dmpaul

What you say is 100% true, but a missing light is not something people will notice, especially if they are already clueless about their headlights. I'm just amazed at how many people I see with no headlights on at night, and trying to find a reason for it. Granted, I live in a city with lots of lights on interstates but still, you have to notice the road in front of you is not lit up. I think we can agree that many drivers are not paying sufficient attention to their car or the road.

I toured the Shelby factory about a year ago, and they had a bunch of Mach-e's being worked on. I asked them what they did to those besides stripes and wheels and maybe some handling tweaks. I mean, it's not like they can drop in a supercharger or something. Tour guide told me they had some software upgrades to improve performance but the most requested upgrade was a sound "box" that attaches below the car. She had a technician bring one over to demonstrate. I was skeptical but dang, it sounded good. If I closed my eyes I would swear it was a real v-8. I don't know shape or size of the box but it wasn't visible from where I stood. Update: I find this on the web. Apparently made by Borla. https://www.shelbystore.com/product-p/252100.htm

I would just like to point out the Mach-E has received a lot of changes under the hood. New battery chemistries, whole new rear motor designed and built in house, the frunk was redesigned to be done with fewer parts, just for a start. New GT is supposed to have 700 lb/ft of torque when it is released this fall and be faster than Model Y performance. When Mach-E was first was released, EPA efficiency ratings were well below Tesla Model Y, now they are fairly close. That being said, they need to get it back to where it qualifies for tax credit. I think that is happening soon. And a few styling tweaks to keep it fresh wouldn't hurt.

In the not too distant past, if your lights were off, you couldn't read the instrument panel. Now the instrument panel is either a screen or is constantly backlit, so it's easier to not notice your lights are off. All my cars have auto headlamps now so if I get into a car without them, I don't automatically reach for headlights when it's getting dark. That's pretty rare these days, as it seems most cars have auto headlamps. An example of progress changing habits and maybe making us less aware drivers, perhaps?

First time I looked at a Tesla Model 3 was at a display in a mall. The steering wheel was uncomfortably low, so after unsuccesfully looking for a control or lever on side of steering column I asked a sales person for help. She didn't know how to adjust either. A second salesman pointed out the correct method, which involved going into a menu on touch screen, assigning the two dials on steering wheel to control the steering column adjust, then finally using those wheels to adjust the steering wheel (one moved it up/down, the second in/out). In a rental car this would be super annoying. Controlling everything through touch screen sounds cool but can also be non-intuitive and annoying. And this is from a guy who works in tech. Infotainment systems are biggest source of new car complaints on JD Power. I wonder how much of it is due to actual hardware issues, and how much is user frustration.

https://fordauthority.com/2024/01/ev-sales-in-the-uk-stall-automakers-ask-for-incentives/ Another article about EV sales slowing down. This line stood out to me: " As is the case in the U.S., there are many obstacles in the way of EV adoption in the UK, including a lack of incentives and inadequate infrastructure, which has automakers like Ford facing possible fines over low EV market share". So, auto makers can be fined because nobody wants to buy electric cars? It's almost like regulators want to kill the automotive industry.

I'm going to echo DeluxeStang on the SLC to Provo train. The one time the train would be a big benefit is during football games in Provo. I live about 70 miles from Provo, which normally takes about about an hour and a half, but during football games this can easily double. Perfect circumstance for taking the train, right? Except the train doesn't run after 10 (at least to my station) so if it's an evening game, you can get there but can't get home. So frustrating. But I don't want this thread to turn into a rant against public transportation. Suffice it to say that EVs are not the ultimate solution. I just wonder when the regulators are going to wake up, and how will car companies respond after their massive cash investments.

While the author does mention public transportation as the "most effective way to reduce emissions", he also acknowledged this is not going to happen in the near future. I agree with this quote: " America's EV plan needs to lean into what these cars do well: short daily trips that can be taken in small, affordable cars. People who frequently take long trips can take advantage of hybrid cars. " I assume that hybrid would include PHEV as well. My opinion is price is one of the bigger obstacles to more EV adoption.

A few responses: 1. I wish we could all tell the future like you could. But I am buying a car today, not 10 years down the road. I suspect we will have ICE cars 20 years from now. 2. The maintenance issue is still overblown. PHEVs use regenerative braking also. I own a hybrid, and understand the technology but thanks for the definition. I already conceded the annual oil change, but I said it is not the hurdle many say it is. This is not the 60's where we had annual tuneups and oil changes every 3k miles. 3. I will concede this point. With battery supplies limited (and government mandates hanging over their head) manufacturers will maximize profit and strive to look as green as possible. But I am concerned for entry level buyers. I don't think the regulators care if cars are affordable. Less cars on the road is a feature, not a bug to them. I think you assume that I am an anti-electric, but I'm not. I just don't think the value is there yet. BEVs may be the future, but they don't fit my needs today. That aside, in the grand scheme of things, if the goal is to lower overall fuel consumption and GHG we should encourage more HEV and PHEV along with the BEV. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good. And as an aside, most of my commuting is on an electric bike, so in a sense I am living the future already. Though is an e-bike considered a hybrid, as it uses human and electric power?

Of course the PHEV has higher emissions than a BEV, that's not the point. The point is PHEV's can allow overall emissions to go down because we can put more PHEVs on the road because: 1) they are currently less expensive, and 2) due to limited battery supply, we can put more PHEVs on the road than BEV. And the maintenance argument is weak. Some of those lines don't even apply (inspect rear axle and u-joints? the PHEV escape isn't available as AWD), the only real difference is an annual oil change and an occasional air filter. I don't see that as terribly burdensome. I find a PHEV a great fit. I can do all my errands and commuting on battery (I only have a 10 mile commute one-way), yet still have a high mileage car for occasional road trips. Plus I am spending roughly 35k (after rebate) for an Escape PHEV instead of 60k+ for a MachE. This is why I am puzzled by the enmity shown by many to PHEV; it seems a great solution for many people, and a terrific bridge to electric cars while battery chemistry and supply is worked out.

I understand that it's fairly simple to install a 240V outlet, which is what I told salesman that downplayed PHEV. But I've wired entire houses in the past and am not intimidated by DYI projects. But if the average person has to hire an electrician, it could be pricey. And the charging station and cable Ford sells to homeowners is around $1300. So there are costs involved even if you do your own install.

Back to PHEV. My daughter-in-law doesn't like PHEV because she sees it as "dirty" with lots of maintenance. I think it's irrational, a PHEV with 40-50 mile range is a great solution for most drivers. And modern ICE car maintenance is not much beyond an annual oil change. But that's the perception manufacturers have to address, I fear the PHEV has a tough road ahead in spite of it's obvious benefits.

Not to hijack this thread, but my C-Max (~90k miles) has a camera that sometimes doesn't work. Did you fix yours, and if yes what was the issue?

This is true. I priced out an Escape HEV vs PHEV, and after rebate they are roughly the same price. So it is a no brainer to get the PHEV. The Escape PHEV seems to be in extremely short supply though. I had one salesman trying to talk me out of the PHEV Escape because he claimed I would then have to pay a bunch of money for a 240V charging station. He ignored the fact that you can charge a PHEV on standard 110V outlet. That may be another possible reason why some aren't charging their PHEV, they may have been told they need to buy the charger. Just speculation on my part.

https://www.lithiumamericas.com/usa/thacker-pass/ There is at least one lithium mine being built in US. It's received heavy opposition of course. https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.3/indigenous-affairs-mining-nevada-lithium-mine-kicks-off-a-new-era-of-western-extraction/

It does seem like that, except with pickups. Even then, there were some that dumped on the Ranger even though it's competitive in my opinion. Part of it may be the CEO. A big part of the CEO is to woo investors and spin a good story, maybe Hackett isn't very good at that. Ford also has a unique stock structure that gives investors less clout. Also by Ford not doing the government bailout/bankruptcy route may have put them at a disadvantage regarding debt amongst other things. Ironic because it was good PR at the time.

I recall looking at the Escape Hybrid at our local auto show. It's interior is nicer than the SE, especially the instrument panel. The base one does look cheap (plain?) in comparison. Not that it's bad, I just think we are used to a lot more bling in our instrument panel. Makes for good initial impression. I thought the Escape compared well with the RAV4 which was right next to the Ford's display. I like the simpler and cleaner style of the Escape but I may be an outlier. I also noted in article that this car was pre-production FWIW.

I have always felt the best way to encourage more efficient cars was to raise gas tax. From an economist point of view it's also the most efficient, far more efficient than CAFE and other schemes with their high administrative load. But, a gas tax is politically hard to do so it won't happen. I also don't like the hyperbole from opponents of this move. Statements like Trump gutted the standard is a little over the top. Moving from 5% to 1.5% annual increase in mileage is a rollback but not exactly the end of the world.

After hearing all reviews of the Explorer, I expected the worst. After seeing it at an auto show, I thought it was fine. Maybe not as good as the Telluride, but easily on par with other manufacturers. There is indeed a level of hyberbole in the reviews. Personally I think it used a lot of gray and black while the Telluride had more variety of colors and bright work. Biggest difference is the Telluride does a nice job of integrating the display into the dash, rather than the ipad on top of dash look that is widely used. Didn't drive so didn't comment on that, but I think the platform design is solid. Likely just needs some fine tuning. I'm assuming production quality bugs are being resolved.

If you are considering the hybrid, make sure your driving style is right. I have a 2016 C-Max hybrid that does great in city and commute where highway speeds are in the 60 to 70 range. I usually average in the high 30s in wintertime and high 40s rest of year. However, on long road trips where speed limit is 80, gas mileage is no better than non-hybrid. Low to mid 30s. Also, short trips in wintertime are mpg killers because the engine runs more to warm car up. Having a garage would help, or maybe a block heater (everyone in Canada has them, right?). The Escape is new and improved but I suspect same caveats hold. Power train appears similar.

The profile isn't too bad, but the door detailing and grill are not pleasing. Hopefully the Kia version (Forte) looks better. I have tended to like the Kia styling over the Hyundai. I'm paying more attention to other manufacturer's small cars since the demise of the Fiesta/Focus. I've had Escort, Fiesta, Mazda Protege, and Focus as small cheap commuter second cars over a long period. I currently own a 2017 Fiesta that I picked up new for 14k. I'm a little biased against Korean cars since my son had a 2005 Kia Rio. An awful car to drive, but it was cheap and fairly reliable. They have improved immensely though.

True, but a gas tax would presumably target automobiles while a CO2 tax would hit a variety of energy consumers. I understand that, I was just saying that the fight is over fuel economy standards (formerly CAFE), not the other emissions. Fuel economy standards didn't originally fall under EPA purview, but by pulling CO2 under their regulatory umbrella it allows EPA to regulate fuel economy.

And I might add I think government dictating fuel economy standards is the wrong way to encourage fuel-efficient cars. A gas tax is the most efficient way to reduce gas consumption. By efficient, I am referring to an economists point of view where taxes should be done with the least amount of overhead and burden to the economy. A gas tax avoids all the byzantine rules and regulations around CAFE, and puts the marketplace in control. It would be politically unpopular though.

So, if the EPA and CARB is the same regarding emission, is the only change being examined the fuel economy rules? I believe that is the case, but I am no expert and the reporting on this typically focuses on the politics rather than the issues at hand. I know California and the EPA have been negotiating for quite a while to reach a 50 state standard and haven't been able to reach common ground. This may be another negotiation tactic. The EPA knows there is going to be a court battle. It will be interesting to hear the arguments.

One of the arguments that the Trump administration is pushing is that the CAFE rules would make cars too expensive. Consequently, keeping them cheaper would allow more people into newer cars and the net result would be lower emissions as less people would be driving older, higher emission cars. It's not without some truth. I've seen studies in the past that show the best way to lower emissions was to ban older cars but I don't know if that's still the case. The main emission of concern is of course CO2, which correlates with fuel economy.