dwightlooi

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Is electric that much near you? I’m at like 14c/KwH total, and I’m on renewable energy.

California averages 19.3 cents per kWh. Slightly more expensive in Northern CA, slightly less in Southern CA (18.5 to 21.1 cents), depending on your municipality. Itis more expensive mainly because of the mandate to get 33% of the power from renewable sources like wind and solar which cost more than oil and gas generation. It is going up further because of the new mandates to get to 66% renewables. Right now wind and solar is almost four times more expensive per kWh compared to piped natural gas when you amortize the capital and maintenance costs. The only renewable source that is cheaper than fossil fuel is hydroelectric. The more renewables your state uses, the more expensive your electricity rates.

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Stands entirely to reason that a groups of operators that are "abusing" a BE vehicle are going to do the same with an IC vehicle. 

It's not so much abuse but USE. Police vehicles put on a lot of miles in a few years since they are driven almost continuous. That also means a lot of charge discharge cycles if it is electric.

19 minutes ago, David said:

I have to disagree with your math. At most about $11 for a full charge at public charging stations still cheaper than gas.

Public EV Charging Station Pricing and Costs | Enel X

You also forget ICE has much more maintenance cost than EV excluding the abuse police put on EVs. 

Power cost, maintenance cheaper with an EV and of course no green house gas and much quieter.

Sadly you have bought into the anti-science BS about climate change, so you will continue to buy into the destroy the planet at any cost, you need to move to the south with the rest of the individuals who cannot care about the future, other than themselves. 

The math is accurate and the numbers I used are truthful and transparent. $0.20 is approximately the price per kWh in CA. $4 per gallon is the price of gasoline in CA. In parts of the country where electricity rates are $0.11 per gallon, gasoline is also $2.60 a gallon -- those also happen to be sensible states where they are not mandating power generation using expensive renewables or subsidizing "green" vehicles. When you use a commercial charging station you are paying two to four times the cost of electricity because, they companies who put in and maintain that stuff has to make money. At 25% utilization (which is better than average) each commercial charger is making maybe $30~40 a day. Not much considering that it costs tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and labor to put that stuff up. It is no different from gas stations making about $2~4 per fill up over what they pay for the gas they sell. The difference being that a car occupies a fuel pump for 2~3 minutes during refueling whereas it occupies charging station for 2~3 hours, hence the margins have to be higher.

The point is that the price premium of the EV drivetrain can be seen as a $15,000~20,000 pre-payment on fuel (or energy). How long it takes for an ICE vehicle to catch up to that is the gasoline cost per mile minus electric cost per mile multiplied by the number of miles driven a year. 17 years is about right -- "about" being the key word.

What is anti-science is the Climate Change BS itself. There is no reason to believe that the climate is in anyway abnormal given that we are NOT seeing the warmest weather in the history of the planet or even the last 5000 years. Not only that, but the fact that the Earth had be frozen to the tropics with CO2 at 8~10x today's level and warmer during umpteen periods with half the CO2 in the air throws the argument that CO2 is a significant contributor to climate patterns into the BS category. Science is not a belief system in people who claim to be scientists; science is a system of empirical observations. I do care about pollution and the future, I simply do not consider CO2 emission a pollutant or something we need to reduce at all.

53 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Id say...Ford Edge more so than the Escape.

Not to take away from your argument, because I agree with what you are saying.  I just think the Mach E is a closer match to the Edge than it is to the Escape.

The Mach E is slightly longer than the current Escape but slightly smaller in length than the 1st generation Edge. 

And the current Escape is visually smaller than the 1st gen Edge...   In other words, the Mach E is right in the middle of both but because the Edge has a sportier image and look, especially the 1st generation and the Mach E is well, a Mustang...  

So... the price difference is that much less.  But your argument does hold water, but the price difference between ICE and EV in THIS case is NOT that dramatic either... 

The price difference doesn't change very much even when vehicle price changes a dramatically. This makes an EV econobox an oxymoron because the drivetrain is a going to add $15K to a $15K car, whereas in a luxury car that costs $80K anyway the drivetrain adding $20K may not matter that much. This is why Tesla's business model of focusing initially on performance luxury worked whereas BMW's i3 or VW& eGolf... well... didn't.

1 hour ago, ykX said:

So how long will be to pay off price difference between ICE Escape and Mach E?  EVs don't make financial sense at the moment either.

Simple math...

(1) The Mach E starts at $42.8K before subsidies and rebates, a comparably equipped Escape SE is $26.6K. That is a $16.2K price difference.

(2) If you drive gingerly, the Escape SE will average 30 mpg combined. That'll cost you $1,667 in gasoline a year to operate at $4 a gallon if you drive the typical 12,500 miles annually.

(3) The Mach E gets 305 miles from 88 KWh usable of battery capacity. That means it'll need 3,607 kWh to cover 12,500 miles if you drive gently. At $0.20 / kWh it'll cost you $721 in electricity to operate if you charge at home, off peak and at residential rates. Using commercial charging stations will cost a two to four times more -- $1,442~$2,884.

Conclusion: At best it'll take you 17 years to break even on your $16,200 investment in the all electric drivetrain (with savings of $949 a year). At worst you'll spend nearly $20,000 more in charging fees over that 17 years. Regardless, if you drink Global Warming hogwash, you may gladly buy an electric car today. We have no shortage of such individuals in California and/or people who buy EVs so they can hang out with their Green buddies. But... they aren't buying Hybrids anymore.

1 hour ago, ykX said:

 

I don't think your comparison is relevant.  You said Hybrids vs EV and than you compared Corolla to Prius.

Here is another comparison:

Base Ford Mach E - 230mi range, 255hp, RWD $44k

Toyota RAV4 Prime - 42mi EV range, almost 600 mi hybrid range, AWD, 302hp, $39k

I know which one I will choose at this point

The point is that a Hybrid Drivetrain is typically about $4500 more than a purely ICE drivetrain in a similarly sized and performing vehicle. For it you'll save roughly 92 gallons of fuel a year (on 13 mpg advantage) if you drive 12,500 miles. At $4 a gallon that 92 gallons will save you $368 a year. It'll take 12.2 years before you even break even on the hybrid investment.

The reason the Corolla and Prius were chosen for the comparison being that they are both economy compact cars in size, performance and interior appointments.

1 hour ago, ykX said:

 

I don't think your comparison is relevant.  You said Hybrids vs EV and than you compared Corolla to Prius.

Here is another comparison:

Base Ford Mach E - 230mi range, 255hp, RWD $44k

Toyota RAV4 Prime - 42mi EV range, almost 600 mi hybrid range, AWD, 302hp, $39k

I know which one I will choose at this point

1 hour ago, David said:

Seems Toyota spending Billions on Hydrogen R&D and focusing on Hybrids is now catching up to them as they have now pleaded to the current administration in DC that pushing a pure EV plan for the country will hurt not help people.

Three things...

(1) Hydrogen as a fuel is RETARDED. Hydrogen is not an energy source -- you cannot mine it or grow it. You have to make it from electricity or through cracking hydrocarbons -- the latter being the dominant means of making industrial hydrogen today because it is much cheaper and more energy efficient than electrolysis. Hydrogen is at best an energy storage medium and it sucks at that -- it is either the lowest density gas in the universe or the coldest liquid in the universe. If what you want is to burn it, you should burn something else that is easier and less bulky to carry. If what you want is electricity through a fuel cell, just use batteries and spare yourself the hyper insulated tanks, 6000 psi bomb canisters and/or the bulky PEM fuel cell stack altogether.

(2) Hybrids never made economic sense and with electrics of adequate range on the market they won't draw the Green Dollars from Global Warming Coolaid drinkers -- not anymore. From day one through present day, the extra cost of a Hybrid drive train will NEVER pay itself back through fuel savings over the life of the vehicle or the battery system or both. It takes an average of 13.5 years to recoup the marginal cost of a Prius drivetrain over that of a Corolla (@ $4/gallon which is more than most Americans currently pay). This is beyond the ownership period of 95% of Prius buyers and beyond the expected longevity of the NiCAD battery.

(3) There is nothing wrong with developing or selling Electric Vehicles. We can all appreciate the NVH refinement of a vibration free propulsion system regardless of whether we believe the Climate Change rubbish. However, Toyota is right. Artificially accelerating Electric Vehicles or trying to move to an all electric fleet when consumers are not demanding, or ready for, it will indeed hurt consumers. If and when Electric vehicles become cheap enough and practical enough, people will naturally buy them. Trying to force it on the People when it is not will absolutely hurt consumers the same way forcing Plasma TVs on everyone when they were $20,000 and lasts 4 years before becoming half as bright will hurt consumers. The same can be said of lofty CAFE standards forcing very expensive and often unreliable implements to save a tiny bit of extra gas when the consumer has other priorities and/or preferences. ......(removed).....

7 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Speaking of motorcycles, Ducati V4 opened up....

That is one DUMB AND DUMBER SET OF GEARS. Ducatis have a desmodromic valvetrain -- where the valves are opened AND closed by cam followers without the use of springs -- which is dumb enough given that their motors DO NOT rev higher than competing designs while having very destructive behaviors when are out of spec due to poor adjustment or wear. Piston speeds rather than valve float are is the rpm limiting factor in modern engines; nobody else uses desmodromic valvetrains because it sucks! But, driving the cams exclusively via spur gears is dumber than dumb. This is heavier and higher friction than with a roller chain or belt drive. Do they last longer? Theoretically they might, but with chain drives rated for 300,000 miles and most motorcycles seeing less than 30,000 it is totally unnecessary. To make matters worse, when chains or belts wear (they stretch a tiny bit) a tensioner keeps everything tight and slop free. When gears wear (as everything wears) there is no way to take the slop out without replacing them.

11 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Get something different. You'll only have a finite amount of vehicles in your lifetime. Try something new learn something new.

This philosophy is why I want a motorcycle. 

Ever had a Tricycle?

2 hours ago, David said:

Many here will be happy to hear this, Stellantis has bailed on bringing Peugeot to the US at least for the next 10 years and instead will focus on putting money and R&D into putting new products into the Chrysler, Dodge, Ram and Jeep.

CEO Carlos Tavares has committed to re-inventing Chrysler with an all new product lineup. Watch for details.

Stellantis CEO Says Chrysler Will Get U.S.-Market Attention, Not Peugeot (caranddriver.com)

Peugeot has no compelling offerings... it'll just be another redundant brand. Let's put it this way... they can't even get Fiat a foot hold beyond the (very low quality) 500.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I can't get 110 Octane race gas conveniently near me.  I can get E85 at a 50c+ discount on 87. ($2.15 v. $2.65 locally). I get miserable MPGs no matter what I put into it because max speed on my ~8.5 mile 45 minute commute is about 45mph. So, do I get 13mpg or 9.5 MPG....? it doesn't really matter. At least the truck feels a bit more spritely when I put the E-85.

I did the spreadsheet when I first bought it and I figured out that as long as I have about a 40c/gallons savings, the reduced fuel economy is a wash.

If you think you are getting miserable MPG in a Cobalt, you should try a bicycle... LOL!

50 minutes ago, ykX said:

Like my colleague said when a company offered him a job in CA some years ago, the salary was almost 1.5 times he was getting in PA but he would need at least 2 times bigger salary just to maintain same living standard as here.

Weather's great and that counts for a lot. It's in the low 60s (F) in the day, about high 40s at night right now (or most of winter) and it never snows. Other than that, the woke politics is nuts, you need to be finger printed to buy ammo, you need solar panels to get a roof, plastic bags are illegal at the supermarket, state income taxes are 9.3~12.3%, sales tax is 9.5%, gas is $4 a gallon, they are trying to pass an "exit tax" that penalize you for 10 years if you ever move out of the state and even the Big Mac is more expensive here than in the rest of the USA ($4.99).

30 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Sky high costs to do almost anything? Wow, no wonder thousands have moved out of CA to multiple other states in the last ten years.

LOL... Hewlett Packard just left and so did Elon Musk.

2 hours ago, daves87rs said:

I forgot for a moment it was Cali....

That said I make no further comment there....as it gets quite messy.......

While I agree.....there is quite the cost difference.

But, that would be quite an interesting ride in the Cobalt.... 🙂 

I am assuming that you have the 2.0T SS... be very careful when you up the boost with E85. Unless you plan on new injectors and a new fuel pump along with an Ethanol specific ECU program, you are probably better off running Premium Gasoline. While a 109 effective Octane rating will allow you to run more boost, more boost also necessarily require more fuel. The very fact that you need to pump 30~35% more E85 to get the same calorific value further compounds the issue. The stock 2.0T (LNF) injectors run out of dwell time at about 300 bhp / 350 lb-ft with gasoline. With E85 it'll run out of dwell time around 230 hp / 270 lb-ft. Why? Because that is how much fuel the injectors will flow if they stay open as long as they can. Enough gasoline for about 300 bhp or enough E85 for about 230 hp. You may lose power running E85 simply because at the maximum duty cycle you are not even flowing enough E85 to match the stock power ratings of the engine. Worse yet, if your tune is not E85 specific or sufficiently adaptive, you will run lean. Running lean on a turbocharged mill is a good recipe for blowing stuff up!

--

Dicked with the Solstice GXP back in the day... same engine albeit in a different orientation.

1 hour ago, daves87rs said:

Think about that for a second.. then I realized that cars/trucks burn that E85 faster.

I should check to see if the Cobalt could do E85...I thought it could-but now I need to check.....

E85 is roughly 109 Octane. On the otherhand it has about 76% the energy value.

While you can run higher boosts or compression and gain a little bit of power, you are only getting 76% of the power of an equivalent amount of gasoline burned. You you need to burn about 31% more of it.

Why run E85 when you can run 110 Octane Unleaded Race Gas?

1 hour ago, daves87rs said:

While true-

That house is right by San Francisco, which is already crazy priced. (Like the house though!)

Why not public school?

It's not atypical of most silicon valley neighborhoods... I know... it's my abode. Public school is fine if you don't mind woke socialist indoctrination or boys in your girl's shower room because they "identify" as female. Otherwise it's $52K per year per kid.

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

It did take me a bit of time to replace the serpentine belt on the Duramax, but my labor rate is fantastic.

$285/hr is INSANE. I think my dealer is $140.

Insane is relative. It is after all California where a 1240 sq-ft home built 45 years ago with no air conditioning and a retired high school teacher next door is $1.7 million. Not to mention... private middle school tuition is $52,200 a year and an oil change with inspection at the dealership runs you $1249.

https://www.zillow.com/homes/2611-ponce-ave,-belmont,-ca_rb/15548669_zpid/

https://www.csus.org/admission/affording-crystal

https://www.sanjoseaudi.com/audi-care-plan.htm

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Why is any serp belt replacement EVER $541??  If it takes you more than 20 minutes to replace the belt, it is a bad design. 

LOL... $541 is dirt cheap. The Audi A8 (4.0T CEU engine) does not have a timing belt or an accessory belt. The timing chain is in the back between the transmission and the engine. In addition to the cams, it also drives the accessories gearbox via a bunch of reduction gears which are also in the back. These include the alternator, water pump and oil pump. The A/C compressor and water pump are actually in the front and driven by shafts from this accessory gearbox. The alternator is in the back where there is no airflow so it is liquid cooled. Theoretically, they are good for 300,000 miles or the life of the car. But if you need to replace ANY of these things or that pesky little chain tensioner...

• The front bumper comes off.
• The radiator and fan assembly comes off.
• The front aluminum cross beam comes off.
• The engine mounting and all harnesses are disconnected.
• The exhaust is unbolted.
• The front suspension sub-frame cross beam is removed.
• The entire engine is then removed from the front of the car.
• You can then get to the stuff with the engine on a stand.
• It's about 36 hours ($10,260 at dealer rates; labor only)

28 minutes ago, ykX said:

Not surprising about German cars but I am surprised about few Lexus models

Cars and SUVs With Highest Repair Costs - Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports analyzed estimated repair cost data from RepairPal

All if these failed to illustrate the most important factor -- whether or not those parts fail. Lexus parts are not any cheaper than German parts, but whether they fail is a different story.

--

In any case, all these prices are not all that bad.

7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Those prices are INSANE.

Most of it has to do with Dealer Labor rates. Here in California, it has risen to $285 an hour, such that a simple 2 hour job is $570 not counting parts or taxes.

53 minutes ago, David said:

Awesome info Dwight, and Yes, TOTALLY AGREE with you on the questions you ask about the German V8. I did not know that it did not rev like the other german V8's which does beg the question why?

This question is best answered chronologically...

(1) They went to DOHC 4-valves to produce screamer engines like the BMW (E90) M3's S65 4.0L V8 (414 hp @ 8,300 rpm, 290 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm, 8,400 rpm rev limit) and the Audi (B7) RS4's 4.2L V8 (414 hp @ 7,800 rpm, 317 lb-ft @ 5,500 rpm, 8,250 rpm rev limit)

(2) They found that these engines kinda sucked in daily driving and had horrible fuel economy (14/20 mpg for the M3 or 14/21 mpg for the RS4 vs 16/25 for the 6.2L Camaro SS of the same period). Why? Because these 8000+ rpm engines had massive amounts of valve lift and overlap, which is tamed by variable cam phasers that open the exhaust way early and closes the intake really late to dial out the overlap at lower rpms. While this made the engines civil and smooth (if lethargic) for daily driving, venting the exhaust early wastes a good amount of energy from the combustion while driving up hydrocarbon emissions, while closing the intake really late costs you effective compression and reduces realized displacement.

(3) When stricter emissions and fuel economy targets came around, the Germans abandoned the screamers and went to turbocharging, but they kept their complex valve train designs -- 4-valve heads, multiple overhead camshafts and advanced valve timing implements. This makes for much more drivable engines, better emissions and better fuel economy, but also complex and expensive engines that no longer utilize the airflow advantages their complex valve train theoretically affords. Of course they cannot resist throwing in deeply buried fuel strainers that clogs up oil flow and grenades engines!

(4) Engines like the 4.0T (CEU) do not rev high because the tiny turbos that gave 1500 rpm torque peaks also run out of breathe at 5100 rpm and there is nothing "up there". They were given a low red line because the cars will be slower if they revved to 7000 or 8000 rpm instead of shifting at 5,900 rpm.

39 minutes ago, David said:

I can respect that, but as you said, a $28 dollar part with a $1,000 labor bill. That right there is a deal breaker for me, would rather support an American company with much cheaper parts and usually able to do the work myself or still way cheaper labor for Cadillac over Audi.

I respect your choice and agree with the huge discount that is a great deal, but my GM V8's have proven to be far more durable than dealing with a ticking Grenade of German engineering design.

Take a Pushrod V8 over over rev'd DOHC German V8 any day.

I find it interesting that we do not find German V8's with 200,000 to 300,000 miles on the road unlike Ford and GM trucks, SUVs and cars. It makes me question that superior German engineering attitude.

LOL... I would too. But there was no CT6 with an LT1, LT2 or LT4. Heck the ATS-V didn't have the Pushrod V8 either. The CT6-V was new then and I don't buy new cars. The CTS-V held their values surprisingly well and was $60K -- almost twice as much as the Audi A8 and I already had the CTS Vsport which apart from the engine is the same car. The same can be said of the "fullsize" M or AMG cars.

It came down to the CT6 3.0TT, the 740, GS F, Genesis 5.0 and the A8L 4.0TT.

BTW, the 4.0T is anything but over revved. As a matter of fact, it is so under revved one ponders why it bothers with a 4-valve head at all! The engine's rev limit is 6000 rpm. Its 435hp peak power is delivered at 5100 rpm. The two tiny turbos deliver a peak of 12 psi of boost tappering off to 8 psi at the upper reaches to produce a very mild 445 lb-ft from 4.0 liters. Which begs the question... why all the complexity with 4 cams, variable vale timing, variable valve lift, twin turbos, air-to-water intercooler, direct injection, etc. to make... well... the same power as a port injected LS3 V8? And do so with less reliability, way more money and more weight???

23 minutes ago, ykX said:

@dwightlooi

Exactly.  There is a good reason why very expensive German sedans loose over 60-70% of their value after 3-4 years.  They are great when you are leasing them and that's about it.  You have CPO and probably will replace it before the warranty expires, but I wouldn't come close to those cars no matter how good the deal is.

I am fine with spending a thousand dollars to deal with a known issue when I get $76,000 off on the car!

1 hour ago, ykX said:

Until he needs to repair something on it, which he will.

LOL... we'll see. A fair bit of warning for anyone looking at the Audi A8, S8, S7 or RS6 with 4.0T engine. It comes with a bonafide example of totally retarded German engineering!

The two turbos in the Vee of the engine is fed by an oil line with an inline strainer. This strainer is beneath the turbos, intake plumbing and air-water intercooler. It is supposed to keep the oil supply to the turbochargers "cleaner" and extend their lives. The problem is that a "strainer" is by definition a filtration device which traps gunk. Like a filter that never gets replaced, it'll eventually clog and cut off all oil flow to the turbos causing them to grenade! At best, this destroys the turbos. At worst, the fragments get past the intercooler into the cylinders scoring the walls and junks the whole engine. A new engine from Audi is $30K not including labor to install it putting the car beyond economical repair.

The strainer is NOT listed as a service item and according to maintenance schedules you never replace it. But if you don't, it is a question of when not if your engine blows up. 4.0Ts have been blowing with as low as 40,000 miles.

If you do replace it, it's a 10 hour job ($2850 labor @ $285/hr at the dealership) that requires the removal of the front bumper, radiator, front support beam, intercooler and intake plumbing. The strainer itself is a $28 part and many owners simply remove it (although you'll need to find an independent shop to do that as the dealer will NOT do it without reinstalling a new filter).

The turbochargers are covered by a 10-yr / 70,000 mile extended emissions warranty so I am going to run them up to 70K then pay an independent shop to service the strainer (or just remove it). Good thing about the A8 (vs the RS6 or S7) is that it is designed for the W12 engine and there is enough room to remove the IC without removing the front bumper, radiator or support beam. This cuts the job down to ~6 hours or approximately $1000 at $165 / hr (California labor rate) at a reputable independent shop familiar with these Audi engines.

Only the Germans are capable of designing an engine with a filter that costs thousands or dollars and 10 hours to get to which "protects" your engine by causing it totally destroy itself!

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

That sounds like a recipe for lots of lag. 

Also, it's a truck engine and most reviews speak of how unrefined and lack of smoothness it has for a Cadillac. 

Not really... should be about the same as the 472hp 3.6TT V6 (LF4) and definitely less than the 382hp CLA45 2.0T (M139). V6 bi-turbos have a built-in inefficiency with regards to turbocharger responsiveness. This stems from the fact that the exhaust pulses from each bank of three cylinders are "interrupted" and there are significant gaps where the turbine receives no driving force from the engine (see illustrations below). A 150 hp/liter 4-potter is not too similar in responsiveness to a 132 hp/liter 3-cylinder engine -- all else being equal.

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That sounds like a sweet deal on the A8L!

70.7% depreciation over four years... that's why you should never buy them new!

The car stickered for $108K new in 2015. By Dec 2019, it's worth $31.6K with 36K miles on the clock. And, that is Certified Pre-Owned with an additional year of Audi Warranty, no accidents and no major blemishes. It's the first year of the facelifted D4 A8 (2015-2017 of 2011-2017) with the revised LED lights, trunk contour and MMI. Comes with active air suspension, massage seats and the "rising mushroom" B&O audio system. The 4.0T (CEU) engine makes 435 bhp @ 5100 rpm with 445 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm (up 15 hp from the 2013~2014 cars; 2011~2012 had 367hp NA 4.2L V8). You can bump that to ~ 500hp / 550 lb-ft if you don't care about the 70K extended warranty with a software flash. Window sticker lists 18 / 28 mpg, although I find that about 15 / 23 is more typical in real world driving.