GM’s new V-8 workhorses are vital to the EV transformation
This article first appeared in Hagerty Drivers Club magazine. Click here to subscribe and join the club.
You probably know the cautionary tale of Eastman Kodak, the photography giant that failed to embrace the transformation to digital and thus declined into bankruptcy. You might not be aware that the tale is mostly untrue.
“In fact, Kodak invested billions to develop a range of digital cameras,” recounted a 2016 article in Harvard Business Review, which noted that Kodak also bought an online photosharing platform “before Mark Zuckerberg wrote a line of Facebook’s code.” An argument can even be made that Kodak overinvested in digital—a new field it scarcely understood—rather than try harder to sustain the highly profitable photo chemistry business it had spent a century perfecting. Perhaps the lesson is simply that it’s impossible to predict the future, no matter how much you spend trying.
That lens, properly focused, is useful for examining General Motors’ announcement earlier this year that it will invest nearly $1 billion to retool several factories for a new generation of small-block V-8 engines. The announcement, which contained no details about the engines themselves or their timing, was immediately distilled into politically charged narratives. For those in the Who Killed the Electric Car? corner, it was evidence that nefarious Detroit intends to do business as usual. For those at the other extreme, it has been greeted as tacit admission from “Government Motors” that the top-down push toward electrification is doomed to fail with real consumers.
Certainly, there’s wiggle room in GM’s oft-repeated climate pledge, that it “aspires to eliminate tailpipe emissions from new light-duty vehicles by 2035.” Aspiring doesn’t necessarily mean achieving, and the transition away from internal-combustion vehicles will be an extremely complicated issue for established car companies.
There are technical reasons to keep the V-8s fresh. In the short term, it’s towing. The electric Chevrolet Silverado EV can pull an impressive 10,000 pounds, but that eats into its advertised 400-mile range. Those who regularly tow long distances—everyone from your landscaper to retirees pulling Airstreams—will be buying fuel-burning trucks until battery technology and charging infrastructure greatly improve.
An investment in V-8s is also a hedge against uncertainty about the long term. The next decade will likely belong to EVs, but beyond that, who knows? “In the distant future, you might find things like hydrogen becoming available and fueling an internal-combustion engine,” said K. Venkatesh Prasad, senior vice president of research and chief innovation officer at the Center for Automotive Research.
The biggest reason to update a V-8, though, is a counterintuitive one: GM needs V-8s in order to build EVs. Battery electric vehicles accounted for only 5.6 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States last year. Developing EVs that will appeal to the remaining 94.4 percent will require massive investment. GM says it’s spending $10 billion a year on capital investments, “the majority focused on our EV portfolio.”
Electric vehicle startups have turned to the markets to raise the necessary R&D money, as have some established automakers—VW took its Porsche subsidiary public last year, raking in $72 billion. However, the Wall Street route has been largely a dead end for Detroit; Tesla, even after a bruising year for its stock, still has a market capitalization some 15 times that of GM. “Tesla gets lots of cash coming from investors. As an incumbent, you don’t have that,” said Prasad. “So, you create that cash flow using the goose that lays the golden eggs.”
The goose for GM is full-size trucks. Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC collectively sold more than a million of them in the United States in 2022. Some 60 percent of those were equipped with small-block V-8s, an engine family GM has perfected over the course of seven decades, five generations, and more than 100 million units. The relatively small investment in a sixth generation is a gambit to keep the goose fed. The Catch-22—the same kind that ultimately bankrupted Kodak—is that eventual success for the EVs will come at the expense of those V-8 trucks. “That goose is going to get smaller and smaller,” predicted Prasad.
In the meantime, there’s a delicious and instructive irony in the fact that buyers of V-8 trucks and buyers of EVs will, for the foreseeable future, need each other. Maybe we can get along, after all. Let’s also not ignore the obvious good news for enthusiasts: One of the greatest engines ever will live to rumble for another day. Mama isn’t taking our Kodachrome away just yet.
***
Check out the Hagerty Media homepage so you don’t miss a single story, or better yet, bookmark it. To get our best stories delivered right to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletters.
Here is what is going on. GM and most other automakers are having EV models forced on them in a time line that is not only difficult to meet technology wise but also money wise.
The UAW like to spout about the profits but most of that money is going back into EV development to cut cost and add range.
Those profits are from trucks and SUV models that most American love and want. So these new engines will power these and a C9 Corvette.
Now if the government does not change the time line these engines will also continue to live on in larger heavier Trucks not forced to go electric yet.
GM is playing a duel game here. While they do not market it they are planning to keep ICE models as long as possible, That is why there is a ICE Blazer and EV Blazer. Same with the Equinox being ICE and EV.
These models will lose the V6 and see mostly 4 and 3 cylinder engines to meet the stricter emissions. The new V8 will also be built to meet the stricter emissions too.
Chrysler is killing the Hemi now and Ford is mostly done with the V8 so GM will hold an advantage here. One of the best engines ever built is the LS3 V8 and if they can take this and improve it that will be a great engine.
So far GM has navigated some tricky paths with EV and so far they are doing better than most. The economy of the last 3.5 years has not helped but they have no choice but to move on.
Ford has a more difficult path as their EV program was mostly props. The lightning and Mach E were not based on their future models. They were to buy time while they come up with the money to finish what they need. They laid off 8,000 people including engineers to fund their EV program and it has hurt in quality control.
You now add in the strike and it will make this an even greater challenge. But that is a topic for another story. I have my own thoughts on that and none look good right now for the workers.
When has the government ever done anything quickly? I assume you’re talking about the government because the only other entity that would be “forcing” GM to move quickly would be the marketplace. The timelines for CAFE and such are easily achievable. Those of us who work in technology know that setting lax goals just creates longer timelines. You have to stretch goals and push timelines to be productive. Achievable but not easy. That’s what is set here. Automakers have for decades said they couldn’t meet the lofty goals set for emissions and CAFE, yet when push comes to shove and it’s a choice between selling a vehicle or not, they have managed.
In this industry, you can’t think backward if you plan to be around forever. There is no reason to keep a V8 just for the sake of a V8. If a V8 earns its place, it will live on in the applications where it makes sense. Ford still uses V8s where there is a market for them, but they have long since proven that the market is willing to accept a smaller engine with forced induction. Other than the Mustang, its V8 sales are mostly from old-school holdouts. Like film-based photography, that pool is shrinking with every *dying* day.
Also, the Mach E was a ground-up EV design. It *is* a future model. The Lightning was based on the F150 platform, and as such, was a wise move to introduce an EV truck to its biggest customer base without alienating anyone, while also getting the product to market sooner with reduced costs. It was a wise move, given the uncertainties of the market, supply chain limitations, etc.
As the article states, it’s a smart play by GM, knowing that they have a V8 customer base and it’s going to take quite a while before there is a substantial shift to EVs. There’s enough time for a couple of generational improvements to keep its V8 competitive.
Tim you lost credibility with the MACH e comment.
Ford them selves admit that nothing from their two present EV models will carry over to their platform they are working on. In fact one of their engineers admitted that they made some serious mistakes.
Ford then went to lay off 8,000 workers to fund a platform EV that is much like the GM one that is their future.
As for now thecEV models are still not where they need to be. They are still over priced compared to ICE and there is no certainty they will be in 10 years.
GM and others are spending billions on this and do not want to stretch this unless they have to.
The fact is the V8 has been paying the bills in the trucks for decades. Much of Fords money issues are they went yo more expensive turbo engines and aluminum bodies that cost more hurting truck profits. Add that to their major debts it explains the $11 a share.
Yes you want to motivate mfgs but not at the expense of the American consumers budget and saddle them with a car they hate.
I personally hold no grudge on EV models. But they should not be forced on people while inferior to the ICE models that they will replace.
The CAFE is barely being met and many of these small turbo engines have sent cost higher and higher. The Average American no longer buy a new car.
Regardless they all need to work together. Stop letting ex bar tenders from NYC telling automakers what is and what is not possible.
Much of this is to disable our economic base too. Are us more open to global government ties. A strong American economy prevents us for joining those who want global regulations.
AMEN
Amen hyperv6!
The government needs to stop being big brother and stop telling us what we need and what we’re going to drive!
Absolutely! We need to have ex GED failures take all of them out for a theatre visit.
I just love trying to enjoy the old car hobby with people who feel the need to inject garbage into every conversation.
HyperV6: Your comments are those of someone who does not own an EV. I agree the government should not be involved with trying to push the market for cars one way or the other and I also believe the whole ‘climate change’ issue is a scandal waiting to be exposed. But I also own an EV. It is not inferior to an ICE car, in many ways it is superior. But it is different and you can’t use ICE paradigms to compare them. I recently drove from the midwest to California in my Tesla Model Y, and had no issues with charging on the way. My average stop was around 20 minutes – just enough time to use facilities and get a drink and snack before hitting the road. That compares well with filling a car with gas, then pulling off to the side to use the facilities and get sustenance. At home I treat the car like a cell phone, when it needs charging, I plug it in before bed and it’s ready in the morning. In cold weather, I leave it plugged in and tell the car to precondition before I leave. This takes care of cold weather power drain. In all, an EV can work as well as an ICE, just different. By the way, the 4500 mile trip cost me $378 in ‘fueling’ at Tesla superchargers.
Outstanding overview – Thank You! My thinking exactly, but it would have taken me 3 pages and 3 hours to get it across
I will dispute that fact. First have you heard any pushback by any auto manufacturer about going EV??
I had worked at a GM engine plant for over 10 years. It is stupid expensive to install a new engine line. I am guessing now probably about a billion dollars per engine line.
Building ICE engines is extremely labor intensive and tooling costs are great also. Now, compare this to an EV. You buy an electric motor from some Chinese manufacturer for cheap. No tooling cost no labor cost.
Batteries are purchased from another Chinese source and also power management.
Millions of dollars of infrastructure savings along with labor.
Or you make your own motors again for less money.
Now the government is supplying the big 3 with money to change over to EVs. Manufacturers would be stupid not to. It’s a double win for their bottom line!
Now lets realistically look at EVs. They actually produce more CO2 per mile than an ICE equivilant.
Over 80% of electricity is nonrenewable. This is not going to change any time soon. Most of the nonrenewable electricity is made using fossil fuel.
So, we are burning fossil fuel to heat water (30% efficient at most) then the steam pressure spins a turbine (40% efficient), then the turbine spins a generator (90% efficient), the generator sends the power out over the grid (90% efficient) the power is then transformed to a medium voltage which can be distributed locally (90% efficient), then the power is transformed again at your neighborhood (90% efficient), now the power has entered your home and goes through the charger (90% efficient), then the DC voltage from the charger is changed to chemical energy in the EV batteries (90 % efficient), now driving the car the chemical energy from the batteries is then converted back to electricity (90% efficient), That electricity needs to be modulated to run the electric motor(s) in the car (90 % efficient), finally the motor converts the electricity to motion (90 % efficient). Comparing to an ICE vehicle which is 30% efficient as a whole. EVs are not very efficient in reality.
Now take into account that a Tesla model 3 weighs about as much as a 3/4 ton pickup truck fully loaded. The efficiency goes further in the toilet.
The whole reason the government is pushing EVs is that they want to appear to care about the environment.
WE ARE ALL BEING GREENWASHED!!
Spark they are not going to bad mouth whst they are going to be forced to sell.
But if you look they do want more time to develop this tech to make it better and more afgordable for the buyers and even the mfgs.
There are so many people that really have no clue of the struggles going on.
Most mfgs can’t make this change on their own. That is why Honda is having GM guild some of their first EV models for them. GM is doing it yo defray costs.
This diatribe made my head hurt!
So you compare the full energy cycle of an EV to just the efficient of an ICE.
So in your analysis:
Drilling for oil – 100% efficient
Extracting oil – 100% efficient
Transporting crude halfway around the world – 100% efficient
Refining oil into gas – 100% efficient
Transporting gas to local depots – 100% efficient
Transporting gas from depot to gas station – 100% efficient
The irrational “religion” around hating EV’s is quite amusing.
All of the fossil fuel inefficiencies go for the EV also, as they run mostly on fossil fuel!
This Right Here! Hybrid is the answer! Not perfect but available now with better efficiency while we as society continue to develop, test and improve environmental standards.
Come on, cars are low hanging fruit for the politicians. Let’s actually go after the mega polluters, but wait we can do that as it will mess with our individual’s st9ck portfolio and net individual wealth 🫣
Sorry “can’t” that should read
Hybrid or natural gas at the moment until some better technology comes around.
While taking into account the entire energy cycle for an EV you seem to have ignored for the ICE:
Drilling for oil efficiency
Extracting oil efficiency
Transporting oil halfway around the world efficiency
Refining oil efficiency
Transporting gas to local depot efficiency
Transporting gas from depot to station efficiency.
I guess if you just ignore all that an ICE looks really good. This seems to be all the rage, making stuff up up to try to make EV’s look bad.
I have no issue with EVs as they have been around since the late 19th Century. They were simply another choice available to consumers. They were never marketed as a savior to planet Earth.
What’s happening now with EVs is a political agenda.
Remember Anthropogenic Global Warming, Acid Rain,
Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
Global Cooling, CO2 as a greenhouse gas, just to name a few.
One crisis after another, the endless list of crimes against the planet for which we are all guilty and must therefore alter our lifestyles or else suffer the imposition of erroneous regulations and taxes heaped upon us all by a government who’s only interest is the acquisition of money and power. They couldn’t care less about the planet and they don’t want debate, they demand obedience. That is what the automobile industry is dealing with.
V8s will remain in HD pickups for quite a while. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have all invested in ICE engines. V8s may disappear from light duty trucks and cars, but there is no dispute – look at investments, HD trucks will be keeping V8s well past 2030.
EV battery tech isn’t there and the recharge time with a large battery pack, which subsequently impacts payload, is excessively long for a commercial customer. And this is why the niche EV commercial vehicles are around, but not dominating the market.
Small turbo ICEs that aren’t paired to a hybrid system are a longevity paradox. Fords EcoBoost engines are a pretty good beta test for this. I hope GM did a better job, but that 3cyl turbo in the Trax makes me wonder.
I can’t even see on the horizon when V8s won’t be in HD pickups. The towing and range would require far more energy than battery technology allows. There’s been opportunity for some time for those V8s to run on alternative fuels, but even those haven’t been successful in the market. Refueling infrastructure and energy density are two significant areas where alternatives lack competitiveness. And that goes without mentioning the higher price of the engine/powerplant at purchase time.
It will remain as long as needed as there are no viable alternatives yet.
The big three lose lots of money on every EV they sell. While Tesla makes a good profit on every one they sell. Try to go buy an EV from Chevy, they don’t have any or the few they have are marked up. Tesla has plenty at the regular price. Sorry the big three are at least a decade behind and won’t catch up.
No matter how hard someone tries to sell me on the all electric wave of the future for autos and trucks i will refuse to believe that this makes any kind of sense. I have no issue with hybrid type vehicles which do make perfect sense. I don’t know how many years i have left in this world and i don’t wish to waste what time i do have left setting at a electric vehicle charger for 45 or so minutes so i can drive another 200 miles and do it all over again and again and again.
In that scenario, EVs don’t make sense. But for many, their daily mileage allows EV recharging at home (and sometimes work) so there’s effectively no time spent recharging, which is even better than making trips to a gas station. For most multi-car families, having one EV would probably make a lot of sense, as long as the total cost of ownership can be made favorable within a reasonable amount of time.
If you live in CA, where the energy prices are the highest in the nation, with progressive tiers of usage. You will question the need to buy an EV. The costs of the electrical upgrades are steep. If, you live in an apartment or high-rise building, where are you going to get the plug-in access? Besides, CA had to do a last-minute rescue of killing our last nuclear plant. We haven’t enough power now, how are we going to do it in 2035? Maybe 7-11 and ARCO are figuring this out because they seem to be popping up new gas stations and stop and robs at every vacant corner.
No EV’s for me either. Fire is a great hazard, and the mining of the minerals is harming the environment as well as some nations using children to mine the cobalt. A dire risk to their health! We never hear that from the government big shots that are buying Tesla stocks.
I’m currently in the midst of a month long, around the USA trip. Going to be about 8000-9000 miles by the time I get home. No chance of doing this is an electric vehicle. EV’s are fine for a commuter car, but not much else.
Finally, someone is making sense. EV is the perfect solution for daily commuters with a garage. That’s not everybody but it’s a lot of people. Solid state batteries will also speed up charge times and increase mileage. We just need to get our infrastructure built enough to handle it. The sun is free. Wind is free. Initial investment will be high and initial solutions will be lackluster. Remember the malaise era? We engineered our way out of that. Eventually
Tesla rakes in half a billion bucks a year by selling clean air credits to the manufacturers of ‘Dirty’ vehicles. Selling something they do not actually own.
Larry, thanks and amen
18 minutes charging our Kia, about how long it takes to stretch out the legs and back and a bathroom break.
How far does that 18 minutes get you?
You got that wrong. Those that prefer V8 engines DO NOT need the EV crowd. EVs are a financial drain on the automakers, because few people want them and they cost a lot to build. Automakers are being forced into this by the Government, who thinks that they can dictate the pace of technological development and force everyone to buy and use something they can’t afford, and that won’t work well for a lot of applications.
I am not against EVs per-se. I actually can see a fair segment of the market going to them in the next 10-15 years. However, I absolutely resent these things being forced onto the market by a top-down command-style government who couldn’t make a toilet that could flush a turd on the first try! If they were so Great, then the market would adopt them freely and willingly. The fact that they have to subsidize them, and try to do other things to force the cost of ICE upwards, tells you this isn’t going to be a good thing for consumers.
The auto/gasoline industry was *heavily* subsidized for decades. It’s ironic to make that argument against EVs today.
If you could explain what you mean by the auto industry being subsidized for decades I would appreciate it. Are you referring to certain bailouts that have happened recently, say the past 40 years? I thought the care companies had to pay the Federal Government back. Just need clarification.
I have heard this type of remark from those who see nothing wrong with all the subsidization of the ev industry and “green” energy supply.
So I would like the examples of this same subsidization of the “gasoline industry”. Otherwise I just consider the remark nonsense by a ev fanboy.
I have no bias against electric cars, and may indeed eventually buy one, but I do resent the heavy handed way they are being shoved down our throats by a group of bureaucrats who have neither the authority or justification to do so. No doubt, there is a profit incentive for themselves and their cronies, as usual, but I personally do not choose to contribute to it any time soon.
Exact echo of Uncle Doug’s comment. Agree 117%!
The United States Of America as far as I know doesn’t have a protective canopy to keep our clean air in and the pollutants from other countries out. I honestly bet none of the EV group rely on EV for their own personal use. If clean air is the actual goal lets use steam. No, never, you have to wait 3 or 4 minutes for the water to boil before driving off. I’ll wait 5 or 6 hours for my battery to recharge, no problem
Yessir.
Right on the money.
First of all, Climate Change is a load of crap. The damage to mother earth caused by mining for the minerals to manufacture EV’s far outstrips drilling for oil. The answer for future energy needs is simple, hydrogen. The earth is compromised with over 70% water which is easily converted to hydrogen. The ICE will live on long after the EV craze has bankrupted several automotive manufacturers..
You are right on the money. OH! That’s what it is all about, isn’t it?
“The answer for future energy needs is simple, hydrogen. The earth is compromised with over 70% water which is easily converted to hydrogen.”
I disagree. That makes about as much sense as saying “The answer for future energy needs is simple, electric. After all, electrons are the most abundant elementary particle”. Neither hydrogen nor electric are sources of energy; they are merely ways of storing energy.
While the process of converting water into hydrogen and oxygen may be simple, it takes energy. Lots of energy, typically electrical energy. Hydrogen may be a more dense way of storing the power than batteries and it may be quicker to re-fuel with hydrogen than to re-charge batteries. But hydrogen doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of where to get the energy that it stores any better than electric does.
Nuclear has been staring us in the face for 80 years, but no one want’s to see it.
Right on the money, no pun here, Nuclear is the path for electricity. The real, and I mean real base physics, is energy density. Gasoline/Diesel is so far ahead of batteries it’s not even close. Like most here not really against EV, but its only good for about 20% of the market ( if you ignore the environmental and safety disaster Lithium batteries pose).
Zero CO2 is ass backwards. 1,600 scientist, including Nobel prize winners have posted two points. First we need a positive CO2 environment for plant growth…they give off O2… and second the data of the climate fear mongers is so flawed it is dangerously useless. ICE emissions are so far below where they were even five years ago it’s amazing. ICE ICE baby!
I must agree, regardless of the “cost” to strip it out (lets put some money into that instead of all this renewable crap) the Good Lord runs the entire Universe on Hydrogen, any questions?
Hydrogen is 5-10 years away from implementation. That’s where it was in the ’70s and that’s where it will be 10-20 years from now. It takes more energy to separate “easily converted” hydrogen from water than what the hydrogen stores, even if 100% efficiency were somehow possible, which it isn’t.
You are 100% right Pat but there’s no money in that narrative. You can look up videos on YouTube of how to make a cheap hydrogen generator out of hardware store junk. BMW had a car running on water in the 90’s Where’d that go ? And Porsche recently teamed up with some South American research company making E fuel for $40 a gallon that is gasoline made from carbon scrubbed from the atmosphere.
Don’t know the author of the article or his capacity w/ the magazine, but it appears clear all but a few lucid members of the automobile enthusiast media are EV advocates. It seems you all jumped on that de rigueur bandwagon and genuflect until your knees are sore. Perhaps you think we are running out of petroleum which is a documented false claim. (How do you think electricity is created?). Maybe you believe petroleum pollutes the environment. In terms of sheer pollution please discuss the mining process for battery components and dead battery disposal. It would make for enlightened reading. Let’s look at all the facts.
EVs in their current form are not close to a gas powered vehicle in numerous practical measures. Will the EV evolve, surely with all the PUBLIC/our tax dollars and private funds (again tax supported) flowing into the coffers. But the science behind EV’s has not been perfected (unless you resurrect Nicola Tesla) and the infrastructure is woefully inadequate. Currently, no pun intended, this entire scenario is like watching a spin-off of the Biden family.
So you continue pushing the EV and the public will continue to buy the gasoline vehicles. Be sure you can locate those charging stations and they’re compatible with your EV. That multi-state travel is gonna take more time so you’ll need to pop for for hotel/food $ or sleep in your car. Good luck and drive safe.
I cannot understand this article. Lifetime GM ‘r. I tried to purchase a 2023 Chev/GMC short box or extended cab with a V8, told NOT AVAILABLE . So I had to order a Ford F150 XL short box, 2 dr, 2 WD, 400 HP Coyote, 10 speed auto ,3:31 diff. and then waited 7 months. After a supposed PDI I got 1 day out of it. The transmission howls , the diff whining on deceleration Has now been sitting in service for a month. Its obvious that the 8,000 personnel Ford laid off are having an effect. For sure a lemon, as it was a rush build in the last week of production before starting on 2024 s and a strike. Obvious GM needs to put the V8 in all their Silverado’s not just the monsters. As to EVs . Live in a city an excellent idea. Otherwise NOT.
Even Ford invested in a new “godzilla” 7.4L Pushrod engine in 2020 for their SD trucks and E-Series vans. The engine is reported to be more compact than the 5.0L Coyote and probably lighter too. We have some time before we have an EV tow an ICE vehicle for a distance, but an ICE vehicle could tow an EV 10 times further in a day.
Guess there isn’t a concern about those people making $1 a day mining the minerals needed to make these coal electric jokes. These EV’s are a government agenda driven farce.
EV’s are a bad idea. Full stop. I fear the inmates are now running the asylum. The climate nazis have taken over the agenda.
” the next decade will belong to EV,s? ” Um, 95% of the current ICE vehicle owners on the road today in the US will have to have their minds changed!
Lets face it, “WE” dont need EV people, they need US, intelligent realist who know political BS when we see or hear it. Long live the Small Block!
The part of this arguement I don’t party with is blaming the car users for the polution.
The major contributor to polution is not the automotive usage, not that I’m denying its contribution.
The real poluters in the US are coal and gas fired power stations, diesel powered trains, and the heavy duty haulage trucks.
Every now and again I hear some talking head state quite incorrectly that the auto users are the major contributor – utter trash !
But then it would be Politically inconvenient to go after the real contributors – the general public is a much more convenient target, right …….
Our elected representative need to push in a different direction and invest aggressively in the direction of renewable energy sources, sunset gas and coal fired power stations, electrify the train transport system, increase the rail capacity (to reduce the use of truck haulage), and push to reduce diesel consumption on heavy trucking by at least forcing them down the road of hybrid diesel engines.
And while we are about it, lets increase the investment in high speed rail – I would far rather travel that way than I would on an air flight.
Let’s stop blaming Joe Public when he / she isn’t the major contributor, and encourage our elected representatives to put the blame on the real big contributors !
Good comments on pollution.
You have a lot to learn about diesels and also the causes of pollution. you can run your finger on the inside of the tailpipe on my diesel Audi and it will come out clean. try that on any gas car and you will have a black finger.
I get passed by people doing 20 over the speed limit all the time just so they can sit at the next redlight and waste more gas. Your vehicle is getting 0mpg at a red light and there is also the extra gas and pollution caused by accelerating back up to speed when the light turns green. I remember going through a town in Texas back in the 80s that had the traffic lights timed so that if you drove the speed limit you would hit all the lights green. If all the cities with pollution problems would do this, how much would everyones gas mileage increase and pollution reduced?
Our lame government lawmakers who are forcing EVs down our throats are as much at fault for our pollution as anyone since there are many ways they could reduce pollution other than digging huge open pit mines to get lithium to make batteries that will eventually pollute the planet more when they are no longer usable. The people running our country have no common sense, and couldn’t fix a baby buggy let alone fix our country’s problems.