[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Yes, this tired talking point that technically zero tailpipe emissions suspense dates, EPA mileage standards of "divide by zero" miles/gallon, are not "EV mandates". Most of us see the abolishment of ICE as the same thing.

That does not exist outside of California and its sovereign provinces. The EPA and NHTSA standards regulate fuel economy and emissions. The issue is, the upcoming standards will require automakers to decide whether they want to invest development and piece cost dollars into adding equipment to cars to achieve the standards. Understand that none of the equipment they add is priceable, so their cost to produce the cars will increase, but they won’t be able to recover that directly from car buyers.

To meet the upcoming standards, automakers will need to add Gas Particulate Filters, either high pressure direct injection or dual port + DI injection, probably some advanced form of EGR, and several other technologies. These are things they know how to do, and that’s why EPA and NHTSA have no problem pushing for the new standards. But they are costly and the OEMs know that they cannot price for them. So many of them have decided to only maintain the engine families they can continue with minimal investment and use EV volume to balance the rest of the fleet. As an example, GM’s engine offerings have been pretty much dialed back to just the Small Block V8 and CCS 2.7L for trucks and the CCS 1.5L, 2.0L and 2.5L engines for everything else. Because engines like the HFV6 require too much investment to clean up to meet the new standards.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

To meet the upcoming standards, automakers will need to add Gas Particulate Filters, either high pressure direct injection or dual port + DI injection, probably some advanced form of EGR, and several other technologies. These are things they know how to do, and that’s why EPA and NHTSA have no problem pushing for the new standards. But they are costly and the OEMs know that they cannot price for them. So many of them have decided to only maintain the engine families they can continue with minimal investment and use EV volume to balance the rest of the fleet. As an example, GM’s engine offerings have been pretty much dialed back to just the Small Block V8 and CCS 2.7L for trucks and the CCS 1.5L, 2.0L and 2.5L engines for everything else. Because engines like the HFV6 require too much investment to clean up to meet the new standards.

I am glad that the car that I have ordered does not have those on it yet.

The European/Aussie version of the car with those on it makes it sound like crap.

[MyNameIs]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewb...ade-long-saga/

[Martinjlm]

TBH nobody in the industry really took that seriously to begin with. Sony, on the other hand…

[Evergreen6]

The news on the Apple Car isn't too surprising, and I doubt it's a vehicle I would have been interested in. I want cars made by companies involved in motorsports and who cater to car enthusiasts and people who enjoy driving, and even do it for leisure, hobby, sport. I'm much less interested in cars made by companies who intend to make the driving experience a techno-livingroom. IMO, screens and most tech distracts or numbs the driving experience.

I'm enthused to see Tesla is bringing back the Roadster. I'm not a fan of Musk and regard him as the 2nd most annoying man-child the US has ever had to put up with, but he is driving some interesting products to market via his various companies and engineers he who came up with those products. If you invested in Tesla back in the day, you are a happy shareholder int he present. I can get excited about the roadster for sure...although performant, his bread-and-butter EV's are rather bland looking.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Easily one of the silliest posts I've seen on this forum.

So people not wanting to pay a $10K plus premium for vehicles that are less reliable, have significantly reduced range, impose a much higher planning burden, depreciate much more quickly, AND have multiple other drawbacks constitutes 'dragging their feet, kicking and screaming and resisting adopting EVs'?

OK.

OTH, maybe people just don't like eating turd sandwiches and no amount of happy talk about how good they are for you can convince them otherwise?

There's a lot of things wrong with your post, but I doubt I'm going to convince someone who is so negative about EV's and unwilling to see otherwise. You sound like someone who probably doesn't own one, or maybe you did and found it hard to use, and for whatever reason, EV's keep selling.

[0stones0]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

There's a lot of things wrong with your post, but I doubt I'm going to convince someone who is so negative about EV's and unwilling to see otherwise. You sound like someone who probably doesn't own one, or maybe you did and found it hard to use, and for whatever reason, EV's keep selling.

To a small crowd of enthusiasts, yes.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by 0stones0

To a small crowd of enthusiasts, yes.

There's about 3 million EV's registered in the US right now. 1.2 Million EV's were sold in the US last year, alone. That's just battery-electric, no hybrids. EV Chargers are being added around the us at a rate of about 46,000 per year right now.

I agree, EV's are a small slice (1%-ish) compared to the ~300 million vehicles registered in the US. It's the annual growth that should make people take notice. Not just here, but globally as well.

There's a theory that EV sales have reached a saturation point. Everyone who wanted an EV now has one, and sales will fall off a cliff. But that's not true, right now. EV sales continue to grow.

What's changed is the rate of growth. There are lots of explanations and there are similar things going on in the gasoline car market as well.

I believe the EV is following a similar trajectory to that of personal computer ownership, and the later trend of owning an internet-connected smart phone. AT first, it's expensive and rare, and as soon as someone makes a cheap inroad, they'll spread like wildfire.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Easily one of the silliest posts I've seen on this forum.

So people not wanting to pay a $10K plus premium for vehicles that are less reliable, have significantly reduced range, impose a much higher planning burden, depreciate much more quickly, AND have multiple other drawbacks constitutes 'dragging their feet, kicking and screaming and resisting adopting EVs'?

OK.

OTH, maybe people just don't like eating turd sandwiches and no amount of happy talk about how good they are for you can convince them otherwise?

On the one hand: EVs dominating the sales! Tesla foam finger #1!

OTH: American consumers (ungrateful rubes!) too stupid to embrace what our betters know we should be adopting. Overall growth is slowing.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

If the folks pushing this get their way, you will subscribe to a fleet of electric vehicles that you share with the people in your "15 minute city".

Another sarcastic and untrue projection. Stick to facts, please.

[Capricio]

Eating bugs...

Take away your cars...

Limit your ability to travel...

Track and restrict your movements....

"Sarcastic and untrue projections! Stop making stuff up!"

[Evergreen6]

Absolutely laughable. But hey, anyone is welcome to run around scared of boogymen, EV's, and everything else.

[bigd1276]

It’s mind blowing how the worlds richest and most influential people can clearly state their objectives and some peoples heads are buried so far in the sand they refuse to believe it.

[Evergreen6]

If that's what keeps you up at night....

Not me, though.