I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

Wally (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said

     It's hard to keep up with all the latest improvements at Tesla.
    I thought with the new model 3 ( the highlander ) they went to 48 volt Modules to eliminate the copper required to step up and down voltage.

Its also reduces the wiring size needed. And simplifies the circuits.   

One reason it's hard to keep up with the actual progress is people confuse press releases with unbiased facts. 

I thought we established several pages ago, that facts would have nothing to do with this discussion.

In reply to Indy - Guy :

It's a veritable fact and logic wasteland.

Umm Tom didn't you start this......hey hey hey did you not read where I said it was a fact and logic wasteland?

I stumbled on something this morning that might actually make Frenchyd's head explode:  An electric converted XKE.

Torn between love of EV's and Love on Jag V12's:

frenchyd said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Before I forget: Boost_Crazy that article and comment from yesterday also has a serious issue I didn't realize about mileage what does your gas car mileage drop to doing 75MPH? Which car are we comparing it to? Most gas cars have worse aero than EVs and frankly, even my car with the best mileage I owned (a 2012 Subaru Legacy) would get 24-26 mpg doing 75mph for hour after hour when I drove interstate all the time for work; my other cars before my Tesla, an Rx 300 Lexus SUV (20MPG at best!) and my EVO X (LOL, LMAO) couldn't dream of it, so the "400 miles on a tank" argument has flaws.
 

They used 75mph for the real world test because that is what highway travel looks like in the real world. The numbers I chose as an example for a gas car were just an approximation of a general ICE car, since they vary a fair amount. 30MPG at 75mpg with a 15 gallon tank is right around the middle. There are cars with better and worse mileage and larger and smaller tanks, but generally, the smaller tank cars are more fuel efficient. Sure there are ICE cars with bad mileage and small tanks, but those are pretty rare. None of the cars I've owned had significantly worse mileage at 75 Vs. 65, not enough to significantly impact range. Most still beat their rated MPG at that speed. My trucks are a different story, they are more affected by the increased speed, especially when viewing the mpg drop as a percentage. Good thing they have huge tanks. 

If you saw my last post, I mentioned that every car I've owned could get over 300 miles to a tank, which is better than almost every EV. Your EVO's are one of the worst cars range wise, they had such small tanks Vs. their fuel economy. Plus their tanks (at least on the EVO 8/9) were set up in such a way that the low fuel light came on with 3-4 gallons left in the tank. Probably because they would starve for fuel easily on a low tank. My Galant VR4 has a bigger tank and can hit 300 miles. Strangely, it gets better mileage at 75 Vs. 65, which was commonly reported with that engine. I suppose the increased engine efficiently at that engine speed and load offset the increase in power required at that speed. 
 

 

 

I just got tired of giving away $50-70  every time I pulled into one of those places. 

Not tired enough to buy an EV yet tho lol

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

Forte at 70 is right at 40mpg.  75 starts pulling it down to upper 30's. Hell the wife's 2-box Seltos at 70 is 38mpg and it's literally a friggin box. 

Indy - Guy said:

I stumbled on something this morning that might actually make Frenchyd's head explode:  An electric converted XKE.

Torn between love of EV's and Love on Jag V12's:

 

Let me correct the facts for you.   That is the first series ( in my opinion the prettiest)  which only came with either the 3.8 liter six or the 4.2 liter six. Not the V12. 
    The V12 came only in the late 1971- 1974 series 3 XKE. 
       As far as a conversion goes,  while it's interesting, it's far more expensive than I could ever afford.  You'd start out with at least a $150,000 and then spend whatever the cost and development of conversion is.  
 If I remember correctly the first conversion was something like $400,000

In reply to frenchyd :

Fair enough. 

If they were both zero cost to you, would you choose the EV converted Jag, or one equipped with the V12?

In reply to Indy - Guy

   :Really great question.  I honestly don't know.  
  From a money perspective a perfectly restored Series 1 XKE roadster can sell for $225,000 while the conversion sells for $400,000   

Racingsnake said:

frenchyd said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Before I forget: Boost_Crazy that article and comment from yesterday also has a serious issue I didn't realize about mileage what does your gas car mileage drop to doing 75MPH? Which car are we comparing it to? Most gas cars have worse aero than EVs and frankly, even my car with the best mileage I owned (a 2012 Subaru Legacy) would get 24-26 mpg doing 75mph for hour after hour when I drove interstate all the time for work; my other cars before my Tesla, an Rx 300 Lexus SUV (20MPG at best!) and my EVO X (LOL, LMAO) couldn't dream of it, so the "400 miles on a tank" argument has flaws.
 

They used 75mph for the real world test because that is what highway travel looks like in the real world. The numbers I chose as an example for a gas car were just an approximation of a general ICE car, since they vary a fair amount. 30MPG at 75mpg with a 15 gallon tank is right around the middle. There are cars with better and worse mileage and larger and smaller tanks, but generally, the smaller tank cars are more fuel efficient. Sure there are ICE cars with bad mileage and small tanks, but those are pretty rare. None of the cars I've owned had significantly worse mileage at 75 Vs. 65, not enough to significantly impact range. Most still beat their rated MPG at that speed. My trucks are a different story, they are more affected by the increased speed, especially when viewing the mpg drop as a percentage. Good thing they have huge tanks. 

If you saw my last post, I mentioned that every car I've owned could get over 300 miles to a tank, which is better than almost every EV. Your EVO's are one of the worst cars range wise, they had such small tanks Vs. their fuel economy. Plus their tanks (at least on the EVO 8/9) were set up in such a way that the low fuel light came on with 3-4 gallons left in the tank. Probably because they would starve for fuel easily on a low tank. My Galant VR4 has a bigger tank and can hit 300 miles. Strangely, it gets better mileage at 75 Vs. 65, which was commonly reported with that engine. I suppose the increased engine efficiently at that engine speed and load offset the increase in power required at that speed. 
 

 

 

I just got tired of giving away $50-70  every time I pulled into one of those places. 

Not tired enough to buy an EV yet tho lol

The EV I want isn't in production. 
  If you recall I was very interested  in the Chevy Bolt.  At $28,000,  but the batteries  continue to be an issue and the charging network isn't as good. Plus GM announced they were discontinuing production.  
     When Tesla Announced the series 2  ( at $25,000) I decided to wait.  
    It is projected to have longer range with safer batteries. Plus access to the best charging network available.  
  While you may be willing to take whatever is available I prefer to make my selection carefully. 

frenchyd said:

Racingsnake said:

frenchyd said:

I just got tired of giving away $50-70  every time I pulled into one of those places. 

Not tired enough to buy an EV yet tho lol

The EV I want isn't in production. 
  If you recall I was very interested  in the Chevy Bolt.  At $28,000,  but the batteries  continue to be an issue and the charging network isn't as good. Plus GM announced they were discontinuing production.  
     When Tesla Announced the series 2  ( at $25,000) I decided to wait.  
    It is projected to have longer range with safer batteries. Plus access to the best charging network available.  
  While you may be willing to take whatever is available I prefer to make my selection carefully. 

You may prefer to make your selection carefully, but apparently not carefully enough to realize that the Model 2 is still imaginary and unconfirmed.

For the last time, Tesla hasn't announced anything regarding the Model 2. Everything that you're spouting in regard to an inexpensive new Tesla is speculation and rumor. Musk breifly mentioned it and hinted that it might happen eventually but that's super vague even by his standards.

You're an overweight guy in his mid 70s. You're not getting any younger. Each day that you spend waiting for a unicorn Model 2 is a day that could've been spent cruising quietly and effortlessly in any of the $25k EVs that are currently available. Instead of going out and actually buying an EV right now that meets your needs, you're pinning your hopes on a mythical cheap Tesla Model 2 that's likely years away if it ever happens at all.

With each of your posts it becomes more obvious that you're not going to actually buy an EV like you're imploring others to do. Or you're going to waste your final days waiting for something, and then find a flaw in it if it does eventually become reality.

In reply to frenchyd :

The EV I want isn't in production. 
  If you recall I was very interested  in the Chevy Bolt.  At $28,000,  but the batteries  continue to be an issue and the charging network isn't as good. Plus GM announced they were discontinuing production.  
     When Tesla Announced the series 2  ( at $25,000) I decided to wait.  
    It is projected to have longer range with safer batteries. Plus access to the best charging network available.  
  While you may be willing to take whatever is available I prefer to make my selection carefully. 
 

So just to make this clear. 87 pages into a thread titled "I still don't see EV's replacing ICEs." Pages and pages of posts from you trying to convince everyone that EV's are ready to replace ICE. But you won't buy one because there is not one on the market that fits your needs. Does that sum it up? 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Do you buy whatever is available or are you selective?   
 

Most of the time in the past, I ordered my cars the way I wanted and waited for it to come in.  

bobzilla said:

Boost_Crazy said:

They used 75mph for the real world test because that is what highway travel looks like in the real world. [...snip]

bobzilla said:

Forte at 70 is right at 40mpg.  75 starts pulling it down to upper 30's. Hell the wife's 2-box Seltos at 70 is 38mpg and it's literally a friggin box. 

Damn, and my Legacy could barely crack 33 with me aggressively trying to mile it. The only recent (post 2000) cars I could think of that could do 40mpg was like the Honda Fit. But when I was looking for replacements (which led to my Tesla) the market was so bent that even rusted out, running trucks were going for over a grand.

In reply to frenchyd :

My reasons for not buying an EV are:

1. I'm cheap; my Outback was the most expensive car I've ever bought at 17K. It was 3yrs old and had 30K on it.

2. I require a daily with a manual transmission as that keeps me engage and paying attention. No need for a manual in an EV.

I am about 5 yrs from retirement. I'd go sooner but my wife has planted the seed of work a couple more years and  buy that really cool race car I wanted. This will be my gift to me; if I'm going to spend 35K on a car (remember I'm cheap) it has to have a wow factor...............a Formula Super Vee has wow factor and they're cheaper than any of the EVs on the market.

Fresh take. 

Electric propulsion is an excellent opportunity for acceleration, vector management, and expandability. 

I do not believe that Electric only is the answer. 

Why are we not creating more 1.0L diesel, hydrogen and super high efficiency gas generator modules to charge the batteries and power the motors?

So in an effort to get this 13 more pages:

Have we talked about EV RVs?............Amazon has electric vans on Sprinter style chassis. How viable will these be????

A solar array on the roof could run all the house stuff. The vans will supposedly go 150 miles...........you're in an RV so not not in a hurry. 

In reply to frenchyd :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Do you buy whatever is available or are you selective?   
 

Most of the time in the past, I ordered my cars the way I wanted and waited for it to come in.  
 

So order one and wait. Oh, that's right, you can't order one, because they are not for sale. 
 

They aren't expected to be on the market until 2025, and that might be a stretch. You can buy a Bolt now. Why worry about the charging network? I thought you could charge at home 99.99% of the time anyway. The average person drives less than 40 miles a day. Think of all of the money that you are wasting over the next two+ years on gas. You said that you liked money. 

Are you starting to see why EV's aren't for everybody yet? 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I admit, I was hoping for this thread to get to page 100, but if your post was the last one, It would be a fitting end to this adventure. Well said.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

bobzilla said:

Boost_Crazy said:

They used 75mph for the real world test because that is what highway travel looks like in the real world. [...snip]

bobzilla said:

Forte at 70 is right at 40mpg.  75 starts pulling it down to upper 30's. Hell the wife's 2-box Seltos at 70 is 38mpg and it's literally a friggin box. 

Damn, and my Legacy could barely crack 33 with me aggressively trying to mile it. The only recent (post 2000) cars I could think of that could do 40mpg was like the Honda Fit. But when I was looking for replacements (which led to my Tesla) the market was so bent that even rusted out, running trucks were going for over a grand.

Excepting the Sierra that's 17 years old and only gets 22 highway now (24 back when new and "pure" gas was easier to find), We haven't had a car average less than 35mpg highway since 2002. One of those was a $2000 accent that the wife averaged 41mpg out of for years on end. I'm still trying to figure out how long it would take to recoup that purchase with an EV. Of the rest the worst at highway was the wifes first auto Rio at around 33-34 and her second auto rio at 34/35.

For us, EV will just never make financial sense. Add in the lack of "soul" to me and it's a no-brainer.

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

Why are we not creating more 1.0L diesel, hydrogen and super high efficiency gas generator modules to charge the batteries and power the motors?

OK, this is what I"ve been saying for over a decade. Why aren't we using more locomotive style hybrids? A small diesel engine in the peak efficiency range for both economy and emissions that runs at a constant speed to power the batteries as needed. Size the generator correctly and you wouldn't need as large of a battery pack and you don't have to stop every couple hours to recharge.

EV's out west are not even an option. There are places that are 150+ miles between fuel stations and they are primitive at best and not even open 24 hours. When your nearest town is 100 miles one way or more well that's not gonna work well is it?

Tom1200 said:

So in an effort to get this 13 more pages:

Have we talked about EV RVs?............Amazon has electric vans on Sprinter style chassis. How viable will these be????

A solar array on the roof could run all the house stuff. They vans will supposedly go 150 miles...........you're in an RV so not not in a hurry. 

Tunawife wants one for when we are empty-nesters in roughly eight years. I am ready for that, and it sounds fun.

Still driving my "totally capable of replacing an ICE" Bolt every day. 83K now, and despite lots of trips and lots of cities, maybe 10 charges away from home, and perhaps two were actually required.