I provided a salient example for that, the EV costs around $31 K and the ICE would cost around $23 K, currently. Then you look at operating costs. No brake pad wear, no fluid to change, much cheaper miles per cent. Over time, it can pay out. I think it's not there yet.The problem for most of us is that the payoff calculation is influenced heavily by your home/family/work situation.
As an example of the above, when I was at tOSU I owned an old but paid for pickup that got about 14mpg. My plan was to drive it for a while after graduation and save up for a new car. However, when I graduated I realized that with the amount of driving I would be doing I could pretty much make my car payment with my gas savings.I had a similar situation a few years back. At the time, I was driving an older F-250 and it was costing me about $500/month in fuel just to get to work and back. While I used it quite a bit outside of work, it just didn't make sense to spend that amount of money just to drive to the office on a daily basis. I bought a slightly used Toyota Camry that got considerably better mileage and only cost about $100/month in gas. The payment on the Camry was about $200 and the insurance was not very much. Therefore, I acquired a car and still came out ahead just driving it to work and back.
Per epa at today's prices my truck would have cost me about $750/mo in fuel (roughly 3k/mo, almost all highway) while the 5spd manual Chevy Cavalier that I bought would cost me about $275/mo in fuel. The $475/mo difference is more than enough to make the payment on the new car.
I'd consider an EV today using roughly the same logic.
I had a similar situation a few years back. At the time, I was driving an older F-250 and it was costing me about $500/month in fuel just to get to work and back. While I used it quite a bit outside of work, it just didn't make sense to spend that amount of money just to drive to the office on a daily basis. I bought a slightly used Toyota Camry that got considerably better mileage and only cost about $100/month in gas. The payment on the Camry was about $200 and the insurance was not very much. Therefore, I acquired a car and still came out ahead just driving it to work and back.I knew a guy a couple years ago that did the same thing. He had a big Chrysler 300 with the big engine... Car guy who also owned a dragster.
That was until my son took it out one night and totaled it. Then it was back to driving the truck for a couple of months. Since then, I have pretty much worked at home and now cost of driving an F-250 to work is nothing. ;)
You'd need to drive 12,000 miles a year to consider an EV near equal, I think, much of that around town. The numbers still don't work if you consider taking that $8 K difference and investing it in something safe. Each thousand miles in "fuel" costs around $28 versus around $80. Figure $50 savings each 1,000 miles, maybe $600 a year, for ten years, add in no oil changes and brake pads etc. Meh.Let's IMAGINE that in 2030, or so, the EV costs only $2,000 more than a comparable ICE car. Say you drive 12,000 miles a year. The EV saves you $600 a year at current gas prices. The EV would have better acceleration and cornering (I'm talking lower end cars.)
And in ten years, your range will have degraded.
Never. No interest. Hope my V8s and V6s are available as long as I can dr or.I've said this in the past, but in 10 years or so, I could change my mind.
Hearing the roar is really nice.It is. By 2050, having a gas engine car will be like having a boat - a luxury item.
gas will be cheaper than wind & solarAnd gas stations will be far and few between.
When considering TCO, how much does it cost to replace the battery bank on an EV, and how often does it need to be performed?A lot and barely ever.
A lot and barely ever.That's good. I do remember hearing issues about some of those early models, but had no idea what the current state might be.
Some of the early Nissan Leaf models had major battery problems because they didn't build in adequate cooling, as I understand it.
But as far as current BEVs, your battery pack should probably be expected to last as long or longer than the engine in an ICEV. Hundreds of thousands of miles.
And gas stations will be far and few between.similar to charging stations today
Never. No interest. Hope my V8s and V6s are available as long as I can dr or.Fifteen-years out internal combustion engines will not likely be available. It will be hydrogen or EV. I hope you live a long life. In 20-years if you like newer cars, you will live in antiquity and find it increasingly difficult to find fuel. I suspect EV is a temporary bridge vehicle to hydrogen which will be more dominant 30-years out.
Fifteen-years out internal combustion engines will not likely be available. It will be hydrogen or EV. I hope you live a long life. In 20-years if you like newer cars, you will live in antiquity and find it increasingly difficult to find fuel. I suspect EV is a temporary bridge vehicle to hydrogen which will be more dominant 30-years out.I don't know about those predictions. I see a lot of posts about how EV's are going to become the standard and drive gas and diesel out of the market. And maybe it makes sense when you live in a nice suburban area with plenty of amenities that are readily available.
I dare one of you to locate my post 30-years hence in 2051. I will probably never know.
Fifteen-years out internal combustion engines will not likely be available. It will be hydrogen or EV. I hope you live a long life. In 20-years if you like newer cars, you will live in antiquity and find it increasingly difficult to find fuel. I suspect EV is a temporary bridge vehicle to hydrogen which will be more dominant 30-years out.not 15 years, maybe 30 or 40
I dare one of you to locate my post 30-years hence in 2051. I will probably never know.
(https://i.imgur.com/Qw0h1Ql.jpg)I didn't know @Hawkinole (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=25) was a dirty hippie? :57:
I'm certain ETrons will be much more popular in California than IowaI suspect Audi as a brand is more popular in California than Iowa... I recall when I was in college, any time you into a rural area of Indiana, seeing any foreign car was a bit rare, much less Euro brands.
How quickly a new tech expands is largely affected by how tightly the winners of the status quo hold onto today. They scratch and claw and resist the new tech until they set it up so that they can be along for the ride.Just can’t help yourself can you?
Or sometimes the new tech is quite ready to replace what is already in place.I'm assuming you said "isn't", in which case, all it would need is a little boost from the billion-dollar companies already in power, resisting the paradigm shift.
How quickly a new tech expands is largely affected by how tightly the winners of the status quo hold onto today. They scratch and claw and resist the new tech until they set it up so that they can be along for the ride.This is what I call narrative-based thinking.
This is what I call narrative-based thinking.Sure, but they dictate the pace. They develop a concept car that won't be produced for over a decade. All of that is smoke and mirrors as they progress as slowly as the publicly-traded monies tell them to.
Someone asks: "Why do we need an upstart like Tesla to come in and prove EVs are viable when we have a bunch of entrenched automakers who could already do it? They must be resisting the technology!"
No, they're not. GM was an early adopter of EVs with the original EV-1. In fact, if I remember correctly they were one of the first ones to show the "skateboard" concept of a BEV, where the floor of the car was batteries and you had 4 electric motors, each at one wheel, which allows for a lot more freedom in the design of the cabin relative to having to wedge an engine up front. Toyota was producing hybrids long before Tesla existed. GM went down the plug-in hybrid path with the Volt and Toyota has gone that direction as well. Nissan had the Leaf before Tesla existed, and Chevy has had the Bolt for a couple of years now. Toyota has been the trailblazer on fuel cell tech with their Mirai. It's not like they've all been sitting on their hands.
Conventional automakers have nothing to fear from EVs, honestly. It's not like the oil & gas industries where other energy sources completely supplant them. It's them changing the technology that propels their vehicles from an internal combustion engine to a battery-fed electric motor. In fact, much of the technology is simpler for them than ICEV.
The truth is that I'm going to guess that every major automaker has been in their boardrooms asking the question "How much R&D should we be spending on EVs so that we'll be ready for the switch when it happens?" Judging by all the recent announcements of automakers jumping in, they've been planning for a long time for this.
Tesla got first-mover advantage in this race, but it's still unclear whether they'll be able to scale and compete with the big boys once the big boys really start rolling. Tesla has not been profitable until recently, and today their profitability is STILL not based on car sales--it's the sale of regulatory credits that has moved them from losing money to actually showing an entire year of profitability. Once other automakers are producing their own EVs, they won't need to buy regulatory credits from Tesla. Can Tesla keep its advantage then? Unclear...
The big automakers haven't jumped into the BEV race because they didn't believe they could make money at it yet, not because they were "keeping alternative technologies down". Now that it's reaching a level of maturity, they're all starting to jump right in.
Sure, but they dictate the pace. They develop a concept car that won't be produced for over a decade. All of that is smoke and mirrors as they progress as slowly as the publicly-traded monies tell them to.:confuse:
Of course they've been planning for a long time.....biding their time. I think it's naive to suggest they're not squeezing every last penny out of the internal-combustion engine before it becomes a relic. They're deliberately walking the line of slow-playing EVs while careful not to fall far behind any major progress upstarts make.
It's obvious, isn't it? I really don't think I'm screaming 'conspiracy theory' here. The major automakers (and basically every major industry in the US) advance at the speed of the dollar made, not as quickly as they could or should.
We'd all be in EVs today if GM and Ford decided it'd make them an extra dollar back in 1993.
:confuse:The answer is in the question: with things being how they are, I'm a multi-billion dollar corporation. EVs are an unknown. Timeline (ultimately) unknown. Costs unknown. And like our conversations here, we don't know the system in place in lieu of gas stations, etc.
Let me ask you this... Let's say you're a multi-billion dollar operation like Ford. What's the incentive to slow-play EV?
Supply chain for batteriesTesla is still partnered with Panasonic, a legit battery giant, on their battery technology:
that could possibly be the reason Tesla is out in front at the moment
is there any company in the world today or small group of companies that can produce enough batteries to put 10% of the new vehicles sold next year on the road?
I've been asking about battery production capacity for a long time and nobody seems to really want to talk about it. That may also be a scale issue because to make batteries, you need to mine lots of lithium, and lesser amounts of other harder to find metals... However I can't get a clear answer either way in all of my research on how easily that will scale.yes, I'm simply wondering out loud, if GM or Ford decided to jump "all in" and plan to build 50% of their new vehicles next year as EVs, would it even be possible to produce enough batteries.
Right. That's why they're incentivized to be in control and dictate pace. Dictate pace, you hit your marks along the way.
Or they bail. They must illustrate a detailed plan for earnings growth integrated with the required investments in technology.
The answer is in the question: with things being how they are, I'm a multi-billion dollar corporation. EVs are an unknown. Timeline (ultimately) unknown. Costs unknown. And like our conversations here, we don't know the system in place in lieu of gas stations, etc.Make more money. Beat your competitors to the technology. Reward your shareholders and see your stock price go up. Good PR.
I became a billion-dollar outfit with the known. I'm on top today. Why would I be in any hurry to get to tomorrow?
Right. That's why they're incentivized to be in control and dictate pace. Dictate pace, you hit your marks along the way.You can only dictate your own pace, not the rest of the market's.
You don't become a massive, bloated hog of a success story by being hopeful and acting risky when it comes to these things, guys. You dictate and influence all you can.
Just can’t help yourself can you?lol
Of course your very tainted opinion on this is making several false assumptions. We will ignore the class warfare you seem to implant in everything, and go straight to your assumption that new tech is by definition “ good” or better, and Anyone who doesn’t see it that way ( not one of the lemmings in your famous “ masses” ) is wrong.
herein lies the problem....I don’t give a shit what you think about me buying a gas powered car. It has all the latest tech that is “ better” by the way in respect to safety and convenience.
Make more money. Beat your competitors to the technology. Reward your shareholders and see your stock price go up. Good PR.This would be true IF they weren't all working in lockstep. These guys don't make company decisions, they play golf and make INDUSTRY decisions. Because it's good for the group.
We'd all be in EVs today if GM and Ford decided it'd make them an extra dollar back in 1993.In 1993 .... do you really believe this is true?
In 1993 .... do you really believe this is true?Who was working on
EVs are still pushing technology TODAY almost 30 years later with obvious limitations. The tech is still developing to make them a rational choice. GM and Ford couldn't have changed that. The GM EV from 2000 was a very very limited vehicle because the tech did not exist.
You can only dictate your own pace, not the rest of the market's.Your wasting your time with this guy. He is beyond clueless about how businesses work, succeed or fail and has never been near a Boardroom.
If you choose a pace that's too risky, you lose. If you choose a pace that's too cautious, you lose. Because you can't control the rest of the market.
Your wasting your time with this guy. He is beyond clueless about how businesses work, succeed or fail and has never been near a Boardroom.I find the attitude to be interesting, and wonder on what it is based. I worked for a large company and frankly did not enjoy it, but it was work. There were a lot of issues. But the company was trying to earn money. They often were stupid about it.
Like the ignorant masses he so often criticizes- he forms and spouts opinions about things he has a knowledge deficit in. As you said, narrative thinking. All big companies and those who run them are EEVViIILL! Poor guy.
I find the attitude to be interesting, and wonder on what it is based. I worked for a large company and frankly did not enjoy it, but it was work. There were a lot of issues. But the company was trying to earn money. They often were stupid about it.It’s the old Schtick.
lol
I'm basically suggesting major automakers are looking out for themselves and you react like I shot your dog.
You're weird.
This would be true IF they weren't all working in lockstep. These guys don't make company decisions, they play golf and make INDUSTRY decisions. Because it's good for the group.Obviously they're looking out for themselves and their bottom line. They're supposed to do that. They ain't non-profits!
Geesh, yeah, I recall the magnet ads for your fuel line. Holy cow. What other complete fake things have been foisted on the unwary?Homeopathy.
Geesh, yeah, I recall the magnet ads for your fuel line. Holy cow. What other complete fake things have been foisted on the unwary?one of my favs are the copper-fit line of health elastic braces for your elbows and knees and other body parts
one of my favs are the copper-fit line of health elastic braces for your elbows and knees and other body partsI bought up at least 100 copper-fit masks. They have a neck string so they can just dangle when they're not covering your face! They're amazing!
Interesting. I have no clue on what evidence or logic that is based beyond some notion corporations are evil.I say they always act in the best interest of their shareholders.
Your wasting your time with this guy. He is beyond clueless about how businesses work, succeed or fail and has never been near a Boardroom.Another person taking my ho-hum description of major corporations' behaviors and goals, and calling it evil.
Like the ignorant masses he so often criticizes- he forms and spouts opinions about things he has a knowledge deficit in. As you said, narrative thinking. All big companies and those who run them are EEVViIILL! Poor guy.
This is another issue I have with automakers.
I think you should research Occam's Razor--the simplest explanation is that the tech is a lot harder than you think it is, which is why it's only available in luxury cars or range-limited cars today. Not because of nefarious CEOs trying to squash it.
And so it's automatically a bad idea? You'd have plenty of options, still.Okay, OAM... You've convinced me. Having all these different options and tiers is just way too confusing, so it would make much more sense to simply have ONE model that is the best model with all the options.
Ford's best SUV, Chevy's best SUV, on and and on.
.
Tiers of vehicles is how they extract every dollar from our hands. I want a car, I like this car, but it's a little too expensive. Oh, that's okay, here, we offer it with manual windows and fewer safety options. Now you can barely afford it. Let me get the paperwork started....
.
The best possible car in each class from each company would be plenty of options, drag down prices, and everyone had a decent ride. Evil, right?
why have a best possible from each companyUsing mother Russia as a boogeyman doesn't work, guys. It's 2021.
why not just the best possible?
no need for multiple greedy companies
Okay, OAM... You've convinced me. Having all these different options and tiers is just way too confusing, so it would make much more sense to simply have ONE model that is the best model with all the options.You tore a groin muscle with that stretch.
As a corollary, I'm sure you'd agree that the best version of Whoa Nellie is the version that contains ALL the teams you've painstakingly created. It's just so damn confusing for a buyer to have to pick and choose which teams he wants, and which teams he doesn't want. And then you, as an evil businessman, tell the customer that if they want more teams than the standard offering they have to PAY MORE?! And I'm sure it's a lot of work for you to tailor every single outgoing order to what the individual customer wants. It would help the customer so much to simply have all the teams.
So I assume you're going to follow your own advice and only offer the best version of Whoa Nellie, and stop all this silly customization?
Using mother Russia as a boogeyman doesn't work, guys. It's 2021.how about using China?
You tore a groin muscle with that stretch.Ahh, so it's different when it's something you know about... But you are such an expert on automotive marketing and supply chains that you can confidently state that the way the automakers are doing it is stupid.
how about using China?
Autonomous self-driving electrical vehicles to begin delivering pizzas in the Houston area:another good reason to stay out of H-Town
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/No-need-to-tip-the-driver-Nuro-Domino-s-16093640.php
another good reason to stay out of H-Town
It's probably the Internal Combustion Engine lobby keeping EV's down. ;)big oil
It's probably the Internal Combustion Engine lobby keeping EV's down. ;)It seems many here are oblivious to the powers that be here in the US and their "evil" (their words, not mine) deeds they do to stay in power (ie- richer than wealthy) - something I find entirely inevitable.
It seems many here are oblivious to the powers that be here in the US and their "evil" (their words, not mine) deeds they do to stay in power (ie- richer than wealthy) - something I find entirely inevitable.You seem to think you know more about how these companies run their businesses than they do. Maybe they're evil oligarch's. Maybe they're not.
And that same crowd that turns a blind eye to it acts like the failures of socialism as inevitable.
There's a connection there, somewhere. As if it's acceptable in the name of selfishness (if unfair, then use 'for one's best interest') and unacceptable in the name of selflessness (if unfair, then use 'for other's best interests).
My game is what it is. It's one game. You play it. The directions are the same for everyone. What teams you play as are akin to the color of the car you choose to drive.Why should automakers supply different colors of cars, anyway? That's just more inventory and more paint suppliers to manage... If you're going all-out, let's just standardize cars on one color. Probably bright hazard orange would be good, so they all stand out--it's a safety feature!
It doesn't work. Not a sick burn. Not anything, really. But by all means, continue, lol.
Are you married to the auto industry or something?Auto makers will build what they believe that they can sell to the customer. And based on the number of different models and classes of vehicles, there is a wide range of customer preferences in the market.
.
I must be simply overestimating the decreased costs of only using a limited set of parts instead of an expansive variety of parts. And at least part of the increased pricing of automatic this vs manual that is more than the actual increased cost of making it. It's the convenience, no? If every car I make uses the same parts, I can certainly acquire them in larger quantities, driving the price down.
None of this matters anyway, because it'll never happen. You guys seem to get really bent over my "why nots" and "what ifs".
I don't know how many classes of passenger vehicle there are.....let's say 10. Is it really so horrific to suggest maybe we only need 6? That those 6 would cost less than they do now, as 6 of the ten? That's evil?
You don't think there are 10 classes so that you can have one in mind just to be upsold to the next one, extracting X-number of dollars from you? You don't think the auto industry is bloated? Ask them yourself, as Ford said they're just eliminating all non-Mustang cars. I guess one of their VPs reads this forum, huh?
| Allied-Signal Incorporated | Eastman Kodak Company | Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company |
| Aluminum Company of America | Exxon Corporation | Philip Morris Companies Inc. |
| American Express Company | General Electric Company | The Procter & Gamble Company |
| AT&T Corporation † (formerly American Telephone and Telegraph Company) | General Motors Corporation | Sears Roebuck & Company |
| Bethlehem Steel Corporation | Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company | Texaco Incorporated |
| The Boeing Company | International Business Machines Corporation | Union Carbide Corporation |
| Caterpillar Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_Inc.) ↑ | International Paper Company | United Technologies Corporation |
| Chevron Corporation | J.P. Morgan & Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase) ↑ | The Walt Disney Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) ↑ |
| The Coca-Cola Company | McDonald's Corporation | Westinghouse Electric Corporation |
| E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company | Merck & Co., Inc. | F. W. Woolworth Company |
| 3M Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M) | The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs) | Nike, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.) |
| American Express Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express) | The Home Depot, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Home_Depot) | The Procter & Gamble Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procter_%26_Gamble) |
| Amgen Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amgen_Inc.) ↑ | Honeywell International Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell) ↑ | salesforce.com, inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salesforce) ↑ |
| Apple Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.) | Intel Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel) | The Travelers Companies, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Travelers_Companies) |
| The Boeing Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing) | International Business Machines Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM) | UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group) |
| Caterpillar Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_Inc.) | Johnson & Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson) | Verizon Communications Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications) |
| Chevron Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation) | JPMorgan Chase & Co. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase) | Visa Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Inc.) |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems) | McDonald's Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's) | Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walgreens_Boots_Alliance) |
| The Coca-Cola Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company) | Merck & Co., Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merck_%26_Co.) | Walmart Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart) |
| Dow Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Inc.) | Microsoft Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft) | The Walt Disney Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) |
Are you married to the auto industry or something?No.
I must be simply overestimating the decreased costs of only using a limited set of parts instead of an expansive variety of parts. And at least part of the increased pricing of automatic this vs manual that is more than the actual increased cost of making it. It's the convenience, no? If every car I make uses the same parts, I can certainly acquire them in larger quantities, driving the price down.Yes, you absolutely are overestimating the decreased costs of only using a limited set of parts.
None of this matters anyway, because it'll never happen. You guys seem to get really bent over my "why nots" and "what ifs".
I don't know how many classes of passenger vehicle there are.....let's say 10. Is it really so horrific to suggest maybe we only need 6? That those 6 would cost less than they do now, as 6 of the ten? That's evil?
You don't think there are 10 classes so that you can have one in mind just to be upsold to the next one, extracting X-number of dollars from you? You don't think the auto industry is bloated? Ask them yourself, as Ford said they're just eliminating all non-Mustang cars. I guess one of their VPs reads this forum, huh?Ford responded to market demand--the market wants a lot more CUVs and a lot fewer sedans. They now have 7 different CUVs/SUVs:
As usual this thread went so far off topic it's unreal.Specifically, how? I'm seeing a lot of cautious optimism from most folks here. What is wrong about that?
First off I think everybody is thinking about electric cars all wrong.
The one in the truck, which we still own, is a 6.2L detroit diesel not the 5.7L converted gas engine.Lucky for you! That converted gas engine was an absolute piece of junk! A friend's dad had one and he still hasn't forgiven GM. It was just a small block Chevy V8 with really high compression pistons and glow plugs.
No doubt the bolt is fast. The interior is surprisingly spacious given its size. The seats are horrid. Almost laughingly bad. The dash and panels are not the normal look and materials, they look like some kind of weird styrofoam with a diamond pattern. Takes some getting used to.Exterior styling and interior fit&finish is something that Chevy has been unable to do well for a long time now. I don't know how they sell so many damn cars when "ugly & looks cheap" seem to be the design goals.
I just look at that Bolt and Chevy thinks its "futuristic styling" is going to appeal?Ha! This!!! 😂😂
If you have to call something futuristic, it's probably just f'ing ugly.
I haven't been inside a Tesla, so can't speak to its interior fit & finish. Not a huge fan of the Model 3 that looks like a platypus. The Model S is a fine-looking car. Not a huge fan of the Model X or Y. And the CYBRTRK just looks stupid. You'd have to pay me to drive that hideous thing. I hope that gets changed to something that looks like it wasn't designed by a caffeine-fueled 7 year old boy or a coke'd up Elon Musk.
The SUV is also capable of DC fast charging, which Chevy says can provide up to 95 miles of range in just 30 minutes.If this is the new normal, it won't become normal. This would drive me insane.
This is decent, if you need to take a trip somewhere. Say you want to drive 500 miles a day, you get 220 comfortably off the first charge and stop for lunch and recharge 30 minutes and add maybe 90 miles, so you have 120 miles of range. Stop again in 1.5 hours for half and hour and add another 90 miles range. You likely need one more stop to finish the trip.
It's certainly going to take longer than driving in ICE.
If this is the new normal, it won't become normal. This would drive me insane.Agree, that definitely wouldn't work for me, and pretty much anyone else I know. It also wouldn't work for most fleet or any long-haul driving.
Bear in mind that this is balanced against the idea that you never "fill up" your vehicle during normal driving. Never have to stop for gas on your morning commute.
How many times a year do you drive >250 miles in one go? Twice a year?
How bad would it be to simply rent a gas car for a week for your road trip / vacation if you can't bear the idea of stopping more often to recharge?
I mentioned earlier that in car choice there's a question of the daily needs and the exception. For most people it's dumb to buy a big F-150 if you're only going to haul stuff three times a year; it's better to buy a smaller and more fuel-efficient car for your daily driving and rent a truck those three times a year that you need it. We talked in this thread about people with gas-guzzlers and long commutes who bought an econo-box for their daily commute for the gas savings but kept their preferred car for around-town driving and enjoyment.
Often we think we need a car that covers EVERY one of our needs, no matter how remote. But that thinking can limit you and put you in a vehicle that's sub-optimal 98% of the time in order to make the other 2% work out.
If an EV works 98% of the time, maybe you should think of alternate solutions for the other 2%, not buy a gas car based on that 2%.
I agree with your overall point, I just think you're underestimating the number of people for which the "98% EV" actually works out that way.No I'm not...
No I'm not...Well okay, if you're just making vague general hand-waving arguments in true devil's advocate/engineering fashion... ;)
Because I didn't estimate that number of people at all :57:
I'm saying that there are people out there who think an EV won't work for them based on the 1 time per year that it won't work for them, and for many of them it might be superior the entire rest of the year. I don't know how many of those people exist... But I'm sure there are some.
Then there's the other group--multi-vehicle families where it might make perfect sense to have one EV and one gas vehicle. I bought my car as the family hauler, and as such it has the capacity to also be the road trip car even if we have all 5 of us and the dog. If my wife had wanted an EV when she bought the Lexus, it would have worked out just fine because that would cover every one of her daily uses of the car and on the rare occasion it didn't, that's what the second car is for.
I think EVs, as the market starts to mature, will prove to be useful for a lot of people who today may not think they're useful. In some cases that might require out-of-the-box thinking about how to handle long trips, but for many people those trips are pretty rare anyway. I'm saying some people should think about handling the exceptions as, well, exceptions.
It's like a truck. About 3 times a year I really miss my old pickup truck. That doesn't mean it makes sense for a pickup truck to be my daily driver for those 3 times a year.
oh it's the future for sure. The only question is how far into the futureSame here.
in 30 years I probably won't care too much
Before around 1960, domestic autos were one size, basically, full size, though you could get two doors, four doors, and wagons, and they started with 2-3 trim levels. Americans like choice. VW introduced the Beetle and it had some success, so GM countered with their rear engine car, which didn't do that well (Nader did a hatch it job on it, largely out of ignorance).come on man, we know they were unsafe at any speed
Then, as there was consumer demand for smaller cars, GM et al. started providing a Chevelle and a Chevy II, so you had three sizes to fit your needs. I think personally they went overboard, and of course ended up killed off Olds and Pontiac. I think they should have killed off Buick and kept Pontiac, but whatever.
Nobody but GM tried to build an EV in the '90s, and the GM-1 demonstrated that neither the demand nor the technology was available. Tesla worked on both items of course and has done an amazing job in my view. The standard automakers appear to be catching up some, but they still sell at a loss whatever they sell.
We will hit a point in X years where half the new car sales in the US are EVs (not trucks). My guess is 2030-2035. It hinges a lot on battery tech and cost.
Why should automakers supply different colors of cars, anyway? That's just more inventory and more paint suppliers to manage... If you're going all-out, let's just standardize cars on one color. Probably bright hazard orange would be good, so they all stand out--it's a safety feature!I think there is an old quote by Henry Ford. You can have any color you want as long as it's black
Nah, the number and selection of teams you play is very much down to personal preference, how much money you want to spend, and what it's worth to you.
You can't disagree that the best version of the game is a full set of all the teams, can you? After all, that gives every consumer what they want, and more.
But you're not willing to supply that at a price people would willingly pay because the value for those extra teams, while it's positive for nearly every person looking to purchase, isn't worth the expense you'd need to charge to make selling the game worth it.
THAT is why there are different tiers, models, options packages, etc for cars. Different people have different preferences, and if you make them all buy the fully-loaded version, most of them will say "eh, I can't afford that and it's got a whole bunch of stuff I don't care about."
Funny you say 30 years.......don't forget in Back to the Future, they got flying cars from 1985 to 2015. And hoverboards. And deja vu.back in the 70's, when I was in jr high....... teachers proclaimed that the world's oil would be used up and we'd have to find alternate engines for our automobiles by the year 2000
back in the 70's, when I was in jr high....... teachers proclaimed that the world's oil would be used up and we'd have to find alternate engines for our automobiles by the year 2000
Back in the '70's, teachers scared the shit out of me, talking about the looming ice age.derned liberal educators ;)
You guys ever look up the tallest statues of the world?Certainly could be part of it.
The US is not big on massive statues. I wonder if that's due to our conservative christianhood not wanting a bunch of potential idols all over the place.
I don't know why it has to be "30 years in the future" or even 15. Think about the smart phone era. We're not even 15 years into it (if you draw the line at 2007's first iPhone). Things can change fast, especially if market forces drive them. Smart phones didn't become ubiquitous because they're cheaper to buy or cheaper to own (they cost much more to buy and much more to operate because you have to have data). They were just better, and people who didn't need one before suddenly and almost universally need one after.There are some differences though.
EV's will see mass adoption because they will be better. They will be cheaper to operate, more powerful, and just better. Right now, as stated in an earlier post, EV's are about an $8K premium over a comparable gas car. Not sure the delta on trucks, but with battery prices dropping look for that to close as well. Eventually there will come a day when they are on-par, and then maybe it will be even cheaper to buy the EV. Once EV is the cheaper choice I think most folks will adjust their habits and go EV, with or without gov't intervention.
There are some differences though.
- A smartphone is called such because it has significantly more capability than other phones. EVs are simply a different powertrain. That's it. It might be better, but the powertrain itself isn't a game-changer.
- There are technical advantages to a BEV, but there is significantly more legacy infrastructure for ICEV. With smartphones or other tech products we often talk about a "killer app" driving adoption--something awesome that you can do with the new tech that is impossible or difficult with the old. For a BEV, that's home-based charging. Nobody can refuel at home, but they can recharge. So instead of spending 10 minutes a week at a gas station, your car is ready to go every morning and you have to do nothing other than plug it in at night. But that requires infrastructure. It's fine for people with garages who own their homes, but does a renter with only a carport or a homeowner in an older area with only on-street parking get to take advantage? If not, what's the *real* benefit to EV?
- Some of us on here are the types who want to own a car for a decade. But a lot of Americans aren't. Many lease their cars, turn them in for something new every three years, and maintenance is covered during that period. For those people, the payback even if the difference is an $8K premium won't ever be made up. Many in this country lease cars because they can't afford to finance that same car--minimum lease price for a Lexus RX350 right now is less than half monthly than what I pay to finance a certified pre-owned RX350. I'm guessing there are TONS of people driving a Lexus (or BMW, or Merc, or Acura, or Audi) on the roads right now who can't afford to buy their car. How many of those who lease because they can't afford to buy also don't have the disposable income to drop $1K on installation of a home level 2 charger--if they even own?
- The amount of disruption necessary to mine enough lithium and other metals in order to produce enough batteries for all those cars is a big question. You're talking projects with huge capital expenditures, which will be undertaken by companies who won't do it if the costs are coming down too quickly. There's a supply/demand balance that will occur that IMHO will keep prices from reaching parity as soon as some folks might think.
I think EVs are going to increase like crazy over the next 15 or 30 years, but I think you're underestimating the switching costs at a societal level. it's not going to suddenly be 90% of new car sales in 15 years IMHO. If we get to 30-50% in 15 years I think that'll be a huge change.
but I think you're underestimating the switching costs at a societal level. it's not going to suddenly be 90% of new car sales in 15 years IMHO. If we get to 30-50% in 15 years I think that'll be a huge change.It will if the decision-makers want it to. It's all up to them.
It will if the decision-makers want it to. It's all up to them.Decision-makers are still subject to the laws of economics.
Decision-makers are still subject to the laws of economics.The decison-makers are the decision-makers because the influence the economics.
Those who make decisions contrary, don't often get to remain decision-makers all that long.
The decison-makers are the decision-makers because the influence the economics.Eh. I usually find the successful "decision-makers" to be the ones who figure out where the economics are going, craft legislation that goes the same way, and then take credit for something that would have happened without their input like it was all their doing.
I thought the Mustang had kind of fallen back to Camaro-level and the Vette was above and beyond.Well, there are some high end Mustangs currently that are quite potent, I would not compare them with the 'Vette. The fastest car around the 'Ring is a Camaro.
I owned two minivans, their engines were out of passenger cars, nothing remotely special about them.What time frame were your minivans, CD? I think if you're talking about 20 years ago, minivans back then had pretty paltry pickup.
Some of the "leap off the line" feature is simply a result of gearing, not torque.
EVs do "leap off the line" impressively though. I think that is one thing owners like about them. I could almost see buying a Bolt for $32 K, but not this Mustang for $65 K.
I'm a Chevy guy, so I might not ever own a Mustang, but if I do it will have 2 doors and look like a StangThe wife likes them, we had a couple convertibles as rental cars, the last with the 2.3 L "ecoboost" and ten speed transmission, it drove poorly in my view.
All engines today are relatively powerful as compared with 1990 or so. But there is nothing special about minivan engines, they are all out of passenger cars.Oh, of course.
Idk if it's still true, but you could have taken a mini-van engine and popped it into a small car back in the 90s, and you've got yourself a hot rod. My mom's Nissan Quest booked it when I was behind the wheel! It had real torque, it would leap off the line!He could have meant taking a 2020 minivan engine and putting it in a 1990 Nissan I suppose. Doesn't make much sense to me.
What time frame were your minivans, CD? I think if you're talking about 20 years ago, minivans back then had pretty paltry pickup.
~2012 I bought a Honda Odyssey, and that had plenty of power.
I think that's more of what OAM is referring to--modern engines in even a minivan are way more powerful than typical passenger car engines of 20-30 years ago.
Heck, I had a "sporty" car in the late 90s--89 Ford Probe GT. 2.0L I-4 Turbo. I think it was 145 hp and 170 ft-lb of torque. Later in the 90s they moved to a 2.5L NA V6, and that made a whopping 164 hp.
A 2021 Honda Odyssey makes 280 hp out of 3.5L and would probably get better gas mileage to boot.
| [th]Car Name[/th] [th]0-60 MPH[/th] [th]Standing 1/4-mile[/th] [th]Braking (70 - 0 MPH)[/th] [th]Braking (60 - 0 MPH)[/th] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[th]2021 Honda Accord[/th]
|
How the hell did you fit into that Probe. My friend has one a d I recall it sucked for those of us north of 6foot.Seat all the way back, reclined enough so my head wasn't in the roof. Luckily I had arms long enough to still reach the steering wheel and stick shift.
He could have meant taking a 2020 minivan engine and putting it in a 1990 Nissan I suppose. Doesn't make much sense to me.A minivan engine back then compared to a shitty car engine back then.
Fifteen-years out internal combustion engines will not likely be available. It will be hydrogen or EV. I hope you live a long life. In 20-years if you like newer cars, you will live in antiquity and find it increasingly difficult to find fuel. I suspect EV is a temporary bridge vehicle to hydrogen which will be more dominant 30-years out.Quote from: FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=21547.msg329508#msg329508) 4/13/2021
I dare one of you to locate my post 30-years hence in 2051. I will probably never know.
WSJ article:plus the emissions of the lifetime of the car.........
Before it rolls off the assembly line, an electric Tesla Model 3 has generated 65% more emissions than a gas-powered Toyota RAV4 due to the environmental costs of building it. What happens next to flip the balance?
plus the emissions of the lifetime of the car.........And the emissions of all the electricity generated to power the EV, assuming it isn't 100% solar or other clean energy...
WSJ article:Was that the WSJ op-ed page or somewhere else in the paper?
Before it rolls off the assembly line, an electric Tesla Model 3 has generated 65% more emissions than a gas-powered Toyota RAV4 due to the environmental costs of building it. What happens next to flip the balance?
Vogtle3 is supposed to go on line later this year.That plant has been quite the clusterpuck.
I think that's more of what OAM is referring to--modern engines in even a minivan are way more powerful than typical passenger car engines of 20-30 years ago.Back when I was a teen (late 80's, early 90's) I was big into Corvettes. At that time I could quote all kinds of Vette stats and specs and pretty much tell you the year of almost any Vette up until they stopped making annual appearance changes just at a glance.
Heck, I had a "sporty" car in the late 90s--89 Ford Probe GT. 2.0L I-4 Turbo. I think it was 145 hp and 170 ft-lb of torque. Later in the 90s they moved to a 2.5L NA V6, and that made a whopping 164 hp.
A 2021 Honda Odyssey makes 280 hp out of 3.5L and would probably get better gas mileage to boot.
Complete History of the Chevy Corvette: From C1 to C8 (caranddriver.com) (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g22035705/fully-vetted-the-visual-history-of-the-chevrolet-corvette/?utm_source=facebook_dda&utm_medium=cpm&utm_campaign=dda_fb_cd_d_i_g22035705&fbclid=IwAR0PdjrRrdTVXUtVkJCf0gQ_fjisEwfOmvv1ECc5yFFJk9EmuJ-R-XHOXEU&slide=20)
interesting, includes some 0-60 times, which back in the day would be pressed to beat my GTI by much, if any.
Chevrolet skips model year 1983 and releases the fourth-generation Corvette as a 1984 model (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15141822/1984-chevrolet-corvette-c4-archived-road-test/). The sports car is redesigned from the ground up and welcomes additional ground clearance but a lower center of gravity. A 205-hp 350-cubic-inch V-8 is the only engine offered and mates to either a four-speed automatic transmission or Chevrolet's four-plus-three manual gearbox, which offers an available overdrive for gears two, three, and four. We find the automatic car is capable of scooting the low-slung coupe to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 15.1 seconds at 91 mph. In spite of our love for manual transmissions, we call the self-shifting gearbox "quite a capable tool for generating performance statistics."
I had a poster of the '84 Corvette on my wall for a couple of years.as did I
perhaps next to Farrah( ^ ) ( ^ )
The 1970s and 1980s were a sad time for performance figures though. Even hot cars would be a thing if they could reach 60 in under ten seconds, which is abysmalI've often wondered how this will eventually impact the collectors market.
as did I
perhaps next to Farrah
( ^ ) ( ^ )
That iconic poster was printed in my hometown. I've often wondered how this will eventually impact the collectors market.
.
And the emissions of all the electricity generated to power the EV, assuming it isn't 100% solar or other clean energy...We are at a bit of an advantage in Iowa over the rest of the USA in that our power grid is 40% wind power, in addition we have some solar, and some hydroelectric. Our only nuclear power plant was closed recently. In Iowa EV emissions are fairly low, but so far we have few Teslas, and few Chevy Bolts. If your area still generates electricity through coal, EV autos are not so good with emissions.
Was that the WSJ op-ed page or somewhere else in the paper?
Based on just that line, I wonder if it was an ideologically-motivated author.
So will the Vettes of say 1973-1988 ever gain significant collector value?cars of the mid-70s thru the 80s sucked
Per cargurus, a 1984 Vette is worth $2,500-$7,000 today. For comparison a 1964 Vette is worth at least 4x that.
Love seeing Corvette Clubs get together, they are quite prolific. One cool byproduct of living in Indy, mass respect and interest in automobiles. Lots of cool shows, fairs and festivals. To say nothing of all the cool testing they do at IMS. This is always the best month or two of the year with classics on the road following winter and getting into May in Indy.I'm the same way but with Mustang Clubs. I really can't get enough of seeing them.
It may not be Pebble Beach, Amelia or some of the other high profile shows but there's not much you won't see in any given year.
I'm not a classic car nut but a friend had one back in the day it had some cajones.I liked it even though I was a GM guy
I was never a huge fan of the Mustang Mach 1
classic car clubs gathering and cruising and showing off the iron is always good, even MoparsYeah the classics are fun to dream about. Not at all practical of course.
a few years ago I started attending the "Show & shine" and other car shows in the area, was gonna try to buy something cool.
Then I decided I'd rather have something I could drive 5,000 miles a year and take to Lincoln or Texas.
So, I gave up on the 60's and early 70's and turned towards 90's Vettes. Still looking. They are expensive
There used to be car shows on many weekends at a park near us. Some of them were really impressive, some were virtual unknown types. I enjoyed walking around when the weather was nice.In 1995 I saw a Jeep Cherokee drive through downtown Paris with a surfboard on its roof rack. Talk about looking out of place...
I went to one very informal "show" (more of a meeting of sports car owners) in France, I had no idea what most of the models were, 1960s Peugots and whatnot. There was one Vette there, which looked, um, out of place.
Might be paywalled, but I was able to access this on mobile this morning:I'm interested but it was behind the paywall for me.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4e075b8-7289-4756-9bfe-60bf50f0cf66
80s Mustangs were hideous. But they're collectable now because they had that 5.0 and could really move (for the time). But to abandon the familiar body design for that crap....ugh.Really 1973 was the end of the first era of Mustangs. After that, they introduced the "Mustang II" which looked pretty much like the Ford Pinto. It wasn't until 1979 that they switched to the Fox body that you find hideous, which was the standard platform through 1993.
Love seeing Corvette Clubs get together, they are quite prolific. One cool byproduct of living in Indy, mass respect and interest in automobiles. Lots of cool shows, fairs and festivals. To say nothing of all the cool testing they do at IMS. This is always the best month or two of the year with classics on the road following winter and getting into May in Indy.One of the benefits of living in SoCal is that I see a lot of pretty crazy cars on the road.
It may not be Pebble Beach, Amelia or some of the other high profile shows but there's not much you won't see in any given year.
Those early-mid 70s weren't even a blip on the radar, which you explained why, lol. But my mind couldn't wrap around going from the 60s design to the Foxbody.....I didn't see the convoluted evolution, just the stark contrast of awesome to awful.Yeah the Fox body was definitely a huge departure from the original mid 60s styling, and I can totally understand why you don't like them. And you're not alone, tons of people disliked them.
The 93/94 was a huge step in the right direction, and the further redesign in 05 was great, too.
Husker RED with Blackshirt accents is prettyHer current middle school colors are red and black, I'm gonna go with that.
better a Husker than a Red RaiderAs UT has become more and more difficult to get into, a lot more college candidates are finding they must settle for lesser schools like Texas Tech and Texas A&M.
send them up north to a Yankee Big Ten Universityoutta state tuition can be a killer. Unless youse guys give them some full ride schollies.
#1 was certainly high on my list circa early 90's. I always like the LX Mustang of the era a little better for some reason.As the owner of a 1998 Camaro Z28 Convertible I obviously disagree with this. Mine looks like this:
The 80's/early 90's Camaro did not age well at all IMO and the mid 90's to mid '00's aged worse.
I have to admit that I loved the '93-02 Camaro when they first came out. I loved the earlier ones like you stated, before they changed the head lights.To me, that era of Camaro always looked a little weird. Like an elongated Geo Storm.
Now when I see them I think that they did not age well at all. I really don't care for them at all, but I supposed if I found a great deal on a convertible or similar nice looking one I might would buy.
Does the interior have those ridiculously large bubble buttons/knobs? Man, those were really strange, even for the era.
still looks much better than a similar year MustangAs I said before, I didn't love the Mustangs of that era either-- but still, I disagree, I don't think the Camaro looks better. About the same I guess.
Ah ok.think of it as the Texas Longhorns are a brand
I've never really understood the brand identity thing. I've owned Ford, Chevy, MOPAR, Honda, Toyota, Jeep.
They all had strengths and weaknesses but were basically the same. Honda was the most reliable, the Toyota was the biggest POS I've ever owned, but I suppose it might have just been a lemon.
Regardless, I've never seen anything from any specific brand that makes me overly loyal to it, over the others.
think of it as the Texas Longhorns are a brandOh I understand that people do this.
it's exactly like that
I don't have any brand loyalty... But somehow I've had a Ford Escort, Probe, Ranger, and now a Flex. The only car I've bought for myself that isn't a Ford is the Jeep.This, I COMPLETELY understand. I've never been a pickup truck guy, and certainly not specifically a Ford guy despite my longtime love of Mustangs. But when I was searching for my next vehicle, the F150 Supercrew with the twin turbo ecoboost and max towing package, was the best fit for my needs. If any auto maker still made a 3/4 ton SUV then that's what I would have ended up with, but they don't.
Somehow Ford just happens to have the right vehicle for me at the time...
I just realized I've gone from owning as my car; Chevy, Ford, Mazda, Subaru, Audi presently. I've liked all of them, but clearly doesn't equate to brand loyalty.Wait, so you're telling me your Audi doesn't sport a Calvin pissing on BMW sticker? :)
Then someone is earning their paycheck at Ford.
Somehow Ford just happens to have the right vehicle for me at the time...
And I'd argue that this is the demographic (when it comes to home situations) that least wants an EV at the moment. Bad combination of the best-equipped also being the least excited.
It's one more reason (in addition to price, of course) that EVs are still largely a luxury item. They make the most sense to people who already have homes and can install chargers.
And I'd argue that this is the demographic (when it comes to home situations) that least wants an EV at the moment. Bad combination of the best-equipped also being the least excited.Probably some truth to that, although I do know quite a few people in Austin that are homeowners with solar setups and will likely move to having at least one EV in the near future.
Yeah, just some truth, not total. I was about to respond with this ^^ but saw you did. It's especially true with Texas-centric stuff, too. Austin is representative of Austin.
But I won't pretend that Austin is representative of the rest of the country when it comes to stuff like this.
Georgia had a tax credit on top of the Federal tax credit for a while and I see quite a few EVs around as a result of that. Of course, it was the relatively wealthy vuying $90 K Teslas and getting $10 K from guvmint for it.My office building has 12 or 15 charging spots, that all run off solar panels installed on the roofs of all the covered parking. But that's 12-15 out of several thousand, and of course none of us have actually been in the office since March 11, 2020.
Charging stations are becoming fairly common now.
I counted 14 in easy walking distance.
My office building has 12 or 15 charging spots, that all run off solar panels installed on the roofs of all the covered parking. But that's 12-15 out of several thousand, and of course none of us have actually been in the office since March 11, 2020.Do they have their solar cells coupled with batteries or some storage device?
Do they have their solar cells coupled with batteries or some storage device?Yes, of course. The charging stations are powered entirely by solar and battery.
Charging stations are becoming fairly common now.They're no use to people if they're within walking distance!!!! lol
I counted 14 in easy walking distance.
Yeah, something like that. Pontiac had a clear image, rightly or wrongly, better than Buick's. I think they kept Buick because it is a top seller in China.And in Arizona and Florida.
That's so strange that change is initiated by hitting them in their wallets! Wait, no, their commercials inform me that they're doing it for the planet. Now I'm confused.I certainly am, I have no clue what this post means, none. Pronouns such as "them" and "their" and "they're" often are vague.
We discussed this previously, induction usually is not very efficient, it's well known tech of course.But I clicked it anyway!!!
2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz Is a Small-Pickup Version of the Tucson (caranddriver.com) (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36125131/2022-hyundai-santa-cruz-pickup-revealed/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR29MTDj48HHPe8-UVfwdY6yGwE69jVnFqfsdUc3vike5bKqW1udftShVSI)I don't see it.
I think this is pretty cool, not an EV of course. The daughter just leased a Tucson, a 2022 model.
(https://i.imgur.com/RHVffvJ.png)
True, but I have had need at times for a small pickup, but usually I just needed a four door vehicle. I like the concept.I think a lot of people don't ever even think of this.
When I needed a pickup though, I rented one for $20 at the local Menard's and got it done, so that is a better option.
My GTI has a surprising amount of room inside. It's too dang practical really. It does everything quite well. Unfortunately.
Even the 5.5' bed on my actual pickup is too small to do many pickup things.Wait, your F150 is a midget pickup?
Wait, your F150 is a midget pickup?
Even my Ranger had 6'.
Ahh yeah, I remember you saying that towing was the key.Yup, I don't even need it to be an offroader, now that we have the Jeep. :)
there was hype for a 4-door electric?Yes, it's sort of standard, I think nearly all EVs have four doors now. Apparently Ford wanted the name to garner attention, which is has, but attention can work both ways.
as you know, 4 doors are for kids and groceriesG-men and mobsters like 4 doors, too!
impracticable
not hype able, unless you have a few kids
regardless of trim packageThe problem with that statement is "their gasser counterparts" is a really hard thing to define...
EVs cost much more than their gasser counterparts
The Model 3 is old man ass ugly.The S is a damn good looking car. It's sleek and literally everything works, design-wise. They nailed it.
Only the Model S looks nice.
Holy crap that's bad.That's ugly, but at least it's functional.
Inspiration for that must have been...
(https://i.imgur.com/eJ1KDKY.jpg)
We Bet F-150 Lightning Range Is under 100 Miles with Heavy Towing (caranddriver.com) (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36481590/ford-f150-lightning-range-towing/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media&fbclid=IwAR1DqgdwmPvezSijBjTtRCDfInReWWdsOGz8mJfI88SaR61n1wLY_0DmlkE)
For folks with bank and who drive a pickup around town exclusively, this seems like a decent option, to me.
But if you want to tow 10,000 lbs 500 miles, not.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pwg0Ec1.png)
That may not be a Ford image. Very short haul towing would be OK. Like from the boat dock to the marina.Ford Image, Chevy Image, Dodge image. They all love to use Airstreams to bolster their brands. As they should.
Herbert Diess, just like Tesla's Elon Musk, seems to be on the same page with full commitment to battery-electric cars and distancing themselves from hydrogen. Tesla and Volkswagen Group are the #1 and #3 largest automotive groups in terms of BEVs sales globally right now.The electric lithium battery powered car is a bridge car to another car of a different fuel, which I believe will probably be hydrogen. The electric car will lower emissions, somewhat.
https://insideevs.com/news/508443/vw-herbert-diess-hydrogen-cars/?fbclid=IwAR2_zqi-PQHp_kHX9hl30O_Ptj8Ta3cD-tM98ygfbJ8ho9-G-QMPT47nRz4 (https://insideevs.com/news/508443/vw-herbert-diess-hydrogen-cars/?fbclid=IwAR2_zqi-PQHp_kHX9hl30O_Ptj8Ta3cD-tM98ygfbJ8ho9-G-QMPT47nRz4)
[img width=300 height=168.991 alt=Michael Wickle (@michael_wickle) | Twitter]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMp12K5mR1cdqMOXP9r05Rhcw--Xq-t382C7cuPpCOF7zecPyC-VfIgoxATS3izVa006k&usqp=CAU[/img]
How do you get hydrogen?You just need some water molecules and a samurai sword, duh.
I love hearing about material/technology advances made in a lab, but I always take that with a grain of salt.Is this a Covid joke?
Proving you can do something in a lab and proving that you can actually produce it at scale and economically are two WIDELY different things.
EVs are not yet a thing in much of Europe oddly enough from what I've seen, aside from Norway.China appears to be their #2 market by a wide margin. Not sure how ubiquitous EVs might be in China. I have a couple guesses though...
Is this a Covid joke?No. Not at all. Wasn't political, and wasn't a joke.
I was approached a while back by a person who advised a VC (unnamed) about a technology, and I looked at it and saw several points of, well, garbage. I wrote up a one pager with the pros and cons and emailed it, got paid a little bit, never heard back.I wonder if you had advised differently if you would have gotten more business.
The "spin" was well done, very professional, it just overlooked two huge obvious issues, or ignored them to get money. I thought maybe I'd get more "business" but never did. It would be a nice sideline.
Is this a Covid joke?
No. Not at all. Wasn't political, and wasn't a joke.My post WAS a joke.
My post WAS a joke.i saw it as a joke.
Ford Is Producing More Electric Mustangs Than Gas Ones (roadandtrack.com) (https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a36622782/ford-mustang-mach-e-vs-gas-sales/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowR%26T&fbclid=IwAR2XvzlR9zpQjPnNfFem_F_AMDAkfn124_d5-X5hRJwDusN67yhawsmak14)that's great but, those aren't mustangs
I've seen ads for the Lightning and read some reviews, I think it will be a hit at that price point. I think the "Mustang" won't be, much, they have novelty sales now. The F150 variant is more appealing than the Mustang I think.I think the Mustang will be plenty popular... Just not with Mustang fans lol...
I think the Mustang will be plenty popular... Just not with Mustang fans lol...My sister and her husband took delivery on the Mustang SUV EV about 5-weeks ago, replacing their Ford Fusion Hybrid. When they rebuilt their house four-years ago they had 240V installed in the garage anticipating advancements in automobile technology. They get all the charge they need overnight, as most of their driving is local.
| [th]SPECIFICATIONS[/th] [th]2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E 4x[/th] [th]2020 Tesla Model Y Dual Motor Long Range[/th] | ||
| 0-60 MPH | 4.8 sec | 4.1 sec |
| QUARTER MILE | 13.4 sec @ 103.5 mph | 12.4 sec @ 114.8 mph |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 109 ft | 118 ft |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.85 g (avg) | 0.86 g (avg) |
like 4-5 hours overnight?No, as CD pointed out, charging on 120V gets you around 4-5 miles per hour spent charging. 120V might work for someone who works from home and isn't driving much, but for someone with a meaningful commute plus errands every day, a few days in a row of driving will leave you in trouble.
I've heard that the slow chargers are better for the life of the battery. Fast chargers are hard on the battery.There is a lot that is done to optimize charging. Temperature, charge rate, how full you charge the battery, etc all play into battery life.
https://www.mining.com/scientists-develop-cheap-and-easy-method-to-extract-lithium-from-seawater/Researchers at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology developed what they believe is an economically viable system to extract high-purity lithium from seawater.
economics is always the driver. When it's cheaper for me to drive electric, I will.Well, it's the driver on a large scale, yes. but I'd argue that for each individual it's not always the driver. For example, I drive a diesel pickup. Yes, it gets much better fuel mileage than a comprable gas pickup (mid 20's compared to high teens). But it cost more to buy, more to maintain, and the diesel fuel is more expensive. So, based purely on economics, it's not really a money saver. But, I like driving a diesel truck, I like the power, and I like other things about it. Even though economics isn't necessarily the driver.
but, it will need to be quite a bit cheaper, because today I'm driving a V8 not a 4-cylinder. Obviously I could be saving some money.
yup, but it's not like I'm driving a dog, like the Chevy CruzeChevy Cruze is not a performance car. I received good reports regarding how it would drive long distance from a mechanic. So, I bought one for my daughter. We drove it from NE Iowa to Tucson for her internship. I flew back. Gas mileage from 34 to 42 mpg. When you drive it, it drives bigger than it is. I flew down and rode back with her. Then, she drove 3x Dubuqe - Stevens Point 412 miles RT for her next internship. It has been a very good little car. Too bad it was discontinued and the Lordstown factory in Ohio closed. It is a solid car with high safety ratings for such a little car, and many other feelings of quality, especially considering its size.
Chevy Cruze is not a performance car. I received good reports regarding how it would drive long distance from a mechanic. So, I bought one for my daughter. We drove it from NE Iowa to Tucson for her internship. I flew back. Gas mileage from 34 to 42 mpg. When you drive it, it drives bigger than it is. I flew down and rode back with her. Then, she drove 3x Dubuqe - Stevens Point 412 miles RT for her next internship. It has been a very good little car. Too bad it was discontinued and the Lordstown factory in Ohio closed. It is a solid car with high safety ratings for such a little car, and many other feelings of quality, especially considering its size.most cars are good cars these days, not knocking them for their intended purpose.
What already sucks about that is without the logos, you couldn't tell the 2 apart based on looks.Yup. They're both really, really ugly.
Ford can't build them all that fast of course, so they may not spring up like rabbits.F stock has been up lately. I sold mine a year ago; should have kept it. I am concerned about the chip shortage, and the empty car lots in our area. But, that said, I agree with your comment, "I do think Ford found a niche." I just think aside from those people pulling travel trailers, the F-150 Lightning is the perfect niche EV.
I do think Ford found a niche, I bought some F stock on the wife's account last week.
Maybe, but the range while towing a heavy load is going to be quite small, so I don't think there's much of a use case for towing with EVs more than maybe in-town landscaping/service trailers, for a while.
For those pulling travel trailers, I presume KOA will accommodate them with multiple charging stations, in time.
Inagine the market only for trucks driven locally, daily, and its size. Granted many handymen buy used, which is why used trucks are $$$. Some well heeled companies with work trucks will be all over this, and work vans will be next, delivery vans. A lot of work vehicles are used locally, entirely, and can recharge at night.Wouldn't work for us. We need 2500's to get around construction sites while carrying a lot of equipment, wood, and iron pipes.
No brake pads, no oil changes, no gasoline, it's an ideal market for EVs.
Wouldn't work for us. We need 2500's to get around construction sites while carrying a lot of equipment, wood, and iron pipes.I think the Ford EV truck would carry all that just fine.
I think the Ford EV truck would carry all that just fine.I don't believe it's going to have any more payload capacity than a standard F150, so for applications that require 3/4 ton trucks or greater, specifically for their payload capacity, then the new EV Lightning isn't going to suffice, despite its impressive power and torque.
It is very powerful.
I don't believe it's going to have any more payload capacity than a standard F150, so for applications that require 3/4 ton trucks or greater, specifically for their payload capacity, then the new EV Lightning isn't going to suffice, despite its impressive power and torque.Probably not, but it should carry just about anything you can get into the bed that is "normal" work stuff.
Probably not, but it should carry just about anything you can get into the bed that is "normal" work stuff.Yes, totally agree with all of the above. Lots of people buy 250s/2500s, who actually only need 150s/1500s. Sometimes it's a macho thing, sometimes it's just folks that believe in buying "overbuilt" in every instance, just because.
I think a lot of folks get the 2500 just because, not because they need it really, but informed buyers would know what they need. We get work trucks in the parking area frequently and I notice a lot of "plumbers" have 2500s, with little in the back.
Most have 150s of course.
SUVs are popular because people don't know what they want, but they like to sit up higherYup, drives me crazy somewhat. The sedan is dying out, a very few station wagons still languish out there. We seem headed to a 90% SUV and quasi-SUV market (cars that are really cars propped up to look like an SUV with FWD).
another plus for the SUV in snow country is the higher ground clearance for deep snow, but the higher center of gravity makes the normal driver much more likely to rollover.
I encouraged my daughter to purchase an all-wheel drive Lincoln MKZ sedan
IMO, if the snow is deeper than the sedan can handle, most drivers should wait until the snowplow clears the road
or get a ride in a truck
Probably not, but it should carry just about anything you can get into the bed that is "normal" work stuff.I drive a F-250, when I drive. (For the last 8-9 years, I have worked at home and the truck sits most of the time). I bought it because I have a camper (travel trailer) that weighs 10,500 lbs dry, probably close to 13,000 loaded up. I have taken it as far as the Washington DC area. As I live in Northern Ohio, that means that I had to pull it through the mountains of Pennsylvania. That is too much for a half ton pickup to do and frankly, was probably a little much for the F-250. There were are few mountains where I had wished I'd had at least a F-350 or a diesel.
I think a lot of folks get the 2500 just because, not because they need it really, but informed buyers would know what they need. We get work trucks in the parking area frequently and I notice a lot of "plumbers" have 2500s, with little in the back.
Most have 150s of course.
I don't have a desire to "sit up high" while driving, but I cannot freakin' stand crawling down into low cars. Being tall and getting in and out of a low-slung sedan is painful.I have had both knees replaced and have developed a sore back. The thought of trying to sit down into a car or trying to get out is painful. I'm 6'2" and I much prefer stepping up into a vehicle.
I don't have a desire to "sit up high" while driving, but I cannot freakin' stand crawling down into low cars. Being tall and getting in and out of a low-slung sedan is painful.This is true. I've driven Corvettes and have this issue, even my GTI is a bit low.
I think that Lightning truck could tow your boat 80 miles.No doubt it could tow it, but I'm not towing something 80 miles when the range is only 100. I'd want to have at least double the range I need unless I could stop along the way and charge in 5 minutes. Just like filling up my gas truck right?
We Bet F-150 Lightning Range Is under 100 Miles with Heavy Towing (caranddriver.com) (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36481590/ford-f150-lightning-range-towing/)
That estimate is towing max, 10,000 pounds.
The pace of progress is faster than I expected even a year ago, I'm impressed with what I'm reading.
And the cost of electricity would be a lot less than gas costs.
I rarely tow the boat more than 50 or 60 miles one-way. But how's the tow vehicle going to charge while I'm on the lake and it's parked at a boat ramp or a campground and not a service station or my home?Assuming the vehicle gets half the range while towing it will just have to wait until they can make very large batteries more affordable and the charging time for these batteries comes down.
I regularly tow the RV up to 350 miles in a day. An EV tow vehicle is a complete non-starter for that use case, and likely will be for a very long time.
Battery technology has advanced quite a bit in the past 20-40 years.Since you’re in that industry, and by some extent have exposure to lithium battery tech and pricing....where do you see it heading? Massive innovation? Limited by chemistry and physics?
But it's still basically stone-age relative to the advancements in CPUs/ICs/silicon over the same period.
Since you’re in that industry, and by some extent have exposure to lithium battery tech and pricing....where do you see it heading? Massive innovation? Limited by chemistry and physics?
Myself I see small gains in energy density, large drops in cost, modest gains in charge times.
it’s possible something may prove superior to lithium tech, but for the next 20+ years it’s going to rule.
Nature of this market is that large reductions in cost mostly come from large gains in energy density.
Myself I see small gains in energy density, large drops in cost, modest gains in charge times.
Just wait for the solar-powered drones that can carry a person.......You can do calculations obviously based on whether this could work even at 100% efficiency. It's not pretty.
How is Jaguar still a thing?
I hope they make sure it doesn't melt pedestrian's shoes or something.Induction would only have an effect on materials that are ferromagnetic and at very close proximity.
$29,000 for this....????Japanese cars are going through an ugly styling phase. Mazdas seem to be the exception.
(https://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2021/08/2022_Nissan_Leaf_EV_Hatchback.jpg)
My favorite part is the 3 votes for "I'll never ever buy one, from my cold, dead hand!"
My 2015 has been great, zero issues at all (knock on wood)What I found is that it's Cowboys* tough, not cowboy tough. Couldn't handle the daily workload we need in the country.
What I found is that it's Cowboys* tough, not cowboy tough. Couldn't handle the daily workload we need in the country.Mine's no ranch vehicle of course, but it's towing 8K-9K lbs for several thousand miles per year. Plenty sturdy for that.
*Cowboys being the NFL variety.
Mine's no ranch vehicle of course, but it's towing 8K-9K lbs for several thousand miles per year. Plenty sturdy for that.Yeah like I said, not cowboy tough. Driving over cow pastures, hauling my tractor, towing 4-6K trailers weekly over bumpy country roads kind of work. The electric steering gave out at 55K miles, about $2K to fix. other issues as well. Liked the truck, plenty of power, towed everything I had extremely well.
I've never done the "use a front-end loader to drop 1 ton of rocks into the bed" thing that you see on the commercials. But I have loaded up 4 bikes, 12 chairs, two grills, a couple coolers, and several tailgating tables into it for some long hauls. :)
Yeah, I'm thinking urban delivery vehicles. We have a ton around here obviously.Government action doesn't correlate with government rhetoric?
I was surprised the new postal vehicle was not electric.
electronic stamps?Those would be $30. Production costs, and all...
Of course by "we" you mean "those corporations in power" and yes, they're going to want to utilize as much of their existing infrastructure and ideas that are already in place.Of course they’re going to want to continue to use their existing infrastructure but ask Sears how that’s going for them.
Their lobbyists will try to kill any new ideas, unless they get in on the ground floor and are given a virtual monopoly from the start.
It isn't selling? There's plenty of them out and about. Could the relatively cheap pricetag of the Vette have harmed the Camaro?Different markets, and only the high end Camaros get into Vette pricing territory. And they can't make enough Vettes right now. GM has made it clear they are going to EVs, and quickly. "Performance" cars see clear advantages in the EV platform. The Vette is going EV as well. Cadillac just released the last of the ICE "supercars", the next gen will be an EV.
Very interesting concept.
Obviously inductive charging relies on pushing a current through a coiled wire to generate a magnetic field, which then induces a current in the coiled wire in the device to be charged. This would use a static magnetic field instead on the road, but ostensibly the movement of the car over that magnetic field could induce current.
I doubt that this would allow cars to run indefinitely. Because you require the motion of the car through the field to induce electric current, it will only work when the car is moving, and thus it relies on the car's own power. I suspect that by definition there will be a less than 100% efficiency, i.e. it will be impossible at say 70 mph for the rate of charge to exceed the rate of depletion (you know, no perpetual motion machines and all).
But if it works, it could be hell of a range extension feature. Let's say that at 70 mph, it is able to replace charge at 50% of the rate of depletion. All of a sudden a car with 300 mile range might be able to go 450. That's a major improvement, and while the road surface would be more costly, it doesn't require constant injection of electricity like most of the other inductive charging ideas.
The only thing that jumps out at me is the nagging feeling that I'm missing something--that there is a reactionary force applied when trying to move a coil through a magnetic field. I recall physics courses from long ago that if you tried to push a magnet into the middle of a coil, there would actually be force generated trying to repel the magnet's motion by the induced magnetic field being opposite to that you were introducing... I don't know if this would generate a mechanical resistance on the car opposite the motion of travel, which would defeat the purpose because then the motors would have to work extra hard to keep the car moving. You wouldn't be only encountering air resistance and the rolling resistance of the tires, you'd be encountering EMF opposite the direction of travel too...
You'd need current potential applied to the pavement for this to work in any case. Something for nothing doesn't work. It has to be powered.Not really. All you need from the street is a magnetic field.
I don't understand the explanation in the article I cited.
Not really. All you need from the street is a magnetic field.
The hard thing might be making sure the magnetic field all orients the same way... I don't know how they'll do that. Possibly by magnetizing the road after construction...
One potential (I'm trying to remember long dormant physics here) is that the car driving along the road is trying to produce a magnetic field counter to that of the road... In which case over time it could demagnetize the road, and there might have to be regular maintenance to remagnetize the road...
In a weird way, some of this is not that far from my field (hard drives), except that you're trying to magnetize the road and not store data on it lol...
Actually that brings up an idea... If they alternate the orientation of the field every 100 feet or so, might it somehow help the issue I brought up upthread? Because you don't have to keep the orientation of that field constant...
I don't see how a magnetic field alone could work. You'd have resistance to movement which would generate some current, yes, but offset by said resistance.Well the power, which creates the movement in the first place, is created by the car's motors. And the other power is created when you magnetize the road. Obviously that doesn't just occur naturally.
You need to have power from some agency.
I suppose it could work going downhill, but you have regen braking for that.
I don't see how a magnetic field alone could work. You'd have resistance to movement which would generate some current, yes, but offset by said resistance.A typical generator doesn't require the input of any electrical power at all. It can be turned by hydro, or wind, or even a hand crank. The simple act of passing the coils through a static magnetic field, is what generates current in the coils on the receiving armature.
You need to have power from some agency.
I suppose it could work going downhill, but you have regen braking for that.
But there is resistance when you turn a generator. You need power from something. Otherwise this is just regen braking.The power is coming from the motors propelling the car. And that power will be expended whether you're on a magnetic road surface or not.
But there is resistance when you turn a generator. You need power from something. Otherwise this is just regen braking.Yeah I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. This is true in the case of any and every generator, And yet the armature windings still turn despite the resistance. In the case of a wind turbine, the kinetic energy of the wind, moves the vanes with enough Force to overcome the magnetic resistance. Same goes for the Force of the cascading water in a hydro turbine. And in the case of a gasoline or propane or natural gas powered generator, it's the Force produced by the ICE that overcomes the resistance.
Sure, the EV under power can provide the oomph, no doubt, but at the penalty of being slowed down, it's a zero sum game, less than that due to losses.I'm not an engineer, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that's how it appears to me.
It's regen braking, you can't recharge a battery without the input of energy from somewhere. If that comes from the EV, it either slows down, or it uses battery power to maintain speed.
You can turn a generator without the input of power. This is like attaching an electric motor to a generator and expecting the generator to provide all the power to keep the motor turning, with no other inputs.
Perpetual motion.
Sure, the EV under power can provide the oomph, no doubt, but at the penalty of being slowed down, it's a zero sum game, less than that due to losses.
It's regen braking, you can't recharge a battery without the input of energy from somewhere. If that comes from the EV, it either slows down, or it uses battery power to maintain speed.
You can turn a generator without the input of power. This is like attaching an electric motor to a generator and expecting the generator to provide all the power to keep the motor turning, with no other inputs.
Perpetual motion.
I'm not an engineer, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that's how it appears to me.
In the analogy with the wind turbine, the car's battery is providing the "wind" to turn the generator to produce electricity to power the battery.
But I'm completely open to being wrong here. I can't even explain how something can be in two places at the same time, or how a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.
See if I have this right. The pavement is magnetized, the vehicle has a coil near the pavement of some sort. As the car moves, this is pushing a coil through a magnetic field, which is the classic generator, and would generate current.Okay, a few things.
But it will also slow the car, requiring the battery to spend energy keeping it at speed (unless it's downhill). But on downhill portions, the car can do this on its own using regen braking, which in effect is the same process.
What am I missing?
How practically could one orient magnetite particles to produce a vertical field? And would that also charge a battery without no drag on the vehicle?In a concrete roadway? I am not sure. In a hard drive? Your computer does it millions of times per second when you're writing data ;)
Could one do this "in a lab" and demonstrate the concept? (I'm sure it could be modeled as well.) Then you'd have a "vehicle" passing this vertical field and charging a battery (or generating current) with no drag on its passage.
Either way, I do stand by that doing it either vertically or horizontal/transverse would charge the battery with no drag on the vehicle's passage.I'm missing something (again). This sounds to me like perpetual motion.
I'm missing something (again). This sounds to me like perpetual motion.
If one can generate current without resistance, one has a perpetual motion machine. Think of doing this on a lab bench.Yeah, the bit that you're missing is that there IS resistance, but it's not in a direction that matters.
Generators won't turn on their own obviously, they need power of some sort to pass those windings around a magnetic field. We've probably all turned a hand turned crank generator, it get's hard to turn.
I'm missing something.
Yeah, the bit that you're missing is that there IS resistance, but it's not in a direction that matters.
Vertical changes in magnetic force have to balance with gravity and the car's suspension, NOT balance with the car's electric motors.
Still thinking about longitudinal oriented static magnets in the pavement-- what if you synced the car's engine and recharging system so the engine is only working during the first half of the car's traverse over it, but then turned off the motors and coasted over the second half? Then you'd be recharging without expending any energy from the motors at a 50% duty cycle.The more that I think about it, I don't think longitudinal can work.
If the magnets were spaced at short enough intervals it's possible the acceleration/coasting wouldn't be very detectable. Obviously, if it WERE detectable, then it wouldn't be much fun. It would feel like how my FIL drives, which almost makes me sick to my stomach sometimes... :)
https://newatlas.com/science/lithium-metal-ev-battery-benchmark-density-stability/ (https://newatlas.com/science/lithium-metal-ev-battery-benchmark-density-stability/)Is it scalable and economical outside the lab?
Remarkable density of new lithium battery promises massive range for EVs
the best reason NOT to buy an electric for a few yearsAgreed.
there will obviously be significant improvements
(https://i.imgur.com/gHyJD3n.jpg)
2023 Cadillac LYRIQ | Electric SUV | Model Overview (https://www.cadillac.com/electric/lyriq?ppc=GOOGLE_700000001298982_71700000065954796_58700005808378701_p57471539087&d_src=313715&d_adsrc=3876787&d_campaign=71700000065954796&d_site=GOOGLE&d_adgroup=58700005808378701&d_keyword=lyriq)
Starts at $60 K.
(https://i.imgur.com/qHZ6Xkb.png)
Looks same as every other compact SUV on the market. Why do they keep making cars uglier and uglier?Because we live in the Anti-Renaissance era. Everything--cars, architecture, fashion, art--gets uglier and uglier. When you think it can't get any uglier, it does.
Looks same as every other compact SUV on the market. Why do they keep making cars uglier and uglier?Because they all get designed by the same computer programs to be optimized in the same wind tunnel simulations. So they're all going to be the same basic shape.
I like the design. It sold out quickly.Umm, maybe they can't source enough batteries to make enough.
Cadillac Lyriq sells out in 19 minutes – automakers still underestimate EV demand - Electrek (https://electrek.co/2021/09/18/cadillac-lyriq-sells-out-in-19-minutes-automakers-still-underestimating-ev-demand/)
When we saw the Lyriq in person, we were very impressed. Our main question at the time was “will GM make enough of these? (https://electrek.co/2021/08/17/cadillac-lyriq-first-look-this-will-sell-like-hotcakes/)” Now we have the answer: apparently not.
In fact, we get that answer a lot. Time and time again, new EVs sell out of their first production year within minutes or days of their first offering. Time and time again, manufacturers are surprised by how quickly this happens. Time and time again, they need to upgrade their production plans for these new models (and still end up supply-constrained even after these upgrades).
https://www.karmaautomotive.com/karmab2c/en/sc2visionAhh, out in my neck of the woods. Their HQ is about 10 minutes from me.
Now we’re talking.
One of best buds Engineer is with them now.
Microchips are pounded out by the gazillions. But the fabrication process is lengthy, and the lead time on raw materials is even longer. In the best of times it can take over a year to ramp up production significantly.Yeah, and it doesn't help that the sort of microchips that automakers want have much different requirements than a typical IC. They want it to work seamlessly from Edmonton in February to Death Valley in August, across all manner of shock and vibration, and they want it available for 7 years, preferably much more. Also they don't want to pay more than pennies for it.
These are far from the best of times.
Really, everything was set back by about 18-24 months, when all of the auto manufacturers and many of the consumer electronics giants canceled massive amounts of orders right when COVID first hit in spring of 2020.
Ahh, out in my neck of the woods. Their HQ is about 10 minutes from me.
Yeah, and it doesn't help that the sort of microchips that automakers want have much different requirements than a typical IC. They want it to work seamlessly from Edmonton in February to Death Valley in August, across all manner of shock and vibration, and they want it available for 7 years, preferably much more. Also they don't want to pay more than pennies for it.
Production can easily be 3-6 months from the time that the foundry initiates a new wafer start for your chips, depending on the complexity. Granted a lot of these chips would be on the low end of that. But foundries have so many orders right now that you may have a long lead time before they initiate that wafer start. Especially if you've driven down the prices with suppliers so much that they're not making much margin.
I'm hearing from many places that simple components like passives (i.e. resistors, capacitors, etc) are quoting 52 week lead times.
I'm glad my job isn't managing supply chain lol...