EV's & Tundra's

And my point is that it doesn't have the capabilities unless you shell out another 20% of the price listed. When you list a price you should only list the features included in that price.

 

FSD is a whole-nuther product.

it's an ancillary thing. (unlike Toyota/Mercedes/Bmw/etc services)

not everyone wants it

I don't.*

but, I would never expect it to be free.

imagine the technology and costs that go into that.

it's not a stretch to think>>>no other car company comes close to Tesla tech.



the model 3 is just an EV. Albeit, the best EV.

AND

you can buy & utilize FSD on it.





* we use the included regular radar cruise control.
If we are on a known road, I'll double push the button and mega cruise comes on and it stays in the lane and reads traffic and will change lanes with the push of a button.

FSD places too much control in the car for me.

 

I don't expect it to be free. I'm saying the fanboy account listed it as though it comes in the base price. I totally understand the reality of it, but if you are touting the vehicle at X price you should refrain from including optional things that are not included at that price. Just my opinion, of course.

 

ah.

I had the EXACT same feeling after Toyota wanted to charge me for stupid shit after one year of using it.

and we are simpatico on the Tesla fanboy accounts....they carry on like they get a vig from Tesla.


sidebar----

opinions please...when the EV credits* go away:
what EV's survive?
what EV's flourish?

Will I be able to get a V8 10speed Tundra in 2026?



*Federal. some of y'all live in semi-communist states that still offer state based credits.

 

I think sub 50K EVs that get 300+ miles of range will survive. Anything else is a gamble.

No. Even if the Chevron ruling is used to allow V8s to flourish again, Toyota won't go back to it before the next political cycle demonizes it again. Toyota moves too slow.

 

We are on the same page regarding natural aspiration and a turbo engine. Have owned three turbos and all were available as trims without turbos. I test drove the new Tundra a couple times and the way I use my truck loaded and hills, those turbos would always be spooling hard. The Ford F150 is lighter. Have not driven an Ecoboost just the 5.0.
So
1) Boosting a smaller engine or 2) reducing the number of cylinders running on a larger engine (Cylinder Deactivation) .......to achieve emissions - particles in the air. Is there evidence that 1 or 2 are "less" evil on the long term negative effects on an engine? Just curious.

********************************************

Regarding EV's
Really not sure why this video from Hillsdale College popped up in my queue.
But I watched it and it was illuminating. So sharing. Not sure if u guys have covered it ?

https://youtu.be/OEkIh2PcSYE

The message to me - There is a tail pipe for EV's. Its just elsewhere.

"To make a 1000 lb battery, somewhere on earth, 500,000 lbs of rock needs to be dug up for one battery. Big machines used that burn oil, and transported on machines that burn oil.
The Rock is crushed by machines in most of the world that burns coal to run electricity for the machines. Hydrocarbons used to dissolve the rock to get the chemicals."

 

I'd be willing to bet none? Would you have gotten yours if it weren't for the credits?

 

I didn't get any credits.

 

Gotcha. There is a lot in this thread and can't remember all the particulars

For me, at least, the credits are what make them somewhat obtainable. Plus the need for having a 3rd car or commuter isn't there. Outside of that, there isn't a justification of price for me. I'd love to be able to experience the tech as my only exposure has been at the auto shows.

 

Honestly, a model 3 used is pretty attractive for some of the prices. That's the only way I'd touch one.

 

I'll try to respond tonight once I'm on a PC. Phone keyboards suck.

 

good point on the "commuter" description.

EV's, IMHO, are best for commuting in dense urban/suburban areas.

it fits my wife's needs perfectly.

and it's damn fun.


my work is not conducive to an EV...I still need truck capabilities.

 

And that is always what it'll boil down to. What is the need? EV's have their place and so do ICE. It's what's best suited. When I was working with school buses, they were coming out with EV and a rural district bought a majority for their fleet. That made no sense to me. I can see in Chicago where they can get some regen benefit back, but not when your running 120 mile rural routes when they only had 160 mile range, empty.

On another note, I got contacted by a recruiter for Rivian for the parts department. I'll hear them out, but IDK what long term will look like.

 

Yes, but you are missing the point. Every vehicle has an option. That fan account was listing the car and all it's features at a certain price, and then tacked on stuff that is added cost. It's the same bullshit marketing does that is irritating.

For example, would it be disingenuous for me to tout the F150 at it's base price of $37,350 and then list off stuff you don't get at that price, like 4x4 capabilities? Damn straight it would be. List the base stuff, and then list the upcharged items separately and clearly state that they are extra.

 

Nothing that is black and white on these.

1. It's generally accepted that forced air, whether turbo or supercharging, reduces the overall lifespan of a gasoline engine. The amount of reduction would have numerous factors like starting reliability/longevity of the base engine, amount of boost added, if internal components are upgraded, and use case/driving habits. There are way to many factors to get a definitive "it shortens the engine life by X percent" or anything like that.
2. Compare that to cylinder deactivation and you'll get a much more polarizing reaction out of people. CD is newer, so you'll have automatic opposition to it. Couple that with some systems that have been poorly designed/implemented *looks at GM ticking timebombs* and you'll find very few enthusiasts that are not wary of the idea. Both MOPAR and GM have had their CD systems fail and destroy engines. Both were early adopters of the tech, but outsourced the design of the systems. It was problematic to the point that during the chip shortage people were snapping up the GM V8s because without the chips they didn't have CD in them. It is a known failure point. Similar to reducing lifespan with turbos, you can't pinpoint a timeframe for the issue.

Regarding point 1: I feel that turbo and supercharger applications are fine IF the base engine was capable of use in the vehicle in it's naturally aspirated state. Prime example, the naturally aspirated small displacement 4 cylinder engines in a Subaru Impreza work fine. They're not fast, but they are adequate to move the small cars about as is. Then Subaru puts a turbo on the same engine and beefs up the internals and you get the WRX on the same platform. It's a poor man's race car. Both Imprezas and unmodified WRXs commonly clear 300K miles without any kind of major issues.

That's a different practice than putting a Naturally aspirated 3.4 L engine into a full size truck. Closest I know of to that is the 1st gen tundras that had a 4.0 V6, but they also only had ratings like a midsize truck and were smaller trucks in general. For a 1/2 ton truck that is going to be rated to tow 10K lbs or more, a small NA 6 cylinder isn't viable. So Toyota (and every other manufacturer) slapped turbos on that anemic little engine in order to force it into the platform. This I do not agree with and I do not think it will have the same kind of longevity as a proper displacement engine would have in the same application. Basically, I operate under the philosophy that if the engine can't do the job without turbos/SCs then it's too small for the vehicle. I won't buy a vehicle setup that way. I'm not anti turbo/SC, those can be tacked onto an already adequate engine for better performance and fun and I'll grin like an idiot driving it.

Regarding point 2 and why I'm in the truck I am: Ford was the last of the big 3 to do it and watched the issues of the others, and when it came time that they had to add it or axe the V8 they designed it in house. The same folks that designed the engine designed the cylinder deactivation system. Will that matter? Who knows. Not enough data to say, BUT the 5.0 has had cylinder deactivation since the 2021 model year and I cannot find a single problem reported anywhere that involves CD. That's about 5 years of trucks, and many with 6 figure mileage, and no forum reports of cylinder deactivation causing any issue. Do I like that it's there? No, not at all. But if you want a new V8 you have very few options. I picked what I felt is the lesser of the evils out there.

 

Still marketing bullshit tactics.

 

O.O

 

Great write up thanks.
re Point 2
Very important point that GM/RAM outsourced the CD design and FORD developed it in house after. Same engine designers. Good.
I have read reports not to let RAMs idle a long time due to lack of lubrication. I dont know if this is because of the CD or overall engine design. My son has a work truck Gm Sierra 5.3 with CD. 200k Kms and it has been ticking for the last 60k kms but keeps going .
re Point 1
I like your Subaru reference because 1) my wife has always had a Legacy/Outback. 2) Son has owned the WRX and then a STI Sport Tech. A blast to drive. fwiw NA vs Turbo - I happen to still own a '96 993 NA that I bought as a "regular" sports car in 2003. Before its value took off. I remember at the time there was a same year 993 Turbo for sale for like $10k more and I thought to myself, no, it won't be as reliable, so I passed on it. lol. Google 993 Turbo values. If I only had a little Hindsight.

 

How's the new ride looking @nobodyintexas

 

shhhhh
<whispering>
no rash yet. ~4450 miles



I think it has something to do with being able to see out of the vehicle.

the MS is not very conducive to seeing curbs. it's low.

the MX...is perfect.

no front air dam damage either.


and the higher profile tires apparently lend themselves to not going flat.

 

Very cool, happy for ya guys.