Off topic electric vs ICE discussion

[Sal Collaziano]

As I've stated before, not offering hybrids aside from the 48V supercharged V6 in the G90 (which probably will at least make its way down to the GV80) was a miscalculation by Genesis.

The straight ICE models had basically no chance of success over in Europe, and the $ that went into developing the G70 Shooting Brake would have been better spent hybridizing it.

As it turns out, HMG is developing the perfect hybrid powertrain for Genesis, hybridizing the 2.5T, which, reportedly will first go into the next Palisade (which will also be getting a boosted version of the 3.5L V6).

It's a bit odd that within HMG, there is such a disparate outlook when it comes to hybrids - as pretty much the entire Hyundai and Kia lineups will be getting hybrid variants, including the aforementioned Palisade, Telluride and Carnival.




Would not be surprised if we eventually do see confirmation.

The Stinger "replacement" will be larger and more upscale, so more akin to the G80 than G70; makes sense as the Korean market simply does not buy compact lux sedans and with the K900 discontinued, Kia needs a new flagship to slot above the K8.

[Aside from the Korean market which does not favor fastbacks (really, no market does), the Stinger has usually outsold the G70 - US, Canada, Australia, Germany].

Hard to see a business case for a direct G70 replacement.

Also the same reason why a Genesis coupe would be more a 2-door version of the G80 than the G70.

Genesis would be better off diverting the resources to add (yeah, I know) another CUV, but this time, one that is more of a boxy, off roader - say, something btwn the size of the GV70 and GV80.


Something like that would do very well in Korea as people love to get out of the crowded cities and go car camping (which is what the new Santa Fe is geared for).

I really like the idea of hybrids as opposed to electric. In my opinion it was a terrible idea for so many companies to abandon hybrids as we were getting about 50mpg in midsize luxury sedans. Imagine what would/could be possible with another 10 or 20 years of research and development. I feel there will be a time for all electric cars - but far into the future. I just don't see the infrastructure being ready any time soon for everyone to be charging on the grid - especially when there's a push to remove other gas-powered items. I feel we should keep developing for an electric future, but for the time being and foreseeable future - hybrid. I love the idea of a hybrid setup saving gas, keeping me away from the gas station longer than otherwise, but being able to fuel up there quickly as I have been for decades - and I'm glad to see Genesis sees this too...

 

[Volfy]

Ford and other major mfrs are losing billions on their EV programs and are now divesting into hybrids to amortize their R&D $$$ spent on electrification. They are finding out that their traditional ICE customers are not flocking to EVs in droves, as predicted. More folks are buying hybrids instead, because they are just more practical, regardless of other factors, like charging. Even those pale in comparison to the buyers sticking to traditional ICE.

Toyota caught flak from the greenies for not fully embracing EV, preferring to strengthen their already strong hybrid lineup. The recent sales trends have vindicated their corporate strategy.

The meteoric rise of Tesla has fooled the auto industry into thinking EV has become more mainstream than it really is. While Tesla should be given credit for bullheading the EV crusade in a way that the traditional players would never have done, the fact remains that EV alone cannot replace ICE all together for all our current transportation needs, regardless of how much battery technologies progress.

Neither can hybrids. And that's precisely the point. The industry does need to diversify away from all-ICE, but betting the farm on EV-only is shortsighted thinking with ill consequences.

 

[Husky]

I really like the idea of hybrids as opposed to electric. In my opinion it was a terrible idea for so many companies to abandon hybrids as we were getting about 50mpg in midsize luxury sedans. Imagine what would/could be possible with another 10 or 20 years of research and development. I feel there will be a time for all electric cars - but far into the future. I just don't see the infrastructure being ready any time soon for everyone to be charging on the grid - especially when there's a push to remove other gas-powered items. I feel we should keep developing for an electric future, but for the time being and foreseeable future - hybrid. I love the idea of a hybrid setup saving gas, keeping me away from the gas station longer than otherwise, but being able to fuel up there quickly as I have been for decades - and I'm glad to see Genesis sees this too...

I think the problem with EV infrastructure is a chicken and egg type of problem. There needs to be a demand (i.e. people buying and driving EVs) before the money will be spent on charging stations, but until there are enough charging stations, many people will be reluctant to buy an EV.
We can probably learn from history; I imagine that the popularity of ICE powered vehicles in the first couple of decades of the last century drove the demand for gas and gas stations; not the other way around.

 

[Slip_Angle]

I think the problem with EV infrastructure is a chicken and egg type of problem. There needs to be a demand (i.e. people buying and driving EVs) before the money will be spent on charging stations, but until there are enough charging stations, many people will be reluctant to buy an EV.
We can probably learn from history; I imagine that the popularity of ICE powered vehicles in the first couple of decades of the last century drove the demand for gas and gas stations; not the other way around.

100%

Also, if you look at where ICE powered cars started, in terms of their usefulness, they were waaay behind how EVs started. Consider that and in 10-20 years they will probably be pretty awesome regardless if they are pure EV, Hydrogen, Hybrid or whatever.

 

[Husky]

Ford and other major mfrs are losing billions on their EV programs and are now divesting into hybrids to amortize their R&D $$$ spent on electrification. They are finding out that their traditional ICE customers are not flocking to EVs in droves, as predicted. More folks are buying hybrids instead, because they are just more practical, regardless of other factors, like charging. Even those pale in comparison to the buyers sticking to traditional ICE.

Toyota caught flak from the greenies for not fully embracing EV, preferring to strengthen their already strong hybrid lineup. The recent sales trends have vindicated their corporate strategy.

The meteoric rise of Tesla has fooled the auto industry into thinking EV has become more mainstream than it really is. While Tesla should be given credit for bullheading the EV crusade in a way that the traditional players would never have done, the fact remains that EV alone cannot replace ICE all together for all our current transportation needs, regardless of how much battery technologies progress.

Neither can hybrids. And that's precisely the point. The industry does need to diversify away from all-ICE, but betting the farm on EV-only is shortsighted thinking with ill consequences.

Not to be disagreeable, but I think short-sighted thinking has resulted in the ill consequences our entire planet is facing today - it's burning up.
I enjoy my ICE powered vehicles as much as the next guy, and have loved them since I was a wee tyke, but after a good 100+ year run, I'm afraid we're faced with a stark reality, whether we like it or not.
Hybrids are great (although also more complex), and I've owned two of them, but if we don't move away from fossil fuels fast, I don't think mother nature is going to wait for us.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

I apologize for taking our G70 discussion off topic... If this discussion is going to continue, please keep it friendly, as non-political as possible and don't point fingers.

I mentioned that I don't believe we're ready for full-on electric cars. It's only my opinion and any opinion that differs from mine is wholeheartedly welcome. I believe there's a future for all-electric vehicles, I just think it's a generation or two away. Solely my opinion.

This is just another one of those discussions that can get heated and create arguments. Don't let it happen. Respect differing opinions and don't hurl insults at one another or political figures.

 

[EdP]

I mentioned that I don't believe we're ready for full-on electric cars. It's only my opinion and any opinion that differs from mine is wholeheartedly welcome. I believe there's a future for all-electric vehicles, I just think it's a generation or two away. Solely my opinion.

This is just another one of those discussions that can get heated and create arguments. Don't let it happen. Respect differing opinions and don't hurl insults at one another or political figures.

I'm guessing in about five years it will be much different. Toyota is already touting 600 mile batteries and a consortium of Auto makers is going to add another 30,000 charging stations.

We have to do something as oil is a finite material. Our kids will be talking about how cheap gas was at only $5 a gallon.

 

[Husky]

I apologize for taking our G70 discussion off topic... If this discussion is going to continue, please keep it friendly, as non-political as possible and don't point fingers.

I mentioned that I don't believe we're ready for full-on electric cars. It's only my opinion and any opinion that differs from mine is wholeheartedly welcome. I believe there's a future for all-electric vehicles, I just think it's a generation or two away. Solely my opinion.

This is just another one of those discussions that can get heated and create arguments. Don't let it happen. Respect differing opinions and don't hurl insults at one another or political figures.

Totally agree Sal (although it's a shame that science and the very future of our planet has become politicized).

 

[Sal Collaziano]

I'm guessing in about five years it will be much different. Toyota is already touting 600 mile batteries and a consortium of Auto makers is going to add another 30,000 charging stations.

We have to do something as oil is a finite material. Our kids will be talking about how cheap gas was at only $5 a gallon.

Life moves fast these days. Even faster than Ferris Beuler saw coming. I wouldn’t be surprised if the infrastructure is ready in five years. Let’s see.

 

[Lisettechi]

We definitely need an alternate energy source, but EVs in their current form are not the answer either. Lithium mining is pretty bad for the environment too, but the real problem is we would merely be trading one finite resource in for another finite resource. EV is a stop-gap at best for clean energy unless we find another way to produce better batteries.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Volfy]

Problem with the current EV sales trends is that most are luxury vehicles bought more for lifestyle peacocking and for the cachet factor than true environmental altruism. Most are owned by households with gas guzzling ICE vehicles sitting right next to them, garaged in 4-5000 sq.ft. McMansions. It's the proverbial diet coke to go with the triple cheesecake.

What really should've been 100% electrified - 10-15 yrs ago - are the millions of UPS/FedEx/Amazon/USPS delivery vans that have fixed routes every day. Add in millions of vans that tradesmen operate out of every single days and driven typically limited miles between job sites. Every single country have these and they are the perfect candidates for electrification. Their constant stop and go applications are ideally suited to the limited ranges, and they almost always return to the same location every night - making charging logistics a non-issue.

Their sheer numbers would make a huge dent in the global CO2 emissions, as well as kick start the economies of scale in ways that would put Tesla to shame.

The billions in tax breaks and incentives should've gone to those hardworking applications, instead of rich folks that can afford 50-100k lifestyle vehicles.

But nope. Most of delivery/trades are still tooling around with even more ancient ICE vehicles that get 8-12mpg. My 2.0T typically get 25-33mpg depending on traffic. And if I bike commute, as much as 40-45mpg.

Shoving expensive EVs down the wrong people's throats are no way to solve our very real climate problem.

 

[EdP]

We definitely need an alternate energy source, but EVs in their current form are not the answer either. Lithium mining is pretty bad for the environment too, but the real problem is we would merely be trading one finite resource in for another finite resource. EV is a stop-gap at best for clean energy unless we find another way to produce better batteries.

There are batteries in the works than do not use lithium or cobalt.

The future of electric vehicle batteries: What’s on the horizon? - Interplex

Find out the future of EV batteries in the next coming years. Here are the battery trends to look forward to in 2023 up to 2030.

tinyurl.com

 

[EdP]

Problem with the current EV sales trends is that most are luxury vehicles bought more for lifestyle peacocking and for the cachet factor than true environmental altruism. Most are owned by households with gas guzzling ICE vehicles sitting right next to them, garaged in 4-5000 sq.ft. McMansions. It's the proverbial diet coke to go with the triple cheesecake.

What really should've been 100% electrified - 10-15 yrs ago - are the millions of UPS/FedEx/Amazon/USPS delivery vans that have fixed routes every day. Add in millions of vans that tradesmen operate out of every single days and driven typically limited miles between job sites. Every single country have these and they are the perfect candidates for electrification. Their constant stop and go applications are ideally suited to the limited ranges, and they almost always return to the same location every night - making charging logistics a non-issue.

Their sheer numbers would make a huge dent in the global CO2 emissions, as well as kick start the economies of scale in ways that would put Tesla to shame.

The billions in tax breaks and incentives should've gone to those hardworking applications, instead of rich folks that can afford 50-100k lifestyle vehicles.

But nope. Most of delivery/trades are still tooling around with even more ancient ICE vehicles that get 8-12mpg. My 2.0T typically get 25-33mpg depending on traffic. And if I bike commute, as much as 40-45mpg.

Shoving expensive EVs down the wrong people's throats are no way to solve our very real climate problem.

Amazon has thousands of EV vans and is expanding. USPS is too. They plan to have 75% in five years.

Musk, perhaps can address your other question. Should they have made the Model 3 before the Model S? Or did profit from the Model S make it possible to invest in the lower end products? They have a model 3 coming up too.

Your idea seems to be best but would Joe Plumber have bought an electric pickup with no track record from the fancy cars? I don't know.

 

[Volfy]

Amazon has thousands of EV vans and is expanding. USPS is too. They plan to have 75% in five years.

Musk, perhaps can address your other question. Should they have made the Model 3 before the Model S? Or did profit from the Model S make it possible to invest in the lower end products? They have a model 3 coming up too.

Your idea seems to be best but would Joe Plumber have bought an electric pickup with no track record from the fancy cars? I don't know.

Thousands are a drop in the bucket, when there are tens of millions on the road everyday. Press releases always read nice... but reality is quite something else. Corporate giants are in the business to make money, not to save the planet. If they really wanted to do the latter, they could've electrified their fleet long time ago, instead of making a token effort to appease the critics.

Like I said, I have to give credit to Tesla for bullheading EVs, when nobody else would. They did what they had to to grow. That's private enterprise.

To solve this climate crisis, we cannot count on private enterprise. Government actions - on a global scale - are needed, whether some of us like it or not. Problem is... far too often, democratically-elected officials are only worried about getting re-elected, so they pass feel good legislations that get them votes, instead of making efficient use of government resources and national might to achieve long term goals. I'm no GAO bean counter, but I would imagine the amount of EV rebates/incentives/tax breaks in past decades have undoubtedly added up to $$billions by now. IF that had been invested in electrification of those vehicles that make a far great impact, as I mentioned. We would've been much farther ahead of the curve. That economies of scale already built and R&D already invested would mean that auto makers could be building $25k EVs in mass qtys, instead of hawking boutique $100k F150 EVs and $50-60k+ IONIQs and still losing thousands on each sale.

 

[Volfy]

Besides, EVs are not the saviors some seem to make them out to be. What each and every one of us need to do is a view our carbon foot print in the totality of it.

For example, what is your electricity bill last month? Mine was exactly $219.04 charged on 8/02. Mind you, I live in a Houston suburb where we've had a hotter-than-Hades heat wave going on for months now. Mine is no McMansion, but it isn't exactly tiny either. As a household, we do our darnest to use as little juice as possible. That means not keeping our house like a meatlocker, and upgrading to high-SEER 2-stage HVAC, switching from central AC to room AC at night, and a myriad of other energy saving tech and strategies.

I actually know a family that owns a Tesla and was told their typical Summer electric bill run easily 3X ours. Yep... real environmentally friendly.

 

[Volfy]

We definitely need an alternate energy source...

That's just it. ELECTRICITY is not an energy source. It is merely a transmission medium. Vast majority of electricity produced in the US is still from fossil fuel.

At most what EVs do is to alter the point at which that fossil fuel consumption takes place. The hope is that conversion at power plants is more efficient and less polluting than with an ICE vehicle... which is not always the case.

This the nearest power plant to my house. On a clear day, I can see the plumes from the smoke stacks from my backyard. What's that black stuff? Why... it's COAL. So much for all the Teslas tooling around my neighborhood.



By far the best non-fossil fuel for electricity production is nuclear. Unlike renewables, nuclear can be scaled up to take over ALL electricity production if the political will exists. Yes, there are risks involved in its use, but they can mitigated via engineering means and operational management. Those mitigations will not be cheap, it they were to be hardened against all threats (e.g. (extreme weather, terrorism, etc.), but they would still be orders of magnitudes cheaper than fixing this runaway climate crisis.

 

[PMCErnie]

Then there is this. Just try to put out an EV fire. Sure ICE vehicles have fires, but they don’t usually turn into disasters.

Also note this article’s reference to superheated batteries in hot climates. Are you listening Texas, Florida, Arizona, etc.?

Elon Musk alerted after Tesla bursts into flames while parked in garage

FIRE crews have tagged Elon Musk in an X post after a Tesla erupted into flames while parked in a garage full of luxury vehicles. Metro Fire of Sacramento said responders had to block off the elect…

www.the-sun.com

 

[Husky]

It is a very complex issue, and I agree that we have to look at the big picture, including how the energy is generated/converted, stored and used, as well as how things are recycled at end of life. It seems the energy ecosystem is nearly as complex as the ecosystem we're trying to protect.
I would point out that, although EVs use electricity that is largely NOT from renewable, clean sources today, that is changing with the increasing amount of wind and solar energy being produced, whereas fossil fuels never will be clean or renewable.
Also, ICE are notoriously inefficient (in the vicinity of only 25%), whereas EVs use energy much more efficiently, so that must be taken into account when comparing the two.
It is true that extreme hot and/or cold climates pose a challenge to present day EV batteries, reducing their range (and lifetime?). Hopefully this is something that can be greatly improved with technology and newer battery chemistries.
Nuclear power is certainly a tempting solution. However besides the obvious threat, however rare, of meltdown, there's also the problem of storing all that spent, radioactive fuel.
There's obviously no easy, simple or quick solution to the challenge of producing the vast amounts of energy the world uses. It took us a couple of hundred years to get where we are. But it's also obvious that something has to change soon (some say it may already be too late) and we've already lost about 25 years by denying the evidence and sticking our collective heads in the sand. Unfortunately the climate situation always seems to get worse even faster than scientists who study it predict. There's a lot of positive feedback mechanisms that unbalance what was a delicate but stable system.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound preachy, just thinking out loud and expressing my opinion.
I really do fear for the future of our kids and grandkids (I'm 67, so I likely won't be around to see and experience the worst of what may come).
Technology got us into this, let's hope it can get us out.

 

[Volfy]

Nuclear waste is a problem for sure. However, compared to the enormous magnitude of the climate crisis, it is a problem that is relatively easy and cheap to solve... if one is willing to get past the fear mongering and understand that it is a solvable problem. Take a look at how Finland is tackling the issue: https://www.science.org/content/art...ore-nuclear-waste-can-it-survive-100000-years

Sound policy and effective solutions are possible, when folks quit the "not in my backyard" bickering, educate themselves on the challenges at hand, and empower those who have the know-how to engineer systems necessary for achieving the end goal. I interned at a Nuclear Power Plant just north of NYC in my college sophomore year. I fear politicians making short-sighted climate policies infinitely more than the potential dangers of nuclear energy.

EV is far from a panacea for our fossil fuel dependency. It is only a partial solution that works well for some applications... and really only works if the problem on the production end is solved, which it most certainly is not. Yet, folks drinks the EV coolaid, like a 400lbs obese person lying on the couch drinking diet coke.

Wake up and smell the aspartame.

 

[Volfy]

Also, ICE are notoriously inefficient (in the vicinity of only 25%), whereas EVs use energy much more efficiently, so that must be taken into account when comparing the two.

Okay... let's look at that comparison.

The typical gasoline engine's efficiency has been going up steadily over the past decades. Just the introduction of DI has increased efficiency some 10-20%. And diesel engines are substantially higher still. But just for argument sake, let's stay at the 25% for gasoline engines as quoted.

What about EV? Well, as the chart above indicates, upwards of 79% of electricity generated in the US come from fossil fuel. Based on this article, the power plant efficiencies are as follows:

Coal power plant - 32-33%
gas power plant - 33- 43%
Oil power plant - 40%

So the combined efficiency is mostly below 40%. According the below link, total of some 65% is lost at the power plant. Lost In Transmission: How Much Electricity Disappears Between A Power Plant And Your Plug?

Now add the transmission line loss from the power plant to point of consumption. The same above link estimates losses in transmission and distribution at around 6%.

Now what about the EV itself? This article (All-Electric Vehicles) estimate them to be about 75-80% efficient. Some of that is the driveline loss (which any vehicle would have), so let's just say 10% loss in the battery-motor system on a good Summer day (and that's being generous).

So what's that add up to... 100% - 65% - 6% - 10% = 19% efficiency overall for EV.

Well... still think EVs are so much more efficient?