Electric Car News

glhs837

Power with Control
When someone repeatedly extoles the benefits of dianetics, they can claim not to be a Scientologist all they want, but they're preaching from the same book.
Please, show me where I've ever spoken of climate change at all, let alone in reference to EVs. They have mechanical benefits that I think are worth the drawbacks. Every machine is a compromise. EVs and ICE both have benefits and drawbacks. And the notion that one is perfect while the other is hopelessly flawed is a sign of someone who isn't willing to be objective.
 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
Hmmm, I've not told anyone they should buy an EV. And for some they are a waste of money. You say they are a waste for everyone. And that's demonstrably false. And it's not you I'm speaking to anyway. You can't reach someone who refuses to think. But others read this thread. :)
Please learn to read, perhaps then you will not make such an ass of yourself!
 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
IMG_3726.jpeg
 

glhs837

Power with Control
So, I don't agree with the tax credit scheme. But it exists and nobody is going to buy and not take the credit if they can. So, if you pay $7,500 or more in taxes (not at the end of the year, but during the whole year through withholding) you can get a base Model 3 standard range for 30K.

 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
So, I don't agree with the tax credit scheme. But it exists and nobody is going to buy and not take the credit if they can. So, if you pay $7,500 or more in taxes (not at the end of the year, but during the whole year through withholding) you can get a base Model 3 standard range for 30K.

Still junk at half the price, lol!
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
So, I don't agree with the tax credit scheme. But it exists and nobody is going to buy and not take the credit if they can. So, if you pay $7,500 or more in taxes (not at the end of the year, but during the whole year through withholding) you can get a base Model 3 standard range for 30K.

Too many issues with the model 3, unless apparently you can get a chinese one (which wouldn't qualify for the credit). And I don't understand why they charge a destination fee and other fees associated with a dealership other than the fact that people are used to paying for them.

I had a lightning on order, but then the dealers got crazy with their market rate adjustments so I dropped it. I would like a crossover SUV but the Kona and Niro are either too small or have other issues (not to mention don't get the full tax credit).

The Ioniq 5 is close, but still too expensive for what you get and again the tax credit doesn't sweeten the pot.

I considered the bolt ev and euv, but they are impossible to get unless you travel to DC and then those dealers are marking them up around $7-8k (surprise surprise).

I'm too cheap to buy the high end cars and I won't abide scummy car dealer markups on the mid range vehicles, so I guess I am stuck for a while.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Too many issues with the model 3, unless apparently you can get a chinese one (which wouldn't qualify for the credit). And I don't understand why they charge a destination fee and other fees associated with a dealership other than the fact that people are used to paying for them.

I had a lightning on order, but then the dealers got crazy with their market rate adjustments so I dropped it. I would like a crossover SUV but the Kona and Niro are either too small or have other issues (not to mention don't get the full tax credit).

The Ioniq 5 is close, but still too expensive for what you get and again the tax credit doesn't sweeten the pot.

I considered the bolt ev and euv, but they are impossible to get unless you travel to DC and then those dealers are marking them up around $7-8k (surprise surprise).

I'm too cheap to buy the high end cars and I won't abide scummy car dealer markups on the mid range vehicles, so I guess I am stuck for a while.

Destination fee recoups the cost to bring the vehicle to the point of sale. And it's averaged so folks on the east coast pay the same as folks in Fremont. I don't know what other fees they charge. I suppose they could roll that into the MSRP, but then you are not apples to apples with other makers when you compare MSRP.

The Bolt situation is funny. GM fire sales them, literally, and the dealers go full rape mode.
 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
Destination fee recoups the cost to bring the vehicle to the point of sale. And it's averaged so folks on the east coast pay the same as folks in Fremont. I don't know what other fees they charge. I suppose they could roll that into the MSRP, but then you are not apples to apples with other makers when you compare MSRP.

The Bolt situation is funny. GM fire sales them, literally, and the dealers go full rape mode.
Dealers are just taking advantage of what their customer base will pay, in other word the stupider the customer the more they can charge. With an EV customer they have a gold mine!
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
So your big smarty pants response to oil currently being heavily subsidized isn't that it might be fair to also subsidize a competitor, but rather it's fair to NOT subsidize a competitor because oil wasn't subsidized 100 years ago when it had virtually no competitors.
I think Kyle made an exceedingly good point - the oil industry did not need extremely high subsidies to begin, thrive and dominate. It was in demand. People wanted it. And as the industry advanced, more and more uses came from it. I think a case could be made that today, at least one reason it is subsidized is, it's so very vital to our entire country, we can't permit it to collapse - we don't just need the gas, we need the petroleum products, which can include an overwhelming amount of what we buy - plastics, synthetic fibers, paint, shoes, pesticide, crayons, tires -

petroleum_products.jpg


EVs, on the other hand, are not seeing the leaps and bounds WITHOUT help. I mentioned once before - once bicycles became useful for everyday people - not the ridiculous pennyfarthing types but the modern bicycle - there were MILLIONS across the planet within two years. When flight was first achieved - people were flying the English Channel in just nine years and they were dogfighting over Europe in 12.

I realize you are not forcing EVs, but making legislation that says all new vehicles must be electric - that kind of DOES force it.
 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
I think Kyle made an exceedingly good point - the oil industry did not need extremely high subsidies to begin, thrive and dominate.
you might want to be careful of that… Agreeing with me could put you on Professor Navin Johnson’s radar.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
you might want to be careful of that… Agreeing with me could put you on Professor Navin Johnson’s radar.
Phhhh - you and I agree on more stuff than just about anyone else on here. Sometimes I don't comment, because you've already said it.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Not news, but an observation. I was at the redlight on RT235 today where it meets Chancellors Run road and a model 3 Tesla pulled up beside me in the far left lane. The light turned green and the Tesla took off, not hard, but what I would consider spirited for say a Nissan Altima. Its tires were squealing for quite some time, not spinning, but making noise from a just slightly quicker than average acceleration. To me this means it was quite a bit out of alignment, possibly had too much toe, whatever it was the tires were fighting against each other.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between subsidizing electric and the electric car. You can't really compare subsidizing a fuel source with something using that fuel, but the leap is made that not subsidizing oil was not subsidizing the auto industry. The US government did to a heavy extent with WW1 and WW2 so they would make everything from tanks, jeeps, airplanes for them. Not on one side or the other here just interested in accuracy.
 

DaSDGuy

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between subsidizing electric and the electric car. You can't really compare subsidizing a fuel source with something using that fuel, but the leap is made that not subsidizing oil was not subsidizing the auto industry. The US government did to a heavy extent with WW1 and WW2 so they would make everything from tanks, jeeps, airplanes for them. Not on one side or the other here just interested in accuracy.
Vehicles, yes. The government purchased what was available. Fuel sources/stations, no. Those were private industry only.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Destination fee recoups the cost to bring the vehicle to the point of sale.
I know what a destination fee is. You have to drive to pickup your Tesla unless you pay extra to have it shipped directly to your house. Would you pay Lexington Park Ford $1500 destination fee and then either pay them another $500 to have the car delivered to your door or drive to Richmond or Norfolk to pick it up (and deal with a second driver or taking a cab or whatever)?
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
I think Kyle made an exceedingly good point - the oil industry did not need extremely high subsidies to begin, thrive and dominate. It was in demand. People wanted it. And as the industry advanced, more and more uses came from it. I think a case could be made that today, at least one reason it is subsidized is, it's so very vital to our entire country, we can't permit it to collapse - we don't just need the gas, we need the petroleum products, which can include an overwhelming amount of what we buy - plastics, synthetic fibers, paint, shoes, pesticide, crayons, tires -

View attachment 170913

EVs, on the other hand, are not seeing the leaps and bounds WITHOUT help. I mentioned once before - once bicycles became useful for everyday people - not the ridiculous pennyfarthing types but the modern bicycle - there were MILLIONS across the planet within two years. When flight was first achieved - people were flying the English Channel in just nine years and they were dogfighting over Europe in 12.

I realize you are not forcing EVs, but making legislation that says all new vehicles must be electric - that kind of DOES force it.

Way to miss the entire point. If oil was and is so great (and I agree it's pretty good) why does it NEED to be so heavily subsidized? Why do I need to pay taxes so that your F350 gets cheaper fuel?
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between subsidizing electric and the electric car. You can't really compare subsidizing a fuel source with something using that fuel, but the leap is made that not subsidizing oil was not subsidizing the auto industry. The US government did to a heavy extent with WW1 and WW2 so they would make everything from tanks, jeeps, airplanes for them. Not on one side or the other here just interested in accuracy.
They also allowed GM and other companies to buy up mass transit lines (rail and bus) and shutter them. That wouldn't be allowed in most industries. Guess what would happen if Google bought Apple (or vice versa) and immediately killed their phone/OS.
 
Top