More on EVs from a guy trying to sell them

[truckster]

Originally Posted by 72c20customcamper

Mmmmm GM is backtracking .

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/30/gm-t...uct-plans.html

So, we've had the Volt, and now the Bolt... maybe the next one will the the Molt? Nah, too dumb.

I've got it... the Re-Volt!

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by truckster

So, we've had the Volt, and now the Bolt... maybe the next one will the the Molt? Nah, too dumb.

I've got it... the Re-Volt!

Smart business move by GM--finally. Some other manufacturers, like Mazda and Toyota, never dug themselves that far into the EV hole. Full-on EVs work for commuters, but hybrids make more sense for most of us.

And I have to think super-cold temperatures leading to reduced battery capacity and iced-over chargers have essentially said, "Welcome to the world of four-season driving!"

ReVolt! I like it.

[72c20customcamper]

Originally Posted by MikeB

Smart business move by GM--finally. Some other manufacturers, like Mazda and Toyota, never dug themselves that far into the EV hole. Full-on EVs work for commuters, but hybrids make more sense for most of us.

And I have to think super-cold temperatures leading to reduced battery capacity and iced-over chargers have essentially said, "Welcome to the world of four-season driving!"

ReVolt! I like it.

I believe the reason that the Japanese car companies haven’t gone in as deep as ford and Chevy into EVs is they don’t need to boost their corporate mpg averages . The domestic companies sell a lot of gas guzzlers especially trucks .

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by 72c20customcamper

I believe the reason that the Japanese car companies haven’t gone in as deep as ford and Chevy into EVs is they don’t need to boost their corporate mpg averages. The domestic companies sell a lot of gas guzzlers especially trucks.

Yes, I read in a couple places that up until several years ago, cars and trucks had separate fuel consumption and emissions requirements. These days a manufacturer's entire fleet is averaged. The only exemptions are vehicles with at least 8500 lb GVWR.

[Sicklajoie]

Looks like common sense will prevail, for a little while anyways.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a46912...ev-transition/

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by Sicklajoie

Looks like common sense will prevail, for a little while anyways.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a46912...ev-transition/

From the article:

"Some of the blame (for the EV sales slowdown) went to high EV sticker prices, even as the growing inventory as well as Tesla price pressures pushed MSRPs down. By last fall, the average transaction price of an EV was $50,798, compared with an ATP of $48,759 for conventional gasoline and hybrid models, according to Cox Automotive."

I think those prices are somewhat misleading. I have to wonder what you get for that average EV price of $50,798. Maybe a small Tesla Model 3 with a base price of $39K but a typically price of $46K-51K. Compare that to a 7-8 passenger gasoline powered SUV for mid-high $40K range. It would be more fair to compare the Model 3 to a Honda Civic or maybe an Accord. And with those cars you'd get a real instrument panel and Apple Car Play! So, to sum up you still get more for less with gasoline-powered cars. Will EVs eventually dominate? Heck, I don't know, but certainly wouldn't bet on it.

[Accelo]

2023 was an awful year for EV's.
They grew 45%

I understand no one want's to be told what to do.
My belief is Efficiency will prevail in the end.
Remember the mandate was for cars, not trucks.
There are a lot of people that EV's do work for.

And if you live in an area were it gets below 0 deg F you shouldn't have an elect car as your only transportation.
If you can't charge at home maybe an elect car isn't for you.

No oil changes, no O2 sensors, no exhaust, no radiator, no fuel injectors, no engine air cleaner, no plugs or wires, no transmission, so it can't fail. Brakes last for over 100K because 95% of the regeneration slows the car and they are not needed. The list goes on.

One thing a ICE car can not do it turn a down hill back to fuel. Elect vehicles do this with ease. So even if a ICE car was 95% efficient, and they are closer to 20%, the elect vehicle would be more efficient because the ability to turn potential energy into fuel.
The more you drive the more the price per mile goes down.

No one want to pay more to travel than required.

Car and Driver found: So, by our calculations this makes the electric F-150 $2664 cheaper to own and operate over the first three years than its gas counterpart—and that’s without the tax credit. With it, it’s a substantial $10,164 less in three years of driving.
Plus, as the years progress the lower costs of operating an electric vehicle (fuel and maintenance) continue to accrue.
So is owning an EV cheaper in the long run? All signs point to possibly. Maybe. Sometimes. But as we said, at this point in time, it’s complicated.

[DeadheadNM]

Mercedes-Benz delays electrification goal, beefs up combustion engine line-up

“STUTTGART, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Mercedes-Benz on Thursday delayed its electrification goal by five years and assured investors it would keep sprucing up its combustion engine models, becoming the latest carmaker to flag a weaker-than-expected appetite for battery-powered cars.”

HERE: https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...te-2024-02-22/

[68bowtie]

Originally Posted by Accelo

2023 was an awful year for EV's.
They grew 45%

I understand no one want's to be told what to do.
My belief is Efficiency will prevail in the end.
Remember the mandate was for cars, not trucks.
There are a lot of people that EV's do work for.

And if you live in an area were it gets below 0 deg F you shouldn't have an elect car as your only transportation.
If you can't charge at home maybe an elect car isn't for you.

No oil changes, no O2 sensors, no exhaust, no radiator, no fuel injectors, no engine air cleaner, no plugs or wires, no transmission, so it can't fail. Brakes last for over 100K because 95% of the regeneration slows the car and they are not needed. The list goes on.

One thing a ICE car can not do it turn a down hill back to fuel. Elect vehicles do this with ease. So even if a ICE car was 95% efficient, and they are closer to 20%, the elect vehicle would be more efficient because the ability to turn potential energy into fuel.
The more you drive the more the price per mile goes down.

No one want to pay more to travel than required.

Car and Driver found: So, by our calculations this makes the electric F-150 $2664 cheaper to own and operate over the first three years than its gas counterpart—and that’s without the tax credit. With it, it’s a substantial $10,164 less in three years of driving.
Plus, as the years progress the lower costs of operating an electric vehicle (fuel and maintenance) continue to accrue.
So is owning an EV cheaper in the long run? All signs point to possibly. Maybe. Sometimes. But as we said, at this point in time, it’s complicated.

These are good logical points and I agree. Also, as more (and faster) charging stations become more common, and as prices get more competitive, new buyers will continue to choose EV’s.

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by Accelo

Car and Driver found: So, by our calculations this makes the electric F-150 $2664 cheaper to own and operate over the first three years than its gas counterpart—and that’s without the tax credit. With it, it’s a substantial $10,164 less in three years of driving.

Good points. So I wonder why Ford dealers are having a hard time selling EV pickups? Most likely it's still range anxiety, and will be for some time. Now, for a tradesman who never gets more than 50 miles from home, and has a Level 2 home charger, sounds like it's a good investment. That is unless he only wants a basic truck.

[71CHEVYSHORTBED402]

My girlfriend was quick to buy a Volvo EV. I won't get into why she did that, no more than to say she lives in California Anyway, it's a pain in the ask, but she insists that she loves the car.

For instance today she traveled from Sac. to Monterey, and couldn't find an available charger anywhere. She couldn't even spend much energy looking for a place, because should she even try, the chargers may not be available, never mind at times they don't work at all.

With luck she arrived at her daughters place with 10% left over. That's cutting it close, what if there's a traffic jam, after all, it's California. Then she had the challenge that she can't leave tomorrow as planned, because it's not charged. Her daughter only has a 110, that's like watching grass grow. Anyway, before dinner they managed to locate an available fast charge, and barely squeezed in.

[Richard]

I live in a state that is pushing ev's. If we got rid of our ice cars and purchased two ev's our electricity bill would be 1k per month or more, in the summer months with AC it will be even more. Far exceeding our actual monthly costs now. Not to mention the inconveniences of owning the vehicle. For charging at home. Solar is not an option anymore as they have made the recovery period to long.
EV's may be the future. The time is not now. FUTURE when technolgy catches up.

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by Accelo

2023 was an awful year for EV's.
They grew 45%

Yes, but the RATE of growth slowed last year. That's not a good thing when market share was 7.6%. Actual sales are still growing but not at the high rate that car & truck manufacturers anticipated. Maybe that's because more and more of those who want an EV already have one. 2024 will be an interesting year.

[raggedjim]

Originally Posted by MikeB

Yes, but the RATE of growth slowed last year. That's not a good thing when market share was 7.6%. Actual sales are still growing but not at the high rate that car & truck manufacturers anticipated. Maybe that's because more and more of those who want an EV already have one. 2024 will be an interesting year.

We engineers used to say after budget meetings "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Statistics, it's a poker game when done correctly.

[Boog]

Just watched a new vid on evs. Says GM and Ford are putting the brakes on EV production. With EVs only 7% of the market john q public is not just jumping all over owning one so new ones are just sitting. Not everyone is excited enough to get onboard. Charge range and recovery time are still key issues. Fire hazard concerns, repair costs and we haven't even got into the resale value loss that many are sure to experience, IMO. Automakers have spent billions gearing up for this gov mandated change over.
It is safe to say the majority of consumers will prefer ICE for as long as petrol fuel is still available.

[DeadheadNM]

I’m curious what the domestic content is on a GM battery operated car. I briefly looked at the content of the showroom vehicles at a local Chevy dealer recently. The vette was the top at 40% while a Cadillac sedan was the lowest at 30% and it also had 15% made in the communist party controlled Peoples Republic of China.

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by DeadheadNM

A proposed bill in the state of Washington would make use of gas powered lawn equipment a criminal offense “by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by both for each separate violation.” If successful, would seem like a coercive tactic to be used against private ownership of any ICE automobile.

I thought we were safe when 1984 came and went!

[DeadheadNM]

Let’s make that fiction again.

[71CHEVYSHORTBED402]

...

[Getter-Done]

Originally Posted by 71CHEVYSHORTBED402

...

This is what I have been thinking of.

Our Infrastructure is Better than the 1900's?

Link: https://ethical.net/transport/we-had...this-happened/

By 1900, there were 4,192 vehicles on the streets of the US. Steam cars accounted for 1,681 of these; 1,575 were electric, and 936 had internal ​combustion engines.


If you wanted to get around town, the electric carriage was a better option – that is, if you were rich enough to afford one. Unlike internal combustion engines, electric vehicles were easy to turn on, accelerate, and brake, there was no exhaust, and you didn’t have something constantly exploding under your seat. Oh, and you also didn’t have to crank the engine every time you stopped, which is part of the reason that electric Studebaker won the Philadelphia race so handily. As a result of this ease of use, electric cars were looking like big business in the early 1900s, especially for the industry giant Electric Vehicle Company.

At the time, the Electric Vehicle Company was the biggest car manufacturer in the country, and they used a model that seems revolutionary now, but made sense back then. Instead of selling their cars, they rented them to people for one or more days. Each night the renter could return the car to a central garage where the Electric Vehicle Company would charge and service the vehicle – a model very similar to how stables worked at the time.

But despite the electric car’s success, its golden age was about to end.

First, an investigation by The New York Herald accused the Electric Vehicle Company of fraudulently securing a loan, leading to intense backlash that ultimately bankrupted the company in 1901.

Then, Henry Ford started banging out gas-powered vehicles, and with the help of scale, exploitation of his workers, and the invention of the electric starter in 1912 (which meant that drivers no longer had to crank their cars every time they wanted to travel), people started paying attention to the internal combustion engine. Around the same time, roads were beginning to be paved – but they took people out into the country, which lacked charging ports, so electric vehicles’ range became more of an issue.

Local and federal governments failed to build the infrastructure necessary for electric vehicles, meaning that gas-powered vehicles were a much better option for the growing hordes hoping to escape the city.

And finally, as the auto industry began to attract more customers in the early 1900s, advertising became increasingly gendered. Electric vehicles, more often than not, were sold to women as easy-to-drive parlors on wheels. Even Henry Ford’s wife owned an electric vehicle.

[Accelo]

"Ford dealers are having a hard time selling EV pickups?"
At this time haling heavy loads shorten the range so much it isn't feasible for many.

Elect cars had to wait for the technology to improve. In the early 1900 VFD (variable freq drives) didn't exist and neither did lithium-ion batteries.

How about a 1000 miles on a single charge?
https://aptera.us/

Lots of technology coming on board.

[68bowtie]

There are certainly valid points on both sides of this topic. But what it really comes down to is supply and demand. It’s really pretty simple. The fact the govt is imposing mandates and rebates tells it all. Consumers don’t want them that much. How much of that is fear (valid or not), or the finances just don’t work for people.

[71CHEVYSHORTBED402]

I watched a study of what seemed to be on the level and honest. It demonstrated how EV are actually worse for the environment until I don't recall what it was, somewhere around 60-70K on the odometer. Then EV demonstrates an environmental advantage. That's if we assume they last that long of course, to me EV are throw away vehicles, designed to be replaced.

And what vehicle continued to be the most environmental friendly? That would be the Toyota Prius. Props Toyota, great company.

To me that means why bother with EV when you can have a hybrid that's far more convenient? That is, unless you want to go 0-60 in 3ish seconds.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Accelo

2023 was an awful year for EV's.
They grew 45%

Percentages can be misleading. 50% of two is one. Electric car sales are low. The evidence is not deniable.

[MikeB]

I just now read an article entitled "Alternating Current" (very clever) in the March/April 2024 issue of Car & Driver magazine. Over the past year or more, they have devoted lots of pages to reviews on EVs, from high performance exotics to entry level. So they are not anti-EV by any means. However, below are some of their comments and questions in addressing how GM and Ford got it so wrong. These are not exact quotes.

--Many manufacturers simply guessed wrong with their EV offerings. They scrambled to build EV and battery factories, but they had too many of the wrong products at the wrong price points.

--Why did GM chase EV sales with its nearly 10,000-pound, $100K Hummer EV while dropping the $30K Bolt?

--Who told Ford that the EV market sweet spot is pickup trucks with prices that could approach six figures?

--Another factor could be jealousy over Tesla's market capitalization. Tesla's success must mean EVs are the path to riches for executives, right?