[Number 3]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

If only governments actually made regulations that made sense and are actually based on science. That's unfortunately not always the case.

If you set out unrealistic goals, companies will be forced to cheat to pass them.

Are you the type of guy who drives exactly at the speed limit because the sign says so? Even though it doesn't make sense and there are evidence that some roads see fewer accidents with raised speed limits. But nope, gotta keep that sweet, sweet ticket money coming...

Sent from toaster or something

Sorry, but those regulations could be met. They were not unrealistic. GM was one of a few companies that was able to deliver a diesel engine that that met emissions and delivered good performance. They required no software "enhancements". VW (and others) took the tact that they wanted better performance and cheated on the emissions side.

Now if you want to talk just CARB and unrealistic regulations. CARB alone has made Tesla to a Trillion $ company without making a dime manufacturing cars. Well technically they do as CARB gives them credits which they turn around and sell to FCA (RAM) to the tune of almost a BILLION dollars last year. So they set regulations not feasible in the market place. They were technically feasible of course, just not anything a customer would actually want to buy.

Not sure what speeding has to do with that.

[RagingHawk]

I highly doubt Cadillac and other manufacturers will have an all EV lineup by 2025. Infrastructure needs another 20-25 years to be ready for that. Consumers will not respond well to EVs until they come down enough in cost. However, they will kill V8 sports cars before anything else because of declining sales/less profit. The EV sports car future is going to be depressing up until at least 2035. We will only have these SUV like sedans like the Tesla Model 3 and that new Volkswagen ID which looks and drives nothing like the ICE GTI even though Volkswagen claims so.

Only wealthy people will be able to afford storing, maintaining , and driving ice sports cars down the road. I've never driven a manual car before and will make sure to cop a used GTI for daily driving two years down the road. After that I wonder how the situation with ICE will look. They are gonna force us(common folk) to adopt an inferior product before it becomes on par or better than ICE. That's my problem. If they allow us to choose to drive ICE until this EV tech progresses, than that's less of an issue. There is still room for ICE improvements as well.

[DRKS1D3]

When speaking of big business and government, all you have to do is follow the money.

It is quite simple: "He who controls the media, controls the masses.".

You're welcome.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry, but those regulations could be met. They were not unrealistic. GM was one of a few companies that was able to deliver a diesel engine that that met emissions and delivered good performance. They required no software "enhancements". VW (and others) took the tact that they wanted better performance and cheated on the emissions side.



Now if you want to talk just CARB and unrealistic regulations. CARB alone has made Tesla to a Trillion $ company without making a dime manufacturing cars. Well technically they do as CARB gives them credits which they turn around and sell to FCA (RAM) to the tune of almost a BILLION dollars last year. So they set regulations not feasible in the market place. They were technically feasible of course, just not anything a customer would actually want to buy.



Not sure what speeding has to do with that.

I think the speed limit is an interesting analogy. It's one of the regulations that don't necessarily make sense, as said.

Going off this parallel, if a regulation is so strict that so few people can follow them, that's not a regulation that makes sense. Not a lot of speed limits make sense when 90% of the people ignore them and drive at a sensible speed above it. But yeah, you can technically argue that people can just slow down and follow the speed limit.

Seriously, if it's strict enough that cheating is considered feasible, you have to question the ones making the regulations as well.

Here is another good example: remember the alcohol ban in America in the 30s? Great intentions. Yeah, you could argue that one should just not drink alcohol, but that ended up backfiring badly enough that it got abolished soon after. People ended up "innovating" with methanol that ended up killing lots while the riches and elites just smuggled them anyway.

Sent from toaster or something

[90503]

A few well timed volcanic eruptions, an unavoidable asteroid strike, or maybe even a limited nuclear exchange here or there, and all the worries over global warming will quickly come to an end. Electric vehicles, solar and wind energy will not stop any global warming, either. Once another mini-ice age starts, or a regular ice age, we will be clamoring for the good old days of global warming.

Keep the oceans clean and preserve as much wild habitat as possible, and the atmosphere will go through it's cycles without any band-aid efforts by man. 93 million miles from the sun, and orbiting through space at seventy some thousand miles per hour, the earth will never notice these feeble attempts to stop global warming.

The greatest benefit to mankind has been the energy provided by fossil fuels and petroleum hydrocarbons. Now, we just can't wait to throw it all away.

[RagingHawk]

I'm waiting to see any EV equivalent to ICE sports sedans, coupes, and hatchbacks. I have yet to see any. Automakers have only been investing in econo-sedans/CUV's and that's all we've seen with the Mach-E, Volkswagen ID, BMW i3, Tesla Model 3, Bolt, Audi E-tron , etc....

There is nothing equivalent to something like a Golf GTI, Mazda Miata, Camaro, Civic SI, and many others, with the same price point, range, curb weight, and features of those vehicles. Because of battery placement, all these EV vehicles are raised and can't escape looking ugly or CUVish.

So as long as there are no viable alternatives, car enthusiasts should refuse to purchase an EV. I'm not buying a car for a premium price that only excels in city driving and needs to be charged like a smartphone. At least until it excels past these boundaries and a plus would be offering a manual transmission.

[RagingHawk]

"Investors, of course, are looking further into the future than most consumers are, and guessing about changes that haven’t happened yet. Most people who buy a car during the next five years will buy a gas-powered vehicle. Electrics still have premium prices and are inconvenient for long trips, which have to be structured around charging opportunities. They’re still nowhere near as convenient as gas models that can be fueled at almost every highway exit in five minutes.

But changes at the laboratory and factory level will presage changes in the showroom. With investors viewing internal-combustion powertrains as a dying technology, there’s likely to be little new investment, with research dollars flowing instead to the electrification efforts investors value. That will speed innovation and lower costs. Charging stations will proliferate and get faster, minimizing the inconvenience of electrics. At some crossover point, gas stations will start to disappear, and electric cars will start to seem like the obvious choice for just about everybody. Whenever that happens, it will be the wrong time to be hawking V-6 and V-8 engines."

...
...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gasol...210636353.html

...

Yikes. Well here are your choices folks(all $40K plus):





...

If you have 10 million dollars:

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The issue is everyone keeps using the word "forced".

No one is, as of now, being forced to buy an EV. Yes, California has lined up and said no NEW vehicles can be ICE after 2035 I believe. But even then, guess what? You can leave California (and not move to the other CARB following states). At least for now.

But in the end, this will not cause any concerns for 98% of buyers or users of automotive transportation. I say users as obviously there is a side play that won't be forced that would simply have automated conveyances that will move you from point a to point b with no ownership required. And yes, EVs make that a much better proposition simply for reliability improvements in the powertrain.

So as long as it remains technical conversation, this is fun. But there is a lot of pent up anger over this clearly.

So to be clear, you are not being forced to do anything you don't want. It just might be a bit more inconvenient for you and you may have to move to enjoy your freedom of purchasing an ICE but that isn't being forced.

The longer term threat, and likely beyond my driving on my own, is when there are so few ICEs on the road that getting gasoline or diesel becomes the same concern everyone is expressing about EV charging today. With well over 200,000,000 cars and trucks on the road today, even with 100% EVs, that number is still 100,000,000 ICE vehicles on the road in 6 years. And clearly we aren't at 100% EVs for all of NA production and sales.

And if I recall correctly, CARB has only mandated NEW vehicle sales be EV. They aren't preventing you from buying or selling an ICE or driving even driving one.

This is a longggg way off.

And even if they made it illegal to drive an ICE, there isn't production capacity to even make that happen.

You may not have a Camaro, but you can have an ICE for quite some time if that's what you need/want.

Dude....stop making sense. It’s not entertaining.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by 90503

A few well timed volcanic eruptions, an unavoidable asteroid strike, or maybe even a limited nuclear exchange here or there, and all the worries over global warming will quickly come to an end.

Funny you say that, because it's actually happening now.

I had a discussion with my old man recently on the effect of pandemic and environmentalism. We both agreed that environmentalism is getting thrown out of the window when you think about the masks, single-use items and other things required for the extra sanitary.

Sent from toaster or something

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

Silliest argument ever.
Laws ARE force.

3 states (thus far) have banned ICE with a deadline.
All the manufacturer's are only going to offer EV's to comply. It's just a matter of time before parts or fuel isn't available/ridiculously expensive to make it uneconomical to drive ICE cars whether by market forces or government taxes artificially elevating costs .

Conversely, you get tax credits to buy the car "they" want you to artificially lowering the cost.

They did it with Freon (R-12, R-22, and many others. Now, the "new" R-410a is on the chopping block). They are almost using the same playbook for cars.

For the sake of accuracy, they are not laws, they are directives to investigate what would need to be enabled to make them law. The returned information will more than likely result in some level of change to either targets or timing in able to draft up what may or may not be more reasonable laws. That’s how environmental regulation works.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

Tell this to VW and their diesels....

Did the government merely "suggest" they pay billions of dollars in fines too?

Actually, this is a very good example. EU set certain standards for vehicle emissions. Different set of rules for petrol and diesel. VW CHOSE to cheat their way to compliance rather than innovate the path to compliance. By contrast, the US also has set requirements for diesel emissions. Mazda worked super hard to find a configuration that would meet US regs without using SCR. When they finally realized they had to incorporate SCR, they introduced the CX-5 diesel to the market, about three years late. They played by the rules. Unfortunately they came to market at a point where nobody cared, so now CX-5 diesel is gone again.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

Lansing Mich. rep. says 95% of their power comes from coal. Its all on video, he said it just last week. I suspect most large cities are comparable.

Last week as in 2011. Check the date on that video. It was shot when the first gen Chevrolet Volt was brand spankin’ new.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually, this is a very good example. EU set certain standards for vehicle emissions. Different set of rules for petrol and diesel. VW CHOSE to cheat their way to compliance rather than innovate the path to compliance. By contrast, the US also has set requirements for diesel emissions. Mazda worked super hard to find a configuration that would meet US regs without using SCR. When they finally realized they had to incorporate SCR, they introduced the CX-5 diesel to the market, about three years late. They played by the rules. Unfortunately they came to market at a point where nobody cared, so now CX-5 diesel is gone again.

The problem with diesel CX-5 is that it is way too expensive(the top Signature trim only and needs extra money on top of that) and the fuel mileage is not significantly better than the 2.5G unit. And it's piss slow, even slower than the 2.5G unit. I know no one drags a CX-5, but that's still pathetic considering that Mazda's own 2.5T gasoline unit performs better and is cheaper.

Diesel CX-5's failure is exactly why VW chose to cheat. In order to meet the emission standards, fuel economy and power have to be sacrificed, so much that the product is just unappealing to customers.

And then there is the hybrid vehicles that make diesel small passenger cars irrelevant.

Again, when the regulation is made that most people can't follow it or have to make huge compromises to follow it, it doesn't make sense. I have already provided two examples above on what happens when you make regulations that don't make sense. Nothing good.

Sent from toaster or something

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

The problem with diesel CX-5 is that it is way too expensive(the top Signature trim only and needs extra money on top of that) and the fuel mileage is not significantly better than the 2.5G unit. And it's piss slow, even slower than the 2.5G unit. I know no one drags a CX-5, but that's still pathetic considering that Mazda's own 2.5T gasoline unit performs better and is cheaper.

Diesel CX-5's failure is exactly why VW chose to cheat. In order to meet the emission standards, fuel economy and power have to be sacrificed, so much that the product is just unappealing to customers.

And then there is the hybrid vehicles that make diesel small passenger cars irrelevant.

Again, when the regulation is made that most people can't follow it or have to make huge compromises to follow it, it doesn't make sense. I have already provided two examples above on what happens when you make regulations that don't make sense. Nothing good.

Sent from toaster or something

Those are all reasons Mazda wanted to bring it in without SCR. They wanted to bring it in at about the same time that GM was offering diesel in Equinox. It sold well for a couple years, but when sales dropped to about 2% of Equinox sales, GM bounced it. Then CX3 came in....crickets.