New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

You quoted the statistic yourself. A lot of buyers don't actually need a truck, but because they have become the majority of buyers the manufacturers cater more to them then the people who actually do need a truck. This seems even worse with EV trucks as they are upmarket vehicles. This also loops back around to CAFE standards ZDan was talking about with ICE's.

This is the same for manual transmissions, which are favored more by young enthusiasts buying on the secondary market than by older enthusiasts buying new, but manufacturers only care about primary buyers.

I will expect people on the secondary market to complain about a lack of options like I have complained about manual transmissions lacking on the secondary market, but it is what it is. If there are needs, the secondary market will need to figure things out without looking to manufacturers to meet their needs directly.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My last word on the subject (at least for now)...

You are missing the point that EVs are NOT a replacement for truck owners that own trucks because they need trucks for some percentage of their ownership for things that an EV truck is not yet capable of doing.

Using statistics is all well and fine, but sometimes they don't show the whole picture. As the old adage goes sit on a block of ice and stick your head in a lit oven and statistics say you'll be quite comfortable.

Will alternate fuel vehicles eventually replace petroleum based trucks? Yes. Is it there today for people that actually need (vs. desire) a truck. No.

Just seems you always see these things as black and white when there is a lot of gray staring at you.

I’m looking at the finish line thirty to fifty years down the road and not at each milestone, so that is why you think I see it as black or white. There are hurdles to overcome along the way, but the train is not stopping or turning around, so it is what it is.

Yes, there are heavy users and outliers where EV trucks don’t work. These people will be late adopters, which is expected along any S curve of adoption. They don’t represent the masses, so they can continue to use older trucks for as long as they can until the technology and infrastructure meet their needs. I don’t see this as a problem. These people are the exception and not the rule. a percentage of truck owners who might be heavier users will find ways of adapting. A percentage at the top of heavy users will hold out with older trucks for as long as possible. Okay, that works too. They may not like it, but I don’t like my limited manual options either. I can whine, but it won’t make a difference.

[Lantanafrs2]

^Are you being paid to do this?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is the same for manual transmissions, which are favored more by young enthusiasts buying on the secondary market than by older enthusiasts buying new, but manufacturers only care about primary buyers.

I will expect people on the secondary market to complain about a lack of options like I have complained about manual transmissions lacking on the secondary market, but it is what it is. If there are needs, the secondary market will need to figure things out without looking to manufacturers to meet their needs directly.

All the guys I am talking about are primary buyers. They cycle new work trucks pretty regularly. 3 of them just bought new work trucks this year.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

^Are you being paid to do this?

Yes, you can send cashier’s checks or Amazon gift cards to PO Box 12345 Santa Rosa, CA.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

All the guys I am talking about are primary buyers. They cycle new work trucks pretty regularly. 3 of them just bought new work trucks this year.

I’m going to go with the statistics over your anecdotal experiences, even if there are conglomerations of high users in your personal circle. These high users are likely going to be late adopters and continue to use older vehicles to get buy until the market, infrastructure or technology match their needs.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m going to go with the statistics over your anecdotal experiences, even if there are conglomerations of high users in your personal circle. These high users are likely going to be late adopters and continue to use older vehicles to get buy until the market, infrastructure or technology match their needs.

And that is fine. Like I stated earlier, this all started from the comment about people who need trucks but can't use the current crop of EV trucks.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

And that is fine. Like I stated earlier, this all started from the comment about people who need trucks but can't use the current crop of EV trucks.

Yeah, but there are always outliers and late adopters on the S curve. The statistics suggest these people are the exception and not the norm. The vast majority of EV truck users will be fine or need to make small adaptations or suffer mild concessions.

I’m not denying that the outliers exist or suggesting that they will get by with EVs today or tomorrow just fine. There will likely be options for them down the road and some intermediate solutions that work, while being less than ideal.

It seems that others and you are arguing the prevalence is higher than the statistics suggest and that the world needs to not take away ICEs until there are solutions, but I’m saying that the world is not going hold back for a special outlier of users. Manufacturers will move on, and these users will need to adapt to the situation by hanging on to older trucks and taking advantage of market solutions.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yeah, but there are always outliers and late adopters on the S curve. The statistics suggest these people are the exception and not the norm. The vast majority of EV truck users will be fine or need to make small adaptations or suffer mild concessions.

I’m not denying that the outliers exist or suggesting that they will get by with EVs today or tomorrow just fine. There will likely be options for them down the road and some intermediate solutions that work, while being less than ideal.

It seems that others and you are arguing the prevalence is higher than the statistics suggest and that the world needs to not take away ICEs until there are solutions, but I’m saying that the world is not going hold back for a special outlier of users. Manufacturers will move on, and these users will need to adapt to the situation by hanging on to older trucks and taking advantage of market solutions.

I quite literally did not say that. I have said several times that I think infrastructure needs to improve before these will be viable for that use. If there was at least one fast charger 30-40 miles out, it would completely change the situation. I wouldn't doubt that happens before the 35' new ICE vehicle sales ban either but it is not the current situation.

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

There is also practicality to take into consideration. You have a need to be able to haul something periodically, but I am assuming , not practical to have multiple work vehicles for you. I DD a truck for the same reason, I haul something weekly, but can't justify buying a commuter car to drive for the times I don't.

This is a company truck that I'm currently driving. It happens to be a 1/2 ton. I have access to it when needed. I've been driving a truck all my life until the last 8-10 years. I have a Juke, a Mini and the FR-S. I prefer smaller cars. More fun However, the truck is far more comfortable on long drives. Boring, but comfy.

Back to the work trucks. We have 5 pickups in the fleet. all 3/4 ton or heavier. I WISH and EV could replace some of them but they can't. Not yet anyways. We haul and tow heavy loads and the range wouldn't work.

IMHO, the governing bodies should have focused more on Hybrids and not solely on EV's. I think we'd be further ahead and it would be easier for people to adopt.

The Ford Maverick, while not a full size truck, get 37mpg combined and 42 highway.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

This is a company truck that I'm currently driving. It happens to be a 1/2 ton. I have access to it when needed. I've been driving a truck all my life until the last 8-10 years. I have a Juke, a Mini and the FR-S. I prefer smaller cars. More fun However, the truck is far more comfortable on long drives. Boring, but comfy.

Back to the work trucks. We have 5 pickups in the fleet. all 3/4 ton or heavier. I WISH and EV could replace some of them but they can't. Not yet anyways. We haul and tow heavy loads and the range wouldn't work.

IMHO, the governing bodies should have focused more on Hybrids and not solely on EV's. I think we'd be further ahead and it would be easier for people to adopt.

The Ford Maverick, while not a full size truck, get 37mpg combined and 42 highway.

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.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

IMHO, the governing bodies should have focused more on Hybrids and not solely on EV's. I think we'd be further ahead and it would be easier for people to adopt.

The Ford Maverick, while not a full size truck, get 37mpg combined and 42 highway.

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.

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

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

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

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.