[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by KoenG

Don't know whether you're aware that there is a broad world wide consent that blizzards, floodings, storms, and other forms of extreme weather are caused by CO². To avoid further accelerated environment detoriation, the BEV are suggested. You got the story entirely inversed.

Sorry, but that’s a story told by the mass media nanny.
The globe is going through this process for ever and nothing changed.
If you resd papers from 1912 you will find articles that polar bears are loosing their ice due to weather warming.
The globe is just going thorugha cycle. The fact that we have the opportunity to see the snow in Sahara or Mexico the moment it happens doesnt make it different or scary.
Mexico had snow two hundreds years ago, so is Sahara. There are articles or books that proves it, but very very few read about it. Is just they didn’t have whatsapp and a television to see it as the information waas very hard to reach everyone.
CO2 is what the plants need. Its okay.


On the other side, EV is actually worse for the environement.
I suggest to everyone to watch a documentary made by a Canadian from Alberta, is called “Climate Warning” and grab your own conclusion.
I also suggest everyone just to go on Google Images and search “Chile Lithium Extraction” and you will see the damage we do to this planet. While an oil site can be reforested and regained, a lithium extraction site will be never recovered; ever.

I believe in pollution, but not in climate change. Climate change is bullshit.

Its all a mambo jumbo done by media and the corporations that want a new financial shift.
When BMW came up with the hydrogen car, nobody gave a shit.
It is no interest in it.
Quant Germany makes cars that run on salt water. Anyone interested?
Not really…

The EV is not the answer. The EVil they bring is worse for the planet.

[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by LOW4LYF

So do you think 507hp from natural aspirated V10 is more reliable?

Of course. Is one thing if you carry 70 kg on a mountain hike and another if your girl will do it. She can do it, but not for long.
A biger engine will not struggle to do it and will make it effortless. Breaths better, provides a better experience and lasts a lot.

Beside the inside intel I have in regards with the reliability of these overwhelmed 4 cyl engines, this solution was implemented by European legislation which imposed a certain tax on engines cubic capacity, ut that doesn’t make them better.

[LOW4LYF]

Originally Posted by Teutonic

Of course. Is one thing if you caryy 70 kg on a mountain hike and another if your girl will do it. She can do it, but not for much.
A biger engine will not struggle to do it and will make it effortless.

Beside the inside intel I have in regards with the reliability of these overwhelmed 4 cyl engines, this solution was implemented by European legislation which imposed a certain tax on engines cubic capacity, ut that doesn’t make them better.

Maybe you should talk to an E60 M5 owner...

[dezzracer]

How about a completely different approach to this global warming issue.. For example focusing on a future global infrastructure where people simply do not have to drive at all to get to work. Planned communities where your home is located within walking or bicycling distance of where you work. Remember the satellite graphs of significantly reduced pollution over major metro areas during the height of Covid when nobody was going anywhere? The one good thing Covid taught us was many people can work from home efficiently. I think a lot of that will not go away and people will continue to work from home post Covid and companies will support it to some degree. Think of the billions of miles driven in any kind of car that could be saved. I realize this type of thinking is not the complete answer. Certainly it's going to take a combination of things to save us from ourselves.

[LOW4LYF]

Originally Posted by Teutonic

Sorry, but you are not fair as you present only a side of the story.
- EV produces twice the pollution just by being manufactured and needs few decades to rune FREE OF TROUBLE to prove enironmentaly firendly.
- efficiency is one thing, pollution is another. The mining sites that provide the lithium are a trauma to this planet. Scars that can never be hidden. In top of that, the hundreds of ha lakes of acid that are being lifted by evaporation and carried over agricultural sites destroying the food and carrying toxines in in ocent bodies is not mentioned by you.
- the ethical mining of some metals on the back of some poor children or poor people that are desperate for a meal is also not mentioned in your post either.
- the lack of infrastructure for this vehicles and the process that will recycle those batteries and other elements is not mentioned either.
- the toxicity that these batteries provide is not mentioned either.
- the impact of those batteries on the enviroenment is not mentioned, either that the process of recycling them actually involves some evaporation with extremely dangerous fumes for the atmosphere.
- the fact that batteries actually need to breath is not mentioned either. Very few know that hybrid and electric batteries need to breath and that there are some harmful fumes related to this process, and that reflects on the health of the owner.
- the fact that actualy someone can see every move you do, downloada a new software in your car, spy on you, stop your trip or make you dependent on an electric station is not mentioned either.
- the fact that if in a neighbourhood eveyrone will have a Tesla, the grid will be unable to cope with that situation and will colapse is not mentioned either.
- the fact that batteries are half power when super cold is not taken in consideration. That is exactly when you need lights on, heat on, radio on, etc…
- most important, the fact that you are controlled, guided and forced to follow only routes with electric grid is not mentioned either.

YOUR OWN FREEDOM IS AT RISK AND YOU GIVE IT UP FREELY. You actually even pay over 100k of your hard working money to give it away…!

A hydrogen car, salt water car can be a future.
I actually believe that a super clean diesel (done by BMW, Mercedes and Siemens I believe) is a very good vehicle.
It gives you freedom, it has tremendous torque, you get a lot of energy from a tank. My family runs in Europe some diesel cars and one of them takes 3 litres for every 100 km (or around 70-80 mpg).

Please tell me you are just joking with us, please!

[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

This is FUD that's been disproven time and time again. An EV breaks even in full lifecycle emissions somewhere around its third year of use IIRC.


Wrong again. Even with carbon based power generation, the efficiency of the full chain, from burning oil or coal to turning a car's wheels, is 80% or higher. The most efficient internal combustion engines are struggling to get over 40% (and those are the engines that no one here on the ICE side of the argument will want to have in their cars). However, in reality only 60% of the US power generation is carbon based. The remaining 40% are equally split between nuclear and renewables. Add the fact that most EVs require less energy to move them than comparable ICE vehicles, and you get, at worst, 1/4 of CO2 emissions per mile for EV vs ICE.
How do you then explain the fact that every year wind takes over ~1% of total US power generation capacity, and solar takes over another .3%, all at the expense of traditional sources, because total consumption has remained constant since 2005?

Sorry, but you are not fair as you present only a side of the story.
- EV produces twice the pollution just by being manufactured and needs few decades to run FREE OF TROUBLE to prove enironmentaly firendly.
- efficiency is one thing, pollution is another. The mining sites that provide the lithium are a trauma to this planet. Scars that can never be hidden. In top of that, the hundreds of ha of lakes of acid that are being lifted by evaporation and carried over agricultural sites destroying the plants, the soil and the food and carrying toxines in innocent bodies is not mentioned by you.
- the un-ethical mining of some metals on the back of some poor children or poor people that are desperate for a meal, just to give you an electric vehicle is also not mentioned in your post either.
- the socio-political impact and the shift of power in the world, (I believe that China owns now almost every lithium site in Africa and Southa America) and the influence of that is not mentioned either.
- the lack of infrastructure for these vehicles and the process that will recycle those batteries and other elements is not mentioned either.
- the toxicity that these batteries provide is not mentioned either. (One AA batterie will damage a square meter of land for one hundred years).
- the impact of those batteries on the enviroenment is not mentioned, either that the process of recycling them actually involves some evaporation with extremely dangerous fumes for the atmosphere.
- the fact that batteries actually need to breath is not mentioned either. Very few know that hybrid and electric batteries need to breath and that there are some harmful fumes related to this process, and that reflects on the health of the owner. They don’t know.
- the fact that actualy someone can see every move you do, download a new software in your car, spy on you, stop your trip or make you dependent on an electric station is not mentioned either. Control baby, control.
- the fact that if in a neighbourhood everyone will have a Tesla, the grid will be unable to cope with that situation and will colapse is not mentioned either.
- the fact that batteries are at half power when cold or less when super cold is not taken in consideration. That is exactly when you need lights on, heat on, radio on, etc…
- most important, the fact that you are controlled, guided and forced to follow only routes with electric grid is not mentioned either.

YOUR OWN FREEDOM IS AT RISK AND YOU GIVE IT UP FREELY. You actually even pay over 100k of your hard working money to give it away…!

A hydrogen car, salt water car can be a future.
I actually believe that a super clean diesel (done by BMW, Mercedes and Siemens I believe) is a very good vehicle.
It gives you freedom, it has tremendous torque, you get a lot of energy from a tank. My family runs in Europe some diesel cars and one of them takes 3 litres (long trips even under that) for every 100 km (or around 70-80 mpg).

[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by LOW4LYF

Please tell me you are just joking with us, please!

Start reading. Is all there.

[LOW4LYF]

Originally Posted by Teutonic

Start reading. Is all there.

I did, still thinking you just joking with us... If not I really feel sorry for you.

[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by LOW4LYF

I did, still thinking you just joking with us... If not I really feel sorry for you.

I don’t understand fully your comment, but whatever. If you “DID” read a lot of articles and know all this, then you must realize the impact. If not informed, I feel sorry for you…

Or not sure what are you implying…

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by Teutonic

YOUR OWN FREEDOM IS AT RISK AND YOU GIVE IT UP FREELY. You actually even pay over 100k of your hard working money to give it away…!

Also:
- vaccines kill people
- 9/11 was an inside job
- JFK Jr. is alive
- UFOs are real
- Earth is flat.

[corbinwilliams]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Wake up.

(Respectfully.)

+1 ((Respectfully.))

[kyrix1st]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Any good engineer will choose boring and soulless over exciting every time.

Exciting means unreliable.
Emotional means unpredictable.
Inspiring means underdeveloped.

I will not go into detail how each of your inferences is flawed, because it would be enough to say at least one person has to know every upper boundary for this to even start to be true.

What really separates a good engineer from a good robot, is the human element. That's why humans aspire to be "better", and create alternatives. So for an engineer to stick with boring and soulless solution, means he/she settles for the current state.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

This is FUD that's been disproven time and time again. An EV breaks even in full lifecycle emissions somewhere around its third year of use IIRC.


Wrong again. Even with carbon based power generation, the efficiency of the full chain, from burning oil or coal to turning a car's wheels, is 80% or higher. The most efficient internal combustion engines are struggling to get over 40% (and those are the engines that no one here on the ICE side of the argument will want to have in their cars). However, in reality only 60% of the US power generation is carbon based. The remaining 40% are equally split between nuclear and renewables. Add the fact that most EVs require less energy to move them than comparable ICE vehicles, and you get, at worst, 1/4 of CO2 emissions per mile for EV vs ICE.
How do you then explain the fact that every year wind takes over ~1% of total US power generation capacity, and solar takes over another .3%, all at the expense of traditional sources, because total consumption has remained constant since 2005?

OK

First and foremost, may I clarify, my comments previously, and my reply to your comments now, are not intended as a personal attack on you or anyone, I am stating my understanding of the world around me.

In response to your comments:

1) in reality only 60% of the US power generation is carbon based. The remaining 40% are equally split between nuclear and renewables.

How do you then explain the fact that every year wind takes over ~1% of total US power generation capacity, and solar takes over another .3%, all at the expense of traditional sources, because total consumption has remained constant since 2005?

I love you guys, but please, America is not the world. I live in South Australia where almost 70% of our entire energy supply comes from renewables and yet Australia has one of the worst emission track records in the world.

Why, I hear some ask! Well, with a land mass around 84% of continental USA and only 8% of your population, 55% of our land, and 25% of our water is used to produce some 50 million heads of cattle, sheep, goat, and other livestock much of which end up on dinner tables around the world.

This brings me to the next point. At 1% PA increase in wind and 0.3% increase in solar generated power, you will have your entire energy production from renewables in, let me work it out, say around 90 years. It is therefore immaterial how much they increased by, or carbon-based energy decreased by. We are talking about EVs NOW.

Oh, and, when you present figures, please keep in mind, not every country have a nuclear power plant. In fact, only 32 countries from amongst 195 (16.4%) produce some of their energy requirements from nuclear power plants. Besides, at an average cost of USD$22.6Bn and taking up to ten years to build, the possibility of any more of them going up anytime soon is pretty marginal.

Also, keep in mind, most countries, even if they had the desire and the money to build nuclear power plants, would not do so because of many reasons such as constitutional restrictions, or the obvious dangers, or timeframes associated with construction. To top that, decommissioning a nuclear power plant is an absolute nightmare which sometimes can take even longer than what it takes to build one.

Many of your own nuclear plants are past their use-by date but aren't being decommissioned.

Then we come to the stats you presented regarding EV Vs ICE - Let's then try to address that elephant in the room.


2) most EVs require less energy to move them than comparable ICE vehicles, and you get, at worst, 1/4 of CO2 emissions per mile for EV vs ICE.

Some facts which might surprise you,

Total cars in the world 1.42 billion
Total commercial planes in the world 25,368 (rising to 35,000 by 2030)

Global pollution by sector and across all fields:
Cars 3.23% across all fields
15% in transport sector

Planes 2.5% across all fields
11.6% in transport sector

This means, for every tonne of emission 25,368 planes produce, 1,420,000,000 ICE engines produce 1.29t.

Interestingly, by 2030, air travel will account for 16% of transport related pollution which will exceed all ICE engines on the planet combined.

I may be out of my depth here, but I don't think Boeing will be delivering any Electric 787 Dreamliners anytime soon.

One thing that would not be a surprise, is the exorbitant cost of replacing or refurbishing a battery when compared to an ICE. By extension, an average ICE vehicle will last 30+ years if maintained well.

Many folks are not willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to replace the battery in their otherwise perfectly good car. This was evidenced recently by one Tesla owner blowing his car up CREATING MORE POLLUTION.

Prohibitive cost of battery replacement will mean EVs will go out of circulation a lot faster than ICEs will. Let's say 15 years, that means there will be two EVs going to scrapyard for every one ICE - emission is not the only problem here, waste is, pollution is as a whole and not just carbon emissions.

In reflection, so much hype has been afforded to a technology that is not perfect, is still polluting by your own account (albeit a little less) and is far too expensive and endangers the ecosystem in different ways, all to reduce the global emissions by 3.23% if every single ICE vehicle was replaced by an EV tomorrow?

Am I right?

Oh wait, there is more. From amongst 78 million cars manufactured in 2021, 1.2 million, or 1.54% were some sort of electric (EV, PHEV, etc). If this rate was to increase by 20% per annum on a compounding basis, it would take 24 years to cover 1.42 billion cars.

At USD$22.6Bn per nuclear power plant, taking between seven and 10 years each to build, it would take more than 5,000 years to build enough power plants to provide enough power to charge 1.42 billion EVs in the world.

If I have not lost or bored you to death, I'd like to make a bet with you - I will cover your next visit to Australia if you can prove to me that ICE is going to vanish from our roads any sooner than 40 or 50 years from now.

We are all reasonable folks in the company of reasonable folks. I am by no means PRO ICE or ANTI EV.

I am simply anti BS and the argument put forward by the EV industry is a whole lot of .... selective brainwashing (to be polite)

Naturally, I stand to be corrected

BTW, all information I have provided is available from credible and publicly accessible sources

[WickedBMW]

V8 engines will not produced within two years in Europe.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by nerdogray

God this board is so insufferable at times with all the climate change and EV virtue signaling...

When the topic at hand is the (near) future for engine development at BMW, what did you expect? The entire car development and manufacturing world is faced with this conundrum right now. Probably the most disruptive since its existance.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by chassis

EVs are cheaper for car companies to manufacture, and the car companies are begging governments to legislate in favor of EVs.

EVs are coming, but it is not because they are less polluting.

Indeed, EVs are much simpler since they can ditch the most expensive mechanical compounds of the car. Also the ones that conceive dominantly the hart and soul of a car, sadly enough.

Nevertheless, when the BEV becomes mainstream, the retail prices will get adjusted also. That's the commodity magnet that translates technology advancements into lower retail prices and this is a dominant law in economics.

Most car manufacturers are not asking for this, they feel obliged to go this direction. Doing this transition is no doubt a very difficult and expensive one. But more and more customers ask for it, mainly because of the lower TCO (tax deductability/running taxes).

In Europe, BMW and some other manufacturers are fighting against this transition and certainly the speed imposed.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by dezzracer

How about a completely different approach to this global warming issue.. For example focusing on a future global infrastructure where people simply do not have to drive at all to get to work. Planned communities where your home is located within walking or bicycling distance of where you work. Remember the satellite graphs of significantly reduced pollution over major metro areas during the height of Covid when nobody was going anywhere? The one good thing Covid taught us was many people can work from home efficiently. I think a lot of that will not go away and people will continue to work from home post Covid and companies will support it to some degree. Think of the billions of miles driven in any kind of car that could be saved. I realize this type of thinking is not the complete answer. Certainly it's going to take a combination of things to save us from ourselves.

Your vision is already part of the plan. The short chain, local economic chain is promoted again.

While until now, global wide chains were promoted by providing subsidies to (polluting) transportations by boats, airplanes and trains. So, we'll have local farmers and market places with local products again in the future.

Also home working got a super catalyst with covid now. It proved that we can evolve towards a more hybrid way of working and avoids most of the commuting during rush hours.

[chassis]

Originally Posted by LOW4LYF

Rivian, Lucid and Tesla are paying top $ for qualified candidates with amazing benefits.

The Automotive industry has more open position than ever.

However robots and computer will replace some position all around the world, you are right.

Quite right that the auto industry has more open positions than ever, fully agree. So does the rest of the US economy.

Automakers are drooling on themselves to reduce workers by the tens of thousands. This is not rocket science, it's business. And it has very little to do with robots.

[chassis]

Originally Posted by KoenG

Indeed, EVs are much simpler since they can ditch the most expensive mechanical compounds of the car. Also the ones that conceive dominantly the hart and soul of a car, sadly enough.

Nevertheless, when the BEV becomes mainstream, the retail prices will get adjusted also. That's the commodity magnet that translates technology advancements into lower retail prices and this is a dominant law in economics.

Most car manufacturers are not asking for this, they feel obliged to go this direction. Doing this transition is no doubt a very difficult and expensive one. But more and more customers ask for it, mainly because of the lower TCO (tax deductability/running taxes).

In Europe, BMW and some other manufacturers are fighting against this transition and certainly the speed imposed.

Don't be so sure that retail transaction prices will decline for EVs, although they are less costly to manufacture than ICEs. Automakers today have a share of consumers' wallets they don't want to give up, for 4 tires and a steering wheel. A vehicle is a commodity, an appliance. Like a toaster.

Did Tesla enter the market with a lower price for an apples-to-apples equivalent transportation solution compared with ICE? They entered the market with a higher price for an equivalent transportation solution.

In 2030 the expectation is that 30% of global new vehicles built will be EV. This means 70% will have an ICE of some type. This means EVs and ICE will live in the same commercial marketplace together for a good long while.

When transportationally equivalent ICE and EV products are sitting in the same showroom, carmakers and dealers will resist lowering price for an EV, for what is essentially the same product delivering most of the same customer benefits as an ICE vehicle. For those who insist on an EV, carmakers and dealers will gladly charge the highest price the market will bear to those consumers. If the consumer balks at a high EV price, they always have the option to buy an ICE vehicle. But for consumers who cannot tolerate ICE, they need to pay the money for an EV.

This is a perfect trap for carmakers and dealers.

Profit margin on the ICE will remain essentially what it is today, with profit margin on the EV substantially higher because it is produced with tens of thousands fewer workers.

KoenG Will you please share your view of price and profit as it relates to ICE, hybrid and EVs? Thanks.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

OK

First and foremost, may I clarify, my comments previously, and my reply to your comments now, are not intended as a personal attack on you or anyone, I am stating my understanding of the world around me.

In response to your comments:

1) in reality only 60% of the US power generation is carbon based. The remaining 40% are equally split between nuclear and renewables.

How do you then explain the fact that every year wind takes over ~1% of total US power generation capacity, and solar takes over another .3%, all at the expense of traditional sources, because total consumption has remained constant since 2005?

I love you guys, but please, America is not the world. I live in South Australia where almost 70% of our entire energy supply comes from renewables and yet Australia has one of the worst emission track records in the world.

Why, I hear some ask! Well, with a land mass around 84% of continental USA and only 8% of your population, 55% of our land, and 25% of our water is used to produce some 50 million heads of cattle, sheep, goat, and other livestock much of which end up on dinner tables around the world.

This brings me to the next point. At 1% PA increase in wind and 0.3% increase in solar generated power, you will have your entire energy production from renewables in, let me work it out, say around 90 years. It is therefore immaterial how much they increased by, or carbon-based energy decreased by. We are talking about EVs NOW.

Oh, and, when you present figures, please keep in mind, not every country have a nuclear power plant. In fact, only 32 countries from amongst 195 (16.4%) produce some of their energy requirements from nuclear power plants. Besides, at an average cost of USD$22.6Bn and taking up to ten years to build, the possibility of any more of them going up anytime soon is pretty marginal.

Also, keep in mind, most countries, even if they had the desire and the money to build nuclear power plants, would not do so because of many reasons such as constitutional restrictions, or the obvious dangers, or timeframes associated with construction. To top that, decommissioning a nuclear power plant is an absolute nightmare which sometimes can take even longer than what it takes to build one.

Many of your own nuclear plants are past their use-by date but aren't being decommissioned.

Then we come to the stats you presented regarding EV Vs ICE - Let's then try to address that elephant in the room.


2) most EVs require less energy to move them than comparable ICE vehicles, and you get, at worst, 1/4 of CO2 emissions per mile for EV vs ICE.

Some facts which might surprise you,

Total cars in the world 1.42 billion
Total commercial planes in the world 25,368 (rising to 35,000 by 2030)

Global pollution by sector and across all fields:
Cars 3.23% across all fields
15% in transport sector

Planes 2.5% across all fields
11.6% in transport sector

This means, for every tonne of emission 25,368 planes produce, 1,420,000,000 ICE engines produce 1.29t.

Interestingly, by 2030, air travel will account for 16% of transport related pollution which will exceed all ICE engines on the planet combined.

I may be out of my depth here, but I don't think Boeing will be delivering any Electric 787 Dreamliners anytime soon.

One thing that would not be a surprise, is the exorbitant cost of replacing or refurbishing a battery when compared to an ICE. By extension, an average ICE vehicle will last 30+ years if maintained well.

Many folks are not willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to replace the battery in their otherwise perfectly good car. This was evidenced recently by one Tesla owner blowing his car up CREATING MORE POLLUTION.

Prohibitive cost of battery replacement will mean EVs will go out of circulation a lot faster than ICEs will. Let's say 15 years, that means there will be two EVs going to scrapyard for every one ICE - emission is not the only problem here, waste is, pollution is as a whole and not just carbon emissions.

In reflection, so much hype has been afforded to a technology that is not perfect, is still polluting by your own account (albeit a little less) and is far too expensive and endangers the ecosystem in different ways, all to reduce the global emissions by 3.23% if every single ICE vehicle was replaced by an EV tomorrow?

Am I right?

Oh wait, there is more. From amongst 78 million cars manufactured in 2021, 1.2 million, or 1.54% were some sort of electric (EV, PHEV, etc). If this rate was to increase by 20% per annum on a compounding basis, it would take 24 years to cover 1.42 billion cars.

At USD$22.6Bn per nuclear power plant, taking between seven and 10 years each to build, it would take more than 5,000 years to build enough power plants to provide enough power to charge 1.42 billion EVs in the world.

If I have not lost or bored you to death, I'd like to make a bet with you - I will cover your next visit to Australia if you can prove to me that ICE is going to vanish from our roads any sooner than 40 or 50 years from now.

We are all reasonable folks in the company of reasonable folks. I am by no means PRO ICE or ANTI EV.

I am simply anti BS and the argument put forward by the EV industry is a whole lot of .... selective brainwashing (to be polite)

Naturally, I stand to be corrected

BTW, all information I have provided is available from credible and publicly accessible sources

I don't know whether it's up to us to draw conclusions. In Europe, the dice has been casted and it's over and out for ICE, full stop.

Wrt the electricity supply, they claim there is sufficient electricity the coming years to support this transition.

[M5Rick]

Electricity price here now is out of control and the gov's push for EV's is going to stall, nobody I know wants these things. The ban on new gas and diesel vehicles from 2030 (originally 2040) here wasn't in the gov. manifesto and the PM brought it in out of the blue when he got into power under pressure from his greenie wife.
I'm in a motorists action group fighting all the lies being spread to the gov. about pollution due to vehicles from greenie sponsored 'analysts'.

[LOW4LYF]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Electricity price here now is out of control and the gov's push for EV's is going to stall, nobody I know wants these things. The ban on new gas and diesel vehicles from 2030 (originally 2040) here wasn't in the gov. manifesto and the PM brought it in out of the blue when he got into power under pressure from his greenie wife.
I'm in a motorists action group fighting all the lies being spread to the gov. about pollution due to vehicles from greenie sponsored 'analysts'.

I have a F85 XM5 and G30 PHEV 530e.

Once the G05 PHEV LCI is released I will trade the F85 in but also get the I4 M50 for the 530e.

The 530e is cutting the commute time from over 1h to 30 minutes. Solar at home at free charging at work, what else could I ask for?