[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Because Tesla is nonunion.

Yes, that, too.

[Robbb]

Originally Posted by Hizzonner1030

Many say that no one wants an EV. Go to to a dealers lot and try to buy one or even test drive. They sell faster than they are being manufactured.

Which EV's are you talking about? They can't give the Chevy Bolts away. The Ford Lightning is on hold due to a design defect.

[Robbb]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Toyota has announced it will have a model with a cruising range of about 620 miles in 2026, and is working on one that would have a potential 930 mile range. And they are making changes in production which will lower manufacturing costs. But I agree, hybrids really make sense right now. Why wouldn't someone want a vehicle that gets 50 mpg around town and you don't have to plug it in to recharge?

Yea and nuclear fission is just 10 years away.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Because the powers that be don't like him because he refuses to acquiesce and bend the knee every time they come calling with another demand.

Thankfully he enabled us to have the means to get to the ISS years ago. Brilliant visionary who is not afraid to spend his own money

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Robbb

Yea and nuclear fission is just 10 years away.

Still have a feeling that EV's are not going to be the save all that some people think they will be.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Still have a feeling that EV's are not going to be the save all that some people think they will be.

Most definitely not. However, it will give more power and control to those that seek to consolidate it. And I say this as a Tesla owner.

When you look at the means of production, it is anything but green, and the logistics of people who don't own garages to charge them is untenable. And the grid can't handle it anyway.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Tesla lost a lot of money early on also. They will catch up. Still feel that car makers should have worked more fervently on hybrid cars. These cars get at least 25-30% higher mileage and do not have the range problems.

This would hpave been a compromise. Something politicians do not even know how to spell.

I just bought a new car last week. My 12.5 yo Hyundai Genesis' engine gave up the ghost. Blown head gasket.

I seriously looked at hybrids, but there's no way I'm driving a Prius and nothing else fit my needs/budget.

I wound up buying an Acura TXL with only 14K miles on it, that was coming out of the dealer's loaner inventory. Still under warranty. Perfect condition, not a mark on it, serviced by the dealer, and I saved almost $15K off of a new one. It serves my needs perfectly... For now...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Robbb

Yea and nuclear fission is just 10 years away.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Most definitely not. However, it will give more power and control to those that seek to consolidate it. And I say this as a Tesla owner.

When you look at the means of production, it is anything but green, and the logistics of people who don't own garages to charge them is untenable. And the grid can't handle it anyway.

There you go confusing some people with the facts again.

[Cheapbas]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

While definitely not an EV fan, I believe you must use care in using data like the above. It likely does not mean that each new EV car costs Ford $32,000 more that the sell price. I would strongly suspect that number reflects the incremental cost of each new EV plus a share of the huge developmental cost incurred based upon dividing development costs by quantity sold.

You have to expect that companies don't blindly sell at a price below incremental cost. They may have a plan the shows recovery of development costs within a projected sales volume. Sales lagging that projection could be a major problem.

My only caution is that use the term loss of $32,000 may have a different meaning.

It does “ increased costs related to new product development and production-capacity expansion” and that makes perfect sense. They are expecting profitability a few years down the road.

[OhioBuckeye]

I know people don’t care if I worked for Ford for 38yrs. But your right EV’s are to expensive for most of us to buy. I’m thinking Ford sees the writing on the wall. EV’s are a short distance auto’s. I drive from Texas to Ohio 3 times a yr. & I yet have seen a charging station & if I would are the chargers all the same do you have to sit in line & wait for 2 other EV’s ahead you for 2,3 or 4 hrs. before it’s your turn, plus are you going to be patient enough to wait an 1 1/2 hrs. to charge yours & the biggest thing can you afford to pay $40,000 more for the same vehicle you have now. Most of these EV’s your paying for HP not realablity. People have to weigh the pros & cons before they invest in a very expensive EV.

[Eclas]

not to worry I'm sure we are all covering those losses thru our tax dollars.

[jamesrcorbett]

When you hear the word subsidy who do you think is paying for that financial aid? The US taxpayers. Our current administration is asking us to pay for something that is their dream and not that of the majority of people.
The real issue is that we have politicians and not business people. In business you develop a business plan that analyzes every aspect of the implementation issues and and works backwards from the end goal to have a successful implementation.
1) Electrical Infrastructure
2) Charging Stations across the country.
3) Sufficient battery range to drive trips.
4) No mandates of use by letting the market decide.
5) Material resources to build batteries w/o enhancing China.
Dreams without plans are just dreams!

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by The Chipster

Hilarious. I'm going to save this whole discussion for my great grandchildren to read someday - say 50 years from now when they have cars we cannot even imagine. They will howl with laughter at all the EV naysayers back in 2023 who can't focus on the big picture, which is: We are now WAY early in EV technology. Those of us that have and love EVs are early adopters, well aware of the current issue with outside charging stations, prices, etc. But we also know that major changes are happening NOW in the EV industry, such as solid state batteries that will have 2X or 3X the range in a few years. And the car companies know that they need to invest in the EV game or go extinct, even if the next few years are going to be financially tough for them. Because the current technology of internal combustion engines is on its way out, declining in market share vs. EVs, as we speak.

And what makes you so sure it will be EVs that everyone is driving in 50 years? The thing that makes EVs obsolete, even though they aren't even a viable thing today may be just around the corner. They may be laughing at you for thinking that will be the future when x, not even thought of commonly now, becomes the "real solution"

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

And what makes you so sure it will be EVs that everyone is driving in 50 years? The thing that makes EVs obsolete, even though they aren't even a viable thing today may be just around the corner. They may be laughing at you for thinking that will be the future when x, not even thought of commonly now, becomes the "real solution"

Could not agree with you more.