Electric vehicles catch-all thread

[0ddl0t]

How long are you going to keep it? If under 100,000 miles, just go by MB's 20K schedule and spend the savings on fun stuff. If you're going to keep it forever (or do your own oil changes), I'd probably do 10K normally and maybe 3-5K for the first change.

Diesels have much bigger oil sumps and tend to be built to take a lot more abuse. That and diesel oil changes cost a heck of a lot more (especially if paying a shop) so if the engine already lasts 300K with 20K intervals (which they do all the time), you will have saved enough in oil changes to buy and install a rebuilt engine.


When I had a freight company I got into retrofitting bypass oil filters and doing oil analyses to determine change intervals. These were all Detroit 12.7s which I believe were spec'ed with 15,000 mile intervals. Anyway, I'd plot the wear metals vs miles or vs hours but the shapes of the curves varied dramatically from truck to truck. Then because each truck had a unique fuel card I plotted wear metals against gallons of diesel consumed and I'd see that the wear metals would do a slow linear increase until about 3,000 gallons of diesel at which point the curve would shift and it would start wearing faster. Some trucks got 5mpg, some trucks got 8mpg. Some trucks drove city routes and had higher hours per mile, some guys did express long hauls with relatively low hours per mile. But when they'd burned 3,000 gallons of diesel, we'd know it was time to change the oil.

And all the engines lasted 750K to 1.2 million miles which is pretty typical for the 12.7, but in their lifespans they all pretty much used around 150,000 gallons of diesel. So if you were going to bean counter costs, I'd go by fuel rather than miles...

[GJM]

Battery advances:

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/e...years-d306be44

[psalms144.1]

Battery advances:

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/e...years-d306be44

Anything important for those of us who aren't subscribers?

I'm NOT against the idea of EVs. I AM against the idea of having them crammed down our throats when the infrastructure and technology CLEARLY aren't ready for widespread use outside of urban, short-distance use.

I'd buy an EV tomorrow if it could go from SW IN to San Antonio in a 16-18 hour day. That's the farthest I ever drive now. But, I frequently (once a month or so), make a 13-hour drive to Long Island or 10-hour drive to Richmond, and now I've got a future SIL playing in the AHL in Milwaukee (5 hours away), so I'll be making that run at least twice a month for the next 6-8 weeks (depending on playoffs).

As far as I can tell, none of the current EV options will give me that kind of range without multiple long-term charging stops.

[Navin Johnson]

Anything important for those of us who aren't subscribers?

I'm NOT against the idea of EVs. I AM against the idea of having them crammed down our throats when the infrastructure and technology CLEARLY aren't ready for widespread use outside of urban, short-distance use.

I'd buy an EV tomorrow if it could go from SW IN to San Antonio in a 16-18 hour day. That's the farthest I ever drive now. But, I frequently (once a month or so), make a 13-hour drive to Long Island or 10-hour drive to Richmond, and now I've got a future SIL playing in the AHL in Milwaukee (5 hours away), so I'll be making that run at least twice a month for the next 6-8 weeks (depending on playoffs).

As far as I can tell, none of the current EV options will give me that kind of range without multiple long-term charging stops.

Typical puff piece.

Some stuff about BMW, decreasing charging times and increasing range and…..they will still be behind most other electric cars in range and charging time

Promises of great advancements and cheap electric cars and it’s only a few years away…..We’ve never heard that before.

Meanwhile, Ford just cut 2/3 of their workers from their lightning plant.

Still Nothing about replacement costs disposal, and ever decreasing range of electric cars over time. Or how electric really doesn’t work well with bigger heavier vehicles like most people drive and is only really ideal for short range commuter cars if you got an extra 50 G for an extra car.

Or how fast chargers wear the batteries out much quicker and cost money to use.

Or how green utopias like Seattle don’t have the electrical grid to support the superchargers that are currently available.

To be honest, I can only read part of an article by a fluffer who gets paid on a per word basis

[BehindBlueI's]

The EPA’s agenda is to eliminate all ICE engines period. They ruined diesels some years ago with exhaust/particulate filters and in a few years the same garbage will be on gas engines. (Think $5-7k increase in price and replacement cost at around 100k mileage)

Hydrogen is a great idea but windmills will win if we keep electing people whom hate America.

Hydrogen only increases electricity demands, at least until some significant naturally occurring reserve can be located and exploited. Which hasn't been a thing yet and will likely be very expensive due to the depths involved and the mixing with other gasses.

Cracking hydrogen is energy negative and is, essentially, an electric vehicle using hydrogen instead of a battery to store the energy.

Hydrogen makes zero sense for a large nation with significant petroleum reserves. It makes much more sense for Japan with significant electrical generating capacity, small footprint for infrastructure rollout, and essentially no domestic supplies for energy sources.

[HeavyDuty]

Hydrogen only increases electricity demands, at least until some significant naturally occurring reserve can be located and exploited. Which hasn't been a thing yet and will likely be very expensive due to the depths involved and the mixing with other gasses.

Cracking hydrogen is energy negative and is, essentially, an electric vehicle using hydrogen instead of a battery to store the energy.

Hydrogen makes zero sense for a large nation with significant petroleum reserves. It makes much more sense for Japan with significant electrical generating capacity, small footprint for infrastructure rollout, and essentially no domestic supplies for energy sources.

We aren’t there yet, and probably won’t be for decades. But IIRC using nuclear power plants to directly create hydrogen is a technology being developed.

[Navin Johnson]

Hydrogen only increases electricity demands, at least until some significant naturally occurring reserve can be located and exploited. Which hasn't been a thing yet and will likely be very expensive due to the depths involved and the mixing with other gasses.

Cracking hydrogen is energy negative and is, essentially, an electric vehicle using hydrogen instead of a battery to store the energy.

Hydrogen makes zero sense for a large nation with significant petroleum reserves. It makes much more sense for Japan with significant electrical generating capacity, small footprint for infrastructure rollout, and essentially no domestic supplies for energy sources.

Agreed. didn't want to go that deep. Hydrogen would have similar driving characteristics as petrol and is perceived as greener. Any thing but government controlled electric
It is all political where we are headed and has nothing to do with common sense, economics, or practicality

[0ddl0t]

Of all the bad options, I think hydrogen is probably best. But everything is "bad" for the environment.

During a winter energy crisis, Jimmy Carter told America to turn down their thermostats to 65 and put on a sweater and America hated him for it. Americans don't want to be told their behavior is unsustainable, they want someone to promise them a miracle that lets them keep doing the same things.

Ignoring the very real environmental impacts of generating electricity, burning hydrogen doesn't just emit H2O - it also creates NOx. Anytime you heat air you get NOx. And NOx reacts readily with other air pollutants to form ozone which creates smog, acid rain, and is a potent greenhouse gas when on the ground level.

You know what else creates ground level ozone? Lightning. Oh and electronics. Anytime you charge an EV, you're releasing ozone. By the mile driven, EVs emit twice as much ozone as gas!. And oh by the way, the largest source of automotive particulate air pollution is actually from the tires. And since EVs weigh ~20% more, they emit about 20% more asthma causing particulates. But hey, they're zero carbon, right?

I love cars, its one of my few passions, but none of it is sustainable. 8 billion people simply can't drive themselves to work in 5,000+ lb monstrosities - regardless of the power source - without severely polluting the earth.

[BehindBlueI's]

We aren’t there yet, and probably won’t be for decades. But IIRC using nuclear power plants to directly create hydrogen is a technology being developed.

That's why Japan is hot on it and it is a failure in the US even with heavy subsidy assistance.

[RoyGBiv]

We aren’t there yet, and probably won’t be for decades. But IIRC using nuclear power plants to directly create hydrogen is a technology being developed.

Hydrogen breeder reactors. Real.