Honda cuts production of 3 EVs slated for the U.S. market and other car manufacturers adjust their production to the new market realities.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
Honda is only one of many companies that have altered EV production plans. Kia, Nissan, VW, and Tesla have cut the production of certain models.
Torque News was one of the first outlets to shout out to the ethers that the Model S and X stopped selling a long time ago. Elon Musk recently confirmed that the models are now officially dead and that after Q2 ends, no more will be produced. Many anti-Musk EV fans have pretended that this was a signal of Tesla “leaving the auto business.”
That’s not our reading of a brand officially ending a pair of models that nobody had bought in years. Presently, Tesla has 62% U.S.-market EV market share, way up from one year ago. As the EV market dries up, the Model Y and Model 3 remain the only two successful EV models – ever – in the U.S. marketplace.
The American auto giants are aggressively adapting to new market conditions.
General Motors (GM) and Ford Motor are cutting billions in fixed costs, including laying off thousands of workers, and Chrysler parent Stellantis is taking even more drastic measures to reduce spending. According to Reuters, Ford Motor is taking a $19.5 billion write-down and is removing several electric-vehicle (EV) models from its line-up, as the auto industry retreats from battery-powered models in response to weakened EV demand and the Trump administration’s policies.
GM and Stellantis have already shifted more of their production to combustion engine vehicles, also taking financial hits. GM wrote down $1.6 billion in EV assets and indicated that more write-downs are expected. Due to the push for electric vehicles by Western governments, automakers overestimated their demand and are now making a detour to correct the costly error.
When the government finally stops picking winners and losers, reality reasserts itself with remarkable clarity.
The EV market’s collapse following the removal of federal subsidies isn’t proof of market failure but proof that market forces work exactly as they should. Auto manufacturers are now responding to genuine consumer preferences rather than activist fantasies about “carbon-free futures” held together by taxpayer dollars.
For too long, corporate strategies were warped by the delusions of green ideologues who neither understand basic economics nor the fundamental science behind energy production. Once the mandates and incentives were stripped away, demand recalibrated to match affordability, reliability, and everyday practicality, which are values far more enduring than climate cult slogans.
I have to wonder how many real opportunities for innovation were missed by car manufacturers who were forced to pander to the nonsense.
And how dumb are the auto manufacturers, falling for that nonsense to begin with? I mean, what were they thinking?
This has to be one of the most damaging results from the early years of the Obama administration’s manipulations of regulatory power to coerce industry to do its misguided bidding.
Edit: Big $ from the DOE was also shoveled into the industry in 2009 in pursuit of the EV concept.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-24-billion-funding-support-next-generation-electric-vehic
After Honda announced it will lose $7.5 Billion just by cancelling DEVELOPMENT of 3 EV models to be assembled and sold in the US, we are told to believe the entire UK would need only $134 Billion to achieve the unattainable Holy Grail of Net Zero by 2050, according to UK reports.
NO WAY, JOSE. That UK capital cost will be more than several $TRILLION
BTW, Honda expects to incur additional expenses and losses next year. Honda says its overall shift in EV strategy, worldwide, could end up costing as much as $15.7 billion.
BTW, increased CO2 ppm is an essential gas to increase green flora and fauna, reduce desert areas, such as the Sahara, and increase crop yields to better feed 8 billion people. At present, CO2 ppm is near its lowest level in 600 million years.
BTW, Europe already invested hundreds of $billions in expensive wind, solar, battery, biofuel, etc., systems in Europe.
Germany’s politics-inspired ENERGIEWENDE to reduce CO2 led to: 1) closure of perfectly good, fully-paid-for nuclear plants, that provided about 23% of Germany’s annual electricity production, which is produced regardless of the weather, unlike wind and solar, 2) refusal to start domestic shale gas production, which led to imports of extremely expensive LNG from unstable countries 3) closure of perfectly good, fully-paid-for coal plants using domestic coal.
Rectifying the German nuclear situation would require at least $250 to $300 billion and at least two decades to put into service, say, (25) 1200 MW power plants, a total of 30,000 MW, at about 8.5 to 10 million per installed MW, just for Germany.
As predicted by energy systems analysts as early as 2000, this unwise wind, solar, etc., investment and other actions has led to the impoverishment the UK, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, etc., during the past 25 years.
Europe’s elites were planning leverage its wind, solar investments to inflict this same energy travesty onto the US, starting during the disastrous Biden era, to saddle the US economy with much higher energy prices for many decades.
Europe’s elites wanted to level the playing field, i.e., remain competitive, protect its decades of trade surpluses.
Luckily, Trump comes along and blows this whole scenario out of the water.
Often not mentioned, but much of the European hundreds of $billions for wind, solar, etc., is owed to financial entities, such as banks, funds, etc., which must repaid, no matter what, plus many thousands of workers hired, and not yet hired, in anticipation of tens of $billions of US offshore and onshore wind orders for decades, suddenly find themselves looking for other things to do, which is difficult in the near-zero-, real-growth European economy.
No wonder they hate Trump, especially because he wants NATO countries to finally pay up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, instead of letting the US defend Europe.
All of this is on top of: 1) Europe paying about $50 billion/y for arms, etc., to maintain Ukraine “for as long as necessary” (the US stopped paying), 2) subsidizing about 20 million, mostly uneducated, inexperienced, native-culture-destroying walk-ins/fly-ins/float-ins from Third World countries, 3) having very high energy and materials prices which suffocate the near-zero-, real-growth European economy.
Europe’s elites: 1) unwisely stopped buying plentiful, low-cost Russian energy and materials, 2) unwisely blew up 3 of the 4 gas lines in the Baltic Sea, which have a design capacity of 110 billion cubic meter per year.
Europe’s elites, who cannot further tax EU taxpayers, have become desperate to illegally steal Russia’s sovereign assets, illegally blocked in Brussels, etc.
Without Government Edict and Taxpayer funded $ub$idie$ EVs gain no traction in the market. No-one really wants them otherwise.
Refueling time
Range anxiety
Lack of utility
Gilded Golfcarts the lot
Last 6 to 8 years
High initial cost without subsidies, say $50,000
Amortizing that cost at 6%/y over 7 years is about $730/month
High insurance cost
High costs to repair in case of an accident.
Don’t perform too well in cold and hot weather
Only leftist, woke, money-wasting lunatics buy them
“Only leftist, woke, money-wasting lunatics buy them”, and those who try to emulate the aforementioned virtue-signallers.
Sounds like that $730 a month is equal to both the Monthly Tesla payment AND the monthly depreciation of a Tesla. About $8,400 in annual depreciation. Every car payment lowers your cars value an equal dollar amount.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”, while they debilitate the US with open borders and over-top, war-mongering
All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
..
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont.
Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.
Insurance Costs Very High: Because EVs are much more costly to repair, EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings.
Monthly Payments Very High: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of tax credit subsidies.
Useful Service Life Very Short: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 6 to 8 years.
No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle.
Charging Cost Very High: EV charging cost is very high on the road, usually at least 30 c/kWh, at home at least 20 c/kWh in New England
As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallon
Minimal CO2 Reduction: EVs driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, according to various studies, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles driven the same miles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis, and same-mile basis.
The useful service lives of gasoline cars is much longer than of EVs.
Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised: EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with one or more passengers, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.
Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.
If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV, with an aging battery, has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one.
Battery Aging a Serious Issue: If a new EV, it takes about 1.15 kWh to add a 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus, there is a loss of about 5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery to the drive train of the EV, etc.
If a 5-y-old EV, it takes about 1.25 kWh to add 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus there is a loss of about 5.5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery
The older the EV, the greater the losses, plus the battery has lost capacity, the ability to do work and go the distance; all that is worse on a cold day, or hot day, heavy loads, and other adverse conditions.
Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery (if the battery had a somewhat low charge to begin with), if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to 32F, or less.
Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.
In the future, with thousands of EVs at the airport, a percentage would have empty batteries. You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, get charged, pay up to $500, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!!
Losing Value After 3 Years: Used EVs retain about 60% of their high original value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their not so high original value, by the end of year 3.
Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000
Losing 30% of an equivalent size, $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500
The loss difference wipes out any tax credit subsidies.
No, only the monthly loan payment.
The EV depreciation is in addition
Points are valid but a couple of datum are off.
Trivial but not requiring an edit is the CO2 levels today are not the lowest in 600 million years. Close, though, but up a 150 ppm or so over the last 1.5 centuries.
The 280 ppm of 1850 is grossly too low, because it places flora and fauna on a strict growth diet.
Lab tests and greenhouses show, the optimum for plants is at least 1200 ppm
During almost all of 600 million years, CO2 ppm has been much higher than at present. Just google the graph.
During the last ice age, CO2 levels got to 200ppm and perhaps lower.
We have been in a 2 to 3 million year ice age, with many glaciation periods.
Yes, during recent glaciation periods, CO2 ppm got as low as 200 ppm, starvation levels for remaining flora and sparse flora, primarily due to so little remaining flora.
Sea levels were up to 120 METERS LOWER than at present.
The Little Ice Age was not anywhere near as cold as the glaciation period of about 26000 years ago.
This line grabbed my attention:
“Europe’s elites wanted to level the playing field, i.e., remain competitive, protect its decades of trade surpluses.”
So I googled some trade balance list
Croatia – Negative
Cyprus – Negative
Czech Republic – Positive
Euro Area – positive
So I started with intuitive disagreement and reached a change in perspective. Does Europe run trade surplusses? What about socks and plastic junk from China?
Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland… all positive
OK
This is a symptom of magazines like Economist’s main articles turning into political garbage – as old media sources disappear the information they “used to” distribute has become a thing people with other points of view have to get from a Wiki.
Edit to finish thought… wilpost was right in the assertion that there were surpluses to protect.
These European surpluses started in late 1960s, after Kennedy lowered tariffs for Europe, without getting anything in return.
That led to the Rust Belt and leveraged buyouts.
Europeans were buying us corporations with the money they had earned by “out-trading” the US.
No wonder Europe elites loved Kennedy, a poster child of trade idiocy, dealing with world trade experts with 500 years of experience.
Trading experience gained starting at least in 1492, if not much earlier.
And EV owners don’t mind telling you how dumb they are.
By selling EVs, the automakers earned credits that allowed them to sell the only cars that ever made money, the ICE vehicles.
If they hadn’t invested in and sold EVs, they wouldn’t have been allowed to sell anything.
Don’t blame the auto companies for bending to government mandates and regulations.
Fascism is defined as autocratic government mandating economic effort through regulation.
The reason for doing this is not an excuse for applying the definition.
‘Don’t blame the auto companies for bending to government mandates and regulations.’
You’re correct that they ultimately had to ‘bend’ to the law. What I blame them, and particularly their unions, for is NOT publicly ‘going loud’ to point out the insanity of the mandates. It would also have helped had they stopped supporting the Left’s favored politicians.
So, back to gas or diesel engines.
Diesel with Ad-Blue gives more miles per gallon and meets the Euro 6 standard with with nitrogen oxide emissions turned into nitrogen and water. The particulate emissions from brakes and tyres are reported to be less than those from EVs.
No range anxiety and timed saved on battery recharges on long trips.
Stopping the additional 1,100 pound fuel tank certainly wears more on the breaks and the added weight also burns through tires 4 times faster with 80,000 mile tires lasting about 20,000 miles.
Not to mention the issues of battery performance in cold weather.
Sipping past the lithium battery fire issue…
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/as-ev-market-stalls-battery-makers-shift-to-grids-and-data-centers-78cc2276?st=GAn1bv
Performance goes down in hot weather as well. Just not as fast as it does in cold weather.
There’s also the fact that in cold weather, ICEVs warm themselves with waste heat from the engine, whereas EVs have to generate their own heat.
In other good news..
The V8’s Roaring Revival Among American Automakers – Business Insider
Yeah and roll back fuel economy standards and build even bigger vanity cars to really feel the high gas prices!
No freedom like car dependency.
What’s the range of your bicycle before dehydration & muscle exhaustion halts the journey?
If he is Olympic caliber around a hundred miles
If he is a regular person then about 2 hours or 25 miles.
…
Though even bicycle tires are synthetic rubber and require oil and gas extraction to produce the needed petrochemical stocks which produces gasoline as a byproduct.
Bicycling results in massive percentage increases of CO2, ergo, don’t do it.
so, while not cycling, a person with a bicycle stops breathing as soon as he dismounts?
It’s called self reliance.
That’s the biggest lie ever sold. There is no self reliance in car culture.
Proper infrastructure and walkability lead to self reliance, this is just dependence on a lot of big industries.
The technology is enabling. For example, I am working in the lab this morning and will shortly leave to ski for a couple of hours and when I return I will pick up materials for my home garden.
One could never walk the 20 miles to the ski resort carrying skis and then pick up a hundred pounds of soil amendments on the return.
Lack of freedom and self reliance are why socialism/communism inevitably produces a low quality life and failure.
That doesn’t take away from the fact that poor people have it worse in a car dependend society – as a huge part of their paycheck goes into their car. Designing cities around walkability and public transport helps all people.
https://fortune.com/2025/10/17/auto-delinquencies-up-50-percent-15-years-recession-warning/
No, it doesn’t. You are not taking into account the personal costs in time that are going to be spent. You are not taking into account the amount of capital investment required to build the support structure for a “15 minute” city. You are going to need places to work, clothing stores, restaurants, hardware stores, grocery stores, schools, and on, and on, all within 15 minutes of walking from one end to the other end. And then, guess what, repeat it again for the next 15 minute area, and another 15 minute area.
Who is going to pay for all this duplication? Why do you think duplicate wind farms and PV farms are needed and supported by subsidies from the government?
You are basically fronting for communism and collectives. Tell us where that has worked out. Soviet Union? China? Vietnam? CUBA?
“all within 15 minutes of walking”
And how often do you have to go grocery shopping, with that 30 minute round trip, when you can only buy what you’re able to carry by hand?
They call it a GHETTO.. It is more like a JAIL CELL !
Public transfer infrastructure is just dependence on a lot of big industries… and governments.. It is NOT SELF-RELIANCE.
15 minute ghettos are also massively reliant on big business and government providing and subsidising the whole mess.
Poor people have more opportunities to work by being able to travel further to find it and do it, and if it is shift work not to be reliant on public transport which might not have a schedule coinciding with their work hours.
They also have the opportunity to do a job where a vehicle is required.
“Huge part of their paycheck goes into their car” – as opposed even a bigger part going into paying to use public transport, plus the cost of their time lost travelling on it, waiting for it, rescheduling their lives to fit in with the schedules of the transport operators?
Individual transportation has ALWAYS provided great outcomes. You can find that truth back when people used horses.
No-one tells the poor on food assistance to put their money in Cadillacs and BMWs. They do that themselves. They’d have far more money if they bought minivans and Hondas.
Though it is far more likely that a larger portion of their pay goes into paying their Monthly “Renewable” Utility Bills
poor people have it worse in a car dependend society
Have you been poor in a “car depended society”. I have. Southern California, $800/month gross. Bought a clunker for $200 that kept me working. Without it I wouldn’t have even been able to work.
That town had excellent public transportation. I had used it extensively in my early teens. Even so, it wasn’t enough for me to get by with. The car was what kept me employed, and what gave me the ability to get out of that financial hole.
And no, a “huge part” of my paycheck did NOT go to the car.
“poor people have it worse in a car dependend society”
poor people have it worse in – any kind of – society
Dead people have it even worse than poor people. They’re lucky if they can hitch a ride even once and then it’s like they’re dropped off in a ditch.
They both vote democrat.
Used cars are cheap. On the other hand, nothing creates more poor people than does your average socialist paradise.
Poor people still have thumbs. I used my thumb to attend collage when I was poor and I wasn’t the only one. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Your imaginary world is much, much different than the real one.
I have no duty to the poor. If anything, it seem, with the revelations of all the fraud, the “poor” are not producing wealth, they are just useless eaters (I think that is what your ideology calls them) that consume resources with zero interest in preserving anything – just buying more luxury cars and bigger mansions on stolen funds.
I have no duty to ride public transportation to only be knifed to death by some zombie with 30+ arrests on their résumé who keeps being released.
I have no duty to provide a future for the invaders from low-trust, third world nations who hate me and my culture and are only here to plunder and pollute and leave nothing but trash and chaos.
It is by the efficiencies of modern civilization that these savages can enjoy any life at all and it all comes at the expense of the Producers who leverage as much technology and tooling to provide bountiful wealth that for generations been shared with the entire world.
So to tell a Producer to be far less efficient, I ask, “Why”? Other than Eternity, this is, for most people the only life they have, why deprive one self of life, liberty and happiness? For whose benefit? Do you honestly believe, given the trajectory that the world is on, that there will be any civilization that even knows how to produce electricity, oil, and advanced materials fifty years from now?
Who are you saving all of these resources for? Your imaginary Utopian future?
You do know that while Europe and India and elsewhere in the British Empire were connecting the four corners of their nation with railways, a wonderful economical method of transport of people and freight, the railways in the US were being torn out so that the motor car would have no competition?
Is relying on the sun shining and the wind blowing and the industrial batteries not burning up your town- is that self reliance? Having a car or truck that can go several hundred miles with a full tank does give us feeling of self reliance.
Walking is good- I’ve walked thousand of miles in my 50 years as a forester and I still walk most days. I love trains too but America is never going to have the train systems as Europe and even China.
I walk a couple of miles every day but I’m not going to walk home, especially in the summer, with six bags of groceries containing some frozen foods in 90° weather. The groceries would never survive the trip.
I live 45 miles as the crow flies from home. Walking would be a 15 hour commute one way.
Could I find the same job with the same pay 15 minute walk from home?
No. And since the bus runs on a schedule, it can take longer to ride to the grocery store than walking. At least with walking, I do not have to pay fare.
Of course grocery shopping would require 2 or more trips rather than one.
I live in california, so you mean the roads in Long beach that bent two rims on my car while driving to work? Or have so much debris that my windshield had three pits in 5 years?
Or how about how I now live rural, own a good ol’4 wheel drive because I finally gave up on the county being able to maintain a road? The paved road to my post office almost requires the 4wd now.
And you have dependence wrong. Trading my time and goods for other useful goods isn’t dependence.
Dependence is asking for permission, and being told what you can buy, where you can use it, and how you are allowed to use it.
Dependence is being given handouts rather that being self-sufficient.
Now apply your logic to steam railways, that great British invention to move freight and people cheaply over long distances, which caused a huge surge in economic activity and prosperity.
Goods in shops were cheaper and more abundant as transportation costs were reduced, and transit times reduced to a few hours instead of weeks. People living inland could get fresh fish for the first time in their lives; farmers could sell there products in cities miles away, people who never travelled more than a couple of miles from home could have days or weeks away at the seaside.
Before railways there was plenty of “walkability” infrastructure for Shank’s pony, and certainly self-reliance – you ate what you grew, made your own clothes, furniture, were born, lived, died within the same couple of square miles.
Railways should have been banned.
Unfortunately “Walkability” doesn’t leave much room for sufficient housing to keep sufficient “Walkable Businesses” in financial shape.
Clothing
Dining
Groceries
And still offer more options than one store with no competition to keep prices low.
“That’s the biggest lie ever sold. There is no self reliance in car culture.”
He swings! He misses. Mighty Casey, again, has stuck out.
In other world, in the socialists ideal world, the polloi get to walk wherever they need to go, while their betters jet to far away vacations.
Sure, I’m going to walk 15 wind swept burning hot or freezing cold miles to do my grocery shopping. You are an idiot.
The rich will always have vanity cars and vanity houses and trophy babes. Get used to it. And if some redneck wants a monster truck, that’s his business. Most people are thrifty- they’re not gonna buy vanity cars.
Paying for the road infrastructure and health costs of his monster truck is not only his business. But I guess here socialism is fine.
Car sales show otherwise. Carbesity wouldn’t be a problem when people would buy economic cars and be thrifty. They would also demand more bike lanes and public transport. The average person never really calculates what car dependency costs.
Stop crying Griff –
Thecurrent war is about phasing out fossil fuels , therefore once high gas prices start to kick in, they will overwhelm you with ” how great EV’s are ” propaganda.(besides “UK – raine ” attacking oil ships and shutting down pipeline)
And it’s the only way to achieve agenda 2030 (and pretend it ain’t intentional).
A Monster Trucks – they only cause a fraction of damage real Trucks do.
Way less weight.Way bigger tires.
Not an argument – and Trucks can only be used with ICE engines, because EV’s are so bad , that even the majority of your leftie green friends wont buy them – otherwise a 41 % would have never happened.
Around here, some 40% of cars are Tradie 4-cab 4WD utes with “boxes of stuff” on the back.
Families also CHOOSE to have a nice solid SUV. (another 30% or so) because those cars give them the FREEDOM to go where-ever they want to go.
The remainder have medium or small sedans.
There is one Tesla EV I see occasionally, but that is owned by a woke company.
You speak on behalf of all men – you know everybody’s mind and preferences or what their preferences should be if only they thought correct thoughts like you. God-complex or what?
You are woefully uneducated about our representative government, the powers that have been granted to it by the people, and the necessity of maintaining a useful society.
The constitution provides the federal government the power to build post roads. Those are roads necessary for handling postal business.
State constitutions provide the state governments not only the right, but the power, to build roads and when necessary for the public good, use eminent domain.
Local governments are empowered by the states to build the roads and streets necessary to perform their duties of policing, fire protection, and other duties such as utilities.
I suggest you spend your time lobbying your elected representatives of the need to relieve all levels of government from these responsibilities and to let the people fend for themselves in providing the ability to travel productively. No one here is going to assist you, so you had better begin spending your time away from here and working as a lobbyist.
Or from a different view: Socialism is an economic and political system advocating for collective or government ownership of the means of production. Paying for community infrastructure by taxing a capitalist economy is far removed from that. The ‘community road infrastructure and health costs’ are 100% dependent on capitalism, not socialism!
Bull. They calculate it every time they go to the pump, get their insurance bill, or pay their registration. You’re just bitter because they aren’t listening to your pearl clutching.
Go home church lady.
Thanks, but I prefer cat lady
your preference, is irrelevant, much like yourself.Also, being one does not exclude you from being the other as well.
He/she owns cats.. how anti-environment is that !!
Stuck is a 1 bedroom unit with no transport , lonely and depressed…. with cats.
A sad way to live.
I’ll guarantee you that a New ICV SUV will cost you far less than the equivalent Tesla X.
The price difference between say a
Dodge Durango $38,000
And a Tesla X $99,990
Is $51,990 which buys a hell of a lot of maintenance and fuel
The Durango fuel rating is 18mpg so fuel at the current US average of $3.91 ($4.00)
Buys you 10,000 gallons of fuel and leaves $11,000 for any future maintenance costs.
10,000 gallons of gas will take you 180,000 miles before the Tesla hits break even.
And in 18 years (@ur momisugly 10,000 miles/year) the Durango still has value while the Tesla is WORTHLESS!
Now that is strange. My AT symbol got autoreplaced with urmomisugly after posting
Censorship at its finest, eh?
Perhaps E-prognostication at it’s finest
AI summary
It’s done that for a long time with me. I just gave using the “at” symbol.
So you have elected yourself as the arbitrator of what everyone needs and wants?
Must be wonderful being such a deity.
Socialism takes the choices away from the people. You have it backwards.
So you have elected yourself as the arbitrator
Certainly seems to be MUR’s MO – This is fine for *ME* therefore it’s fine for *YOU*.
He’s paying for that road, through the road taxes on fuel.
Funny how you socialists always manage to forget where the money you spend comes from.
I get the idea that you consider a “vanity” car to be anything bigger than one of those toy two seaters.
The monster truck burns more gas, right? And therefore it pays more in the taxes on gas, right? Those taxes are to pay for the roads.
EVs are vanity cars for the rich.
Oh look, UsernameRetarded has weighed in with his usual brain-dead blather and nonsense. How quaint.
Bad news for you. regulations didn’t give us the improvements in efficiency and emissions. The market did. The oil embargo put the dent in peoples pocket books and low priced economy cars stepped in.
We had almost 15yrs of emissions laws before things started improving and you why they did? Computers. Computers made fuel injection a viable technology, and suddenly 1hp per cu-in stopped being the tuners grail and became moms grocery getter.
There were still stage 3 smog alerts in southern california in the late 80’s but the first smog pumps were mandated in 1969. Real effective huh?. With EFI, suddenly everybody could live the Beach Boys “”fuel injected engine sittin’ under my hood”. The cars made more HP on smaller engines, used less fuel, and require less maintenance.
Air qualities greatest improvements happened between 1990 and 2005 and have been pretty flat since then.
It is called freedom, the right to make decisions for yourself.
One wants to pay more for gas, freedom to choose that option.
One want to feed one’s ego with a muscle car: freedom to choose that option.
One wants an EV: freedom to choose that option.
One wants to think: freedom to choose to not read such stupid posts.
Yes. I chose to respond. My choice. My freedom.
Funny how the socialist gets so upset over the thought of people buying what they want, rather than what the socialist wants them to buy.
Though buying electric EV is the same as prepaying for 18 years worth of gas and maintenance. Your EV will become worthless long before you spend the same overall amount with ICV.
I’m curious to know how much of the electricity used by EVs is currently generated using fossil fuels.
Since electrons don’t come with tags indicating their source, the general answer would be the percentage of all electricity used in a given area that is generated using fossil fuels: in the USA from January to July 2025, that was 56-57% according to Google’s AI bot.
If you are asking for the absolute amount of electrical energy consumed over a give time period (that is, how many kWh are consumed by EVs in a given year), you’ll have to do the more detailed calculation for the given area and number of total miles driven by EVs in that area . . . a rough estimate is that EVs average about 3 miles per kWh, or about 300 miles range for a 100 kWh battery pack.
And how much fossil fuel is used backing up the 40% or so “renewables”.
Wind/solar supplying a grid is only possible where a parallel fossil fuel generating capacity is in operation for base load and back up. Nuclear can provide some base load but for technical reasons not for back up.
BEVs being “clean” and “green” is an illusion since they are run using electricity from a grid run fundamentally on fossil fuels.
Just a quibble. That 56-57% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels does not mean 40% is generated by renewables. You must also consider nuclear. Then decide how to classify hydropower. Some consider it a renewable to pump up the numbers. There’s a bit of geothermal, as well. If you look at wind and solar, specifically, the figure is about 20% in the US.
At one point Tesla noted that the charging efficiency of their batteries was 90% and the discharge efficiency was 94%. I am not sure if that is factored into their 34Kwh/100 mile numbers. If not, then it takes roughly 40Kwh to go 100 miles.
To go a mile, .4Kw costs between $.21 and $.29 at unsubsidized california rates (PGE is .42 off peak and .59 on peak). At 28 mpg, a mile consumes .035 gal, which even at $6/gal, is .21/mile. Add .015/mile for amortized oil changes and there is still no difference between the vehicles cost of operation.
Are those numbers just for the battery itself, or does it also take into account the losses in the various power converters?
As I recall the article just referred to charge and discharge efficiency. I would interpret that as the vehicle itself so probably does not reflect losses with the charging unit though.
the batteries are also experts at spontaneous combustion. It should be a law that all EV only parking stations are closed to all other vehicles and that EVs be parked in a garage at home.
Then they can only incinerate themselves and their kin.
From the third paragraph in the above article:
“As the EV market dries up, the Model Y and Model 3 remain the only two successful EV models – ever – in the U.S. marketplace.”
And as the EV market dries up even further, both the Tesla Model Y and Tesla Model 3 stand an excellent chance of becoming as “successful” as the historic Ford Edsel within another three years or so.
After all, the Model Y has been in production with the same body style and limited available colors for going on 6 years now, and the Model 3 has been in production with the same body style and limited color choices for over 8 years.
Oh, this too: virtue signaling has largely run its course, with “practicality” resuming its rightful priority.
And fewer and fewer charging stations are going to be installed.
The Electric Viking, whose YouTube channel is all about how we’re all gonna have EVs real soon now- you’d think he’d notice what’s happening, but I doubt it.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=electric+viking
1. The $7500 subsidy went away
2. People figured out that fifteen years from now every electric car will only be worth its value as scrap, because almost no one will be willing to spend twenty thousand dollars on a new battery for a fifteen year old car
I disagree. I think owners will have to pay someone to take a fifteen year old EV. The battery will be about dead, not economic to replace, and an environmental hazard. Exceptions made for museum-quality first edition EVs.
The best electric cars, aside from milk floats, are Scalextric
https://www.jadlamracingmodels.com/collections/scalextric/products/scalextric-c1452m-ford-puma-rally1-wrc-hot-laps-slot-car-race-set
That’s because they have no battery to weigh them down. Perhaps we should put electrified “Slots” in the road surfaces and give all cars a similar and held joy stick controller
The best electric cars are golf carts. 🙂
EVs do not require 8 speed transmissions or starters or alternators. EVs can use the electric motors for braking and recharging the batteries. I do not want government subsidies for EVs . It has always been about batteries because the electric motor is superior to IC motors….especially with emission controls. Battery tech is moving forward and there is a market for EVs.
Batteries are a container. As with any container, how much they can contain depends on their size. “Battery tech moving forward” cannot alter this.
BEVs run on electricity. Electricity has to be delivered to point of use. The low voltage grid does not exist, nor will it, to carry the loads and distribute them to meet demand from a significant number of electric vehicles, particularly if fast chargers are required to fast-charge batteries where the “tech has moved forward”.
But they are a container that reduces capacity over time. My 24 year old Durango had a 22 gallon tank when I bought it and it still holds 22 gallons 24 years later.
The same Cannot be said of EV fuel tanks (batteries)
So an EV fuel tank can lose as much as 40% of its capacity in 25 years. My ICV Durango zero lost capacity.
That’s like losing the ability to pump as much as 8 gallons of gasoline in a 20 gallon gas tank
The attributes of the ‘container’ is no longer the problem if there is no physical way to fill it quickly. The amount of current needed to recharge an EV battery in minutes would require huge cables, a source capable of delivering an enormous amount of power in short time, and probably an electrician to oversee the connections and procedure.
There may be a case for large cities east of the Mississippi, but not here west of the big river. Too many miles doing daily chores for too many people. Driving 100 – 150 miles away to watch your kid in high school sports, leaving work 2 hours early so you can recharge so you don’t pull into your driveway with a 10% or less charge, and hoping you can find a charging system just isn’t in the cards for us.
Battery tech is limited by chemistry.
I don’t disagree but would add physics and engineering also.
“There is a market for EVs”
Not too sure about that. In recent days Volkswagen and Porsche have said they are paring back their EV strategies and the former is going to lay off 50,000 workers by 2030.
Even luxury car maker Bentley in the UK is rethinking its EV plans and cutting staff, They said “we’ve had to renew,rethink and recalculate our complete product line” amid a “renewed interest in the internal combustion engine”
It seems even the wealthy are eschewing EVs!
(UK i Newspaper 18th March)
There is a market for EVs, just not mainstream or massive.
Niche market.
Just like there are applications for WTGs and SVs, none of which support the populations electricity needs at scale.
Niche markets.
The fastest production car in the world is…..an EV. It costs several million and is one seat only and volume is like most million dollar cars….Ferrari still has an EV scheduled?
That market is frequent, short drive, low mileage transport. IF there is reliable low cost electricity to charge them from when they are not in use.
Don’t forget having a place to recharge them as well. This leaves out most apartment dwellers and home owners who lack off street parking.
An EV car contains 4 times more copper than a gasoline car.
The cost of 90 kg of copper is $1000. The copper needs to be refined into electrical cables and electric motors, etc.
Here are the facts about copper in EV and gasoline cars:
A typical electric vehicle (EV) contains significantly more copper than a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) car, with estimates generally falling between 80 kg and 90 kg of copper per car
A conventional petrol-powered car (internal combustion engine, or ICE) contains an average of 20 kg to 25 kg of copper.
Based on the London Metal Exchange (LME) cash-settlement price of $11,826.00 per metric ton as of March 19, 2026, the market value of 90 kg of copper is approximately $1,064.34.
62.8 million combustion cars were produced in 2023.
62.8 million combustion cars * 20kg copper = 1256 million kilos of copper (1256000000kg).
62.8 million EV cars * 90 kg copper = 5652 million kilos of copper (5652000000kg).
If combustion cars are replaced by EV cars, copper consumption increases by 5652000000kg – 1256000000kg = 4396000000kg (4396000 tons).
Yes, but there are 1.4 BILLION ICEVs globally that we have to replace . . . OF COURSE!!
Using your 90kg of copper per electric vehicle, that comes to . . . 126 MILLION tonnes of copper . . . or more than 5x current global annual production.
And using a copper price of US$12,000 per tonne, the cost of the copper alone in this idiotic exercise would come to . . . more than US$1,500 TRILLION.
It ain’t going to happen, of course.
But there are a multitude of idiotic science and engineering illiterate politicians all over the western world who will try to make it happen. And the longer their ridiculous self-beautifying efforts last . . . the more ghastly will be their ultimate demise.
Have you heard of the new torque thrust electric motors? Less copper is required – a man can hold a 500 hp motor. Is copper recycled?
Yep there IS a market for EVs…the Vanity Market…but no after market to help them retain value longer than 5 years. No-one…NO-ONE wants a Used EV!
I just read about a person who bought a used EV for 30% of list and he charges it over night for use as commute to work and local grocery store trips. He has an IC for long trips.
Glad he can afford two autos and the extra taxes.
Not many people can afford two cars.
The reason why the car was so cheap is because the battery is about shot. Once the battery goes, the car will become worthless and he will be relying on the IC to get everywhere while still paying of the EV.
It is apparent from your conclusion that you know little or nothing about electrochemical cells that make up batteries or the chemistry that frees electrons for use in circuits.
I wonder if, without going on an internet search, if you know the difference between primary cells and secondary sells.
Maybe….what if super capacitors are developed to replace batteries? China ……under the mandate of the CCP …….has almost gone all EV.
And maybe unicorn power will become a real thing.
They have been working on super capacitor for many decades and are no closer to a breakthrough.
Having government force people to buy EVs is the only way to get lots of them sold.
“Blue Rhino”, one example of a USA business where customers swap empty propane tanks for identical-but-full propane tanks, the new tank having been filled whenever by whomever at wherever, would have been a better model for EVs – if it hadn’t been standard for EV designers to hide batteries in inaccessible areas because the car needed so much battery. Missed opportunity.
They don’t need 8 speed transmissions. True, neither do cars. However people buy 8 speed transmissions because that is what they want.
Transmissions are low maintenance and last a long time. Probably longer than the battery in your electric cars and will cost a lot less to fix or replace compared to replacing your batter, which can’t be fixed.
BTW, electric cars also have transmissions.
Electric care acolytes have been proclaiming the eminent arrival of miracle batteries for at least the last 20 years, yet none of these batteries ever manage to make it out of the lab.
I agree that there is a market for electric cars. The world will always need golf cars.
IC engines require lots of revs to produce max torque – EVs produce max torque at 1 rpm – 8 speeds are expensive and complex and have caused recalls – in fact both GM and Toyota have recently had expensive engine recalls.
As I said, but you ignored, only a few cars have 8 speed transmissions. Those that do have them have them because the owners wanted them. There is no inherent reason why ICs need 8 instead of 5 or 4 speeds in the tranny.
It is true that ICs get the most torque at low speed, but as they speed up the amount of power they are capable of producing drops. This is because of the inherent inductanc4 and capacitance of the motor. Because of this need to use a transmission in order to maintain power at higher speeds.
Battery technology has been developing for 200 years. Even with massive investments over the last two decades improvements have been slow snd incremental.
Enjoy your gas car, just don’t drive it…
GOP Senate candidate on rising gas prices: ‘Maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks’
Who the he!! are you to tell anyone what to do in their lives. No one has sworn sovereignty to you or any elected politician. If you want to stay at home and live in grandma’s basement, that is up to you. Just don’t be telling other folks what they should be doing.
People like you just chap my hide. Take your superior morality and see how it plays with your creator!
Calm down, I was referencing the what the GOP Senate candidate said.
I don’t give a damn about who said it. Not you, and certainly not a politician of any stripe has the power to tell me what to drive and when to drive it.
I’d like to see that.
Yes you would.
Also it always seems to delete my links now:
GOP Senate candidate on rising gas prices: ‘Maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks’
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5792145-michele-tafoya-senate-candidate-gas-prices-iran-war/
“I was referencing the what the GOP Senate candidate said.”
And misrepresented what the Senate candidate actually said.
He’s reporting on what the candidate should have said. Not what he actually said.
Why would anyone want to take a trip to Starbucks in the first place.
Only the far-left, and they would cycle there in lycra, or walk there from their locked-in 1 bedroom unit in their little 15 minutes ghetto.
He’s a socialist, so he automatically knows better than you do what you need. Being a morally superior person gives him the right to force you to live by his standards, even he can’t be bothered to live by his standards.
“just don’t drive it…”
That is not what Michelle Tafoya.said.
The only pure democracy is the consumer who votes with his wallet.
And what about all those giant battery factories that broke ground just in the last couple of years?
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/as-ev-market-stalls-battery-makers-shift-to-grids-and-data-centers-78cc2276?st=GAn1bv
Tesla successfully rode the government generated EV bubble.
Let’s see if they are nimble enough to switch to some other industry before the money runs out.
I wouldn’t shed any tears if Musk was no longer the world’s richest person. I especially admire Space X and Starlink, however.
Starlink = Kessler syndrome
Not a question of if, but a matter of when.
This decline is yet another reminder that there never was any great demand for EVs in the first place, and because they were overpriced, had to depend on generous subsidies and climate alarmism to boost sales, it was only a matter of time before whatever limited attraction they had worn off. Then when their numerous shortcomings such as uncertain cruising ranges, excessively long recharge times, quality control issues, low resale values, etc, became more apparent, the blooms quickly fell off the roses.
The high initial sales were to government fleets and corporations taking advantage of huge tax breaks. Private sales were never as significant.
Government needs to get out of the business of business.
Policy distortion works in both directions, coerced consumption with tax credit impact on the budget and industry capital allocation distortion up and down in the chaos.
Musk had the perfect opportunity to make EVs take hold in the US. But by making the BATTERY(a degrading part) structurally fixed to the vehicle(instead of being swappable), it was doomed to fail from the start.
The guy is dumb as hell
A fool and his money are easily parted.