Alternative Fuels & Propulsion RANDOM

[G. David Felt]

And the ramp up of Battery Cell Production is hurting the ability to make EVs.

Jaguar i-Pace production is being suspended as they have not received their shipments of batteries from LG due to LG not able to ramp fast enough after signing contracts with Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz and Audi. All 3 companies have had to shut down production due to battery shortages and while all 3 have also signed contracts with Samsung to get additional battery cells, the ramp up has not happened fast enough to keep productions going.

This is very hard for Jaguar which sold 18,000 i-Pace's last year making up 16% of their auto sales.

I find this quote from the article very interesting: Some of these automakers are finally making big investments into their own battery production.  But even VW, the most serious of the incumbent automakers, still predicts to sell only 20 million EVs over the next 10 years – and their annual sales are 10 million.  So that makes ~80% gassers through 2030 when ICE car bans start going into effect in Europe.  And yet these sluggish EV plans are still ahead of most of the incumbents.

https://electrek.co/2020/02/10/jaguar-pauses-i-pace-production-due-to-battery-shortages/

[ocnblu]

4 hours ago, dfelt said:

What does everyone here think about the Frunk? Good use, bad use.....

LOL duh... Coyote swap!  ONLY thing it's good for.  Jeez, Captain Obvious.

[oldshurst442]

On 2/4/2020 at 3:54 PM, dfelt said:

Just a shame GM could not see the long game for EVs.

 

This post was about the EV1.

I always hate this argument. And this argument is what the greenies always complain about and hate GM for killing the EV1.

But lets be honest about this whole EV thing, especially in the 1990s...

• THERE WAS NO EV MARKET in the 1990s.   The people that lined up to lease these were the ONLY people that wanted them. You cant expect a company like GM, who we all know at that time, had many other brands to juggle around, couldnt justify bleeding money on these.  
•  AND...the battery technology and range to sells these as daily drivers so people will NOT have range anxiety was not available yet. We barely just succeeded with the battery tech and range in 2019 and into 2020 so range anxiety is alleviated...
•  We, in 2020, STILL do not have the charger infrastructure in place to market EVs properly...yet we diss GM for canceling the EV1 so early...
• The urban car for the  urban environment (Chevy Trax type car) was not a concept yet.  In the 1990s, this was not a thing just yet.  Therefore selling an EV this way, just like the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt and Volt are sold today, would be a HARD sell with the EV1 in the 1990s...
• The long game for GM and everybody else in the 1990s was and continues to be CUVs and SUVs...

 

The EV1 was a great introduction to tell the world what could be with EVs.  

In reality, it took another 15 years to viably sell them to the world..(Tesla Model S). And even then, other than Tesla cars, its STILL a hard sell...

Yet why are we CONSTANTLY attacking GM for killing the EV1?  The market killed the EV1 whether we want to admit it or not.  Plus...the EV1 was too ahead of its time. The technology is barely here today 25 years later to actually viably sell EVs to the mass market, and GM is a mass market automaker...

Tesla would be the BEST thing that has happened to the EV world  to viably sell EVs to the public. GM was tooooo big to do so succesfully back then...

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by oldshurst442

[riviera74]

Sometimes the vision cannot be achieved given current technology.  Sometimes the market simply is not ready for the product itself.  The EV1 is a perfect example of both problems.  GM had too many issues back then AND crude oil was about $10 a barrel 25 years ago.  Hence no real demand for a fully BEV back then.  Everybody who bashes GM for ending the EV1 when they did made a lot of assumptions that simply were not true at all back then.  Elon Musk was lucky he did not invest in BEVs until after 2010, when the technology was actually attainable and he had the funds to create some of it.  So GM is NOT the leader in BEVs right now.  So what?  It is 2020, not 2040 or 2060.  I should not expect an affordable BEV for about another decade.  As for the infrastructure, it is coming along slow and steady.  When oil is above $150 a barrel, expect a lot of consumers to race to BEVs.

My real complaint is that a new BEV still costs over $25K to buy and usually the really good ones start at over $40K.  Until a new BEV is $10K, then the market will not actually change.

[G. David Felt]

When Tesla showed off their Pickup Truck that was excessively polarizing, Nikola Semi Truck showed off a concept truck they had already worked on and offered it to Tesla as the real truck to go with. Tesla as usual thumbed their nose at Nikola who is focused on Electric semi's that use Hydrogen generators to achieve a 1200 mile range. With Billions on the books and with them moving from Prototype to manufacturing stage, Nikola came back out today and announced they have have teamed up with Heavy D from the TV Show Diesel Brothers.

Nikola specs is AWD with 906 HP, 980 lb-ft of Torque and a 300 mile battery pack with Hydrogen generator for a total range of 600 miles.

Prototypes for test driving by media and potential customers who have put down a deposit will have their chance later this year at Nikola World 2020 event.

To help them make this:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/nikola-badger-electric-truck-tesla-hummer-rivian-ev/

[balthazar]

^ Put that back in the oven, it's still raw! ?

- - - - -
Seriously, we've all read the adage 'It doesn't cost anymore to make it look good' [which, of course; is complete nonsense], but the Nikola, the Workhorse and of course the Tesla Cardboard Playhouse aren't even in the ballpark of Segment Stadium.

Edited February 11, 2020 by balthazar

[G. David Felt]

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ Put that back in the oven, it's still raw! ?

- - - - -
Seriously, we've all read the adage 'It doesn't cost anymore to make it look good' [which, of course; is complete nonsense], but the Nikola, the Workhorse and of course the Tesla Cardboard Playhouse aren't even in the ballpark of Segment Stadium.

Will be interesting to see if the Diesel brothers can get the drive-able prototypes built in time for their fall show.

[balthazar]

Seems like a conflict of interest there.
Not to mention; putting notoriously staged 'reality TV' hosts up as credible pitchmen can become problematic.

[G. David Felt]

10 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Seems like a conflict of interest there.
Not to mention; putting notoriously staged 'reality TV' hosts up as credible pitchmen can become problematic.

I was also thinking the same thing, are they looking to transition to EV versions of what they do on Diesel's?

As they say, We live in interesting times!

[Robert Hall]

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ Put that back in the oven, it's still raw! ?

- - - - -
Seriously, we've all read the adage 'It doesn't cost anymore to make it look good' [which, of course; is complete nonsense], but the Nikola, the Workhorse and of course the Tesla Cardboard Playhouse aren't even in the ballpark of Segment Stadium.

They all look better than the current Silverado, though...

[balthazar]

? none of them do.

[G. David Felt]

Seems Yamaha has decided to get into the EV Motor game. You can buy it as a crate motor for conversions, but they are also offering full engineering services to talor their EV motors to customers needs in both the Auto and Motorcycle segment. The Yamaha EV Motor can hand from 35 kWs to 200 kWs or for those wanting to know in traditional ICE terms, 47 hp to 268 hp.

No torque figure or any other details were released yet, but they did release this video showing a converted Alfa Romeo 4C to EV.

 

[ccap41]

Almost every truck looks better than the Silverado.. Okay, not the Cyber Truck but everything else does. 

[Robert Hall]

Just now, ccap41 said:

Almost every truck looks better than the Silverado.. Okay, not the Cyber Truck but everything else does. 

Tundras and Titans look better than the Silverado.   The Silverado needs everything forward of the windshield restyled and simplified...it's too busy, too much ugly going on IMO...not sure which is worse, the regular or the HD.  

[riviera74]

48 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Tundras and Titans look better than the Silverado.   The Silverado needs everything forward of the windshield restyled and simplified...it's too busy, too much ugly going on IMO...not sure which is worse, the regular or the HD.  

OK, how are sales going?  If they are really bad, Chevy will probably do a 2000 Ford Taurus and style it more conservatively.  They might need to fire somebody in order to send the right message too.

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Tundras and Titans look better than the Silverado.   The Silverado needs everything forward of the windshield restyled and simplified...it's too busy, too much ugly going on IMO...not sure which is worse, the regular or the HD.  

HD is much worse, IMO. 

23 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

OK, how are sales going?  If they are really bad, Chevy will probably do a 2000 Ford Taurus and style it more conservatively.  They might need to fire somebody in order to send the right message too.

You mean a 2020 Camaro and emergency refresh it? 

Well, their sales fell behind Ram for the first time in...EVER. 

[Robert Hall]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

HD is much worse, IMO. 

 

I'm conflicted as to which worse.  One thing the HD does better is the front fender and the corners.  The regular Silverado is a complete mess with 53 conflicting lines and angles where the bumper, grille and fender meet.... just way overwrought.  

[balthazar]

It turns my head (toward it, not away).
Tho the Ram is the 'soft / safe' design, I still rank the Silverado 1500 above the F-150 (not that the F-150 is bad). It's got a 'bulldog' look to it; not beautiful per say, but tough. Some folk love their bulldogs and find them immensely cute.
The tundra & titan are just generic & old-looking; the titan looks every bit of 20 yrs old. Unappealing vanilla.
 

[Robert Hall]

Watching the local news I saw an ad from a local dealer chain--they were hyping that they had 450 of the 'hard to find' Silverados in stock...if the lumpen uglies are so 'hard to find', why do they have 450 of them? 

[balthazar]

Undoubtedly talking about their access to a pool of trucks, not that they had that many on one lot.

[Robert Hall]

27 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Undoubtedly talking about their access to a pool of trucks, not that they had that many on one lot.

Yeah, they have 5 Chevy dealers in the region...still a lot of ugly..

[balthazar]

^ You've made your opinion on the SIlverado abundantly clear (in case you were wondering).

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Yeah, they have 5 Chevy dealers in the region...still a lot of ugly..

Robert ya got me thinking so took a look at the State of Washington which is a big truck market.

Chevrolet Mega Ugly Trucks of the 1500, 2500, and 3500 has 389 of which 1500 makes up 302 new 2019's sitting on the lots.

GMC, Superior looking Trucks of the 1500, 2500, and 3500 has 75 of which 1500 makes up 68 new 2019's sitting on the lots.

Ford nice looking truck of the F150, F250, F350, and F450 has 2,408 of which F150 makes up 1,670 new 2019's sitting on the lots.

Ram nice looking truck of the 1500, 2500, 3500, 4500, and 5500 has 1,568 of which 1500 makes up 941 new 2019's sitting on the lots.

From this review, Clearly GM is far better at managing inventory than Ram or especially FORD.

Yet this does not take into account the strike at GM or sales rate which Chevrolet is behind Ford and Ram.

Chevrolet is still a BUTT UGLY Truck. GMC far better.

[balthazar]

On 2/10/2020 at 4:14 PM, dfelt said:

Jaguar i-Pace production is being suspended as they have not received their shipments of batteries...

This is very hard for Jaguar which sold 18,000 i-Pace's last year making up 16% of their auto sales.

Kinda humorous; Jag should have ZERO issue suppling batts for the US market- they’re only selling 217 i-paces a month. ?

I note that EV makers are more commonly stating GLOBAL sales vs. the individual market the report is being issued in.
 

#bolsterthenumbers

[balthazar]

One of my current cutomers has a toyoter highlander hybrid.
I've been able to observe it a handful of times, either starting & leaving the garage, or coming up the driveway and entering the garage. It draws MORE attention to it via the cacophony of noises it makes than if it were either IC or BE; the electric/drivetrain whines as it creeps, there's some sort of brief mechanical noise (solenoids?) right before the starter kicks in and the IC engine starts. And that powertrain whine is quite loud.
I guess; I could not find online if/how much it is rated to go on pure B power. Maybe it doesn't work that way, and just uses the B in very limited conditions rather than in steady intervals. Not that toyoters are known to be either refined or quiet...

[ykX]

My wife currently has MDX Sport Hybrid.  It is a mild hybrid with small battery, so it can't go far or fast on pure electric, but when it rolls on electric power there is no substantial sound coming out from the drivetrain.  There is though a weird humming, song like sound, I guess to warn that car is rolling on electric power.  It stops as soon as you stop and put it in park or when the engine kicks in.  I have to say Hybrid MDX feels substantially quieter and more refined than regular MDX (it also has 7-speed dual clutch transmission vs regular 9-speed, which clunkier).  It also more powerful and faster which doesn't hurt either

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

I guess; I could not find online if/how much it is rated to go on pure B power. Maybe it doesn't work that way, and just uses the B in very limited conditions rather than in steady intervals. Not that toyoters are known to be either refined or quiet...

Various web sites say 5 miles on a full charge. Hybrid system is more for added Motivation than for running pure ev mode.

[balthazar]

Yet it comes up the uphill driveway, turn the 90-degrees to enter the garage, stops as the door finishes going up, engine stops. Then it rolls forward under what is obviously electric-only power (no engine noise). Seems a strange system.

[ykX]

13 hours ago, balthazar said:

Yet it comes up the uphill driveway, turn the 90-degrees to enter the garage, stops as the door finishes going up, engine stops. Then it rolls forward under what is obviously electric-only power (no engine noise). Seems a strange system.

Probably electric motors not powerful enough to pull the car uphill but on a level surface it was ok to go on electric only.

My wife's car has similar system.  The electric motors mostly assist in acceleration and engine shuts off only at slow speed.  It was great though in heavy traffic we were one time during a road trip.  Got few miles rolling on pure electric.  Engine only occasionally would turn on to recharge battery, the whole family was inside with AC and other electronics on and pulling power.

[ccap41]

I mean, that is the most inefficient moment in a cars' life, 0-5mph. 

[balthazar]

Just asked her: she said it operates on full electric at very slow crawl speeds: in & out of garage, or stop-n-go in city traffic. Not often.

 

EDIT :: Just read that her car is among a bunch of toyoters up for a recall to replace the entire engine.

"Toyoter - a billion recalled and still counting!"

Edited February 15, 2020 by balthazar

[balthazar]

Interesting read counter-pointing the common narrative.
Worth noting is the real estate required for 'renewable' energy; something I hadn't thought of.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/02/17/if-they-are-so-alarmed-by-climate-change-why-are-they-so-opposed-to-solving-it/#38ea83766b75

[G. David Felt]

23 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Interesting read counter-pointing the common narrative.
Worth noting is the real estate required for 'renewable' energy; something I hadn't thought of.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/02/17/if-they-are-so-alarmed-by-climate-change-why-are-they-so-opposed-to-solving-it/#38ea83766b75

Thank you for posting this. All three mentioned are nuts!

I am all for reducing global warming, but Nuclear and Natural Gas has contributed big time to this by killing off Coal which is even worse.

Wind, Solar and Hydro is Great, but cannot solve everyone's need for power and as such, Nuclear and Natural Gas are good alternatives till we perfect the efficiencies of Solar, Wind and Hydro.

The real estate is an excellent area that has not been discussed as much as it should.

We also have not really realized the power that can be harnessed by using solar collection in space and then focused beams of energy down to earth to be used by the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

https://www.energy.gov/articles/space-based-solar-power

Some additional interesting food for thought.

[oldshurst442]

Is that Forbes article for real?

I did not read it fully aas I stopped because I saw some pretty ridiculous stuff in it. Greta and Sanders may or may not be nuts, fake alarmists or just plain naive. Or they could even be correct...I aint debating that part of that article. I am dumbfounded though on the downplaying of nuclear...   I saw that it defends hydro-electric power and questions those who oppose it, but I aint here to debate that either...again...its the nuclear part that caught my eye...)

Quote

 

Before progressives were apocalyptic about climate change they were apocalyptic about nuclear energy. Then, after the Cold War ended, and the threat of nuclear war declined radically, they found a new vehicle for their secular apocalypse in the form of climate change. 

Though nuclear energy has prevented the premature deaths of nearly two million people by reducing air pollution, and though nuclear weapons have contributed to the Long Peace since World War II, many people remain phobic of the technology.

 

 

Quote

It is impossible that Sanders, Thunberg, and Extinction Rebellion missed the extensive news media coverage of rising emissions, pollution deaths, and electricity prices in Germany and Japan after they closed their nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels

 

1. WW3 is said to have be avoided by the slimmest of margins back in '62. If not WW3, then a nuclear war between the US and the USSR for sure...  

The cold war ended sometime in the 1980s or even the 1990s, but nuclear war is always at high alert as the US is NOT the sole owner of nuclear warheads. It be cool had it only been between the US and the USSR.  But as we all know, from the 1970s all through to 2020...and beyond, more and more nations have discovered the power of splitting atoms to use as a weapon against fellow humanity...  And that threat today does not end with rogue nations as we in the West like to call them like maybe North Korea or Iran...but by a gang of freedom fighters fighting for whatever cause they want to fight for against anybody or nation or innocent people they deem necessary for revenge... 

But war has NOTHING to do with renewable energy sources...

BUT IT DOES EVENTUALLY...and hence why people maybe afraid of nuclear powerplants...

Those two quotes CASUALLY IGNORE the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.  It COMPLETELY FORGETS past Nuclear reactor meltdowns, (3 Mile Island and Chernobyl) but those 3 events CLEARLY spook us humans. And those were human and natural disaster ERRORS...

In a time of war...nuclear power plants could be used against a people in a region by PURPOSEFULLY destroying these power plants and nuclear waste and radiation would leak destroying EVERYTHING around that powerplant for many many years...THAT would be the SAME as a nuclear war, but the result would NOT be by nuclear war heads being dropped, but by a nuclear power plant being destroyed...

ALSO...

NUCLEAR WASTE...

The article does NOT mention NUCLEAR WASTE.  It talks about the environment and goes into hydro-electric stuff by defending it where as some greenies oppose the flooding etc...but again...in the same breath...the article does NOT mention what are we to do with all that NUCLEAR WASTE...

If real estate is a focal point in defending and attacking various tree huggers trying to defend nuclear power plants...

Maybe defending nuclear power plants may NOT be the way to go....

I get what the article is trying to do....trying to make Greta and Sanders look like hypocrites...but the article attacking all those greenies like Greta and Sanders is hypocritical itself...  It aint doing the author any favours.  The author looks just as hypocritical and foolish...

Just My Humble Opinion Though...   which may or may NOT be that humble...

[riviera74]

Ideally, nobody would use coal for anything.  I would rather keep nuclear power and reprocess the waste rather than foolishly shut the plants down.  Reducing fossil fuel usage is a good thing not because of the environment, but because of the geopolitics.  Better to minimize sources that come from unstable parts of our world than depend on same unstable parts of the world.  Electrifying everything in our society will reduce the need for foreign sources of power, which should make the USA more secure than ever.

[oldshurst442]

What are the costs related to reprocessing nuclear waste?

Is it worth it?

How dangerous is it?

Nuclear power plants, no matter how we want to downplay the dangers, nuclear power plants are risky AF.  Recycling and reprocessing the waste, is it just as risky?   I know storing the waste is risky AF...

I also know by reprocessing nuclear waste, the recuperated uranium, thorium  could be re-used...but...like I said,  no matter how we want to downplay the dangers, nuclear power plants are risky AF...

There is no simple solution. 

It seems no matter what kind of energy source we want to use to power our lives with, it screws with the environment and our welfare either way. Therefore, instead of trying to make one side of any argument look ridiculous, we should try to fix the damned problem.  But that is impossible to do as in any case for or against any solution, many ass40les in all cases have hidden monetary agendas...including that Forbes article on top.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

RE real estate : if there's any wide-spread move to nationalize energy (not saying there is, but some do advocate for it)... wind & solar panel farms take up considerable real estate already. Bumping things to a national supply level would add 100s of millions of acres to the Gov't's already 100s of millions of acres. Naturally, this will involve a considerable degree of buying private lands, esp WRT the wind generation.

Every acre the federal Gov't buys is 1 more acre taken OFF the tax rolls. Since the Prime Directive of Big Gov't is revenue streaming, where does the tax burden of the now non-taxable acreage go?

To the private land owners.

Currently, the Fed owns 640 millions acres.
Total gov't land ownership (fed & state) is 40% of the U.S..
Maybe Gov't already owns enough land to not have to buy more (tho Gov't always is).

Another point to consider...

Edited February 17, 2020 by balthazar

[G. David Felt]

5 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

What are the costs related to reprocessing nuclear waste?

Is it worth it?

How dangerous is it?

Nuclear power plants, no matter how we want to downplay the dangers, nuclear power plants are risky AF.  Recycling and reprocessing the waste, is it just as risky?   I know storing the waste is risky AF...

I also know by reprocessing nuclear waste, the recuperated uranium, thorium  could be re-used...but...like I said,  no matter how we want to downplay the dangers, nuclear power plants are risky AF...

There is no simple solution. 

It seems no matter what kind of energy source we want to use to power our lives with, it screws with the environment and our welfare either way. Therefore, instead of trying to make one side of any argument look ridiculous, we should try to fix the damned problem.  But that is impossible to do as in any case for or against any solution, many ass40les in all cases have hidden monetary agendas...including that Forbes article on top.

 

 

 

Living in a state that is all Green energy production and has an ugly black eye with the Tri-City Hanford Nuclear processing plant which has plenty of Nuclear waste, I get the waste issue is huge. We do have a way to nutralize it, but need more money to build bigger furnaces that changes the Nuclear Waste liquid into a solid glass that can then safely be buried under ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanford-Engineer-Works

https://www.hanford.gov/

https://www.livescience.com/62623-radioactive-waste-trapped-in-glass.html

https://www.hanfordvitplant.com/

Currently we have the Nations 56 million gallons of Nuclear waste sitting in above ground and under ground tanks that are starting to leak.  As such, we do need to figure out a way to address the Nuclear waste before we move forward with building more Nuclear plants.

Am I glowing yet?

[G. David Felt]

Latest Tear down of a brand new Tesla 3 shows that Tesla has 6 years on VW or Toyota in EV design / technology.

https://electrek.co/2020/02/17/tesla-teardown-6-years-lead-over-toyota-vw/

An interesting read about supply chain and how Nikkie is saying that they auto companies worry about the parts suppliers. Right, GM already moved to an AI based high speed nervous system that does not have multiple ECU's, as such they are probably the most to be on par with Tesla.

With Norway being so EV heavy, fuel station owners are converging to see how they are able to stay open and make a profit.

https://electrek.co/2020/02/17/fuel-retail-chains-are-visiting-norway-to-ponder-a-future-when-gas-stations-dont-exist/

[balthazar]

Toyoter is pretty busy replacing complete frames and engines to spend much time on engineering. If they had to design/ build the prius now, it’d take longer than the 10 years it took tesla to hit the #1 fastest growing vehicle segment.

Edited February 17, 2020 by balthazar

[riviera74]

7 hours ago, dfelt said:

Living in a state that is all Green energy production and has an ugly black eye with the Tri-City Hanford Nuclear processing plant which has plenty of Nuclear waste, I get the waste issue is huge. We do have a way to nutralize it, but need more money to build bigger furnaces that changes the Nuclear Waste liquid into a solid glass that can then safely be buried under ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanford-Engineer-Works

https://www.hanford.gov/

https://www.livescience.com/62623-radioactive-waste-trapped-in-glass.html

https://www.hanfordvitplant.com/

Currently we have the Nations 56 million gallons of Nuclear waste sitting in above ground and under ground tanks that are starting to leak.  As such, we do need to figure out a way to address the Nuclear waste before we move forward with building more Nuclear plants.

Am I glowing yet?

 

Yes we should address nuclear waste.  Reprocessing the waste to create more electricity would do wonders for that problem.

[G. David Felt]

Seems EV Charge Point and NATSO (National Association of Truck Stop Owners) have come to terms to install 4,000 rapid charge charge-points across America at the truck stops. This will be also incorporate Appendix D of the VW settlement of matching the investment and charge points. So technically they could end up with double or 8,000 charge points at the truck stops.

Chargepoint will be project managing this over the next decade for completion by 2030.

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/chargepoint-and-truck-stop-owners-partner-on-ev-charging/

[G. David Felt]

Autoblog caught mostly uncovered the new Mercedes-Benz EQA and EQB EV CUVs.

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/02/20/mb-eqa-eqb-spy-photos/#slide-2210768

MB seems to be following their same Blah jelly bean styling of these auto's, should blend in with the ICE side of the family.

The Story also states that the EQC on sale in North America will not happen now till some time in early 2021 at the earliest. It is believed to be due to the construction of a Battery assembly line in the US holding up the EQC from going on sale here.

Cost of shipping an EQC here is much higher for some reason, could be due to the weight.

[balthazar]

Mercedes has been regurgitating the same stale design ‘language’ for 20 years now.

[G. David Felt]

BMW seems to be moving faster on getting all their products Hybrid PHEV as they introduce for sale their new RWD/AWD 330e sedan.

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/02/20/bmw-330e-touring-xdrive-awd-rwd-phev/

[G. David Felt]

Seems Green Car Reports is stating that GM plans to reveal the first Cadillac Electric vehicle this April. We get to see the Hummer by GMC EV Truck in May. We will get more information in March about their new BEV3 platform.

GM also just announced that their auto apps will report dynamic real time status from EVgo and ChargePoint charging along with if a station is available.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127179_gm-adds-real-time-charging-station-smarts-via-app-to-chevy-bolt-ev

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

BMW seems to be moving faster on getting all their products Hybrid PHEV as they introduce for sale their new RWD/AWD 330e sedan.

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/02/20/bmw-330e-touring-xdrive-awd-rwd-phev/

Didn't they have a 330e last gen or out already? I know somebody with one but I don't know what year it is. I think it's only rated 20-something EV miles but it's easily exceeded. 

[Robert Hall]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Didn't they have a 330e last gen or out already? I know somebody with one but I don't know what year it is. I think it's only rated 20-something EV miles but it's easily exceeded. 

Yes. they had a couple..the Active Hybrid 3 with a hybrid 6 cyl (2012-2015), replaced by the 330e w/ a hybrid 4 cyl (2015-2018).  Not sure if I've ever seen one.   Looks like the current generation has one also, a 330e iPerformance w/ a plugin hybrid turbo 4.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

All BMW's past EV or electric-assisted / hybrids have bombed.

[Robert Hall]

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

All BMW's past EV or electric-assisted / hybrids have bombed.

As they say with investments, 'past performance is not indicative of future results'.