Allpar Forums banner

261 - 280 of 366 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,908 Posts
The costs and effectiveness of purely electrical vehicles is not and will never match that of ICE-powered vehicles.
This was all I needed to read from that ridiculous diatribe to understand that you have no clue what you are ranting about. Never is a pretty bold word to use if you consider the advances of just the last couple of years. Forecast the advances of the last few years forward 15 years, and it is very doable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
If you recall, the issues that lead to all the regulations around mobile phone use stemmed from smartphones with touch screens. You could text or dial blindfolded with a phone that had real buttons you could feel. Just like you can type on a keyboard or crunch numbers using 10-key without staring at your fingers... But with a touch screen? You're screwed - you're going to have to look at the screen because there is no other feedback available to you. As automakers move more and more controls to screens rather than buttons and switches, you'll see more accidents related to changing the radio station, adjusting the HVAC, or turning on or off some other feature because you'll have to stare at the screen for several seconds.
"Hey Siri/Hey Google, call Dad." "Hey xxxx, increase driver side temperature to/by xx degrees ." No need to touch anything with the latest SMARTPHONE.

Screens should be just that - screens. Displays; not HMIs... Not in cars at least. If using your phone is dangerous and something that needs to be regulated and outlawed, then you cannot justify having the exact same system in place in the dash of the car. Either both should be deregulated or both should be outlawed. They are completely identical.
Nope! Not buying this luddite line of thinking that because people will misuse something, we shouldn't take advantage of the technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
"Hey Siri/Hey Google, call Dad." "Hey xxxx, increase driver side temperature to/by xx degrees ." No need to touch anything with the latest SMARTPHONE.
Too bad the automaker's want to keep everything proprietary - NO auto voice recognition system works as well as a smartphone from 5 years ago (and even those don't work well).

! Not buying this luddite line of thinking that because people will misuse something, we shouldn't take advantage of the technology.
Luddite? No, realist! Maybe you don't know; I'm an engineer. I work with "technology" all the time. It's over-rated and usually has more trade-offs than it's worth. Not always, but often. The more "convenient" a thing purports to be, the worse it usually is. Make things simple and robust, convenience follows naturally.

And secondly, how do you justify banning the use of phones while driving if also supporting the use of the exact same type of interface and device with nearly identical capabilities once it's mounted in a dash???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
This was all I needed to read from that ridiculous diatribe to understand that you have no clue what you are ranting about. Never is a pretty bold word to use if you consider the advances of just the last couple of years. Forecast the advances of the last few years forward 15 years, and it is very doable.
You're naive and swallowing all the slop you're being shoveled. Even with ALL the advancement, batteries aren't going to match the energy density of liquid fuels, nor will you EVER be able to recharge a battery as fast as you can refill a fuel tank. That alone will limit the range and effectiveness of EVs. They will be glorified golf carts for the rich and famous... Physics don't change just because you want them to. Energy density is what it is, electrical transfer rates are what they are, the heavier you make something the more energy you need, etc. You can wish in one hand and poop in the other; one will always fill up sooner than the other.

Furthermore, you need to look at the actual curves related to advancement/improvement and efforts/costs. The curve is EXPONENTIALLY NEGATIVE, not linear like you assume. You'll need to work at least twice as hard over the next 15 years just to get half the improvements of the last 15 years. Ask any racer what it takes to go 0.1s faster...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
I'm going to leave the political piece of your post out, not the right venue for that (even though I do agree with some of it). Your comments on range and battery cost perplex me as you seem to assume those are static and the current conditions will remain as-is even in 2035. Manufacturers are making great strides in battery efficiency, energy density, and lowering battery costs. That's going to continue in the future. I think it's bizarre to make such definitive statements this early in the game. Even now, the average cost of a new car in the U.S. is ~$37k which is right around where the new Volkswagen ID4 starts. We have a long way to go but there's no way innovation is going to stand still in the meantime.

Now, I do think the 2035 date is super aggressive but that's why Cali issued this press release. They want to be seen as a leader. They'll adjust if the affordability factor is not there or the state will fail like so many people seem to want it to. Lastly, it's important to highlight that they're not trying to ban ICE models in 2035, just the sale of new ones.
You can't separate politics from daily life - the two are and will always be intertwined. Hiding/running from them here is doing no one any good. But I digress on that for now...

Manufacturers aren't making "great strides" with EVs or batteries, they're making modest incremental improvements at EXTREMELY high costs. Furthermore, they are NOT addressing numerous related issues which do/will affect and limit the effectiveness of EVs. Lithium-Ion batteries aren't new; they were commercially available in 1991 (nearly 30 years ago). The latest in battery tech - "solid state" batteries - won't be commercially viable for years and will be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE due to their construction and materials. And as demand for this tech increases, the costs for the raw materials needed will only increase, so don't expect the price to suddenly drop like a rock.

Furthermore, there's the issue of energy transfer. The most fuel station pumps operate at around 7.5 GPM (they are limited to 10 GPM in the US). With standard unleaded fuel, that means you transfer roughly 850,000 BTUs or 250 kWhs of energy every minute of a typical fuel stop. Now, gasoline engines convert about 20% of the energy in fuel into useful power, so that's 170,000 BTUs or 50 kWhs of useful power that is transferred PER MINUTE on average. With a 240V, 600A (single-phase) service, you'd need over 23 MINUTES to transfer that much energy (50kWh)!!! A these sorts of power services are not yet common - certainly not for "normal" residential applications or other such things where a layperson could be expected to work with them/be exposed to them. You need more than 2000% more time to transfer the same amount of useful energy and that's in an situation which (is HIGHLY FAVORABLE toward the EV, as the above figures are conservative [low, modest] for the liquid fuel transfer rates and liberal [high, futuristic] for the electrical transfer)!!! You're not going to solve that readily - energy transfer is a HUGE limitation.

And you're not going to solve energy transfer issues with larger or higher-capacity batteries. Batteries store energy; that's all. Being able to store more energy is a double-edged sword. You can go longer between charges, but charges take longer. This is no different than having a larger or smaller fuel tank...

There's also the issues with compounding demand for power in general (everything is electronic these days), more reliance upon electrical systems in cars (so a need for more energy in a car per mile of range), and the ever-increasing weight of modern cars for a multitude of reasons (which also demands more energy). These are all very real problems facing EVs that are simply being ignored at the moment because they don't fit the narrative and they drive away investors...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
Anyone at FCA with a brain could fix the Dodge brand in one second by making Ram the model name again and eliminating the ridiculous notion that it is a High Performance only brand. It is a Blue Collar brand. Why and how is it so difficult for anyone to realize this who has the power to make it happen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Too bad the automaker's want to keep everything proprietary - NO auto voice recognition system works as well as a smartphone from 5 years ago (and even those don't work well).

Luddite? No, realist! Maybe you don't know; I'm an engineer. I work with "technology" all the time. It's over-rated and usually has more trade-offs than it's worth. Not always, but often. The more "convenient" a thing purports to be, the worse it usually is. Make things simple and robust, convenience follows naturally.

And secondly, how do you justify banning the use of phones while driving if also supporting the use of the exact same type of interface and device with nearly identical capabilities once it's mounted in a dash???
And if we follow your thinking, that's as far as it's going to go. Jerry, stick to engineering. You're not a research scientist. Or a tech. Two of my college roommates were aviation technicians. One, Tim, ended up a B-52 chief and teaches college now. His Dad was an Army fixed wing mechanic and worked for GM in Marion, IN. Tim always said engineers don't design stuff you can work on. That's where METs (etc.) come in, someone who knows how to work on things to say, yeah, if you build it that way, then it will be impossible to install/remove for repairs. My 74 year old farmer father agrees. Speaking of farming and convenience, why is it that machine guards on farm equipment now stay on the machine in most cases, where 20 years ago, some farmers would remove them for maintenance and conveniently "forget" where they went? Simple: if it's convenient to work around, it doesn't get permanently removed, because nobody intentionally makes something less safe for no reason. OSHA doesn't apply to most farms.

You're naive and swallowing all the slop you're being shoveled. Even with ALL the advancement, batteries aren't going to match the energy density of liquid fuels, nor will you EVER be able to recharge a battery as fast as you can refill a fuel tank. That alone will limit the range and effectiveness of EVs. They will be glorified golf carts for the rich and famous... Physics don't change just because you want them to. Energy density is what it is, electrical transfer rates are what they are, the heavier you make something the more energy you need, etc. You can wish in one hand and poop in the other; one will always fill up sooner than the other.

Furthermore, you need to look at the actual curves related to advancement/improvement and efforts/costs. The curve is EXPONENTIALLY NEGATIVE, not linear like you assume. You'll need to work at least twice as hard over the next 15 years just to get half the improvements of the last 15 years. Ask any racer what it takes to go 0.1s faster...
You ASSUME away a bunch. Again, stick to engineering. You're not a research scientist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
You can't separate politics from daily life - the two are and will always be intertwined. Hiding/running from them here is doing no one any good. But I digress on that for now...
I certainly do not run away from politics. I do, however, recognize we're in a Dodge/Chrysler speculation thread and you were going in a direction that veered off-topic for this thread. There's a difference.

Manufacturers aren't making "great strides" with EVs or batteries, they're making modest incremental improvements at EXTREMELY high costs. Furthermore, they are NOT addressing numerous related issues which do/will affect and limit the effectiveness of EVs. Lithium-Ion batteries aren't new; they were commercially available in 1991 (nearly 30 years ago). The latest in battery tech - "solid state" batteries - won't be commercially viable for years and will be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE due to their construction and materials. And as demand for this tech increases, the costs for the raw materials needed will only increase, so don't expect the price to suddenly drop like a rock.
I never said lithium ion batteries were new. I do know that we were at $1000 per kwh back in 2010 to $227 kwh in 2016 to about $160 in 2019. I also know that manufacturers aren't going to go all in until that price continues to drop and everyone, including the battery suppliers, are confident they are the on right path. Unless you know something they don't, which I seriously doubt. None of can tell the future so it's so it's premature to assume prices will definitely hit rock bottom (let's say $50 per kwh) or that metal price volatility is going to send it soaring. By my measure there's too much money in the game at this point for people not to continue jumping over hurdles.

Furthermore, there's the issue of energy transfer. The most fuel station pumps operate at around 7.5 GPM (they are limited to 10 GPM in the US). With standard unleaded fuel, that means you transfer roughly 850,000 BTUs or 250 kWhs of energy every minute of a typical fuel stop. Now, gasoline engines convert about 20% of the energy in fuel into useful power, so that's 170,000 BTUs or 50 kWhs of useful power that is transferred PER MINUTE on average. With a 240V, 600A (single-phase) service, you'd need over 23 MINUTES to transfer that much energy (50kWh)!!! A these sorts of power services are not yet common - certainly not for "normal" residential applications or other such things where a layperson could be expected to work with them/be exposed to them. You need more than 2000% more time to transfer the same amount of useful energy and that's in an situation which (is HIGHLY FAVORABLE toward the EV, as the above figures are conservative [low, modest] for the liquid fuel transfer rates and liberal [high, futuristic] for the electrical transfer)!!! You're not going to solve that readily - energy transfer is a HUGE limitation.
At the end of the day, home charging is not where the focus is. The charging stations will continue to be upgraded and cars will continue to be able to charge at higher rates. We already have the Porsche Taycan that can charge at 270kw with Electrify America's 350kw stations. Everyone is readily aware that 15 gallons of gas in five minutes is roughly equal to a fill rate of ~6000 kW, but a lot can happen in 15 years.

And you're not going to solve energy transfer issues with larger or higher-capacity batteries. Batteries store energy; that's all. Being able to store more energy is a double-edged sword. You can go longer between charges, but charges take longer. This is no different than having a larger or smaller fuel tank...

There's also the issues with compounding demand for power in general (everything is electronic these days), more reliance upon electrical systems in cars (so a need for more energy in a car per mile of range), and the ever-increasing weight of modern cars for a multitude of reasons (which also demands more energy). These are all very real problems facing EVs that are simply being ignored at the moment because they don't fit the narrative and they drive away investors...
The manufacturers and the players in the charging infrastructure game are certainly not ignoring this. Of course it's not in embedded in the marketing materials the same way that pollution figures aren't the headline of ICE vehicle headlines. I'm not part of the group saying we're all going to be zipping around in BEVs by 2025. 2035, however? I expect a very significant amount of drivers to have converted by then and I also expect CA will have loosened it's rules a bit to match the reality of 2035.
 

·
370,000 miles
Joined
·
1,358 Posts
I have long wanted an electric car, not for environmental reasons, but because I believe an electric car can ultimately be made superior for my needs to an ICE car in nearly every way. I don't want to have to go to gas stations. I don't want to change my timing belt, muffler, oil filter, transmission fluid, anti-freeze, radiator core, fan belts, coolant hoses, head gasket, main seal, rings & bearings, fuel pump, O2 sensors, etc. I want it to cost me less to own and operate than an ICE car. And electric cars could do all this while providing a significantly improved driving experience - quieter, with better braking and acceleration.

They aren't there today, which is why I don't own one. But they are amazingly close, given where they were when I first started dreaming about owning one. My rough read on it is that today's electric cars are about twice the price of a comparable ICE vehicle, and their range is about 1/2 what is acceptable. So maybe a factor of 4 off from what will get me into the market for one. But all it will take is better energy density in batteries and cost reduction to get there. Here is a chart of battery energy density over the years:



That's a nice increase over the past few decades. Where will we be in another decade? Some may believe it will never happen, and they may be right. But it seems pretty likely to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Since this thread is about the future of Chrysler and Dodge, I made a fan made lineup of my mine for both brands, it's pretty long :D:

Chrysler 300/300 Coupe - Full-Size Premium Sedan

Chrysler Concorde/Cirrus/or Manta - Mid-Size Premium Sedan

Chrysler LeBaron - Compact Premium Sedan

Chrysler Imperial - Flagship Sedan

Chrysler Chronos - Electric Vehicle

Chrysler EcoVoyager - Electric SUV

Chrysler Mediterranea - Compact Premium Crossover

Chrysler Town & Country - Mid-Size Premium Crossover

Chrysler Pacifica - 7 & 8 Passenger Minivan

Chrysler Aspen - Full-Size Premium Crossover

Chrysler Atlantic - Flagship BOF SUV

Chrysler Laser/Cuda/Conquest/ or 300 Coupe - Sport Coupe based off the Challenger

Chrysler Crossfire - 2 Seat Sport Coupe


For Dodge:

Dodge Charger - Full-Size Sport Sedan

Dodge Challenger - Muscle Car

Dodge Stratus/Avenger - Mid-Size Sedan

Dodge Shadow/Neon - Compact Sedan/Hatchback/Hot Hatch

Dodge Magnum - 5-Door Wagon/Crossover mixed together

Dodge Nitro - Compact Crossover

Dodge Rampage - Compact Pickup

Dodge Hornet - Mid-Size Sport SUV

Dodge Adventurer - Mid-Size Crossover

Dodge Durango - Full-Size SUV

Dodge Daytona/Stealth/Dart or Talon - Sport Coupe slot under Challenger

Dodge Viper - Halo

I also considered EV names for Dodge: ZEO and Circuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Electric vehicles will hit stride when people are on a trip and can pull into a restaurant for dinner or lunch and can be fully recharged while you're eating. Translate, about an hour's time.
We don't have an infrastructure that can support all these electeic cars charging (seemingly for free wherever they go). It's going to be decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,520 Posts
Since this thread is about the future of Chrysler and Dodge, I made a fan made lineup of my mine for both brands, it's pretty long :D:

Chrysler 300/300 Coupe - Full-Size Premium Sedan

Chrysler Concorde/Cirrus/or Manta - Mid-Size Premium Sedan

Chrysler LeBaron - Compact Premium Sedan

Chrysler Imperial - Flagship Sedan

Chrysler Chronos - Electric Vehicle

Chrysler EcoVoyager - Electric SUV

Chrysler Mediterranea - Compact Premium Crossover

Chrysler Town & Country - Mid-Size Premium Crossover

Chrysler Pacifica - 7 & 8 Passenger Minivan

Chrysler Aspen - Full-Size Premium Crossover

Chrysler Atlantic - Flagship BOF SUV

Chrysler Laser/Cuda/Conquest/ or 300 Coupe - Sport Coupe based off the Challenger

Chrysler Crossfire - 2 Seat Sport Coupe


For Dodge:

Dodge Charger - Full-Size Sport Sedan

Dodge Challenger - Muscle Car

Dodge Stratus/Avenger - Mid-Size Sedan

Dodge Shadow/Neon - Compact Sedan/Hatchback/Hot Hatch

Dodge Magnum - 5-Door Wagon/Crossover mixed together

Dodge Nitro - Compact Crossover

Dodge Rampage - Compact Pickup

Dodge Hornet - Mid-Size Sport SUV

Dodge Adventurer - Mid-Size Crossover

Dodge Durango - Full-Size SUV

Dodge Daytona/Stealth/Dart or Talon - Sport Coupe slot under Challenger

Dodge Viper - Halo

I also considered EV names for Dodge: ZEO and Circuit.
What??......With a list that l-o-n-g ...you couldn't find some way to squeeze in the name 'Monaco'?

BOO!!! :p:D
 

·
Registered
2008 Jeep Wrangler, 2018 Ram 2500
Joined
·
145 Posts
We don't have an infrastructure that can support all these electeic cars charging (seemingly for free wherever they go). It's going to be decades.
We are getting there. In the Southeast, we already see charging stations at most large shopping centers, and many restaurants. Cracker Barrels have charging stations and are available at regular intervals along the highway. I have even seen charging stations at Flying-Js and Pilots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Discussion Starter #275
Since this thread is about the future of Chrysler and Dodge, I made a fan made lineup of my mine for both brands, it's pretty long :D:
Exciting to speculate and see what people come up with! I am very excited you shared this. :D You contributed exactly what this topic was about. If only we could go back in time when brands had full-lineups like this... errr... correction.... when Chrysler and Dodge had full line ups! Thanks so much for sharing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Exciting to speculate and see what people come up with! I am very excited you shared this. :D You contributed exactly what this topic was about. If only we could go back in time when brands had full-lineups like this... errr... correction.... when Chrysler and Dodge had full line ups! Thanks so much for sharing.
If only DaimlerChrysler never happened, we would have something like this. Thanks ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,225 Posts
Actually if FCA were a little more interested in sales they could (fairly ) easily come up with some new product by simply adding a model on the Line where they build the current cars. Give Chrysler a coupe based on the Challenger, then dust off the old magnum stampings and give them to chrysler, or dodge for a sportback. just by using existing tech and production lines they could probably add at least 50 - 75,000 units a year, and give both brands a shot in the arm, sales wise. Sadly, the capability exists, just not the will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
We could do just that and rebuild the Plymouth line by mostly renaming the Dodge line.

Plymouth Fury (sport lux sedan)
Plymouth Magnum (lux lrg suv)
Plymouth Satellite (family sedan or hatchback)
Plymouth Barracuda (suv mid)
Plymouth Duster (suv small)
Plymouth GTX (durango replacement in all trims)
Plymouth GTX Pursuit (cops & fast & stable)

Bring Back The Rapid Transit System
Plymouth Road Runner (think charger at a low price point)
Plymouth Charger ( with all current trim levels)
Plymouth Challenger (with all current trim levels)
Plymouth Superbird (think challenger at a low price point)
Plymouth Prowler (think fast)
Plymouth Pursuit (cops & fast)

I know, I can't believe I just wrote that. To much energy drink while watching debate. Comments?

Written with tongue squarely in cheek.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Discussion Starter #280
We could do just that and rebuild the Plymouth line by mostly renaming the Dodge line.
Written with tongue squarely in cheek.
My comment is.... you made me chuckle! :D I like the creativity.... if I can call it that? ;-) Thanks for sharing your energy drink induced list!
 
261 - 280 of 366 Posts
Top