[0stones0]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I have to say...Martin has always had my respect on this forum, and the fact that he's been able to keep going and going and going on this particular topic in an attempt to raise awareness and spread reliable information all while keeping a calm head is admirable.

In the end, what it comes down to at this point in time is that EVs just don't work for everyone, and for certain segments of vehicle, they don't make much sense yet. Whether its cost (most EVs ARE way more expensive than their ICE counterparts...does GM know you can buy a similarly equipped ICE Equinox RS for over 10 grand less than the EV version?) or range anxiety, or home access to daily place to charge, or the way in which you use your vehicles (towing?), to concern over charging station availability/reliability, concern for the ways in which EVs are made,...and so on.

They just aren't there yet. The infrastructure just isn't there yet. All of the above reasons combined are why EV adoption is not taking off like the automakers and lawmakers were thinking. Sure, they are selling (Thanks to Tesla) There's a long way to go.

Where full EV does make sense right now, are for urban commuter vehicles, and the owners have a place to charge at home and they also have an ICE/hybrid vehicle, or they only take one or two long trips each year, and they are OK with that trip taking several more hours to get where they are going and they can afford a premium vehicle for that. That's it. For virtually everything else, hybrid or ICE is the more sensible choice. There is absolutely no way I would buy an EV and not have some sort of gas powered vehicle right now for long trips. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not really into adding extra anxiety, complexity, and time into my trips. I guess one could just rent an ICE and keep the EV at home.

When battery charging becomes faster and more convenient, then we'll talk about whether or not EVs make sense for other types of transportation. We are at least a decade or two away from that.

For all you folks here arguing...it's just not worth it. We all want a cleaner planet. We also want sensible choices. Let's just agree on that. Let the technology evolve, and hopefully in the meantime we will continue to have choices of what we want to drive. gm (in my humble opinion) made a mistake by not giving the consumer more choice. Just imagine if they were able to accelerate their EV plans and had dropped more ICE vehicles by now...the only thing they'd be selling is trucks and SUVs (in America anyways. Word is they may introduce some hybrids they are developing for other markets into the American market...we shall see)

^^^^
This. Sensible. Nuff said.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by el ess A

You would think they would have learned that from the ICE fueling stations where the nozzles are a certain size for diesel and a certain size for unleaded, etc., because the fuel filler necks are sized the same across the board. Even your microwave uses the same type plug recepticle as your refrigerator and coffee maker.

Of course Elon kinda got there first with the major public charging stations, and I never could understand why everyone wanted to use their "own" style of plug-ins, instead of adopting a "standard" for public charging, whatever that may have been. I mean, I can understand the concept that you can control your equipment by making it fit your own cars for matched components, but c'mon...

I mean, even iPhone finally figured out that USB-C ports were really the best way to go to standardize across their equipment lines instead of using different ports for different Apple products. Derp!

The CHAdeMO system was developed in 2010 and is the de facto charging system in Japan.

The Combined Charging System was developed in 2012 and is the de facto system in Europe and has been the de facto system in the US until this recent sea change of major automakers moving to the Tesla NACS system.

Tesla’s NACS system was developed in 2014. In Europe, Tesla vehicles use CCS. (Photo below)

This is becoming pretty much a VHS vs Betamax battle. There are good and bad things about both protocols. In the US, CCS suffers from poorly executed and disjointed networks. None of the automakers except for Tesla had previously committed to any particular network, but they did commit to the CCS protocol. But since the networks executing CCS are failing miserably, they’re all jumping ship to the better network and by default accepting the protocol that it supports.

[Gen6cyl]

Maybe a ev will make sense in 10-20 years.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by snizzle

KMPrenger, that is far too sensible for the internet. Reported.

His posts always get reported for that...

[genxer]

I'm breathing some CH4 back into this thread, since emissions concern is the excuse for the EV push.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...breathing.html

“…that exhaled human breath can contain the greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) both of which have a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide (CO2).”

[Rob3D]

Originally Posted by genxer

I'm breathing some CH4 back into this thread, since emissions concern is the excuse for the EV push.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...breathing.html

“…that exhaled human breath can contain the greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) both of which have a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide (CO2).”

That’s utterly preposterous. I’m no crusader for well, anything, but isn’t breathing kinda required whereas something can be done about the other stuff?

[Rob3D]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Please tell me you aren't expecting common sense from the 'we have to stop weather' crowd?

You just know someone’s gonna write a paper on how to reduce your breathing to help the environment. You can take that to the bank.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The point is (snizzle please call me out if I’m misinterpreting you) the reason there are fewer available is because the OEMs are consciously withdrawing them from the market, ala Camaro, not because they are being outlawed.

Come on man, I know you're better and smarter than this. ICEs are most definitely being regulated out of existence with more and more stringent emissions laws. CA and others have followed saying people will no longer be allowed to purchase new ICEs in the not-so-distant future. Whether that is true or not, we shall see (I hope not). But it's absolutely true that they are being regulated away by the governments. The OEMs are withdrawing from developing future ICEs because who wants to stay on a sinking ship?

Unfortunately, I think the reason so many enthusiasts hate EVs isn't the fact that they exist. It's that they and the governments are pushing out the very soul of a high-performance vehicle by regulating ICEs out of existence.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Now BP is spending $100M to install Tesla 250kW chargers at some of those stations. So who’s gonna sit at a BP station for 4 hours waiting for their car to charge? NOBODY. Because at 250 kW, most Teslas will charge from 20% SOC to 80% SOC in 25 - 40 minutes, depending on battery size. For my car that would take me from about a 65 mile range to a 260 mile range in about 25 minutes. Seeing as how I MIGHT do that 10 or fewer times over the course of a year, not a problem. Right now I wake up with 260 miles range every morning. We only charge to 80%.

Is this some kind of joke? Being happy that it may take 25-40 minutes to get 60% of your on-board energy storage capacity, in an ideal situation (we know superchargers don't consistently hit 250 kW). I can add 60% to my 19-gal tank in what, less than 2 minutes? And on the highway that's 60% is probably 265-275 miles of range in the ZL1. My Supra? 60% of small 13.5 gal tank is ~290 miles on the highway and would take all of what, 1.5 minutes? Or I could fill it up in ~2 minutes and get ~475 miles of highway range. And it's a bunch of crap that you can only use 60% of your onboard storage because of battery wear.

Not to mention, ICEs can be refurbished and if taken care of can last a really, really long time - and maintain most of their power for decades when properly cared for. Batteries? EVs are now just a very expensive appliance that has to be thrown out every 8 years since replacing the battery will be nearly as expensive as the car is worth. Sure, the batteries can be recycled for lower power use, but that doesn't help the consumer who now has to buy another car. All the savings and supposed green gains lost, due to more and more cars being produced because they simply don't last as long.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I have no problem finding people on the street who don’t give a rat’s @$$ about EVs as well as some who are just flat out against it. But on the other hand, as EVs become more visible in the car landscape more people are paying attention and a lot of them are changing their perspectives.

Performance: It’s been demonstrated time and again that EVs are faster than ICE in a straight line, in some cases ridiculously so. Go to YouTube and look at Cybertruck vs F150 Raptor, Model S (pick a trim level) vs any BMW, Mercedes or Porsche (except maybe Porsche Turbo). Porsche Turbo vs Model S Plaid. Or Lucid Air. In my own garage, my Model Y Long Range is as fast as my Camaro SS e85 headers. A Model Y Performance would be faster. And it’s a freakin’ SUV. A Model 3 Performance would be no contest. Maybe the person on the street doesn’t know or care, but it is demonstrated time and again all over the internet.

Only certain more expensive EV models are faster than a performance ICE car. I bet your SS would do better than you think against a Model 3 Perf. from a roll. C&D tested a 2019 3 perf. and it trapped 115 mph in the 1/4. Nearly identical to an M6 SS and a little slower than an A10 SS. And the 3 perf. 60-130 mph time of 13.1 seconds isn't exactly crazy fast. In fact, it's slower than a stock A10 SS which C&D tested at 11.5 seconds 60-130. And how many EVs at or below a ZL1 price point can beat it at acceleration from a roll? A few might take it from a dig because of the AWD. But from a roll? Can't think of any. Go up in price a little from there to the S550 GT500. Again, can't think of anything at that price point that will hang with it from a roll. EVs are fast from a dig because of AWD and instant torque. That isn't sustained in the normal models, and from a roll, besides the instant torque jolt, the normal models aren't crazy fast like everyone thinks. Lucids, Plaids, and Taycan Turbo S notwithstanding, because those are all fast as hell, of course, but they're expensive. Besides, EVs don't have emissions to deal with, so it's easy to just add more motor and batteries. My first car in 1995 was a 1987 Camaro Z28 with a 350 TPI engine (I swapped out the original 305 TPI that it came with) that felt quick at initial throttle tip in because it had a good amount of torque. That fooled people, because if you kept your foot in it, it really wasn't that fast because torque is good for feeling like you're going fast momentarily, but you need power to really accelerate quickly, because that's work done over time. More power means more work in less time.

Throttle house did a dig race of a 911 Turbo S vs a Model S Plaid and it hung surprisingly well until about 60 mph, when the Plaid's 1020 hp proceeded to pull away from the Turbo S. No doubt the Plaid is super quick, but again, easy and boring power. I've ridden in one, quick and powerful, but boring aside from that - it didn't do anything to stir my soul. But, have you ever watched a Plaid try to stop after a high-speed run? Dangerous to say the least. They suck at stopping.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Zero Emission: EVs have zero in use emissions. Sure they have emissions involved in the manufacture of the cars and the batteries. So do ICE cars. EVs have more emissions in manufacture than ICE cars, but the in use emissions quickly offsets that. Again, the person on the street may not know or care.

Zero in use emissions, please. Ok, but they have emissions when not in use (charging). Weird. My ICE cars don't. They just sit there. EVs also emit more tire rubber particles because they are heavier, on average than their ICE counterparts. I'm not arguing that ICE vehicles are cleaner, but EVs aren't some miracle cure. The emissions payback compared to a Honda Civic is MUCH longer than most people realize. And as I pointed out in my previous post, the shelf life of an EV is limited. A new Civic? It'll still be getting 40+ mpg on the highway in 20 years while the EV user would be on its 3rd EV and would have spent countless more hours charging it up. Yay for EVs.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

There is something wrong with forcing them on us.

We're recycling talking points now but EV supporters need to realize the vast majority of us resent the mandates at any level, local or federal. We are not anti-EV when matched with the ideal use case. GM will enjoy the manufacturing efficiencies of a skateboard platform one day but no chance they'd be charging this hard without the mandates.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

We're recycling talking points now but EV supporters need to realize the vast majority of us resent the mandates at any level, local or federal. We are not anti-EV when matched with the ideal use case. GM will enjoy the manufacturing efficiencies of a skateboard platform one day but no chance they'd be charging this hard without the mandates.

This is true. But what most don’t realize or just choose to ignore is that GM’s choices were not driven by US government or mandates. They actually predate US mandates and the IRA incentives. GM is actually a good case study. GM has reduced its footprint from being the largest automaker in the world to being a large regional automaker. No presence in Europe. No presence in Asia outside of China. China is a big deal though. But they still made the switch to EV earlier and stronger than just about anybody else. Why? Because they had clear understanding of the cost to go to the next level in ICE emissions based on Chinese and European regulations and they had a very good understanding of the growth coming in EV from Chinese manufacturers and Chinese backed manufacturers.

Also, GM pledged to be carbon neutral by 2040. Leading up to that they announced in 2017 that they intended to go all electric for passenger vehicles by 2035. That was before any of the ICE emissions regulations for 2027 were drafted and submitted for public comment, so clearly, that was not the motivation. Most other major automakers have also since then pledged carbon neutrality by 2040 - 50, depending on which automaker. You cannot get to carbon neutral without a high penetration of electric vehicles in the portfolio.

No doubt, the emissions regulations that are moving forward have helped accelerate the process, but that’s not where it all started. We were deep into dealing with these issues when I was still in product planning before I retired in 2017.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

This is true. But what most don’t realize or just choose to ignore is that GM’s choices were not driven by US government or mandates. They actually predate US mandates and the IRA incentives. GM is actually a good case study. GM has reduced its footprint from being the largest automaker in the world to being a large regional automaker. No presence in Europe. No presence in Asia outside of China. China is a big deal though. But they still made the switch to EV earlier and stronger than just about anybody else. Why? Because they had clear understanding of the cost to go to the next level in ICE emissions based on Chinese and European regulations and they had a very good understanding of the growth coming in EV from Chinese manufacturers and Chinese backed manufacturers.

Also, GM pledged to be carbon neutral by 2040. Leading up to that they announced in 2017 that they intended to go all electric for passenger vehicles by 2035. That was before any of the ICE emissions regulations for 2027 were drafted and submitted for public comment, so clearly, that was not the motivation. Most other major automakers have also since then pledged carbon neutrality by 2040 - 50, depending on which automaker. You cannot get to carbon neutral without a high penetration of electric vehicles in the portfolio.

No doubt, the emissions regulations that are moving forward have helped accelerate the process, but that’s not where it all started. We were deep into dealing with these issues when I was still in product planning before I retired in 2017.

Maybe not initially by direct mandates, they are now further motivated by them, but you don't think multi billion dollar orgs aren't sticking fingers in the social and political winds and responding before being forced to do so? Don't companies like yours help them with strategy? We have influential folks in power with seemingly unlimited air time telling us the world will end in 12 years unless we act. GM bet hard on this and in the end they may be correct if they can make it that far. The mandates in the end just cemented the strategy versus perhaps taking a step back and further developing Voltec or giving us hybrids that make more sense today.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Come on man, I know you're better and smarter than this. ICEs are most definitely being regulated out of existence with more and more stringent emissions laws. CA and others have followed saying people will no longer be allowed to purchase new ICEs in the not-so-distant future. Whether that is true or not, we shall see (I hope not).

It’s a question of time phasing. Emissions regulations will impact the speed of transition from ICE to BEV but they are not the reason behind the transition. Automakers were already on the path to more EV and fewer ICE before US regulations (other than CARB). The driving forces were acknowledgement by most (all?) major automakers that tailpipe emissions contribute to global warming and commitments by most (all?) major automakers to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040 - 50. The emissions regulations in the US trail regulations in China and Europe both in terms of timing and severity. So automakers operating in China and Europe already have to focus their portfolios to meet those regulations before they have to worry about US regs. Meaning some will already have compliant product before the US regs become an issue. That means the biggest efforts will be in discontinuing non-compliant product to balance the corporate averages.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

But it's absolutely true that they are being regulated away by the governments. The OEMs are withdrawing from developing future ICEs because who wants to stay on a sinking ship?

Some are already in better position than others and will be able to slow walk the transition to EV. Specifically the Asian 4 (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia). All are in a position to maintain more ICE, mainly because they don’t have to worry about what to do with Full Size Trucks and Utilities to balance CAFE. But even so, Nissan and Hyundai-Kia are pushing hard in the EV space because they already have to do so in their home markets as well as China and Europe. Offering the same or similar products in the US helps them achieve scale. Not surprisingly, Hyundai-Kia offers some of the best EV products on the market, and more of them, even though they don’t need to to stay ahead of the emissions curves. So it’s their choice.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Unfortunately, I think the reason so many enthusiasts hate EVs isn't the fact that they exist. It's that they and the governments are pushing out the very soul of a high-performance vehicle by regulating ICEs out of existence.

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is the sentiment. My point is, and has been for some time, that this sentiment is misinformed.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Is this some kind of joke? Being happy that it may take 25-40 minutes to get 60% of your on-board energy storage capacity, in an ideal situation (we know superchargers don't consistently hit 250 kW). I can add 60% to my 19-gal tank in what, less than 2 minutes? And on the highway that's 60% is probably 265-275 miles of range in the ZL1. My Supra? 60% of small 13.5 gal tank is ~290 miles on the highway and would take all of what, 1.5 minutes? Or I could fill it up in ~2 minutes and get ~475 miles of highway range. And it's a bunch of crap that you can only use 60% of your onboard storage because of battery wear.

What you and most overlook is the frequent 5 - 10 minute stops every week or so to replenish gas tanks. I think I can speak from experience here as I have three ICE vehicles and one EV in the garage. I actually do get to experience both situations and can say hands down, eliminating 50 five-minute gas station stops over the course of a year offsets the 2 - 3 times a year I may have to wait 15 - 40 minutes spent at a fast-charger on a long trip. I’m actually traveling now with the Tesla. Two stops yesterday. One for 35 minutes, one for 15 minutes. For the 35 minute stop I plugged the car in, walked over to the Wendy’s, used the restroom, ordered, ate, walked back to the car which was already done charging, off I go. Painless. For the 15 minute stop I just sat in the car and played solitaire on the car’s screen. For every day driving, where I would be at the gas station for 5 - 10 minutes a week with my other cars, I just get to keep it moving. So basically, I banked all the 5-minute gas station stops I no longer have to make and used some of that time for stops at the Supercharger.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Not to mention, ICEs can be refurbished and if taken care of can last a really, really long time - and maintain most of their power for decades when properly cared for. Batteries? EVs are now just a very expensive appliance that has to be thrown out every 8 years since replacing the battery will be nearly as expensive as the car is worth. Sure, the batteries can be recycled for lower power use, but that doesn't help the consumer who now has to buy another car. All the savings and supposed green gains lost, due to more and more cars being produced because they simply don't last as long.

Batteries have warranty for 8 years, it doesn’t mean they only last for 8 years. There are EVs on the road now that are more than 10 years old and running on the original batteries. No doubt most have some degree of range degradation. Same way older ICE vehicles are typically degraded in their optimal output measurements. Most people never notice that the old grey mare ain’t what she used to be because very few people (this forum notwithstanding) ever push their cars to the limit, so most don’t notice the limits have shifted downward.

As EVs progress, companies are getting smarter in developing designs that allow for modular replacement of battery sections as opposed to required full battery replacement. GM is particularly good at this. Tesla is particularly bad at this.

It’s way too early to say that replacing the battery will be almost the same as or more than the value of the car. Battery prices continue to drop. Remanufacturing and recycling of batteries is still in growth mode. What will that look like in 8 or more years when we start to see more EVs maturing to the point that they need replacement? I think all we can confidently say is that the costs will be lower than they are today. How much? Too early to say.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Only certain more expensive EV models are faster than a performance ICE car. I bet your SS would do better than you think against a Model 3 Perf. from a roll. C&D tested a 2019 3 perf. and it trapped 115 mph in the 1/4. Nearly identical to an M6 SS and a little slower than an A10 SS. And the 3 perf. 60-130 mph time of 13.1 seconds isn't exactly crazy fast. In fact, it's slower than a stock A10 SS which C&D tested at 11.5 seconds 60-130. And how many EVs at or below a ZL1 price point can beat it at acceleration from a roll? A few might take it from a dig because of the AWD. But from a roll? Can't think of any. Go up in price a little from there to the S550 GT500. Again, can't think of anything at that price point that will hang with it from a roll. EVs are fast from a dig because of AWD and instant torque. That isn't sustained in the normal models, and from a roll, besides the instant torque jolt, the normal models aren't crazy fast like everyone thinks. Lucids, Plaids, and Taycan Turbo S notwithstanding, because those are all fast as hell, of course, but they're expensive. Besides, EVs don't have emissions to deal with, so it's easy to just add more motor and batteries. My first car in 1995 was a 1987 Camaro Z28 with a 350 TPI engine (I swapped out the original 305 TPI that it came with) that felt quick at initial throttle tip in because it had a good amount of torque. That fooled people, because if you kept your foot in it, it really wasn't that fast because torque is good for feeling like you're going fast momentarily, but you need power to really accelerate quickly, because that's work done over time. More power means more work in less time.

Throttle house did a dig race of a 911 Turbo S vs a Model S Plaid and it hung surprisingly well until about 60 mph, when the Plaid's 1020 hp proceeded to pull away from the Turbo S. No doubt the Plaid is super quick, but again, easy and boring power. I've ridden in one, quick and powerful, but boring aside from that - it didn't do anything to stir my soul. But, have you ever watched a Plaid try to stop after a high-speed run? Dangerous to say the least. They suck at stopping.


Zero in use emissions, please. Ok, but they have emissions when not in use (charging). Weird. My ICE cars don't. They just sit there. EVs also emit more tire rubber particles because they are heavier, on average than their ICE counterparts. I'm not arguing that ICE vehicles are cleaner, but EVs aren't some miracle cure. The emissions payback compared to a Honda Civic is MUCH longer than most people realize. And as I pointed out in my previous post, the shelf life of an EV is limited. A new Civic? It'll still be getting 40+ mpg on the highway in 20 years while the EV user would be on its 3rd EV and would have spent countless more hours charging it up. Yay for EVs.

4 year old Throttle House drag race video… non-performance Model 3 ($46k today) vs BMW M2 Competition. TLDW (too long, didn’t watch) Model 3 gaps M2

https://youtu.be/8Quo1_i7x0s?si=4MfCv4KGvWKV7bqV



4 year old Throttle House track video Model 3 Performance ($51k today) vs M2 Comp vs Audi RS3 plus drag Model 3 Performance vs RS3. TLDW M2 Comp is a track beast, Model 3 is 0.5s behind, RS3 is a distant 3rd. Model 3 Performance gaps RS3 in the drag race.

https://youtu.be/9Pu9046wX9g?si=FRJkq3PIJgahFvde


Model 3 Performance has improved over the 4 years since these videos were posted by Throttle House.

2 year old Edmunds drag race video Model Y Performance ($52.5k today) vs GT500. Keep in mind that this is a fast family SUV vs an apex performance car. TLDW Model Y gaps GT500 in real world drag race due to GT500 real world traction issues. In controlled tests they tie 0-60, GT500 pulls away and dominates quarter mile.

https://youtu.be/z-2R8mhi8jw?si=j3qZvgou2GJ__dzf