They are going to Maverick's for my friends work trucks, they have Ram 1500's right now. Big construction company, these are just for sales reps and management.

A few of the guys I know tried other options.

The Colorado with the baby Duramax, too small of a bed and not enough towing capacity.

1/2 ton Chevy with 3.0 Diesel V6, not arrived yet. 9500lb towing capacity for a "1/2 ton."

Ecoboost F-150 3.5, surprisingly good power but gets hot on long grades and with heavy load and not really enough towing capacity.

Transit with 3.5 Ecoboost, same as above.

Hybrids didn’t do well for many reasons: it was hard to justify the extra cost unless someone drove enough; they didn’t retain their retail value on the used market; the 10-20% gain in efficiency is 2-4mpgs for a vehicle with 20mpgs; turbo diesel option was better with sometimes better mileage; performance went down sometimes and not up.

Our Q5 has a hybrid and turbo diesel option on top of the 3.0 SC V6 and turbo four cylinder. The hybrid was better, but not drastically better. The hybrid was 24/30. The standard four cylinder was 20/28. Our SC 3.0 is 18/26. The diesel is 24/31, making it the most fuel efficient. The Audi Q4 e-Tron EV is 100/89. It is not even in the same ballpark.

Larger batteries with at least a day’s range of 50-75 miles with a range extending ICE that is a hybrid or EV, meaning attached or unattached to the powertrain, respectively, might have been the thing to push, but EV tech wasn’t there until Tesla, and many people were not ready for a BMW I3 type vehicle; Tesla changed a lot.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/42020/...conomy-numbers

The hybrid is almost 30% more efficient. Again, if the governing bodies focused on hybrids first I think we would be further ahead. They could have just as easily mandated this instead of an unrealistic EV target. People would be far more acceptable to EV's after driving a hybrid as well. It would have been much easier for the automakers to comply with.

The goals are exceeding our abilities. Infrastructure is going to be a huge problem. The electrical grid is already tired and will need some serious improvements. In the end, electricity is going to be very expensive and so will car ownership. Round round we go...

My 2 cents

Yeah, 30% with a hybrid plus CVT. The CVT does a decent few mpgs too. When Subaru switched to CVT their mpgs jumped up. The Maverick is a Civic hybrid in truck form. I think it is nice they did this as an option, but I don’t know how a cab on frame 4x4 would do.

With the Q5, the hybrid was slower to 60 and was less efficient than the diesel option. Hybrids can be made to be faster, and they can be made to replace larger engines that would otherwise be much worse on fuel efficiency, but this is 30% more efficient, not 300-400% more efficient like the Q4 eTron. It is night and day different. If someone pays more for a hybrid, they didn’t know if they would earn that money back and then some unless they were super-commuters. With EVs, the savings on fuel and return is easier to calculate, IMO. Sometimes smaller engines and hybrid powertrains weren’t delivering real world savings; they were only better on emissions and EPA fuel economy testing:

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/lon...10k-miles.html

I’ll say this again for the 100x: the goals include infrastructure expansion, so they don’t exceed our projected abilities; infrastructure growth peaked at higher rates in the past, which suggests we can build it much faster if we have the demand, and it also means there will need to be another point where it must rise faster to replace retiring infrastructure; there are existing contracts and energy coal and nuclear plants that will be replaced with cheaper green energy in time; it is cheaper than what we built in the past, so prices should be a net drop when factoring in that and with exchanging oil for electricity; electricity won’t go up if supply and demand stay balanced; a Tesla Model 3 is currently cheaper than a $26k Camry with incentives, and it is even cheaper when refueling and cost of ownership is factored in, so in time, prices will drop even more with more economy options and cheaper batteries coming available; if you can handle less range, the car will last much longer than ICEs making long term ownership also cheaper.

I've heard this 100x over and I call BS. Maybe in CA? It will come at a massive cost and it will be the taxpayer/end user that pays for it. It will not be accomplished here, I'm sure. We can't keep up with housing, transit and roads. Their goals just don't line up!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pow...cles-1.6440595

These plans are set 4 years at a time, if you know what I mean. They've done squat in the last four/eight. Maybe next time...;)

Technically the government doesn’t need to do anything, but they should, since they are speeding a process before it would happen naturally. Personally, I think it should come from taxes paid progressively and not a flat fee/tax to end users on an electricity bill. Maybe the top 1% can pay since they have stolen/hoarded $50 trillion from the bottom 90%.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion...ality-america/

Private companies typically provide utilities. The government issues grants, subsidies and tax breaks. They lease or sell government land. Occasionally they are more directly involved in energy production and owe the rights to the energy production, but I believe this is the exception and not the rule.

As prices go up, the private sector will invest in projects to make money. The more prices go up, the faster people invest, which eventually lowers prices until investment equalizes and prices stabilize around demand. Government investment keeps prices down by creating greater supply. Subsidizing is progressive taxation that doesn’t effect the end user as much too.

One way to expand energy production without expanding the grid is each home and business having solar and batteries to power their homes, businesses and cars without add power stations and transmission lines. This is why all new homes need solar in California. The good and the bad and what’s needed and what we have done and what’s possible and what is realistic and what is unknown:

https://calmatters.org/environment/2...ric-cars-grid/

I understand and agree with a lot of what you're saying but most of what we hear is political grandstanding and no action. I believe all of our power generation is owned by the crown. Distribution can be private. The private sector will have their hand out...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontari...20of%20Ontario.

I do not believe for one minute that we're prepared for this in my area. If they want solar panels used they need to start the incentive programs back up. We had a very successful one and it was canceled a while back. Want EV's in the driveway, you'd better start working on the lines right now. Insurance companies are now saying they won't allow charging in underground parking structures. Hmmm, where to charge them when living in a condo in downtown Toronto? They can't and this is where they are needed the most.

All of these problems can be overcome but I literally see no plan at this point in time.

no that's the worst part of this and the musk fellatio routine, he's doing it for the love of simping

Ad hominem attacks are because you have weak arguments for your positions. The future is what it is. There is nothing anyone can do to avoid it, so people need to drop the boomer mentality and move forward. I have a K24 turbo swap on my car and a supercharged SUV and a sport bike, but I see where the future is going. I can hold onto ICE/classics until the day I die if I want, and I might do that, but I can’t deny where the car industry is headed for all brands.

OK, (whatever generation you are) what does any of this have to with being a "boomer" and what does "boomer" mentality even mean?

.

If we've learned nothing from sci-fi, the future is never set. It can change today, tomorrow, or yesterday. All you got to do is run fast enough...

It wouldn't take much to knock us off the EV trend path. A breakthrough in hydrogen, a geopolitical situation that makes raw materials difficult, expensive or impossible to get.

Are we heading the non-petrol route? Sure, and we should be. Is there a clear path forward, no, not really. There is a current path, but it could branch at any time.

Given that musk is among those hoarders/stealers makes it even more funny, lol.

This is way off topic, but I think guiding part of some of this wealth transference is based on the change from analog to digital. To become a railroad robber baron there was a lot more physical attributes to get there and little if any of it had to do with perception.

Now, an individual came become extremely wealthy off of a company with no real physical assets. For example, it took a lot more effort, labor, salaries, etc for the Vanderbilts to become wealthy than it for the founders of today's company where valuation is based as much on perception as it is hard assets.

Just my $0.02 worth.

(There is also the "issue" of how you define "1%". If you are talking globally, something like 35% of the US population fits into the 1% category. All it really takes is a net worth of about $1.1M, or basically the price of a paid for house in much of California).