Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle? | Page 308 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle?

I'm guessing indoor parking spot is $80 and outdoor spot would be less. Access to garage is required to use "free" chargers.
Yes...guess I should've expanded on it. @Evoex indoor parking is $80/month and outdoor parking is $50/month.

So $30/month difference makes sense to me. I have to drive there regardless...and to keep the car warmer (or cooler in summer), and get a free charger for an extra $30/month...that's a fairly good fuel saving. Plus on the drive home I'll barely use it because stupid 401...traffic and I'll have to pay less to charge at home.

I think for now I'm 3 days in the office / 2 at home...still worth it.
 
Possibly...but litigation is very expensive no matter what the outcome is. The lawyers to fight me will be more than a new battery pack/car.

But you're right...they can drag it on. I'm sure there will be (if not already) a class action about this.

I'm seeing Bolts in the 30-45k range...that means I'd probably have to pay >10k in order to swap...no thanks. Don't drive enough to justify that level of fuel 'savings'.

They win against you and that sets a precedence for future cases against them. Money well spent in their eyes.
 
Let's address the elephant in the room and that no one is talking about; is that EVs don't reduce greenhouse emissions, unless you live in France which was the bad boy of Europe because they were building nuclear power plants while everyone else was putting up dinky wind turbines and solar. Now France gets 90% of its energy from nuclear. EVs use electricity produced mainly from oil/coal/natural gas. Your choice then is to burn it at the tailpipe (non-EVs) or burn it at the power-plant, then ship to your charging station (EVs).

Germany was hell bent on renewable energy with a target set about 20 years ago that said by 2020 they would cut emissions by 40% and they fell short and managed 32%. Of course the manufacture of all these new devices polluted more than it saved, if they were looking at the whole package. Worse than this however, they needed to fire up some coal plants to meet the higher needs never predicted back in 1990.

The only clean energy is nuclear and hydro (a mere 10% of the world's energy), most of our electricity comes from oil, coal or natural gas fired plants. This chart should make environmentalist want to commit suicide. EVs....ha! Don't even think about airplanes or ships, the batteries would be so heavy that there would be no capacity for actual cargo. Dream on. Watch for fusion nuclear (we have fission right now) in 50 years, a time when we can produce unlimited 100% cheap non-radioactive energy.

Global-energy-vs.-electricity-breakdown-800x423.png
 
Last edited:
Well that's not a fun / feel good answer @HarleyHare! (EDIT: No one wants to talk about the dirty aspect of EVs))

When I was arguing with my buddy about me not using EV mowers, blowers, and trimmers he turned the lights onto my Volt:

- you drive a hybrid EV yes?
- yes I do
- why?
- so I can save on gas
- not to save the environment?
- no, that's just a plus. I helped the environment by buying a used car instead of new.
- so your decision was not primarily on reducing your carbon footprint?
- no, it was to save money on gas. Helping reducing pollution was just a bonus. If I wanted to REALLY save the planet I'd take transit only.
- that's a stupid decision
- don't you want a brand new EV?
- Yes, so I can help the environment.
- but buying new is even worse, and the best thing you can do is drive your existing car into the ground
- no, you're wrong
- ok....time for beer?
 
Last edited:
Let's address the elephant in the room and that no one is talking about; is that EVs don't reduce greenhouse emissions, unless you live in France which was the bad boy of Europe because they were building nuclear power plants while everyone else was putting up dinky wind turbines and solar. Now France gets 90% of its energy from nuclear. EVs use electricity produced mainly from oil/coal/natural gas. Your choice then is to burn it at the tailpipe (non-EVs) or burn it at the power-plant, then ship to your charging station (EVs).

Germany was hell bent on renewable energy with a target set about 20 years ago that said by 2020 they would cut emissions by 40% and they fell short and managed 32%. Of course the manufacture of all these new devices polluted more than it saved, if they were looking at the whole package. Worse than this however, they needed to fire up some coal plants to meet the higher needs never predicted back in 1990.

The only clean energy is nuclear and hydro (a mere 10% of the world's energy), most of our electricity comes from oil, coal or natural gas fired plants. This chart should make environmentalist want to commit suicide. EVs....ha! Don't even think about airplanes or ships, the batteries would be so heavy that there would be no capacity for actual cargo. Dream on. Watch for fusion nuclear (we have fission right now) in 50 years, a time when we can produce unlimited 100% cheap non-radioactive energy.

Global-energy-vs.-electricity-breakdown-800x423.png
I didn't have to google very much to find that at least in Canada 75% of electricity is from one of your "low carbon" sources. So yes they do reduce green house emissions (including the manufacturing and sourcing of batteries).
Here is study for worldwide:
and here's one for the US
oh and Ha i guess?
 
Last edited:
EVs use electricity produced mainly from oil/coal/natural gas.

The story that this claim came from was actually based on a bunch of false info, outright lack of consideration for many facts, and misconceptions. Yet it still lives on on the internet years later.

Facts: Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

Reality: Yeah, coal burning to charge an EV sucks, but it still sucks less than putting a bunch of dinosaurs on your old fashioned internal combustion engine and burning them.

Don't even think about airplanes or ships

Both battery powered airplanes and ships exist.

- so your decision was not primarily on reducing your carbon footprint?
- no, it was to save money on gas. Helping reducing pollution was just a bonus. If I wanted to REALLY save the planet I'd take transit only.

I too get the "I'm not a tree hugger, I have no interest in EV's!" thing all the time.

Want to see an anti-EV person die inside? When they throw the "Tree Hugger" and "They're not better for the environment, I saw it on Facebook!!!1!" nonsense, tell them you're not a tree hugger at all, just a cheap **** who drives all month for $50 in electricity instead of $500/month in gas like they are. It instantly and totally deflates almost every single one of their arguments.
 
I didn't have to google very much to find that at least in Canada 75% of electricity is from one of your "low carbon" sources. So yes they do reduce green house emissions (including the manufacturing and sourcing of batteries).
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html Here is study for worldwide:
and here's one for the US
oh and Ha i guess?
The first link is pages of detail for Canada which was very interesting but after 25 minutes I finally found what you werre trying to say. And the claim that 75% is low carbon sources just confused me wondering. It's either dirty or clean, not in between. Its 10% nuclear and hydro which is clean energy in the world, Canada is not as dirty as the USA and is 67% is clean because of nuclear. We are also the bad boys on the world stage like France. No one wanted nuclear energy in the last decade, until the alternative looked worse. We could get more hydro but it's not near any cities and far into the wilderness. Even Niagara Falls supplied 100% of the city's needs 100 years ago, now it accounts for only 3% of their daily requirements. It shows you how much we need and depend to power our modern gadgets.

The bbc link is not particularly enlightening. All points are well known the only new point is that for each kilometer traveled, EVs are more efficient than gas. But by how much? That should be shown in the article so one can fact-check the claim.

The last link is a strong argument for EVs actually showing real numbers (which I don't think are out of line), certainly fewer moving parts and, no transmission which would make for friction/drag on the motor, all play into a logical higher efficiency. I'll go for an EV in maybe in 10 years when my current rare ride packs it in and also about that time all the growing pains on EVs will have been worked out by then. And the permanent and final death of manual transmissions in cars will be the reality in EVs. Might as well go for a self driving EV too and at least you can do something else more interesting (like reading, phoning or watch something on your 20" dash screen) than doing nothing. :(
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Bastards....following regulations like normal manufacturers.
I still dont know why tesla has supreme power over NHTSA and politicians. It has to be money. It would be simple enough to slap them hard and they probably even deserve all changes in features getting preapproval from nhtsa at this point. Almost everything tesla touches puts marketing in front of safety.
 
0 to 60 in 2.1 secs.

Tesla raises the bar again with next gen tech. Lots of new improvements that are sure to trickle down to lesser models

Rival makers still trying to figure out their first gen will still be left scratching their heads .

 
I can play DVD’s on my infotainment display as well, but the horrible engineers at GM made my horribly engineered Volt disable it when I put the car in gear.

Tyranny, I tell ya.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think you can bypass the restrictions in Apple Car Play with a jailbroken phone. I know you can on Pioneer's App Radios.

AM-JKLV_Z4DMuJ8be7Mt2WLK9TdkFbyebxlc_i6g88P-CxLVxo6_Eq8r6U1qC1_nw869PtjMFR-iir4VX7c0iHkiSJ1AF3WUxC6cmffkH0hJTdZKTsNVDCdQyuxjRo4GGRPUzNX8oIZskPjzW_doSFlxPOd9=w900-h675-no
 
I wonder if we can find crack as an office expense for the politicians? They want to require dealerships to sell a certain percentage of EV's by the end of 2022. What if you are a GM dealer with nothing from above? I don't know if VW has anything right now either. Subaru also a no. So how is a single line dealership supposed to comply with the law when they have nothing to sell? Bring in used EV's to remarket? That does nothing constructive as those were already on the road so you aren't replacing ICE.

 
Right now it's just a "discussion paper" which is "seeking input". This couldn't really be implemented at a dealer level, it would have to be at the manufacturer/distributor level at most, and even that would be a problem. Higher level than manufacturer level, i.e. industry-wide, the only way to do it is with a complicated crediting system that lets manufacturers doing more than their share sell credits to the ones that aren't pulling their weight. Also, just because the quota is published by the end of 2022 doesn't mean it has to take effect right away ... it could specify a phase-in period, which is highly likely to be necessary.

GM will be ok somewhere in the 2023 timeframe ... tooling is quietly being made production-ready for BT1XX and that's potentially huge volume. The Cadillac Lyriq will be out. The Bolts will be sorted out by then although those are a small piece of the puzzle. By the way, BT1XX is very different underneath from the standard T1XX - more than how the F150 Lightning differs from the regular one. I know nothing of what they're putting on top of that platform outside of the Hummer, which everyone knows about by now. I've only seen chassis and underpinnings bits. The next Chevrolet Equinox (or whatever it ends up being called) will have an all-electric version - that's potentially huge volume.

Ford will be ok because the F150 Lightning will get to full production by then. Hardly anything else matters.

Stellantis (FCA) is going to be late to the party (probably having to buy credits) but they do have a few things cooking. Haven't seen tooling ... there's rumours of an electric muscle car and an electric Ram pickup truck ... both are at least a couple years off.

Toyota is being dragged unwillingly into BEV production. There's what amounts to an electric version of a RAV4 which will be ready by then.

Subaru is building a copycat (platform-mate) of the Toyota.

Honda is probably screwed unless they carry on with making a platform-mate of a GM vehicle (e.g. Cadillac Lyriq). Their own attempt (the Honda e) is failing in the european market ... it isn't as good as, for example, the new electric Fiat 500 which is on the market there. Or the electric Mini.

Mazda is probably screwed unless they come up with something an awful lot better than their first attempt (which they might sell single-digits numbers of - maybe double-digits if they're lucky).

Mitsubishi is irrelevant.

Nissan will be ok.

VW, Audi, BMW, M-B will be fine.

The manufacturers that are screwed will have to buy credits from Tesla and Rivian.
 
Reviews say the Hyundai Ioniq is the potential short-term Tesla Model 3 beater. Until Tesla gets angry and comes back stronger. Great specs and range. Looks? Maybe not so hot? Futuristic looking, with pixel-looking rear and front lights in the sense it looks like a cousin of a DeLorean. 500 kilometres and 18 minute charge to 80%. No need to wait for door dings, the doors are already pre-creased like it was in a parking lot altercation.

 

Back
Top Bottom