Cant see combustion engines completely dying off
GM V8
General Motors investing $854 million to build V8 engines amid EV shift
General Motors is investing $854 million in four plants to support V8 engine production for the coming years even as it prepares to transform into an all-electric automaker.
www.foxbusiness.com
Do you think they know EVs are not really what people want in a truck?
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
And near my house, BP is building a new 10-stall gas station. I'm waiting to see if they have ev charging stations....
I wouldn't want an all EV truck but I'd sure like an EV capability for a four wheel drive alternative. Normal ICE platform for the 99.99 percent of the time I'm driving or towing but an electric motor or two up front for the few minutes I need it to get unstuck. Would free up some room where transfer case and front shaft go, which has been a pain in my tail more than a few times with my Suburban.
Seems unlikely unless there are a number of restaurants in walking distance from it. Just isn't practical to hang out at a gas station for 30 minutes with nothing to do.And near my house, BP is building a new 10-stall gas station. I'm waiting to see if they have ev charging stations....
Its not that long, typical fast charge station will get you couple hundred miles in 15min or less. Hell i've spent that waiting on kids to pee, when filling up on trips. Most people don't drive over 100 miles to work every day. Even a truck with 300 mile range is plenty for most people. Granted no the info structure is no were ready. Tesla's will route you to super charges and plan a trip around needing a charge. Long trips will at a while to a trip in charge time. For daily driving EV isn't horrible. Drive to work then home and plug it in over night. Cheap now tell we all start getting charged for it, when out $200 light bill goes to $1000 amonth for everyone, that won't be fun...Seems unlikely unless there are a number of restaurants in walking distance from it. Just isn't practical to hang out at a gas station for 30 minutes with nothing to do.
Or they bill for miles driven...Its not that long, typical fast charge station will get you couple hundred miles in 15min or less. Hell i've spent that waiting on kids to pee, when filling up on trips. Most people don't drive over 100 miles to work every day. Even a truck with 300 mile range is plenty for most people. Granted no the info structure is no were ready. Tesla's will route you to super charges and plan a trip around needing a charge. Long trips will at a while to a trip in charge time. For daily driving EV isn't horrible. Drive to work then home and plug it in over night. Cheap now tell we all start getting charged for it, when out $200 light bill goes to $1000 amonth for everyone, that won't be fun...
How will we pay for the roads without a gas tax. Pay per mile? Pay a road tax or all roads become toll roads?
Kinda off topic but, it just came to me.
Todd
Kinda off topic but, it just came to me.
Todd
Washington state wants to track vehicle use via transponder, so they can charge based on time of day, traffic & road use demand.
SFAIK, it hasn't passed the legislature yet, but we're a one party state, so there's not much holding them back.
SFAIK, it hasn't passed the legislature yet, but we're a one party state, so there's not much holding them back.
During real world research it has been found the the 300 mile range advertised for the EV truck is diminished to 80-150 miles when towing a mere 1200 lb. load (Which is what my trucks do 80 % of the time). Don't believe everything these manufacturers are telling you as it's only the high points they are selling you so they can sell vehicles.
Charging times are exaggerated as to speed and miles you get per fast charging. If the EV only gets 250 miles per FULL charge, I would seriously doubt that 15 min fast charge will get you to a full charge. The technology and battery systems just aren't up to the task YET, but they may be better in the future, say 10-20 more years down the road.
Charging times are exaggerated as to speed and miles you get per fast charging. If the EV only gets 250 miles per FULL charge, I would seriously doubt that 15 min fast charge will get you to a full charge. The technology and battery systems just aren't up to the task YET, but they may be better in the future, say 10-20 more years down the road.
That's one reason GM is investing in the V8 for trucks and SUV's.During real world research it has been found the the 300 mile range advertised for the EV truck is diminished to 80-150 miles when towing a mere 1200 lb. load (Which is what my trucks do 80 % of the time). Don't believe everything these manufacturers are telling you as it's only the high points they are selling you so they can sell vehicles.
No. 15 mins usually isn't to full charge but 15 min is usually enough for 200ish miles in a tesla for example. It will tell you the estimated time and range you need. So if you are on your way home it will tell you, 10 min charge to get to next stop. Idk of anyone that drives to work every day 300+ miles.Charging times are exaggerated as to speed and miles you get per fast charging. If the EV only gets 250 miles per FULL charge, I would seriously doubt that 15 min fast charge will get you to a full charge. The technology and battery systems just aren't up to the task YET, but they may be better in the future, say 10-20 more years down the road.
So you don't need a full charge every time when going some were. The car will even tell you and plan the trip for you, telling you that you need to stop at a place to recharge. My buddy has a model S long range (400mile) and likes it, perfect for his commute 40 miles a day. He plugs it up at night. I have been on a 200ish mile trip with him. Car was at about half charged. Made to stop and almost back but we designed to stop eat lunch and he but 15min in it for $15ish. He did have to go move it as the station charges you a fee if you don't move it when charging time is up. But not to bad.
Over all EV is not to bad then gas trip planning wise. Use to have to plan stops to get gas years ago but now there is a gas stations every where. At some point be the same with EV. For commuter its a wise investment now, but again someone has to pay for the power and it will be all of us. I look for a tax on electric bill to pay for roads in near future.
Whats sad is the gas tax here goes in the general fund and not to the hwy dept, they have to give the legilator a budget and the extra gas tax the spend on other stuff which IMO is a joke and why our roads are horrible here.
The main issue with EV is the energy required. You moving if from one fuel to the next so now there is, no ever near enough power. There is a very simple solution though IMO, put solar panels on ever roof in America. Doing that would provide every one with cheap power, intial costs are high yes but once up and running power would basically be near free WAY cheaper then now. But as we all know that will not happen due to current humans running things, all I can say about that as to not get to political.
With the condition the roads are in this tax doesn't go far as it is. Remember, states love to punish the hapless motorist.How will we pay for the roads without a gas tax. Pay per mile? Pay a road tax or all roads become toll roads?
Kinda off topic but, it just came to me.
Todd
A problem with solar is, here in Michigan(I am sure other places too) we have only had sunshine 2 days in the last 45+ days. It's been cloudy and only daylight for 9 hours a day or less. What if you have trees around your home that blocks the sun half the day too? Now wind, we have wind here. I live bye a airport and windmills can't go up near a airport for some reason.That's one reason GM is investing in the V8 for trucks and SUV's.
No. 15 mins usually isn't to full charge but 15 min is usually enough for 200ish miles in a tesla for example. It will tell you the estimated time and range you need. So if you are on your way home it will tell you, 10 min charge to get to next stop. Idk of anyone that drives to work every day 300+ miles.
So you don't need a full charge every time when going some were. The car will even tell you and plan the trip for you, telling you that you need to stop at a place to recharge. My buddy has a model S long range (400mile) and likes it, perfect for his commute 40 miles a day. He plugs it up at night. I have been on a 200ish mile trip with him. Car was at about half charged. Made to stop and almost back but we designed to stop eat lunch and he but 15min in it for $15ish. He did have to go move it as the station charges you a fee if you don't move it when charging time is up. But not to bad.
Over all EV is not to bad then gas trip planning wise. Use to have to plan stops to get gas years ago but now there is a gas stations every where. At some point be the same with EV. For commuter its a wise investment now, but again someone has to pay for the power and it will be all of us. I look for a tax on electric bill to pay for roads in near future.
Whats sad is the gas tax here goes in the general fund and not to the hwy dept, they have to give the legilator a budget and the extra gas tax the spend on other stuff which IMO is a joke and why our roads are horrible here.
The main issue with EV is the energy required. You moving if from one fuel to the next so now there is, no ever near enough power. There is a very simple solution though IMO, put solar panels on ever roof in America. Doing that would provide every one with cheap power, intial costs are high yes but once up and running power would basically be near free WAY cheaper then now. But as we all know that will not happen due to current humans running things, all I can say about that as to not get to political.
Todd
That is an issue if you're off the grid. But tou have to relize that cloudy, the panels still make power, its a smaller amount. And if hooked into the grid, its still there so if your panels aren't making power someone else's are some where maybe. Also having battery packs help, for use when a system is not making enough power. No, not all homes have roofs with 100% sun all the time, but there are a lot that are, which if you put panels on your roof and have an incentive to do so IE your power bill is cheaper some my either trim back or remove certain trees or allow for a portion of their lot to have panels on the ground. Usually there is a solution to most problems, and not hard ones.A problem with solar is, here in Michigan(I am sure other places too) we have only had sunshine 2 days in the last 45+ days. It's been cloudy and only daylight for 9 hours a day or less. What if you have trees around your home that blocks the sun half the day too?
By buddy just went off grid and it was WAY easier then I would have thought and he uses way less power then he thought. He simply made the investment to do so, bad thing here is you can't really sale your power back just get credit on your bill so he has no incentive to even hook his into the grid which is stupid on the power companies part. But can't blame them as they have a monopoly anyway, why give up on your cash cow.
I not a "fan" of wind, at least the large remote turbines, they look horrible and have impacts on things all their own. Now a small wind turbine on your property will help supplement the days its not so sunny. The key is how your system works, and solar still makes power even on cloudy days. Its not an all or nothing deal, this is a common misconception that skewers peoples reality on how they work. No its not making 100% power it might make 50% power which maybe enough for those days You size your system on use and recoupe rate. Example is my buddy can run his place for 3-4 days with out any input. Now winter he usually tops off batteries every day cloudy or not.Now wind, we have wind here. I live bye a airport and windmills can't go up near a airport for some reason.
Todd
Like I said plenty of places to put panels and get entergy out of them.
I'd venture it to be a simpler task to force everyone to give up driving over putting solar panels on their roofs. Environmental poisoning aside with respect to their manufacture, they are a net loss energy wise from production to installation / use for most people who do not live where it is sunny and clear 90 percent of the year or more. Even then, I suspect there are more than a few people like me who prefer to use large oak trees to shade our roofs to lower the AC bill and allow the enjoyment of some sweet tea in the afternoon on the porch.
They aren’t net loss, they are viable for 20-25 years min. output wise. So any cost or impact of manufacture and install are overshadowed by output in a few years.
Again the fallacy that they need 100% sun and clear to make power prevails. And you wouldn’t have a bill nor need shade as you can keep you A/C on 58* and brew all sweet tea you want for zero dollars in power.
Problem now is initial cost of panels is way to high.
Again the fallacy that they need 100% sun and clear to make power prevails. And you wouldn’t have a bill nor need shade as you can keep you A/C on 58* and brew all sweet tea you want for zero dollars in power.
Problem now is initial cost of panels is way to high.
And probably once they got one installed for everybody, they would already have something better out there that makes what everybody has installed obsolete.They aren’t net loss, they are viable for 20-25 years min. output wise. So any cost or impact of manufacture and install are overshadowed by output in a few years.
Again the fallacy that they need 100% sun and clear to make power prevails. And you wouldn’t have a bill nor need shade as you can keep you A/C on 58* and brew all sweet tea you want for zero dollars in power.
Problem now is initial cost of panels is way to high.
Kinda like cell phones, computers and televisions. 😉
Todd
It seems to me that if they were a net gain on any time scale, solar panels would exclusively be used to power the factories that make them. I have never seen or read about such a facility but if one is out there, it would go a long way towards changing my tune. I believe the net loss for energy occurs when accounting for their manufacture, transportation, installation, removal, transportation and eventual burial in a landfill somewhere because they are not friendly to recycling. I understand why people would only want to look at some of the middle steps, particularly after tax subsidies from some tree people have helped out. All of that tracks with me and makes a lot of sense. That said, I don't think anyone is claiming they need 100% sun and clear sky to produce energy. My contention is that all of the happy path calculations for their payback schedules require an amount of sunlight that isn't reasonable for most people alongside some curious assumptions on maintenance and replacement cadence.They aren’t net loss, they are viable for 20-25 years min. output wise. So any cost or impact of manufacture and install are overshadowed by output in a few years.
Again the fallacy that they need 100% sun and clear to make power prevails. And you wouldn’t have a bill nor need shade as you can keep you A/C on 58* and brew all sweet tea you want for zero dollars in power.
Problem now is initial cost of panels is way to high.
I agree that the buy in expense is an issue but the larger problem for me is that I don't see the gain in adding so many new poisons to various water tables and the like. The ones I see in my neighborhood do look neat though and I can appreciate the trade off they've made. It just isn't for me or any roof that I own is all.
The reason they aren't on every roof top is electricity is still cheap. You're buying power from a monopoly. There is loss to a point in any energy production today, if not we wouldn't be talking about it here.It seems to me that if they were a net gain on any time scale, solar panels would exclusively be used to power the factories that make them. I have never seen or read about such a facility but if one is out there, it would go a long way towards changing my tune. I believe the net loss for energy occurs when accounting for their manufacture, transportation, installation, removal, transportation and eventual burial in a landfill somewhere because they are not friendly to recycling. I understand why people would only want to look at some of the middle steps, particularly after tax subsidies from some tree people have helped out. All of that tracks with me and makes a lot of sense. That said, I don't think anyone is claiming they need 100% sun and clear sky to produce energy. My contention is that all of the happy path calculations for their payback schedules require an amount of sunlight that isn't reasonable for most people alongside some curious assumptions on maintenance and replacement cadence.
The math is easy to calculate out for panels same as with wind, hydro, coal, nuclear, or any other producer of power its not that hard, even figuring avg days of sun and production can be calculated easily. And as I stated they don't need sun to make power, so even cloud days the may power. That is were sizing your system comes in again if 90% cloud days and your system is down 25% in power output but you have enough panels to account for it math it pretty easy for figuring it.
Yes avg solar is lower capacity factor then pretty much anything else, but my point is you make your power on the days you need it and buy it on the days you don't make it if you system isn't 100% capacity for you. You already buy your power and its shipped in via wires to everyone's house. So if the numbers work for your area so be it if not keep buying power. Like I said easy to run the numbers. So till the monopoly on energy is threatened they will still take your money happily, and nothing anyone can do about it. For me the numbers don't add up currently. I envy my buddy that doesn't have a power or water bill. Granted we aren't talking alot of money a year in savings but it is savings once his initial cost are covered.
Everything makes a wast byproduct of manufacture, everything. If you're using power its emitting pollution in some form now or as a result of it. That isn't the issue I am talking about, you're just moving it from one platform to the other for energy yes, but my point is to reduce cost of living with in the same scope of impact. Oh and there are some panels that are designed to look like normal roof materials coming to market...I agree that the buy in expense is an issue but the larger problem for me is that I don't see the gain in adding so many new poisons to various water tables and the like. The ones I see in my neighborhood do look neat though and I can appreciate the trade off they've made. It just isn't for me or any roof that I own is all.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Nuclear plants generate considerably more energy than they require to put in place. Similarly, pumping oil out of the ground provides more energy than required for extraction and processing. Solar panels do not produce more energy than they require to be created and managed. To my knowledge, the only solar endeavor to experience net energy gains for the purpose of monetization are the ones like that molten salt plant in Nevada. No voltaic panels though, just mirrors and focus.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Chevy Tri Five Forum
A forum community dedicated to 1955, 1956, and 1957 Chevy owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restoration, engine swaps, reviews, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more! Open to all models including Belair, 210, 150, Sedans, and Nomads.
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Shadetree55
394 Replies
55wagoncrazy
232 Replies
BamaNomad
202 Replies
Recommended Communities
