Yeah, the point is to facilitate people that need to haul stuff. If suburban brodozer dads cant conveniently have their choice of daily? Win-win.
Because we haven’t banned gas yet. This will be worse than diesel and gas for these trucks. And it would be worse than an EV in a daily. But if you’re hauling stuff over distance, EV is a non-starter.
I never said it said it was a cure all, in fact I said quite clearly it would be worse than EVs. All this is, is for someone that needs to get heavy loads across long distances, a way to still be able to do that with a new vehicle and without emissions.
That’s out of context. We’re talking about sales of new vehicles here. NY and CA already banned new gas passenger cars for 2035; it’s reasonable to assume they’ll do pickups by 2045 or so. I definitely still want to be alive in 2045.
This is a whole ‘nother discussion, but as someone that lives in NY, the state will (and does) watch itself burn before it admits that it’s wrong. 50% will not sway them. Maybe 95% would but I feel like we’re already past that here. I actually think 2035 won’t be a big problem for the mandate.
Not really. Diesel electric locomotives are giant 2-stroke motors designed to spin at like 900 RPM and weighing 20-40,000 lbs. They're designed for much more constant velocity than trucks are, and indeed have to burn off excess power when it's not being used with giant heatsinks. The reason they're diesel electric is because it would be stupid hard to make a mechanical transmission that can handle 50,000 lb fts of torque distributed across eight wheel drive, not because it's some efficiency magic bullet.
Low-, Fixed-, and High-Extended Range all have some percentage of parallel hybrid through the engine's planetary. The combo of two planetaries give it more control over the split (and thus engine RPM) in Low- and High- to maximize engine efficiency; the difference with fixed is that the engine is direct-drive to the wheels and thus 100% parallel hybrid. Notably in your graph, low- to mid- torque between 60 and 80 is where most fuel is burned, and GM sized the only fixed gear ratio to be active and in the efficient part of the engine in that range.
Yup. It doesn't even have to be efficient, it's a way to continue to haul heavy #$#@ long distances without producing carbon. Unless we collectively decide we don't want any heavy @#$# hauled anymore, it's a good thing.
Heh. A couple years ago we banned plastic grocery bags in NY. I'm happy with that decision, but also, the people who were willing to use reusable bags were for the most part already doing it. So in practice what it meant is that grocery stores had to switch back to the same paper bags they switched away from in the 80s. 😂
We switched years ago and its easier on all fronts. They’re more solid so you can pack them fuller, they’re square so the trunk loads easier, the straps are long so you can carry them over your shoulder, the openings are larger so you can unload easier, and putting them back in the car is no harder than recycling.
That’s the whole point of this though. We’re talking super duty trucks here not Escapes. Super duty trucks are already making tons and tons of compromises to be able to do what they do, this will just be another.
BEVs average $0.04/mile in power costs. Gas cars average $0.13/mile in fueling. So even if it's 3x worse, it's still a marginal benefit over gas. Where BEV isn't an option (re: hauling), this will be a win-win.
If they're FCV then yeah there could be some batteries, for downhill and braking regen and such it would make sense to put a few kWh in for everybody. But heavy on the batteries with hydrogen as a secondary range extender...depends. I should clarify, I see two common cases for a super duty buyer IMO:
