ccap41

Yup, it's weird how quiet a vehicle is at parking lot speeds when there's no engine up front. Complete silence. I actually had to explain this to a coworker who heard a hybrid Honda in the parking garage and he said it sounded like something was wrong with it. I explained the reasoning for the "whir-ing" sound, so he wouldn't get hit. I've been good, been busy with an 8-month-old, work, and doing stuff around the house. There's always a new project!

Yeah, I don't know why anyone would even consider an EV if they were stuck 100% publicly charging. That seems like a horrible decision.

What'd the EV6 driver say about his charging adventures? As for the humming sound of the hybrid Honda, I believe they do that for safety reasons, that way it isn't creeping along at parking lot speeds literally silent. I think a few or most hybrids do this and I thought I read that it was so people can hear them at low speeds, where there's zero tire noise. I thought EVs were supposed to be doing this, as well, but I haven't noticed if they are or aren't. @Drew Dowdell could yo confirm this or tell me I'm wrong, hahaha?

That's a truck and a larger vehicle. You know that's not exactly the same. People don't expect trucks to be very quick (yet they've gotten damn quick over the last 10 years). People love to say how quick EVs are. I'd bet some of that transition was due to transmissions having many more gears. Those old 3-4spd autos NEEDED a much wider powerband. When you have 6-10 forward ratios, your powerband can be smaller as the transmission will keep you where you need to be. And yes, that's why I'm not a fan of any N/A V6. No bottom end and very little midrange.

Yes, understand all of this. My point still stands that it isn't "more powerful" or quicker. That was literally all I was stating. I certainly plan to. I have zero issues with EVs outside of their prices. 8.8 seconds to 60mph, you're racing every time pulling onto an onramp. That's slow. That's not just "not very quick", it's slow. What GM V8 makes "a ton of torque" at 1000-1500rpm? I understand the bottom of the rev range but 1000rpm is nearly idle. Unless you're talking about a diesel, I just don't believe you.

It depends how underpowered a vehicle is. I'm sure we all have horrible on-ramps where a 200hp, 5000lb SUV would need to be floored or very close to it to merge. But at the same time, a 500hp 5000lb vehicle may only need 50% throttle to achieve the same thing. EVs feel effortless because there's no noise from an engine. That doesn't mean it's effortless for the motors point of view. I've read way more things saying their overly heavy weight effects this than people's heavy right foot. Yet, still slower. I have not driven a PEASANT electric vehicle. *sarcasm* But really, I have not.

I wasn't the one who said you get "more power" from a base EV9. I wasn't trying to say it was slow or cumbersome. I merely stated the pretty damn big price difference, and you tried telling me that you get more, which power was listed, from a base EV9. You do not get more power, and you do get a slightly slower vehicle, much slower if you get the Long Range. I doubt that. Since when has Kia/Hyundai ever underrated anything? You're just feeling the instantaneous torque of an electric vehicle.

Something that has less hp and less tq and also weighs ~1000lb more just isn't going to be as quick. I know the instantaneous nature of an EV has its advantages, but they only go so far. Per any test review, the telluride is quicker to 60 than a Light and especially a Light Long Range and I'm sure the advantage only grows surpassing 60mph, because, again, EVs acceleration always taper off at higher speeds, highway speeds. i'm not saying the EV9 Light/Long Range are going to be bothersome or bad around town. I'm just saying that there is no advantage at their base prices, like Drew said. The 10-15k EV premium at their base prices does not yield a quicker or more powerful vehicle. That is factual. Per MT's test of a FWD Telluride it went 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and stopped from 60 in 113ft Per Kia's media site the Light RWD goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0) Per Kia's media site the Light Long Range RWD goes 0-60 in 8.8 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

Hahaha okay okay okay... I think they just have two engines, a 1.5T and a 2.0T. That 1.5T is a 3-banger though but the numbers seem "adequate", 181hp/190tq. I wouldn't want that engine, and I'd easily jump to the 2.0T. I had the 2.0T in my former Escape and I liked it a lot.

Oh, sorry! The 2.3T is the base engine (can be had with a manual trans), the 2.7t is the optional engine and the 3.0T is the Raptor engine.

For an MKC? Nah, it was available on 3 of the 4 trims, if I remember correctly. I don't believe it was available on the Select but it was available on the Reserve, Premier & Black Label.

Yeah, and when you actually need to get up to highway speed or pass somebody, that's where the superior hp figure comes into play. EVs clearly taper off. I haven't seen a test where an EV's 0-60 wasn't quick while having a mediocre 1/4 mile and an odd trap speed, for its respective segment. The Telluride will be quicker than the Light and Light Long Range RWD to highway speeds. They're borderline underpowered, IMO. You have to spend 64k to get something that's legitimately quicker than the Telluride.

Yeah, that's what the Maverick Lobo should have gotten, too. it just isn't a very efficient engine for the class of vehicles that are supposed to be efficient. I assume that's why it never really got spread around more. My MKC is only related at 18/26 compared to a new Escape 2.0's 23/31. I know it's more powerful, but those are pretty significate fuel efficiency numbers.

You also only get 230 miles of range so it's obviously a give and take with what you get at a base price. If the statement on their website is accurate, a heat pump "is available", meaning you must pay extra for that. 230 miles of range, I'd want every available feature to make it as efficient as possible from Nov-Mar. A base EV9 only has 215hp/258tq vs 291hp/262tq. I know EVs will put the power down differently, but I cannot imagine a much heavier EV9 being much different than the gasser in terms of acceleration with those numbers. A couple grand for a Mach-e over an Edge makes more sense, a couple grand. That's a pretty noticeable amount different than say 10-15k.

My Lincoln MKC is the smallest SUV Ford/Lincoln put the 2.3T in. The Bronco Sport with the 2.0T is probably perfectly fine and doesn't really need the 2.3 the Ranger has. The Ranger is bigger and heavier and needs the extra hp/tq to achieve the same results.

They're "not" but everybody seems to treat them like they are. If you're going to compare EVs to "traditional" brands, then they're still a long way off. 36k for a Telluride or 55k for an EV9. ~15k difference with the fed's rebate still. Even add in some state's rebates and let's say it's "only" 10k more for an EV9 over a Telluride. 10k in gas and oil changes is A LOT of gas and oil changes, that also aren't being financed and charged interest.

I still don't see anything for it. I did a search and only came up with old articles. Is this officially an EV site?!

Yes, they're getting there. They are very competitive with leases but, that's not owning anything. The Model Y and X5 are pretty far apart, the X5 starting about 20k more before the 7500 rebate on the Model Y. The X3 even starts about 5k more than the Model Y, again before the 7500 rebate. The Model Y seems extremely competitively priced versus luxury brands.

It doesn't seem any riskier of a placement than an EV9, whose headlight and LED run through the bumper cover, as well.

Holy smokes, that looks awful from the outside.

Pretty attractive vehicle for this tiny class of "SUV".

They will much moreso when their purchase prices are closer.

I watch a ton of shows and follow quite a few YouTubers, but it's because I have about 80 minutes a day on a bus to and from work.

This post is about Super Dutys. They will have gasoline V8's in these for a while yet. I genuinely cannot see there not being a gasoline SD/HD in only 10 years from now. It will be competitive in 10 years. The low strung, workhorse engines, from all three of these companies, don't go out of style in 10 years. They keep them around for a while. The 6.2 that was previously in the SD had a 13-year run. I'm sure the Ram 6.4 has probably already been around for 20 years with minor revisions. I believe GM just recently released an all-new 6.6 gasser in the past 2 years. GM doesn't have a replacement for their V8s in the 1500's yet. Obviously, Ford and Ram already have engines that outperform their V8s, but GM doesn't. The 2.7 is a good engine, but it's not a V8 replacement.

They will absolutely have a gasoline V8 in the Super Duties in 2030. They're both brand new like a year or two ago. They could leave them untouched, in this segment, and ride them out until 2035, easily. The old 6.2 was built for the SDs until 2022, when it was replaced by the 6.8 pushrod v8, which was in addition to the 7.3. The V8's in the Super Duty are not based off the 5.0. They're both pushrod V8's, 6.8L & 7.3L. The SDs are the only application for this pair of engines.