[eugenebmw]

The harsh realities of electric vehicles in Canada https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...cles-in-canada

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Sound like getting an EV helps a taxpayer recoup some money.

Cool aid in the quantities you have been consuming lately can be hazardous to your health.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

The harsh realities of electric vehicles in Canada

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...cles-in-canada

Broken link.

[Car-Addicted]

Tesla With Homemade Solar Array Never Needs to Charge Again

I'm left speech less.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Tesla With Homemade Solar Array Never Needs to Charge Again

I'm left speech less.

Nice aero also

[M5Rick]

More rain on EV parade.

Unreliability, depreciation, unsustainable repair costs, range worry and overall more carbon made than gas cars in build.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Nice aero also

Loses 75 miles of range at speeds over 20 MPH...

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Cool aid in the quantities you have been consuming lately can be hazardous to your health.

We all have our foibles.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Loses 75 miles of range at speeds over 20 MPH...

...and he loses a proper roof rack, he's mugged himself

[Car-Addicted]

Spring time in Chicago.

[eugenebmw]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Broken link.

You know what, I think Canada doesn't let me to post this post outside Canada I cut and paste the whole doc. here instead.

When it comes to electric vehicles (EVs), the Trudeau government and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault are putting the policy cart before the technology horse.

If last week’s extreme cold temperatures over most of the country taught us anything, it’s that EVs just aren’t practical (yet) for a country this big and this cold.

The federal Liberals may be willing to risk hundreds of billions of your tax dollars and mine for manufacturing subsidies, purchase subsidies and EV infrastructure to try to force a market for electrics into existence, but Canadians are just not ready to get rid of their internal combustion engines (ICEs). And with good reason.

I heard from a reader in northern Manitoba. He has a Ford Lightning (the fully electric version of the F-150 pickup). When the temperature fell to -40C last week, his truck’s range dropped by half after driving it just 18 kms. He was forced to abandon his work-related trip so he could return home before the charge ran out and he found himself stranded quite literally in the middle of nowhere without heat in the cab.

Another reader, this one from Edmonton, found that not only was his range severely reduced by the cold, but charging time was doubled. His wait at a public fast-charger was two hours instead of one because he had to keep the heat on in his Tesla.

Many charging stations across the country have also been reported to stop working in the extreme cold.
Since this is a country that experiences extreme cold (below -25C) most winters, that makes an EV an unacceptable risk, or at the very least a horrible inconvenience.
Also this week, the highly respected testing magazine, Consumer Reports, said that when temperatures are only as cold as +7C, EVs lose about 25% of their range compared to temperatures of +15C and a third when compared to temps of +25C.
Ranges, of course, are much further diminished when outside temperatures fall below -20C.

Additionally, Consumer Reports (CR) found that “short trips in the cold with frequent stops and the need to reheat the cabin after a parking pause saps 50% of the range.” That means EVs may be impractical in Canada even for urban commuters or suburban families.

Late last year, CR also concluded EVs are 73% less reliable than gasoline vehicles. As well, they were more expensive to maintain and repair. And when the costs of electricity and home chargers are included, EVs are at least as expensive as gasoline vehicles to refuel.

That puts the lie to Guilbeault’s claim (made in December when announcing his mandate that all new vehicles be EVs by 2035) that while EVs are more expensive to buy, once consumers drive them off the lot, they become much more affordable than gasoline or diesel vehicles.

Not only are EVs more expensive to buy and maintain, because of their weight, they chew through tires about 40% faster. They are more expensive to insure because they cost so much more to repair if they are involved in an accident. They depreciate faster than ICEs. And their batteries lose up to half of their life in four or five years, even if they are fully charged.
All of this explains why car-rental giant, Hertz, announced earlier this month that it was selling its EV fleet – 20,000 cars. They are just too expensive.

Electric vehicles may not be that good for the environment, either.
Many components are, of course, manufactured in China (or by Chinese companies operating elsewhere) using electricity from coal-fired power plants. And this week, Blacklock’s Reporter revealed the federal Fisheries department is reviewing Northvolt, the Swedish battery maker building a heavily-subsidized plant in Quebec, for potential harm to fisheries, wetlands and streams.

The Liberals’ EV mandate is a very, very expensive farce that will likely produce few, if any, environmental benefits.

[M5Rick]

[murderspice]

There it is…

[gonzo]

^
Common sense?
Sorely missed.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by gonzo

^
Common sense?
Sorely missed.

Common sense is sadly not too common.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

You know what, I think Canada doesn't let me to post this post outside Canada I cut and paste the whole doc. here instead.

When it comes to electric vehicles (EVs), the Trudeau government and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault are putting the policy cart before the technology horse.

If last week’s extreme cold temperatures over most of the country taught us anything, it’s that EVs just aren’t practical (yet) for a country this big and this cold.

The federal Liberals may be willing to risk hundreds of billions of your tax dollars and mine for manufacturing subsidies, purchase subsidies and EV infrastructure to try to force a market for electrics into existence, but Canadians are just not ready to get rid of their internal combustion engines (ICEs). And with good reason.

I heard from a reader in northern Manitoba. He has a Ford Lightning (the fully electric version of the F-150 pickup). When the temperature fell to -40C last week, his truck’s range dropped by half after driving it just 18 kms. He was forced to abandon his work-related trip so he could return home before the charge ran out and he found himself stranded quite literally in the middle of nowhere without heat in the cab.

Another reader, this one from Edmonton, found that not only was his range severely reduced by the cold, but charging time was doubled. His wait at a public fast-charger was two hours instead of one because he had to keep the heat on in his Tesla.

Many charging stations across the country have also been reported to stop working in the extreme cold.
Since this is a country that experiences extreme cold (below -25C) most winters, that makes an EV an unacceptable risk, or at the very least a horrible inconvenience.
Also this week, the highly respected testing magazine, Consumer Reports, said that when temperatures are only as cold as +7C, EVs lose about 25% of their range compared to temperatures of +15C and a third when compared to temps of +25C.
Ranges, of course, are much further diminished when outside temperatures fall below -20C.

Additionally, Consumer Reports (CR) found that “short trips in the cold with frequent stops and the need to reheat the cabin after a parking pause saps 50% of the range.” That means EVs may be impractical in Canada even for urban commuters or suburban families.

Late last year, CR also concluded EVs are 73% less reliable than gasoline vehicles. As well, they were more expensive to maintain and repair. And when the costs of electricity and home chargers are included, EVs are at least as expensive as gasoline vehicles to refuel.

That puts the lie to Guilbeault’s claim (made in December when announcing his mandate that all new vehicles be EVs by 2035) that while EVs are more expensive to buy, once consumers drive them off the lot, they become much more affordable than gasoline or diesel vehicles.

Not only are EVs more expensive to buy and maintain, because of their weight, they chew through tires about 40% faster. They are more expensive to insure because they cost so much more to repair if they are involved in an accident. They depreciate faster than ICEs. And their batteries lose up to half of their life in four or five years, even if they are fully charged.
All of this explains why car-rental giant, Hertz, announced earlier this month that it was selling its EV fleet – 20,000 cars. They are just too expensive.

Electric vehicles may not be that good for the environment, either.
Many components are, of course, manufactured in China (or by Chinese companies operating elsewhere) using electricity from coal-fired power plants. And this week, Blacklock’s Reporter revealed the federal Fisheries department is reviewing Northvolt, the Swedish battery maker building a heavily-subsidized plant in Quebec, for potential harm to fisheries, wetlands and streams.

The Liberals’ EV mandate is a very, very expensive farce that will likely produce few, if any, environmental benefits.

There's so much flat out wrong in this article and I am bearish about true EV's (not hybrids).

Batteries simply DO NOT lose half their life in 4 to 5 years. The Sun is a rag of the highest order.

In Canada the EV future is extremely clear based on the government's own legislation. It will be hybrids (PHEV's). The legislation regards an EV as any vehicle that can run on a battery alone, no requirement for how long or how far. They don't explicitly promote this, they just use the term EV which most people take as a BEV but the asterixes clearly allow for PHEV's.

I've been saying for 5 years I think we hit 30% market share then we hit a wall and hybrids take over.

So my question is, what are the definitions in the USA at a federal level and b) is it managed at federal level in the USA or as per usual you manage to confuse things and have every tin pot city council or state make up their own rules? Regardless, what is the definition for compliance in 2035 or whatever the US target is?

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

And the cars come with free bomb, 100% free and very effective to destroy anything within 20 feet.

Dude i didn't check the blast off option on my ix

[eugenebmw]

Originally Posted by infinitekidM2C

Dude i didn't check the blast off option on my ix

It is build in and free

[eugenebmw]

Feedback from a Taycan EV user


The long-delayed answer is I bought a new Taycan and nearly instantly regretted it. I know some people like the EV experience but after the first week initial excitement wears off, it's just an appliance.

Cons:
- Bad range (I even had the expensive extended battery)
- Heavy and you can feel it
- Horrible charging network (+ bad experiences)
- Tons of software issues, at one point Porsche had my car in service for 3 weeks to do a software update... an UPDATE. Also had random issues like my infotainment screen going black for the whole drive.
- Values and general interest in the car has tanked
- Doors are too narrow for a big car, can easily hit your head getting in
- Zero excitement (even with the goofy spaceship noises turned on)

Pros:
- Quiet / comfortable once inside
- I received a tax credit

It lasted about 5 months in my garage and thankfully I got out of it before the market fell out. The car was still on the lot about 6 months later when I checked the vin randomly and they were trying to sell it for $10k less than they gave me on trade-in.

I should have just gone with a G80, however allocations were tough at the time and that's what drove me to look elsewhere to begin with. I sold it for a CT4V Blackwing manual and it was fun until I got a call from Porsche with a Carrera T allocation (manual of course) so that had to go and I'm driving that until I get an allocation for a GT3 Touring

If I would have gone G80, I could have saved myself some coin and grief.

I would stay far away from Taycan and any EV right now, they are like catching a falling knife. My wife wants out of her Mach E GT Performance immediately too. The market is sufficiently saturated with EV's for the demand and production can't stop so this freefall will continue (coupled with the fact they are overpriced and interest rates are high).

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

There's so much flat out wrong in this article and I am bearish about true EV's (not hybrids).

Batteries simply DO NOT lose half their life in 4 to 5 years. The Sun is a rag of the highest order.

In Canada the EV future is extremely clear based on the government's own legislation. It will be hybrids (PHEV's). The legislation regards an EV as any vehicle that can run on a battery alone, no requirement for how long or how far. They don't explicitly promote this, they just use the term EV which most people take as a BEV but the asterixes clearly allow for PHEV's.

I've been saying for 5 years I think we hit 30% market share then we hit a wall and hybrids take over.

So my question is, what are the definitions in the USA at a federal level and b) is it managed at federal level in the USA or as per usual you manage to confuse things and have every tin pot city council or state make up their own rules? Regardless, what is the definition for compliance in 2035 or whatever the US target is?

The problem with the US is the California Air Resources Board (CARB - cute backronym) pretty much dictates automotive-generated emissions regulations. When the Federal US Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970 it had a loophole for California to regulate its own emissions requirements (read that as emissions restrictions). That loophole led to California dictating EV implementation via the definition of Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV). Because California has such a large economy (as a percentage of the total US economy) mandating emission standards and certain types of vehicles JUST for California places those demands on Maufacturers to meet California regs regardless of the Federal emission regulations. To add to California, the Clean Air Act supposedly allows any other US state to legally "adopt" California emissions standards. As of 2024, 16 other states (and Washinton DC) require vehicles to meet California emissions standards. Meaning 40% of the US follows California emissions standards

Read California's emissions mission statement and you'll quickly understand that California believes it is (and believes it should be) the emissions standards leadership for the US and the entire world. Here's what California current emissions law says (known as Advanced Clean Vehicle II):

"Plug-in hybrid, full battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles count toward an automaker’s requirement. PHEVs must have an all-electric range of at least 50 miles under real-world driving conditions. In addition, automakers will be allowed to meet no more than 20% of their overall ZEV requirement with PHEVs."

So while everyone thinks gas-powered PHEV will be the get-around to BEV sales, it's maxed out at 20% (in 40% of the US). The California ZEV ACCII requirements phase in starting in 2026 and are 100% in place by 2035. So while the EV advocates in this thread say the mandate doesn't start until 2035, they are misinformed. The no ICEV mandate in the California regs ENDS in 2035 and it STARTS in 2026. If one doesn't think manufacturers aren't going to build to regs in 40% of the US, then he doesn't have very good business acumen.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

"Plug-in hybrid, full battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles count toward an automaker’s requirement. PHEVs must have an all-electric range of at least 50 miles under real-world driving conditions. In addition, automakers will be allowed to meet no more than 20% of their overall ZEV requirement with PHEVs."

So while everyone thinks gas-powered PHEV will be the get-around to BEV sales, it's maxed out at 20% (in 40% of the US). The California ZEV ACCII requirements phase in starting in 2026 and are 100% in place by 2035. So while the EV advocates in this thread say the mandate doesn't start until 2035, they are misinformed. The no ICEV mandate in the California regs ENDS in 2035 and it STARTS in 2026. If one doesn't think manufacturers aren't going to build to regs in 40% of the US, then he doesn't have very good business acumen.

Oooooooof so the US is different to Canada. So you're in a real conundrum because to start selling 80% BEV's in 2035 the manufacturers need to move NOW, not tomorrow, not Thursday... NOW, to have product ready.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

There's so much flat out wrong in this article and I am bearish about true EV's (not hybrids).

For a few folks maybe but as a replacement for ICE you have to overdose on some flavor of EV cool aid. I'm saving the planet, they are fast, I like cool gadgets, they are cheaper to use, the check is in the mail and I promise I won't .... And other famous lies.

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Batteries simply DO NOT lose half their life in 4 to 5 years. The Sun is a rag of the highest order.

The warranty from many EV manufactures state a guarantee of 8 years or 100,000 miles so maybe not as outrageous claim as you make out.
https://www.caranddriver.com/researc...-battery-life/

Originally Posted by Alfisti

In Canada the EV future is extremely clear based on the government's own legislation. It will be hybrids (PHEV's). The legislation regards an EV as any vehicle that can run on a battery alone, no requirement for how long or how far. They don't explicitly promote this, they just use the term EV which most people take as a BEV but the asterixes clearly allow for PHEV's.

Where does this come from? There is no a free market approach being pushed by governments but one of "you will comply" because we will command that you can only buy EV's on the market. They may be forced by reality to fall back on hybrids but I don't see that in current legislation from Canada or US. This on top of the fact that current Hybrids are crap excuses for technology. With a couple exceptions they are nothing more that EV's with ICE back up.

Originally Posted by Alfisti

I've been saying for 5 years I think we hit 30% market share then we hit a wall and hybrids take over.

The elephant in the room here is reliability. There is a lot of rosy fluff on Hybrids but a look at the "50E" forum shows some significant issues with the complicated combination of EV and ICE. A hard look at value and cost of ownership is not looking good for hybrids
https://getjerry.com/electric-vehicl...s-gas-vehicles

Originally Posted by Alfisti

So my question is, what are the definitions in the USA at a federal level and b) is it managed at federal level in the USA or as per usual you manage to confuse things and have every tin pot city council or state make up their own rules? Regardless, what is the definition for compliance in 2035 or whatever the US target is?

Got no idea where you are headed here but I doubt I agree?