Elio Erks Me To No End

[BADBOY]

Money for nothin' and chicks for free, oh
I want my, I want my, I want my E L I O

 

[eliothegreat]

Last I heard, EM is 81 mpg and $400 over cost. That's 3% off on the gas goal, and 5.9% over the cost target ... which despite inflation has remained constant for what is it, 6 years?

If the inflation (which I'll peg at 2% for convenience; it may be a tad higher, especially in the early years) is taken into account, the selling price would now be $7,658 -- which is 858 dollars they are NOT factoring in. So, sports fans, we have a car which SHOULD be $7,658 and, if they can't find the $400 they're over, WILL be between $6,800 and $7,200.

Just what kind of failure is that? None, in my book. And the 3% shortfall in highway mileage is trivial, considering the nearest competitor is 30mpg short of the mark, not just 3!

So quit griping about broken promises. The only promises that have been broken are production start dates, and the engine official start -- which was not Elio's problem. And, as Paul and everybody else at EM says, they're not done squeezing the lemon for that extra bit of cost and extra bit of mileage.

Give it a rest, and hope for the best.

P.S. As of yesterday, the average price for a used car in the United States was $16,800 (Edmunds.com and USA Today). I don't know what the average for 2-seaters is, but I doubt it's $6,800. So the Elio is still the deal of the century -- if you can get one!

No griping. Just reporting. If you read the posts in this thread only, you will see paul state that he is $500 off. Failure? No. But the ads continue to state $6800 and 84mpg. Deceptive advertising? Yes.

I agree that even at $7800 and 74mpg, the elio would be a great bargain. So why not change the ads to $7300 and 81mpg, so the advertising would at least be based on the projected truth?

 

[eliothegreat]

And I will post it again.....Your "statement" (IMO) in post #125 is despicable.

And you are (IMO) wrong.

 

[Bilbo B]

Wow, don't any of you work during the day?

To the question "Would I go all in right now" - No. Not right now.

I went All In for $100 last June, upped that to $1000 just before Elio cut off the $500 bonus. I got Number 8706. If I went All In for $1000 today it seems my number would be around 11,000 (sorry, haven't been tracking the numbers recently). At 4-500 cars a day, I'll get my Elio maybe a week or two sooner than someone who goes all in today. Seeing how slowly reservations are happening, knowing the level of doubt there is, I wouldn't go All In until there was going to be another cut off of the bonus program. At that point I'd try to read the tea leaves and make my decision (which is what I did last August). I realize that doesn't help Elio trumpet lots of reservations, but there's really very little gain going all in today as opposed to the risk.

 

[EZ]

what happened to the mysterious PR meeting with the engine ??

 

[JEBar]

No griping. Just reporting. If you read the posts in this thread only, you will see paul state that he is $500 off. Failure? No. But the ads continue to state $6,800 and 84mpg. Deceptive advertising? Yes.

I agree that even at $7800 and 74mpg, the elio would be a great bargain. So why not change the ads to $7300 and 81mpg, so the advertising would at least be based on the projected truth?

having folks take such info and try to spin it against the company reinforces why they may be skeptical about releasing details on a wide range of things .... giving their goals of $6800 and 84mpg and openly and repeatedly stating that they aren't there yet presents no conflict .... it shows that where they want to be and gives honest info as to where they are now ....

 

[eliothegreat]

having folks take such info and try to spin it against the company reinforces why they may be skeptical about releasing details on a wide range of things .... giving their goals of $6800 and 84mpg and openly and repeatedly stating that they aren't there yet presents no conflict .... it shows that where they want to be and gives honest info as to where they are now ....

Did you watch the video of paul from yesterday?

Starts about the nine minute mark. Can you find the point where paul stated that the $6800 and 84mpg figures were goals? I listened to the whole interview and there was never any kind of disclaimer to that effect. He did mention the the project would be $300M and the production target was the first half of 2016, but everything else seemed to be stated as actual facts, rather than goals. The store closing times, next-day delivery, 7 marshalling centers, the price, the mpg, etc. Oh, he did mention that the credit card plan was not in place, and there was no partner there. Did I miss anything else?

All of the old-timers on the forums know that nothing regarding elio is solid, but what would a person whose first contact (note the UFO connection) with elio was on that show think?

 

[JEBar]

Did you watch the video of paul from yesterday?

Starts about the nine minute mark. Can you find the point where paul stated that the $6800 and 84mpg figures were goals? I listened to the whole interview and there was never any kind of disclaimer to that effect. He did mention the the project would be $300M and the production target was the first half of 2016, but everything else seemed to be stated as actual facts, rather than goals. The store closing times, next-day delivery, 7 marshalling centers, the price, the mpg, etc. Oh, he did mention that the credit card plan was not in place, and there was no partner there. Did I miss anything else?

All of the old-timers on the forums know that nothing regarding elio is solid, but what would a person whose first contact (note the UFO connection) with elio was on that show think?

I didn't watch it, NASCAR had my attention yesterday .... I don't understand your obsession with the $6800 and 84mpg figures .... you have noted that he's said they aren't there yet but I'll say it again, you nor I nor anyone outside the company knows if they will reach those numbers .... for that matter, I have no way of knowing that Paul himself knows if they will meet or exceed those numbers .... saying they aren't there now has no validity when you try to extrapolate that it won't be true in mid 2016 ....

 

[jetpack54]

No griping. Just reporting. If you read the posts in this thread only, you will see paul state that he is $500 off. Failure? No. But the ads continue to state $6800 and 84mpg. Deceptive advertising? Yes.

I agree that even at $7800 and 74mpg, the elio would be a great bargain. So why not change the ads to $7300 and 81mpg, so the advertising would at least be based on the projected truth?

With all due respect, you seemed like a very educated person based on how you eloquently details your point. What you just can't simply grasped is that NOTHING is deceptive w/ EM's ads or claims of $6800 and 84 mpg UNTIL, I say again, UNTIL they are ready to sell with a different price and mpg! That's WHEN you come in, but not NOW because EM is still working to achieve these goals. But also understand that they have all the right to change this ads to a different price and mpg if they believe it's necessary to get this project to fruition.

 

[Ekh]

With all due respect, you seemed like a very educated person based on how you eloquently details your point. What you just can't simply grasped is that NOTHING is deceptive w/ EM's ads or claims of $6800 and 84 mpg UNTIL, I say again, UNTIL they are ready to sell with a different price and mpg! That's WHEN you come in, but not NOW because EM is still working to achieve these goals. But also understand that they have all the right to change this ads to a different price and mpg if they believe it's necessary to get this project to fruition.

What we seem to be overlooking is that Paul Elio is one of the more stubborn people on the planet, and he would sooner be broiled with a glaze of pineapple and mustard than give up his specified goals. In the end he'll compromise (so I've been told), but as far as he's concerned, we're not at the end of the process. We have just heard, for instance, that the snout of the car is being redesigned to improve the aerodynamics a bit, in search of the elusive 84mpg target. If he could legally get rid of the mirrors and go with rear view cameras only (which he can't do), I'm pretty sure he'd do it... the sensors are already designed in. He may tune the CSU slightly, enlarge the air intake, tweak the exhaust, change the tire pressure, put on some form of slick topcoat -- anything he can do to reach that goal WITHOUT pushing up the cost. Perhaps put an underbelly pan under the car (though watch out for $$ trying to do that).

This is a multivariable problem -- mpg, cost, safety, comfort, performance, reliability and quality. Imagine a bunch of lines crossing each other. Where they intersect, there's a tiny area defined by all those variables, and somewhere in that area is where the Elio will go to market. Paul is searching for the center of that tiny little spot. It's sort of like a game of whackamole -- you press one button and others pop up. You press down on the "cost" button, for instance, and the "reliability" button pops up.

For example, the engine tests that we can be pretty sure are continuing will reveal a lot about the engine's actual performance, fuel economy, and reliability. Based on that information, Paul may be able to make small changes elsewhere to optimize the design. Let's say he has 58 instead of 55 horsepower (this is possible). It might make sense in that case to change gear ratios slightly to drop the RPM at cruising speed, thus gaining some small mpg amount.

This sort of tweaking is why I'm sure Paul isn't ready to give up on 84 mpg/$6800. The stout woman hasn't yet warbled to put it politely.

Now if it starts getting towards June or July of this year, and the car is not on the numbers, he's going to need to start talking about the possibility of flexing his goals say, 2 per cent. If he doesn't start talking that way, and we get to next February with production scheduled to start in 3 months, well, then he really will have people screaming "Liar, Liar, pants on fire."

Until this point, Paul's PR runs on the "everything's fine til one day it isn't" road. This is a huge mistake -- but on the other hand, there's no point in crying wolf until you actually see one on the edge of the woods. It's a matter of timing. My hope is, that if the targets aren't going to be reached, Paul starts explaining and justifying the gaps BEFORE the car gets close to market. Engineers hate doing that, but if he doesn't, he has only to look at the current chorus of "scam, scam" to see what happens in terms of public attitudes.

OK, this is getting too long. Just realize that design tweaks are ongoing, target gaps are narrowing, and that Paul's determination to succeed drives the whole show.

One final thought -- if Paul said "to offset inflation, we're selling for $6999" he'd have $200 more per car to work with. Do you suppose he could squeak out the performance / mpg goals if he could spend some or all of that money? Definitely add the underbelly pan, for instance, enlarge the exhaust diameter a bit -- whatever it would take?