ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Electric vehicles

Ford F150, Chevy Silverado, Ram 1500, Toyota Tacoma, and Nissan Titan still use body-on-frame. Since we're talking about pickups, and the listed vehicles are the best selling brands, you're first statement is completely false.
Wrong. I didn’t say pickups in my statement. My point is that automakers have been switching away from body-on-frame for probably over a decade now, although I’d have to go back and check to know exactly how far back. It has mostly been for SUVs that once shared the same platforms as their respective pickups.

I know this because I’ve been reading lots of automotive journals since I was around 10 years old. So I have watched these trends and changes and advancements across the entire industry for decades.

Whereas you appear to only be interested in Tesla-related articles, so your knowledge of all things automotive is fairly skewed and provincial. Put another way, you see the automotive world through Tesla colored glasses.

Otherwise, you would have recognized the falseness of the implied claim, in your quoted text, that Tesla somehow did something wonderful and new here. You were bashing prototypes a day or two ago, when the numbers came from a prototype (a non-Tesla prototype).

Now you‘re quoting some hyperbole from somewhere that is talking about a prototype. Because it’s a Tesla prototype. Try to be consistent, at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUevolution36
You wonder if it wouldn’t be easier for them to just buy a company that is further along than they are…
 
You wonder if it wouldn’t be easier for them to just buy a company that is further along than they are…
Apple being the last company that engendered the sort of cultish following that Tesla "enjoys" today, it will be interesting to see what happens if Apple actually winds up producing a decent EV.

When cults collide. Should be fun.
 
This is hilarious. Let's penalize those who've made an effort to reduce their carbon footprint.

How about legislate a carbon tax? Something that should have been done about 20 years ago. Implemented at an extremely low rate, and slowly, steadily rises over the years. It would encourage innovation for those industries that are the biggest offenders. Neither side of the aisle wants to touch it. Wonder why.
you still use the roads. you are driving a heavy vehicle (compared to its ICE equivalent) and wearing down the road. don't be an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
This is hilarious. Let's penalize those who've made an effort to reduce their carbon footprint.

How about legislate a carbon tax? Something that should have been done about 20 years ago. Implemented at an extremely low rate, and slowly, steadily rises over the years. It would encourage innovation for those industries that are the biggest offenders. Neither side of the aisle wants to touch it. Wonder why.
Those two things, infrastructure taxes and carbon taxes are not mutually exclusive. It's not a penalty - it's a means of raising revenue to maintain roadways and bridges and other transportation infrastructure. And everybody using the roadways and bridges should pay into it.

Or are you saying that your ideal world is one in which everybody is driving an EV on crumbling roads and unsafe bridges? We'd possibly slow global warming just to all crash and die on the roads filled with deep potholes.

Brilliant.
 
Those two things, infrastructure taxes and carbon taxes are not mutually exclusive. It's not a penalty - it's a means of raising revenue to maintain roadways and bridges and other transportation infrastructure. And everybody using the roadways and bridges should pay into it.

Or are you saying that your ideal world is one in which everybody is driving an EV on crumbling roads and unsafe bridges? We'd possibly slow global warming just to all crash and die on the roads filled with deep potholes.

Brilliant.

The Cybertruck would finally look like it belonged.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mildone
Wrong. I didn’t say pickups in my statement. My point is that automakers have been switching away from body-on-frame for probably over a decade now, although I’d have to go back and check to know exactly how far back. It has mostly been for SUVs that once shared the same platforms as their respective pickups.

I know this because I’ve been reading lots of automotive journals since I was around 10 years old. So I have watched these trends and changes and advancements across the entire industry for decades.

Whereas you appear to only be interested in Tesla-related articles, so your knowledge of all things automotive is fairly skewed and provincial. Put another way, you see the automotive world through Tesla colored glasses.

Otherwise, you would have recognized the falseness of the implied claim, in your quoted text, that Tesla somehow did something wonderful and new here. You were bashing prototypes a day or two ago, when the numbers came from a prototype (a non-Tesla prototype).

Now you‘re quoting some hyperbole from somewhere that is talking about a prototype. Because it’s a Tesla prototype. Try to be consistent, at least.
No one was talking about SUVs. The best selling pickups use body-on-frame.
 
you still use the roads. you are driving a heavy vehicle (compared to its ICE equivalent) and wearing down the road. don't be an idiot.
As a national average, less than 1/2 of road funding comes from a fuel tax. Most comes from tolls and user fees/taxes. I'm happy to pay my share for road infrastructure. I'd also like to see those actively destroying the environment to pay for it and as a result, be incentivized to innovate alternatives. Assuming you're not a fossil fuel executive, what's the downside of a carbon tax?

Things that are beneficial to the environment should be incentivized, things that are harmful should come with a price. Is this crazy? Isn't this why we heavily tax cigarettes and alcohol and not fruits and vegetables?
 
As a national average, less than 1/2 of road funding comes from a fuel tax. Most comes from tolls and user fees/taxes. I'm happy to pay my share for road infrastructure. I'd also like to see those actively destroying the environment to pay for it and as a result, be incentivized to innovate alternatives. Assuming you're not a fossil fuel executive, what's the downside of a carbon tax?

Things that are beneficial to the environment should be incentivized, things that are harmful should come with a price. Is this crazy? Isn't this why we heavily tax cigarettes and alcohol and not fruits and vegetables?
a carbon tax and road use tax is not mutually exclusive. just because you want to penalize fossil fuels, that doesn't exclude EV drivers from paying for the roads they use. a road use tax is the fairest way to pay for roads and infra. you use it, you pay for it. just because you're doing other things on your end to reduce carbon footprint doesn't mean you're exempted from paying for the stuff you're using. and what happens when the majority of the vehicles on the road are EVs? who's going to pay for the roads then?
 
No one was talking about SUVs. The best selling pickups use body-on-frame.

The article did not stipulate "bestselling pickups," either. The Honda Ridgeline has had a unibody forever. And its towing and payload numbers are near the high end of the midsize segment leader, which has a spread owing to way more configurations.

So is Tesla really revolutionizing anything or just taking a formula used successfully by someone else for nearly two decades and applying it to its product?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
The article did not stipulate "bestselling pickups," either. The Honda Ridgeline has had a unibody forever. And its towing and payload numbers are near the high end of the midsize segment leader, which has a spread owing to way more configurations.

So is Tesla really revolutionizing anything or just taking a formula used successfully by someone else for nearly two decades and applying it to its product?
The best selling pickups do use body-on-frame. Look them up. I never said Tesla was the pioneer of this idea.
 
The best selling pickups do use body-on-frame. Look them up. I never said Tesla was the pioneer of this idea.

I don't have to look them up. I've known that to be a fact for decades. That was long one of the most basic truths of auto design: trucks, true off-road 4x4s and large SUVs = body on frame, cars, and vehicles meant to handle more like cars (i.e. smal crossovers and most modern midsized SUVs)= unibody. There are a growing number of exceptions, like the new Land Rover Defender.

Your article quoted suggested this was something radical Tesla was doing. Honda did it in 2005, and, while it was the first to be successful with it this century, it wasn't the first to do it.

Again no one said "bestselling," a qualifier it seems you brought in to overlook the new market of available trucks already using a unibody frame before Tesla.

The auto industry was doing a lot of things before Tesla existed. It didn't reinvent everything.
 
And maybe you misplaced your quotation marks, but your og post on this quotes you, "you'll see Tesla has changed the script on how to build a truck."

So ya did suggest Tesla was the pioneer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
The Cybertruck would finally look like it belonged.
There is that. Come to think of it, the Cybertruck does look like a prop car in a Mad Max sequel where the director is trying to overcome repeated sequel burnout by ramping up the outlandishness of the vehicles to caricature levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsg2
There is that. Come to think of it, the Cybertruck does look like a prop car in a Mad Max sequel where the director is trying to overcome repeated sequel burnout by ramping up the outlandishness of the vehicles to caricature levels.
the cybertruck isn't even original. the shape of it was taken from the countach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
I think it bears more resemblance to the full-wedge concepts from the 60s and 70s, but the Countach was certainly the most famous pupil from that school.

What an incredible time in auto design and strong answer to yesterday's question about the purpose of concept cars.
 
Xo.laring
URL unfurl="true"]https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/sell-gas-guzzler-buy-electric-car-ev-fuel-prices/[/URL]
Comparing ICE F150 to a Lightning:

An annual fuel bill of about $3,028 vs $1011 in electric charging. Sounds like a no brainer.

Disingenuous to ignore the $7500 tax credit and in NJ no sales tax, saving a Lightning buyer $12500, bringing that difference down to $5,750.

Also, I did a line item comparison of the Lightning Lariat to the F150 ICE Lariat with same equipment, and came up with a difference of about $2,000 more for the Lightning. The article compared an XLT Lightning with a mid range ICE Lariat, an apples and oranges comparison. The article mentions this, and a shorter payback period, but they fail to do the math.

And comparing a Kia EV6 to .Honda Accord? Funny. Shoddy article.
 
Xo.laring
URL unfurl="true"]https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/sell-gas-guzzler-buy-electric-car-ev-fuel-prices/[/URL]

Comparing ICE F150 to a Lightning:

An annual fuel bill of about $3,028 vs $1011 in electric charging. Sounds like a no brainer.

Disingenuous to ignore the $7500 tax credit and in NJ no sales tax, saving a Lightning buyer $12500, bringing that difference down to $5,750.

Also, I did a line item comparison of the Lightning Lariat to the F150 ICE Lariat with same equipment, and came up with a difference of about $2,000 more for the Lightning. The article compared an XLT Lightning with a mid range ICE Lariat, an apples and oranges comparison. The article mentions this, and a shorter payback period, but they fail to do the math.

And comparing a Kia EV6 to .Honda Accord? Funny. Shoddy article.
you're def right, but the essence of the article still stands. do the math to figure out the payback period before jumping right in as a way to save money on gas.
 
you're def right, but the essence of the article still stands. do the math to figure out the payback period before jumping right in as a way to save money on gas.
Agreed. We were sold when we did the math. And we fit the prototypical user who will have home charger, and will recharge each evening after daily use.

However, we are definitely spending more money for a vehicle than we otherwise would spend by purchasing the Lightning Lariat. We are fairly sure we will complete the purchase, but if cheaper alternatives come available, we may not.
 
Xo.laring
URL unfurl="true"]https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/sell-gas-guzzler-buy-electric-car-ev-fuel-prices/[/URL]

Comparing ICE F150 to a Lightning:

An annual fuel bill of about $3,028 vs $1011 in electric charging. Sounds like a no brainer.

Disingenuous to ignore the $7500 tax credit and in NJ no sales tax, saving a Lightning buyer $12500, bringing that difference down to $5,750.

Also, I did a line item comparison of the Lightning Lariat to the F150 ICE Lariat with same equipment, and came up with a difference of about $2,000 more for the Lightning. The article compared an XLT Lightning with a mid range ICE Lariat, an apples and oranges comparison. The article mentions this, and a shorter payback period, but they fail to do the math.

And comparing a Kia EV6 to .Honda Accord? Funny. Shoddy article.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but the Lightning XLT is well cheaper than the Lightning Lariat. It's the entry level trim for the non-pro so benefits the Lightning in the comparison.

Agree they should mention the fed credit, but not the state (or they'd be stuck doing every state, or have to stick with CA). But Ford is flirting with the 200K threshold, and the article is aimed at new browsers, so not entirely unfair to leave it out of the calculation (though they should have outlined their reasoning).

Not going to defend the Kia/Honda part as that seemed like an afterthought and waste of time. They should have dumped that and focused a bit more on how a lot of towing and payload will further detriment e-pickup buyers and the cost comparison.

I've always thought that CNET should have stayed in their lane (pun-a-rific!) with electronics, home tech and the like. Maybe infotainment, but don't particularly care for their car coverage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but the Lightning XLT is well cheaper than the Lightning Lariat. It's the entry level trim for the non-pro so benefits the Lightning in the comparison.

Agree they should mention the fed credit, but not the state (or they'd be stuck doing every state, or have to stick with CA). But Ford is flirting with the 200K threshold, and the article is aimed at new browsers, so not entirely unfair to leave it out of the calculation (though they should have outlined their reasoning).

Not going to defend the Kia/Honda part as that seemed like an afterthought and waste of time. They should have dumped that and focused a bit more on how a lot of towing and payload will further detriment e-pickup buyers and the cost comparison.

I've always thought that CNET should have stayed in their lane (pun-a-rific!) with electronics, home tech and the like. Maybe infotainment, but don't particularly care for their car coverage.
That's the problem comparing an ICE F150 XLT, a lower-priced trim level with less options, with the F150 Lightning Lariat, a higher-priced trim level with more options. It tilts the cost differential far in favor of the ICE F150. A fair comparison needs to compare the same model with comparable equipment/options to see the cost difference.

When we did the initial comparison between an ICE F150 Lariat with the F150 Lightning Lariat, there was a fairly large difference (maybe $6-9,000). However, when we actually pulled the specification sheet on the F150 Lightning Lariat and then used the Ford website to build a comparably equipped ICE F150 Lariat, the cost comparison was much closer-the F150 Lightning came out $1,000 more. This made it an easy decision.

I agree the article could not address every state incentive, but in NJ the no sales tax is a huge incentive, saving another about $4,500-$5,000 in state sales tax.

But one problem is the overall cost-a well-equipped ICE F150 Lariat comes in close to $70,000. That's a lot of money for a vehicle. As Heaven Univ has posted, if you can get one, a much smaller Ford Maverick Hybrid can be had for around $22,000. It's a basic vehicle with a lot fewer bells and whistles--but for someone who does not drive a lot of miles, they can get by mostly on the battery power with minimal use of gas. If such a vehicle suits a user and they either cannot afford another $50,000, or they don't want to spend that money, it will take a very long time to recoup the $50,000.

But many people are currently buying high end expensive pickup trucks for more than $75,000. The Lariat and Platinum trim levels in the F150 are equipped like luxury SUVs, with leather seats that air heated and ventilated, and some have 16 speaker stereo systems. I don't see the point of a 16 speaker stereo system in a vehicle, but some like such things.
 
Yeah, but they compared the Lightning XLT to the ICE Lariat, not vice versa. Had they done Lariat to Lariat, the Lightning would have come out another $10K or whatever more. And it sounds like the Lightning Lariat package has more content than the ICE Lariat from your comparison, so I'd think the XLT would be more comparable content-wise (though am way too tired to go line to line now : ).

Yeah, beyond big-ass HD haulers and people just having $$ to blow, I don't understand high-five-figure+ pickup trucks. If you want something comfortable and high-class, there are dozens of better cars for the task. A pickup truck is a rolling toolbox, outside of a few narrow use cases, just don't see the attraction of loading it with every frivolous option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUevolution36
Yeah, but they compared the Lightning XLT to the ICE Lariat, not vice versa. Had they done Lariat to Lariat, the Lightning would have come out another $10K or whatever more. And it sounds like the Lightning Lariat package has more content than the ICE Lariat from your comparison, so I'd think the XLT would be more comparable content-wise (though am way too tired to go line to line now : ).

Yeah, beyond big-ass HD haulers and people just having $$ to blow, I don't understand high-five-figure+ pickup trucks. If you want something comfortable and high-class, there are dozens of better cars for the task. A pickup truck is a rolling toolbox, outside of a few narrow use cases, just don't see the attraction of loading it with every frivolous option.
Whoops on me. That's what I get for reading an article on my phone.
Something still seems out of place (a comparison of features is needed), because in a direct comparison of comparably equipped models, I know the Lightning was only $1,000 more.

EDIT- I did a quick comparison of features, and it is difficult to comparably equip an ICE F150 Lariat with and XLT Lightning with the extended battery. Anyway, the best I could figure, the cost of the "comparably" equipped Lariat came to nearly $65,000 (being completely transparent, it would probably be closer to $60-62,000 if they could be equipped exactly the same), but taking into account the the $7,500 Lightning tax credit, that closes the gap in price to about $3,500, and for NJ buyers, no sales tax makes it nearly equal or favoring the Lightning being less expensive than the F150 ICE Lariat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fsg2
What did I miss, what’s wrong with Tesla’s?
Nothing. The other thread is constant bickering between Musk is perfect and Musk is the anti-Christ. Except for the Cybertruck, I like the look of their cars, but that thread is just off the track for the most part. For those that don’t like this thread, feel free not to read it. The new mod will probably delete it without my permission anyway.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT