top of page

Our Headlong Rush to Electric Vehicles

by Brian Douglas

A quick glance at this article’s title might suggest to readers that the author doesn’t like electric vehicles. Allow me to set the record straight. I enjoy driving the new quick, quiet vehicles that do not emit products of combustion from fossil fuels. So what’s wrong with the state and federal governments quickly regulating us into EVs? I’ll let you decide whether this extreme timing makes sense after sharing a few facts.

 

A Short EV History

Electric vehicles seem relatively new to the automotive landscape, but they have been around since 1881 when Gustave Trouvé drove his rather odd battery-powered tricycle around Parisian streets. That led to batteries and an electric motor propelling those carriages around that had been pulled by horses. At the same time, other mechanically-skilled inventors were installing combustion engines and fuel tanks into similar carriages to put horses out of work.

 

The contest was short lived. Smoky, noisy gas engines won the vehicle propulsion battle over the EVs. Why? Some suggest that nefarious petroleum magnates like John D. Rockefeller may have put an oily thumb on the scale. He didn’t have to because energy density simply won hands down. The battery electrics just didn’t go very far before requiring a long recharge and we Yanks like to get around with as little fuss as possible.

 

It’s fair to assume that we’ve made some progress since the French guy was tinkering with electrical propulsion 142-years ago. And of course we have. We’ve dramatically improved storage batteries and electric motors. We’ve also developed state of art control systems with on-board computers and software to maximize efficiency for added range. But we can’t easily solve the physics of energy density.

 

Here’s an example of energy density between petroleum and stored electricity in very similar new vehicles. Hyundai’s Kona SUV has a range of 422-miles with 12.4-gallons of gasoline. It takes about five-minutes to refill the tank and the gas weighs about 74-pounds. The Kona Electric’s range is 258-miles from electricity stored in battery that weighs about 700-pounds. It takes about 9.5 hours to refill that battery with a 240-volt home charger or from most of the non-Tesla public chargers. The Kona, like most new EVs, can utilize a public “fast charger” that could reduce the refill time to about an hour if one is available and in working order. And while charging at home might save some money versus gasoline, buying electric refills on road trips often cost more per mile. And the Kona Electric retails for nearly $10,000 more than its gas sibling.

 

The Electric Vehicle Lifestyle

It’s relatively easy for elected officials and bureaucrats to make rules and regulations that have unintended consequences, especially when those same rule-makers don’t have to suffer the outcome. Those who are not driven to their office in a large, chauffeured SUV might actually own an EV. And if they’re like those of us who own a single-family home with an EV charger in the garage, electric transportation works well. In my upscale Silicon Valley neighborhood, half the population owned a Tesla. And every one of them also owned a petrol vehicle to take trips without worry or when the power grid was turned off.

 

For the sizable portion of the population who rent or who live in high-density housing, EV ownership is more challenging. Electric evangelists quickly assert that fast chargers will suffice, but that assumes accessibility and often the higher cost of the recharge. And the constant fast charge problem few talk about is the diminishing of battery capacity, a problem that’s hugely expensive to fix. About $100 will buy the 12-volt battery for most cars. The cost of an EV battery replacement ranges from $5,000 to $20,000 depending on its size.

 

A Reasonable Path

According to The Department of Transportation, most of us drive about 37-miles a day. So if you’re not a travelling salesman or have a hideous commute, you can wrap an EV and petrol car into one package with a plug-in hybrid model. I recently tested Mitsubishi’s Outlander PHEV, a seven-passenger SUV that travels 38-miles on electricity before starting the gas engine. Over the week’s use, I took a couple of short trips just to test both power sources. The result was a 91 MPG average for the week, pretty good for this big fella, and there are other plug-in hybrids that do just as well. Progress like this will get us to vehicle carbon reduction if we let market demand and common sense go to work.

EV Plug_edited.jpg

For some of us who’ve been around the automotive industry for more than a handful of decades, the term “muscle car” was popularized in the 1960s era of American automakers stuffing big V8 engines into coupes, sedans and a few convertibles. Fast forward to today’s market and, at least for the moment, the only former “Big Three” automaker stuffing snorting V8 engines into passenger cars is Ford. But this hardly means that petrol powered bragging rights are the sole province of the fellas in Dearborn, Michigan.

First a short history lesson. The Dodge brothers built their first car in 1914 and in 1928 their company was acquired by Chrysler. In 1998 the iconic American automaker joined Mercedes-Benz parent to create DaimlerChrysler Motors, an alleged “Merger of Equals”. In 2007 Cerberus Capital Management took control and along with a weak economy, steered the automaker into further distress. After a short restructuring, Fiat acquired a majority stake in Chrysler Corp and in 2014 renamed the automaker to FCA US LLC. Finally in 2021, Fiat and the French PSA Group joined to become Stellantis N.V. with headquarters in Hoofddorp, North Holland.

​

I share this very condensed history to enable readers to grasp how challenging it has been for the Dodge product planners to get really competitive cars to market. Today’s Charger is a great example. After successfully positioning Dodge as a provider of rip-snorting, thunderous performance vehicles, the Netherlands-based Stellantis decided that electricity was the best propulsion system for the Dodge Charger. They might have asked Harley Davidson how sales of their battery-powered motorcycle were doing but wasn’t the car business pivoting to plugs? So 2025 was not a banner year for electric Chargers.

​

This year Chargers are literally roaring back and while not “yet” with HEMI V8 power, the 3.0-liter, twin-turbo, six-cylinder engine offerings are compelling. Charger’s standard offering produces 420 HP with a deep growl out the twin exhaust pipes. Not enough to make your right foot happy? Option the high-output version and 550 HP is on tap, plenty enough to take on most V8s. And early buyers could acquire a Super Bee Launch Edition with 600 HP and that high-octane bee on the fenders. Sadly, they didn’t send me that version.

​

Today’s Dodge fellas position the Daytona as a muscle car rivaling Ford’s Mustang and when applied to the two-door coupe version, that’s fair. But I found this good-looking, well-equipped four-door sports sedan a reasonable rival to a few luxury brands. If you want a GM competitor, it’s Cadillac’s CT5 V, a quite nice sports sedan but you’ll give up 100 HP and some interior space. BMW’s 540i xDrive and the Mercedes-Benz E 450 4MATIC also offer smooth power and handling, but you’ll spend luxury money to sit in those heated seats.

 

Our Dodge didn’t really rival luxury brands in the elevated detail of materials and precision but our Charger continued to impress me with a long list of attributes that are not often found in high-volume models. And the handling characteristics are quite good for a full-size sedan that adds even more utility with a big rear hatch opening and folding rear seats. The new Charger is a welcome offering in today’s utilitarian marketplace.

Dodge Charger Rear_edited.jpg
Dodge Charger Interior_edited.jpg

THE FINE PRINT

2026 Dodge Charger R/T Plus

TYPE:  Front Engine, all-wheel-drive

ENGINE:  3.0 -liter twin-turbo I-6

HORSEPOWER:  420 @ 5,200 RPM

TORQUE:  469 lb.ft. @ 3,500 RPM

BASE PRICE: $51,995

AS TESTED:  $65,365

FUEL CONSUMPTION:  

17-city, 26-highway, 20-combined

bottom of page