John's Stuff - Personal Log 1292

August 26, 2024 - August 29, 2024

Last Updated: Mon. 11/04/2024

8-29-2024
Resale & Efficiency. History has already shown use otherwise: "Until we get to the point of either having quickly replaceable batteries or 5 minutes for a full charge, what matters for resale value is how far an EV can go on a single charge. If that is too short of a distance, as is reportedly the case with the Subaru, then it doesn't matter how efficient the car is. Not many people will want to buy it, even at greatly reduced prices (even new), making the efficiency irrelevant. EVs that no one buys don't save any energy or reduce carbon emissions." Used Leaf have sold just fine. People looking for a short-range runabout consider them a good buy. Not every vehicle must be capable of convenient long-distance trips. Having reliable transportation is what some will deem most important, not speed or range. Ugh. Anywho, such a statement as that could not go unchallenged, especially when used as a whatabout: Talking about desperate to change the topic from efficiency. Switching to resale was a poor choice. Toyota plug-ins have proven extremely reliable. Their first-gen PHEV from way back in 2012 never had issues. Their second-gen PHEV from 2016, which increased EV speed to 84 mph (135 km/h) and included a heat-pump, never had any issues either. That reliability is what used shoppers will place a high priority on. btw, it is rather telling how much effort is being expended to avoid discussion of mi/kWh.

8-29-2024
Unimportant. What other response to this is better than just saying ugh? It's so maddening to read to enthusiast nonsense like this: "How about we go by just how many miles the car will travel on a charge, rather than justifying the result with information that isn't all that important?" They create a narrative so compelling, any effort to point out their perspective is not shared by the majority turns into a pointless online battle. 2 years into the effort to get a recognize of electric benefits has fallen on deaf ears. It was difficult enough with the PHEV audience, but at least they had an interest in getting the most of a limited resource. Having a small battery-pack heightens awareness. BEV enthusiasts simply endorsed larger batteries instead. Rather than actually getting more out of less... the point of electrification... using less energy... they just proclaimed more was better. Again, ugh. I fired back at today's nonsense in that regard with: Don't understand the role mi/kWh plays? Try using ABRP. That real-world efficiency average from the live-data it collects is how available range is determined. It's no surprise mi/kWh gets dismissed as unimportant. We now see a few electricity guzzlers, which complicates the message of cleaner choices. Focus on miles instead is distraction from facing the goal of reduced consumption.

8-29-2024
Tragic, fear. Up to that point, he had no idea I was an actual owner. Upon that realization, he changed his approach to: "This is code for ignore the fact that you can only go 180 miles on a charge and instead be happy that it doesn't take much electricity to go X miles." I always find such abrupt messaging switches quite amusing. That's a big tell. It's a double-down on the claim with the twist that there is now good reason to accept it. Seeing his talking-point fail, he had to do something. That was a terrible choice though. Using less electricity means less time & expense. If you don't use as much electricity in the first place... Anywho, arguments like his fall on deaf ears as the market changes. Actual competition comes about from consideration of facts people deem a priority. Since when is the need to go 180 miles all at once so common it must be addressed as absolutely vital? The extreme example I can come up with is my aunt & uncle's cabin. The trip is a little over 200 miles; that's 3 and half hours of driving. Who would ever drive such a distance with no stop whatsoever? There are already several DC fast-charger locations along the way. So even with my supposed "poor" range BEV, my drive to it would be just fine. My own routine drive up north is 175 miles. That's 3 hours of driving. What's the problem? Convenience of not having to stop is contradicted by stopping anyway. That's why any type of review, where the person doing the review requests topics to address prior starting, is a big problem for those spreading a sentiment adequacy. I find it all quite amusing. And it this case, look forward to the article being published that started with just such a request. Here's my hope to end the nonsense exchange for now: Sounds like someone fears sharing of what actual owners see. Do the math. 3.5 mi/kWh using the 65 kWh of usable battery capacity delivers 228 miles. Higher efficiency equates to even more miles. A review debunking narrative claims will be a tragedy for those who don't like the Toyota/Subaru approach.

8-29-2024
Tragic, real-world. Getting real-world data is only deemed important if it supports the narrative of poor range. This why sharing mi/kWh values is such a problem. It forces context. Getting the listener to use critical thought would be a tragic mistake. Enthusiasts don't ever want anything more than a talking-point to be discussed. They provide cherry-picked values and you are supposed to be disgusted with such results. Consideration of why that outcome or if it could ever be different must not ever be allowed. Ugh. That rhetoric from a few days ago hasn't died. The individual feeding the narrative provoked yet again, so I fired back with: Share real-world data related to efficiency. Far too often, reviewers will completely miss the topic. As an AWD bZ4X (with 20" wheels) owner, in the warm season it is common for me to see drives reach as high as 5 mi/kWh. My daily commute (a mix of suburb & highway) has been delivering an average of 4.4 mi/kWh.

8-28-2024 Drivetrain Importance. This comment was a mixed blessing: "Honestly, buyers don't care about those drivetrain details. All they (we) care about is it goes X miles on electric only, the rest on gas." True, they don't care about drivetrain details. However, they all care about isn't just X miles. Placing a single priority as the determination of whether to adopt a new technology is a fundamental logic flaw. Although some people do focus heavily on emotional appeal and act upon it, most don't. Most take many considerations into account. Far more often than not, necessity wins out over want. Mainstream consumers look for balance. Weight of a variety of traits are considered. Obsession with range now remains me of that very same blindness of the past. Enthusiasts didn't want to accept a reality where ordinary people... showroom shoppers... wouldn't share their priorities. It's a bitter pill to swallow and I'm all too happy to raise awareness of it:

Welcome to the history of "Know your audience".

It started prior to rollout of Volt, when the discovery was made that it wouldn't actually be a series hybrid as hoped. It shared an operational mode similar to Prius. Both disenchanting & worrying enthusiasts, the EREV moniker was coined. Its misrepresentation became a rally cry. When gen-2 of Volt rollout revealed expanded use of parallel operation, things got ugly. Fortunately, calling out vehicle operation not matching the definition stirred the question "Who is the market for Volt?".

It made no sense arguing drivetrain details. As you pointed out, there are some who simply don't care. After that "Who..." question had literally been asked hundreds of times and seeing Volt failed to attract customers beyond conquest buyers, that advice of "Know your audience" became a response whenever EREV was brought up. Now with both Hyundai and Dodge looking to deliver plug-in hybrids with true series operation and BEV purists upset about the obvious need for a bridge technology, it is more important than ever to focus on the outcome.
Volt was a great example of struggling with outcome. EV miles were indeed great, but neither EV nor HV efficiency were competitive. That made it very difficult for the technology to deliver a profit... which is a vital outcome for this topic. Like all legacy automakers, Hyundai needs to find a means of phasing out ICE models... which are highly profitable. If their audience (showroom shoppers) can be easily swayed to consider purchasing a vehicle that "goes X miles on electric only", it represents a major step forward for promoting any vehicle with a plug.

8-28-2024
EREV Comeback. Hyundai is planning for the inevitable. Looking back at the crazy "all in" pledges, seeing how well empty they were never questioned, is a hard to believe memory. So many were so gullible. It never made any sense. There was no transition plan. Legacy automakers would somehow deliver compelling ICE competition. BEV with magical abilities & pricing would be achieved in just a matter of a few years and production would be high enough to meet all demand. They weren't being objective and Toyota's voice of reality was summarily dismissed. Ugh. Now, it turns out that Toyota's estimate of about 1/3 production becoming BEV around 2030 is now being recognized as a fairly reasonable assessment. That means something else must be offered... especially if you consider the bridge to follow. What happens to vehicles without a plug at that point? Focus on EREV seems to be a clue as to what that solution would entail. Large pickups with extremely large battery-packs still don't look practical. EREV does, but not the twisted definition Volt introduced... which sadly, still persists: "A modern take on the concept pioneered by the BMW i3 and Chevrolet Volt, an EREV is essentially a battery-powered EV that also packs a gas engine, but only as a generator to recharge that battery pack. The gas engine does not drive the wheels." That came from a supposed journalist, in the article he wrote about Hyundai's plan. I was annoyed by such an obvious lack of research. This is how I dealt with that nonsense: It is well documented that gen-2 Volt operated in parallel mode under several driving conditions. Continuing the narrative that it was an EREV like i3 REx is a disservice to new market entries, like this from Hyundai.

8-28-2024
Poor Narrative. I continued: "Terrible road trip vehicles. Lots of videos: less than 200 mi real world range at highway speeds, and more important, very slow charging along the way. Poor engineering, poor value." Unwillingness to recognize the unusually good efficiency from a vehicle offering high-ground clearance is just one of many shortcomings from enthusiasts. Design for longevity, trouble-free operation, mainstream appeal... traits like that are forbidden. One must not discuss anything other than range or acceleration speed. Ugh. Fortunately, such narratives fail to reach their intended audience. Only ears of enthusiasts actually hear their misleading claims. That's because ordinary consumers tend to pick up information based on their own observations. They will encounter owners in person, getting firsthand exposure. That type of "on their own" data gathering is even better than owner endorsements, which are powerful messages of support. It all starts with the basics. For many, that is stumbling across a video online. You never know what that will be, but at least it is only just an introduction. More will follow. In this case, I dealt with the rhetoric attempt this way: Finding videos with outdated & cherry-picked data is quiet easy. There are also both reviewer & owner videos showing efficiency much higher... above 4 mi/kWh. Based on the available 65 kWh (usable capacity), that works out to well above 200... around 260'ish. 3.5 mi/kWh is the actual rating, which will deliver 228 miles. With regard to slow charging, the latest platform updates delivers just under 150 kW, which is a competitive speed for industry offerings. In other words, don't believe the "poor" narrative.

8-27-2024
Understanding Range, unwilling. Gotta love that unwillingness to accept reality. Automakers are choosing to offer lower range vehicles because there is demand for them. Not everyone needs a BEV capable of long road trips. Enthusiasts absolutely refuse to address the obvious problem... competition. Pressure is building to actually compete on necessity, rather than holding true to goals. We see both new choices from China and new choices domestically souring appeal of long-range BEV offerings. The weak attempt to sway consumer interest by just squeezing in more battery is beginning to show weakness. It was a strategy doomed from the start... as history has already taught us. Remember that same obsession with Volt? Those enthusiasts pushed the importance of range so hard, they completely lost perspective... in the end, forgetting purpose. It's like the downfall we are witnessing with Tesla now. Think about what purpose was at the beginning verses what it is now. Goals were abandoned in favor of pleasing enthusiasts. That's how this came about: "Are you just trying to be dense? I label it as poor because you cannot go enough miles. Personally I'd not buy an EV with a range less than about 300 miles or so. This is only 200 miles, or so. Piss poor." I'm not the dense one. I'm not the one unwilling acknowledge change for necessity: Judgment of "enough" is an opinion, one contradicted by other offerings with similar range. Notice how the base F-150 is similar and the base ID.4 even less? Notice how Tesla is planning a new base Model-3 with smaller battery capacity, also putting it into the same category.

8-26-2024
Understanding Range, poor. He clearly didn't care: "Still confused. Range is miles! How far you can drive. It's not how much energy you consume or how much it costs to go that far. It's how many miles you can go. The only numbers you posted that are range are 227.5 and 286. The Subaru has poor range. It cannot go very far." Now even 286 miles isn't enough. I wonder if he noticed his "ideal" comment in a prior post and was trying to evade acknowledgement of it... fearing I could actually prove he was wrong. After all, my videos from long ago came about for the same reason. Someone who didn't like Toyota continually posted lies, claiming range was no where near what others were stating. My capture of real-world data from ordinary driving that was easy to confirm made him look stupid. His claim of "poor" abruptly ended upon the reveal he was lying. In this case, it's not a "vastly superior" problem to deal with, intentional misrepresentation to make another vehicle appear better. It is an on-going effort to avoid discussion of efficiency in general. Guzzling electricity is a taboo topic. I keep stirring anger by sighting its importance... as I continued to with this exchange: Range is the direct result of efficiency. The same amount of energy available will take you further the more efficient the vehicle operates under conditions of travel... speed, temperature, wind, hills.

8-26-2024
Understanding Range, confused. This response to my annoyance confirmed the situation: "I think you're confusing efficiency with range. Range is how far you can go on a charge (in ideal situations)." He had sighted an extreme, the worst possible driving conditions, but portrayed that outcome as ideal. This is why I brought up efficiency. When the actual mi/kWh numbers are presented, you can see the nature of how that data came about. A simple compare is sighting range of a vehicle without taking MPG into account. It is extraordinarily easy to mislead by omitting any other information besides the outcome. With a larger tank, you will get more miles. Without use of cabin heating or cooling, you will get more miles. With a more efficient system, you will get more miles. See how the absence of knowing anything else can make understanding range a problem? I replied to what was quickly becoming a pointless argument with:
No confusion.

65 kWh usable * 3.5 mi/kWh = 227.5 miles
btw, ideal is about 4.4 mi/kWh, which delivers about 286 miles.

8-26-2024
Understanding Range, disappointing. Here's how it started in an article about Subaru Solterra bargains: "Last I checked the lease deal was better than the purchase deal assuming you're 100% planning on redeeming at the end. But the range is very disappointing..." I could tell immediately that this would turn into an argument sighting extremes but refusing to acknowledge them as that. Sure enough, another post followed claiming the platform was capable of only 186 miles. Ugh. A recent article, from a source where range is of the upmost importance, stated their observation with the FWD bZ4X was that it delivered 256 miles. Quite annoyed, I replied to that nonsense with the hope of discussing why such differences: Why is range disappointing for that price? 225 miles is 3.5 mi/kWh... which is a common return for owners.

8-26-2024
Not Suitable. This was intriguing to read: "...told the outlet that the PHEV Equinox is just "not suitable," whatever that means." It was buried within an article about GM's future offerings here. Their plan is to finally deliver a plug-in hybrid variant. So many years after begging for one, sighting a long list of reason why that would be a wise move for GM, it seems as though such an effort will happen. Volt enthusiasts didn't understand the problem. Anything related to business was just dismissed as anti-EV. That was the nature of the technology struggle though. Certain aspects of the engineering itself weren't acknowledged. They refused provide any sort of recognition of the realities related to why certain engineering choices were made. At this point, there is no benefit from opening that can of worms. Someone will inevitably quibble over detail, not remembering the complete history. So, I don't bother. All that's needed is a reminder of the business itself: It's the same reason other Voltec variants never made it outside of China... profit. SAIC essentially owns that technology. For GM to offer a profitable Equinox PHEV here, they have to start over. This is how Bolt became the favorable choice, despite many years of GM's stance against EVs with their "range anxiety" campaign and countless Volt owners recognizing PHEV potential.

8-29-2024	Resale & Efficiency. History has already shown use otherwise: "Until we get to the point of either having quickly replaceable batteries or 5 minutes for a full charge, what matters for resale value is how far an EV can go on a single charge. If that is too short of a distance, as is reportedly the case with the Subaru, then it doesn't matter how efficient the car is. Not many people will want to buy it, even at greatly reduced prices (even new), making the efficiency irrelevant. EVs that no one buys don't save any energy or reduce carbon emissions." Used Leaf have sold just fine. People looking for a short-range runabout consider them a good buy. Not every vehicle must be capable of convenient long-distance trips. Having reliable transportation is what some will deem most important, not speed or range. Ugh. Anywho, such a statement as that could not go unchallenged, especially when used as a whatabout: Talking about desperate to change the topic from efficiency. Switching to resale was a poor choice. Toyota plug-ins have proven extremely reliable. Their first-gen PHEV from way back in 2012 never had issues. Their second-gen PHEV from 2016, which increased EV speed to 84 mph (135 km/h) and included a heat-pump, never had any issues either. That reliability is what used shoppers will place a high priority on. btw, it is rather telling how much effort is being expended to avoid discussion of mi/kWh.
8-29-2024	Unimportant. What other response to this is better than just saying ugh? It's so maddening to read to enthusiast nonsense like this: "How about we go by just how many miles the car will travel on a charge, rather than justifying the result with information that isn't all that important?" They create a narrative so compelling, any effort to point out their perspective is not shared by the majority turns into a pointless online battle. 2 years into the effort to get a recognize of electric benefits has fallen on deaf ears. It was difficult enough with the PHEV audience, but at least they had an interest in getting the most of a limited resource. Having a small battery-pack heightens awareness. BEV enthusiasts simply endorsed larger batteries instead. Rather than actually getting more out of less... the point of electrification... using less energy... they just proclaimed more was better. Again, ugh. I fired back at today's nonsense in that regard with: Don't understand the role mi/kWh plays? Try using ABRP. That real-world efficiency average from the live-data it collects is how available range is determined. It's no surprise mi/kWh gets dismissed as unimportant. We now see a few electricity guzzlers, which complicates the message of cleaner choices. Focus on miles instead is distraction from facing the goal of reduced consumption.
8-29-2024	Tragic, fear. Up to that point, he had no idea I was an actual owner. Upon that realization, he changed his approach to: "This is code for ignore the fact that you can only go 180 miles on a charge and instead be happy that it doesn't take much electricity to go X miles." I always find such abrupt messaging switches quite amusing. That's a big tell. It's a double-down on the claim with the twist that there is now good reason to accept it. Seeing his talking-point fail, he had to do something. That was a terrible choice though. Using less electricity means less time & expense. If you don't use as much electricity in the first place... Anywho, arguments like his fall on deaf ears as the market changes. Actual competition comes about from consideration of facts people deem a priority. Since when is the need to go 180 miles all at once so common it must be addressed as absolutely vital? The extreme example I can come up with is my aunt & uncle's cabin. The trip is a little over 200 miles; that's 3 and half hours of driving. Who would ever drive such a distance with no stop whatsoever? There are already several DC fast-charger locations along the way. So even with my supposed "poor" range BEV, my drive to it would be just fine. My own routine drive up north is 175 miles. That's 3 hours of driving. What's the problem? Convenience of not having to stop is contradicted by stopping anyway. That's why any type of review, where the person doing the review requests topics to address prior starting, is a big problem for those spreading a sentiment adequacy. I find it all quite amusing. And it this case, look forward to the article being published that started with just such a request. Here's my hope to end the nonsense exchange for now: Sounds like someone fears sharing of what actual owners see. Do the math. 3.5 mi/kWh using the 65 kWh of usable battery capacity delivers 228 miles. Higher efficiency equates to even more miles. A review debunking narrative claims will be a tragedy for those who don't like the Toyota/Subaru approach.
8-29-2024	Tragic, real-world. Getting real-world data is only deemed important if it supports the narrative of poor range. This why sharing mi/kWh values is such a problem. It forces context. Getting the listener to use critical thought would be a tragic mistake. Enthusiasts don't ever want anything more than a talking-point to be discussed. They provide cherry-picked values and you are supposed to be disgusted with such results. Consideration of why that outcome or if it could ever be different must not ever be allowed. Ugh. That rhetoric from a few days ago hasn't died. The individual feeding the narrative provoked yet again, so I fired back with: Share real-world data related to efficiency. Far too often, reviewers will completely miss the topic. As an AWD bZ4X (with 20" wheels) owner, in the warm season it is common for me to see drives reach as high as 5 mi/kWh. My daily commute (a mix of suburb & highway) has been delivering an average of 4.4 mi/kWh.
8-28-2024	Drivetrain Importance. This comment was a mixed blessing: "Honestly, buyers don't care about those drivetrain details. All they (we) care about is it goes X miles on electric only, the rest on gas." True, they don't care about drivetrain details. However, they all care about isn't just X miles. Placing a single priority as the determination of whether to adopt a new technology is a fundamental logic flaw. Although some people do focus heavily on emotional appeal and act upon it, most don't. Most take many considerations into account. Far more often than not, necessity wins out over want. Mainstream consumers look for balance. Weight of a variety of traits are considered. Obsession with range now remains me of that very same blindness of the past. Enthusiasts didn't want to accept a reality where ordinary people... showroom shoppers... wouldn't share their priorities. It's a bitter pill to swallow and I'm all too happy to raise awareness of it: Welcome to the history of "Know your audience". It started prior to rollout of Volt, when the discovery was made that it wouldn't actually be a series hybrid as hoped. It shared an operational mode similar to Prius. Both disenchanting & worrying enthusiasts, the EREV moniker was coined. Its misrepresentation became a rally cry. When gen-2 of Volt rollout revealed expanded use of parallel operation, things got ugly. Fortunately, calling out vehicle operation not matching the definition stirred the question "Who is the market for Volt?". It made no sense arguing drivetrain details. As you pointed out, there are some who simply don't care. After that "Who..." question had literally been asked hundreds of times and seeing Volt failed to attract customers beyond conquest buyers, that advice of "Know your audience" became a response whenever EREV was brought up. Now with both Hyundai and Dodge looking to deliver plug-in hybrids with true series operation and BEV purists upset about the obvious need for a bridge technology, it is more important than ever to focus on the outcome. Volt was a great example of struggling with outcome. EV miles were indeed great, but neither EV nor HV efficiency were competitive. That made it very difficult for the technology to deliver a profit... which is a vital outcome for this topic. Like all legacy automakers, Hyundai needs to find a means of phasing out ICE models... which are highly profitable. If their audience (showroom shoppers) can be easily swayed to consider purchasing a vehicle that "goes X miles on electric only", it represents a major step forward for promoting any vehicle with a plug.
8-28-2024	EREV Comeback. Hyundai is planning for the inevitable. Looking back at the crazy "all in" pledges, seeing how well empty they were never questioned, is a hard to believe memory. So many were so gullible. It never made any sense. There was no transition plan. Legacy automakers would somehow deliver compelling ICE competition. BEV with magical abilities & pricing would be achieved in just a matter of a few years and production would be high enough to meet all demand. They weren't being objective and Toyota's voice of reality was summarily dismissed. Ugh. Now, it turns out that Toyota's estimate of about 1/3 production becoming BEV around 2030 is now being recognized as a fairly reasonable assessment. That means something else must be offered... especially if you consider the bridge to follow. What happens to vehicles without a plug at that point? Focus on EREV seems to be a clue as to what that solution would entail. Large pickups with extremely large battery-packs still don't look practical. EREV does, but not the twisted definition Volt introduced... which sadly, still persists: "A modern take on the concept pioneered by the BMW i3 and Chevrolet Volt, an EREV is essentially a battery-powered EV that also packs a gas engine, but only as a generator to recharge that battery pack. The gas engine does not drive the wheels." That came from a supposed journalist, in the article he wrote about Hyundai's plan. I was annoyed by such an obvious lack of research. This is how I dealt with that nonsense: It is well documented that gen-2 Volt operated in parallel mode under several driving conditions. Continuing the narrative that it was an EREV like i3 REx is a disservice to new market entries, like this from Hyundai.
8-28-2024	Poor Narrative. I continued: "Terrible road trip vehicles. Lots of videos: less than 200 mi real world range at highway speeds, and more important, very slow charging along the way. Poor engineering, poor value." Unwillingness to recognize the unusually good efficiency from a vehicle offering high-ground clearance is just one of many shortcomings from enthusiasts. Design for longevity, trouble-free operation, mainstream appeal... traits like that are forbidden. One must not discuss anything other than range or acceleration speed. Ugh. Fortunately, such narratives fail to reach their intended audience. Only ears of enthusiasts actually hear their misleading claims. That's because ordinary consumers tend to pick up information based on their own observations. They will encounter owners in person, getting firsthand exposure. That type of "on their own" data gathering is even better than owner endorsements, which are powerful messages of support. It all starts with the basics. For many, that is stumbling across a video online. You never know what that will be, but at least it is only just an introduction. More will follow. In this case, I dealt with the rhetoric attempt this way: Finding videos with outdated & cherry-picked data is quiet easy. There are also both reviewer & owner videos showing efficiency much higher... above 4 mi/kWh. Based on the available 65 kWh (usable capacity), that works out to well above 200... around 260'ish. 3.5 mi/kWh is the actual rating, which will deliver 228 miles. With regard to slow charging, the latest platform updates delivers just under 150 kW, which is a competitive speed for industry offerings. In other words, don't believe the "poor" narrative.
8-27-2024	Understanding Range, unwilling. Gotta love that unwillingness to accept reality. Automakers are choosing to offer lower range vehicles because there is demand for them. Not everyone needs a BEV capable of long road trips. Enthusiasts absolutely refuse to address the obvious problem... competition. Pressure is building to actually compete on necessity, rather than holding true to goals. We see both new choices from China and new choices domestically souring appeal of long-range BEV offerings. The weak attempt to sway consumer interest by just squeezing in more battery is beginning to show weakness. It was a strategy doomed from the start... as history has already taught us. Remember that same obsession with Volt? Those enthusiasts pushed the importance of range so hard, they completely lost perspective... in the end, forgetting purpose. It's like the downfall we are witnessing with Tesla now. Think about what purpose was at the beginning verses what it is now. Goals were abandoned in favor of pleasing enthusiasts. That's how this came about: "Are you just trying to be dense? I label it as poor because you cannot go enough miles. Personally I'd not buy an EV with a range less than about 300 miles or so. This is only 200 miles, or so. Piss poor." I'm not the dense one. I'm not the one unwilling acknowledge change for necessity: Judgment of "enough" is an opinion, one contradicted by other offerings with similar range. Notice how the base F-150 is similar and the base ID.4 even less? Notice how Tesla is planning a new base Model-3 with smaller battery capacity, also putting it into the same category.
8-26-2024	Understanding Range, poor. He clearly didn't care: "Still confused. Range is miles! How far you can drive. It's not how much energy you consume or how much it costs to go that far. It's how many miles you can go. The only numbers you posted that are range are 227.5 and 286. The Subaru has poor range. It cannot go very far." Now even 286 miles isn't enough. I wonder if he noticed his "ideal" comment in a prior post and was trying to evade acknowledgement of it... fearing I could actually prove he was wrong. After all, my videos from long ago came about for the same reason. Someone who didn't like Toyota continually posted lies, claiming range was no where near what others were stating. My capture of real-world data from ordinary driving that was easy to confirm made him look stupid. His claim of "poor" abruptly ended upon the reveal he was lying. In this case, it's not a "vastly superior" problem to deal with, intentional misrepresentation to make another vehicle appear better. It is an on-going effort to avoid discussion of efficiency in general. Guzzling electricity is a taboo topic. I keep stirring anger by sighting its importance... as I continued to with this exchange: Range is the direct result of efficiency. The same amount of energy available will take you further the more efficient the vehicle operates under conditions of travel... speed, temperature, wind, hills.
8-26-2024	Understanding Range, confused. This response to my annoyance confirmed the situation: "I think you're confusing efficiency with range. Range is how far you can go on a charge (in ideal situations)." He had sighted an extreme, the worst possible driving conditions, but portrayed that outcome as ideal. This is why I brought up efficiency. When the actual mi/kWh numbers are presented, you can see the nature of how that data came about. A simple compare is sighting range of a vehicle without taking MPG into account. It is extraordinarily easy to mislead by omitting any other information besides the outcome. With a larger tank, you will get more miles. Without use of cabin heating or cooling, you will get more miles. With a more efficient system, you will get more miles. See how the absence of knowing anything else can make understanding range a problem? I replied to what was quickly becoming a pointless argument with: No confusion. 65 kWh usable * 3.5 mi/kWh = 227.5 miles btw, ideal is about 4.4 mi/kWh, which delivers about 286 miles.
8-26-2024	Understanding Range, disappointing. Here's how it started in an article about Subaru Solterra bargains: "Last I checked the lease deal was better than the purchase deal assuming you're 100% planning on redeeming at the end. But the range is very disappointing..." I could tell immediately that this would turn into an argument sighting extremes but refusing to acknowledge them as that. Sure enough, another post followed claiming the platform was capable of only 186 miles. Ugh. A recent article, from a source where range is of the upmost importance, stated their observation with the FWD bZ4X was that it delivered 256 miles. Quite annoyed, I replied to that nonsense with the hope of discussing why such differences: Why is range disappointing for that price? 225 miles is 3.5 mi/kWh... which is a common return for owners.
8-26-2024	Not Suitable. This was intriguing to read: "...told the outlet that the PHEV Equinox is just "not suitable," whatever that means." It was buried within an article about GM's future offerings here. Their plan is to finally deliver a plug-in hybrid variant. So many years after begging for one, sighting a long list of reason why that would be a wise move for GM, it seems as though such an effort will happen. Volt enthusiasts didn't understand the problem. Anything related to business was just dismissed as anti-EV. That was the nature of the technology struggle though. Certain aspects of the engineering itself weren't acknowledged. They refused provide any sort of recognition of the realities related to why certain engineering choices were made. At this point, there is no benefit from opening that can of worms. Someone will inevitably quibble over detail, not remembering the complete history. So, I don't bother. All that's needed is a reminder of the business itself: It's the same reason other Voltec variants never made it outside of China... profit. SAIC essentially owns that technology. For GM to offer a profitable Equinox PHEV here, they have to start over. This is how Bolt became the favorable choice, despite many years of GM's stance against EVs with their "range anxiety" campaign and countless Volt owners recognizing PHEV potential.