My in laws got a much better price for their old Camry from CarShop in South Brunswick vs CarMax in Edison
OT: Electric vehicles
- Thread starter BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap
- Start date
Back in January Carvana made an offer that was 2K less then what I got from CarMax in late June.
Thanks. Recently? They have stellar reviews. If you make an appointment and have all your paperwork (title, etc.), will they buy it on the spot?
Thanks. If you make an appointment and have all your paperwork (title, etc.), will they buy it on the spot?
I was able to download my F150 Lightning window sticker. My production date is set for 9/19, and optimistically, I may have my Lightning by Halloween, and most likely by Thanksgiving. There is no benefit to trading in at our dealer, unless then make us a great offer because there is no sales tax on the Lightning.
Interesting article. But it is employing a lot of wishful thinking.
EVs aren't straining the electric grid — and they just might save it
Some feared EV charging would tip California over the edge, but EVs aren't the problem, and could be a solution.www.axios.com
As EV adoption increases and more people who cannot charge at home buy EVs, the overnight charging (when demand is lowest) benefit is reduced. And the author’s point about 5M EVs by 2030 only being 7% of CA’s electrical demand is misleading. If CA is struggling to meet demand now, when EVs are only 1% of demand, then they will be struggling 700% more in their hypothetical scenario for 2030. At least.
The whole vehicle to grid concept is almost entirely theoretical at this point. Only some school buses somewhere and the Nissan Leaf can do it today. And how many of the millions of EV owners out there will want to participate when doing so will reduce the lifetime of the most expensive component in their car? Let’s not count this un-hatched chicken as “improving the grid” quite yet.
Before I’m falsely attacked for being anti-EV (yet again), I am NOT saying people shouldn’t buy EVs or that EV adoption is a bad thing. I am saying that CA has to do more to produce electricity than it is doing at the moment so as to meet the increases in demand as EV adoption accelerates. Either that or else they are likely to wind up modifying their ICEV sales ban dates.
California’s grid is straining because of a record heat wave. It has been at/near 110 degrees for the past five days. EVs are not part of the problem - people mostly charge their cars overnight when power demand is lowest. But go on, keep spouting right-wing fake news items.
Then why are politicians/California Govt issuing requests/notices to not charge EVs? Barking up the wrong tree with the right wing crap and @mildone
During this unprecedented heat wave, people are asked conserve electricity between 4 and 9 PM - the peak load time. The propagandists keep intentionally omitting the 4 to 9 PM part.
The peak load conservation efforts have worked and California’s grid has not pulled a Texas as the champions of fear had warned. Reality flies in the face of a right-wing propaganda campaign to paint California as a failed state. It gets tiring debunking the absurd talking points, but I’m here for it.
The peak load conservation efforts have worked and California’s grid has not pulled a Texas as the champions of fear had warned. Reality flies in the face of a right-wing propaganda campaign to paint California as a failed state. It gets tiring debunking the absurd talking points, but I’m here for it.
Last edited:
I walked in without an appointment with all the documents and walked out with a check within an hour. Had my daughter in law drive me home.
I bought my Escape on June 29 and sold my Civic on June 30 at CarMax. I went back to the dealer a few days later and the financing had not yet been put through so I gave them the check as a down payment and they redid the financing.
Edit: I replaced Carvana with CarMax in the text. Must have had a brain *art.
Last edited:
Me? Are you accusing me of spouting right-wing fake news items? If so, 🤣.
Seeing as I haven't read, seen or heard any news from any right-wing news sources so far this year, that would be quite a demonstration of amazing extra sensory perception by me. I had no idea of my abilities in that regard. But you say it must be so. So who am I to argue? I'm even more amazing than I realized. Woo hoo! Thanks for letting me know.
To claim that the added demand for electricity by EVs won't put additional strain on the power grid is laughably and obviously ridiculous. A clear example of evangelistic ideological purity overriding logical thought. To only talk about the situation as it stands now while dismissing any consideration of future impact is disingenuous to the point of being disinformational.
EVs, along with every other thing in CA that draws electrical power from their grid, are all absolutely and unarguably part of the problem. Yes, early adopters might be mostly charging overnight. But as more and more people purchase EVs, a sizeable percentage will not have access to chargers at home. And those folks will mostly not be charging overnight. They'll be charging while at work, or while parked at a public charger during daytime hours.
The article you posted cites that extra EV-based demand at about 1% of CA's total demand right now. However, it also states that EV electrical demand will increase to become 7% by 2030. And that will include many more folks with no overnight charging access at their home. For example, that 7% will includes lots of people living in apartments or condos or in cities or homes without driveways or garages. All those people charging their EVs will undeniably be adding to CA's already strained energy grid, mostly during the day time.
Anyway, here's that article I mentioned earlier, from that well-known far right-wing fake news source, AP, reporting on CA's current power issues:
California weathers heat wave without rolling blackouts
A brutal Western heat wave brought California to the verge of ordering rolling blackouts but the state’s electrical grid has managed to handle record-breaking demand.
apnews.com
So there's already problems in CA. And unless you want to try to deny anybody with an EV in CA will be charging their car during daytime hours, or try to claim that CA will cease to have heat-waves in the future, then maybe you ought to chill out with the silly knee-jerk over-defensiveness.
Or don't. You can keep spewing evangelistic nonsense and I can keep citing unassailable facts and simple logic that combine to mock that evangelism. Because I'm having fun either way.
And once again, since you obviously missed it the first time, I'm NOT saying people shouldn't buy EVs. I AM saying that CA, and some other areas, need to improve their power grids to support rapid EV adoption. Tell me some more about what a massively right-wing view that is. 🤣
Once again, the Chicken Littles have been proven wrong. The future is already here.
You haven't debunked anything I've said yet. It would be helpful to you, if you want to be correct about stuff, to actually make the distinction between what I'm posting and what others, like BS, are posting.
Or don't. As you noted earlier, I enjoy arguing for sport. I wish people would argue logically, and claiming that EV adoption will not impact energy grids is entirely illogical. But I'm here for it. 😉
Me? Are you accusing me of spouting right-wing fake news items? If so, 🤣.
Seeing as I haven't read, seen or heard any news from any right-wing news sources so far this year, that would be quite a demonstration of amazing extra sensory perception by me. I had no idea of my abilities in that regard. But you say it must be so. So who am I to argue? I'm even more amazing than I realized. Woo hoo! Thanks for letting me know.
To claim that the added demand for electricity by EVs won't put additional strain on the power grid is laughably and obviously ridiculous. A clear example of evangelistic ideological purity overriding logical thought. To only talk about the situation as it stands now while dismissing any consideration of future impact is disingenuous to the point of being disinformational.
EVs, along with every other thing in CA that draws electrical power from their grid, are all absolutely and unarguably part of the problem. Yes, early adopters might be mostly charging overnight. But as more and more people purchase EVs, a sizeable percentage will not have access to chargers at home. And those folks will mostly not be charging overnight. They'll be charging while at work, or while parked at a public charger during daytime hours.
The article you posted cites that extra EV-based demand at about 1% of CA's total demand right now. However, it also states that EV electrical demand will increase to become 7% by 2030. And that will include many more folks with no overnight charging access at their home. For example, that 7% will includes lots of people living in apartments or condos or in cities or homes without driveways or garages. All those people charging their EVs will undeniably be adding to CA's already strained energy grid, mostly during the day time.
Anyway, here's that article I mentioned earlier, from that well-known far right-wing fake news source, AP, reporting on CA's current power issues:
California weathers heat wave without rolling blackouts
A brutal Western heat wave brought California to the verge of ordering rolling blackouts but the state’s electrical grid has managed to handle record-breaking demand.
So there's already problems in CA. And unless you want to try to deny anybody with an EV in CA will be charging their car during daytime hours, or try to claim that CA will cease to have heat-waves in the future, then maybe you ought to chill out with the silly knee-jerk over-defensiveness.
Or don't. You can keep spewing evangelistic nonsense and I can keep citing unassailable facts and simple logic that combine to mock that evangelism. Because I'm having fun either way.
And once again, since you obviously missed it the first time, I'm NOT saying people shouldn't buy EVs. I AM saying that CA, and some other areas, need to improve their power grids to support rapid EV adoption. Tell me some more about what a massively right-wing view that is. 🤣
Stop being a dupe of the propagandists. California will be fine - the changes for an all-electric future are being implemented now. The future is bright for clean energy, energy storage, and carbon-free transport.
Great posts. Grid storage isn't sexy and is often overlooked. But, its importance is monumental.
"Dupe of the propagandists"? 🤣
Either you're trolling me, very weakly, or you're stoned or drunk or something. The only one of us acting like a propagandist is you, which you probably already know and it's that knowledge making you so defensive on this subject. I mean, do you even read what you write?
Your second sentence expresses far too much certainty which, when talking about the future and stuff that hasn't actually been completed and proven to work yet, is not often a sign of intelligence. The third sentence is, ironically, 100% pure unadulterated propaganda. It bears striking resemblance to Trump's early talking points about COVID not being any kind of big deal before anybody actually know much about it at all. Wishful thinking overcoming logic in both cases.
I never said anything about CA not being fine, eventually. Of course they'll be fine, eventually. The question is what happens between now and then? Because they sure aren't fine right now. Yet they are pushing very aggressively to force everybody in CA into an EV which will unarguably place more strain on their energy grid. And there's no logical, rational way to be certain that the improvements they can make to their grid will improve anywhere near quickly enough to prevent more significant issues than what they're experiencing today.
I also never said or implied anything remotely like that humanity won't improve it's ability to more cleanly produce, store, and transport energy. Again, the question is what happens between now and then?
You seem hell-bent on ignoring the transitionary period. Because that's what propaganda does, it ignores and/or dismisses everything but that which is 100% positive.
Problem is, most of us posting in this forum have to live through that transitionary period and not in that perfect energy nirvana you're envisioning for the future.
Hahaha Gov begging us not to use power. We ain’t even close.
1.2% of cars in Ca are EV. No where close. Pipe dreams by 2035
1.2% of cars in Ca are EV. No where close. Pipe dreams by 2035
Debate class continues. Your side would be helped with data, and information beyond parsing sentences and paragraphs. I'm done responding to posts about feelings but will be happy to respond to substantive posts.
The Twitter feeds I posted - which are remarkably easy to track down - are mainly from scientists and reporters. I posted actual, real data. Things that can be checked and quantified.
Here's an article that discusses CA's plans for increasing energy production, which is good. Along with some balancing commentary. IOW's, it's not just carefully chosen one-sided propaganda from evangelists on twitter.
www.reuters.com
Here's a couple quotes from the non-paywalled portion of the article that point out it's not all hakuna matata in CA at the moment:
"Excess supply from renewable sources has prompted the grid to increasingly curtail solar and wind generation at times, even as it struggles to balance its clean energy push with the need to boost tight power supplies and avoid rolling blackouts amid heatwaves.
California said earlier this month it would lean more on fossil fuels in coming weeks to keep the power on if scorching heatwaves stretch its grid, demonstrating the challenges grids face by relying more on large amounts of wind and solar energy that only run when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining."
They're working on it. But are they going to be able to meet the demand they're encouraging? Or will there be a period in which there are lots more problems? The jury is out.
I'm (obviously) less than optimistic given how challenging the task will be. Combine that with ongoing supply-chain issues and what are people going to do if EV manufacturers aren't able to produce enough EVs at low enough costs to allow people to purchase a new EV by 2030?
Lots and lots of wishful thinking.
California to boost solar and wind capacity to meet renewable goals
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) region plans to increase its solar and wind power capacity in 2021 to help meet the state's target of 50% renewable generation by 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said on Tuesday.
www.reuters.com
Here's a couple quotes from the non-paywalled portion of the article that point out it's not all hakuna matata in CA at the moment:
"Excess supply from renewable sources has prompted the grid to increasingly curtail solar and wind generation at times, even as it struggles to balance its clean energy push with the need to boost tight power supplies and avoid rolling blackouts amid heatwaves.
California said earlier this month it would lean more on fossil fuels in coming weeks to keep the power on if scorching heatwaves stretch its grid, demonstrating the challenges grids face by relying more on large amounts of wind and solar energy that only run when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining."
They're working on it. But are they going to be able to meet the demand they're encouraging? Or will there be a period in which there are lots more problems? The jury is out.
I'm (obviously) less than optimistic given how challenging the task will be. Combine that with ongoing supply-chain issues and what are people going to do if EV manufacturers aren't able to produce enough EVs at low enough costs to allow people to purchase a new EV by 2030?
Lots and lots of wishful thinking.
Man, you are definitely going for the ironic post of the year award today.
Here's the entirety of your prior post. Please identify for me that facts or actual data in this post, versus your feelings:
"Stop being a dupe of the propagandists. California will be fine - the changes for an all-electric future are being implemented now. The future is bright for clean energy, energy storage, and carbon-free transport."
I can only find one fact, namely that changes for an all-electric future are being implemented. I mean, duh. And that fact in no way addresses or invalidates anything I've posted on the subject at all.
And I'm sure you went right out to verify the sources of information for the charts in those tweets, and to identify all the data that contradicts what the twitter scientists and reporters are stating. I mean, surely you would never accept such posts simply because they fit with your narrative, am I right?
Like I said, one of us is allowing themselves to be propagandized. And it ain't me, not by either "side" of this issue. I'm where I always am, smack in the middle and not accepting the propaganda from either side.
No data over a long series of posts = no substance. No substance = faulty argumentation, or argumentation for the sake of argumentation.
Edit: Feel free to disprove or provide ANY counterfactuals to the tweets from scientists and reporters.
So it’s my responsibility to vet the “information” you repost from Twitter? I don’t think that’s how it works. And there is nothing they said that contradicts anything I’m saying. So where exactly is my motivation to look twice at it?
This all started because I read an article you posted that had obvious factual/logical flaws. You have done absolutely nothing to refute any of my points about that article. Because you can’t. I didn’t say anything that can be factually or logically refuted.
You’re just weirdly attacking me and and making grandiose claims about the future and are now reposting stuff from strangers of unknown background with unknown biases, citing purported facts of unknown veracity - none of which actually refutes anything I’ve posted even if they were all 100% true.
And you keep trying to say there’s something wrong with me for not blindly accepting those grandiose claims or the content posted by these strangers from Twitter.
You’re being ridiculous at this point. I haven’t even disputed the precious few facts you’ve mentioned, I agreed with them. And still you persist in arguing, all because those facts don’t lead me to the same conclusions about the near-term future they apparently lead you, which is a matter of opinion in both our cases.
This is pretty funny. I’m supposed to post substantive facts about a future that hasn’t yet occurred? Seriously?
You first.
Edit: I went back and reread my actual post that started on the warpath. Here's the link. https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/ot-electric-vehicles.221435/post-5852896. My post is entirely reasonable with valid points about the article you posted and a perfectly valid question. You massively overreacted to my post and tried to turn things ideological. And the rest has been you just attacking stuff I didn't say or viewpoints I don't hold.
Last edited:
Here's my Idea, add a ICE and a 3 gallon fuel tank and get an additional 120 miles to work with. Also add what my Ford Escape PHEV has - the ability to charge the battery while running the gas engine.
Turbine. Range extender.
One moving part. Greater thermal efficiency than a standard piston engine. Can easily be adapted to run on any kind of fuel.
Just need someone to dedicate to production. It's the wave of the future.
Renewables provided over 25% of total US electrical generation in first half of 2022
https://electrek.co/2022/08/25/us-renewables-first-half-2022/
https://electrek.co/2022/08/25/us-renewables-first-half-2022/
Ford’s Mustang Mach-E GT Almost Lives Up to the Name
It's big and it's quick. But the Mach-E GT isn't all that much fun.
Ford’s Mustang Mach-E GT Almost Lives Up to the Name
It's big and it's quick. But the Mach-E GT isn't all that much fun.www.roadandtrack.com
On another note, the 650 Mustang gets revealed next Wednesday. Ford has done for the 'stang what Chevy refuses to do for the Camaro - they've upgraded the interior.
It will probably go on the list.
I'm looking forward to seeing it.
With the projected limited timeframe for ICE-based performance cars, time is running out to grab some before it's too late. And I'm thinking a good American muscle car has to be on the list. I wish I didn't find the C8 so ugly, but both the Mustang and Camaro look pretty good and, in performance trims in particular, perform very well.
With my youngest moving out pretty soon, I need to get to work finding my "dream barn" to convert where I can keep 3-4 cars inside, plus some living space. I first need to figure out where, though.
I'm of the same mind. You know I love the Camaro for its performance handling, but at this point the interior design - and infotainment - is more than 10 years old. That's just unacceptable. The new Mustang GT is definitely going on the list, however. Also, '23 is the very last year for the Charger / Challenger. I wouldn't mind having a 392 Challenger, the drawbacks being that the gas mileage is absolutely abysmal (even worse than you'd expect for 450ish hp) and they're a bit overpriced.
When did you order? Feels like you've been waiting over 2 years. I'm getting anxious and it's not my car lol...
Thanks for the concern! Ordered on 4/15/2022. Reservation went in late in summer of 2021, but the order is what counts. Ford has things pretty well on track. They have bounced my build date once or twice by a week or two, but they are probably trying to group them for shipping or based on the actual model, etc.
As politics goes, such nonsense has been largely avoided in this thread. To what are you referring as political sewage?
Truly autonomous cars may be impossible without helpful human touch
Autonomous vehicle (AV) startups have raised tens of billions of dollars based on promises to develop truly self-driving cars, but industry executives and experts say remote human supervisors may be needed permanently to help robot drivers in trouble.
www.reuters.com
As for remote operators, pass.Truly autonomous cars may be impossible without helpful human touch
Autonomous vehicle (AV) startups have raised tens of billions of dollars based on promises to develop truly self-driving cars, but industry executives and experts say remote human supervisors may be needed permanently to help robot drivers in trouble.
This bit, from the article, is pretty funny:
In a June interview on YouTube, Musk said developing self-driving cars was "way harder than I originally thought, by far." But when asked for a timeline, he said Tesla could make it "this year."
Who would have thought it could be so complicated? 🤣
I remain convinced that improving driver-assistance systems, and perhaps adding inebriation/stroke/disabled detection is a great idea and can go a long way towards lowering the number of accidents. However, I just don't see AV happening any time within the next handful of years or so.
A couple days ago, I was second in line to make a left turn at a traffic light, with a Prius in front of me. As the light turned green, the Prius started going and then I saw, thankfully at the same time as the Prius driver, an SUV speeding into the intersection (from left to right) through the red light. The SUV never stopped or slowed until it was all the way through the intersection and then it jammed on it's brakes because it was approaching traffic ahead far too quickly.
Driver assistance could've gone a LONG way towards preventing that entire situation. Driver could've been having some medical issue, but more likely the driver was texting. The Prius driver was alert and did well and managed to avoid being killed.
So the question is, while AV might have prevented the driver running the red-light, if it didn't, than would the AV in the Prius's position have detected the oncoming SUV? Given the exact circumstance and visual barriers and so forth, it would have been pretty challenging to detect the red light runner without V2V, IMO.
As I've said before, I previously co-authored a white paper on vehicle autonomy about 13 years ago, from the infrastructure perspective. The paper holds that autonomous vehicle operation is, in essence, a misnomer. Achieving true "driverless" autonomy is accomplished by satisfying the triangle of 1) autonomous vehicle systems, 2) vehicle to vehicle communications (V2V) and 3) vehicle to infrastructure communications (V2I).
By doing so, you allow not only driverless vehicle autonomy, but also leverage those same systems to alleviate congestion and expedite traffic flow.
Exactly; the worries about the grid are overblown. I drive about 600 miles a month and charge at home. Vehicle charging is only 7-8% of my monthly electrical use. EVs and appliances, etc. will get more efficient over time and long before ICEs are banned.
