The N-line is Hyundai's high-performance designator, like Type R for Honda. It has way more power than you would ever need for normal driving, hopefully to be used on a track and not street racing. The normal Ionic 5 has no faked engine noise (beyond the low-volume external sounds required by law).

There's probably a federal or local law requiring some sound. Like the Waymos that incessantly beep beep beep when backing up at the recharging station at 1 mph. You're about five years away from hearing beep beep beep everywhere you go due to the proliferation of driverless vehicles.

I mean, no one would buy the Ioniq 5 N specifically if they didn't want the zoomy car sounds! (OK maybe they just want the fastness! Fair enough)

But yes, they can be turned off.

I like Hyundai's HDA much more than Tesla's.

With Tesla it's all-or-nothing, and when it inevitably drives poorly, I can only turn it off. It physically resists me turning the steering wheel while it's driving, and overcoming the resistance results in an unpleasant and potentially dangerous jerk.

OTOH in IONIQ I can control lane assist and adaptive cruise control separately. The lane assist is additive to normal steering. It doesn't take over, only makes the car seem to naturally roll along the road.

...that...that was his point...

> But, not having a car is a tradeoff YOU are willing to make so your are ok with pushing it on others.

Nobody is trying to take your car away, you scared person who cannot fathom not being attached to a car.

I'm merely saying there must be alternatives to driving. I don't care what they are, they will be location dependent. If you want to drive, as long as you pay your externalities, nobody cares. But it's fundamentally wrong to gatekeep all of society behind a fundamentally inefficient manner of transport (individual cars). It's wrong socially (no social mobility), it's wrong ecologically (cars are still the most polluting way of transportation, even EVs), it's wrong economically (very inefficient), it's wrong from the amount of people dying from cars, it's wrong on every possible measurable metric.

So, alternatives should be present, so that those that wish to do so, or for whom it's better/faster/more efficient/can't use anything else because of mobility issues/can't afford anything else, they can take them. Bike lanes, trains, buses, whatever, doesn't matter.

"You want everyone to live in a prison cell and eat nothing but bugs" is not discussion.

> Do you have any idea how many hours the average person uses their phone

Irrelevant on the topic of there being more efficient modes of transportation of humans in dense environments.

> There is no other object that has been a greater detriment to mental and physical health in human history

While potentially true, that's entirely ignoring all the extremely useful things people do with their phones.

> only using public transport

The fact that you take a mention of providing alternatives to cars as a stance on "only using public transport" indicates to me that you're not interested in having an actual discussion, and your car is part of your core identity. None of that is healthy, so again, step back and consider the benefits. Even purely selfishly, more people out of cars because they can bike or take the train is better for you because there will be less traffic for you.

Myth #2 numbers from graphical representation are totally off from the 80% initial C02 difference in the MIT study. IDK where these numebrs come from but I'd tend to trust the MIT more than some propaganda from your beloved president.

Same goes for myth#1 IMO numbers are Trump related propaganda and have nothing to do with reality. Furthermore on myth #1 they talk about efficiency of EV vs ICE but totally forget to mention the efficiency of generating that said energy : 33% efficiency for coal based electricity generation VS 90% for petroleum refinement .... In the end when you sum up overall efficiencies are identical so I call bullshit and propaganda ...

First of all don't forget the important 'Over the course of their driving lifetimes' before your quote; it changes everything. So yeah this MIT article says EV is 80% more CO2 expensive to build but makes up over it's lifetime not quite exatcly what you are saying.

Also this article does not take into account recycling of batteries which is way dirty that recycling ICEs.

And my initial remark was show me data, show me interesting stuff and you just dumbly troll (quoting truncated stuff) on what I have shown you. Nice man, u smart !!!