[genxer]

Merry Christmas to all here...
If you're a keep Christ in Xmas person.
If you're a keep Santa in Xmas person.
If you're not an Xmas person.
Even if you're a keep EV in Xmas person.
Especially if you're a keep cubic inches in Xmas person.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

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.

That is pretty much my point. Mandates did not start us down this path. Recognition of the contribution of tailpipe emissions to climate change was the motivating factor for automakers to focus more on electrification. Now, if you follow the principle of no good deed goes unpunished, regulatory agencies in multiple countries have taken the position of…”well, if you can build and sell EVs and EVs eliminate tailpipe emissions, then we can ‘help’ you get there faster”.

That’s why I said “time-phased”. After that “mandates” were put in place to speed up the transition and “incentives” were put in place to influence manufacturers to build in the regions where they sell.

As for Voltec, allow me to just say that the decision to walk away from Voltec was made before I retired in 2017. The decision to de-emphasize hybrids was made shortly after that and, though I personally would not have made that decision, I understand why it went the way it went.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

Merry Christmas to all here...
If you're a keep Christ in Xmas person.
If you're a keep Santa in Xmas person.
If you're not an Xmas person.
Even if you're a keep EV in Xmas person.
Especially if you're a keep cubic inches in Xmas person.

And a Merry Christmas to you too and all the people I have met through this thread.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

I think that statement is at best inaccurate and at worst someone trying to tell me it's raining when in fact it's something quite different. I don't care about inside information, or paragraphs of reasoning. It flys in the face of what my eyes are telling me.

That tells me pretty much everything I need to know.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Yep if I'm asked to choose between my lying eyes and what someone claims I'll stick with my lying eyes.

This push towards higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions has been going on for a very long time. The push to penalize manufacturers for low MPG vehicles has been going on for a long time. Trying to pretend that they aren't affected by that strains my credulity beyond its limits.

No disrespect, you're clearly very knowledgeable and probably much smarter than me. I just don't believe what you're saying is accurate and no amount of flowery language is going to change that.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours.

It has been going on for decades. And the result of it, that can be seen with our very own eyes has been engines that have ridiculously improved emissions from when this whole push started in the ‘70s while at the same time delivering output that we couldn’t even have dreamed of in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The need to get to better emissions pushed technology to deliver better fuel economy and better emissions while still deliver in some cases more than 200 hp/l.

Thing is, what’s left of the emissions in internal combustion engines is significantly more difficult to eliminate. At the same time, electric vehicle tech has improved dramatically over the past 10-15 years and continues to improve at clock speeds faster than anything else in the auto industry. So, rather than sink investment into more difficult engine technologies that customers will not pay for, automakers are investing in electric vehicle technologies that deliver zero tailpipe emissions. And consumers are willing to pay for that.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

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.

It's not just a performance degradation, it's significantly reduced range and ridiculous depreciation. In their current state, EVs are nearly considered disposable past 150,000 miles or so. As for the great improvements to come, once again you're making make the case that this space is evolving too quickly for most middle/lower income consumers to sign a 5-7 year note and hope there's some residual value at the end. Let things settle down. This is still an immature tech, and IMHO, not ready for the mass automotive consumer market. Let the overpaid greenie IT crowd in Palo Alto and Redmond work the bugs out with cash to burn.

And again, there are studies that show taking tailpipes emissions to zero won't do crap to stop El Nino/La Nina, change weather, volcanic activity, or impact the other 99% of carbon emissions. The impact will be zero. This is all for nothing except virtue signalling.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Respectfully. I disagree. Consumers are not willing to pay, they're being forced. Half the Buick dealers in the country chose a buyout rather than participate in this farce. Thanks for you answer. I'm not going to debate this with you. Have a great day.

1 million people in the US bought EVs this year. None of them was forced.

[snizzle]

Ooof.

https://insideevs.com/news/702126/ul...orm-owners-gm/

[KMPrenger]

This is exactly why I've said many times that if I had a full EV, I'd have to have a hybrid or an ice to go with it. Emergencies. This situation is the difference between seeing a family member in their last moments or not. The difference between taking your family safely out of the path of a hurricane and returning home without much trouble when the time comes.

I have to wonder why this author chose to take the Lightning when they were faced with a family emergency?

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2...nightmare/amp/

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

The gas guzzler fees, increased ICE vehicle prices due to regulatory compliance costs, gas taxes, EV subsidies, government promises to shut down fossil fuels, government’s stated goals about EV usage and threats to ban ICE vehicles have nothing to do with it. LOL.

This is why I don’t take anything you have to say on this subject seriously. You’re clearly way to intelligent to not know those exist, their intent and their impact, so I’m left to draw my own conclusions on why you say the things you do.

I would have a lot more respect for EV proponents if they would just come clean.

But please, continue to gaslight. Meanwhile I think I’ll go back to the main forum ‘rooms’ where there’s a lot I can learn.

I straight up do not understand the gaslight part. All I’m saying is that 1 million people bought EV even though there are still a full portfolio of ICE options to choose from and no rules telling anybody they can’t buy them. So those 1 million people bought them because they preferred them. Gaslighting would be telling everyone that the only reason the 1 million bought EVs was because they were forced to.

Let’s be clear, I like cars. Period. No matter what powers them. My Camaro is still my favorite car to drive. But don’t sleep on the capability of my Model Y. It does everything it needs to do and a lot more. EVs are not for everybody and I would not recommend one to anybody who doesn’t have a place to plug it in overnight. And, I repeat…nobody who buys an EV before 2035 is forced to buy it. And even in 2035, if you don’t live in California, New York, and a handful of other states, you will NOT be forced to buy one. You will have fewer choices as the OEMs start taking ICE models out of their portfolios over the next few years. Prime examples being Camaro, Challenger, and Charger.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Ooof.

https://insideevs.com/news/702126/ul...orm-owners-gm/

This is a huge screwup by GM, but believe it or not, it’s not because they are EVs. Two members of my Camaro club have the same infotainment system problems, one with two of his cars. The three cars involved are a 2023 Chevrolet Blazer (non-EV), a 2023 Silverado, and a 2024 GMC Sierra. GM has a much bigger problem that has not yet come to light.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

That's all I have to say on this topic. I'll return to the part of the forum I find interesting.

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Thanks for you answer. I'm not going to debate this with you.

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Meanwhile I think I’ll go back to the main forum ‘rooms’ where there’s a lot I can learn.

Any danger of you taking your own advice here?

Originally Posted by KMPRenger

I have to wonder why this author chose to take the Lightning when they were faced with a family emergency?

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2...nightmare/amp/

That definitely highlights an issue but its not really down to the car - if the chargers he visited had been working or he hadnt taken some risks it would have been OK, like he admits the return journey was.
Remember, charger availability and reliability is only going to increase as time goes on too

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by docwra

That definitely highlights an issue but its not really down to the car - if the chargers he visited had been working or he hadn't taken some risks it would have been OK, like he admits the return journey was.
Remember, charger availability and reliability is only going to increase as time goes on too

Yeah...if the chargers were working. In an emergency why take the chance of adding un-necessary risk and additional time to your travel-time? It sounds even if those chargers were working, they may have had to wait even more time for other EV owners to finish charging before their turn.

It goes back to the issue of infrastructure that I mentioned as one of my points in a prior post...it isn't there yet. 1 of the many reasons people will continue to stay away from EVs for a good while and why, to me (at this time), EV's only make better sense if you already have another vehicle.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Yeah...if the chargers were working. In an emergency why take the chance of adding un-necessary risk and additional time to your travel-time? It sounds even if those chargers were working, they may have had to wait even more time for other EV owners to finish charging before their turn.

It goes back to the issue of infrastructure that I mentioned as one of my points in a prior post...it isn't there yet. 1 of the many reasons people will continue to stay away from EVs for a good while and why, to me (at this time), EV's only make better sense if you already have another vehicle.

You make very good points here. If I were faced with traveling to an emergency I would not take a vehicle that relies on the CCS charging standard in its current state. I’d have no problem relying on the Tesla Supercharger network. They’re very conveniently located and they typically have so many charge points that waiting does not seem to be an issue. At the same time, depending on weather conditions, there are ICE vehicles I wouldn’t take.

With my current stable of vehicles, if I had to pick up and run several hundred miles to deal with an emergency I would be slightly more comfortable taking my SRX than my Tesla. My MR2 would be next in order. My Camaro would be last. The reason the Camaro is last is I have no flat tire solution, particularly if I’m running my 1LE wheels that do not have run-flat tires. The reason the SRX is first is because even though Superchargers would not be an issue I would spend less time refilling than recharging. If the weather was really bad, though, I would take the Tesla because of the AWD.