WSJ: California Spurs Electric Cars (re: compliance cars)

HOV lanes should be HOV lanes. I believe all the exceptions were allowed because people wouldn't or couldn't change. Those people didn't like seeing empty lanes & complained. Politicians caved fearing their own unemployment.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree on the warranty. If it is a quality product there is no warranty expense.

If you want to experience the true cost of a manufacturer's warranty then build (or contract) a plug in or EV conversion. Stuff the car with lead acid batteries if you are willing to swap them out every 1 to 2 years. Or spend more, cut the weight & volume by upgrading to lithium ion.

If it wasn't for government intervention there wouldn't be any production EVs, plugins or hybrids. Read The Prius that Shook the World. The Big 3 were dragged kicking & screaming toward hybrids & did all they could in Congress to scuttle the program. Why? Because all they wanted to make were SUV. Toyota wanted to join the program but was rebuffed. Scared crapless that a production car was going to come of it they designed the Prius. BTW, the program got a total of 5 vehicles produced. One each from the Big 3 (the legal minimum) & 2 by government agencies (1 unofficially).

 

Toyota and GM specifically talked about waranty expense on phevs. Nissan has an 8 instead of a 10 year waranty. You can bet that that expense is passed onto - taxpayers. That is right, california requires the waranty, then gives car owners a rebate to help cover it. Those in other states simply buy fewer phevs.

It has slowed innovation. Why not require a 20 year warranty on an ice car if they are reliable? How about requiring 10 years on a FCV? Well that wouldn't follow carb politics.

This is not a manufacturer deciding to warrant the car this is CARB requiring it, and slowing innovation. Yes PHEVs might have taken off much sooner, but who is going to warrant a lead acid battery for 10 years.

I am talking about that sucking sound from CARB slowing innovation.

Can you tell me that tesla would not exist if CARB didn't require a ludicrously long 10 year waranty? That is fully rediculous. We can have good regulation or bad. The ZEV has been the shifting sand that costs much more than if it was run by people that actually wanted clean air and plug-ins - instead of power and more power and more taxpayer money.

What would be the matter if CARB allowed conversion companies to make phevs in california, and allowed manufacturers to set a reasonable waranty? Would it cause an earthquake if a phev were allowed to polute more at start up, but totally pollution during the year was lower? You are arguing that stupid rules make sesnse because, I'm not sure why. Do you think it would be so bad if a prius phv had a 7 year waranty instead of 10 and was $2000 less expensive?

 

Folks whined that the US did not get a 7 seat Prius v. This thread illustrates why. Toyota did not feel it could offer a CARB warranty on the LiIon battery, so we do without.

 

Correct it is just my best guess, it was my best guess then and still is.

(I still want a battery in BOTH places, to make a Prius v PHV)

 

What happens when a part fails inside warranty? The manufacturer pays to replace it.
What happens when a part fails outside of warranty? The owner pays to replace it.
In which case is the TCO lower? Well it's potentially lower when the manufacturer pays since they specify labor, but basically it makes bugger all difference.

But what does a warranty do? It gives confidence to the customer by reducing their risk. (As you may have noticed with all the people on this site reassuring people with the "there's an 8/100 or 10/150 warranty).

Given that there's a MANDATE that is trying to force manufacturers to do something they don't really care about doing (stop poisoning people) and to get people buying the new technology consumer confidence in the technology is extremely important.

The end result is that the price of the car includes the cost of batteries for up to 10 years/150,000 miles based on the expectations of the manufacturer. Oh my god, it's an evil conspiracy to prevent sales of these vehicles! If only they could sell them with piece of shit chinese batteries they'd dominate the market!

 

I'm not sure I understand. If you force a manufacturer to provide a waranty longer than the suspected time of the parts, they will stick with old tech and slow innovation. They will also make that car relatively expensive to cover waranty costs.

Hyundai provides a much longer waranty on its cars than toyota, but it is tryin to buy market share. The carb rules are what gave the japanese a monopoly on batteries and slowed phev advancement.

What happens when the parts start failing. Well we have an example. Honda changes the software and your mpg drops. Then there are law suits.

No objection to a car maker giving a warnaty in a competitive enviroment. I do object to a state freezing technology to get more money for politicians. This hurts the consumers and only helps those companies in the lead, hurting all others.

huh. This was never about consumer protection. This was about favoring fuel cell cars above hybrids and phevs. Look at the history of the law.

CARB lets 30 year old cars pollute 1000x more than a hybrid with a dead traction battery. They could say cars must pass an emissions test. But that is not how they wrote the law. The law is written to make hybrids less competitive than ice cars and fcv.

Talk to people that bought honda hybrids

The end result is fewer hybrids on the road including phevs and a slowing of adoption.

Why would chinese batteries dominate. Toyota and and the Japanese government along with the peoples republic of california have put in place a monopoly for expensive Japanese batteries. This is against the interests of the US and Chinese citizens. It is an anti competive measure to favor some huge japanese corporations. NOte some of these huge corporations - Toyota and Honda contribute heavily to california politicians to keep smaller companies from competing.

Only now with some federal government subsidies for lithium is that monopoly being broken with lithium. Panasonic and Nissan still control a large percentage of the batteries.

 

Does California also collect a "recovery fee" for the electronics in a hybrid?

California Electronic Waste Recycling Act | Californians Against Waste