I think the Stinger will be my last car

[MerlintheMad]

We debate the sources of co2 output while MAD remains the planet's greatest threat. We built the damned things. We can get rid of them. But almost nobody talks about that: as if we NEED them to keep us from having another world war. If we can't even rid ourselves of MAD, then all talk about "what you can do to do your part" is just so much wasted air.

 

[forzanerazzurri]

Agreed. I can’t cite it off hand, but I recall reading about a study a couple of years ago – by a university in Sweden, I’m pretty sure – that all-in the average electric car is LESS green than the average ICE car. As I recall, it was the re-charge energy over the life of the car, along with the energy to re-cycle the batteries that put it over the top.

That said, I’ll probably check out electrics in the future – I’m sure the tech and the range will improve. But… I love me some internal combustion! The rumble of the engine; the smell of the gasoline! Heck, a cup of the stuff will send a 4000 lb Stinger a mile down the highway at 80 mph! To paraphrase Ben Franklin: “Gasoline is proof that God loves us and wants us to drive fast.”

Anyway, back on topic… In 2025 I hope to be driving the 3rd gen Stinger GT with the 600 HP 5.5L TT V8!

The disconnect with proponents of electric cars isnt really about which one is greener, rather the fact that electric car owners think their cars are actually zero emission. Electric cars are a garbage stop gap to something more sustainable. There is no rational argument for getting an electric car from an environmental perspective. Owners of electric cars are perfidious gasbags, and as annoying as Vegans.

 

[GRStinger]

The disconnect with proponents of electric cars isnt really about which one is greener, rather the fact that electric car owners think their cars are actually zero emission. Electric cars are a garbage stop gap to something more sustainable. There is no rational argument for getting an electric car from an environmental perspective. Owners of electric cars are perfidious gasbags, and as annoying as Vegans.

So, we'll put you down as a "maybe" for an electric car.

 

[BlaydeX15]

Agreed. I can’t cite it off hand, but I recall reading about a study a couple of years ago – by a university in Sweden, I’m pretty sure – that all-in the average electric car is LESS green than the average ICE car. As I recall, it was the re-charge energy over the life of the car, along with the energy to re-cycle the batteries that put it over the top.

That said, I’ll probably check out electrics in the future – I’m sure the tech and the range will improve. But… I love me some internal combustion! The rumble of the engine; the smell of the gasoline! Heck, a cup of the stuff will send a 4000 lb Stinger a mile down the highway at 80 mph! To paraphrase Ben Franklin: “Gasoline is proof that God loves us and wants us to drive fast.”

Anyway, back on topic… In 2025 I hope to be driving the 3rd gen Stinger GT with the 600 HP 5.5L TT V8!

That study is pretty controversial, it accounted for the energy of producing the battery pack, but not any savings due to recycling once complete, and uses some 5 year old battery production data. Their finding was 150-200 kilos of CO2 per KWh of battery, and Tesla's new factory is sitting at the 75-100 mark, with estimated 70% recycling efficiency.

Secondly, their Mileage -> CO2 math was way off, saying that an ICE vehicle could run for 8 years before it equaled the 17 tons of CO2 produced by making the Tesla's 100KWh battery pack. Considering 1 gallon of gas = 9 kilos CO2, that's ~1800 gallons of gas to offset the production of a Tesla battery in their estimate. I suppose that's 8 years if you only drive your car 5k miles/year.

Unfortunately though, the correct math is hard to figure out. Best estimate is that a brand new 100KWh battery pack is equivalent to burning 900 gallons of gasoline, and a recycled one is equivalent to burning 300. Depending on your driving habits and the car you drive, that can be 12k miles in 6 months, or 30k miles in 4 years. Of course, then you need to offset the CO2 production of whatever you're using for electricity, but that can range from 0 to a whole lot, so each individual would need to figure that out on their own.

That being said, battery production vs fuel consumption is only a small part of the equation. Producing a brand new car is still extremely dirty and wasteful, so scrapping a perfectly functional car to upgrade to a shiny new EV isn't helping anything. Lol.

 

[AV8R]

Im betting Stinger will have an E entry next Generation ..................they've hinted it

E for elderly i bet lol

 

[Doel]

The disconnect with proponents of electric cars isnt really about which one is greener, rather the fact that electric car owners think their cars are actually zero emission. Electric cars are a garbage stop gap to something more sustainable. There is no rational argument for getting an electric car from an environmental perspective. Owners of electric cars are perfidious gasbags, and as annoying as Vegans.

what is a more sustainable vehicle then? I know a couple EV owners, I know a handful of hybrid owners, not a single one of them think their cars have no carbon footprint. Anyone with any sense realizes that EVERYTHING man made has a carbon footprint. Keep the name calling to yourself friend, last I checked this wasn't a 5th grade classroom. I've already wrote a few rational arguments but I'm going to assume anything that goes against your current opinion you're going to deem "irrational" regardless of any science and math presented to you.

That study is pretty controversial, it accounted for the energy of producing the battery pack, but not any savings due to recycling once complete, and uses some 5 year old battery production data. Their finding was 150-200 kilos of CO2 per KWh of battery, and Tesla's new factory is sitting at the 75-100 mark, with estimated 70% recycling efficiency.

Secondly, their Mileage -> CO2 math was way off, saying that an ICE vehicle could run for 8 years before it equaled the 17 tons of CO2 produced by making the Tesla's 100KWh battery pack. Considering 1 gallon of gas = 9 kilos CO2, that's ~1800 gallons of gas to offset the production of a Tesla battery in their estimate. I suppose that's 8 years if you only drive your car 5k miles/year.

Unfortunately though, the correct math is hard to figure out. Best estimate is that a brand new 100KWh battery pack is equivalent to burning 900 gallons of gasoline, and a recycled one is equivalent to burning 300. Depending on your driving habits and the car you drive, that can be 12k miles in 6 months, or 30k miles in 4 years. Of course, then you need to offset the CO2 production of whatever you're using for electricity, but that can range from 0 to a whole lot, so each individual would need to figure that out on their own.

That being said, battery production vs fuel consumption is only a small part of the equation. Producing a brand new car is still extremely dirty and wasteful, so scrapping a perfectly functional car to upgrade to a shiny new EV isn't helping anything. Lol.

The biggest problem with that study is that it's comparing the manufacturing of a battery pack to the usage of gas, these two things aren't equal. You would want to compare the manufacturing of the battery pack and the electric drive components to the engine, transmission, fuel system, and the rest of the drive train of an ICE to see what the difference is. It's possible that an ICE drive train has a very similar carbon footprint to an EV drive train, but perhaps not, even if it doesn't it will significantly eat into the carbon footprint advantage off the factory floor that article claims exists the ICE has.

The second biggest problem is that it doesn't take into account the carbon footprint of the gas itself, before it goes through combustion. That can be as high as 7 lbs of CO2 per gallon. This is a quote from Musk back in 2011, EVs are even more efficient now.
"You have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline," says Musk. "You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine [one gallon of] gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours."

You're right on the point that new vehicles have a high carbon footprint in itself. I wouldn't suggest the entire world switch over to EVs all at once, more so that people switch over as they would normally replace their vehicles.

 

[GRStinger]

what is a more sustainable vehicle then? I know a couple EV owners, I know a handful of hybrid owners, not a single one of them think their cars have no carbon footprint. Anyone with any sense realizes that EVERYTHING man made has a carbon footprint. Keep the name calling to yourself friend, last I checked this wasn't a 5th grade classroom. I've already wrote a few rational arguments but I'm going to assume anything that goes against your current opinion you're going to deem "irrational" regardless of any science and math presented to you.



The biggest problem with that study is that it's comparing the manufacturing of a battery pack to the usage of gas, these two things aren't equal. You would want to compare the manufacturing of the battery pack and the electric drive components to the engine, transmission, fuel system, and the rest of the drive train of an ICE to see what the difference is. It's possible that an ICE drive train has a very similar carbon footprint to an EV drive train, but perhaps not, even if it doesn't it will significantly eat into the carbon footprint advantage off the factory floor that article claims exists the ICE has.

The second biggest problem is that it doesn't take into account the carbon footprint of the gas itself, before it goes through combustion. That can be as high as 7 lbs of CO2 per gallon. This is a quote from Musk back in 2011, EVs are even more efficient now.
"You have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline," says Musk. "You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine [one gallon of] gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours."

You're right on the point that new vehicles have a high carbon footprint in itself. I wouldn't suggest the entire world switch over to EVs all at once, more so that people switch over as they would normally replace their vehicles.

The 'green argument' aside, the day that EV's are more reliable and cheaper to own and operate than IC's - and the day they are economically viable without massive taxpayer subsidies - is the day I'll become interested. I'm also more than reluctant to accept arguments from Musk - a man who stands more to gain financially than anyone in the world if EV's replace IC. The guy is getting billions in annual govt subsidies, and still can't turn a profit. By the way, who is going to force private industry to stop refining gasoline??? If you want an EV - great, go buy one. However, I'd love it if every Tesla owner was required to display a bumper sticker saying: "Nice car, eh? Thanks for the $7500, Mr & Mrs. Taxpayer"

 

[forzanerazzurri]

The 'green argument' aside, the day that EV's are more reliable and cheaper to own and operate than IC's - and the day they are economically viable without massive taxpayer subsidies - is the day I'll become interested. I'm also more than reluctant to accept arguments from Musk - a man who stands more to gain financially than anyone in the world if EV's replace IC. The guy is getting billions in annual govt subsidies, and still can't turn a profit. By the way, who is going to force private industry to stop refining gasoline??? If you want an EV - great, go buy one. However, I'd love it if every Tesla owner was required to display a bumper sticker saying: "Nice car, eh? Thanks for the $7500, Mr & Mrs. Taxpayer"

Their slogan should be: "Tesla - it runs on Coal and Taxpayer money".

 

[westcoastGT]

E for elderly i bet lol

or in your case Elf

 

[Doel]

The 'green argument' aside, the day that EV's are more reliable and cheaper to own and operate than IC's - and the day they are economically viable without massive taxpayer subsidies - is the day I'll become interested. I'm also more than reluctant to accept arguments from Musk - a man who stands more to gain financially than anyone in the world if EV's replace IC. The guy is getting billions in annual govt subsidies, and still can't turn a profit. By the way, who is going to force private industry to stop refining gasoline??? If you want an EV - great, go buy one. However, I'd love it if every Tesla owner was required to display a bumper sticker saying: "Nice car, eh? Thanks for the $7500, Mr & Mrs. Taxpayer"

The market will slow, and eventually stop gasoline production, no one is going to "force" them to do it. Technology is improving, sustainable energy production is already cheaper than fossil fuel energy production in many parts of the country. When cars charge even faster, come with even more range, and are priced about the same as ICE vehicles, you're going to see a massive drop off in gas production. This isn't that far off.

I'm fine with that bumper sticker if every single business owner who pays their employees less than a livable wage also has one that says "Like my car? Thanks for subsidizing the pay of my employees Mr. Taxpayer". Or how about all the CEOs of all the companies making millions a year who got billions in bailout money from the feds. Heck, just this year we gave tens of millions to oil and gas companies who were profitable! That makes a ton of sense.

 

[westcoastGT]

subsidies are one thing but battery disposal is the key environmental issue right ??

 

[GRStinger]

The market will slow, and eventually stop gasoline production, no one is going to "force" them to do it. Technology is improving, sustainable energy production is already cheaper than fossil fuel energy production in many parts of the country. When cars charge even faster, come with even more range, and are priced about the same as ICE vehicles, you're going to see a massive drop off in gas production. This isn't that far off.

I'm fine with that bumper sticker if every single business owner who pays their employees less than a livable wage also has one that says "Like my car? Thanks for subsidizing the pay of my employees Mr. Taxpayer". Or how about all the CEOs of all the companies making millions a year who got billions in bailout money from the feds. Heck, just this year we gave tens of millions to oil and gas companies who were profitable! That makes a ton of sense.

As for ICE vs. EV, I am all for letting the market decide. The competition is good for the competitors and will advance the technology, and it's even better for the consumer. Supply-and-demand works, if it's allowed to. If, as you say, EV's start charging fast, get better range, etc., people will surely buy more of them. But I guess that gas prices would then fall, thus making IC more competitive. I, for one, am not worried about the world 'running out of oil'. With the advancement in exploration technology (not to mention extraction technology), they find it virtually everywhere they look.

And, I probably have a different POV on individual pay. Again, let the market work. When Reggie Jackson was the first athlete to make $1 million/year, there was a big debate about whether he was worth it - say compared to school teacher, whatever. The end of the argument is that he - or anyone - is worth exactly what someone else will pay them for their skills.

 

[MerlintheMad]

When fossil fuels no longer pose a "threat" to the environment, because their use has dropped off the point of being a non issue, then ICE will be a hobby interest to keep the Old School toys going. Nobody will scream and holler about it. Of course, by then, the petrol stations will have dried up and blown away; thus rendering actual "road trips" with any ICE a non starter; a reversal of the current state of affairs with charging stations few and far between (but not as few or as far between as just a little while ago). Basically, travel by ICE car will become an activity of the eccentric and the rich. But I don't see it ever becoming a banned thing. And the further we get into the EV "era", the more nostalgia and interest in the old cars there will be; similar to how some well off folks collect and fly WW1 retro airplanes, etc.

 

[Doel]

subsidies are one thing but battery disposal is the key environmental issue right ??

Lithium batteries are recyclable, there's just an issue of being able to recycle them at a profit. I'm of an opinion that all recycling companies should receive government subsidies. We don't even recycle glass where I live because they can't turn a profit on it, that's ridiculous to me.

As for ICE vs. EV, I am all for letting the market decide. The competition is good for the competitors and will advance the technology, and it's even better for the consumer. Supply-and-demand works, if it's allowed to. If, as you say, EV's start charging fast, get better range, etc., people will surely buy more of them. But I guess that gas prices would then fall, thus making IC more competitive. I, for one, am not worried about the world 'running out of oil'. With the advancement in exploration technology (not to mention extraction technology), they find it virtually everywhere they look.

And, I probably have a different POV on individual pay. Again, let the market work. When Reggie Jackson was the first athlete to make $1 million/year, there was a big debate about whether he was worth it - say compared to school teacher, whatever. The end of the argument is that he - or anyone - is worth exactly what someone else will pay them for their skills.

I'm not worried about running of out gas anytime soon either, I'm more worried about running out of sustainable ecosystem which is where we're heading. I think in another 5 years we'll start seeing EVs with a 500 mile range, at 70 miles an hour that's over 7 hours of driving. Once supercharger charging stations become common place and they can get those charging times down to 30 minutes or so, I think you'll start seeing some serious adoption. When you're driving that long, you really should take a 30 minute break anyway.

The only reason all these companies can pay their employees less than $10 an hour is because those same people can also get government assistance to make up the difference. Welfare paid to people with jobs is really corporate welfare if you think about it. If it didn't exist, people wouldn't work for $8 an hour because they literally couldn't survive off it. I would rather see the minimum wage increase to a livable wage and increased every year based on cost of living increases. More restrictions placed on welfare so less people would be getting government benefits (less people would need them with higher wages). Use those savings to help prop up small businesses who may struggle with paying their employees $12+ an hour. In my mind, the best solutions are often center of the aisle. Way off topic here anyway, sorry.

 

[GRStinger]

Lithium batteries are recyclable, there's just an issue of being able to recycle them at a profit. I'm of an opinion that all recycling companies should receive government subsidies. We don't even recycle glass where I live because they can't turn a profit on it, that's ridiculous to me.



I'm not worried about running of out gas anytime soon either, I'm more worried about running out of sustainable ecosystem which is where we're heading. I think in another 5 years we'll start seeing EVs with a 500 mile range, at 70 miles an hour that's over 7 hours of driving. Once supercharger charging stations become common place and they can get those charging times down to 30 minutes or so, I think you'll start seeing some serious adoption. When you're driving that long, you really should take a 30 minute break anyway.

The only reason all these companies can pay their employees less than $10 an hour is because those same people can also get government assistance to make up the difference. Welfare paid to people with jobs is really corporate welfare if you think about it. If it didn't exist, people wouldn't work for $8 an hour because they literally couldn't survive off it. I would rather see the minimum wage increase to a livable wage and increased every year based on cost of living increases. More restrictions placed on welfare so less people would be getting government benefits (less people would need them with higher wages). Use those savings to help prop up small businesses who may struggle with paying their employees $12+ an hour. In my mind, the best solutions are often center of the aisle. Way off topic here anyway, sorry.

Some of us don't mind wandering off-topic for a bit I'm opposed to the growth of the welfare state, but actually I wouldn't mind seeing welfare for a working person - for a limit time - as long as it can help them move up/off welfare for good. E.g., a working single mom taking college classes. As for the whole "living wage" / minimum-wage thing... it can be debated ad naseum. My POV: instead of trying to to carve up the pie into smaller, "equal" pieces, how 'bout we make the pie bigger?!

When fossil fuels no longer pose a "threat" to the environment, because their use has dropped off the point of being a non issue,

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), in our lifetimes I highly doubt we'll ever even see a decline in the rate of increase in the use of fossil fuels, let-alone a reduction or significant drop off. Although there are piles of money going into renewable energy and EV's... you can call me a skeptic. And sadly, I've almost given up on having one of those flying cars that I used to see on The Jetsons!

 

[MerlintheMad]

in our lifetimes I highly doubt we'll ever even see a decline in the rate of increase in the use of fossil fuels

I'm totally ambivalent on this scenario; because it is the intent of the automobile industry to see all EVs in the next two decades at the latest. Will they succeed? That depends on how efficient and practical EVs can be made. Given the incentive of profits, I won't be surprised if they come up with the tech to self-charge on the go and do it indefinitely. That would be the end of ICE except for the special interest nich.

 

[westcoastGT]

......the Jetsons mmmmmmmm , Judy was Hot !

 

[GRStinger]

Oh yes, Judy. But she ain't no Betty Rubble!

 

[westcoastGT]

Bawaaaaaaa ! OK , Ginger or Mary Anne ????

Oh yes, Judy. But she ain't no Betty Rubble!

 

[Stinger GT SS]

No it has to be Jeannie