What's new
By:
Mopar Insiders Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FCA direction on regulation changes

Ryan said:
@VoiceOfReason you have shared your anti-climate-change opinion with me enough that I don't care to have another discussion about it with you. Going in circles is all it will accomplish.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I mentioned climate in this thread. As far as circles go, I can't help you there. Research, however, I can provide, were you open and receptive to it. I'm not the one trying to silence anyone by removing comments.
 
VoiceOfReason said:
I don't believe I mentioned climate in this thread. As far as circles go, I can't help you there. Research, however, I can provide, were you open and receptive to it. I'm not the one trying to silence anyone by removing comments.
Click to expand...
I can't remember the last time I removed one of your posts. I've been fairly inactive on the forums.

In any case, I'm not opposed to research. That's what led me to my current beliefs on these issues.
 
TripleT said:
Consistency.....
Click to expand...

djsamuel said:
Exactly. I think that is all the companies are looking for.
Click to expand...
However FCA was the one Automaker not to sign a push for a compromise. I think FCA don't want go out on limb on pure EV (outside of luxury & Europe).
www.reuters.com

Major automakers back compromise on U.S. vehicle emissions rules, urge deal

A group of major automakers on Thursday backed a compromise on vehicle emissions aimed at heading off a confrontation between California and the Trump administration over requirements through 2026, warning that the lack of a deal could lead to "an extended period of litigation...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Since there isn't enough rare earth metal or the infrastructure for a large implementation of EVs that pretty safe.

Image have a pure EV in a area that is experiencing rolling blacks right now and say needing to escape say a fire.... There is still some technology hurdles to overcome for large implementations say like North America.... so there is some wisdom in being cautious is full EV implementations ..... really off topic.
 
I don't see what the issue is with having 2 options like it is right now. You can either follow the epa or Cali way of thinking, and some states do (Cali) that because it give them an option that pleases them.
 
AlexB said:
Special model lineups for different states gets very costly & complex.
Click to expand...
That's cool and all but manufactures already make a ton of cash as it is, they just wanna line their pockets more
 
mopar22 said:
That's cool and all but manufactures already make a ton of cash as it is, they just wanna line their pockets more
Click to expand...

No so much, it cyclical business and often on the edge solvency...... that is not a true statement at all. Mopar fans should be more aware of that then anyone. 3 times in my lifetime the company nearly stopped existing.
 
Ryan said:
I can't remember the last time I removed one of your posts. I've been fairly inactive on the forums.

In any case, I'm not opposed to research. That's what led me to my current beliefs on these issues.
Click to expand...
Please send me your “research”. Preferably not something already debunked by the research I sent to you sourced from multiple PhDs whom have more experience and decades of academic rigor than you have years of existence.
Do not delay.
The fate of the planet is in the balance. If you do not compel people to save the planet, we all die.
Unless of course you are wrong.
 
Ryan said:
I can't remember the last time I removed one of your posts. I've been fairly inactive on the forums.

In any case, I'm not opposed to research. That's what led me to my current beliefs on these issues.
Click to expand...
Or of course, you could stay on topic.
You are after all, supposed to be a moderator, leading by example.
Rather than attacking the arguer (a formal logical fallacy - ad hominem), why not just address the statements made?
The initial statements I posted weren’t even my own words. I was quoting FCA executives and industry specialists who publicly acknowledged that market demand has nothing to do with the tens of billions of dollars spent on electrification research and development. It is being driven by “government compliance”.
If you feel compelled to delve into the rationale behind that government compliance, I’m more than happy to post my research publicly so “moderators” can delete factual and historic information that refutes their dogmatic belief with scientific evidence, verifiable historical truth, and intellectual reasoning.
As has been the case in the past.
 
VoiceOfReason said:
Or of course, you could stay on topic.
You are after all, supposed to be a moderator, leading by example.
Rather than attacking the arguer (a formal logical fallacy - ad hominem), why not just address the statements made?
The initial statements I posted weren’t even my own words. I was quoting FCA executives and industry specialists who publicly acknowledged that market demand has nothing to do with the tens of billions of dollars spent on electrification research and development. It is being driven by “government compliance”.
If you feel compelled to delve into the rationale behind that government compliance, I’m more than happy to post my research publicly so “moderators” can delete factual and historic information that refutes their dogmatic belief with scientific evidence, verifiable historical truth, and intellectual reasoning.
As has been the case in the past.
Click to expand...
It will all be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The winner of Trump.vs.Warren (most likely election match-up) will get to pick the replacement of Justice Ginsburg, and therefore swing the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
 
This doesn't have to be a political debate ...... when politics gets involved in science there is a bad outcome. Example IPPC full report versus the Summary for lawmakers. The Summary for lawmaker is political document that bends the science to a policy agenda as the full report does not. There is no call to action in the full report. CO2 is correctly identified as a TRACE (less then 5%) greenhouse gas, all theory and hypothesis is properly identified. Versus Boyles law and the laws of thermodynamics..... this is a car fan website not a political or environmental website. Those are very divisive issues although the second should no but it has become... so us Mopar fanbois try to stay on united topic. EPA has a universal standard is good for FCA and the Consumer, it just is. If their is overly Strick focus on CO2 it will be bad for both the consumer, true environmental issues, and the Environment. Because a few facts.... The energy production and infrastructure for a large switch to EVs and away from carbon based fuels doesn't exist. The existing battery and motor technology is dependent and rare earth metals that do not exist in sufficient levels and are devastating to local ecologies to mine and process. These aren't theories, flawed computer models, or agenda driven hypothesis they are the current state of the technology. Leaps will have to be made to move past them.
 
Despite their name, Rare Earth metals are not rare... Lanthanum is the only rare-earth used in batteries (but in Nickel, not Lithium chemistries), and it's 80% as prevalent as Copper in the Earth's crust. Neodymium, most commonly used in magnets, is slightly more common again. The actually-rare rare metals have no automotive or battery applications that demand large quantities.

The other battery metals are not rare by any measure: Lithium is one of the most abundant metals on Earth, as you'd expect from its low atomic number. It can be commercially extracted from a variety of sources, from salt-flats to sea-water - one problem is that there's almost no infrastructure for recovery and recycling of lithium, but this will come as demand increases. Cobalt is mined with copper, and was until recently a low-value byproduct of copper mining - it's not in short supply, although there are ethical concerns about the treatment of miners in the countries with the largest deposits.. Manganese is twenty times more common than copper, and is mined with Iron.

Every claim that we're running out of Rare Earths is accompanied by the disclaimer "unless new supplies are found". Until the last twenty years or so, there really wasn't much demand for these metals, so there was only a limited number of supplies, and no incentive to find more. Nobody went looking for oil in Saudi Arabia until oil was something that was worth money...

Extraction of rare-earths is an economic proposition. When prices increase, supplies will become viable.

I'd rather not discuss theories on climate change here. I don't agree with your analysis - it ignores the huge difference in the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 versus water vapor for one - but this isn't the place for an argument on this subject.
 
interesting the argument nearly mirrors the carbon based fuels that are always a limited supply but always more found as technology moves forward. And yes lets not get deep into CO2 discussion because I have studied experts who completely counter your claim with 60K peer reviewed proven measurement data points not the proven flawed ice core methods. Really isn't the place.... this a Car sight..... reality is the consumers are buying EV in market at about the correct rate to balance the current levels of energy and infrastructure can support. So let the market work California issue was never CO2 is was smog creating pollutants.... and funny enough water vapor is issue around say San Francisco.... Now plain old smoke....... and thank you for using the proper term Theory as the often get lost...... those who are aware of what I do will recognize that I have been in the background trying to resolve the logistical issues around transporting batteries at bulk level and directly with the OEM and producers. Don't kid yourself that it a ecological process at this point. And the safety of transporting batteries is a big hump. ..... Of course with ramping up some of these issue can be resolved but as often the case if there a rush to profitability and scaling up the opposite is more likely...... the only thing I am advocating because I personally will gain from a shift in the market is that Universal rules in NA, and consumer not mindless bureaucrats based decisions.
 
Last edited:
US is not in love with electrified cars which can't be said for some parts of Europe. Plus Europeans like city cars which are IMO more suitable for electric versions.

As I've said. They can always introduce zero emissions zones (more like selected streets) on California. Or they can say cars with Tier X Bin Y may can drive here. It's not something which is not already done in Europe.

But IMO CARB must go away.
 
Yes they are different market and it way EU is first on implementation list.

We can sit back and see how it works out, while ranges are improved to better fit NA.

Some of cities can do what Portland did and just plain reroute drive through traffic from the city centers.
 
I know some metropolitan planning authorities in California have considered plans to incentivise zero-emission drivers at peak traffic times, and possibly penalize vehicles that fall into the higher emissions category. The California air pollution that comes from cars is so high because the traffic moves so slowly at peak times. Tailpipe emissions wouldn't be an issue if a ten mile journey took fifteen minutes instead of thirty. But there is no money, and no political will, to build more roads (everyone wants the traffic fixed until you show them where the new roads would have to go...), so demand management and increased utilisation of the existing roadways are the only option. HOV lanes are being converted into tolled "express" lanes to help add capactiy to roads, and raise revenue for infrastructure maintenance - HOV drivers drive those express-lanes either toll-free or half-price, in the hope that it will encourage car-pooling, but there's no technological barrier to prevent a price multiplier being applied for higher-emission vehicles.


Europe is a completely different environment for EVs. For a start, higher fuel costs mean that there's a significant running-cost advantage to an EV that doesn't exist in the States. Never underestimate the willingness of car-buyers to stump up extra thousands to save hundreds: I've seen people spend €1500 extra on a car simply to save €100 a year on road tax, then sell the car after three years.
 
VoiceOfReason said:
. . . was pushing for a 57 mpg mandate.
Click to expand...
That's not relevant to what I was saying. The previous administration initially was pushing to reduce the number of gasoline blends in the country for reasons of cost efficiency. They never delivered on that; but the reasoning then for gasoline blends is the same reasoning for a single emissions standard, which is cost efficiency. I am not commenting on the previous administration's motives, effectiveness, sincerity, accuracy etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top