+1
Gov buying Volts, Leafs
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Tempest
I expected a post like this.
Had I made your original "estimation" of the costs, I would have expected rebuttal as well.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
$2+ million extra to go "green". They would have to keep those cars for ~ 20 years to make the payoff work.
Did you not read my post ?
They don't keep the cars for 20 years, they flip them every 18 months to 2 years, while they are still current and pretty enough to be a low mile (highish for age) used vehicle...Only things that get run into the ground are specialist vehicles requiring custom fitout, or trucks.
In the sale process, they often recover their entire purchase price, as (typically) Govts don't charge Govts sales taxes and transfer duties. When they re-sell, they are selling to consumers who are aware of the On The Road costs when new, and think they are getting a bargain.
Also, fleet discount for Govt Contract veicles is pretty cut-throat, due to the volumes, and the desire for the cars to be seen on the road (I nearly scored a job at Ford when I left university, and they really are desperate to get certain product on the road, their staff rental rates are inversely related to vehicle sales).
So Govt buys cheap, sells high (oft at a profit)...especially for a "cool"/niche vehicle.
Only qualm that I would have is tying up more money for the period between purchase and resale.
Also, companies oft include service interval, as a day of downtime requires either less customer time, or more fleet to cover it.
I expected a post like this.
Had I made your original "estimation" of the costs, I would have expected rebuttal as well.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
$2+ million extra to go "green". They would have to keep those cars for ~ 20 years to make the payoff work.
Did you not read my post ?
They don't keep the cars for 20 years, they flip them every 18 months to 2 years, while they are still current and pretty enough to be a low mile (highish for age) used vehicle...Only things that get run into the ground are specialist vehicles requiring custom fitout, or trucks.
In the sale process, they often recover their entire purchase price, as (typically) Govts don't charge Govts sales taxes and transfer duties. When they re-sell, they are selling to consumers who are aware of the On The Road costs when new, and think they are getting a bargain.
Also, fleet discount for Govt Contract veicles is pretty cut-throat, due to the volumes, and the desire for the cars to be seen on the road (I nearly scored a job at Ford when I left university, and they really are desperate to get certain product on the road, their staff rental rates are inversely related to vehicle sales).
So Govt buys cheap, sells high (oft at a profit)...especially for a "cool"/niche vehicle.
Only qualm that I would have is tying up more money for the period between purchase and resale.
Also, companies oft include service interval, as a day of downtime requires either less customer time, or more fleet to cover it.
Shannow, that may be how the fleets work where you are, but I can vouch for the fact that our government fleet, nor any other similar entity around us flips cars every 18 months to 2 years. We'd be crucified by the public if we did, and we catch enough flak for the fleet we do have.
As an example, the assessors drive ex-sheriff Crown Vics and investigator taurus sedans. The Vics are the "best" of the units being rotated out of sheriff duty and typically have 140,000+ miles on them at that time. The remainder of our fleet is driven hard, and typically not retired until they are in an accident, parts are tough to find, or they flat out become unreliable or unsafe. The only fleets that see constant turnover are the Sheriff (Public Safety) and our snowplow fleet. Even that has had deferred purchases the last two years, and if there is a truck that takes a beating, a snowplow rig ranks right up there.
Most other entities around us are similar, though not all.
That being said, I disagree with the OP's premise for the most part, as the economics that were presented were faulty at best.
As an example, the assessors drive ex-sheriff Crown Vics and investigator taurus sedans. The Vics are the "best" of the units being rotated out of sheriff duty and typically have 140,000+ miles on them at that time. The remainder of our fleet is driven hard, and typically not retired until they are in an accident, parts are tough to find, or they flat out become unreliable or unsafe. The only fleets that see constant turnover are the Sheriff (Public Safety) and our snowplow fleet. Even that has had deferred purchases the last two years, and if there is a truck that takes a beating, a snowplow rig ranks right up there.
Most other entities around us are similar, though not all.
That being said, I disagree with the OP's premise for the most part, as the economics that were presented were faulty at best.
Might be different over there for sure. Here, local councils are entitled to the Govt fleet rates, just the same as state Govt and the feds...our Police are state funded. Highway Patrol are G-8s and Ford Falcon XR-8.
Looks like for the (your) feds, 4 to 6 years seems to be the numbers, with around 40-60k miles on them.
Down here, there were some local councils making money intentionally by buying AT Govt contract rate, and selling used, virtually straight away.
Rules were changed to 18 months, and some nominal mileage to at least fulfill the intent, meaning that there are quite a few older vehicles around waiting for their mileage to be up.
http://autoauctions.gsa.gov/autoauctions/home.seam
Similarly, I'm not advocating either the mass purchase of volts, nor the practices of Oz Govt entities.
Looks like for the (your) feds, 4 to 6 years seems to be the numbers, with around 40-60k miles on them.
Down here, there were some local councils making money intentionally by buying AT Govt contract rate, and selling used, virtually straight away.
Rules were changed to 18 months, and some nominal mileage to at least fulfill the intent, meaning that there are quite a few older vehicles around waiting for their mileage to be up.
http://autoauctions.gsa.gov/autoauctions/home.seam
Similarly, I'm not advocating either the mass purchase of volts, nor the practices of Oz Govt entities.
Originally Posted By: antonmnster
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....
Typically bogus right wing numbers and "logic".
Here's some elementary school accounting: the first number is a capital cost amount. And it's a total guess on the part of the OP. The second number is an operational cost savings. This represents a savings over what would have been spent on a different fleet.
Conflating the two would result in an "F" in any high school English or debate class, but seems perfectly acceptable with the Fox "News" set for some reason.
Only if you expect the government to completely shed its fleet of automobiles over time would this fly.
This is also why I generally avoid debates with those who have challenged intellectual honesty. If you hate the government so much, move to Somalia. You'd love it.
Notice that I say "every year", which clearly indicates that it is an operational cost. This is also clear in the story which I linked to. I am conflating nothing, yet you question my intellectual honesty?
And to add to the info:
Quote:
The GSA said the charging stations will cost a total of $500,000 and be in place by early next year, when the electric cars are scheduled for delivery.
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2011/05/detroit_news_says_federal_gove.html
Quote:
That being said, I disagree with the OP's premise for the most part, as the economics that were presented were faulty at best.
In what way?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....
Typically bogus right wing numbers and "logic".
Here's some elementary school accounting: the first number is a capital cost amount. And it's a total guess on the part of the OP. The second number is an operational cost savings. This represents a savings over what would have been spent on a different fleet.
Conflating the two would result in an "F" in any high school English or debate class, but seems perfectly acceptable with the Fox "News" set for some reason.
Only if you expect the government to completely shed its fleet of automobiles over time would this fly.
This is also why I generally avoid debates with those who have challenged intellectual honesty. If you hate the government so much, move to Somalia. You'd love it.
Notice that I say "every year", which clearly indicates that it is an operational cost. This is also clear in the story which I linked to. I am conflating nothing, yet you question my intellectual honesty?
And to add to the info:
Quote:
The GSA said the charging stations will cost a total of $500,000 and be in place by early next year, when the electric cars are scheduled for delivery.
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2011/05/detroit_news_says_federal_gove.html
Quote:
That being said, I disagree with the OP's premise for the most part, as the economics that were presented were faulty at best.
In what way?
Last edited:
Is anybody surprised by this? Obama said we will have a million EVs by 2015 and one way or another we will, guess what other country's regime operated that way, or any other REGIME for that matter?
But, what am I saying?
. Let's stop questioning our leaders and save the planet, I'm on board this train headed for a broken bridge
But, what am I saying?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....
Rough and overly simplistic analysis is usually the tool to prove a simplistic argument.
To every complex situation there is always a simple answer and it's usually wrong.
Try to do a financial analysis like Tempest's and you'll be looking for a new job within 5 minutes.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....
Rough and overly simplistic analysis is usually the tool to prove a simplistic argument.
To every complex situation there is always a simple answer and it's usually wrong.
Try to do a financial analysis like Tempest's and you'll be looking for a new job within 5 minutes.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Is anybody surprised by this? Obama said we will have a million EVs by 2015 and one way or another we will, guess what other country's regime operated that way, or any other REGIME for that matter?
But, what am I saying?
. Let's stop questioning our leaders and save the planet, I'm on board this train headed for a broken bridge
Yes because no other country decides what it's government will drive. You know, we shouldn't let the police departments and cities decide what police cars to use either, we should make them all drive Ford fiestas and Chevy Aveos since they are cheap and ya know, they don't need anything really fast or sturdy after all. Look at it this way- they are now driving volts and stuff, same price as the old Tahoes, Suburbans etc that they were driving before, and getting better gas mileage. Your problem is where exactly?
Is anybody surprised by this? Obama said we will have a million EVs by 2015 and one way or another we will, guess what other country's regime operated that way, or any other REGIME for that matter?
But, what am I saying?
Yes because no other country decides what it's government will drive. You know, we shouldn't let the police departments and cities decide what police cars to use either, we should make them all drive Ford fiestas and Chevy Aveos since they are cheap and ya know, they don't need anything really fast or sturdy after all. Look at it this way- they are now driving volts and stuff, same price as the old Tahoes, Suburbans etc that they were driving before, and getting better gas mileage. Your problem is where exactly?
Last edited:
Quote:
Your problem is where exactly?
That Obama pulled that one million of EVs on the road number out of his behind and is directing government agencies to buy these cars to help meet his goal.
Since the market is not ready for EVs, based on their sales, Obama is trying to force it through, but you, as most Americans will never see a problem with that.
Your problem is where exactly?
That Obama pulled that one million of EVs on the road number out of his behind and is directing government agencies to buy these cars to help meet his goal.
Since the market is not ready for EVs, based on their sales, Obama is trying to force it through, but you, as most Americans will never see a problem with that.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Quote:
Your problem is where exactly?
That Obama pulled that one million of EVs on the road number out of his behind and is directing government agencies to buy these cars to help meet his goal.
Since the market is not ready for EVs, based on their sales, Obama is trying to force it through, but you, as most Americans will never see a problem with that.
I don't think the market isn't ready- I think the market isn't ready for the volt at it's current price. If it was down into the low-mid 20s, I have a feeling it would be one of the hottest selling cars. I know plenty of people who'd love to get one, but the commong problem is that it's just too expensive. And let's be honest, no matter who the president is, he/she would probably have put out a "goal", and if they didn't, they would be dumb.
But again let's be honest, they aren't buying that many. A few hundred EVs.... Goal of a million. Not a huge effect there really.
Quote:
Your problem is where exactly?
That Obama pulled that one million of EVs on the road number out of his behind and is directing government agencies to buy these cars to help meet his goal.
Since the market is not ready for EVs, based on their sales, Obama is trying to force it through, but you, as most Americans will never see a problem with that.
I don't think the market isn't ready- I think the market isn't ready for the volt at it's current price. If it was down into the low-mid 20s, I have a feeling it would be one of the hottest selling cars. I know plenty of people who'd love to get one, but the commong problem is that it's just too expensive. And let's be honest, no matter who the president is, he/she would probably have put out a "goal", and if they didn't, they would be dumb.
But again let's be honest, they aren't buying that many. A few hundred EVs.... Goal of a million. Not a huge effect there really.
Quote:
You know, we shouldn't let the police departments and cities decide what police cars to use either, we should make them all drive Ford fiestas and Chevy Aveos since they are cheap and ya know, they don't need anything really fast or sturdy after all. Look at it this way- they are now driving volts and stuff, same price as the old Tahoes, Suburbans etc that they were driving before, and getting better gas mileage.
Right, so they "need" fast and sturdy vehicles, you know Suburbans and Tahoes, but all of the sudden the Volt and Leaf are enough, which are equivalent to Aveo and Fiesta, but over twice the price? And you see nothing wrong with it?
Keep watching Discovery Channel
You know, we shouldn't let the police departments and cities decide what police cars to use either, we should make them all drive Ford fiestas and Chevy Aveos since they are cheap and ya know, they don't need anything really fast or sturdy after all. Look at it this way- they are now driving volts and stuff, same price as the old Tahoes, Suburbans etc that they were driving before, and getting better gas mileage.
Right, so they "need" fast and sturdy vehicles, you know Suburbans and Tahoes, but all of the sudden the Volt and Leaf are enough, which are equivalent to Aveo and Fiesta, but over twice the price? And you see nothing wrong with it?
Keep watching Discovery Channel
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Quote:
You know, we shouldn't let the police departments and cities decide what police cars to use either, we should make them all drive Ford fiestas and Chevy Aveos since they are cheap and ya know, they don't need anything really fast or sturdy after all. Look at it this way- they are now driving volts and stuff, same price as the old Tahoes, Suburbans etc that they were driving before, and getting better gas mileage.
Right, so they "need" fast and sturdy vehicles, you know Suburbans and Tahoes, but all of the sudden the Volt and Leaf are enough, which are equivalent to Aveo and Fiesta, but over twice the price? And you see nothing wrong with it?
Keep watching Discovery Channel
Wait, what? No there are two statements there. The government agencies are buying Tahoes and stuff because they can, not because they needed them.
Police departments on the other hand, do need faster sturdier vehicles. Can you see police departments driving the Volt or leaf? Laughable. I was making a point that maybe we shouldn't try to interfere with the types of vehicles the government buys, within reason. I mean, if they were buying ferraris and Porsches with official budget money... Then there's a problem, but an insignificant number of EVs and REHs? No problem there.
Quote:
You know, we shouldn't let the police departments and cities decide what police cars to use either, we should make them all drive Ford fiestas and Chevy Aveos since they are cheap and ya know, they don't need anything really fast or sturdy after all. Look at it this way- they are now driving volts and stuff, same price as the old Tahoes, Suburbans etc that they were driving before, and getting better gas mileage.
Right, so they "need" fast and sturdy vehicles, you know Suburbans and Tahoes, but all of the sudden the Volt and Leaf are enough, which are equivalent to Aveo and Fiesta, but over twice the price? And you see nothing wrong with it?
Keep watching Discovery Channel
Wait, what? No there are two statements there. The government agencies are buying Tahoes and stuff because they can, not because they needed them.
Police departments on the other hand, do need faster sturdier vehicles. Can you see police departments driving the Volt or leaf? Laughable. I was making a point that maybe we shouldn't try to interfere with the types of vehicles the government buys, within reason. I mean, if they were buying ferraris and Porsches with official budget money... Then there's a problem, but an insignificant number of EVs and REHs? No problem there.
- Status
Similar threads
