Volvo announces no more gas-only cars, starting in 2019 when they will make only hybrid and electric-only cars.

Makes me all the more glad I bought our beloved M156 C63, one of the last of a dying breed.

Impact of this "no gas cars" trend:
1) our cars will become more rare and valuable
2) gas prices will continue to be flat
3) eventually there will be fewer gas stations which might impact 1) and 2)
4) eventually our cars will be sitting in a museum
5) the "dork to cool guys" ratio will continue to rise
6) we will be scorned by the "green" people
7) yet Al Gore will continue to be proven wrong
8) Tesla will continue to have larger market value than GM and others
9) the "pussification of America" continues unabated

Your thoughts?

Kris

 

Electricity still comes from coal fired power plants here... lol

 

Stupid tree hugging greenies, and their war on global warming. Biggest hoax in history.

 

^ agreed. Big echo chamber effect. It's the right direction but these people are taking it way too seriously.

 

Your title is misleading, they didn't announce no more internal combustion engines, they announced all cars will be electric on hybrid (so with an internal combustion engine and a battery pack)

 

volvo is a great brand

 

pussification of america is at all time high right now.

 

I think the whole world actually

 

So a couple of things flashed through my mind when I read the article.
Just what mysterious non-IC engine is involved in this statement?
"They (the electric cars) will be supplemented by a range of gasoline and diesel plug-in hybrid and 48-volt options on all models.".
It is also of interest to me that they consider China as the biggest demand for electric cars which is somewhat in keeping with opinions that China, in spite of its huge pollution issues has probably gone further than any G20 nation and has not pulled out of the Paris accord.
Also Li Shafu a Chinese billionaire owns Volvo. Ironic.
P.S. The head of engine development at MB stated recently that he could build a 600 cc turbo charged 3 cylinder which would beat any modern hybrid when it comes to scoring green without taking into account a cradle to the grave analysis of both.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201.../#more-1578369


--Kyle

 

I love my c63 and a lot of that is the noise it makes, but the power of an electric card is pretty additive (try a Tesla out if you have not).

As much as I would like to deny it, electric cars are the future and it will happen wether we like it or not, Once they sort the recharge time which will happen in the next 10 years or less, there are a lot of benefits, cheap running, low maintenance, overall cheaper to run and longer lasting in theory not to mention the benefits when it comes to being autonomous. It is true the pollution does just transfer upstream to manufacturing and electric production, but overall it will be less pollution as electricity sources become more green.

Don't get me wrong, they will probably have to pry my internal combustion engine out of my cold dead hands, but 1000 hp electric car can also be a hell of a lot of fun.

 

Yup but for every day driving in NA most of us have to go over 200 mi a day and there is no infrastructure at least at this time.
What puzzles me is Volva a few years back built buses with NG engines to run a continuously operating generator/alternator that would recharge the batteries as it ran. If MB can get 180 hp as their engine designer said he could ut of 600 cc and the engine could run on NG or Hydrogen that would resolve it. Part of this debate of course is that they compare only car to car. They have to start at the first atom converted to a part and all the energy and GHGs that go into it through manufacturing to end of life.
To your point re Tesla there is a show on Wheeler Dealers where they took an early 1990s Maserati Quatroporto and redid the conversion the orirginal owner did. They put 2 induction electric motors on a common shaft mated directly to the stock 4 speed and the thing flew - for 120 miles. The secret is the torque is right there when you jamb the pedal. There is no time to build up torque required.
I expect before they try the cold dead hand bit I will be past it thank god.

 

Is it now? I love how self appointed experts who have never studied the climate seem to know more than the experts who do this for a living. SMFH.

 

Fully agree. Well built cars.

 

Agreed. Climate change is real. Evidence of such is overwhelming.

However, as Merc63 implied, electric cars will do little to help until we change the way we produce our electricity. And electrical cars create their own issues around the production and disposal of their batteries.

Hybridization-if done right can be great for cars, even enthusiasts. The instant-on torque of an electric motor is lots of fun, and having the electric motor run instead of the ICE during light acceleration - where the ICE is least efficient can help efficiency.

I'm curious to see if the technology is at a turning point. Right now range limitations, charge time, and cost prevent them from being practical and cost effective for many in the absence of gov't rebates. I wonder if things will change quickly.

 

I wonder if they are making this announcement to offset the carbon footprint impact of the majority share acquisition of Seven Marine Engines.

Making the claim to progress forward to being a more eco-friedly car manufacturer while nearly simultaneously taking a majority stake in an outboard manufacturer known for making 600+ hp outboards that suck down gas at 60-100 gph seems to me like they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Volvo Automobiles and Volvo Penta are separate divisions, but still owned under the Volvo umbrella.

 

And owned by Lu Shafu, a Chinese billionaire.

 

So to add grist to the discussion, we were out for dinner locally and one of these passed on a cross street in Sidney and got my immediate attention.
What is that say I.
So here is a car that looks impressive, runs full time on electricity but is a hybrid. The engine runs after 50 miles to recharge the battery as it goes just as the buses Volvo developed to run in Stockholm a number of years ago.
Not quick as our cars but not shabby either.
Wicked styling in a 4 door car that look like anything but.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...r-karma-review
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/karma-...ectric-photos/

 

I'm not saying pollution is not a problem. Pollution is a big problem.
But, man mad carbon dioxide emissions being responsible for global warming is just not true.

I've done some research on this subject.

I came across this presentation by co-founder & past President of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore (at the following link) – a hard hitting rebuke from a man whose environmental credentials are beyond question – he was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was blown up and sunk by French commandos.

It is a well reasoned and researched talk by a man who knows his stuff and how to put his point across – I found it both entertaining and fascinating.


Dr. Patrick Moore’s Ph.D. is in Ecology – see his bio at the following Wikipedia link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick...onmentalist%29

Extract from the Wikipedia bio..…

In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. congress on the subject of Global Warming. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.” Moore continued, "The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes"..

 

Some more info

 

Some more info if you enjoy reading

 

What you have done is just re-focused the discussion and debate that has another pro global warming credentialed study for every anti. The issue is you just do not know who is right.
As they say, anyone is entitled to their wrong opinion.
When I was disgnosed with prostate cancer in 2012 there was. 5 week hiatus between the biospy results and my consultation with my urologist to plan my treatment. I did nothing for 5 weeks other than eat, sleep walk and research the 5 basic known treatment for PC at that time.
The things I found were interesting.
First there were a lot of papers written that used anecdotal evidence to sustain a position. There were no randomized clinical trials.
In many cases of RCTs, for instance on High Intensity Frequencey UltraSound the researchers in more cases than not were pretty adept at making the numbers fit their hypothisis rather than let the numbers speak for themselves.
The head of urology at a major teaching hospital in Ontario held the only license for this treatment in Canada yet he could not explain why 33% of his patients had to have secondary treatments and why about 8% saw no change in PSA yet this is a treatment in existence in Europe since 1992.
Of course you have to always ask who is paying for the research. Many researchers are not likely to bite the hand that feeds them and sustains their families and research.
So I am not saying the esteemed doctor is wrong. What I am saying is I can find at least one and probably many equally qualified PhDs who would argue the other side just as effectively.
But here is the thing.
What is causing this if not human activity?
I have been going to Barbados since 1980 and they are having to protect their coastlines from wave action, particularly in storms due to rising sea levels. There are island nations that are at risk for flooding due to higher sea levels.
My daughter is doing a camping run through the Bow River Valley in Alberta this week and sent a shot of Lake Louise.
What struck me immediately was the glacier at the head of the lake.
I looked up some pictures from 30 yr ago. In mid July the glacier came right down to the lake. People were climbing the face right beside the path along the lake side. Now the glacier is narrower, only covers part of the mountain and then only half way down.
Something is causing that too happen.
Something is causing artic ice to melt at faster rates.
If it ain't us then what or who>
Just sayin"

 

Electric cars are cool. Convenience of overnight fueling, tq of the gods... Etc.

But a Big problem is they do not make Econ sense due to the very low residual value after 2-3 yrs of ownership.

You are driving an iPod.... Which any thing that operates on a very fast tech curve will be outdated in 1-3 yrs..... And have very little resale value.

Also bettery limitations need to be worked out.

Who wants to own a vintage elec car? No one
Who wants to buy a 5 yr old tesla or leaf? No one

Are the e car tax incentives guaranteed to stay in place? Nope.

Is electricity generated from nat gas and coal? Yup

 

This guy may be an ecologist, but he's not a climate scientist. One should always be careful when 'experts' in one field comment on areas outside of their expertise.

The facts on climate change are this: ~98% of experiments conducted by experts in the field have demonstrated that 1)human activity is dumping carbon into the atmosphere at an increasing rate; 2) this is leading to higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere; 3) the increased levels of carbon are impacting the climate globally. Overall average temperatures are up. Ice levels are down.

While we certainly can't know for sure what will happen in the future, most computer models run by those same experts show that if this continues, some very significant and negative environmental impacts will result.