With ethanol, all you need is water, sunshine, and bacteria.
Auto execs are coming clean evs arentworking.
- Thread starter FreedomOne
- Start date
I live in a Kentucky. My electric car would be powered by coal. I’m not sure that’s an improvement.
dnewton3
Staff member
To be clear, I'm not against the concept of EVs; in some applications they make good sense.
What I see is that Tesla is very good at the game and committed to the cause; good for them. But, they don't have to split their resources between ICE and EV; they can concentrate 100% on EVS.
But the more traditional automakers are generally struggling to make EVs work in a fiscal sense, relative to the other larger markets they serve. Sure, as they mature their products, they can improve their brand. But that won't coax the mainstream folks into buying them anytime soon.
While I do agree that many of the current articles are regurgitating the storyline, it's not without merit that the basis of their story is the automakers backing away from EVs, and the associated sub-market applications. Not unlike Ford deciding to shelve the idea of having a US based battery plant in MI; they're gonna stick with their China sourced stuff rather than make the multi-million dollar investment into a plant which is unlikely to make the expected ROI.
What the majors are looking at is the RATE at which EV sales are running. The massive run on EVs is starting to wane. Sales will still increase for some regional sales areas, but that doesn't make it a worthwhile investment for the big makers as of now. The people who are willing to buy them will always buy them, but they don't represent the majority market investment for the foreseeable future. And that's why the main automakers are backing away from serious investments in the current state.
That's the way I see it. And the new stories are echoing this concept; that EVs don't have the mass market potential past the already-proven devotees.
I have a SIL who got a Mach-E, and she's already stated that she's considering going back to ICE or hybrid soon. It's not panned out to what the hype was all about for her application. To be fair, I don't think she was a good EV candidate in the first place, it's hard to convince her of anything against her own opinion. At least she gave it a try, but realised it's not for her. I told her to get a hybrid (Toyota; I think they have the best program in that regard). She didn't listen, and now she's thinking I may have been right all along, though I doubt she'd admit that to me outwardly.
What I see is that Tesla is very good at the game and committed to the cause; good for them. But, they don't have to split their resources between ICE and EV; they can concentrate 100% on EVS.
But the more traditional automakers are generally struggling to make EVs work in a fiscal sense, relative to the other larger markets they serve. Sure, as they mature their products, they can improve their brand. But that won't coax the mainstream folks into buying them anytime soon.
While I do agree that many of the current articles are regurgitating the storyline, it's not without merit that the basis of their story is the automakers backing away from EVs, and the associated sub-market applications. Not unlike Ford deciding to shelve the idea of having a US based battery plant in MI; they're gonna stick with their China sourced stuff rather than make the multi-million dollar investment into a plant which is unlikely to make the expected ROI.
What the majors are looking at is the RATE at which EV sales are running. The massive run on EVs is starting to wane. Sales will still increase for some regional sales areas, but that doesn't make it a worthwhile investment for the big makers as of now. The people who are willing to buy them will always buy them, but they don't represent the majority market investment for the foreseeable future. And that's why the main automakers are backing away from serious investments in the current state.
That's the way I see it. And the new stories are echoing this concept; that EVs don't have the mass market potential past the already-proven devotees.
I have a SIL who got a Mach-E, and she's already stated that she's considering going back to ICE or hybrid soon. It's not panned out to what the hype was all about for her application. To be fair, I don't think she was a good EV candidate in the first place, it's hard to convince her of anything against her own opinion. At least she gave it a try, but realised it's not for her. I told her to get a hybrid (Toyota; I think they have the best program in that regard). She didn't listen, and now she's thinking I may have been right all along, though I doubt she'd admit that to me outwardly.
Last edited:
A good amount of mine is coal as well. The two big benefits is a quiet powertrain and that costs 1/3 the cost of what it takes to fuel my sub compact VW.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
In my opinion, here is the crux of the problem:
a) Baby boomers buy the most new cars, a demographic that is largely resistant to change. When the average new car buyer is in their 50's, the market for new EVs isn't large to begin with.
b) EVs in general have become a political football with many folks siding on either team EV or team gas. Many of the people that would benefit the most from EVs have long(er) commutes, but this puts them in suburban or rural areas where "team gas" is more prevalent and adhered to.
c) Cost. Cars that are affordable for the majority of people (see A above) are used EVs, where there simply isn't a lot of choice and many old-ish EVs are models that most people wouldn't want to be seen in.
Been a while but IIRC there was a break-even point around 40mpg ICE versus coal fired electricity powered EV. Beat 40mpg and the coal fired EV was creating more CO2 per mile. Thing is, that number moves as the mix of power generation changes.
I wouldn't mind an EV but I thought my base car at $21k was "expensive". I also did not want the typical new car perks (sunroof, alloy rims, low profile tires). If the typical EV is upwards of $40k then the $20k I saved will buy a lot of gas. I'd like to be kind to the environment, but I'm not sure electricity generation is necessarily cleaner (even the green stuff) and I'm still at a stage of life where I need my money to go far.
any new tech needs a transitionary period (before garnering lots of support - gov, consumer, voter). Even cars were
like that. Expansion of 100 yr ol tech (non-whale oil) came in to assist. Refining advanced too. Roads, industry improvements... Some early cars were on Kero. Very few are kick starting this tech, needs more to 'catch'. I'd like to see usa lead for the on-shore income
rather than have another foreign victor (more charge stations?, Bolt support? both by fed gov?)
like that. Expansion of 100 yr ol tech (non-whale oil) came in to assist. Refining advanced too. Roads, industry improvements... Some early cars were on Kero. Very few are kick starting this tech, needs more to 'catch'. I'd like to see usa lead for the on-shore income
rather than have another foreign victor (more charge stations?, Bolt support? both by fed gov?)
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2023
- Messages
- 339
I have done the math year, after year, after year, and have yet to find a reason to buy an EV. I would be saving a marginal amount on fuel (about 1000$) on cars that will be obsolete not because they don't run, but because of software?! Sorry, but I can keep an engine going with parts for a long time, but the idiocy of turning my car in you a smartphone is just plane wrong.
This doesn't even factor in the fact that every EV costs more as far as the parts if anything does go wrong, AND tires...which last at most 20-30k miles and cost more than any other tire on the market.
I think people fell for the buzz that you could save THOUSANDS which was a lie. The cheapest EV I could get would cost me 10-15K more than what I paid for ANY of my cars. It takes for ever to recoup the savings and by that point your car is literally a brick. How many people want a 100k mile tesla vs how many people would buy a 100k mile civic?
And then most cars get good gas mileage anyways. My Camry averages 37 and its not a hybrid. My civic averages 35 and its not a hybrid. My accord averages 30 and its not a hybrid. Even spending the extra to upgrade now to a hybrid would not save me much on fuel, as MPG improvement is not linear in savings for everyone. Going from 35 to 45 isn't the same as going from 25 to 35.
My coworker bought a tesla which OTD cost him some 42 grand. His power bill is 13c a kw. The payments alone will offset any savings at his current 9% interest rate.
Math:
Car price - 42,000
Interest paid after 60 months -10,311
Fuel savings after 60 months (gas price avg here is 3$ and driving 15k miles a year and estimating 30mpg avg and 270 mile range on the tesla) - 5298$
So even after tax incentives, he will pay about 40 grand for the car, which is 10 grand more than what I paid for my honda.
So for him to break even with a 30k gas car, he would need 15 years if not more.
This is such basic math that a I learned how to do in elementary school yet half of america can't do it to save a buck.
This is not including the fact that he definitely paid for enhanced auto pilot (6000$) (and keeps telling me it came with the car for free which is BS I can disprove with a few screenshots).
These are the same people that keep arguing that paying some 100k for a solar roof is worth it using reverse mortgage on the house LOL
This doesn't even factor in the fact that every EV costs more as far as the parts if anything does go wrong, AND tires...which last at most 20-30k miles and cost more than any other tire on the market.
I think people fell for the buzz that you could save THOUSANDS which was a lie. The cheapest EV I could get would cost me 10-15K more than what I paid for ANY of my cars. It takes for ever to recoup the savings and by that point your car is literally a brick. How many people want a 100k mile tesla vs how many people would buy a 100k mile civic?
And then most cars get good gas mileage anyways. My Camry averages 37 and its not a hybrid. My civic averages 35 and its not a hybrid. My accord averages 30 and its not a hybrid. Even spending the extra to upgrade now to a hybrid would not save me much on fuel, as MPG improvement is not linear in savings for everyone. Going from 35 to 45 isn't the same as going from 25 to 35.
My coworker bought a tesla which OTD cost him some 42 grand. His power bill is 13c a kw. The payments alone will offset any savings at his current 9% interest rate.
Math:
Car price - 42,000
Interest paid after 60 months -10,311
Fuel savings after 60 months (gas price avg here is 3$ and driving 15k miles a year and estimating 30mpg avg and 270 mile range on the tesla) - 5298$
So even after tax incentives, he will pay about 40 grand for the car, which is 10 grand more than what I paid for my honda.
So for him to break even with a 30k gas car, he would need 15 years if not more.
This is such basic math that a I learned how to do in elementary school yet half of america can't do it to save a buck.
This is not including the fact that he definitely paid for enhanced auto pilot (6000$) (and keeps telling me it came with the car for free which is BS I can disprove with a few screenshots).
These are the same people that keep arguing that paying some 100k for a solar roof is worth it using reverse mortgage on the house LOL
Last edited:
Dont much care what trends exist. Not going back to a gasser.
It’s not price per se.
The vast majority of households find it difficult to justify an EV as part of their 2 car rotation. One car families even more so. The flexibility isn’t there.
EV works for some people. I see it as a niche market and it obviously has some benefits. It shouldn't be mandatory, and I generally abhor subsidizing any industry.
Let the market sort itself out, making an imaginary mandatory deadline to force a new technology is going to cause more problems. What if this extreme push stifles other starts-ups that may be better and even more efficient (think new technology).
Some form of hybrid makes sense. The Toyota Prius makes a lot of sense, but the battery replacement is a steep hill to climb when most will be trading their vehicle rather than repower it. So until some new powercell is created or discovered, ICE is the king of the hill and makes the most sense for our economy.
Let the market sort itself out, making an imaginary mandatory deadline to force a new technology is going to cause more problems. What if this extreme push stifles other starts-ups that may be better and even more efficient (think new technology).
Some form of hybrid makes sense. The Toyota Prius makes a lot of sense, but the battery replacement is a steep hill to climb when most will be trading their vehicle rather than repower it. So until some new powercell is created or discovered, ICE is the king of the hill and makes the most sense for our economy.
Why did anyone expect EVs to become so prevalent in the first place?
Critical thinking knew this long, LONG ago. Media sensation, dumbed down so called reporters, entertainment personalities, anyone with wealth controls the majority until reality and common sense sets in.
I said it from day one BUT it's happening way faster than I thought. I predicted one day EVs will be like flat screen TVs or flat panel computer monitors or even desktop computers that there would be an over supply. I do repeat, I was wrong, it seems to be hitting a wall and we arent even out the gate yet. I predicted it closer to when it hit 25% or so of the marketplace, we arent even at 5% *LOL*
EVs will always be here but you have to think back, who on earth believed even with GM saying it. That the future of automotive transportation was going to be battery operated cars and almost set in stone within the next 15 or less years?
There maybe an EV only future and if it is, lets think 50 to 100 years before the ICE is gone. The future EV will be nothing like the current battery technology.
With the above said, EV is not going anywhere, it's just not exploding the way those thought it would. No surprise there to me anyway.
Critical thinking knew this long, LONG ago. Media sensation, dumbed down so called reporters, entertainment personalities, anyone with wealth controls the majority until reality and common sense sets in.
I said it from day one BUT it's happening way faster than I thought. I predicted one day EVs will be like flat screen TVs or flat panel computer monitors or even desktop computers that there would be an over supply. I do repeat, I was wrong, it seems to be hitting a wall and we arent even out the gate yet. I predicted it closer to when it hit 25% or so of the marketplace, we arent even at 5% *LOL*
EVs will always be here but you have to think back, who on earth believed even with GM saying it. That the future of automotive transportation was going to be battery operated cars and almost set in stone within the next 15 or less years?
There maybe an EV only future and if it is, lets think 50 to 100 years before the ICE is gone. The future EV will be nothing like the current battery technology.
With the above said, EV is not going anywhere, it's just not exploding the way those thought it would. No surprise there to me anyway.
Can we talk about EV fires some more?
Still remember people laughing at the iPad.
Sure. Rare but possible.
Goal posts set by politicians that do not take effect until years into the future are designed so that they can be moved even further into the future, possibly to never actually take effect. It is a good trick to signal to votors (a) that you have virtue and (b) that you are not imposing anything actually painful to them.
+1 Big time. They have to wait though, or they'll look stupid for a longer time.
When governments say that new ICE vehicles will not be allowed to be sold after 2034, it makes me want to make sure that my next vehicle purchase is an ICE.
I want a car I can park in the garage, with confidence that it won't burn my house down.
I want a car I can park in the garage, with confidence that it won't burn my house down.