[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

I think Joe has a point.lol. I doubt the leasing company owner makes less than 150K...lol. Leasing and commercial seems to go against the whole purpose of the Tax Credit. Definitely a "loophole" that probably should be closed.

I am straight up Team Joe on this one.

[90503]

It looks to me like a dishonest and confusing system to promote EVs over ICE. Never was perfect prior to EVs, but this is obviously less realistic, and likely intentionally so. I think it's an important topic that should be more transparent. My $.02

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a4...s-sae-article/ Here's a few lines from the aricle. More in the link:

While internal-combustion cars often match or exceed their EPA highway fuel economy numbers, a new paper using data from C/D's highway tests show that EVs are far worse at meeting expectations.

On Car and Driver's 75-mph highway test, more than 350 internal-combustion vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than what was stated on their labels. But the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than the price sticker numbers.

One reason the paper suggests for why EVs fail to match expectations is how the range is calculated. While separate city and highway range figures are computed behind closed doors, only a combined number is presented to consumers. The combined rating is weighted 55 percent in favor of the city figure, where EVs typically perform better. This inflates the range estimates, making it harder to match in real-world highway driving. The paper proposes publishing both city and highway range figures—as with fuel-economy estimates for gas-powered vehicles—to give shoppers a more holistic sense of a vehicle's abilities.

[Wyzz Kydd]

I voted for ICE vehicles Friday by purchasing a Telluride for my wife. That takes us to five ICE vehicles and one electric scooter.

After a maiden voyage 300+ mile round trip Saturday I have to say I’m impressed by all the ‘auto driving’ features. I would hate them in a sports car, but in an SUV it made driving so much easier. Set adaptive cruise control on 81 mph and it pretty much drive itself 100+ miles down I75. Occasionally it reminded me to put my hands back on the wheel.

It’s a lot easier hauling 12 guns, a gun cart and 1,000 plus rounds of ammo in a Telluride than in a Camaro! Loading and unloading is a lot easier without that weird trunk opening to deal with.

[90503]

https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2023-01-0349/

2023-04-11
Comparison of On-Road Highway Fuel Economy and All-Electric Range to Label Values: Are the Current Label Procedures Appropriate for Battery Electric Vehicles? 2023-01-0349
As consumers transition from internal combustion engine (ICE)-powered vehicles to battery electric vehicles (BEV), they will expect the same fuel economy label-to-on-road correlation. Current labeling procedures for BEVs allow a 0.7 or higher multiplier to be applied to the unadjusted fuel economy and range values. For ICE-powered vehicles, the adjustment factor decreases with increasing unadjusted fuel economy and can be lower than 0.7. To better inform consumers, starting in 2016, Car and Driver added an on-road highway fuel-economy test, conducted at 120 kph (75 mph), that augments the performance metrics that it's been measuring since the 1950s. For electric vehicles, testing includes an evaluation of the all-electric range.
The on-road test results were aligned with the certification information for each vehicle model including unadjusted and label fuel economy and range, road load force coefficients, and labeling options. Tractive energy and kinetic energy available for regenerative braking were computed from the certification information to evaluate the differences between the on-road testing and chassis-rolls testing conducted during the certification process.
Based on these results, the highway fuel economy label tends to be a very good predictor of the fuel economy observed during the on-road test at real highway speeds with vehicles powered by an ICE. However, most BEVs tested to date fall short of both their electric consumption and range label values. For BEVs, the difference between the label and on-road consumption and range is further exacerbated by other factors, such as extreme temperatures and suggestions by automakers to charge to less than 100 percent to extend battery life. Consequently, these results support the need to re-evaluate the labeling procedures for this emerging technology as it continues to become increasingly prominent in the marketplace.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by 90503

https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2023-01-0349/

2023-04-11
Comparison of On-Road Highway Fuel Economy and All-Electric Range to Label Values: Are the Current Label Procedures Appropriate for Battery Electric Vehicles? 2023-01-0349
As consumers transition from internal combustion engine (ICE)-powered vehicles to battery electric vehicles (BEV), they will expect the same fuel economy label-to-on-road correlation. Current labeling procedures for BEVs allow a 0.7 or higher multiplier to be applied to the unadjusted fuel economy and range values. For ICE-powered vehicles, the adjustment factor decreases with increasing unadjusted fuel economy and can be lower than 0.7. To better inform consumers, starting in 2016, Car and Driver added an on-road highway fuel-economy test, conducted at 120 kph (75 mph), that augments the performance metrics that it's been measuring since the 1950s. For electric vehicles, testing includes an evaluation of the all-electric range.
The on-road test results were aligned with the certification information for each vehicle model including unadjusted and label fuel economy and range, road load force coefficients, and labeling options. Tractive energy and kinetic energy available for regenerative braking were computed from the certification information to evaluate the differences between the on-road testing and chassis-rolls testing conducted during the certification process.
Based on these results, the highway fuel economy label tends to be a very good predictor of the fuel economy observed during the on-road test at real highway speeds with vehicles powered by an ICE. However, most BEVs tested to date fall short of both their electric consumption and range label values. For BEVs, the difference between the label and on-road consumption and range is further exacerbated by other factors, such as extreme temperatures and suggestions by automakers to charge to less than 100 percent to extend battery life. Consequently, these results support the need to re-evaluate the labeling procedures for this emerging technology as it continues to become increasingly prominent in the marketplace.

I've read similar articles. Take a BEV with a published range of 300 mpc, then factor in the fact that in real world conditions it really only gets about 260 mpc. Now factor in the instructions to only charge to 80% and you're at 208 mpc. Now factor in extreme temps and you're potentially at 170 or so mpc.

So that luxury, extended range BEV on a cold and windy day may have just over half its listed range if you're following manufacturer suggestions.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I've read similar articles. Take a BEV with a published range of 300 mpc, then factor in the fact that in real world conditions it really only gets about 260 mpc. Now factor in the instructions to only charge to 80% and you're at 208 mpc. Now factor in extreme temps and you're potentially at 170 or so mpc.

So that luxury, extended range BEV on a cold and windy day may have just over half its listed range if you're following manufacturer suggestions.

Even before that, right out of the gate, the window sticker EV "range" is flawed even under ideal conditions. The true EV range equivalent of Highway and City MPG is not shown. The true HWY range at highway speeds similar to HWY mpg doesn't give the buyer a true picture of an EVs true Range. It's intentionally misleading.

The number one concern is an EV's range. To most of us it means highway travel at highway speeds. You won't be told what it truly is with an EV.

[Martinjlm]

S&P Global reporting on February sales shows that Tesla Model Y was the single highest selling vehicle nameplate in February. Just barely eking out the lead over Ford F-series pickups. And Model 3 came in at #10.

Another finding in this report is that Tesla is still the #1 selling luxury brand. Almost double the sales of #2 BMW.

[90503]

FWIW I think the Silverados and the Sierras should be lumped together.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

FWIW I think the Silverados and the Sierras should be lumped together.

I don’t disagree and I do the mental math whenever I see sales figures for Silverado / Sierra, Tahoe / Yukon, and Suburban / Yukon XL. But the report is by Brand and not by OEM, so since Chevrolet and GMC are two distinct brands, they are counted separately.

[FarmerFran]

I personally know a few people who will not buy Chevy but do buy GMC.

[Wyzz Kydd]

So it looks like people really love big gas consuming vehicles since 5/10 top sellers are big trucks/SUVs.

Given how much more expensive those vehicles are due to Uncle Sam putting his thumb on the scales I wonder what the top ten would look like if the automobile market were left to market forces.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

So it looks like people really love big gas consuming vehicles since 5/10 top sellers are big trucks/SUVs.

Given how much more expensive those vehicles are due to Uncle Sam putting his thumb on the scales I wonder what the top ten would look like if the automobile market were left to market forces.

Unfortunately the free market doesn't exist, even here in the US.

[FarmerFran]

I see gm is canceling the bolts

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

I see gm is canceling the bolts

Here’s what I posted in the Fenwick GM Knowledge thread on the same topic…

…Bolt EV/EUV are only GM EVs that do not use Ultium batteries and platforms. They are the last US vehicles built on the ICE Gamma platform. They will eventually be replaced by similar sized, lower priced EVs that are Ultium based.