In 22+ months entire NA Jeep lineup will be electrified [corrected title]

[Shark01]

2025? I just hope they build my 392 by then.

You and me both, I’ve ordered my last Jeep then….same thing I told the Lamborghini sales guy when he told me 2023 was the last pure engine only year.

Sponsored

 

[Shark01]

I know that there’s a large group of people who are anti-electric car, but I disagree that they “suck”. Not liking them is one thing, but it’s pretty clear that this is the way of the future and that the technology works. I also see no reason why they’d ever get rid of the cash cow that is the Wrangler.

The technology might (might) work in theory, but our electrical power infrastructure will not support the large percentages automakers are told to produce.

The original concept of a low percentage urban runabout was fine and made sense.

Has anyone noticed how nearly every car commercial is about them? Something tells me that people are seeing through the smoke and pushing back.

 

[Ron93YJ]

The technology might (might) work in theory, but our electrical power infrastructure will not support the large percentages automakers are told to produce.

The original concept of a low percentage urban runabout was fine and made sense.

Has anyone noticed how nearly every car commercial is about them? Something tells me that people are seeing through the smoke and pushing back.

Why do you say MIGHT work? There are a couple million EVs on the road in the US alone. The infrastructure absolutely needs to catch up still. But this stuff isn’t happening overnight.

 

[Heimkehr]

Has anyone noticed how nearly every car commercial is about them?
Something tells me that people are seeing through the smoke and pushing back.

That's all true on several fronts.

 

[Ratbert]

I only read titles and then respond. All that I’ll assume is every Jeep will be fully electric in 22 months. ICE will not be offered at all.

You respond without knowing any details other than what a (possibly click-bait) title states? That's an "interesting" approach.

 

[Ratbert]

Well, many people haven’t, think
About it.

The world ended on a predetermined specific date and I missed it??? Damn, I hate when that happens.

 

[Jeepznthingz]

The world ended on a predetermined specific date and I missed it??? Damn, I hate when that happens.

No, but on any day to some people their world does end. They die.

 

[Kaliks&Bones]

I’m not sure how you define success. Electric vehicles seem to be selling pretty well and the infrastructure for charging is growing. The bigger carbon footprint argument is a myth. I’m not going down that rabbit hole. Not trying to argue, but there’s a difference between not thinking something is a good fit for an individual versus trying to generalize that it’s a lost cause.

Is the goal of pushing electric vehicles to sell a lot of units or to have a measurable impact on the environment?

If it’s to sell as many units as possible then you are correct, they’ve been successful but if the goal is to have a measurable impact on the environment there are independent researchers who have studied the carbon footprint of EVs vs ICE and it takes 5-7 yrs before the graphs flip to an EV having measurably better impact.

I know everyone on here plans to keep every vehicle for 10+ yrs and 100s of thousands of miles but most people cycle through cars more frequently.

Buy what you want but it’s not as cut and dry as Mayor Pete and little Greta tell you and even if it is slightly better for the environment try watching one video of the cobalt mines in Africa and see how you feel.

 

[Ron93YJ]

Is the goal of pushing electric vehicles to sell a lot of units or to have a measurable impact on the environment?

If it’s to sell as many units as possible then you are correct, they’ve been successful but if the goal is to have a measurable impact on the environment there are independent researchers who have studied the carbon footprint of EVs vs ICE and it takes 5-7 yrs before the graphs flip to an EV having measurably better impact.

I know everyone on here plans to keep every vehicle for 10+ yrs and 100s of thousands of miles but most people cycle through cars more frequently.

Buy what you want but it’s not as cut and dry as Mayor Pete and little Greta tell you and even if it is slightly better for the environment try watching one video of the cobalt mines in Africa and see how you feel.

I was asking about how he was determining success. I’m not sure on the accuracy of your figures, but even after people have decided to move on from a vehicle, it’s likely going to be purchased and used by someone else rather than be sent to the scrap yard.

EVs take their toll on the environment for sure, but they’re less harmful. How I feel when watching a mining video is irrelevant and not useful when it comes to looking at the data. I’d argue you’d “feel” a certain way about videos of the environmental harm greenhouses gasses have caused too, but I suspect I’d be called out for using “fake science” based on your responses.

If I could justify it, I’d have a 392 in my driveway right now. I’m not anti-ICE at all, but it seems some people are stuck in the mud with this stuff.

 

[Shark01]

Why do you say MIGHT work? There are a couple million EVs on the road in the US alone. The infrastructure absolutely needs to catch up still. But this stuff isn’t happening overnight.

When you have millions of cars completing multiple battery swaps with safe disposal get back to me.

 

[cripton805]

I wonder what they will do with the Gladiator. The 2.0t and electric motor probably won't do any good for towing. It wouldn't really make sense. On the Wrangler, it's rated for 3500? I actually prefer the 2.0t and would be great in a Gladiator if they can keep it cool and it won't destroy the electric motor.

 

[Ron93YJ]

When you have millions of cars completing multiple battery swaps with safe disposal get back to me.

That’s a fair point. More needs to be done with recycling mandates. Other countries are already addressing this.

 

[Ratbert]

No, but on any day to some people their world does end. They die.

Following that logic every prediction of the world ending on a specific date gets proven to be correct. Ditto for the Sun, the Universe, etc.

To be clear: those things haven't ended on the predicted date. They merely cease to be perceived by those people that have died.

 

[gato]

By 2025 really means model-year 2026.

By "electrified" they mean there will be at least a mild hybrid offering - which is no big deal as ZF sells a version of the 8-speed with a built in mild hybrid motor behind the torque converter, typically paired with a tiny 1-2KWh battery. (heck Jeep probably consider the BSG/e-torque electrification)

Talk about a no news statement picked up as a major headline.

 

[DaveNH]

EVs take their toll on the environment for sure, but they’re less harmful.

Are they?

Yeah, most studies say that EVs have less cradle to grave emissions. Putting aside that these mostly deal with emissions and not total environmental impact, the problem is that those studies mostly deal with first order factors directly related to the production and fueling/charging of the vehicle.

They don't consider the cumulative effects way down the line. One of the arguments that EV proponents make is the minimal maintenance relative to ICE. But here's one area in which EVs will certainly consume more over their service life: Tires.

As EVs are significantly heavier, tires will wear faster and need to be replaced more often. Let's assume that the entire US fleet of the estimated 280-290 million vehicles went electric. If they needed just one additional set of tires during their service life, that's over 1 billion more tires that need to be produced. Every 12 years (current avg vehicle age in the US).

The studies don't account for this. For example, the Alternative Fuels Data Center estimates that EVs have about 22% of the annual emissions of an ICE vehicle. What are they considering?

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

Cradle-to-grave emissions include all emissions considered on a well-to-wheel basis as well as vehicle-cycle emissions associated with vehicle and battery manufacturing, recycling, and disposal.

Other than fuel, there's nothing in regards to consumables.

Speaking of the EV weight, what about their effect on the roads? Heavier vehicles will put more wear and tear on the roads.

Take the F-150, which has the largest share of vehicles on the road (well, F series overall). A Supercrew with the 2.7 has a curb weight of about 4800#. The Lightning has a curb weight between 6000#-6500#, depending on the battery size.

F*rdAuth*rity claimed in March '22 that the F-150 had a 3.7% market share of vehicles in operation. In a fleet of 285 million, that's about 10.5 million. Let's assume half of those go electric. If the average Lightning weights 1500# more than a comparable ICE, that's almost an extra 8 billion pounds, rolling down US roads for 71 billion miles per year (13500 avg). Just for the F-150.

How do you calculate the effect of having to pave more frequently? There's the additional asphalt that must be produced. The trucks and equipment to do the work. The additional maintenance and consumables associated with those vehicles.

Further, until there widespread adoption of EVs (ie a majority of the fleet), they generally don't replace ICE vehicles. They supplement. Even with the increase in EV sales the past few years, they are still largely toys for the relatively well off. They don't generally replace ICE vehicles.

So what's my point? It means that we have parallel supply lines and production facilities. All the heavy equipment, vehicles and consumables associated with it.

In a real market for EVs, instead of a subsidized and incentivized market, consumers would be choosing them over ICE. This would free up the resources that would otherwise go to produce ICE vehicles. This would eliminate the additional emissions associated with ICE. Instead, EV associated emissions are mostly generated on top of those from ICE, along with the increase in non emissions environmental damage from mining, drilling, etc.

There are many others factors down the line that aren't considered with respect to EVs and the environmental impact; too many to detail here. But perhaps the biggest is electrical generating capacity.

Proponents say that EVs work, but we just need the charging infrastructure. To the extent that they "work," it's because it is a niche segment. It's cheap and easy to charge at home, at night, because almost nobody does it. But what if they get what they want, and half or more of the fleet goes electric?

How much electricity would be needed to charge a fleet of 285 million vehicles?

The AFDC uses the estimate of 3 miles per kWh. Last year it was estimated the average annual vehicle miles traveled to be about 13500. That's 4500 kWh per vehicle, or 1282.5 billion kWh for the fleet.

The US Energy Information Administration put US net electricity generation at 4108 billion kWh for 2021.

So in order to charge the fleet, the US would have to generate 31% more electricity than we currently produce. That means more power plants. More resources. More drilling. More mining. More heavy equipment. More vehicles. More consumables. More direct emissions just to make the electricity.

It won't come from wind/solar. Most people don't realize that they don't replace conventional power plants, due to the issues of base load and their inconsistent nature. So they're often supplemented by gas plants. More solar panels and wind turbines still means more fossil fuel plants. Hydro is waning and in many cases being eliminated. We're losing nuclear capacity, never mind building new.

Any way you cut it, EVs are a massive environmental problem, even on their proponents terms.

Sponsored