You really should be driving an electric car

[TexasHusker]

My thoughts also.
We think we have such a huge impact, then something like a major weather event, earthquake or volcanic eruption comes along and we get to see who's really running the show.
Want to do something good for the planet with immediate impact? Plant a tree or clean up some trash.

We are worried about our cars ruining the planet while Indians are dumping bodies - and pretty much anything else they can find - into the Ganges River. Watch a few random YouTubes about life in India, China, or Russia and you’ll find that your gas-guzzling 4Runner is the least of this world’s problems.

[kork13]

I don’t think hybrids today are a valid comparison, as they aren’t “electric first”. Rather, batteries will run the accessories at stoplights, and might propel the car a mile or two.

The Volt was almost purely an electric car, with a generator to keep the batteries charged if range ran low. So the generator didn’t propel the car, but rather acted as a portable power company in a pinch. We rarely put fuel in our Volt. I think the car makers should have stuck with this concept and kept improving it.

The “100% or bust” mentality is going to slow down full adoption of EVs by a decade or two.

A friend of mine in Alaska had a Volt, and he loved it. He couldn't drive it as much during the winter, because parking it for very long in the bitter cold would sap its battery pretty fast... But I was definitely impressed by the concept of a generator-boosted EV. My understanding is that it didn't last because it wasn't sufficiently profitable at the relatively low volume that it was selling at. The fact that it had both an EV powertrain plus the ICE generator definitely cut into the profit margin. If someone were to bring something like that back to market, it would probably be one of my top options due to the reliability of having the generator on board.

[disneysteve]

A friend of mine in Alaska had a Volt, and he loved it. He couldn't drive it as much during the winter, because parking it for very long in the bitter cold would sap its battery pretty fast... But I was definitely impressed by the concept of a generator-boosted EV. My understanding is that it didn't last because it wasn't sufficiently profitable at the relatively low volume that it was selling at. The fact that it had both an EV powertrain plus the ICE generator definitely cut into the profit margin. If someone were to bring something like that back to market, it would probably be one of my top options due to the reliability of having the generator on board.

I agree. I find that much more appealing than a totally electric vehicle. Knowing that when the battery died it would switch to gas would be great. Even with only a 40-mile range, that would cover errands around the neighborhood and on the days when we drive more than that, which is probably once or twice a week, the gas engine would kick in.

Too bad they couldn't do it profitably.

[TexasHusker]

I agree. I find that much more appealing than a totally electric vehicle. Knowing that when the battery died it would switch to gas would be great. Even with only a 40-mile range, that would cover errands around the neighborhood and on the days when we drive more than that, which is probably once or twice a week, the gas engine would kick in.

Too bad they couldn't do it profitably.

I think GM did a very poor job marketing the vehicle. Most people today still don't know how the thing worked. I doubt having a very small 2 cylinder generator under the hood - akin to a lawn mower engine - really drove up the cost to any degree. The scheme was brilliant. An all electric car that could go from coast to coast without worry, and when you ran low on electric range, the generator recharged it. This was the ticket to EV adoption by the masses.

Barring a massive infrastructure build-out and some big time new battery technology and super-fast charging, pure EVs aren't going to be mainstream for a long, long time. Most of the folks buying Teslas are comparatively rich and are buying it for a novelty and for a second car for around town. That's not going to cut it.

[kork13]

I agree. I find that much more appealing than a totally electric vehicle. Knowing that when the battery died it would switch to gas would be great. Even with only a 40-mile range, that would cover errands around the neighborhood and on the days when we drive more than that, which is probably once or twice a week, the gas engine would kick in.

Too bad they couldn't do it profitably.

Again, the big thing is that Volt wasn't ever driven directly by the gas generator. When required, the generator would kick in & charge the battery, while the car drove on electric power from the battery. It was pretty neat.

[ua_guy]

GM sold about 10,000 Bolts in the first quarter of 2021.

It has a range of 230-ish miles and comes in high 20k, low 30k nicely optioned, with rebates.

90 miles of range in 30 minutes of recharge. Full charge from dead to topped off in 9.5 hours. You can pick one up, brand new, for less than $30k.

GM pulled the plug on the Volt (har har) because it was outmoded. They proved there isn't a market to be chased with a small sedan that wasn't a great EV nor was it a great gasoline-powered vehicle. GM produced the Volt between 2011 and 2019 when they pivoted to focus development efforts on battery-electrics, exclusively. They know this is the future and instead of chasing stubborn consumers... they're making EV's for people who want them--and it's working.

[TexasHusker]

GM sold about 10,000 Bolts in the first quarter of 2021.

It has a range of 230-ish miles and comes in high 20k, low 30k nicely optioned, with rebates.

90 miles of range in 30 minutes of recharge. Full charge from dead to topped off in 9.5 hours. You can pick one up, brand new, for less than $30k.

GM pulled the plug on the Volt (har har) because it was outmoded. They proved there isn't a market to be chased with a small sedan that wasn't a great EV nor was it a great gasoline-powered vehicle. GM produced the Volt between 2011 and 2019 when they pivoted to focus development efforts on battery-electrics, exclusively. They know this is the future and instead of chasing stubborn consumers... they're making EV's for people who want them--and it's working.

I'm stubborn, but I also take 400-500 mile round trips with fair regularity. An EV is a great second vehicle, but you aren't going to venture very far out of town with one.

[TexasHusker]

sorry, I love polar bears and all, but I'm not going to be driving this thing. Can you imagine how it would feel to absorb even a 20 mph collision? You'd be taking a dirt nap whilst the bears frolic on the ice bergs.

[james.hendrickson]

While we're on the topic, evidently famed investor Michael Burry has taken a short position against Tesla.

From CNBC:

• Michael Burry is long puts against 800,100 shares of Tesla or $534 million by the end of the first quarter, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Burry was one of the first investors to call and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis.
• Burry previously mentioned in a tweet, that Tesla’s reliance on regulatory credits to generate profits is also an impediment to the company’s long-term prospects

Source: CNBC.

So discussions of battery length aside, there could be real concerns about the viability of the major player in the electric car industry.

[disneysteve]

sorry, I love polar bears and all, but I'm not going to be driving this thing.

Same here. On the other hand, a hybrid Camry looks exactly the same as a gas Camry. I’d be fine with that.

[TexasHusker]

While we're on the topic, evidently famed investor Michael Burry has taken a short position against Tesla.

From CNBC:


Source: CNBC.

So discussions of battery length aside, there could be real concerns about the viability of the major player in the electric car industry.

I don't think anyone has concerns about Tesla's viability. But from an investment perspective, it could be overvalued. I don't follow stocks, so I don't have an opinion on that.

[TexasHusker]

Same here. On the other hand, a hybrid Camry looks exactly the same as a gas Camry. I’d be fine with that.

Can you imagine a 200 mile trip in that thing? You'd feel like dog c**p after having been run over by a roomba...

[ua_guy]

Can you imagine a 200 mile trip in that thing? You'd feel like dog c**p after having been run over by a roomba...

Well, you owned a Volt, which is also a small car. How did it feel? Didn't you say you loved it? The Bolt conforms to all applicable crash standards and does well in crash tests.

GM also has a line of EV full-size trucks and SUV's coming. Looks like about 350 miles of range to start. Comfortable for all the older... wider.. folks that just need a bigger car. But potentially very promising as a pickup/SUV as well.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I think GM did a very poor job marketing the vehicle. Most people today still don't know how the thing worked. I doubt having a very small 2 cylinder generator under the hood - akin to a lawn mower engine - really drove up the cost to any degree. The scheme was brilliant. An all electric car that could go from coast to coast without worry, and when you ran low on electric range, the generator recharged it. This was the ticket to EV adoption by the masses.

Barring a massive infrastructure build-out and some big time new battery technology and super-fast charging, pure EVs aren't going to be mainstream for a long, long time. Most of the folks buying Teslas are comparatively rich and are buying it for a novelty and for a second car for around town. That's not going to cut it.

I have so many coworkers and friends who own teslas. I own the tesla stock because of battery technology. But I think there are a lot of players coming on market in EV. I also fully agree it'll be a long time until it's adopted by the masses. It just is very expensive and a second car. I can't see people only have EV. I also think it depends on where you live that really influences if EV would work for you.

[Singuy]

While we're on the topic, evidently famed investor Michael Burry has taken a short position against Tesla.

From CNBC:


Source: CNBC.

So discussions of battery length aside, there could be real concerns about the viability of the major player in the electric car industry.

The guy announced his short position in Tesla months ago, a week before the S&P inclusion date but after the S&P inclusion. I don't know who gave him over a billion dollars to handle if he can't even get his initial position right. He could have easily shorted 600+(unless you don't understand how S&P inclusion work....) but instead he went in at the 500s. He finally broke even after being down over 40% for months..lol. Now that Tsla is down, he releases his positions or else he'll look like an idiot losing his client a lot of money if was released a few months ago.