Alternative Fuels & Propulsion RANDOM

[oldshurst442]

On 12/9/2020 at 11:24 AM, Robert Hall said:

I loathe TexASS...$h!hole of a state.  So full of itself...

I take it that you prefer the belles of Tennessee over them yellow roses.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David]

3 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

I take it that you prefer the belles of Tennessee over them yellow roses.  

[ocnblu]

On 12/9/2020 at 11:24 AM, Robert Hall said:

I loathe TexASS...$h!hole of a state.  So full of itself...

Haha, while ignoring the elephant in the room... CALIFORNIA... the biggest whiny brat in the union.

[surreal1272]

(Looks for the part where states like California actively tried to secede from the union in 2016 and finds nothing, unlike Texas today). 
 

And if certain folks hate CA so much, let’s just imagine what happens when you cut out the fifth largest economy in the world and then they stop sending their massive tax dollars to the feds to support all the other states. 

For all of California’s flaws, nothing beats the whining coming from certain subsections of the country. That’s all I’ll say about that because god forbid even a hint of politics show up before the resident whiner here starts complaining. 
 

 

On 12/10/2020 at 9:12 PM, balthazar said:

The top 1% pay a 27% tax rate. They also pay 37% of ALL income tax, when the bottom 90% pay 30%.

The many loopholes in the current tax system would disagree with your assessment. That’s why certain folks only paid $750 just a few years back. 

[surreal1272]

On 12/1/2020 at 5:20 PM, balthazar said:

More 'uh-oh'. 
Might go toward explaining the police car EV / IC comparison showing EVs with much higher maintenance costs.  Buyer beware :

 

https://autos.yahoo.com/electric-cars-problems-latest-consumer-213700323.html

Damn those Audi EVs and their electrical problems (which has been said for the last forty years or so but sure, let’s just think it’s an “EV” problem). 

[balthazar]

4 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

The many loopholes in the current tax system would disagree with your assessment. That’s why certain folks only paid $750 just a few years back. 

It's not 'my' assessment, it comes from the Dept of the Treasury. Here's older info, but not that markedly different than now, I believe.

>>"In 2001, the top 5% of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3%) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0%) of income. 
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50% of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.  In all years since 1990 {to 2001], taxpayers in this group have paid over 90% of all individual income taxes.  In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96% of the total."<<

What that last point leaves you with is, the bottom 50% paid about 4% of all taxes.

I love the narrative that 'the rich "don't pay taxes", corporations "don't pay taxes", we KNOW the bottom 50% don't pay taxes... yet somehow the IRS takes in 4 TRILLION / yr.

Somebody is lying.

Something from Pew Research, if you like their POV :

[riviera74]

4 hours ago, balthazar said:

It's not 'my' assessment, it comes from the Dept of the Treasury. Here's older info, but not that markedly different than now, I believe.

>>"In 2001, the top 5% of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3%) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0%) of income. 
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50% of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.  In all years since 1990 {to 2001], taxpayers in this group have paid over 90% of all individual income taxes.  In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96% of the total."<<

What that last point leaves you with is, the bottom 50% paid about 4% of all taxes.

I love the narrative that 'the rich "don't pay taxes", corporations "don't pay taxes", we KNOW the bottom 50% don't pay taxes... yet somehow the IRS takes in 4 TRILLION / yr.

Somebody is lying.

Something from Pew Research, if you like their POV :

No question the top five percent pay taxes.  No question corporations pay taxes.  Those at the top and corporations do everything they can to minimize and avoid tax payments as much as possible.  Such is life.

[balthazar]

^ So does everyone else.

[oldshurst442]

55 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ So does everyone else.

Not quite...

Many corporations, many extremely filthy rich folk...   pay really good money, money that middle class and poor folk will make in decades...will never make in a lifetime  pay for accounting services...to hide, circumvent and bend tax laws...

hence why I said creative accounting...

hence why I mention tax havens...

 

The middle class folk, and the poor folk...do not have the monetary resources to pull this off.  What the middle class folk and the poor folk do is simply not file or report certain income...and with that method, its quite simple for the IRS to catch on. But with the help of very expensive accountants that know how to circumvent and be creative...well...I do not need to repeat myself.

And...when I mean expensive lawyers and accountants, I really mean monies that these rich folk pay for these services that middle class and poor people could only DREAM of having...that is ONLY of the salary paid for services rendered, never you mind the amounts hidden from the feds...

OH...let us NOT forget the many open loop holes DELIBERATELY left open by certain party politicians for the extremely rich folk could take advantage of.

Yes...the richest of the rich supply the tax money chain with the most monies...

OBVIOUSLY as THEY got the MOST phoquing money...

I mean...if a rich guy has a million dollar salary per year job and has a mulit-million dollar bonus a particular tax year, OBVIOUSLY he will pay an amount MORE than the poor schlepp that is making just above the poverty line.   That is where that article you posted comes from...  Let us not pretend that poor folk have an equal amount of cheating when it comes to tax time.   Let us not pretend that cheating on taxes is permissible for the poor folk. It aint the poor people that keep their hard earned money in the Cayman Islands, in Swiss Bank accounts or in Cyprus, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

Except in extreme cases, Individual taxes matter a lot less than corporate taxes. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, but his W2 salary has stayed the same ~$81k for 20 years. His personal wealth is 90% paper based on the share price of the companies he owns. But when he does sell stocks, his tax rate is generally only 15% because he only pays Capital Gains. 

On the flip side, the actual corporation of Amazon pays very little of their income to taxes. This is where the bulk of the cheating is. Walmart is not only just as bad with the cheating, they are actively predatory.  They'll hunt down some financially struggling town and promise to build a store there if they get a property tax exemption for the next 10 years. The town, being short-term greedy, accepts. Walmart builds the store and starts placing a burden on the local infrastructure.

After the 10 years are up, Walmart threatens to close the store if they don't get an extension on their tax exemption.  They'll cook the books to make the store look like it is barely profitable or even losing money. They'll claim "they want to keep the store open because they care about the community". If they get the extension, they continue to be a burden on the local infrastructure without paying towards its upkeep.  If they don't get the extension, they close the store and move 10 miles down the road to the next gullible town and repeat the process all over again. The store they close they "Sadly, wanted to keep it open for the good of the community, but it just wasn't a good business decision."  All the while they are doing this, they are having their workforce subsidized by Federal Tax dollars by compensating their employees so poorly that they need to go on Food Stamps (redeemable at Walmart), Section 8, and Medicare. 

Then they funnel a huge amount of their profits back through the Walton fund as charitable tax write offs and pay the family huge sums of money to sit on the board. 

And it's all legal. 

[balthazar]

Municipalities that waive property taxes to lure businesses in are engaging in (legal) bribery. Which should be illegal. It only shifts tax burdens onto private citizens in exchange for a couple of jobs. But municipalities crave new revenue streams and fattened tax coffers like a meth addict, so they allow themselves this misappropriation of law (and it starts in D.C.). Then they pay themselves exorbitant salaries with basically no oversight or accountability.

’Evil corporations’ at least engage in commerce and supply consumerism. Gov’t only engages in fees, fines & taxation and galactic-level waste.

[surreal1272]

17 hours ago, balthazar said:

It's not 'my' assessment, it comes from the Dept of the Treasury. Here's older info, but not that markedly different than now, I believe.

>>"In 2001, the top 5% of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3%) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0%) of income. 
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50% of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.  In all years since 1990 {to 2001], taxpayers in this group have paid over 90% of all individual income taxes.  In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96% of the total."<<

What that last point leaves you with is, the bottom 50% paid about 4% of all taxes.

I love the narrative that 'the rich "don't pay taxes", corporations "don't pay taxes", we KNOW the bottom 50% don't pay taxes... yet somehow the IRS takes in 4 TRILLION / yr.

Somebody is lying.

Something from Pew Research, if you like their POV :

No. It is still your assessment because you only used one measure to make your determination. You cannot make a statement about taxes and rich without acknowledging the many loopholes the rich use to sidestep that 27%. That is a statement of fact. 

12 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ So does everyone else.

Not really. I don’t get the same tax loopholes that say, Jeff Bezos, gets. It’s just that simple. 

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

Municipalities that waive property taxes to lure businesses in are engaging in (legal) bribery. Which should be illegal. It only shifts tax burdens onto private citizens in exchange for a couple of jobs. But municipalities crave new revenue streams and fattened tax coffers like a meth addict, so they allow themselves this misappropriation of law (and it starts in D.C.). Then they pay themselves exorbitant salaries with basically no oversight or accountability.

’Evil corporations’ at least engage in commerce and supply consumerism. Gov’t only engages in fees, fines & taxation and galactic-level waste.

“Evil corporations” engage in self preservation of their own industries, the rest of us be damned. It’s not even a debatable point. Feel free to use Wal-Mart as an example. 

[balthazar]

25 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

No. It is still your assessment because you only used one measure to make your determination. You cannot make a statement about taxes and rich without acknowledging the many loopholes the rich use to sidestep that 27%. That is a statement of fact. 

There are 2 categories involved: tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal). 'Loopholes' fall under tax avoidance, which is permissible via the IRS. And some evasion dollars are inadvertent errors rather than intentional (and some of that gets corrected via audits / tax owed corrections).

The only truly damnable scenario is intentional under-payment; tax evasion.
In 2008-2010, Individual tax evasion were 44% of revenue shortfalls, and payroll / self-employment tax evasion came in at 39%. Corporate-level income tax evasion accounted for only 9% of tax revenue in the same period.  (~Brookings Institute).

[Drew Dowdell]

36 minutes ago, balthazar said:

There are 2 categories involved: tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal). 'Loopholes' fall under tax avoidance, which is permissible via the IRS. And some evasion dollars are inadvertent errors rather than intentional (and some of that gets corrected via audits / tax owed corrections).

The only truly damnable scenario is intentional under-payment; tax evasion.
In 2008-2010, Individual tax evasion were 44% of revenue shortfalls, and payroll / self-employment tax evasion came in at 39%. Corporate-level income tax evasion accounted for only 9% of tax revenue in the same period.  (~Brookings Institute).

Tax avoidance is legal but a lot of it shouldn’t be. It doesn’t count as shortfalls 

[surreal1272]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

There are 2 categories involved: tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal). 'Loopholes' fall under tax avoidance, which is permissible via the IRS. And some evasion dollars are inadvertent errors rather than intentional (and some of that gets corrected via audits / tax owed corrections).

The only truly damnable scenario is intentional under-payment; tax evasion.
In 2008-2010, Individual tax evasion were 44% of revenue shortfalls, and payroll / self-employment tax evasion came in at 39%. Corporate-level income tax evasion accounted for only 9% of tax revenue in the same period.  (~Brookings Institute).

You understand that doesn’t change my point at all right? Just skip over the fact that fifty years ago, that same 1% paid even more (without so many of the current loopholes) and many folks claim that’s when this country was so “great”. 
 

Point being that the top 1% rarely ever actually pay their “fair share” these days so we can just drop the semantics quite honestly. 

[balthazar]

Can’t effect on what went on 50 years ago, either way. 100 years ago there was NO income tax.

I guess one big takeaway is; how does one define the oft-lobbed “fair share”?? If the top 5% pay 53%... should it be 60%? 80%? Where do we put the pin in at? And IF they pay markedly more, is everyone else’s taxes going to go down? At ALL??

Edited December 13, 2020 by balthazar

[riviera74]

Regardless of how anyone defines "fair share", tax expenditures (e.g. tax breaks, loopholes, tax credits etc.) that detract from raising revenue should be greatly reduced (if not eliminated) long before raising ANY marginal tax rates.

As for those LOCAL tax breaks, neither municipalities not counties can afford them.  Their respective states should abolish those immediately.  States should not be shrinking their tax bases just to attract jobs that might not exist in ten or fifteen years.  That is corporate welfare, and THAT is unjustifiable.

One last thing: nobody in local government is paid all that much, especially what they can attract in the private sector.  NOBODY gets paid exorbitant salaries if they work for the city or the county period.

[balthazar]

^ Another term that bears definition ("exorbitant").
 govsalaries.com states the average salary in my county in 2018 was $66K. 1677 employees = $110 million on average (plus benefits).

Average salary in my Township is $79K.

Edited December 13, 2020 by balthazar

[David]

Report in from Nikkei Asia that Toyota is going to unveil their first global EV with a Solid State Battery pack and a 10 min recharge to full time for an average 310 miles of range battery pack. Toyota says their superior solid state battery tech allows them to cut off 2/3rds of the normal recharge time. Also Toyota will be backed by a substantial investment by the Japanese government as they convert the country to Supercharged charging stations and be part of a much larger group as Japan looks to jump ahead of China in the battery race by moving directly to Solid State cells. 

The Japanese government will be investing $19.2 Billion dollars in 2021 to help Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic and Toyota which has over 1,000 world wide patents for solid state batteries production.

According to the news story, VW has already started to move away from traditional Lithium Ion cell EVs to have Solid State Rapid Recharge battery packs in their EVs starting in 2025 with a unidentified U.S. startup.

Nissan has announced that their EV's will start having Solid State battery packs in 2028.

China is only now looking to start R&D on solid State batteries with QingTao energy development spending $153 million over 3 years starting in 2021.

Toyota's game-changing solid-state battery en route for 2021 debut - Nikkei Asia

Seems Test Mules of Amazons new EV Delivery Vans are out and about in Irvine California.

Rivian’s Amazon delivery van prototype spotted in Irvine, Calif. (electrek.co)

[David]

Seems Penske and Roush are teaming up to build Ford F650 Delivery Trucks. They will have a capacity of 8,500 pounds and a range of 100 miles. Focused on the inner city delivery business.

Racing Rivals Penske and Roush Are Teaming Up on Electric Ford F-650 Work Truck (thedrive.com)

[balthazar]

Is that a typo?? 8500 lbs is less than any F-150.

[surreal1272]

7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Is that a typo?? 8500 lbs is less than any F-150.

8500lbs carrying capacity, not towing capacity.

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

Can’t effect on what went on 50 years ago, either way. 100 years ago there was NO income tax.

I guess one big takeaway is; how does one define the oft-lobbed “fair share”?? If the top 5% pay 53%... should it be 60%? 80%? Where do we put the pin in at? And IF they pay markedly more, is everyone else’s taxes going to go down? At ALL??

That rate has steadily gone down in the last fifty years for the top one percent. Baffling you don't seem to see the issue there. By your logic, where do you put the pin at the bottom?

Edited December 14, 2020 by surreal1272

[balthazar]

Duh on cargo vs. towing; my flub.

'webs says a new F-650 weighs an average of 8300lbs and has a max GVWR of 37,000lbs. That'd be a cargo capacity of 28,700 lbs. Would like to see hard numbers of the electric F-650 vs. the diesel; sounds like a huge disparity.

16 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

That rate has steadily gone down in the last fifty years for the top one percent. Baffling you don't seem to see the issue there. By your logic, where do you put the pin at the bottom?

Go back even farther- it was 94% in 1944. Maybe that was "fair". :shrug:

Top rate was 28% beginning in 1986 (Tax Reform Act); highest rate from 2018-2021 is 37%, plus the ACA surcharge of 3.8% which makes the maximum 40.8%. So over 32 years, it's higher, not steadily lower. But yes; 50 years back it was 70%.
(~ Bradfordtaxinstitute.com)
With the steaming hot politicized mess the fiscal picture in the U.S. is, it's hard to peg where to put the pin. IMO, if that could get streamlined and made efficient, that question could be answered. Alas; that's hopeless. 

[ocnblu]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:13 AM, surreal1272 said:

(Looks for the part where states like California actively tried to secede from the union in 2016 and finds nothing, unlike Texas today). 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-california-secede-20161206-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/california-today-secession-trump.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/calexit-just-some-flaky-california-dreamin/

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/233678/secession-politics-makes-sense-california.aspx

Shall I go on?

[surreal1272]

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-california-secede-20161206-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/california-today-secession-trump.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/calexit-just-some-flaky-california-dreamin/

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/233678/secession-politics-makes-sense-california.aspx

Shall I go on?

And out of those four redundant articles, name on state legislator or politician that actually sponsored a bill for secession like Texas did. Also, consider the fact that a dozen red states already beat California to the punch in 2008 and 2012.

 

2020, for reference,

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/529926-texas-gop-chair-appears-to-suggest-secession-after-scotus-rejects

 

2012

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-petition-to-secede-from-union/

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/white-house-flooded-with-secession-petitions-after-obama-re-election

 

Plenty of others like that but, unlike yourself, I'll save you the redundancy.

 

Point being, two things. One, if you're going to criticize California like that, then you have to include all those red states and especially that hellhole known as Texas which leads to point two which is clearly that the red states were producing snowflakes (or "whiny brats", if you will) eight years before California, all because a black democrat was in office. Pot, meet kettle.

 

SHALL I GO ON?

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by surreal1272

[David]

On Topic of Alternative Energy Auto's, Lucid has completed their manufacturing plant and posted a video about it. Very cool as we have another EV auto company in production. I will also say that the plant looks more like the original OEM's of Detroit than the mess at Tesla.

 

[ocnblu]

5 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

SHALL I GO ON?

Please don't.

[balthazar]

Lucid : yet another luxury plaything. 

[surreal1272]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Please don't.

Oh come on! You dug that ridiculous hole! Why stop now? Why the hesitation to hold states like Texas to the same standard as you apply to California? You claim CA folks are just a bunch of “whiny brats” and then act like you had your “gotcha” moment about secession while ignoring the fact that red states were doing it long before Cali. 

[oldshurst442]

30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Lucid : yet another luxury plaything. 

sure.

Like Duesenberg, Bentley, Packard, Rolls-Royce, Alfa Romeo, Benz, Cadillac, Buick, Mercedes, Peerless, Pierce-Arrow.   (all car companies that were pioneers and at the  forefront of automobile making and most of those companies bore the name of their founders and/or engineers) 

Tesla, Lucid, Rivian all fall inti that category above.

These latest, modern companies that happen to produce EVs just fall into that same path that their ICE counterparts did over 100 years ago.

Tesla, Lucid, Rivian never once said they'd be producin' EVs for the Average Joe to afford.  

What IS missing in the EV manufacturing arena IS an EV company like a FoMoCo where the INTIAL business case IS to build for the average Joe.  

However...how many companies did Ford have to go through to actually achieve this?  One of his former companies that he founded actually became a premier luxury company that is still producing luxury vehicles...

The 1st Model T was sold in 1908.

Duesenberg was founded in 1913.

I dont think the Duesenberg brothers cared that much for that part of the market.

Ditto for Mr. Rolls and Mr. Royce. Who happened to found their company in 1906.

The Dodge Brothers who worked for Henry Ford went on their own way in 1914 wanted to produce cars for the Average Joe.

But yeah...Lucid, Tesla, Rivian is for the people who have dough. Lots of it.   

GMC-HUMMER, Cadillac EVs are for people who have lots of do-re-mi as well.  Audi.  M-B.   But that is a gimme as their ICE counterparts are meant for folks who have money to burn. 

Chevrolet, VW, Toyota, Ford...those are the manufacturers that are to produce EVs that you and I could afford.   But these are not out yet.  

And how much will these at Chevrolet, VW, Toyota, Ford will cost?  

Well...we dont know, but the Mustang Mach E from Ford starts at 43 000 and ends at 60 000.  So around 52 000 would be the norm I guess.  Is that affordable?

I dont know...but considering that the F-150 pick-up starts at 30 000 and ends at 75 000 and the Mustang ICE coupe...starts at 23 000 and ends at 53 000, Id say the Mach E's price  is right in the middle of Ford's bread and butter model and just above Ford's iconic sports coupe...

Not quite in the footsteps of a Model T...but not that far off of a mid 1960s Personal Coupe Thunderbird either...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[balthazar]

I enjoyed that post.
 

All those brands above co-existed with mainstream, moderately-priced brands.
 

After 20 years of various electric vehicles, we have 1 sub-median priced EV: the Leaf. Each recent new EV have ALL been well above that. $43K base price is 25% above the median.  To become truly mainstream, it needs to start south of $34K... or right there. 

[oldshurst442]

^^^  Thanx.   I re-read my post and  the posting style on it sounds...condescending to me. I didnt mean it to be condescending. I wanted the post to come off as a slight debate, while at the same time agreeing with you.  

Im glad you read it as the way I wanted it to be. 

Yes...all those luxury brands I mentioned, at least the American ones, co-existed with car companies that wanted to sell higher volumes for the Average Joe.   In Europe, the tendency for automobile manufactures was to cater to the rich.  One of the Mercedes-Daimler-Benz  trio wanted to produce a vehicle for the masses.  I forget which one.  All three men had their (and Maybach making it 4 men)  all had their own company and they all merged together at different times. Very confusing history this company...  It was Hitler who had ultimately decided though that Germany needed a people's car.  And 'twas Porsche who delivered it for Germany...albeit after the war...as the Bug was made into a Wehrmacht personnel carrier...   I do believe Porsche worked at Mercedes in the 1930s...  

In Italy, Fiat produced cars for the Average Joe.  But Alpha Romeo was for the rich.  

In any case, Europe would never reach the levels of automotive construction and affordability as of that of America in that time. It took Europe up until the 1990s for Average Joe Europeans to afford vehicles the way Americans and Canadians  did and continue to do so.  

I also agree, EVs...for the Average Joe to buy them, and for them to ACTUALLY BECOME mainstream, the prices HAVE to be in the area you mentioned.  I do not know if Tesla could ever become a mainstream EV brand, because of what they now have as brand recognition as a top EV brand, or because they wont be enjoying the economies of scale the way General Motors does, but it will take an ICE manufacturer of the likes of GM or VW or Toyota to BE that mainstream EV maker and offer EVs in that lower price bracket as they could offer higher priced EVs with their luxury makes to offset the still expensive batteries and EV tech. 

 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

 

Interesting video. 

11 hours ago, balthazar said:

I enjoyed that post.
 

All those brands above co-existed with mainstream, moderately-priced brands.
 

After 20 years of various electric vehicles, we have 1 sub-median priced EV: the Leaf. Each recent new EV have ALL been well above that. $43K base price is 25% above the median.  To become truly mainstream, it needs to start south of $34K... or right there. 

Agree completely. 

13 hours ago, balthazar said:

Lucid : yet another luxury plaything. 

I do have high hopes for Rivain though. 

[ykX]

Very good Mach E review

 

 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

 

 

[balthazar]

^ 3 of the above 4 vehicles are actual, real vehicles.

- - - - -
Mach-E review gives hope that it's a hit for Ford.

[oldshurst442]

The Mustang Mach E does exactly what it should be doing.  

1. Its creates a buzz by being called a Mustang. This way its NOT just another crossover SUV that looks like 90% of every single crossover sold.   Love or hate the name...true Mustang or not...it gets people talking about it.

2. And it doesnt disappoint.  Well...like the video suggests, if you get hung up on names, you will have a hard time living...but if you see this EV like you should be seeing it, its a great vehicle not only as a real first attempt from the ground up EV from Ford, but a great EV PERIOD!   And that is comparing it DIRECTLY with the best of the best of EVs: TESLA EVs!   

What I dont get from GM and FoMoCo

How is it that when they want to bring out a great vehicle, engineer it top notch and produce it flawlessly they do (Corvette C8, Ford GT, Ford F150, Cadillac Escalade) but they also CONSTANTLY phone in things and half ass them...

Why cant they just ALWAYS DO Corvette C8s and Mustang Mach Es?   (not the vehicles themselves, but the QUALITY of work behind these machines) 

 

 

 

[Robert Hall]

Listened to the Wheel Bearings podcast today, they had a discussion about the Mach E and an interview w/ the Ford exec that oversaw it...sounds like it has the potential to be a very good product...one thing they stressed is they can't afford a botched launch and quality gaffes like the Explorer has had...

Edited December 16, 2020 by Robert Hall

[ykX]

While I still not crazy that they called Mach E a Mustang, it grows on me and it looks like it has good potential.  Definitely looks more attractive than Model Y by far.

I actually see me getting one as a daily in about 5 years.

[surreal1272]

On 12/14/2020 at 6:48 PM, balthazar said:

Lucid : yet another luxury plaything. 

And? Rich peoples money ain't no good?

[balthazar]

Legal tender is legal tender; it's all good.

But the circa $75K tier is not the mainstream segment of the market. In order for IC bans to possibly work, there needs to be a wide selection at the median vehicle price.... or HALF that number.

[ocnblu]

WAY less than half that number/fixed it

[surreal1272]

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

Legal tender is legal tender; it's all good.

But the circa $75K tier is not the mainstream segment of the market. In order for IC bans to possibly work, there needs to be a wide selection at the median vehicle price.... or HALF that number.

Other companies like Ford and GM are working on the lower priced market. Lucid can price their cars as high as they want, for that rich crowd that doesn't care so much about the median price. Also, considering that the median price keeps going up, it may be moot to harp on about EV prices right now anyway. As long as there are $30K three cylinder cars for sale (looking at you "top of the line" Trailblazer), I'm not going to split hairs over EV prices being what they are.

Edited December 16, 2020 by surreal1272

[A Horse With No Name]

22 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ 3 of the above 4 vehicles are actual, real vehicles.

- - - - -
Mach-E review gives hope that it's a hit for Ford.

I agree on huge hit for Ford. 

8 hours ago, ykX said:

While I still not crazy that they called Mach E a Mustang, it grows on me and it looks like it has good potential.  Definitely looks more attractive than Model Y by far.

I actually see me getting one as a daily in about 5 years.

The used market for them ought to be really good. 

21 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Listened to the Wheel Bearings podcast today, they had a discussion about the Mach E and an interview w/ the Ford exec that oversaw it...sounds like it has the potential to be a very good product...one thing they stressed is they can't afford a botched launch and quality gaffes like the Explorer has had...

Ford seeims to be pulling its head out of its ass....

 

[riviera74]

On 12/15/2020 at 7:33 PM, oldshurst442 said:

What I dont get from GM and FoMoCo

How is it that when they want to bring out a great vehicle, engineer it top notch and produce it flawlessly they do (Corvette C8, Ford GT, Ford F150, Cadillac Escalade) but they also CONSTANTLY phone in things and half ass them...

Why cant they just ALWAYS DO Corvette C8s and Mustang Mach Es?   (not the vehicles themselves, but the QUALITY of work behind these machines)

But the Accountants will tell you that no one wants to PAY for it unless GM/Ford can charge MORE for common cars and CUVs!  I also believe it to be a leadership and culture problem too.

[A Horse With No Name]

10 hours ago, riviera74 said:

But the Accountants will tell you that no one wants to PAY for it unless GM/Ford can charge MORE for common cars and CUVs!  I also believe it to be a leadership and culture problem too.

Given how Hyundai and Kia have taken over the SUV game, yes. Palisade and Talluride hottest SUV's right now, and the smaller SUV's they are selling like hotcakes. 

Yes, Balthazar, I know Ford sells more explorers....but ford has a lot of explorers sitting on dealer lots or ready to ship, Kia/Hyundai can't keep Palisade/Telluride in stock. 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

 

[ocnblu]

Walking is good

[surreal1272]

7 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Walking is good

So is trolling somewhere else yet here you are.

[ocnblu]

Surreal thinks walking's not good.  Hmmm...