Death knell for petrol and diesel cars?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so lets discount them so....you can get ~120KM range for under €15K, what percentage of the population cant make do with that daily range?

Really? In the perpetual winter that is Ireland? I doubt it.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

You need to read the post he replied to, not take the phrase in isolation

I was specifically responding to

You'd do the 1000km quicker on Bus Éireann than what a €40,000 Nissan Leaf could do it, that's how **** they are and the new Ioniq ( which was a great car) is no better

While it may be a true fact, I'm not sure how valuable it is if the scenario is 100% bogus.

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the point is, if you want practicality you have to spend 40k+.

If you buy a 30kwh Leaf you will have a range of 60km and spend all your life at chargers.

I have an L30 and it has a max range of about 130-140km in the winter and I would say 150-160km in the summer.

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

so why not buy a 2016 leaf for under 15K?
https://www.carbuyersguide.net/nissan/leaf/2016-electric-red-hatchback-dublin-5dbfb46717590

You dont have to spend €33K on a brand new car to get an EV.

Also, manufacturers are clawing back some of the investment dollars they spent, its a relatively new tech, prices will plummet inthe next few years as they do for everything thats new....phones, tvs, computers, everything.

Why would I buy a nearly 4 year old car for 16k when a petrol equivalent 4 year old costs half that price?

Youd get a brand new petrol Nissan for not much more than 16k

This is different

Batteries are well understood at this stage, you don't think Apple or Samsung tried to get prices down last decade?

No new battery tech is even close to mass manufacturing, we will be stuck with lithium, nickel based batteries for years

EVs will be more expensive for a long long time, no point even talking about it

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? In the perpetual winter that is Ireland? I doubt it.

Yes really.
This is the problem, you "doubt" it due to scaremongering, but it's the reality.

The lowest average temperature across the country is 10*C, hardly perpetual winter, just more scaremongering with no basis in facts.

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

How many people are ever doing a 1,000KM journey in Ireland?

Not many

ELM327 made up that scenario

pwurple

cnocbui wrote: »

If the majority people have very small commutes, then they definitely shouldn't be switching to expensive EVs where they will never see a cost saving from reduced running costs matching the capital outlay premium.

Sooo.... Diesel for the win?

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

Why would I buy a nearly 4 year old car for 16k when a petrol equivalent 4 year old costs half that price?

Youd get a brand new petrol Nissan for not much more than 16k

Becuase you are trying to buy a car that will be much cheaper to run than a Petrol.

Mike9832 wrote: »

This is different

Batteries are well understood at this stage, you don't think Apple or Samsung tried to get prices down last decade?

Apple and Samsung are not putting batteries into cars and battery tech is still evolving, hence why my mobile battery is smaller but carries more change and lasts longer than it used to.

Mike9832 wrote: »

No new battery tech is even close to mass manufacturing, we will be stuck with lithium, nickel based batteries for years

EVs will be more expensive for a long long time, no point even talking about it

Oh well if there is no point in even talking about it you must be in the wrong thread.
Also, you should let all these lads know that they have backed the wrong horse.

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

I was specifically responding to


While it may be a true fact, I'm not sure how valuable it is if the scenario is 100% bogus.

I'd love to see it for the lols

I'd put money on the bus for sure

A 40kWh Leaf (starting at €40,000 before grant) would have to stop about 6 times or more at 45-60 mins at a go

17 hours at best?

A bus would only need to do under 60km/h average speed to best it

Somewhere like Australia would have this scenario, Sydney to Brisbane etc

pwurple

Mike9832 wrote: »

Why would I buy a nearly 4 year old car for 16k when a petrol equivalent 4 year old costs half that price?

Capital spending vs current spending.

Your petrol option costs 3 to 4k a year to service, tax, and fuel, and the EV costs 200 euro a year.

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

Becuase you are trying to buy a car that will be much cheaper to run than a Petrol.


Apple and Samsung are not putting batteries into cars and battery tech is still evolving, hence why my mobile battery is smaller but carries more change and lasts longer than it used to.



Oh well if there is no point in even talking about it you must be in the wrong thread.
Also, you should let all these lads know that they have backed the wrong horse.

8k buys alot of petrol

Batteries are awful they've barely improved in 30 years since lithium ion was introduced, a few percent improvement every year, they are laughably bad compared to fossil fuels in terms of energy density

Do you know how little energy they carry?

California etc, real world man, governments pushing it, not manufacture btw, they hate them EVs

Mike9832

pwurple wrote: »

Capital spending vs current spending.

Your petrol option costs 3 to 4k a year to service, tax, and fuel, and the EV costs 200 euro a year.

What car is that man?

Free electricity?

No tyres on EV's either lol 😂

Gumbo

Wibbs wrote: »

It's like herding cats...

In the recession after the boom went bust, what happened to the motor industry here? It slumped. Sales of both new and old cars. Why? People held onto their current cars for longer. Ergo if people hold onto a car, any car, ICE or EV, for longer, fewer cars will be sold and required and the environmental impact will be lesser.

I bought and sold more cars during the "recession" than at any time in my life. Loads of bargains and loads of profit out there.

Some interesting jumps too, from an Audi S3 to an MG ZR, and from a V8 X5 to a D4D Avensis!

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

8k buys alot of petrol

Batteries are awful they've barely improved in 30 years since lithium ion was introduced, a few percent improvement every year, they are laughably bad compared to fossil fuels in terms of energy density

Do you know how little energy they carry?

California etc, real world man, governments pushing it, not manufacture btw, they hate them EVs

And ICE engines are laughably inefficient compared to EV.
ICE is 10-30% efficiency since most of the energy is converted to heat and noise.
An EV is 90% efficient.


BTW, refuting your "facts" is like shooting fish in a barrel

pwurple

Mike9832 wrote: »

What car is that man?

Free electricity?

No tyres on EV's either lol ��

Don't call me man, and I won't call you boy.

My car costs 60 quid to service and 120 to tax. Yes, I charge for free, tyres when needed, less frequently than a fossil car, because less braking.

Any other questions?

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

And ICE engines are laughably inefficient compared to EV.
ICE is 10-30% efficiency since most of the energy is converted to heat and noise.
An EV is 90% efficient.


BTW, refuting your "facts" is like shooting fish in a barrel

Toyota etc are at 50%+ now and getting better every year

Your chart has no relevance to EVs, like most of them you've posted, battery chemistry out there that can keep close to fossil fuel density but not suitable for EVs, because of cycle life etc

EV batteries need a combination of high cycle life, charge rate, density

In the real world at pack level best in class Tesla are at 170wh/kg in 2020

In 2008 Tesla Roadster had 124wh/kg at pack level

12 years and a few percent improvement each year

Go research Nissan Leaf and many other EV's and track energy density at pack level

Not some irrelevant chart for non EV batteries

To get prices down, stabilising minerals like cobalt are coming out of batteries and like everything, that gives disadvantages

More advanced cooling, thermal management systems are needed to keep batteries at optimum levels

Thats why people quote pack level density, as cell density is irrelevant if you need advanced thermal management

Wibbs

kceire wrote: »

You can talk about handling and fine tuning until the cows comes home, but out there on the roads in city commuting, it makes no difference whatsoever to the average car owner.

You can sit there in your Integra Type R, with full Spoon exhaust, drop in filter, Cold Air Induction, vtec controller with vtec/fuel/air controlled remap, Eibach springs and performance tyres......but when little Mary leaves you sitting a the line in her Leaf Electric your laughed at

* You will catch her up north of 50-60 though, but then you both have to stop for the next red light.

By Christ, you and Greebo are petty little men indeed. When your arguments go to pot, or your little erections for EV's get questioned your recourse is this level of debate? Then again colour me not shocked though somewhat disappointed that you continue to live up to the stereotype of the EV acolytes.

And nope, sorry to disappoint, no boyracer add ons here I'm afraid, all bog standard.* and no, Mary's leccy Leaf won't leave me sitting. Having actually compared this in the real world with a new Leaf because we were both interested in what would happen and because his Leaf really does feel faster, he got two car lengths ahead and then nope and that's compared to near 30 year old car design with no torque. If Mary's driving the old style Leaf game over. Never mind that again I'm not American so drag racing at traffic lights is not my thing. Even so and I've said many times, but you seem to miss this looking for heretics of your credo, if I were in the market for a hatchback city car I'd would go EV, the new Leaf especially(the old Leaf gave me eye dysentery). They are what they are and EV's do it far better in that segment.

Then again as per usual you and your mates continue to demonstrate that EV types appear to know fúck all about cars and driving. Oh and I hate to break it to you, this is the Motors forum, not the little old lady driving to Supervalu forum. While the early adopter spergy EV types might not care about handling, drivability and pleasure or god forbid a bit of fúcking excitement going from A to B, most of the denizens of a Motoring forum do. Some EV's can provide that, the more tricked out Teslas, even the Beemer i3 and they will and are getting better, but a secondhand first gen Leaf is the motoring equivalent of tepid custard. Which is fine if you like tepid custard, but don't claim it's a steak with all the trimmings.

I bought and sold more cars during the "recession" than at any time in my life. Loads of bargains and loads of profit out there.

Good for you. Are you now claiming new car sales went up during the recession? Because that would be beyond wilful idiocy. So my point stands as before. People hanging onto cars for longer means fewer new cars being sold, which means a lower impact on the environment.



*well, a Spoon built engine, but contrary to the Fast and Furious morons belief on its own it doesn't add a single horsepower.

Mike9832

pwurple wrote: »

Don't call me man, and I won't call you boy.

My car costs 60 quid to service and 120 to tax. Yes, I charge for free, tyres when needed, less frequently than a fossil car, because less braking.

Any other questions?

Charge for free, ok

I'll leave it there, not really relevant

KCross

Wibbs wrote: »

In the recession after the boom went bust, what happened to the motor industry here? It slumped. Sales of both new and old cars. Why? People held onto their current cars for longer. Ergo if people hold onto a car, any car, ICE or EV, for longer, fewer cars will be sold and required and the environmental impact will be lesser.

Its clear now based on your latest scenario that you and liamog are arguing across each other and not making the same point at all.... therefore you are both right.

You are saying that if everyone kept their cars longer and hence the average lifespan of the cars in the country increases then there are less new cars needed over a set period of time... and thats absolutely true and Im sure liamog would agree with that.

Thats not what you started with though and not what liamog is debating with you. (tell me to stop putting words in your mouth liamog if I am).

liamog is saying that in a theoretical world where the lifespan of all cars is the same and they all last 20 years then it doesnt matter if its one owner for 20 years or 5 owners... the car still lasts 20 years and everyone still has just one car each.... and thats also absolutely true... but of course we dont live in a theoretical world where all cars last 20 years. Its closer to 14yrs I think because obsolesence is built in and they become uneconomic to repair eventhough they are perfectly repairable. Thats not the fault of the consumer though.

Keeping it for longer sounds great but if it costs more to keep it longer it makes a poor person poorer! Thats reality. I know you have an old car and great that you are able to keep it going. Unfortunately all cars are not made to the same reliability. Its the manufactuers, governments and insurers fault.

liamog

KCross wrote: »

Its clear now based on your latest scenario that you and liamog are arguing across each other and not making the same point at all.... therefore you are both right.

You are saying that if everyone kept their cars longer and hence the average lifespan of the cars in the country increases then there are less new cars needed over a set period of time... and thats absolutely true and Im sure liamog would agree with that.

Thats not what you started with though and not what liamog is debating with you. (tell me to stop putting words in your mouth liamog if I am).

Thanks KCross, that's exactly what I've been trying to get too.

KCross wrote: »

Keeping it for longer sounds great but if it costs more to keep it longer it makes a poor person poorer! Thats reality. I know you have an old car and great that you are able to keep it going. Unfortunately all cars are not made to the same reliability. Its the manufactuers, governments and insurers fault.

Completely agree, two things I'd change tomorrow.
Remove the year from our number plates, cars should be judged by mileage and condition not a vanity number, and prevent insurance companies from loading premiums based on the age of the car.

Those two changes should increase the usable life of all cars.

pwurple

Mike9832 wrote: »

Charge for free, ok

I'll leave it there, not really relevant

I've already put the cost of charging into this thread at least three times. Pardon me for not spoonfeeding you again.

Your cost per unit will be somewhere between 7 and 9 c.
24kW car costs around 2 euro per charge, which lasts your typical driver around a week.

Tell me again how petrol is cheaper.

KCross

liamog wrote: »

...and prevent insurance companies from loading premiums based on the age of the car.

Those two changes should increase the usable life of all cars.

Devils advocate.... the insurance companies will say that newer cars are safer (which they are) and so that materially affects the insurance companies risk and insurance is all about risk assessment.

If you are in a new car with the latest NCAP safety features (ABS, AEB, airbags etc) you are less like to be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life in the case of a crash relative to someone driving a 20 year old car with none of those and in the same crash... that is reality.

Ultimately its all down to commercial interests and money. Very hard to get away from that when living in a capitalist society!

Wibbs

KCross wrote: »

Keeping it for longer sounds great but if it costs more to keep it longer it makes a poor person poorer! Thats reality. I know you have an old car and great that you are able to keep it going. Unfortunately all cars are not made to the same reliability. Its the manufactuers, governments and insurers fault.

Oh I agree 100% here K. It's down to the vested interests you note and how they've influenced the buying public. We have long had the technology and capability to make cars that could last and be repairable and upgradeable for decades. There was somewhat of a "sweet spot" somewhere between circa 1990 and 2000 odd, between the eras of having to work on your car every weekend greasing trunnions and the era of becoming PLaystations on wheels, where quite a few manufacturers did build cars that kept going for donkey's years. It would be a rare enough day if I am on the roads for a few hours where I wouldn't pass some 90's Japanese car, usually a Toyota. The joke is cars are being made to last for 100,000 miles or so and generally last that without major repairs(and covered by warranty, usually within PCP), but then the costs of parts are artificially kept high to make keeping them on the road financially non viable(I would say that over my 30 years of driving one thing that struck me is how crazy car parts prices have become). Which in turn tends to increase depreciation and that will get worse as more folks buy into cars and brands through PCP and it is against the interests of the those driving that to make those cars last longer. EV will make a difference to pollution, most certainly local pollution, but until we break out of this vested interests trend our rate of consumption won't change and that's the big problem.

Again, just as Ireland is ideal palaeographically for EV's, we're also pretty ideally placed to try and break this consumer churn in cars. Yes we have the motor dealer network and so on, but we don't manufacture cars, so have far less to financially lose compared to say Germany, France, Japan, or the US. We'd also have to tweak the end consumer mindset and that's going to be the hardest thing.

ELM327

Mike9832 wrote: »

Toyota etc are at 50%+ now and getting better every year

Your chart has no relevance to EVs, like most of them you've posted, battery chemistry out there that can keep close to fossil fuel density but not suitable for EVs, because of cycle life etc

EV batteries need a combination of high cycle life, charge rate, density

In the real world at pack level best in class Tesla are at 170wh/kg in 2020

In 2008 Tesla Roadster had 124wh/kg at pack level

12 years and a few percent improvement each year

Go research Nissan Leaf and many other EV's and track energy density at pack level

Not some irrelevant chart for non EV batteries

To get prices down, stabilising minerals like cobalt are coming out of batteries and like everything, that gives disadvantages

More advanced cooling, thermal management systems are needed to keep batteries at optimum levels

Thats why people quote pack level density, as cell density is irrelevant if you need advanced thermal management

Considering F1 engines only reached 50% recently in terms of thermal efficiency I'm calling BS on that one.

Seweryn

liamog wrote: »

Completely agree, two things I'd change tomorrow.
Remove the year from our number plates, cars should be judged by mileage and condition not a vanity number, and prevent insurance companies from loading premiums based on the age of the car.

Those two changes should increase the usable life of all cars.

I would love that too.

"Unfortunately" the year on the number plates play a very important role of making sure we buy and consume more and more. This is directly against our environmental goals, but very important part of the capitalist approach. The key part of a booming consumer type economy. Yes, it is exactly against our goals. So, how do we make both sides happy? We can't, we would need to change the way our economy function.

Seweryn

ELM327 wrote: »

Considering F1 engines only reached 50% recently in terms of thermal efficiency I'm calling BS on that one.

50 % efficiency is on high side, but average Diesel achieves over 40%. About 55 % for large ship engines.

ELM327

Seweryn wrote: »

50 % efficiency is on high side, but average Diesel achieves over 40%. About 55 % for large ship engines.

Ship engines doing sub 300 rpm on semi viscous bunker fuel have nothing to do with car engines though


An atkinson cycle hybrid engine has a better thermal efficiency rating than a diesel I would have thought. I read mid 30's for the newer diesels and low to mid 40's for the new prius.

cnocbui

GreeBo wrote: »

and its the highlighted bit in your post that is the issue.
They dont *agree* that an EV meets their needs, but there is no basis for that.
I think its an assumption based on the types of scaremongering you read on threads like this very one.
People being terrified about getting stranded miles from home with a suddenly empty battery.

The SEI figures from 2010 show an average of ~200Miles per week by Irish drivers, remove the outliers who are likley skewing the data (people who drive thousands of miles a week) and the average need is probably closer to 150KM a week.
so you can get any EV and charge it once a week without any inconvenience, yep people will still say that they *need* more range.

Its nonsense for 95%+ of Irish drivers, even if we like in a townhouse and dont have charging at work, there is at least 45 minutes every week where you can park somewhere with a charger.

And the owners of those EVs will never manage running cost savings to pay off the price difference over an equivalent petrol car inside of 10 years.

The only ace EV pushers have up their sleeves are socially irresponsible governments like Ireland's, using taxation to try and make petrol cars as expensive as EVs with their ever present willingness to act as if the population have near infinite financial resources to meet their glorious objectives with; like their last act of genius to have everyone driving around in diesels. They didn't quite get their way as some people like me refused to drive a carcinogen spewer and took the hit in taxes, so only 74% are now diesels.

I was penalised financially for doing the right thing. I was right and government and Greenies were wrong. Here we are again with history repeating itself, this time with EVs.

KCross

Wibbs wrote: »

Again, just as Ireland is ideal palaeographically for EV's, we're also pretty ideally placed to try and break this consumer churn in cars. Yes we have the motor dealer network and so on, but we don't manufacture cars, so have far less to financially lose compared to say Germany, France, Japan, or the US. We'd also have to tweak the end consumer mindset and that's going to be the hardest thing.

Personally I think EV's will help the longevity cause significantly.

I think manufacturers already know that and see the writing on the wall. They know if they sell an EV today at the same price as an ICE they will have less income as a result, because servicing costs are significantly reduced.... their answer to that is to front load the price... a Kona EV for just shy of €50k before grants!

The new norm going forward will be more expensive cars with less maintenance and longer lifespans.... the first gen leaf might be an exception to that because it has such a small battery but all new EV's will/should last longer than todays ICE... imo. Only time will tell that for sure of course.

liamog

KCross wrote: »

Devils advocate.... the insurance companies will say that newer cars are safer (which they are) and so that materially affects the insurance companies risk and insurance is all about risk assessment.

If you are in a new car with the latest NCAP safety features (ABS, AEB, airbags etc) you are less like to be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life in the case of a crash relative to someone driving a 20 year old car with none of those and in the same crash... that is reality.

I'm a fan of systems like the Insurance Group Rating in the UK (https://www.thatcham.org/what-we-do/insurance-group-rating/) makes it somewhat easier to predict and compare insurance costs.

A 2017 and 2019 Hyundai Ioniq have exactly the same safety features, when the 2017 model hits 15 years old it will magically go up in premiums due to extra "risk".

Idbatterim

Seweryn wrote: »

I would love that too.

"Unfortunately" the year on the number plates play a very important role of making sure we buy and consume more and more. This is directly against our environmental goals, but very important part of the capitalist approach. The key part of a booming consumer type economy. Yes, it is exactly against our goals. So, how do we make both sides happy? We can't, we would need to change the way our economy function.

But most other countries that even manufacturer cars , don’t display the year of the car on the reg! Or at least not as blatantly as we do !!! Should be gotten rid of in my opinion!

liamog

Seweryn wrote: »

I would love that too.

"Unfortunately" the year on the number plates play a very important role of making sure we buy and consume more and more. This is directly against our environmental goals, but very important part of the capitalist approach. The key part of a booming consumer type economy. Yes, it is exactly against our goals. So, how do we make both sides happy? We can't, we would need to change the way our economy function.

Given that they manage without years in Continental Europe, the only people who would really suffer here are SIMI Dealers, and the finance houses.

Oh, I see the problem, the bloody banks stand to lose. Cancel the sensible plans guys, must keep the bankers happy

Wibbs

KCross wrote: »

Thats not what you started with though and not what liamog is debating with you. (tell me to stop putting words in your mouth liamog if I am).

liamog is saying that in a theoretical world where the lifespan of all cars is the same and they all last 20 years then it doesnt matter if its one owner for 20 years or 5 owners... the car still lasts 20 years and everyone still has just one car each.... and thats also absolutely true...

I see what you're saying K, but it really isn't. The one owner for twenty years means the same owner hasn't bought four other cars that needed to be built and you could take those four cars out of this theoretical universe and he or she wouldn't notice, but there would be four fewer cars.

I know you have an old car and great that you are able to keep it going. Unfortunately all cars are not made to the same reliability

TBH I've been lucky, mainly because of the particular era and origin of the car and the plain fact is complexity wise it's the equivalent of a stone age handaxe compared to even entry level cars of today. There's simply fewer things to go wrong. Funny I've seen similar with mates with of all things vans. They're mostly a big steel box on wheels with a seat and steering wheel and they can go on for ages. I've a mate who had a Sprinter van with 600,000 on the clock and he's moved it on to his mate in turn. Yes it needed some work down the years, but as he noted nothing in comparison to his various personal cars over the years with a lot less mileage on them.

Completely agree, two things I'd change tomorrow.
Remove the year from our number plates, cars should be judged by mileage and condition not a vanity number, and prevent insurance companies from loading premiums based on the age of the car.

Those two changes should increase the usable life of all cars.

+1000.

Seweryn

Idbatterim wrote: »

But most other countries that even manufacturer cars , don’t display the year of the car on the reg! Or at least not as blatantly as we do !!! Should be gotten rid of in my opinion!

I agree for the change, the current plates look silly, especially the 131 or other triple digit ones. No other country does that as it has no benefit (if it had others would do it first). Plus the registration numbers would be shorter and simpler.

creedp

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes we have the motor dealer network and so on, but we don't manufacture cars, so have far less to financially lose compared to say Germany, France, Japan, or the US. We'd also have to tweak the end consumer mindset and that's going to be the hardest thing.

Welcome to VRT .. how else could we afford to subsidise environmentally friendly projects!

As a society we continue to talk out both sides of our mouths when it comes to environmental issues because as long as our holy grail is ever increasing rates of economic growth driven largely by consumerism, then we pay only lip service to environmental concerns. I mean its all about finding new ways of enjoying ourselves to hell with the begrudgers!!
http://www.msn.com/en-ie/travel/news/a-luxury-tour-that-starts-in-december-may-be-the-most-epic-ski-trip-ever-created/ar-AAJNK4s?li=BBr5MKc&ocid=iehp

?Cee?view

cnocbui wrote: »

And the owners of those EVs will never manage running cost savings to pay off the price difference over an equivalent petrol car inside of 10 years.

The only ace EV pushers have up their sleeves are socially irresponsible governments like Ireland's, using taxation to try and make petrol cars as expensive as EVs with their ever present willingness to act as if the population have near infinite financial resources to meet their glorious objectives with; like their last act of genius to have everyone driving around in diesels. They didn't quite get their way as some people like me refused to drive a carcinogen spewer and took the hit in taxes, so only 74% are now diesels.

I was penalised financially for doing the right thing. I was right and government and Greenies were wrong. Here we are again with history repeating itself, this time with EVs.

This post sums it all up perfectly. Thanks.

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

What car is that man?

Free electricity?

No tyres on EV's either lol ��

20,000Km a year will cost you about €250 in electricity if you charge at home.
what will 20,000Km cost you in a Petrol or diesel car?
What will 20,000 city kilometers cost you in a petrol or diesel car?

Seweryn

ELM327 wrote: »

Ship engines doing sub 300 rpm on semi viscous bunker fuel have nothing to do with car engines though .

True. BTW, the type of fuel is to be changed from next year due to reduction of sulphur.

ELM327 wrote: »

An atkinson cycle hybrid engine has a better thermal efficiency rating than a diesel I would have thought. I read mid 30's for the newer diesels and low to mid 40's for the new prius.

It depends how you measure, but a good Diesel engine would have a peak efficiency up to 45%, average would be lower. It would be comparable with an Atkinson engine. In fairness this is all very good for an ICE regardless of design. Electric motors are much better in this department.

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

Toyota etc are at 50%+ now and getting better every year

Your chart has no relevance to EVs, like most of them you've posted, battery chemistry out there that can keep close to fossil fuel density but not suitable for EVs, because of cycle life etc

EV batteries need a combination of high cycle life, charge rate, density

In the real world at pack level best in class Tesla are at 170wh/kg in 2020

In 2008 Tesla Roadster had 124wh/kg at pack level

12 years and a few percent improvement each year

Go research Nissan Leaf and many other EV's and track energy density at pack level

Not some irrelevant chart for non EV batteries

To get prices down, stabilising minerals like cobalt are coming out of batteries and like everything, that gives disadvantages

More advanced cooling, thermal management systems are needed to keep batteries at optimum levels

Thats why people quote pack level density, as cell density is irrelevant if you need advanced thermal management

You posted

Batteries are awful they've barely improved in 30 years since lithium ion was introduced, a few percent improvement every year,

and thats what I directly responded to with the chart.
Facts, not conjecture.

Idbatterim

Of course there are also some good citizens who will pay more on total to drive an ev, because not everything is about money and will be doing us all a favor ! Particularly if they generate their own electricity and use that to charge the car ...

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

You posted and thats what I directly responded to with the chart.
Facts, not conjecture.

Yes they've barely improved

Few percent a year is a joke

Compared to microprocessors etc

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

Toyota etc are at 50%+ now and getting better every year

Wanna know which Toyotas are at 50%+ efficiency?
Its the hybrids...yunno the ones with electric engines in them!

GreeBo

cnocbui wrote: »

And the owners of those EVs will never manage running cost savings to pay off the price difference over an equivalent petrol car inside of 10 years.

The owners of which EVs? The brand new ones?
Why focus on them?
What percentage of car sales are new versus used?
Why ignore the growing used EV market?

GreeBo

KCross wrote: »

Personally I think EV's will help the longevity cause significantly.

I think manufacturers already know that and see the writing on the wall. They know if they sell an EV today at the same price as an ICE they will have less income as a result, because servicing costs are significantly reduced.... their answer to that is to front load the price... a Kona EV for just shy of €50k before grants!

The new norm going forward will be more expensive cars with less maintenance and longer lifespans.... the first gen leaf might be an exception to that because it has such a small battery but all new EV's will/should last longer than todays ICE... imo. Only time will tell that for sure of course.

Add in cheaper and cheaper replacement batteries and there is no reason why an EV cant far, far outlast the ICE equivalent.

KCross

Wibbs wrote: »

I see what you're saying K, but it really isn't. The one owner for twenty years means the same owner hasn't bought four other cars that needed to be built and you could take those four cars out of this theoretical universe and he or she wouldn't notice, but there would be four fewer cars.

Do we want to re-hash that whole debate again!

If that one owner keeps his car for 20 years what do the other 5 people do... walk? They need cars too and everyone cant afford to buy new... thats the crux of it.

In the theoretical scenario the end result is the exact same.... one car required, on average, per person over a 20 year period because all the cars last 20 years. Its a mathematical certainty!

Put another way.... all 6 people buy a new car at year 0 and keep it for 20 years at which point all 6 of them have to buy new cars on year 20.... same thing.It's just theoretical, not real world.

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

I see what you're saying K, but it really isn't. The one owner for twenty years means the same owner hasn't bought four other cars that needed to be built and you could take those four cars out of this theoretical universe and he or she wouldn't notice, but there would be four fewer cars.

There isn't magically 4 less cars. If you took the 4 cars out of the theoretical universe, driver 1 wouldn't notice, but drivers 2,3,4, and 5 would be left standing at the side of the road. So that means we need 4 more cars.

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

I see what you're saying K, but it really isn't. The one owner for twenty years means the same owner hasn't bought four other cars that needed to be built and you could take those four cars out of this theoretical universe and he or she wouldn't notice, but there would be four fewer cars.

BUT the 4 others owners who would have taken his 4 used cars HAVE bought cars from somewhere. These are the cars your keep forgetting about.

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

Yes they've barely improved

Few percent a year is a joke

Compared to microprocessors etc

How more efficient has your ICE car become?
If they are still idling at 10-30% now Im betting its not all that much.

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

20,000Km a year will cost you about €250 in electricity if you charge at home.
what will 20,000Km cost you in a Petrol or diesel car?
What will 20,000 city kilometers cost you in a petrol or diesel car?

Probably €2,000 a year, but for that saving you have a car that has to stop every 1 hour at motorway speeds to charge and it only gets worse every year

It suits a few of course, but most people are not prepared to put up with that crap

€16,000 for a car that can only do 120km at motorway speed and in 4 years might not even do 90-100km as 1 car user/family doesn't seem appealing

Its a good 2nd car alright as a workhorse

creedp

GreeBo wrote: »

Wanna know which Toyotas are at 50%+ efficiency?
Its the hybrids...yunno the ones with electric engines in them!

The main issue people have with EVs is the battery not the motor. Personally I have no issue with a hybrid/Phev other than cost. In this context in the absence of a reasonable supply of affordable EVs, more should be done to promote Hybrids/Phevs in order to improve air quality in urban areas and make more efficient use of resources