GM is pulling back on EVs

[AZlb5.0]

Hello; You beat me to the point. I was typing when your post showed up. I like your post better than mine.
I watch the Yellowstone TV show. They still use horses and horses still have a place in the working world. I recall a camping trip into the Colorado Rockies many years ago. Had to stop my truck and let some men on horses move cattle along.

I live not too far off the beaten path but far enough that people still use horses to travel short distances. Yellowstone is a fairly good depiction of how horses are still better then any vehicle at some jobs. Impossible to drive cattle with anything other then horse or wild horse for a matter of fact.
People want to make this parallel argument between the early 1900s and now and it’s impossible. Steam and ICE vehicles revolutionized travel from horses, horse drawn carriages and buggies. I want to see a 747 make that trans-ocean trip on a battery pack.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

I live not too far off the beaten path but far enough that people still use horses to travel short distances. Yellowstone is a fairly good depiction of how horses are still better then any vehicle at some jobs. Impossible to drive cattle with anything other then horse or wild horse for a matter of fact.
People want to make this parallel argument between the early 1900s and now and it’s impossible. Steam and ICE vehicles revolutionized travel from horses, horse drawn carriages and buggies. I want to see a 747 make that trans-ocean trip on a battery pack.

It isn't going to - it is however going to make the trip using hydrogen. Airbus already working on a fuel cell engine and have hydrogen engines already in use on test planes. The first hydrogen refuelling base will be at Toulouse in 2025

 

[Gregs24]

My point was that I wasn’t an American who had never left it’s shores speaking about Europe and the hurdles they face.

My further point being that EVs are not something that the public pines for because EVs don’t do anything different unlike ICE vehicles revolutionized travel in the early 1900s.

Explain to me what an EV does differently then an ICE vehicle does other than with a different power train? Does it revolutionize travel? Will you able to travel intercontinentally with out needing to stop for a recharge? Will it get you there any faster? Will it save you time and energy?

If EVs would have been a better mode of transportation (they’ve also been around since the early 1900s) they would have been developed alongside ICE engines and they would have over taken ICE vehicles already.

Your argument that people made the same points in the early 1900s is flawed with one simple example. At no time did any officials mandate travel by horse illegal give a time line to stop traveling by horse or outlawed the sale of horses so people would only buy ICE vehicles.

Where I live people still travel by horse back. Haven’t seen one get a ticket or had their horse impounded because of it.

Well as a person with a PHEV and access to an EV they are better than the ICE equivalent in everyday cars such as SUV's here in the UK. Faster, quieter, smoother. The whole point is they are a car with a different (better) form of propulsion. I agree it lacks the emotion of an ICE but 99% of people don't care about that and just want to get from A to B and stay dry and warm.

1900's EV's used lead acid batteries. The limiting factor was battery technology that was not available. ICE cars developed incrementally - the Benz Motorwagen works in fundamentally the same way as your Mustang.

The reasons for mandating the stopping of selling new ICE vehicles (NOT a ban on use of ICE vehicles) is being done for local pollution effects as well as global climate effects. There is a specific health reason for doing this, hence ULEZ's in many European cities where pollution is directly linked to death and disease. Horses never killed anybody by their emissions, unless you count slipping on a turd? Horses are banned from some roads, and the owner can be found guilty of offences on the road.

 

[AZlb5.0]

It isn't going to - it is however going to make the trip using hydrogen. Airbus already working on a fuel cell engine and have hydrogen engines already in use on test planes. The first hydrogen refuelling base will be at Toulouse in 2025

I definitely think that a hydrogen conversion to ICE is a way better idea then Electric. I could get 100% behind a hydrogen fuel. The abundance itself makes way more sense IMHO. It’s definitely a cleaner option even then the batteries.

 

[Gregs24]

I definitely think that a hydrogen conversion to ICE is a way better idea then Electric. I could get 100% behind a hydrogen fuel. The abundance itself makes way more sense IMHO. It’s definitely a cleaner option even then the batteries.

Agree. Commercial vehicles and plant machinery will be hydrogen ICE. JCB already have these in use and there are plenty of hydrogen ICE powered busses in the UK.

Crucially how the hydrogen is produced is important - it is completely pointless using fossil fuels to power hydrogen production.

I think FCEV's will be the norm in 20 years or so. The Toyota Mirai is a proof of concept - just need the hydrogen infrastructure for refuelling. Some countries have this already.

Hydrogen | Building a Greener Future | JCB.com

 

[AZlb5.0]

Well as a person with a PHEV and access to an EV they are better than the ICE equivalent in everyday cars such as SUV's here in the UK. Faster, quieter, smoother. The whole point is they are a car with a different (better) form of propulsion. I agree it lacks the emotion of an ICE but 99% of people don't care about that and just want to get from A to B and stay dry and warm.

1900's EV's used lead acid batteries. The limiting factor was battery technology that was not available. ICE cars developed incrementally - the Benz Motorwagen works in fundamentally the same way as your Mustang.

The reasons for mandating the stopping of selling new ICE vehicles (NOT a ban on use of ICE vehicles) is being done for local pollution effects as well as global climate effects. There is a specific health reason for doing this, hence ULEZ's in many European cities where pollution is directly linked to death and disease. Horses never killed anybody by their emissions, unless you count slipping on a turd? Horses are banned from some roads, and the owner can be found guilty of offences on the road.

I get your arguments and we probably won’t see eye to eye on many of them. To me an EV should be a choice not a mandate. If people’s health’s where that important we would worry more about homelessness and drug addiction stamping out poverty and eliminating McDonalds (which is impossible) then blaming health issues on ICE vehicles. If some cities want to do this mandate put it on a ballot initiative and allow for the public to vote on it. Governments are usually on the wrong side of lots of things as we have a ton of history to learn from. While Horses never killed anyone other then the so often slip on a pile of horse crap, horses are not completely illegal. Some cities and states want to make the use of ICE vehicle illegal starting with California go figure.

Listen I would never ask you not to buy or use an EV because I don’t like the idea of telling a grown man/woman what they wish to do with their person money or lives. Much like I don’t want the EV crowd or government officials telling me not to buy an ICE vehicle. But it seems that many on your side of the argument can’t help themselves and want to tell others how to live their lives. Now please I want to make sure I’m not saying you’re doing this. But it tends to be more often then not that folks who are all in on EV tend to feel they are standing on some moral high ground rather then living and letting others live.

Thank you for keeping this a civil back and forth and I appreciate the fact that we could communicate like adults and didn’t let this debacle into a name calling disrespectful back and forth. Truly like debating different ideals and ideas with educated and respectful individuals.

 

[Gregs24]

I get your arguments and we probably won’t see eye to eye on many of them. To me an EV should be a choice not a mandate. If people’s health’s where that important we would worry more about homelessness and drug addiction stamping out poverty and eliminating McDonalds (which is impossible) then blaming health issues on ICE vehicles. If some cities want to do this mandate put it on a ballot initiative and allow for the public to vote on it. Governments are usually on the wrong side of lots of things as we have a ton of history to learn from. While Horses never killed anyone other then the so often slip on a pile of horse crap, horses are not completely illegal. Some cities and states want to make the use of ICE vehicle illegal starting with California go figure.

Listen I would never ask you not to buy or use an EV because I don’t like the idea of telling a grown man/woman what they wish to do with their person money or lives. Much like I don’t want the EV crowd or government officials telling me not to buy an ICE vehicle. But it seems that many on your side of the argument can’t help themselves and want to tell others how to live their lives. Now please I want to make sure I’m not saying you’re doing this. But it tends to be more often then not that folks who are all in on EV tend to feel they are standing on some moral high ground rather then living and letting others live.

Thank you for keeping this a civil back and forth and I appreciate the fact that we could communicate like adults and didn’t let this debacle into a name calling disrespectful back and forth. Truly like debating different ideals and ideas with educated and respectful individuals.

I really am not an EV evangelist - I drive a V8 Mustang, and have a Lotus Emira on order - that is not the life of an evangelist, maybe a petrolhead. I'm not on the side of an argument but can see the damage caused by the pollution. Our city centres are so much nicer without fumes.

ULEZ's have come about as a result of public pressure and votes here. Death and disease related to pollution is a very real thing. It has been for some time, hence the ban on coal burning in cities (and now the whole of the UK), restrictions on wood burning in cities and banning smoking indoors at public places. People don't want to breathe in crap all day every day. There are plenty of other reasons as you mention, homelessness, drugs etc but it isn't an either / or thing. Indeed the pollution affects every single person in a city.

I don't want ICE vehicles to be illegal, there is clearly a role for hydrogen ICE as we have discussed and in some remote locations there is still no alternative. But one Jeep out in the country produces nothing compared to a city full of cars.

People tend to use the all or nothing approach to this subject. It can't work, it is a restriction of my freedoms etc etc. Well it can work and for the vast majority of people an EV powered vehicle is just as good if not better than an ICE powered vehicle. Some SUV's are awful whether powered by ICE or EV - it makes no odds.

What we can do however is move forward (which we are / will do) reducing pollution incrementally in ways that minimise impact on most people. We will still be able to drive our Mustangs, but for the kids that are born now they will be EV all the way through their life, and they will be happy with it in most cases. Most kids are more interested in the tech in the car than the motive power - they are not wrong to think this, just different to us older folks.

Your last paragraph is appreciated, but lost on some I fear!

 

[Vlad Soare]

People tend to use the all or nothing approach to this subject.

That may be because the state policy on this subject is all or nothing.
Besides, nothing harmful to humans comes out of the tailpipes of our Mustangs. A Euro 6.2 compliant engine won't give anyone a lung disease. The air in most European cities is already as clean and safe as it gets - and it's been like this for quite some time. So that argument is bit of a stretch in my opinion.
They aren't forcing us into EVs to make us healthier. They're doing it to "save the planet" (whatever that means) and to stop the climate change. Which, ironically, EVs aren't actually good at, but we'll gloss over that.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to a review of that Lotus when you get it. When is it planned to arrive?

 

[Gregs24]

That may be because the state policy on this subject is all or nothing.
Besides, nothing harmful to humans comes out of the tailpipes of our Mustangs. A Euro 6.2 compliant engine won't give anyone a lung disease. The air in most European cities is already as clean and safe as it gets - and it's been like this for quite some time. So that argument is bit of a stretch in my opinion.
They aren't forcing us into EVs to make us healthier. They're doing it to "save the planet" (whatever that means) and to stop the climate change. Which, ironically, EVs aren't actually good at, but we'll gloss over that.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to a review of that Lotus when you get it. When is it planned to arrive?

Not sure the comment about what comes out of the tailpipe holds true. Many European cities are failing in pollution targets, and even if there is an ULEZ in the centre the suburbs don't get them. Petrol engines are less of a problem with particulates (although GDI engines do produce them) compared to diesel engines. 'They' get the blame for everything but in fact 'they' are us!

European city air quality viewer — European Environment Agency (europa.eu)

Air pollution: Coroner calls for law change after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's death - BBC News

I wouldn't want to live on the South Circular, or any of the roads in London for that matter. Go on the tube and walk around in London and your nose will be full of black crap at the end of the day. And London is far from the worst in Europe, never mind other countries.

You can look up your favourite city here:

World's Most Polluted Cities in 2021 - PM2.5 Ranking | IQAir

Ojdula and Otopeni in Romania seems pretty bad local ish to you.

Sadly delays in the supply chain are slowing deliveries down of the Lotus. The first cars have been delivered this month so I am looking at late next year. They have over 3 years of orders outstanding, but then so do a lot of car makers. JLR have 250k unfulfilled orders!

 

[Vlad Soare]

I'm sure there are places in Europe where the quality of the air could be better. I'll be the first to admit that Romania is among them. Perhaps Greece as well. But still, Balkans or South London aside, most of the rest of Europe is cleaner than ever before.

Also, whatever pollution can still be traced back to cars isn't caused by new ones. I never have to turn the air recirculation on when I drive behind a car, especially a petrol-powered one, produced during the last four or five years. It's always busses, garbage trucks, old diesels, and the like. A modern petrol engine equipped with a particulate filter expels just water vapour and carbon dioxide. My tail pipes after 13K miles are as clean as they came out of the factory. So are yours, I'm sure.
But they aren't concerned about lung diseases. They are exclusively worried about that carbon dioxide which supposedly kills the planet. No matter how clean ICE cars may be made to run from a public health perspective, they'd still be determined to kill them off. Unless somebody managed to make one that didn't emit carbon dioxide, that is. Carbon dioxide is the public enemy number one - nothing else matters. It must be eradicated at all costs.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Ironically, despite all my anti-EV comments on this forum, I'm not opposed to the idea of driving an EV. Or rather, I wouldn't be if they weren't trying to force me into it.
While I can't stand Teslas for several reasons, chief among which is that there aren't enough words in all languages combined to express how much I loathe Musk, there are a few that I really like. I wouldn't mind driving a Taycan if I could afford one. Or a Rimac. Or even a Mach-E for that matter, if I'm honest.
You'll never see me in an i3 though, or anything like that.

I'm also looking on the bright side. The more people switch to EVs, the more of a bad boy I will look in my V8 Mustang. The more special it will feel. I bought it because it was politically incorrect. And as the world moves towards EVs, its PI character will increase.

 

[sk47]

Volvo says manufacturing an EV generates 70% more emissions than its ICE counterpart - AutoBuzz.my

Volvo_carbonfootprintreport.pdf (volvocars.com)

Hello; I saved the above links as they often fit when a discussion gets into the save the planet section. The first link is a report about a Volvo study. Second link is the study itself.
Bear in mind Volvo has begun to divorce itself from ICE production. As I understand things the ICE they still use are bought from a spun off company created not long ago. My take being Volvo is not an anti-EV company.

My take from the study is Volvo makes two vehicles very close to being the same. One was an ICE. The other an EV. Seems the EV has to be driven a lot of miles before it starts to beat the ICE in terms of things such as pollution. The distance in KM is over 100K, maybe 130, 000. I worked it out to be around 68,000 miles to a break-even point. After 68,000 miles the EV begins to pollute less overall. I suppose others on here can see it differently, but this casts a big shadow over the "clean" EV notion. My 2004 ICE pickup has 64,000 miles so may still be cleaner than a new EV pickup. (not for much longer tho.)

I have posted these links a few times before and ask a question. Near as i can determine this study does not get into the old used up battery question in terms of environmental impact. The nature of a current EV battery is to have some limited number of recharge/ discharge cycles. After that number the batteries need to be replaced- repurposed-recycled or some such. Seems to me what happens to the large battery packs ought to be factored in in terms of environmental impact.
The ICE's impact is, on the other hand, continuous. The ICE is very much cleaner at the tail pipe now. Whatever impact happens all along with no big single dump into the environment at service end the way an EV battery is dumped. My question is around about how much that old dead or nearly dead EV battery pack adds to the EV's environmental impact on top of the 68,000 miles already known??? Will dealing with the old batteries effectively add more thousands of miles to how far an EV must be driven to beat an ICE?

 

[sk47]

Ironically, despite all my anti-EV comments on this forum, I'm not opposed to the idea of driving an EV. Or rather, I wouldn't be if they weren't trying to force me into it.
While I can't stand Teslas for several reasons, chief among which is that there aren't enough words in all languages combined to express how much I loathe Musk, there are a few that I really like. I wouldn't mind driving a Taycan if I could afford one. Or a Rimac. Or even a Mach-E for that matter, if I'm honest.
You'll never see me in an i3 though, or anything like that.

I'm also looking on the bright side. The more people switch to EVs, the more of a bad boy I will look in my V8 Mustang. The more special it will feel. I bought it because it was politically incorrect. And as the world moves towards EVs, its PI character will increase.

Hello; I have looked at hybrids a few times since 2001. I could make one work for a lot of my driving needs. Never pulled the plug largely because of the extra cost, that they felt like driving an appliance and my 2001 Sentra SE 2.0 has been so very reliable. A pure EV will not fit so well. I have a house so can do the home charging with that advantage. Cost still the biggest factor with range number 2. Still not financially practical. Never test driven one so cannot say if an EV will feel like an appliance.
Like you I do not like being pushed into the EV world. That alone rankles. As in my previous post the "save the planet" ploy is not all it's cracked up to be.
I have read and followed the EV Ford pickup news and cannot see the sense of it. Towing less than 100 miles is an issue.

I do not have much for or against Musk so that is not an issue. His stuff costs too much.

But yeah my bucket list plan is to have another V8 car. A base GT will be V8 enough.

 

[sk47]

5 Hidden Costs of Electric Vehicles (msn.com)
Hello; Just ran across this story. I have not checked out all claims so do not endorse them as gospel. The 17 year payback span caught my attention.
The $900/year vs. $1200/year difference Maintenace cost also caught my attention. I can do a lot of work on an ICE and have tools. Not sure about the EV. May need some special tools for an EV. Question- Are EV's a dealer only repair sort of thing or can we work on them ourselves? I get the charge can kill us so can be risky to fool with without some knowledge.

Story did not get into replacement batteries or i missed that.

 

[Gregs24]

I'm sure there are places in Europe where the quality of the air could be better. I'll be the first to admit that Romania is among them. Perhaps Greece as well. But still, Balkans or South London aside, most of the rest of Europe is cleaner than ever before.

Also, whatever pollution can still be traced back to cars isn't caused by new ones. I never have to turn the air recirculation on when I drive behind a car, especially a petrol-powered one, produced during the last four or five years. It's always busses, garbage trucks, old diesels, and the like. A modern petrol engine equipped with a particulate filter expels just water vapour and carbon dioxide. My tail pipes after 13K miles are as clean as they came out of the factory. So are yours, I'm sure.
But they aren't concerned about lung diseases. They are exclusively worried about that carbon dioxide which supposedly kills the planet. No matter how clean ICE cars may be made to run from a public health perspective, they'd still be determined to kill them off. Unless somebody managed to make one that didn't emit carbon dioxide, that is. Carbon dioxide is the public enemy number one - nothing else matters. It must be eradicated at all costs.

PM2.5 particles are invisible and largely odourless. The soot you see from old diesel engines is nasty stuff but you can at least see that. It contains PM2.5 but also much larger particles. Petrol powered cars still produce PM2.5 and NOx, just less than they did.

A technical summary of Euro 6/VI vehicle emission standards (theicct.org)

I can assure you that air quality is just as important as climate in this. Some major cities are smog bound for long periods in China and India, hence the rapid roll out of EV's there. Even Tuktuks are going electric now!

An ICE that doesn't produce CO2 is run on hydrogen as we were discussing above. I think this will be the default for plant machinery and commercial vehicles in the near future.

Ultimately most people don't want to live in polluted cities and want to do what they can to minimise climate change. Whether you agree with this or not democracy in those countries that have it is determining the way forward. As I said 'they' are in fact 'us' elected by 'us'.

Don't worry - there is no ban on ICE vehicles, we will be able to drive our Mustangs for many years to come. It is just our kids that will transition, and their kids will only ever know EV based vehicles, powered by electricity from some source or another (probably nuclear fusion in 50 years time)

Sponsored