“Next Gen” Mustang Will be Electric (EV) Only Claims Autoline

[IronG]

To a point. When the change is mandated for reasons that benefit the rest of the population then that will force the issue. For example the banning on domestic use of coal in the UK, because there are alternatives that don't cause such unnecessary pollution. Banning of chemicals such as DDT, CFC's etc - these would still be in use were it not for governmental bans.

Carrot and stick as always.

What exactly is the benefit to the population to mandate EV's? The examples you cite actually kill people. Some on contact. How exactly is an EV saving you?

Sponsored

 

[IronG]

So funny. You know better !

You don't need to explain it to me, but you better give Norway a ring ASAP as clearly they don't know what they are doing !

Do you really think they are THAT stupid that you, NoVaGT from NV know more about what is happening in Norway than the Norwegians. To say it sounds arrogant is an understatement.

Lets see what happens shall we. I'll keep you updated on progress

Don't think anyone is saying it is not "happening there" as it is happening to some degree everywhere. To say it is the right thing to do is something else entirely. Also, if it was so great the the people of Norway were all for it, why is it only 54% of new car sales? Why isn't 90% or higher. Seems not everyone agrees with the policy the government stuffed down their throats. Also stop using Norway unless you just want to cite a place where freedom is a secondary (or lower) consideration. If your point is just to show how a government can force things on its population, you get a gold star. I think more folks on this forum would respect you if you provide some cons to the constant pro government stance you take (at least on EV's and Norway).

 

[IronG]

I love how the entire crux of your arguments devolves into an Ad Hominem attack. Every. Single. Time.

Wow the last time I think I heard or saw "Ad Hominem" used was on an episode of Matlock!

 

[Hack]

Each individual should be considering each change separately and on its own merits as those merits relate to that individual.

Not blindly jumping at each change solely because it's "new".

Norm

RIght. Some people seem to have a religious fervor about electric cars. I don't care one way or another. That's why I bought a used car last time. I thought my 2017 was better than the new cars Ford (and GM/Dodge) is currently offering. Otherwise I would have bought new.

I think people who are unbiased and reasonable would ALL pick an ICE vehicle right now. You get more for the money and you know that the car will be reliable, repairable and will last a long time. I have 20 and 40+ year old cars and I know that the ICE engines and all other parts in them can easily be made to last for several more lifetimes.

I agree with you. Look at how many Accords and Camry's are out there. They are all about just getting there safe and sound. Those folks generally care about cheap and plain. EV's though are not cheap, but they are plain. Once the cost for a Accord type car is in the 20 something thousand, you will see a pretty good pickup rate from that crowd as long as their current car is 8-10 years old.

I think EVs will have to be a little cheaper than ICE cars before they will really take off with most people and in that market. There's a risk with trying something new, and the people who buy cars for reliability are conservative (meaning careful, not politically conservative) in their choices.

Agreed. This is not the same everywhere in the world. At least in the US at this moment, a person has the choice. We are a country of laws, so this can change with new laws, but if most people do not want to adhere to said laws they can be discarded or amended. Also to put a law in place that outlaws the sale of ICE cars would be a pretty steep hill to climb. Politicians want to stay in office so outside of a few proposing it, I doubt we will see it for quite awhile.

I'm hoping the sales factor will help some leaders to see common sense. Currently most people prefer to buy big pickups and SUVs with ICE engines. But you never know. If car companies prefer to sell a few really expensive vehicles and make more money on each (that's the way things have been going for a while), then maybe luxury electric SUV type vehicles are the way of the future.

It would be really great if sports cars could get an exemption like pickups do. Not many people buy sports cars, so they don't contribute nearly as much to pollution as other types of vehicles. Making ICE sports cars illegal doesn't make much of a difference in the environment. Common sense says make big vehicles weighing more than 4,200 lbs meet strict regulations and let the few smaller, lighter cars be less regulated.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Didn't say it was - but at the same time nobody can deny it is happening there.

Happening does not guarantee meeting such an absolute goal.

I'm not saying they might not meet such a goal.

But everybody who would like to see that happen needs to at least accept the possibility that said goal might not be met on its current schedule. Maybe not fully completely ever, if for example extremely low production cars get a pass based on their infinitesimal contributions to atmospheric combustion products.


Norm

 

[Gregs24]

I love how the entire crux of your arguments devolves into an Ad Hominem attack. Every. Single. Time.

Eh? When somebody states that something that is happening isn't it is not a personal attack, just factually incorrect.

 

[Gregs24]

I think people who are unbiased and reasonable would ALL pick an ICE vehicle right now.

I chose a PHEV. Nobody forced me to.

 

[Norm Peterson]

It would be really great if sports cars could get an exemption like pickups do.

It's not exactly an exemption, but larger vehicles do get a break or two specifically because they are larger.

That "logic" is exactly backward if the overall intention of legislation and other rulemaking is to truly reduce pollution and overall fuel consumption. Bigger vehicles need to be made to meet the same standards, and if that chases people out of big pickups and outsized SUV then that would truly be in the spirit of environmentalism.


Norm

 

[Mikthehun1]

So funny. You know better !

You don't need to explain it to me, but you better give Norway a ring ASAP as clearly they don't know what they are doing !

Do you really think they are THAT stupid that you, NoVaGT from NV know more about what is happening in Norway than the Norwegians. To say it sounds arrogant is an understatement.

Lets see what happens shall we. I'll keep you updated on progress

Eh? When somebody states that something that is happening isn't it is not a personal attack, just factually incorrect.

Sometimes it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You just happen to sound like a Grade-A jackass when you're writing a response which you can't refute. Trust me, I'm considered an expert in the field.

 

[NoVaGT]

So funny. You know better !

You don't need to explain it to me, but you better give Norway a ring ASAP as clearly they don't know what they are doing !

Do you really think they are THAT stupid that you, NoVaGT from NV know more about what is happening in Norway than the Norwegians. To say it sounds arrogant is an understatement.

Lets see what happens shall we. I'll keep you updated on progress

Yes, I do. I know reality.

That you can't grasp the basics of electrical energy demand, production and distribution, and therefore believe in Norway's and the EU's fantasies, doesn't mean I'm arrogant.

Stop equating basic knowledge application with being arrogant. Just because you're willfully ignorant doesn't mean being knowledgeable is a bad thing.

The world would be a lot clearer to you, if you took a little time to do real, substantive investigation, rather than simply believing what governments tell you.

And just in case you haven't grasped this yet; politicians, each and every one of them, are sociopathic liars, and massive idiots. Most of them are completely and utterly out of touch with anything even remotely related to reality. All they're concerned with, is getting re-elected. Virtually everything they say and do is based in fantasies and lies.

Believe the crap they spread at your own peril.

 

[Gregs24]

What exactly is the benefit to the population to mandate EV's? The examples you cite actually kill people. Some on contact. How exactly is an EV saving you?

I'm not going to go down the wormhole that a 'discussion' on such a subject would end up. You are I'm sure well aware of why EV's are being introduced. Whether you agree with that or not is your personal opinion, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Gregs24]

Sometimes it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You just happen to sound like a Grade-A jackass when you're writing a response which you can't refute. Trust me, I'm considered an expert in the field.

Have you heard of the saying 'fight fire with fire' I reply in a style mirroring the original post. Treat me nice and I'll treat you the same !

 

[Gregs24]

Yes, I do. I know reality.

That you can't grasp the basics of electrical energy demand, production and distribution, and therefore believe in Norway's and the EU's fantasies, doesn't mean I'm arrogant.

Stop equating basic knowledge application with being arrogant. Just because you're willfully ignorant doesn't mean being knowledgeable is a bad thing.

The world would be a lot clearer to you, if you took a little time to do real, substantive investigation, rather than simply believing what governments tell you.

And just in case you haven't grasped this yet; politicians, each and every one of them, are sociopathic liars, and massive idiots. Most of them are completely and utterly out of touch with anything even remotely related to reality. All they're concerned with, is getting re-elected. Virtually everything they say and do is based in fantasies and lies.

Believe the crap they spread at your own peril.

I don't see the logic in your comments. If the Norwegians were talking about it then fair enough, but they are not talking about it , they are doing it. You are the one saying they can't - somewhat at odds with reality.

Other parts of your post just demonstrate that it doesn't matter what 'facts' are presented you will either refute them or call them fake / government lies. Pretty pointless trying to discuss anything under those terms !

You believe what you like and the rest of us will just get on with life with or without you.

 

[Gregs24]

It's not exactly an exemption, but larger vehicles do get a break or two specifically because they are larger.

That "logic" is exactly backward if the overall intention of legislation and other rulemaking is to truly reduce pollution and overall fuel consumption. Bigger vehicles need to be made to meet the same standards, and if that chases people out of big pickups and outsized SUV then that would truly be in the spirit of environmentalism.


Norm

Hydrogen powered busses and trains are starting to come into action over here as are electric trams on a wider scale. Electrically powered trains obviously around for a long time. Electric vans becoming more common in cities. Ford do an electric Transit over here.

HGV's probably going along the lines of range extended EV's with time. Electric motors really suit lower speed high torque environments.

Lagging cars obviously but will come with time

 

[Bikeman315]

Any "transportation appliance" or "mobility device" would be the antithesis of what the [real] Mustang has stood for ever since its introduction. It represented a measure of defiance against the cars of its time in 1964, so perhaps it should retain that sort of defiance against today's creeping mindset where "all cars need to be EVs".

Norm, you’re rewriting history. The Mustang that arrived in 1964 was designed and sold as a car for secretaries. It was a cute little 2 door coupe with a so so 6 cylinder engine. I know, my wife had one. Things, of course, changed when CS became involved, but at the beginning the car was hardly a “measure of defiance”.

Sponsored