We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Good on everything but software problems which alone should exclude it until they get it fixed.Now a KISS stripped down panel van style version with just 200 mile LFP battery range and very fast charging would be great and sell for $8-10k less.
Even better, drop the front "engine compartment / radiator", so basically a "Buzz", but plain Jane. Use structural batteries & Giga castings for weight & cost savings - plus safety ratings. Aircon comfortable living space.
1 box rules!!!
I don't understand giving Kia a pass on dieselgate when Hyundai/Kia engines polluted 3 times worse than the VW engines.
Sorry, but the fact that all ICE engines pollute is not the same as being caught with purposely made defeat device. I hope we can agree on that…
Hyundai/ Kia pollution was intentional. They didn't accidentally not pass emissions. They used defeat devices as well.
As proven guilty? … or is that some assumption based on some sort anecdotal evidence? …. I am not saying they did not, I just don’t recall seeing legally binding penalties or charges against them.
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. You're free to do what you want but none of these brands could instantly make nothing but electric cars or they would go out of business. The only way that could possibly work is if all the governments of the world agreed to ban ICE sales in their entirety and then they would all be on a level field. The first one to take that leap would go out of business. Even if they were all forced to a lot of them would go out of business. If you really want a transition to take place the way to do it is to buy EVs from companies that still make fossil cars and have enough people do that they'll go where the sales are. Tesla doesn't make enough cars to supply the demand for the entire Earth right now. I understand what you're saying but you're thinking emotionally not logically
He must live in a fantasy world where the record heat wave in the Northwest is not really happening. Must be a climate change denier who ignores the overwhelming science.
You should improve your research. ;-) The current heat wave and the record temperatures are not related to climate changes. We already got this temperatures and heat waves 100+ years ago.
Checkout the current temperature record at death valley."On the afternoon of July 10, 1913, the United States Weather Bureau recorded a high temperature of 134 °F (56.7 °C) at Furnace Creek in Death Valley, which stands as the highest ambient air temperature ever recorded at the surface of the Earth." (Wikipedia)
That's simply not true. The deadly heat wave that roasted the Pacific Northwest and western Canada was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change that added a few extra degrees to the record-smashing temperatures, a new quick scientific analysis found. An international team of 27 scientists calculated that climate change increased chances of the extreme heat occurring by at least 150 times, but likely much more. Like Chris, you're denying the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is causing record high temperatures. https://apnews.com/article/...https://grist.org/science/i...
Youself could save the earth by lowering your personal carbon footprint on the level of an average Indian inhabitant. The average carbon footprint of one of 1.3 billion Indians is less than 1/9 of the footprint of an average American.
2017 Worldwide annual carbon footprint: 37 billion tChina: 10.9 billion tUS: 5.1
India: 2.5EU27: 3.5
Say goodbye to your old carbon emission rich life !!!!
The latest record temperatures in the Northwest and Western Canada have been attributed to climate change by most climate scientists, so you're the one who needs to improve your research here.https://www.nbcnews.com/sci...
If the record temperatures (56.7 °C) in 1913 in Death Valley were not climate crisis related, then these temperatures are quite normal and have no correlation to carbon emission in the last 100 years.
Or do you think we already had a climate crisis in 1913?
P.S: If your history knowledge is also incomplete. World War 1 startet 1 year after the record temperatures in Death Valley. ;-)
In that we humans started ramping up the burning of wood and coal and gas by 1913, I think it is entirely feasible that the front edge of global heating was already contributing to our heating up. Since then, all the worse, especially in the last few decades. I wouldn't be flip about the impact of it by finding cherry-picked facts that ignore the obvious and ominous temperature trends over vast periods of time. Now that we know why, we're ethically (and economically and environmentally) wise to change our evil, or at least former, ways.
If you check on the available temp data before 1880 you will discover that we had long hot periods before. The climate crisis referenced 1880 was a very cold year compared to some years before 1880. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Thanks, Chipwoman. England gets its own sort of weather, buffered by the gulfstream, etc. Even so, I see a rising temperature in all seasons of your graph for the time period cited, especially starting in the 1950s. Please note the temperature has risen dramatically since the last year of the graph.
Chief you're the one in a fantasy land. You want to close your eyes and make the world as you want it. I guess by clicking a lot of keys or posting a lot of message via your smartphone? I'm not denying climate change and I'm not against electric cars. I'm saying that getting car manufacturers to convert over is the answer not boycotting their electric offerings. Also for a lot of us there is a lot more low hanging fruit climate wise besides EVs. If everybody who has an oil boiler in their house pulled it out and replaced it with efficient mini splits, replaced their windows, insulated their homes better That would do a lot more. But I guess that would miss the point, I mean when you're driving down the road nobody would know how green you are.....
You're contradicting yourself badly here. First you say that the first auto company to only produce electric cars will go out of buisiness, and the only solution is for people to buy only EV's and force these companies to respond by only selling EV's. Then you say that getting car companies to only make EV's is the answer. We need to do both. We need to force auto companies to only sell EV's by 2030, and provide incentives for people to buy EV's. The battery issues will have to be worked out as new areas to mine the needed rare earth minerals are found. We simply don't have time as climate change worsens. Of course our battery supply is not enough now to supply a complete transition to 100% EV's, but by 2030, it will be. Yes we also need to do many other things like electrifying our appliances, making our homes more efficient net zero homes, and moving to 100% RE as soon as possible. You're problem is you're unrealistic and don't take the problems caused by climate change serious enough, and then falsely accuse those who do as being emotionally driven.
You haven't shared any of the details of your living situation so maybe you're not taking climate change seriously enough? Again it's not about virtue signaling with your Tesla It's about what has the biggest impact and for the least cost. Again my personal situation is I burn about 200 gallons of gasoline a year while my house burned about 700 to 900 gallons of diesel fuel a year for heat and hot water. The 200 gallons of gas is burned in a emissions controlled car the diesel fuel/heating oil has no emissions at all controlling it. So which one has a greater impact on the environment? What I am saying is buying a company's EVs and not buying their ICEVS encourages them to TRANSITION to electric. If a major car company decided that in 2021 or 2022 they were going to sell nothing but BEVs They would most likely go out of business. I'm not sure if it was you who said it but somebody out here wrote that they would not buy an EV from any car company that still made fossil cars. Yes you said by 2030 but tell me this how does it work if everybody said they will not buy an EV TODAY from a company that still sells gasoline powered cars? How will that company would even make it until 2030? Tesla succeeded selling only EVs because They were a new startup, starting from scratch with a small amount of employees. In other words they were a boutique manufacturer, also if they tried to enter the ICEV market they would have surely failed as there was way too much extremely competent competition in that field, going entirely electric was their only chance to survive.
I drive a Chevy Bolt EV and my water heater, heating and air, and stove are all electric. In addition my electricity comes from a solar farm built by my electric utility company. I agree that if many more people would only buy EV's, we could force these legacy automakers to make and sell only electric cars. However most people are not as concerned about climate change as they should be, which is why we need incentives like Norway used to increase their EV sales. At the same time we need to force all automakers to produce and sell only EV's by 2030. Put it this way, with stricter environmental laws and emissions free zones in cities increasing, as well as battery prices plunging along with the price of EV's, and the deleterious effects of climate change increasing, legacy automakers will go out of business unless they sell 100% EV's by 2030.
That's all good. Never said I was against government incentives
It's a simple question, if you're saying I don't take climate change serious enough I would like to know how big your house is, do you own more than one house? How many miles does your family drive a year combined? How many children do you have if any? What sort of HVAC system do you have? How well is your home insulated? You can't tell me I don't take it seriously enough if it turns out your carbon footprint is higher than mine
Climate change doesn't change the fact that oem's can't just start only making ev's in a days time. Developing ev's takes time.
Bahaha. I believe in climate change,my carbon footprint is probably lower than yours- I live in a 1000 square ft house that's very well insulated, removed my filthy oil boiler and installed efficient Mitsubishi mini splits for hvac and a hpwh for domestic hot water. I have 1 kid, live 3.5 miles from work....my 2016 Gold has 23,000 miles on it. the break even point for a tesla to be greener than an ICEV that's Golf size is approximately 40,000 miles. I wholeheartedly believe in man made climate change I just don't think rich guys driving $100,000 teslas living in 4000 sq ft houses lecturing, shaming and virtue signaling is the answer
I didn't tell any stories I asked a question. As soon as somebody who has an actual adult brain makes a point somebody gets their knickers in the twist and starts ranting at them about climate change. I have no idea what your details are but apparently you won't share them so that tells me all I need to know. I understand either you hate every single car company except Tesla or you hate the Earth I got it. Good luck winning over people with that buddy. Unlike you I'm willing to share, my house had an oil boiler ( with no emission controls) which burnt what is basically diesel fuel for heat and for domestic hot water and it burned anywhere from 700 to 900 gallons per year. I spent $11,000 installing hyper heat Mitsubishis so that even outside of Philadelphia I didn't need any backup heat, I spent another thousand on a HPWH for domestic hot water. My car gets 25 MPG around town and I only drive it around 5,000 mi per year. Do the math, That's 200 gallons of gas burned through a modern emissions controlled engine. Instead I guess I should have spent $70,000 on a Tesla so everybody would know how green I was yet kept the oil boiler?
I bet your carbon footprint is more than double of the carbon footprint of your grandpa's footprint at your current age.
Compared to our grandpa's generation, the western generations with age between 10-50 years have higher carbon footprints than thier grandpas at the same age.
Ask your grandpa:- when he got his first car- how many miles he traveled by car per year- how large his living space without air condition was in his twens time- how many flights he did between his age 0-40.....
And? First of all I rarely fly second of all I'm not so sure about that. My one grandfather lived in a house comparable to mine in the same town. He drove a car that was surely worse for the environment in many ways and his house was heated by burning heating oil ( diesel fuel) mine is heated by a very efficient heat pump . His house was barely insulated compared to mine. Well now that I think about it 10,000 years ago surely the average carbon footprint was a lot lower so let's all go live in a cave with no electricity. You will never achieve climate goals chastising first worlders to go without AC on a world that's heating up. The answer is more environmentally friendly units and more, cheaper renewable energy
My grandfather's heyday was the 50's America. Big gas guzzling cars sucking down leaded fuel and pumping the exhaust into the air with no emissions.
The way to get less fossil fuels is to get actual car companies that know how to make cars to want to go electric. The way to make that happen, besides government regulations, is for people to buy their electric cars and leave their fossil fuel cars sitting on the lot. It's not to say nobody should buy any of their cars and the entire Earth should want to buy cars from one company who on a good year if they were really lucky could make maybe one million cars. That's fantasy land nonsense, grow up
Huh? I'm not arguing the science I'm simply pointing out rich boys hand wringing and shaming isn't the solution. Again how many in your family, how big is your house, how many kids? Can Tesla provide enough cats to supply the entire Earth,? No? Then the solution is to encourage all manufactures to go electric not to be permanently butt hurt about diesel gate. If your carbon footprint is bigger than mine you're the problem not me . So math and science isn't the solution? What is worshipping one company and one guy?
I'm not the one who said he would never buy an EV buy a car company that still made any ICEVS. My point was no mainstream car manufacturer could switch to 100% electric tomorrow and survive. There's a reason it's called a transition, and I think it's clear that VW is working the hardest out of any so-called legacy manufacturer to go electric. So The point was to not reward and encourage that electrification is stupid in my opinion. Also I don't think Tesla really wants that, I think that's more just good PR. Elon's real opinion on other electric cars comes out occasionally on Twitter and then he'll the case went backtrack and compliment them.
Don't live in the southwest, it's a desert it was never meant for millions of people living a first world existence. My mom lives outside Tucson and it went a year without rain....
You don't know what you are talking about. The earth is being destroyed by our use of dirty fossil fuels. The IPCC has admonished us that we don't have time. All auto companies must electrify all their vehicles as quickly as possible. Hasn't the record high temperatures in the Northwest convinced you that we have run out of time? As battery prices plunge, electric cars will get cheaper and car companies will go out of buisiness if they don't sell only electric cars.
If they will go out of business if they don't sell only electric cars then what are you on about? According to your theory fossil fuel car companies will be gone. I'm not a climate change denier I just think there isn't yet the battery or manufacturing capacity for all cars to be electric. also the way forward is to encourage car companies to switch to electric, the way to do that is to buy their electric cars. How big is your house and your family? I'd like to know before you get to shame me.
Gassing people its a German thing!
If you got them with the bottom of the range model they wouldn't be options would they?
Why are you people so obsessed with frunks?A frunk makes sense when you removed the engine out of your design and now have space you don't use. Adding a frunk just to add a frunk makes no sense.
At $40,000 for their base model ID.4, I would consider it. However it cost $10,000 more than my Chevy Bolt. It has fast charging capabilities which my Bolt that can only charge at 55 kW, doesn't have. It will be interesting to see how much cheaper these electric SUV's get in the future as battery prices go down. I still think VW made a mistake by not bringing their ID.3 to the USA. Their is a market for smaller sedans as the popularity of the Tesla M3 has proven.
The ID.3 is quite a bit smaller than the model 3, at least externally, and it isn't a sedan, it is a hatchback.
Both good things. Add a trailer hitch, V2G options all is excellent.There are so few cars with more than 4 people a fairly small car with a trailer can cost a lot less.With Fed rebate wouldn't a low end one be under $30k?And women will love them because they've went for lower cost, easy to deal with just enough to get them around forever. That they don't have to stop at gas stations might be a bigger plus for them.
I'm a Golf owner but explain then why VW sells FAR more Tiguans and atlas's then Golf's over the last few years. I got my 2016 golf loaded for $25,000.
Hype, advertising, ego, fashion. I just consider a hatch as a mini CUV and a hatch can do most anything a CUV will.They are all station wagons no matter what you call them to avoid calling them station wagons, 2 box, just differ in size.And consider people who'll buy EVs are different and much more likely to want less of a vehicle than more.