[EastCoastDawg]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I owned a 1970 Pontiac GTO. About 300 horsepower and it got about 15 mpg on the highway. My 10 year old, 365 HP Jaguar, gets 30 mpg on the highway and my 335 horsepower BMW gets 34 mpg on the highway.
If we put the same resources into ICE as we do EV's, we'd have cars that get 100 mpg, with emissions below detectible range.

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

So why haven't the manufacturers done that? Surely if one came up with a car that did 100mpg it would vastly outsell those doing 35mpg?

Since the Big Three haven't managed to do it in the 125 years that they (and their predecessors) have been building cars in the USA then I suggest that they stand back and let The Villages Woodworking Club tackle the problem.

Currently the average MPG for a car in the USA is 25 so they only have to quadruple that and BrianL99 will be proved right.

[dhdallas]

Originally Posted by tvmurray

My wife and I went to Vermont to enjoy the colors and cooler weather.
When we arrived the car rental company said they only had a Chevy Bolt EV. I tried to see if they had anything else and the answer was no.
We took off and when we crossed into Vermont we stopped at the welcome center and asked about charging stations and the guy laughed at us. He said he only had a list of 14 stations in the state.
We spent the the next day trying to go from charger to charger. 195 Mike range and over an hour to get to 80% charge. We lost two days watching the power display and could not focus on the scenery.
On day two we made it to Montpelier which was supposed to have 3 stations. 1st didn't work, second had unattended vehicle plugged in, and third was destroyed like someone took a hammer to it.
35 miles of charge left and 40 miles to nearest airport we took off, turned of radio and heater and pulled into car rental with 1 mile left.
Totally screwed 2 full days of vacation time. Don't fall for this EV crap. They are a joke and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

They are most certainly NOT a joke. Electric vehicles are the ideal SECOND vehicle used just for shorter commutes & errands AND if you own your own home, so you can just plug it in at night. They are a terrible choice for a vehicle to be used for vacations, sightseeing trips and long commutes due to the lack of reliable charging infrastructure. Anyone who pays attention to the EV trends knows this. I remember in the late 1950's when we would go on family vacations up into Ontario and we carried cans of gasoline with us because no stations were open at night. The EV charger infrastructure will improve just as now there are 24/7 gas stations everywhere and no one has to carry extra gas with them. You should have refused the EV rental and gone elsewhere. The Chevy Bolt has one of the worst distant ranges of almost any other EV. Many other EV's have twice the range of the BOLT. A great many car dealers will rent you a vehicle if no dedicated rental business has one for you. You cannot make a blanket statement that all EV's are a joke & are crap. You made the mistake of renting the EV with the shortest range & used it for a purpose that it was not designed to do.

[MorTech]

EVs make some sense for retirees in Florida.
Just get a Corolla LE and don't spend a second thinking about range or cost.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The day the government stops interfering with the free marketing of automobiles, is the day that EV's revert to what they always were ... glorified golf carts.

They are an impractical solution, to a grossly exaggerated problem. A fraud, perpetuated upon another fraud as its basis. First you have to buy into the global warming (now "climate change") nonsense, then you can buy right into the so-called emissions problem and the supposed fossil fuel availability issue.

I owned a 1970 Pontiac GTO. About 300 horsepower and it got about 15 mpg on the highway.

My 10 year old, 365 HP Jaguar, gets 30 mpg on the highway and my 335 horsepower BMW gets 34 mpg on the highway.

If we put the same resources into ICE as we do EV's, we'd have cars that get 100 mpg, with emissions below detectible range.

Ok, so let’s compare model t to to 50 ford what you doing. Another thing 70 GTO was rated at 365 HP out of 455 cu in engine. Plus the 70 GTO could be driven for life time, sure you have to overhaul along way, but person with average skills could maintain it. Jag be lucky to last 15 years BMW won’t fair much more due to outrageous expense to repair unless there garage queens.

‘We”. are driven by sales and and profit. At this present time IMO only top 30% at most can afford high end vehicles electric or hybrids. Tesla when compared to other EVs manufacturers are decades ahead in infrastructure and technology. Plus Tesla prices come down not up like competitors. IMO Tesla the only serious EV manufacturer. Others are copycats like the big fins flash of late 50s.

[Garywt]

If I had booked a non EV and they didn’t have one I definitely would have looked elsewhere. Most airports have multiple rental agencies. Whether it is my cars or my golf carts, I have no desire to own any EV’s. I like my Ford F350 just fine.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

So why haven't the manufacturers done that?

Surely if one came up with a car that did 100mpg it would vastly outsell those doing 35mpg?

Because the government is investing billions into advancing electric technology for automobiles and zero for ICE vehicles. Like everyone else, the auto manufacturers have to go where the money is.

[biker1]

The fallacy of your thinking is that it would be possible to increase ICE efficiency by 3-4x to create typical ICE cars that could achieve 100 MPG (up from 25-30 MPG for a typical car today). There are physics involved. ICE engines experience small increases in efficiency with time because they are approaching the limits of what can be obtained. Sophisticated engine control systems have been used for years. The typical ICE vehicles are about 20% efficient and the remaining 80% of the fuel's energy is wasted as heat and other inefficiencies in the car systems such as the need to run a cooling system. The pressure to meet CAFE standards is immense and all automakers work like hell to obtain ever decreasing increases in efficiency. Why do you think 0W-16 oils are now being used? While there are some novel ICE designs out there with higher efficiencies, I don't see a lot of interest in automakers adopting them. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines but VW put a stain on that technology, which was never very popular to begin with in the US. Other changes to cars such as advanced materials to reduce overall vehicle weight, and therefore increase efficiency, are certainly possible but they are also applicable to EVs and are typically expensive. Electric motors are very efficient, electric power plants utilize fuels much more efficiently than an ICE engine in a car is capable of doing (new generation of natural gas power plants are up to 60% efficient but older plants are more like 40% efficient), high voltage power lines transmit power with very high efficiency, and charging systems in EVs have small inefficiencies. Essentially, it is more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a large power plant and power EVs than burn them in large numbers of ICE engines. The difference is about 2-3x.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Because the government is investing billions into advancing electric technology for automobiles and zero for ICE vehicles. Like everyone else, the auto manufacturers have to go where the money is.

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

So why haven't the manufacturers done that? Surely if one came up with a car that did 100mpg it would vastly outsell those doing 35mpg?

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Because the government is investing billions into advancing electric technology for automobiles and zero for ICE vehicles. Like everyone else, the auto manufacturers have to go where the money is.

Most major breakthroughs (and quadrupling the fuel economy of a car would be a major breakthrough) come from private companies and individuals, not from the government.

Throwing money at a problem is seldom the solution. Committing thinking people to it often is.

The returns would come from being the only company to make a car that has 4x the mpg of all the other manufacturers.

However, they've had 125 years in which to do it, and haven't achieved anything more than incremental increases, so it would be safest to accept that it isn't going to happen.

[Maker]

Biden signed another executive order to eliminate all coal fired power plants.
Think about that. It will reduce the available power generation across the entire country. Any replacement power will need to come from natural gas, solar, or wind.
Using natural gas will drive up the cost of all oil derived energy. Building new power plants is expensive. Solar and wind are not reliable as supplying the base load needed to run the country. More EVs will create more demand - a lot of that at night - when wind and solar produces nothing.

[biker1]

The date is 2035 and was probably going to happen anyway for economic reasons. Coal has been on a steep decline, because natural gas is lower in cost, and less than 20% of our electricity currently comes from coal. Twenty years ago 50% of electricity came from coal.

Originally Posted by Maker

Biden signed another executive order to eliminate all coal fired power plants.
Think about that. It will reduce the available power generation across the entire country. Any replacement power will need to come from natural gas, solar, or wind.
Using natural gas will drive up the cost of all oil derived energy. Building new power plants is expensive. Solar and wind are not reliable as supplying the base load needed to run the country. More EVs will create more demand - a lot of that at night - when wind and solar produces nothing.

[Byte1]

EVs are still a "novelty." Hmmm, EVs were available in the late 1800's and were a "novelty" then and still are. I keep hearing how great they are, but they still cannot compare to fossil fuel powered vehicles......period. When someone attempts to compare the two, the folks pro-EV have to make excuses. Always excuses but eventually have to admit that they have their flaws. Should EVs be "mandated" by the federal government? They aren't ready yet.
ICEs are still better than or equal to EVs in almost every way. If the EVs were so great then logical citizens would jump on the opportunity to own one.
EVs are more expensive, even with tax credit from the Feds. Middle to lower level earners can't really consider the expense.
EVs are NOT long range vehicles.
EVs take take a minimum of 20 minutes (usually hours) to refuel. Not good for long commuting or trips where time is a premium.
EVs are not conducive to efficient operation in harsh climates.

ICE vehicles are less expensive
ICE vehicles are preferable for long commutes
ICE vehicles can be refueled in five or ten minutes. Maybe fifteen if waiting in line. EVs a minimum of 20 mins and at least 20 mins added for every vehicle in line ahead of it.
ICE vehicles work better in harsh weather.
ICE vehicles can be refueled on the road and do not need to be towed when they run out of energy/fuel.
ICE vehicles have more fuel options; gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, alcohol derivatives, recycled cooking oil, etc.
EVs are being FORCED on us. Why? Because of the green agenda. EVs don't pollute the air, ICE vehicles do. So do cows, but we still raise them for consumption. So does mankind but we don't eliminate humans.
I could live with owning an EV in the Villages, but some folks have to work for a living. If I was still employed, an EV would be at the bottom of my list of transportation methods. Thank goodness I am too old to be around long enough for an EV to be forced on me. To me, an EV is like owning a motorcycle, boat or a horse. Just a "novelty" for recreation.
But, to keep this related to the OP/subject, if a rental company tried to pawn an EV on me when I needed a reliable mode of transportation, I would have sought out a different rental agency.

[biker1]

EVs are hardly a novelty. The best selling car in the world, YTD, is a Tesla Model Y. Nobody is forcing an EV on you. ICE cars will still be around for probably the next 20-30 years, or more. You might not find a lot of choices in new ICE cars in 10-15 years or so but the used market will still be there. Buy what you want. There is no need to try to convince others what to do or try to explain your actions.

Originally Posted by Byte1

EVs are still a "novelty." Hmmm, EVs were available in the late 1800's and were a "novelty" then and still are. I keep hearing how great they are, but they still cannot compare to fossil fuel powered vehicles......period. When someone attempts to compare the two, the folks pro-EV have to make excuses. Always excuses but eventually have to admit that they have their flaws. Should EVs be "mandated" by the federal government? They aren't ready yet.
ICEs are still better than or equal to EVs in almost every way. If the EVs were so great then logical citizens would jump on the opportunity to own one.
EVs are more expensive, even with tax credit from the Feds. Middle to lower level earners can't really consider the expense.
EVs are NOT long range vehicles.
EVs take take a minimum of 20 minutes (usually hours) to refuel. Not good for long commuting or trips where time is a premium.
EVs are not conducive to efficient operation in harsh climates.

ICE vehicles are less expensive
ICE vehicles are preferable for long commutes
ICE vehicles can be refueled in five or ten minutes. Maybe fifteen if waiting in line. EVs a minimum of 20 mins and at least 20 mins added for every vehicle in line ahead of it.
ICE vehicles work better in harsh weather.
ICE vehicles can be refueled on the road and do not need to be towed when they run out of energy/fuel.
ICE vehicles have more fuel options; gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, alcohol derivatives, recycled cooking oil, etc.
EVs are being FORCED on us. Why? Because of the green agenda. EVs don't pollute the air, ICE vehicles do. So do cows, but we still raise them for consumption. So does mankind but we don't eliminate humans.
I could live with owning an EV in the Villages, but some folks have to work for a living. If I was still employed, an EV would be at the bottom of my list of transportation methods. Thank goodness I am too old to be around long enough for an EV to be forced on me. To me, an EV is like owning a motorcycle, boat or a horse. Just a "novelty" for recreation.
But, to keep this related to the OP/subject, if a rental company tried to pawn an EV on me when I needed a reliable mode of transportation, I would have sought out a different rental agency.

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by tvmurray

My wife and I went to Vermont to enjoy the colors and cooler weather.
When we arrived the car rental company said they only had a Chevy Bolt EV. I tried to see if they had anything else and the answer was no.
We took off and when we crossed into Vermont we stopped at the welcome center and asked about charging stations and the guy laughed at us. He said he only had a list of 14 stations in the state.
We spent the the next day trying to go from charger to charger. 195 Mike range and over an hour to get to 80% charge. We lost two days watching the power display and could not focus on the scenery.
On day two we made it to Montpelier which was supposed to have 3 stations. 1st didn't work, second had unattended vehicle plugged in, and third was destroyed like someone took a hammer to it.
35 miles of charge left and 40 miles to nearest airport we took off, turned of radio and heater and pulled into car rental with 1 mile left.
Totally screwed 2 full days of vacation time. Don't fall for this EV crap. They are a joke and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

Agree

[JRcorvette]

Originally Posted by tvmurray

My wife and I went to Vermont to enjoy the colors and cooler weather.
When we arrived the car rental company said they only had a Chevy Bolt EV. I tried to see if they had anything else and the answer was no.
We took off and when we crossed into Vermont we stopped at the welcome center and asked about charging stations and the guy laughed at us. He said he only had a list of 14 stations in the state.
We spent the the next day trying to go from charger to charger. 195 Mike range and over an hour to get to 80% charge. We lost two days watching the power display and could not focus on the scenery.
On day two we made it to Montpelier which was supposed to have 3 stations. 1st didn't work, second had unattended vehicle plugged in, and third was destroyed like someone took a hammer to it.
35 miles of charge left and 40 miles to nearest airport we took off, turned of radio and heater and pulled into car rental with 1 mile left.
Totally screwed 2 full days of vacation time. Don't fall for this EV crap. They are a joke and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

I would be really ****ed if the rental company tried to push an EV on me. Please tell us all what rental company that was so we can all AVOID them! Thanks

[ThirdOfFive]

It doesn't get much attention, but the House of Representatives will most likely be voting this week (Tuesday, probably) on the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) act, which of passed would disallow pending federal regulations targeting gas-powered vehicles and well as prohibiting future EV mandates.

The support for this appears pretty broad. The Independent Women's Voice website had some interesting numbers on this: "Six in 10 Americans say the price tag of electric vehicles (EVs) is too high. Polling data suggests the majority of Americans won’t ever buy EVs due to their vast shortcomings. As a result, EV adoption rates remain low. In 2022, EVs accounted for just 5.8% of all the 13.8 million new vehicles sold in the U.S. This is attributed to a limited network of EV charging stations, fueling and charging inefficiencies, and the forced nature of EV adoption that isn’t reflective of market demand." They are certainly alone in this.

Should be interesting. Will saner heads prevail?