I’m not trying to pick on General Motors here, because I respect that GM is delaying the rollout of its popular GMC Canyon and Chevrolet Colorado trucks because the software in these trucks isn’t working. It’s hard to ignore, however, that this is the same company that says it’s going to replace Apple’s CarPlay and Google’s Android Auto.
At least GM’s issue is temporary — there’s a report that Japan’s transport ministry might pull certification for a bunch of engines made by Toyota’s industrial arm. Get your forklifts while you can! And while we’re talking about emissions, it seems like we’ve got a few more details on how exactly the Biden Administration is going to soften its emissions requirements, sort of.
And, finally on The Morning Dump, we have a wrap-up of the Daytona madness this weekend for those of you who didn’t stay up late last night with the rest of us. I’m so tired…
GMC Canyon/Chevy Colorado Stop-Sale
At first blush, the news that General Motors is having to issue a stop-sale on its profitable and popular mid-size pickups isn’t that big of a deal. Things like this happen all the time and it’s a good sign that GM took quality into consideration and didn’t deliver an incomplete truck.
According to Automotive News, this impacts about 15,000 of the 2024 model year Canyons and Colorados:
“Certain [model year 2024] Colorados and Canyons displayed intermittent software quality issues, identified during our rigorous validation process,” Brandee Barker, GM’s vice president of global technology communications, said Monday in a statement to Automotive News. “A fix has been identified and implemented into vehicles that have begun shipping to dealers this morning.”
If this sounds familiar, it’s because late last year GM had to stop the sale of the Chevy Blazer EV after it experienced software issues. But don’t worry about it, GM is on top of it:
“We’ve put in place a world-class software leadership team that is urgently working to overcome any issues in the short term, while building for the long term, including revamping the software development process and more importantly the validation process. We’re confident that our vehicles will have software that exceeds customer expectations.”
About that. GM thinks it’ll replace CarPlay and Android Auto in its cars, an idea that has earned a lot of skepticism from us. Very few automakers have successfully pulled this off; for GM to prove it can do advanced driver interaction software it first has to prove it can deliver the complex and important software that keeps vehicles operating. As automakers shove more tools into a little screen on the dash and remove physical buttons this is imperative.
I haven’t seen a compelling reason for why GM is replacing CarPlay other than the CEO of the company said that GM is going to double revenues and some of that new revenue is probably going to have to come from subscriptions (and some of it is going to have to come from Cruise). These are big ambitions and GM shouldn’t be faulted for that, but some of its software execution has thus far been pretty poor. So you can understand why so many of us remain skeptical about the Apple Carplay/Android Auto announcement last year.
Japanese Government May Make Toyota’s Life A Little Harder
The Toyota cheating scandals include both the Daihatsu Charade, which is about faked safety tests, and the Toyota Industries emissions scandal, which is over faked emissions tests. And we haven’t even touched on the forklifts!
Toyota’s subsidiary Toyota Industries is the biggest maker of forklifts in the world and the larger emissions scandal started with an admission from the company to regulators that it had tampered with performance test data. Now, according to Nikkei via Reuters, those regulators might pull the emissions certificates for those engines:
Toyota Industries, which also makes cars, textiles and electronics, may lose certification for an excavator engine, the report said.
The ministry appears to be preparing similar action over two forklift engine models, it added.
“The regulator will weigh the severity of the misconduct before deciding whether to do the same for engines used in Land Cruiser vehicles and HiAce vans,” the report said.
This will probably get worse before it gets better for Toyota.
The EPA Seems Like They’re Going To Do This
Yesterday, we mentioned reports from over the weekend that the Biden administration might have the EPA slow roll its emissions requirements (essentially, a requirement that automakers come up with some magical way to make gas cars more efficient or just sell more EVs).
What these reports lacked were any concrete details. Now we’ve got some. Sort of. Reuters has a strong headline: “US to soften tailpipe rules, slow EV transition through 2030” that has very little hedge.
Ok, so this is happening. But what is it, really? From the article:
The Environmental Protection Agency in April 2023 proposed requiring a 56% reduction in new vehicle emissions by 2032. Under the initial EPA proposal covering 2027-2032, automakers were expected to aim for EVs to constitute 60% of their new vehicle production by 2030 and 67% by 2032 to meet stricter emissions requirements.
Under the revised final regulation expected to be made public as soon as next month, the EPA will slow the pace of its proposed yearly emissions requirements through 2030. The new pace is expected to result in EVs accounting for less than 60% of total vehicles produced by 2030, the sources said.
Ahhhh… ehhh… well… some detail.
If I’m reading this correctly, the original rules would have meant automakers would need about 60% of their lineup to be EVs by 2030 and the new rules are, uh, less than 60%. Is that 59%? Is that 22%?
Assuming 10% of new vehicle sales this year are electric cars, cutting to 60% in 2030 seems like a big task.
I Am A Little Tired This Morning
https://t.co/ISj8kEbJ51 pic.twitter.com/jnWuow0HpZ
— Bozi Tatarevic (@BoziTatarevic) February 20, 2024
I love the above tweet because it does capture the madness of Daytona. Because few of my plans actually go to plan, my invite to have all of you watch the Xfinity NASCAR race on a lazy Saturday afternoon turned into an activity that managed to drag on into almost Tuesday here as the race finished just before midnight.
Why? Rain. There’s been a lot of rain lately and it’s been a bit rough on NASCAR.
We ended up having a great chat with race mechanic/friend Bozi Tatarevic in the Discord and learned a lot:
Friend and contributor Parker Kligerman had a bit of a long/rough night, but he finished on his tires and got some stage points. I stand by my decision to have all of us watch Xfinity because it was definitely the best race of the weekend.
So what happened? I thought Austin Cindric was going to pull out a Daytona 500 victory, but he got spun at the last second (after surviving the big one) and William Byron won by a nose hair. In the truck race, chaos won. In the Xfinity race Austin Hill somehow got another Daytona victory with a car that was more tape than actual car.
Atlanta will be in a few days and I’ll send out another invite. Hopefully, rain will stay away and it’ll happen when it’s supposed to happen.
What I’m Listening To While Writing This
I’m so tired. I needed a pickup, so let’s do some freakin’ Daft Punk.
The Big Question
What if the requirement was… 60% of cars need to be electrified by 2030. How would you feel about that? Some mix of EVs, hybrids, and PHEVs?
Since her appointment as CEO a decade ago last month, Mary Barra has produced a mixed report card in her leadership role at GM. She is no dilettante having started as a student intern forty-four years ago and grinding her way to the top. Looking at her impressive hands-on credentials no one can doubt she has gasoline in her blood. However, increasingly her analog-age experience is beginning to show signs of fraying in the digital era. Two recent corporate policy blunders may end her tenure earlier than she planned. As the author discusses above, the corporate decision to eliminate Apple CarPlay and Android Auto from future GM products will doubtlessly end in failure. Prospective buyers consider these applications a birthright. I believe GM will be shocked by the response or perhaps it would be more accurate to state the non-response from paying customers. They will be forced into an abrupt and embarrassing reversal. Secondly, the Cruise experiment is just that. An abject failure. There is no way out of this money pit. Doubling down, as is planned for later this year, will not change the outcome. It pains me to say this, and love her or hate her, the GM policy blunders previously discussed and delayed EV product roll outs and chronic software development problems probably mean we won’t have the very loyal GM-lifer Mary Barra to kick around in 2025.
So since the broad term “Software” includes entertainment apps, there’s some sort of connection between the decision to go in-house over Android Auto and CarPlay and a stop build order for “software” issues?
Look, AA and CarPlay have their fans, but they are clunky middleware interfaces that don’t integrate well with the rest of the car. Making an in-house entertainment solution that uses the phone’s mobile network without touching the apps on the phone is a better option from beginning to end. Choose your GUI – the phone or the car. A half-assed solution like AA or CarPlay just isn’t going to be the best possible experience.
One big issue is music, which many people stream through Apple or Google services. It would be a miracle if GM could partner with these companies to integrate music into their software. I don’t see it happening, and using Bluetooth for music is lame.
It’d be crazy for GM to not have native apps for the most used streaming services. Hopefully, they’ll be full-function apps, unlike the cut-down versions on Android Auto. All I can do in Spotify and Amazon Prime Music is play from my saved playlists or their curated channels. I can’t search, I can’t voice search, I can’t purchase…the list goes on.
Look, AA and CarPlay have their fans, but they are clunky middleware interfaces that don’t…
…allow car companies to monetize use of infotainment features in a subscription model down the road. Or monetize data collected and sold by manufacturers.
Nobody wants that. I’m skeptical too.
I don’t have any interest in the car GUI… I want to use my phone. The car just needs to let me more effectively use my phone. That’s it. I don’t understand how that needs to “integrate” with anything. The car can do car stuff, and wireless android auto which hooks up as soon as I turn the car on and starts playing the podcast/music/etc I’m listening to, and launches Waze if I want directions, can do the rest.
You don’t need Android Auto at all if all you want is to use your phone, just use bluetooth input, or USB input, and clip your phone to the dash.
What you do want is actually integration since you want your apps on the car’s screen.
Well, yes, fair enough. But it’s basically just running apps from the phone on the screen. What I *don’t* want is some other car-proprietary app that’s not available on my phone.
Car companies are terrible at software and should not pretend to be software companies. Just look over at VW’s awful rollout of the software for their EVs from their in-house “CARIAD” or whatever unit. Botched so badly that I think they got fined by the EU and delayed roll out of multiple vehicles (Porsche Macan EV being one). And now their craptastic UI/UX is being rolled out on all their vehicles and it is pretty universally disliked. Most reviewers, however, say the saving grace is that it still has apple carply/android auto functionality.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that GM could learn from this mistake but has chosen to repeat it instead. Good job GM.
So question for the folks. Will GM trying their own software bring about a rebirth of the replacement A/V unit similar to the 90’s with Crutchfield and a plethora of head units? Or are the integrated systems just too complicated and instead there will be a outside software solution that allows for AA/Carplay?
Truly hope that aftermarket replacements remain viable. I just replaced the head unit in my 2012 Prius v and a sibling’s 2015 Corolla with a specific wireless AA/Carplay Pioneer head unit, along with iDataLink Maestro interfaces so that all the car menu options and functionality remain.
It was pricey for both vehicles, but worth it, to me.
I shudder at the thought of a car being so well-integrated that it’s just not possible or worth it, unless the stock system really accomplishes all it needs to.
Sure, apparently the newer Toyotas have AA/Carplay functionality built in, but do you need an engineering degree if you want to add a subwoofer now?
The aftermarket will eventually figure things out if there’s enough demand for it.
There are vendors that make android-based head units for other makes and models. They can range from a universal unit in a model-specific housing with factory-style buttons and knobs, to a box that plugs into the factory harness and ‘hijacks’ the screen when you want to run carplay. They’re usually a little janky, but people will put up with it to get Carplay
One guy even got carplay in his Tesla by the in-car browser to display CarPlay running on a rasberry pi
If any automaker eliminates wireless android auto, I will eliminate their system and put in one that allows me to use it. End of story.
Many buy PHEVs because Big Oil lobbies manipulated things so that they get the same juicy credits as a full BEV. Then, after receiving that discount, they’ve achieved their goal and seldom if ever plug them in.
Source? I want a PHEV for the opposite use.
I want a regular hybrid because I will never plug in my car.
…is that a “I can’t” or “I won’t“? If you have the ability, why wouldn’t you? Isn’t it cheaper to run in EV mode?
Can’t. On street parking with no outlet even close.
Oh, yeah. I completely empathize with that.
Same here. Being able to plug in a vehicle at home is a privilege fewer and fewer people will have.
Agreed. The plug in shit is not the best solution. At it’s best it just charges your battery. At it’s worst it is just another way to add to overall pollution, and cost by using more electricity, and putting more stress on an already stressed power grid.
No not gonna do it…but a hybrid would be my choice.
If I could stomach the huge monthly payments of a new car. (can, but don’t want to have another car loan)
You’ve really ingested a lot of propaganda if the thought of plugging a car in at your home causes you that much stress.
Adds to overall pollution? Wat? Do you shed a tear every time your HVAC system turns on? Even sourced from coal, per kWh/mile of pollution is way less than an ICE car.
or to put it another way:
“I won’t want to run a car for fractions of pennies for 90% of my driving, when I could instead run it for dimes while getting to visit a gas station every two weeks!”
You call it propaganda. Go ahead and be reactionary. Does not offend me. Yet my own electric co op has made mention of the stress charging causes our local grid. And leads to increased costs to all members, with no benefit. This in a place with a very minimal amount of EV, BEVs.
And yes, being an old hippy asshole, I do get pissed off every time the fuckin A/C turns on…live with it, because there’s no choice, sorry.
As to saving a dime on petrol. BFD. I drive less than 2K a year now.
And get over 30 mpg, not a problem. So EV does not work for me. Can you accept that?
But have remarked here many times that my next car will almost certainly be a hybrid.
So go swing your dead cat at someone else. Seriously.
There are better hills to die on than Mt. Pious.
You got yourself worked up over plugging in a car. Think about that.
I DGAF if you drive an electric or not, your take was laser focused garbage and I didn’t want to let it stand unchallenged.
I’m sorry your co-op sucks at making electricity to the point where AC stresses you out. And you’re talking about me calling from Mt. Pious.
Who shit in your cornflakes today? Settle down…
And thanks for the laugh…
This statement confuses me. Why would you buy a hybrid?
Mostly because of the better mileage, re: Prius, RAV4, but am waiting to check out the rumored new extra small Toyota truck hybrid. And as mentioned above the other choices just don’t work for me.
The choice of a hybrid offers some good acceleration which matters these days as everyone drives a 400-500hp vehicle these days.
And if having a small battery and a tiny ICE engine actually does help the environment, well that is a big reason to me. Dealing with charging issues is also a factor. Not an issue with a hybrid. YMMV of course.
Although battery tech has advanced, we still need huge improvement to make the EVs, BEVs practical for a lot of us. When that does happen, perhaps our local power grid will also be better and I could justify the change to EV, BEV.
When we travel it’s normal to drive 12-14 hours a day to make time. Being tied to a charger or a possibly broken charger is a factor of inconvenience that is not something I care to add to the experience.
I hope was able to answer your question.
Don’t completely discount a PHEV because of grid issues: your co-op may be happy with scheduled off-peak charging (which I see some can do). But, it largely depends on your use-case: if your trips are majority 8-12 miles, there’s not much point in paying for the bigger battery that you don’t usually need. It costs more—and you’re lugging around all that extra rare-earth weight
Thank you for this. I rarely drive more than short trips of 10-15 miles. So the economics of EV or BEV are really not a big deal to me. But if owning a hybrid can be helpful, then I am more than happy to try one. Appreciate your input.
When it comes to battery assisted cars we all seem to have different use requirements. And the choices we do have is a good thing in my opinion. Choice is always better.
It does, thanks. This transition is certainly confusing and annoying. We all seem happy to do it, but man, change sucks.
It’s hard sometimes for sure. Thanks.
So don’t buy a new car, just a new to you used car.
In my area a well used but not dead yet clean titled, running Prius can be had for $4-5k. Maybe less where you are. They used to be cheaper, maybe they will be again.
Have considered just that, buy used. But I’m getting pretty old now, and I have never purchased a “new” car in 50 years, except for a 3 month old demo Toyota truck in 1991.
I try to buy the nicest or cleanest used cars I can find. Which generally means a newer model. In my area the dealers are selling used Toyotas for over original MSRP. Still. Which just is insulting.
So considering age and health issues I am strongly considering buying new, or leasing for what will probably be my last vehicle before the big dirt nap. And have gotten too stiff to be doing any work or maintenance past washing and wiper changes, battery, etc.
The biggest thing to favor new for me is that used is a great option, yet carries the risk of more things going wrong without warranty. Or to put it another way, more cash output. Like your screen name I have to be a cheap bastard to stay able to eat on a daily basis.
But because it will hopefully be my last car, I would like to be able not to worry about possible repair costs. A new car warranty buys me at least 3 years peace of mind on that front. And it’s hard to put a price on peace of mind for me.
Like your screen name I have to be a cheap bastard to stay able to eat on a daily basis.
I hear ya. The good news there is if you live in America cheap or even free food is everywhere.
Meals on Wheels, etc: A few years ago I found a care package of a few TV dinners and a small bag of basic groceries from Meals on Wheels on my doorstep. They didn’t want it back so it was either eat it or throw it away. I hate waste so I ate it. It was quite good. I have since recommend such services to folks who have a hard time getting out of the house (such as post surgery, mobility issues and agoraphobics). The feedback I’ve gotten from them and from volunteers has been very positive. I recommend them to you as well if they are available to you.
Soup kitchens: I volunteered in a soup kitchen many many years ago. I was impressed with the care and quality of the meals prepared, given they were made from expiring food from grocery stores. The meals were wholesome and nutritious. Also recommended.
Home cooking: If you don’t already make your own meals its high time to learn. If you have freezer space you can make meals one a week or two and thaw as needed. Casseroles are great for this. Get good at it and you may never eat out again.
Outlets: Places like Grocery Outlet and Smart & Final, other outlets and small ethnic grocery stores are a great cheap alternative to overpriced big chains. Buy what cheap and on sale and figure it out from there.
Yard: If you have the room grow a small garden of herbs and veggies, maybe something medical if your state allows it. Maybe your neighbors have fruit trees and gardens of their own. Set up an exchange.
Booze: Its surprisingly easy to legally make your own alcoholic beverages. It does however have to be naturally fermented – you can concentrate it via distillation for freezing but only to use as “fuel”. Don’t worry, many yeasts will go way past 11% given enough sugar.
(yeast) Just don’t use bread yeast – that’s bred to make CO2. You want yeast bred to make ethanol and minimize off flavors. Champagne yeast is a typical go to starter. Its cheap too. Fermenting apple juice to hard cider is almost trivial. Just pour a 1/4 tsp of yeast into a jug of store bought juice and very loosely screw the cap back on. It should start bubbling in a day or so in warm weather. Give it a few more days and taste along the way. Left to its own devices it will probably ferment all the sugars to make a 6-7% dry cider.
You can make apple wine by adding just enough sugar to the juice to reach your strain of your yeast’s limit. Other juices will work too so if you have a bounty of raspberries, persimmons or whatever this is a good way to use them up.
Bless you for your suggestions, appreciate that.
To be honest, after my wife passed my lack of sense regarding eating, and meal prep became apparent really quickly.
I have a good case of both MS and Parkinson going, so my fingers are always numb. Trying to prepare anything harder than a bowl of cereal is usually quite a shit show. But that’s ok, lots of folks deal with much more.
But I discovered if I go and buy a take out pizza it will feed me for 2-3 days, which helps.
Seriously looking for a person with cooking, cleaning skills to share my house with. But that sort of thing is a whole new can of worms that could end up being a problem as well. Ha!
Thanks again for your ideas. Really. I had a friend who also lost his wife, he managed to live another four years. It was shocking to see his decline. As such I am trying to keep my shit together as much as possible. God bless.
Yep. getting older sucks. It’s usually better than the alternative though.
I do have to ask though, have you ruled out diabetes? Its very common. Its my understanding up to 1 in 3 folks have it, many are undiagnosed. Numbness in the fingers and toes is a classic symptom of diabetic neuropathy. I speak from first hand experience. I also speak from first hand experience when I say if you do have diabetes you do NOT want to let it go. I’ve also seen the consequences firsthand on loved ones. It literally feels like Hell. It’s also the #1 cause of amputations and one of the top causes of blindness. Do NOT let it go! That goes for all you Autopians.
The good news is that if it’s caught early enough it might be reversible with proper care and diet. As I’m sure you know nerves are very slow to heal so if diabetes is the case the sooner it’s addressed the better. Healing may take months, even years but it can happen but only if its caught and dealt with early enough. I was diagnosed a few months ago. I had felt the symptoms of neuropathy but had not realized what it was even though I had seen it in those aforementioned family member and knew I was prediabetic. My A1C was past 11! That was then. Its back to almost 6 now (lower than my prediabetic readings) and trending down. I’ve noticed the neuropathy has also lessened. Most of the time I don’t notice anything off at all.
I know keto diet is trendy and thus insufferably annoying but it also an excellent diet for diabetics. Self care isn’t hard – just cut down or eliminate as many carbs as possible, take the meds (they’re usually cheap), check your blood sugar once in a while and get some exercise. Even if you aren’t diabetic now its probably a good idea to cut down on carbs if you have other nerve issues. As was described to me in health class one can think of carbs in the blood like an abrasive – the blood circulates everywhere and excessive carbs just wear things down, nerves, kidneys, etc. Obviously you need some carbs to live, just not too many at once.
I am sorry to learn about your situation. That sucks. But you sound well educated, and that’s half the battle they say. And it’s great that you are addressing that.
I am due to get a series of basic medical tests done very soon, and will ask them to check for that. At my age it sort of feels like a Catch 22, as far as medical issues go. You want to know, you don’t want to know. But seriously, it’s best to be aware of things, right? But I will get checked, thanks. I have four siblings and my younger bro has diabetes, so we will find out about that.
That is one of the issues with Parkinson’s, and MS though, some of the symptoms can be associated with other types of disease. But after 14 years of this, it’s not that bad.
Thanks so much for the info, and tips. It’s really helpful.
No worries. Do ask your doctor about diabetes. If your A1C is high it could be aggravating your other conditions.
The good news is if that is the case and if the damage isn’t too bad you may be able to slow or even reverse some of the damage without too much of a lifestyle change. Even better a little booze with food can be a good thing for diabetes. Alcohol (in moderation) switches the liver from processing carbs to processing alcohol and helps lower blood sugar.
https://diabetes.org/health-wellness/alcohol-and-diabetes
Of course YMMV, especially with comorbidities (hypertension, etc) so tread carefully.
Add overall pollution?
Even charging your EV purely off a coal power station ends up about 15% more thermally efficient than tipping petrol into an engine (sure, it’s not much), and from what I’ve seen electricity is usually cheaper per Wh than petrol.
And if the car you want does have a plug on it, just… buy it and don’t bother plugging it in?
Carmakers these days already put loads of hardware in the car you’re never going to use (15 way adjustable seats, 50 different sensors for the level 3 cruise control that you don’t pay the subscription for, etc.), an extra cable running into the inverter and a bit more software isn’t going to cause a mass extinction.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/features/phev-owners-not-plugging-in
You can find a fair number of sources if you google the topic.
Thanks for making the exact comment I’ve always wanted to make when PHEV’s are pushed as the best solution.
I have an EV and a PHEV. I plug them both in every night. I road trip the PHEV and bring the cord. Suburbs. Garage. Level 1 connection. This works out fine 100% of the time. The amount of anti-EV brainwashing going on in America is pretty interesting. The merchants of doubt are at it again.
Neither a PHEV nor a BEV would be of much use to me, as I could not plug either in – I have to park on the street.
Between the scarcity of parking in certain places, and the lack of infrastructure in others, I’m afraid that’s going to be a major long-term problem in many locales. And it’s much easier to say ‘just move’ than to actually do it
I could see the 60/40 split looking like this if forced by 2030. EVs being sold for less than most ICE vehicles today and ICE (anything that burns gas) being 2x to 3x more expensive than what they are today. Unless the US Gov starts paying for the majority of the price of an EV, manufacturers will have to hike the price of ICE to keep the lights on. Add to that dealers having market adjustments greater than 50%.
The PHEV and hybrids are the way to go. If we were all confined to urban or dense suburban, EVs for everyone might be feasible. Unfortunately for the EV-only crowd, there is a lot of wide open spaces where people drive long distances. Hybrids and PHEV can do that without long breaks.
And again the subscription model raises its ugly head. Android Auto works brilliantly. It integrates my music and driving apps and I know the interface. For GM to tell me “You don’t need that. Here’s a brand new thing we made for you! It’s… fine, we promise! And it’s only going to cost you $15 per month!” is cynical at best and insulting at worst. As unlikely as I am to buy a new GM product going forward, this made me even less likely to.
GM doesn’t have a great history of managing their software components. A simple review of the history regarding Roger Smith and H. Ross Perot’s EDS will give anyone watching this pause. Please, GM. I like you. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. It’s not going to work out for you.
Plus, there is absolutely no way in hell I’m buying a subscription for my transportation. In any way, shape, or form. I’ll go to a horse first.
Time to start a horse subscription service…
I typically avoid subscriptions when possible, but there’s some services where it just makes sense. (And, unequivocally, most car ones are probably horse excrement. Just saying that up front.)
But there’s a few times I’ve thought “how different would this be as a subscription? Better? Worse?”
If your car has some kind of data/WiFi thing for occupants, that feels like a justifiable subscription (if you need it).
On the other hand, if you think of recurring costs as a subscription, well, isn’t a car payment or lease just a “subscription” by a different name?
When I had an old conversion van, I frequently got it washed to clear off road salt in the hopes of fighting off rust as long as possible. At one point I’d gotten one of those car wash subscriptions. It was worthwhile in the winter months, at least.
No, a car payment is definitely not a “subscription”, since you end up owning the thing in the end, just like mortgage is not rent. A lease payment would be closer, or if your SiriusXM payments are actually buying you SIRI stock.
True enough–my point being, whether or not your mortgage or car payment are a subscription, you do lose access to them if you stop making recurring payments before it’s paid off.
And even beyond that, I don’t “regret” paying for my electricity, internet, water, sewer, etc. There’s an ongoing cost to provide those services and I’m willing to pay it. Do we have arguments and concerns about how (cost-)efficiently they’re provided? Sure. But there’s really no alternative to them being “subscriptions”.
Hybrid all the things, plug ins for the suburbanites that can plug in at night, and 100 mile EVs with swappable batteries for the urbanites.
Also high speed rail to reduce planes, as 1 plane is like 5 cars.
I honestly hope that the Hybrid/PHEV push becomes mandated. It’s simply the best option for reducing GHG emissions as cheaply, quickly, and effectively as possible. Toyota has been on this soapbox for years and is spot on correct, you can make 5-10 hybrids or PHEVS for the battery resources of ONE EV, and the reduction in emissions from those resources is far far greater than what one EV will accomplish.
At this point, Hybrids and PHEVs are just good math. I have absolutely nothing against EVs or those that want to buy them, but making PHEVS more plentiful would far more quickly reduce out GHG emissions as a country with the resources we have available. While recycling and domestic battery production is limited, why not use what we have as efficiently as possible?
Also classic GM shortsighted Hubris, I give it no more than 3 years until they reverse course on the Android Auto and Carplay decisions.
I like PHEVs, but they have one major drawback. PHEV gains are very reliant on driver behavior. A traditional hybrid, ICE, or BEV has a pretty reliable range in which it will operate. However, a PHEV’s efficiency and emissions are highly dependent on how much the driver utilizes the EV-mode and how consistent they are about charging the battery from the plug. Proper utilization of PHEVs could do more than any one current technology to reduce emissions rapidly, but that *proper utilization* part does a lot of heavy lifting.
So just get a regular hybrid. You can make 2-4 hybrids for every PHEV. The biggest gains in the amount of fuel used are the first doubling of MPG for a car. For instance, I deliver pizzas. My hybrid gets about 35 mpg. Not great for a hybrid, but it’s an older C-Max, and I don’t maximize my driving for fuel economy AT ALL. I just drive it like a regular car. A co-worker has a similar sized gas car with a 4 cyl engine (a Hyundai Sonata, same year as mine.) She gets in the upper teens while at work. I get double the fuel economy she does. So I’m using 3 gallons of gas a day at work, while she’s using 6. If you doubled my gas mileage to 70 mpg, I’d only reduce my fuel usage by another 1.5 gallons a day. That’s one of the reason I went with the C-Max – at the time it was the cheapest hybrid you could get because no one has heard of one. So it cost about 1/2 of what a Prius did for the same year/mileage, plus it’s bigger inside and quicker (2 seconds faster 0-60.)
So the moral of this story is to just get everyone into a hybrid, and that’ll have the biggest effect on reducing fuel consumption.
You’re not wrong. As we approach the maximum theoretical efficiency of ICE vehicles (engines can’t get much more efficient and regulations/consumer preferences won’t let cars get smaller or lighter), electrification of some sort is required to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. That initial taste of electrification via hybrid yields the greatest percent gain which is only compounded by being more attainable. Virtually every new car should be hybridized, at least.
One of the reasons I like PHEVs in concept is because they allow for a greater degree of EV-only operation. The utilization variable that could reduce overall efficiency well below EPA ratings could also increase it well above. If properly used, that could blow regular hybrids out of the water and be a great holdover until full electrification becomes possible.
As a PHEV owner and champion, I know that a PHEV is great for driving around the city. With mine, I only really utilize the EV part for months at a time. But as you say, it is driver dependent and it is trying to solve two things at once.
I definitely think that more 2 car households will end up with a hybrid for long distance driving, and a BEV for city driving. And I think that is a good solution.
I’m not so sure about that. There’s a few BEVs that are down to only being a minor hassle on road trips today (some Teslas, EV6, Lucid, 2024 Polestar 2). A bit more range and charging speed or more charge locations and its barely even a minor hassle. I think keeping a hybrid around for longer trips will make less sense over the next few years, with the exception of RVs.
I fully support hybrids and plug in hybrids, but now might not be a good time to cite Toyota for emission reductions.
Let me tell you about my 45mpg VW diesel daily driver then! 🙂
So Frankie Muniz was involved in a wreck. Was he in the middle?
asking the important question
Life is unfair.
I’d be fine with that. Hybrids and PHEVs work right now and require 0 compromises. Standardizing hybrids in high volume sellers, like we should have done years ago, makes perfect sense. Toyota gets it, with models like the Camry, new Land Cruiser, and Sienna moving to hybrid only.
Honda gets it too-the new-ish Accord is now hybrid only and I’m sure other models will follow. Plain old commuter cars and family haulers should just be hybrid across the board at this point. There’s no reason for them not to be. We should keep developing BEVs of course but they weren’t ready for mass adoption when these ridiculous mandates were passed and they’re barely any more ready today.
As I’ve said a million times here-don’t miss the good in pursuit of the perfect. Climate change and emissions are complex and multi faceted and will require complex and multi faceted solutions. It’s not as simple as “everyone drive an EV”. EVs shouldn’t have been turned into a political dog and pony show like they were but it’s all about throwing red meat to the culture warriors so they don’t pay attention to how much shit’s fucked.
If the gubment is serious about this (I don’t really think they are, let’s be real here) they should also work on closing all the regulatory loopholes that cram our roads full of boat sized trucks and SUVs. Your average Tahoe or whatever getting 14 MPG is doing a lot more harm than a damn V6 sedan is.
All of this. What people continuously ignore is the Global supply chain absolutely cannot switch to entirely EV production, there just are not enough raw materials to do it. Couple that with the fact that a PHEV or Hybrid can reduce a given vehicles emissions by 40-65% according to the US DOE.
Also some requisite searching says a PHEV sold today has on average a 21.8 kWh battery. the average EV has somewhere around the 60-70kWh range depending on source (Yes some are less, some are more).
If we take some basic averages and some simplification, on average a PHEV reduces an ICE cars emissions by half or more, for less than 1/3 the resources of an EV. Therefore it’s not at all a stretch to say that a PHEV has a greater impact on emissions reductions per amount of battery material than an EV, and you can still readily roadtrip worry free, while benefitting from less wear and tear on your ICE associated parts (and brakes, etc)
And a regular hybrid has a 5kw battery. And once you’ve used your small electric range, it actually gets worse mileage than a regular hybrid because you’re hauling around a huge battery all the time. And if that battery fails it costs a lot more to replace it.
That’s where you have to run the numbers. If you are driving some % beyond the elec-only PHEV range, you graph out the MPG or cost or whatever your measure of efficiency happens to be. Plot your regular hybrid and see where the lines cross. Beyond the crossing point, buy regular hybrid.
Don’t forget to factor the price premium for the PHEV (looking at the dealer selling RAV4 Primes with market adjustment) purchase. It the price difference is too large, then PHEV may never make sense unless you are traveling within the battery range and operating parameter the vast majority of the time. Fuel stabilizer additive will be your friend.
If you got good math skills, factor in battery replacement cost into the per mile cost. That might be a little crystal ball and ‘futures’ pricing.
There’s surprisingly few real equivalents/competitors, but I’d say my Volt is something like 80% battery, 18% gas burned on road trips, and 2% gas around town. Without road trips, I’d probably go over a year on a tank. Well worth the fairly small efficiency penalty from the extra weight.
Do you mean raw materials on hand or available to exploit?
The issue is, Toyota isn’t serious about it. The tech has been there to do it since the late 90s, and to this day they still slow roll the production of the Rav4 Prime. Relaxing the emission standards doesn’t make what already possible any more possible for manufacturers who aren’t committed to doing it.
There is nothing about the current fleet emissions standards that prevents them from doing what they say needs to be done. Weakening them just kicks the can even further down the road.
I mean, at the end of the day they’re a corporation. Corporations will literally only do what is best for their bottom line, which is why governments have to intervene. The Japanese manufacturers in particular are extremely fond of artificial scarcity. They intentionally make too few of their desirable products so demand goes through the roof. Add in their asinine allocation systems and they can wink at their dealership networks to do whatever they want when it comes to providing.
The consumer gets fucked, everyone else wins. I wasn’t really trying to argue that Toyota is an agent of good here-no for profit corporation is a good faith actor in any of these situations…I was just saying that for whatever reason (probably profits!) they’re making hybridization standard on more products. We both agree that it should’ve been done many years ago.
Anyway, I don’t necessarily think that loosening CAFE regulations is the answer. I think that changing the EV mandates to allow for a greater amount of hybrids would help a lot. Kicking the can down the road isn’t ideal but BEVs are a train wreck right now for most American consumers. Forcing people into more expensive, more compromised beta products that we don’t fully understand the ramifications of yet.
It isn’t an either/or situation. It’s about finding ways to encourage more hybridization in the short term while still allowing for BEV technology to develop and grow. The elephant in the room that America would rather bury its head in the sand in rather than acknowledge is the lack of transportation options other than cars.
Reducing our dependence on them is a big part of this as well. Our rail system in particular is an absolute joke compared to the rest of the first world…and in most cities our public transportation is laughable compared to what you’d experience in most European countries. All of that needs to be discussed so, so much more than it is.
And not to mention the road wear! Per the Fourth Power Law, doubling the vehicle weight per axle increases road wear by 16x. Yet, the folks driving large SUVs aren’t paying multiple factors more in registration and fuel tax.
My state charges trucks more for every 1000 lbs after 4000, so my registration at 8k is double that of a car, however SUVs and cars are exempt from paying extra for extra weight.
What if instead of constantly revising vague and ultimately impossible targets we simply taxed carbon pollution as the externality it is?
Repeal all EV mandates, tax credits, footprint rules, emissions standards, gas guzzler taxes and the like.
Implement a $1-2/gallon (whatever is necessary) tax on gas and diesel indexed to inflation. Earmark 50% of the revenue thus gained as a dividend payable to lower income households to reduce their cost burden until more efficient cars become cheaper and more usable. 25% of it to improve our infrastructure, since the current gas tax isn’t getting it done. The remaining 25% to clean energy research and carbon capture. Over time, the dividend will decrease as it is less necessary, and the other buckets will increase, compounding the benefits.
Now anyone who wants to pay to drive an ICE car can do so forever, anyone who wants an EV will save a significant sum of money by doing so, and more money will flow to areas that it’s needed. Other than political will and general weirdness about anything that can be considered “raising taxes”, there is no way this plan is worse than the nonsense we have now, where the government compels you to buy what it thinks is best.
And…
Whoa, why deviate from your first idea. Let’s just tax carbon at whatever the “proper” cost of carbon pollution actually is. I wouldn’t mind a few other pollution items taxed as well. But if we tax carbon at the “proper” cost, then why even bother with specific $1-2 fuel taxes; there’d already be a carbon tax baked into the price.
Then return 100% of the collected carbon taxes evenly to every single tax filer in the US, evenly.
Gas taxes already exist and it would be very easy (technically, not politically) to simply increase them. There is also the symmetry of removing EV mandates, footprints, emissions, etc (all vehicle related) and replacing them with a vehicle-specific tax.
To tax carbon across all industries would be laudable, but much more difficult. I also fear it would drive industry out of this country unless it’s a global effort.
It would drive some industry out, but that’s (theoretically) easy to account for with customs and import taxes tied to external carbon production.
A carbon fee and dividend structure would be my preferred solution because it makes the price mechanism work for people instead of against them and helps limit some of the regressive nature of a carbon tax. However, people are first ignorant, then stupid, so any idea of increasing costs is even more politically fraught than the current incredibly compromised and highly politicized solutions.
The cost of carbon including the discount rate (how much it effects us today, discounting how it will effect generations long in the future) is about $100 per ton of co2. That means an increased cost of about $460 per year for the average drive, or about $0.90 a gallon
Could you post the source for that cost per ton, please?
note: I’m not attacking—actually actively gathering resources as I’ve been idly looking into this more after hearing someone’s opinion that we have already effectively hit the 1.5° warming line.
I second your request. But I am also very leery of the so called “facts” being put out by so many “sources.”
For example: The Republicans believe in “alternative facts.”
Yes, that is then truth, at least to those KOOL AID drinkers.
As we are speaking of facts… Flavor-Aid
😉
Certainly, asking for sources is a good thing and I appreciate that you’re willing to look deeper. I based the $100 number on an order of magnitude estimate for doing napkin math. The current US gov policy cost is $51, the actual cost could be hundreds of dollars. It is a nontrivial thing to calculate.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1d0b
I was using the $100 number as a fermi estimate to give an idea of what it would be with the current political views. The actual perfect world pay what it cost numbers would be much higher.
An open access letter in IOP: perfect. Much appreciated!
…and that’s going to take some digesting 🙂
“The economic “social cost of carbon,” pioneered by UChicago Prof. Michael Greenstone, is a number that is intended to represent the value of all future damages to our generation in today’s dollars. It calculates the difference between realistic projections of the economy with and without climate change, which typically comes out to $100 or less per ton.”
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/climate-change-will-ultimately-cost-humanity-100000-ton-carbon-scientists-estimate#:~:text=Without%20the%20discount%20rate%20to%20squelch%20the%20costs,value%20of%20about%20%24100%2C000%20per%20ton%E2%80%94a%20startling%20number.
“That’s after the Biden administration on Friday raised the social cost of carbon to about $51 per ton. The figure factors into a wide variety of policy decisions including EPA regulations and government spending.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-of-carbon-pollution-pegged-at-51-a-ton/
Canada currently taxes carbon $65 (Canadian Loonies) per ton.
Canada has done it (or is currently in the process of scaling up).
If you’re going to have taxes they shouldn’t be redistributive because they’re inherently inefficient. You’d be better off having a sort of EBT card for fuel for low income people that EXEMPTS them from the tax, vs taxing them, running the tax funds through the horribly inefficient government, then giving it back (almost certainly at a loss to the taxpayer).
Subsidizing anything doesn’t encourage it to get cheaper, and by subsidizing fuel for lower income people while cars would get more fuel efficient in general, it wouldn’t make them any cheaper, because the people who would buy cheap cars wouldn’t be paying the tax.
Public chargers will get a road tax eventually. The heavier the vehicle with the same tire footprint the higher the ground pressure and with that the higher the road wear. When that happens lower income people will yet again bear more of the burden of the tax as they will have lower range BEVs more reliant on public charging while wealthier people will be able avoid public charging and be able to travel between private chargers much easier.
ICE is reliant on infrastructure just as BEVs are, the difference is that it’s much easier to generate your own electricity (if need be) than generate your own oil. As ICE vehicles make up less and less of the market you’ll see less and less gas stations, the price of fuel will go up, so on and so forth till you start having real range anxiety in your ICE vehicle.
Personally I’m just sick of bureaucracy, in the future I hope I can find a place I like where I can commute via boat and or ice (as in the slippery shit) vehicle.
No, you’d have to be very redistributive and have some credit for EVs and solar and other methods of reducing carbon outputs. carrot *and* stick.
The intention of the dividends is not to make driving any cheaper than it is now for poor people, or to reduce the cost of new cars, but simply to reduce the shock a $1-2/ gallon tax would have on them.
The effective cost of that gallon, net of dividend, would still be $3.XX or whatever.
Everytime I suggest this someone says “b-b-b-b-but the poors” and to that I say F-off. Driving is expensive and actually paying for externalities is the best way to change behavior.
I mean, speaking only self-interestedly, I agree with this.
The roads would undoubtedly be a more pleasant place for me personally if gas cost $10 or $20 a gallon and anyone who couldn’t afford that price had to take the bus.
That said, I suspect the ensuing riots if such a policy were enacted would be bad enough to more than compensate for the faster commute times.
Yeah, what a political non-starter. instead we’ve got a whole lot of showmanship and not much substance beyond maintaining the status quo.
If only our economy wasn’t entirely dependent on exploiting the labor of lower class individuals! Thus it being economically beneficial that labor can be accessible. Creating a modernist feudalism were an individual born/lives/die within eyesight of their generous benefactor probably wouldn’t be wise for economic growth.
And before anyone suggest building substantial public transport, this is America, we don’t do that here.
I almost tripped and fell into the sarcasm there.
Not to be a smart ass here. But have you ever been “poor?”
Because it is both hard, and it sucks a lot.
So telling the “poor” to fuck off is sort of a half assed POV, possibly based on ignorance, or just an asshole mentality? Besides that most poors want to be able to afford to drive, as they are doing crazy shit, like trying to feed their families, provide shelter, etc…But fuck them, right?
Selfish bastards that they are. /s
What did the poors do before cars? What do they do in places with good public transport? We’ve made choices and we can make choices to change. Our current situation isn’t inevitable.
And yes I’ve been extremely car dependent and also I’ve lived in a place where I could walk, bike, and use public transit and guess what was better.
Yes things can change. But I am an old bastard, and my experience has shown the gap between the haves and have nots has only grown bigger. Especially since the early 1980s.
Age and experience has changed my selfish POV, and it makes me angry to see others suffer. I don’t know what the poors did. But do know my Mom walked the actual 5 miles to school in below freezing temps with cardboard in her shoes to keep the damn snow, rain out. So I only know what happened in our family basically.
My Grandpa took public trans starting in 1908. And used it whenever possible till 1990. The issue is he had access to that. Most of our country does not, but that’s not my problem. I do give a shit about all people, but the ability to change society and infrastructure is a tough thing for an individual to do. Thanks.
It’s not really about the poors: Cars are expensive and having everyone drive is a tremendous waste of resources. If we as a nation are going to have a carbon tax then we need to provide alternative transportation methods (and we should be doing that anyways!). Buses! Trams! Trains! electric bikes! acoustic bikes! and as a last resort, electric cars, which are expensive and which maintain the problem of there being no other way to get around. I see too many folks using the argument “but it will affect poor people” as a reason to throw up their hands and say that nothing can change: Yes it will affect poor people, and rich people, and everyone in between and we’re all in this together so let’s come up with a different path that works for everyone.
Good. We agree on this. Appreciate the comments. Best to you.
Did the poor people volunteer to live in a country that requires a car to function? On top of that, public transportation here is handicapped by a general reluctance to provide a common good for, wait for it, poor people.
By your logic, we should abolish health insurance too. Can’t pay cash for your heart surgery? Fuck off!
You’re right, we shouldn’t do anything. fuckin gas-pilled until climate change burns us all to a crisp.
What the … ??? I’m not high enough to connect the dots here. Goodnight!
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3eca_jucZg/?igsh=ZXg0eGw1MWFmZHdt
Touche’
While we’re at it, let’s tax the shit out of jet fuel and AVGAS. And don’t forget any container ships using dirty fuel. If we really ought to do this, why stop at the low-hanging fruit?
Close: if you’re going to tax carbon, you have to do it for every energy source’s lifecycle CO2 intensity. Electricity from a coal powerplant would suddenly cost a fortune, and nuclear would be the cheap base load generation option, teamed with renewables. Fossil diesel and gasoline would be expensive, but E85 would be cheap. Hydrogen made from renewable electricity would have zero carbon tax, same with e-fuels like Methanol made with hydrogen and captured atmospheric CO2. CO2 taxes on transportation fuels (and some fraction of residential electricity for the EVs) replace the existing road tax. Let the chips fall as they may.
Again, this may be the ideal state, but such a society-wide reorganization is a much heavier lift than simply increasing a gas tax, and removing regulations and bans at least lends an air of compromise to the idea that a pure carbon tax doesn’t.
I mean all cars anymore are “technically” electrified
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!
Sadly so. If I could get a car that uses NO electricity I would. I don’t care if I could only drive during the day, I could live with that in exchange for never dealing with electrical gremlins again.
So a diesel, may need a propane heater type thing for the glowplugs. Have to do like a shotgun shell start like the old WWII engines as can’t see easily crank starting a diesel. Then some propane lamps for headlights and tail lights, little mechanical flap over the brighter brake lights that moves when you press the pedal, bada bing bada boom you’re cruising around town safe from EMPs!
I am reading this in the voice of Peter Sellers, a la ‘Dr. Strangelove’.
I have spent much time looking for pull, crank and or kick start diesel engines in automobiles. High compression ratios, a lack of a cylinder decompression system (though the Diesel Royal Enfields have them luckily). It would be interesting to see how one would get blinkers to work with propane lamps.
Shutters, maybe?
or bring back semaphores!
Oh you could have a starter fluid with a bulb pump and you squeeze it to pump fluid in a little blinker window near the propane headlights, but then you really could run low on blinker fluid 😀
Oh and same for windshield wiper fluid! Or you could do the VW bug option with spare tire air. The wipers of course will have to run off a geared PTO from the engine, maybe have it’s own transmission and shifter for different wiper speeds lol.
The 2CV had mechanical windshield wipers, their speed was dependent on engine speed.
That’s awesome! So if it starts down pouring, pop in the clutch and rev the engine!
Propane is likely better—but I’d prefer carbide for the lighting
uh, yeah; propane is way better because insuring that the water delivery isn’t effected by bumps/vibration/g-forces could get complicated. Oh, and freezing.
nevermind (but I still want carbide: it’s just cooler)
Someone alert The Bishop, we just found our next what if car made by alternative reality SAAB
“If I could get a car that uses NO electricity I would.”
Have you checked out Lucas?
Is it really an automobile if it doesn’t run?
You don’t even have to add smoke!