[M4Tejas]

https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-...ks-crosshairs/

[M4Tejas]

https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-...ks-crosshairs/


FAFO

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Somehow I suspect more vegans are truck haters than EV haters, lol.

Personally, I just don't find there to be anything to be passionate about EVs for. 0-60? Cool. Other cars do that too. Outside of that, they don't do anything for me, they're just pods with wheels (or half of a wheel and call it a yoke?).

That said, I see WAY more anti truck, anti domestic, anti ICE stuff than anti EV. Plenty of "anti taxpayer funded and government forced" EV people around, but hardly anyone who is just like "electric motors suck and I wish my windows had a small gas engine to move them up and down instead of an electric one".

Unfortunately, EVs became a lightning rod of politics because of how they were pushed out for the masses. It all happened at likely the worst possible time, in nearly the worst possible way, and IMO really screwed adoption of them. Had there been no tax credits, no ICE bans, no CAFE fine slushing them, I think they'd be organically growing better than they are today, with better offerings and less rushed models that exist just to comply with governments.

Anyways, people are entitled to like what they like. Some people clearly like jellybeans that rip 0-60 really fast without sound. I like hearing a nice sounding engine, I like the ability to shift my own gears, and I don't need to be the fastest guy around anymore. I wish the automakers just knew WTF they were doing with EVs, because they seem to be trying to force them into all the wrong shapes. Lightning is a great example, there's so sporty lowered suspension to match the immense thrust model for it. They literally took the name from THE sport truck, and then did nothing sporty with it. Even if it was just a trim package, call it the SVE lightning and lower it put a body kit on it and some beefier brakes... It's low hanging fruit here. And don't even get me started on Silverado RST... Or Mach E or Blazer SS.

I digress. Anyways, back to your golden rule. I think that's what drives a lot of EV disgust, not following the Golden Rule. Governments the world over are trying their damnedest to say scre the golden rule, you follow our rule and we say EVs only. If we didn't have EV incentives, looming mandates, and governments making gas cars more and more expensive, people would have less of an issue with EVe because there wouldn't be an EV faction dedicated to eradicating the Golden Rule.

I agree with all you said except:

"Had there been no tax credits, no ICE bans, no CAFE fine slushing them, I think they'd be organically growing better than they are today, with better offerings and less rushed models that exist just to comply with governments."

The original "alternate fuel" consumer tax incentive in energy legislation of 2008, that then turned into full battery EV consumer tax incentives in 2012 energy legislation effectively lowered the financial risk of developing an EV with a huge battery so it had reasonable range between fills. That legislative impetus led to extraordinary investment in Tesla by Wall Street and helped by ether-currency called "carbon credits". Had such financial instruments been spread over the Big Four automakers rather than a startup, the BEV would have never gotten on the road.

I do however agree with you, had EV been left to organically develop, electric cars would be better at this stage, because they would have been developed into both parallell and series hybrids using high-efficiency gasoline and diesel ICE to power on-board electrical generation. Unfortunately, Anti-combustion legislation killed such development. We now have billions being invested in charging infrastructure that could be better spent on developing on-board electrical generation systems using liquid fuel as the stored energy source.

[vt100]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Yes and no. They just aren't "the same" enthusiast as you. People are allowed to have their "thing". Maybe it's all about the 0-60 for them, maybe they're top speed people, or ground clearance or how much wood and cow is used in their car, or it having a specific kind of motor or transmission or body style or color... People are allowed to be different, and not everyone has to value the same things as everyone else.

This is like saying that if you're anti lifted truck you're not a driving enthusiast because those are the best at boulder crawling. Personally I couldn't care less about that, but it doesn't make my perspective or their perspective any less valid.

It's totally reasonable to not like the EV experience. They're digital, silent, and offer no real feedback. It's also reasonable to like it, because they're easy to drive, quiet, and insulate you from the road. People are different, and that's fine. I mean, hell, some people even like Miatas.

But what’s wrong with Miatas?!

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I like seeing EVs fail - I just hope everyone who bought one is stuck with it and unable to unload it.

Also, I think this is going to backfire. I have a strong suspicion that the governments are going to pull back on EVs, and then claim climate change has hit its climax and severely claim down on travel.

That's about the gist of it.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by vt100

But what’s wrong with Miatas?!

Lol. That's one of those cars the zeitgeist says "if you're a car guy you have to love it", and I never liked them. Maybe it's that I don't got in them, maybe it's that they're here always in the way at track days, who knows? But they've just never done it for me.

[gblansten]

I am completely excited about the future. Looking forward to how all of this evolves and the amazing innovations that come along. It's a great time to be alive.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Lol. That's one of those cars the zeitgeist says "if you're a car guy you have to love it", and I never liked them. Maybe it's that I don't got in them, maybe it's that they're here always in the way at track days, who knows? But they've just never done it for me.

I think they are fun and chosen as an enthusiast car because they are RWD, small, manual, handle well and can be driven all out because they don't even have 200 HP... that has its upsides especially when on an autox etc...

On the street, I would never own one as I think it's too small and light to be safe and AND WAY too slow for a modern sports car.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by FC4

People who are vehemently anti-EV aren't true driving enthusiasts.

I beg to differ. I think people who are pro EV aren't real enthusiast. Most of the guys who drive electric cars don't even know anything about them but the spec sheet.
They are tech bros jumping on the next big thing.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I think they are fun and chosen as an enthusiast car because they are RWD, small, manual, handle well and can be driven all out because they don't even have 200 HP... that has its upsides especially when on an autox etc...

On the street, I would never own one as I think it's too small and light to be safe and AND WAY too slow for a modern sports car.

It would outdrive nearly everything on sharp turns, I know b/c I used to own one.
Too small? You obviously want to be cocooned in a suv

[NSXR]

Originally Posted by Davil

Is going 0-60 really fast everyday fun?
I’m trying to remember the last time I did this.

Same. And I think it kills batteries pretty quickly.

[dreamingat30fps]

OMG NO WAYY!!!!! Who could of seen this coming.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Anyways, back to your golden rule. I think that's what drives a lot of EV disgust, not following the Golden Rule. Governments the world over are trying their damnedest to say scre the golden rule, you follow our rule and we say EVs only.

I was with much of what you were saying until the last paragraph - what government EXACTLY is saying EVs only?
Certainly not the US one, and not the EU one. Not today now, and not at any point in the recent past. Not in any enforceable way.

There has been a long-term pressure on automakers to meet more stringent energy consumption benchmarks. I partially agree / disagree with some of that, but the net result has been an impressive ramp-up in drivetrain innovation that roughly doubled average HP over past 25 years, and lowered my cost of operating my cars (ICE) by ~50% over the same period.


Recall that EVs hit mainstream with Tesla not because they were economical or funky looking (unlike Nissan Leaf or BMW i3), but because they introduced a "wow" performance factor in normal sedan look.
A wolf in sheep's clothing - exactly what BMW ///M cars used to be!

Originally Posted by BlkGS

If we didn't have EV incentives, looming mandates, and governments making gas cars more and more expensive, people would have less of an issue with EVe

I question that.
There is nothing wrong with incentivizing technological innovation and R&D investment. That's core part of our tax code's R&D credit utilized by everyone.
In the global scheme of things, the carbon-credit subsidies banked by EV manufactures are a pittance in terms of overall Automotive industry revenue. Tesla banked $2.76 billion from credits in 2024 vs. $1.53 Trillion in revenue from road vehicle and parts retail trade in the United States. That's 0.0018% of total!

US automakers (my work interfaces with them all) have a LONG tortured history of shifting blame for their own ineptitude onto external factors.
In the 80s it was the wily Japanese building smaller cars for women, undermining demand for their "mainly" products.
In the 90s it was all other foreigners seducing US consumers with their unnatural quality, thus failed "buy American" campaigns.
In the 00s it was about building trucks and killing sedans, and then back to blaming Japanese and Koreans for doing a better job selling those sedan back to unsuspecting US customers.
Now it's blaming EVs and pitching protectionist tariffs to subsidize the US automakers from evil job-poaching foreign EVs.

In the meantime, US auto industry has been building uninspired products and sub-standard quality, steadily losing market share decade after decade.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/anima...-1961-to-2016/

Originally Posted by BlkGS

because there wouldn't be an EV faction dedicated to eradicating the Golden Rule.

I see ZERO evidence that such a faction actually exists.
Exactly ZERO people in any of our EV-themed threads have advocated for eradicating ICE drivetrain. The intolerance always flows in the direction of EV owners, not the other way around.

Although in the modern day of mass dis-information via social media (which is where most folks get their "news"), the opportunity for Strawman Arguments is at the all time high!

a

[dfox]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I beg to differ. I think people who are pro EV aren't real enthusiast. Most of the guys who drive electric cars don't even know anything about them but the spec sheet.
They are tech bros jumping on the next big thing.

May be based a little bit in reality, but not everyone.

I drive an EV back and forth to work to avoid the stop and go rush hour miles on my fun car and our road trip gas guzzler. Owned an "enthusiast" type car ever since buying my first car. They've all been of slightly different tastes and styles, going from a mini cooper jcw to an sti to a golf r, and now with an older convertible to tinker with, but I enjoy driving a lot. Toss two different motorcycles in there too. Auto enthusiast fits the bill.

But driving one of those other cars back and forth to work in 20 mile and hour stop and go traffic wasn't all that great. Putting lots and lots of boring miles on a fun car. Why not put lots and lots of boring miles on a boring car? And one that's leased, so the manufacturer is the one taking the risk on resale value...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I was with much of what you were saying until the last paragraph - what government EXACTLY is saying EVs only?
Certainly not the US one, and not the EU one. Not today now, and not at any point in the recent past. Not in any enforceable way.

There has been a long-term pressure on automakers to meet more stringent energy consumption benchmarks. I partially agree / disagree with some of that, but the net result has been an impressive ramp-up in drivetrain innovation that roughly doubled average HP over past 25 years, and lowered my cost of operating my cars (ICE) by ~50% over the same period.


Recall that EVs hit mainstream with Tesla not because they were economical or funky looking (unlike Nissan Leaf or BMW i3), but because they introduced a "wow" performance factor in normal sedan look.
A wolf in sheep's clothing - exactly what BMW ///M cars used to be!



I question that.
There is nothing wrong with incentivizing technological innovation and R&D investment. That's core part of our tax code's R&D credit utilized by everyone.
In the global scheme of things, the carbon-credit subsidies banked by EV manufactures are a pittance in terms of overall Automotive industry revenue. Tesla banked $2.76 billion from credits in 2024 vs. $1.53 Trillion in revenue from road vehicle and parts retail trade in the United States. That's 0.0018% of total!

US automakers (my work interfaces with them all) have a LONG tortured history of shifting blame for their own ineptitude onto external factors.
In the 80s it was the wily Japanese building smaller cars for women, undermining demand for their "mainly" products.
In the 90s it was all other foreigners seducing US consumers with their unnatural quality, thus failed "buy American" campaigns.
In the 00s it was about building trucks and killing sedans, and then back to blaming Japanese and Koreans for doing a better job selling those sedan back to unsuspecting US customers.
Now it's blaming EVs and pitching protectionist tariffs to subsidize the US automakers from evil job-poaching foreign EVs.

In the meantime, US auto industry has been building uninspired products and sub-standard quality, steadily losing market share decade after decade.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/anima...-1961-to-2016/




I see ZERO evidence that such a faction actually exists.
Exactly ZERO people in any of our EV-themed threads have advocated for eradicating ICE drivetrain. The intolerance always flows in the direction of EV owners, not the other way around.

Although in the modern day of mass dis-information via social media (which is where most folks get their "news"), the opportunity for Strawman Arguments is at the all time high!

a

I'm in my mid 60's and have been a car enthusiast since I began building plastic scale models at 8 years old, so I've pretty much witnessed the changes in the US automotive market to which you speak of. I disagree with most of your observations. You must not have seen Japanese econo-cars of the 1970's. They won over the market because of their fuel economy during two Arab oil embargos. The Japanese were selling cars with sub 2L 4-cylinder engines while American manufacturers were selling cars with 5L V8 and 3.5L V6. The build quality of Hondas and Toyotas was not spectacular. Maybe you've never been in a 1950s to late 1970s Cadillac or Lincoln.

Then you must have forgotten the joke that was called the Yugo. You must have never seen a late 80's to mid 90's Hyundai. Those cars were cheap and horrible. Audis really sucked in build quality too during the 1970s and early '80s. And the early E36 interior, not quality by a long shot. E21 and E30 were expensive and spartan inside. An Avalon, Camry, Accord, Civic, B210, Corolla, Versa, are inspirational cars? Really?

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm in my mid 60's and have been a car enthusiast since I began build plastic scale models at 8 years old, so I've pretty much witnessed the changes in the US automotive market to which you speak of. I disagree with most of your observations. You must not have seen Japanese econo-cars of the 1970's. They won over the market because of their fuel economy during two Arab oil embargos. The Japanese were selling cars with sub 2L 4-cylinder engines while American manufacturers were selling cars with 5L V8 and 3.5L V6. The build quality of Hondas and Toyots was not spectacular. Maybe you've never been in a 1950s to late 1970s Cadillac or Lincoln.

Then you must have forgotten the joke that was called the Yugo. You must have never seen a late 80's to mid 90's Hyundai. Those cars were cheap and horrible. Audis really sucked in build quality too during the 1970s and early '80s. And the early E36 interior, not quality by a long shot. E21 and E30 were expensive and spartan inside. An Avalon, Camry, Accord, Civic, B210, Corolla, Versa, are inspirational cars? Really?

The Yugo was a pinnacle achievement for the Serbo-Croatian civilization. Sure...doors were optional. But, you could get doors.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I was with much of what you were saying until the last paragraph - what government EXACTLY is saying EVs only?
Certainly not the US one, and not the EU one. Not today now, and not at any point in the recent past. Not in any enforceable way.

There has been a long-term pressure on automakers to meet more stringent energy consumption benchmarks. I partially agree / disagree with some of that, but the net result has been an impressive ramp-up in drivetrain innovation that roughly doubled average HP over past 25 years, and lowered my cost of operating my cars (ICE) by ~50% over the same period.


Recall that EVs hit mainstream with Tesla not because they were economical or funky looking (unlike Nissan Leaf or BMW i3), but because they introduced a "wow" performance factor in normal sedan look.
A wolf in sheep's clothing - exactly what BMW ///M cars used to be!



I question that.
There is nothing wrong with incentivizing technological innovation and R&D investment. That's core part of our tax code's R&D credit utilized by everyone.
In the global scheme of things, the carbon-credit subsidies banked by EV manufactures are a pittance in terms of overall Automotive industry revenue. Tesla banked $2.76 billion from credits in 2024 vs. $1.53 Trillion in revenue from road vehicle and parts retail trade in the United States. That's 0.0018% of total!

US automakers (my work interfaces with them all) have a LONG tortured history of shifting blame for their own ineptitude onto external factors.
In the 80s it was the wily Japanese building smaller cars for women, undermining demand for their "mainly" products.
In the 90s it was all other foreigners seducing US consumers with their unnatural quality, thus failed "buy American" campaigns.
In the 00s it was about building trucks and killing sedans, and then back to blaming Japanese and Koreans for doing a better job selling those sedan back to unsuspecting US customers.
Now it's blaming EVs and pitching protectionist tariffs to subsidize the US automakers from evil job-poaching foreign EVs.

In the meantime, US auto industry has been building uninspired products and sub-standard quality, steadily losing market share decade after decade.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/anima...-1961-to-2016/




I see ZERO evidence that such a faction actually exists.
Exactly ZERO people in any of our EV-themed threads have advocated for eradicating ICE drivetrain. The intolerance always flows in the direction of EV owners, not the other way around.

Although in the modern day of mass dis-information via social media (which is where most folks get their "news"), the opportunity for Strawman Arguments is at the all time high!

a

California has a ban on selling new ICE cars starting in 2035, as would any states following the CARB rules potentially. CAFE fines effectively ban them economically too (look up the fleet average mpg and tell me that's not unofficially banning them). The EU bans the sale of new ICE cars in 2035 as well (unless they only run on e fuel... No idea how you enforce that but whatever).

You're right, we do live in an era of misinformation. Saying there's not regulations trying to actively ban the sale of new ICE vehicles is textbook misinformation.

[DrVenture]

Anyone who thinks some article or Youtube video that points out a short term hiccup is going to kill the future of EVs is living in a fantasy world. It was always going to be two steps forward and one step back, particularly with an aggressive rollout.

Subsidies have assisted the early-stage development and adoption, but even if eliminated they will never kill the momentum. Maybe slow it a little. Then, lighter, more energy dense batteries that charge quickly will be here before not too long, and the much lower cost of manufacturing an EV vs. a high performance ICE vehicle, will eventually cement EVs as the best choice for most people.

EVs already have the torque and quickness crown, without even that being the main thrust (pun intended). Weight loss and quicker charging will make them competitive/equal in handling soon enough.

Win/win - there will be plenty of used/new ICE vehicles for those who still want them, and less demand for gasoline. So, what's the problem?

[BlkGS]

I don't think anyone believes that EVs will go away. Long term, we need a variety of different vehicle types . Diesel, gasoline, EV, fuel cell, synthetic fuel... We need it all. Each has its own niche, where it excels over everything else.

We also can't be so naive as to think there is endless advancement down certain roads where things will get better in every way and cheaper. There are limitations for things, and physics is a CRUEL mistress. Charging rates are going to reach a point where they hit a limit, you can only feed so many volts and amps through a cable that any moron is allowed to use. More volts means more danger, more amps means way higher copper costs (and theft threat).

We are lucky to live in a country of near limitless energy potential, if we use it. If every vehicle we're running E85 now instead of it being a niche thing only for high boost builds, we would need dramatically less oil for gasoline. Biodiesel can be grown via algae that literally eats CO2 out of the air. We have options that are far easier to implement and far better than EV if our goal is to reduce foreign oil use. If we want to reduce emissions, we could put huge taxes on plane and large boats and force automakers to provide parts for 30 years and force right to repair to keep cars on the road longer.

We have solutions, we just don't have consistent and clearly defined problem statements.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

I don't think anyone believes that EVs will go away. Long term, we need a variety of different vehicle types . Diesel, gasoline, EV, fuel cell, synthetic fuel... We need it all. Each has its own niche, where it excels over everything else.

We also can't be so naive as to think there is endless advancement down certain roads where things will get better in every way and cheaper. There are limitations for things, and physics is a CRUEL mistress. Charging rates are going to reach a point where they hit a limit, you can only feed so many volts and amps through a cable that any moron is allowed to use. More volts means more danger, more amps means way higher copper costs (and theft threat).

We are lucky to live in a country of near limitless energy potential, if we use it. If every vehicle we're running E85 now instead of it being a niche thing only for high boost builds, we would need dramatically less oil for gasoline. Biodiesel can be grown via algae that literally eats CO2 out of the air. We have options that are far easier to implement and far better than EV if our goal is to reduce foreign oil use. If we want to reduce emissions, we could put huge taxes on plane and large boats and force automakers to provide parts for 30 years and force right to repair to keep cars on the road longer.

We have solutions, we just don't have consistent and clearly defined problem statements.

This is my point regarding hybrids, especially series hybrids, which the internet moniker is now EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle). I don't think EV are going to get 10 to 5 minute recharge rates for exactly the reason you state, cable handling limitations. On top of that, the existing charging infrastructure is set for 800V architecture, nowhere I've read that it's future proofed for higher charge rates via higher voltage/higher current architecture. So does that mean another trillion dollars to tech refresh the existing charging infrastructure, which implementation already in motion?

EV'ers like to brag the ICEV are limited and tied to their crude oil-based fuel source and BEV have multiple electricity fuel sources: wind, solar, hydro, nat. gas, coal ("dirty"). Yet ICE are not tied to just oil, as you stated there are biofuels, synthetic fuels, and reclaimant fuels. The combustion engine can be redesigned for increased combustion efficiency when not mechanically connected to the drive wheels. Hybrids still provide limitless cabin heating and refuel in 5 minutes for 400+ miles of range. The fuel delivery infrastructure for alternate liquid fuels is already in place and adequately sized to fit all use cases. Hybrid is where we should have been driving towards all along and where the market will end up. However, the climate fearers still rule the roost regarding the problem statement and fight remains on.

[chassis]

All global markets are forecasting delay of the point at which EV = 50% of new production.

[DrVenture]

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.