You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[Big Matt]

I'm 76, just bought a gas powered pickup. It'll probably last 20 years. I couldn't give a rat's behind what you people drive 20 years from now, I don't care what gender you want to be associated with, I don't care what wars you think are necessary, I don't care if you ponder if peanut butter is healthy or not. I'm retired and I'm going to enjoy the next 20 no matter what issue you think is going to save the planet from destruction.

Summer is coming, it's nearly gin and tonic season. How to make a proper one is something to ponder and discuss.

There is one thing that's really wrong about this post. Gin and Tonic season starts in the Spring. I already have had a few good ones and its not even April.

 

[Eggrollcreative]

One thing’s for sure, we’re being lied to. The more intelligent you are the greater contortions you put your brain through before you realize it doesn’t add up. By that time it’s too late. The electric horses are out of the barn.

 

[pedro47]

I'm 76, just bought a gas powered pickup. It'll probably last 20 years. I couldn't give a rat's behind what you people drive 20 years from now, I don't care what gender you want to be associated with, I don't care what wars you think are necessary, I don't care if you ponder if peanut butter is healthy or not. I'm retired and I'm going to enjoy the next 20 no matter what issue you think is going to save the planet from destruction.

Summer is coming, it's nearly gin and tonic season. How to make a proper one is something to ponder and discuss.

I liked your words of wisdom. LOL
It must be our generation way of thinking about summer and the beginning of the gin and tonic season(with a slice of lemon and lime).

 

[Brett]

One thing’s for sure, we’re being lied to. The more intelligent you are the greater contortions you put your brain through before you realize it doesn’t add up. By that time it’s too late. The electric horses are out of the barn.

It's not too late for "electric horses"
When the oil wells run dry perhaps the 'hydrogen' horses will escape the barn.

 

[Carolinian]

What is important is that people have a choice, not a cramdown like the EU trying to ban regular cars after 2035. Fortunately, Poland and Italy are fighting that.

An electricity grid based on intermittent and expensive wind and solar will not power the rest of civilization, much less a growth in the number of EV's.

Most cars made today are too complex which makes them more expensive to buy and more expensive to repair.

 

[DrQ]

What is important is that people have a choice, not a cramdown like the EU trying to ban regular cars after 2035. Fortunately, Poland and Italy are fighting that.

An electricity grid based on intermittent and expensive wind and solar will not power the rest of civilization, much less a growth in the number of EV's.

Most cars made today are too complex which makes them more expensive to buy and more expensive to repair.

Bullshot. The lesson to be learned is from Cuba. After the supply of repair parts for 1950's cars was cut off, the cars on the island were modified to keep running with whatever it took.

While a car in Cuba may look like a great 1958 Corvette, underneath, it is a nightmare.

With globalization, there will be a market for parts to keep ICE cars running as long as there is gasoline.

 

[Passepartout]

Most cars made today are too complex which makes them more expensive to buy and more expensive to repair.

While also MUCH safer and longer lasting. 'Back in the day' when a car got 100K miles on the odometer, it was pretty much done for. When the family jalopy got up to the mid-to high 60K's it was relegated to 'second car' status. Now, the vast majority of cars last well into a quarter-million mile range without major repairs to drivetrain elements. Airbags, crumple zones, antilock brakes and traction control, back-up cameras, and more nimble handling make newer cars measurably safer for all the occupants.

I take issue with the postulate that newer cars are more expensive to repair. Time was that auto dealers had gigantic repair shops that generated significant sums to the dealership. Now, the showrooms and sales lots seem to take up a far greater percentage of the car dealers' real estate.

 

[HitchHiker71]

What is important is that people have a choice, not a cramdown like the EU trying to ban regular cars after 2035. Fortunately, Poland and Italy are fighting that.

An electricity grid based on intermittent and expensive wind and solar will not power the rest of civilization, much less a growth in the number of EV's.

Most cars made today are too complex which makes them more expensive to buy and more expensive to repair.

The EU is already backing down from a full ban, now discussing clean fuel ICE alternatives past 2035.

According to recent analysis, to completely replace all fossil fuels with renewables, including wind and solar, would require 0.2% of land surface for the infrastructure- including 240TwH of storage arrays. Anyone who says this isn’t achievable, might want to realize that the existing fossil fuel infrastructure already consumes more than that land surface today. This is absolutely feasible, we simply don’t want to believe the science involved and make excuses for forward progress instead, mostly due to entrenched interests that don’t want the fossil fuel industry to subside over time.

EVs are vastly simpler to build and maintain than ICE vehicles and have far fewer moving parts that will break down over time. An EV motor has about 20 moving parts, and ICE engine has on average 2000 moving parts in comparison.

 

[PigsDad]

... we simply don’t want to believe the science involved and make excuses for forward progress instead, mostly due to entrenched interests that don’t want the fossil fuel industry to subside over time.

Perfectly stated. Plus, it's amazingly easy to pick out those people with those entrenched mindsets here on TUG.

What baffles me is how those ideas and mindsets became politicized, especially here in the US. It would be like if, in the 90's, one political party was all for the cell phone adoption and use, and the other party wanted to keep on using land lines. Such a stupid thing to be politicized.

Kurt

 

[easyrider]

Perfectly stated. Plus, it's amazingly easy to pick out those people with those entrenched mindsets here on TUG.

What baffles me is how those ideas and mindsets became politicized, especially here in the US. It would be like if, in the 90's, one political party was all for the cell phone adoption and use, and the other party wanted to keep on using land lines. Such a stupid thing to be politicized.

Kurt

I don't think ev issues are politicized for the most part. The problem is most people don't have the time or money to bother with ev's. It's going to take a good 30 years for the change over from ice to ev and with the way things go regarding tech, it might even go a different way.

Bill

 

[PigsDad]

I don't think ev issues are politicized for the most part. The problem is most people don't have the time or money to bother with ev's. It's going to take a good 30 years for the change over from ice to ev and with the way things go regarding tech, it might even go a different way.

I absolutely agree with you that it is going to take many years before ICE vehicles are no longer an option for most car buyers. The cost has to come down for those who can only afford entry-level cars, battery life needs to improve, infrastructure needs to be enhanced, etc. Unfortunately, I do see many of those issues being politicized.

Kurt

 

[Carolinian]

Bullshot. The lesson to be learned is from Cuba. After the supply of repair parts for 1950's cars was cut off, the cars on the island were modified to keep running with whatever it took.

While a car in Cuba may look like a great 1958 Corvette, underneath, it is a nightmare.

With globalization, there will be a market for parts to keep ICE cars running as long as there is gasoline.

Those cars in Cuba had much simpler mechanicals, so that could be done. Not so the cars of today.

 

[Carolinian]

While also MUCH safer and longer lasting. 'Back in the day' when a car got 100K miles on the odometer, it was pretty much done for. When the family jalopy got up to the mid-to high 60K's it was relegated to 'second car' status. Now, the vast majority of cars last well into a quarter-million mile range without major repairs to drivetrain elements. Airbags, crumple zones, antilock brakes and traction control, back-up cameras, and more nimble handling make newer cars measurably safer for all the occupants.

I take issue with the postulate that newer cars are more expensive to repair. Time was that auto dealers had gigantic repair shops that generated significant sums to the dealership. Now, the showrooms and sales lots seem to take up a far greater percentage of the car dealers' real estate.

The plastic and thinner metal on newer cars actually make them more dangerous. As to being long lasting, rebuidling an entire engine of an older car was cheaper than just replacing a computer in a newer one. The world record for the car with most documented miles on it is a 1960s Volvo P1800, a car with an Italian-designed, British built body and Swedish drive train. If you remember the old TV spy series "The Saint", the Volvo P1800 was the car that Roger Moore drove in those shows that looked like a British sports car.

One of the manufacturer / dealer gambits on recent cars is often not selling the specific part that has gone bad, but making you buy a whole "assembly" including related things that aren't broken, at a much higher cost. With older cars, you can buy just the part that is broken in most cases, which is a lot cheaper.

A good example of the difference in repair costs involves our 1990s Ford F150 pickup that we use for those occaisions we have things we have to carry but is driven infrequently and my much more recent Ford Escape SUV. The pickup has a much simpler in-line engine while the SUV is frontwheel drive with complex electronics. We had to replace the entire engine on the pickup with a remanufactured engine and had to replace the computer on the SUV. Replacing just the stinking computer on the SUV cost more than replacing the entire engine on the pickup.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

I have a list of things to consider with a car - let's do a comparison

#1 - Initial cost - average car. - Favors ICE card
#2 - On going maintenance - Favors Electric Car.
#3 - Fuel cost - favors Electric, but that can vary depending on location.
#4 - Fueling time - Favors ICE car.
#5 - Maximum range - Favors ICE car.
#6 - Acceleration - Favors electric car.
#7 - Support infrastructure - Favors ICE car.
#8 - Safety - favors ICE car (battery fire risks in electric)
#9 - Resale - favors ICE car.
#10 - Environmental impact - indeterminate (each has serious environmental costs, but each one's cost is completely different.)

 

[Passepartout]

The plastic and thinner metal on newer cars actually make them more dangerous. As to being long lasting, rebuidling an entire engine of an older car was cheaper than just replacing a computer in a newer one. The world record for the car with most documented miles on it is a 1960s Volvo P1800, a car with an Italian-designed, British built body and Swedish drive train. If you ever saw the old TV spy series "The Saint", the Volvo P1800 was the car that Roger Moore drove in those shows.

Yes, ol' Irv clocked over 3 million miles on his P1800, but even he freely admits that he spent a fortune on gas, oil, belts, and an unknown amount of time maintaining it. None of those things are required for an EV. https://nypost.com/2014/12/29/the-record-breaking-roadster-with-3-million-miles/ Need I say, this is hardly typical.

 

[vacationtime1]

The plastic and thinner metal on newer cars actually make them more dangerous. As to being long lasting, rebuidling an entire engine of an older car was cheaper than just replacing a computer in a newer one. The world record for the car with most documented miles on it is a 1960s Volvo P1800, a car with an Italian-designed, British built body and Swedish drive train. If you ever saw the old TV spy series "The Saint", the Volvo P1800 was the car that Roger Moore drove in those shows.

Yes, ol' Irv clocked over 3 million miles on his P1800, but even he freely admits that he spent a fortune on gas, oil, belts, and an unknown amount of time maintaining it. None of those things are required for an EV. https://nypost.com/2014/12/29/the-record-breaking-roadster-with-3-million-miles/ Need I say, this is hardly typical.

I had two Volvo P-1800's when I was young and foolish (not at the same time; I was a slow learner). Eight and nine years old when I bought them. They do run forever -- but only if infused with seemingly infinite amounts of money.

 

[Superchief]

Perfectly stated. Plus, it's amazingly easy to pick out those people with those entrenched mindsets here on TUG.

What baffles me is how those ideas and mindsets became politicized, especially here in the US. It would be like if, in the 90's, one political party was all for the cell phone adoption and use, and the other party wanted to keep on using land lines. Such a stupid thing to be politicized.

Kurt

I will say it again, most of us don't have a problem with a conversion to EV's or other technology over time as they become more affordable and the bugs are worked out. It is only politicized when the governments start forcing people to make this conversion. My other political concern is that I don't want to rely on China or other 'enemies' for our primary raw materials or energy sources.

 

[emeryjre]

When did China become our enemy. Tesla and over 300 corporations do business in China on a daily basis.

 

[TUGBrian]

The plastic and thinner metal on newer cars actually make them more dangerous.

modern cars with crumple zones and other such incredible safety designs developed by auto makers in the past few decades are light years safer than older cars. you can see the results in just about any crash test.

 

[Passepartout]

modern cars with crumple zones and other such incredible safety designs developed by auto makers in the past few decades are light years safer than older cars. you can see the results in just about any crash test.

Only if you WANT to see the results. If you are blinded to facts and evidence, your mindset won't be budged.

 

[Carolinian]

I have a list of things to consider with a car - let's do a comparison

#1 - Initial cost - average car. - Favors ICE card
#2 - On going maintenance - Favors Electric Car.
#3 - Fuel cost - favors Electric, but that can vary depending on location.
#4 - Fueling time - Favors ICE car.
#5 - Maximum range - Favors ICE car.
#6 - Acceleration - Favors electric car.
#7 - Support infrastructure - Favors ICE car.
#8 - Safety - favors ICE car (battery fire risks in electric)
#9 - Resale - favors ICE car.
#10 - Environmental impact - indeterminate (each has serious environmental costs, but each one's cost is completely different.)

Good analysis, but #2 assumes you do not have the battery go bad. Then you might as well junk the car for most of them.

 

[Carolinian]

modern cars with crumple zones and other such incredible safety designs developed by auto makers in the past few decades are light years safer than older cars. you can see the results in just about any crash test.

I have seen the results of several actual crashes, where the classic car was barely damaged and the modern car had severe damage. Also, a lot that can be repaired on a classic car has to be totally replaced on the newer cars. It takes almost nothing to require a complete replacement of one of those ugly body colored bumpers on a modern car, for example. Calling it a "crumple zone" is appropriate when they use substandard materials like plastic and thin metal because it certainly will crumple. I wonder how long until they start using cardboard like the old East German Trabant.

Another good example is that a few years ago, there were efforts to crack down on "banger races" (demolition derbies) in the UK using classic cars, which the participants prefered to do because they last a heck of a lot longer in the furball when people were deliberately running into each other than modern cars. Some of the British classic car magazines were trying to find ways to assure that cars were not being bought through their publications by the banger racers and there were protests being organized at the banger races. The simple fact was that the older cars survived collisions with other cars much better.

 

[TUGBrian]

not sure if you are intentionally mixing two separate items deliberately or not, but its not helpful in furthering an actual discussion.

as someone whos rebuilt and repaired plenty of classic cars, NOS body panels likely FAR exceed the cost of panels on new vehicles. plenty of terribly fitting repops are available for most classic cars however, and are priced accordingly, but you can bobo a repair on a new vehicle as well if you want to!

fixing it, and fixing it correctly are still very different things in auto repair regardless of vehicle age.


none of this has anything to do with the fact that todays cars are an order of magnitude safer in crashes than old cars. the outer shell of the body of most vehicles has next to nothing to do with the safety of the passenger in a crash. judging "how the vehicle looked" after the crash is not exactly the most scientific way to evaluate the safety technology in a vehicle. however you are welcome to continue to use that method to form your own opinions, but passing that on as fact in a debate is simply being disingenuous.

 

[Carolinian]

not sure if you are intentionally mixing two separate items deliberately or not, but its not helpful in furthering an actual discussion.

as someone whos rebuilt and repaired plenty of classic cars, NOS body panels likely FAR exceed the cost of panels on new vehicles. plenty of terribly fitting repops are available for most classic cars however, and are priced accordingly, but you can bobo a repair on a new vehicle as well if you want to!

fixing it, and fixing it correctly are still very different things in auto repair regardless of vehicle age.


none of this has anything to do with the fact that todays cars are an order of magnitude safer in crashes than old cars. the outer shell of the body of most vehicles has next to nothing to do with the safety of the passenger in a crash. judging "how the vehicle looked" after the crash is not exactly the most scientific way to evaluate the safety technology in a vehicle. however you are welcome to continue to use that method to form your own opinions, but passing that on as fact in a debate is simply being disingenuous.

I would beg to differ based on my personal experience with the one serious auto crash I have been in during my lifetime. It was in the 1960s when I was in junior high school and out on a church young group summer daytrip to Morrow Mountain State Park. We had 4 kids and an adult driver in a large sedan of the era. She made a wrong turn and was trying to make a u-turn when the car was hit in the right side by a dump truck. I was in the left window seat and heard a very loud noise and looked over and the hood of the dump truck was about six to eight inches inside where the the right side of the car had been. None of us had more had minor cuts and bruises. The solid construction of that car saved us. If we had been in a modern car, we would probably all have been dead. The car was totally, but we all survived.

 

[TUGBrian]

just to be clear, your argument is that you survived a crash 60 years ago that you felt you would not have survived if in a modern vehicle?

very thankful you and your other passengers werent hurt, but this is the very definition of an anecdote. especially with millions, and millions of car crashes every year.