Drew Dowdell

3 hours ago, David said:

🤔I wonder how many they will really sell; will it even be enough to justify the R&D that went into the manual tranny. I just do not see many people really wanting a manual. 

The R&D was virtually nill. It's an off the shelf ZF unit with a rear diff from one of their other cars.

Before this announcement, BMW was set to drop manuals entirely as it was being dropped from the 2-series.

23 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I'm pretty sure nearly the entire country has been covered, as far as road trips are concerned, for a little while now. Obviously, the more the better but, both of your road trips have been covered for awhile now with fast chargers. 

20 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Not with chargers at this speed unless you count Tesla only. Even then, those are almost all 150kw/250kw chargers. 350kw chargers are the game changers time wise. 

To expand on this:

• 2022 Hummer EV Pickup (350 kW)
• 2024 Genesis GV60 (350 kW)
• 2024 Genesis GV70 (350 kW)
• 2023 Genesis G80 (350 kW)
• 2022 Lucid Air (300 kW)
• 2024 GMC Hummer EV SUV (300 kW)
• 2022 Audi E-Tron GT (270 kW)
• 2022 Porsche Taycan (270 kW)
• 2022 Tesla Model S (250 kW)
• 2022 Tesla Model X (250 kW)
• 2022 Tesla Model 3 (250 kW)
• 2022 Tesla Model Y (250 kW)
• 2022 Kia EV6 (240 kW)
• 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 6 (235 kW)
• 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5 (235 kW)
• 2022 Rivian R1S (220 kW)
• 2022 Rivian R1T (220 kW)
• 2022 BMW iX (200 kW)
• 2022 Mercedes-EQ EQS (200 kW)
• 2022 BMW i4 (195 kW)
• 2023 Cadillac Lyriq (190 kW)
• 2023 Mercedes-EQ EQE (170 kW)
• 2023 Volkswagen ID Buzz (170 kW)
• 2022 Polestar 2 (155 kW)
• 2022 Volvo C40 Recharge (155 kW)
• 2022 Volvo XC40 Recharge (155 kW)
• 2022 Audi E-Tron (150 kW)
• 2022 Ford Mustang Mach E (150 kW)
• 2023 Toyota bZ4x (150 kW)

This is a (mostly) complete list of the EVs with a charge rate of 150kw or higher. The reason I picked 150kw is because that's the base charge rate for the V2 version of the Tesla Supercharger and that seems like a minimum standard for vehicles to meet today.  Keep in mind that well over half of Tesla's Superchargers are V2 with probably around 30% being V3 (250kw). V4 (350kw) Super Chargers are brand new and only one is installed in the U.S. as of October of this year... and even then, the Cybertruck is the only Tesla that can suck juice that fast.

Additionally, the Kia and Hyundai models on this list and coming in the future have the hardware in them for 350kw charging that will be enabled in a software update in the future.

I should also note that it seems like only the big truck-based Ultium products from GM appear to get 300kw+ charging. I know the EValanche will have it as will the Escalade IQ. The Ram REV 1500 is getting 350kw charging as well. The Lyriq is 190 kw as are the Blazer EV and Equinox EV. I think this is shortsighted on GM's part, and they need to bump these to at least the 250kw range.

So you can see the list of cars that will charge at a higher speed than a Model 3 at a V2-150kw charger at these new Pilot stations will have a pretty good advantage, and if the driver opts for a 250kw charger on the Tesla network, they'll still get decent speed.

It also matters for vehicles with a shorter range.  Of the three Genesis models on the list, only the GV60 can get over 300 miles, and only on the RWD model. The GV70 range is only 235, which is pretty low these days. But if I were buying one, I would be less concerned about the overall range as long as I can go from 10% to 80% (~165 miles) in 18 minutes, as their website claims.

This will really fill out the network for state-to-state EV driving.

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I'm pretty sure nearly the entire country has been covered, as far as road trips are concerned, for a little while now. Obviously, the more the better but, both of your road trips have been covered for awhile now with fast chargers. 

Not with chargers at this speed unless you count Tesla only. Even then, those are almost all 150kw/250kw chargers. 350kw chargers are the game changers time wise. 

17 hours ago, David said:

Interesting read:

 Electric vehicles are better than gas-powered cars in winter—here’s why | Ars Technica

I have come to realize that those that attack EVs tend to not understand the technology or the whole supply chain and the changes that happen. 

Knowledge is power.

Eh, that article makes some statements without data to back it up. It's a puff piece for EVs.

That said, for EVs that have heat pump HVAC, the difference in range is negligible.  Certainly less than the drop in fuel economy I see with cold weather in the truck.  The EPA says that cold weather of 20 degrees (fairly common where I live) can drop your fuel economy 15%.

If you properly precondition your EV in the cold before you leave, the range drop won't even be noticeable.  All modern EVs (even not modern ones like the original Volt) have the ability to set a departure time and can heat up both the cabin and the batteries before you drive away.  Of course this is best if you're on wall power at the time, but it helps even if not. Roughly the same as remote starting your ICE.

19 hours ago, David said:

I find this story very interesting.

‘Dirtier to build but cleaner to drive’: This is how many miles you need to drive an EV to reduce its carbon footprint, study finds - MarketWatch
 

The 'dirtier to build' articles are pretty much always FUD imho since they always scrupulously take into account energy requirements (and related fossil fuel impacts) of refining battery materials, but somehow conveniently omit the same impacts for mining/transporting/manufacturing the equivalent parts of a gas auto. Not to mention that the batteries are not suddenly useless after they've been aged out of EV use, they can be repurposed for use in home energy storage applications, whereas an EOL gas auto is pretty much entirely scrap.

And even if a case can be made for 'dirtier to build' it still omits that the supposed pollution is all generated in a few strictly defined locations (power plants, mines and factories) where measures can more easily be taken to corral and mitigate said pollution, whereas gas autos are roving around spraying it everywhere.

Which also doesn't account for the fact that several manufacturers (Tesla, GM, some Hyundai) have built Net-Zero manufacturing plants for their EVs.  I think Subaru is one of the few that has done it for their ICE plants.

Except for a little blank spot in Georgia, that covers almost my entire route from Pittsburgh to Florida.  As long as I fill up in Columbia SC, where I usually overnight, it's less than 300 miles to Jacksonville, so I'd have plenty of range if I did it solely on this network in the EValanche, but there's still Chargepoint and Tesla on I-95 in between if I really had to stop.

Pilot-Flying J and General Motors opened the first seventeen locations of their partnership for high-speed charging across the U.S., with twenty-five total targeted to be open by the end of the month. The chargers are part of the EVgo network and can deliver up to 350 kW charging.  The partnership is targeting an additional 175 locations open by the end of next year.

The newly opened locations are spread across 13 states and feature round-the-clock staff, food and restroom amenities, and free wifi.  The charging stations themselves will be pull-through to allow for the charging of EVs that are towing, and for vehicles equipped with it, will feature plug-and-charge compatibility for a seamless charging process.  The locations will appear natively in GM's onboard navigation apps, the Pilot myRewards app, the EVgo app, Plugshare, and others.  Pilot will offer extra discounts on charging for GM EV drivers, plus the ability to reserve a charger in advance. Other EV drivers using Pilot's myRewards app will receive additional discounts on food and merchandise.

Once complete, the project will include 500 locations with up to 2,000 fast chargers.  Pilot's and Flying J's locations on rural interstate routes makes them especially attractive to EV drivers on a long-distance drive.

View full article

4 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Why is the new Tahoe able to tow more weight than a new Suburban?

Trailer weight rating is gross weight rating minus vehicle weight, and if you’re ġoing strictly by the book, also minus cargo and passenger weight. That’s why the 6.2 has a lower rating than the 5.3, it’s a heavier engine.

That said, because people overload them all the time, they’re all very underrated.

It’s the same scenario happens on the Silverado EV. It has a low tow rating, not because it can’t handle it, but because it’s a heavy vehicle and having a higher gross weight pushes it into a higher class like a 250/2500 series. In most states that requires an additional registration fee and higher insurance rates. So Chevy keeps the rating artificially low…but they’re coming out with a Max Tow package for those who want it that will have a higher GVWR.

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I LOVE that new green/blue.

Me too! That would be a tough choice for me.

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

We don't always agree but I certainly do here. I have no interest in this when I can get a 3 Series, C Class, Audi 4, Model 3 or CT5 for similar coin. 

If you ignore the dash to axel ratio, you wouldn't know anything was FWD vs RWD. 

I think the TLX looks good here but it doesn't quite have RWD proportions. That Caddy looks so much sportier than the TLX. 

I think the TLX platform (and by extension the Accord) looks the most rwd of the front wheel drivers, but part of it is an optical illusion because Honda elongated the hood.   The larger Volvos are pretty good at this too.

12 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

The TLX is a fine automobile is what Im trying to convey.  

That and to piss in @surreal1272's cornflakes...

Well you can stop that. Just talk about the cars, no need to be trolling. Next time will be warning points.

5 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

As I would also, like to see a Legend sedan and coupe.   I dont know if big coupes could be succesfull in today's world, as I think that market niche is truly a dead one with a couple of exemptions, a sedan done proper still has followers. 

5 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

As an aside, I'd really like to have a 2nd gen Legend coupe w/ a manual.   Beautiful cars..

 

If you’re Instagram people, follow https://instagram.com/tysonhugie?igshid=OGQ5ZDc2ODk2ZA==

he’s a friend of mine and has a complete Acura collection from the 90s. If you check out his YouTube, you might also spot a familiar car….

23 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

The Integra name has been re-...um...integrated in Acura's line-up so hopefully Acura could start ditching alphanumerics.

Doing so would re-inVigorate the lineup.

They need to rename it the Vigor.

I’m going to be working on the ads this coming week . I am not happy with the ads provider we’re using. If you’re seeing ads but are a subscriber, let me know

There once was a man named Dave

 Who dug up a prostitute’s grave

She was moldy as shit and missing a tit

But think of the money he saved!

On 9/14/2023 at 9:18 AM, regfootball said:

Nice interior update. 
 

base engine still weak. 3.0 on the V could stand to be the 3.6 tt also

They could have just run the 400/400 from the 3.0TT CT6, however, in the CT5 you get to 405 lb-ft lower in the RPM band than the CT6 and it also had a 10-speed.  It should have plenty of scoot.

Besides, the 3.6TT isn't in production anymore.

On 10/28/2023 at 8:25 AM, Guest Kimber said:

I have a 2003 Buick Park Avenue and my son's friend crunched the front on a brick mailbox.  The front end is totaled and the airbags went off. I really like this car. I want to buy a crash car with a good front end and piece the cars together.  What other years of Park Avenue have the exact same body type as a 2003? Thanks!

So by 2003, Buick had started making minor changes to the front end of these cars. 2003 - 2005 will fit, but they might be slightly different than what you had.

Plus, the litigation surrounding fault with Level 3 has not been sorted out yet. 

37 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The Equinox EV is 9 inches longer than an iD4, 4 inches longer than a Tiguan, 7 inches longer than a gas Equinox.  Not sure why it is so big, but the Equinox EV is actually larger then a Toyota Venza or Ford Edge, so I’d call it a mid-size SUV.  Which makes me think Chevy over sized these EV’s and Equinox and Blazer are too close.

I've looked at both, and I think it is more of a content and styling difference than a size difference re 'Nox v. Blazer.

25 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

And how much will Tesla make off charging stations that millions of cars in the future will use?  What if Tesla licenses FSD to other car companies for $12,000 per car?  If they sell just 1 million FSD software packages, which is virtually all profit, to Toyota or Ford that is $12 billion in profit for Tesla.  
 

The money isn’t really in the cars, it is in the software and services.  That is why Tesla is with 10-20 times more than these other car companies that are loaded with legacy costs and aren’t growing.  Many car companies revenues now are worse now than they were in 2013 if you adjust for inflation.

Tesla FSD is PR poison right now.  GM's SuperCruise is more likely to be licensed, first by Honda most likely.

Yes, Tesla will make money on charging stations, but as soon as it becomes profitable, others (who aren't under court order) will jump in as well.

6 minutes ago, David said:

Will be interesting to see if it ever gets done since they say they expect to have it built by 2030 but this is dependent on how many people volunteer and donations. As stated a $20 million dollar donation could allow them to build it in 5 to 6 years. 

Question why, why build something based on the 1940s and is old technology. To me it seems like people are trying to live in the past and as has been proven, stagnation causes death, so I just do not see any value in these old trains, but that is my personal view on it.

Will be interesting to see where they are in a couple of years.

In the case of the T-1, there's a century-old feud between the US and the UK. The UK currently holds the record for the world's fastest steam locomotive, set by the Mallard in 1938.  However, the T-1 above was regularly clocked at higher speeds, just not in an official test. The Mallard broke down after the test and had to go in for a severe overhaul.

And just looking at the specs of the T-1 v. A4 Mallard (4-cylinder v. 3-cylinder, 300psi boiler v. 250 psi boiler, 6,500hp v, 2,400 hp) with the same size drive wheels, it's pretty easy to figure out the T-1 was a more capable machine.  In regular service, they ran 8,000 miles a month, with a lot of that time at 110mph. Mallard also hit its 125mph record on a slight downhill. The T-1s could reach their speeds at level and even a slight upgrade.

It will be interesting to see if one of the railroads allows a speed record-breaking attempt for the T-1.

An interesting footnote is that prior to the T-1, there was an S-1 built that was even bigger and more powerful. Designed to produce 7,500 hp, it was intended to haul a 1,200 ton train at 100 - 120mph with a theoretical top speed of 152mph.  The only problem was that it was so big, there was almost nowhere east of Pittsburgh it could run and, in fact, couldn't make the bend through Pittsburgh station, which was the key route between Philadelphia and Chicago.  In the flat, straight terrain of Ohio and west, it shined. It was hauling 24-car passenger trains (huge by passenger train standards) over 110 mph, with multiple reports of it exceeding 140 mph to make up for delays.  But its size was its Achilles heal. It was too big for the turning facilities at either end of its run and had to be turned on a wye instead of a table, and this caused several low-speed derailments.  Only the prototype was built, but it served for 5 1/2 years before diesels took over (at lower speeds).  It remains the most powerful steam passenger locomotive ever built.

The T-1 was made as a much more manageable design that could run from Philly/DC to Chicago without causing the track maintenance crews headaches. 

Footnote 2: Do you think traction control is modern?  The Pennsylvania RR had automatic traction control installed on its Q-2 freight steam locomotives in 1944. Everything old is new again.

8 minutes ago, David said:

Having taken one trip on a private coach at the back of Amtrak from Chicago to Seattle, I will say that it is very relaxing and a very slow pace of traveling the U.S.

Not sure trains have much of a future unless we truly invest in highspeed trains as I think the generations that supported steam, coal or wood burning trains are all going 6 feet under, and the younger generations do not care as they have moved forward with the tech and high speed of society and the future.

It will be interesting to see how train museums and private rail cars handle the next decade.

You'd be 100% wrong based on the crowds that the Western Maryland brings in, it is mostly families with young kids.  In the past three years, there have been three steam engines returned to service within a few hour's drive of me. Another four went online out west. I know of at least two more under restoration for operation, and there is even a non-profit building a brand-new steam engine from the original plans with modern upgrades. They have the boiler done and are now working on the frame. The T-1 Trust

However you are right about one thing: most no longer burn coal, though the engine in this video does. Most have been converted to oil for cleanliness and fire safety issues.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

VinFast is all speculation, but Tesla has $23 billion cash on hand, about 1/3 what VW or Toyota have but Tesla is smaller and with less debt.

Tesla has a ton of growth potential, Toyota and VW have already had their peak sales years and probably neither one will get back to 10 million units a year. And most car companies have hit their volume peak, so only way to grow sales is raise prices but eventually you run out of room to do that.  

You're almost making my point for me.  Toyota has twice as much equity as they have debt, and they're net positive in the $100b range with $72b cash on hand.  Though they have low debt, Tesla is relatively cash-poor with most of their equity tied up in non-cash items. Net shareholder equity is only $50b.... so a market cap of $797b on net incomes of $12b is way into the speculator zone.  There is zero way to add up to a $797b valuation with those numbers.