Jeep will launch four all-electric SUVs in the US by 2025
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Toyota is clearly thinking about it. Whether or not you can go buy one before you geriatric out of driving anywhere is anyone's guess.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Yeah I took that descriptor as hyperbole and looked for a basic 2 door Jeep that looks like a CJ or an 80s/90s era Wrangler. Which the Wrangler Sport does, to this day.
The 2023 Wrangler Sport 2 door is definitely a more modern car, but the aesthetic styling is far closer to the older "Jeep-type-Jeeps" than anything else available from Jeep or anyone else for that matter.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I've got a 1944 Willy's Army Jeep and an '01 Cherokee. In the 35+ years that I've owned the Willy's I've tapped the 5 gal can once. I use the Cherokee as a tow vehicle 2 - 3 times a year. My long tow is 200 miles. As of yet there are no good charging options along that route(There are a handful of level 2 chargers but no DC chargers yet.) The Willy's and it's 1/4 ton trailer loaded on the 16' tandem axle trailer with my gear for the weekend is about 4800#. There's not yet any BEVs on the market with the range and capacity for that trip so the Cherokee soldiers on. Hopefully one of these Jeeps will have the range & towing capacity I need before the Cherokee dies.
Our daily drivers are a pair of 2017 Bolt's. I've made 3 long (multi day) trips in the one with DC charging. Even with the slow charge rate of the Bolt (maxes out at 54 kWh) those trips didn't take significantly longer then comparable trips in an ICE.
And your ICE contribution to the problem is -- negligible. Replacing your tow vehicle and / or off roader with a BEV would contribute more to carbon production and general pollution than simply doing what you are doing.
It amazes me that people like Ushio think that the solution is to just stop ICE vehicle use and, sometime in the very near future, go completely to BEV. Completely impossible for any number of fairly obvious reasons.
What we seem to be doing - a gradual yet sort of focused switch to BEVs / PHEVs for high mileage users seems appropriate but should have happened 10-20 years ago. Second best time is now.
We will be using oil based vehicles and products for a very long time yet. The trick is to keep them in the realm of 24 hour emergency trombone repairmen and let everyone who is commuting for 2 hours and every small to medium diesel truck go ICE.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
By what measure are you considering "environmentally sound?" Ars wrote an article titled "New EV vs. old beater: Which is better for the environment?". TLDR was that in basically every situation a new BEV surpasses a used ICEV within a few years.
Using 2021 US national energy mix, researchers at Argonne National Laboratories calculated Model 3 surpasses a 33mpg Toyota Corolla at 13,500 miles.. With 100% Hydro (e.g. carbon free), it's after 8,400 miles. With 100% Coal, it's 78,000 miles (that's a lot... but it's still within the operational lifetime of the vehicle).
That is for sedans... they also calculated it for midsized SUVs. Showing a Tesla Model surpasses a 30mpg Honda CR-V at 9,200/14,800/89,000 miles for hydro/US avg/coal electricity.
So as the US energy mix gets cleaner... the a BEV will be even more "environmentally" sound from the perspective of CO2 emission at the very least (there are some other environmentally oriented nuances, but most of them are red herrings).
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Because Trumpies, QAnon nutters want to burn everything down, rather than make it better. We could have had a reasonable transitions if the nuts stopped doing their worse to make it impossible.
No one is taking anyone's car away. That's just typical Right Wing fear mongering, trying to make everything worse. As usual. The person you were responding too, also had said you just limit his changes to new cars, or cars imported.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
The bolded is just comically wrong.
Station wagons and minivans can carry big/long things or lots of people without the extreme level of hazard to everyone else not inside of the vehicle.
Upvote
-7
(2
/
-9)
A modern minivan is a 4700lb, full-size vehicle that's usually nearly six feet tall, seventeen feet long. and over six and a half feet wide. One of the last modern wagons sold in the US, the Buick Regal TourX, is over sixteen feet long, six wide, and weighs 3800lb. Both of them are longer, wider, and significantly heavier than my SUV is, and neither of them would be substantially more pleasant to get hit by. And if you electrify any of them, their weight just increases.
Are 3000-6000lb personal vehicles ever environmentally neutral, whatever provides their motive force? No. But as much as you'd personally rather see people driving a wagon or a minivan, let's not pretend they're a dramatic environmental or social improvement over a crossover of SUV, all other things approximately equal.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
For the first part it's not just the weight, it's the massive forward blind zones and the huge, flat forward grille, as opposed to the sloped hood of normal-sized vehicles.
For the second paragraph, just total red herring. Electrified vehicles are not "guilt-free on climate". We need smaller and fewer automobiles. We can't just keep going on the same trajectory of car dependency, but electrified, and call it a day.
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
Thanks for that, now I understand how it works.
Better than no issue, it'll be really good at it. The powertrain requirements for rock crawling are pretty much a description of an EV powertrain.
I've got a good amount of seat time rock crawling and recently spent an afternoon in an R1T offroad. Battery use wasn't a problem, as moving slowly and stopping a lot is just the kind of thing that EVs are good at. The ability to individually control torque delivery at each wheel thanks to four independent motors was very impressive. Even the flat bottom that helps with aero also helps with sliding over things. The biggest problem it had was that it's basically a full size truck in terms of size and weight, so it had a little more trouble with tight quarters than the Range Rover Classic and 4Runner that were with us.
(Dunno why I was downvoted like hell for asking a reasonable question that received informative answers.)
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Massive forward bind spots are an issue with some of the very largest SUVs, not SUVs as a category, and minivans possess them as well, along with many commercial vehicles. This strikes me as hunting for a criticism now that others are less valid.
Since you obviously didn't read my second para at all, I invite you to do so now, as you'll find we're in substantial agreement. I just don't think you're singling out SUVs accurately or honestly, as your criticism applies to many if not all personal motor vehicles.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
On towing…
A vehicle’s tow rating (which is an absolute upper limit, not what the vehicle can comfortably handle on the highway) is the vehicle’s rated Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR), minus the weight of the towing vehicle including all passengers and cargo. For comfortable towing at highway speeds, rather than just lugging something slowly for short distances on side roads, a good rule of thumb is that you want the max rated towing capacity to be at least 1.5x the actual trailer weight, and for a rear hitch, you really want the tow vehicle to outmass the trailer or else your driving dynamics can get really sketchy. And for a boat, you also need enough tow vehicle mass to drag the boat + trailer + gear up steep ramps that often have abysmal coefficients of friction.
So let’s look at some numbers. I have an older 4-cylinder 19’ boat, which is a nice size for a family of 4. On the trailer, it is going to weigh around 3500 pounds. I tow it with a 4x4 midsize body-on-frame SUV that weighs about 4800 pounds as it sits, with a gross combined weight rating of 11,000 pounds. If I am carrying four adults plus their stuff (say 800 pounds total), my max towing capacity is 11,000 - (4800 + 800) = 5400 pounds. Divide that by 1.5 for comfortable towing at highway speeds, and I’m right at 3600 lb. Perfect, and borne out by actual experience (the boat feels heavy but tows fine, transient motions are significant but well managed, and much more mass would be a real handful).
Now do the math for an Ioniq5. Hyundai says it is rated to tow 2000 pounds, which is the same rating as a couple of midsize sports sedans I’ve owned. Scaled down for highway towing rather than slow lugging on side roads, and you’re down to roughly 1350 pounds in round numbers. That is enough for a 2-person jon boat with a tiller outboard, or a jet ski and trailer (or maybe a pair of PWCs on the trailer, if they are light), or a light two-person daysailer. But one could not safely tow a 17’ or 19’ powerboat or a bona fide keel sailboat with a 3300-lb vehicle with a 2000 pound tow rating. You would have the raw torque to get the combo up to speed, sure, but not enough mass to safely manage it or stop it, and (assuming a Class I hitch to match the tow rating), the hitch would not be rated for the trailer mass or tongue weight either.
Similar math could be done for campers. An Ioniq5 would be great for towing a popup or a small teardrop, but you’d be limited to campers with a dry weight of 1250 lb or so (remember actual towing weight of a travel trailer is the nameplate dry weight PLUS the mass of the water in the tanks, propane, food, cookware, etc.).
So, as always, remember that people’s use cases differ, and what works for me might not work for you, and vice versa. An F-150 Lightning would be a better choice for hauling midsize boats and such, (though I’m not sure of the top of my head what it’s tow rating is), whereas the Ioniq 5 is probably the better people hauler, and both have their advantages and disadvantages for different roles.
Sources:
https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/3463
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ... ght_rating
https://www.walleyecentral.com/forums/s ... p?t=232641
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I see “plenty of people” doing all kinds of things I don’t participate in. So what?
I’m in the “let me define my needs camp” but I did subsequently define one of my use cases — my elderly father is, quite literally, no longer capable of sitting down into — or getting up out of — a regular car. Too low. So it’s an SUV, a pickup (with the drop down suspension) or a Van of some sort.
Beyond that. I’ve been driving off-road for over 30 years now. I agree that there are times when 2 wheel drive is fine. I’ve had occasions to push “normal” vehicles right up to their limits. Including my ex’s AWD Element at an extremely muddy festival when I drove past stuck Jeeps to get to our campsite so we could evacuate. I got away with this only because of knowledge, practiced skills, and experience.
I once watched a young woman break her brand new Subaru Outback in half, literally, trying to follow us down a logging road in Maine. We were just headed to a lunch spot — the real driving was yet to come.
When I say I make use of a 4WD truck, I mean it. I use the ground clearance. I use the cargo capacity (plus the ability to sleep in the rear). I sometimes need the 4WD. I drive in “stay home” weather. Sometimes in service of my community. In addition, I would be unable to get a sand access permit for many beaches without it.
I use my trucks. Believe me. Don’t. I can’t make you. I don’t really care.
Just to be clear, my current vehicle (in addition to the classic Land-Rover, and a built-up Discovery, both currently in storage) is a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Not a tiny vehicle — but not a behemoth either. It’s low enough, but not too low, that the elders can get in and out of it. Its comfortable enough for every day driving. I am looking for something smaller for every day — but I’m also fortunate that we, as a family, can support multiple vehicles.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
This 100x. A tow that “wags the dog” is exhausting, and dangerous. Just because you can do something doesn’t make it comfortable or safe. I’ve spotted and launched very large boats in a yard with my old Land-Rover. I’d never want to get onto the highway, or be capable of going over a mountain, pulling them.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
10,000 pounds of “normal” towing at 2000 pounds payload, with the usual asterisk to denote there are qualifiers.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Our first vehicle is a Model 3
The 18 year old CUV is our 2nd car, which my wife won't drive, and that's what we use to haul stuff around.
But for road trips, we use the Tesla.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Given that the best selling vehicles (for the last 30-40 years!) have been trucks, and the top eight out of ten sold are trucks or SUVs, they aren't going away.
With that being the reality, I'd rather have solo drivers getting 66 MPGe:
Instead of 23 MPG:
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
They have to sell these things at a profit. They don't want to make sedans, because sedans have a much higher degree of safety to achieve, and they're not popular cars for new car buyers in the U.S.
Trucks and SUV'S (cars built on a truck chassis) are both cheaper to make, and are more easily sold for a higher dollar amount. But they're heavier, so the mileage in EV's are lower (the battery can be bigger, but it also weighs more than in a sedan, so there's a trade-off in mileage for a larger battery. That math varies depending on several factors, though.).
The bottom line is if you want to sell millions of EV's in the U.S., most of them had better not be sedans.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Tesla Model X has tow capacity of 5,000 lbs and a Model Y of 3,500 lbs
Jaguar I-Pace has tow capacity of 4,800 lbs
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Then Aptera may be the vehicle for you (assuming they ship - which is looking promising actually).
If you don't need a car as large as one of these Jeeps (and to be honest a fair number of people driving them don't really need them) then that might be an option. Your needs may vary of course.
The issue generally isn't the batteries, it is the inefficiency of the rest of the car.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I get the sentiment, but I think it is misplaced.
If the intent is to get people out of their SUV's then the best way to do that is to offer them an alternative to a car-centric lifestyle. If you do that you will get a large percentage of people opting for much lower impact transportation options (walking, biking, transit, and smaller cars).
But trying to browbeat people into it when the world around them is not properly designed for it is counter productive AND not even really all that necessary. Converting people from an SUV to a smaller car has a MUCH smaller positive impact than converting the same number (or more) people from cars to car alternatives. Focus on that and, as a part of that process, engage with people to make it happen instead of arguing with them.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
How does your rational math solve the problem of people who do need to do something 10% of the time needing to do that thing? If I need a high-power GPU for 10% of my work, should I buy a computer without it?
I agree, there is a point where people do things so infrequently that rental probably makes more sense financially, but I also understand why this doesn’t appeal to those who do something regularly, if infrequently. I want to be comfortable with the vehicle I’m using to pull my camper. I want to be able to use my boat on an ad-hoc basis when I manage to sneak out of work early.
You may not agree with the reasons others have for making their choices, but that doesn’t make them irrational or not-calculated.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Given that the best selling vehicles (for the last 30-40 years!) have been trucks, and the top eight out of ten sold are trucks or SUVs, they aren't going away.
With that being the reality, I'd rather have solo drivers getting 66 MPGe:
Instead of 23 MPG:
MPGe is meaningless.
Compare the complete emissions:
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?yea ... action=bt3
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Faced with a less inflammatory attack (which I chose to ignore), I might have revealed that, in addition to driving Satan’s Utility Vehicle, I was a 40 mile/day bicycle commuter until I lost my job. Full time 9ish months/year and as often as possible during deep winter — Yes, I use a truck, but only when I can’t use a bike.
I plan to cycle commute again when I return to work — in fact it’s a priority in the “where” part of my job search. I’m not nominating myself for sainthood. We all can, and should, do more. However, I’m far from being the force of disregard and destruction I was painted as.
My comment about becoming “anti-government” was intended to make the point that it’s not just right-wing anti-vax, climate change deniers who have use for larger vehicles. Yes, I would peacefully resist any efforts at an SUV ban as was originally proposed. I have a voice, and a vote. No, I won’t be taking up arms. (Yes “lefties” can own and operate firearms too.)
My use and enjoyment of “big” trucks is something of an inconsistency. One that motivates a lot of thought but, to date, solutions allude me — particularly given the situation with my aging parents and that my “get away spots” are several hours drive. (Again, the family situation prevents me from relocating at this time.)
So I do my best. I’m hoping for a smaller car for my personal use, and, more importantly, a more environmentally friendly truck when I need that. Better? Yes. Perfect? I never made any such claim.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Still waiting for an E Gladiator. Until then I’ll hold on to my 2020 gladiator
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I bet EVs would make excellent 4x4 off-roaders...speaking to the fact their weight is likely distributed a lot better *and* the fact each wheel can operate truly independently in regard to traction control I mean.
A dozen years ago I remember seeing a lot of older military surplus 3/4 Chevy Trucks with 6.2L diesels (hardly rocket ship power plants I mean, lol) being fixed up because while it wasn't uber powerful, it still was a cheap diesel that made power lower than gas engines, speaking to things like rock crawling, etc.
Those trucks always fascinated me, they had been manufactured for the military in the 80s and they were practically indestructible because even though they were 3/4 ton pickups, the drivetrains were essentially full-ton heavy duty and considering the 6.2L diesels could only make like 250-300lbs of torque, it was virtually impossible to hurt them in normal operation.
A dozen years ago I remember seeing a lot of older military surplus 3/4 Chevy Trucks with 6.2L diesels (hardly rocket ship power plants I mean, lol) being fixed up because while it wasn't uber powerful, it still was a cheap diesel that made power lower than gas engines, speaking to things like rock crawling, etc.
Those trucks always fascinated me, they had been manufactured for the military in the 80s and they were practically indestructible because even though they were 3/4 ton pickups, the drivetrains were essentially full-ton heavy duty and considering the 6.2L diesels could only make like 250-300lbs of torque, it was virtually impossible to hurt them in normal operation.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I'm European and I don't find SUVs useful for my needs, but it's increasingly difficult to find in the market a no-SUV that fits what I want.
Correction: it's difficult to find a no-SUV and I know some people in the same situation that is delaying the purchase due to that.
Correction: it's difficult to find a no-SUV and I know some people in the same situation that is delaying the purchase due to that.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
SUVs are the largest growing, highest demand market segment. Vehicle manufacturers don't set or create market demand, they respond to it.
SUVs are a very important tool for families, those who live out of town, those who need to more more stuff than would fit in a smaller car, those with pets to transport, etc. Depending on regional terminology like in some places where SUV can also mean a 4x4, they're important for those who work offroad.
The "please stop" approach to this ignores people's needs, and smacks of someone who hasn't been exposed to those needs for very long.
Meeting the demand of the market in a sustainable and innovative way is how you drive a change in the market. Whining at the market that the participants needs are wrong is how you ensure innovation dies - because nobody will buy in, because it doesn't meet their needs.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
And that's the point for a lot of people, the utility component. I'd like to be able to haul stuff around, head offroad and not get stuck in the first muddy pothole I encounter, park against a tree if I need to, and know that my drive train won't let me down. Even better if I can easily bypass sensors etc that could leave me stranded if and when they break, and I'll replace and reconnect them when I'm back home and safe.
I'd love an EV, but I'm stuck between replacing the heavy diesel that doesn't let me down costs a bit in fuel but nothing in finance, nd isn't environmentally friendly, vs getting a horrendously expensive EV with the same capabilities for 30%+ the cost of a house and land where I live.
It's not a hard sell to keep the old stuff around at that point.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I think you have an unrealistic notion of the scope of the problem.
The problem is that mass transit in general is a non-starter for most people who live near large cities. While people are, indeed, moving into urban areas, they're not heading to down-town locations. They're heading for Suburbia, for the most part. And because of the realities behind the real estate prices, they keep moving farther out from the city, meaning longer commutes to work (because work from home isn't available to everyone) and other places they need to go. Spreading out our population across suburbia without spreading out the businesses they frequent (putting them in a few concentrated malls miles or tens of miles away) and spreading out grocery stores creating food deserts makes mass transit even less attractive and more time consuming.
As an example of that, in order for me to get to the major VA health care center where I live for most exams and tests without a car, I have to walk more than a mile to the light rail, then take an hour and a half trip covering 28 miles and transit from down-town to a different train up to where the VA health care center is. It's two and a half hours during rush hour (because more people loading and unloading takes longer). Then it's another hour and a half back (or more). That for a 15 minute appointment. Don't talk about buses, they take 2 1/2-4 hours each way to make the trip. An Uber would use as much gas (or more) than my car would. There are no bike paths or other forms of transportation there and back that doesn't involve a car. Shopping for anything more than one bag of anything is impractical (especially when the buses/trains are crowded.
That's in a major West Coast city with a modern mixed mass transit system. That experience is typical of most West Coast cities for the same distance traveled. The only people who use it are transients, sometimes students, and the poor who have no other options to get from A to B.
And you have to remember there are a lot of people (like me) who can't walk long distances, nor carry heavy items and can't do both at the same time without needing professional medical intervention.
In another example, about 30 years ago, when I was actually able to walk and ride a bike, my car got wrecked, and I was forced to use mass transit (This was in another city that was much more compact). By car, my work was only 12-15 minutes away. By mass transit, it was 45-70 minutes, taking the train to the bus station when the weather was bad, and getting on the bus at the transit center that let out almost directly in front of work worked only when the buses were running (and they weren't when the weather was especially cold). The closest train station was about a third of a mile from my work. I walked the third of a mile to and from work from the train station one winter when the temperature was -5 F. The total distance was only about 8 miles by surface street. That 12 hour shift I worked took 15 hours to get there and back, leaving virtually no time to do much of anything except shower and go to bed.
A final example, in the same city (different side), it took an hour and a half (that included a shortcut through a mountain) to make a normally 25 minute, 12 mile drive to get from our hotel to my father's care center. This was last year, actually, during the intermission between COVID waves in the spring. Considering it was raining and cold most of that time, it was a thoroughly unpleasant trip, and it was still a half mile walk to get to where we were going because the buses didn't get any closer.
That's what mass transit is like for any appreciable distance in almost every city in America. Some are better than others, but none of them are as good as taking a POV there. The only time a POV is less attractive is when the place you're going is close enough, and safe enough, to walk within about 15-20 minutes. In my neighborhood (and many others) it's not safe walking around day after day, let alone night after night.
Yes, all anecdotal stories from one point of view, but they are common experiences across almost 40 years, meaning mass transit is not getting better in the U.S. and for folks with mobility issues, they're a nightmare.
In most of the United States, especially the Western side, there is literally no way to make mass transit functionally useful. Before WWII, roads were pretty sparse, and cities were laid out large businesses and shop fairly close for those living in the cities. People also lived closer to their places of work than we do today. After WWII, the national freeway system was built, and the cities grew up around that, meaning the cities were essentially rebuilt over the last (almost) 80 years focusing on CARS as the sole means of getting around. Then the suburbs arose, and so did the increase in freeway capacity. Mass transit for most Americans is barely even a safety net for those who don't have cars, or don't have lives. They're also fraught for everyone riding them during times like pandemics or social unrest.
I agree that we need to do transportation differently. But in the U.S. (and many other more recently developed countries who bought into the U.S. lifestyle), I can't think of anything that will make mass transit something enough people will take to make a difference, and no place in the U.S. could handle the load if everyone who has a car now didn't have the cars.
In a democracy, you're never going to get that kind of pie-in-the-sky "get them to drop their cars for something far, far, far less convenient" idea put into effect. There is nothing that can attract your average American to go for that lifestyle.
What we're doing NOW is really the only thing that can get people out of their cars, and into their cars. That is to say out of their ICE's and into their EV's. If you're looking for the best short-term option, subsidize the purchase of EV's for every ICE out there today so that they are far more affordable. Build the infrastructure to recharge them (including the power plants we'll need, howsoever that's done, preferably green, of course). It'll likely cost trillions of dollars, but that will be far faster, far less disruptive and far CHEAPER than trying to get people out of their cars into any kind of mass transit.
Because to do mass transit RIGHT, you need to completely tear down the cities we have and start over.
Once we're all on board with EV's, THEN examine the options for mass transit. And we will be forced to make new cities in the coming years anyhow as climate change makes many (if not most) of our cities uninhabitable. Those lost can be intelligently rebuilt from the ground up wtih the designs so that cars aren't nearly as necessary as they are for most cities today.
In the face of having to relocate dozens of major cities on all coasts of the U.S. (and even inland, since Portland OR is only at 16 meters elevation or so and sea level rise can be as much as 20-60 meters THIS CENTURY if the worst case scenarios play out faster than predicted - as they are doing NOW), we can look at redoing mass transit if we have the time. But for the cities that won't be made unlivable, swapping out ICE's with EV's will do the climate a lot more good a hell of a lot faster and a hell of a lot less expensively than what you propose.
We have to be smart in how we adapt to climate change. Wasting money on mass transit improvements that require a complete redesign of the cities to be made functionally useful, and tons of capital in places that don't really need them (assuming everyone is driving EV's in those places) in the face of needing funds to move dozens of major coastal cities inland seems like an enormous waste of money, time and energy to me.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I agree we don't have time to change cities drastically reverse GHG emissions.
OTOH, we can't just say changing cities is too hard, and just keep making bad cities worse...
I follow the YT channel "Not Just Bikes", and it highlights not only bicycle transportation in the Netherlands but the contrast between car centric and people centric cities.
In the 50' and 60's the Netherlands had an massive influx of cars and was building toward a car centric society, but in the 1970's with rising pedestrian deaths, they started to reverse that, and through constant effort they have made MUCH better cities, that are much more livable, with much less cars. This isn't just about GHG emissions, it's just a much better way to live, and while we are working on EVs, we could be shifting cities in the right direction, rather than just doing business as usual.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
I also really like my iphone mini, it doesn't change the fact that it's unpopular. I have an older Jeep Wrangler TJ specifically because I like the small size of the jeep.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Yes, I read that article when it was written. It's also referencing 2010 EPA fuel economy numbers given the average age of a car on the road today is just over 12 years. The poster I was replying to was talking about making all large ICEVs illegal by 2035, so assuming the average age of vehicles remains about 12 years, that would mean the "old beater" is using 2023 EPA fuel economy numbers. The most recent we have are 2021 numbers, which is 8887 grams of CO2 per mile, or roughly 3512 kg (7744lbs) annually.
Using the same calculations as the earlier article, the EV produces 12000 lbs in manufacturing and 2866 lbs annually based on the average US grid mix (this is todays mix - the 2035 mix will be greener but we don't know by how much so can't use it in calculations).
As before, for a bit over the first 2 years of the car's lifetime, the new BEV is worse for the environment than the existing ICEV. Beyond that, the CO2 "debt" from manufacturing has broken even, and the BEV is more efficient.
So yes, a ton of people with existing cars that work fine but become illegal overnight all rushing out to get a new BEV would be worse for the environment than if those same people continued driving their existing ICEVs and replaced them via attrition, at least up through about 2037.
Don't get me wrong, I like BEVs and my next car will be a BEV Maverick (assuming Ford releases one, which really feels like a no brainer to me). I have no issue with laws pushing people into BEVs whether they like it or not, provided there are subsidies so the working poor don't get shafted. That said, making a huge swath of available cars on the road (and on the used market) illegal overnight is not a workable solution.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Follow the quote chain. The person I was responding to originally said to make all vehicles over 1500kg illegal to manufacture, purchase, sell, own, or operate. I have zero issue with banning manufacture of new vehicles, zero issue with banning sale of used vehicles (provided there are subsidies to help the working poor who now have to deal with a much smaller used market), but I have a MAJOR issue with banning the use of existing vehicles that people use every day. You want to raise gas taxes and registration fees through the roof on vehicles like that and make it economically unfeasible to continue using them? Go right ahead, I'll back that 100%, again, so long as there are subsidies to cover the working poor.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
I can’t vouch for the accuracy — damn lies and statistics being bedfellows and all — but you might find some guidance regarding boat and camping trailer ownership in the following:
Boating Statistics in 2022 (incl. Covid & Millennials) | Quicknav
37+ Key RV Industry Statistics, Trends & Facts (2022 Data)
Both segments saw growth during the pandemic.
From the latter, I found two datapoints to be of particular interest…
None of this should be interpreted as an endorsement of “bigger things” on my part. Ultimately I’m looking for a simple “camper van”, or possibly a camper insert on a pickup, (once I’m free to roam again myself) and hope by the time that’s a reality there are “affordable” electric options available.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I am just wondering where you pulled that 1500kg number from. In perspective a Tesla Model 3 (thanks google) weighs between 3,648 and 4,250 lbs (1654 - 1927kg). With that in mind what kind of BEV are you thinking of? What kind of carry capacity, range, survivability etc are you talking about?
How about a 1974 Ford Pinto? Google says that they weighed 2370 lbs (1075.014 kg) so that meets your criteria and hey, they were listed at 20mpg damm good for 1974!
You know, the '74 Chevy Vega was only 2217 lbs (1005.614 kg) and was listed at 21mpg...
Ok fine, how about a 1977 (last year made for sale in the US) VW Beetle? Google says: 1830 lbs ( 830.074 kg).
My point is that an arbitrary (so it seems) weight limit is not a good measure of what size vehicles should/should not be allowed.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Also......a 10% use case is a significant one! If your car doesn't do what you need it to do one trip out of every ten you take, that's a huge pain in the ass.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I completely agree that an "overnight" operational ban on ICEV, and/or vehicles over 1500kg is a bad idea - however, the fact that it is temporarily worse environment for a few years, but then guaranteed to be much better for the environment forever after seems like a pretty weak argument against it.
Imagine for a moment that all the much bigger issues were magically resolved in some rainbows-unicorns alternate dimension. That the entire population suddenly was very pro-BEV... and voted in politicians that were pro-BEV and create BEV-incentives make them affordable to all households, and automakers were some how able ramp up production of affordable BEV, and logistical enforcement of the ban was easy and had no legal challenges, non-compliance, etc... so the only issue is the short term rise in GHG emissions due to the higher energy require to build the batteries. That situation still is literally the "best case scenario" in terms of cumulative GHG from personal transportation 10 years later, 20 years later, 30 years later, forever after.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
On the other side of the Atlantic, there are lots of cars around 1500kg - some of them were (possibly still are, I'm not sure) sold in the US, including the Ford Fiesta. The Vauxhall Corsa EV I have on order is 1530kg, ever so slightly over Ushio's limit, but it wouldn't be hard to trim some fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta
https://ev-database.uk/car/1585/Vauxhall-Corsa-e
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we are in agreement about the problem. The problem is poor urban land use planning (in North America). That is the number one contributor to transportation related pollution, including but not limited to green house gasses. But let's be clear: the amount of transportation related environmental damage is orders of magnitude bigger than just the emissions from cars and trucks.
The anecdotes that you supply are, unfortunately, all too common in North America. The issues you had/have trying to get around by transit, bike, or walking are pretty much the norm. Those are a product of decades of shitty land use planning - planning that is 100% car oriented.
And those issues result in more than just auto emissions. They lead to a significant amount of traffic deaths. They lead to an incredible amount of emissions from maintaining a HUGE network of roads, electrical, telecommunications, water, sewage, etc. They lead to an incredible inequity in access to affordable transportation (everyone is required to carry the costs of owning and servicing a car). They lead to defacto redlining. They require the continual widening and addition of arterial, support roads (with all of the emissions associated with that). They lead to a fleet of vehicles (and all of the energy intensive activities involved in their manufacture and maintenance) that need to be completely refreshed every 15 years or so.
They also lead to the bankruptcy of entire cities and towns as their tax base falls way way behind their infrastructure obligations. Car oriented exurban sprawl *always* runs at a net budget deficit. The only way to pay for it is to issue bonds or hope that your town also has enough higher density developments to subsidize it.
Simply switching to electric cars barely starts to scratch at the surface of these issues.
Now, all of that said, I am 100% behind the switch. Every single step we can take to reduce emissions is needed and switching to electric cars is a part of that strategy. So much so that I am hugely in favor of subsidies to accelerate the transition. There are going to be a large number of benefits from the transition.
But in the total aggregate of issues we are facing due to the crappy land use planning you described in your post, electric cars are like wrapping a bandanna around a severed arm.
We need to start addressing the land use issues immediately (and several communities across the nation are doing so already - often largely inspired by their bankrupt city coffers and recognizing how sprawl is sucking them dry). We can do that AND transition to electric cars at the same time.
And infill development is a real thing that can start to fix some of these problems. It is a way of increasing density in areas of a city or town such that car dependency is reduced (along with all of those other expenses associated with car dependent land use planning). It often involves converting single, detatched housing stock into properties with two units, collections of cottages, duplexes, fourplexes, etc. It can be swapping huge surface parking lots into mixed use developments. It can take the form of simply demolishing millions of acres of dying exurban malls AND not permitting new ones to be built (they can relocate to denser transit oriented new urban infill). It all takes time, but it can be done - without having to demolish an existing city or town. In fact, for many of those areas that have historic - but dying downtowns, it can actually be done more easily because there is already a framework on which to build ("easily" being an EXTREMELY relative term here of course). In those cases you get the added benefit of revitalizing a historic small town.
And it needs to be done as soon as possible. Most roads, for example, are on a roughly 30 - 40 year replacement cycle. If you can do your re-zoning and mixed use planning before a road needs replacement, you can save a lot of money by making the change at the same time the road is replaced.
But transitions like this can take 30-50 years to make... so there is *no* time to wait.
And again, to be clear, none of this needs to interfere with the transition to electric cars. They can both happen at the same time.
When I was replying to the original poster, I was suggesting that they were focused on the wrong thing and, perhaps, going about it in an unproductive way. Attacking people for needing a car is unproductive. People have little immediate power over the shitty land use planning that surrounds them (politically, and as a group they have power - but individually and in the short term they have to deal with what is around them already). Most people living in North American sprawl need to have a car (though probably less than they assume). There is nothing gained by blaming people for needing to drive.
At the same time, attacking people for driving an SUV vs. a regular car is also unproductive. Personally I dislike SUV's with a passion bordering on hate. But, like I have been describing, the difference in the environmental impact of an SUV vs. regular car is dwarfed by the overall damage cause by simply requiring cars.
That doesn't mean we should not all be striving for more efficient cars. I am 2000% in favor of advocating for smaller, more efficient cars. I personally cannot wait for Aptera to finally ship their cars. I just think browbeating people about it is counterproductive. Better to try to encourage other options (smaller cars, electric cars, and much much better land use planning).
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
No, the best-case scenario is to have perfect predictive data about which cars will fail and when, and how many new cars will be needed, and produce exactly enough BEVs to meet that target, no more, no less.
That obviously isn't realistic, so if you want to meet demand, you need to overproduce BEVs (short term bad for the environment, long term net positive for the environment, excess supply creates downward pressure on BEV pricing). I don't think that's a bad thing, to be clear, just something to think about as you theorycraft legislation that impacts several hundred million people, most of whom can't afford a single unexpected $400 expense, let alone a new car at the drop of a hat.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)