obviously price vs credits will decide where to stop.
I agree Austin. I honestly think that ~70 miles of range is there because that is honestly what 80-90% of people need to meet their daily driving requirements. CARB may require similar but it is probably due to data that points out that this number is about right. I drive a LOT (~25k miles a year) and almost none of it is road trips (55 or 60 mile round trip to work, +30 round trip to soccer 2x a week). It is all Atlanta commuting. And honestly I thought a FFE/LEAF/eGolf wouldn't work for me. But it turns out it is more than adequate to get me to work and back, run errands, and even drive me to soccer way on the other side of town from my house and work with a little bit of charging either at home or work.
But adding range (that may or may not be very useful) adds cost. And a significant amount of cost. And with added cost volume goes down. For 90% of my needs a FFE/LEAF/eGolf range is more that adequate. Why should a longer range car get 2x the credits, when it really is only 5-10% more capable than something with FFE/LEAF/eGolf range.
Sure 70 miles wont work for everybody, but I would imagine that 90% of the pepole who commute for work have a 60 mile or less round trip. And for these people a FFE/LEAF/eGolf would work perfectly.
The same 90% of the people think that range is more important in an EV and even for those 10% of trips lot of people don't want to maintain/rent another car!! So, ultimately demand will decide which is the best one and where to stop. With the current rules, why does any one want to build a long range EV? What would be the motivation for them if they get just 1 credit for that much extra money?
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
To add to that, when you buy an e-Golf, you get a free VW loaner for the first three years and up to 30 days a year. At least in Europe that is. Don't know about the US in that respect. But over here, even those few long distance trips are no worry any more.
Unless you have to drive long distances frequently, there is really no reason (if you have the money of course) not to buy an e-Golf/Leaf/i3 etc.
Unless you have to drive long distances frequently, there is really no reason (if you have the money of course) not to buy an e-Golf/Leaf/i3 etc.
A free loaner still demands investment of personal energy, time and forward planning.
You cannot go into garage, sit in the car and drive off.
Miserable EV will stay a miserably EV. VW, BMW, Nissan, whathaveyou.
There is no replacement for kWh.
You cannot go into garage, sit in the car and drive off.
Miserable EV will stay a miserably EV. VW, BMW, Nissan, whathaveyou.
There is no replacement for kWh.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Miserable? Just because they don't offer 200+ miles of range?
I dare say that is quite a statement you make. And not one that I can agree with. Nor should anyone who is interested in bringing as many EVs to as many people as possible.
By they way, at least the e-Golf and the i3 are quite excellent for what they claim to achieve. Don't know about the Leaf personally, but going by sales figures, quite a lot of people will disagree with your statement.
And in what way does a free loaner demand more forward planning than a long distance trip in a long-range EV like Model S?
Not 10% of trips, or days. 10% of PEOPLE!
Sure you aren't going to take a long roadtrip in a LEAF/FFE/eGolf for a long time anyway. And honestly I can only drive a few places long distance in my Model S. I can't drive west or east or north right now in my Model S. Is it worthless?
My Model S isn't twice as effective as my FFE at reducing CO2. In fact the FFE is probably MORE effective at removing CO2. Sure it is only about 95% effective at reducing ICE miles as the FFE, but the FFE uses much less power ~20% driving around town all year long. Because it weights 1500 lbs less than the Model S. Not to mention that an FFE/LEAF/eGolf lots of people could buy at the price. A Model S not so much.
Why give double credits for a car that isn't doubly as good at removing CO2?
I agree people want more range. And many of those people may THINK they need more range. But many don't actually NEED more range. And CARB isn't there to incentivise people to buy it is to incentivise Automakers to sell.
If it's a question of having a FFE and an ICE or only having a Model S, the Model S could certainly be better for the environment. (And no car removes CO2 from the atmosphere, electric or not.)
But that wasn't why I came to this thread.
Of the 1038 VW Golf sold in Norway in October, 346 were e-Golfs. They also sold 286 e-Up!
So for the Golf, 33.33% were electric, and for the Up, 87.70% were electric. Of all the cars VW is now selling in Norway, 30.66% are electric. That's pretty good!
But that wasn't why I came to this thread.
Of the 1038 VW Golf sold in Norway in October, 346 were e-Golfs. They also sold 286 e-Up!
So for the Golf, 33.33% were electric, and for the Up, 87.70% were electric. Of all the cars VW is now selling in Norway, 30.66% are electric. That's pretty good!
Yes the car won't remove CO2, I meant it as removing CO2 emissions. But I disagree that a Model S is necessarily better than a FFE/LEAF/eGolf and an ICE as far as CO2 emissions go.
If I drive 35,000 km a year in a eGolf and get ~140 Wh/km efficiency. And drive an ICE 1000 km, at 9L/100k. That total CO2 released could very well be less than 36,000 km in a Model S at 200 Wh/km.
Don't get me wrong I have an 85kW Model S. I (rather my wife) actually do use the range. It does trips 2-3 times a week minimum that an FFE/LEAF/eGolf would struggle to do the out trip. Much less return. But I bought the Model S for me (she had an ICE). And having her use the Model S, and me use a FFE I have found out that my travel is easily done with a 70 mile EV. And I drive over 25k miles a year! Sure having a long range vehicle in our household makes it much easier to own a limited range EV. There is still an option for longer days. But having ~3x the range doesn't mean it saves 3x the CO2 emissions.
And all this talk about 200 miles. It seems like a whole lot of miles for your daily driving, and not nearly enough for road trips. Personally I think ~90-100 miles (150km) is ideal for around town driving. I would almost never even come close to exceeding that. For doing a road trip I would really like about 3-4 hours of 80mph (130kph) interstate cruising with the heat on between stops. So maybe 25-35% more than the Model S. Stopping every 2 hours is a bit tedious.
Producing an ICE will release somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 tons of CO2. With an additional consumption of 60 Wh/km and an EU grid average of 443 grams of CO2 per KWh, you can drive about 192,000 km on the Model S before it has released as much CO2 as a FFE + ICE. That's before you drive a single meter with the ICE. Of course, this assumes that the CO2 released in the production of a Model S and a FFE are equal, which is probably not true. My point was anyway that it's not accurate to say a specific car is better for the enviroment than another car, if their capabilities are significantly different. An F-150 can be good for the enviroment is the alternative is a Hummer.
That's true. It also doesn't mean that it doesn't save 3x the CO2.
It isn't just the range you get from the bigger battery. You also get better performance, supercharging, significantly greater durability (probably something like 500,000-800,000 km for the 85 kWh Model S before the battery is at 70%), less reliance on unreliable charging networks, etc. But what's best for the environment is buying the least amount of car that can fulfill one's needs. If an electric bicycle does the trick, great! If you get a Model X instead of a Range Rover, great!
I think VW is the most promising traditional car maker at the moment, and will continue to do so unless Nissan suddenly comes with a 50 kWh battery, or something. It's not my impression that VW chose the battery size they did to comply with CARB regulation. Thus far they've sold quite a lot of the e-Golfs in Norway, which is quite different from the typical compliance cars. They proably chose that size because they determined that they would be able to sell a good amount at a low enough price and they probably more or less filled the space allocated for the driveline on the MQB platform.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
New video review of the e-Golf:
2015 Volkswagen e-Golf - CNET
I like those DRLs below almost as much as the MS's cat-eyes.
Waiting for a similar blue one to arrive at the VW dealership nearby tomorrow. If all goes well, we may have this in our garage by this time tomorrow!
2015 Volkswagen e-Golf - CNET
I like those DRLs below almost as much as the MS's cat-eyes.
Waiting for a similar blue one to arrive at the VW dealership nearby tomorrow. If all goes well, we may have this in our garage by this time tomorrow!
