EV cars, would you, wouldn't you?
Poll: EV cars, would you, wouldn't you?
Total Members Polled: 427
Discussion
According to auto express Leaf is just over ten seconds to sixty.
50-70 in seven seconds while not earth shattering, isn't what I'd call glacially slow for a standard hatchback (which is what it should be compared with).
Fine, the leaf isn't for some people however it probably is for an awful lot.
50-70 in seven seconds while not earth shattering, isn't what I'd call glacially slow for a standard hatchback (which is what it should be compared with).
Fine, the leaf isn't for some people however it probably is for an awful lot.
DrTre said:
According to auto express Leaf is just over ten seconds to sixty.
50-70 in seven seconds while not earth shattering, isn't what I'd call glacially slow for a standard hatchback (which is what it should be compared with).
Whatever figure you pick ORD will classify it as being either 'glacially slow' or a 'pub bore figure' depending on whether it is slower or quicker than than the number he has in his head (which is the only true representation of whichever 'real world' he is inhabiting at the time). 50-70 in seven seconds while not earth shattering, isn't what I'd call glacially slow for a standard hatchback (which is what it should be compared with).
AnotherClarkey said:
DrTre said:
According to auto express Leaf is just over ten seconds to sixty.
50-70 in seven seconds while not earth shattering, isn't what I'd call glacially slow for a standard hatchback (which is what it should be compared with).
Whatever figure you pick ORD will classify it as being either 'glacially slow' or a 'pub bore figure' depending on whether it is slower or quicker than than the number he has in his head (which is the only true representation of whichever 'real world' he is inhabiting at the time). 50-70 in seven seconds while not earth shattering, isn't what I'd call glacially slow for a standard hatchback (which is what it should be compared with).
ks. Unsurprisingly, cars vary from glacially slow to quite slow to normal to quite fast to very fast to bonkers fast. 12 seconds is at one end of that spectrum and 3 seconds is at the other.
I would think that pretty much everyone would agree that, for a road car, the range of useful pace (i.e. accelerative ability that is usable and helpful) would be represented by 0-60 times of something like 8 to 5.5 seconds: must slower is irritating and much faster isn't really going to make a huge heap of difference.
But, as usual, everyone is more interested in playing internet hard man and insulting people!
The defining factor behind performance for most people most of the time (in my experience) is their own desired speed, very rarely the maximum performance of the car even in an 'ordinary' hatchback.
Put my mum in a 488 and she isn't going to rag the tits off it.
Put her in a leaf and she isn't going to rag the tits off it.
I would struggle to think of any mainstream car nowadays that is 'glacially slow', particularly for the majority of non motorway journeys.
Who do you mean by 'everyone'? The vast, vast majority of people I know wouldn't give a toss about acceleration as long as it's 'quick enough'. They're simply not that interested in cars.
Naturally you and I have a different take on that, that's why we're here, but don't be under the illusion that we are remotely near the majority of people.
Those leaf figures are similar/better than something like a 116dd (edit between the 114 and 116 actually). Again, not a scorcher, but not a 2cv either.
And I'm not insulting anyone, just putting some numbers to your claims
Edit: if you mean those numbers are too slow for you, that's completely understandable, my point would be that I don't think they are for the majority of people to whom these cars are aimed at.
Put my mum in a 488 and she isn't going to rag the tits off it.
Put her in a leaf and she isn't going to rag the tits off it.
I would struggle to think of any mainstream car nowadays that is 'glacially slow', particularly for the majority of non motorway journeys.
Who do you mean by 'everyone'? The vast, vast majority of people I know wouldn't give a toss about acceleration as long as it's 'quick enough'. They're simply not that interested in cars.
Naturally you and I have a different take on that, that's why we're here, but don't be under the illusion that we are remotely near the majority of people.
Those leaf figures are similar/better than something like a 116dd (edit between the 114 and 116 actually). Again, not a scorcher, but not a 2cv either.
And I'm not insulting anyone, just putting some numbers to your claims
Edit: if you mean those numbers are too slow for you, that's completely understandable, my point would be that I don't think they are for the majority of people to whom these cars are aimed at.
Edited by DrTre on Friday 9th October 12:18
I was referring to the other guy. No beef with you!
I think that's entirely right. I don't think most people would notice that a car was slow until they joined a motorway slip road, for example, which is one of the few times that most people will accelerate hard (out of London - London drivers seem to use WOT from traffic lights a fair bit).
I test drove a 116d a year or two ago (or maybe it was a 116i), and the salesman said "This has all the power you need in the real world", which is one of my favourite car salesman lines
He wouldn't say it if lots of people wouldn't nod along, I guess.
I think that's entirely right. I don't think most people would notice that a car was slow until they joined a motorway slip road, for example, which is one of the few times that most people will accelerate hard (out of London - London drivers seem to use WOT from traffic lights a fair bit).
I test drove a 116d a year or two ago (or maybe it was a 116i), and the salesman said "This has all the power you need in the real world", which is one of my favourite car salesman lines
He wouldn't say it if lots of people wouldn't nod along, I guess.ORD said:
It's fun, isn't it, insulting people because they disagree with you?!
Back in the real world, a car that takes 12 seconds to accelerate to 60mph is a slow car, and it does not make me a bad driver for noticing that. I can make perfectly reasonable progress in a car that slow (given that it is not hard to choose the right gear and use WOT), but it is still going to be poor at overtaking and pretty useless on slow B roads.
That's a matter of opinion because the word slow isn't quantitative.Back in the real world, a car that takes 12 seconds to accelerate to 60mph is a slow car, and it does not make me a bad driver for noticing that. I can make perfectly reasonable progress in a car that slow (given that it is not hard to choose the right gear and use WOT), but it is still going to be poor at overtaking and pretty useless on slow B roads.
My Focus 1.8 diesel gets to 60 in 10.8 seconds according to Ford and i'm sure that mine, as it isn't in it's first flush of youth, is probabaly even slower.
But it has no problems overtaking whatsoever and is plenty good enough on Slow B roads.
Overtaking and general driving in the Leaf is no problem at all, regardless of what the 0-60 time is.
It's probably more just that the "power curve" (as it were) tails off as you get up to speed.
The Leaf does 0-30 in 3 seconds, 0-40 in 4.6 seconds, 0-50 in 6.7 seconds, and 0-60 in 9.4 seconds (figures taken from Road and Track magazine in the US, the February 2011 edition I believe.)
It runs out of puff quicker, sure, but for most real world usage it's plenty fast enough.
If there was a car out there that took 6.7 seconds to get up to 50mph and then for some reason took another 6 seconds to get that last 10, would you still call that "glacially slow"?
It's probably more just that the "power curve" (as it were) tails off as you get up to speed.
The Leaf does 0-30 in 3 seconds, 0-40 in 4.6 seconds, 0-50 in 6.7 seconds, and 0-60 in 9.4 seconds (figures taken from Road and Track magazine in the US, the February 2011 edition I believe.)
It runs out of puff quicker, sure, but for most real world usage it's plenty fast enough.
If there was a car out there that took 6.7 seconds to get up to 50mph and then for some reason took another 6 seconds to get that last 10, would you still call that "glacially slow"?
Most folk dont agonise over 0-60 times, or even performance figures, my mother in law sums it up, as long as a car "Has enough Oomph" then she is happy, 320i manual BMW she had was endowed with acceptable "Oomph", the 213i Auto that replaced hit was devoid of Oomph so it was despatched and replaced by a later 24 valve 320i with even more Oomph than the original.
So, most people are happy if they have enough performance and only notice if its pretty bad, a lot of it is about power delivery, my mother in law was perfectly happy with a 100 bhp auto diesel Golf as it had accessible low down torque and she never really needed any more, this is why she would probably feel that the Golf was more performant than some Honda Vtec, if you never go above 4000 rpm.
So, most people are happy if they have enough performance and only notice if its pretty bad, a lot of it is about power delivery, my mother in law was perfectly happy with a 100 bhp auto diesel Golf as it had accessible low down torque and she never really needed any more, this is why she would probably feel that the Golf was more performant than some Honda Vtec, if you never go above 4000 rpm.
The Leaf (at least the 2015 one) is definitely not 12 seconds to 60, it's more like 10. It's decently quick to 40ish, then just average from there up. Overtaking at NSL is on par with an average hatchabck, ie. ok, but you will need much more space than with anything faster.
My commute is 15 miles each way on town and d/c roads and there is next to no difference in it than my Impreza. For a long commute on rural roads, yes a faster car would be much preferrable.
My commute is 15 miles each way on town and d/c roads and there is next to no difference in it than my Impreza. For a long commute on rural roads, yes a faster car would be much preferrable.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you should sell your car and get a P90D Tesla, many more safe overtaking opportunities, Lambos, Ferraris etc 
You drive to the vehicle you have and its capabilities, we had a couple of original Fiat 500's, could still overtake though it was mainly just unfit cyclists and the cheaper end of the mobility scooter range.
I'd have one, the torque and quietness would be appealing. Doesn't need to be a sports car, the equivalent to a Mondeo would be perfect.
My concerns are range, I do about 60 miles per day on a commute, and often 400 miles a day if I have to go anywhere, how long does it take to recharge, and how many kWh's is that?
How long do the batteries last before they need replacing, they use similar technology to laptop batteries so 5 years at most I'd expect, how much to replace (a single laptop battery is >£100, a car full is going to be a lot.
How do they cope with seasons, if it's freezing and they've been sat outside will that harm the battery?
And as an ICE will provide lots of heat to keep the car warm, if I've got to run heaters to stay warm and the windows clear how will that affect the range?
How well will they hold their value, will it be basically unsellable until you've installed new batteries for the buyer?
Based on my concerns I think one of those extended range vehicles would make more sense where I can use it as an electric for the commute and the ICE generator is available when I want to drive out of the county.
My concerns are range, I do about 60 miles per day on a commute, and often 400 miles a day if I have to go anywhere, how long does it take to recharge, and how many kWh's is that?
How long do the batteries last before they need replacing, they use similar technology to laptop batteries so 5 years at most I'd expect, how much to replace (a single laptop battery is >£100, a car full is going to be a lot.
How do they cope with seasons, if it's freezing and they've been sat outside will that harm the battery?
And as an ICE will provide lots of heat to keep the car warm, if I've got to run heaters to stay warm and the windows clear how will that affect the range?
How well will they hold their value, will it be basically unsellable until you've installed new batteries for the buyer?
Based on my concerns I think one of those extended range vehicles would make more sense where I can use it as an electric for the commute and the ICE generator is available when I want to drive out of the county.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So by that measure the most optimal car for overtaking is the fastest.The issue is why are you overtaking and does that overtake result in a genuinely shorter journey time, and by shorter I mean by a meaningful amount, not just the next car in the queue. A car may be faster and hence better for overtaking but if that simply results in increased fuel consumption for no gain in travel time then is there any point? Unless of course you're talking about overtaking for fun, which is a different issue, but does anyone buy a Leaf as a fun car?
ORD said:
It's fun, isn't it, insulting people because they disagree with you?!
You mean like accusing people of being prepared to argue with a brick wall simply because they disagree with you? Like that you mean?12 seconds to 60 means it's an impediment to normal progress? Depends what is meant by normal progress. That is open to individual interpretation, and thus follows that some will agree it's an impediment, some won't agree. The latter appear to be in the majority in the thread, or maybe they're just more pragmatic.
In my experience a fair number of people who complain about something being slow, such that it causes them problems, aren't actually very good drivers, wrong gear, poor anticipation, unwillingness to use wider throttle openings, inability to read the road and traffic using a very point and squirt style. Just my observation, none of which may apply to you.
ORD said:
GreatGranny said:
ORD said:
Apart from the fact that almost all EVs are still glacially slow and built of cardboard. Early adopters really do feel the need to talk up something that remains half baked.
What utter rubbish!Have you ever driven a Leaf or Zoe?
Whilst not the fastest thing on the road they are more than capable of keeping up with the general flow of traffic and are pretty quick up to 30-40 mph.
When I had a Leaf on a 7 day test drive I was very impressed by the quality and solidity of it. It felt very well built, similar to the Volvos I've owned in the past and better than my wife's Avensis.
I used it for my 120 mile a day commute with absolutely no problems.
[/quot
In the town centre it's real world performance is actually very good. I happily left 90% of cars at every set of lights. On a given lights to lights that i check all my cars over it did 71 mph which is the same as a Honda Jazz 1.4 petrol i had, for example. The 0-20 is very good, yes and the reason it is ideal for towns.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Friday 9th October 14:52
ajprice said:
ORD said:
0-60mph in about 12 seconds. If that is not glacially slow, I do not know what is. Bearing in mind that it will doubtless have a good 0-20 time, its real world pace must be astonishingly bad.
12 seconds is slow compared to the Porsche in your garage, yes. Compared to a family car you'd see a lot of like a Fiesta 1.4 or Golf diesel, normal cars, its about the same.Even then it would be a distant spec in the rear mirror very quickly.
Like for like, the Leaf is perfectly quick enough. It was the range i hated when i had one briefly, 90 miles and it was all over.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Friday 9th October 14:55
FiF said:
ORD said:
It's fun, isn't it, insulting people because they disagree with you?!
You mean like accusing people of being prepared to argue with a brick wall simply because they disagree with you? Like that you mean?12 seconds to 60 means it's an impediment to normal progress? Depends what is meant by normal progress. That is open to individual interpretation, and thus follows that some will agree it's an impediment, some won't agree. The latter appear to be in the majority in the thread, or maybe they're just more pragmatic.
In my experience a fair number of people who complain about something being slow, such that it causes them problems, aren't actually very good drivers, wrong gear, poor anticipation, unwillingness to use wider throttle openings, inability to read the road and traffic using a very point and squirt style. Just my observation, none of which may apply to you.
The PH stock answer "It's all relative" is getting absurd now. The Leaf is slow. A GTR is fast. A 320d is neither fast nor slow. I would have thought that there would be a good measure agreement about these things, but people are obsessed with being contrary and picking fights.
I completely agree about people not being able to make progress in cars that are not slow (e.g. a 320d will make very good progress indeed if driven sympathetically to its power delivery), but the Leaf is slow. It really is that simple!
I drove a car with similar acceleration stats to the Leaf for several years (my wife's old car), and I have also driven a 2CV and various other even slower cars. It is nonsense to pretend that they don't make overtaking a lot harder. You need a massive gap to overtake the typical NSL dawdler if your car takes ages to get from 40 to 60 even with the throttle pinned and the engine right in the power band.
But doubtless this makes me a s
t driver 
CorvetteConvert said:
ajprice said:
ORD said:
0-60mph in about 12 seconds. If that is not glacially slow, I do not know what is. Bearing in mind that it will doubtless have a good 0-20 time, its real world pace must be astonishingly bad.
12 seconds is slow compared to the Porsche in your garage, yes. Compared to a family car you'd see a lot of like a Fiesta 1.4 or Golf diesel, normal cars, its about the same.Even then it would be a distant spec in the rear mirror very quickly.
Like for like, the Leaf is perfectly quick enough. It was the range i hated when i had one briefly, 90 miles and it was all over.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Friday 9th October 14:55
I also would have thought that a 2.0d Golf would be very much usefully faster than a Leaf.
But I am wasting my breath because everyone is playing at "Look how clever I am!" and denying that there is a downside to cars that accelerate very slowly at typical road speeds (e.g. 30-70). A diesel Golf performs pretty well at those kind of speeds. I don't know about the 1.4 Focus, but the 1.0t Ecoboost ones are perfectly fine.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff