[Mikesbimmer]

Dodge Charger EVs sure are selling like hotcakes right? I found a lease deal where after incentives, the dealership lease calculator math worked out to a negative monthly payment with no money down. I still wouldn’t drive it and probably wouldn’t drive this BMW AI powered EV garbage either even if they paid me.

[madman23]

Any reason why the steering wheel is upside down while he's going straight, or did I miss something?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by OUGrad05

If people actually believe EVs are being shoved down their throats they're clearly just plugged into absurd cable news channels and similar echo chambers. After I bought my i4 I heard the same shit from family. "No one is going to force me to buy an EV!". Ok great, who forced me to buy mine? No one.

EVs make up 7, 8, 9% of sales in the US? A bit higher in Europe. That's hardly force not mention we still have significantly more ICE options.

Your point on transmissions is a good one too. Reality is automatic and dual clutch boxes are much better than manual transmission cars now. Granted I still LOVE driving manual transmission cars but they are a novelty and WE as enthusiasts are certainly a minority of car buyers especially in 2025. EVs don't need gearboxes really. They're just a better overall product, the use doesn't work for everyone, as you stated for your situation. But where they work they are better.

That doesn't mean I want one as my enthusiast car, if I was still at the point where I needed a do it all vehicle (track days, weekend drives, going to work, etc) I'd probably not have an EV and instead I'd have an M3.

I'm at a point where I can have multiple vehicles so for me the EV is great for daily needs, as it is for most people at this point, but there are still use cases where they won't work and some folks simply want the tech to improve, then you have the folks who will never buy an EV because they aren't "Woke" or won't be "forced" to. Ok well they'll miss out on better daily transportation, their decision.

We could [...]

Sometimes you can tell the political sway of a person simply by their intolerance and tendency to be passive aggressive anytime somebody disagrees with them.

Anyway…..


It has nothing to do with any particular news outlet nor echo chambers. When state governments enact legislation- however improbable some believe that legislation to be, as it pertains to actual practice - that seeks to push for no ICE’s being sold in the state, and for only EV’s to be sold, THAT is EV’s being shoved down our collective throats. It’s one thing to like EV’s. There’s merit to them if they fit into your lifestyle and meet your criteria. It’s another thing to suggest that a population of people should only have the option to purchase an EV.

You make a valid point about EV sales; one I’ve made many times. That’s why I think it’s unrealistic to think there’s wide scale interest in EV’s. It doesn’t stop government entities from pushing them.

I’m not anti-EV, but I am pro-choice and I advocate for less government involvement on these matters.

[OUGrad05]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Sometimes you can tell the political sway of a person simply by their intolerance and tendency to be passive aggressive anytime somebody disagrees with them.

Anyway…..


It has nothing to do with any particular news outlet nor echo chambers. When state governments enact legislation- however improbable some believe that legislation to be, as it pertains to actual practice - that seeks to push for no ICE’s being sold in the state, and for only EV’s to be sold, THAT is EV’s being shoved down our collective throats. It’s one thing to like EV’s. There’s merit to them if they fit into your lifestyle and meet your criteria. It’s another thing to suggest that a population of people should only have the option to purchase an EV.

You make a valid point about EV sales; one I’ve made many times. That’s why I think it’s unrealistic to think there’s wide scale interest in EV’s. It doesn’t stop government entities from pushing them.

I’m not anti-EV, but I am pro-choice and I advocate for less government involvement on these matters.

Banning ICE isn't the way to go I said that in a prior post. As it sits today no one is being forced to buy an EV in the US and Western Europe. You have plenty of choice.

Interest in EVs is increasing dramatically as people get more exposure to them. As battery prices come down that will continue to increase.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by OUGrad05

Banning ICE isn't the way to go I said that in a prior post. As it sits today no one is being forced to buy an EV in the US and Western Europe. You have plenty of choice.

Interest in EVs is increasing dramatically as people get more exposure to them. As battery prices come down that will continue to increase.

Sales don’t support that statement, and that’s why manufacturers are reducing EV production significantly.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Mikesbimmer

Dodge Charger EVs sure are selling like hotcakes right? I found a lease deal where after incentives, the dealership lease calculator math worked out to a negative monthly payment with no money down.

It’s American Exceptionalism on display for all to see…

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Sometimes you can tell the political sway of a person simply by their intolerance and tendency to be passive aggressive anytime somebody disagrees with them.

Anyway…..


It has nothing to do with any particular news outlet nor echo chambers. When state governments enact legislation- however improbable some believe that legislation to be, as it pertains to actual practice - that seeks to push for no ICE’s being sold in the state, and for only EV’s to be sold, THAT is EV’s being shoved down our collective throats. It’s one thing to like EV’s. There’s merit to them if they fit into your lifestyle and meet your criteria. It’s another thing to suggest that a population of people should only have the option to purchase an EV.

You make a valid point about EV sales; one I’ve made many times. That’s why I think it’s unrealistic to think there’s wide scale interest in EV’s. It doesn’t stop government entities from pushing them.

I’m not anti-EV, but I am pro-choice and I advocate for less government involvement on these matters.

Then what is your position on mass subsidies and tariffs in support of American manufacturers and fossil fuels producers?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

Then what is your position on mass subsidies and tariffs in support of American manufacturers and fossil fuels producers?

Well my position on that is well beyond automotive discussion. Succinctly, I support increasing national industry, job creation for Americans, rebuilding the middle class, and less foreign dependence. We’ve had industry in this country before, but Americans were jettisoned in favor of cheap labor overseas (…and increasingly plump pockets for those entities).

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Well my position on that is well beyond automotive discussion. Succinctly, I support increasing national industry, job creation for Americans, rebuilding the middle class, and less foreign dependence. We’ve had industry in this country before, but Americans were jettisoned in favor of cheap labor overseas (…and increasingly plump pockets for those entities).

In that case, why do you oppose EVs? It checks all your boxes.

Edit to add: you didn’t actually answer my question.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

In that case, why do you oppose EVs? It checks all your boxes.

Edit to add: you didn’t actually answer my question.

I don’t oppose EV’s. Show me where I said that. In fact, I explicitly stated the existence of EV’s have merit AND I even said I would be more inclined to own one (…as a tertiary vehicle) if it met my range expectations. That said, I am under no illusions that me buying an EV is that much greener an option than an ICE. I DO oppose being directed/mandated to buy them.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I don’t oppose EV’s. Show me where I said that. In fact, I explicitly stated the existence of EV’s have merit AND I even said I would be more inclined to own one (…as a tertiary vehicle) if it met my range expectations. I DO oppose being directed/mandated to buy them.

You still didn’t answer my question.

Please remind us of who is mandating or directing anyone—at least in the U.S.—to purchase or drive EVs.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

You still didn’t answer my question.

Please remind us of who is mandating or directing anyone—at least in the U.S.—to purchase or drive EVs.

You’re being intellectually obtuse here in the spirit of being contrary rather than actually considering the example I’ve presented.

California, the state I work in, has an EV mandate looming; Newsom’s Executive Order. That mandate is fairly common knowledge, and it seeks to establish that 100% of the vehicles sold here are EV’s.

Now, before you argue that it isn’t in play yet (..or that the implementation is staggered over the next 10 years), that is besides the point. We often challenge legislation before it actually takes effect, so this is no different. It is the mere proposal and intended implementation that is concerning. I’m sure you’ve had issues with an impending piece of legislation prior to it taking effect at some point in your adult life.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You’re being intellectually obtuse here in the spirit of being contrary rather than actually considering the example I’ve presented.

California, the state I work in, has an EV mandate looming; Newsom’s Executive Order. That mandate is fairly common knowledge, and it seeks to establish that 100% of the vehicles sold here are EV’s.

Now, before you argue that it isn’t in play yet (..or that the implantation is staggered over the next 10 years), that is besides the point. We often challenge legislation before it actually takes effect, so this is no different. It is the mere proposal and intended implementation that is concerning. I’m sure you’ve had issues with an impending piece of legislation prior to it taking effect at some point in your adult life.

You continue to tap dance around your ongoing refusal to answer my question. This is your fourth dodge of my question.

You are correct about Newsome’s executive order. To be honest, I do not take it very seriously. It is likely to be overturned (for better or worse) by the current federal administration, or revoked by Newsome or his successor if and when it becomes clear that the goals cannot be met, etc. But who knows, maybe it will stand, to California’s climate-improving benefit.

Many of those complaining today about EV mandates, are likely to be dead of natural causes, or no longer driving, by the time that the 2035 rule comes to fruition, if it does. And even then, used cars can be resold, and contemporaneously-owned cars can continue to be driven.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

You continue to tap dance around your ongoing refusal to answer my question. This is your fourth dodge of my question.

You are correct about Newsome’s executive order. To be honest, I do not take it very seriously. It is likely to be overturned (for better or worse) by the current federal administration, or revoked by Newsome or his successor if and when it becomes clear that the goals cannot be met, etc. But who knows, maybe it will stand, to California’s climate-improving benefit.

Many of those complaining today about EV mandates, are likely to be dead of natural causes, or no longer driving, by the time that the 2035 rule comes to fruition, if it does. And even then, used cars can be resold, and contemporaneously-owned cars can continue to be driven.

I have answered your question. What part of my response are you not satisfied with?

[Mavus]

https://www.motor1.com/news/737684/b...on-engine-ban/


these same politicians that are passing these laws are taking private jets and then helos to Davos.

What about cruise ship ban?

How about plastics ban?

What about banning cargo ships and planes esp private jets?

Shouldn’t we ban Monsanto and criminal FDA that allows food chemicals?

Why not support hydrogen powered vehicles?

the list goes on …


EVs are not new. We’ve had them for the last 100y. They work in some cases but not all cases. Diesel is still king when it comes to large machines and towing and there is no replacement for it.

When we talk about EVs we should consider service life and repairs. You can buy many 20y+ old ice vehicles and repair them. Is that going to be the case with EVs and who will be able to repair them?

F150, Silverado and Ram are some of the best selling vehicles in US. Are those customers buying EV trucks now?

How many EV manufacturers are profitable?

Many many questions need to be resolved esp re infrastructure.


Interesting summary from Rimac on the high end market that may impact BMW M also

https://www.motor1.com/news/718973/r...ric-hypercars/

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I have answered your question. What part of my response are you not satisfied with?

You have not yet answered it. That’s five dodges, and counting.

It’s your right not to answer it. It’s my right to point out that you have not done so.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

You have not yet answered it. That’s five dodges, and counting.

It’s your right not to answer it. It’s my right to point out that you have not done so.

My goodness dude. I’m asking you, what have I not answered? What question specifically are you referring to? You are frustrating to have discourse with.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

So many, many questions that it’s so much easier to just ignore and not address.



BMWbiker, where do you live in New York? Do you live in the city? You said yourself earlier that EVs don’t fit your needs as they are at this point in time. I fairly routinely make road trips between 1,000 and 2,000 miles. Refueling that takes more than about ten minutes from the time I pull in to the station until I pull out is of zero interest to me.

I live in the city of Chicago. My ballpark estimate is AT LEAST 50% of cars in Chicago street park in front of vintage apartment buildings or houses. I have yet to see anyone anywhere propose a truly viable plan for how those cars are going to be charged. I think a lot of people who think EVs are going to become the primary mode of transportation have never lived in a city where virtually every single street that isn’t a major thoroughfare and lots of them that are is lined with parked cars.

The infrastructure that supports the fleet of vehicles on the road today grew organically over a period of over a century and now we have a group who seems to think with some legislation we’re going to create an entirely new infrastructure to support a technology that is basically in its infancy and still isn’t ready for prime time and we’re going to do it within ten to twenty years. In my view it’s pretty much the definition of insanity and ignores the very real limitations that exist in the world regardless of whether we want to acknowledge and face them.

Your points about the practicality of EV ownership for many, is why I do not yet own one myself.

If I could charge one at home, and/or work, and if I didn’t routinely go on extended trips where chargers are few and far between (or worse), in all likelihood I would be leasing a nice i4 right now.

Friends of mine who meet those criteria, love their EVs. They have ready access to free electricity. They use their cars mostly for commuting or for running errands. For those who do drive extended distances, they have mapped where the reliable chargers are located. They love the quiet driving, the absence of gasoline, the instantaneous torque, and more.

Frankly, we could choose to improve our public transit systems, but that won’t happen.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

My goodness dude. I’m asking you, what have I not answered? What question specifically are you referring to? You are frustrating to have discourse with.

This:

Then what is your position on mass subsidies and tariffs in support of American manufacturers and fossil fuels producers?

Is this the sixth dodge? Let’s see.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

Is this the sixth dodge? Let’s see.

I previously posted:

Well my position on that is well beyond automotive discussion. Succinctly, I support increasing national industry, job creation for Americans, rebuilding the middle class, and less foreign dependence. We’ve had industry in this country before, but Americans were jettisoned in favor of cheap labor overseas (…and increasingly plump pockets for those entities).

Sooooo, I support the tariffs, etc. that will/are intended to prioritize industry/manufactiring and growth IN AMERICA. How was any of that difficult to understand?

[Cortexiphan]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I’m not anti-EV, but I am pro-choice and I advocate for less government involvement on these matters.

Okay, so by that logic, I assume you’d also support eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which are significantly higher than those for EVs. Because if we’re talking about a truly level playing field—no subsidies for anything—the choice becomes pretty clear.

Without government intervention:
• A gallon of gas would cost around $12.75 (yes, really—look it up).
• The average cost of residential electricity in the U.S. is about $0.15 per kWh. Fast charging on the way averages around $0.48 per kWh.

Now let’s compare two similarly priced cars: the BMW M440i (gas) and the i4 M50 (electric).
• The M440i averages about 25 mpg, so that’s roughly $0.52 per mile in fuel.
• The i4 M50 gets about 3 miles per kWh, so that’s around $0.05 per mile in electricity. If fast-charged on the way, (90%+ of Americans would need this only a few times a year) - cost would be around $0.16 per mile.

So… without government interference, which one do you really think people would choose?

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Sooooo, I support the tariffs, etc. that will/are intended to prioritize industry/manufactiring and growth IN AMERICA. How was any of that difficult to understand?

It’s VERY difficult to understand how real, thinking people can form all their opinions by blindly following one man—someone who doesn’t even understand what a trade deficit is—instead of listening to actual economists or experts.

These tariffs aren’t based on strategy. They are impulsive power plays, designed to make countries and corporations beg and pledge for political alliances, all to feed one man-child’s obsession with control.

The outcome? Higher prices for Americans, trade wars that hurt our own farmers and manufacturers, and no real industrial gain—just self-inflicted economic damage so one guy could cosplay as a king.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Sure enough. If you go by the AI blurb that comes up when you Google the price of U.S. gas without subsidies this is what comes up:

“AI Overview

The price of gasoline in the United States would likely be significantly higher without current subsidies, although estimates vary. One source suggests that without subsidies, gasoline would cost about $12.75 per gallon. Some experts, like those at the Center for Investigative Reporting, estimate the true cost of gasoline, including externalities like environmental damage, to be closer to $15 per gallon.” I’m sure you would be in favor of including those intangible factors that bring it up to $15.


But, then if you look at little further you find things like this from Oceana, an environmental organization which supports eliminating subsidies:

“OCEANA - Protecting the World's Oceans

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices.

FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that have found that repealing oil and gas subsidies would have only a marginal impact on gas prices.. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alan Krueger estimated in 2009 that “eliminating [oil and gas subsidies] would have an insignificant effect on world oil prices.” Analysis by the think tank Resources for the Future arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that [b]eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would [...]

Well stated.