The powers of EV's
Discussion
robinessex said:
Having qualified as a driving instructor with BSM, I'm happy my driving is better than average. I'm not averse to making progress (safely) when the opportunity arises. It never ceases to make me laugh at those who make comments on assumptions they've made.
BSM??This is Pistonheads, not Mumsnet.
ScoobyChris said:
TheDeuce said:
In what way are those cars roughly equivalent? BMW = 340bhp, 4.6 seconds, M3P = 527bhp, 3.1 seconds.
And what is the value of your current M140i vs the M3P you were looking at? Assuming the M3P has a greater value, and far greater power output, would you not expect the premium to be quite a bit higher?
About £5k difference in value, similar class car and real world performance not world’s apart. M140i is £540 and M3P over £800 with big excess.And what is the value of your current M140i vs the M3P you were looking at? Assuming the M3P has a greater value, and far greater power output, would you not expect the premium to be quite a bit higher?
What ICE car should I be comparing the M3P to?
Chris
ETA, an equivalent value/age M4 competition is £650.
Edited by ScoobyChris on Friday 17th March 21:07
Got to be realistic about the power differential between the two cars. Reducing 0-60 by 1.5 seconds is huge, which is why the Tesla needs about 200 more hp to get that done. And the torque which is wildly in excess of the M140.
So few ICE cars can get anywhere near 3 seconds and all those that can are definitely not going be as cheap to insure as a car which basically a particularly hot, hot hatch.
I also don't see how it's acceptable to say that real world performance between the two is about the same. It's just not, because whilst I know the BMW is better dynamically, in the real world you can't press that advantage really. But you can enjoy endless more brutal acceleration and the M3P is clearly better at that, far better. My EV has the same 0-60 as the M140, and mine is a 2.2 tone SUV... I have driven a M3P and it certainly felt a lot more potent in a straight line than my car... Because it's quicker off the mark than most ICE supercars and the underwriters tend to factor that sort of thing in.
The question is, should you be willing to pay the extra? That would be a difficult one for me if the car was a daily as the BMW is a better interior, iDrive is fantastic and the cars feel very well sorted. The HK (if you have it) is also very good and way more satisfying to listen too than the system in the Tesla. On the other hand, I personally think it's outstanding that any licensed driver can go and but an affordable car that is capable of accelerating to national speed limits in around 3 seconds, that's getting on for 1g force generated in a machine you can operate yourself on the public roads - that's quite satisfying in it's own way imo.
I don't think the cars are equivalent in insurance terms and also not really as cars tbh. But both, are very good.
ETA: Sorry I missed the bit about the M4. That's a more comparable car and the price for insurance is very good indeed for such a car. But once you get down to a couple of hundred quid between any two cars, you could probably swing it by trying different insurers for quotes.
Assuming you're happy with driving a BMW I would personally take the M4 comp unless you have a particular need to switch to an EV right now.
Edited by TheDeuce on Friday 17th March 21:50
TheDeuce said:
Compare it an ICE car that has a 500+hp and nails 60 in less than 4 seconds and I'd expect you'd get the same sort of increase.
Got to be realistic about the power differential between the two cars. Reducing 0-60 by 1.5 seconds is huge, which is why the Tesla needs about 200 more hp to get that done. And the torque which is wildly in excess of the M140.
So few ICE cars can get anywhere near 3 seconds and all those that can are definitely not going be as cheap to insure as a car which basically a particularly hot, hot hatch.
I also don't see how it's acceptable to say that real world performance between the two is about the same. It's just not, because whilst I know the BMW is better dynamically, in the real world you can't press that advantage really. But you can enjoy endless more brutal acceleration and the M3P is clearly better at that, far better. My EV has the same 0-60 as the M140, and mine is a 2.2 tone SUV... I have driven a M3P and it certainly felt a lot more potent in a straight line than my car... Because it's quicker off the mark than most ICE supercars and the underwriters tend to factor that sort of thing in.
The question is, should you be willing to pay the extra? That would be a difficult one for me if the car was a daily as the BMW is a better interior, iDrive is fantastic and the cars feel very well sorted. The HK (if you have it) is also very good and way more satisfying to listen too than the system in the Tesla. On the other hand, I personally think it's outstanding that any licensed driver can go and but an affordable car that is capable of accelerating to national speed limits in around 3 seconds, that's getting on for 1g force generated in a machine you can operate yourself on the public roads - that's quite satisfying in it's own way imo.
I don't think the cars are equivalent in insurance terms and also not really as cars tbh. But both, are very good.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Tesla and appreciate the engineering and accessible performance and if I could make the numbers work, I’d happily have one on the drive.Got to be realistic about the power differential between the two cars. Reducing 0-60 by 1.5 seconds is huge, which is why the Tesla needs about 200 more hp to get that done. And the torque which is wildly in excess of the M140.
So few ICE cars can get anywhere near 3 seconds and all those that can are definitely not going be as cheap to insure as a car which basically a particularly hot, hot hatch.
I also don't see how it's acceptable to say that real world performance between the two is about the same. It's just not, because whilst I know the BMW is better dynamically, in the real world you can't press that advantage really. But you can enjoy endless more brutal acceleration and the M3P is clearly better at that, far better. My EV has the same 0-60 as the M140, and mine is a 2.2 tone SUV... I have driven a M3P and it certainly felt a lot more potent in a straight line than my car... Because it's quicker off the mark than most ICE supercars and the underwriters tend to factor that sort of thing in.
The question is, should you be willing to pay the extra? That would be a difficult one for me if the car was a daily as the BMW is a better interior, iDrive is fantastic and the cars feel very well sorted. The HK (if you have it) is also very good and way more satisfying to listen too than the system in the Tesla. On the other hand, I personally think it's outstanding that any licensed driver can go and but an affordable car that is capable of accelerating to national speed limits in around 3 seconds, that's getting on for 1g force generated in a machine you can operate yourself on the public roads - that's quite satisfying in it's own way imo.
I don't think the cars are equivalent in insurance terms and also not really as cars tbh. But both, are very good.
What I am saying though, is that in the real world (assuming we’re only talking traffic light gp and not general driving) the difference between 4.5s and 3s isn’t that huge and both are in the realms of comedy performance compared to the majority of cars on the road. Likewise both are more than capable of overtaking briskly and instantly within the speed limit. I don’t see either aspect being a huge differentiator in terms of risk (in fact maybe the BMW is probably worse as it can take more finesse to get the power onto the road!).
What is interesting for me though is that even something like a BMW M4 with similar power to the Tesla is much cheaper to insure. Maybe some aspect of my profile is high risk, but it doesn’t make sense to me…
Chris
ScoobyChris said:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Tesla and appreciate the engineering and accessible performance and if I could make the numbers work, I’d happily have one on the drive.
What I am saying though, is that in the real world (assuming we’re only talking traffic light gp and not general driving) the difference between 4.5s and 3s isn’t that huge and both are in the realms of comedy performance compared to the majority of cars on the road. Likewise both are more than capable of overtaking briskly and instantly within the speed limit. I don’t see either aspect being a huge differentiator in terms of risk (in fact maybe the BMW is probably worse as it can take more finesse to get the power onto the road!).
What is interesting for me though is that even something like a BMW M4 with similar power to the Tesla is much cheaper to insure. Maybe some aspect of my profile is high risk, but it doesn’t make sense to me…
Chris
The difference is huge, believe me. You'd need to drive a Model 3 P to appreciate just how big the performance gap is.What I am saying though, is that in the real world (assuming we’re only talking traffic light gp and not general driving) the difference between 4.5s and 3s isn’t that huge and both are in the realms of comedy performance compared to the majority of cars on the road. Likewise both are more than capable of overtaking briskly and instantly within the speed limit. I don’t see either aspect being a huge differentiator in terms of risk (in fact maybe the BMW is probably worse as it can take more finesse to get the power onto the road!).
What is interesting for me though is that even something like a BMW M4 with similar power to the Tesla is much cheaper to insure. Maybe some aspect of my profile is high risk, but it doesn’t make sense to me…
Chris
ScoobyChris said:
TheDeuce said:
Compare it an ICE car that has a 500+hp and nails 60 in less than 4 seconds and I'd expect you'd get the same sort of increase.
Got to be realistic about the power differential between the two cars. Reducing 0-60 by 1.5 seconds is huge, which is why the Tesla needs about 200 more hp to get that done. And the torque which is wildly in excess of the M140.
So few ICE cars can get anywhere near 3 seconds and all those that can are definitely not going be as cheap to insure as a car which basically a particularly hot, hot hatch.
I also don't see how it's acceptable to say that real world performance between the two is about the same. It's just not, because whilst I know the BMW is better dynamically, in the real world you can't press that advantage really. But you can enjoy endless more brutal acceleration and the M3P is clearly better at that, far better. My EV has the same 0-60 as the M140, and mine is a 2.2 tone SUV... I have driven a M3P and it certainly felt a lot more potent in a straight line than my car... Because it's quicker off the mark than most ICE supercars and the underwriters tend to factor that sort of thing in.
The question is, should you be willing to pay the extra? That would be a difficult one for me if the car was a daily as the BMW is a better interior, iDrive is fantastic and the cars feel very well sorted. The HK (if you have it) is also very good and way more satisfying to listen too than the system in the Tesla. On the other hand, I personally think it's outstanding that any licensed driver can go and but an affordable car that is capable of accelerating to national speed limits in around 3 seconds, that's getting on for 1g force generated in a machine you can operate yourself on the public roads - that's quite satisfying in it's own way imo.
I don't think the cars are equivalent in insurance terms and also not really as cars tbh. But both, are very good.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Tesla and appreciate the engineering and accessible performance and if I could make the numbers work, I’d happily have one on the drive.Got to be realistic about the power differential between the two cars. Reducing 0-60 by 1.5 seconds is huge, which is why the Tesla needs about 200 more hp to get that done. And the torque which is wildly in excess of the M140.
So few ICE cars can get anywhere near 3 seconds and all those that can are definitely not going be as cheap to insure as a car which basically a particularly hot, hot hatch.
I also don't see how it's acceptable to say that real world performance between the two is about the same. It's just not, because whilst I know the BMW is better dynamically, in the real world you can't press that advantage really. But you can enjoy endless more brutal acceleration and the M3P is clearly better at that, far better. My EV has the same 0-60 as the M140, and mine is a 2.2 tone SUV... I have driven a M3P and it certainly felt a lot more potent in a straight line than my car... Because it's quicker off the mark than most ICE supercars and the underwriters tend to factor that sort of thing in.
The question is, should you be willing to pay the extra? That would be a difficult one for me if the car was a daily as the BMW is a better interior, iDrive is fantastic and the cars feel very well sorted. The HK (if you have it) is also very good and way more satisfying to listen too than the system in the Tesla. On the other hand, I personally think it's outstanding that any licensed driver can go and but an affordable car that is capable of accelerating to national speed limits in around 3 seconds, that's getting on for 1g force generated in a machine you can operate yourself on the public roads - that's quite satisfying in it's own way imo.
I don't think the cars are equivalent in insurance terms and also not really as cars tbh. But both, are very good.
What I am saying though, is that in the real world (assuming we’re only talking traffic light gp and not general driving) the difference between 4.5s and 3s isn’t that huge and both are in the realms of comedy performance compared to the majority of cars on the road. Likewise both are more than capable of overtaking briskly and instantly within the speed limit. I don’t see either aspect being a huge differentiator in terms of risk (in fact maybe the BMW is probably worse as it can take more finesse to get the power onto the road!).
What is interesting for me though is that even something like a BMW M4 with similar power to the Tesla is much cheaper to insure. Maybe some aspect of my profile is high risk, but it doesn’t make sense to me…
Chris
You're right that it's odd that the M4 is quite a bit cheaper than the M3P, but as I said, it's just a couple of hundred quid and that could easily be down to who quoted you for both cars. It's also a nonsense amount of money to worry about - if you can afford to buy either the M4 comp of the M3P then the M4 will cost you over £1000 more than the Tesla each year in fuel, brakes and servicing, and that's assuming you drive them both sensibly most of the time. If you put your foot down hard often most journeys, the M4 will of course drink fuel to the point of single digit MPG figures, whereas the Tesla will actually remain close to as efficient as if you drove it like a vicar.
I normally drive my IPace pretty hard, because I'm normally on quiet b-roads and I can - it'll get about 200 miles per charge. If I'm going long distance and drive it efficiently, it gets about 220 miles. So by driving it hard, for fun, I lose about 10% range. Drive the M car hard and you'll use significantly more fuel than driven carefully.
All this vs £200 insurance premium a year? The road tax saving alone wipes that out before you've even climbed into the car.
I suspect it's not about cost, it's about what you actually want to drive - as it should be. But if it is about cost vs performance, there's no logical argument that doesn't put you in the M3P. Even if the reason for the higher premium in this instance doesn't make sense, it's irrelevant.
TheDeuce said:
Even if the reason for the higher premium in this instance doesn't make sense, it's irrelevant.
I have driven 3s cars and disagree it is massively faster (try counting out the seconds) but I guess that’s largely irrelevant. The difference is that it would cost me £5k to move to a car that is £250 more (and a bigger excess) to insure a year and in real world terms is only a bit faster than what I have. It’s a tough sell really and not sure it would pass the SWMBO test.Chris
ScoobyChris said:
TheDeuce said:
Even if the reason for the higher premium in this instance doesn't make sense, it's irrelevant.
I have driven 3s cars and disagree it is massively faster (try counting out the seconds) but I guess that’s largely irrelevant. The difference is that it would cost me £5k to move to a car that is £250 more (and a bigger excess) to insure a year and in real world terms is only a bit faster than what I have. It’s a tough sell really and not sure it would pass the SWMBO test.Chris
I'll never agree there isn't a colossal difference between 4.6 and 3.1 seconds to sixty. If you want to focus on rel world performance, the same additional huge lump of power and torque required to sink a 0-60 dash by a second and a half is also going to make the car crazily potent 30-70mph, very real world useful if you're firing the car out of a tight corner or looking to make a very rapid overtake.
TheDeuce said:
And it would cost you far less in running costs, easily enough to negate the cost differences you're focusing on.
I'll never agree there isn't a colossal difference between 4.6 and 3.1 seconds to sixty. If you want to focus on rel world performance, the same additional huge lump of power and torque required to sink a 0-60 dash by a second and a half is also going to make the car crazily potent 30-70mph, very real world useful if you're firing the car out of a tight corner or looking to make a very rapid overtake.
Maybe everyone in this country "needs" a Model S Plaid with 1,000bhph that can enable the fastest possible overtaking? Anything else is useless in the real world, right?I'll never agree there isn't a colossal difference between 4.6 and 3.1 seconds to sixty. If you want to focus on rel world performance, the same additional huge lump of power and torque required to sink a 0-60 dash by a second and a half is also going to make the car crazily potent 30-70mph, very real world useful if you're firing the car out of a tight corner or looking to make a very rapid overtake.
ScoobyChris said:
I have driven 3s cars and disagree it is massively faster (try counting out the seconds) but I guess that’s largely irrelevant. The difference is that it would cost me £5k to move to a car that is £250 more (and a bigger excess) to insure a year and in real world terms is only a bit faster than what I have. It’s a tough sell really and not sure it would pass the SWMBO test.
Chris
Have you driven a 3s EV though? It's a different thing entirely IME, and not even it's true party piece. 30-70 in real world situations like overtaking slow traffic is where it's truly mind blowing.Chris
As an example watch the first 2.5 minutes of this and tell me how you think the M140i would have fared in comparison.
Or this one from 7:40 for an example of 30-100mph
raspy said:
Maybe everyone in this country "needs" a Model S Plaid with 1,000bhph that can enable the fastest possible overtaking? Anything else is useless in the real world, right?
It doesn't make other cars "useless", it just makes the faster car more "useful". But then I'm sure you understand that.You can say what you like about noise, driver engagement etc. but the argument about how useable and potent a performance EV is in real world situations has already been had, and £ for £ ICE lost I'm afraid.
Edited by SWoll on Saturday 18th March 08:24
ScoobyChris said:
I have driven 3s cars and disagree it is massively faster (try counting out the seconds) but I guess that’s largely irrelevant. The difference is that it would cost me £5k to move to a car that is £250 more (and a bigger excess) to insure a year and in real world terms is only a bit faster than what I have. It’s a tough sell really and not sure it would pass the SWMBO test.
Chris
I think it's the real world bit you're talking about that makes the difference so big Chris. EVs absolutely excel at the real world in the UK where legal-ish speeds are involved. Even an M4 wouldn't see which way a M3 Performance went in the real world where instant response makes a monumental difference. On a track, different story, but that's where I think you've got it the wrong way round.Chris
plfrench said:
I think it's the real world bit you're talking about that makes the difference so big Chris. EVs absolutely excel at the real world in the UK where legal-ish speeds are involved. Even an M4 wouldn't see which way a M3 Performance went in the real world where instant response makes a monumental difference. On a track, different story, but that's where I think you've got it the wrong way round.
Does it actually matter in the real world vs a track? Those extra seconds you shave on your approach to the next roundabout because your EV has more instant torque I mean. Is everyone driving around on every journey aiming to get from A to B in the fastest possible manner?
Undercover McNoName said:
robinessex said:
Having qualified as a driving instructor with BSM, I'm happy my driving is better than average. I'm not averse to making progress (safely) when the opportunity arises. It never ceases to make me laugh at those who make comments on assumptions they've made.
Speaking of assumptions, what was it about “Sharons” in powerful cars?Edited by Undercover McNoName on Friday 17th March 19:30
raspy said:
Does it actually matter in the real world vs a track? Those extra seconds you shave on your approach to the next roundabout because your EV has more instant torque I mean. Is everyone driving around on every journey aiming to get from A to B in the fastest possible manner?
I was just pointing out that Chris saying a 140i (or even an M4) was of equivalent performance to a Model 3 performance in the real world and therefore a fair comparison for insurance purposes was quite wide of the mark.SWoll said:
Have you driven a 3s EV though? It's a different thing entirely IME, and not even it's true party piece. 30-70 in real world situations like overtaking slow traffic is where it's truly mind blowing.
I haven’t driven a 3 yet (as I would probably impulse buy it lol) so my experience is limited to “lesser” EVs. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m a big fan I don’t doubt the credentials and the genuine super car humbling performance as demonstrated in the many YouTube videos but my original question was related to insurance risk. From my point of view going from a car that does 3.5s 30-70 to one (petrol or EV) that does 2.5s 30-70 doesn’t feel like a massive step up in risk in the real world and I have never come out of a corner and thought “if only I could get to 70 a second quicker this overtake would be on”. Which kind of comes full circle to my original, probably rhetorical, question - why is it so much more for me to insure than my car or (if we want to close the performance gap more) an M4?
Chris
smn159 said:
robinessex said:
Having qualified as a driving instructor with BSM, I'm happy my driving is better than average.
They teach high speed car handling skills now?Cool
ScoobyChris said:
Which kind of comes full circle to my original, probably rhetorical, question - why is it so much more for me to insure than my car or (if we want to close the performance gap more) an M4?
Chris
Parts availability and repair costs. I've heard of some damaged EV's sitting for 6 months+ waiting on parts to turn up, which gets very expensive for the insurers.Chris
smn159 said:
robinessex said:
Check you facts. "Sharon" name was invented by another. I just commented on a female driver who didn't realize her 4-wheel drive car only has the same brakes as other cars.
Except it's in your first post on page 1 
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff