The EV fact thread

[markjay]

...The thing to ask with some EVS is why they are given energy wasting tweaks. Buy a better spec EV and it may well come with wheel/tyre combination and an extra motor taht sap some of the range of the ordinary spec version.

Agreed. People buying all these 'performance' variants clearly don't care much about range. But then neither do C63 owners.....

 

[poormansporsche]

WARNING WARNING WARNING

@poormansporsche is clearly on the EV payroll spouting misinformation like this. He’s almost certainly a mouthpiece for the social elite who using EVs to achieve world domination.

Dunno about any of that, payroll sounds interesting.

But as I've had 3 cars spontaneously combust, 2 due to my superlative Audio installation skills, and I'm somewhat irked by the rubbish Bose sub in the Leaf and I have a spare underseat sub in the garage. Grommet poking and wire splicing.

Watch this space.........






Boom

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

And the rest. I’m pretty sure that platform/engine we have in common has a transmission oil temperature, in Winter it can be much more. I’ll try to remember when I’m out in a car with transmission oil gauge.

I’ve noticed that engine oil warms up more quickly when driving at higher speeds - which isn’t ideal in itself - whereas it’s much less pronounced for transmission oil, and I’ve never really hook the time to think about why.

Today I monitored the transmission oil temperature. Ambient temperature was 6 deg C, transmission oil temperature at set-off was 3 deg C. Operating temperature is from 50 deg C and it took 26 minutes to reach that.

 

[markjay]

Today I monitored the transmission oil temperature. Ambient temperature was 6 deg C, transmission oil temperature at set-off was 3 deg C. Operating temperature is from 50 deg C and it took 26 minutes to reach that.

Again, the obvious benefit of an EV is that it's ready to drive in optimal conditions (for a given ambient temperature) from when you press the Start button. No warming up needed (the suspension and brakes only really need warming up on a race track... not in city driving).

This just adds to why having an EV in the city is a no-brainer, and why driving an ICE cars in conditions where the engine spends most if its service life running in suboptimal conditions increases engine wear, pollution, and energy waste.

However, all this is only possible in cities where residents have access to chargers - private or public.

Councils that do not have the foresight to invest in public chargers in their residential areas, will continue to see their city centres clogged-up with cars running cold engines and emitting even more harmful exhaust gasses than they normally would.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Again, the obvious benefit of an EV is that it's ready to drive in optimal conditions (for a given ambient temperature) from when you press the Start button. No warming up needed (the suspension and brakes only really need warming up on a race track... not in city driving).

This just adds to why having an EV in the city is a no-brainer, and why driving an ICE cars in conditions where the engine spends most if its service life running in suboptimal conditions increases engine wear, pollution, and energy waste.

However, all this is only possible in cities where residents have access to chargers - private or public.

Councils that do not have the foresight to invest in public chargers in their residential areas, will continue to see their city centres clogged-up with cars running cold engines and emitting even more harmful exhaust gasses than they normally would.

I don't live in a city, I live in a village in a relatively rural area, and whilst our village doesn’t yet have a public charger, four of the six neighbouring villages have more than one charger, which are hardly ever used, so there’s plenty of capacity here at least.

I would say the capacity for public charging already far exceeds what is already required for some time at the current rate of growth. I suspect most was committed and installed before the “date” was pushed back last year.

Pushing back the date has surely slowed down the expansion of public charging.

 

[markjay]

I don't live in a city, I live in a village in a relatively rural area, and whilst our village doesn’t yet have a public charger, four of the six neighbouring villages have more than one charger, which are hardly ever used, so there’s plenty of capacity here at least.

I would say the capacity for public charging already far exceeds what is already required for some time at the current rate of growth. I suspect most was committed and installed before the “date” was pushed back last year.

Pushing back the date has surely slowed down the expansion of public charging.

On a related note, as far as I am concerned, people living in rural areas can keep their EU5 (and earlier) Diesel cars, as long as they do not drive them into urban areas.

 

[Dryce]

On a related note, as far as I am concerned, people living in rural areas can keep their EU5 (and earlier) Diesel cars, as long as they do not drive them into urban areas.

That's great. Then you find you can't get to a main dealer or a decent independent workshop for servicing because they are in one of the zones.

You drive through an urban motorway at night - diversions because of roadworks - and you end up inadvertently in a zone. London - £12.50. Glasgow - escalating fine.

As an example for occasional entrants into the zone the London ULEZ is appallingly managed. They have a badly organised database and if their database is screwed then it's *your* fault and not theirs. Not fit for purpose IMO. Doesn't affect regulars as they will get it fixed. Catches out occasionals.

So even in rural areas some people will switch to petrol because of the irritations - doing long mileages that would be better suited to diesel.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

On a related note, as far as I am concerned, people living in rural areas can keep their EU5 (and earlier) Diesel cars, as long as they do not drive them into urban areas.

There’s rural and there’s remote. Genuinely there’s no reason that an EV can’t function as easily as an ICE in most rural areas. Truly remote areas are different though, although even finding petrol or diesel can often be a challenge in such places!

In a related note Junior D went out in our Fiat 500e yesterday and got back late, with snow falling, icy cold and not much charge. This morning she woke up to a full charge and dashed of to work. It’s so convenient for those who can charge.

 

[Dryce]

In a related note Junior D went out in our Fiat 500e yesterday and got back late, with snow falling, icy cold and not much charge. This morning she woke up to a full charge and dashed of to work. It’s so convenient for those who can charge.

I think there are still a lot of people who have the potential to charge at home haven't really woken up to this aspect - both for EVs and PHEVs. In a rural area if you mainly drive in the locale - and the nearest filling station is 10 miles away then an EV - especially as a second car - may work out to be a better option despite the headline range being lower.

 

[ChipChop]

On a related note, as far as I am concerned, people living in rural areas can keep their EU5 (and earlier) Diesel cars, as long as they do not drive them into urban areas.

Urban low emissions schemes and the Net zero madness has but one concern. Extracting as much money as possible from the publics pockets. Hence why people from the sticks can pay a few quid to the progressives slush funds and pay to pollute.

On a global scale the World Bank, tasked with administering global climate change funding, has lost track of at least $24 billion bankrolling the "battle" against climate change. No records exist of where 40% of its funds for the last 7 years has gone.

Lots in the news today about COP29 climate deals but little said about how these vast sums of money for so called climate justice are ever actually spent. Sounds very much like a scam on a regional, national and global scale to me.

Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

 

[Steveml63]

Hi,
If people are interested, below you will find some facts & figures that I have analysed on our two EVs - with comparison to the cars they replaced.
BMWiX40 Msport
This is an X5 sized SUV from BMW that was designed specifically as an EV.
All cars sold here are fully loaded - including this one.
We bought it in April 2023 as an ex-demo car from the official BMW dealer in Abu Dhabi.
The car had zero kms on the clock when we looked at it (we drove another one for the demo to ensure we did not rack up any miles on it!)
As an ex-demo we got around £22340 discount on the list price.
When we collected the car - the dealer had put 510km on the car - to prove to BMW that it was a demo (and allowed them to discount the price)
We paid equivalent of £78,000 at current exchange rates.
Car has 999,999km full service contract (this includes everything like brake discs, pads, wiper blades etc.)
It also has 200,000 km full warranty.
We therefore only need to pay for electricity, tyres and insurance.
Car has been totally reliable and is much more comfortable and faster in the real world than its replacement (BMW X3M40i)
As with other EVs - from the lights - not much can keep up with the instant, digital acceleration that you get from zero to go when you mash the fast pedal.
I have a Racelogic box and the car is faster than BMW specify - it goes from 0-60mph in 5.38 seconds (with zero fuss or delay)l
Car has done 27062 miles since April 2023 and has used 13011 kw/h of juice.
11794 kw/h were charged at home with a total cost of £672 (2.5p per mile).
The X3 would have used £3047 of petrol for equivalent mileage 11.3p per mile (4.5 times more expensive)
Range on 100% battery is 400km if you keep to 110 km/h
Drops to around 300km if you drive at National speed limit of 140 km/h on the motorways

Tesla Model 3 Performance
We bought this new in November 2022.
It has covered 31140 miles from new.
Total electricity used 12826 kw/h
8722 kw/h were at home at a cost of £497.23 (1.6p per mile)
Remainder were free Tesla Superchargers.
This replaced a tuned Audi TTS (360hp).
The Tesla is faster in all respects than the TT.
The TT would have used £2921.70 of petrol (9.4p per mile)

Conclusions.
Both cars have been fantastic to own and run.
Performance, comfort and handling exceed their replacements - on the roads here.
I am a confirmed petrolhead and have owned many interesting cars over the years.
I don’t care that I cannot hear a V8 - as I normally have the music turned up too loud to hear it anyway!

What cars next?
The replacement for the Tesla Model 3 Performance is tricky - either a Porsche 911 Turbo S or maybe a Tesla Model S Plaid.
My wife fancies a Bentayga to replace the BMWiX.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Again, the obvious benefit of an EV is that it's ready to drive in optimal conditions (for a given ambient temperature) from when you press the Start button.

For this reason if I lived on - or very close to - a very fast road, then I would almost certainly use an EV for most journeys. I cringe when I see people pull out of their driveway and accelerate hard in to an NSL road following a cold start.

Although I get a kick from using ridiculous cars for mundane trips like taking the Smart Roadster on a 450 mile round trip for a day out, or taking the 250 SWB to the chip shop, I really should use our EV more for the latter - they’re perfect for that.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I think there are still a lot of people who have the potential to charge at home haven't really woken up to this aspect - both for EVs and PHEVs. In a rural area if you mainly drive in the locale - and the nearest filling station is 10 miles away then an EV - especially as a second car - may work out to be a better option despite the headline range being lower.

Definitely the case.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Urban low emissions schemes and the Net zero madness has but one concern. Extracting as much money as possible from the publics pockets. Hence why people from the sticks can pay a few quid to the progressives slush funds and pay to pollute.

Are you suggesting that there’s a significant net benefit for UK Government, ie it brings in more revenue than is spent?

If so, then whether revenue is raised this way or through other taxes, the public pockets are paying for whatever it costs to run the country.

Differening taxation schemes just adjust the balance of who pays what and what for, but overall the revenue is the revenue

Or are those social elite types siphoning off revenue linked to climate related items, and leaving everything else well alone.

 

[ChipChop]

Are you suggesting that there’s a significant net benefit for UK Government, ie it brings in more revenue than is spent?

If so, then whether revenue is raised this way or through other taxes, the public pockets are paying for whatever it costs to run the country.

Differening taxation schemes just adjust the balance of who pays what and what for, but overall the revenue is the revenue

Or are those social elite types siphoning it off?

Most UK low emissions zones allow people to pay to pollute demonstrating they actually do not care one jot about lowering pollution levels. Glasgow is the only exception to this rule as far as i am aware. Regarding Londinium's zone the Jacobs report was very clear that the amount of pollution the expanded ULEZ would reduce was negligible but it went ahead anyway.

I have no idea of the social status of those whose fingers are in the till at the World Bank.

 

[TC350]

Most UK low emissions zones allow people to pay to pollute demonstrating they actually do not care one jot about lowering pollution levels. Glasgow is the only exception to this rule as far as i am aware. Regarding Londinium's zone the Jacobs report was very clear that the amount of pollution the expanded ULEZ would reduce was negligible but it went ahead anyway.

I have no idea of the social status of those whose fingers are in the till at the World Bank.

Apparently, roadside pollution in outer London was down an average of 3.5% on what it would have been without ULEZ in the six months after the zone was extended in August 2023.

Of course that won't have been just the direct result of ULEZ, with people changing to less polluting vehicles also contributing. What's harder to measure is without ULEZ, how many of those less polluting vehicles would have been bought and how many people would have stayed out of the area.

Ulez: Expansion has improved air quality says City Hall report

Pollution in outer London was down on what it would have been without Ulez, after the zone was extended last August.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Most UK low emissions zones allow people to pay to pollute demonstrating they actually do not care one jot about lowering pollution levels. Glasgow is the only exception to this rule as far as i am aware. Regarding Londinium's zone the Jacobs report was very clear that the amount of pollution the expanded ULEZ would reduce was negligible but it went ahead anyway.

I have no idea of the social status of those whose fingers are in the till at the World Bank.

It depends on perspective. Would you prefer a total ban? Had there been a total ban on vehicles with higher emissions, then perhaps you might not have seen that as being acceptable either. Maybe you would, but many others wouldn’t.

One person’s “pay to pollute” is another person’s “avoid being perceived as deliberately excluding those members of society who cannot afford a lower emission vehicle or for some other reason must use a higher emission vehicle”.

Or a “pragmatic solution to allow those with higher emissions vehicles who enter the clean air zone only occasionally, and for whom it would not make economic or environmental sense to scrap that vehicle just for this reason”.

Leaving London aside, the clean air zones dotted around the country are currently very tolerant. I drive some cars with shocking emissions and which are almost two decades old, and none of them currently attract a charge.

 

[Mactech]

Hi,
If people are interested, below you will find some facts & figures that I have analysed on our two EVs - with comparison to the cars they replaced.
BMWiX40 Msport
This is an X5 sized SUV from BMW that was designed specifically as an EV.
All cars sold here are fully loaded - including this one.
We bought it in April 2023 as an ex-demo car from the official BMW dealer in Abu Dhabi.
The car had zero kms on the clock when we looked at it (we drove another one for the demo to ensure we did not rack up any miles on it!)
As an ex-demo we got around £22340 discount on the list price.
When we collected the car - the dealer had put 510km on the car - to prove to BMW that it was a demo (and allowed them to discount the price)
We paid equivalent of £78,000 at current exchange rates.
Car has 999,999km full service contract (this includes everything like brake discs, pads, wiper blades etc.)
It also has 200,000 km full warranty.
We therefore only need to pay for electricity, tyres and insurance.
Car has been totally reliable and is much more comfortable and faster in the real world than its replacement (BMW X3M40i)
As with other EVs - from the lights - not much can keep up with the instant, digital acceleration that you get from zero to go when you mash the fast pedal.
I have a Racelogic box and the car is faster than BMW specify - it goes from 0-60mph in 5.38 seconds (with zero fuss or delay)l
Car has done 27062 miles since April 2023 and has used 13011 kw/h of juice.
11794 kw/h were charged at home with a total cost of £672 (2.5p per mile).
The X3 would have used £3047 of petrol for equivalent mileage 11.3p per mile (4.5 times more expensive)
Range on 100% battery is 400km if you keep to 110 km/h
Drops to around 300km if you drive at National speed limit of 140 km/h on the motorways

Tesla Model 3 Performance
We bought this new in November 2022.
It has covered 31140 miles from new.
Total electricity used 12826 kw/h
8722 kw/h were at home at a cost of £497.23 (1.6p per mile)
Remainder were free Tesla Superchargers.
This replaced a tuned Audi TTS (360hp).
The Tesla is faster in all respects than the TT.
The TT would have used £2921.70 of petrol (9.4p per mile)

Conclusions.
Both cars have been fantastic to own and run.
Performance, comfort and handling exceed their replacements - on the roads here.
I am a confirmed petrolhead and have owned many interesting cars over the years.
I don’t care that I cannot hear a V8 - as I normally have the music turned up too loud to hear it anyway!

What cars next?
The replacement for the Tesla Model 3 Performance is tricky - either a Porsche 911 Turbo S or maybe a Tesla Model S Plaid.
My wife fancies a Bentayga to replace the BMWiX.

Cheers
Steve

I do hope you have taken out a patent on this information
How on earth do you get away with using real facts in a thread entitled 'The EV fact thread'....I can feel a ban incoming from back in the UK
PS You wife has a good taste in cars....

 

[SmartAmg]

I do hope you have taken out a patent on this information
How on earth do you get away with using real facts in a thread entitled 'The EV fact thread'....I can feel a ban incoming from back in the UK
PS You wife has a good taste in cars....

Apart from the Bentayga.

 

[ChipChop]

It depends on perspective. Would you prefer a total ban? Had there been a total ban on vehicles with higher emissions, then perhaps you might not have seen that as being acceptable either. Maybe you would, but many others wouldn’t.

One person’s “pay to pollute” is another person’s “avoid being perceived as deliberately excluding those members of society who cannot afford a lower emission vehicle or for some other reason must use a higher emission vehicle”.

Or a “pragmatic solution to allow those with higher emissions vehicles who enter the clean air zone only occasionally, and for whom it would not make economic or environmental sense to scrap that vehicle just for this reason”.

Leaving London aside, the clean air zones dotted around the country are currently very tolerant. I drive some cars with shocking emissions and which are almost two decades old, and none of them currently attract a charge.

Political types only do what they think they can get away with. Hence no ban. The public have never had any say in net zero policy making and never will.

A net zero regimen based on financial probity would be a good starting point, seeing as currently net zero is to all intents and purposes a free for all courtesy of the the World Bank. Imagine having no record of what you spent >£24,000,000,000 on.