> Whether the headline is ‘your electric car will catch fire’ or ‘multi-storey car parks will collapse because of EVs’, the stories are becoming more prevalent, more inaccurate and more ridiculous – and are primarily driven by the desire of publications for more clicks. Gaining more clicks is evidently being prioritised over checking the facts, and over the urgent overriding need to reduce air pollution and combat climate change.
> ‘multi-storey car parks will collapse because of EVs’
Well, this actually did happen at Luton Airport recently. Massive fire destroyed hundreds of cars, partially collapsed the parking building, and caused huge disruption at the airport.
Of course, it wasn't caused by an EV, as many initially suspected, but a diesel car catching fire.
That car park was built in 2018, so hopefully it was built taking into account the weight of modern vehicles.
But they built it very cheaply:
> Hopkinson said there were no sprinklers in the car park and firefighters were advising the airport to ensure they were fitted. “Sprinklers may have made a positive impact on this incident,” he said.
The last major parking garage fire here in Norway was also started by a diesel car catching fire[1].
Although several EVs were parked and started burning, the batteries did not[2]:
Observations during the fire indicate that electric vehicles did not contribute to the fire development beyond what is expected from conventional vehicles.
Battery fires do seem a legitimate concern for the electric-everything future. And a multi-storey car park inferno started by a battery pack is no longer a hypothetical situation.
Would you charge a cheap chinese e-scooter in your home unattended? Would you even want a Tesla Powerwall in your home, given that even the Tesla Megapack grid-scale storage has had fire incidents?
But the real problems with EVs in the UK are more related to charging infrastructure (large percentage of the population who can't charge at home due to living in a flat or relying on on-street parking), and the cost of electricity going up massively. And the cost of the EV to begin with, with an ever-rising cost of living and stagnant salaries.
> The recent increase in interest rates surely had something to do with it.
Elon Musk said so... He said, repeatedly, he was worried about high interest rates (and they're not even that high: I've known 13%+ in my lifetime) and the effect on buying people cars with loans (which is: most of them).
> Toyota is also about to go heavy into EV, and with it a trusted customer base.
And given recent behaviour, no interest in making stock available to the north american market. Despite still being heavily advertised, there are no dealers in my province that will even take a pre-order at this point.
This is me. Just bought a CRV Hybrid, as a long time Honda driver, and I love it.
I would’ve bought electric except that most of them have taken Tesla’s example and decided that electric has to also mean “screens and weird design decisions everywhere”. I could deal with that, all things being equal, but the price premium just pushes the decision over the line. I might’ve also made the leap to Tesla since it’s competitive on price now but I’m not in an area where service would be convenient (even if good/fast)
Honda has been very late to the hybrid game in SUVs but the CRV is awesome and bigger, I know someone looking at it jn my life.
The only thing comparable is the few years there was an Acura MDX Hybrid and it was more of a performance hybrid like Infiniti liked to do.
Teslas are def interesting, Model 3’a seems to have an advantage over model Y for efficiency. I have a few friends focused on the 2016-17 Model S/X with unlimited supercharging and the new driving computer. The S/X seem to run forever once any issues are ironed out.
Topping up charge every night and not spending time at a gas station is a little appealing especially for any places with inclement weather. More awake time to live.
With my ICE I've been told to start the engine and drive away gently.
Test-driving the 50e I noticed it was in electric mode until the ramp and as I floored it the ICE kicked in and immediately went to high RPM.
To this date I have not seen an explanation as to why this does not harm the engine, and yet it harms MY engine when I immediately minimize the distance between the gas pedal and the floorboard.
It's not that they have an electric oil pump that kicks in _BEFORE_ the engine revs.
And hand-wavy gestures like 'oh they're built' for it don't explain HOW they fixed it.
What's the fix? Different tolerances? Different material that doesn't wear? Thicker material so it can wear more before problems appear (what about tolerances then?).
BMWs are great machines, and I know many folks who love them.. I’m not super familiar BMWs except the stereotypes to enjoy them new until 60k miles and sell to avoid any engineered maintenance. And maybe less as you go higher end.
My understanding is engines should be modified or able to work like this. Not sure if each make does it a bit different but a part of me wonders if it has something to do with the engine stopped feature when parked at a redlinght
When were you told to drive gently after starting the engine? That was a legitimate issue with early turbos, which would break if you tried to spin them up cold, and that was eventually solved in order to put a turbo in every car nowadays. Furthermore, BMWs had been turning engine off when stopped for the past 20 years or so. As for the oil pump, I am pretty sure it's driven off the engine itself so you don't need to wait till it spins up.
I'm in the same boat. I bought a small ICE car a few years ago, figuring that the fact I drive so little (under 5000 miles a year) gets me most of the fuel and environmental benefits of an EV without the cost or inconvenience.
I had to get a car summer 2022 and I was lucky to get what I wanted without too long a wait. Electric and hybrid options just weren't there for what I wanted so I figured I'll buy something and see what's out there in maybe ten years.
As someone who has had several cars like that (built in the late 70s and late 90s), I'll note that operating costs get much harder to quantify with an older car... I suppose it depends on your maintenance philosophy and risk tolerance, but the cost per distance goes up dramatically for infrequent use and as the car ages. Many fluids and components don't just wear out by distance driven, but also by time since manufacture or time exposed to the environment.
I keep wondering how EVs might behave in this regard. Can they be effectively parked to defer their useful lifetime, or will batteries and power electronics also degrade whether you drive or not? Imagine power electronics succumbing to "bad capacitor" fiascos like other consumer electronics, or batteries being cooked by poor charge controllers when a car is constantly on standby.
But I also wonder this about the ever growing informatics systems, regardless of whether it is EV or ICE. Will modern cars be able to be used 10-20 years later, or will some crucial systems fail with no cost-effective service option because manufacturers have moved on to completely different tech? I'm very disheartened to see the smartphone obsolescence mentality seeming to infect car designs.
I followed the "buy and hold" strategy for the past 30 years, but I start to wonder if I'll be forced into leasing due to these concerns about the practical longevity of all the newer tech. It seems the only way to make the manufacturer somewhat responsible for the residual utility of the car after its prime years.
I'm also guessing that, whether or not there's something at least very close to self-driving under many conditions in ten years, unless you really like being in full control, I'm guessing in ten years, you'll be looking enviously at those cars that can drive themselves around on the freeway most of the time.
I understand what you mean. I'm a bit of an ideologue who would rather sacrifice some comforts or conveniences in order to reject the plan marketers are trying to force onto me.
I am disgusted by the cynical vertical integrations which are trying to shorten the lifecycle of mechanical equipment by conflating it with the life of digital systems and software. If I were King of the World, modular construction and operation would be mandated as a philosophical extension of "right to repair" into "right to retrofit". The core electro-mechanical car-as-transport would have standardized mount points and interfaces to allow sensor-suite, processing, and driver-automation to be upgraded.
A bit like the DIN car stereos of yore, the fancy driving modes or infotainment systems should be field replaceable bits that can be added to an older car to prevent its obsolescence. And conversely, the new car should be able to be bought and used in an old fashioned manner without all those add-ons, if desired by the buyer. I don't want the car manufacturer to limit me to one and only one automation or infotainment suite that they can force into obsolescence.
I feel similarly about the actual EV traction bits, but realize current packaging is at its limits to squeeze sufficient battery into the chassis. If battery chemistry ever permits, I would hope that traction batteries can eventually be a smaller modular unit to swap in or out of a car again, more like the conventional 12V battery in standard forms shared by many car makes and models.
Where I am in the US, insurance is more than excise taxes/fees. But even if you don't drive a huge number of miles/kms annually--I probably drive about 5k miles these days--you can still more or less need one day-to-day and want one for things like heading off hiking. I don't drive a lot of miles but absolutely could not live without a car.
I'll do you one better: I have full insurance coverage for the vehicle and it's 5% of its residual value annually, but I still intend to keep it.
The reason is that it's an incredibly useful tool - especially for a family with small children - and I can't rely on renting services during bursts of demand like during the holidays.
Also I picked a vehicle that was way less expensive than what I could afford at the time, not to mention now that my financial situation is better.
Our household saves 40% of its income after taxes, but we don't choose everything (or anything really) with just financial efficiency in mind, because to me personally such a life would be quite hellish.
I've seen very few chargers with prominent signage, visible from a major road (the ones in supermarket parking lots usually can't be seen until you're there), or next to existing gas stations. I also haven't seen any entertainment media showing someone plugging in or unplugging their EV, whether through product placement or organic scriptwriting.
How else, in America, will the non-enthusiasts realize that owning an EV could be a practical option, even an ordinary one?
> I've seen very few chargers with prominent signage, visible from a major road
Is there a point to such signage when the cars' built-in navigation knows where the chargers are and automatically routes you to the most optimal one on trips where you need one?
If I were considering an electric car, which I'm not, I would probably look at maps that presumably exist on the Internet before I'd trust random spottings on my part.
I think the apartment/city dweller problem is a major limiting factor that does not have an obvious or quick solution. Owning an electric car if you can charge it at home is a pretty big experience upgrade over a gasoline powered vehicle since it is considerably cheaper to fuel and it happens with very little effort while you sleep. For those people, the less convenient experience of on-the-go electric charging might be worse than stopping at a gas station, but it happens rarely enough that it's not necessarily a major consideration.
If you can't easily charge at home though, electric cars kind of suck and offer a noticeably worse experience. Sure, you could probably make it work by exclusively charging at public fast chargers similar to how you fill up a gasoline car now, but those are much harder to find and inconveniently slow enough to be annoying to use on a regular basis. I know people who do this because they like the idea of a electric car enough to put up with it, but that's not going to ever be most prospective car buyers.
Trying to make non-home electric charging competitive with gas stations is going to take a long time and faces a catch-22 if EV purchase rates slow down. And upgrading every condo/apartment building and city with street parking to have sufficient overnight charging capacity is not a quick answer either.
Anecdotally, I would absolutely buy an electric car if I didn't live in a condo with no charging facilities, but no way I'd do it without being able to charge at home. However, also worth noting that while I wouldn't move just so I could charge my car, I probably also wouldn't move to a new home without EV charging options unless I was forced to for some reason. So I'm guessing market pressure will make it happen eventually, not it's not right around the corner.
Do you have 120V at your parking spot? I know several people who bought electric cars, planning on putting in a charger in their garage. And then never bothered, because 120V was good enough. You can come home with an empty battery Sunday, plug in every weeknight, putting on 100 miles of charge overnight and taking off 50 miles every weekday for commuting and have a full battery by Thursday or Friday.
That doesn't work in an apartment. Most do not have any power to the parking spots. When they do, it is shared building circuit not intended (or scalable) for that purpose nor billable to the individual.
I have seen tenants pay to have individual charging circuits installed in apartment parking spots but that costs real money.
Probably the cheapest way to get charging in most apartments is to rewire those shared circuits so they can handle the current of concurrent usage, and then just charge all electric cars $20/month or so rather than dealing with the expense and hassle of billing.
I know I'd far rather have a dedicated 120V outlet in my parking spot than have to share an L2 charger with other people.
Agreed, dedicated charging of any kind seems like the answer. I may actually suggest such an option to my condo board...would be an interesting use-case.
I do not, and in fact there is no power at all close to the parking spots. It's a fairly typical (at least in the US) setup with a mid-rise building set back from a shared parking lot. The spots in front of the building aren't too far away so they could presumably get EV chargers installed, but it would require at minimum installing new circuits in the building and running electricity to the parking spots. The spots across the lot would require a more complex cable install since they're not adjacent to the building.
I'm sure it would be doable, but non-trivial. And maybe most importantly, something the building would rather do for more than one resident at once, so it would take some sort of critical mass. Buildings with parking garages might have it easier since they already have power of some kind in the garage, although you still need to solve the billing problem somehow. New buildings seem to be addressing this, but retrofits in existing buildings are going to be a long tail here I imagine.
This is me pretty much. I was thinking about adding an L2, but L1 works out well enough. I guess I’ll wait until a significant renovation needs to upgrade the panel, since I just have to 125 amps to work with.
Non-plugin hybrids solve a different problem. They're more efficient, but they're not really a solution if you want a car powered by electricity. Plug-ins are interesting because a lot of people could use pure electric power for commuting and the gas engine for longer trips. But they're really only useful if you can charge at home and at this point I wonder how many potential plug-in customers just bought a pure EV, which has an attractive simplicity to it rather than having all the problems of both types of power trains.
Good plugin hybrids are a very viable option. At some point I’ll need a three row vehicle and most of our needs would be handled by something like the Mazda CX9. The next best option with three rows and electrification is the Rivian. The Rivian is a different type of vehicle than what I really need, even though it’s cool. What I want is an electrified station wagon, but the latter doesn’t really exist anymore. The CX9’s 26 miles of battery power is enough to handle the majority of our standard in town trips without burning fuel.
In the states at least, there are barely any $20k cars left, those people are just in the used car market now. China, where no one want to buy used cars, has plenty of even $10k EVs. If the USA and China ever drop car tariffs…and USA safety standards are revised a bit, those cars could be sold here.
There is a recent anti-EV campaign, not sure who funded it or why (probably oil companies). I'm seeing a lot of negative press in the past couple of months.
There are so many massive, complex, institutional problems with the auto industry that I am not sure "not as many more people are wanting new EVs as we thought" is the problem the article, and the executives it quotes, think it is. It feels like the industry is blaming consumers for not wanting what they're willing to make and support. It should be other way around.
We don't have a usable national charging network. EVs still don't have the range of gas-powered cars. Many EVs are much more expensive than similar gas-powered cars. Few mechanics and dealers fully understand how to work on EVs. Conspiracy theories are rampant - somebody told me they thought the tires on EVs would give them cancer; another person told me he thought all EVs were just explosions waiting to happen (as though an IC engine is better!).
Chevy recently attempted to discontinue its small, affordable Chevy Bolt in favor of larger, bulkier, more expensive vehicles built on a new platform. It did this during a year where the Bolt sold record numbers and was widely hailed as one of the best and most economical EVs around. The Bolt converted people - myself included - who could not or would not have otherwise bought an EV, and Chevy tried to discontinue it (and later relented and said they'd offer a new version of it in the face of popular demand).
But sure, it's the consumer's fault. How dare people not buy new cars.
> We don't have a usable national charging network.
I feel like there's a big lever the federal government has its hands on that would solve this in record time:
Add a substantial gas station tax which is only applied to gas stations with fewer than two level 3 chargers, and watch how fast the national charging network happens.
It doesn't even need to cost the gas station anything. A vendor can foot the bill for installing the chargers and split the profits with the gas station. It would be a boon for gas stations, since EV charging customers are far more likely to generate foot traffic in their stores (where they make the majority of their money) than gas customers who just gas and go.
Where do you live that this seems wise? Gas stations are dangerous, high crime places. One of the perks of an electric car, to me, is never going to a dangerous gas station again.
Where do you live that gas stations are "dangerous, high crime places"? That is extremely abnormal, I don't identify with that at all. Of the hundreds of different gas stations across the country I have frequented in my life, there have only been a couple that might be described as "sketchy".
There are probably a few parts of a relatively nearby large city where I wouldn't go out of my way to gas up late at night. But I can't personally think of a time when concern for my safety was something I remotely thought about when getting gas.
I think a more effective lever would be giving owners of apartments and other multi-families properties a property tax rebate if they install level 2 chargers. Particularly in cities, the lack of a place to charge your car in your apartment is a huge impediment to adoption. Property taxes are state revenue, but the Federal government could set up a program that makes states whole if they set up such a scheme.
More tax is always a dumb, lazy idea. Make EV's more affordable, not ICE cars less affordable.
As it is, half the people with a driver's license in this country cannot afford a base model Honda Civic, much less an EV and its associated charging hardware. Taxing gas will put these people out of personal transportation altogether or make their lives all that much more difficult.
> More tax is always a dumb, lazy idea. Make EV's more affordable, not ICE cars less affordable.
The point isn't to raise revenue via tax, it's to incentivise creating a privatized national charging network and make EV ownership feasible. Making them affordable isn't sufficient. Offer the gas stations all the carrots: loans, easy regulations, profits from EV charging revenue. Offer the tax stick to the ones that won't modernize.
Still, to your point, the logical solution there would be to find cheaper ways to manufacture the car people want, not try to demand people buy other cars that are cheaper to make. They weren't even trying to be manipulative about it - they were just like "nope, you can't have this anymore, but please still give us your money."
Those were the industry estimates of their losses, at launch time; but you’re right, they probably were able to lose less over time. However, they also had recalls which made things worse.
Apparently their new platform is supposed to focus attention on decreasing the price of production so they don’t lose money on every platform vehicle they sell —which quite obviously would not be sustainable.
> Conspiracy theories are rampant - somebody told me they thought the tires on EVs would give them cancer
Well I mean, they're not really wrong. Tires release 100 times the amount of volatile organic compounds as a modern tailpipe [0] and those emissions are roughly 20% higher for EVs on average simply because they weigh more. Pollution is strongly linked to numerous types of cancer and tires are a big culprit here.
> Pollution is strongly linked to numerous types of cancer and tires are a big culprit here
Is there a comparison with harmful pollutants from the exhaust including CO, from engine from oil, gas leaks from gas station underground tanks etc. I think an EV comes way ahead.
They were wrong, in that I think they read something similar to what you linked and completely misunderstood what it was saying to mean "the EV engines turn tires into cancer poison," rather than "EVs put more stress on their tires as byproduct of their weight, which in turn can release carcinogens."
The Chevy Bolt weights about 3,600 pounds - while heavy for a vehicle of its size, it is not particularly different from an average "midsize" car weight, at least according to Google. This seems like a red herring to me given how much larger most cars on the road are, at least as far as the Bolt is concerned. Perhaps it is an issue for larger EVs like the Model Y or Mach E.
The results vary study to study, but a good ballpark measure is that the average EV is 15% heavier than the average ICE [0]. Other studies I've seen are in the same range, roughly between 15-20%. So if anything, I would call it counterintuitive at best — it's a very real problem, simply the awareness around it is low.
But let's compare it to a Ford 250 which is about 2x the weight. I think it's more than lack of awareness, but ignorance. They dont ask why EV = cancer.
This is missing the point entirely. Finding one ICE that's heavier than an EV doesn't change the fact that on average, EVs are considerably heavier than ICEs. You can pick individual examples from either set that are light or heavy, but on average EVs weigh more and hence their tires wear more.
I think we got that point, just kinda focusing on your other since there is an entire fleet of ICE vehicles that are simply unavailable as an EV. My point was its conspiracy, not uninformed simply because they nutjob in the example never mentioned weight, never questioned why, and took EV = cancer as fact. It doesn't matter if EVs weigh 5x more or 5x less.
I want an EV really badly - just not the current ones. Give me a Subaru crosstrek type vehicle with 400 mi range, I.e a car with 8-9 in ground clearance and 4 wheel drive. If it’s 40-45k that’s okay.
Not sure what the ground clearance will be on the upcoming rugged edition of the smallest Volvo ev crossover, but that could be getting close to my requirements.
I'm still pissed about the discontinuation of the Bolt.
I rent Bolts frequently now that Avis carries lots of them. They are amazing cars and LITERALLY EXACTLY what many customers wanting EVs have asked for: cheap, "normal" interior, not slow.
This would be perfect for my wife, who is driving an aging Fusion PHEV (that she loves).
Yes, I can get her a Tesla, but she's expressed reservations and the direction the product is going is not helping (stalkless, missing ultrasonic sensors, screen shift).
There are still large market gaps in terms of the types of EV you can buy. I am waiting for an AWD EV with high ground clearance and decent range, which doesn't seem to exist currently. You can get all of this in an inexpensive gas car and there are substantial parts of the US where these checkboxes are legitimately non-negotiable. And this is before the issues surrounding charging.
Maybe in five years the situation will have improved.
Same. The problem is the current EVs only market certain demographic- status seekers, truck people, and commuters. No decent suvs for real people yet, which is a large untapped demand.
There's so much fanboyism around EVs, I think that EV proponents seriously overestimate their appeal and impact. To must of us a car is just a car, not some statement to the world about my alignment with the right causes and the cool kids. It seems like a highly emotional topic for those that are proponents, not a good sign.
The automakers, not wanting to be left out, jumped in once it became clear that EVs were kinda workable. You can't blame them, they have to follow the market. I'm sure they had internal doubters, but you have to see plans through just in case. I'd argue investment in EVs is just a hedge for at least half of the automakers.
Outside of a few diehards proponents, no one I know is particularly interested in owning an EV. EV proponents can't stop talking about how world changing and life affirming they are. I'm sure that's where part of the lack of interest stems from.
There's so much fanboyism around EVs, I think that EV proponents seriously overestimate their appeal and impact. To most of us a car is just a car, not some statement to the world about my alignment with the right causes and the cool kids. It seems like a highly emotional topic for those that are proponents, not a good sign.
The automakers, not wanting to be left out of the Next Big Thing, jumped in once it became clear that EVs were kinda workable. You can't blame them, they have to follow the market. I'm sure they had internal doubters, but you have to see plans through just in case. I'd argue investment in EVs is just a hedge for at least half of the automakers.
Outside of a few diehards proponents, no one I know is particularly interested in owning an EV. EV proponents can't stop talking about how world changing and life affirming they are. I'm sure that's where part of the lack of interest from the rest of us stems from. We just don't care.
I don't understood why plugin hybrids aren't more popular. The Toyota Prius prime is like a 'just take my money' car for me. My commute would be all electric... but I can still use gas if need be. Best of all worlds.
I agree, the Prius Prime is a very attractive car (both in terms of looking surprisingly cool for a Prius, and for the reasons you mention). I went for a full EV because I wanted to just not have to worry about gas or IC engine maintenance anymore.
Ladies and gentleman, try to read it under the wood: the real point is that a right BEV price is LESS than an ICE counterpart. That's not a thing automakers want. Secondly most automakers have ceased decades ago doing REAL free research to focus on short-term results, as a results Chinese automakers start to do almost BETTER things that western counterparts.
That's are IMVHO the main points: people rightly do not want to pay overpriced BEVs and do not want to pay more than nearly identical Chinese counterparts. So western automakers try to catch the reactionary push of many against all new things to keep selling hybrid absurdities few years more.
99 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] threadPresumably that has some impact on uptake and adoption.
This campaign to curb the lies is being very generous by assuming no active malice, just clickbait tendencies:
https://www.greencarguide.co.uk/2023/09/stopburningstuff-lau...
> Whether the headline is ‘your electric car will catch fire’ or ‘multi-storey car parks will collapse because of EVs’, the stories are becoming more prevalent, more inaccurate and more ridiculous – and are primarily driven by the desire of publications for more clicks. Gaining more clicks is evidently being prioritised over checking the facts, and over the urgent overriding need to reduce air pollution and combat climate change.
Well, this actually did happen at Luton Airport recently. Massive fire destroyed hundreds of cars, partially collapsed the parking building, and caused huge disruption at the airport.
Of course, it wasn't caused by an EV, as many initially suspected, but a diesel car catching fire.
But they built it very cheaply:
> Hopkinson said there were no sprinklers in the car park and firefighters were advising the airport to ensure they were fitted. “Sprinklers may have made a positive impact on this incident,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/10/huge-fire-br...
Although several EVs were parked and started burning, the batteries did not[2]:
Observations during the fire indicate that electric vehicles did not contribute to the fire development beyond what is expected from conventional vehicles.
[1]: https://elbil.no/ett-ar-etter-p-hus-brannen-pa-sola-lufthavn...
[2]: https://www.dsb.no/rapporter-og-evalueringer/evaluering-av-b...
Would you charge a cheap chinese e-scooter in your home unattended? Would you even want a Tesla Powerwall in your home, given that even the Tesla Megapack grid-scale storage has had fire incidents?
But the real problems with EVs in the UK are more related to charging infrastructure (large percentage of the population who can't charge at home due to living in a flat or relying on on-street parking), and the cost of electricity going up massively. And the cost of the EV to begin with, with an ever-rising cost of living and stagnant salaries.
Elon Musk said so... He said, repeatedly, he was worried about high interest rates (and they're not even that high: I've known 13%+ in my lifetime) and the effect on buying people cars with loans (which is: most of them).
Conveniently there assists to be new battery technologies in the next few years.
Toyota is also about to go heavy into EV, and with it a trusted customer base.
And given recent behaviour, no interest in making stock available to the north american market. Despite still being heavily advertised, there are no dealers in my province that will even take a pre-order at this point.
There might be some Lexus options in hybrid or PHEV. Lexus have been long in the tooth for a while on several models.
I wonder if Toyotas new battery tech might just pop into the prime to be more efficient and longer mileage in the future.
I would’ve bought electric except that most of them have taken Tesla’s example and decided that electric has to also mean “screens and weird design decisions everywhere”. I could deal with that, all things being equal, but the price premium just pushes the decision over the line. I might’ve also made the leap to Tesla since it’s competitive on price now but I’m not in an area where service would be convenient (even if good/fast)
The only thing comparable is the few years there was an Acura MDX Hybrid and it was more of a performance hybrid like Infiniti liked to do.
Teslas are def interesting, Model 3’a seems to have an advantage over model Y for efficiency. I have a few friends focused on the 2016-17 Model S/X with unlimited supercharging and the new driving computer. The S/X seem to run forever once any issues are ironed out.
Topping up charge every night and not spending time at a gas station is a little appealing especially for any places with inclement weather. More awake time to live.
I had been under the impression that Toyota's leadership was (IMO rightly) highly skeptical of the EV market. Source?
Seems recent: https://news.google.com/search?q=toyota+making+big+move+into...
Mazda’s got some nice PHEV options too.
With my ICE I've been told to start the engine and drive away gently.
Test-driving the 50e I noticed it was in electric mode until the ramp and as I floored it the ICE kicked in and immediately went to high RPM.
To this date I have not seen an explanation as to why this does not harm the engine, and yet it harms MY engine when I immediately minimize the distance between the gas pedal and the floorboard.
It's not that they have an electric oil pump that kicks in _BEFORE_ the engine revs.
And hand-wavy gestures like 'oh they're built' for it don't explain HOW they fixed it.
What's the fix? Different tolerances? Different material that doesn't wear? Thicker material so it can wear more before problems appear (what about tolerances then?).
My understanding is engines should be modified or able to work like this. Not sure if each make does it a bit different but a part of me wonders if it has something to do with the engine stopped feature when parked at a redlinght
Ok, I haven't completely stopped, but I do less than 6k km annually - at this rate my current car will last me more than 20 years.
I keep wondering how EVs might behave in this regard. Can they be effectively parked to defer their useful lifetime, or will batteries and power electronics also degrade whether you drive or not? Imagine power electronics succumbing to "bad capacitor" fiascos like other consumer electronics, or batteries being cooked by poor charge controllers when a car is constantly on standby.
But I also wonder this about the ever growing informatics systems, regardless of whether it is EV or ICE. Will modern cars be able to be used 10-20 years later, or will some crucial systems fail with no cost-effective service option because manufacturers have moved on to completely different tech? I'm very disheartened to see the smartphone obsolescence mentality seeming to infect car designs.
I followed the "buy and hold" strategy for the past 30 years, but I start to wonder if I'll be forced into leasing due to these concerns about the practical longevity of all the newer tech. It seems the only way to make the manufacturer somewhat responsible for the residual utility of the car after its prime years.
I am disgusted by the cynical vertical integrations which are trying to shorten the lifecycle of mechanical equipment by conflating it with the life of digital systems and software. If I were King of the World, modular construction and operation would be mandated as a philosophical extension of "right to repair" into "right to retrofit". The core electro-mechanical car-as-transport would have standardized mount points and interfaces to allow sensor-suite, processing, and driver-automation to be upgraded.
A bit like the DIN car stereos of yore, the fancy driving modes or infotainment systems should be field replaceable bits that can be added to an older car to prevent its obsolescence. And conversely, the new car should be able to be bought and used in an old fashioned manner without all those add-ons, if desired by the buyer. I don't want the car manufacturer to limit me to one and only one automation or infotainment suite that they can force into obsolescence.
I feel similarly about the actual EV traction bits, but realize current packaging is at its limits to squeeze sufficient battery into the chassis. If battery chemistry ever permits, I would hope that traction batteries can eventually be a smaller modular unit to swap in or out of a car again, more like the conventional 12V battery in standard forms shared by many car makes and models.
The reason is that it's an incredibly useful tool - especially for a family with small children - and I can't rely on renting services during bursts of demand like during the holidays.
Also I picked a vehicle that was way less expensive than what I could afford at the time, not to mention now that my financial situation is better.
Our household saves 40% of its income after taxes, but we don't choose everything (or anything really) with just financial efficiency in mind, because to me personally such a life would be quite hellish.
How else, in America, will the non-enthusiasts realize that owning an EV could be a practical option, even an ordinary one?
Is there a point to such signage when the cars' built-in navigation knows where the chargers are and automatically routes you to the most optimal one on trips where you need one?
If you can't easily charge at home though, electric cars kind of suck and offer a noticeably worse experience. Sure, you could probably make it work by exclusively charging at public fast chargers similar to how you fill up a gasoline car now, but those are much harder to find and inconveniently slow enough to be annoying to use on a regular basis. I know people who do this because they like the idea of a electric car enough to put up with it, but that's not going to ever be most prospective car buyers.
Trying to make non-home electric charging competitive with gas stations is going to take a long time and faces a catch-22 if EV purchase rates slow down. And upgrading every condo/apartment building and city with street parking to have sufficient overnight charging capacity is not a quick answer either.
Anecdotally, I would absolutely buy an electric car if I didn't live in a condo with no charging facilities, but no way I'd do it without being able to charge at home. However, also worth noting that while I wouldn't move just so I could charge my car, I probably also wouldn't move to a new home without EV charging options unless I was forced to for some reason. So I'm guessing market pressure will make it happen eventually, not it's not right around the corner.
I have seen tenants pay to have individual charging circuits installed in apartment parking spots but that costs real money.
I know I'd far rather have a dedicated 120V outlet in my parking spot than have to share an L2 charger with other people.
I'm sure it would be doable, but non-trivial. And maybe most importantly, something the building would rather do for more than one resident at once, so it would take some sort of critical mass. Buildings with parking garages might have it easier since they already have power of some kind in the garage, although you still need to solve the billing problem somehow. New buildings seem to be addressing this, but retrofits in existing buildings are going to be a long tail here I imagine.
Also hybrids are more realistic than pure EV's.
We don't have a usable national charging network. EVs still don't have the range of gas-powered cars. Many EVs are much more expensive than similar gas-powered cars. Few mechanics and dealers fully understand how to work on EVs. Conspiracy theories are rampant - somebody told me they thought the tires on EVs would give them cancer; another person told me he thought all EVs were just explosions waiting to happen (as though an IC engine is better!).
Chevy recently attempted to discontinue its small, affordable Chevy Bolt in favor of larger, bulkier, more expensive vehicles built on a new platform. It did this during a year where the Bolt sold record numbers and was widely hailed as one of the best and most economical EVs around. The Bolt converted people - myself included - who could not or would not have otherwise bought an EV, and Chevy tried to discontinue it (and later relented and said they'd offer a new version of it in the face of popular demand).
But sure, it's the consumer's fault. How dare people not buy new cars.
I feel like there's a big lever the federal government has its hands on that would solve this in record time:
Add a substantial gas station tax which is only applied to gas stations with fewer than two level 3 chargers, and watch how fast the national charging network happens.
It doesn't even need to cost the gas station anything. A vendor can foot the bill for installing the chargers and split the profits with the gas station. It would be a boon for gas stations, since EV charging customers are far more likely to generate foot traffic in their stores (where they make the majority of their money) than gas customers who just gas and go.
Now there isn't much of a "technological ambiguity" excuse and they should be able to execute clearly.
As it is, half the people with a driver's license in this country cannot afford a base model Honda Civic, much less an EV and its associated charging hardware. Taxing gas will put these people out of personal transportation altogether or make their lives all that much more difficult.
The point isn't to raise revenue via tax, it's to incentivise creating a privatized national charging network and make EV ownership feasible. Making them affordable isn't sufficient. Offer the gas stations all the carrots: loans, easy regulations, profits from EV charging revenue. Offer the tax stick to the ones that won't modernize.
They won’t “make it up with volume” as the saying goes.
Still, to your point, the logical solution there would be to find cheaper ways to manufacture the car people want, not try to demand people buy other cars that are cheaper to make. They weren't even trying to be manipulative about it - they were just like "nope, you can't have this anymore, but please still give us your money."
Apparently their new platform is supposed to focus attention on decreasing the price of production so they don’t lose money on every platform vehicle they sell —which quite obviously would not be sustainable.
Well I mean, they're not really wrong. Tires release 100 times the amount of volatile organic compounds as a modern tailpipe [0] and those emissions are roughly 20% higher for EVs on average simply because they weigh more. Pollution is strongly linked to numerous types of cancer and tires are a big culprit here.
[0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical...
Is there a comparison with harmful pollutants from the exhaust including CO, from engine from oil, gas leaks from gas station underground tanks etc. I think an EV comes way ahead.
The Chevy Bolt weights about 3,600 pounds - while heavy for a vehicle of its size, it is not particularly different from an average "midsize" car weight, at least according to Google. This seems like a red herring to me given how much larger most cars on the road are, at least as far as the Bolt is concerned. Perhaps it is an issue for larger EVs like the Model Y or Mach E.
[0] https://www.automotivelogistics.media/insight/you-gotta-carr...
Not sure what the ground clearance will be on the upcoming rugged edition of the smallest Volvo ev crossover, but that could be getting close to my requirements.
I rent Bolts frequently now that Avis carries lots of them. They are amazing cars and LITERALLY EXACTLY what many customers wanting EVs have asked for: cheap, "normal" interior, not slow.
This would be perfect for my wife, who is driving an aging Fusion PHEV (that she loves).
Yes, I can get her a Tesla, but she's expressed reservations and the direction the product is going is not helping (stalkless, missing ultrasonic sensors, screen shift).
Maybe in five years the situation will have improved.
Don't Rivian's vehicles meet all of those requirements?
The automakers, not wanting to be left out, jumped in once it became clear that EVs were kinda workable. You can't blame them, they have to follow the market. I'm sure they had internal doubters, but you have to see plans through just in case. I'd argue investment in EVs is just a hedge for at least half of the automakers.
Outside of a few diehards proponents, no one I know is particularly interested in owning an EV. EV proponents can't stop talking about how world changing and life affirming they are. I'm sure that's where part of the lack of interest stems from.
The automakers, not wanting to be left out of the Next Big Thing, jumped in once it became clear that EVs were kinda workable. You can't blame them, they have to follow the market. I'm sure they had internal doubters, but you have to see plans through just in case. I'd argue investment in EVs is just a hedge for at least half of the automakers.
Outside of a few diehards proponents, no one I know is particularly interested in owning an EV. EV proponents can't stop talking about how world changing and life affirming they are. I'm sure that's where part of the lack of interest from the rest of us stems from. We just don't care.
That's putting the cart before the horse. It doesn't matter if every family goes out and buys an electric vehicle at all.
WHAT DOES MATTER IS WHETHER OR NOT THOSE VEHICLES CAN BE USEFULLY CHARGED.
Step one is NOT getting everybody to buy an electric vehicle. Step One is putting in the work on building a capable electricity grid.
When the electricity grid in Texas goes down in winter from overload, WE KNOW THE ELECTRICITY GRID IS INSUFFICIENT!
We need to spend trillions on electricity grid infrastructure before we try to get the general public to buy an electric vehicle.
NO ELECTRICITY GRID CAPABILITY, NO CHARGING OF MILLIONS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES AT THE SAME TIME = NO SALES OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
That's are IMVHO the main points: people rightly do not want to pay overpriced BEVs and do not want to pay more than nearly identical Chinese counterparts. So western automakers try to catch the reactionary push of many against all new things to keep selling hybrid absurdities few years more.
> GM chief executive Mary Barra said this week that “moderating the pace of our EV acceleration” would allow the company to maintain strong pricing.
And several other complaints that there's too much competition.