ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Electric vehicles

Well said.

Although for my part, I'm done shifting gears the old fashioned way. A really good flappy-paddle gearbox outperforms even the best manuals. And your better production DCTs do a really great job of knowing what gear they're supposed to be in, under any conditions.
I hear you.

I've mostly walked away from the GT3 deal that was on the table. Was mine if I wanted. But the dealer wanted too much, on top of 45K over. And the way they handle it, I'd have a big chunk of cash in their hands and at risk, for a July build date that could slip by months or if there's stop sale or supply chain issue, years. I proposed an alternative approach that shares the risk a bit more. But I'm pretty sure they can get what they want elsewhere.

But, if I *do* get the GT3 allocation, I will have to figure out if I want the PDK or the manual. And, to your point, the PDK is a pretty unbelievably exciting automatic. The thrilling sound of a 9000 RPM redline is that much more exciting when getting there is punctuated by the sort of instant upshifts the PDK can do, that no human can possibly match.

It'd be a choice between extra driver-involvement versus a bit better aural experience under acceleration. I will agonize over it a bit, if I get this or a future allocation.

And you're right, the DCT will always outperform a human, in straight-line acceleration and at the track. But I don't care if, instead of 3s or a bit less, it's 3.3 or 3.4s, and I haven't been a track-rat, so far at least. If it did, I'd get a Turbo S which C&D pegged at 2.2s.

I made the same trade-off with the GTS but the manual was the easy choice 'cause the turbos already kill a lot of the awesome engine sounds from the GT3 and it was a daily driver and track days would be sporadic at best (none so far in this car). Great exhaust sounds, though, and it's not like the engine sounds suck. Just not GT-car awesome.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RU4Real
A comment in response to that tweet does a good job of illustrating the difference in what people are looking at when buying a car. The comment said, in effect, that with his Tesla “driving becomes almost effortless”.

That’s ideal for people who aren’t into the act of driving. Who view a car as a tool, a means to get from point A to point B. Who aren’t looking for excitement in driving other than a couple moments of acceleration from a stoplight. They want effortless and uneventful.

And that’s great. A totally valid viewpoint about driving.

But for many others, driving is far more than just that. Our cars are toys to play with, not just a tool. We are passionate about the act of driving. Effortless equals boring, a bad thing. We want to shift gears, we want to do our own braking, we want to perfectly balance the car as we transition from braking to turning for the apex, and then from turning to exiting a corner under heavy acceleration. We’re not interested in quiet, we want loud and raucous.

There’s a driving axiom about this. It says: driving a slow car fast is better than driving a fast car slow.

And the reason for that is, in large part, because it requires way more effort. And way more skill.
I see a lot people doing what you are describing……….and causing accidents. Most roads in NJ are not conducive for that type of driving and most drivers don’t have the skills for that type of driving.
 

car companies need to stop with this nonsense.
It’s bad enough that the updates occur so frequently and are so poorly tested. But if that article is correct, Tesla pushes updates without obtaining permission from users.

I’m finding that hard to believe. If true, that’s messed up. If I bring in a car for service and they update the system, I’d be a little more okay with it. Because the owner is already agreeing to have work done in general. Even then the update should described to the owner at check-in.

But OTA updates without permission from the owner is too invasive.
 
It’s bad enough that the updates occur so frequently and are so poorly tested. But if that article is correct, Tesla pushes updates without obtaining permission from users.

I’m finding that hard to believe. If true, that’s messed up. If I bring in a car for service and they update the system, I’d be a little more okay with it. Because the owner is already agreeing to have work done in general. Even then the update should described to the owner at check-in.

But OTA updates without permission from the owner is too invasive.

I'm surprised Porsche doesn't do this because, frankly, all of the other high-end manufacturers do. My S60 logs OTA updates monthly. Most of them are bug fixes for off-prem apps (Pandora, Waze, etc) supported by Apple CarPlay. Once in a while there's one that's described as "Drivetrain optimization adjustments". You agree to the OTA updates in the same TOS click-through that activates your connected services.

So I get it, and it's not really something I would complain about as long as they don't break anything. I will say this - somehow, someway, the March "Drivetrain optimization" made my car a f*ckload quicker. I have no idea what that's about.
 
I'm surprised Porsche doesn't do this because, frankly, all of the other high-end manufacturers do. My S60 logs OTA updates monthly. Most of them are bug fixes for off-prem apps (Pandora, Waze, etc) supported by Apple CarPlay. Once in a while there's one that's described as "Drivetrain optimization adjustments". You agree to the OTA updates in the same TOS click-through that activates your connected services.

So I get it, and it's not really something I would complain about as long as they don't break anything. I will say this - somehow, someway, the March "Drivetrain optimization" made my car a f*ckload quicker. I have no idea what that's about.
Unless it’s specifically related to driving dynamics, Porsche tech lags well behind the industry, IMO. The ’24 Cayenne is purportedly improved in that regard. I bet it still lags behind, though.

The ‘24 GT3 has almost no non-driving tech. They even strip away stuff I have in my 2019 GTS.

I guess the rationale is that the focus on 911 GT cars is all on performance and driving experience and owners don‘t need or want assistance with lane changes or parking, etc. And in fact, other than my backup camera and parking sensors, I never use any other tech in the car. I don’t even know how to enable cruise control.

They seem to spend most of their software dev time on stuff like rear wheel steering, suspension dynamics, ABS, traction control software , etc. Hell, the GTS doesn’t even have android auto. Is a little nuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU4Real
Who could have thought

You elderly folk are cute. You follow your echo chambers are then repost things without thinking.

This story is 2 weeks old and it’s already known these 2 men previously knew each other….the killing likely has nothing to do with a charging station. But even if it did, did you expect EV’s to eliminate any type of arguments between drivers? 😂
 
You elderly folk are cute. You follow your echo chambers are then repost things without thinking.

This story is 2 weeks old and it’s already known these 2 men previously knew each other….the killing likely has nothing to do with a charging station. But even if it did, did you expect EV’s to eliminate any type of arguments between drivers? 😂

AP News now an echo chamber
 
In the short time that it’s been on sale, the Ford F-150 Lightning has accumulated a considerable number of accolades, a list that includes honors such as EdmundsTop Rated EV truck and Best of the Best award, 2023 MotorTrend Truck of the Year, 2023 North American Truck of the Year, a Kelley Blue Book 2023 Best Resale Value award, and a spot on Wards Top 10 list for best powertrains. Now, that same latter organization has once again recognized the Ford F-150 Lightning, this time granting it a spot on the 2023 10 Best Interiors & UX list.

 
Perhaps some of you might be interested in this story about how motor vehicles are remaining on the road longer and longer in part because of sticker shock - thus slowing transition to electric vehicles.Both my wife and I have owned our cars for longer than even the average stated in the article -- and we are in no hurry to buy anything new. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/15/ev...il&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top
 
Perhaps some of you might be interested in this story about how motor vehicles are remaining on the road longer and longer in part because of sticker shock - thus slowing transition to electric vehicles.Both my wife and I have owned our cars for longer than even the average stated in the article -- and we are in no hurry to buy anything new. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/15/ev...il&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top
Production is the bottleneck of the EV transition.
 
Production is the bottleneck of the EV transition.
For now. Good news is that things will improve in that regard, although it may take a handful or years or so.

Meanwhile, you Teslerati should enjoy a nice long period of watching everybody continue to play catch-up. You gotta be pleased with that.
 
Perhaps some of you might be interested in this story about how motor vehicles are remaining on the road longer and longer in part because of sticker shock - thus slowing transition to electric vehicles.Both my wife and I have owned our cars for longer than even the average stated in the article -- and we are in no hurry to buy anything new. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/15/ev...il&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top

This phenomenon is well understood. New cars are well-built and expensive AF.
 
Perhaps some of you might be interested in this story about how motor vehicles are remaining on the road longer and longer in part because of sticker shock - thus slowing transition to electric vehicles.Both my wife and I have owned our cars for longer than even the average stated in the article -- and we are in no hurry to buy anything new. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/15/ev...il&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top
Hopefully that won't result in another period of manufacturers engaging in building in more planned obsolescence in cars.
 
Perhaps some of you might be interested in this story about how motor vehicles are remaining on the road longer and longer in part because of sticker shock - thus slowing transition to electric vehicles.Both my wife and I have owned our cars for longer than even the average stated in the article -- and we are in no hurry to buy anything new. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/15/ev-electric-vehicles-gas-trucks-suvs-cars-aging?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ca
Yesterday I was thinking about all the ICE vehicles around after they ban the sale of new ones, and the thought crossed my mind they may change emission standards so no ICE vehicles would pass inspection.
 
That's politically impossible -- owners of ICE vehicles vote.
I agree with you on that for now and for the near future.

At some point in the future, it may become politically feasible to ban the operation of all ICE vehicles in the US. But it seems unlikely to occur anytime in the next 25 years.

I think Belly is correct that costs for operating ICE vehicles will eventually climb as EV adoption increases and ICE sales drop. That seems pretty obvious. However I think he's wrong about it occurring within "another few years". I'm pretty sure ICE operating costs will continue to go up and down marginally, as they have for decades, for another decade or two at least. Probably more.

Hell, I'm betting on that since I've just purchased two new ICE vehicles in the past three weeks. Would totally suck to find them too expensive to operate in a "few years" time. Or banned altogether. 😀

Guess we'll all have to wait and see what transpires.
 
The ICE is basically a dead technology. Today's EVs are already better than ICE vehicles (my opinion). Wait another few years as EV costs continue to drop and features and functions improve. As ICE vehicle sales fall, costs will rise. There won't need to be legislation.
Eventually, perhaps. Not in a few years.
 
First, the data upon which that article is basing it's conclusions is written in what appears to be Swedish. So I guess you can read Swedish and were able to verify the source of information provided in the PDF file the article in question contained in a link. Right?

Secondly, why can't you just ignore people who claim EV fires are more frequent than ICE fires? And ignore people who attack EVs in general. That's what I do. It's super easy to ignore and, by ignoring it, I cannot be fairly accused of propagandizing EVs by pushing out unverifiable information written in languages I do not speak.

This is usually where you ignore what I wrote and make something up I never said or implied in order to attack it. Let me know what direction you're headed and I can try to post something closer to what you want to attack. I like to be helpful to people that way. 🙂
 
I agree with you on that for now and for the near future.

At some point in the future, it may become politically feasible to ban the operation of all ICE vehicles in the US. But it seems unlikely to occur anytime in the next 25 years.

I think Belly is correct that costs for operating ICE vehicles will eventually climb as EV adoption increases and ICE sales drop. That seems pretty obvious. However I think he's wrong about it occurring within "another few years". I'm pretty sure ICE operating costs will continue to go up and down marginally, as they have for decades, for another decade or two at least. Probably more.

Hell, I'm betting on that since I've just purchased two new ICE vehicles in the past three weeks. Would totally suck to find them too expensive to operate in a "few years" time. Or banned altogether. 😀

Guess we'll all have to wait and see what transpires.
I need to correct myself. California has established emission standards that would ban the sale of new gas-powered cars as of 2035. Six other states (including New Jersey and New York!) have followed suit. (The federal Clean Air Act gives states the power to adopt the California standards for emissions from new cars instead of going along with the federal standards,) Of course, that deadline is bound to be postponed if EVs aren't ready to be 100% of the new car fleet. But it acts as a huge incentive to manufacturers to try their best to develop and refine EVs. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/states-banning-new-gas-powered-cars/
 
Last edited:
I need to correct myself. California has established emission standards that would ban the sale of new gas-powered cars as of 2035. Six other states (including New Jersey and New York!) have followed suit. (The federal Clean Air Act gives states the power to adopt the California standards for emissions from new cars instead of going along with the federal standards,) Of course, that deadline is bound to be postponed if EVs aren't ready to be 100% of the new car fleet. But it acts as a huge incentive to manufacturers to try their best to develop and refine EVs. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/states-banning-new-gas-powered-cars/
That’s correct.

But banning the sale of new ICEVs in certain states, whenever that actually takes place, will be followed by a lengthy period in which people can still operate the ICEVs they already own.

And it’s not clear that banning the sale of ICEVs will prevent people in CA, for instance, from going to Nevada to purchase a new ICEV. And people in CA will continue to sell and buy used ICEVs for a while.

There are also some things that might slow EV adoption, such as all the folks not living where at home charging is possible. Lots of people live in or near cities in apartments and coops and condos. Many will likely delay switching to EVs until public chargers is so plentiful and reliable that they can be assured of always being able to charge somewhere, ideally overnight.

I suspect that the 2035 date is more of goal than a law carved in stone. And as you noted earlier, politics will wind up being a factor. Nobody could get elected telling everyone with no At-home charging they have to wait in long lines, with all their neighbors, to charge their sole means of transportation.

Eventually, unless synthetic clean-burning fuels becomes much cheaper to produce, ICEVs will disappear. But it won’t happen overnight.
 
That’s correct.

But banning the sale of new ICEVs in certain states, whenever that actually takes place, will be followed by a lengthy period in which people can still operate the ICEVs they already own.

And it’s not clear that banning the sale of ICEVs will prevent people in CA, for instance, from going to Nevada to purchase a new ICEV. And people in CA will continue to sell and buy used ICEVs for a while.

There are also some things that might slow EV adoption, such as all the folks not living where at home charging is possible. Lots of people live in or near cities in apartments and coops and condos. Many will likely delay switching to EVs until public chargers is so plentiful and reliable that they can be assured of always being able to charge somewhere, ideally overnight.

I suspect that the 2035 date is more of goal than a law carved in stone. And as you noted earlier, politics will wind up being a factor. Nobody could get elected telling everyone with no At-home charging they have to wait in long lines, with all their neighbors, to charge their sole means of transportation.

Eventually, unless synthetic clean-burning fuels becomes much cheaper to produce, ICEVs will disappear. But it won’t happen overnight.
If a Californian goes to Nevada and buys a new car that doesn't meet California emission standards, then the car can't be registered in California. The same for a New Jerseyan who buys a car in Pa. This is just like sales tax --if a New Jerseyan buys a car in Delaware, there's no sales tax payable in Delaware, but the New Jerseyan must pay sales tax to register the car here.

Yes, existing ICEs would stay on the road. As I mention above, cars are lasting longer than they used to. This slowing of fleet turnover delays the day when all cars on the road are EVs. This is a familiar problem whenever EPA tightens the emission standards for new motor vehicles.

The 2035 date is set in stone in the sense that it stays in place unless California changes it. California undoubtedly will change it if it becomes clear that the date can't be met -- that EVs won't be available that would fulfill the needs of all reasonable potential buyers. The date, though, acts as an incentive to the manufacturers because they don't know when it will change or how much it will change.

I agree there are obstacles to EV adoption. As I've said, I'm not going to want to buy an EV unless charging it becomes just as easy as filling a gas tank. I doubt that I'm alone in that.
 
Last edited:
If a Californian goes to Nevada and buys a new car that doesn't meet California emission standards, then the car can't be registered in California. The same for a New Jerseyan who buys a car in Pa. This is just like sales tax --if a New Jerseyan buys a car in Delaware, there's no sales tax payable in Delaware, but the New Jerseyan must pay sales tax to register the car here.

Yes, existing ICEs would stay on the road As I mention above, cars are lasting longer than they used to. This slowing of fleet turnoverr delays the day when all cars on the road are EVs. This is a familiar problem whenever EPA tightens the emission standards for new motor vehicles.

The 2035 date is set in stone in the sense that it stays in place unless California changes it. California undoubtedly will change it if it becomes clear that the date can't be met -- that EVs won't be available that would fulfill the needs of all reasonable potential buyers. The date, though, acts as an incentive to the manufacturers because they don't know when it will change or how much it will change.

I agree there are obstacles to EV adoption. As I've said, I'm not going to want to buy an EV unless charging it becomes just as easy as filling a gas tank. I doubt that I'm alone in that.
I figure my first EV purchase will be an SUV about 5-10 years from now. I have access to home charging, though, so I’m mostly waiting on range to improve some.

I wonder how states will handle people moving to an ICE sales ban state from a state with no ICE sales ban. I would think they would allow those folks to register their vehicles. It’ll be interesting to watch as the legislation on this stuff evolves.
 
I figure my first EV purchase will be an SUV about 5-10 years from now. I have access to home charging, though, so I’m mostly waiting on range to improve some.

I wonder how states will handle people moving to an ICE sales ban state from a state with no ICE sales ban. I would think they would allow those folks to register their vehicles. It’ll be interesting to watch as the legislation on this stuff evolves.
I find it impossible to believe that home charging is going to be necessary. Putting in a home charger is just too expensive to expect most property owners to do it. Instead, I expect that there will be enough charging stations built to make charging available to all.

California allows new residents to register their cars that were registered out of state even if the car was bought in a state that does not follow California emission standards. The car has to go through a smog check, but that doesn't mean the car has to be as clean as cars sold in California. https://www.wikihow.com/Register-an-Out-of-State-Car-in-California
 
I find it impossible to believe that home charging is going to be necessary. Putting in a home charger is just too expensive to expect most property owners to do it. Instead, I expect that there will be enough charging stations built to make charging available to all.

California allows new residents to register their cars that were registered out of state even if the car was bought in a state that does not follow California emission standards. The car has to go through a smog check, but that doesn't mean the car has to be as clean as cars sold in California. https://www.wikihow.com/Register-an-Out-of-State-Car-in-California
Seems likely CA will do something analogous w/out-of-state ICEVs new residents bring. Don't you think? But who knows.

I try to avoid the future predictions business or at least demur when stating opinions on future events, especially with respect to exact timing. All kinds of unexpected stuff happens all the time. Wiser to wait and see rather than forcefully state a forecast for no gain and look foolish. Or something like that. 🙂
 
Seems likely CA will do something analogous w/out-of-state ICEVs new residents bring. Don't you think? But who knows.

I try to avoid the future predictions business or at least demur when stating opinions on future events, especially with respect to exact timing. All kinds of unexpected stuff happens all the time. Wiser to wait and see rather than forcefully state a forecast for no gain and look foolish. Or something like that. 🙂
I would be *very* surprised if California doesn't treat non-California cars the way it always has.

Predictions are always difficult - especially about the future!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
I find it impossible to believe that home charging is going to be necessary. Putting in a home charger is just too expensive to expect most property owners to do it. Instead, I expect that there will be enough charging stations built to make charging available to all.


I agree there are obstacles to EV adoption. As I've said, I'm not going to want to buy an EV unless charging it becomes just as easy as filling a gas tank. I doubt that I'm alone in that.
I think you've been misinformed about the cost of a home charger. A regular 110V outlet does the trick for $0. Faster home charging would require 220V outlet and the assistance (recommended) of an electrician. This might run you a few hundred bucks but depends on the length of run from your panel to your charging outlet. Home chargers from vehicle manufacturers and other 3rd party suppliers are expensive, but completely unnecessary. They look great in your garage if you want to impress your neighbors. That's about all they're good for.

You're implying that charging an EV is some daunting, complex, expensive task. It's not. It's vastly cheaper and easier than the required fueling stops for an ICE vehicle.
 
I think you've been misinformed about the cost of a home charger. A regular 110V outlet does the trick for $0. Faster home charging would require 220V outlet and the assistance (recommended) of an electrician. This might run you a few hundred bucks but depends on the length of run from your panel to your charging outlet. Home chargers from vehicle manufacturers and other 3rd party suppliers are expensive, but completely unnecessary. They look great in your garage if you want to impress your neighbors. That's about all they're good for.

You're implying that charging an EV is some daunting, complex, expensive task. It's not. It's vastly cheaper and easier than the required fueling stops for an ICE vehicle.
My limited understanding is that it takes a long time to charge using a 110 v outlet. And I have spoken to electricians in my area and they give me quotes substantially higher than “a few hundred bucks” for a 220v charger. And my limited understanding is that it takes significantly more time to charge an EV on the road than to fill a conventional vehicle’s tank. I very much hope for the sake of all of us that EVs replace conventional cars, but I think the obstacles should not be understated .
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
I find it impossible to believe that home charging is going to be necessary. Putting in a home charger is just too expensive to expect most property owners to do it. Instead, I expect that there will be enough charging stations built to make charging available to all.

California allows new residents to register their cars that were registered out of state even if the car was bought in a state that does not follow California emission standards. The car has to go through a smog check, but that doesn't mean the car has to be as clean as cars sold in California. https://www.wikihow.com/Register-an-Out-of-State-Car-in-California
I’m currently without a home charger so I’m living off the land. I’m in California and have found there to be as many superchargers in NJ as there are here. So far I’ve had to charge three times in that span. First time I plugged in and grabbed some groceries, came out and was all set. Second time I needed dinner so I plugged in and charged while I ate. Third time I had work to catch up on so I just did that while charging. For my purposes I’ve found it to be a non-issue thus far.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT