You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[easyrider]

I guess this engine is available right now in the 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee

My grand daughter has the Jeep Cherokee with the big Hemi. It's a blast. The Huricane would be a blast in a Jeep Wrangler.

Bill

 

[easyrider]

Exactly. There's a number of people here who still cannot get over the stigma of “not invented here” and refuse to change, even when common sense tells the whole story. And then there are those who refuse to believe it's any better elsewhere because they won't wake up and smell the coffee. It's just amazing to me how the subjective factless beliefs get in the way of progress... Then again, we’re on the road back to the middle ages, so nothing really surprises me anymore.

It's just not in the best interest of American companies to allow a country owned business to compete with individual businesses. It's not that Chinese made ev's and charging systems are inherently bad. It's about Free Enterprise competing against State Owned Enterprise.

Bill

 

[buzglyd]

Currently in Austin. I downloaded the Robotaxi app. I plan on taking a driverless ride for some Texas bbq

 

[Ken555]

It's just not in the best interest of American companies to allow a country owned business to compete with individual businesses. It's not that Chinese made ev's and charging systems are inherently bad. It's about Free Enterprise competing against State Owned Enterprise.

Bill

The distinction between “Free Enterprise” and “State Owned Enterprise” isn’t as clean as you’re suggesting. When the U.S. government took a 60% ownership stake in GM during the 2009 bailout, that was a state-owned enterprise competing against private businesses, both foreign and domestic. The U.S. has also used tariffs, subsidies, and tax credits to protect its auto industry for decades. The real question isn’t whether governments support their industries (they all do), but whether consumers and markets benefit from competition regardless of its source. Opposing Chinese EVs on national security or trade fairness grounds is reasonable, but framing it as “free enterprise vs. state enterprise” ignores the fact that American automakers have been on the receiving end of massive government support too.

 

[Brett]

The distinction between “Free Enterprise” and “State Owned Enterprise” isn’t as clean as you’re suggesting. When the U.S. government took a 60% ownership stake in GM during the 2009 bailout, that was a state-owned enterprise competing against private businesses, both foreign and domestic. The U.S. has also used tariffs, subsidies, and tax credits to protect its auto industry for decades. The real question isn’t whether governments support their industries (they all do), but whether consumers and markets benefit from competition regardless of its source. Opposing Chinese EVs on national security or trade fairness grounds is reasonable, but framing it as “free enterprise vs. state enterprise” ignores the fact that American automakers have been on the receiving end of massive government support too.

You are correct comrade

.

.

 

[easyrider]

The distinction between “Free Enterprise” and “State Owned Enterprise” isn’t as clean as you’re suggesting. When the U.S. government took a 60% ownership stake in GM during the 2009 bailout, that was a state-owned enterprise competing against private businesses, both foreign and domestic. The U.S. has also used tariffs, subsidies, and tax credits to protect its auto industry for decades. The real question isn’t whether governments support their industries (they all do), but whether consumers and markets benefit from competition regardless of its source. Opposing Chinese EVs on national security or trade fairness grounds is reasonable, but framing it as “free enterprise vs. state enterprise” ignores the fact that American automakers have been on the receiving end of massive government support too.

I get your point but when accepting a government loan, a company still controls their company in a Free Enterprise scenario.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

I get your point but when accepting a government loan, a company still controls their company in a Free Enterprise scenario.

Bill

Respectfully, the 2009 GM bailout wasn't a loan in the traditional sense. The government took a 60.8% ownership stake in GM, fired the CEO, appointed board members, and dictated terms on executive pay and business strategy. That's not "accepting a loan," that's the government running the company. The Treasury didn't fully exit its GM position until 2013, and taxpayers lost roughly $11.2 billion on the deal. Chrysler went through a similar government-controlled restructuring. You can argue it was necessary and ultimately beneficial (many do) but calling it a "loan" while calling Chinese subsidies "state-owned enterprise" is applying two different standards to fundamentally similar interventions. Both are examples of governments deciding their auto industries are too important to fail and using public money to ensure they don't.

 

[easyrider]

Respectfully, the 2009 GM bailout wasn't a loan in the traditional sense. The government took a 60.8% ownership stake in GM, fired the CEO, appointed board members, and dictated terms on executive pay and business strategy. That's not "accepting a loan," that's the government running the company. The Treasury didn't fully exit its GM position until 2013, and taxpayers lost roughly $11.2 billion on the deal. Chrysler went through a similar government-controlled restructuring. You can argue it was necessary and ultimately beneficial (many do) but calling it a "loan" while calling Chinese subsidies "state-owned enterprise" is applying two different standards to fundamentally similar interventions. Both are examples of governments deciding their auto industries are too important to fail and using public money to ensure they don't.

Again, I do see the similarities but the GM bailout was a loan which was paid back ahead of schedule. If it were a State Owned Enterprise it would just be considered funding only, not a loan.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

Again, I do see the similarities but the GM bailout was a loan which was paid back ahead of schedule. If it were a State Owned Enterprise it would just be considered funding only, not a loan.

Bill

Bill, I appreciate the civil back and forth, but I have to correct something. The GM bailout was not “paid back ahead of schedule” in the way that phrase implies. What GM paid back early was a $6.7 billion portion that was structured as an actual loan. The much larger portion, roughly $50 billion, was an equity investment where the government literally owned the company. The government didn’t get “paid back” on that, it sold its shares on the open market over several years and ultimately took an $11.2 billion loss that taxpayers absorbed.

So the distinction you’re drawing actually supports my point. In a true loan, you get your money back with interest. The U.S. government lost $11.2 billion, had to fire the CEO, restructure the board, and manage the company through bankruptcy. That’s not lending, that’s what a state-owned enterprise looks like with an exit strategy.

The difference between the U.S. approach and China’s isn’t “loan vs. funding.” It’s that the U.S. did it reactively during a crisis and eventually sold its stake at a loss, while China does it proactively as long-term industrial strategy. Both are government intervention in the auto market. The mechanism differs, but the effect on competition is the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

Both are government intervention in the auto market. The mechanism differs, but the effect on competition is the same.

It's definitely similar.

Bill

 

[emeryjre]

Why do Chinese investments in businesses create new companies worth Billions of dollars

To bad the US government didn’t take an equity stake in Tesla

 

[easyrider]

Why do Chinese investments in businesses create new companies worth Billions of dollars

China doesn't have as much red tape to get things done.

Bill

 

[Brett]

.

.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/us/imperial-valley-salton-sea-lithium.html

 

[emeryjre]

Direct Lithium Extraction and Geothermal Power
The Salton Sea Agricultural Area has been devastated by reduced water allocations from the Colorado River
These projects bring hope for economic recovery in the area
The use of Direct Lithium Extraction to remove the dissolved Lithium from the Brine is the result of heavy investment in the chemical process
There are two other mega sites in the United States
One is the Great Salt Lake in Utah
The other is at the SmackOver Formation in Arkansas
There are several other target sites in the US that are available to develop if the demand for Lithium increases

 

[easyrider]

There is definitely more interest in ev's with gas prices up which means ev prices are up. Interest in gas guzzlers is down which means prices for big suv's and trucks are slightly down. My buddy managed a great deal on Ford F350 and my brother in law just bought a F250 fleet truck for a decent discount compared to a month ago. Both are gas fuel 4x4's.

Bill

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/02/evs-autos-energy-oil-iran-war-electric-transport-fossil-fuels.html

Key Points

• Analysts expect the fallout from the Iran war to spur demand for EVs, although a shift away from traditional internal combustion engine vehicles is expected to be gradual.
• Various car selling platforms have reported a sharp increase in consumer interest for EVs since the Middle East crisis began.
• It comes even as some auto giants reverse course on aggressive EV strategies.

 

[emeryjre]

The math of owning Electric medium size trucks is compelling
Especially with Diesel Price Surge

Electric Trucks Are Selling Like Hotcakes

The California-based electric truck startup Harbinger has opened up new opportunities for fleet electrification.

cleantechnica.com

 

[easyrider]

The math of owning Electric medium size trucks is compelling
Especially with Diesel Price Surge

Electric Trucks Are Selling Like Hotcakes

The California-based electric truck startup Harbinger has opened up new opportunities for fleet electrification.

cleantechnica.com

You can tell its fake news as Fed Ex doesn't buy trucks, lol. They lease them. Clean Technia is leftist propaganda, lol. Total bs.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

You can tell its fake news as Fed Ex doesn't buy trucks, lol. They lease them. Clean Technia is leftist propaganda, lol. Total bs.

Bill

Bill, FedEx placed a purchase order for 53 Harbinger electric trucks and co-led a $160M investment round in the company. Not leased, but purchased. Here's the PR Newswire release directly from Harbinger:

Harbinger Raises $160 Million in Series C Funding Co-Led by FedEx, Capricorn and THOR Industries; FedEx Places Order for Delivery Beginning in 2025

/PRNewswire/ -- Harbinger, a leading American-made medium-duty electric and hybrid vehicle manufacturer, today announced it has raised $160 million in a Series...

www.prnewswire.com

The fuel cost comparison in the article uses real numbers. You don't have to love the source to acknowledge the math (or the truth).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

Bill, FedEx placed a purchase order for 53 Harbinger electric trucks and co-led a $160M investment round in the company. Not leased, but purchased. Here's the PR Newswire release directly from Harbinger:

Harbinger Raises $160 Million in Series C Funding Co-Led by FedEx, Capricorn and THOR Industries; FedEx Places Order for Delivery Beginning in 2025

/PRNewswire/ -- Harbinger, a leading American-made medium-duty electric and hybrid vehicle manufacturer, today announced it has raised $160 million in a Series...

www.prnewswire.com

The fuel cost comparison in the article uses real numbers. You don't have to love the source to acknowledge the math (or the truth).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow, that is over $3,000,000 per truck. How is that a good deal when the average bread box delivery truck costs maybe $60,000 ? This doesn't make any financial sense to me.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

Wow, that is over $3,000,000 per truck. How is that a good deal when the average bread box delivery truck costs maybe $60,000 ? This doesn't make any financial sense to me.

Bill

Bill, you're confusing a venture capital investment with a truck purchase. The $160M was a Series C funding round. FedEx, Capricorn, and THOR Industries invested that money in Harbinger as a company. The 53-truck order was a separate deal. The actual chassis starts at $85K before incentives.

This is a pattern. You called the article fake news because "FedEx doesn't buy trucks", yet they do. Now you're dividing an investment round by a truck count and presenting it as a per-unit cost. Both claims took about 30 seconds to fact-check. I'd encourage you to do that homework before posting conclusions as though they're established facts. You owe it to yourself as much as to the forum. If you're not checking, how many of your own firmly held beliefs are built on the same kind of bad math?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

Bill, you're confusing a venture capital investment with a truck purchase. The $160M was a Series C funding round. FedEx, Capricorn, and THOR Industries invested that money in Harbinger as a company. The 53-truck order was a separate deal. The actual chassis starts at $85K before incentives.

This is a pattern. You called the article fake news because "FedEx doesn't buy trucks", yet they do. Now you're dividing an investment round by a truck count and presenting it as a per-unit cost. Both claims took about 30 seconds to fact-check. I'd encourage you to do that homework before posting conclusions as though they're established facts. You owe it to yourself as much as to the forum. If you're not checking, how many of your own firmly held beliefs are built on the same kind of bad math?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I saw nothing in the article you posted that is there is a $85,000 per unit price tag on each truck. The way your posted article reads is $160 million for 53 trucks. Your post doesn't actually clarify the difference between the price per truck and the investment purpose.

Perhaps a bit more information should have been included with the article and your post, imo.

I will take your word that each Harbringer truck has a starting price tag of around $85,000 minus the incentives which are pretty good using the Inflation Reduction Act. The problem may be the Inflation Reduction Act incentive for the 45 w commercial clean truck was repealed making incentives a State Incentive. I'm just guessing that California has some huge incentives in place that ultimately are paid through regular taxation for an unproven product with no long term track record. To me it looks like a way to divert funds using incentives than a workable plan.

Here is the scenario I think will play out. Fed Ex gets 53 Harbringer trucks that they get incentives and are able write off. They all fail for various reasons but mostly because of range and build problems. The tax payer gets stuck with the costs.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

I saw nothing in the article you posted that is there is a $85,000 per unit price tag on each truck. The way your posted article reads is $160 million for 53 trucks. Your post doesn't actually clarify the difference between the price per truck and the investment purpose.

Perhaps a bit more information should have been included with the article and your post, imo.

I will take your word that each Harbringer truck has a starting price tag of around $85,000 minus the incentives which are pretty good using the Inflation Reduction Act. The problem may be the Inflation Reduction Act incentive for the 45 w commercial clean truck was repealed making incentives a State Incentive. I'm just guessing that California has some huge incentives in place that ultimately are paid through regular taxation for an unproven product with no long term track record. To me it looks like a way to divert funds using incentives than a workable plan.

Here is the scenario I think will play out. Fed Ex gets 53 Harbringer trucks that they get incentives and are able write off. They all fail for various reasons but mostly because of range and build problems. The tax payer gets stuck with the costs.

Bill

Bill, a few things.

You're right that the federal 45W commercial clean vehicle credit was repealed for vehicles acquired after September 30, 2025. That's a fair point. California's HVIP program still offers state-level vouchers (up to $420K per vehicle depending on class), so incentives haven't disappeared entirely, but the federal landscape has changed.

As for the article not spelling out every detail of the deal: that's not the article's job. It's a news piece, not a prospectus. When I saw the FedEx/Harbinger connection, I spent a few minutes looking up the press release, Harbinger's pricing, and the structure of the deal. That's how I knew the $160M was an investment round and that the chassis starts at $85K. It took a minute or two at most.

That's really my point here, Bill. You read the article, jumped to "$3M per truck," and posted it as though it were fact. Before that, you called it fake news because "FedEx doesn't buy trucks." Both conclusions fell apart with minimal research. And this isn't new. You have a habit of posting confident takes that turn out to be based on assumptions rather than facts. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of a source, but skepticism means doing the homework, not just dismissing things that don't fit what you already believe.

Your scenario about all 53 trucks failing is speculation, not analysis. Harbinger's trucks carry a 10-year battery and drivetrain warranty and are tested to 450,000 miles. Could they have problems? Sure, any new product could. But predicting total failure with no evidence isn't skepticism. It's wishful thinking.

Do the research first. Then draw conclusions. Not the other way around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

Bill, a few things.

You're right that the federal 45W commercial clean vehicle credit was repealed for vehicles acquired after September 30, 2025. That's a fair point. California's HVIP program still offers state-level vouchers (up to $420K per vehicle depending on class), so incentives haven't disappeared entirely, but the federal landscape has changed.

As for the article not spelling out every detail of the deal: that's not the article's job. It's a news piece, not a prospectus. When I saw the FedEx/Harbinger connection, I spent a few minutes looking up the press release, Harbinger's pricing, and the structure of the deal. That's how I knew the $160M was an investment round and that the chassis starts at $85K. It took a minute or two at most.

That's really my point here, Bill. You read the article, jumped to "$3M per truck," and posted it as though it were fact. Before that, you called it fake news because "FedEx doesn't buy trucks." Both conclusions fell apart with minimal research. And this isn't new. You have a habit of posting confident takes that turn out to be based on assumptions rather than facts. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of a source, but skepticism means doing the homework, not just dismissing things that don't fit what you already believe.

Your scenario about all 53 trucks failing is speculation, not analysis. Harbinger's trucks carry a 10-year battery and drivetrain warranty and are tested to 450,000 miles. Could they have problems? Sure, any new product could. But predicting total failure with no evidence isn't skepticism. It's wishful thinking.

Do the research first. Then draw conclusions. Not the other way around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Perhaps the original post with the article by Clean Technica should have been an article from an unbiased publication. Perhaps you should have added links to support your post as well. Using the article as a stand alone reference it does read the way it reads. I admit I didn't go past the original article but why should I when I really don't care.

My speculation is based off ev science. If there were a way that these ev trucks could replace diesel truck reliability the diesel truck would have been eliminated through market forces. Currently we are seeing ev trucks of all kinds leaving the market.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

Perhaps the original post with the article by Clean Technica should have been an article from an unbiased publication. Perhaps you should have added links to support your post as well. Using the article as a stand alone reference it does read the way it reads. I admit I didn't go past the original article but why should I when I really don't care.

My speculation is based off ev science. If there were a way that these ev trucks could replace diesel truck reliability the diesel truck would have been eliminated through market forces. Currently we are seeing ev trucks of all kinds leaving the market.

Bill

Bill, you just wrote "I admit I didn't go past the original article but why should I when I really don't care." That's exactly the problem. You cared enough to call it fake news, cared enough to post that FedEx doesn't buy trucks, cared enough to claim $3M per truck, but didn't care enough to spend five minutes checking whether any of that was true. That's not skepticism, it's just shooting from the hip.

The original poster shared a CleanTechnica article. I didn't write it, and I don't need to provide an "unbiased" alternative source to point out that your specific claims were wrong. And the PR Newswire link I posted clearly separates the $160M investment from the truck order in its very headline: "Harbinger Raises $160 Million in Series C Funding Co-Led by FedEx, Capricorn and THOR Industries; FedEx Places Order for Delivery Beginning in 2025." Investment on one side of the semicolon, truck order on the other. If that was confusing, I'd suggest reading it again more carefully.

As for "EV trucks of all kinds leaving the market," that's another conclusion that doesn't survive contact with the data. Yes, GM killed BrightDrop after selling under 5,000 vans, and Ford's E-Transit sales have been soft. But the global electric truck market is projected to grow from roughly $5-6 billion in 2025 to $30+ billion by the early 2030s. Harbinger alone sold 733 trucks in 2025 (its first full year of production) and has logged approximately $500 million in orders. Volvo, Scania, Daimler, and BYD are all actively expanding their electric truck lineups. Some players are exiting; the market itself is growing.

You're welcome to be skeptical about EV trucks. But "I don't care enough to research" and "my speculation is based off EV science" are contradictory positions. Either do the homework or hold the opinion more loosely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

Bill, you just wrote "I admit I didn't go past the original article but why should I when I really don't care." That's exactly the problem. You cared enough to call it fake news, cared enough to post that FedEx doesn't buy trucks, cared enough to claim $3M per truck, but didn't care enough to spend five minutes checking whether any of that was true. That's not skepticism, it's just shooting from the hip.

I should remind you that you did exactly the same until you decided to make a point which may be the only reason you care. Thats what it looks like from here anyways.

Yes, it is my opinion Harbringer ev trucks will fail and this opinion is based on all of the ev failures to date. Unlike a regular diesel truck, an ev truck has too many simple things that can go wrong due to the complexities of electric circuitry. I actually hope they can make something out of this but it is doubtful they will, imo. What they will create for sure is a tax bill for tax payers, tax shelters for billionaires and funds for special interest. I guess this opinion is more jaded than skeptical, lol.

Bill