Jump to content

Next gen Mustang to go full EV


Recommended Posts

Collecting a mileage based fee would be easy for any vehicle that is capable of over the air updates. The manufactures can easily obtain the miles driven in a given period. this can be reported to a clearinghouse tied to the VIN or state registration of the vehicle. At certain intervals this data can be transmitted from the clearinghouse to the states, and they can then charge the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, akirby said:


The idea of taxing miles driven is a good one because that’s putting the cost on the cost causers.  However, it doesn’t need electronic nannies.  Just collect it once a year at registration renewal.  Or just make it a flat rate per vehicle.  $200-$300 per vehicle per year would probably cover it.


The libertarian in me hates this but it's the most reasonable solution. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, akirby said:


The idea of taxing miles driven is a good one because that’s putting the cost on the cost causers.  However, it doesn’t need electronic nannies.  Just collect it once a year at registration renewal.  Or just make it a flat rate per vehicle.  $200-$300 per vehicle per year would probably cover it.

Electronic nannies have been a disaster here in FL. The company FL hired to do it had big problems and drivers were having way too much money taken out of their accounts and took many months to figure out. I use the toll booths and pay with cash, but that ends shortly and now its electronic only. I try to avoid toll roads, but to get to Orlando airport is difficult without using turnpike. And getting to Tampa Aiport is a joke as it's close to football stadium and bay on other side. Gridlock rules. I75 through Atlanta and FL just about everywhere is a traffic disaster. Add in 50 million snowbirders now in the state and it takes 2 hours to go 40 miles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AGR said:

 

I think we'll see AVs sooner than that, but they won't be used like Silicon Valley thinks/fantasizes. They'll be bought like regular cars and used like them. AVs will make longer commutes more tolerable, so there will be more sprawl. Crowded shopping/restaurant districts will get more crowded because people will go and let the car do the parking. And we'll get fatter and lazier because of the same.

 

The technology works good in ideal conditions. The real world is not full of ideal conditions so expect deaths and no liability. Uber dodged a bullet that their AV killed a homeless person that had no money/family to sue the pants off of them. I'd personally rather wait till the tech matures than roll it out in a rush to save Uber's (or any other  AV maker) bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Uber dodged a bullet that their AV killed a homeless person that had no money/family to sue the pants off of them. 

 

The husband and daughter of the hobo lady killed in that incident, and the law firm representing them, pursued an out of court settlement with Uber. https://www.reuters.com/article/autos-selfdriving-uber-settlement/uber-reaches-settlement-with-family-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idINL1N1RB01J

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Which one, the tax per mile, or the flat rate?  As a guy who drives 40-50K a year, the per mile rate is probably the fairest, since I wouldn't be paying via gas tax.

 

HRG


Honestly I'm not in favor of any new taxes in general but since the current way of funding roads clearly is broken change is needed. Per mile is probably fairest as far as the average public goes. That could quickly become untenable for long distance trucking companies so either they pay per mile at a reduced rate than light duty passenger vehicles or a flat annual rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say this, based on current system low mpg trucks  would be paying more per mile.  Large heave vehicles also do more damage to the infrastructure.  A usage fee based on actual miles used and damage potential makes more sense then the current system.  It might even be more adventitious to the over the road industry because it would be based on miles and not fuel used.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, pictor said:

Why do you say this, based on current system low mpg trucks  would be paying more per mile.  Large heave vehicles also do more damage to the infrastructure.  A usage fee based on actual miles used and damage potential makes more sense then the current system.  It might even be more adventitious to the over the road industry because it would be based on miles and not fuel used.


If you’re going to do that, you can't do it at as high of a rate as regular passenger vehicles or you risk bankrupting an entire industry 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The only way they can is by rating electricity by its source, be that CO2 based or non CO2 green energy sources.

I think that's the case now and why BEVs are rated in mpg, to apply some amount of emission to electric vehicles.

6 hours ago, akirby said:


The idea of taxing miles driven is a good one because that’s putting the cost on the cost causers.  However, it doesn’t need electronic nannies.  Just collect it once a year at registration renewal.  Or just make it a flat rate per vehicle.  $200-$300 per vehicle per year would probably cover it.

That would do it, but states trying it on electric cars are running into resistance.  Electric car owners don’t want to pay and legislators claim it is regressive and want the subsidy for electric vehicles.  Of course these same legislators argue for more taxes on the rich and ignore the fact of who actually is buying Teslas.  Or maybe that’s why they want to raise taxes on the rich...they aren’t paying gas tax with their model X and S so get the money another way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


If you’re going to do that, you can't do it at as high of a rate as regular passenger vehicles or you risk bankrupting an entire industry 

The rate for heavier vehicles should be more than a passenger car.  Most of the road damage is caused by heavy trucks.  This could be advantageous overall as more freight would be shipped by rail.  Whatever method is used, it needs to be reasonable and the revenue kept in line with maintenance and road improvements.  No making it a punitive system and diverting funds to other budget items.  Federal gas tax hasn’t changed since the Clinton administration.  It’s time for an update, but not to the price Europe is paying like some of the proposals (not the ones in this thread...they all seem reasonable to raise enough revenue to fix the road problems) state

Edited by slemke
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slemke said:

 

Forget the tax increase bullshit, and just get rid of the tax loopholes so that Amazon, idiot Trump, and billionaires like Buffet pay either $0, $700, and lower percentage than their personal secretary. As long as mega income people have their tax loopholes, tax increase talk is meaningless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Forget the tax increase bullshit, and just get rid of the tax loopholes so that Amazon, idiot Trump, and billionaires like Buffet pay either $0, $700, and lower percentage than their personal secretary. As long as mega income people have their tax loopholes, tax increase talk is meaningless. 


Easy solution. Flat tax. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

Forget the tax increase bullshit, and just get rid of the tax loopholes so that Amazon, idiot Trump, and billionaires like Buffet pay either $0, $700, and lower percentage than their personal secretary. As long as mega income people have their tax loopholes, tax increase talk is meaningless. 

Not sure what this was in response to as the quote was blank and how we got from gas/road usage taxes to income taxes.  We probably should restrain ourselves from calling trump an idiot.  He did after all have accountants smart enough to beat the system and figured out how to get elected president.  The alternative minimum tax was supposed to address the issue you stated, but doesn’t seem very effective.  As long as the government insists on having subsidies and credits for certain behaviors deemed good, there will be those that take advantage of them and pay less in taxes than those that don’t do the “good” activities or aren’t able to participate.  I’m not going to get upset at someone for taking advantage of the tax code.  I will blame the legislators for creating the mess, though.  Stating taxes need to be raised on one class and then giving those same individuals tax breaks for something is bs.  Just a big smokescreen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

Forget the tax increase bullshit, and just get rid of the tax loopholes so that Amazon, idiot Trump, and billionaires like Buffet pay either $0, $700, and lower percentage than their personal secretary. As long as mega income people have their tax loopholes, tax increase talk is meaningless. 


Buffet? Like Old Country Buffet? I thought they went out of business, maybe not?  Some other buffet?  Maybe one of these? https://m.yelp.com/search?find_desc=All+You+Can+Eat+Buffet&find_loc=Warren%2C+MI Surely you don’t mean Jimmy or Warren Buffett. I’m sure someone like you would know how to spell their names. 


Question for you; Where does Amazon’s money come from?

 

Increase Amazon’s taxes and it’s not coming out of Bezo’s pockets, but rather yours and mine. 

Edited by sullynd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sullynd said:

Increase Amazon’s taxes and it’s not coming out of Bezo’s pockets, but rather yours and mine. 


Exactly.  Every dollar that a business pays in taxes comes from their customers who buy their products and services.  Raise taxes and they’ll still make the same profit but we’ll be paying higher prices.

 

Fix the personal tax code so the executives who get millions pay their fair share without loopholes.  A company like Ford with 250k employees generates roughly $4B a year in federal income tax.  With less taxes businesses can grow and create more jobs which in turn funds more income tax.  If these corporations decide to funnel the extra money to executives then they pay more taxes.

 

I just don’t understand the anti-business pro govt philosophy because the govt is only funded by businesses who create jobs.

Edited by akirby
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, akirby said:

I just don’t understand the anti-business pro govt philosophy because the govt is only funded by businesses who create jobs.


I don't understand why people what the government to control EVERYTHING. Government is a monopoly, there's no incentive to do things efficiently or cost-effectively. That's why the free market exists (or at least used to), and government spent a large amount of time and money in the early 20th century breaking up monopolies for a reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


I don't understand why people what the government to control EVERYTHING. Government is a monopoly, there's no incentive to do things efficiently or cost-effectively. That's why the free market exists (or at least used to), and government spent a large amount of time and money in the early 20th century breaking up monopolies for a reason. 


Simple - they want to force behaviors through laws. Higher taxes is a way to punish the rich who obviously got their wealth by cheating the system or by blind luck - they couldn’t possibly have earned it.  And then redistribute that wealth to the less wealthy.  Or force changes to protect the environment such as BEV adoption or shutting down oil production.  Of course they never consider the negative impacts or whether these policies actually work or accomplish the goal as long as it makes them feel like they’re helping.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, akirby said:


Simple - they want to force behaviors through laws. Higher taxes is a way to punish the rich who obviously got their wealth by cheating the system or by blind luck - they couldn’t possibly have earned it.  And then redistribute that wealth to the less wealthy.  Or force changes to protect the environment such as BEV adoption or shutting down oil production.  Of course they never consider the negative impacts or whether these policies actually work or accomplish the goal as long as it makes them feel like they’re helping.

 

85FF193C-3017-4DFC-A6C5-F88E809C80D5.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

Don't think so.  AFS said it and everybody else picked it up.

 

Thank you mackinaw sir. I saw this article from Jimmy Dinsmore at TorqueNews. Separating Fact From Fiction Regarding The Next-Generation Ford Mustang | Torque News

 



Everything I say below is my opinion, and is unconfirmed officially by Ford. I asked Jiyan Cadiz, Ford’s North American Icon Communications and Media Relations Manager to help answer some of the rumors and the response was to be expected. “While we don’t comment on speculation or rumors, we appreciate the enthusiasm Mustang brings,” Cadiz said.

I asked a few of my inside sources at Ford who will remain anonymous as they told me things off the record, to help me extrapolate some of the info that is out there to determine if it’s real or not. Let’s take a look.
  • Rumor #1: The Ford Mustang Will No Longer Have an Internal Combustion Engine. 
  • Jimmy's take. Final verdict on this rumor: I’m dismissing this rumor as false or at least not before 2030.
  • Rumor #2: Next-generation Mustang won’t come out until 2028
  • Jimmy's take. Final verdict on this rumor: I’m also dismissing this one as false. I say we see the next-generation Mustang by 2023.
  • Rumor #3: An EV Mustang is coming
  • Jimmy's take. Final verdict on this rumor, you can take this one to the bank. It will happen. It’s just a matter of time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Jimmy Dinsmore and it was good of him to use his contacts within Ford to put some context around the Auto Forecast Solutions report. Thing is, AFS seem to be a reputable industry source so either they know something we don't (ie S650/'23MY has been cancelled) or something was lost in translation (which I suspect is what's happened).

 

I will be VERY surprised if S650/23MY has been cancelled as, timing wise, we should be very close to seeing prototypes on the road within the next 3 months.......assuming a spring reveal of the '23MY car with it starting production Sept/Oct 2022.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

 

85FF193C-3017-4DFC-A6C5-F88E809C80D5.jpeg

You forgot the picture of the train pulling 100 oil tankers.  Canada will still pump/extract the oil and sell it.  It currently goes by train and will likely continue.  I read the Canadian prime minister was lobbying Biden to allow the pipeline to be built.  We’ll see if transcanada decides to give up and write off what they have spent on building it so far or pick up the court fights that were dropped when Trump took office and issued the permits.  At some point the expenses will be so great it won’t make sense to continue.  I wonder how much we as taxpayers are loosing in this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...