Volvo will stop making gas-only cars in 2019

[jserraglio]

Hybrids and electrics to be buyers' only choices.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/05/autos/v ... index.html

[jbuck919]

I own a 2014 Hyundai Elantra which I keep in perfect shape with low mileage. Also, it gets about 38 mpg. The only reason to buy a new car within the next several years is a significant upgrade in technology. Out of curiosity I checked recently, and the relatively new Hyundai hybrid model is very significantly more expensive than the current-year version of what I have. I sense that the price differential is across manufacturers and models, and won't be upgrading until that situation changes or I know I can make up the difference in fuel cost over a period of, say, five years. Congrats to Volvo if they're found a formula to keep their customer base without selling gas-only cars.

[jserraglio]

I'm holding out for Level 5 Autonomous Vehicles. No steering wheel. No pedals.

[jbuck919]

I'm holding out for Level 5 Autonomous Vehicles. No steering wheel. No pedals.

Remember when videophones were experimented with in the 1960s? Now think of how recent Skype is, and I think I have made my point. (And Skype is still not a video telephone, as the warning not to use it for a 911 emergency reminds us.)

[lennygoran]

I own a 2014 Hyundai Elantra which I keep in perfect shape with low mileage.

John you're in better shape than us-we have a 2011 and where we live our mileage is npt that low-we do keep it in pretty good shape-the other car is a 1995 Saturn which still runs good! Regards, Len

[John F]

My brother has a hybrid car and it's uncanny, the silence when he accelerates. Of course such cars are more expsnsive than standard ones, they have two motors and a large array of state-of-the-art batteries. I doubt my brother will ever save enough money on gas to make up the difference. It's for the sake of the environment.

[Belle]

I'm skeptical about driver-less cars. What will the petrol heads do when there is no revving to be done and burning rubber to be left on the roads?

I've had Volvos and not found them to be anything out of the ordinary, except on safety - where they were always excellent. In fact, with one we had in 1994 the mechanic drove it back to our place after a scheduled service and was smashed up the rear end, when turning into our driveway, by an SUV with a bullbar travelling over 80kph. It pushed him into the path of an oncoming car, where he hit it on the side front (fortunately for the other driver.) The mechanic sustained serious injuries (mostly glass) and the police said if he'd been in any other car but a Volvo he'd have died. The car crushed like a concertina, the engine folded down to the ground and he survived, but he had to give up work because of his soft-tissue injuries. I often feel we should enquire about him but we did specifically tell him that day to pull over before attempting to turn into the property because it was dangerous; he took no notice.

I'm sure whatever Volvo comes up with will appeal to the market. I just wish their cars were lighter and more elegantly designed.

[LSAmadeus]

About time! But I think it's too little too late. We should be using alternative fuels by now but the demand for oil is driving and driven by greed.

[John F]

My stepmother drove a Volvo, and one day she was broadsided by a driver who ran a red light. Hit the car on the driver's side, but she got away with a few bruises. If Volvos were lighter, she could have been killed.

[Belle]

They are very safe cars, or they were; I think the rest have caught up now. I was wrong with my dates, thinking about it, as it was 2001 when that happened and not 1994. I remember driving home from work and seeing the ambulances and police in front of my driveway and the highway had come to a standstill. We lived on a farm then and I just about died of fright wondering what had happened to my family! Suffice it to say, our next car was a Volvo after that experience!! In 2011 we went through the Volvo museum in Gothenberg (spelling?) in Sweden and that was fascinating. They made aircraft too!!

Regarding petrol-driven cars and possible alternatives; I think there's a great need to convince the public on this because lots of people are wedded to speed and power in this country. Our neighbour is a fun-loving and pleasant 59y/o but he loves 'toys' and has just bought, inter alia, a 7litre sedan with a V8 engine; just this minute he has roared up our 50km limit street - a steep hill - at full throttle, easily at 80kph plus by the time he reached the top of the hill. The man over the road is the same; he has a gutless Audi A4 with a loud after-market exhaust which roars up our hill every time he goes out. None of these "bogans" (as we call them in Australia) will ever go for quiet, more sedate battery-powered cars. I think it's juvenile, yes, but there's a mindset in Australia which will be hard to change. And battery power is dubious with our huge country only sparsely populated on the seaboard, with very long distances between some cities.

Even in Vienna I remember being annoyed by loud cars driven at high speeds, particularly when we were outside the Staatsoper for their "Live am Platz" operas.

I wonder why, as a society, we need this additional noise disruption which does impact on people's amenity. In a sense, because of lack of policing, we are being held hostage by road 'hoons' who just want more noise and more speed. Imagine convincing them with the less-alluring battery-powered car!!!

[John F]

Batteries have advanced to the point that they can provide nearly as much mileage as a gasoline engine. But it's not practical to go all-electric until there are enough charging stations, possibly as many as there are gas stations now. In Japan I've heard there are 20,000 of them; in the US, possibly none. Hybrid is the obvious practical compromise; a car can run on gas when need be, and when it does, it's recharging the batteries as well. No doubt there are parts of the world where this isn't going to happen, or not for a long time - Australia, Siberia, sub-Saharan Africa.

As for self-driving cars, lots of obstacles. If your Toyota self-drives into an accident, who is legally liable, you or Toyota? Features to prevent accidents, like self-braking, yes.

[jserraglio]

As for self-driving cars, lots of obstacles. If your Toyota self-drives into an accident, who is legally liable, you or Toyota?

Maybe neither. No-fault accident insurance could easily cover any autonomous auto. The robotic car would probably get in a lot fewer accidents. On the rare occasions it did, unlike human drivers, it wouldn't whine, "Not my fault, officer, she hit me!"

But by then companies like Uber may be disrupting our paradigm of traditional car ownership. For short hops around town, you might prefer to summon a driverless vehicle on your smart phone. Eventually even for cross-country travel: curl up and sleep in the back seat, wake up and cruise around on Hilton Head Island, play a round of golf, take a side trip to Savannah, shoot a selfie with Johnny Mercer in Ellis Square and then pay for your trip electronically with the de facto world currency, the Chinese yuan.

[John F]

I just take the subway or bus, or both.

No-fault accident insurance could easily cover any autonomous auto.

How so? The victims of the accident will sue for damages and win; the question is who will pay. Is it the "driver," whose negligence in controlling his vehicle allowed it to self-drive into the accident? Is it the car-maker, whose product was arguably defective or no accident would have occurred? As far as I know, the law has never had to deal with this and is not designed to. I'd favor holding the maker liable, just as when any other part of the car fails catastrophically and causes injury or death. But I suppose the maker would try to hide behind a disclaimer.

[jserraglio]

I just take the subway or bus, or both.

Right now I just walk or cycle, or both.

How is the possibility of being sued and losing an obstacle to anything? If that were the case, how many deals would our dear president have ever made with anybody, or anybody with him? Autonomous-vehicle manufacturers should be liable for proven defects in their products. But if I own the vehicle, and it is not defective, I should be liable for what it does. For harm done, I pay. Sounds reasonable to me. But how different is that from what we have now? I have to buy liability insurance now, I would have to buy it then.

The assumption that robot-drivers are more dangerous than human ones is questionable. Surely, they will be imperfect, but how many will drive drunk, drugged, while texting or asleep, how many will weave & cut off traffic, how many will do 95 in a 70 zone? How many radar patrol cars might be able to be re-assigned to other policing duties?

Any robo-car granted license for street use is far less likely to cause an accident than a human would, and the ones that did occur would likely be of the less serious fender-bender variety. That's where no-fault insurance comes in handy, when the incident is ambiguous, and a number of states already have it in some form. But even at-fault insurance for serious crashes involving personal injury would be cheaper because less likely to happen. I'd be happy to undertake whatever risk is involved because my insurance company would be stupid to charge me as a driver for personal injury coverage more than it would charge me assisted by a reliable street-tested robot.

If in my lifetime the ultimate Level-5 vehicle with no steering wheel or pedals ever appears, I will be first in line to buy it.

[John F]

From what you say, it looks like you haven't understood the issue as I've stated it, so I'll let it drop.