Electric Vehicles - Information & Updates

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

With enough planning and time, I could probably make a 1500 mile road trip in a solar powered car. But to suggest that solar powered cars are ready for prime time would be ludicrous.

Perhaps your definition of "ready" and mine are different, due to different requirements we have for our vehicles? Someone who doesn't take a lot of road trips, doesn't travel far from home, might be "ready" for an EV today. But not everyone is. That is the point I am making. But somewhere back about a half a dozen pages ago I was told that people like me don't matter, I was a luddite, and I needed to get over it.

400 miles of range, 20 minutes to recharge. The only argument of yours that is still standing, perhaps because it hasn't been examined, is location of fast charging stations.

20 minutes is FOUR TIMES as long as it takes to refuel an IC vehicle.

400 miles of range isn't awful, but it's still 3/4 of what an IC SUV will run.

If those are your ideas of negating arguments, then we're done here, because you're being disingenuous.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

400 miles of range, 20 minutes to recharge. The only argument of yours that is still standing, perhaps because it hasn't been examined, is location of fast charging stations.

20 minutes is FOUR TIMES as long as it takes to refuel an IC vehicle.

400 miles of range isn't awful, but it's still 3/4 of what an IC SUV will run.

If those are your ideas of negating arguments, then we're done here, because you're being disingenuous.

I could point out that many, if not most vehicles do not have 500 miles of range, or that those which do have fuel tanks which take longer than 5 minutes to refill from empty, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being "disingenuous" by someone who is being disingenuous.

I could also point out that most people don't want to sit in a vehicle for 8 hours without stopping, which is how long it will take to drive that 500 miles.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

20 minutes is FOUR TIMES as long as it takes to refuel an IC vehicle.

400 miles of range isn't awful, but it's still 3/4 of what an IC SUV will run.

If those are your ideas of negating arguments, then we're done here, because you're being disingenuous.

I could point out that many, if not most vehicles do not have 500 miles of range, or that those which do have fuel tanks which take longer than 5 minutes to refill from empty, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being "disingenuous" by someone who is being disingenuous.

I could also point out that most people don't want to sit in a vehicle for 8 hours without stopping, which is how long it will take to drive that 500 miles.

Well if you have a car that's so small it can't run 500 miles, then yeah, it's also probably slow and can't complete 500 miles at an average of 75 miles per hour, either.

No wonder EVs don't bother you. You're already used to driving shit cars.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I could point out that many, if not most vehicles do not have 500 miles of range, or that those which do have fuel tanks which take longer than 5 minutes to refill from empty, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being "disingenuous" by someone who is being disingenuous.

I could also point out that most people don't want to sit in a vehicle for 8 hours without stopping, which is how long it will take to drive that 500 miles.

Well if you have a car that's so small it can't run 500 miles, then yeah, it's also probably slow and can't complete 500 miles at an average of 75 miles per hour, either.

No wonder EVs don't bother you. You're already used to driving shit cars.

Oh please ...

The average range of ICE vehicles is 400 miles ...

Minimum is 250 ...

And you're arguing that BEV's which are matching those ranges are not ready.

I suggest you stop digging before you are completely underground.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Well if you have a car that's so small it can't run 500 miles, then yeah, it's also probably slow and can't complete 500 miles at an average of 75 miles per hour, either.

No wonder EVs don't bother you. You're already used to driving shit cars.

Oh please ...

The average range of ICE vehicles is 400 miles ...

Minimum is 250 ...

And you're arguing that BEV's which are matching those ranges are not ready.

I suggest you stop digging before you are completely underground.

I don't care what the average is. I'm telling you what my SUV will do. I need that SUV to be reliable, tow, provide 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and to go on road trips. TODAY there is no EV that will do all of that as well as that vehicle. Tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, a millennium from now there might be. But not right now.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please ...

The average range of ICE vehicles is 400 miles ...

Minimum is 250 ...

And you're arguing that BEV's which are matching those ranges are not ready.

I suggest you stop digging before you are completely underground.

I don't care what the average is. I'm telling you what my SUV will do. I need that SUV to be reliable, tow, provide 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and to go on road trips. TODAY there is no EV that will do all of that as well as that vehicle. Tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, a millennium from now there might be. But not right now.

You say this in this post, but before this thread is over you will be claiming once again that BEV's are not ready. period, end of story. You are being disingenuous with your statements.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't care what the average is. I'm telling you what my SUV will do. I need that SUV to be reliable, tow, provide 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and to go on road trips. TODAY there is no EV that will do all of that as well as that vehicle. Tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, a millennium from now there might be. But not right now.

You say this in this post, but before this thread is over you will be claiming once again that BEV's are not ready. period, end of story. You are being disingenuous with your statements.

Well they're not as good as my current ICE vehicle, so.... what about your claim of them being "ready" is true?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You say this in this post, but before this thread is over you will be claiming once again that BEV's are not ready. period, end of story. You are being disingenuous with your statements.

Well they're not as good as my current ICE vehicle, so.... what about your claim of them being "ready" is true?

All of it where they meet the needs of the market.

Looking at the averages for ICE vehicles it is more of the market than I realized.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Well they're not as good as my current ICE vehicle, so.... what about your claim of them being "ready" is true?

All of it where they meet the needs of the market.

Looking at the averages for ICE vehicles it is more of the market than I realized.

They don't meet my needs.

Queue the - "too bad, you're an outlier, shut up and get over it" crowd to whom I've taken exception to this entire thread.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

All of it where they meet the needs of the market.

Looking at the averages for ICE vehicles it is more of the market than I realized.

They don't meet my needs.

Queue the - "too bad, you're an outlier, shut up and get over it" crowd to whom I've taken exception to this entire thread.

You seem to think that is what you are doing, however, when you say, without that qualification, that BEV's are categorically not ready, as you have repeatedly done, you are not posting what you think you are posting.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

They don't meet my needs.

Queue the - "too bad, you're an outlier, shut up and get over it" crowd to whom I've taken exception to this entire thread.

You seem to think that is what you are doing, however, when you say, without that qualification, that BEV's are categorically not ready, as you have repeatedly done, you are not posting what you think you are posting.

I think EVs not ready for prime time, because there is a decent chunk of the population, such as myself, for whom they will not meet our basic demands.

If you want to claim readiness in some other format, that's on you and your credibility.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You seem to think that is what you are doing, however, when you say, without that qualification, that BEV's are categorically not ready, as you have repeatedly done, you are not posting what you think you are posting.

I think EVs not ready for prime time, because there is a decent chunk of the population, such as myself, for whom they will not meet our basic demands.

If you want to claim readiness in some other format, that's on you and your credibility.

Well, I think there is a reluctance of people buying vehicles to purchase BEV which is becoming less and less as they become more prevalent, and as the charging structures become more prevalent. The vehicles are there to replace the ICE vehicles which have a 250-mile range, regardless of market acceptance.

The technology is there. just in the last year or so, for a vehicle use case such as yours, but as you pointed out, your use case is an outlier. I'm guessing that less than 5% of vehicle usage has your use case, and thus it is not the first use case in the market to be addressed by BEV technology. The one thing that will drive it faster than just its numbers is that you are handing over the car companies wads of profit, for them, with what you are buying, and they will want to supply your market quickly, because of that.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I think EVs not ready for prime time, because there is a decent chunk of the population, such as myself, for whom they will not meet our basic demands.

If you want to claim readiness in some other format, that's on you and your credibility.

Well, I think there is a reluctance of people buying vehicles to purchase BEV which is becoming less and less as they become more prevalent, and as the charging structures become more prevalent. The vehicles are there to replace the ICE vehicles which have a 250-mile range, regardless of market acceptance.

The technology is there. just in the last year or so, for a vehicle use case such as yours, but as you pointed out, your use case is an outlier. I'm guessing that less than 5% of vehicle usage has your use case, and thus it is not the first use case in the market to be addressed by BEV technology. The one thing that will drive it faster than just its numbers is that you are handing over the car companies wads of profit, for them, with what you are buying, and they will want to supply your market quickly, because of that.

For - I promise - the last time - I'm not saying that EVs aren't getting better. I'm saying they aren't ready just yet. As you have stated many times, the technology is making great advances. Infrastructure will likely get better. Maybe it will happen within a few years? Maybe it won't. But it isn't ready at this time.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Well, I think there is a reluctance of people buying vehicles to purchase BEV which is becoming less and less as they become more prevalent, and as the charging structures become more prevalent. The vehicles are there to replace the ICE vehicles which have a 250-mile range, regardless of market acceptance.

The technology is there. just in the last year or so, for a vehicle use case such as yours, but as you pointed out, your use case is an outlier.  I'm guessing that less than 5% of vehicle usage has your use case, and thus it is not the first use case in the market to be addressed by BEV technology.  The one thing that will drive it faster than just its numbers is that you are handing over the car companies wads of profit, for them, with what you are buying, and they will want to supply your market quickly, because of that.

For - I promise - the last time - I'm not saying that EVs aren't getting better.  I'm saying they aren't ready just yet.  As you have stated many times, the technology is making great advances.  Infrastructure will likely get better.   Maybe it will happen within a few years?  Maybe it won't.  But it isn't ready at this time.

There you go again ...

Claiming that BEV's are not ready for any market anywhere.  Just stop.  Please.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

For - I promise - the last time - I'm not saying that EVs aren't getting better.  I'm saying they aren't ready just yet.  As you have stated many times, the technology is making great advances.  Infrastructure will likely get better.   Maybe it will happen within a few years?  Maybe it won't.  But it isn't ready at this time.

There you go again ...

Claiming that BEV's are not ready for any market anywhere.  Just stop.  Please.

Please highlight my use of the words "any market." TIA.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please ...

The average range of ICE vehicles is 400 miles ...

Minimum is 250 ...

And you're arguing that BEV's which are matching those ranges are not ready.

I suggest you stop digging before you are completely underground.

I don't care what the average is. I'm telling you what my SUV will do. I need that SUV to be reliable, tow, provide 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and to go on road trips. TODAY there is no EV that will do all of that as well as that vehicle. Tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, a millennium from now there might be. But not right now.

I drive a two year old SUV that fits all of those criteria and refuels in about 2 minutes giving me essentially unlimited range. Plus new, out the door, it priced out well equipped at about $30,000.

Find me an EV that can do that and I will consider buying one.

RQA wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't care what the average is. I'm telling you what my SUV will do. I need that SUV to be reliable, tow, provide 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and to go on road trips. TODAY there is no EV that will do all of that as well as that vehicle. Tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, a millennium from now there might be. But not right now.

I drive a two year old SUV that fits all of those criteria and refuels in about 2 minutes giving me essentially unlimited range. Plus new, out the door, it priced out well equipped at about $30,000.

Find me an EV that can do that and I will consider buying one.

It's coming! They're working on it! The technology exists! It's all ready!

Love,
Trapper

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

There you go again ...

Claiming that BEV's are not ready for any market anywhere.  Just stop.  Please.

Please highlight my use of the words "any market." TIA.

I don't have to. You keep making absolute statements.

RQA wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't care what the average is. I'm telling you what my SUV will do. I need that SUV to be reliable, tow, provide 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and to go on road trips. TODAY there is no EV that will do all of that as well as that vehicle. Tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, a millennium from now there might be. But not right now.

I drive a two year old SUV that fits all of those criteria and refuels in about 2 minutes giving me essentially unlimited range. Plus new, out the door, it priced out well equipped at about $30,000.

Find me an EV that can do that and I will consider buying one.

Too many lies in that post to seriously respond.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

RQA wrote:

I drive a two year old SUV that fits all of those criteria and refuels in about 2 minutes giving me essentially unlimited range.   Plus new, out the door, it priced out well equipped at about $30,000.

Find me an EV that can do that and I will consider buying one.  

It's coming!  They're working on it!  The technology exists!  It's all ready!

Love,
Trapper

Never mind about the reviews of existing vehicles I posted earlier which are on the market, now.

Here is a Car & Driver (not exactly an EV promoter) rundown of future vehicles.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g29994375/future-electric-cars-trucks/

edit - and here are some quotes for our iron kidney friends ...

Soon, Ram will be grabbing life by the plugs with an electric pickup. In an announcement during parent-company Stellantis's EV Day, Ram said it would produce a 1500 EV in 2024 with a body-on-frame platform and 500 miles of range.

In fact, the main differences between the truck and SUV are that the SUV can only tow 7716 pounds to the truck’s 11,000, and that the SUV can seat up to seven compared to the truck's five.

The Roadster will likely have an all-wheel-drive system with a pair of (or maybe even three) electric motors that, along with a 200.0-kWh battery pack, can give this two-door a range of up to 620 miles.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

I drive a two year old SUV that fits all of those criteria and refuels in about 2 minutes giving me essentially unlimited range.   Plus new, out the door, it priced out well equipped at about $30,000.

Find me an EV that can do that and I will consider buying one.  

Too many lies in that post to seriously respond.

Lies?  

I own a 2 year old SUV.      

That SUV is  reliable, can tow, provides 4 wheel drive in bad weather and off road conditions, and is great on road trips. 

Refuels in 2 minutes (average USA gas pump is 5-10 gpm).     

OTD price (2 years ago with appropriate rebates and dealer incentives; preCOVID and preBiden chip shortages) about $30k    

unlimited range

35 gallons / 5 = 7

Trapper Gus wrote:

unlimited range

35 gallons / 5 = 7

35 gallons?!? You’re such a clown. You try to sound so smart and then you pull shit like this.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:



35 gallons / 5 = 7

35 gallons?!?  You’re such a clown.  You try to sound so smart and then you pull shit like this.

You are driving a 4 by 4 truck that can tow 20,000 pounds and travel 500 miles at 75 mph without refueling...

Dude, my full-sized vans had 35-gallon tanks, which btw didn't give it 500 miles of range, and I wasn't towing a piece of construction equipment.  My estimation of a 35-gallon capacity was generous to the low side.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

35 gallons?!?  You’re such a clown.  You try to sound so smart and then you pull shit like this.

You are driving a 4 by 4 truck that can tow 20,000 pounds and travel 500 miles at 75 mph without refueling...

Dude, my full-sized vans had 35-gallon tanks, which btw didn't give it 500 miles of range, and I wasn't towing a piece of construction equipment.  My estimation of a 35-gallon capacity was generous to the low side.

With every post in this thread you look less like a serious poster and more like an irrational fan boi. Not a good look, Trap.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You are driving a 4 by 4 truck that can tow 20,000 pounds and travel 500 miles at 75 mph without refueling...

Dude, my full-sized vans had 35-gallon tanks, which btw didn't give it 500 miles of range, and I wasn't towing a piece of construction equipment.  My estimation of a 35-gallon capacity was generous to the low side.

With every post in this thread you look less like a serious poster and more like an irrational fan boi.  Not a good look, Trap.

So, I nailed it and you have no rational response, well it is just you being you.

When you are ready with counter factual about fuel economy and tank size have at it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

With every post in this thread you look less like a serious poster and more like an irrational fan boi.  Not a good look, Trap.

So, I nailed it and you have no rational response, well it is just you being you.

When you are ready with counter factual about fuel economy and tank size have at it.

I don’t know what RQA drives, but look at the fuel economy and tank capacities of a two year old Jeep Grand Cherokee, and then get back to us with whatever weasel words you’ll use to pretend you weren’t wrong.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

So, I nailed it and you have no rational response, well it is just you being you.

When you are ready with counter factual about fuel economy and tank size have at it.

I don’t know what RQA drives, but look at the fuel economy and tank capacities of a two year old Jeep Grand Cherokee, and then get back to us with whatever weasel words you’ll use to pretend you weren’t wrong.

Since you are towing backhoes around on a construction trailer, I will assume you have the largest engine possible, or do you want to back off of that claim, now?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don’t know what RQA drives, but look at the fuel economy and tank capacities of a two year old Jeep Grand Cherokee, and then get back to us with whatever weasel words you’ll use to pretend you weren’t wrong.

Since you are towing backhoes around on a construction trailer, I will assume you have the largest engine possible, or do you want to back off of that claim, now?

No backhoes here, but sure, the 5.7L V8 regularly gets 24-26 mpg on the highway. Do that math however you’d like.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Since you are towing backhoes around on a construction trailer, I will assume you have the largest engine possible, or do you want to back off of that claim, now?

No backhoes here, but sure, the 5.7L V8 regularly gets 24-26 mpg on the highway. Do that math however you’d like.

This is a flat out lie.

2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk 4WD 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 8-spd - fuel economy 11mpg combined / 17mpg highway on the EPA sticker...

Reviews reports it doesn't do that well, maybe 14 mph highway & that is not towing anything.

24.6-gallon tank - call it 25 to be nice to you ... 25 * 11 = 275-mile range / 25 * 14 = 350-mile range / 25 * 17 = 425-mile range (not happening dude)

Oh, and towing limit is 7200 pounds, not much unless all you are towing is a popup camper.

You might get in the ~20+ mpg range with the 6 cylinder (the reviewers didn't) 2-wheel drive model, not towing anything of course, and definitely not at 75 mph.

In your favor, the fuel tank size reduces average fuel pumping time to 5 minutes, same as advanced BEV recharging times.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

No backhoes here, but sure, the 5.7L V8 regularly gets 24-26 mpg on the highway. Do that math however you’d like.

This is a flat out lie.

Nope. Maybe I just got a good one, but that’s what it does. Scouts honor.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

This is a flat out lie.

Nope. Maybe I just got a good one, but that’s what it does. Scouts honor.

Liar. You are a liar.

Trapper Gus wrote:2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk 4WD 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 8-spd - fuel economy 11mpg combined / 17mpg highway on the EPA sticker...

Reviews reports it doesn't do that well, maybe 14 mph highway & that is not towing anything.

24.6-gallon tank - call it 25 to be nice to you ... 25 * 11 = 275-mile range / 25 * 14 = 350-mile range / 25 * 17 = 425-mile range (not happening dude)

Oh, and towing limit is 7200 pounds, not much unless all you are towing is a popup camper.

You might get in the ~20+ mpg range with the 6 cylinder (the reviewers didn't) 2-wheel drive model, not towing anything of course, and definitely not at 75 mph.

You have to go to the $80K SRT to try to defend your point? LOL

Motown Spartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Nope.  Maybe I just got a good one, but that’s what it does.  Scouts honor.

Liar. You are a liar.

‘Fraid not, my EV loving friend.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Nope. Maybe I just got a good one, but that’s what it does. Scouts honor.

Liar. You are a liar.

Or he really sucks at math ...

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

Liar. You are a liar.

Or he really sucks at math ...

I just go with what the trip computer tells me. No math involved.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk 4WD 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 8-spd - fuel economy 11mpg combined / 17mpg highway on the EPA sticker...

Reviews reports it doesn't do that well, maybe 14 mph highway & that is not towing anything.

24.6-gallon tank - call it 25 to be nice to you ... 25 * 11 = 275-mile range / 25 * 14 = 350-mile range / 25 * 17 = 425-mile range (not happening dude)

Oh, and towing limit is 7200 pounds, not much unless all you are towing is a popup camper.

You might get in the ~20+ mpg range with the 6 cylinder (the reviewers didn't) 2-wheel drive model, not towing anything of course, and definitely not at 75 mph.

You have to go to the $80K SRT to try to defend your point? LOL

Just picked the one that came up, dude ... same engine, same drivetrain, same fuel economy ...

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

You have to go to the $80K SRT to try to defend your point? LOL

Just picked the one that came up, dude ... same engine, same drivetrain, same fuel economy ...

Nope. Go find the 5.7L and get back to us. Hell, since we’re not towing backhoes, check out the very capable 3.6L V6.

The point is, RQA is right and you’re wrong.