Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2257980)

Because Tesla is nonunion.

Originally Posted by Hizzonner1030 (Post 2257959)

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.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 2257821)

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?

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2257968)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbb (Post 2257985)

Yea and nuclear fission is just 10 years away.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2258008)

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

Originally Posted by kkingston57 (Post 2257979)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbb (Post 2257985)

Yea and nuclear fission is just 10 years away.

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2258020)

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.

Originally Posted by mtdjed (Post 2257749)

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.

Originally Posted by The Chipster (Post 2257925)

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.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2258225)

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"