ccap41

I've never taken a COVID test nor have I been vaccinated...

I'm assuming I'm one of those "touting the need for dealerships" but I really don't think I'm in that boat. I've only been stating the "suggested" part of the price and that it's just supply and demand in a "free market". I don't exactly enjoy dealership experiences. I've never had a bad one but I've also never had a great one. If Ford is going to crack down on dealerships adjusting prices up, I'm all for that as well. I've never said i want dealerships to mark prices up, just that I understand WHY they're marking prices up.

Yet they sold every single one that they made. Guess that fact never occurred to you. And their worst selling SUV still sold more than anything out of Germany, mainly because the biggest player doesn’t even have an EV SUV yet. Kind of like the G Wagen.. Sells like crap so it's the worst, right? *eyeroll*

...He also doesn't own an HD anymore...

I think his point is there isn't anything that comes up when you search for that. I googled it and came up with zero spy shots or articles on it other than Insideevs.com saying they should make one.

You'd think it's common sense...

So one state and only since 2015, that's SUCH a small percentage of homes. Federal and state rebates means we're still the ones paying for it.

I think that all depends what demand looks like. If they can make a business case for a single cab, 8' bed, they'll make one. If there's resistance in the commercial market towards EVs, they may hold off longer yet.

I think it's a safe measure to say almost all homes are "old", built prior to 2020 or whenever these 220v garage requirements become standard. This was more getting to the point I mentioned yesterday in that public charging completely negates any fuel savings you'd have buying an EV. If you don't have a charger at home, you're not saving anything. There's only real potential for savings if you're charging at home. Which, that would be 99% of my charging. I'd only consider an EV if I can charge it at home for cheap.

With the way Ford built the Lightning, I could see them making an actual work truck in a couple years. I mean, it's just a cab/bed difference as it's all built into a current F150. I would think this is a fairly easy conversion.

Just interesting information. https://news.yahoo.com/really-costs-more-charging-ev-153301789.html "Electric vehicles and gas cars have always come with a tradeoff. Fully electric vehicles are more expensive to buy, but they’re cheaper to own because they’re cheaper to fuel and maintain — and they produce zero emissions. Traditional cars cost less up front, but you pay more in the long run thanks to the high cost of dirty gas. That dynamic is still widely accepted as true, but compelling new evidence reveals a disconnect between the metrics used to analyze fuel costs and the realities that EV drivers face on the ground. So, are EVs really cheaper to power than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles? Well, that depends on the yardstick you use when measuring. It’s Cheaper To Charge Than To Pump In 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a study that was more comprehensive than those that had come before. Using a state-level assessment of EV charging costs, the study’s results were much more granular than what came out of previous studies, which assumed a singular value. It found that the national average to charge an EV is $0.15 per kWh, which DOE determined translated into savings of as much as $14,500 over 15 years on fuel costs alone. On top of that, EVs are cheaper to maintain — $0.04 cheaper per mile, according to the DOE — which adds another $8,000 in savings for EV drivers over the course of 200,000 miles. The jury had returned a verdict. Yes, EVs cost more to buy, but they paid their owners back for the difference and then some over the life of the car — plus the whole zero-emissions thing — and that’s not even counting state and federal tax credits and other incentives. But a different study was about to get even more granular. Study Reveals Different Findings On Oct. 21, 2021, the Anderson Economic Group — a respected economic consulting firm with decades of auto industry experience — released the results of its own study, which was six months in the making. It was the first installation in a larger economic research series that is still being conducted. Anderson parsed the costs of EV charging much more finely, going beyond just a state-by-state breakdown to examine rural/urban variations. The new methodology also separated vehicles by segment, use and cost. Titled “Comparison: Real World Cost of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles,” the report’s startling results were summarized in its official synopsis: “Electric vehicles can be more expensive to fuel than their internal combustion engine counterparts.” There’s More to It Than Just Gas and Electricity DOE says that the average cost of electricity for an EV is $0.04 per mile, which means it costs $9 to fully charge a battery with a 200-mile range. By comparison, it costs between $0.07 and $0.10 per mile to fuel a gas car, according to AAA. The Anderson study, however, challenged the presumption that EVs are cheaper to drive — or even cheaper to fuel. It found that powering EVs comes with four hidden costs: the purchase of a home charger, the greatly inflated price of commercial charging at public stations, “deadhead miles” spent driving to find far-flung charging stations and registration taxes that states slap on EV drivers to make up for the fact that they don’t pay gas taxes. The study also factored in the cost of time spent searching for reliable charging stations, which — even when located — can take a half-hour for a charge of 20% to 80%. Traditional research — like the industry standard provided by DOE — doesn’t take any of that into account. It also presumes a heavily lopsided reliance on cheap, at-home charging instead of expensive commercial charging. Again, the new research is just the first installment in a larger series, but its results are undeniably head-turning. The study found that: Commercial charging rates are two to four times higher than residential rates. Level 1 chargers cost an average of $600 to install and can take 20 hours to fully charge an EV. Level 2 chargers are much faster but cost $1,600. “Full charge” is a misleading term because charging past 90% is slow, difficult and unadvised, which means you get far fewer miles than the advertised ranges would have you believe. Gas vehicles, on the other hand, are good for 300-400 miles per tank. Considering all of those factors, and presuming a greater reliance on commercial charging, it would cost $8.58 to fuel a mid-priced gas car that gets 33 mpg for 100 miles at $2.81 a gallon. Comparatively, a mid-priced EV — Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt — would cost $12.95 per 100 miles. Annually, presuming 12,000 miles driven, it would cost $1,030 to drive a gas car versus $1,554 for an EV."

Yes, I'm still confident in my comment that this is not a true off-roader, just like an FX4 Ford is not. It certainly adds some additional off-road ability. These types of vehicles are the perfect vehicle for those who're not into off-roading their vehicle as a hobby but will use it around their home in mud/hills, take their toys to off-road parks, and are into outdoorsy things but not necessarily into off-roading the vehicle itself. This is just my opinion on the Z71, FX4, and I believe the Rebel is also in this category.

All of those are a joke compared to anything he mentioned, except the Bronco Sport. The Blazer has LESS ground clearance than a Lincoln Corsair. Is the Corsair an off-roader because it has different drive modes?

Well, I can't really disagree that they should have at least ONE off-road-oriented SUV. There's always good mark-ups on the top end ones, like a Denali or ZR2.

it is boring but I don't think it's boring in a bad way, kind of like a Passat. It's super boring but it's done well so it's still an attractive vehicle. I don't think the EQB looks quite as nice as a Passat but similar in the boring/bland category.

Speaking aesthetically only, I think the EQB is one of the better looking vehicles on that list. It isn't being weird and quirky just for the sake of being weird and quirky.

A pretty big difference here being you'll still need gasoline vehicles to tow or charge the EVs to get them going again compared to a truck bed full of gas tanks to get dozens moving again, who've run out of fuel.

Opinion: Imagine Virginia’s icy traffic catastrophe — but with only electric vehicles https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/04/imagine-virginias-icy-traffic-catastrophe-with-only-electric-vehicles/

That's irrelevant what their employer chooses to do. It's where they live. Not everybody is just going to move out to the suburbs nor can they afford to do so. Public charging costs A LOT more than charging at home. Good information and that sucks for the owners of the apartments to be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on something they won't make anything on. Not every city is downtown NYC or Chicago. There are plenty of cities that have small two story apartments/houses where parking is on the street. If you lived downtown STL there's a near zero percent chance you could get away without owning a vehicle. I'm sure there are dozens of cities the size of STL that are similar and less that are so big it makes sense not to own a vehicle. Looking through GoogleMaps for Seattle, that's definitely not so big that everybody living downtown won't own a vehicle. There are a few all new apartment buildings going up in Seattle with...parking garages..

My rate is 6.5 cents/kw and that's pretty low. Looking at averages by state, the average is 10.59 cents/kw. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ I know that's still cheaper than fossil fuels, just stating a number that's more appropriate for comparisons.

I think one of the biggest hurdles EVs will face is everybody that lives in lower income apartments and inner city homes that parking is on the street. Those places aren't putting a charger in front of every parking space. If you're paying public charging prices, the "savings" falls to near zero.

Also, why? It isn't like Mercedes is making everything off-roady because they make the G Wagen or they're making everything track-oriented because there's a GLE Coupe AMG,

I know, but, like, why even type that sentence out to immediately mention a non-jellybean possible future vehicle with a better aerodynamic drag coefficient? It was more a knock on, 'why did you just say what you said to immediately contradict yourself?' They could have "easily" made it a front-drive 4-cylinder crossover with some off-road chops. They could have done a similar job to the Bronco Sport/Cherokee Trailhawk. They didn't though and, at this point, I don't think it's necessary just because of the "Blazer" name.

It likely all depends on what the pre-orders are but I'm sure there are work trucks preordered at the starting price. It's like looking for a truly base model truck now. They're made but very few buy them so they're kind of unicorns. I would put money on them producing the Pro and selling for the MSRP. Hey now, don't do the CC dirty like that. The CC is/was a very attractive vehicle. The poor mans A7. Did you miss the EQXX? Lower drag coefficient than the EQSh!t.

A lot of the custom paint jobs has been taken over by the much cheaper and reversible wrapping.