The dealer is full of bull crap. Ford makes an extended cab Ranger, which you can even order with the rear seat delete. I looked at them before buying my Colorado, but am not ready to get into that 4 cylinder yet.
death of regular cab pickups
- Thread starter big bubba
- Start date
- Views: 50086
sunandsand
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2020
- Messages
- 308
- Tractor
- Kubota B2601
Completely agree that forcing us to buy X because some authoritarian government says so is the wrong way to go.
The markets are deciding, turns out people LIKE their electric cars. They also like their solar panels, and more so every time the electric bill arrives.
I have a neighbor whose politics make Genghis Khan look like some kind of woke, flaming liberal. He has an expert opinion on EVERYTHING, even things he knows absolutely nothing about. (Once you get to know him, he's actually a pretty nice guy and a very good neighbor!)
His daughter, who is a very bright and accomplished young lady, convinced him to buy a bunch of solar cells and an inverter to make a grid tie system. He still rails about the dastardly commie-pinko-queer plot to get everyone on unreliable, unproven, unloved solar cells, but once a month he boasts about his $20 (net) power bill. After all, he has a reputation as a techno-curmudgeon to uphold, but once a month won't damage it too much.
And I happen to like steam engines. They're interesting, complicated beasts. Unfortunately, they are also incredibly dirty, take constant maintenance, and are generally a PITA. They were replaced with diesels simply because the diesels could do the same job better with much less pollution and are much cheaper to operate. The markets decided, so now railroad steam engines are few and far between, mostly in tourist attractions, and almost never found in regular service anywhere in the world. China was one of the last manufacturers of steam engines, and when a historic railroad in Oregon (I think) needed a steam engine, they had to import one from China!
I did have a ride in a train pulled by a steam engine. It was a narrow gauge railroad in Colorado (tourist attraction). The ride was about an hour long, then another hour back. It was utterly filthy - coal dust and smoke everywhere, everyone's clothes got so dirty they couldn't even be washed. It was fun though.
EVs are the same thing. In many applications and for many people, they just do a better job. They won't replace ICE vehicles 100% because we don't have electricity *everywhere*, and even if we did, the right tool for the job could easily be a gas or diesel powered machine.
Personally, I'm not going to sweat it. I'll buy the appropriate vehicle for the task, I am simply not concerned with what fuel makes it go - gasoline, diesel, electrons, pixie dust - I just don't care.
Car makers are going electric for two reasons. First is that the government is pushing them to do so for various reasons which may or may not make sense. Cities are starting to say no cars in downtown. (Gas or electric.) In some places public opinion is turning against ICE vehicles (whether that is right or wrong is open to "some" debate).
I do remember Los Angeles' air quality before emissions controls were required in cars. You could cut the smog with a knife, it was so thick you could probably have used it to replace cinder blocks. It is a LOT better nowadays, even with much more traffic. (I still have no desire to live there.)
The second reason is that people are simply starting to WANT electric cars. Tesla has a higher "bought one again" ratio than Honda, BMW and Mercedes! If the EV cars were crap, they wouldn't have repeat customers - and they do, a lot of them.
I'm sure some EV owners are "signaling virtue" or somesuch, but lots of EV customers are happy because their EVs are simply better cars than their ICE cars were, and fit their needs better.
Buy what suits your needs best. Be open to change, it may surprise you (it sure surprised me!).
Best Regards,
Mike/Florida
The markets are deciding, turns out people LIKE their electric cars. They also like their solar panels, and more so every time the electric bill arrives.
I have a neighbor whose politics make Genghis Khan look like some kind of woke, flaming liberal. He has an expert opinion on EVERYTHING, even things he knows absolutely nothing about. (Once you get to know him, he's actually a pretty nice guy and a very good neighbor!)
His daughter, who is a very bright and accomplished young lady, convinced him to buy a bunch of solar cells and an inverter to make a grid tie system. He still rails about the dastardly commie-pinko-queer plot to get everyone on unreliable, unproven, unloved solar cells, but once a month he boasts about his $20 (net) power bill. After all, he has a reputation as a techno-curmudgeon to uphold, but once a month won't damage it too much.
And I happen to like steam engines. They're interesting, complicated beasts. Unfortunately, they are also incredibly dirty, take constant maintenance, and are generally a PITA. They were replaced with diesels simply because the diesels could do the same job better with much less pollution and are much cheaper to operate. The markets decided, so now railroad steam engines are few and far between, mostly in tourist attractions, and almost never found in regular service anywhere in the world. China was one of the last manufacturers of steam engines, and when a historic railroad in Oregon (I think) needed a steam engine, they had to import one from China!
I did have a ride in a train pulled by a steam engine. It was a narrow gauge railroad in Colorado (tourist attraction). The ride was about an hour long, then another hour back. It was utterly filthy - coal dust and smoke everywhere, everyone's clothes got so dirty they couldn't even be washed. It was fun though.
EVs are the same thing. In many applications and for many people, they just do a better job. They won't replace ICE vehicles 100% because we don't have electricity *everywhere*, and even if we did, the right tool for the job could easily be a gas or diesel powered machine.
Personally, I'm not going to sweat it. I'll buy the appropriate vehicle for the task, I am simply not concerned with what fuel makes it go - gasoline, diesel, electrons, pixie dust - I just don't care.
Car makers are going electric for two reasons. First is that the government is pushing them to do so for various reasons which may or may not make sense. Cities are starting to say no cars in downtown. (Gas or electric.) In some places public opinion is turning against ICE vehicles (whether that is right or wrong is open to "some" debate).
I do remember Los Angeles' air quality before emissions controls were required in cars. You could cut the smog with a knife, it was so thick you could probably have used it to replace cinder blocks. It is a LOT better nowadays, even with much more traffic. (I still have no desire to live there.)
The second reason is that people are simply starting to WANT electric cars. Tesla has a higher "bought one again" ratio than Honda, BMW and Mercedes! If the EV cars were crap, they wouldn't have repeat customers - and they do, a lot of them.
I'm sure some EV owners are "signaling virtue" or somesuch, but lots of EV customers are happy because their EVs are simply better cars than their ICE cars were, and fit their needs better.
Buy what suits your needs best. Be open to change, it may surprise you (it sure surprised me!).
Best Regards,
Mike/Florida
OzarkChris
Gold Member
Mike, I'm not trying to pick a fight, so please don't take this that way.
A couple of things in the above statement that, albeit correct, are not very appropriate. First, take into account how many coal plants - and the jobs they represented - have been taken offline because of the "Green energy theology" of this administration or two administration's ago. Most of those jobs never went into the green energy business as promised. Second, and as you suggested in your response, mining the materials necessary for the solar industry is much, much worse for the environment than the greenhouse gas issue is. Third, concerning wind powered systems, I have a question that regardless how many times I ask it, I have yet to hear a decent answer. Here's the question: Why is it that if I happen to hit/kill a bald eagle while I'm mowing/hogging or cutting down a tree on my property, I can be fined and probably jailed if it becomes found out. The wind power folks get a pass because it's "green energy" - I typically get answers that are either non-answers, e.g., "Would you rather go back in time before electricity was invented" or "Green energy is the future, so we know somethings are going to be inconvenienced during this time of transition.". Finally, why do those who speak about nothing but green energy - I am NOT speaking about you - not consider Nuclear plants - most want them shut down. Nuclear energy is arguably the cleanest, most environmentally sound energy bang for the buck - yes hydro may be more environmentally green, but it dramatically effects wildlife, native lands, etc. - Nuclear however, is one of the most efficient - if not the most efficient - generating systems available. Solar, Wind, Ocean, etc requires so much space to generate even a tenth of the power generated by Nuclear. Odd that the EPA, Sierra club, etc hasn't required nearly the amount of research or impact requirements for wind or solar permitting that any other generation method is required.
Cheers!
D
Deleted member 371759
Guest
Diesel replaced steam because the energy density per ton of diesel vs coal is double and energy loss is not even comparable. So a train hauling goods across the nation could drive much further with a lot less human input and cost. Change is great. I 100% embrace change. When solar panel break even is under 5 years I will be first in line to buy. Right now in 2023 the break even time is 9-16 years. So you will never break even due to maintenance and repair. I heat 100% with wood and broke even after 3 years. I have no problems with EV if someone wants one thats great. Let the market decide. If the Gov. has to regulate the ICE engine to a point where they cant be produced that is definitely not market choice. The rising cost of fossil fuel is being used as a club to force people into EV that is not market choice. Thats disgusting.
ning
Elite Member
It would be good if the playing field was leveled by either eliminating or equalizing subsidies between the various energy methods - subsidies in development (including R&D & exploration & essentially free use of a limited resource) as well as in properly calculating shut-down costs (recycling, decommissioning, disposal of waste products and equipment that's no longer useful).
I suspect that the break-even point would be much better for solar & wind if the full extent of the cost of fossil fuels were actually paid by us up front.
Before you jump in, yes I'm talking about recycling & disposal costs of lithium batteries, besides other things like the increased healthcare costs due to air, water and ground pollution from the use and production of fossil fuels - and lithium mining. Very few things that we buy have their costs properly accounted for, but fossil fuels are among the worst in this.
D
Deleted member 371759
Guest
My empathetic side is all for subsidies. Without them a good portion of our fellow citizens would freeze and starve to death. I always hear the subsidy argument but its never thought through. My let them get what they ask for side is all for dropping all subsidies and watching the entire country burn. Subsidies ensure granny and pappy can heat their home with energy dense fossil fuel and also have money left over to eat. Farming subsidies ensure single mothers and poor families dont have to pay $14 for a gallon of milk. As of right now it is 100% impossible to power our country with wind and solar. So subsidizing non efficient means of power production is pretty close to insane. In my previous post I stated diesel replaced steam powered engines because diesel was better. There is nothing about EV that is better than ICE. It might make you feel better but thats all.
OzarkChris
Gold Member
Are we forgetting about all of the subsidies that the wind and solar companies get via government (tax payer) grants for land, r&d, etc?
sunandsand
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2020
- Messages
- 308
- Tractor
- Kubota B2601
OzarkChris - That's one of the nice things about this forum, most of us are NOT looking to pick fights. I guess we must be grownups or something ;-)
I happen to agree with you 10,000% on nuclear. Unfortunately, even hinting at it makes people go totally nuts. France shut down their nuclear power plants (public pressure) and now they are buying electricity from Germany, which generates it by burning coal. Sigh. There are some problems with nuclear, though. First is new power plants suffer huge cost overruns stemming from interminable delays. This is a legal/permitting/procedural problem, not a nuclear specific problem. The other issue is disposal of nuclear waste, which is still unsolved.
Nevertheless, nuclear is still a contender, but social pressures make it extremely difficult.
While it is completely true that mining for solar panels is an environmental mess, once the panels are made, that's the end of that panel's adverse environmental impact (until it gets recycled in a decade or two, and solar panel recycling is starting). With coal fired power plants, the pollution is ongoing - continuous mining, transporting by rail, burning, ash disposal.
Remember that we are dealing with a LOT of emotion here. "My mind is made up, don't distract me with the facts!" There are lots of very different viewpoints, some make sense, some don't, some people have agendas, but the discussions get pretty acrimonious very quickly. Somebody once said "A burning building is not conducive to reasoned debate."
I don't have any answers about bird kills. I just don't know enough about it to take a coherent position. I will say that here in Florida, your crabgrass has more rights than you do, so illogical application of environmental (and other) rules and regulations is not surprising.
It is beginning to appear that fusion power is actually on the horizon (as opposed to being perpetually 20 years in the future). Net gain has been achieved in the laboratory, so we know the concept is valid. Now "all" we have to do is make it commercially practical. A lot of very talented, very motivated people are working on it and lots of money is being spent to make it work. Eventually, it may, and I hope it does.
Its late and I'm tired, but I do want to mention something about solar break-even times before I knock off for the evening.
Craigslist (for example) is full of ads for last year's solar panels at very reasonable prices. If you buy new, you're looking at big bucks for say, a 275 watt panel, times however many panels you need. I see older panels, 200 watts, for $50 to $75 each. Lets say you need 5KW, that's 18 of the 275 watt panels at $300 each ($5,400) OR 25 of the old, obsolete 200 watt panels at $75 each, total $1,875. So they've lost a little efficiency? Who cares, the fuel is absolutely free and is delivered daily. Of course you still need inverters and if you are off grid a big battery, but you've saved $3,500 on the solar cells and that brings break-even a lot closer. A solar power system increases the value of your home, and enlightened states (no pun intended) don't increase your tax assessment by the value of the solar power system.
This has become a very interesting thread, even if it is a bit off topic about pickup trucks!
Best Regards,
Mike/Florida
I happen to agree with you 10,000% on nuclear. Unfortunately, even hinting at it makes people go totally nuts. France shut down their nuclear power plants (public pressure) and now they are buying electricity from Germany, which generates it by burning coal. Sigh. There are some problems with nuclear, though. First is new power plants suffer huge cost overruns stemming from interminable delays. This is a legal/permitting/procedural problem, not a nuclear specific problem. The other issue is disposal of nuclear waste, which is still unsolved.
Nevertheless, nuclear is still a contender, but social pressures make it extremely difficult.
While it is completely true that mining for solar panels is an environmental mess, once the panels are made, that's the end of that panel's adverse environmental impact (until it gets recycled in a decade or two, and solar panel recycling is starting). With coal fired power plants, the pollution is ongoing - continuous mining, transporting by rail, burning, ash disposal.
Remember that we are dealing with a LOT of emotion here. "My mind is made up, don't distract me with the facts!" There are lots of very different viewpoints, some make sense, some don't, some people have agendas, but the discussions get pretty acrimonious very quickly. Somebody once said "A burning building is not conducive to reasoned debate."
I don't have any answers about bird kills. I just don't know enough about it to take a coherent position. I will say that here in Florida, your crabgrass has more rights than you do, so illogical application of environmental (and other) rules and regulations is not surprising.
It is beginning to appear that fusion power is actually on the horizon (as opposed to being perpetually 20 years in the future). Net gain has been achieved in the laboratory, so we know the concept is valid. Now "all" we have to do is make it commercially practical. A lot of very talented, very motivated people are working on it and lots of money is being spent to make it work. Eventually, it may, and I hope it does.
Its late and I'm tired, but I do want to mention something about solar break-even times before I knock off for the evening.
Craigslist (for example) is full of ads for last year's solar panels at very reasonable prices. If you buy new, you're looking at big bucks for say, a 275 watt panel, times however many panels you need. I see older panels, 200 watts, for $50 to $75 each. Lets say you need 5KW, that's 18 of the 275 watt panels at $300 each ($5,400) OR 25 of the old, obsolete 200 watt panels at $75 each, total $1,875. So they've lost a little efficiency? Who cares, the fuel is absolutely free and is delivered daily. Of course you still need inverters and if you are off grid a big battery, but you've saved $3,500 on the solar cells and that brings break-even a lot closer. A solar power system increases the value of your home, and enlightened states (no pun intended) don't increase your tax assessment by the value of the solar power system.
This has become a very interesting thread, even if it is a bit off topic about pickup trucks!
Best Regards,
Mike/Florida
D
Deleted member 371759
Guest
Just cobble together your homes energy supply with a bunch of Craigs List stuff. What could go wrong?
Nuclear does have a lot of negative issues. However, if we had continued to research it over the last 40 years rather than walk away from it; many of those may have been solved. At the end of the day there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
And the OP still doesn’t have a regular cab pickup.
And the OP still doesn’t have a regular cab pickup.