She’s top of the line in Utility-Sports.
Any new taxation system that doesn’t encourage EVs is a missed opportunity. Obviously road taxes will need to account for the transition to EVs to keep the streets maintained, but it shouldn’t be punitive enough to discourage EV use. Seems like Minnesota is pursuing a good compromise.
Agreed. My point wasn’t that depreciation is unique to this car or that EVs are replacing all ICE cars in 3-5 years like some responders are taking it. My point is just that this car in particular is positioned to tick every box of exceptional depreciation after a few years. It’s 1) An expensive luxury SUV, 2)from a…
Well, I didn’t say the market would collapse, just that resale values of these would plummet due to the relative benefits of EVs in 3-5 years over a used Wagoneer. I know they’re not the same physical size, but it seems like someone looking for a luxury SUV that can seat 7 or 8 would potentially cross shop since all…
I’m sure I’ll get lots of push-back on this, but in a world where the Rivian R1S, and the Model X and Y exist, these things are going to depreciate catastrophically.
Iron (the principle component by weight of LFP batteries) is already mined and distributed at low cost and high volume. Nickel-based batteries require more mining in the next decade or so, for sure, but it’s not like mining is new. It takes a lot of steel and aluminum to make ICE cars, too. Also, there’s a ton of…
There’s money to be made in controlling the future supply of hydrogen. That’s why all the oil/gas/OEM car manufacturers are still trying to push it. They make less money if everyone charges their BEVs cheaply with electricity produced by the cheapest local method.
Swappable batteries sound good at first, but they are a huge logisitical nightmare when you really think about real usage. Plus, they require that the car be designed in a very specific, complicated, inefficient way, with limited upgradeability due to backwards compatibility requirements. No structural packs or true…
Consumers are really bad predictors of what they want. Before the car, consumers would have told you they wanted a better horse. Before the iphone, consumers would have said they want a better physical keyboard on their blackberry.
“It’s got a manual transmission.”
Awesome! Maybe Ford can throw in some new-to-you hardware to cover some of the more expensive line items as part of the deal? I’m sure they have some useful stuff lying around in their development shops.
I’m not minimizing anything. This was a catastrophic engine failure that didn’t cause the plane to crash. This was how engines are designed to fail. It’s still not clear if this was caused by FOD, a bird-strike, or an internal engine system failure. The blades seem to have been contained and redundant systems protect…
No, it’s good planning, engineering, and testing that made sure that things didn’t end up worse. Don’t trivialize the hard work of thousands of people by attributing this to the supernatural.
“Those were 500 dollar sunglasses, asshole!” - Cole Young, probably
For me, a 100-150 mile range would easily cover the vast majority of my driving. If there’s a good fast-charging network available for longer trips, I think that’d be enough. More is always better, though.
I’ll believe that Ford is going ‘all-in’ on EVs when they shut down their engine/drivetrain R&D funding. Stop developing new engines and I’ll believe you. It’s also worth noting that these targets only seem to apply to EU/UK models.
I’m also kind of torn on this result since you definitely want to discourage IP theft, but not slow EV development. I wish they would have done some sort of punitive profit-sharing from SK to LG Chem where SK can build out their production without limits, but have to share a percentage of profits with LG Chem for,…
First of all, no need to get so worked up. I’m just a cartoon dog on the internet.