These kind of motivations need to be heavily vilified and taxed.
There's going to be along tail of ICE vehicles out there, though - say, I have a tractor on my farm (which is not being worked commercially, it is basically an expensive and time-consuming hobby seeing as my wife's family has tilled this plot of land since the dark ages. Literally.)
Anyway, even if diesel prices soar to $25/l (That's $100/gal for the metrically challenged), with our current usage, it will still be cheaper to buy diesel at that cost than to invest in a new, EV tractor. Hence I can't see that tractor going anywhere anytime soon.
If you really hate something, just propose an outright ban. It would work for Porsches; no one can secretly grow a Porsche in his backyard.
The only people I've met who are car enthusiasts and don't go for the reckless/loud style of driving are people like my friend - a car mechanic who managed to form a single, road worthy Nissan Z31 from two defunct halves.
Some people think the ICE car tax(es) already in place are not sufficient compared to the damage they cause. To reduce usage, both tax and public opinion (shaming, vilifying) works great.
It’s regrettable the efforts only focus on a car motors, the most dangerous property of a car is it’s weight (and emissions depends on that weight).
In other words, the grandparent poster's argument is merely that people shouldn't be basing decisions on their (flawed) emotional attachment to driving as an experience, and would like such to be shamed and vilified.
This is a moralistic argument. It has nothing to do with environmentalism, but is using climate change as a platform to push a personal agenda or world view. In other words, it's a woke argument.
The “smooth” revs. The “visceral” feel. The “connection” to the road. It’s just a few metal cylinders going up and down real fast, tuned to sound nice in a packaged product.
It’s like brainwashing. Impressive really. I like going to the track when I can, but that’s a bit different. The statement is the work you’ve put into your car, not how “exclusive” your statement is.
After driving a fast Tesla, stepping into an ICE performance car feels like going back to a steam engine. A very slow, unresponsive steam engine.
When avid petrolheads try a fast EV and feel the instant torque it will be an epiphany for them. Only the most stubborn will stick with fossil cars.
It all depends on what makes cars interesting to you, of course - but a lot of the car enthusiast clientele would merrily start tinkering with their pride and joy even if all is well, just because they can.
I haven't been cross shopping it with vehicles that cost 3x as much and get only 15% of the mileage, so maybe I'm missing something? But weighing 10% more and taking 20% longer to reach 60 doesn't seem particularly compelling.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but clearly we disagree. To each their own.
Vilifying a d taxing any luxury not only is a ludicrous position, it will only make inequality worse. Its not like the 0.1% will renoujce to it, and taxes don't matter to them.
(the catch: this instant is often one which you weren't expecting, and if you are lucky it will mostly have been applied along the craniocaudal axis)
One car being objectively faster than another does not mean that it is more fun.
And even if one vehicle is more fun in some total measure, it will not be fun in all the same ways as all other fun vehicles.
There are plenty of people who alternate between something like a modern Mercedes V8 and a classic Mini. There is no question of which one is faster, but it might be the slow one that gives the most joy of sporty driving
But being thrown back is not the fun part. The fun part is controlling the car around those bends on a mountain road.
Anyone can floor it in a straight line.
Top fuel dragsters accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 0.8 seconds.
I have tried fast EV and it's boring. I prefer my loud meth injected turbo diesel BMW (520 lb/ft at the wheels, pulls like a Tesla but is not boring to me)
Nope. Tesla Model S Plaid beats the 911 Turbo S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car...
Chances are there will be - or, at least, Porsche appears to bet there will be - a sufficient number of well-heeled enthusiasts who prefer the sound, smell and vibration of an ICE to the quiet performance of an electric motor.
I am really curious to see how this pans out in a generation or two - I suspect nostalgia plays a significant role in the 'performance cars should have ICEs' mindset, so what happens when the generation who grew up on EVs enter middle age and have the disposable income for a performance car?
As for the rest of us, if, say, 1 in 1000 cars in a couple of decades' time burns fossil fuels, it is hardly going to be a nuisance. I'd be more worried (If I owned an ICE-powered vehicle) about the infrastructure needed to get the fossil fuels I needed in the tank.
(Glancing anxiously over at my 1949 S1 Land Rover (1.6l I4 petrol) and 1981 Land Cruiser 42 (3.4l I4 diesel) - neither of which are performance cars by any stretch of the imagination! The 3B engine in the Land Cruiser will merrily chug along on just about anything vaguely combustible you pour in the tank, though.)