Ford lightning holding me up from getting my car

[Blackwater 53393]

1 hour ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

Nearly every gas car that I have seen crash through a simple barricade, or run over a hill ( and I’ve seen many), explodes for no logical reason. This always seems to happen halfway down, sometimes midair,  or upon impact. From what I have witnessed, they all appear to be in Southern California.

For some reason Pontiac Firebirds and Dodge Challengers are immune to this phenomenon, as they can crash through darn near anything and jump draw bridges, or bridges that are out, and suffer no ill effects.

If you knew what it really takes to create those explosions on TV and in the movies, you’d laugh your backside off!

 

Most of them are remote detonated with a small explosive device in the fuel tank or under the car!

 

 I watched them do it on a couple of movie sets when they were filming near me.  Lots of safety precautions and experienced “gaffers” to make that blast!

[Subdeacon Joe]

From:

 

https://www.motortrend.com/features/you-are-wrong-about-ev-fires?slide=4

 

This isn't the study about which everyone screams "That was debunked!" 

"

The Swedish authorities, however, are keeping track. The Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap (MSB, or Authority for Social Protection and Preparedness) recently released the first report of its kind specifically tracking EV fires in Sweden and comparing them to combustion-powered vehicle fires and the results are clear: EVs are much less likely to catch fire.

Per the MSB, just 29 EVs and 52 hybrids caught fire in Sweden between 2018 and 2022. On average, 16 vehicles powered by batteries (EVs and hybrids combined) catch fire there each year. On average, 3,400 passenger vehicles catch fire each year in Sweden, meaning EVs account for 0.4 percent of all passenger vehicle fires there annually. Hybrids account for 1.5 percent, for a combined total of 1.9 percent of all passenger vehicle fires.

Put another way, gas- and diesel-powered cars account for 98.1 percent of all passenger vehicle fires in Sweden each year on average.

Combustion-Powered Vehicles Are 29 Times More Likely To Catch Fire

According to MSB data, there are nearly 611,000 EVs and hybrids in Sweden as of 2022. With an average of 16 EV and hybrid fires per year, there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire. There are a total of roughly 4.4 million gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles in Sweden, with an average of 3,384 fires per year, for a 1 in 1,300 chance of fire. That means gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids.

 

The Problem Isn’t Getting Worse

With more and more EVs, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) being sold every year, it's reasonable to wonder whether that rate of fires in those cars will increase. The MSB study found that after a rise in fires from 2019 to 2020, the rate is basically unchanged over the past 3 years with 20 EV and hybrid fires in 2020, 24 fires in 2021, and 23 fires in 2022. In that same time period, the MSB reports the number of EVs in Sweden has more than doubled to nearly 611,000. Prior to 2020, fewer EVs and hybrids caught fire with 8 in 2018 and 6 in 2019.

 

Now, if anyone bothers to read the article I expect him to gleefully seize on the bit about the fires being harder to extinguish.   Regular car fires were harder to extinguish than wagon fires, but yet somehow society survived, fire technology advanced to deal with gallons of burning petroleum products.  

 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 minute ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

From:

 

"

The Swedish authorities, however, are keeping track. The Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap (MSB, or Authority for Social Protection and Preparedness) recently released the first report of its kind specifically tracking EV fires in Sweden and comparing them to combustion-powered vehicle fires and the results are clear: EVs are much less likely to catch fire.

Per the MSB, just 29 EVs and 52 hybrids caught fire in Sweden between 2018 and 2022. On average, 16 vehicles powered by batteries (EVs and hybrids combined) catch fire there each year. On average, 3,400 passenger vehicles catch fire each year in Sweden, meaning EVs account for 0.4 percent of all passenger vehicle fires there annually. Hybrids account for 1.5 percent, for a combined total of 1.9 percent of all passenger vehicle fires.

Put another way, gas- and diesel-powered cars account for 98.1 percent of all passenger vehicle fires in Sweden each year on average.

Combustion-Powered Vehicles Are 29 Times More Likely To Catch Fire

 

 

 

I don't think it's that EVs are more likely to catch fire, it's that they are more likely to SPONTANEOUSLY catch fire. 

[JD Lud]

Here’s some irony….government promotion of battery vehicles gone wrong…

 

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/ev-road-trip-promote-green-200423954.html

[Blackwater 53393]

12 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I don't think it's that EVs are more likely to catch fire, it's that they are more likely to SPONTANEOUSLY catch fire. 

I don’t think that it’s even the spontaneity of the fire so much as the the total destruction of the car! I have had several cars catch fire and in all but one case, I put the fire out myself.  In every one of those cases, I subsequently repaired the vehicle and cleaned it up and drove it for many more miles.

 

The one that required more than just me to put out was a race car that used methanol. It took me and a couple of track safety guys to get that fire extinguished because the main fuel line was severed and my extinguisher wasn’t big enough. We repaired THAT ONE and made the next race!!

 

My first experience with an automobile fire was on a trip with my parents. It was a 1965 Buick station wagon that backfired on a frigid winter night, just after it was filled with gas at a country gas station.  My dad put the fire out and he and I repaired the burned fuel line and a couple of wires that burned and we drove on home from there.  The next day, we cleaned up under the hood and detailed the car, waxed the hood and front fenders where the smoke had smudged it up. 
 

That was 1966. My mom drove that car until 1969 when she traded it for a new Impala.

 

I’ve never seen one of these battery fires that didn’t result in the complete destruction of the vehicle! I’m sure that there are some that didn’t.  But I don’t think that I could put one out myself and I don’t like that!

 

 I’ll leave the discourse here. I don’t have anything else to say and what I have said already hasn’t changed anyone’s mind, something that I didn’t set out to do in the first place!  I’ll have a chocolate shake! You vanilla lovers, help yourselves!!

 

 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

42 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

If you knew what it really takes to create those explosions on TV and in the movies, you’d laugh your backside off!

 

Most of them are remote detonated with a small explosive device in the fuel tank or under the car!

 

 I watched them do it on a couple of movie sets when they were filming near me.  Lots of safety precautions and experienced “gaffers” to make that blast!

Back in 1993, NBC’s Dateline staged a collision with a GM pickup truck to show how the trucks would explode into a ball of flame. After an attempt(s) failed to ignite any fire, Dateline hired a movie special effects expert who rigged the truck with model rocket motors set to go off by remote control. As added insurance, the gas cap was loosened or removed to ensure gas would be spilled in the collision. As I recall, it was the pyrotechnics guy who tipped off GM.

 

[Rip Snorter]

Nearly as credible as Al Capone's Vault.

[Cypress Sun]

14 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I don’t think that it’s even the spontaneity of the fire so much as the the total destruction of the car! I have had several cars catch fire and in all but one case, I put the fire out myself.  In every one of those cases, I subsequently repaired the vehicle and cleaned it up and drove it for many more miles.

 

The one that required more than just me to put out was a race car that used methanol. It took me and a couple of track safety guys to get that fire extinguished because the main fuel line was severed and my extinguisher wasn’t big enough. We repaired THAT ONE and made the next race!!

 

My first experience with an automobile fire was on a trip with my parents. It was a 1965 Buick station wagon that backfired on a frigid winter night, just after it was filled with gas at a country gas station.  My dad put the fire out and he and I repaired the burned fuel line and a couple of wires that burned and we drove on home from there.  The next day, we cleaned up under the hood and detailed the car, waxed the hood and front fenders where the smoke had smudged it up. 
 

That was 1966. My mom drove that car until 1969 when she traded it for a new Impala.

 

I’ve never seen one of these battery fires that didn’t result in the complete destruction of the vehicle! I’m sure that there are some that didn’t.  But I don’t think that I could put one out myself and I don’t like that!

 

 I’ll leave the disclosure here. I don’t have anything else to say and what I have said already hasn’t changed anyone’s mind, something that I didn’t set out to do in the first place!  I’ll have a chocolate shake! You vanilla lovers, help yourselves!!

 

I'm a chocolate shake guy myself, but...the good thing about a vanilla shake is it's easier to make a vanilla shake a chocolate shake than it is to make a chocolate shake a vanilla shake.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

3 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Nearly as credible as Al Capone's Vault.

Yup, like Dan Rather “disguised” as a Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. LMAO as I watched him try to emulate Edward R Murrow’s famous broadcast of the London blitz. 

 

There’s a great anecdote about Gerardo Rivera from early in the Iraq war. Apparently news crew were required to wear helmets when out and about, like everyone else, but Geraldo didn’t. When someone asked why, they were told they couldn’t find a helmet big enough. 

[watab kid]

basicly all this is intended to immobilize us , we cant be controlled as long as we can run around willy nilly doing as we please - toting guns with live ammo , next will be limiting our food ...........and options to grow or raise what we need to eat , there is a plan - its not a good one for us , 

 

we need to delete these types pof political people from our lives before they control us to the point we can no longer take back control , 

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I don't think it's that EVs are more likely to catch fire, it's that they are more likely to SPONTANEOUSLY catch fire. 

 

And?  Isn't it Ferrari that is famous for having it's ICE cars burst into flames for no reason?   

 

Seen big rigs on the side of the road that burst into flames for no reason.  

 

How about putting up an actual study with verifiable numbers showing how many have spontaneously combusted, and the rate per 100,000 at which it happens, as well as how many ICE vehicles suddenly catch fire without being involved in some sort of crash and the rate per 100,000 in which it happens.

[Sedalia Dave]

Well a bunch of you will soon be disappointed when EVs no longer burst into flames. Ever hear of Lithium Iron Phosphate ( LiFePO4 ) batteries? They will soon be replacing the Li-Ion batteries currently used in most EVs.

 

While not quite as energy dense they have significantly longer life and are thermally stable. ie... they do not burst into flames when damaged. They are also better for the environment as they do not require cobalt.

 

LiFePO4 batteries are the go-to replacement battery for RVs as they are vastly superior to Deep-Cycle lead acid batteries.. People that like to boondock swear by them. 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

22 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Well a bunch of you will soon be disappointed when EVs no longer burst into flames. Ever hear of Lithium Iron Phosphate ( LiFePO4 ) batteries? They will soon be replacing the Li-Ion batteries currently used in most EVs.

 

While not quite as energy dense they have significantly longer life and are thermally stable. ie... they do not burst into flames when damaged. They are also better for the environment as they do not require cobalt.

 

LiFePO4 batteries are the go-to replacement battery for RVs as they are vastly superior to Deep-Cycle lead acid batteries.. People that like to boondock swear by them. 

Sounds like a good thing. Contrary to how it might appear, I'd rather EVs be safe. The more I think about it, it's more likely that it's the perception rather than the reality that they're dangerous. I don't want EVs to be a problem. It's that the technology and the infrastructure aren't there for widespread ownership yet. 

These newer batteries sound like a good step forward.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

On 9/9/2023 at 8:03 PM, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

I've been thinking:

EVs may end up being a real boon to the hotel/motel industry.

I imagine the large chains are selecting land near the limits of a charged vehicle's range, where they will build parking lots with chargers for each parking slot, waiting areas, toilets, restaurants and rooms to rent, short term, while your vehicle is charging. 

May be time to buy Holiday Inn stock.

Possibly, but I suspect a more likely outcome is to see distance travel being greatly reduced.  After all, gradually limiting our ability to travel and escape their ultimate One World Government control was the central theme of UN Agenda 21, which is the core of the current progressivism and climate hysteria.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

5 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

The more I think about it, it's more likely that it's the perception rather than the reality that they're dangerous.

 

Hallelujah!  Finally.  One story repeated 500 times is still just one story.  EVs as they are now are a new technology so any incident is gets blown out of proportion.  
 

6 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

It's that the technology and the infrastructure aren't there for widespread ownership yet. 

 

You mean like internal combustion engines in the early 1900s?  It's a circular argument...."There aren't enough EVs out there to support the infrastructure for them!" and at the same time, "There isn't the infrastructure to support large numbers of EVs!"  and as a side note, "EV technology and infrastructure must be 99 44/100% safe and effective before it's turned loose on the public!"

I found this: https://americacomesalive.com/when-gasoline-powered-cars-were-first-used-where-did-they-get-gasoline/

Quote

 

I should have thought of calling the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.  Recently in The Wall Street Journal there was a review of the newly revamped museum, and my attention was riveted by these sentences:

“Gasoline engines were initially troublesome because they were smelly, noisy and often broke down. Also, gasoline was hard to find. That changed in 1901 when oil was discovered in Texas. There were still no gas stations, but a picture here from the early 20th century shows a home-heating-oil truck also delivering gasoline. Even though they had to carry gasoline cans when taking longer trips, drivers liked the unlimited range of cars propelled by a gasoline-powered, internal-combustion engine. “

 

 

And https://americacomesalive.com/1909-transcontinental-automobile-race/

 

Roads of the Day

Because there were few automobiles in the early 1900s, roads were rutted. Driving them was much like driving over a washboard.

There were very few gas stations, so gas was purchased by the canister at a general store. If a driver anticipated a lengthy drive, he purchased an extra container of gas to carry with him so he could re-fill the automobile gas tank.

Cars were of very little use in bad weather, so people still needed horses and sleighs if there was heavy rain or snow.

Few people drove beyond the few miles around their own town, so road signs and maps were almost non-existent. If a driver needed directions, he was likely to be told “go about a mile down the main road and turn right at the yellow farmhouse. The property you are looking for will be on the left in about two more miles.”

Guggenheim’s Vision

As Robert Guggenheim created his plan, he envisioned a coast-to-coast road trip. In 1909, Seattle would be the host city for the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. This world’s fair was being sponsored to encourage development of the Pacific Northwest. Half the battle of encouraging growth in these areas was getting people to visit. (The 1908 Democratic Convention in Denver was another event that exposed easterners to the world beyond the Mississippi.) 

Model T stripped down

Guggenheim announced that he would sponsor a Coast-to-Coast Auto Race, ending it in Seattle in June of 1909. The expected crowds at the Exposition would be there to enjoy the concluding ceremonies. He hoped for as many as 30 entrants. In August of ’08 The New York Times (8-23-08) noted that nine cars had already registered for the event that was scheduled for June 1909.

Controversy

Almost immediately, the race was stalled by controversy. Though automobile companies reacted positively to the first announcement, they soon heard that the Manufacturers’ Contest Association refused to sanction a “race” across the country because it seemed to promote danger.

Manufacturers were spooked by the latest accident report from 1907: 324 people were killed by automobiles that year. Car makers decided that promoting a “race” seemed to encourage risk. That would not bode well for the auto industry.

Guggenheim and other organizers pondered this for a time and came up with a new plan. They would call it the 1909 Ocean to Ocean Endurance Contest. “Enduring” seemed more responsible than “racing.”

 

Allowing for some differences in wording because of the different technology this sounds, to me anyway, jsut like all the arguments I see online condemning EVs.

[Cypress Sun]

58 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Hallelujah!  Finally.  One story repeated 500 times is still just one story.  EVs as they are now are a new technology so any incident is gets blown out of proportion.  
 

 

You mean like internal combustion engines in the early 1900s?  It's a circular argument...."There aren't enough EVs out there to support the infrastructure for them!" and at the same time, "There isn't the infrastructure to support large numbers of EVs!"  and as a side note, "EV technology and infrastructure must be 99 44/100% safe and effective before it's turned loose on the public!"

I found this: https://americacomesalive.com/when-gasoline-powered-cars-were-first-used-where-did-they-get-gasoline/

 

And https://americacomesalive.com/1909-transcontinental-automobile-race/

 

Roads of the Day

Because there were few automobiles in the early 1900s, roads were rutted. Driving them was much like driving over a washboard.

There were very few gas stations, so gas was purchased by the canister at a general store. If a driver anticipated a lengthy drive, he purchased an extra container of gas to carry with him so he could re-fill the automobile gas tank.

Cars were of very little use in bad weather, so people still needed horses and sleighs if there was heavy rain or snow.

Few people drove beyond the few miles around their own town, so road signs and maps were almost non-existent. If a driver needed directions, he was likely to be told “go about a mile down the main road and turn right at the yellow farmhouse. The property you are looking for will be on the left in about two more miles.”

Guggenheim’s Vision

As Robert Guggenheim created his plan, he envisioned a coast-to-coast road trip. In 1909, Seattle would be the host city for the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. This world’s fair was being sponsored to encourage development of the Pacific Northwest. Half the battle of encouraging growth in these areas was getting people to visit. (The 1908 Democratic Convention in Denver was another event that exposed easterners to the world beyond the Mississippi.) 

Model T stripped down

Guggenheim announced that he would sponsor a Coast-to-Coast Auto Race, ending it in Seattle in June of 1909. The expected crowds at the Exposition would be there to enjoy the concluding ceremonies. He hoped for as many as 30 entrants. In August of ’08 The New York Times (8-23-08) noted that nine cars had already registered for the event that was scheduled for June 1909.

Controversy

Almost immediately, the race was stalled by controversy. Though automobile companies reacted positively to the first announcement, they soon heard that the Manufacturers’ Contest Association refused to sanction a “race” across the country because it seemed to promote danger.

Manufacturers were spooked by the latest accident report from 1907: 324 people were killed by automobiles that year. Car makers decided that promoting a “race” seemed to encourage risk. That would not bode well for the auto industry.

Guggenheim and other organizers pondered this for a time and came up with a new plan. They would call it the 1909 Ocean to Ocean Endurance Contest. “Enduring” seemed more responsible than “racing.”

 

Allowing for some differences in wording because of the different technology this sounds, to me anyway, jsut like all the arguments I see online condemning EVs.

 

Every time I think about a race across the US...I think about Farrah Fawcett.

[Buckshot Bob]

59 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

Every time I think about a race across the US...I think about Farrah Fawcett.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

You mean like internal combustion engines in the early 1900s?  It's a circular argument...."There aren't enough EVs out there to support the infrastructure for them!" and at the same time, "There isn't the infrastructure to support large numbers of EVs!"  and as a side note, "EV technology and infrastructure must be 99 44/100% safe and effective before it's turned loose on the public!"

I've been saying this all along. Just like I've been saying that if somebody wants one they should be able to have one. I just don't want to be told that I have to get one so that I can live in a fifteen minute city.

[Trigger Mike]

I dislike the idea of electric vehicles because they would not work for me.  The nearest charging station is 45 minutes away and it’s drive pickup trucks to pull trailers with utility vehicles on them or tractors .  
 

deere recently announced they are building a factory in N.C. To build electric tractors and utility vehicles.   A total waste .  Many farmers have other fields a few miles down the road or hire other farmers to work their fields .  One farmer specializes in peanuts and has equipment for that while another specializes in soybeans and has the needed equipment and they swap out and help each other.  This means by the time you drive a tractor a few miles down the road, leave the engine running to adjust dispersement or seed or fertilizer etc you need to bring a diesel generator to recharge it again.  Often it takes hours to work a field and waiting for a charge takes too much time.  
 

I might can see a hybrid of gas and battery vehicles.

[Sedalia Dave]

2 hours ago, Trigger Mike said:

I dislike the idea of electric vehicles because they would not work for me.  The nearest charging station is 45 minutes away and it’s drive pickup trucks to pull trailers with utility vehicles on them or tractors

 

To play Devils Advocate for a minute. Do you dislike Sub Compact cars because they don't work for you? 

 

No car design works for everybody. I have two full size trucks. Would like to sell one and buy a smaller SUV or cross over that got better mileage for trips when I don't need a 3/4 or 1 ton truck. Unfortunately with interest rates like they are, people want my truck but they cannot afford to buy it.

 

I would consider an EV if the economics would make it pay for itself. Unfortunately my short term plans have me retiring in about 4 years. Then I plan to do some traveling.  4 Years is not enough payback for me to invest in an EV.  

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

The average cost of an EV is $60,000 and up. If one can afford that, why do they need a subsidy? Isn't that the same as welfare for the buyer and the automakers?

[Buckshot Bob]

21 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

The average cost of an EV is $60,000 and up. If one can afford that, why do they need a subsidy? Isn't that the same as welfare for the buyer and the automakers?

The government subsidies what it wants and taxes what it doesn’t. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

41 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

The average cost of an EV is $60,000 and up. If one can afford that, why do they need a subsidy? Isn't that the same as welfare for the buyer and the automakers?

 

AVERAGE.  Yes.  That doesn't mean it's the least that you will pay.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/565883/electric-car-prices-us/

 

"

The least expensive model on the market is the 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV with an effective price of $19,995. This model offers 259 miles (417 km) of EPA Combined range. The Chevrolet Bolt EUV is right behind, at $21,295.

There is a big gap between the two affordability leaders and the rest of the BEVs. The third least expensive model is the 2023 Nissan Leaf with a 40-kilowatt-hour (kWh) battery and 149 miles of range. Its effective price is $29,135 - some $8,000 higher than in the case of Bolt EUV because, like most of the models, it's not eligible for the $7,500 federal tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

 

 

 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

42 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

 Isn't that the same as welfare for the buyer and the automakers?

That's exactly what it is. I've heard it said that Tesla has never made a profit on anything that they've sold, but the your tax dollars makes them profitable.

If EVs were so much in demand, They would sell on their own, and the taxpayers wouldn't HAVE to chip in.

It's all part of the 15 Minute City plan.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

16 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

AVERAGE.  Yes.  That doesn't mean it's the least that you will pay.

 

I understand that, but that's not what the automakers are selling and people are buying. If there are vehicles selling between 20 & 30 thousand dollars and the average is 60 thousand, that means there's a boatload of vehicles costing a lot more. The subsidies were something the Obama admin cooked up to kickstart the EV industry, but they were set to expire several years ago. Note they've been extended.

 

Currently, the subsidies apply to vehicles that cost up to $100,000, which make up a large proportion of vehicles sold. What I'm ranting about is that the subsidies are propping up luxury cars/trucks that only well-off people can afford. Can you buy a Rivian or GM Hummer EV? I can't. Why are they getting a subsidy? And frankly, I don't think the subsidies should be there for lower cost cars. Why should my or your tax dollars go to defray the cost of someone else's car? 

 

Any way you slice it, it's welfare that distorts the marketplace. 

[Warden Callaway]

Anyone in the frozen north have one of these?

 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

39 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

That's exactly what it is. I've heard it said that Tesla has never made a profit on anything that they've sold, but the your tax dollars makes them profitable.

If EVs were so much in demand, They would sell on their own, and the taxpayers wouldn't HAVE to chip in.

It's all part of the 15 Minute City plan.

Yup. The dirty little secret about Tesla's profitability, is that their income is derived from selling carbon credits. For each car they make, they are granted carbon credits that are then sold as a commodity. Lots of industries can't meet environmental goals without them. Buy enough credits to offset their polluting, and they suddenly become "green". Nice little scam, huh?

 

[Trigger Mike]

2 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

To play Devils Advocate for a minute. Do you dislike Sub Compact cars because they don't work for you? 

 

No car design works for everybody. I have two full size trucks. Would like to sell one and buy a smaller SUV or cross over that got better mileage for trips when I don't need a 3/4 or 1 ton truck. Unfortunately with interest rates like they are, people want my truck but they cannot afford to buy it.

 

I would consider an EV if the economics would make it pay for itself. Unfortunately my short term plans have me retiring in about 4 years. Then I plan to do some traveling.  4 Years is not enough payback for me to invest in an EV.  

I find small cars have their place. My wife uses one to take the kids to school,  electric vehicles are based on a lie that they are good for the environment and based on the lie that God didn’t create the earth and therefore won’t preserve it until He is ready to destroy it.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Warden Callaway said:

Anyone in the frozen north have one of these?

 

 

Do Sweden and Norway count?

[Warden Callaway]

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Do Sweden and Norway count?

No.  Last I looked they were countries. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

55 minutes ago, Warden Callaway said:

No.  Last I looked they were countries. 

 

Um...

2 hours ago, Warden Callaway said:

Anyone in the frozen north have one of these?

 

 

It took that to mean ANY places with hard winters.  

[Warden Callaway]

Follow the money.

 

 

[Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme]

On 9/10/2023 at 9:25 AM, Warden Callaway said:

 

Seriously, is this really enjoying travelling ? Or is it a physics, math, geography and Where'e Waldo stress inducing excursion ? 

 

 I'd have an EV if I never needed to travel more that 150-  200 miles/trip. With children and grandchildren in multiple states.....this ain't ever happening for this guy.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

On 9/10/2023 at 6:25 AM, Warden Callaway said:

 

Maybe this guy should put one of THESE in the bed of his truck:

[Subdeacon Joe]

14 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Maybe this guy should put one of THESE in the bed of his truck:

 

Ok, say it takes 2 gallons of fuel to give a car 250 miles of range..... what ICE vehicle on the market gets 125mpg?

https://www.larsonelectronics.com/product/272893/temporary-electric-vehicle-charging-station-w-diesel-generator-level-3-charger-2-ports-150-gallon-tank-skid-mount

People whine about the limits of EVs and then ridicule solutions.