No One Wants Used EVs, Making New Ones a Tougher Sell Too

They used to have rest stops along 280/101 North between SJ & SF area. They had to shut them down as they became home O hook up spots in the bathrooms and the bushes outside or in parked cars..

So I doubt they are going to install free Hi-amperage charger cables into those spots (bringing back the rumpranger).
 
I came very close to buying a used Lexus 450H from a friend because of the cost of replacing the battery (particularly from Lexu$). But, in hindsight, I should have done it. The car was in absolutely immaculate condition and relatively low miles and I could have had it and a new battery for under $20K. I hadn't been shopping at that point but ended up paying more than twice that for a new hybrid Sienna that's quite nice, but isn't a Lexus 450H.

In most cases the battery cost is damn near the price of a new vehicle.
 
What next? We must eat steamed broccoli (no sauce) twice a day and show proof to GOVT or have our miles cut down to 10 per week?
 
You seem familiar with it. Why don't you tell us about it?
IMG_8822.jpeg
 
All I need to know about battery powered cars is that people who have proven themselves to be our mortal enemies over many long decades are trying to force us to buy these cars. And refuse to use them themselves.

Pro tip- no one really wants new EVs, they just want to virtue signal.

Not everyone is having a bad time of it

 
The USMB rules contain an enjoinder that suggests you not tell people to just look stuff up when they ask you a question because this is a discussion board where we are intended to learn from each other. But when you asked me what happened in Glacier Bay, it was a purely rhetorical inquiry. You already knew the answer to your question. You were not seeking information but to inconvenience me and humble me with what you thought I would find.

And, of course, note that the results were not what you had hoped. The behavior of the Glacier Bay glacier does exactly nothing to refute AGW. YOU should have known that in the first place. If Santa has been reading all our posts, I suggest it is YOU who found a science textbook under your christmas tree.

I would also note that Glacier Bay has zero to do with this thread's topic.
 
The USMB rules contain an enjoinder that suggests you not tell people to just look stuff up when they ask you a question because this is a discussion board where we are intended to learn from each other. But when you asked me what happened in Glacier Bay, it was a purely rhetorical inquiry. You already knew the answer to your question. You were not seeking information but to inconvenience me and humble me with what you thought I would find.

And, of course, note that the results were not what you had hoped. The behavior of the Glacier Bay glacier does exactly nothing to refute AGW. YOU should have known that in the first place. If Santa has been reading all our posts, I suggest it is YOU who found a science textbook under your christmas tree.

I would also note that Glacier Bay has zero to do with this thread's topic.
Glacier Bay completely refutes your mythical manmade climate change.

Science involves requiring observations matching theory.
 

Forum List

Back
Top