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!

The Hellcat V8’s Days Are Numbered

The US has a lot of real estate to deal with. For some strange reason battery electric vehicle advocates avoid strategies that have proven to work. In the previous decade our US Department of Energy offered funding to create a few natural gas corridors along interstate highways. The project would answer a question. "Could a prominent refueling infrastructure encourage commercial fleets to consider natural gas instead over diesel?" The program was successful beyond anyones expectations. The refueling infrastructure gave buyers confidence to purchase NG vehicles. The market took over and many NG refueling stations have been built with private funds, which in turn encouraged even more vehicle sales.

The success of the DOE program has embarrassed many bureaucrats pushing zero emissions sales mandates. Sales of BEVs have lagged in the US. Tesla sells a lot of EVs, but that brand comes with its own infrastructure. People can charge at home if they have their own garage or driveway, but apartment dwellers are left out of the picture. Our vast continent will need a lot of charging infrastructure to meet these mandates.

We will need some battery electric vehicles to help with our environmental problems, but it can't be the only solution.

Here is a link relevant to this thread.> Green Energy Reality Check: It's Not as Clean as You Think | Manhattan Institute
 
Here is an article to backup what I've been saying about the support infrastructure for battery electric vehicles. I'm not against hybrids or EVs. I strongly object to these one size fits all solutions created with centralized planning that ignore local needs. This is in reference to the US, other nations have their own problems to deal with.

Study: EVs cannot succeed without developing parallel supercharging networks

"Electric vehicles cannot succeed without developing a nationwide network of fast-charging networks in parallel with the cars. Current EV business models are doomed unless manufacturers that have bet their futures on them, such as General Motors and VW, invest in or coordinate on a robust supercharger network. These are the observations in an in-depth study of the industry by management professors at the University of California, Davis, and Dartmouth College."

There’s a chicken-and-egg problem here. Charging station providers will not invest huge amount of money in stations until there are enough cars on the road. But you won’t have mass sales of cars until there are enough stations.

—Hemant Bhargava, a professor of technology management at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management
Click to expand...
Source: Study: EVs cannot succeed without developing parallel supercharging networks

Vehicles like the Hellcat Dodges and Rams are good taxpaying citizens. They generate more than other vehicles in taxes and fees than the average vehicle, while only a small percentage of them are used as single occupant commuter vehicles. At the present moment EVs are subsidized and don't generate revenue from fuel taxes.
 
So your tooling down the highway now, you pop into the Pilot station.... might be a pump might not be, maybe 10 min. You pee, grab a Coke. Maybe a half hour, pretty crowded.

No make that several hours.... SO all that has to be in place prior not after.
 
Problem is politicians and parties keep pushing for EV vehicles with a vision not pass their nose tip.
The average person doesn’t understand the complications but is sold on green energy and and not relying on fossil fuel.
 
There are 183.1 million light vehicles in the USA.
Each vehicle in the USA travels an average 13,500 miles per year. Take a pretty inefficient 20 kWh per 100 miles to account for charger losses, and that's 2700 kWh of energy required per car
multiply by 183.1 million vehicles = 500 billion kWh per year, again rounding upwards.

The current US electrical grid carries 4 trillion kWh = 4000 billion kWh. Add another 500 billion for all those EVs, and we're at 4500 billion kWH, a 12.5% increase.

So, if every single gasoline-powered light vehicle were replaced by a battery-electric version, it would require a 12.5% increase in grid capacity to service charging them.
But it's not going to be a simple switch from no EVs to all EVs; it will take a long time to happen. There are 16 million new vehicles sold in the US every year, so if ICE cars stopped selling right now, it would take at least 12 years to fully refresh the light-vehicle fleet to the point where it was all BEVs. So, the worst-case timeline if you're a grid operator is twelve years.

So I'm being asked to believe that it is impossible for one of the richest nations in the world to increase capacity of a key infrastructure by 12.5% over a twelve year timeframe. Put that another way: 12.5% extra in 12 years is just under 1% per annum capacity increase.

(I've left heavy duty vehicles and trucks out of this calculation, that doubles the number of vehicles; but I've also made a completely unrealistic assumption about adoption rates: in reality it'll be more like 30 years and will most likely never be higher than 80% BEV)
 
The United States escaped any impact from the Suez Crisis in the late 1950's. Our wake-up call came with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. That was nearly four decades ago and since then we have had different presidents and congressional mixes. We set up a new federal Department of Energy, but so far the United States still doesn't have a clear energy and environmental plan. The CAFE requirement has done more harm than good, it is only a whitewash to avoid the hard political reality of energy consumption taxes.

Sure the US has a lot of resources, both natural and financial. We waste a lot of it subsidizing suburban sprawl and creating resource consuming low density housing in remote places. I'm not against the suburban lifestyle, I only object to my paying for it with my taxes and utility surcharges. The traditional walkable neighborhood has been de facto outlawed by federally mandated rules usurping local zoning regulations. It used to be density was based on what someone could afford. If a family couldn't afford to purchase a single family home, they could buy a duplex and the rental income would help pay the mortgage. There were apartments above stores and garages. Shopping and living were within walking distance of each other. Automobile dependency was once rare.

Public transit was once privately owned and quite extensive in North America. Street-rail networks were electric and many cities later had electric trolley bus networks. Chicago had the largest fleet of trolley busses in North America at one time. It also had a fleet of propane fueled busses for other routes during this same time period. Chicago's electric trolley busses were phased out from 1968 through 72. The propane busses were replaced entirely by 1973. All were replaced by GM two-stroke diesel power. Efficient public transit routes require density and relatively straight lines. Outer ring suburban cul-de-sacs provide neither. If someone wants to live there and can afford it fine, but such a lifestyle should not by subsidized.

Taking a triage approach to both the energy and environmental problems of the United States, I would address our inefficient housing patterns first by defunding private housing subsidies which encourage sprawl and leap frog development. Maybe if our public utility companies didn't have to chase after exburb developments they could spend more resources on EV charging networks, if it is even legal for them to do so.

Another priority for triage would be energy security over environmental concerns. Unlimited coal fueled power plants would be extreme and absurd. On the other hand, natural gas for fuel cells instead of using hydrogen would be an incremental approach. Vehicle electrification should also be an incremental approach, not the draconian IC bans presently being proposed. We don't need to replace worries about energy embargoes with those of rare earth resources. Conserving petroleum helps both national security and the environment and should be a priority.

I would not avoid opportunities such as development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling networks. A place such as Hawaii would be ideal because of its small area and abundant geothermal energy. Right now the USA ranks last globally for hydrogen fuel cell research.
 
KrisW said:
There are 183.1 million light vehicles in the USA.
Each vehicle in the USA travels an average 13,500 miles per year. Take a pretty inefficient 20 kWh per 100 miles to account for charger losses, and that's 2700 kWh of energy required per car
multiply by 183.1 million vehicles = 500 billion kWh per year, again rounding upwards.

The current US electrical grid carries 4 trillion kWh = 4000 billion kWh. Add another 500 billion for all those EVs, and we're at 4500 billion kWH, a 12.5% increase.

So, if every single gasoline-powered light vehicle were replaced by a battery-electric version, it would require a 12.5% increase in grid capacity to service charging them.
But it's not going to be a simple switch from no EVs to all EVs; it will take a long time to happen. There are 16 million new vehicles sold in the US every year, so if ICE cars stopped selling right now, it would take at least 12 years to fully refresh the light-vehicle fleet to the point where it was all BEVs. So, the worst-case timeline if you're a grid operator is twelve years.

So I'm being asked to believe that it is impossible for one of the richest nations in the world to increase capacity of a key infrastructure by 12.5% over a twelve year timeframe. Put that another way: 12.5% extra in 12 years is just under 1% per annum capacity increase.

(I've left heavy duty vehicles and trucks out of this calculation, that doubles the number of vehicles; but I've also made a completely unrealistic assumption about adoption rates: in reality it'll be more like 30 years and will most likely never be higher than 80% BEV)
Click to expand...

No one can build a 1% or 5 Billion kW capacity increase a year.
 
According to the full report to from the IPCC Carbon Dioxide is the most significant TRACE green house gas. That is less than 5%. This isn't theory, this is measured. The word TRACE was conveniently left off the Summary for law makers. You can check it. True story. If your interested Water vapor is the 95%+ green house gas. Of that trace, the building block of plant life on this planet, 3% is anthropologic. The rest is the massive natural inputs. USA is about 28% and falling of the world energy use it the USA. Well knowing these realities and fractional math, it interesting to see amount of resources and institutional control people are willing to except. Where you live, what you live in, where you can go and how you are allowed to get there. Not to mention capital transfer from public to government and its redistribution.

Some several thousand years ago as the Earth came off the Roman warming, the Nazcan people began to suffer from Climate change. As the earth cycled toward lower temperatures the amount of water in the air fell, and started falling less on where they lived. The leadership a that time, there greatest scientists came up with a plan. Draw figures to the Gods. The more the drew the less water fell, so they doubled down getting bigger and bigger until the people and there culture dried up. Turns out just a few hundred miles away across the mountain range was water. They picked the wrong solution. In there arrogance they felt they could control the weather.

Two things a striking. How little we have changed, and how strong an addiction historically is that we desire to control the behavior of others. There is always a reason or justification why people cannot be left to their own accord, despite the usual outcome is massive scale death instead of the Utopic promise. Furless monkeys drawing lines in the sand to gods to change the weather even today.
 
Mopar392 said:
No one can build a 1% or 5 Billion kW capacity increase a year.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the can-do attitude that put an American on the Moon right there...

First, it's 5 Billion kilowatt-hours per year of energy capacity, not 5 billion kilowatts of power capacity. There's a big difference.

Second, the US's grid capacity has grown much faster than 1% per annum in the past (+20% growth in energy consumption between 1990 and 2000).

Third, there isn't just "one grid": it's hundreds of utility companies, each looking after their own part of the country: nobody's going to add 5 billion kWh on their own.
 
Mopar392 said:
I’m not against hybridization as long as they don’t kill the V8’s.
You might get the power of a V8 out of a hybrid 4pots, but there is a feel to the V8 that you won’t get.
Click to expand...
You want one, or one with more power than what you currently have...........BUY IT NOW😉
 
redriderbob said:
HEMI stays after 2025!
Click to expand...

As much as I like this news, but few things came to my mind:
1- The current HEMI would stay the same, which lead me to think about the next 2 points
2- GC WL SRT either will be delayed, use the same current HEMI options or won't have a HEMI.
3- Next Charger/Challenger could be delayed until after 2025. Or it could come in 2023 or 2024 but the SRT models are delayed.
 
Mopar392 said:
As much as I like this news, but few things came to my mind:
1- The current HEMI would stay the same, which lead me to think about the next 2 points
2- GC WL SRT either will be delayed, use the same current HEMI options or won't have a HEMI.
3- Next Charger/Challenger could be delayed until after 2025. Or it could come in 2023 or 2024 but the SRT models are delayed.
Click to expand...

There is an update coming. And GME-T6 HO is coming in the Q3 of this year. Lots too be excited about
 
Mopar392 said:
As much as I like this news, but few things came to my mind:
1- The current HEMI would stay the same, which lead me to think about the next 2 points
2- GC WL SRT either will be delayed, use the same current HEMI options or won't have a HEMI.
3- Next Charger/Challenger could be delayed until after 2025. Or it could come in 2023 or 2024 but the SRT models are delayed.
Click to expand...

They are hard at work on Charger (LF) and Challenger (LB) scheduled for a 2024 model year release

WL74 SRT will be a 2023 model more than likely ... WL75, WL74, and WL74 PHEV are priorities

Updated HEMI in works
 
I suspect the current Hemi will have some changes. My imagination says there could be an Atkinson cycle version for PHEV drivetrains. Look what they did to the Pentastar V6 for the PHEV Pacifica.

I'm not an insider into the doings at Stellantis. I don't know who the corporate customers for the new ZF PowerLine 8-speed transmission are. I can't help but look at the circumstantial evidence and think Ram Trucks would be a likely candidate. The ZF PowerLine is a heavy-duty transmission for commercial vehicles based on the ZF 8-speed automatics found in various FCA products.

Follow this link.-> ZF lands several-billion-euro orders from NA OEMs for new PowerLine commercial vehicle transmission
 
Hi guys, new member here but used to be a member on the old AP site.

currently a Viper owner and intend on remaining one.

I’m hoping to buy a Hellcat M6 in the last year they are offered.

Do we know for sure that the Hellcat will carry to the new platform?

Even if it does I think I’d still like the current body style as I’ve lusted after it since those spy photos emerged of the Hemi Orange Prototype emerged sitting under a shady tree way back in, I believe, 2006? Right now I’m thinking M6 HC WB in F8 with the Carmel interior to match the Connolly leather in my Viper.

I’m somewhat worried that I’ll miss the boat if I wait to long. This would probably be the only brand new car I’d ever buy and want to get it right as I’ll never sell it!

Any input as to the expectation of how long the HC and M6 will last would be greatly appreciated!!
 
We do not know just yet. However, the Hellcat from what I hear meets federal emissions till 2025. I am still looking for information to confirm that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top