[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by The Maverick

Tossing a bone to those who have repeatedly been told here that it's simply the market that is propelling EV's and not the current administration:

"The Biden administration plans to tighten car-pollution standards in a way that's meant to dramatically speed the adoption of electric vehicles, or EVs."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hold-...193629839.html

Originally Posted by snizzle

I think even Martin has admitted our gov(s) has, let's say, strongly motivated the process along although they aren't the only driver.

My theory is that a company like GM would still be moving in this direction as it benefits their engineering/manufacturing efficiencies but it would be much slower (if you can believe that - 2 Hummers build in their last quarterly) as they determine if the public is behind them. With proposed ICE bans in many states and many others leaning along with standards as you mentioned at the federal level, it's a no brainer for GM now. They don't really have to convince us.

Literally in a strategy meeting to discuss our take on this now as I type this. My personal view (ie-means nothing in the grand scheme of things) this is unnecessary, it’s piling on, and crosses the line when you try to hold manufacturers responsible for sales mix. It does not take into account manufacturer ability to actually manufacture to those levels. Manufacturers will have the opportunity to weigh in during the comment period of the Rulemaking process, so some of these things may change.

I like the government’s current position of encouraging demand through incentive to sway consumer interest in support of manufacturer’s strategy. This EPA move is focused on pushing manufacturers beyond their current product strategies (which has been ahead of regulations so far) without discussion on feasibility.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I like the government’s current position of encouraging demand through incentive to sway consumer interest in support of manufacturer’s strategy.

Here's how i'd recommend they do this instead. Make a superior product without compromise than ICE counterparts and competitors for less money. Let's try that.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

This EPA move is focused on pushing manufacturers beyond their current product strategies (which has been ahead of regulations so far) without discussion on feasibility.

The government has zero interest in any feasibility. It's an ideology driven agenda to end fossil fuels regardless of the consequences to employment, the economy, or standard of living. Having EVs succeed would be an unintentional co-incidence. The 2030/2035, you will still be able to own ICE vehicles, etc., are all dangling carrot lies.

The gov't and bureaucrat's only concern is ending fossil fuels. And obviously it will never happen soon enough. The true nature of the EV scam will be the end of personal vehicle ownership and mass reliance on public transportation.

Look for new updated climate research propaganda and panic global warming dooms-day predictions as part of the EPA's justification. God help us all.

[bigd1276]

Originally Posted by 90503

The government has zero interest in any feasibility. It's an ideology driven agenda to end fossil fuels regardless of the consequences to employment, the economy, or standard of living. Having EVs succeed would be an unintentional co-incidence. The 2030/2035, you will still be able to own ICE vehicles, etc., are all dangling carrot lies.

The gov't and bureaucrat's only concern is ending fossil fuels. And obviously it will never happen soon enough. The true nature of the EV scam will be the end of personal vehicle ownership and mass reliance on public transportation.

Look for new updated climate research propaganda and panic global warming dooms-day predictions as part of the EPA's justification. God help us all.

NAILED IT!!

[Aqua Blue RS/SS]

Originally Posted by 90503

The government has zero interest in any feasibility. It's an ideology driven agenda to end fossil fuels regardless of the consequences to employment, the economy, or standard of living. Having EVs succeed would be an unintentional co-incidence. The 2030/2035, you will still be able to own ICE vehicles, etc., are all dangling carrot lies.

The gov't and bureaucrat's only concern is ending fossil fuels. And obviously it will never happen soon enough. The true nature of the EV scam will be the end of personal vehicle ownership and mass reliance on public transportation.

Look for new updated climate research propaganda and panic global warming dooms-day predictions as part of the EPA's justification. God help us all.

Yep 100% agree. I’ll leave it there so I don’t get banned.

[FarmerFran]

The thing I find funny, yes funny...

Barrel of oil

40% Gas - a lot more than just cars
25% Deisel - a lot more than just F250s
10% Jet fuel - only getting to be more
5% roadways - only getting more
20% Plastics - only getting more

so as they shift away from gas cars they will need more plastics for said cars, as well as more asphalt for the more roadways, so the barrel of oil just shifts is shape. Sure we reduce the gas car emissions but create another problem with plastic wastes.

It is a shitty cycle and the earth always finds a way to fix itself, well until it crashes into the sun

[snizzle]

Keep your Camaro!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hold-...193629839.html

[90503]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Keep your Camaro!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hold-...193629839.html

The EV charade is finally being called out and recognized for what it is. The future is clear now that we were never meant to have a real choice. If we don't choose correctly, the state will flex it's power to force the outcome it wants. EVs and the end of ICE is the loss of freedom and forced economic hardship on the middle and lower classes. A host of other implications go with the forced transition including the massive increased dependence on our enemies and adversaries....These new EPA requirements are just a start and a sign of worse things to come. We are totally screwed over.

"Today, the Biden administration made clear it wants to decide for Americans what kinds of cars and trucks we are allowed to buy, lease, and drive," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said the president wants to "ban the cars we drive."

"His misguided policies are hurting American families while helping China," he said. "The president’s disastrous energy transition is making us more reliant on our enemies while driving up prices for Americans. The ‘electrification of everything’ is not a solution. It’s a road to higher prices and fewer choices."

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Keep your Camaro!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hold-...193629839.html

The Biden administration is basically proposing the forced adoption of new technology on a scale unprecedented in the auto industry.

Yep...except I wouldn't go so far as to blame just the Biden Administration, but really just our congress as a whole. The Biden administration is just nudging it along even faster now.

People can say what they want about "the car manufacturer's are already doing it anyways...it was going to happen". No. Not without the kind of pressure they are getting from our government. I'm sure there would still be development and Hybrid and full EVs, but not at this forced rate.

[FarmerFran]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/9...115000283.html

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/9...115000283.html

Shockingly, I’m having this same discussion with folks at Mustang6. So I’ll just cut and paste my exact statement from over there (less typing for me)

Interesting article. A few things need to be noted.
1) The writer acknowledged that the vehicle he was driving has an uncompetitive charging system. “Every EV has a maximum charging rate, expressed in kilowatts (kW), that governs the amount of power it can accept from roadside fast chargers. For the bZ4X AWD I tested, that's an uncompetitive 100 kW.” Most of the newer EVs on the market can take a lot more charge a lot faster than the bZ4X. Since this thread is (theoretically) about GM pulling back on EV, let’s see what they say…”The Blazer EV will be capable of charging on a DC fast charger and Chevrolet says it can charge at up to 190 kW and add about 78 miles of range in just 10 minutes.”

2) Toyota intentionally designed the battery charging system to favor battery life over charging speed, meaning it will slow down charging under certain conditions. Keep in mind that Toyota is behind GM and others in lithium ion battery development. The Prius only recently started using lithium ion. “Toyota engineered the SUV to prioritize battery longevity, a spokesperson said, which means putting a damper on fast charging, which can accelerate battery wear.” GM and Hyundai in particular have significantly better approaches to balancing charging time to battery wear. If there’s one thing we know about engines, it’s that they ain’t all created equal, sports fans. Some are demonstrably better than others. This holds true for batteries, electric motors, and charging systems developed by companies that are focused on developing EVs (GM, Hyundai) compared to those that are actively pushing back on the transition (Toyota).

3) Driving range decreases with high speed driving. Where have I seen that happen before? Oh yes…every gasoline car I’ve driven since the beginning of time. Battery range decreases with more usage of the HVAC system. Ditto. That should come as no surprise to anybody. It’s basic physics. The more aggressively you use the energy, the faster it will deplete. Where ICE has an advantage is that you have almost no problem finding a place to refuel. For EVs that is a lot more difficult, though not as crippling as some would have you believe. The good thing, from my perspective at least, is that the better EVs do a really good job of letting you know how much faster range will deplete so that you can plan around it and reduce the instance of butt clenching situations. The Toyota the writer drove is not so equipped. Here’s one of the best examples I’ve seen in the many EVs I’ve had the opportunity to drive. Not the only approach. But the best I’ve seen. Genesis GV60 (Genesis is Hyundai’s luxury brand).

The writer’s experience is what it is and cannot be denied. It can be pointed out though that it is not the typical EV experience, but more likely an experience on the tip of the bell curve. Some will experience this, most won’t. And a significant number of people will say “9-hour trip? Maybe we should take the <insert name of ICE CUV> instead of the EV”. The same way people today say “Family trip? Maybe we should take the Edge instead of the Mustang”

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

3) Driving range decreases with high speed driving. Where have I seen that happen before? Oh yes…every gasoline car I’ve driven since the beginning of time.

Well, that's a nice spin, but really? You don't think it could possibly mean HWY MPG (a higher rate of speed) as compared to CITY MPG? Since the beginning of time, highway mileage and the higher speeds used on highways, have delivered greater range in ICE vehicles.

EVs on the other hand do the opposite.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Well, that's a nice spin, but really? You don't think it could possibly mean HWY MPG (a higher rate of speed) as compared to CITY MPG? Since the beginning of time, highway mileage and the higher speeds used on highways, have delivered greater range in ICE vehicles.

EVs on the other hand do the opposite.

You are absolutely correct. Both things are true. EVs (and hybrids) get much better efficiency in city driving than they do in highway driving. For ICE it's exactly the reverse. It comes down to 2 things:

1. Stop and go. Stop and go driving kills ICE efficiency. For EVs and Hybrids, the engine is off. In the case of EVs of course there is no engine. For hybrids, most can launch without the engine coming on so they still get better city mileage since the engine is off a lot of the time.
2. Gear ratios: ICE are better on the highway than the city because the gear ratios help settle the engine in the most efficient operating range. Since EVs have single, or in rare case 2-speed, reduction drives, higher speed means e-motor is spinning faster means lower efficiency.
   

[mariojas]

Originally Posted by 90503

Well, that's a nice spin, but really? You don't think it could possibly mean HWY MPG (a higher rate of speed) as compared to CITY MPG? Since the beginning of time, highway mileage and the higher speeds used on highways, have delivered greater range in ICE vehicles.

EVs on the other hand do the opposite.

Because the ratio between usable energy (power, work, whatever) and waste is way different.
Say add AC compressor to big ass V8 engine - it has so much losses in spining itself that the AC is not even noticable, where in EV everything counts. EVERYTHING.
EV is so efficient, and not needing to use power to coast or stand in the traffic, that any use of energy will be seen.
The problem is that we are used to inefficient ICE (which is cool, ZL1 ) that we don't even think about stuff like "why do I need to burn fuel when I am just standing still". But whole bad talk about EVs are not because they suck, its because current battery technology suck. If we could have batteries with an energy density of gasoline we would probably have 2k miles (and up) range easy. But todays batteries are big and heavy...