Electric Vehicles

[silversleeper]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Nope. Not that. I just got an insider’s take on it and it’s primarily because of under performance in Europe, but it is also considering the way too fat inventory of trucks in the US, potential strikes pending at two locations, and unfair labor practice lawsuits that are drawing out way too long.

I happened to see their stock chart.
Yeah that's not because of some EV investment and sales!

[FarmerFran]

Stellantis got cocky and overpriced their vehicles. Screwed them bad. They recently back peddled and dropped prices, but too little too late.

[silversleeper]

And I was just talking about maintenance. Keep in mind things like the HVAC pump and other parts were improved even mid-year production so a model 2 or 5 or 10 years old model won't represent what you are buying now.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars...p-a1854979198/


Edit: they include tires and wiper blades and cabin air filters in this cost so looks like that is about it then for 5 years.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

lol at Land Rover

[olrocker]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a6...4ngKbSsVZNXYgg

This just makes me laugh. Life’s good

[90503]

"Automakers Petition Trump, Hoping to Avoid Drastic EV Policy Changes"

Why would they be concerned about the 7500 dollar subsidy for some, a rip-off for everyone else?

Drastic EV Policy Changes....hmmmm....do they mean the "EV Mandates"?? Don't they know those don't exist???lol

The EV transition is a total farce and a disaster, just like the rest of the GreenNewDeal.
EVs are the answer to a question that no one ever asked.

The car makers should eat crow with their misguided adventure into Woke Climateer-ville.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

"Automakers Petition Trump, Hoping to Avoid Drastic EV Policy Changes"

Why would they be concerned about the 7500 dollar subsidy for some, a rip-off for everyone else?

Drastic EV Policy Changes....hmmmm....do they mean the "EV Mandates"?? Don't they know those don't exist???lol

The EV transition is a total farce and a disaster, just like the rest of the GreenNewDeal.
EVs are the answer to a question that no one ever asked.

The car makers should eat crow with their misguided adventure into Woke Climateer-ville.

It’s really not that hard to understand. Automakers have been saying since the Obama Administration…

• Set the regulations and stick to them so that we have set targets to engineer product to meet. We can’t engineer product effectively if the regulations change every four years.
• Having one standard instead of two would be preferable (ie - No California Waiver)

So they’re just being consistent. Because the targets are set through 2027 and most (probably all) have their portfolios set about 5 years in advance (so 2029) they have already made provisions to engineer vehicles to meet the requirements through 2027 and probably some assumptions beyond. They also realize that BEVs are pretty much “EPA proof” and so those who have strategies to produce BEVs don’t want to slow down development anymore than they have to.

When targets were rolled back during the last Trump administration most automakers said ”we’ve already engineered product to meet the more stringent regulations, so thanks, but no thanks. We’re good.” Except Stellantis who was already so far under water they needed the relieved targets.

So now when automakers are saying “don’t remove the $7,500 incentive”, the point they are trying to make is that the purpose of the incentives is to get buyers who want BEVs to buy BEVs produced in North America by members of the Alliance instead of BEVs imported from Germany, Austria, South Korea, Japan, and eventually China. This would also allow them to build assembly plants and battery plants in the US and add jobs to the US economy.

It’s actually been working very well in Georgia and South Carolina. Rivian, Hyundai, and other automakers are building plants in Georgia and hiring people to very well paying jobs. Same with battery manufacturers. It would work even better if Congress would close the leasing loophole that allows any BEV to benefit from the incentive.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s really not that hard to understand. Automakers have been saying since the Obama Administration…

• Set the regulations and stick to them so that we have set targets to engineer product to meet. We can’t engineer product effectively if the regulations change every four years.
• Having one standard instead of two would be preferable (ie - No California Waiver)

So they’re just being consistent. Because the targets are set through 2027 and most (probably all) have their portfolios set about 5 years in advance (so 2029) they have already made provisions to engineer vehicles to meet the requirements through 2027 and probably some assumptions beyond. They also realize that BEVs are pretty much “EPA proof” and so those who have strategies to produce BEVs don’t want to slow down development anymore than they have to.

When targets were rolled back during the last Trump administration most automakers said ”we’ve already engineered product to meet the more stringent regulations, so thanks, but no thanks. We’re good.” Except Stellantis who was already so far under water they needed the relieved targets.

So now when automakers are saying “don’t remove the $7,500 incentive”, the point they are trying to make is that the purpose of the incentives is to get buyers who want BEVs to buy BEVs produced in North America by members of the Alliance instead of BEVs imported from Germany, Austria, South Korea, Japan, and eventually China. This would also allow them to build assembly plants and battery plants in the US and add jobs to the US economy.

It’s actually been working very well in Georgia and South Carolina. Rivian, Hyundai, and other automakers are building plants in Georgia and hiring people to very well paying jobs. Same with battery manufacturers. It would work even better if Congress would close the leasing loophole that allows any BEV to benefit from the incentive.

As I have been telling you all along, MOST people want their ICE, naturally aspirated V6 and V8 engines back. For the car manufacturers to go with “administrations” instead of what most of the regular customer base wants is just insanity.

Please tell me the people running g all these giant car companies aren’t that stupid. Oh I forgot, according to you they’re not.

Yet here we are. The people have clearly spoken. And the car companies are crying. Don’t tell me they couldn’t see this coming.

Queen Mary: “I’m surprised the EVs have become political”

Really? Good grief man if she’s really that blind and deaf to the public perception of EVs I wouldn’t hire her to manage a McDonalds.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by 90503

"Automakers Petition Trump, Hoping to Avoid Drastic EV Policy Changes"

Why would they be concerned about the 7500 dollar subsidy for some, a rip-off for everyone else?

Drastic EV Policy Changes....hmmmm....do they mean the "EV Mandates"?? Don't they know those don't exist???lol

The EV transition is a total farce and a disaster, just like the rest of the GreenNewDeal.
EVs are the answer to a question that no one ever asked.

The car makers should eat crow with their misguided adventure into Woke Climateer-ville.

Exactly!!

[Capricio]

The Unpopular Truth About Electric Vehicles | Mark P. Mills


A longer lecture:
https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu...ctric-vehicles

Highlights:

• EVs aren't necessarily simpler than ICE, the complexity moves from the motor to the battery.
  
• The total subsidy for each US BEV is around $30k, yet OEMs still are losing approximatly $50k per car.
  
• BEVs have a negligible impact on overall oil consumption. Each one may turn positive after around the 50,000 mile mark.
  
• To make a 1000 lb battery, somewhere on earth (not the USA?!) 500,000 lbs of rock/soil need to mined and refined (using mostly fossil fuels). We're blind to the overall effects of pollution and environmental impacts because it is done elsewhere.
  
• The low residual values of used EVs represent a huge destruction of government capital that will benefit other countries.

[90503]

So the "Alliance" needs massive subsidies and EV "incentives" (the govt and all taxpayers chip in 7500 per car so the makers can set their prices that much higher), exorbitant loans to build needed battery making plants, etc., all with the end result of an unaffordable consumer msrp, weak demand, and still twice the price of overseas competitors.

Its a boondoggle and massive waste of resources that needs to end asap.

As we have been told, gm's voluntary decision to go EV (made while Trump was still in office @2017) was even prior to the referenced EV measures put in place they now want kept in place, to have "consistency" .

Their "consistency" requires the continued strip-mining of middle class wealth to continue an ill-concieved and failing policy.

Rolling back regulations should be a welcome or benign issue. The carmakers should be able to build what they see fit without the co-ercion of govt regulations. (As gm claimed was the case with their voluntary 2017 decision to change course.)

The ridiculous bureaucratic formulas of CAFE, Carbon footprint, vehicle classifications, etc., etc., all need to end.

We are 7-8 years into gm's EV decision in 2017 to go EV and its still a disaster with the makers begging the govt to prop up their poor business decision.

[silversleeper]

And yet we still subsidize ethanol to burn and if you are from a big corn production state you know how the groundwater is contaminated from fertilizers. Subsidies and regulations and capitalism or imports are things for a different more focused thread because some of us come to an EV thread to read about EVs and upcoming tech.
I stopped reading some other websites such as electrek and jalopnic after being called an orange nazi in the articles one too many times for simply having thoughts about regs subsidies and unlimited immigration that lowers wages and stresses the economy schools infrastructure and healthcare systems
Ethanol subsidies of ethanol, a biofuel made from corn. These subsidies are debatable for their and impact on food prices and land use.

1. Tax Credits: One common form of subsidy is the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which offers a tax credit to ethanol blenders. For example, blenders might receive 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend with gasoline
2. Mandates: Governments may require a certain volume of biofuels, like ethanol, to be blended with gasoline. This is known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in the U.S.
3. Grants and Loan Guarantees: Programs like the Biorefinery Assistance Program provide loan guarantees and grants for the development of biofuel production facilities.
4. Support for corn crop Production: Programs like the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) offer financial assistance to landowners and operators who produce crops for biofuel production.
5. Infrastructure Subsidies: Some subsidies support the infrastructure needed for ethanol production and distribution, such as blender pumps at fuel stations.

[90503]

Yes, the list of wasteful spending and subsidies by the govt is quite extensive, as you point out. Thank you.

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.Hopefully most, if not all of it, ends soon.

The waste and expense related to EVs is relevant in this thread as is the EV news of upcoming EV tech, etc.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by 90503

Yes, the list of wasteful spending and subsidies by the govt is quite extensive, as you point out. Thank you.

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.Hopefully most, if not all of it, ends soon.

The waste and expense related to EVs is relevant in this thread as is the EV news of upcoming EV tech, etc.

Agree, I'd say ethanol is out of scope for an EV thread, but EV policy, driven by government de facto (I qualified it, Jim!) mandates, and subsidies are well within bounds, especially as consumer demand is tapping out and significant policy changes on the horizon will drastically impact OEMs' EV sales and planning.

FWIW, I think ethanol subsidies have declined to the point where the pump price is not cost effective with reduced mileage for most people. It's down to a niche market for performance enthusiasts, and not much more. If anything, it's a good use case for what happens when you let market forces determine demand, not forcing change down consumers throats.

If you want a sunshine and rainbows thread about a coming EV "revolution" and new models, you're welcome to spin one up.