Catching up on last weeks Barrett Jackson auction
New Hummer SUV at 800+ horsepower and 10,500 f/p torque? I'd kinda like to try it.......
Catching up on last weeks Barrett Jackson auction
New Hummer SUV at 800+ horsepower and 10,500 f/p torque? I'd kinda like to try it.......
The OEM's are designing and building EV's as fast as they possibly can. ICE has no chance of surviving.
Datsun310Guy said:Catching up on last weeks Barrett Jackson auction
New Hummer SUV at 800+ horsepower and 10,500 f/p torque? I'd kinda like to try it.......
It is shocking how quick that big girl can move. Absolutely mind bending.
mattm said:In the end, this really comes down to the simple math of efficiency. The most efficient ICE engines have an efficiency around 30%. These are not the engines that we enthusiasts enjoy, they are the ubiquitous 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo popular in the CUVs everyone says they hate, but sell in the highest numbers. The efficiency of a modern Tesla is near 90%, but the energy must come from somewhere. I'm going to ignore coal because it is almost dead. The efficiency of natural gas power plants is somewhere around 80%. The simple math says that the centralized power plant running at 70-80% efficiency powering vehicles that transform 90% of the power they consume into power at the wheels of the vehicle is significantly more efficient than 30% efficient power plants in every vehicle that is in use today.
At the core, that efficiency is why EVs will win in the long run. The average person drives 40 miles a day and most EVs available today can provide that. The future is here, right now, for the vast majority of consumers. To me this is actually great for ICE vehicles. I loathe the 2.0L turbo 4 with that make peak power at 5k that are omnipresent today. The EV driving experience is so much better than those abysmal engines. Let's save the fun engines, the ones that are 20% efficient or less. The 911 GT3 engine, the Voodoo mustang, every flat crank Ferrari... let's use real gas and synthetic gas in those. Use the electrons for the drives we have to make anyway, the shuttling the kids to practice, the commute to work. Use the real and synth gas for the early morning mountain runs in the cars we drive for the fun, not the commute.
Internal combustion cannot come anywhere near the efficiency of BEVs. Neither can hydrogen fuel cells that can barely better the ICE competition. Any talk track on the subject of EVs that doesn't compare efficiency of the platforms, is just a distraction, or intentional obfuscation of reality. Does anyone really believe that 'wokeness' is driving Ford, GM, VAG etc to step outside their comfort zone and go all in on EVs? Anyone think the state of California and the EV mandate that bans ICE in 2035 but allows Hybrids is driving the manufacturers into EVs? Tesla has proven that EVs are a viable product. The efficiency advantage is the extinction event for most internal combustion. It's why EVs powered by coal generated electricty are still more efficient than gasoline engines.
There is a program on the Disney + channel called positive Energy That really shows real options people have regarding electricity and choices.
Watch the gravity light in Africa that sells for about what 3-4 days worth of kerosene costs.
mattm said:Internal combustion cannot come anywhere near the efficiency of BEVs. Neither can hydrogen fuel cells that can barely better the ICE competition. Any talk track on the subject of EVs that doesn't compare efficiency of the platforms, is just a distraction, or intentional obfuscation of reality. Does anyone really believe that 'wokeness' is driving Ford, GM, VAG etc to step outside their comfort zone and go all in on EVs?
I agree. The added prospect of being out from under the thumb of CARB also has to be a nice bonus. It will probably take the EPA quite a while to put real standards into place for efficiency. They can then point most of the blame for emissions at the electrical utilities.
I did a bit of research on the history of EV's, and it appears that the arguments for and against have changed little in 100+ years. In the early 1900's, EV's were more popular than ICE cars. They were easier to use, easier to maintain, and were equal to or better in performance. Most car owners lived in cities, where EV's worked well for most needs. Most delivery vehicles and taxis were EV's. But once away from the cities, ICE cars were required due to the range requirements and lack of infrastructure. Sound familiar? A turning point was the electric starter, which made ICE vehicles more acceptable to a much larger portion of the population. ICE advanced much more quickly and overtook EV sales. It wasn't about the propulsion method. Electric motors have always been able to compete with or beat ICE engines. It was energy storage. It took 100 years to get to the point where a battery can get closer enough to the capacity of a tank of gas. The problem now is not so much energy storage (although size and weight are still a challenge,) it's the energy transfer rate. A gas tank can be refilled quickly. A battery cannot. Which is why we are back to each being solutions to different problems, much like 100 years ago. My prediction- hybrids will be the primary vehicle choice, and I expect at some point that in many hybrids the ICE engine will support the Electric drive rather than the current other way around.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
What I fail to understand is people's inability to see outside of the box. The average American drives 40 miles a day.
But even if you travel 2-300 miles a day an EV will do so cheaper and more reliably than an ICE. ( that's 5 straight hours of freeway driving)
OK there are occasions such as vacations when more is required. For those there are Hybrids or rental companies. With a PHEV as long as the range is 50 miles before the ICE Kicks in. You are getting cheap commuting. And range you claim is important.
Rental companies work too. Want to visit grandma and it's more than the range of your EV? Go to a rental company and rent a nice new clean one you won't need to worry about.
You'll still be ahead financially at the end of the year. Or bite the bullet and after 4-5 hours on the road plug in, eat a meal, catch a mini nap, or read a book.
Really, it's a rare parent who lives more than 5 hours away and an airplane won't get you there faster.
Family vacations can be a vacation for dad as well. Planes, trains, can be a fun alternative. You can even have a drink or two without any risk.
Personally trains appeal to me in my senior life. Big. Really big seats that nearly fully recline. Meals just by walking up to the dining car? Not glued to that drivers seat. Get up socialize, go to the Bar Car. Want a go to sleep? OK. Except while you are sleeping you're still heading towards your destination. I find the motion on modern railroad sleeper cars very soothing and quickly lulls me to sleep.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Henry Ford's wife drove a Detroit Electric because he didn't want her having to crank a Model T
In reply to frenchyd :
While you are looking outside the box, you are largely missing the box itself. Many of your examples are not priorities to most people. You recently used a Chevy Cruz as a comparison example to an EV car- a 2020 because as you said, it was discontinued. It wasn't discontinued because it was selling like hotcakes. It was discontinued because people didn't want to buy it. You compared an EV as an alternative to a car that people didn't want. That's not a great hook to win over the average person. All of you long range savings predictions are great. If you ignore the fact that most people don't keep their cars that long. They are paying the increased costs up front, with the promise of a payback at a later date. A date for many which will be long after they have sold the EV. I wanted to buy a Lightning recently. I had cash in hand. I loved the truck, and despite it's range short comings, it would have worked for my wife's commute. But the price was too high. The break even was over 100k miles. That is almost 7 years at your 40 miles a day. A problem for current EV's is that they need to be in a Goldilocks zone to make sense for most people. Too few miles, too little savings/ too long a payback. Too many miles, range becomes more important. Sure, there are plenty of EV cars with big Goldilocks zones, but most people don't want cars. Build a vehicle that works for most people, and it will sell.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I used the Cruze because it was the closet Apple to Apple comparison. Not because it was what most people wanted.
Without a ICE to compare it with Tesla was alone introducing a car which frankly I had no interest in.
My niche is Jaguar. The only Jag EV is the I Pace. Which really isn't a Jaguar at all, it's made in Austria. If it was any good I might have some interest but it doesn't have anything that would cause me to want it.
When Tesla introduced their cheap ( $35,000 ). I got very interested.
I'd seen the weakness of a Chevy when they recalled all the EV1's and then later introduced the Volt. That stumbled along barely making enough to keep it afloat. The Volt and with a 33 mile range before the ICE kicked on really wasn't enough for me to consider one. Only once the Volt got to 50 mile range was I mildly interested.
The Bolts range failed to excite me until the $7500 rebate made it viable.
Tesla went from $35,000 to over $50,000 and again I lost interest because even with $7500 rebate ( that was just about over) it was too expensive.
When they announced the $7500 rebate again this fall I looked around hard. Chevy's Bolt fit our budget but lacks the hands free feature I need in my retirement.
Back to Tesla. And they've dropped that price too. So perhaps I should stretch, sell the wife's' Honda CRV and pay the Tesla off in 3 years.
My wife likes the Volvo and maybe the Mustang but having to work the extra year for a Tesla might be the deal breaker.
I'm pretty sure the Volvo won't qualify so it looks like a Mustang or Tesla.
My point is Tesla has been selling enough of that model long enough with advanced features that actually pay for themselves. Insurance on smart cruse control and blind spot warnings lower costs enough to make long time ownership viable.
Boost_Crazy said:Build a vehicle that works for most people, and it will sell.
That's what manufacturers are doing. The list of EVs will continue to grow, but right now pretty much none of them have any issue selling every one they can make.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to frenchyd :
While you are looking outside the box, you are largely missing the box itself. Many of your examples are not priorities to most people. You recently used a Chevy Cruz as a comparison example to an EV car- a 2020 because as you said, it was discontinued. It wasn't discontinued because it was selling like hotcakes. It was discontinued because people didn't want to buy it. You compared an EV as an alternative to a car that people didn't want. That's not a great hook to win over the average person. All of you long range savings predictions are great. If you ignore the fact that most people don't keep their cars that long. They are paying the increased costs up front, with the promise of a payback at a later date. A date for many which will be long after they have sold the EV. I wanted to buy a Lightning recently. I had cash in hand. I loved the truck, and despite it's range short comings, it would have worked for my wife's commute. But the price was too high. The break even was over 100k miles. That is almost 7 years at your 40 miles a day. A problem for current EV's is that they need to be in a Goldilocks zone to make sense for most people. Too few miles, too little savings/ too long a payback. Too many miles, range becomes more important. Sure, there are plenty of EV cars with big Goldilocks zones, but most people don't want cars. Build a vehicle that works for most people, and it will sell.
I agree with you that used EVs, at least desirable ones with fast charging capabilities and no battery degradation gotchas like the Leaf or other compliance cars, are thin on the ground and more expensive. Most people buy used cars, and right now, highly capable used EVs demand a premium that can take a long time to pay back. I am not so sure the same can be said about new cars, especially with the recent price cuts and tax incentives. The average new car price last year was high enough that a Model 3 performance seems a bargain today, especially if you qualify for the tax incentive. I will admit that I haven't been pricing trucks recently, but it seems like all trucks are expensive. I mean, comparing a new lightning to a used f-150 will obviously extend the payback timeline, and it is a problem that there aren't enough EV trucks entering the used market right now. When they do, the payoff math won't take anywhere near that wrong if the vehicles are apples to apples, in my opinion.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Most people aren't buying EV's. The share is growing. As EV's get better and priced more in line with their ICE counterparts, more people will adopt them. We aren't there yet. The truth is that they don't make very many, and with the shortages, every automaker had no trouble selling all that they could produce, EV or ICE. So selling everything they produced is not a reliable indicator.
Of the top 25, #9 and #15 were EV's. Both cars, 8 of the top 10 were trucks or SUV's.
#1 was the Ford F150. Out of 653,957 sold, the number of Lightnings was much lower than I expected- 15,617. The top three vehicles were all 1/2 trucks. If you count the Chevy/GMC twins, that's over 2 million vehicles sold in the most popular segment- and only 15,617 were EV's.
I've said this when we've had the same discussion years ago. We will know that EV's are ready to replace ICE when the top selling vehicle is an EV F-150. I said that long before the Lightning existed. It's a good first try, but not yet ready to take on the champ. Ford doesn't think so, or they would have built more than just 2% of their F-150's as Lightnings.
In reply to mattm :
Really doesn't it depend on that person.their situation. And finical condition?
I was lucky, nearly all of my adult working life My daily drivers were paid for by my employer. So every 2 years a new one. With with a company car / or later a car allowance.
The last 25+ years I would buy my own. Use it for 2 years by which time I'd received enough to completely pay it off. It would go to my wife to drive to and from the bus stop (1 mile away) she'd use it and later give it to a daughter to use. Both Girls got a new car to go to college with.
Technically they were supposed to make payments but my wife usually made them. ( thinking I wouldn't know)
I digress. A lot of people around here buy new cars every few years. While some actually buy used cars, hoping to be rid of them before maintenance gets too expensive.
I'll admit things are changing quickly. Even in the 1980's 2 years or something over 130,000 miles was about all owners could reliably expect. But losing too many customers to imports American quality started improving. Select cars if well maintained seemed to solidly go well over 2-300,000 miles.
Chevy and Ford seemed to lead that about the same time some of the imports really started falling off. I think each manufacturer had good and marginal ones by the time 2010 came around.
The somewhat scary thing is with EV's we won't know who's are the most reliable. Tesla's seem to have a really good reliability. Same with GM. But 10 years from now? Will Kia be the new Toyota? Will Honda retain its traditional qualities?
frenchyd said:In reply to mattm :
Really doesn't it depend on that person.their situation. And finical condition?
I was lucky, nearly all of my adult working life My daily drivers were paid for by my employer. So every 2 years a new one. With with a company car / or later a car allowance.
The last 25+ years I would buy my own. Use it for 2 years by which time I'd received enough to completely pay it off. It would go to my wife to drive to and from the bus stop (1 mile away) she'd use it and later give it to a daughter to use. Both Girls got a new car to go to college with.
Technically they were supposed to make payments but my wife usually made them. ( thinking I wouldn't know)I digress. A lot of people around here buy new cars every few years. While some actually buy used cars, hoping to be rid of them before maintenance gets too expensive.
I'll admit things are changing quickly. Even in the 1980's 2 years or something over 130,000 miles was about all owners could reliably expect. But losing too many customers to imports American quality started improving. Select cars if well maintained seemed to solidly go well over 2-300,000 miles.
Chevy and Ford seemed to lead that about the same time some of the imports really started falling off. I think each manufacturer had good and marginal ones by the time 2010 came around.
The somewhat scary thing is with EV's we won't know who's are the most reliable. Tesla's seem to have a really good reliability. Same with GM. But 10 years from now? Will Kia be the new Toyota? Will Honda retain its traditional qualities?
Used vehicle sales in the US last year were estimated to be 36M. New vehicles sales were 13M. More people buy used than new, and right now, there just aren't that many desirable used EVs on the market. That has been the reality of the market for I don't know how long, and it will likely remain the reality.
In reply to mattm :
I agree with you that used EVs, at least desirable ones with fast charging capabilities and no battery degradation gotchas like the Leaf or other compliance cars. Most people buy used cars, and right now, highly capable used EVs demand a premium that can take a long time to pay back. I am not so sure the same can be said about new cars, especially with the recent price cuts and tax incentives. The average new car price last year was high enough that a Model 3 performance seems a bargain today, especially if you qualify for the tax incentive. I will admit that I haven't been pricing trucks recently, but it seems like all trucks are expensive. I mean, comparing a new lightning to a used f-150 will obviously extend the payback timeline, and it is a problem that there aren't enough EV trucks entering the used market right now. When they do, the payoff math won't take anywhere near that wrong if the vehicles are apples to apples, in my opinion.
I compared a new F150 with the F150 hybrid and the Lightning, in Nov. of 2022. Equal trim levels (looked at both XLT and Lariate.) I also figured in the tax credit, but after doing more research, I believe either the truck or I may not have been eligible. BTW, the tax credits are not a sure thing. There are all kinds of stipulations that can cloud your eligibility. It would really suck to buy one expecting a credit and not get it.
Anyways, I figured $5 a gallon for Cali gas and .30 per kWh for the PG&E electrons. The gas F150 had the lowest up front cost. The hybrid had a modest price increase for a modest fuel mileage boost. The Lightning had the highest up front cost. The cost of all three, energy included, equalized right around 100,000 miles. From there, the hybrid pulled ahead of the gas due to the better mileage, and the Lightning pulled ahead of both. This was at $5 per gallon. At the current $4 per gallon, I'd expect the break even point to be around 120,000 mi. This will likely change by area. While I have high gas prices, I also have high electricity prices. Back when I did the math, I believe it cost around $2.50 for the equivalent "gallon" of electricity Vs. $5 for a gallon of gas.
While the price drops and rebates for the Tesla sound great, I wasn't in the market for a car.
In reply to mattm :
I'm sure that's true. The bus company I work at only myself and the owners drive newish vehicles.
Yet most of my working life a 3-4 year old car in the parking lot would raise eyebrows.
In fact when I drive a 3&1/2 year old Corvette to work at Caterpillar several people pulled me aside and explained the car allowance policy and how it was expected to be used. I'm not sure they would have let me go home if I hadn't agreed to comply.
People here talk about price parity for EVs. The Bolt EV starts at $25k, for a 200hp, 266lb ft of torque hatchback that has a real world range of 300 miles. That compares favorably with a GTI or MINI Cooper S, both of which cost more to actually drive than the Bolt. My bolt uses $6 of electricity to go 300 miles, while my MINI Cooper uses $50 of dino juice to go the same distance at current electrical and gasoline prices.
I've driven electric since 2013 when I got my Volt. At the time, right wing pundits and oil company propaganda called it an "Obama car" and made up all sorts of stories about them to denigrate them, GM, and the car's owners. Now those same people are saying "oh, plug in hybrids are what we should be building instead of BEVs" due to them still using gasoline.
I leased a Bolt in 2020 as a hedge against depreciation. Shouldn't have worried. Got to trade it in on a 2023 Bolt EUV a couple months ago and actually made money on the transaction.
Both Bolts have been used as daily drivers and road trip cars, having gone on monthly trips up to eastern CT from here in Baltimore, and also each one has gone to TN as well. In the 3 months I've had it, the '23 EUV has already been on a 700 mile and 900 mile road trip and will be heading back up to CT in a week or so).
These are not short range, close commute cars at all. For the price, they can't be beat. Quick, silent, low CG, comfortable, practical, and economical.
The '2020 Bolt range in the spring through fall:
I haven't had the EUV in the spring-fall yet, but it's range here in the winter:
I can tell you this, I'll never go back to gas for a daily driver. it's way too convenient to refuel at home and have the ability to start every day with a "full tank," never having to GO somewhere else to refuel. People talk abut gas cars taking 5 minutes to refuel, not including travel time to ge to the gas station. Well, refueling my car in the day to day driving takes 10 seconds! 5 to plug in when I get home and 5 to unplug before I leave for the day. That more than makes up for the one 20 minute stop on the highway each way on those aforementioned road trips.
I haven't heard all that much about the Bolt except here on this site. What I've heard has been great.
Does Chevy offer the option of hands free, intelligent cruise control, or something like that with automatic braking? As a Senior, sooner or later that will help keep me mobile?
Local People with the Tesla really rave about their cars. But even their most modest priced one is over our retirement budget.
frenchyd said:I haven't heard all that much about the Bolt except here on this site. What I've heard has been great.
Does Chevy offer the option of hands free, intelligent cruise control, or something like that with automatic braking? As a Senior, sooner or later that will help keep me mobile?
Local People with the Tesla really rave about their cars. But even their most modest priced one is over our retirement budget.
GM's version is called SuperCruise and it's available as a $2200 option on the Bolt EUV Premier. That brings the cost up to about $33k. The Bolt does have Adaptive Cruise Control which at least maintains a distance between you and the car ahead and can slow all the way to a stop if necessary and then go again as the car in front moves. But the SuperCruise includes hands free steering and braking on mapped roads (millions of miles of them).
I didn't order that on my EUV as it's a subscription after 3 years, and I really don't want hands free driving, since you still have to be aware and paying attention to the road anyhow (there is a camera that watches your eyes to make sure you're watching the road). As a driver, that's my luddite line that I draw in the sand until my car can safely drive me home from the pub late at night...
frenchyd said:I haven't heard all that much about the Bolt except here on this site. What I've heard has been great.
Does Chevy offer the option of hands free, intelligent cruise control, or something like that with automatic braking? As a Senior, sooner or later that will help keep me mobile?
Local People with the Tesla really rave about their cars. But even their most modest priced one is over our retirement budget.
It looks like the Chevy Supercruise package is available on the Bolt EUV (but not the regular Bolt EV). Also listed as available on the Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban, and the upcoming EV SUVs and trucks (Blazer, Equinox, Silverado). I've heard pretty good things (including a glowing review on GRM) about the Chevy Supercruise setup.
For some reason the list of roads where full Supercruise is available is shorter for the Bolt EUV than the other vehicles though. No explanation is given on the website, but the map shows roads for the Bolt and then more roads for everything else. The trucks can Supercruise with a trailer except for lane changes, which is pretty nice.
Oh my... Etrailer sells two 2" receiver options for the Bolt EUV. I don't care about towing as much as it makes it good for rear bike racks.
Still... I'd prefer a EV minivan similar in size to my Grand Caravan...
As a current (pun intended) non-owner of an EV, I can't wait until they become cheap enough where they are something I can put in my driveway. I have the van for work (15 mpg) but there are so many days when I don't want to kill whales for a trip to the grocery store.
Way too often people get lost in the minutiae. My neighbor has a Legacy and a Bolt. The Bolt get's 90 percent of their use, simply because it's a lot more fun car to drive. Another friend is a traveling rep for several bicycle companies. He's owned lots of fun cars (He introduced me to autocrossing), and he'd drive his Tesla Y even if it cost as much to operate as an ICE just because it's a great experience. He calls it his "sanctuary".
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
Heck, I love driving Hot for Teacher's Prius more than I like driving my van.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
