The Answer To Our Problems, EV's

Well I don't know about the sedan lines, so won't comment. However their approach is conservative... Well, perhaps they have moved from a toe in the water to a foot. They're not borrowing money and I would still say moving cautiously but optimistically.

Do you acknowledge that the days are numbered for the ICE?

 

I personally think the EV is a step backward and the ICE will remain dominant for decades.

 

Well, that's a given anyhow.

What about with virtually free electricity and 600 mile range?

 

I don't foresee either of those any time soon. And lengthy down time to recharge is a deal breaker for road trips. Use of heater or air conditioner degrades range.
I understand EV as viable for local errands. But it's not an appropriate road trip car.

 

True, green energy is an ecological and economic and social disaster. But its not about ecology or the environment, its about control.

A big part of control is limiting peoples movement.

And in order to install a more top down controlling system the current social and govt order must be replaced. If people are happy and prosperous then they are not interested in replacing the system, people have to be made ti suffer and believe the current system is broken so the govt can "build it back better", better meaning a system which better controls people and minimizes opposition.

 

Well it seems like there's a desire for centralized power over people's movement so I wonder about that in this push for electric cars. As long as people can choose not to buy electric cars they won't.

 

True, but the govt - particularly democrats - are trying to force people into electric cars. The democrats want to eliminate at least half the gas cars by 2030, but through CAFE rules are aiming to make gas cars so expensive that they are unavailable.

Soon you won't have a choice. And as you mentioned in another post, there is not the infrastructure to support mass market EV, so people will be stuck.

 

No you won't what you need to be doing right now is snapping up these mid-70s or earlier vehicles cuz you can repair them and keep them running fairly simply. That's exactly what happened in the agricultural equipment market New Holland and John Deere want 45,000 to fix their garbage, so the market value of rebuilt older tractors shot through the ceiling.

I was bewildered one yanmars were selling for the money they were the controls aren't even in English on those things.

They've already got cars like this I have a 12-year-old Ford that I was forced to go to the dealership to do a repair on it.

 

I think Biden upped the fuel economy mandates for 2026 to something like 49 mpg and that can only be accomplished by selling EVs- lot's of them. That's up from Obama's merely ridiculous 40 mpg and Trump's decently sane rolled back 36 mpg. It is every bit a government decision.

 

The rock and hard place the government finds themselves in is that vehicles above 14,000 lbs. GVWR are not certified as a full chassis like light duty is. They're certified engine only. And useful engines run on fossil fuels. Every gallon of diesel or gasoline goes to a set amount of CO2 (that's the high school physics definition of combustion) that can be looked up on the DOE website. There's no way to make those vehicles more fuel efficient and still accomplish the work output needed.

Essentially, if the government destroys light duty step up to an F450 (you can look it up on the Ford site) with a big old diesel or gas engine and cargo capacity to haul your house around.

And as WV v. EPA wends it's way over to automotive the whole idea of forced mass adoption of EVs could just blow up on the grounds that EPA was never given the proper authority to regulate CO2 anyways.

 

"Vehicle" does not automatically mean a ton and two hundred horsepower.
An electric vehicle that could transport two people could have as little as one horsepower and have 100 km of autonomy without costing much in money or materials.
It is mostly the ridiculous choices of production and purchase that have led us to so much pollution and expense.

 

Sounds like a great, ground breaking concept. Why don't you step up and build it? You'd be fabulously wealthy and save the planet at the same time.

Assuming it really is that easy.

 

there was a time horses were preferred over gas cars too, each has its place

 

Yes, but who would want one?

 

Yes, and . . . ?

 

had we listened to those people, we would not have gas cars

always has to be early adopters.. and will always be those that demonize new technology

 

Nope. ICE vehicles were a technological step forward from horses. EV's are a step backward; that's the difference.

 

not early on without the infrastructure there to support them, the tires would get stuck in the mud, no where to fill up with fuel, ect....

 

Irrelevant. They were an obvious advance. Not so with EV's.

 

Both and Electric and Gas cars had a similar start, but the gas cars had obvious ability to advance quickly and become affordable in time while Electric cars didn't because it couldn't advance much at all.

Today Electric cars have caught up part way but its 125-year flaw is still in place today which gets ignored continually and therefore will always lag far behind gas cars which continues to advance ahead.

 

EV are an obvious advance, but early yet, need better energy storage

 

Toyota is the ONLY car company that understand the problem with all electric cars which is why they continue the HYBRID approach which far better as my own brother can attest by personal experience as he bought his first one about 20 years ago then bought another one after 14 years which is still running fine, he uses very little gasoline and can travel from Seattle to Kennewick and back easily on a single tank of gas.

 

Less capability, less range, more down time.

 

many have the same range, depends on the mpg of the vehicle, the difference for now is charging time, but that will be changing with better batteries

ll modern cars are digital and harder to fix, gas cars are no exception

most gas cars nowadays will die if the battery dies, in the past a gas car would keep on running, just have issue starting... but you could always pop the clutch

 

An apples to apples comparison would be to compare my F150 (2017) and the new Ford Lightning.

Mine's a crew cab and will haul 5 people (6 or 7 if they're family) and pull a trailer with a bed full of lumber and the range (with a 36 gallon tank) will be somewhere in the 650 mile range, enough to get me home to Michigan to visit my Mom and halfway back.

The Lightning's best range is 300 miles with the optional battery upgrade. Until you tow a trailer apparently when some people have noted the range goes to about 80 miles. And that's in summer. It probably sucks even more in cold weather.

And I've already replaced the battery when it died. Cost me about $100. And it didn't kill the truck in any way. The idea that a dead battery kills a gas car is just plain silly.

And battery technology is pretty close to maxxed out due to physics. And charging a battery is inherently lossy compared to burning fuel onboard and using the energy created directly.