[dataway]

Got admit the youngsters and their love of "tuning" the rice burners is helping keep the interest alive. Different cars, same love of performance. They are doing a lot to support the aftermarket community now.

[KS circutguy]

=jerry455;6222508]The faster you charge a battery the more it reduces the life of it. That is the balancing act right now. Until better battery technology is developed and the lack of a more robust electric grid. We have to turn off lights and reduce our A/C usage here in the Metro Detroit area in the summer when it gets too hot and there are not too many of those days but still. It tells you about the grid systems ability.

Exactly,
look at California, summer rolling blackouts even when dark.
We need more Nuclear power plants.
As far as electric cars go, the impact all these litho batteries make will be interesting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdo...h=5453dbb1650b

There are 7.2 million battery EVs or about 1% of the total vehicle fleet today. To get an idea of the scale of mining for raw materials involved in replacing the world’s gasoline and diesel-fueled cars with EVs, we can take the example of the UK as provided by Michael Kelly, the Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. According to Professor Kelly, if we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: about twice the annual global production of cobalt; three quarters of the world’s production lithium carbonate; nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and more than half the world’s production of copper in 2018.

And this is just for the UK. Professor Kelly estimates that if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves. The environmental and social impact of vastly-expanded mining for these materials — some of which are highly toxic when mined, transported and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined. The clean and green image of EVs stands in stark contrast to the realities of manufacturing batteries.

[turbo69bird]

Originally Posted by dataway

The electrical infrastructure will be a major hurdle to overcome. States like NY can CA can barely meet their electrical needs now, imagine a million more electric cars charging up every day. Using an average of 70 kwh to charge a car, say four times a month, 280 kwh extra for the month. My typical house/shop usage is 800-900 kwh a month averaged over the year. So about 32% more electricity I would use. One million additional electric cars would equal the equivalent of 320,000 new homes.

California has 15 million cars, if they were all electric it would be like adding 4,800,000 new homes to power. California barely has the power to supply the homes that have right now. Not only would massive new generation be necessary, the grid would have to be total rebuilt to handle the load, right down to the neighborhood distribution and the service entrance to millions of older homes.

Multiply this times the 250 million cars in the US .... we just don't have the power ... unless they want to build a thousand new power plants and power them with fossil fuels.

In winter climates you can expect considerably less efficiency as you expend about 10,000 BTU or 3 kw per hour to pre-warm, defrost and maintain heat in the car. Same for air conditioning in hot climates. This will probably become less of a factor as battery power density increases.

It will be a long time in coming, probably 40 years assuming no worldwide calamities in the mean time. No telling what kind of battery power we will have in 40 years, I'd expect range to no longer be factor, performance would be whatever you want it to be.

There is still hydrogen ... although engineers in the know say "Hydrogen is the fuel of the future .... and always will be." But IC engines can run quite well on hydrogen and produce great power, and exhaust water. Problem is again power density, takes a lot of hydrogen to do the work, and it's hard to compress and store in a safe manner in suitable quantity for a car. Not to mention it usually take more energy to produce hydrogen that it makes when you consume it, but that could change. Hydrogen would probably be used for electrical generation in hydrogen fuel cells rather than IC engines.

I have read some interesting articles on the production of hydrogen using natural biological processes.

Energy density is the final word in what will be used to move vehicles. Right now fossil fuels offer the highest per pound/volume source of energy but the gap closes every year. Haven't done the math but I'd guess if they double current battery power density it would be very close to equaling that of gasoline.

This is why you should all buy stock in PG& E They are already working with Tesla on battery storage, think about it all those cars needing to be charged.

And yes they will make our cars obsolete, they can’t wait to get rid of these polluters ! They can’t take them ( well maybe they can these days) but they can make them too hard or expensive to use.

[turbo69bird]

Originally Posted by KS circutguy

Exactly,
look at California, summer rolling blackouts even when dark.
We need more Nuclear power plants.
As far as electric cars go, the impact all these litho batteries make will be interesting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdo...h=5453dbb1650b

Do you really expect anyone to think ahead about what the batteries will do to the environment. Next you’ll want facts. 🙄

[PontiacJim1959]

Will bikers and biker gangs still be "bad-ass" riding electric powered Harley Davidson's? Kinda takes away from the image, don't you think?

[The Blue Lemon]

There are some simple facts about this manufactured "Climate change" nonsense.

1)- The single largest oil importer on the planet is Europe, This whole move to get the USA off oil is just a way to level the playing field. They won't dig for their oil so they rely on Russia and SA- which has them by the balls. They just want the USA to play on the same court.

2)- The USA currently has the single largest known reserves on the planet, followed by Russia, SA, and Canada. We HAD the opportunity to become oil independent and eventually take over the oil market and use that to pay off he debt- selling the abundance of oil we had...Thanks to you know who that's no longer on the table.

(Source https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/...e-oil-reserves)

3)- We aren't the biggest polluters on the planet- China and India are.

With that said, does anybody in their right mind think the USA going electric is going to help anything? No, not only do we not have the ability to support all the infrastructure to run them, it just hamstrings us and prevents us from utilizing all our resources.

I don't intend on buying a shiny new transportation appliance, no thanks. An ugly reality also is that hot rodders and car guys are a very, very small segment of the population, so in that sense we're screwed. Of course, they will try to corral us all into new cars, killing off the hobby. Race cars and street machines aren't exactly PC and Silicon Valley approved so...

Hopefully, I'll be dead by the time it really becomes a problem. I have no plans on buying any new cars anymore. That's it. Hopefully enough of us send a message by abstaining.

[turbo69bird]

https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...s-testing.html


1400 Hp mustang!

[turbo69bird]

Originally Posted by Scarebird

The fear here being pushed is wrong.

Gasoline will be around for quite a while, even if in a decade half or more of the cars sold are pure electric. Boats, General Aviation and other needs will ensure fuel will still be available.

We may have already seen peak gasoline use:



We will work this out.

General aviation is closer to the cross over to electric than you might think.
2035 is the mandate for cars under the current czar.

Fuel will be around but will it be plentiful. Will there be high taxes on its use?


Of course they also said climate change would kill us all in 10 years in the 70s

[Scarebird]

Originally Posted by The Blue Lemon

There are some simple facts about this manufactured "Climate change" nonsense....

[Firedup6975]

I most likely will be dead until this happens so I’m living life to the fullest and that includes our three classic cars. We just bought another Trans AM a few weeks ago, I won’t be here to see what happens to my cars so really not concerned about the electric cars happening anytime soon to mass marketing.

[Tom Vaught]

People were probably saying the same thing when the new V-8 vehicles came out and the Flat Head Ford type people, in 1947, with the the 1932, 1933, & 1934 Fords were saying the world was coming to an end. Did not happen.

Just Saying. There will always be the Doom and Gloom people out there when they don't get their way on stuff.

Last year I believe for the Flathead Ford engine was around 1946 but might be wrong there. Not a Flathead Ford expert.

Tom V.

[ta6point6]

Exactly, the same was said when lead free gas came out, catalytic converters and fuel injection replacing the carburetor. The end of horsepower and the car hobby is doomed, it will not happen for a long time. The old saying used to be no replacement for displacement but look at how well these smaller engines perform now with air conditioning on , better gas mileage and not to mention safer body construction. I think hybrids are the best overall solution for now with gas and electric. Everything changes, change with it and adapt or get left behind.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Last year I believe for the Flathead Ford engine was around 1946 but might be wrong there. Not a Flathead Ford expert.

Tom V.

Tom

I own a '49 Caddy Limousine, which was the first year of the Kettering OHV V8 for GM. Your comment caused to wonder about when Ford came out with a OHV V8 for their Ford cars/trucks, as I remembered that in the early 50's (I wasn't alive, but I remember reading about) hotrodders pulled their flathead engines out of their 1950 Fords and Mercurys and making "Fordillacs" for more power....

From Hemmings:

The lead here is copied from a 1950 Sunday supplement that shows Bill Frick (left) (right) and Ted Tappett installing a brand-new Cadillac OHV V-8 in a 1950 Ford that was also brand new.

Link to info and comments:

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/201...us-a-fordillac

So I did some research and learned that the 239 ci Ford Y block OHV V8 was introduced in 1954 (the year I was born).

1953 Ford Crestline Victoria engine compartment:

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Last year I believe for the Flathead Ford engine was around 1946 but might be wrong there. Not a Flathead Ford expert.

Tom V.

The last year for the flathead in US cars was 1953, the Y block was introduced in 1954.
There were some additional flatheads manufactured up through the 1980s overseas - a number of NOS blocks meant for French military vehicles surfaced ten or twenty years ago and were brought back to the US, they were resold mostly to traditional hot rodders.

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by ta6point6

Exactly, the same was said when lead free gas came out, catalytic converters and fuel injection replacing the carburetor. The end of horsepower and the car hobby is doomed, it will not happen for a long time. The old saying used to be no replacement for displacement but look at how well these smaller engines perform now with air conditioning on , better gas mileage and not to mention safer body construction. I think hybrids are the best overall solution for now with gas and electric. Everything changes, change with it and adapt or get left behind.

I agree with most of this assessment. The hybrid solution, only as an interim solution. They are so complicated, combining all the worst characteristics of gasoline engines and electric cars. But clearly, some manufacturers do it better than others. Toyota went all in on hybrids and put everything smart and cleaver they had ever accomplished into the Prius. The result was impressive mileage and even more impressive Reliability. I work on a fair amount of very high mileage Prius cars now, 250K-350K on the clock. They are the same generally miserable, poor handling, poor stopping, hard riding cars they were when they rolled off the assembly line. Other brands of hybrids I see have expensive end of car life failures at 100-120K. Full EV's will have significant growing pains as millions, not thousands land in peoples garages. They will improve over time and slowly become a major player. I can see my kids owning an electric car/truck in the future. 60+ year olds are not the target market.

[68gtoMN]

Benefits to electric vehicles in certain fields? Sure! Benefits to fossil fueled vehicles also. Infrastructure and costs are key, along with power generation (as mentioned in several posts above). If CA can't meet electricity demands today, what happens when more electricity demand hits their network? Zzzzzzt Brown outs or electricity rationing.

GE locomotives? Yes, electric motors drive the wheels but HUGE diesel generators huff constantly to provide the power from the generators they run. The massive mining dump trucks are the same way!

In MN, ELectric vehicle range PLUMMETS in temps like we have had the last week (lows for the next 7 days at my home are all -0 F, most nights in double-digit -0 F temps). Heat pumps by Telsa and others run on battery power to keep battery temps in tolerance ranges. A good friend worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, among other places, and has electric vehicles. He cringed driving 25 miles to work in these temps because his mileage might cause him to not make it home.

What happens when many cars seek recharge at the same station at the same time? WAIT TIMES. I don't want to be a slave to my technology/cars. I want to be able to hop in my car and just DRIVE...limited by wallet only. I can drive to my sister's home in Chicago, stopping 1 time for a bump of fuel (or full refill) and be on my way in less than 5 minutes with another 400+ miles of "range". What happens when electric vehicles are heavily loaded? Big drains on batteries.

I love the idea of electric assist (hybrid powertrains) where an electric motor might fill in the torque curve between gear changes of an ICE vehicle. If one lives in San Diego where the year round temps look like a picture of a thermometer that never changes, then electric cars can make a case. In undulating or mountainous terrain or in places with actual Winters, this does not work.

Again, the car/vehicle should work as I work or drive as I wish to drive. I seek not to be a slave of my car.

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by The Blue Lemon

There are some simple facts about this manufactured "Climate change".

.

I'm going to be careful to stick to basic science and avoid politics, so a good thread doesn't get closed.

Recall from high school physics that there are only (3) forms of heat transfer....radiation, conduction and convection.

A greenhouse works by accepting radiation from the sun and then trapping the convection that occurs after the sun warms the contents of the greenhouse.

The contention is that CO2 works as a greenhouse gas by allowing radiation to get to the Earth and somehow trapping the convection.

HOWEVER.......space is a nearly perfect vacuum that cannot conduct heat in conduction or convection...only radiation. So the Earth is already a perfect greenhouse. The ONLY method to transfer heat in or out of Earth is radiation and anything that blocks it (clouds are a great example) blocks radiation both ways and does not change the equilibrium.

All that being said, I personally believe that EV's have a place in the transportation mix, but I don't see the practicality of trying to be 100% electric.

FWIW,
Eric

[vertigto]

Would battery disposal be an issue?

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by Elarson

I'm going to be careful to stick to basic science and avoid politics, so a good thread doesn't get closed.

Recall from high school physics that there are only (3) forms of heat transfer....radiation, conduction and convection.

A greenhouse works by accepting radiation from the sun and then trapping the convection that occurs after the sun warms the contents of the greenhouse.

The contention is that CO2 works as a greenhouse gas by allowing radiation to get to the Earth and somehow trapping the convection.

HOWEVER.......space is a nearly perfect vacuum that cannot conduct heat in conduction or convection...only radiation. So the Earth is already a perfect greenhouse. The ONLY method to transfer heat in or out of Earth is radiation and anything that blocks it (clouds are a great example) blocks radiation both ways and does not change the equilibrium.

All that being said, I personally believe that EV's have a place in the transportation mix, but I don't see the practicality of trying to be 100% electric.

FWIW,
Eric

I don't buy most of the reasons, ie green house gasses. I remember the big cries about acid rain, and then the disappearing ozone layer.

Here is my theory - covering the earth's natural heat absorbing qualities with billions of acres of paved roadways, massive buildings and homes that take up billions of acres, AND all of which reflect heat back into the atmosphere rather than being absorbed by earthen dirt, water, trees, etc..

How many times have we heard in school how trees absorb carbon dioxide? De-forestation might be a contributor here - especially the Amazon rainforest.
I see it all around in my area, clear out huge acreage of trees to set up 300-500 condo's. Any tree replacement? Nope. Then when it rains, where there never used to be flooding, flooding has become a regular part of this area - because there is no earth/forest areas as there had been to absorb the rain waters - its all paved or built upon.

Idiots want to go after fossil fuels when they run cleaner now than ever before and produce little emissions. It's not my fault your big city no longer has open space for ventilation effects and ground level ozone and toxic airborne contaminants never dissipate.

[Jim Doran]

The performance of modern ICE cars was the first step in the declining interest in our muscle cars. All throughout 70s and 80s we could say we were bad asses. Then came the 90s and onward and modern muscle and rice rockets outgunned us in every way. Only a few highly modified classic pontiacs are actually fast by modern standards.

EVs now offer more performance than any ice car on the planet. Other than nostalgia for our youth, most won't have any real interest beyond a car show ice cream cone. EVs are not the threat. Plenty of gas for model T fords, but little interest.

The fears about charging and grid overload are w/o merit. To support the entire nation converting to EV with national driving averages would only need ~30% additional energy output from the power suppliers. From 1960-2000 the nation built 500% more capability. This is not a stretch and coupled with time of day charging, smart grid to proportion the charging across zones, workplace charging, this is a non issue.