What EV would you consider?

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

A "crate rolling chassis" would be pretty great. I think a lot of stuff would be hard to do because the skate eats up the bottom few inches and would make it hard to get low enough, but i also love the idea of doing it to some cars old enough that they sat above frame rails. What a wonderful way to make a prewar car usable... Great for trucks, too.

In reply to Jesse Ransom :

I agree.

GM sells (sold?) the Bolt drivetrain as a crate, but didn't provide the whole chassis. That's probably because you'd have to match the Bolt wheelbase and track exactly to make it work. The battery in the Bolt is a big unruly monolith, so their demo cars tended to be things like pickups where you could just chuck it in the bed and put a tonneau over it. I don't know if the program ever got off the ground as it was announced right about the same time as the huge recall, and by the time GM was on top of that the Bolt was being discontinued for Ultium-based cars.

Here's the Bolt skateboard, by the way. Would that pile of equipment up front fit under a Corvair hood?

If you can live with rear wheel steering, swap a few wires around and install the corvair body backwards on the chassis and it'll fit just fine 

Keith Tanner said:

GM sells (sold?) the Bolt drivetrain as a crate, but didn't provide the whole chassis. That's probably because you'd have to match the Bolt wheelbase and track exactly to make it work. The battery in the Bolt is a big unruly monolith, so their demo cars tended to be things like pickups where you could just chuck it in the bed and put a tonneau over it. I don't know if the program ever got off the ground as it was announced right about the same time as the huge recall, and by the time GM was on top of that the Bolt was being discontinued for Ultium-based cars.

Here's the Bolt skateboard, by the way. Would that pile of equipment up front fit under a Corvair hood?

Can you say inelegant? I know you could. 

frenchyd said:

I don't believe the Leaf would be worn out. Although I might spend a little more to buy a slightly newer one  with little  longer  range then the first series. 50-60 mile range might seem enough if you have a short commute  but what about the unexpected little extra trip to get something?   

I gave my daily miles a second look. If the Leaf could pull off 60 miles between charges in all conditions it could be workable. 50 and maybe, if making it home with zero charge is acceptable. But the range under good circumstances is cutting things way too close for my use.

So, are there other EVs on the used market that pop up in the sub-$10k range in good condition, but with more range than a first gen Leaf?

Crxpilot said:

I like FortNine's DIY electric Suzuki.  Raw but small and makes good use of current tech.

I saw something similar yesterday in NH.  Scooters of all kinds are really popular here.  

The MG Cyberster looks pretty cool.

...although it looks like the chances of it coming to the US are slim. 

In reply to Chris_V :

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm constantly evaluating it.  I know in the end EVs win.  Think back 10 years.  The reality of the dream is getting closer everyday.  I just wish progress could occur more organically with less outside input.  Let the innovators and customers decide. 

Less outside input on BOTH sides of the aisle? Remember back in the mid 2000s when the Chevy Volt was being developed by Bob Lutz as an American answer to the Prius, while being even more technologically advanced? It was the ONLY new program from before the bailout that was retained. Remember how badly the oil companies and RW outlets slammed that car? Look at social media now and all the anti-EV propaganda being spewed that is FULL of falsehoods. How does that foster innovation and customer choice?

I'm not a fan of government incentives, and I got no government incentives on any of my EVs. But letting government push them is no different than letting government push any emissions/pollution related legislation or innovation going back to 1970 and Nixon's creation of the EPA. Or the government development of Arapanet and the governmental push to broadband everywhere and digital signals for TVs. Or GPS satellites. Innovation often comes from meeting government regulations, whether that's pollution, safety, etc. And it's kind of in the national security interests to do this.

When looking at cost of ICE v. EV you do need to take into account the big picture of what we have done, and continue to do, to ensure the oil flows.

I am not a liberal anti-war guy but yeah, we have fought wars over oil. We went into Iraq twice because Iraq threatened the flow of oil (that was the real reason). What was the cost of those operations and the subsequent occupation? We are 'close' friends with Saudi Arabia a nation with which we share no common values, because of oil. We protect and police the middle east and its waterways to ensure the flow of oil. We involve ourselves across the planet in the affairs of other nations, and protect global trade lanes, so that the oil may flow. Then add in the oil spills, the disasters (BP Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc). While we frack massive amounts of oil now, what is the long-term impact to the environment and water tables? I am fine with that when there was no alternative, but we now have an alternative.

The true costs of ICE are massive, and include blood and lives, not just carbon and pollution. By comparison, the rare materials in batteries are recyclable, batteries can be used in 1st and 2nd applications giving them operational life of a decade or more even now, and then they can be recycled. We can get our power from domestic sources, and from the sky. Yes some existing mines are in terrible places, but we can try cleaning them up, and ensuring new mining is done better. We can almost start anew with the supply chains for EVs and do it better. One way is the Lithium Valley in California where lithium is now starting to be extracted from the Salton Sea using clean geothermal energy. It looks like we will be able to extract up to 600,000 tons of it annually from just that location (enough to cover all the US needs for the foreseeable future). And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

Oil is the blood of economies...but if we have the ability to seriously cut our need for it, and possibly eliminate military operations and disasters - do it. Petroleum will always be valuable for plastics, fertilizer and others things, but if we can dramatically cut our needs for it by removing most transportation on the demand side (most, not all) perhaps we can stop having to police the world. What I love most about EVs is the potential for energy independence in conjunction with renewables/fission/fusion/etc. Domestically produced energy (and in many cases, individually generated solar energy on your home...).
 

The problem that I have with the above is that you imply that that there is an equivalency between the two sides, when there really isn't. One side wants to subsidize and mandate EV's, while at the same time prohibit or add additional regulation to fossil fuels. They want to take and restrict. So what if the other side slams EV's? I'd much rather have someone slam my opinion than take my money and restrict my choices, the two are nowhere near equal. If EV's are a viable option, then  there should be no trouble reaching that organically, as Anthony suggested. Maybe a more pragmatic approach would get more cooperation Vs. division. But if you reach over and poke someone in the eye, it's not very hard to see why they don't want to cooperate with you. My worry is that we are passing by a lot of good solutions (hybrids) while trying to force great (widespread EV adoption.) 

I get that subsidies are needed to speed up the development of EV's. I don't have a problem with that, I would just prefer that it was more of a consensus and more of a carrot and less of a stick. At the same time, I feel that it is dishonest to say the EV's are ready for prime time yet still require subsidies. 

Back on topic, the Lightning was the first EV that looked like a good fit for my wife's uses. Had Ford not jacked the prices from launch, and the dealers not jacked them even more, there would most likely be one in my driveway now. Instead, my wife went with an Expedition. If they can build one within a reasonable price range of the ICE version, I could see replacing it with an EV Expedition when it's time for a new one. I love the performance and packaging flexibility of EV's. I don't love the charge times, especially for larger EV's. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

About that last bit - remember that charge times only factor when you're on a non-stop road trip that is further than your range. Day to day, it's actually the ICE that needs the constant feeding - assuming you can charge where you park.

Even on trips, a lot of EV owners have found they arrive more relaxed after being forced out of the deathmarch mentality. There are certainly use cases where it's a problem - towing big/bulky loads first and foremost - but it's not as much of a barrier as you might think. 

No comment on policy decisions from me.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Keith Tanner said:

GM sells (sold?) the Bolt drivetrain as a crate, but didn't provide the whole chassis. That's probably because you'd have to match the Bolt wheelbase and track exactly to make it work. The battery in the Bolt is a big unruly monolith, so their demo cars tended to be things like pickups where you could just chuck it in the bed and put a tonneau over it. I don't know if the program ever got off the ground as it was announced right about the same time as the huge recall, and by the time GM was on top of that the Bolt was being discontinued for Ultium-based cars.

Here's the Bolt skateboard, by the way. Would that pile of equipment up front fit under a Corvair hood?

Can you say inelegant? I know you could. 

Let's call it a first generation design. Gotta give them credit for including all the messy stuff in the press photo at least. 

I'd like one of these......

MadScientistMatt said:

I gave my daily miles a second look. If the Leaf could pull off 60 miles between charges in all conditions it could be workable. 50 and maybe, if making it home with zero charge is acceptable. But the range under good circumstances is cutting things way too close for my use.

So, are there other EVs on the used market that pop up in the sub-$10k range in good condition, but with more range than a first gen Leaf?

Short answer: yes, you can get more range than a 24kWh Leaf for sub-$10k.  Longer answer: but IDK if the range may still not be enough for daily use?

Autotempest dealer ads are a low-effort way to get a general idea of what's out there (I have never messed with using it to meta-search CL or FBM).

2016-2017 (1st gen) Leafs w/ 30kWh batteries are out there for well under $10k.  I don't know what exact real-world range is going to be on those, I'd think that 60mi cold is not unreasonable.

Closing in on $10K, almost everything 2017 or older shows up (obviously, no real Tesla listings).  Multiple models with a claimed ~80mi range when new, no idea what real-world range is now and in the cold: Spark, 500e, e-Golf.  A BMW i3 might show up as low as $10k, and the same for a 2018 (2nd gen) Leaf.

Off topic: I was surprised at how many used Mirai are out there (and how inexpensive, multiple <$10k).

I had started trying to read up/ summarize what you could probably expect for a $6500 Leaf.  Most likely a 2014 or 2015 (24kWh w/ the slightly better chemistry vs. 2011-early2013), ~60mi range in warm weather and ~40mi in cold weather.

I am surprised the leaf battery is still so expensive.  Toyota has dropped the price of the prius battery to the point that it is OK to buy one with a bad battery, I paid around $1800 when I replaced the one in my wife's 2nd generation.  Battery rebuilding sounds like it could be a good business but manufacturers also are trying to make it harder.  

I have looked into replacing my wife's prius with an ev, she hates gas stops.  For daily use it would work great, but being the only auto it is also our road trip car so a plug in would still be best for us.  I am waiting to see one of the new prius in person as it looks really good in pictures.  I would still like to see a performance based plug in at a lower price point, the NSX & Eray are too expensive for me as toys, but if a manufacturer could make a plug in, capable of running full gas or full electric not overheat the battery during track use, be fairly light & fun to drive & be affordable for the average buyer I would be very interested.

For the long term ev owners, when parked in hot or cold climates do you notice a drop in range when parked from maintaining battery temp or is the current draw fairly low for this?  

Oapfu said:

Short answer: yes, you can get more range than a 24kWh Leaf for sub-$10k.  Longer answer: but IDK if the range may still not be enough for daily use?

Autotempest dealer ads are a low-effort way to get a general idea of what's out there (I have never messed with using it to meta-search CL or FBM)...

Closing in on $10K, almost everything 2017 or older shows up (obviously, no real Tesla listings).  Multiple models with a claimed ~80mi range when new, no idea what real-world range is now and in the cold: Spark, 500e, e-Golf.

I'm in Georgia, so a lot of the models dubbed compliance cars weren't sold here. Using Autotempest for a 100 mile radius and the only car besides a Leaf that turns up is one Chevy Volt - interesting but not strictly battery electric.

Getting something like an eGolf here would either need to add shipping fees to the cost, or setting a candidate for the most inadvisable fly and drive of all time.

Yes please

It's going to be a while until I can afford any EV.  Used prices seem to match up with my bank account about the time they need new batteries.

In reply to Caperix :

Re: battery draw from main ting battery temp. I've not noticed, but we've never let the car cold-soak overnight and then driven it a long way. The Sentry anti-theft pulls about 3%/day when engaged, that's more noticeable. 

Running full AC to keep the interior at 70F in 100F temps and direct sun pulls about 6 miles/hour from what I recall. 

Further thoughts about buying one of the compliance cars: the manufacturers didn't really want to build them to begin with and have been even less interested in sustaining them. And having only a few thousand on the road means the aftermarket isn't there. While spare parts for a Leaf or probably an I3 are available, something like a Focus EV battery pack is likely to be NLA or cost more than the car. So those are not practical options for a daily driver.

Chris_V said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm constantly evaluating it.  I know in the end EVs win.  Think back 10 years.  The reality of the dream is getting closer everyday.  I just wish progress could occur more organically with less outside input.  Let the innovators and customers decide. 

Less outside input on BOTH sides of the aisle? Remember back in the mid 2000s when the Chevy Volt was being developed by Bob Lutz as an American answer to the Prius, while being even more technologically advanced? It was the ONLY new program from before the bailout that was retained. Remember how badly the oil companies and RW outlets slammed that car? Look at social media now and all the anti-EV propaganda being spewed that is FULL of falsehoods. How does that foster innovation and customer choice?

I'm not a fan of government incentives, and I got no government incentives on any of my EVs. But letting government push them is no different than letting government push any emissions/pollution related legislation or innovation going back to 1970 and Nixon's creation of the EPA. Or the government development of Arapanet and the governmental push to broadband everywhere and digital signals for TVs. Or GPS satellites. Innovation often comes from meeting government regulations, whether that's pollution, safety, etc. And it's kind of in the national security interests to do this.

When looking at cost of ICE v. EV you do need to take into account the big picture of what we have done, and continue to do, to ensure the oil flows.

I am not a liberal anti-war guy but yeah, we have fought wars over oil. We went into Iraq twice because Iraq threatened the flow of oil (that was the real reason). What was the cost of those operations and the subsequent occupation? We are 'close' friends with Saudi Arabia a nation with which we share no common values, because of oil. We protect and police the middle east and its waterways to ensure the flow of oil. We involve ourselves across the planet in the affairs of other nations, and protect global trade lanes, so that the oil may flow. Then add in the oil spills, the disasters (BP Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc). While we frack massive amounts of oil now, what is the long-term impact to the environment and water tables? I am fine with that when there was no alternative, but we now have an alternative.

The true costs of ICE are massive, and include blood and lives, not just carbon and pollution. By comparison, the rare materials in batteries are recyclable, batteries can be used in 1st and 2nd applications giving them operational life of a decade or more even now, and then they can be recycled. We can get our power from domestic sources, and from the sky. Yes some existing mines are in terrible places, but we can try cleaning them up, and ensuring new mining is done better. We can almost start anew with the supply chains for EVs and do it better. One way is the Lithium Valley in California where lithium is now starting to be extracted from the Salton Sea using clean geothermal energy. It looks like we will be able to extract up to 600,000 tons of it annually from just that location (enough to cover all the US needs for the foreseeable future). And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

Oil is the blood of economies...but if we have the ability to seriously cut our need for it, and possibly eliminate military operations and disasters - do it. Petroleum will always be valuable for plastics, fertilizer and others things, but if we can dramatically cut our needs for it by removing most transportation on the demand side (most, not all) perhaps we can stop having to police the world. What I love most about EVs is the potential for energy independence in conjunction with renewables/fission/fusion/etc. Domestically produced energy (and in many cases, individually generated solar energy on your home...).

Very well said 

Also worth mentioning that SCCA is introducing some EV racing classes. Should be interesting. 

In reply to amg_rx7 (Forum Supporter) :

I wonder how that's going to work with several tracks banning them outright?

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Chris_V :

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm constantly evaluating it.  I know in the end EVs win.  Think back 10 years.  The reality of the dream is getting closer everyday.  I just wish progress could occur more organically with less outside input.  Let the innovators and customers decide. 

Less outside input on BOTH sides of the aisle? Remember back in the mid 2000s when the Chevy Volt was being developed by Bob Lutz as an American answer to the Prius, while being even more technologically advanced? It was the ONLY new program from before the bailout that was retained. Remember how badly the oil companies and RW outlets slammed that car? Look at social media now and all the anti-EV propaganda being spewed that is FULL of falsehoods. How does that foster innovation and customer choice?

I'm not a fan of government incentives, and I got no government incentives on any of my EVs. But letting government push them is no different than letting government push any emissions/pollution related legislation or innovation going back to 1970 and Nixon's creation of the EPA. Or the government development of Arapanet and the governmental push to broadband everywhere and digital signals for TVs. Or GPS satellites. Innovation often comes from meeting government regulations, whether that's pollution, safety, etc. And it's kind of in the national security interests to do this.

When looking at cost of ICE v. EV you do need to take into account the big picture of what we have done, and continue to do, to ensure the oil flows.

I am not a liberal anti-war guy but yeah, we have fought wars over oil. We went into Iraq twice because Iraq threatened the flow of oil (that was the real reason). What was the cost of those operations and the subsequent occupation? We are 'close' friends with Saudi Arabia a nation with which we share no common values, because of oil. We protect and police the middle east and its waterways to ensure the flow of oil. We involve ourselves across the planet in the affairs of other nations, and protect global trade lanes, so that the oil may flow. Then add in the oil spills, the disasters (BP Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc). While we frack massive amounts of oil now, what is the long-term impact to the environment and water tables? I am fine with that when there was no alternative, but we now have an alternative.

The true costs of ICE are massive, and include blood and lives, not just carbon and pollution. By comparison, the rare materials in batteries are recyclable, batteries can be used in 1st and 2nd applications giving them operational life of a decade or more even now, and then they can be recycled. We can get our power from domestic sources, and from the sky. Yes some existing mines are in terrible places, but we can try cleaning them up, and ensuring new mining is done better. We can almost start anew with the supply chains for EVs and do it better. One way is the Lithium Valley in California where lithium is now starting to be extracted from the Salton Sea using clean geothermal energy. It looks like we will be able to extract up to 600,000 tons of it annually from just that location (enough to cover all the US needs for the foreseeable future). And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

Oil is the blood of economies...but if we have the ability to seriously cut our need for it, and possibly eliminate military operations and disasters - do it. Petroleum will always be valuable for plastics, fertilizer and others things, but if we can dramatically cut our needs for it by removing most transportation on the demand side (most, not all) perhaps we can stop having to police the world. What I love most about EVs is the potential for energy independence in conjunction with renewables/fission/fusion/etc. Domestically produced energy (and in many cases, individually generated solar energy on your home...).
 

The problem that I have with the above is that you imply that that there is an equivalency between the two sides, when there really isn't. One side wants to subsidize and mandate EV's, while at the same time prohibit or add additional regulation to fossil fuels.

Interesting that the side that is subsidizing EVs has increased drilling permits for oil in the US to levels higher than the previous administration. Interesting that the side that is subsidizing EVs is overseeing the highest oil production levels ever. BUT and this is important, we need to get off fossil fuels for all the reasons I listed. You seem to be a fan of exploding Saudi dinosaurs, and don't give a crap whether it's bad for the US or the world in general. Just so long as you get to play with the explosions. The general public and especially mega corporations, are not going to do the right thing without being regulated to do it. This is the same thing as with OSHA and safety regulations, and the EPA and pollution regulations. look up the Triangle Shirtwaist factory. Left to their own devices, nothing would have changed. We don't have TIME for "organic" changes now.

EVs ARE ready for primetime. They will work for the vast majority of the buying population already. BUT that population is being conditioned to be against them because that's what the oil companies and their right wing puppets WANT the public to feel. So yes, we need subsidies to try to overcome that.

Hybrids are not a good solution. All the complexities of ICE WITH all the complexities of EVs, with additional complexities in trying to get the two to mesh. And they were bashed by oil companies and RW propagandists as much as EVS have been (Remember the "Obama car?" The Volt?). And yet, now the same group that bashed the Volt is saying THAT is really the way forward.  It's because they still use gasoline, so the oil companies need them to be the right path. And people like you eat that up. Funny thing is that the 2035 mandates for new car sales being EVs includes hybrids, but people like you don't seem to know about that.

Here's the other thing, the complaint about EVs being mandated is they are not 100% perfect for everyone yet. They don't have to be. There are 280 million cars and light trucks in the US. Even if we started selling only EVs tomorrow morning (instead of 12 years in the future as the couple state mandates say) it would take decades to make enough to cover the the buyers that can use them RIGHT NOW. In those decades, there's more than enough time to build out the infrastructure and tech to cover those that CAN'T use them right now.

I've been studying EVs seriously since 2006, after helping build hobbyist EV drag racers back in the '90s. I've been driving electric for daily drivers since 2013. I'm pretty average in driving, putting about 1000 daily driving miles per month on my daily drivers. I'm a bit above average in my road tripping in daily drivers, doing one 700-900 mile round trip every month (most people don't do that more than once or twice a year) Charging times are inconsequential. Most of the time I charge at home once a week. If I'm heading out on a longer trip, I make sure it's charged the night before so it's ready in the morning. Same with predicted storms. On my road trips, the charging does add time, but I'm not trying to do a Cannonball Run every time I'm behind the wheel. So I leave a half hour earlier than with the gas car and that covers the added charging time vs a gas and potty stop.

In reply to Chris_V :

Interesting that the side that is subsidizing EVs has increased drilling permits for oil in the US to levels higher than the previous administration. Interesting that the side that is subsidizing EVs is overseeing the highest oil production levels ever.
 

You are way oversimplifying a complex subject. You aren't wrong, but you are only showing a tiny sliver of the picture. One, our government is a huge bureaucratic ship that takes a long time to turn, no matter who is at the helm. Permits were were on the upswing, and have tapered off dramatically recently. Keep in mind that permits are just that, they are a step towards exploration, not directly linked to drilling and oil well. Two, it just shows that  politicians can talk out of both sides of their mouths. They tell you what you want to hear, and even when they want to take an action, reality often has different plans. Three, it's not really a good thing, not in the current context. The cost of domestic oil exploration and drilling has been made so expensive, that it really is only feasible when oil prices are high. So the current administration does get credit for the record production. Prices are so high that it created an environment that facilitated more domestic production. Under the current circumstances, we wouldn't have high production with low prices, which is where we need to be to really help drive the world market. 

BUT and this is important, we need to get off fossil fuels for all the reasons I listed. You seem to be a fan of exploding Saudi dinosaurs, and don't give a crap whether it's bad for the US or the world in general. Just so long as you get to play with the explosions. The general public and especially mega corporations, are not going to do the right thing without being regulated to do it. This is the same thing as with OSHA and safety regulations, and the EPA and pollution regulations. look up the Triangle Shirtwaist factory. Left to their own devices, nothing would have changed. We don't have TIME for "organic" changes now.

Here is the problem. Even if you are right, it really doesn't matter. Let's pretend that all of the questionable research and dire predictions are true. Climate is changing, and it will get worse everywhere (which doesn't make sense to me, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument.) The US changing over to EV's will have next to zero impact on global emissions. Unfortunately, unless the world adopted the standards together, it would just weaken us on the world stage. We would just be making a sacrifice to make ourselves feel better for little return, at our own overall detriment. As for oil in general, it's not going away. Gasoline represents around 43% of our oil usage. Oil would still be a big part of our lives without gasoline, so with or without EV's, energy independence is important for our security and prosperity. As I said many times in other threads, I'm just calling balls and strikes. I'm not for ICE or anti EV. While I definitely see the promise of EV, I'm unbiased enough to see the compromises and shortcomings of the current offerings. Your extrapolation to that meaning that I don't give a crap is unfounded. Comparisons to OSHA is a stretch and largely irrelevant- we could trade beneficial and detrimental government overreach examples back and forth all day and it won't contribute much to the topic at hand. Your time argument is interesting. If you truly believe that the situation is that dire, I question why the only "sacrifice" you are willing to make is your choice of car. A choice that you repeatedly state that you are happy with, so not really a sacrifice. There are a lot of other aspects of your life that you could change if you feel that strongly about CO2 reduction. Or do you only feel strongly when you want other people to make sacrifices? 

EVs ARE ready for primetime. They will work for the vast majority of the buying population already. BUT that population is being conditioned to be against them because that's what the oil companies and their right wing puppets WANT the public to feel. So yes, we need subsidies to try to overcome that. 

Nope. Once again, you are projecting your own wants and needs with the general public. They vote with their dollars every day, and the results don't match your assertion. Maybe you can also convince us what we should be eating. But instead of looking at reality, because you can't grasp why someone could possibly have a different opinion  than yours- it's because they are brainwashed by the right. Maybe it's different where you live, but around here there are plenty of people who have bought EV's based on their personal needs, not their political affiliation. To be clear, it is not the technology that most on the right reject. It's being told what to do and what compromises that they should accept that they reject. Focusing on the technology shows that you don't understand the issue. Do you want to know when we will know when EV's are ready for prime time? When you don't need to convince people that they need an EV. 

Hybrids are not a good solution. All the complexities of ICE WITH all the complexities of EVs, with additional complexities in trying to get the two to mesh. And they were bashed by oil companies and RW propagandists as much as EVS have been (Remember the "Obama car?" The Volt?). And yet, now the same group that bashed the Volt is saying THAT is really the way forward.  It's because they still use gasoline, so the oil companies need them to be the right path. And people like you eat that up. Funny thing is that the 2035 mandates for new car sales being EVs includes hybrids, but people like you don't seem to know about that.

Hybrids are a good solution. They are not great precisely for the reasons that you stated. But you left out that they have none of the range or refueling issues, much more compatible with the existing infrastructure, and that plug in hybrids can deliver much of the same benefits as full EV's. The "problem" with early hybrids was that they replaced small cars- already the cheapest and most fuel efficient cars, at considerable additional cost. Trucks and SUV's would be the vehicles that would benefit the most. I'm well aware the 2035 mandate allows for EV's. They literally redefined a hybrid powertrain as not gasoline powered in one of the boldest acts of political theater that I have ever witnessed. They did so because even they don't believe that full EV's will be ready for prime time by 2035. 

Here's the other thing, the complaint about EVs being mandated is they are not 100% perfect for everyone yet. They don't have to be. There are 280 million cars and light trucks in the US. Even if we started selling only EVs tomorrow morning (instead of 12 years in the future as the couple state mandates say) it would take decades to make enough to cover the the buyers that can use them RIGHT NOW. In those decades, there's more than enough time to build out the infrastructure and tech to cover those that CAN'T use them right now.

You are completely missing the point. If EV's were ready for widespread adoption, we wouldn't need the mandate. Your hypothetical mandate above would force people to keep older ICE vehicles, mostly trucks, for much longer while they waited for acceptable EV's to be developed. Most new vehicles are trucks. You don't see the flaw?

I've been studying EVs seriously since 2006, after helping build hobbyist EV drag racers back in the '90s. I've been driving electric for daily drivers since 2013. I'm pretty average in driving, putting about 1000 daily driving miles per month on my daily drivers. I'm a bit above average in my road tripping in daily drivers, doing one 700-900 mile round trip every month (most people don't do that more than once or twice a year) Charging times are inconsequential. Most of the time I charge at home once a week. If I'm heading out on a longer trip, I make sure it's charged the night before so it's ready in the morning. Same with predicted storms. On my road trips, the charging does add time, but I'm not trying to do a Cannonball Run every time I'm behind the wheel. So I leave a half hour earlier than with the gas car and that covers the added charging time vs a gas and potty stop.

Good for you. I'm glad there is a choice available that satisfies your needs and wants. Please explain how that makes you an expert on other people's needs and wants. For someone who has so much experience with EV's, I fail to understand how you don't see the problem when your little car is scaled up to a much more popular full sized truck. An EV truck has a battery 2 to 3 times the size of your Bolt and uses roughly twice the power to go the same distance. Since charging speed is limited, a truck would take twice as long as your car to charge. Are you telling me that would have no impact on you? Or are you dismissing EV trucks bad thing everyone should have small cars? 
 

To everyone else, I'm sorry this has gone off on a tangent again. I know this thread is supposed to be about what we would buy, not about what we won't.

I'm really not a fan of flounder. 

In reply to amg_rx7 (Forum Supporter) :

I know someone has made a prototype for an electric Formula 600 car. The wide side pods seem like a good match for stashing batteries

The electric golf looks awesome. Even though there is already an electric golf..