Has JCB saved engines?

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

Max, let's break this down to simple stuff because I am right and you have chosen to misinterpret a negative element of an EV because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Everything that you state is due to the motor and despite of the inefficient, heavy, cumbersome batteries.

It's the electric motor that delivers all the upside but the batteries are crap.

Name a branch of tech that isn't waiting for superior energy storage? There isn't one. Our reliance on chemical storage solutions is precisely the issue.

If EVs are superior why do they only exist in markets where legislation forces manufacturers to build them and customers to buy them? The answer is because the batteries are so bad that they undo all the enormous advantages of the electric motor over the ICE.

The electric motor is so superior that ICE should have disappeared through free market economics years ago. The reason this still isn't even close to happening is solely due to the battery problem.

No you are right, compared to the motor, current batteries are indeed crap

But that doesnt matter for the majority because the batteries are "good enough" and most people simply don't care what powers their car.

They want to be able to get to work, to drop the kids off at school, to have a quiet, comfortable and easy to drive car. An EV suits the masses perfectly. Even with EVs being massively hobbled by current battery energy density, an EV is still a much "Better" car for most 1st world passenger car buyers. We drive on busy crowded roads, with lots of cameras, speed limits and taffic calming. We might think we act on impulse, but we don't. We drove daily the same route day in, day out. For most, an EV suits, being more convenient more of the time. We like our cars to have more space for us and our stuff and less space for the oily bits (a concept notably started by the original mini of course)

But, the critical point is that battery tech is nowhere near the physical fundamental limits of energy density.

In fact a current battery in an EV is roughtly 10 times lower in energy density that physics tells us it can be. So, when batteries improve, and they are all the time, in small but significant chunks, our EVs improve with them. That just nails the lid of the ICE coffin shut even tighter, and unlike for an ICE, there is really nothing to stop you replacing the battery of your EV with a better one as the tech improves (and that is in fact already being done for early EV cars like the Leaf and i3)

The ICE is done. it's given all it can give, its hit its FUNDAMENTAL physical limit. Only the application of complementary tech like 'lecy turbo's and hybridisation and exhaust heat recovery and the like can get it's pathetic efficiency up to even 50% or better. And when you do the sums, instead of fitting all that stuff, once you have a battery and motor, it's better to simply drive the wheels with it.

and

Gain zero local tailpipe emissions,

Gain regen for very low consumption in real world stop start driving

Gain very low aero drag and larger passenger space for the simpler packaging,

Gain a lower BOM and higher profit per car, gain a faster build process.

Gain better crash performance without underbonnet hard points of an ICE.

Gain the ability to have 4wd for maximum traction in all conditions without heavy shafts and transfer cases eating into cabin space

Gain the ability to hang the powertrain on softer mounts for lower cabin noise because there are no engine vibrations that have to be damped out and reacted


And many more actual, demonstrable benefits.


And the simple answer to why we dont' suddenly all drive EVs is pretty obvious. it's because you can't by one. the OEs have vast stocks of ICEs, and the current ICE models have to break even before they get replaced. WHy would an OE push it's new EV to only prevent it from selling the ICE models it already has. Everything is geared towards ICE, and has been for 100 years or more. The most startling thing imo is not how slow the change has been, buit how rapid it has been.

3 years ago, few PH front page news items would be about an EV, now go have a look, i think probably 80% or more are EV news. The revolution is happening and it is happening right now!

It's also worth noting that the single industry that has been the recipient of the largest grants and taxation advantages is the fossil fuel industry. Simply because fossil fuels are so cheap and abundent, there was no need to find an alternative. But then we learned that our carbon emissions from burning this glut of cheap oil do in fact come with a significant penatly. Argueably a penalty that is possibly going to effect every single living thing on our planet.

As we increasible understand that our 100 year binge on oil is simpy un-sustainable, governments and industry have reacted. I have been flat out on EVs for probably 10 years now, and for the last 5, pretty much all development on ICE for run of the mill passcar has been canned and replaced with EV. You are now seeing the fruits of those labours. Every single OE is releasing new EV product continuously now, and the rate is going to increase, and the performance and capability is going to continue to increase and the cost fall.

Tipping point has been and gone, the change is unstoppable now. It's really that simple. It's like music streaming replacing CD,s or CD's replacing cassettes. For most people, the EV is simply "better" as it already stands.

BTW on the subject of my "agenda" i hope that is pretty clear:

If you drive a cooking ICE passenger car, and do normal mileage, then replace it with an EV.

It's really that simple. Many people on here moan about EVs taking over, and you go look at what they drive and it turns out they drive an insigna diesel or something equally dreary and hopeless.

If you drive an old 911, a ferrari, hell, even an old MX-5, and you drive it for fun, ocasionally,then KEEP IT! and keep driving it. you are not the problem, you are not part of the solution.

But if you drive a bogo passenger car everyday, to work, to the school, to the shops, or to the park or whatever, and you drive in traffic, in town, in endless queues of other cars, then yes, you (and i) are part of the problem, and we can be part of the solution.

[ddom]

Max_Torque said:

mid 30 mpg is 1.12 kWh/ml.

That means your mid 90'd toyota is using nearly 5 times more energy than an equivalent sized EV to drive each and every mile. Drive 100 miles, and that's 500 times more energy! It's also putting out tailpipe emissions that are considered catastrophic, and in fact, illegal, and it would be banned from many city centres today.

In terms of quicker, if you actually look at the performance figures

BMW M3 vs Tesla Model 3 performance. WIN for Tesla
BMW 118d vs BMW i3s. Win for i3
Range Rover sport SVR vs Tesla Model X. WIn for Tesla
Porsche Panamera V8 vs Porsche Taycan: Win for, er Porsche the 'lecy one
Rimac Nevera vs, well, anyting; WIN for Rimac
Polestar 2 vs Volve S60: WIN for polestar

EVs are quicker because they are more powerful, dont have energy and time sapping transissions, and because they get near perfect traction every time because they don't have to initally match an already spinning crank to a stationary road wheel

To suggest "EVs are slower than ICEs" is litterally the stupiest thing i have read on PH for a long while.

But my old Toyota after 100K miles has paid back all its manufacturing costs, which were significantly lower than the fudged EV costs, because facts don't sit well with you. I'll take your bet. You're i3, isn't quick, has limited range, and none of the EV's you mention would do well in a pure performance measure. Massively over egging the subject as usual.

[ddom]

braddo said:

Old cars in those markets are utterly irrelevant to the debate about car manufacturers moving to EVs in their key markets (incl China eventually).

Right oh. Some of the most densely populated areas don't matter? Which is lucky as the poor are never going to adopt them, until they are cheap

[Volvolover]

Killboy said:

Volvolover said:

Riiiiiiight. So you won’t say because it’s an embarrassingly small number

No, it's because I genuinely dont know, and unlike you I don't lie to try make a point.

Neither do I

[DonkeyApple]

Killboy said:

DonkeyApple said:

If EVs are superior why do they only exist in markets where legislation forces manufacturers to build them and customers to buy them? The answer is because the batteries are so bad that they undo all the enormous advantages of the electric motor over the ICE.

Who is forcing who to make or buy EVs right now?

Edited by Killboy on Tuesday 8th June 20:30

No one. That's one of my core observations, as you well know.

It doesn't change the fact that the EV has only re-emerges a hundred years on due to command economics. Nor does it change that the exact reason they originally failed a hundred years ago is the same reason that they don't exist in a free market scenario today.

The simple truth is that the infinitely superior electric motor is crippled by the inefficiency of batteries to the point that legislation and command economics are required to sell them alongside petrol cars when 100 years on there should be no contest and the ICE should have naturally evaporated years ago.

The scenario of the modern EV highlights the endemic issue across all of human society which is that we cannot efficiently store energy at a level commensurate with all other tech advances.

Can you imagine how the human world will change when we finally make that breakthrough? It'll be staggering the advances without massive, heavy, inefficient batteries no longer regarding us.

[JonnyVTEC]

Deranged Rover said:

Genuine question - why would I want a smart meter?

My current electricity meter is in an outside cupboard and was replaced by a digital one years ago, so we just read two numbers and send the readings in when asked to by our electricity supplier. As far as I can tell, a smart meter will just replace something outside that we mostly ignore with something indoors that we will mostly ignore but which will take up a bit of space on the worktop or whichever cupboard we shove it into.

We're already on a split day/night tariff and so the washing machine, dishwasher and tumble dryer are generally put on timer operation overnight, we don't leave lights on unnecessarily and I'm not one of those misguided audiophiles who leaves my hi-fi on all the time.

So other than some pretty graphics and maybe a couple of initial "Wow - look how much electricity the hairdryer/toaster/kettle uses" moments, I'm not seeing the supposed 'advantages'...

That’s not a smart meter.

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

No you are right, compared to the motor, current batteries are indeed crap

But that doesnt matter for the majority because the batteries are "good enough" and most people simply don't care what powers their car.

They want to be able to get to work, to drop the kids off at school, to have a quiet, comfortable and easy to drive car. An EV suits the masses perfectly. Even with EVs being massively hobbled by current battery energy density, an EV is still a much "Better" car for most 1st world passenger car buyers. We drive on busy crowded roads, with lots of cameras, speed limits and taffic calming. We might think we act on impulse, but we don't. We drove daily the same route day in, day out. For most, an EV suits, being more convenient more of the time. We like our cars to have more space for us and our stuff and less space for the oily bits (a concept notably started by the original mini of course)

But, the critical point is that battery tech is nowhere near the physical fundamental limits of energy density.

In fact a current battery in an EV is roughtly 10 times lower in energy density that physics tells us it can be. So, when batteries improve, and they are all the time, in small but significant chunks, our EVs improve with them. That just nails the lid of the ICE coffin shut even tighter, and unlike for an ICE, there is really nothing to stop you replacing the battery of your EV with a better one as the tech improves (and that is in fact already being done for early EV cars like the Leaf and i3)

The ICE is done. it's given all it can give, its hit its FUNDAMENTAL physical limit. Only the application of complementary tech like 'lecy turbo's and hybridisation and exhaust heat recovery and the like can get it's pathetic efficiency up to even 50% or better. And when you do the sums, instead of fitting all that stuff, once you have a battery and motor, it's better to simply drive the wheels with it.

and

Gain zero local tailpipe emissions,

Gain regen for very low consumption in real world stop start driving

Gain very low aero drag and larger passenger space for the simpler packaging,

Gain a lower BOM and higher profit per car, gain a faster build process.

Gain better crash performance without underbonnet hard points of an ICE.

Gain the ability to have 4wd for maximum traction in all conditions without heavy shafts and transfer cases eating into cabin space

Gain the ability to hang the powertrain on softer mounts for lower cabin noise because there are no engine vibrations that have to be damped out and reacted


And many more actual, demonstrable benefits.


And the simple answer to why we dont' suddenly all drive EVs is pretty obvious. it's because you can't by one. the OEs have vast stocks of ICEs, and the current ICE models have to break even before they get replaced. WHy would an OE push it's new EV to only prevent it from selling the ICE models it already has. Everything is geared towards ICE, and has been for 100 years or more. The most startling thing imo is not how slow the change has been, buit how rapid it has been.

3 years ago, few PH front page news items would be about an EV, now go have a look, i think probably 80% or more are EV news. The revolution is happening and it is happening right now!

It's also worth noting that the single industry that has been the recipient of the largest grants and taxation advantages is the fossil fuel industry. Simply because fossil fuels are so cheap and abundent, there was no need to find an alternative. But then we learned that our carbon emissions from burning this glut of cheap oil do in fact come with a significant penatly. Argueably a penalty that is possibly going to effect every single living thing on our planet.

As we increasible understand that our 100 year binge on oil is simpy un-sustainable, governments and industry have reacted. I have been flat out on EVs for probably 10 years now, and for the last 5, pretty much all development on ICE for run of the mill passcar has been canned and replaced with EV. You are now seeing the fruits of those labours. Every single OE is releasing new EV product continuously now, and the rate is going to increase, and the performance and capability is going to continue to increase and the cost fall.

Tipping point has been and gone, the change is unstoppable now. It's really that simple. It's like music streaming replacing CD,s or CD's replacing cassettes. For most people, the EV is simply "better" as it already stands.

BTW on the subject of my "agenda" i hope that is pretty clear:

If you drive a cooking ICE passenger car, and do normal mileage, then replace it with an EV.

It's really that simple. Many people on here moan about EVs taking over, and you go look at what they drive and it turns out they drive an insigna diesel or something equally dreary and hopeless.

If you drive an old 911, a ferrari, hell, even an old MX-5, and you drive it for fun, ocasionally,then KEEP IT! and keep driving it. you are not the problem, you are not part of the solution.

But if you drive a bogo passenger car everyday, to work, to the school, to the shops, or to the park or whatever, and you drive in traffic, in town, in endless queues of other cars, then yes, you (and i) are part of the problem, and we can be part of the solution.

That is also the point that I have been making if you'd gone through the thread instead of jumping on a single post.

The window of usability is widening rapidly and the crappy batteries are just about good enough for mobility to be unhindered for most.

However, the point being made is that the EV is hobbled so badly by a single issue. The need to lug half a ton of pretty rubbish batteries everywhere you go is truly dismal in terms of efficiency. All the issues of EVs whether packaging, designing, crashing, using and the need for subsidies and legislation etc are almost all caused by the battery.

Yes the modern EV works but that by no means means it is good enough it's all a bit of a bodge because of a single weak link.

When that problem is finally solved then we will see the electric motor and the EV itself truly released to be what they can be. That'll be when it becomes exciting.

[NMNeil]

In 2000, California pumped 253 million barrels of oil out of the ground, and it's estimated that the pump jacks used 3.7 billion kWhr of electricity to do it.
A barrel of oil contains about 19.5 gallons (US) of petrol after refining, meaning it takes about 2kWh of electricity to pump 1 gallon of petrol out of the ground.
Factor that into your calculations.

[DonkeyApple]

NMNeil said:

In 2000, California pumped 253 million barrels of oil out of the ground, and it's estimated that the pump jacks used 3.7 billion kWhr of electricity to do it.
A barrel of oil contains about 19.5 gallons (US) of petrol after refining, meaning it takes about 2kWh of electricity to pump 1 gallon of petrol out of the ground.
Factor that into your calculations.

Seeing as this thread is about commercial plant machinery needing to be able to burn on site waste hydrogen at certain locations and this being leapt upon to further the argument that EVs will cease to exist and we will all start burning hydrogen in our cars, any idea what the energy cost of generating hydrogen is from water? . Or more to the point, how will people be able to afford hydrogen?

[edgyedgy]

Dave Hedgehog said:

indeed, apple Hi-Res Lossless, vastly superior to scratchy hissy vinyl ste

May I suggest swapping out the cart and needle from your record deck if it’s hissy and scratchy

[anonymous-user]

ddom said:

Max_Torque said:

mid 30 mpg is 1.12 kWh/ml.

That means your mid 90'd toyota is using nearly 5 times more energy than an equivalent sized EV to drive each and every mile. Drive 100 miles, and that's 500 times more energy! It's also putting out tailpipe emissions that are considered catastrophic, and in fact, illegal, and it would be banned from many city centres today.

In terms of quicker, if you actually look at the performance figures

BMW M3 vs Tesla Model 3 performance. WIN for Tesla
BMW 118d vs BMW i3s. Win for i3
Range Rover sport SVR vs Tesla Model X. WIn for Tesla
Porsche Panamera V8 vs Porsche Taycan: Win for, er Porsche the 'lecy one
Rimac Nevera vs, well, anyting; WIN for Rimac
Polestar 2 vs Volve S60: WIN for polestar

EVs are quicker because they are more powerful, dont have energy and time sapping transissions, and because they get near perfect traction every time because they don't have to initally match an already spinning crank to a stationary road wheel

To suggest "EVs are slower than ICEs" is litterally the stupiest thing i have read on PH for a long while.

But ", which were significantly lower than the fudged EV costs, because facts don't sit well with you. I'll take your bet. You're i3, isn't quick, has limited range, and none of the EV's you mention would do well in a pure performance measure. Massively over egging the subject as usual.

again, provide facts to back up your statements.

You are the master of stating something but completely failing to prove or explain it in any demonstrably proveable way.


take

"my old Toyota after 100K miles has paid back all its manufacturing costs"

How has it done this? Has it somehow absorbed carbon dioxide and other pollutants? No it hasn't. All the carbon and pollution from it's manufacture is still in the environment.

FACT: At 30mpg, you are emitting 350 grams of CO2 for each and every mile you drive.


Drive 100 miles and you have just put out 35 kg of carbon dioxide, a volume of 17,579 litres! It's invisible as a gas, so you don't see it, so you can ignore it, but it's there and in huge volumes coming out the back.

FACT: The typical embedded carbon in an EV battery over the design life of that car is 27 g/km.

If you compare a Leaf to an ICE competitor that does 50 mpg (which is a pretty decent real world, all year round consumption, ie many cars would do significantly worse) the leaf is a lower overal pollutor after just 20,000 miles. Compared to your Toyota at 30mpg, that's about 14 months.

So, if you are going to drive your current car for more than 14 months, you are better off in an EV.

And of course, this is all with current figures. There is really nothing stopping you from installing your own local small scale solar array, and even in the uk with our pathetic amount of sun, a look at the solar figures suggest you can get something like 8,000 miles of near zero carbon motoring


Those are the facts

see here for some nice pretty graphs and some more actual facts:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric...



And whilst today, at the current low production volumes and heavily remotely outsourced production logistics, an EV is indeed slightly more polluting to manufacture most OE's are also putting the eventual (ie compariable volumes and optimised logistics) manufacturing impact for an EV at about 68 to 75% of that of a comparable ICE. ie lower emissions during manufacture

i have posted many times on why this is, you can go and read some of my other posts to see me explain why intrinsically parallel and highly scaleable nature of an EV makes it a fundamentally lower impact product, especially when you include the much simpler development, test, validation and certification program required (which is overlooked in most none-OE studies to date.)



And lets get the personal attacks dealt with.

No, my BMW i3 isn't quick. It does 0-60 in about 6.8 seconds. That puts in on par with the faster of the Mini's, a comparable car in terms of size, class and useage). In the real world, between 20 and 80, however, it's way quicker than even the hottest mini, because it has massive torque and zero lag. By the time you've changed down into 2nd in a mini, the i3 has already gone.

But none of that matters, it's a small city car, designed for minimal consumption, and remember it does about 140 mpg on a daily basis.
It'll do about 160 miles on a charge. And because it is 100% charged each and every night, it has plenty of range for my useage. Having a large range is only any use if you drive long distances repeatidly non-stop. i don't. I'm more interested in the light weight and great handling that is the trade off in having such a "small" battery.

But of course, you find it easier to simnply attack me personally that come up with any meaningful defence of your beliefs.



You also seem determined to double down on the "EV's aren't fast" suggestion.

Really?

An EV holds the Pikes peak record

An EV has been round the Nurburg ring in 6:05

An EV is the worlds fastest accelerating production car

A Tesla Model 3 performance is quicker around a track than a BMW M3 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSRWKxytW40 )


The list goes on, and on, and on. There are plenty of valid critisisms of EV's but "Not being very fast" is really not one of them.

[NMNeil]

DonkeyApple said:

Seeing as this thread is about commercial plant machinery needing to be able to burn on site waste hydrogen at certain locations and this being leapt upon to further the argument that EVs will cease to exist and we will all start burning hydrogen in our cars, any idea what the energy cost of generating hydrogen is from water? . Or more to the point, how will people be able to afford hydrogen?

Depends on the power source for the electrolysis to make the hydrogen.
A 100% efficient electrolyser requires 39 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kg of hydrogen. The devices we have today can only manage 48 kWh/kg.
A hydrogen powered car can travel about 62 miles on 1kg of hydrogen.
An EV can travel about 190 miles on 38kW of batteries.

Hydrogen is the perfect fuel, but very difficult to store, requiring lots of energy to compress or refrigerate, which is it's major failing.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

However, the point being made is that the EV is hobbled so badly by a single issue. The need to lug half a ton of pretty rubbish batteries everywhere you go is truly dismal in terms of efficiency.

My "Point" is that EVs are not actually hobbled than much for the majority.

Yes, currently they are a bit more expensive than an equivalent ICE, but this is really pretty minor difference today, and in a year or so will be a total non issue as competition between brands forces costs down as volumes ramp up.

For most drivers, who drive just a few tens of miles a day, an EV is a perfect car. Which is why, once they have tried and owned one, most drivers say "i'm not going back to ICE"

You also said heavy batteries is bad for efficiency, when actually the opposite it true. A heavy battery means a big battery, and a big battery has a lower internal resistance and hence has lower losses for any given power demand. It also enables a higher rating for regen, so can capture more KE

A typical EV turns around 90 % of the energy supplied to it into useful motive work. That is in no way "dismal" at all.



Here are some interesting comparisons to show the sea change which an EV brings:


EPA figures:

Range Rover SVR (4.3 seconds 0-60, 2,300 kg) 16 mpg

Tesla Model X P100D (3 seconds 0-60, 2,441 kg) 85 mpg-e

BMW i3s (6.8 seconds 0-60, 1,200 kg) 112 mpg-e


The Tesla is heavier and faster than the Rangie, yet uses something like 5.3 times less energy

The i3 is half the weight and size of the Tesla, but only manages to use 30% less energy




So what do we learn

1) ICE are catastrophically in-efficient on a scale that is actually difficult to believe when one includes EVs as a comparison

2) a heavy EV isn't actually that much of a penalty. yes lighter is better, but not by nearly the same effect as for an ICE (thanks to a bi-directional powertrain and effectively zero frictional and parastic powertrain losses)


To claim that current batteries make an EV in any way "poor performing" would make a current ICE by the same comparison, so catastrophicly bad as to warrant its immediate banning....... (which luckily for the EV haters, we haven't yet seen.) As batteries improve, the the dominance of EV is going to step up yet another notch.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 8th June 21:55

[DonkeyApple]

It's also corrosive and is transported under pressure. I get the feeling some people think it was just be transported down existing pipes or stored in big tanks in urban locations.

It can't even be sent down existing gas lines to homes for burning because of its corrosive nature. I think the best you can do is a 5 or 10^ blend into natural gas.

[rscott]

Polestar even published the break even point for a Polestar 2 Vs Volvo XC60 - with the European energy mix, around 50,000 miles is the point at which the EV has lower lifetime emissions than the ICE.
That drops to 31,000 miles if solely using wind energy.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

[Volvolover]

rscott said:

Polestar even published the break even point for a Polestar 2 Vs Volvo XC60 - with the European energy mix, around 50,000 miles is the point at which the EV has lower lifetime emissions than the ICE.
That drops to 31,000 miles if solely using wind energy.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

What about if you change it every 3 years on your 5k per mile PCP……..which is how these cars are bought

[anonymous-user]

Volvolover said:

rscott said:

Polestar even published the break even point for a Polestar 2 Vs Volvo XC60 - with the European energy mix, around 50,000 miles is the point at which the EV has lower lifetime emissions than the ICE.
That drops to 31,000 miles if solely using wind energy.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

What about if you change it every 3 years on your 5k per mile PCP……..which is how these cars are bought

er, when you trade in or return a lease car, they don't scrap it you know!

The average mileage at which a car is scrapped is around 115,000 miles in the europe. As EV's are less susceptable to wear, easier to repair, and just have fewer moving parts and can be designed for a longer life, chances are, an EV bought today can be used for an even greater distance.

[Volvolover]

Max_Torque said:

Volvolover said:

rscott said:

Polestar even published the break even point for a Polestar 2 Vs Volvo XC60 - with the European energy mix, around 50,000 miles is the point at which the EV has lower lifetime emissions than the ICE.
That drops to 31,000 miles if solely using wind energy.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

What about if you change it every 3 years on your 5k per mile PCP……..which is how these cars are bought

er, when you trade in or return a lease car, they don't scrap it you know!

The average mileage at which a car is scrapped is around 115,000 miles in the europe. As EV's are less susceptable to wear, easier to repair, and just have fewer moving parts and can be designed for a longer life, chances are, an EV bought today can be used for an even greater distance.

Do you then get into new battery territory with that kind of mileage on these small battery short/mid range cars that are going to be V2G’ing and going through more charging cycles?

[APontus]

Batteries might be 'crap', but they're a damned sight better than the million year old 'tech' ICE cars store their energy in.

[fido]

Max_Torque said:

... it's pathetic efficiency up to even 50% or better.

That's not a fair comparison. If you take the end-to-end efficiency of an electric car then it's lower than this - you're only looking at the electric motor itself which of course is efficient - it should be! In the same way the turbo- part of an ICE engine is extremely efficient. Mining lithium is a filthy process.