ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Electric vehicles

retired711 said:
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 .
Click to expand...
A typical charging session at a level 3 charger is 15-20 minutes. I wouldn't call that "significantly" more than a fuel stop. Especially considering how infrequently they're needed. I used the supercharger network < 5x/ year. I guarantee you've spent more time waiting at a gas station than I've spent at a supercharger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap said:
A typical charging session at a level 3 charger is 15-20 minutes. I wouldn't call that "significantly" more than a fuel stop. Especially considering how infrequently they're needed. I used the supercharger network < 5x/ year. I guarantee you've spent more time waiting at a gas station than I've spent at a supercharger.
Click to expand...
The length of charging time, even with a level 3 charger, varies a lot. Note in particular that charging above 80% is particularly time-consuming.And not since the energy crisis of 1979 has it taken me fifteen minutes to fill up a car at a gas station. I hope the technology will get there, but there is no way I am buying an electric vehicle under current conditions. https://blog.evbox.com/level-3-charging-speed
 
retired711 said:
The length of charging time, even with a level 3 charger, varies a lot. Note in particular that charging above 80% is particularly time-consuming.And not since the energy crisis of 1979 has it taken me fifteen minutes to fill up a car at a gas station. I hope the technology will get there, but there is no way I am buying an electric vehicle under current conditions. https://blog.evbox.com/level-3-charging-speed
Click to expand...
I only charge above 80% when I'm charging at home. If you're supercharging you just stop at 80, it doesn't really make a difference. Again all of this is related to everyday travels, not road trips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift and OntheBanks
retired711 said:
The length of charging time, even with a level 3 charger, varies a lot. Note in particular that charging above 80% is particularly time-consuming.And not since the energy crisis of 1979 has it taken me fifteen minutes to fill up a car at a gas station. I hope the technology will get there, but there is no way I am buying an electric vehicle under current conditions. https://blog.evbox.com/level-3-charging-speed
Click to expand...
I am already familiar with how charging curves work.

I was referring to cumulative time spent charging vs fueling. With home charging + the infrequent usage of public charges, you're waiting much longer fueling if you look at it over a long period of time. Not to mention spending 4X more to run your ICE vehicle. But hey, you do you. You're not ready, I'll never go back. I would encourage you to be cautious in your continued EV research. There's mountains of nefarious misinformation out there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift and WhichReligionIsRight
BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap said:
I am already familiar with how charging curves work.

I was referring to cumulative time spent charging vs fueling. With home charging + the infrequent usage of public charges, your waiting much longer fueling if you look at it over a long period of time. Not to mention spending 4X more to run your ICE vehicle. But hey, you do you. You're not ready, I'll never go back. I would encourage you to be cautious in your continued EV research. There's mountains of nefarious misinformation out there.
Click to expand...
We all should be careful doing research no matter what the topic. Note that your time estimate assumes the availability of home charging -- which may never become feasible for anyone not living in a single-family dwelling. . But I hope you're right -- it would be great if EVs can replace gasoline-fueled vehicles. Until then, I'm sticking with my hybrid. Peace out.
 
retired711 said:
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
Click to expand...
I have an outlet on the side of my house that I use for an electric leaf blower. I use the same outlet to charge my car between midnight and 8 am. I do not have a BEV. I have a PHEV that also uses gas if I go beyond the 37 miles that my battery is rated to supply. If I exchanged my PHEV for a BEV tomorrow I could still use that same outlet to charge my vehicle nightly. A BEV would allow me to drive, lets say, 250 miles on a full charge. All I have to do is fully charge and then replenish the charge at night after a normal day driving. I do not need an expensive home charger and the necessary electrical work needed to operate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift and retired711
retired711 said:
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
Click to expand...
Putting in a home FAST charger is just too expensive to expect most property owners to do it?

1. What if an EV is cheaper than an ICE car by at least the cost of installation?
2. What if that cost is less than the amount the homeowner saves in the difference in cost of paying for gasoline for a year versus charging at home?
3. What if the cost of EV maintenance over two years results in the homeowner recouping that money or even making money?
4. What about the time value of money of having to never go to a gas station and fuel up?

Your posts indicate that you are at least skeptical of owning an EV, or at most dead set against owning an EV and installing a home charging station. I'm someone who was moderately skeptical, but after owning an EV for 6 months, I am thoroughly convinced that owning an EV and installing a home FAST charging station will save me at least $2,000 per year compared to owning an ICE vehicle. I will recoup the costs of home charging installation in less than one year.

As others above pointed out, you can adequately charge off a 110V outlet or a 220V outlet. Your speaking to electricians is not relevant evidence of anything. I had a friend get a quote on a fast charger installation. First electrician gave a quote that was more than two times the price he ultimately paid.

As far as charging from a 110V or 220V outlet, one can simply plug in their vehicle when they get home and the vehicle is fully charged when they are ready to use the car in the morning in most instances. Perhaps after a long trip and the batter is nearly fully depleted, it will take longer to charge to full capacity. However, for me (and many others), I simply top off my battery when I get home. If I was using a 220V outlet, that would be accomplished every evening. But as noted above, my FAST charger gets this done in a couple of hours.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap and Rutgers Chris
Rutgers Chris said:
Not sure about other ev’s but my Tesla came with a plug that goes directly into a 220, no further purchase necessary.
Click to expand...
We recently purchased some sort of adapter that we can run plug into our dryer outlet in our laundry room adjacent the garage. My wife plugs her PHEV Volvo S60 to the 110 outlet. Not sure we will use it, but it was cheap. It has something to do with the shape of the dryer plug that was not compatible with either the Volvo plug or the Ford plug (which I don't use because we installed the Ford Charge Station Pro). I actually dialed down the Ford Charge Station Pro from 80 amps to 55 or 60 amps, because I read charging more slowly is better for the battery. It had little effect on how long it takes to recharge the battery in my F150 Lightning.
 
fsg2 said:
Mate Rimac going for broke! Breaking records for breaking records.
Click to expand...
1.74s 0 to 60 is an amazing technical achievement, if for no other reason than it requires some amazing mechanical grip to do it with street tires and an ordinary road surface. The Plaid did a sub-2s run but required a prepped surface to do so - and that's a substantial cheat to overcome the grip problem.

But as amazing as those times are, the difference between 1.7s and 2s is at the edges of human perception. I don't think most people can perceive the difference between those two times - the amazingly linear torque push is gonna be equally exciting either way. I would think even a 4s EV push, with it's linear feel, will feel pretty exciting to most folks.

But I'm reminded of being at Hershey Park, years back, on a day when the park wasn't very crowded. Lines were very short. My kids and I rode Storm Runner, which starts out with a 0-72 acceleration in 2s. And it was fun the first couple times. Then it just got old.

Because it was so damn fast that the overall perception was just zoom and done. The ride was mostly just a blur. Later, we were riding an older, much slower, wooden rollercoaster and realized it was more fun because it didn't outrun our senses. We repeated that one a bunch of times 'cause it didn't get old so quickly.
 
RUBlackout7 said:
8.26 1/4mile 😂

Insane and absolutely shits on ICE
Click to expand...
Ooooh, nice. A counter-trolling post. Now we're having fun. 😀

At an estimated $2.2M starting price, and probably $3M+ after options and the ensuing bidding war to actually own one, you'd have a car that could demonstrate it's amazing straight-line performance roughly one time before having to recharge for several hours. If interested, give Manhattan Motorcars a call to enter a bid and you might actually be able to shit on all those lowly ICEVs rather than just talking about it. 😉

Alternatively, you could save several million dollars and grab a new legacy Turbo S (made for luddites who still use an abacus, obviously) for about $250K out the door. But then you'd have to suffer with only being able to do several dozen 0-60 runs in a pathetically slow and boring 2.2s and then go on a several hour cool down drive before needing a 10 minute gas stop.

Isn't it wonderful that we have so many great choices?
 
mildone said:
Ooooh, nice. A counter-trolling post. Now we're having fun. 😀

At an estimated $2.2M starting price, and probably $3M+ after options and the ensuing bidding war to actually own one, you'd have a car that could demonstrate it's amazing straight-line performance roughly one time before having to recharge for several hours. If interested, give Manhattan Motorcars a call to enter a bid and you might actually be able to shit on all those lowly ICEVs rather than just talking about it. 😉

Alternatively, you could save several million dollars and grab a new legacy Turbo S (made for luddites who still use an abacus, obviously) for about $250K out the door. But then you'd have to suffer with only being able to do several dozen 0-60 runs in a pathetically slow and boring 2.2s and then go on a several hour cool down drive before needing a 10 minute gas stop.

Isn't it wonderful that we have so many great choices?
Click to expand...
I was talking about more direct comparisons like a Bugatti or Lambo, but the 911 is a cute comparison. This car would make the 911 look like it’s going in reverse though.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mildone
RUBlackout7 said:
I was talking about more direct comparisons like a Bugatti or Lambo, but the 911 is a cute comparison. This car would make the 911 look like it’s going in reverse though.
Click to expand...

There's no Lamborghini that costs $3 million. The Bugatti that you're probably thinking of is out of production (Veyron). The Chiron does cost about that, does 0-60 in 2.2 and has a top speed of 261 mph (compared to the Rimac's 248 mph). His point is valid.
 
RUBlackout7 said:
Ok glad we agree the Rimac shits on ICE cars
Click to expand...
Of course we agree. The Rimac shits on all other cars. That it sounds exactly like a broken vacuum cleaner during it's most defactory moments is neither here nor there. 🙂

So when are you submitting a bid for one?
 
RU4Real said:
There's no Lamborghini that costs $3 million. The Bugatti that you're probably thinking of is out of production (Veyron). The Chiron does cost about that, does 0-60 in 2.2 and has a top speed of 261 mph (compared to the Rimac's 248 mph). His point is valid.
Click to expand...
I remember reading about how, when a Veyron Super Sport had done a top speed run, it would require a new set of tires. And that the tires cost $42,000 a set. This article attempts to explain why they're so expensive and how, even when not pushing for top speed, the car goes through tires frequently.

https://www.motor1.com/news/448940/bugatti-veyron-tire-replacement-cost/

That the apparently backwards-moving twin-turbo flat-6 Turbo-S can match a multimillion dollar quad-turbo V16 Chiron for 0-60 times strikes me as a pretty impressive feat of engineering. Of course, all those cars are pure crap now because of the Rimac @RUBlackout7 is going to purchase soon. In all black, of course. 🙂

Incidentally, I closed a deal on the (even more backwards-moving) GT3 and spec'd a manual (as do roughly 70% of GT3 buyers, or so I read). Which I guess shows where straight-line is on my priority list. C&D pegs PDK at 2.8; it's roughly a half-second slower to row it manually. I have till sometime in June to change my mind and go PDK, but probably gonna stick to the stick.
 
mildone said:
I remember reading about how, when a Veyron Super Sport had done a top speed run, it would require a new set of tires. And that the tires cost $42,000 a set. This article attempts to explain why they're so expensive and how, even when not pushing for top speed, the car goes through tires frequently.

https://www.motor1.com/news/448940/bugatti-veyron-tire-replacement-cost/

That the apparently backwards-moving twin-turbo flat-6 Turbo-S can match a multimillion dollar quad-turbo V16 Chiron for 0-60 times strikes me as a pretty impressive feat of engineering. Of course, all those cars are pure crap now because of the Rimac @RUBlackout7 is going to purchase soon. In all black, of course. 🙂

Incidentally, I closed a deal on the (even more backwards-moving) GT3 and spec'd a manual (as do roughly 70% of GT3 buyers, or so I read). Which I guess shows where straight-line is on my priority list. C&D pegs PDK at 2.8; it's roughly a half-second slower to row it manually. I have till sometime in June to change my mind and go PDK, but probably gonna stick to the stick.
Click to expand...

Add to that the fact that at top speed the Veyron would suck its fuel tanks dry in 12 minutes - which is roughly how long the tires last.

And yet, Arthur Chirkinian didn't have any of these problems when he was cited - in Texas - for doing 242 mph in his Koenigsegg CCR.

Nice job on the GT3. My oldest daughter is moving to Colorado next month and needs a car (she's lived in the East Village for the last 6 years) so I bought her a CX-30 last weekend. I'm 99% convinced that my current tailgate vehicle will be replaced by a CX-30 Turbo in the next few days.
 
RU4Real said:
My oldest daughter is moving to Colorado next month and needs a car (she's lived in the East Village for the last 6 years) so I bought her a CX-30 last weekend. I'm 99% convinced that my current tailgate vehicle will be replaced by a CX-30 Turbo in the next few days.
Click to expand...
I've driven the pants off my MS3 and it's been super reliable and amazing fun. So I'm a fan of the brand (as you know). And, according to reviewers, they've been outdoing themselves on interiors lately.

I feel like we've discussed this before and I'm forgetting now, but how do you wind up deciding on the CX-30?
 
mildone said:
I've driven the pants off my MS3 and it's been super reliable and amazing fun. So I'm a fan of the brand (as you know). And, according to reviewers, they've been outdoing themselves on interiors lately.

I feel like we've discussed this before and I'm forgetting now, but how do you wind up deciding on the CX-30?
Click to expand...

It's a really strong value. Fully loaded Turbo runs about $35k and has every option you could expect at its price level and some that you wouldn't - the stop/start radar cruise control being one example. The interior quality on the new vehicles has straight-up surpassed Audi and BMW. For me, the platform is perfect - it can swallow the tailgate gear but it's literally as small and light as you can get that meets that criteria. By comparison, the Kona N is a couple inches too short for the tent.

The performance is, admittedly, a bit disappointing. As you know, I had my sights set somewhat higher. The CX-30 Turbo can out-drag everything in its price range (except the Kona N) but even a base Q5 is a tick faster to 60. I wanted sub-5 seconds, but won't be getting it.

On the other hand, every single review I watched was very clear on the power being more than you'd expect in the midrange, which for a daily driver is where it counts. And the handling has been lavishly praised by all. It's a CUV with basically zero body roll in corners and the Mazda G-something or other AWD system engages with the handling process to shift power to the rear wheels. It does this actively based on steering angle, velocity and independent suspension loading, in an effort to keep the vehicle flat and rotated into the turn. Fascinating side note - it will not understeer. When it breaks, it breaks neutral.

So that gives me a competent and well-respected daily driver and utility vehicle that cost me well under 40 grand, leaving room for other decisions.

For the girl, easy-peasy. We had a target spend. We looked at CPO Hyundais and Kias and discovered that for the exact same money I could get a brand new CX-30 Select. It's one step up from the base, so adds a pleather interior and the full array of nannies and doo-dads for $24.6k. The base engine is up to 191 hp, so it's no slouch and is more than sufficient for The Girl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
RU4Real said:
It's a really strong value. Fully loaded Turbo runs about $35k and has every option you could expect at its price level and some that you wouldn't - the stop/start radar cruise control being one example. The interior quality on the new vehicles has straight-up surpassed Audi and BMW. For me, the platform is perfect - it can swallow the tailgate gear but it's literally as small and light as you can get that meets that criteria. By comparison, the Kona N is a couple inches too short for the tent.

The performance is, admittedly, a bit disappointing. As you know, I had my sights set somewhat higher. The CX-30 Turbo can out-drag everything in its price range (except the Kona N) but even a base Q5 is a tick faster to 60. I wanted sub-5 seconds, but won't be getting it.

On the other hand, every single review I watched was very clear on the power being more than you'd expect in the midrange, which for a daily driver is where it counts. And the handling has been lavishly praised by all. It's a CUV with basically zero body roll in corners and the Mazda G-something or other AWD system engages with the handling process to shift power to the rear wheels. It does this actively based on steering angle, velocity and independent suspension loading, in an effort to keep the vehicle flat and rotated into the turn. Fascinating side note - it will not understeer. When it breaks, it breaks neutral.

So that gives me a competent and well-respected daily driver and utility vehicle that cost me well under 40 grand, leaving room for other decisions.

For the girl, easy-peasy. We had a target spend. We looked at CPO Hyundais and Kias and discovered that for the exact same money I could get a brand new CX-30 Select. It's one step up from the base, so adds a pleather interior and the full array of nannies and doo-dads for $24.6k. The base engine is up to 191 hp, so it's no slouch and is more than sufficient for The Girl.
Click to expand...
You've done your homework. As usual.

If it were me, I wouldn't sweat the straight-line performance. It has more than enough as is and, IMO, what makes cars truly engaging and a lasting joy to drive are other, often subtle, things - some of which you touched on (e.g. minimizing body roll).

Also, with the turbo, if power winds up being a thing, you can always add power easily and inexpensively with bolt-ons and a tune (e.g. a bigger intake and a more easily flowing exhaust with a safe tune could add 75whp, no problem). Way easier to add aftermarket power to a blown engine than to a naturally aspirated one (or an EV).
 
mildone said:
You've done your homework. As usual.

If it were me, I wouldn't sweat the straight-line performance. It has more than enough as is and, IMO, what makes cars truly engaging and a lasting joy to drive are other, often subtle, things - some of which you touched on (e.g. minimizing body roll).

Also, with the turbo, if power winds up being a thing, you can always add power easily and inexpensively with bolt-ons and a tune (e.g. a bigger intake and a more easily flowing exhaust with a safe tune could add 75whp, no problem). Way easier to add aftermarket power to a blown engine than to a naturally aspirated one (or an EV).
Click to expand...

It will be an interesting comparison the the S60, which has some strange driving dynamics, truth be told. It accelerates well but when you're in it there's no escaping the sensation of considerable mass. It leans. It's large. This will be refreshing, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
www.yahoo.com

Greg Abbott Signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars

Driving an electric vehicle in Texas is soon to become more expensive. Governor Greg Abbott signed a law (SB 505) on May 13 instituting new fees for registering and owning EVs in the state. Under the bill, electric car owners will have to pay $400 upon registering their vehicle. Then, every...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Can’t wait to see ELMO speak his mind on this.
 
jtung230 said:
www.yahoo.com

Greg Abbott Signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars

Driving an electric vehicle in Texas is soon to become more expensive. Governor Greg Abbott signed a law (SB 505) on May 13 instituting new fees for registering and owning EVs in the state. Under the bill, electric car owners will have to pay $400 upon registering their vehicle. Then, every...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Can’t wait to see ELMO speak his mind on this.
Click to expand...
At first glance, the article presents what appears to be an unfair and anti-EV fee structure. But the article fails to provide any argument, from TX legislators, for why the fees are so high.

If I lived in TX I’d sure want to hear both sides of the story before reaching for the condemnation stick. However, TX is a big oil state, so I won’t be surprised to learn that it’s just what the article claims - an unfair anti-EV tax.
 
mildone said:
At first glance, the article presents what appears to be an unfair and anti-EV fee structure. But the article fails to provide any argument, from TX legislators, for why the fees are so high.

If I lived in TX I’d sure want to hear both sides of the story before reaching for the condemnation stick. However, TX is a big oil state, so I won’t be surprised to learn that it’s just what the article claims - an unfair anti-EV tax.
Click to expand...

This is what I've long spoken about - for longer than this conversation has been relevant.

Most states get the bulk of their highway money from gas taxes. In that context, the operators of EVs are using the roads for free. It only makes sense that there should be an alternative taxation mechanism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUevolution36
RU4Real said:
This is what I've long spoken about - for longer than this conversation has been relevant.

Most states get the bulk of their highway money from gas taxes. In that context, the operators of EVs are using the roads for free. It only makes sense that there should be an alternative taxation mechanism.
Click to expand...

To further (revisit) the point, this is *the reason* why, more than a dozen years ago, the transportation industry started talking about pay-per-mile. Charging all drivers for miles driven and eliminating all of the other highway taxes would bring revenue to parity. The argument against has always been that the government would be collecting data on your driving habits.
 
RU4Real said:
This is what I've long spoken about - for longer than this conversation has been relevant.

Most states get the bulk of their highway money from gas taxes. In that context, the operators of EVs are using the roads for free. It only makes sense that there should be an alternative taxation mechanism.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The question I have, and the article doesn’t cover adequately, is if the fees they‘ve created to that end are fair as compare to the fees (taxes) paid at gas pumps.

The article says no. But it doesn’t attempt to provide any explanation of how the fee structure was determined by the legislature. So I’d like to hear from the legislature about it. Perhaps it’s not as unreasonable as presented.
 
RU4Real said:
To further (revisit) the point, this is *the reason* why, more than a dozen years ago, the transportation industry started talking about pay-per-mile. Charging all drivers for miles driven and eliminating all of the other highway taxes would bring revenue to parity. The argument against has always been that the government would be collecting data on your driving habits.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the data on our travel habits is already for sale to anybody who wants it. So at this point, pay per mile might be a reasonable ask. Or pay per mile and weight, since heavier vehicles cause more wear to roads and bridges.

But if they go for pay per mile, weight and speed, because higher speeds probably also creates more wear, well, that’s where I draw the line. Leave speed out of it. 😁
 
jtung230 said:
www.yahoo.com

Greg Abbott Signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars

Driving an electric vehicle in Texas is soon to become more expensive. Governor Greg Abbott signed a law (SB 505) on May 13 instituting new fees for registering and owning EVs in the state. Under the bill, electric car owners will have to pay $400 upon registering their vehicle. Then, every...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Can’t wait to see ELMO speak his mind on this.
Click to expand...
My gut reaction was R's be R's, but this seems fair considering the loss of tax revenue that is used to pay for road maintenance. @RU4Real , do you agree?

However, Texas seem to be disproportionately taxing EV owners.

"At least 32 states currently have special electric vehicle registration fees, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. These range from $50 in places like Colorado, Hawaii, and South Dakota to $274 (starting in 2028) in a recently passed piece of Tennessee legislation. Note: Tennessee lawmakers had originally proposed a $300 fee, but lowered it in response to pushback.

Like many other states that have instituted EV fees, the reasoning behind the Lone Star State’s new law is that electric car drivers don’t buy gas. Taxes at the fuel pump are the primary way that most states, Texas included, amass funds for road construction, maintenance, and other driving-related infrastructure."
 
jtung230 said:
www.yahoo.com

Greg Abbott Signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars

Driving an electric vehicle in Texas is soon to become more expensive. Governor Greg Abbott signed a law (SB 505) on May 13 instituting new fees for registering and owning EVs in the state. Under the bill, electric car owners will have to pay $400 upon registering their vehicle. Then, every...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Can’t wait to see ELMO speak his mind on this.
Click to expand...
Probably won't say anything. Just like he keeps his mouth shut when it comes to China.
 
Knight Shift said:
My gut reaction was R's be R's, but this seems fair considering the loss of tax revenue that is used to pay for road maintenance. @RU4Real , do you agree?

However, Texas seem to be disproportionately taxing EV owners.

"At least 32 states currently have special electric vehicle registration fees, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. These range from $50 in places like Colorado, Hawaii, and South Dakota to $274 (starting in 2028) in a recently passed piece of Tennessee legislation. Note: Tennessee lawmakers had originally proposed a $300 fee, but lowered it in response to pushback.

Like many other states that have instituted EV fees, the reasoning behind the Lone Star State’s new law is that electric car drivers don’t buy gas. Taxes at the fuel pump are the primary way that most states, Texas included, amass funds for road construction, maintenance, and other driving-related infrastructure."
Click to expand...

The equitable hit will vary from state to state and have to be an average among drivers.

FWIW, I did some quick math... I average about 10k miles per year, the S60 averages 22 mpg and the NJ gas tax is 44.1 cents per gallon, so my annual tithe to the state of NJ is about 200 bucks.

Another reason to adopt usage-based fees in an EV world - people who use the roads more would pay more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
RU4Real said:
The equitable hit will vary from state to state and have to be an average among drivers.

FWIW, I did some quick math... I average about 10k miles per year, the S60 averages 22 mpg and the NJ gas tax is 44.1 cents per gallon, so my annual tithe to the state of NJ is about 200 bucks.

Another reason to adopt usage-based fees in an EV world - people who use the roads more would pay more.
Click to expand...
Don’t you get taxed on electricity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R

OT: Jim Tunney Dead at 95

Replies
1
Views
645
Rutgers Football
rudad02
R
BROTHERSKINNY

Father of former LSU player Greg Brooks Jr. calls out Brian Kelly amid lawsuit: ‘Where were you?’

Replies
3
Views
511
Rutgers Football
LETSGORU91
LETSGORU91
R

A last stand…

Replies
3
Views
591
The Round Table
JudgeSmails56
JudgeSmails56
L

RU v Michigan Preview

Replies
5
Views
380
Men's Basketball
RUJMM78
R
M

[WATCHLIVE]TV=] UFC 312 Live LIVE STREAMS ON TV CHANNEL

Replies
0
Views
446
Baseball, Soccer & more!
Mrkaren
M
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back