ZAP adds solar option to electric Xebra Xero

I'd stay far away from anything connected to ZAP. Wired magazine recently had quite an unflattering portrayal of the company:

Hype Machine: Searching for ZAP's Fleet of No-Show Green Cars

 

Zap tends to make wildly inflated claims for its vehicles. I love my Xebra SD because it burns no gas at all. Prius drivers and hypermilers, eat your hearts out! But you cannot trust anything Zap says, any of its claims, or any of its promises.

In fact, that solar panel will provide enough energy to drive an extra mile or two if you keep it in full sunlight all day long. Elsewhere, Zap does not even claim a mileage gain, but merely says that the trickle charge can help prevent sulfation and premature battery failure from spending all day at half-charge while you are at work. Lead batteries hate to sit half-charged.

The folks I know of who use the solar panel do so not for any real benefit, but only to make a publicity statement about solar and electric cars.

And BTW, the Zap Zero is nothing but a Zap Xebra PK with the solar panel mounted over the pickup bed. It's been available for some time. Zap, for all its dishonesty, actually delivers the Xebra, unlike GM and its fairy-tale Volt.

If your need for speed and distance are limited, and if you want to drive electric without spending big bucks on a conversion or a Tesla, and if you don't want to wait 5 or 10 years for one of the big boys to finally offer an EV, the Xebra is one of the very few options available, and beats the NEVs for speed, and with an after-market battery pack it beats them for distance as well.

It's a crummy car, but it can be made acceptable with a little work (and it's easy to work on) and then you have truly environmentally-conscious transportation. For all its flaws, I like driving my Xebra much more than driving my Prius. But I would not dream of putting solar panels on it.

 

Absolute statements are not helpful (Like "Stay away from Zap at all costs").

My Zap works fine and has since it was new a year ago. But I don't expect it to be useful for more than short trips. If it is more than 10 miles away, I use my Prius. Someday there will be EVs which will take the place of our ICE vehicles. That has not happened yet. The combination of my Zap and my Prius "fuel" cost is one fifth per mile of my wife's Volvo which averages a respectable 23 mpg.

What are your priorities? Mine include being part of the future, even if it is not yet perfect.

 

They are if they are true. Your statement is an absolute statement, so by your logic it's not useful. However, in this case I assume it's a bit of hyperbole since there must be many things worse far worse than Zap.

Tom

 

The point is that while the Xebra is not a well-made car, it can be an acceptable vehicle for certain uses. The Prius burns gas. The Xebra does not. I drive my Xebra for trips up to 35 miles. Over 35 miles I must use my Prius. I've put about 3,000 miles on my Xebra. That's about 75 gallons of gas I did not burn.

Yes, the Xebra is poor quality. But it has gotten me where I needed to go, never left me stranded, and it has saved 75 gallons of gas, and still counting, as I drive it nearly every day. 27 days out of 30, it's the only car I need.

I do not recommend it to everyone. But "Stay away from Zap at all costs," is the kind of extremist statement, founded in emotion, not reason, that people like malorn say about the Prius. It would make more sense to say: "Before buying a Xebra, research its real limitations and shortcomings to make sure it can meet your needs."

With a Prius you cut your gas consumption in half compared to a conventional car. With a Xebra you burn no gas at all. Are you willing to accept a little inconvenience to be "green"? Or do you just talk green because your car burns less gas than a Camry?

 

I would hope that research includes reading the Wired article on the history of the company and how its proprietors run it.

 

Definitely. Disreputable company. Poor quality product. But right now just about the only choice if you really care about pollution, carbon, global warming, or the funding of terrorism via petroleum. Note that most of the funding for al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabian oil revenues. And the efficiency of large-scale electric generating plants means that even run on coal-fired electricity, a Xebra puts out less carbon than a Prius. Run on natural gas, that electricity is cleaner, and run on hydroelectric, like mine, there's no carbon. And coal, gas, and hydro send no money to the Saudis.

And for all its disreputable operation, Zap is doing what GM refuses to do: Actually sell an EV now, that you can drive today. I'm coming up on a year of driving mine. It won't work for everybody. But if even just 1% of the people for whom it would work bought one and drove it, the big companies would see that there is a market, and they'd make much better EVs.

People who care can make a difference by driving an EV today. Yes, it's poor quality. Yes, it needs repairs from time to time. Being a pioneer means taking some chances and accepting some inconvenience. If Americans refuse to give an inch on convenience, then we're going to hell in a hand basket.

People choose to live far from work because they have a car and cheap gas. But then they think that they need a car and cheap gas because they "have to" drive a long ways to work. It's all choices. But people who insist on sticking with those choices are now owned by the oil companies. And in five years from now, $3.50 gas is going to seem like the golden age.

The Zap Xebra, for all its faults, is one way to start dragging the country in the other direction. As soon as something better is available, I'll upgrade. But that might be two years from now, or five, or who knows?

 

Yeah, it's just too bad a company is using what appears to be shoddy business practices specifically designed to profit off the good intentions of those who are willing to 'do the right thing' (present company included).

There are a lot of people who truly want to help save the environment, and ZAP seems to be taking advantage of that good will to their own, nefarious ends. In the long run, patronizing a 'bad' green business would seem to be encouraging that sort of behavior and would likely be detrimental to other, more honorable 'green' businesses, particularly those with aspirations in the EV market.

 

Agreed.

But on the other hand, shoddy business practices are the norm in a monopoly-capitalist economy. Other companies profit off the bad intentions of consumers: The desire to have it all and have it now, spending money they don't have for things that damage their nation and their world. Which are worse: banks that make unsound loans to people who won't be able to pay them back, or a company that builds shoddy cars that let you drive all around town without burning any gas? Which is worse: Exxon or Zap? As long as you drive a gasoline car, even a Prius, you're giving your money to Exxon and its cousins. I'd rather give money to Zap than to Exxon.

Maybe. Or maybe it would show other, more respectable companies, that there is a market: If several thousand people are willing to buy a Xebra, as bad as it is, just to kick the gasoline habit, perhaps a hundred thousand would buy a well-made EV.

I really don't see how my buying a car from the only company in this particular niche will dissuade other companies from competing with a better product. Yes, Zap is disreputable. But right now, it's the only company in its niche. (Though if a little less range and speed will suffice, you can buy a Zenn. Good car, reputable company.)