I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

Opti said:

In reply to tuna55 :

Good thing everyone has the exact same situation as you

The bounds around most of the use case for the United States are narrow, and my use case is far more extreme than the majority.

There are plenty of people eager to jump on any incomplete statement or challenge statements because of a different perspective.  
  The original OP  didn't feel EV's were a better alternative to ICE's 

    That the act of digging up material to make them  was somehow dirtier than the material dug up to make ICE's 

        Cars are improving..  they are getting lighter, stronger,  safer, and more efficient.   
  The great things about  EV's is we don't need to solve every issue overnight.  Just like ICE's improved over time  EV's will do the same.   It's predicted that a decade from now 50% of the cars will still be ICE's 

    Little improvements  like Tesla switching to 48 volt modules   Which will wind up reducing the use of copper by 25% 

  Big improvements like the model 2 will use 50% less labor to build than the model 3 does. 
 With the retirement of baby boomers there is a 400,000 shortage of workers that will grow on up to 900,000. 
     
         Improvements in battery technology that means states like Texas and California which have periodic brown outs won't suffer from them any more.  
  Solar panels will provide multi point power generation with no fuel cost. 
Wnd generators will soon replace  coal as a generator of electricity. 
  Look to Australia where they were able to shut down coal powered generators and go to renewables in 100 days.   
 England is rapidly approaching 100% renewables.   
      Solar panels are getting better and better while lasting 25-30 years.  Costs are steadily coming down.  
          No it's not perfect yet. But it's getting better and better.

In reply to tuna55 :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I'm pretty sure I've satisfactorily answered the question over and over again, but it's evidently way more fun to argue needlessly.

You have missed the question almost entirely. 

Yes, indisputably, largely speaking, EV's can replace ICE vehicles. I'm driving proof everyday.

No, not largely speaking, that is the point of this whole conversation. You are in the minority, the opposite of largely. You are so fixated on your own unique experience that you are missing most of reality. The question that you answered is can you personally replace your ICE with an EV. Congratulations, your medal is in the mail.
 

The rest of us are discussing what it will take for the majority to switch to EV's. Many of which want larger vehicles, more range, shorter charge times, and lower costs then are available now. We also discussed the various infrastructure, carbon credit, and other issues EV's face with large scale adoption. But it works for you, so I guess we don't need to worry about any of those things. 

I don't always agree with you but you sorta hit the nail on the head.  
   I keep pointing out how prices of EV's aren't high. Not when Chevy sells one at $28,000 that you get $7500 federal tax credit. And $2500 Minnesota state credit. 
 That makes a brand new car sell for $18,000 when the average is over $45,000 for an ICE and a pickup is over $60,000. 
   
       The new Model 2 Tesla is projected to cost $25,000 with the discounts you are buying a new car for $15,000 

    Tuna 55 is absolutely  correct in his postings though. Pointing out that yes indeed they work and  are an affordable solution.  Listen to his 81,000 miles of experience.  
 

    Forget range!! That's a non issue for most people. They charge at home for peanuts. And it's fully charged by morning. The average American travels 35 miles a day. 
   How many 300 mile trips do you take?  
   Typically most people get on a plane when they go over that distance.  Chicago is 400 miles away and costs me $99 plus I'm there in an hour instead of 8 

     If you do need to there are plenty of EV's with 400+ mile range. Yes they start costing closer to the price of the average ICE 

tuna55 said:

Just checking in on the dumpster fire, as I'm over 81K now with my EV which totally, 100% replaced an ICE vehicle.

 

Yup, still a dumpster fire.

We do appreciate your input.  But not everyone can be gracious and open.  
    They just weren't well  brought up or have issues that won't let them be respectful.  
  On a slightly different matter,  

  Have you been following the Tesla model 2?  
  Very interesting and since it's a Tesla fast recharge is available at the superchargers.   
  Range is speculation but most are talking about 300 miles. 
 The great thing is the projected retail is $25,000 and they expect to make 4 million a year. Subtract the federal and any state that's a lot of new car for only $15,000  ( here in Minnesota) 

   It's supposed to be  based on the model Y but shorter.  

In reply to frenchyd :

I don't always agree with you but you sorta hit the nail on the head.  
   I keep pointing out how prices of EV's aren't high. Not when Chevy sells one at $28,000 that you get $7500 federal tax credit. And $2500 Minnesota state credit. 
 That makes a brand new car sell for $18,000 when the average is over $45,000 for an ICE and a pickup is over $60,000. 
   
       The new Model 2 Tesla is projected to cost $25,000 with the discounts you are buying a new car for $15,000 

    Tuna 55 is absolutely  correct in his postings though. Pointing out that yes indeed they work and  are an affordable solution.  Listen to his 81,000 miles of experience.  
 

    Forget range!! That's a non issue for most people. They charge at home for peanuts. And it's fully charged by morning. The average American travels 35 miles a day. 
   How many 300 mile trips do you take?  
   Typically most people get on a plane when they go over that distance.  Chicago is 400 miles away and costs me $99 plus I'm there in an hour instead of 8 

     If you do need to there are plenty of EV's with 400+ mile range. Yes they start costing closer to the price of the average ICE 

 

I'll do my best to keep this brief to avoid rehashing everything that has already been said. I'll skip all of the details about why the Bolt is not the kind of car that the vast majority of Americans want or buy. Instead, I'll agree with you that it is a great deal that would serve the basic transportation needs, if not wants, for most Americans. I'll take it a step further and say it's the best overall automotive value for many people right now. 
 

That does not mean that it's ready to replace ICE cars large scale. Frankly, it proves the opposite. If this is the best example for the consumer, then EV's have some serious progress to make. What is the sound of one hand clapping? That is what you are trying to describe when you claim success by touting current price paid by the consumer  while ignoring the cost to manufacture. 
 

Every Bolt sold, despite the tax credits and carbon credits, loses money for GM. They are ending production early at the end of this year, because the more they sell, the more they lose. They want to move production to more profitable (less loss per unit) EV Silverados. The Bolt will be replaced by a $30k EUV. They hope to stop losing money on EV's by 2025, with the help of credits. If the automaker cannot sell them for more than they cost to make, that is the very definition of not ready. 
 

So while I don't doubt that the Bolt works out for Tuna and his specific situation, it's hard to call it a win when the manufacturer loses money on every unit. And to extrapolate that "win" to the majority of car buyers/vehicles sold is just not reasonable. And before you tell us more "they are working on this" and "they are improving that," again, more proof they are not ready- otherwise you would not feel the need to say that. 

Why GM is killing the Chevy Bolt

I seriously considered a Bolt.  The fact that there are zero chargers on this end of my 75 mile commute led me to not do buy one.  What if the power is out at home and I need to make the trip twice?  What if I have to get to my backup site for something that is another 150 miles away?  Interestingly enough I got a memo yesterday from internal travel saying that EVs should not be rented because they may not meet mission requirements.  This leads me to believe someone rented one and didn't get where they needed to be on time.  It's interesting because certain levels of my employer are pushing and subsidizing EVs.  

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Well put, but before we worry too much about legacy car companies  Do a short comparison between Tesla and Thr legacy companies.  
 Tesla makes over $9000 profit on each EV they sell.  The Legacy companies make barely $1000 for each  ICE  they make and lose $10's of thousands. 
    The reason?  
3 fold. 

1  They all have about 200 billion dollars of debt hanging over them.  While Tesla has over 60 billion in cash to use. 
 
 2 None of them are building clean sheet cars like Tesla. For example. There are approximately 100 parts in the rear end  of the cars they build.  
 Using the Giga presses  Tesla has that down to one part. 
 

3 there are a lot of engineering discoveries to learn  and they are  throwing people at it rather than using the creative and innovative people  Elon Musk hired. 

47 pages later...

Has frenchyd told us which EV he owns yet?

In reply to Toyman! :

I've gone into Dr Evil mode hoping this hits page 50...........as it will solidify my place in the GRM forum hall of fame....granted not in a good way.

In reply to Tom1200 :

This peice of E36 M3 is in no way your fault. There are 5-6 players involved that went full G.G. Allen. You know who you are.

In reply to frenchyd :

Why should I be comparing GM and Tesla? The Bolt was your example. And Tesla is also dependent on credits to achieve profitability. Credits paid for by other manufacturers, so the balance will shift as they manufacturer their own EV's. Back on point, none of them are profitable without credits right now. Spin the numbers however you want, the cost to build the car is more than they are selling it for. 
 

Also, check your figures. You are way, way off on your per car profit numbers. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Are you trying to sell me on this by carrying a generator around or spend 9 ours charging from a normal outlet? Your post didnt read like a pro EV statement

In reply to Opti :

In reply to frenchyd :

Are you trying to sell me on this by carrying a generator around or spend 9 ours charging from a normal outlet? Your post didnt read like a pro EV statement
 

Yea, that's an odd post, even by Frenchyd standards. But, some cars carry a gas generator under the hood, so maybe he's on to something. 

Toyman! said:

47 pages later...

Has frenchyd told us which EV he owns yet?

 

and how long it takes to charge off his solar panels?

Appleseed said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

This peice of E36 M3 is in no way your fault. There are 5-6 players involved that went full G.G. Allen. You know who you are.

Like all great Hall Of Famers I'll say "I didn't do this alone"

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Why should I be comparing GM and Tesla? The Bolt was your example. And Tesla is also dependent on credits to achieve profitability. Credits paid for by other manufacturers, so the balance will shift as they manufacturer their own EV's. Back on point, none of them are profitable without credits right now. Spin the numbers however you want, the cost to build the car is more than they are selling it for. 
 

Also, check your figures. You are way, way off on your per car profit numbers. 

I've seen those same sets of numbers several times.    I'll do you a favor.  Go back and make note of what days and who said it. 
    You don't have 60 billion dollars of cash sitting around when you are building as many factories as Elon Musk is.  Unless your profit per car  is really serious money. 
    ps.  If you want a really sad set of numbers look up Nissan.  It wasn't too long ago a rating agency  downgraded it to Junk bond status. 
    By the way, GM/ Ford gets the same credits as Tesla per EV sold. 

Tom1200 said:

Appleseed said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

This peice of E36 M3 is in no way your fault. There are 5-6 players involved that went full G.G. Allen. You know who you are.

Like all great Hall Of Famers I'll say "I didn't do this alone"

It's like you are nitrousfogger or someone like that. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Why should I be comparing GM and Tesla? The Bolt was your example. And Tesla is also dependent on credits to achieve profitability. Credits paid for by other manufacturers, so the balance will shift as they manufacturer their own EV's. Back on point, none of them are profitable without credits right now. Spin the numbers however you want, the cost to build the car is more than they are selling it for. 
 

Also, check your figures. You are way, way off on your per car profit numbers. 

I found a source for you to check. Listen to Elon Musk  during the investors meeting. 
He lists Tesla and about 10 legacy mfg's 

    Then Steve Allen also breaks out profit per car of the Legacy mfg's  And reports on Tesla's  $9000 +  profit.  
     
    There are other sources.  If you remain in doubt. 
   If you read Wrights law ( circa 1936.) 

 You will understand if you apply that to the current situation.  
   Mind you Tesla went through the same phase back in December of 2008 

In reply to frenchyd :

I found a source for you to check. Listen to Elon Musk  during the investors meeting. 
He lists Tesla and about 10 legacy mfg's 

    Then Steve Allen also breaks out profit per car of the Legacy mfg's  And reports on Tesla's  $9000 +  profit.  
 

I did find some info to back up your per car profit in 2022, so I'd give you that. There is all kinds of conflicting info on Teslas numbers, with the net profit number varying by billions and difficulty in finding accurate sales figures. Apparently Tesla often reports cars produced rather than the traditional cars sold. I do believe that you are highlighting an aberration in the numbers, everything just happened to line up just right to get that number. 
 

     
    There are other sources.  If you remain in doubt. 
   If you read Wrights law ( circa 1936.) 

 You will understand if you apply that to the current situation.  
   Mind you Tesla went through the same phase back in December of 2008 

And here is where you lost the plot again. While Wrights's law is a thing, you completely misapplied it to your example. It's the whole corelation and causation thing again. You are assuming why Tesla profits were up. There are a number of significant factors, yet you pick one of the minor factors, claiming it explains everything. Then please explain why 2023 Q1 margin was down around 30% from 2022 despite shipping a record number of cars? Plug that into Wright's equation and let me know what you get. 

frenchyd said:

    Forget range!! That's a non issue for most people. They charge at home for peanuts. And it's fully charged by morning. The average American travels 35 miles a day. 

The average commute in the USA is 41 miles round trip. Don't let actual facts get in the way though, keep on making E36 M3 up.