GM Rep ends up looking like a real fool

[NeverDie]

Originally Posted by RagingHawk

I am giving MSRP prices, Volkswagen ID.4 comes as edition 1 model in the states in the beginning, with $45,190 MSRP. Cheapest variant is $41,190. AWD version will be $44,890.

You can order a base ID.4 Pro model today, RWD, for under $40K. The tax credits are absolutely of full relevance since they absolutely impact the purchase price of the car. What I posted is entirely accurate, again pulled from the manufacturer website.

Federal tax credits will not be here forever. Actually they expire in 2022 unless Congress renews them. After sale of 200,000 units, the tax credit winds down until it fully expires one year later.

For the discussion we are having today about vehicles which are on sale today, yes the federal tax credits are fully relevant everywhere they apply. The price of the i3 that I stated is the correct price to a consumer today, yours is trying to paint an inaccurate picture.

You can no longer get any federal tax credits on Tesla's. Base standard RWD model with 250 mile range does cost that much.

You can just say "yes that is correct, the Tesla model 3 is availabe to purchase today for a price under $40K like the other models you have pointed out."

That being said, they are all ugly and inferior to many other ICE options. Why would someone be excited about these prices for inferior products?

While I do agree they are all ugly, they are far from inferior. Consider that not everyone has the same use case as yours, how would a Camaro SS be better at commuting around Washington DC? It wouldn't.

[RagingHawk]

Originally Posted by NeverDie

While I do agree they are all ugly, they are far from inferior. Consider that not everyone has the same use case as yours, how would a Camaro SS be better at commuting around Washington DC? It wouldn't.

Lol, who said anything about commuting in a Camaro? Do you think we can't commute with ICE commute vehicles? I was talking about the ICE alternatives. They are more affordable and superior to these EV options for now. Give me reason(not related to environment) for buying any of those EV econoboxes over ICE vehicles that do everything better than those EV cars. Such as Subaru Legacy, Honda Accord/Civic, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Camry, Chevy CUV's, etc...? I guess it will come down to these two:

1.) You want to try the new technology.
2.) You want to be the first to adopt new trends because it gets you some attention and makes you feel good and part of a new , special club.

..
..

Regardless of those two reasons, you cannot argue that they are more convenient and more feature packed than comparable ICE options, or offer better value. Unless we are talking the Bolt. Being able to commute in them is not a plus over ICE, that's a standard function of a vehicle.

[Malbjey]

Originally Posted by RagingHawk

Are you comparing small econo CUV's with fully optioned sports cars with superior suspension parts, tuning, and performance equipment? I would always take a 40K Camaro V8 over an EV econobox in a base configuration.

Oops actually I apologize. I was thinking I was in another thread where someone was stating EVs are status symbols for the rich.



I thought it was ironic, given that many people here have a 40K+ Camaro as their 2nd or 3rd car that only gets driven on weekends (or three seasons out of the year).



I thought you were posting EV pricing to support that 'rich status symbol' argument.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Not quite sure what your point is.

The government mandated emissions for gasoline and diesel cars and trucks.

VW elected to CHEAT in order to meet those requirements, and hence was penalized, as were others.

So my point remains correct, the government only mandated the emissions performance of the cars, they did not mandate the software or hardware to meet those standards. VW made poor choices on how to meet them......or not meet them.

But again not clear on your point on suggested fines. The regulations are pretty clear on what happens if you don't meet them.

But VW was also penalized in the consumer world as well as some vehicles couldn't just get a software update so vehicle were bought back as I recall.

The point is the government doesn't make "suggestions". They imprison or fine you (or both) for not doing what they say.

Try not making the CAFE "suggestions" or the diesel emission "suggestions" laid out by the EPA for proof.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually, this is a very good example. EU set certain standards for vehicle emissions. Different set of rules for petrol and diesel. VW CHOSE to cheat their way to compliance rather than innovate the path to compliance. By contrast, the US also has set requirements for diesel emissions. Mazda worked super hard to find a configuration that would meet US regs without using SCR. When they finally realized they had to incorporate SCR, they introduced the CX-5 diesel to the market, about three years late. They played by the rules. Unfortunately they came to market at a point where nobody cared, so now CX-5 diesel is gone again.

All of that wasn't the point.

The point was Number 3 stated that the government made "suggestions".

In reality, the government(s) made laws that MUST be complied with or you will be fined and/or have your freedom taken away for a period deemed by a judge.

Thank you for taking the time to reinforce my statement.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

For the sake of accuracy, they are not laws, they are directives to investigate what would need to be enabled to make them law. The returned information will more than likely result in some level of change to either targets or timing in able to draft up what may or may not be more reasonable laws. That’s how environmental regulation works.

You better call the Governor of California and notify him that his official web page isn't accurate...

"Following the order, the California Air Resources Board will develop regulations to mandate that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks are zero-emission by 2035"

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/go...limate-change/

Then call up Massachusetts to tell them there is an error in their official literature:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-dec...admap/download

And... well... you get the hint...

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

After watching this Hollyweed commercial, I gots to git me an EV now!!!

I wonder why they need EV commercials, but not Camaro commercials.....

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

I wonder why they need EV commercials, but not Camaro commercials.....

Propaganda?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

You better call the Governor of California and notify him that his official web page isn't accurate...

"
Following the order, the California Air Resources Board will develop regulations to mandate that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks are zero-emission by 2035"

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/go...limate-change/

Then call up Massachusetts to tell them there is an error in their official literature:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-dec...admap/download

And... well... you get the hint...

Key words are bolded. He told them to draft the regulations. The regulations then have to be voted on. The governor does not make laws, CARB does not make laws. The legislature does. The governor told CARB to draft regulations for the legislature to vote into law. If the legislature does not vote it into law, guess what happens? Nuthin. Fact of the matter is, the legislature will likely vote on some modification of what Newsom wants.

I just skimmed the 92 page document in your second link (Massachusetts). What I DIDN’T see was anything saying “here’s the law”. What I did see was page after page saying basically “this is why eliminating purchase of new ICE vehicles by 2035 would be good for the environment”. Another thing I saw in there actually even acknowledges that California is studying it, not implementing it. Here’s from the Massachusetts document...

“ The State of California is exploring regulatory options similar to those already in place in many European countries that will require 100% zero emissions LDV sales by 2035. When finalized, those California requirements would also apply to vehicles in Massachusetts.”

That last bit is a reference to the fact that other states can, if they choose, adopt the same regulations put in place by California. So Massachusetts is basically saying (in a short 92 pages) “We’ll have what they’re having”. Once they figure it out, of course.

[RagingHawk]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

Oops actually I apologize. I was thinking I was in another thread where someone was stating EVs are status symbols for the rich.



I thought it was ironic, given that many people here have a 40K+ Camaro as their 2nd or 3rd car that only gets driven on weekends (or three seasons out of the year).



I thought you were posting EV pricing to support that 'rich status symbol' argument.

No worries, I think I read that somewhere here too, lol.

[NeverDie]

Originally Posted by RagingHawk

Lol, who said anything about commuting in a Camaro?

I did. I know, for someone like you it might seem WAAAAY out on the limb to bring up the #1 use case for all vehicle purchases but to those of us capable of logical thought it is perfectly natural.

Do you think we can't commute with ICE commute vehicles?

Haven't you been? I think you can also probably commute on a bicycle, by foot, on a horse... but often times with advances in technology we get better tools for the job. THAT is my point, I honestly thought it was very simple but I don't always factor in the thoughts of the illogical.

I was talking about the ICE alternatives.

Were you? Because it very well appears that you were talking about the EVs and erroneously representing thier prices. Pretty sure that's all quoted previously in this thread if you need a reference.

They are more affordable and superior to these EV options for now.

That isn't correct for all use cases.

Give me reason(not related to environment) for buying any of those EV econoboxes over ICE vehicles that do everything better than those EV cars. Such as Subaru Legacy, Honda Accord/Civic, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Camry, Chevy CUV's, etc...?

They require significantly less maintenance, which for someone who lives in a large metro area can be a massive benefit in terms of convenience. Speaking of convenience, the ability to "fill up" at home in your garage or at work sure seems better than plugging in the old dinosaur line but maybe you're going there for cigarettes and lotto already so idk. There are plenty more, you don't have to agree with them for the rest of us to.

OH, and the VW ID.4 comes with 3 free years of charging at Electrify America stations. I don't know any ICE cars with a free Shell card for 3 years, do you?

I guess it will come down to these two:

1.) You want to try the new technology.
2.) You want to be the first to adopt new trends because it gets you some attention and makes you feel good and part of a new , special club.

..
..

That simply isn't the case. That is you making a baseless and incorrect assumption.

Regardless of those two reasons, you cannot argue that they are more convenient and more feature packed than comparable ICE options, or offer better value. Unless we are talking the Bolt. Being able to commute in them is not a plus over ICE, that's a standard function of a vehicle.

Just because you say things doesn't make them true. See above. I can very easily argue that not filling up from a dirty gas station every few days and not needing regular oil changes is absolutely more convenient. It's not even really an argument at all!

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Key words are bolded. He told them to draft the regulations. The regulations then have to be voted on. The governor does not make laws, CARB does not make laws. The legislature does. The governor told CARB to draft regulations for the legislature to vote into law.

I read the actual executive order, and, yes, you are correct.

Whether it will pass as is, or a modified version, remains to be seen.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

Oops actually I apologize. I was thinking I was in another thread where someone was stating EVs are status symbols for the rich.



I thought it was ironic, given that many people here have a 40K+ Camaro as their 2nd or 3rd car that only gets driven on weekends (or three seasons out of the year).



I thought you were posting EV pricing to support that 'rich status symbol' argument.

I think some of the more expensive ones are status symbols. You know the reputations Tesla owners have. Actual cults can look at them and think they are messed up.

Of course, you can argue that expensive anything is status symbol, but I don't exactly consider Camaro to be "fancy". I would think a lot of people here have some passion for driving, in one way or another.

Originally Posted by NeverDie

They require significantly less maintenance, which for someone who lives in a large metro area can be a massive benefit in terms of convenience. Speaking of convenience, the ability to "fill up" at home in your garage or at work sure seems better than plugging in the old dinosaur line but maybe you're going there for cigarettes and lotto already so idk. There are plenty more, you don't have to agree with them for the rest of us to.



OH, and the VW ID.4 comes with 3 free years of charging at Electrify America stations. I don't know any ICE cars with a free Shell card for 3 years, do you?

...Assuming you have a garage or a way to charge your EV reliably, that is. Not everyone has access to that. You gonna pay for that? 3 years of gas is still cheaper than building up a garage if you don't already have one.

There can be some issues with BEV on flexibility. A PHEV can solve this, but that still has an ICE.

I realize the advantages of EV but they just don't work for me. If I get one for commuting, the gas money I can save gets FAR outweighed by the purchase cost and the insurance cost.

Let people choose what works for them. This has been repeatedly said.

Sent from toaster or something

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

...Assuming you have a garage or a way to charge your EV reliably, that is. Not everyone has access to that. You gonna pay for that? 3 years of gas is still cheaper than building up a garage if you don't already have one.

That brings us back to poor people and also people who live in vintage houses......

Until maybe the 1960s houses were not even built with power running to the garage. Of course over the years people in the nicer neighborhoods have added power to them for garage door openers, but many poor neighborhoods are full of pre-1960s era houses.

Are those people who can’t afford much going to pay $3000-5000 for an electrician to run power to their garage just to keep their car fueled?

So many aspects of this whole debacle haven’t even been considered for GM to just say “we’re just gonna make only electric cars in 15 years”