If we move to electric and have more fuel efficient vehicles than the timeline gets stretched, as demand drops. We can’t extract all the oil because of physics and cost balloons to extract it, so that is a factor. As it gets more expensive, the economy will naturally shift to renewables, so demand drops and delays the inevitable point of “running out” of oil. My point is, given the reality that we will never actually run out of oil, but rather, production costs will eclipse profitability, what is your timeline for the world getting to that point? If demand neither increases or decreases, when would we run out?

Proven reserves based on a flat demand curve put us out to 47 years, but obviously we would see prices spiking before then, so in some ways, the goals to switch to renewables/EVs seem even more necessary and dire. Production will peak before the end, so maybe 30 years. What timeline are you thinking?

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

https://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/si...es/08-Fig1.jpg
https://www.hartenergy.com/sites/def...2520Rystad.JPG
https://www.resilience.org/wp-conten...Forecast-1.jpg

That's Wikipedia Google search bullshit. All slanted to push us towards renewables. Plus, oil is used in plastics and the furrys need their cat boxes.

:lol:
OK Boomer, show us on the doll where the "woke mob" and furries hurt you

From providence? No wonder

:laughabove:
Actually I'm from Mississippi, Florida man...

Even worse

i made my weed pipe out of asbestos, and i burn plastic. the world is fine.

You shouldn't smoke weed

Lol, the amount of shills pushing Schwab's agenda on a forum dedicated to performance cars is hilarious.

I hear you...I'm waiting for the "economical" performance cars with instant torque. Imagine an 86 with torque :D

Put a catless UEL header and have professional tune (not some canned oft bs) and you'll have plenty of torque.

Do you have any sources of your own you care to share to educate us? While you do that, let us know how you determined your sources were not Google search BS, all slanted to push us towards fossil fuels.

This is the Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussion subforum, so this is the place to discuss the future of cars. EVs are the future, and they will likely have superior performance like they are already demonstrating, so I don’t really get your point.

Again, on what timeline do you expect the world to run out of oil and/or need to transition to renewable vehicles? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years? What’s your evidence? I’ve posted mine, so it is there for scrutiny. If you have a tangible rebuttal and evidence for us to consider then let’s see it.

Also, this is a car forum with plenty of members who might stance their car, despite a drop in performance, or they might be into show & shine, or they might into car audio systems and BASE competitions without much concern for performance. They might just like the size, shape and customization options for this platform and have no interest in performance.

EVs, which will have great performance, will be enjoyed just the same for many different groups of car enthusiasts.

E85

Having owned and tracked a 6.8 liter LS3 FD, I have to assume this is a sad, sad joke :cry:

I have no problem with evs. It's the cow farts I'm concerned with. All that poisonous methane being produced. I'm sure gates and shwab are near a solution for that though. Maybe no more meat?

It is

Imagine a world, in which people are manipulated into consuming as much fossil fuel and emitting as much CO2 as they possibly can, and then thinking that any effort to reverse that trend is a *conspiracy*! Well, you don't have to imagine too hard...

I've never felt manipulated into driving a car. I've never seen internal combustion as a political agenda, grouped in with gender switching and sexual immorality

I’m plant based.

Weird to think there is more biomass of pets than all wild land mammals. Lots of cow farts, methane burbs, water, feedstock and land for one species. Probably will need to go in the long run unless we have population collapse. Maybe Musk has convinced enough people to have ten babies, in which case, eventually the cows will be next on the chopping block—pun intended.


https://i.redd.it/2ivmn3kd8rf71.png

is that 358 americans or 358 frenchmen?

What do you mean? It is right now.

More Americans in that 358 million tons.

Sounds like the cows just need a better tune to me.

I assumed the joke started at "forum dedicated to performance cars"

I'm fine with ridding the planet of cows and never eating beef again. I do, however, love fish, chicken, and occasionally, lobster.

I'm sure none of my road-hogging, view-blocking, gas-guzzling SUV and truck commuting brethren and sistren *feel* like they've been manipulated into driving the most fossil-fuel-consuming vehicles possible, but they kinda have been...

The gender-switching and "sexual immorality" of others is none of your business and doesn't affect you, unless you decide it should.

Others commuting in 5000-6000 lb behemoths *does*. Decades of inaction and encouraging of bigger/heavier vehicles is going to make the change more drastic/dramatic. But we *have* to reduce our CO2 emissions.

"Decades of inaction"? Where have you been? Emissions regs have gotten tighter and tighter especially in furryfornia.

Knowing ZDan’s prior arguments, he is probably referring to the stance that there has been decades of policies and loopholes that have allowed trucks and SUVs to have a double standard on emissions, and that has only encouraged manufacturers to adopt more and more trucks/CUVs/SUVs that allow them to take advantage of these loopholes. The saying is that customers are driven to SUVs and trucks, but why? Most don’t tow, haul, go off-road or ever need AWD or 4WD, yet most overestimate how much they need these features and overestimate the safety/utility of these features despite evidence suggesting SUVs are less safe or that AWD is not necessary in many place almost all the time. The government didn’t have to make loopholes, and by making a double standard, it helped to get us here: giant polluting vehicles for the vast majority of people on the road.

Furries don’t have emissions. They use Foleys and dignity tubes.

I hate SUVs, especially the crossover ones. One of the most retarded types of vehicles, made for soccermoms. Pickups and body on frame ones on general, well, some people actually need them. But then there are retards who buy them and never ever leave pavement or haul anything. That's kind of a problem.
For the most part, a wagon would be a much better solution for anyone needing extra space, and they actually have more usable space than these stupid SUVs while being the same size of a sedan. Plus they have way better mileage, better ride quality and handling.

But still, people should be free to buy whatever vehicle they want, otherwise it'll be a turd-world totalitarian shithole.

I get the sentiment. It is shared by many and not uniquely American, but we especially value our freedoms in America.

With that said, our freedoms end on someone else’s lawn, and our freedoms don’t always mean we are free to do whatever with whatever, nor does our Amendments guarantee that we must have whatever products available for us to choose.

We can’t just crap wherever and dump our trash wherever, and we can’t all just go driving around in catless F350 duallies. And we can’t drive ICEs much longer from a natural resources perspective, from an economic perspective and from a logistics perspective. Our best solution is to transition to EVs sooner rather than later. Maybe along the way, we can still have some specialty ICEs, but the masses need to move to EVs, and for the most part, they will anyways, but now, the argument is that we need artificial demand from government to spur greater investment/innovations and support/infrastructure/supply until we get to the rise of the S curve of growth, and then things/adoption will happen naturally. Like how the automatic was adopted over the manual transmission because it made life easier and was better for the masses, the EV will grow to be far better for the masses.

The enthusiasts will have less choices, but they will likely still have some choices. If California can have smog exempt areas in the state and allow CARB superchargers and allow someone to go eight years in a new car before needing to smog their car then there will likely still be options for enthusiasts for places to live and for ICEs to buy. It might be different and harder and limited, but there will be the ability to buy whatever they want…from what’s available.

Things are a lot less black & white than this I'm afraid.

Consumers' choices tend to be affected by short-term, relatively "narcissistic" interests ("hey, that truck makes me look manlier"), but that decision has far-reaching consequences for everyone, from a road safety, noise & air pollution or resources management standpoint. That's where regulations are needed, and where governments can take a more long-term approach than consumers are willing to.

Problem is, because some people can't buy what they want, they scream foul at the gubmint and shout "conspiracy!"

In any case, you already can't buy what you want. Want a jet engine strapped to a golf cart with spike wheels? Not gonna happen I'm afraid :D

I mean... in the states, you absolutely can have a jet powered golf cart. :cheers:

I love a wagon, but it is not a better solution for anyone needing extra space, unless you only need wide, and not tall. That's why I own a Suburban.

By the way, our beloved 86 is just as "stupid" if you are looking at it as the perfect car. It gets mediocre gas mileage for it's size particularly compared to a hybrid, it isn't really a four person vehicle, and again unless you are hauling something more thick than a tire, you aren't going to get it in the trunk.

Oh yeah, I'm sure communists seethe every time they see one:D

You just can't (legally) drive it on public roads.

The cars that are available to us are shaped by regulations that strongly favor trucks and SUVS, and actively reward cars and trucks/SUVs for being physically *bigger*.

So those of us who want to buy smaller, lighter-weight cars are generally just out of luck :(

I can't help but add that I'm so tired of this type of thinking. I literally know dozens of truck owners (I live in the US, and in the South, and in Georgia after all) and not a single one of them own their truck because it makes them look manlier (or womanlier since about 40% of them are women).

Nearly every one of them has a utilitarian purpose (even if it's only 20% of the time) for owning a truck.

And, unlike a group of enthusiasts who think you need a vehicle for every occasion, most buy their vehicle for that 20% utilization since they have limited funds for transportation.

Are there folks that maybe buy trucks just because they can, and have no use for it, sure. But that is a very small percentage. Just because every truck you see on your commute is not carrying a load, or pulling a trailer doesn't mean that it doesn't spend part of its life doing that.

[/rant]