Most vehicles have one door – for gas.
Or – God help you – one for a plug.
Having only the latter can mean not being able to drive when you need to. Or being able to drive very far. I related my recent experience attempting to drive a car with just one door – for a plug – over the Christmas weekend. I only got as far as the “fast” charger, which wasn’t charging. By which time, there wasn’t much range left, limiting how much farther I could drive.
So we returned home – and just barely made it.
If you want to plug in – and be able to drive farther than wherever you’ll be parking to wait before you can drive again – then a second door (for gas) can be very helpful indeed.
The 2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe I’m test driving this week has both. One door for a plug, to instill electricity. Another for gas, to fill its tank. The 4xe – which is a plug-in hybrid – accordingly is not afflicted by the gimps that make cars with just one door (for a plug) short-range/long-wait cars.
The Jeep was, first of all, left with me with a full tank – so it didn’t matter that it didn’t have a full charge. The latter being difficult when the place to charge is far away – and requires a drive.
It was left with more than 400 miles of range.
Not indicated range, either. Actual driving range. With the heater on. At 75 MPH. It easily made the 100-mile there-and-back trip to visit my mom, which the car with just one door (for a plug) was unable to do.
Not only was it able to make the trip, when I made it back to my house, the Jeep still had nearly 300 miles of range remaining. I wasn’t obliged to stop once during the trip – though I did stop because I wanted to, for coffee and a snack, along the way. And after we filled up, we were back on our way in minutes, not having had to plug anything in.
Or pump anything in.
As I type this, the Jeep sits outside, in the cold – and unplugged. It will still have all of the “range” (on gas) it had when I parked it, last night, after we got home. I will not have to wait the three days it took to impart about 80 miles of range back into the car with just one door – and a plug – that was unable to make the 100-mile trip, there and back, to visit my mom for Christmas. I will be able to just drive, as soon as I like – and as far as I like.
Just like we used to take for granted, before cars with just one door (and a plug) were forced on us like “masks” and “vaccines.”
Interestingly, there is a parallel in that the alternatives that worked were (still are) dismissed by those who insisted (still insist) that “masks” and “vaccines” work. Don’t be healthy. Instead, obsess about getting sick. Don’t eat healthy and exercise. Wear a “mask,” instead. Forget Ivermectin if you do get sick. Remdesivir is what you want. It is what you will get – if they get their hands on you.
It’s an interesting thing that alternatives – that work – are short-sheeted for the sake of alternatives that do not work. Assuming one wants them to work in the manner most people assume when they hear the word, “work” – as in, solve the supposed problem. If what was wanted was for people to not get sick, then not wearing “masks” would have been advised – along with doing things to make oneself less vulnerable to getting sick and getting sick seriously – such as avoiding junk food, avoiding a big gut and not avoiding the gym. If what was wanted was for people to not get dead, then injecting them with strange drugs with unknown effects would not have been risked. Especially when there were better – safer – alternatives.
If the problem is a “changing” climate – the “change” caused by the production of carbon dioxide – then it would seem preferable to pursue alternatives that reduce the overall production of this gas.
The vehicle with two doors. The plug-in hybrid.
Yes it burns gas. But it does not burn nearly as much power as a vehicle with just one door (for a plug). It takes burning lots of the same basic stuff that goes in the other door – i.e., hydrocarbon fuels – to generate that power. A hybrid generates its own power, far more efficiently because there are no efficiency losses over the course of scores or hundred of miles of electrical cabling, from the source of power (electricity) to the place it is “pumped” in.
A plug-in hybrid also plugs in, of course.
But it does not have to. And it does not require or use as much power when it does. When you consume what you had, you do not have to stop to suck up more power from far away. You generate more, as you drive. This burns gas. But how much – relative to how much more gas is produced by burning more of the same basic thing (i.e., natural gas, oil and coal) somewhere else and then transmitting the power produced thereby to another place?
It is almost certainly the case that a plug-in hybrid “emits” less C02 overall – and over its lifetime – than a car with just a plug that is almost constantly plugged in and when it is, for longer – and sucks harder.
All of the foregoing assumes, of course, that one accepts the assertion that the “climate” is “changing” on account of mankind’s fractional contribution of C02 to the 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere that is C02. Very much of a piece with the assertions made about the “deadly virus” that has an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) around the same fraction and from which 99.7 percent of the healthy/not elderly population did not die from, if they got it.
Nevermind. Make everyone wear a “mask” – even children at essentially nil risk – and impose more risk on young people by making them take a “vaccine” that is riskier to their health than the sickness the “vaccine” doesn’t prevent the injected person from getting.
Just so cars with one door (and just a plug). Forcing these on everyone will not prevent the “climate” from “changing.” But it will prevent everyone from driving as much – and as far.
The plug-in hybrid enables them to drive as much as they like and as far as they need to.
It is the Ivermectin of “clean” transportation.
And that is why it is short-sheeted for the sake of what amounts to the Remdesivir of “clean” transportation, the car with just one door and only a plug.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
Yep, for cold climates your EV needs to stay plugged in overnight.
I plan on doing so when I pick up a used Bolt in a year or two.
At a whopping $0.10/kWh its “fuel” will be far cheaper than gasoline.
Hi Bill,
Not necessarily. If you use “fast” chargers, expect to pay more. And if the cost f electricity continues to go up, expect to pay more, too.
The BATTERY FAILED on my Ford F150 Lightning EV pickup the day after I SOLD IT! Buyer NOT happy…
are these EV’s junk?….lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUtnmVBss2I
“The plug-in hybrid enables them to drive as much as they like and as far as they need to.”
that’s the point, isn’t it?
Our betters will determine how far we NEED to travel.
Dome light left on last week’s cold snap. Dead and frozen battery. Replaced it with one of our inverter backup batteries and were able to get out and get a new one, even at -15 F. Try that with electric. Or even adding enough charge to your EV using inverters in case of power out.
But base MSRP of $60k? Shoot, I could buy a brand new Elantra and have enough left over to buy two spare Elantras. I may be a boomer, but I’m not stupid enough to waste that kind of dosh just to virtue signal.
I don’t get it. So what’s the point of the Jeep having anything other than a gas engine? Having an electric motor, large battery, a Star-Wars-esque computer to control everything….just so it can be heavier, and thus ultimately use more energy, while being more expensive to purchase; requiring the use of dangerous and “ecologically-unfriendly” batteries, while greatly reducing durability- all for what, exactly?
Yeah….it gets better MPGs if one is only considering the amount of gas used…but in overall energy use, when the ‘lectricity is figured-in, these heavy turds packed full of everything Rube Goldberg ever dreamt of ultimately use more energy, while taking more resources to build, and require scrapping/replacement much sooner.
I’m gonna sit back and see how long it takes them to “save the planet” by doing just the opposite of what they say ‘we’ should be doing [if the planet needing saving, from natural CO2 plant food].
In other words, they are sadistic bald faced liars. Psychopaths of the very worst kind. They don’t give a damn about what works, only about what will deliver what they want. You, at their mercy. And mercy is in short supply among them. Evil.
“that one accepts the assertion that the “climate” is “changing” on account of mankind’s fractional contribution of C02 to the 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere that is C02.”
Humans increased the atmospheric CO2 content by almost +50% from the 1850 estimated level to 2022.
There is strong evidence that rising greenhouse gases are responsible for some of the global warming since 1975. I will provide that evidence if anyone is interested
In fact, the first 0.01% of CO2 (100 ppm) is a strong greenhouse gas. Above the current 420 ppm (0.042%) CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. So weak that much more CO2 (a doubling) would be very beneficial for plant life/ And I have supported much more CO2 in the atmosphere since 1997, when I began studying climate science.
So far the climate change since 1850 has been entirely good news, with better plant growth and milder winter climates in the colder nations of the N.H. There is no logical reason to fear more CO2 in the atmosphere, and every logical reason to want more CO2.
There is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is part of it.
But the greenhouse effect is good news.
Climate change scaremongering (called CAGW) is not real, or based on data.
It is an always wrong (since the 1979 Charney Report) prediction of climate doom.
CAGW scaremongering has political goals (more government control of the private sector). It is not based on science.
Not everything leftists claim about the climate is false. The predictions of doom are false. There is a small amount of real climate science and a large amount of politics based on junk science.
I have been fighting CAGW scaremongering since 1997. I have a climate science and energy blog where I list the best climate and energy articles I’ve read each day. I’ve had over 368,000 page views so far and hope I have changed some minds.
As a libertarian since 1973, I’ve observed that leftists ruin everything they touch. They are now working on ruining cars and trucks (with EVs) and our electric grids. We are losing the climate wars. The only thing we Climate Realist can do now is to learn enough about climate science to be able to explain it simply when people finally get interested. I think that will take a few cold years and/or some blackouts.
The climate Howlers control the climate narrative
They have their climate fantasies (the future climate).
They do not control the weather, or the climate
That’s our climate reality (the present and past climates)
I’d rather live in conservative climate realityland,
than in leftist climate fantasyland.
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/
Richard,
There are factors that are completely ignored regarding climate. We are STIILL progressing out of the last ice age. Krakatoa was the largest historically recorded volcanic eruption, which occurred about ten years before temperatures started being recorded. Pinatubo gave us red sunsets and sunrises for ten years after its eruption. And of course that leaves out the most dynamic engine in the Solar system, the Sun, more powerful than the rest of the system combined, and astronomically speaking we are parked right next to it. The fact being, no one truly understands how the climate works, or how much particular factors affect it. What we do know is that CO2 is at geological lows right now. We need more of it. I’m sure that in the last couple of weeks a lot of people have been praying for a bit of global warming. Me among them.
We know a lot of how climate works — we have a decent list of the usual suspects.
My own personal list is shown below. CO2 is one of many climate change variables. The sun is not important in our lifetime (at least not since the 1970s, because the top of the atmosphere solar energy has barely changed, as measured by satellites).
What we don’t know is exactly how much each climate change variable has affected the climate in our lifetimes. And we consistently fail to predict the future climate. Even using the actual climate trend in the past 30 to 50 years, as a prediction of the climate in the next 30 to 50 years, has not worked.
We are still in an ice age, with no indication we are coming out of it. Antarctica ice is not melting. Even Arctic sea ice has been rising, since a low point in 2012.
We don’t need more CO2 to survive, but a doubling of atmosphere CO2 would create more food for humans and animals, with little effect on the climate (because CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above the current 420ppm).
The big problem with climate science is people falsely declaring the science is settled and too many always wrong scary climate predictions, unrelated to any actual past climate trends.
And then politicians using the climate scaremongering to increase government power over the private sector. That’s a big deal to this libertarian.
The following variables are likely to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation
Including ENSO and others
3) Solar activity and irradiance,
including clouds, volcanic and manmade aerosols,
plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extraterrestrial dust
4) Greenhouse gas emissions
5) Land use changes
(cities growing, logging, crop irrigation, etc.)
6) Unknown causes of variations of a
complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and
manmade catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors
(unintentional or deliberate)
9) Interactions and feedbacks,
involving two or more variables
Eric, the CO2 graphic is awesome because it illustrates what a minor component it is in the atmosphere. Here is another which shows the difference between man made and natural:
https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gif
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Man-made 3.225%
Natural 96.775%
A full discussion of these numbers is found here:
https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
(lots of charts and it is a must read for anyone trying to understand atmospheric science vs. MSM false narratives)
“Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.”
Furthermore, as CO2 concentration goes up it has less and less effect on warming, in fact almost all of the warming from CO2 comes in the first 20ppm. At current levels, doubling or tripling will have almost zero effect, see chart:
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/easyblog_articles/724/b2ap3_large_Graph-1.png
(The warming of CO2 is an inverse logrithmic function)
Thus, CO2 concentrations will have NO EFFECT on ice age progression. We are still in the ice age, we are in an interglacial and we just completed a minor warming blip in that cycle.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/paleo/holocene/gisp-holocene-temperatures-greenland-co2.gif
Bottom line: Bill Gates and comapny who want to reduce CO2 emissions are stark raving mad lunatics, as reducing CO2 or increasing it have no effect on earth’s temperatures. If Bill Gates blots out the sun near ice age inception it could cause the specie to go extinct.
Manmade CO2 is the source of 33.3% of the total CO2 in the troposphere today.
NOT 3.22%, AS YOU FALSELY CLAIMED
The greenhouse effect from manmade greenhouse gases is in the 1.67% to 5% range
NOT 0.28%, AS YOU FALSELY CLAIMED.
I’m very interested in a plug-in hybrid for my next vehicle. Most of my driving is either long highway miles or very short <2 miles to the neighborhood grocery store or gym. For me having a 40 mile electric only range would be perfect. Not only because I'm saving on gas, but also no short-hop wear on the combustion engine.
So please consider charging up the battery enough to run on electric only!
I recommend a hybrid Toyota Camry. I always drive one before I buy an ICE Camry but don’t drive enough miles each year to compensate for the extra cost.
Reliability is my top priority. I worked for an American car company for 27 years and drove a company car for decades. They broke way too often, even though I drove a new car every year. I can’t stand unreliable cars anymore. I think I would lose my mind with an EV as my only car.
Toyota Camry’s have excellent reliability. With the Sport suspension (SE) they handle well, although are rough on bumpy roads. The wife prefers the SE, believe it or not.
The Camry XLE trim has never been worth the extra money for us, but is still cheap compared with a Tesla Model 3.
My next door neighbor has been driving a Prius since 2005, which is impressive.
It looks like a dork-mobile to me but the batteries still working.
I noticed my neighbor just bought his wife a used Mercedes ICE SUV. Not an electric car, even though he’s an alternative energy whacko with a license plate “Oil’s Gone”. He’s also very intelligent, and was looking into buying an EV for his wife. But something changed his mind. Surprised me.
Maybe it was the high EV price, although he could afford it.
This is a retired virtue signaling alternative energy guy (wrote his master’s thesis on home solar panels), with solar panels on his roof and a Prius … who decided NOT to buy an EV this year. Mybe the word is spreading about the inconvenience of EVs. His 2005 Prius is the family second car.
Our electric utility DTE Energy uses 58% coal, so any EV charged here is a 58% coal car. Maybe that influenced the neighbor’s decision to avoid an EV here in SE Michigan?
A 58% coal car will not save the world from CO2 emissions!
I need something that can handle unplowed and forest service roads, and light travel trailer towing. Grand Cherokee hybrid looks good on paper, but hasn’t been around long enough to get a reputation.
From what I gather it takes the same energy input to do the same work regardless of type of energy. Adding an electric drive to a gasoline/diesel engine sounds a bit silly but silly and stupid pretty much defines the 21st century so far.
Correct Ken, it’s pretty simple stuff, energy vs work required. The kubuki theatre we are seeing is all just that, making something of nothing for whatever reason(s) you think. To me, it’s just playing musical chairs on the titanic while the music plays.
Certainly some EV use has some merit such as ‘city-only’ transport like cabs, delivery trucks, etc.. but it’s not saving the planet at all, just moving the ’emissions’ somewhere else and they are quiet. For any mobility outside a city, there is no beating the energy storage capability of gas/oil.
You could use them in the suburbs too, to commute, but then they limit doing anything else with them like traveling, towing, etc….
There are claims that regenerative braking can extend EV or hybrid range 10% to 20% with typical city driving. Got that range from an electrical engineer who just retired from working on an EV program.
Fellow engineers are now testing EV prototypes in winter for the first time and are getting extremely worried that their 2026 EV models will bomb in the marketplace, from the high cost, fueling inconvenience and loss of range in cold weather. In northern Minnesota extreme cold weather testing they recently found range reductions of 50%, and sometimes higher, on some EV models.
Auto engineers are usually over-optimistic about new ICE vehicles they are designing. With EVs, their optimism declines as they learn more about the EV weak points. This is unprecedented in the industry, in my experience since the 1970s.
The manufacturers have to sell a lot of EVs so they can also sell a lot of high margin low mileage ICE pickup trucks, and still meet EPA CAFE regulations. I bet the CAFE penalties will be rising in the future.
My retired electrical engineer friend says he is getting uncensored feedback from fellow working engineers after he retired — everyone made nice and pretended 2026 EVs would be great while at work in product development. A few weeks of winter testing in northern Minnesota and now the engineers are all depressed, saying “it’s worse than we thought in cold weather, and we were already expecting bad news”.
‘The manufacturers have to sell a lot of EVs so they can also sell a lot of high margin low mileage ICE pickup trucks, and still meet EPA CAFE regulations.’ — Richard Greene
Kind of like mandating makers of dildos to ramp up their production of chastity belts, to enhance their CAFE (Complete Abstinence Female Experience) score.
It’s two different markets, for heavens sake (though there might be a Venn diagram overlap in the nunnery). 🙂
I loved your joke, but:
Auto companies want to sell as many high profit margin pickup trucks as possible without paying high fines for failing to meet corporate average fuel economy standards.
To meet the EPA’s very high Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy standard of 49 mpg for 2026 model, without paying fines, the auto companies will need to sell lots of “high mileage” electric vehicles too.
There’s a $15 fine for 2022 model year for every 0.1 mile per gallon new vehicles fall short of required fuel economy standards (or $150 per every mpg). This amount is multiplied by the number of noncomplying vehicles sold.
Let’s say a 2026 ICE F150 will get gets 24mpg
49 mpg target – 24 mpg actual = 25 mpg over target
25 mpg over target x $150 fine per each mpg over target = $3,750 in vehicle profit down the drain, unless the average corporate mpg is reduced by selling lots of electric vehicles.
MPGe is the distance a car can travel on 33.7kWh of electricity. So, if a vehicle can cover 60 miles for every 33.7kWh of electricity, its MPGe would be 60. That would be the equivalent of a gas-powered car getting 60 mpg.
I would agree with their assessment based on owner’s videos and Eric’s articles.
May be adequate for some, but definitely not all.
ken,
In fact, electric power is a very inefficient means of transporting and storing energy. Which means it takes MORE energy to deliver it where it’s needed, and can barely be stored at all. Before it becomes “energy input”. Those costs are acceptable for running your toaster or your vacuum cleaner, and border line for heat, hot water, and cooking. The 500 gallon propane tank in my yard will store energy for as many decades as I desire with zero loss. Same with diesel and gasoline, with some tender loving and inexpensive care.
You can buy a Chang Li Explorer for 2000 dollars, comes in a box. No engine, batteries are used to propel the truck.
Chang Li Explorer
You can actually afford one, there is that. Maybe costs 2000 dollars for shipping.
A very practical niche-mobile for not much money.
‘It is the Ivermectin of “clean” transportation.’ — eric
Touché!
As the great Obama might have said, ‘We berserked some folks.’ 🙂
Hi Jim,
You may have noticed that the media, FDA, and the government smeared Ivermectin in the same way that the government smeared diesel engines.
For those who don’t already know, when it was becoming too obvious that Ivermectin wasn’t just “horse dewormer”, the FDA tried to say that they didn’t tell the masses NOT to take Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID despite a tweet last year saying just that. They claimed that they just RECOMMENDED that people not take it as a treatment for COVID. However, there is that tweet they put out essentially saying “Ivermectin is horse dewormer. Y’all ain’t horses or cows. Stop it!” If that’s not telling people NOT to take something that some doctors successfully used as a treatment for COVID patients, I don’t know what is.
This obsessive push for ALL ELECTRIC vehicles AND “vaccinating” every last human has effectively become cults. Just look at Anthony Fauci the past few years. There are people, including in the media, who’ve come to view him as some GOD of Public Health, even though his decrees, edicts, and suggestions re COVID have been complete failures. And anyone who dared criticize Fauci’s awful COVID response was accused of “Attacking science”. Fauci himself even had the audacity to claim that HE was “The Science”. Anyone who’s read Robert F Kennedy Jr’s book about Fauci would know that Fauci has been a corrupt public health bureaucrat (albeit a powerful one) for nearly 40 years. He even worked with Bill Gates, who now effectively runs public health policy at numerous health agencies throughout the world, including the WHO despite having NO experience that I’m aware of in the medical field. Why, even the whole mask wearing nonsense has become a religion to some, though some would wish to PUNISH those who don’t also wear filthy, ineffective face diapers.
“Climate change” is also a cult to some degree. We’ve had CLIMATE CHANGE literally forever, but now there are people who actually think they can “change the climate” and “Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave the planet” by dimming the sun, forcing the masses to stop eating meat, shoving electric vehicles down the masses’ throats, forcing the masses out of rural areas and into megalopolises, destroying farms, and killing pets.
Conservatives love America and want to make the nation better
Leftists hate America and want to destroy everything that works, to encourage a fundamental transformation to Marxism, with a stop at fascism along the way
It’s that simple.
Conservatives don’t love America.
They don’t even know what America is.
Then who does?
Hi John,
“Climate Change” is definitely a cult, this save the planet crap makes me ill. The planet will be here until the sun goes supernova, whether or not it can support life is a different story. If the uber greenies succeed in cutting CO2 to the point that plants can’t grow or block sunlight to start an ice age the climate won’t matter because nothing will be left alive to experience it.
Hi Mike,
In one of his posts on Armstrong Economics, Martin Armstrong made the case that this obsessive war against Russia is also partly a war FOR the insane climate change agenda.
Mike,
How many people who actually believe the narratives about climate change will do whatever the Klaus Schwabs of the world are calling for, such as eating bugs or Frankenfood, driving EVs, or killing their pets? I don’t know.
John B,
The “climate” and the “vaccination” are both part of the same plan. Kill off most of the population, and keep what’s left immobile. Those that swallowed the male bovine excrement , whether “climate” or depopulation, are indeed cultists. Those who promote such nonsense are not. They are psychopaths with an agenda, and it doesn’t favor people, period.
Hybrids are leaps and bounds ahead of EVs. Yet I struggle to understand how a hybrid is better than a plain ol’ ICE.
Hi Mike,
A hybrid can be better, if the measure is overall operating costs. A hybrid generally costs only a few thousand dollars more than a gas-engined equivalent yet can reduce what you spend on gas by 30 percent or even more. When gas costs $4 per gallon, the savings can accrue quickly.
Also: Plug-ins can be thought of as flex-fuel vehicles. If the battery is fully charged, you can drive one (like the 4xe) for 20-something miles without using any gas. That’s not very far, of course – but if might be far enough (if there is no gas available).
Hybrids can be attractive IF you don’t have to pay for the repairs on the system and the replacement battery it will need after the warranty runs out. For me, “plain ol’ ICE” is the best way to go in existence. My 2004 Honda Element is a dependable joy.
By the way, thanks, Eric, for making me laugh right off the top. Second sentence: “Or – God help you – one for a plug.”
In desperation for entertainment yesterday, I watched a football game online for a while. It may have been an NBC feed, but I was getting it for free. I would never pay for such. Anyway, it had a commercial, repeated, in which it showed a corn plant and said the corn plant and the EV were essential in “our fight against climate change.” A THREE-FOLD LIE. Or three lies in one statement. Blatant lies. I wonder what percent of our adult male football fans fall for that crap. I’ll bet it’s a very high percent, near 99%.
And there was a commercial that showed groups of nonWhite humans from far south of the USA and called them “refugees” and said “Jesus was a refugee”! The depth of those absurdities and lies made me scoff-laugh out loud.
Years ago, I could not understand why there weren’t plenty of men like me ready to rise up and take care of the necessary bloody business. And then my experiences talking in-person with men in Tennessee, California, Michigan, and South Dakota made me understand. They would only engage in topics such as sports, weather, beer, tv, and the like. They would shun or walk away from topics such as “enemies foreign and DOMESTIC,” and government-media lies about climate, their anti-White agenda, etc.
We who recognize the lies and the liars and expose them are rare. We who realize what must be done about it are even more rare.
Here comes 2023. Another swing around the Sun. Let us hold our heads up and see what progress we can make.
Hey Mike,
“Better” is subjective. I really like my Volt and, for me, it’s better than either an ICE or a pure EV.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Jeremy,
Let’s see how you like it in ten years, when the battery folds up. But maybe you can afford it. In which case, more power to you. I can’t. Nor can many others.
Gasoline and diesel engines are a miracle, as are the fuels that feed them. Both being governed out of the market for the exact reason that they ARE miracles. Miracles that did not come from the state. Which is why they hate them so much.
Hi John,
My Volt is 10 years old now and it shows no signs of battery degradation. The management system does not allow deep discharge and does not need fast charging to “fill up” completely overnight. Maybe that’s why there seems to be very few reported battery problems. As for cost, I bought it almost 4 years ago and paid very little for it ($950.00 out of pocket plus a $6,000.00 trade in). You’re right, ICE vehicles are a miracle, I plan to keep my now 21 year old truck forever. But, the Volt is more practical and convenient for the normal daily driving that I mostly do.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
“The management system does not allow deep discharge and does not need fast charging…”
I think this is key. I’ve kept starter batteries going for as along 12 years (’03 Kawasaki) by keeping them on a trickle charger and avoiding deep discharge. The paradox with EVs is that deep discharge – and “fast” charging – are both all-but-unavoidable, if you plan to actually drive the car regularly any distance.
I hope Toyota sends you the 2023 Prius to review. Between its sleek looks, power and 57mpg coupled with Toyota reliability it should put another nail in Tesla’s coffin. I believe good hybrids will seriously depress the “appeal” of all the other electrics being pushed. To hell with companies like GM and their pledge to electrify by (agenda) 2030.
In a sane world greenies would be pushing gas hybrids and microdiesel engines. Greenies aren’t sane, the world is made up of mostly compliant retards whise religious edicts are pumped out of the screen daily. The pendulum always does seem to swing back though. I’m curious pd how much I’ll see it in my lifetime
This guy sat for 3 hours while the fast charger did nothing but heat the battery, no charging.
At least he had the honesty to post it, and you can bet there are a butt-load more who had the same issue and haven’t told anyone, either.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZAefaj6iPpo