173
Ford writes off $1.9bn as it cancels plans for all-electric large SUV in US
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
173 points (99.4% liked)
[Dormant] Electric Vehicles
3201 readers
2 users here now
We have moved to:
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion.
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling.
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it's not. Tire Particulate Pollution
You now want everyone to drive around cars that have the equivalent weight of a 5 person family extra?
Seriously use your brain m8
Ah the famous made up stuff that had nothing to do with anything. Like the other car doesn't also have tires?
Or that weight is the primary contributor to tires degrading.
Idiocy
So you're telling me 900lbs of weight makes 0 difference on tire wear?
Yep someone failed or just never took it.
Heavier vehicle takes more to move making it use more power. Where you live it may not be an issue but for a lot of Americans it means coal power plants.
There are reasons why I stated that big electric vehicles currently don't make sense. Stop being so narrow minded, I am not basing my views on a single issue
Dunno about that bruh
Not a single issue waaaaaaa.
You are a moron Don't even notice what I said about power generation Read a book ya dumb fuck
Oh, would a book explain to me why you only compare things on spec sheets?
I'd probably have to go to 4chan for that one.
Seriously you are missing some brain cells Batteries are heavy, to get the same range in fuel you need more batteries. Towing capacity is diminished to from the extra weight. More batteries is more mining and less cars can be produced with current designs all for the sake of a checkbox (range). More smaller cars with half the range are ideal for current battery tech and the way people realistically commute. Electricity generation is a big issue. Not everywhere uses solar, wind, hydro or nuclear. So your left with incineration, coal or natural gas for electrical generation
More batteries is more expensive making only wealthy people able to buy them (F150 lightning, Rivian, that other stupid company) also making them too expensive to replace.
Extra weight also puts more strain on existing parts leading to premature failures, makes crashes more likely to be fatal, more batteries more points of failure and more battery to burn if penetrated or catastrophic failure.
There is prob more but I've got work to do.
After all this it seems you want cars to be smaller, cheaper and with less range. None of which has anything to do with why they gave one car, car of the year over another.
What you have a beef with, is why people rated that car better based only on a speed sheet. Seriously, have you driven one? Have you read the reviews?
Do you know why people want longer ranges on a truck? Have you looked at what car oener demographics want? Did you explain any of that up front?
No.
You said one is heavier this sucks. Flipped the table like a 3 year old having a tantrum refused to elaborate and called everyone idiots.
Sure man, we're the idiots here. What s clown you are
Please go back and re read my posts, you are the one who is the clown or just a troll who sucks
I did mate and you're salty about what you think people should want. Not what people actually want. You're obsessed with numbers on a spec sheet.
Mate, you are a terrible troll
Don't respond then
ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ