# Ever ride in a Tesla?



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Yeah the power they put down is incredible.

They build quality isn't honestly.

My Cruze has better panel gaps and lower wind noise, lower vehicle rattles than any Tesla I've ever been in. Early 3s were absolutely horrific and they are still having issues it seems as well


----------



## marmalou (Dec 30, 2020)

Yes I joyrode a dual motor Model S years ago. Insane, almost violent, acceleration that was like a personal roller coaster.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

Yes. Just don’t keep them out of warranty unless you hate money.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

My brother's company has one (a Model X P90D, I think), and it's known as "The Piece of ****". It's quick as hell, but it's absolutely terribly built.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

Yes, a few years ago in a Model S. All-round just a really boring car. I will admit the "insane mode" launch (don't remember the exact name), was pretty impressive and cool the first time. The second launch I was kind of over it. It was more like being thrown from something than riding in a car. But at normal speeds it was just so soulless and chintzy. I know it's a "to each his/her own" thing, but to me it answered a question I never thought of asking: "How can we make speed boring?". I imagine it might be more fun to someone who is a roller-coaster buff and gets a rush out of being chucked around. I never know how to explain it, but to me what's essentially a flaw of the internal combustion engine -- the fact that it has a power curve that builds and falls at certain rpm ranges -- makes it feel like it has life and adds to the excitement and satisfaction. My analogy is that in other fast cars I've been in, it feels like you're on a horse that's taking off into a gallop; the Tesla feels like the sensation you get when the horse goes from a gallop to a dead stop but you don't. And I have experienced both with horses. 
All that said I wonder if something like a Taycan or the electric Mercedes AMG GT from a few years ago would change my tune a little on EVs in general. Those seem to be aimed more at being "driver's cars," or at least not anti-driver.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Besides the downright speed EVs lack drama or character, two things ICE vehicles use as their stock-in-trade to differentiate from each other.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> Besides the downright speed EVs lack drama or character


You know that basically 99% of Americans don't want drama in their daily transportation, right? It's why people buy Toyota Corollas.

Character is a separate issue, and comes down to marketing.


----------



## marmalou (Dec 30, 2020)

Ma v e n said:


> Besides the downright speed EVs lack drama or character


Makes the future lineup of EVs the perfect NPCmobile


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Tesla is fast and fun but wow is the quality junk. I’ve seen better build quality from Mitsubishi


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

Yes. It was an interesting experience but nothing like a turbo v8 that runs mid 8's all day and is streetable or any fuel burning car for that matter.

A much better experience is burning race fuel and an aggressive exhaust note compared to a silent very hot battery. Not mention the joy of turbo spool or blower whine.

Electric has its place but is Not all the greenie wenies make it to be.

For me a major failure not to mention a tesla post shouldn't be in a diesel forum. More off topic unrelated.


----------



## JLL (Sep 12, 2017)

Barry Allen said:


> You know that basically 99% of Americans don't want drama in their daily transportation, right? It's why people buy Toyota Corollas.
> 
> Character is a separate issue, and comes down to marketing.


This is very true. Most people just want to put it in drive and go. They don't care how it goes as long as it goes. And they certainly don't browse car forums all day and spend money on upgrades.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

JLL said:


> This is very true. Most people just want to put it in drive and go. They don't care how it goes as long as it goes. And they certainly don't browse car forums all day and spend money on upgrades.


Certainly true, but the problem with EV remains the battery, and its charging time. That doesn't help the "put it in drive and go" if the battery is not charged enough to get where you need to go. That and it amazes me that despite poor sells figures for the Bolt, and other EVs the OEMs are throwing all in, when it's not what people are really wanting to buy, they are buying the big SUVs and Trucks, and RVs have also been selling well. You are not going to go on an RV road trip with a family and do it with any EV.. just not going to happen.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

JLL said:


> This is very true. Most people just want to put it in drive and go. They don't care how it goes as long as it goes. And they certainly don't browse car forums all day and spend money on upgrades.


I mean that’s the problem though. Tesla doesn’t have such a thing. Aftermarket parts are basically non existent.

This will really hurt the used car market in the long run. Used Tesla insurance premiums are basically at new car levels because of this. And it’s only getting worse as insurances gain experience. The few people getting cheap premiums are basically lucky because their insurance hasn’t seen the bill yet.


----------



## phil1734 (Aug 30, 2019)

MRO1791 said:


> ... it amazes me that despite poor sells figures for the Bolt, and other EVs the OEMs are throwing all in, when it's not what people are really wanting to buy, they are buying the big SUVs and Trucks, and RVs have also been selling well. ...


You're looking at it as an American. Electric vehicles make up about 40% of sales in south-east Asia and 30% in Europe. And that figure goes up 5-10% per year.

The American market for cars (actual cars, like sedans/hatchbacks) is no longer large enough to support bespoke models built to our archaic standards (emissions, headlights, pedestrian impact, etc, etc.) We get whatever is built elsewhere and also happens to meet our requirements without costing too much. The OEs don't really expect to make much on them, but if they're already designed and it costs little to nothing to get them onto dealer lots, they can offer them with little to no risk. If they sell some great. If not, they don't care (diesel Cruze or Equinox anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)

The biggest change came when they discovered that you can take an Opel, Fiat, or similar hatchback, lift it an inch, and toss some black fender moldings on it and call it a "crossover" and it'll sell like hotcakes here. We aren't there quite yet, but as other countries continue to ban fossil fuels, choke out tail-pipe emissions, and battery technology improves, we will reach a point where the OEs are not going to design a platform around in the ability to accept or even develop a US-only-spec internal combustion engine and its required transmission, and you'll have no choice.

Pick-up trucks and large SUVs will be last to adopt electrification, and I don't buy they'll do it by the 2035-ish timeline they like to quote. Those are still built for and sold almost exclusively in the United States and Canada, so their design and function is still dictated by the American market. They will also continue to fly under the radar as "commercial vehicles," and probably be except from a lot electrification and emissions legislation.

P.S. It's also important to remember that the most vocal opposition to electric cars doesn't seem to be coming from first owners. OE's don't really care about the opinions of second, third or even forth owners.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

phil1734 said:


> You're looking at it as an American. Electric vehicles make up about 40% of sales in south-east Asia and 30% in Europe. And that figure goes up 5-10% per year.
> 
> The American market for cars (actual cars, like sedans/hatchbacks) is no longer large enough to support bespoke models built to our archaic standards (emissions, headlights, pedestrian impact, etc, etc.) We get whatever is built elsewhere and also happens to meet our requirements without costing too much. The OEs don't really expect to make much on them, but if they're already designed and it costs little to nothing to get them onto dealer lots, they can offer them with little to no risk. If they sell some great. If not, they don't care (diesel Cruze or Equinox anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
> 
> ...


China EV market is complete trash. And it’s mostly scooters. Much of the push is from their insane pollution. The market is absolutely flooded with no name brands sponsored by their government. 

Americans, Canadians... We have a higher standard of things. If we buy something crap we tend to get upset about it and demand our money back. Which I don’t view as a bad thing.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

phil1734 said:


> You're looking at it as an American. Electric vehicles make up about 40% of sales in south-east Asia and 30% in Europe. And that figure goes up 5-10% per year.
> 
> The American market for cars (actual cars, like sedans/hatchbacks) is no longer large enough to support bespoke models built to our archaic standards (emissions, headlights, pedestrian impact, etc, etc.) We get whatever is built elsewhere and also happens to meet our requirements without costing too much. The OEs don't really expect to make much on them, but if they're already designed and it costs little to nothing to get them onto dealer lots, they can offer them with little to no risk. If they sell some great. If not, they don't care (diesel Cruze or Equinox anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
> 
> ...


Fact remains.. the bolt is NOT selling well.. and they won't even admit that the newer version at 32-34K will turn a profit! GM is LOSING money with the bolt! They are losing money because is is not what the customer wants, period. If you love an EV, fine.. go get one. I like my Diesels, and guess what? I'm able to see the reality that my POV on the Diesel Cruze is a rare one, because I can admit that they did not sell well, perhaps for reasons I don't agree with, but the reality is the reality. Just because I like the car, and don't understand why others do not does not make me incapable of seeing that reality. The problem with many EV proponents is they are almost religious about it, and they assume others must eventually come around to these supposedly amazing cars that people don't want to buy. I could buy TWO base Diesel Cruzes, and almost 3 Gas Cruzes for the price of the original Bolt! That alone should be enough to explain it.. and I can go 700 miles on a 13 gallon tank of fuel.. not maybe 250s in the right condition with the Bolt, then face diminished battery life over time, and an battery replacement that costs about as much as an entirely new car at about the 10 year mark.. all that and if I want to do a USA style road trip, do a roof rack, or even a small trailer.. that EV just isn't practical, period. People are not buying EVs in great numbers, and it's going to be mostly city people, and rich people that also have other vehicles that can use the EV for a commuter car, and afford to have extra vehicles that they use for other things. I will predict right now, that the car companies that don't try to go full EV, and retain some R&D with ICE engines, or technology like H2 fuel cells, or even synthetic fuels (see Porsche) will come out ahead in the future. It's bizarre to throw down on the technology that is currently available but not selling well and think that is a good idea, then go that path only. If it were not for the large SUVs and Trucks, GM, Ford and FCA (or whatever they are called these days), they would all have been bankrupt by now. The customer wants a vehicle that can do many things, especially if they can't have a fleet of cars, with a separate commuter car.


----------



## Earthangel496 (Oct 17, 2017)

MRO1791 said:


> Fact remains.. the bolt is NOT selling well.. and they won't even admit that the newer version at 32-34K will turn a profit! GM is LOSING money with the bolt! They are losing money because is is not what the customer wants, period. If you love an EV, fine.. go get one. I like my Diesels, and guess what? I'm able to see the reality that my POV on the Diesel Cruze is a rare one, because I can admit that they did not sell well, perhaps for reasons I don't agree with, but the reality is the reality. Just because I like the car, and don't understand why others do not does not make me incapable of seeing that reality. The problem with many EV proponents is they are almost religious about it, and they assume others must eventually come around to these supposedly amazing cars that people don't want to buy. I could buy TWO base Diesel Cruzes, and almost 3 Gas Cruzes for the price of the original Bolt! That alone should be enough to explain it.. and I can go 700 miles on a 13 gallon tank of fuel.. not maybe 250s in the right condition with the Bolt, then face diminished battery life over time, and an battery replacement that costs about as much as an entirely new car at about the 10 year mark.. all that and if I want to do a USA style road trip, do a roof rack, or even a small trailer.. that EV just isn't practical, period. People are not buying EVs in great numbers, and it's going to be mostly city people, and rich people that also have other vehicles that can use the EV for a commuter car, and afford to have extra vehicles that they use for other things. I will predict right now, that the car companies that don't try to go full EV, and retain some R&D with ICE engines, or technology like H2 fuel cells, or even synthetic fuels (see Porsche) will come out ahead in the future. It's bizarre to throw down on the technology that is currently available but not selling well and think that is a good idea, then go that path only. If it were not for the large SUVs and Trucks, GM, Ford and FCA (or whatever they are called these days), they would all have been bankrupt by now. The customer wants a vehicle that can do many things, especially if they can't have a fleet of cars, with a separate commuter car.


This is why I just placed a deposit on a 2021 GMC 2500HD Duramax to add to my diesel fleet. I tell the wife I'd repaint her Cruze TD before we would replace it. We despise that the Big 3 have dropped all small sedan production for crossovers with huge blind spots. Funny thing our home is net zero with solar but we wouldn't own a BEV until the prices drastically drop. Have you priced a 2021 Hummer? It's 2x the cost of my ordered 2500 HD and no idea when it will hit the showroom for public purchase easy availability ie huge waiting list for limited product.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Earthangel496 said:


> This is why I just placed a deposit on a 2021 GMC 2500HD Duramax to add to my diesel fleet.


Unless I needed it for the absolute heaviest towing capacity, I wouldn't buy a diesel pickup truck. The cost is far too great for what you get (headaches when emissions stuff breaks or malfunctions).

Ford seems to have noticed this market segment and has their new 7.3 gasoline V-8 engine. Some people have a need for decent HD capacity but the fuel savings just don't justify the diesel engine.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> GM is LOSING money with the bolt!


GM knows the first cars are experiments and justify the investment to get data on production process and reliability and durability in the real world.

Sometimes it is government requirements making the market do weird things. Fiat offered the 500e in California only because the state requires auto manufactures who sell a certain number of cars in the state to sell a percentage of that total as zero emissions vehicles. Sergio Marchionne reported that Fiat loses $14,000 on every 500e sold. I former co-worker of mine moved there and she got a 500e on lease for $199 a month. At the end of the lease she thinks it will be offered to her at a ridiculous low price and she plans to buy it if she can get it for a steal. For her and husband it is a second car for commuting locally.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> if I want to do a USA style road trip


Hah, there it is!

*"There is this thing I might be thinking about doing and it's less than 0.1% of my total car ownership use cases, but I'm going to let that one obscure idea that really isn't a firm commitment of mine be a deal breaker for owning an EV instead of renting a car for a road trip!"*

Similar statement that people make: "I might want to tow half my house some day so I better buy a pickup truck!"


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

Let me share the entire quote of mro1791, not just a small portion. Reminds me of CNN.

" all that and if I want to do a USA style road trip, do a roof rack, or even a small trailer.. that EV just isn't practical, period."

I agree 100%.

Not practical for all, not cheap to own factoring in purchase price, typically 30% heavier than its gas equivalent, the cost to charge will go up, very expensive tires, very complicated vehicles, not for the poor and eventually the state's will want tax revenue equal to or more than current gas taxes. Some states are already are putting high premiums on them to get yearly tags.

I could go on and on. They do have their place in the market but they aren't the answer to replace gas or diesel 100% anytime soon in the USA.

BTW If everybody owns an EV there won't be any gas cars to rent much less put gas in them.

Also it is always better to have the ability to tow my house someday and not need it then to need the ability to tow my house and not have it.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

15cruzediesel said:


> Let me share the entire quote of mro1791, not just a small portion. Reminds me of Fox News.
> 
> " all that and if I want to do a USA style road trip, do a roof rack, or even a small trailer.. that EV just isn't practical, period."
> 
> ...


My Volt cost $25k after the $7500 rebate. It is 16% heavier than the 2nd gen Cruze _and still has an engine_, the tires are nothing special and not "very expensive", and it's not "very complicated".

But sure, if you get scared of new things, you might want to ditch your Cruze Diesel which has an emissions system that is "very complicated".

I have a $60 premium on my renewal each year. I save $100-$125 a month by not buying gas (and that is factoring in the ~$30/mo my electric bill increased - this is all referring to pre-pandemic). Sure sounds like I've saved money!

Now, granted, mine is a PHEV - so I can go as far as I'd like. I still think this is the best option rather than full EV *at this point in time*, due to the lack of infrastructure and quick charging speeds equal to that of just filling up my 8.9 gallon gas tank to get me another 450 miles of range. But - if it weren't for EMM/FMM on the car, I would basically never use gas at all.


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

MP81 said:


> My Volt cost $25k after the $7500 rebate. It is 16% heavier than the 2nd gen Cruze _and still has an engine_, the tires are nothing special and not "very expensive", and it's not "very complicated".
> 
> But sure, if you get scared of new things, you might want to ditch your Cruze Diesel which has an emissions system that is "very complicated".
> 
> ...


Check out recommended replacement tires for a tesla. Shoot even the cruze td has a special tire. Low rolling resistance or something I believe. Never looked up how much they cost yet since mine are in g9od shape.

No fear of new things. Not sure where you got that. It's one of the reasons I bought a diesel for the first time. Should have done it long ago.

What I am saying is electric cars are far from simple. The people pushing them only speak of the good things and tend not to tell the entire truth. Like a cheap sales person will do. Not to mention when government is involved.....

I have always thought hybrids are the best alternative.

Using gas or diesel isn't a bad thing. In fact I like it. Guess my petromasculinity doesn't fit the agenda.

Actually electric cars aren't a new thing. We had them over 100 years ago


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

15cruzediesel said:


> the cost to charge will go up


The cost to charge is what your electricity rate is. If your electricity price increases, sure, the cost to charge will go up. But if you have steady and fixed rates, the cost remains the same.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

15cruzediesel said:


> very complicated vehicles


EVs are incredibly simple. As has been pointed out by many people in the industry, electric motors and the drivetrain are very simple and reliable. No transmissions with a single-speed direct-drive. How many people on this board and owners of other cars have transmission problems and complaints? The motors almost never break. The same can't be said for engines. The long-term maintenance on a Bolt EV is what, coolant change in the cooling circuits at 150,000 miles? I think that's what I read when the Bolt EV was first released - 150,000 miles and then you change the coolant that flows through all the parts that are used to transfer heat here and there. It's a lot of solid-state parts with much higher reliability than any gasoline or diesel vehicle.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

15cruzediesel said:


> If everybody owns an EV there won't be any gas cars to rent much less put gas in them.


Here is the thing: At the point where everyone owns an EV, the ability to fast charge at ubiquitous locations across the country will have advanced to the point that you won't care about renting a gas car. You'll plug your EV in to charge for 5-10 minutes and be topped up with a few hundred miles of range. This is happening in the next 5-10 years.


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

Barry Allen said:


> The cost to charge is what your electricity rate is. If your electricity price increases, sure, the cost to charge will go up. But if you have steady and fixed rates, the cost remains the same.


I guarantee you the gobberment will find a way to make the cost of charging an ev more. Be it directly or indirectly


Barry Allen said:


> EVs are incredibly simple. As has been pointed out by many people in the industry, electric motors and the drivetrain are very simple and reliable. No transmissions with a single-speed direct-drive. How many people on this board and owners of other cars have transmission problems and complaints? The motors almost never break. The same can't be said for engines. The long-term maintenance on a Bolt EV is what, coolant change in the cooling circuits at 150,000 miles? I think that's what I read when the Bolt EV was first released - 150,000 miles and then you change the coolant that flows through all the parts that are used to transfer heat here and there. It's a lot of solid-state parts with much higher reliability than any gasoline or diesel vehicle.


. No way are they giving up the money made on fuel taxes.


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

Barry Allen said:


> EVs are incredibly simple. As has been pointed out by many people in the industry, electric motors and the drivetrain are very simple and reliable. No transmissions with a single-speed direct-drive. How many people on this board and owners of other cars have transmission problems and complaints? The motors almost never break. The same can't be said for engines. The long-term maintenance on a Bolt EV is what, coolant change in the cooling circuits at 150,000 miles? I think that's what I read when the Bolt EV was first released - 150,000 miles and then you change the coolant that flows through all the parts that are used to transfer heat here and there. It's a lot of solid-state parts with much higher reliability than any gasoline or diesel vehicle.


You should talk to somebody that has had trouble with their electric car.

I tell you about my neighbors bolt. Battery troubles and electrical gremlins and it is a 2020. He said it is gone soon if gm can't get it fixed or the warranty runs out.

He said he should have bought the trax instead. Far cheaper, more reliable and no range limit.

They are not simple. Just complicated in a different way from petrol cars.


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

Barry Allen said:


> Here is the thing: At the point where everyone owns an EV, the ability to fast charge at ubiquitous locations across the country will have advanced to the point that you won't care about renting a gas car. You'll plug your EV in to charge for 5-10 minutes and be topped up with a few hundred miles of range. This is happening in the next 5-10 years.


Assuming that ever happens. Lots of hurdles to overcome in that time frame. Probably more like 10 to 15 in reality.

The natural resources to make that many batteries will be issue unless they can create a miracle battery in a very short period.

If you know how to calculate watts doing some simple math will show you how much more electric will need to be generated just to keep the shear number of ev's charged. Creating that much electric just doesn't happen without a high cost that will be passed onto the consumer. Simple economics.

Oil is plentiful, gas can cheap if the gobberment leaves it alone and the infrastructure already exists. Ice engines could still become way more efficent if they remain a strong hold for transportation.

Ultimately the consumer will either decide or that freedom will be taken away and we will be forced to buy what is deemed allowed.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

A 2021 Tahoe or Corvette is a far more complex vehicle than a 2021 Bolt is.

What does vehicle weight have to do with anything? So maybe your license plates cost $15 more on a weight based registration as compared to a Cruze. Solid state batteries will reduce vehicle weight once they become dominant chemistry.

The shop I work at sells roughly 6 times as many Bolts as they Corvettes. Hard part warranty failures on Corvettes are almost 10 times more common than on Bolts, and out warranty (17-18 model years) is many orders of magnitude difference. Yesterday actually marked the first out of warranty hard failure of any Bolt I've ever serviced. And it was due to corrosion

The average mileage of the Bolt fleet is approximately 33000, the Vette fleet is at about 15000


----------



## marmalou (Dec 30, 2020)

15cruzediesel said:


> The people pushing them only speak of the good things and tend not to tell the entire truth


That's fair. When others dismiss the downsides to EVs I sense a mutual consensus that they are temporary problems which will be ironed out later. When engineers claim they will get something done in 5-10 years it always becomes double the estimate, to achieve a product that can be used seamlessly for an average consumer. Like ICE vehicles, it will take automakers decades to establish a refined platform for EVs, and most are just starting to get serious about it now.


----------



## 15cruzediesel (Sep 30, 2019)

Ma v e n said:


> A 2021 Tahoe or Corvette is a far more complex vehicle than a 2021 Bolt is.
> 
> What does vehicle weight have to do with anything? So maybe your license plates cost $15 more on a weight based registration as compared to a Cruze. Solid state batteries will reduce vehicle weight once they become dominant chemistry.
> 
> ...


OK. The more a car weighs the more energy it requires to keep it in motion and to stop it which works in the favor for an ev since they can convert a little of that into recharging.

Ironically I can't afford the performance a vette offers for the price nor can I afford the performance a bolt offers for the price.🤔

Total vette sales for 2020 are almost identical to bikt sales US. About 21k each.

Reading your post made me realize something. Since ev's are simple, cheap to own, use virtually no energy and don't break down, anybody that makes a living that has any relationship with fuel cars better start looking for a job. Repair shops will gone, auto stores, parts suppliers for repairs and a ton of other indirect jobs.

Probably millions of jobs gone in reality. Sure ev's will require a small fraction of support but man lots of people will be sol.

It actually works in the car manufactures world. The goal has always been to eliminate people in the production process. Ev's might be the pinnacle for them.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

15cruzediesel said:


> Reading your post made me realize something. Since ev's are simple, cheap to own, use virtually no energy and don't break down, anybody that makes a living that has any relationship with fuel cars better start looking for a job. Repair shops will gone, auto stores, parts suppliers for repairs and a ton of other indirect jobs.
> 
> Probably millions of jobs gone in reality. Sure ev's will require a small fraction of support but man lots of people will be sol.


The current generation of OEM based employees related to internal combustion powered automobiles may very well be the last. But many of these folks will just transition into EV relevant roles. Or out of the industry.
Their will be virtually zero affect to the current generation of non OEM ICE related jobs. There's probably nearly 2 generations worth of service, support and parts jobs at their current levels or higher for "legacy" cars and trucks.

Even if ALL of the OEMs matched GMs 2035 proclamation, and then STUCK to that same proclamation, it wouldn't be till roughly 2050 that even HALF of the US passenger vehicle fleet was an EV. And even longer until the light duty commercial fleet was. The HD fleet may not go completely away from hydrocarbon fueled internal combustion in any of our lifetimes.

Some jobs will go away, some will transition, new ones will be created. And eventually virtually no one will lament the loss of those archaic jobs. When was the last time you needed, or wished there was still a local wheelright, switchboard operator, video store clerk...etc?
It's been 25 years since OBD2 was mandated, and less than 30 since an American car had a carb. Not one "average" person in that time has wished for carburetors to return. No one wonders what happened to all the technicians who could diagnose and repair a Quadrajet and set points. No non car person laments the demise of non standardised vehicle fault codes, or yens for the days of 1,000+page paper service manuals that were nigh on impossible to obtain. Just as by the late 1930s virtually no one wanted back a horse and carriage and was going around yelling about these new "m0therf#cking automobiles."

In 30 years we'll be there again as well....most people, even those who owned or grew up on petrol powered vehicles....will not miss the "good old days". People will love the interconnectivity, quietness, and convenience of their EVs, and will blaspheme against the non user friendly interfaces and dirty, overly complex and failure prone gas vehicles and their "needlessly" esoteric systems for circumventing progress of EVs, and will question why they once dominated the roads....or even worse, no average person will even let these old vehicles take up any time or space in their daily thoughts.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

15cruzediesel said:


> I guarantee you the gobberment will find a way to make the cost of charging an ev more. Be it directly or indirectly
> 
> No way are they giving up the money made on fuel taxes.


To state the obvious: You are going to have to pay for the roads you drive on. Roads are currently funded with fuel taxes. When fuel tax receipts decline due to widespread EV adoption, you are going to have to pay for the roads you drive on.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> To state the obvious: You are going to have to pay for the roads you drive on. Roads are currently funded with fuel taxes. When fuel tax receipts decline due to widespread EV adoption, you are going to have to pay for the roads you drive on.


It’s still cheaper even with taxes.

Problem is we need a clever way to collect highway tax. Fuel was easy to tax but now idk. Just charging flat rate yearly seems like a
Bad idea.

And just going off miles doesn’t work. Then a truck pays the same as a compact car.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Snipesy said:


> Problem is we need a clever way to collect highway tax. And just going off miles doesn’t work. Then a truck pays the same as a compact car.


I suggest a tax based on GVWR since the heaver a vehicle is the more damage it does (exponentially) to the roads. We should levy this tax on new tire purchases so that you pay when you buy a set of tires so that it is a consumption tax.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> I suggest a tax based on GVWR since the heaver a vehicle is the more damage it does (exponentially) to the roads. We should levy this tax on new tire purchases so that you pay when you buy a set of tires so that it is a consumption tax.


Idk if that would work. Would make tires too expensive and just incentive for people to run them bald.

The best would just be a flat kWh tax. With strict penalties for trying to bypass them. But current EVs are not setup to do this. Definitely a lack of forward thinking going on.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

For the federal govt to recoup their fuel taxes their are two relatively simple ways.
A flat kWh tax as mentioned. Which would "easy" in theory, but as we all know would likely be effed up just as easily 

Or a GVW/mileage tax. This would be fairly easily levied against over the road trucks required to keep DOT logs, but it would require state level collection efforts on virtually all other vehicles. It would entail a mileage certification during registration and renewals. This is also the easiest way for states to get their fuel tax revenue back.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Snipesy said:


> Idk if that would work. Would make tires too expensive and just incentive for people to run them bald.


It would incentivize people to stop buying huge trucks if they don't need it.

And all we have to do is have strict enforcement of tire tread depth laws. Make the penalties $10,000 per tire to enforce it.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Weight-based is how it _used_ to be...at least when it comes to vehicle registration - my Camaro is super cheap because it's based on a 3300 lb base curb weight (mine, a loaded Z28, scaled at 3770 lbs pre-headers and exhaust).

I presume you're speaking of a yearly tax on top of registration? Or in lieu of fuel tax/registration?

God knows in Michigan that would be ideal - the overloaded trucks absolutely obliterate our roads. Even with all the funding and time in the world, and the roads fixed, they'll never stay fixed because those trucks just pound them into oblivion.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

MP81 said:


> I presume you're speaking of a yearly tax on top of registration? Or in lieu of fuel tax/registration?


Oh, if they can find a way, they'll make the per-mile or additional taxes in addition to already existing taxes. This came up a few years ago in Illinois when they started proposing a per-mile tax, and one huge issue was how it was going to be GPS tracking or something like that. The excuse given was "This is because of the Prius" and that people were buying more fuel efficient cars that weren't paying enough. So, people started asking the question that if they were billed per mile, how do they get a refund for the per-gallon taxes at the pump? That was left unanswered because the obvious answer is that they want you to pay both and they're not going to reduce anything.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> It would incentivize people to stop buying huge trucks if they don't need it.
> 
> And all we have to do is have strict enforcement of tire tread depth laws. Make the penalties $10,000 per tire to enforce it.


Or it could just as easily be seen as penalizing those who do need them, additionally I'd be really pissed if I had to pay a huge tire tariff on my tires that are brand new but need to be replaced because they were a victim of an accident, theft or vandalism. Same goes for my high horsepower vehicle that blows throw tires because I like to do burnouts. Id be paying far more in tax than my mileage or even use of the road (my racecar uses DOT tires....)justifies.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

MP81 said:


> Weight-based is how it _used_ to be...at least when it comes to vehicle registration - my Camaro is super cheap because it's based on a 3300 lb base curb weight (mine, a loaded Z28, scaled at 3770 lbs pre-headers and exhaust).
> 
> I presume you're speaking of a yearly tax on top of registration? Or in lieu of fuel tax/registration?
> 
> God knows in Michigan that would be ideal - the overloaded trucks absolutely obliterate our roads. Even with all the funding and time in the world, and the roads fixed, they'll never stay fixed because those trucks just pound them into oblivion.


Registration still is weight based in many places(including here in NJ) but the difference is marginal typically in USA. My 35mpg 3000lb Cruze only costs like $20/yr less than my 17mpg 5500lb truck.

Yes i'm talking about an additional tax levied during registration or renewal and billed at a rate determined by (GVWR x Mileage) x $.0005= Road Tax (or whatever factor for the money)


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> Oh, if they can find a way, they'll make the per-mile or additional taxes in addition to already existing taxes. This came up a few years ago in Illinois when they started proposing a per-mile tax, and one huge issue was how it was going to be GPS tracking or something like that. The excuse given was "This is because of the Prius" and that people were buying more fuel efficient cars that weren't paying enough. So, people started asking the question that if they were billed per mile, how do they get a refund for the per-gallon taxes at the pump? That was left unanswered because the obvious answer is that they want you to pay both and they're not going to reduce anything.


On EVs GPS or any other continuous monitoring wouldnt be required. Just a tax applied when you pay your registration.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> Or it could just as easily be seen as penalizing those who do need them,


It's not a penalty to expect that the people doing the most damage to the roads pay for it.



> additionally I'd be really pissed if I had to pay a huge tire tariff on my tires that are brand new but need to be replaced because they were a victim of an accident, theft or vandalism.


There are always exceptions and I'm sure we could come up with waivers for it. 

Here in Illinois we used to exempt the purchase price of vehicles traded in so that you weren't double taxed. If you had a car worth $20,000 as a trade-in and were buying a vehicle worth $30,000, you only paid tax on the $10,000 over the trade-in value. The same was done for vehicles that were totaled in accidents: if your insurance company paid you $20,000 for the vehicle, that $20,000 was exempt from sales tax when you used it to purchase a replacement vehicle. However, a couple years ago the cap is now $10,000 simply because the state needs more money...

For tires destroyed in an accident or vandalism, we could offer some exemption with a police report. For theft... I probably can't help you with that because it's about impossible to prove and would be an easy loophole. Carry insurance for tire theft?


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> On EVs GPS or any other continuous monitoring wouldnt be required. Just a tax applied when you pay your registration.


They do that now here in Illinois. It's an extra $100 a year (total: $251) where $99 goes into the Road Fund and $1 goes to the Secretary of State Special Fund (God only knows what they do with that money - probably nothing good).


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> It's not a penalty to expect that the people doing the most damage to the roads pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All these exceptions, and provisos, stipulations in place for waivers to tax all available to anyone who wishes to use them are the exact ways thar taxes fail to meet the revenue goals they intend to generate. And it's why a tire tax isn't the way to go in my opinion.

That sales tax liability reduction based on trade in value or insurance payout is another stupid excessive regulation/loophole.
Cars and trucks are taxable items to any buyer who is a non tax emempt entity. You pay tax on an item when you buy it. You don't deserve a tax rebate on the next thing you buy just because youre selling the first one. I don't know who lobbied that that scenario was "double taxing" but they were genius or those they convinced are idiots.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> It would incentivize people to stop buying huge trucks if they don't need it.
> 
> And all we have to do is have strict enforcement of tire tread depth laws. Make the penalties $10,000 per tire to enforce it.


It gets complicated.

I.e. most trailer tires are retreads. How do you tax that?

How do you even differentiate a towing tire from a passenger tire? Because in most cases P rated tires tow perfectly fine. Size? Some SUVs have big tires.

A small tire tax could be introduced yes but definitely not the main source.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> That sales tax liability reduction based on trade in value or insurance payout is another stupid excessive regulation/loophole.
> Cars and trucks are taxable items to any buyer who is a non tax emempt entity. You pay tax on an item when you buy it. You don't deserve a tax rebate on the next thing you buy just because youre selling the first one. I don't know who lobbied that that scenario was "double taxing" but they were genius or those they convinced are idiots.


The sales tax exemption was because trading one car in for another is essentially barter, and barter is not taxed. The sales taxes were calculated on the final selling price of the newly purchased automobile, and a trade-in reduced that final selling price as I gave an example above. This was because that's how the real world functions.

The one thing you might possibly consider to be a loophole was the exemption for insurance payouts, but I don't even get mad at that. If you total a $50,000 vehicle and have to replace it, why should you be taxed on that new $50,000 purchase when the replacement wasn't your choice? It made sense to have it exempted. If your insurance company stroked you a check for $50,000, that's the replacement value of the vehicle and you can pocket it because you already paid sales tax when you first bought the vehicle (so it's not income and not taxed there). If you roll the $50,000 into a replacement vehicle, why should you be taxed AGAIN when you already paid once?


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Snipesy said:


> I.e. most trailer tires are retreads. How do you tax that?


A per-tire tax directly levied on the company doing the retreading so that it must be included in the price charged to the buyer and cannot be avoided. Again, with strict compliance fines. Even larger fines if you want, to make it serious for a retread company that they should not avoid it. $100,000 per tire?


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Snipesy said:


> How do you even differentiate a towing tire from a passenger tire? Because in most cases P rated tires tow perfectly fine. Size? Some SUVs have big tires.


Since heavier vehicles do the most damage to the roads, I'd implement a per-tire tax that is based on a weight rating of each tire. Heavier truck tires pay more, because they're damaging the roads more.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> The sales tax exemption was because trading one car in for another is essentially barter, and barter is not taxed. The sales taxes were calculated on the final selling price of the newly purchased automobile, and a trade-in reduced that final selling price as I gave an example above. This was because that's how the real world functions.
> 
> The one thing you might possibly consider to be a loophole was the exemption for insurance payouts, but I don't even get mad at that. If you total a $50,000 vehicle and have to replace it, why should you be taxed on that new $50,000 purchase when the replacement wasn't your choice? It made sense to have it exempted. If your insurance company stroked you a check for $50,000, that's the replacement value of the vehicle and you can pocket it because you already paid sales tax when you first bought the vehicle (so it's not income and not taxed there). If you roll the $50,000 into a replacement vehicle, why should you be taxed AGAIN when you already paid once?


Again this all sounds great, and is easy enough to lobby for/explain, and not having to pay taxes sounds like great fun. The public at large wouldn't in any way be upset if the govt reduced their tax load. But the fact remains that one purchased a new taxable item. And taxable sales are a significant revenue stream for the State. The simple act of getting rid of something you already paid tax for, shouldn't negate the need to pay tax on the next item you aquire. This can be taken to extremes and the absurdity seen if we take into account say a person trading in a very desirable car that has appreciated in value and therefore costs the same or more than the new one, in this scenario there's be no taxes paid on a purchased item, and there's a potential for the owner to aquire a capital gain, which also not be taxed. Tax loopholes like this reduce tsx responsibility in unlikely and oft unforseen ways. And the greatest benefit is often to those who are already very wealthy and have the best tax attorneys. 

Does your state apply to rebates before or after taxes?


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

To be fair, I live in a state the just decriminalized marijuana, set legal recreational marijuana at the same tax rate as foodstuffs, and made under age alcohol consumption an essentially non punishable offense. So a state not fully utilizing their sales tax and other income streams doesn't really shock me. But it does piss me off, especially when states continue to run deficits.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> But the fact remains that one purchased a new taxable item.


Sure, but the cost of the new taxable item reflects the value of something you traded in where the value of that has already been taxed.

You buy a $40,000 car and pay tax on that. Later, you want to buy a new car for $50,000. Your old car (that you were already taxed on) is valued at $30,000, so that value is (well, was) excluded from the taxable price of the car and you now pay tax on $20,000 because that is the value of the new item that has not been taxed.

Aside from that, the state eventually does get the tax value of that trade-in because someone else comes to the dealership, buys it for $30,000, and at that point they are taxed on that purchase. The tax is being paid somewhere. All this exclusion did was stop a bunch of double, triple, quadruple, and more taxation that was going on because the same car was being taxed multiple times when it changed hands.



> The simple act of getting rid of something you already paid tax for, shouldn't negate the need to pay tax on the next item you aquire.


It should. This was an elimination of double taxation. You imply "getting rid of something you already paid tax for" as if it's being thrown away because it no longer has value. That's not the least bit true for cars being traded in.



> say a person trading in a very desirable car that has appreciated in value and therefore costs the same or more than the new one, in this scenario there's be no taxes paid on a purchased item, and there's a potential for the owner to aquire a capital gain, which also not be taxed


Yes, that's the way the market works. Very few vehicles appreciate in value, so you're taking the edge case of "This Bugatti Chiron was owned by The Pope!" and making it sound like it happens all the time. It's irrelevant to the state in terms of the number of times it happens and the dollar value of when that does happen.



> Tax loopholes like this reduce tsx responsibility in unlikely and oft unforseen ways. And the greatest benefit is often to those who are already very wealthy and have the best tax attorneys.


This was a tax break for middle class people. Middle class people trade in a car that they already paid taxes on and got a deduction so they weren't taxed twice. Middle class people get T-boned by another driver and they buy a car to replace their totaled vehicle, and this deduction let them avoid a tax on them being in an accident.

Rich people can afford to form a LLC in Montana to purchase, title, and register their car to escape sales tax. Buy a $300,000 Ferrari and that's a couple tens of thousands of dollars to save.



> Does your state apply to rebates before or after taxes?


Sales tax is calculated before rebates are applied.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> set legal recreational marijuana at the same tax rate as foodstuffs


Praise the Lord! My state has obscene taxes on it. I took one look at prices at the store and for that reason I still buy from "my guy" because it's about 50% of the retail cost.

Set the taxes too high and the state gets nothing. If they'd be reasonable, I wouldn't have a problem paying a few cents to the state, county, and city.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> Sure, but the cost of the new taxable item reflects the value of something you traded in where the value of that has already been taxed.
> 
> You buy a $40,000 car and pay tax on that. Later, you want to buy a new car for $50,000. Your old car (that you were already taxed on) is valued at $30,000, so that value is (well, was) excluded from the taxable price of the car and you now pay tax on $20,000 because that is the value of the new item that has not been taxed.


I comprehend the mechanics of the transaction. I just don't understand why it's considered a fiduciarily sound idea. How in the world does a person selling(trading or bartering) their car back to a dealership constitute a reason to wave tax liability on the new item?
The whole "multiple taxing" argument is ridiculous. You pay tax multiple times because you bought multiple things.
Does this same sales tax break apply to all other goods purchased where a trade-in may have been applicable?




> Aside from that, the state eventually does get the tax value of that trade-in because someone else comes to the dealership, buys it for $30,000, and at that point they are taxed on that purchase. The tax is being paid somewhere. All this exclusion did was stop a bunch of double, triple, quadruple, and more taxation that was going on because the same car was being taxed multiple times when it changed hands.


So again...why does it matter if durable goods are being resold and tax levied on the subsequent owners? How does that reduce the tax responsibility of an individual?





> It should. This was an elimination of double taxation. You imply "getting rid of something you already paid tax for" as if it's being thrown away because it no longer has value. That's not the least bit true for cars being traded in.


You're not being double taxed. You are being taxed on a purchase of a taxable item. How does the means of disposal of an item have any bearing on tax responsibility? Why does the source of the funds to acquire a taxable item affect the taxes paid on that item?




> Yes, that's the way the market works. Very few vehicles appreciate in value, so you're taking the edge case of "This Bugatti Chiron was owned by The Pope!" and making it sound like it happens all the time. It's irrelevant to the state in terms of the number of times it happens and the dollar value of when that does happen.


It's not as fringe as you'd think. Look and see how many nearly new used Tesla's are being sold for more than it would actually cost to purchase one new. And the perceived relative commonality of the scenario doesn't affect it's legitimacy or the point of the flaw.





> This was a tax break for middle class people. Middle class people trade in a car that they already paid taxes on and got a deduction so they weren't taxed twice. Middle class people get T-boned by another driver and they buy a car to replace their totaled vehicle, and this deduction let them avoid a tax on them being in an accident.


Rich people also get the same break. Poor people don't because they can't buy multiple vehicles, does this same tax break apply to Cadillacs, and Corvettes, and Mercedes, and Lamborghinis and Ferraris? Does it apply to boats, powersport equipment, construction equipment?







> Sales tax is calculated before rebates are applied.


Why? You're being taxed at a higher value than you're even paying for the vehicle. How does one rectify one aspect of this tax law with the other?


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> Praise the Lord! My state has obscene taxes on it. I took one look at prices at the store and for that reason I still buy from "my guy" because it's about 50% of the retail cost.
> 
> Set the taxes too high and the state gets nothing. If they'd be reasonable, I wouldn't have a problem paying a few cents to the state, county, and city.


What state has marijuana taxes so high that it results in tax revenue so low it wasn't worth it for them to tax it?
How have you determined it's too high? It was previously an illegal drug. And is now a regulated adult only product. Why does it deserve the same level of taxation as everyday foodstuffs, or pet food, or school supplies?
Alcohol and tobacco get heavily taxed. Why shouldn't recreational marijuana?
A few cents, why is that the okay level for cannibus when cigarettes are taxed at 14.9¢ each, hard liquor at $8.55/gallon and vape products at 15%....and virtually no one ever complains or lobbies for lower taxes on them to increases sales and generate higher revenues.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> Does this same sales tax break apply to all other goods purchased where a trade-in may have been applicable?


It should. But cars are the one notable major purchase where the statewide sales tax really starts to add up, and the exemption was created for this reason.



> So again...why does it matter if durable goods are being resold and tax levied on the subsequent owners? How does that reduce the tax responsibility of an individual?


Because a car is the only durable good that comes with registration to where the state has a record of the transaction and jacks your wallet for the sales tax. If you sell a spare television to someone, the state doesn't get a piece of that. If you sell a washing machine or refrigerator on Craigslist, the state doesn't get a piece of that. But when you buy a car, you have to show up at the DMV and then they want a piece of that purchase price as sales tax when you go to title the vehicle. The state now has a form to tell you what the tax is based on either the purchase price of the vehicle, or the age of the vehicle (if the purchase price is below $15,000:



https://www2.illinois.gov/rev/forms/sales/Documents/vehicleusetax/rut-5.pdf





> You're not being double taxed. You are being taxed on a purchase of a taxable item. How does the means of disposal of an item have any bearing on tax responsibility? Why does the source of the funds to acquire a taxable item affect the taxes paid on that item?


That's just how it worked. If you bought a car for whatever price and paid the sales tax, and then traded the car in for another one later, it would be double taxation to expect you to pay sales tax on the entire purchase price of a new car. The value of the vehicle was lowered by the trade-in to avoid double taxation.



> Does it apply to boats, powersport equipment, construction equipment?


EDIT: I just looked and there is a flat rate of $25 tax on motorcycles or ATVs.



> How does one rectify one aspect of this tax law with the other?


As follows: Rebate value should not be subject to sales tax.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> How have you determined it's too high?


The same as every other person: I look at the prices being asked by the retail stores and say "DANG! White Jimmy* can get me that for less than half that cost!"

* White Jimmy being "my guy." His name has been changed to protect the innocent.



> Why does it deserve the same level of taxation as everyday foodstuffs, or pet food, or school supplies?


In my state, food is taxed at 1% instead of the general sales tax rate of 6.25% (and then whatever counties and cities add on, which can push it past 10%). I don't know about pet food.



> Alcohol and tobacco get heavily taxed.


This depends on your state. There are many states that do not tax either heavily.



> A few cents, why is that the okay level for cannibus when cigarettes are taxed at 14.9¢ each, hard liquor at $8.55/gallon and vape products at 15%


I believe cigarettes should be taxed less, liquor should be taxed less, and vape products should be taxed less.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> The same as every other person: I look at the prices being asked by the retail stores and say "DANG! White Jimmy* can get me that for less than half that cost!"
> 
> * White Jimmy being "my guy." His name has been changed to protect the innocent.


LOL. _"Oh, he's the good drug dealer" _ (Go)

Comparing the cost of illegally sourced products to retail is rarely going to end in favor of the legitimate retail option.





> In my state, food is taxed at 1% instead of the general sales tax rate of 6.25% (and then whatever counties and cities add on, which can push it past 10%). I don't know about pet food.


In my state fresh/unprepared foods and unsweetened items are tax free. All other food and drink is subject to state tax of 6.625%. There are no local or county taxes levied on any products (services may have additional taxes)





> This depends on your state. There are many states that do not tax either heavily.


Those were IL tax rates. NJ is similar




> I believe cigarettes should be taxed less, liquor should be taxed less, and vape products should be taxed less.


I can not remotely conceive why. We are clearly on diametrically opposed sides of this topic. Regulated, adult only, mind/mood/chemistry altering substances and all legal vices should be taxed at the highest rate of any indirect tax a state levies.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> Regulated, adult only, mind/mood/chemistry altering substances and all legal vices should be taxed at the highest rate of any indirect tax a state levies.


I disagree. They should be taxed at the lowest levels possible.

Taxes on vice are aimed at the idea that "It costs us money to deal with the issues."

The issues of what? The self-created Prison-Industrial Complex that incarcerates people that sell, buy, and use these substances?

How about dismantling all of this and letting adults do as they want, and then we don't have to spend more than the average household income to incarcerate one individual for doing what they want to do?


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Taxation and decriminalization are not mutually exclusive.

Taxation of vices should be high because it's a purely a discretionary item to begin with. 
High taxes can be justifiably applied to them as a non-essential product, further as a product that offers very little if any societal benefit by having it taxed at lower rate. 
One can also even completely ignore the fact that some of these vices do indeed cause social impacts separate from the legality of them, and tax them at a high rate solely on the fact that any use of them, let alone indulgence and addiction to them does lead to societal costs. The funds not disguised as a way to "deal with the issues" but openly used as "you gotta pay to play" or "there's a high cost to living high"(to paraphrase a song lyrics) and positioned as a way for the govt to bring in income without unduly attempting to directly tax any one or multiple classes of citizen, or by enacting taxes that adversely affect any given socioeconomic groups ability to acquire those things required to live life. (Food, shelter, clothing, household supplies, telephony, internet, etc...)


----------



## shimmy816 (Aug 22, 2020)

mess with a tesla owner by asking them how they like their coal powered car.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

shimmy816 said:


> mess with a tesla owner by asking them how they like their coal powered car.


Depends on where they charge it. Here in Illinois, our electricity is split as follows:
66% nuclear
11% renewables
9% natural gas
14% coal

Coal is declining, too. We've closed a few power plants, including that really nasty, dirty one that had an Illinois address because the front gate of the plant was in Illinois, but the actual plant was in Indiana.

The big issue coming up this year is that 4 out of 11 nuclear reactors are scheduled to close. Exelon is playing games with the state by saying they're losing money on these plants because of some subsidies to fossil fuel plants, so they're trying to extort subsidies from the state to keep these two plants open. It worked the last time when they threatened to close two or three other plants. Our government will probably fall for their threat and hand them a few hundred million a year to keep the plants operating for another decade or so.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Does the state actually give them cash or just give them a tax break?


----------



## phil1734 (Aug 30, 2019)

There's a common misconception that all electric vehicle drivers care about the environment. Sure, some might. But most drive electric cars simply because they are better as daily drivers. Like most people, they are only looking out for themselves in terms of comfort, convenience, and cost. 

And at least at this point in history, almost all of them currently have the means and ability to own a second gas powered car for longer trips or heavier hauling.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> Does the state actually give them cash or just give them a tax break?


I don’t know if they send a check, but it’s a couple hundred million a year given to Exelon to keep Clinton (one reactor) and Quad Cities (two reactors) open through about 2026.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

I know when NJ typically incentivises places to stay or come they don't hand out cash. They give tax breaks. People lost their minds when a casino was "given" hundreds of millions of dollars. But it wasn't cash, and they never even met the full criteria in the deal so they didn't even reap the savings they would of, and the state never missed out on the revenue and people still bitch about it.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

Ma v e n said:


> Does the state actually give them cash or just give them a tax break?


Here is the Forbes article:









Illinois Sees The Light -- Retains Nuclear Power


At the last minute, the Illinois State Legislature passed The Future Energy Jobs Bill (SB 2814) with less than an hour remaining in the legislative session, allowing Exelon’s Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear power plants to remain open, saving 4,200 jobs and over 22 billion kWhs carbon-free power/yr.




www.forbes.com





The short answer is that the state was already subsidizing electricity from natural gas, wind, and solar. I guess natural gas is cleaner than coal, but wind and solar are almost entirely carbon free. The biggest issue is that Exelon pointed out that they themselves paid taxes to the state and part of their tax bill was then turned around and used to subsidize their competitors. They wanted a subsidy for nuclear power being carbon free, and they got 1¢ per kWh or $235 million per year (depending on electricity rates).









Top Stories 2016: Last-minute deal saves Clinton nuclear plant


By Eric Stock CLINTON - Energy company Exelon delivered on a promise that it had been making for years, that two of its most productive nuclear plants, would close if lawmakers didn't create what company officials considered a level playing field with other forms of so-called clean energy. It was



www.wjbc.com





So, this is what was released by Exelon last year:






Exelon announces early shutdown of four Illinois reactors : Corporate - World Nuclear News


US utility Exelon Generation announced today both the two-unit Byron and Dresden nuclear power plants will be retired in 2021 as "the result of market rules that favour polluting power plants over carbon-free nuclear energy". It warned that further plants are at risk of premature closure due to...




www.world-nuclear-news.org





They're going to ask for more cash again to keep 4 reactors open. If we give them more money, that will be taxpayers subsidizing 7 out of 11 reactors in the state. Just like "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie," we'll eventually end up subsidizing ALL reactors in the state, because you know Exelon will be back asking for more handouts for the other 4 reactors they operate in the state. I mean, the threat worked once. It will probably work a second time. Might as well try for a third chance?

At this point Exelon probably regrets prematurely closing the Zion power station, because they could have sucked even more taxpayer money to keep that one open. Though, it does stand as an example of what they can do by closing a plant, because the economy of the city/county was wrecked and hasn't recovered. Sometimes you have to line some people up and shoot them in the head to show the others what you can do if they don't toe the line, right?


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

phil1734 said:


> they are only looking out for themselves in terms of...cost.


This is me right here. If I had the means to do it, I would totally own an EV because I get free charging at my workplace. I'd never pay for electricity for the car. I'd save enough to rent a car for vacation trips.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

MP81 said:


> My Volt cost $25k after the $7500 rebate. It is 16% heavier than the 2nd gen Cruze _and still has an engine_, the tires are nothing special and not "very expensive", and it's not "very complicated".
> 
> But sure, if you get scared of new things, you might want to ditch your Cruze Diesel which has an emissions system that is "very complicated".
> 
> ...


This post is talking about Tesla, an actual EV. If I were to consider something like this, it would have been the Volt, which would have been even better if paired with a small Diesel instead of that gasoline engine, the Volt is a fine option, but I'm not talking about the Volt, because it CAN do basically everything a conventional ICE powered car does, because it HAS AN ICE. 

Oddly, GM killed the Volt, which was a much smarter option in the movement to EVs, than the Bolt that they can't seem to give away, oh, and BTW.. you are welcome. That $7500 "rebate" from the taxpayer for your Volt, that is other people paying most of that in their taxes.. or should I say increased national debt for our children.. to help offset the high cost of your Volt. 

All that said, it again shows that the cost of EVs is too high, and the objective reality is the market for these remains very limited, and even with massive rebates, they are not selling well, and they are NOT MAKING A PROFIT.. that means even without a "rebate" from the taxpayer, the people buying the insanely expensive SUVs and Pick-Ups are basically paying for other people to have EVs, even Tesla, which gets all kinds of money from FCA (or whatever it's new name is) because they PAY Tesla offsets, and EPA fines as they choose to not even try to meet CAFE standards as it was making them produce small cars no one wanted and selling them at a loss.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> It would incentivize people to stop buying huge trucks if they don't need it.
> 
> And all we have to do is have strict enforcement of tire tread depth laws. Make the penalties $10,000 per tire to enforce it.


Ahhh, the attitude that people should not have a large vehicle, if you don't think they "need it". You see it's not for you to decide this, it is for people in a FREE country to decide for themselves. If they buy a bigger vehicle, they are paying for it, and the extra fuel, and TAXES, which, whether they "need it" or not, helps pay for services and ironically offsets the cost of small efficient cars for you to buy.. instead of being mad at these people getting ripped off buying an insanely expensive big vehicle, you should THANK THEM.. your small Diesel Cruze was a bargain thanks to GM making it's profits on those vehicles so it can then sell the small cars, and EVs at a LOSS in an effort to meet CAFE standards.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

phil1734 said:


> There's a common misconception that all electric vehicle drivers care about the environment. Sure, some might. But most drive electric cars simply because they are better as daily drivers. Like most people, they are only looking out for themselves in terms of comfort, convenience, and cost.
> 
> And at least at this point in history, almost all of them currently have the means and ability to own a second gas powered car for longer trips or heavier hauling.


All true, and guess what? You just described the reality that most EVs are ADDITIONAL cars in a fleet of cars for their owners, and in other words, not the lower part of the income spectrum.. which ironically would include many less fortunate people that use large vehicles for work, and simply can't afford to have a fleet of vehicles for other uses, but they are still basically subsidizing the lower cost of EVs by rebates or the transfer via CAFE standers and MPG targets, that basically mean the RICH can get a cheaper EV as an ADDITIONAL car, offset by the less fortunate that pay via more expensive bigger vehicles or taxes via government rebates.. THIS IS INSANE, but that is what we have.


----------



## shimmy816 (Aug 22, 2020)

Somebody may know more about this but doesn't tesla make profit on selling some kind of clean credit that they get for producing their cars, so the can still make money while selling their cars at a loss? Also I heard they sell the used batteries from their cars that don't have enough umph for a car but are fine for solar that they either sell to another manufacture or you all have seen the tesla solar boxes you can put on your house. whole secondary market.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Yes, telsa makes huge profit currently selling their govt zero emissions credits to other automakers. On the order of $1.6billion in 2020 alone.


----------



## meno13 (Mar 15, 2021)

I did ride in a Tesla, even though it wasn't mine. A friend of mine drove me to another city with it. I didn't know I was going to ride in a Tesla, you can imagine how blown away I was because I didn't even know how to open the door, hahaha. We both laughed it away, it's ok now. Anyway, back to this amazing car that I want so badly to buy. I did some research about this car on graydonschwartz.com and I've found out that more and more people prefer electric cars. And to be honest, I totally agree with them. It's great for the environment, its luxurious design makes you feel like you're on the top 10 richest people on the planet, hahaha and of course, it's just like a plane, I was literally flying with it. I would totally buy one


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

shimmy816 said:


> Somebody may know more about this but doesn't tesla make profit on selling some kind of clean credit that they get for producing their cars, so the can still make money while selling their cars at a loss? Also I heard they sell the used batteries from their cars that don't have enough umph for a car but are fine for solar that they either sell to another manufacture or you all have seen the tesla solar boxes you can put on your house. whole secondary market.


Yes, and yes. Tesla gets paid by other car companies for credits because they can't meet their CAFE standards making cars that people actually want to buy.. the OEMs are forced by government mandate to make cars people don't want to buy, so they either make them at a LOSS, or just pay other companies for credits, or even just agree to pay the EPA fines.. because it's all a loss no matter what they do, so this means the cars people want to buy have become crazy expensive, and there is now a really strong market to keep older, less safe, less clean cars ON THE ROAD longer. Call it the law of unintended, but PREDICITABLE consequences of excessive regulations that defy the reality of the market demand, and in some cases science itself.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> there is now a really strong market to keep older, less safe, less clean cars ON THE ROAD longer


Japan fixes this with annual registration taxes. For the first 4-5 years of vehicle registration, fees are average. About year 6 they start to increase like a hockey stick graph. By doing this, they ensure the vehicle fleet turns over and has the most efficient pollution controls and cleanest possible engines.

It's also a de facto subsidy for the Japanese auto market, because it forces people to buy new cars more frequently. That's an economic policy of theirs that cannot be ignored.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> because it's all a loss no matter what they do


Well, one thing they could do is to make cars that meet the fuel economy requirements. It seems like none of them have actually tried that, though.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> Yes, and yes. Tesla gets paid by other car companies for credits because they can't meet their CAFE standards making cars that people actually want to buy.. the OEMs are forced by government mandate to make cars people don't want to buy, so they either make them at a LOSS, or just pay other companies for credits, or even just agree to pay the EPA fines.. because it's all a loss no matter what they do, so this means the cars people want to buy have become crazy expensive, and there is now a really strong market to keep older, less safe, less clean cars ON THE ROAD longer. Call it the law of unintended, but PREDICITABLE consequences of excessive regulations that defy the reality of the market demand, and in some cases science itself.


I don't believe Tesla is actually selling CAFE credits technically anymore meaning they aren't selling credits to increase their average fuel economy . What they ARE doing though is selling Zero Emissions credits to other companies. There are 12 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington). That currently require automakers to sell zero emissions vehicles. (Pennsylvania is in process of becoming #13)
Automakers buy these credits from Tesla to comply with these ZEV laws in the 12 states.

This workaround that these companies are allowed to exploit is partially to blame for the lack of viable ZEV product in the first place. If companies had to comply or lose sales in 13 states representing 30% of the US population, there would be some innovation.

_Necessity is the mother of invention._


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Ma v e n said:


> I don't believe Tesla is actually selling CAFE credits technically anymore meaning they aren't selling credits to increase their average fuel economy . What they ARE doing though is selling Zero Emissions credits to other companies. There are 12 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington). That currently require automakers to sell zero emissions vehicles. (Pennsylvania is in process of becoming #13)
> Automakers buy these credits from Tesla to comply with these ZEV laws in the 12 states.
> 
> This workaround that these companies are allowed to exploit is partially to blame for the lack of viable ZEV product in the first place. If companies had to comply or lose sales in 13 states representing 30% of the US population, there would be some innovation.
> ...


It is both the zero emissions AND CAFE standards/credits.. and get this.. Tesla STILL barely makes a profit.. which again shows the demand and product itself can not compete on it's own, it is propped up by the shift of money from the big ICE vehicles that people want to buy, which pay for the rich to add a Tesla to their fleet of vehicles. 









Other Automakers Paid Tesla a Record $428 Million Last Quarter


Automakers buy regulatory credits, and a lot of them, from Tesla in order to comply with emissions regulations around the world.




www.caranddriver.com


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Ma v e n said:


> This workaround that these companies are allowed to exploit is partially to blame for the lack of viable ZEV product in the first place. If companies had to comply or lose sales in 13 states representing 30% of the US population, there would be some innovation.
> 
> _Necessity is the mother of invention._


NO, it's not the fault of the companies in some nefarious plot to avoid going EV by buying credits from Tesla, have you heard the news? The are ALL trying to go EV, and GM in particular has shoveled massive amounts of money to make EVs, and it's still LOSING money on EV sales.. 

There is PLENTY of money and pressure for innovation, and EVs are far better now than they ever have been, but still they have issues and the market is not showing a strong demand for them at a price point that can actually turn a profit.. that is just the cold hard reality of the matter. The other cold hard reality is the improvement in batteries has it's limits in chemistry and science, and you are going to have a nearly impossible challenge to get the kind of energy density, stability, and ultimately range in any battery that can match what many ICE powered vehicles can currently attain. It's just a denial of basic the laws of physics that is what many think will get the kind of "innovation" needed to get these EVs to be what people want to buy... it is a strange thing indeed.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> Japan fixes this with annual registration taxes. For the first 4-5 years of vehicle registration, fees are average. About year 6 they start to increase like a hockey stick graph. By doing this, they ensure the vehicle fleet turns over and has the most efficient pollution controls and cleanest possible engines.
> 
> It's also a de facto subsidy for the Japanese auto market, because it forces people to buy new cars more frequently. That's an economic policy of theirs that cannot be ignored.


Well from the guy that thinks he should be telling other people what kind of vehicles they should be driving I guess I should not be surprised that you favor a policy such as Japan's which adds to the cost of living, and harms the poorest the most who can't really afford a new car every 5 years.. but apparently it's OK to screw the poor people in society, correct? I mean that is what happens here too with CAFE standards, it's not just rich people that buy the bigger vehicles, oddly many working class guys buy pick-up trucks. 

Probably a good time to note the Japanese economy is in serious trouble, and they have a population decline in progress.. so maybe not the best idea to follow their lead on this.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> Well, one thing they could do is to make cars that meet the fuel economy requirements. It seems like none of them have actually tried that, though.


WRONG! They did try. Then they had many small high MPG cars sitting on their lots that NO ONE WANTED TO BUY, and when they basically GIVE THEM AWAY, they lose money, so if you are going to lose money making a car, and can just lose money by not making that same car, and instead pay a fine or Tesla and maybe lose LESS money in that process.. what are you going to do? Well it's obvious. FCA CEO once pointed out that he lost thousands of dollars for every Fiat EV sold in CA, but made them and sold them at a loss, just so they could sell the vehicles people actually wanted that were profitable. It's not a secret that this has been happening, as a result the bigger vehicles have gone up in price dramatically since 2009, because when you buy one, you are basically also helping others get the small high MPG car, or EV.. and that is why I have my Cruze family fleet, the inflation adjusted price on them made them cheaper than my 1996 Saturn, but they are much better equipped cars, that made GM no money.. hence now out of production... Now if you have small children and need a vehicle that can accommodate your family, you end up paying way more than you should so the rich guy can have that Tesla.. that should disgust all of us, but it doesn't.. why is that?


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

MRO1791 said:


> NO, it's not the fault of the companies in some nefarious plot to avoid going EV by buying credits from Tesla, have you heard the news? The are ALL trying to go EV, and GM in particular has shoveled massive amounts of money to make EVs, and it's still LOSING money on EV sales..


I never mentioned or implied some plot was at play. What I meant, and said was that innovation would increase if the makers HAD to produce them or not be able sell anything in a given market.



> There is PLENTY of money and pressure for innovation, and EVs are far better now than they ever have been, but still they have issues and the market is not showing a strong demand for them at a price point that can actually turn a profit.. that is just the cold hard reality of the matter. The other cold hard reality is the improvement in batteries has it's limits in chemistry and science, and you are going to have a nearly impossible challenge to get the kind of energy density, stability, and ultimately range in any battery that can match what many ICE powered vehicles can currently attain. It's just a denial of basic the laws of physics that is what many think will get the kind of "innovation" needed to get these EVs to be what people want to buy... it is a strange thing indeed.


I never mentioned, and wasn't talking about changing public perception, nor was I addressing profit margins, or addressing the progress EVs have made.

Simply stated I posted my opinion that a mandate for a particular product that can be bypassed simply by buying "credits" is absurd. Either you want companies to have to sell EVs in order to do business in your state, or you don't. This loophole takes away any teeth the legislation had. The EPA wanted catalytic converter a on everything and they gave companies 2yrs....2yrs later every new car had catalysts. If there had been a loophole it would've been exploited.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Ma v e n said:


> I never mentioned or implied some plot was at play. What I meant, and said was that innovation would increase if the makers HAD to produce them or not be able sell anything in a given market.
> 
> 
> I never mentioned, and wasn't talking about changing public perception, nor was I addressing profit margins, or addressing the progress EVs have made.
> ...


The catalyst comparison is not a good one. The shift to EV is a complete change in lifestyle, cost and infrastructure. It's not as simple as adding a second muffler like device to the exhaust stream.... what you are missing is the market demand signal here.. people are not lining up to but the EVs that are out there now, sure there was a blip in demand for the lower priced Tesla model, but it's still a tiny segment of the auto market, and the lower priced Bolt is a not making GM any profit, and they won't even discuss the newer Bolt versions as to what they mean for profit, meaning they expect to not be making any money, and with the rebates and incentives being sky high for these EVs tells you they are not selling well, period. If you think the government mandates will make people change their desires for what they want in a vehicle, you are just not understanding how the FREE market works. If the government stopped the sale of all ICE vehicles, it would not stop the demand, it would make the cost of the existing cars skyrocket, and people would keep the older cars longer. It is actually already happening, since the new pick-ups are insane expensive, the value of my now 12 year old truck is way higher than it should be, driven by the high cost of the new trucks, and guess what? The even older pre-DPF Diesel trucks demand a premium on the used truck market, because they can be upgraded and are much less complicated and more reliable. It becomes economically viable to dump large sums of money in an older vehicle when the new version is $80K.


----------



## Ma v e n (Oct 8, 2018)

Again... none of that is relevant to my assertions. 

If you create a mandate that requires development of a product by every manufacturer in the market, and then create a loophole that allows any given manufacturer to bypass developing this product, you stagnate innovation and reduce competition.

Your FREE market thrives on competition. With a lack of competition there is a lack of innovation(See Tesla's behaviour, see GM/America's car market from WWII- the 1970s).


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

pandrad61 said:


> Tesla is fast and fun but wow is the quality junk. I’ve seen better build quality from Mitsubishi


As the owner of a Gen1 diesel and a Model 3 Dual Motor Performance, you need to look at the later models Model 3. Post late 2018, the build quality on 2019-2021 got MUCH better and the car (Tesla) has never ever been in the shop in two years. NEVER and for NOTHING. Its not a long range cruiser like the Diesel, but for trips less than 250 miles, the Tesla is far better than the diesel. It charges at night (6 hours to full) and always has a full tank in the morning. As far as quick, I have eaten Z51 Vettes (C8) for lunch up to 100 MPH. C7 ZO6 is not even a contest off the digg. Its not even a contest for most high perf cars to 100 MPH.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

DslGate said:


> As the owner of a Gen1 diesel and a Model 3 Dual Motor Performance, you need to look at the later models Model 3. Post late 2018, the build quality on 2019-2021 got MUCH better and the car (Tesla) has never ever been in the shop in two years. NEVER and for NOTHING. Its not a long range cruiser like the Diesel, but for trips less than 250 miles, the Tesla is far better than the diesel. It charges at night (6 hours to full) and always has a full tank in the morning. As far as quick, I have eaten Z51 Vettes (C8) for lunch up to 100 MPH. C7 ZO6 is not even a contest off the digg. Its not even a contest for most high perf cars to 100 MPH.


I’m glad they are getting it better but with seeing the new ones fit and finish I’m not impressed. The gaps aren’t great, and it just to me doesn’t reflect the price they ask.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> I’m glad they are getting it better but with seeing the new ones fit and finish I’m not impressed. The gaps aren’t great, and it just to me doesn’t reflect the price they ask.


They're still pretty bad - not '80's Kia bad anymore, but still not great.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

DslGate said:


> As the owner of a Gen1 diesel and a Model 3 Dual Motor Performance, you need to look at the later models Model 3. Post late 2018, the build quality on 2019-2021 got MUCH better and the car (Tesla) has never ever been in the shop in two years. NEVER and for NOTHING. Its not a long range cruiser like the Diesel, but for trips less than 250 miles, the Tesla is far better than the diesel. It charges at night (6 hours to full) and always has a full tank in the morning. As far as quick, I have eaten Z51 Vettes (C8) for lunch up to 100 MPH. C7 ZO6 is not even a contest off the digg. Its not even a contest for most high perf cars to 100 MPH.


If the one I saw (a 2020) was much improved, I hate to think what they looked like before. Holy smokes. I mean, if it were a $15k car new I'd think it was decent, but the owner paid $70k. Also, as someone who is perpetually annoyed by having to plug my phone into the wall, I really don't think I'd find charging for six hours to get 250 miles convenient for a daily driver. I also don't try to drag race Corvettes when I drive, nor do I ever have the desire to or care who can, so I think I'm going to give it a pass. If I had to drive something electric, I'd 100% rather drive this little bean: Citroen Ami ... sure, I'd get flattened by someone's SUV at 28 mph, but at least I'd get flattened with my soul intact. 😂


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

MP81 said:


> They're still pretty bad - not '80's Kia bad anymore, but still not great.


Bingo.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> If the one I saw (a 2020) was much improved, I hate to think what they looked like before. Holy smokes. I mean, if it were a $15k car new I'd think it was decent, but the owner paid $70k. Also, as someone who is perpetually annoyed by having to plug my phone into the wall, I really don't think I'd find charging for six hours to get 250 miles convenient for a daily driver. I also don't try to drag race Corvettes when I drive, nor do I ever have the desire to or care who can, so I think I'm going to give it a pass. If I had to drive something electric, I'd 100% rather drive this little bean: Citroen Ami ... sure, I'd get flattened by someone's SUV at 28 mph, but at least I'd get flattened with my soul intact. 😂


If you have a garage plugging in is easy. Get home, plug in, walk away. Good luck if you live in apartments


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> I really don't think I'd find charging for six hours to get 250 miles convenient for a daily driver.


If you are charging the car while you sleep or while it is otherwise idle in the driveway/garage, what do you care?


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> If you have a garage plugging in is easy. Get home, plug in, walk away. Good luck if you live in apartments


Apartment living is going to require some zoning changes.

It should be a mandatory requirement for new apartment construction that all parking have at least the base electrical infrastructure in place to install chargers (really, just 240v outlets as all EVs have onboard chargers to use plugs). This means having the service to the premises capable of delivering the current necessary and just some basic distribution blocks installed at the main metering point or wherever. Then, a certain percentage of parking spots should be required to feature chargers or outlets. Start at 5% on the low end, or go higher if you think your area can support more.

For existing apartments, that will be a little different. I don't know what to do but I would be open to suggestions. Perhaps a requirement that any existing apartments that go through substantial rebuilding/remodeling should be required to start with the electrical infrastructure. The building I live in has 7 units and a while ago the state passed a law that basement apartments cannot have gas-fired appliances, so the landlord had to have an electrician run 240v service to install an electric oven/stove for that unit. That might have been a good starting point to have him put in the capability to have a couple of 240v plugs for a couple of parking spaces. 

When I bought my Cruze Diesel sedan I asked him about the possibility of a 120v outlet on the exterior of the building for an oil pan heater, and he was OK with installing that if I wanted - he said we can figure it out if I genuinely wanted it. I said I would wait to see how the car was in winter and I never had any starting issues so I just forgot about the oil pan heater since I don't need it. Some landlords are OK with helping tenant issues like that, but maybe others need code enforcement to make things happen.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

pandrad61 said:


> If you have a garage plugging in is easy. Get home, plug in, walk away. Good luck if you live in apartments


They're not for everyone, but as an owner of a Gen 1 diesel too, I can use that for the "long haul" and the Model 3 for the short stuff and close suburban jaunts. as I said, if you're looking to do a trip of more than 250 miles, the diesel is a far more convenient vehicle. However, I have done 400 mile trips and it only took one stop and it'll fill to 80% SOC or 255 miles range (after that charging really slows) ; So i can do 250-270 mile jaunts with ease (3-4 hour drives). On a 150 or 250 kw charger, I can get to 80% in about 15 minutes.

As to fit n finish, its certainly not a Lexus, but its certainly not near an 80s Hyundai either. Not a single rattle and NOT a single oil change or fluid change in 2 years. Only fluid is windshield washer fluid. Electric is a LOT cheaper than fuel now and it costs .01 cents for 1 kWh of charge which is about 4 miles of driving on average. (do the math, .10 centts for 40 miles). It nicked my electric bill maybe $8.00-$10.00 a month. You can adjust the charging times on the car so it charges when the rates are the cheapest (demand pricing). Best thing is, the brakes will probably go 300K miles since you rarely use them with regenerative braking. I may use them once a week if that. The car is every bit as quiet as the Gen 1 diesel in the city and maybe a little noisier on highway with A pillar and mirror noise, but it's not intrusive. One thing is, the Model 3 and S are ridiculously quiet at or below 60 or less. No exhaust or engine noise and mostly road noise from tires.

The acceleration is intoxicating and I'm doing 100 by the time the Cruze is doing 40. I've done timed qtr mile at 11.2 at 118 MPH. All on Michelin Pilot Cup 4S. They're truly different cars and not to be compared. If you get the chance, drive one. The acceleration from the digg will blow your mind. The Model S Dual Motor (soon to be Plaid and Plaid Plus in 2022 ) is even quicker and runs a consistent 10.2 qtr mile or less.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> Apartment living is going to require some zoning changes.
> 
> It should be a mandatory requirement for new apartment construction that all parking have at least the base electrical infrastructure in place to install chargers (really, just 240v outlets as all EVs have onboard chargers to use plugs). This means having the service to the premises capable of delivering the current necessary and just some basic distribution blocks installed at the main metering point or wherever. Then, a certain percentage of parking spots should be required to feature chargers or outlets. Start at 5% on the low end, or go higher if you think your area can support more.
> 
> ...


I disagree with the mandate. It adds additional cost to users that may not want them. I don’t see our family ever going EV so I don’t think the upfront cost would be worth it.

the 240 street wise does sound like a good idea but will the tax payers or buyers go for it? That’s a mixed subject.

You’re blessed. All my landlords have been money grubbing slumlords. They put lipstick on the pig and say it’s upmarket


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> If you are charging the car while you sleep or while it is otherwise idle in the driveway/garage, what do you care?


Exactly, if you're sleeping at 01:00 AM and snoozing away , what do you care if the car is charging??? 6 hours at 45 miles of range per hour gives me 270 miles at 48 amps on 240. By the time you sleep, shite , shower and shave, you've got a full tank of electrons. Again, it's not for everyone, but for a large segment of the population, particularly homeowners, its going to be the future.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> If the one I saw (a 2020) was much improved, I hate to think what they looked like before. Holy smokes. I mean, if it were a $15k car new I'd think it was decent, but the owner paid $70k. Also, as someone who is perpetually annoyed by having to plug my phone into the wall, I really don't think I'd find charging for six hours to get 250 miles convenient for a daily driver. *I also don't try to drag race Corvettes when I drive, nor do I ever have the desire to or care who can,* so I think I'm going to give it a pass. If I had to drive something electric, I'd 100% rather drive this little bean: Citroen Ami ... sure, I'd get flattened by someone's SUV at 28 mph, but at least I'd get flattened with my soul intact. 😂


 I don't either, but whenever you get to a light, there always seems to be someone who wants to test the Tesla. Be it a Vette or a Mopar Challenger, Hellcat or Demon, its inevitable.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

pandrad61 said:


> I’m glad they are getting it better but with seeing the new ones fit and finish I’m not impressed. *The gaps aren’t great, and it just to me doesn’t reflect the price they ask.*


 Lexus UX300 E and Porsche will fix that issue.  The Turbo S Taycan is a gorgeous car and its amazingly quick too.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> If you have a garage plugging in is easy. Get home, plug in, walk away. Good luck if you live in apartments


Yup, my Volt lives, backed in, next to my garage door. I only have one outlet in my garage (I guess code back in 2002 wasn't to have four million outlets like today, which sucks), so I have a giganto 10-gauge extension cord that runs to the front, and my charger lives plugged in. Works super easily. Would like to have a 240 outlet and thus an actual wall charger installed at some point, but my schedule almost always allowed for a full charge at 120V/12A overnight. Super easy. Get home, plug in, let it do its thing.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> If you have a garage plugging in is easy. Get home, plug in, walk away. Good luck if you live in apartments


I have a massive garage, but I can't overstate the level of chaos it exists in. In short, I haven't driven a car in or out of it in over a year. Cars are my hobby and passion and I have several of them, including longterm projects. I realize I am in an extreme minority, but I am not being dramatic when I say having a car that I have to have in a particular spot every night would be very annoying and inconvenient. Also, I don't have a 9-5 cookie-cutter life where I have a regular schedule and routine. Again, chaos is a theme. Maybe not a big issue if I had multiple cars like a lot of EV owners do, but again, if that were the case I'd pick a cheap, cute EV with a shorter range and without all the stupid moon-launch junk that I don't need to get to the grocery store two miles away. Honestly if I had any electrical skills, I'd seriously consider restoring some wacky 70s or 80s electric car as a short-range grocery getter.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

DslGate said:


> I don't either, but whenever you get to a light, there always seems to be someone who wants to test the Tesla. Be it a Vette or a Mopar Challenger, Hellcat or Demon, its inevitable.


In that position I'd take great joy in poking away from the light at turtle pace and laughing at boy racers wasting their fuel trying to show off for nothing. Who cares? If I wanted to race I'd go to a race track. Otherwise I'm only doing spirited driving for my own satisfaction, and don't care who I can or can't beat.


----------



## BodhiBenz1987 (Jan 13, 2018)

Barry Allen said:


> If you are charging the car while you sleep or while it is otherwise idle in the driveway/garage, what do you care?


For me it's the burden of having one more thing to have to remember to plug in, combined with the fact that my driveway is an active space where I have other cars and am always working on something or moving stuff around, or helping family/friends with their cars, etc. I use my garage for projects and welding and I can't always have a space open for charging. I realize that I'm completely alien to the rest of the human world and that becomes more and more evident every day, but as mentioned, I get annoyed having to plug in my phone every night, and that's inside with a hundred outlets to choose from. I already have enough other stuff to keep track of day to day, and I'm kind of a "free spirit" who is not good at routines. So believe me when I say I would wake up at 4 a.m. during a downpour and realize I forgot to plug in the car. I'm sure I'd get used to it, but even if I did I just don't see how it's more convenient than swinging by one of numerous fuel stations near me once every couple of weeks for five minutes ... maybe I'm just lucky where I live that getting fuel is a breeze.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> I have a massive garage, but I can't overstate the level of chaos it exists in. In short, I haven't driven a car in or out of it in over a year. Cars are my hobby and passion and I have several of them, including longterm projects. I realize I am in an extreme minority, but I am not being dramatic when I say having a car that I have to have in a particular spot every night would be very annoying and inconvenient. Also, I don't have a 9-5 cookie-cutter life where I have a regular schedule and routine. Again, chaos is a theme. Maybe not a big issue if I had multiple cars like a lot of EV owners do, but again, if that were the case I'd pick a cheap, cute EV with a shorter range and without all the stupid moon-launch junk that I don't need to get to the grocery store two miles away. Honestly if I had any electrical skills, I'd seriously consider restoring some wacky 70s or 80s electric car as a short-range grocery getter.


I see you're a diesel guy like me, as I have owned a 300D oil burner as well. However, in light of everything going on in the world, I can see the end of diesel as we know it. In fact, in a year or two, you won't be able to even buy a new diesel car at all in the US and in most EU countries as they're being phased out. Perhaps semis and construction equipment will be the ONLY types of diesel left other than locomotives. I'm not a big BEV fanatic like some Tesla guys , but I do see the paradigm shift that is coming and it's coming quicker than even I anticipated. I figured a few years ago that by 2035-2040 we'd be unable to buy a gas/petrol vehicle and I can see that happening by end of this decade or 2035 at the latest.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

DslGate said:


> Lexus UX300 E and Porsche will fix that issue. The Turbo S Taycan is a gorgeous car and its amazingly quick too.


Definitely I think those brands will offer a better product. What Tesla does beat them in is, their top notch marketing. It’s cool to Tesla, it’s w/e to be in a better Lexus.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

MP81 said:


> Yup, my Volt lives, backed in, next to my garage door. I only have one outlet in my garage (I guess code back in 2002 wasn't to have four million outlets like today, which sucks), so I have a giganto 10-gauge extension cord that runs to the front, and my charger lives plugged in. Works super easily. Would like to have a 240 outlet and thus an actual wall charger installed at some point, but my schedule almost always allowed for a full charge at 120V/12A overnight. Super easy. Get home, plug in, let it do its thing.


If building a home it makes sense to future proof and set up a 240 for down the line. Personally I would IF the cost is minimal to construction.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> I have a massive garage, but I can't overstate the level of chaos it exists in. In short, I haven't driven a car in or out of it in over a year. Cars are my hobby and passion and I have several of them, including longterm projects. I realize I am in an extreme minority, but I am not being dramatic when I say having a car that I have to have in a particular spot every night would be very annoying and inconvenient. Also, I don't have a 9-5 cookie-cutter life where I have a regular schedule and routine. Again, chaos is a theme. Maybe not a big issue if I had multiple cars like a lot of EV owners do, but again, if that were the case I'd pick a cheap, cute EV with a shorter range and without all the stupid moon-launch junk that I don't need to get to the grocery store two miles away. Honestly if I had any electrical skills, I'd seriously consider restoring some wacky 70s or 80s electric car as a short-range grocery getter.


It may be worth while to install a drive on lightweight lift to keep cars inside. Yah most folks CAN use garage to park by choose not to. Easier to pile on junk vs organize it all.


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

I have a bolt ordered. Does that make me a Cali EV rich kid?


----------



## shimmy816 (Aug 22, 2020)

I know this is a tesla chain... but I saw a E mustang...not a fan of 4 door mustangs.. it's just wierd.

On the charging issue.. I wonder if anybody will get to induction charging or has it already be done?... you just park in the space and tada. You would have to have some kind of safety so you don't heat a non charging car up like an induction stove... lol... that could get interesting.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> If building a home it makes sense to future proof and set up a 240 for down the line. Personally I would IF the cost is minimal to construction.


It should be - when building a house, most anything is minimal compared to construction (especially when you compare it to the cost of lumber now). 

Even my house it shouldn't be too difficult to run 240V from the basement to the wall I'd like in the garage, as it's the wall the garage shares with the house.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> I disagree with the mandate. It adds additional cost to users that may not want them.


It probably comes out to like $5 a year for each tenant over the lifespan of the apartment building. Suck it up and pay to future-proof something.


----------



## mkohan (Dec 19, 2015)

Running the 220/240 volt lines is a rather easy procedure. I needed to do it for house AC a while back. The issue for me would be the electrical service to the house (120 amps) is now full. I would need a new line from the street to the house (not sure if that's my dime or the electric company), then a updated electrical service box in the house (my dime), then the wiring to the garage. I think there are a lot of homes/apts that might not have enough amps coming in making this issue more complicated.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

shimmy816 said:


> I know this is a tesla chain... but I saw a E mustang...not a fan of 4 door mustangs.. it's just wierd.
> 
> On the charging issue.. I wonder if anybody will get to induction charging or has it already be done?... you just park in the space and tada. You would have to have some kind of safety so you don't heat a non charging car up like an induction stove... lol... that could get interesting.


I had one pull up in front of my place to pick a neighbor up. In person it looks so sweet!! I hate that they called it a mustang. Stupid choice IMO


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

MP81 said:


> It should be - when building a house, most anything is minimal compared to construction (especially when you compare it to the cost of lumber now).
> 
> Even my house it shouldn't be too difficult to run 240V from the basement to the wall I'd like in the garage, as it's the wall the garage shares with the house.


If it’s a small cost I may as well. Who knows maybe EV leases are stupid cheap when my kids are driving. Maybe by then the tech had advanced greatly.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> It probably comes out to like $5 a year for each tenant over the lifespan of the apartment building. Suck it up and pay to future-proof something.


I don’t care how much it costs, if I’m not using it I should not be forced to pay for it. Especially in my own home. You can force folks to eat the cost if they are building. If it’s a rental then that’s up to negotiations as are most rentals with contracts.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> I don’t care how much it costs, if I’m not using it I should not be forced to pay for it. Especially in my own home.


Wait, don't tell me: You're one of those people that complain about property taxes for a school district "that I don't even have any kids attending!"


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> Wait, don't tell me: You're one of those people that complain about property taxes for a school district "that I don't even have any kids attending!"


No I’m not and I’d appreciate not being linked into those crowds. It’s my home, I don’t like being forced to pay for something I’m not gonna use.

other persons kids will grow into the adults that will take my place when I retire, even if not my own. School and child development are a asset we all us. Me being forced to pay for a charging system I won’t use in MY home isn’t for the welfare of everyone.


----------



## shimmy816 (Aug 22, 2020)

instead of mandating it offer it as an option... if people see value in it then they will get it.. free market can decide what is built... if it is a good product or good idea people will by it. Think about all the cars over the years that have either made or those that haven't.. enter Subaru baja...ewww vs. ford mustang.. the gas one..lol


----------



## Snipesy (Dec 7, 2015)

shimmy816 said:


> I know this is a tesla chain... but I saw a E mustang...not a fan of 4 door mustangs.. it's just wierd.
> 
> On the charging issue.. I wonder if anybody will get to induction charging or has it already be done?... you just park in the space and tada. You would have to have some kind of safety so you don't heat a non charging car up like an induction stove... lol... that could get interesting.


It has already been done. Mainly as retrofit kits for Teslas but even Volts and Bolts. I mean it works with any EV as long as you find space to put the wiring and pads.

The biggest problem is alignment. Just like phones. But lining up a car is even more tricky. In addition it wastes ballpark 10% to 20% of the electricity just by nature. Not a big deal for a phone. But were talking a good chunk of change for an EV.

As such its current and immediate future will be for disabled people so they don't need to hoist the charging cable. They can just drive over the pad annnd if they have to back up and try again a few times its generally not a big deal.

As such future will probably just be some arm that auto latches to the car. Avoiding both problems altogether. But $$$.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> No I’m not and I’d appreciate not being linked into those crowds. It’s my home, I don’t like being forced to pay for something I’m not gonna use.
> 
> other persons kids will grow into the adults that will take my place when I retire, even if not my own. School and child development are a asset we all us. Me being forced to pay for a charging system I won’t use in MY home isn’t for the welfare of everyone.


My comment was a joke that landed poorly. I apologize.

Still, I'm firmly on board with zoning being changed to start requiring EV charging at apartments. Start with the big complexes where costs can be spread out and then trickle down to smaller apartments.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> My comment was a joke that landed poorly. I apologize.
> 
> Still, I'm firmly on board with zoning being changed to start requiring EV charging at apartments. Start with the big complexes where costs can be spread out and then trickle down to smaller apartments.


I think it’s good on paper however cost of homes as it is are stupid high. Although it’s not much more it’s still more to pay for. The smart complexes would make it standard so they can sell it as eco friendly and bring in the wealthier crowd. Let’s be real, poor people don’t buy Tesla or Chevy bolts so for them it’s not attractive.

what also would bother me is that the complexes would somehow find a way to profit with it. They would charge a extra utility fee for its use. Heck in my area they force you to by contract pay for door side trash pickup, even if you 100% just walk your trash down to the compactor.


----------



## shimmy816 (Aug 22, 2020)

Also for charging. I remember them talking about some kind of station where they switch out the battery packs across country. So instead of waiting they just switch the pack and send you on your way while they charge the old pack so that they can switch it out with the next person.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

shimmy816 said:


> Also for charging. I remember them talking about some kind of station where they switch out the battery packs across country. So instead of waiting they just switch the pack and send you on your way while they charge the old pack so that they can switch it out with the next person.


Tesla offered that in California for a short time. No one wanted it because the logistics are too complicated.

There was this idea that you'd swap battery packs on a long trip and you got options. If you were coming back the same way, you could pick up your battery pack fully charged swapped back into the car. But if you didn't do that, there was a question of what to do about that. Tesla was going to offer a service where your original battery pack would be trucked to your house at an appointment to be swapped back into your car, but it was not explained how that would functionally work to get the battery back into your car. If you received a newer battery pack than what came with your car and you didn't return to pick up your old one, Tesla was going to find a way to bill you an upcharge for the battery replacement. And of course no one wants to get stuck with an old POS battery pack that is older than the one in their car, so how do you deal with that?

It was like an EV battery pack version of passing along bad pennies from a cashier's till in a store: the junk ones are what they hand out to get rid of them and then the people getting those use them as quick as they can to get them out of their hands. No one wants a battery pack worse/older than the one in their car and everyone wants a battery pack better/newer than the one in their car.

Anyways, the Tesla battery swap station was a bust. No one was using it. Ultimately the market has moved toward fast charging instead of swapping batteries. Tesla does it "best" but others are catching up.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> I think it’s good on paper however cost of homes as it is are stupid high. Although it’s not much more it’s still more to pay for. The smart complexes would make it standard so they can sell it as eco friendly and bring in the wealthier crowd. Let’s be real, poor people don’t buy Tesla or Chevy bolts so for them it’s not attractive.


All new home construction is for the wealthy anyway. You cannot find starter homes any longer because developers won't build them. Why build something that is $75,000 when they can take the same plot of land and slap up a $199,000 4-bedroom McMansion?

It's going to take zoning to bring back a mix of affordable houses. The same can be done with EV charging. It won't be only rich people buying Teslas or other EVs in the future - it will be a mix of vehicles for everyone.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> They would charge a extra utility fee for its use.


Local laws can fix this by banning it.

It will require some sort of metering so that users pay for the electricity. There will have to be some sort of way that apartment tenants can plug into a charging station and pay for the electricity on their monthly bill while also preventing theft. Maybe a RFID key card of some sort that you plug your car in, wave it over the charger, and then the electricity used is added to your electricity bill (if you pay that separately at your apartment).

A more complicated way would be to have the chargers wired to a switch inside the apartment so you can turn the outlet/charger off when you leave for the day, to prevent unauthorized users.

Who knows how it will work? But I'm certain we can figure out a solution that benefits everyone.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> All new home construction is for the wealthy anyway. You cannot find starter homes any longer because developers won't build them. Why build something that is $75,000 when they can take the same plot of land and slap up a $199,000 4-bedroom McMansion?
> 
> It's going to take zoning to bring back a mix of affordable houses. The same can be done with EV charging. It won't be only rich people buying Teslas or other EVs in the future - it will be a mix of vehicles for everyone.


The housing market is a mess. A 2+2 no upgrades shouldn’t cost 275+++. Definitely agree for a developer or GC it makes more sense to sell to rich then poor.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Barry Allen said:


> Local laws can fix this by banning it.
> 
> It will require some sort of metering so that users pay for the electricity. There will have to be some sort of way that apartment tenants can plug into a charging station and pay for the electricity on their monthly bill while also preventing theft. Maybe a RFID key card of some sort that you plug your car in, wave it over the charger, and then the electricity used is added to your electricity bill (if you pay that separately at your apartment).
> 
> ...


In my area complexes do shared water. So all 100 units total the water bill and divide by 100. Doesn’t matter joe in 35 is very eco minded and uses hardly any water. He is forced to pay for page with 4 kids use. Doesn’t matter she can afford it, it’s all shared to make it cheaper for the complex.


----------



## shimmy816 (Aug 22, 2020)

just noticed.... this conversation and all of a sudden the add next to it on the forum has stuff about ev charging plug that lasts longer.... they are watching....lol


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

pandrad61 said:


> In my area complexes do shared water. So all 100 units total the water bill and divide by 100. Doesn’t matter joe in 35 is very eco minded and uses hardly any water. He is forced to pay for page with 4 kids use. Doesn’t matter she can afford it, it’s all shared to make it cheaper for the complex.


My state doesn't allow that. Utilities cannot be shared in that manner.

They can be included in a fixed monthly rent, so the landlord can do it that way.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

pandrad61 said:


> If building a home it makes sense to future proof and set up a 240 for down the line. Personally I would IF the cost is minimal to construction.


I installed a wall connector because it gives me 45 miles per hour charge , so in 6 hours or while I am sleeping, the car automatically charges itself during off peak hours; It can be set on the car itself or the app and is easy peasy. Nighttime rates after 12:00 can be as low as .01 cent per kWh or as high was 2.0 cent per kWh. Basically, I am almost charging for free over night. Even if I have to put 40 kwh into the battery pack, its still only .40 cents if I am at 1.0 cent per kWh. 40 KWh gives you about 160 miles of range. 4 miles per KW.

Just so we're clear, BEV are not for everyone or even some who believe in their ICE vehicles. I firmly believe that for road trips and long distance running or even towing that an ICE vehicles is far superior to a BEV (at this time). Until the BEV can go 400 miles at 80 miles per hour. (about 5 hours of driving), they're not there yet. Perhaps when we start to see 150 kWh battery packs that can do this, then we'll get there. Even the F150 E with its alleged 300 mile range will probably do 250 at best and 150-200 at worst running the heat or AC. Its a work in progress and I am by no means a fan boy.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> Tesla offered that in California for a short time. No one wanted it because the logistics are too complicated.
> 
> There was this idea that you'd swap battery packs on a long trip and you got options. If you were coming back the same way, you could pick up your battery pack fully charged swapped back into the car. But if you didn't do that, there was a question of what to do about that. Tesla was going to offer a service where your original battery pack would be trucked to your house at an appointment to be swapped back into your car, but it was not explained how that would functionally work to get the battery back into your car. If you received a newer battery pack than what came with your car and you didn't return to pick up your old one, Tesla was going to find a way to bill you an upcharge for the battery replacement. And of course no one wants to get stuck with an old POS battery pack that is older than the one in their car, so how do you deal with that?
> 
> ...


Who has caught up? Blink or Electrify America?? Most of Tesla chargers range from 150 kw to 350 . Most EA are at 150 or less. Oft times it doesnt matter what the charger is because the car will only accept a charge that its rated for. The New ID4 VW I believe is maxed out at 125 KW so even if charger is 250, all you're getting is 125.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

BodhiBenz1987 said:


> If the one I saw (a 2020) was much improved, I hate to think what they looked like before. Holy smokes. I mean, if it were a $15k car new I'd think it was decent, but the owner paid $70k. Also, as someone who is perpetually annoyed by having to plug my phone into the wall, *I really don't think I'd find charging for six hours to get 250 miles convenient for a daily driver. *I also don't try to drag race Corvettes when I drive, nor do I ever have the desire to or care who can, so I think I'm going to give it a pass. If I had to drive something electric, I'd 100% rather drive this little bean: Citroen Ami ... sure, I'd get flattened by someone's SUV at 28 mph, but at least I'd get flattened with my soul intact. 😂


You never sleep? Remember, that 6 hours is on a Tesla Wall charger giving you 45 miles an hour. If you're on the road and stop at a Tesla SC , you can charge from 0-80% in about 25 minutes , which 80% gives you about 252 miles of highway range or about 4 hours of driving. The other 20% of charge is where its really slow.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Hell, I only charge my Volt at L1 (12A), and I basically never ran into an issue where I didn't have a full charge by 6:15AM when I left. Based on how much I normally used, I didn't need to plug in until, at the latest, around 9PM. And L1 charging, even at 12A, is by no means fast...worked great.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

DslGate said:


> Most of Tesla chargers range from 150 kw to 350 . Most EA are at 150 or less. Oft times it doesnt matter what the charger is because the car will only accept a charge that its rated for.


The Kia EV6 arriving in January will charge from 10-80% in under 18 minutes when plugged into a 350-kW charger. If 150-kW chargers are available, people will gladly use all of that if they can.

Things are catching up.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

MP81 said:


> Hell, I only charge my Volt at L1 (12A), and I basically never ran into an issue where I didn't have a full charge by 6:15AM when I left. Based on how much I normally used, I didn't need to plug in until, at the latest, around 9PM. And L1 charging, even at 12A, is by no means fast...worked great.


Sadly, like all puck ups GM does, canceling the CTD, they also axed the Volt 2 years ago which was becoming a great car as well. It was a great bridge to the future of BEVs. 

I tried L1 on the Tesla and only got about 3 miles per hour charge on their included charger. 25 miles after 8 hours was simply not enough and having a nearly 80 kWh battery capacity doesn't help. Tesla Wall connector at 48 amps gives me 45 miles per hour charge. One smart thing that GM is doing with the Bolt is offering the install of the Wall charger (L2) at their cost to foster the adoption of BEV.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

DslGate said:


> It was a great bridge to the future of BEVs.


BEVs are here. Chevy doesn't need the Volt as a bridge because the Bolt is here and more BEVs are quickly arriving.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> The Kia EV6 arriving in January will charge from 10-80% in under 18 minutes when plugged into a 350-kW charger. If 150-kW chargers are available, people will gladly use all of that if they can.
> 
> Things are catching up.


210 miles in 18 minutes is great, however, the vast majority of chargers in US are 150 kw or less. Even Tesla has very few 350 kw chargers (testing now) and they are all in CA. Their standard now is 250 kw on V3 chargers. Currently, the Model 3 and Y charge faster than the Model X and S. If on the road, I can also decrease my charge time by over 25% just by hitting the Nav button on way to a SC which will pre-heat the battery. It makes a big difference in charge speeds. 

The Kia EV6 will be ground breaking and at $60 K its very competitive to the Tesla Model Y.


----------



## DslGate (Jun 29, 2016)

Barry Allen said:


> BEVs are here. Chevy doesn't need the Volt as a bridge because the Bolt is here and more BEVs are quickly arriving.


True, BUT IMHO, they are NOT ready for prime time over the road traveling. I'll keep the CTD for that. In addition, they don't do well over 70 MPH on their KW usage per mile. If you want to make a 1000 mile jaunt , the ICE is still a far superior vehicle. Less than 250 miles, the BEV will do just fine.


----------



## Barry Allen (Apr 18, 2018)

DslGate said:


> the vast majority of chargers in US are 150 kw


If the EV6 will charge with 350 kW, there will certainly be some tapering of the charging. At what point of the charging cycle is a good question, because most EVs start to taper after 50% charged. I think even the Teslas do this. The Bolt EV charges at a maximum of 50 kW until 50% and then tapers off.

So, if the EV6 will charge with 350 kW and you plug it into a 150 kW charge, that 150 kW continuously applied is still something. It's better than 50 kW, or 75 kW. A steady, consistent 150 kW would be great.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

DslGate said:


> True, BUT IMHO, they are NOT ready for prime time over the road traveling. I'll keep the CTD for that. In addition, they don't do well over 70 MPH on their KW usage per mile. If you want to make a 1000 mile jaunt , the ICE is still a far superior vehicle. Less than 250 miles, the BEV will do just fine.


I am in full agreement. I drive my Volt almost entirely on battery (well, I did when regular commuting was a thing), so I'm obviously a fan of EVs, _but_ I think PHEVs are the way to go right now. The grid can't handle more and more charging just yet, and you can't recharge 400 miles of range into a car in the time I can fill up my 8.9 gallon tank for another 400+ miles of range. It's the ideal vessel to get a number of people (the "I'll never drive an EV" people) to understand the benefits of such a thing.


----------

