EVs... no one wants them!
Discussion
MightyBadger said:
And? The car in reference was an ID7, which is nearly 100 miles shorter range than claimed/publicised. I read it in an article, what is the difference? There will be no doubt that some people who 'pay da mumflies' that will take what manaufacturers claim as gospel, more fool them I suppose.
The manufacturers can only claim what the test result is, no more or less.Evanivitch said:
The manufacturers can only claim what the test result is, no more or less.
And thats why I don't understand how the real world difference can be 100 miles in range!Im not bashing EV in anyway, Im sure it's great for a lot of people - was just trying to understand how they get away with these huge differences on certain models.
It seems like from that court case that there might now be some comeback for those who bought EVs and thought they didn't deliver the service that manufacturers hinted they might. Might be useful for someone.
MightyBadger said:
ChocolateFrog said:
I just wondering when he'll move onto fires and recycling.
Right now actually 
Took a while for me to work out you don't like any posts from people who don't love EVs to bits. Two articles many other 'No EV fanatics' would find interesting, especially the court case one.
Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 7th May 13:17
I'm just trying to help you hide your ignorance over a subject you so clearly know very little about.
MightyBadger said:
Evanivitch said:
The manufacturers can only claim what the test result is, no more or less.
And thats why I don't understand how the real world difference can be 100 miles in range!Seeing as ICE vehicles generally have much greater ranges the real world difference is very often much more than 100 miles.
My old volvo used to tell me it had a 1250 mile range but that quickly evaporated to around 700 when I actually started using it.
ChocolateFrog said:
I thought you'd popped off to enjoy the weather?
I'm just trying to help you hide your ignorance over a subject you so clearly know very little about.
Lol.I'm just trying to help you hide your ignorance over a subject you so clearly know very little about.
So ignore the Car Magazine survey and that court case and pretend they didn't happen. You better inform both of your knowledge. Ok Pastor Frog.
If you stop quoting me I wont post anymore
Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 7th May 13:38
Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 7th May 13:38
plfrench said:
16.9% market share for BEV in April, so slowly creeping up again. Fair old way from the 22% target this year though at 15.7% YTD. Can imagine some pretty strong offers coming to market in the next few months to nudge that up a bit more before it gets too late in the year.
It'll be even better as a large chunk of that 16% will be the likes of Tesla who are already 100% EV. Until 2026 the manufacturers of ICE and EV can buy credits but that 16% does imply they're a long way off their own 22% target and if they don't start discounting soon then all they're doing is leaving the door open for the already supior Chinese pure EV vendors to take their market share. Sounds like there will be much bleating from he likes of VW about just unfair the world is and that everyone needs to give them more money or they will stop selling us their cars. Innovate or die. Welcome to the consumer economy and a freer market.
ChocolateFrog said:
MightyBadger said:
Evanivitch said:
The manufacturers can only claim what the test result is, no more or less.
And thats why I don't understand how the real world difference can be 100 miles in range!Seeing as ICE vehicles generally have much greater ranges the real world difference is very often much more than 100 miles.
My old volvo used to tell me it had a 1250 mile range but that quickly evaporated to around 700 when I actually started using it.
It had a 15.4 gallon tank, so that is a difference of 677 miles to a claimed 924. That is a 27% difference.
It is nothing new.
LivLL said:
Can I ask where you got that lease deal with that monthly mileage to save £200 a month on fuel?
It depends on what car you have now.We have a 335D which does 35mpg average so 12k miles per year at 155p per litre for diesel is around £2400 which is £200pm. My Wife can charge at work for nothing so no cost there.
Its going to vary, I realise if diesel costs come down its no longer £200pm but ultimately its offsetting the lease cost so even if you assume say £150pm saved it works out a shade over £9k over 36 months for a brand new Cupra Born.
I wouldn't be bothering with a brand new car on lease/pcp if we could not offset the fuel savings. The 335D has cost us £4k in depreciation over 4 years of ownership. although at 9 years old its probably going to start costing some money in maintenance soon.
MightyBadger said:
Evanivitch said:
The manufacturers can only claim what the test result is, no more or less.
And thats why I don't understand how the real world difference can be 100 miles in range!The WLTP test can't replicate every driver. Most people are going to get worse results, especially if they've bought an EV to sit at 80mph on the motorway (because test doesn't include very much of that, if any).
Go and search up what the test involves, and then think about whether you could bare driving that slowly and with the same urban/non-urban driving mix.
LowTread said:
My Model 3 says it'll do about 285 miles on 100%... More realistic is about 200 miles from 85% to about 10% while enjoying the acceleration.
I thought Tesla's efficiency was better than other manufacturers, and hence range was a bit closer to the WLTP figures? A realistic 200 miles is still a bit s
t?Olivera said:
LowTread said:
My Model 3 says it'll do about 285 miles on 100%... More realistic is about 200 miles from 85% to about 10% while enjoying the acceleration.
I thought Tesla's efficiency was better than other manufacturers, and hence range was a bit closer to the WLTP figures? A realistic 200 miles is still a bit st?Tesla's are pretty efficient compared to most but the figures are still exaggerated by broadly the same %.
ChocolateFrog said:
There's still 25% of the range on the table so atleast another 50 miles which isn't far off.
Tesla's are pretty efficient compared to most but the figures are still exaggerated by broadly the same %.
Well it's another 15% (85% to 100%), assuming we are leaving the last 10% to find a charger, so that gives 230 miles total. Still rather mediocre when my Golf (not an efficient model) can achieve 370 miles in mixed driving, and ~490 miles on majority motorway runs.Tesla's are pretty efficient compared to most but the figures are still exaggerated by broadly the same %.
I do 40 miles per day minimum and my fuel costs are 16ppm in my petrol Duster and around 3 in the MG4.
So at 1000 miles per month I'm saving £130. Add in free tyres, insurance and not having to repay any child benefit and the car costs me comfortably under £100pm net.
Less than my previous fuel bill.
So at 1000 miles per month I'm saving £130. Add in free tyres, insurance and not having to repay any child benefit and the car costs me comfortably under £100pm net.
Less than my previous fuel bill.
Olivera said:
LowTread said:
My Model 3 says it'll do about 285 miles on 100%... More realistic is about 200 miles from 85% to about 10% while enjoying the acceleration.
I thought Tesla's efficiency was better than other manufacturers, and hence range was a bit closer to the WLTP figures? A realistic 200 miles is still a bit st?The Tesla being more efficient than other manufacturers will increase its test range as well as its real world range, there's no reason to expect a more efficient car to be closer to the test figures.
MightyBadger said:
romft123 said:
yet more "facts".....!
Your favourite word salad of the day.
Great post in response to the two articles I posted, very telling.Your favourite word salad of the day.
Another preacher to the pile on.
Olivera said:
otolith said:
200 miles on 85% to 10% is equivalent to 267 miles on 100% to 0%.
The poster themselves stated the would only drive until 10% left, so that (based on their figures) gives a range of 227 miles. I guess it's okay, but less than half of what can be achieved in an ICE car.227 miles is more than enough before you need to take a break. A 10 minute charge whilst having a toilet break will add something like another 120 miles of range in a RWD Model 3. So 350 miles for a splash and dash.
Unless you are driving 350 miles in one go, there is no issue.
romft123 said:
Nah, just someone that reads the posts and when it comes to yours just laugh. Preacher, what does that mean. I dont own an EV, it doesnt meet my criteria at the moment. But the drivel you post is laughable.
The drivel I posted? I didn't make those two articles up I thought somebody taking a manufacturer to court over range claims would be good to talk about lol, anything ev negative doesnt go down well here it seems lol.
Carry on laughing.
Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 7th May 15:16
MightyBadger said:
romft123 said:
Nah, just someone that reads the posts and when it comes to yours just laugh. Preacher, what does that mean. I dont own an EV, it doesnt meet my criteria at the moment. But the drivel you post is laughable.
The drivel I posted? I didn't make those two articles up I thought somebody taking a manufacturer to court over range claims would be good to talk about lol, anything ev negative doesnt go down well here it seems lol.
Carry on laughing.
Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 7th May 15:16
Maracus said:
Why are people so obsessed with range.
Obsessed? No, just making a reasonable comparison with ICE vehicles.Some ICE cars (sports cars, those with larger capacity engines) have for decades been thoroughly criticised for only having a range of 2xx miles, but criticism of EVs with a similar (actually often worse) range is handwaved away as unreasonable or unrealistic
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff