Making evs drive like ice cars

[Gary C]

AnotherClarkey said:

There are 100+year old electric cars stil around. There are even 90 year old electric Bugattis.

What about electric cars makes them hard to service compared with modern internal combustion cars? They seem to have fewer service items?

Edited by AnotherClarkey on Thursday 4th March 10:04

The electronics.

But thats no different to modern ICE though.

[AnotherClarkey]

Gary C said:

AnotherClarkey said:

There are 100+year old electric cars stil around. There are even 90 year old electric Bugattis.

What about electric cars makes them hard to service compared with modern internal combustion cars? They seem to have fewer service items?

Edited by AnotherClarkey on Thursday 4th March 10:04

The electronics.

But thats no different to modern ICE though.

Are electronics a service item on any car though? I imagine that EV's are actually an easier proposition for home servicing than modern ICE.

[Gary C]

AnotherClarkey said:

Gary C said:

AnotherClarkey said:

There are 100+year old electric cars stil around. There are even 90 year old electric Bugattis.

What about electric cars makes them hard to service compared with modern internal combustion cars? They seem to have fewer service items?

Edited by AnotherClarkey on Thursday 4th March 10:04

The electronics.

But thats no different to modern ICE though.

Are electronics a service item on any car though? I imagine that EV's are actually an easier proposition for home servicing than modern ICE.

Ah, yes your right

but the other was talking about more than just servicing, rather repairing.

[Kawasicki]

I spent the last two weeks driving ICE and EV on snow coveted roads. In some respects (feedback) ICE is superior to EV.

[HustleRussell]

Kawasicki said:

HustleRussell said:

Kawasicki said:

HustleRussell said:

Automatic and semi-automatic are increasing in popularity because today’s technology has removed all of the disadvantages which used to exist compared to manuals.

That’s hardly true is it? All of the disadvantages haven’t been removed.

Manual used to be quicker to 60 and faster top speed. Not any more.

Manual used to shift faster than auto, now DCT is considerably faster.

Manual used to be much more efficient than auto.

Automatic used to be much heavier than manual, this has decreased to the point of insignificance with the high overall weight of cars these days.

Automatic used to carry an increased risk of unreliability but nowadays they generally last the life of the car.

Automatic used to have fewer ratios than Manual but now it’s the other way around.

Manual used to be the only way to get the gear you want when you want it- no more.

Hill starts used to be a pain with some autos- fixed.

All of my cars have been manual, and I have no intention of buying an auto of any kind for as long as I can put it off...

This has all been covered in recent threads about whether autos have made manuals redundant. A couple of years ago a German car magazine Autobild tested auto vs manual on a range of cars. Cost, weight, acceleration, fuel consumption, etc., were all rated. The manuals beat the autos. I tabulated the results.

If you like Autos, buy and drive them, just don’t state manuals are worse at everything.

You didn’t manage to get as far as the final sentence of my post before jumping to conclusions.

Anyway, the stats are so marginal and inconclusive that any preference is the subjective view of the journos. I don’t think that the subjective opinions of a motoring magazine journo are of much significance to the car buying public. What proportion of new car buyers read Autobild?

If anything you’ve supported my point, Pistonheaders will remember when the auto option had three forward speeds and a fluid coupling, was whole seconds slower to 60, felt sluggish, used 20% more fuel and increased the weight of the car by 5%...

How else do you explain the rampantly increasing uptake of autos?

[Kawasicki]

HustleRussell said:

You didn’t manage to get as far as the final sentence of my post before jumping to conclusions.

Anyway, the stats are so marginal and inconclusive that any preference is the subjective view of the journos. I don’t think that the subjective opinions of a motoring magazine journo are of much significance to the car buying public. What proportion of new car buyers read Autobild?

If anything you’ve supported my point, Pistonheaders will remember when the auto option had three forward speeds and a fluid coupling, was whole seconds slower to 60, felt sluggish, used 20% more fuel and increased the weight of the car by 5%...

How else do you explain the rampantly increasing uptake of autos?

You wrote

HustleRussell said:

today’s technology has removed all of the disadvantages which used to exist compared to manuals

Which isn't factually correct. Even if you only look at price, autos were and remain more expensive to buy than manuals.

How to explain the rampant increase in uptake of autos? Easy, customers prefer them to manuals. Why? Because they have improved massively over the years, and because they perform better in the CO2 based taxation tests....so they are often cheaper to tax.

That's not to say that auto gearboxes have no disadvantages compared to manuals, though.