Uh Oh. Here comes the EV Challenger

[15GTBEN]

At the cost of weighing as much as an F150 and only being able to drive a few hours at a time.

If they can lighten them and give them unlimited range or figure out a way to make them recharge in a matter of minutes, ill buy one for sure, if they give me a 100,000 mile battery range guarantee with no loss of range during the first 100,000 miles.

I don't know about a 100000 miles range guarantee but all EV's seem to come with an 8 year 100000 mile battery warranty.

Sponsored

 

[v8hgt]

Put it this way, I've got 2 cars, my mustang gt and a 2003 volvo diesel that's dented, battered and worth nothing. I use the volvo as a commute car doing 100 miles a day as its very cheap to run. I use the mustang at weekends as a toy, and occasionally on sunny work days.
So you may think i would be the perfect target audience for an EV or battery muscle car that I could afford to run every day. No. why would i buy a ford/dodge/chevy if it weren't for the V8 engine? the build quality is terrible and the interior quality is abysmal. Far better buy something higher quality with a dull EV powertrain right for a similar price?

Having said this, my next car will be electric for sure. I just need to make the volvo last another 3 yrs until all major manufacturer lineups are pure EV, then i will trade it for a lease on a new volvo/bmw/mercedes/(any other brand with half decent interior build quality) generic EV SUV. I won't be selling my petrol powered V8 in a hurry as i don't think there will be anything available in my price range to replace it.

I suspect we are in the final couple of years of muscle/pony cars. In 5 yrs time they will all be commodity white goods designed to transport you from A to B in the most efficient, comfortable way with as little human interaction as possible.

 

[sdiver68]

Battery EV's are only a step towards FCV-EV's.

 

[N2O2HE]

Battery EV's are only a step towards FCV-EV's.

The issue is batteries are here now and will lead to the average consumer enjoying the ease of “refueling” at home for about a third of the cost of hydrogen, which will need to be refueled from a station in a similar matter to what we do now with ICE.

 

[Allentown]

Put it this way, I've got 2 cars, my mustang gt and a 2003 volvo diesel that's dented, battered and worth nothing. I use the volvo as a commute car doing 100 miles a day as its very cheap to run. I use the mustang at weekends as a toy, and occasionally on sunny work days.
So you may think i would be the perfect target audience for an EV or battery muscle car that I could afford to run every day. No. why would i buy a ford/dodge/chevy if it weren't for the V8 engine? the build quality is terrible and the interior quality is abysmal. Far better buy something higher quality with a dull EV powertrain right for a similar price?

Having said this, my next car will be electric for sure. I just need to make the volvo last another 3 yrs until all major manufacturer lineups are pure EV, then i will trade it for a lease on a new volvo/bmw/mercedes/(any other brand with half decent interior build quality) generic EV SUV. I won't be selling my petrol powered V8 in a hurry as i don't think there will be anything available in my price range to replace it.

I suspect we are in the final couple of years of muscle/pony cars. In 5 yrs time they will all be commodity white goods designed to transport you from A to B in the most efficient, comfortable way with as little human interaction as possible.

Naw.

ICE will remain an enthusiast offering.

Line up: EV mustang .EV sport w bigger battery.
GT . 500 horsepower hybrid. GT track. Halo model with ICE engine only for extreme use (because it's lighter). That will be good for another 15 years.

 

[Allentown]

The issue is batteries are here now and will lead to the average consumer enjoying the ease of “refueling” at home for about a third of the cost of hydrogen, which will need to be refueled from a station in a similar matter to what we do now with ICE.

It is not "convienent" if it takes more than 5 minutes to complete the process.

Hydrogen would allow a 5 minute refill, EV will not.

 

[draph]

My 2cents and anecdotal information...When Porsche had that press release about a 5-minute 62 mile range refill, I noticed a picture of some big white boxes in the background (thinking electrical power supply/transformer, etc. containers). I asked an electrical engineer what a power station at an "EV refueling station" would have to look like if there were 12 "pumps" capable of charging 350 miles of range in less than 5 minutes. His answer was, "something equivalent to the size of powering a city of about 6000 people." I humbly request if there are any EEs on this site that can dispute or clarify the kind of voltage/amps required and corresponding cabling/transformers etc. required to feed an EV station that can provide full range charging as fast as it takes to refuel an ICE, capable of refueling the same number of cars simultaneously as a gasoline refueling station.

My prediction is that future homesteads will have one EV commuter car and one ICE or hybrid "road trip vehicle" per household. That will drive the maximum market size for EVs for the next 2-3 decades unless there's breakthrough technology in electrical power transfer, OR the Government steps in and regulates it. If you want to get rid of ICE entirely, it will take regulated, standardized, replaceable batteries exchanged at "exchange stations" in a way it can be done in 5 minutes for consumers not to revolt over range anxiety....That's still a problematic solution, given an "exchange station" would have to be the size of a large warehouse on major interstate routes.

 

[Allentown]

My 2cents and anecdotal information...When Porsche had that press release about a 5-minute 62 mile range refill, I noticed a picture of some big white boxes in the background (thinking electrical power supply/transformer, etc. containers). I asked an electrical engineer what a power stations at an "EV refueling stations" would have to look like if there were 12 "pumps" capable of charging 350 miles of range in less than 5 minutes. His answer was, "something equivalent to the size of powering a city of about 6000 people." I humbly request if there are any EEs on this site that can dispute or clarify the kind of voltage/amps required and corresponding cabling/transformers etc. required to feed an EV station that can provide full range charging as fast as it takes to refuel an ICE.

My prediction is the future homesteads will have one EV commuter car and one ICE or hybrid "road trip vehicle" per household as the maximum market size for EVs for the next 2-3 decades unless there's breakthrough technology in electrical power transfer, OR the Government steps in and regulates it. If you want to get rid of ICE entirely, it will take regulated, standardized, replaceable batteries exchanged at "exchange stations" in a way it can be done in 5 minutes....That's still a problematic solution, given a "exchange station" will be the size of a large warehouse on major interstate routes.

I would be down to swap to one EV and one hybrid as long as the hybrid was both very light weight and had available power in line with modern muscle cars and could take the abuse.

Keep in mind where I live gas is relatively cheap while my power bill is relatively high.

You are gonna have some work to do to convince me that my electric bill increase is off set by my gas savings because I am not seeing that either .

 

[N2O2HE]

It is not "convienent" if it takes more than 5 minutes to complete the process.

Hydrogen would allow a 5 minute refill, EV will not.

I think it depends on a personal definition. I would find it much more convenient to plug my daily 50 mile commuter EV into the house when I get home in the evening than to make an additional stop at a filling station and pay 3x. If I were traveling further distances and away from home, then hydrogen would win out. I like both applications.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

can a mod ban this moron?

How about you refute him with facts. We have cities experiencing brownouts and blackouts. EVs plugged in by the 10s of millions will make it worse. We consume millions of barrels per day of motor fuel. How many megawatts is that going to take to replace. Do the math.

 

[zackmd1]

Hybrids are certainly the short term solution with the potential to be the best of both worlds. Instant torque with great top end power and range. I don't think EVs will really start taking over every area of vehicle production until a breakthrough and battery tech is achieved. (solid state batteries)

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

Ok, so some quick math.
The US uses 385,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day in 2015.
1 gallon of gasoline is the energy equivalent of 33.7 kilo watt hrs.
So, 33.7 x 385,000,000 is 13,008,200,000 kilo watt hrs per day in just gasoline. A coal fired plant is about 10% more efficient than a ICE, but that number didn't include diesel so lets call it a wash.
The US in 2014 used about 10,000,000 mega watt hrs per day, or 10,000,000,000 kilo watt hours.

So, to replace gasoline looks like we need about 130% more electricity generated to replace ICEs. Now this is extremely rough of course, and if I missed something please tell me where I screwed up. But this is about what I figured it would be. Not too many industries sitting around with 130% capacity to spare.Of course this is doing away with all ICE cars.

Also, Look carefully at the graph posted earlier about the percentage sources of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and renewable.
There won't be a bird left in the sky for all the windmills, or a desert left with sunlit sand.

 

[draph]

I'm old school pony car guy myself; so, saying goodbye to a V8 is *almost* as bad as saying goodbye to a manual transmission in my book - "almost", given you can get equivalent power via other methods, provided it can still be hooked up to an MT. The S550 could be my first and last Mustang based upon my tea leaves. Heck, I only arrived at the Mustang because my desire for rwd or awd MT sedan under $50K died with the Chevy SS sedan - the Mustang was the best compromise (loss of rear seat room for tech, comfort, ergo, V8, rwd and MT). If the next Mustang shares architectures with Explorer/Aviator, I think the risk is high 10AT only, turbo V6 as top engine, with marketing trying to offset loss of V8 and MT with AWD and a possible hybrid variant to offset turbo lag with instant torque from the electric motors. For my next car, if I can't have MT, my main thrust for sports or pony car dies; and I'll just go with a sporty CUV since the additional loss of driving enjoyment due to the CUV format barely moves my disappointment needle compared to loss of MT.

So, yes, the pony car market could very well be dead to me with the next generation Mustang. However, if Ford decides to keep the Coyote alive for another decade or more, modifies Explorer platform to offer AWD, V8, MT Mustang, I'll be the first in line at the beginning of the second year of production... ;-) BTW, given big 3 row 2020 Explorer is in the low to mid 4000 lb range, I'm less worried that architecture will cause the next Mustang to be portly (although AWD battery hybrid could wind up offsetting any gains from the lighter architecture).

 

[zackmd1]

Ok, so some quick math.
The US uses 385,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day in 2015.
1 gallon of gasoline is the energy equivalent of 33.7 kilo watt hrs.
So, 33.7 x 385,000,000 is 13,008,200,000 kilo watt hrs per day in just gasoline. A coal fired plant is about 10% more efficient than a ICE, but that number didn't include diesel so lets call it a wash.
The US in 2014 used about 10,000,000 mega watt hrs per day, or 10,000,000,000 kilo watt hours.

So, to replace gasoline looks like we need about 130% more electricity generated to replace ICEs. Now this is extremely rough of course, and if I missed something please tell me where I screwed up. But this is about what I figured it would be. Not too many industries sitting around with 130% capacity to spare.Of course this is doing away with all ICE cars.

Also, Look carefully at the graph posted earlier about the percentage sources of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and renewable.
There won't be a bird left in the sky for all the windmills, or a desert left with sunlit sand.

Thing to remember is that while those average numbers might be correct, it's a bit more complicated. For one, not everyone will be charging their vehicles at the exact same time so grid strain would be significantly lower then your numbers ssuggest. Local energy production (solar panels on homes) will help relieve strain as well. Then you can start getting into future clean energy (fusion for one). I doubt every vehicle on the road will be an EV as well. At least for the next half century.

 

[draph]

Ok, so some quick math.
The US uses 385,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day in 2015.
1 gallon of gasoline is the energy equivalent of 33.7 kilo watt hrs.
So, 33.7 x 385,000,000 is 13,008,200,000 kilo watt hrs per day in just gasoline. A coal fired plant is about 10% more efficient than a ICE, but that number didn't include diesel so lets call it a wash.
The US in 2014 used about 10,000,000 mega watt hrs per day, or 10,000,000,000 kilo watt hours.

So, to replace gasoline looks like we need about 130% more electricity generated to replace ICEs. Now this is extremely rough of course, and if I missed something please tell me where I screwed up. But this is about what I figured it would be. Not too many industries sitting around with 130% capacity to spare.Of course this is doing away with all ICE cars.

Also, Look carefully at the graph posted earlier about the percentage sources of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and renewable.
There won't be a bird left in the sky for all the windmills, or a desert left with sunlit sand.

In your "10% more efficient" assumption, did you take into account efficiency losses when fuel source is converted to electric power via generator, is stepped up for long distance transmission, stepped back down to regional distribution, and stepped down again for neighborhood transmission, not to mention power losses via resistance on the miles of power lines themselves; and then the efficiency loss to transfer the power into batteries, BEFORE you even turn on the electric car? One of the biggest facts being hidden from consumer is the higher efficiency of electric motors is true only at the source in the car, NOT from the plant where a fuel of some kind is burned to make electricity. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear seem to be the only "fuels" where there's argument to accept the total efficiency losses of centralized electric power generation transmitted to your car; unless the true argument for EVs is it is easier for the government to regulate pollution emissions at a small number of centralized electrical power plants that burn fossil fuels compared to millions of ICEs that are moving continuously.

BTW, I'm an engineer with an MBA. IMHO, Musk is a pioneer in marketing hype that is working quite well, supported by majority of media and at least 90% of one political party that WILL regulate EVs to BE the future if they get the political and regulatory power, despite whether the tech will ever make it to fruition to 100% replace ICE in our current mobile culture - those who like freedom of individual, independent long distance mobility will say goodbye to that, and welcome to Euro style mass rail transportation with EV ride sharing at each end...oh joy. Auto makers are caught in the middle; and they are wise to hedge their bets by developing EVs despite the technology shortcomings; and they are also wise to keep going with efficient ICE/hybrids if there's a peasant revolt that will NEVER let the government take away freedom of convenient, long distance, independent mobility affordable by "everyday Americans" (personally, I hate that condescending label by elitist politicians - I prefer "deplorable").

Back to our on-topic Mustang thread - EV Mustang ONLY as a variant, like EBoost, please. Keep V8 and keep lobbying to keep CAFE low enough so Mustang GT V8 can still be affordable in current production quantities. For my part, I'll keep voting for politicians not in bed with the EV industry and climate chicken littles who deny the ecology of photosynthesis to manage CO2 and the higher likelihood CO2 levels are a lagging, rather than leading, indicator of warming trend of a generations long cycle. (BTW, my current job involves working with meteorologists, too - the older they are, the more likely they argue that climate change is cyclical vs. steadily moving in one direction only, given they were living during the last cooling trend when "global cooling" was a thing to worry about).

Sponsored