Car and Driver

bwilson4web

bwilson4web

Well-Known Member
Subscriber
Car & Driver claims:
  • $.26/kWh - SuperCharger cost
  • $2.77/gal - Premium unleaded
So using EPA metrics:
upload_2021-1-13_0-20-22.webp


  • 25 kWh/100 mi * $0.26/kWh = $6.50/100 mi :: 2019 Std Rng Model 3 (mine)
  • 4.0 gal/100 mi * $2.77/gal = $11.08/100 mi :: 2020 BMW M340i
  • 26 kWh/100 mi * $0.26/kWh = $6.76/100 mi :: 2019 Tesla Model 3 Long Range
  • 29 kWh/100 mi * $0.26/kWh = $7.54/100 mi :: 2019 Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD Performance
I prefer the EPA tests because of reproducible speed and driving profile. In contrast, C&D uses unreproducible driving patterns. So I call "bovine fecal matter" on the C&D article.

Now if they did an Edmunds style, "smack down" where several cars drove the same route and drivers were rotated, there could be something learned. But they have shown the same lack of rigorous test protocol as Consumer Reports.

Bob Wilson
 
I don’t see why people get so hung up on fuel costs. Drive the car/truck that excites you and pay the bill. It’s only a small part of your monthly expenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
One issue with the EPA tests is that because they are 100% reproducible, some auto manufacturers have "gamed" them. In the past it has been ICE vehicle manufacturers (VW) who have done so to pass either the emissions standards or exaggerate mileage (Hyundai). Electric car manufacturers also "game" the test to obtain higher total range estimates.

As for my 2018 Clarity, at 42 mpg with regular ($2.25/gal), I estimate $5.36/100 miles using just gasoline. My home electricity rate is only $0.11/kWh (Florida) or just $3.41/100 miles. A Tesla Model 3 owner in Florida, using home charging, would pay just $2.86/100 miles.

Teslarati has a story about a Tesla owner who spent less than $70 in electricity on a 1248 mile road trip. At 42 mpg and $2.25 per gallon for regular gasoline, my Clarity would make the same trip for $67.

The most recent financials from Tesla indicate that Tesla is not making money directly from the sale of their vehicles. Tesla is making money in other areas such as selling pollution credits. It also appears that Tesla is going to increasingly make money reselling electricity through their supercharger network. This business model is not unusual. Conventional auto manufacturers have often sold vehicles at cost or even for a loss. They make it up in other areas such as financing and parts sales.

Tesla Supercharger Network allows Model 3 owner to travel from NY to FL for less than $70 (teslarati.com)
EPA to Test for Cheat Devices, Finally (motortrend.com)
EPA fines Hyundai and Kia $100M over inaccurate MPG ratings (roadandtrack.com)
 
Recoil45 said:
I don’t see why people get so hung up on fuel costs. Drive the car/truck that excites you and pay the bill. It’s only a small part of your monthly expenses.
Click to expand...
Requirements vary by individual and generally split into:
  • Mandatory (YES or NO) - a family of five won't be happy with a smaller car.
  • Optional (score) - requirements that can have a weighted score. For example, color, cargo space/weight, or towing.
So let me share my requirements:
  1. Ability to travel 750 miles in less than 24 hours
    • Reliable, dense charging network.
    • Low kWh per mile.
    • High speed DC charging.
My Mom lives just under 750 miles from my home. My late wife was about 750 miles away from her kids in Washington DC. It turns out that 750 miles matches my biological limit. So this becomes a mandatory requirement but achievement has many optional paths.

The reliability, dense SuperCharger network means fast DC charging is in the 120-180 mile segments after the first. Lowest power per mile means affordable trips as well as bridging the gaps between chargers. Finally, having a high, peak charge rate minimizes the time spent at a charger.

The C&D analysis was flawed in the cost per mile. It also omitted the charging network density and charging speed. But I can understand others may not care about efficiency because the value other things.

Bob Wilson
 
bwilson4web said:
My Mom lives just under 750 miles from my home. My late wife was about 750 miles away from her kids in Washington DC. It turns out that 750 miles matches my biological limit. So this becomes a mandatory requirement but achievement has many optional paths.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that your wife had passed. So sorry to hear this.
 
"I hadn't heard that your wife had passed. So sorry to hear this."

Bob mentions his wife it in the Tesla forum.
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

My wife of 43 years, Holly, suffered from: (1) AFIB (common in older folks); (2) end stage renal failure (doesn't kill or hurt but makes you vulnerable to other maladies), and; (3) advanced dementia. She was under home hospice care and breathing somewhat heavy in her TV recliner when I took dogs to park and errands. Upon returning, I opened a cup of pudding to feed her and she was not breathing and temperature 85 F at home.

Bob Wilson
 
bwilson4web said:
Requirements vary by individual and generally split into:


  • But I can understand others may not care about efficiency because the value other things.

    Bob Wilson
Click to expand...


  • That is exactly it.

    I drive what I like. I don’t care what it costs. Probably a half of car/truck owners are the same. Look how many Jeep’s are on the road getting low teens for MPG. They could save a ton buying even a gas Corolla but they will never cross shop a Corolla or EV. It just doesn’t matter to them.

    Some of us even own boats with twin BBC engines.

    There is no reason to label someone who wants to drive a gas car or someone who wants the most efficient EV.

    People should enjoy what they like in a free country.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Generally I do care about efficiency, but there are always caveats, trade-offs and in some cases deal-breakers. If efficiency was literally the only factor, I might look at the Aptera, but that just doesn't seem like a practical vehicle. If I had the budget and garage space of a Jay Leno, I would get one anyways..
  • I care about comfortable seats - which generally isn't an issue, but it might exclude some cars.
  • I care about whether the car has non-serviceable parts, which might cause the car to end up in a scrapyard earlier than expected, and reduce resale values.
  • I care about general build quality, and while these issues can be fixed, it is just a pain in the neck to deal with these things
  • I prefer cars that are up a bit taller than a sedan. They are just a whole lot easier to get in and out of, and it is easier to see around other taller cars. But a taller car has more air resistance, and that costs you efficiency.
  • Cargo capacity is somewhat important. But that usually comes at a cost in terms of weight and efficiency.
  • Other things like roof rails and/or a tow hitch (even if you only use it to haul a bike). These things can kill efficiency, of course, but can be quite useful if you only need them once in a while. And can be a pain if you don't have them and are then limited.
  • Safety features, such as ACC, lane keeping, etc, etc.
 
Recoil45 said:
People should enjoy what they like in a free country.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, with the caveat that people should also be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. In the cases of a Jeep driver or a twin-BBC boat owner, those consequences go beyond the cost of fuel. The former pollutes the air, causing lung problems in those around them. The latter pollutes both the air and the water, leaving behind a visible oil slick.

The problem is, how do we reasonably hold people accountable? I don't have a good solution to propose to this problem.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
I agree completely, with the caveat that people should also be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. In the cases of a Jeep driver or a twin-BBC boat owner, those consequences go beyond the cost of fuel. The former pollutes the air, causing lung problems in those around them. The latter pollutes both the air and the water, leaving behind a visible oil slick.

The problem is, how do we reasonably hold people accountable? I don't have a good solution to propose to this problem.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree. Who gets to determine where we draw the line? The US averages shows 87% of EV power comes from non-renewables. This means all EV pollute to some extent. Someone who drives an EV SUV generates more pollution than someone who drives a small car based EV. Do we hold them accountable as well? Do we hold a poor person who can only afford an older less efficient car accountable? A politician who lives in a 4000sq ft house when they could get by with a 2000sq ft house? A family who chooses to drive their kid to school over another that makes their kid take the bus?

Sorry but that’s not America.

PS. My boat leaves no visible oil slick. There are heavy coastguard fines for doing exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Recoil45 said:
The US averages shows 87% of EV power comes from non-renewables. This means all EV pollute to some extent. Someone who drives an EV SUV generates more pollution than someone who drives a small car based EV.
Click to expand...
Source_1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46497

main.svg

It looks like natural gas (34%) and coal (24%) are about 58% and decreasing.

Source_2: https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichm...s-really-better-for-the-climate-yes-heres-why
ucsusa_30220343.png


There is a common lie about EVs called "the long tailpipe." It claims EVs are 'dirty' but when you look at the facts and data, it is just anti-EV propaganda.

Bob Wilson
 
What is also not well reported is that solar and wind, which are very variable, only accounts for 10% of total electric power produced.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/dat...echart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

The good news is that NG is replacing coal, which does substantially reduce pollution. Hopefully Biden won't thwart that trend by banning fracking. And even coal is working hard to reduce their carbon footprint with carbon capture technology.

I drive an EV because I like the quietness and lack of smell of EVs. When I ride my bike or go for a walk, it is very annoying to hear a loud sports car or smelly diesel truck go roaring by. I think cities would be a lot more pleasant to live in, with more EVs. But let's not fool ourselves by thinking we are saving the world.

The other issue that still needs solving is the materials needed to produce enough batteries for all the new BEVs that are planned for the next 10 years. That's why I think hydrogen has a place, at least for large transport vehicles, where otherwise massive batteries would be required for those BEVs.
 
Perspective friends, these are EVs and not "Caesar's Wife." If nothing else, 2-3,000 lbs of glass, metals, tires, and plastics are going to have both a CO{2} and other manufacture and disposal footprint. One of my pet peeves is calling everything "pollution" when we're really dealing with:
  • CO{2} - a green house gas that continues to accumulate
  • O{3}, hydrocarbons, CO - these are pollutants with direct, local effects, on lungs
  • mercury - by product of coal burning that has made some fresh water fish inedible
We'll always communicate better when using more accurate terms. For me, "pollution" is imprecise.

Bob Wilson
 
electriceddy said:
2 examples of electricity generation by fuel type in Canada...
British Columbia:
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-a...itorial-energy-profiles-british-columbia.html:)
Alberta:
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-a...cial-territorial-energy-profiles-alberta.html:(

(rant) A better solution would be to sell access energy created by renewable sources in B.C to Alberta, at a price of course ~ the equivalent of what we British Columbians have been gouged with at the pumps for so many years.
Click to expand...
We are very fortunate in BC to have an abundance of water coming down from the mountains and being harnessed as hydro power. We should also be thankful to our past political leaders to have the foresight to develop that resource incl the current Site C expansion. Today, that could never happen given our current political environment. As you know Site C almost got killed. Thankfully, construction was far enough along and common sense prevailed.

We can't always have our cake and eat it, too. We love electrical power and EVs, but producing it with 100% renewables for most of the continent is still a long ways off. I would like to see more solar roof installations. That is still expensive (mostly the installation costs, not materials), but the govts could help with some subsidies and tax incentives for that.
 
R P said:
We are very fortunate in BC to have an abundance of water coming down from the mountains and being harnessed as hydro power. We should also be thankful to our past political leaders to have the foresight to develop that resource incl the current Site C expansion. Today, that could never happen given our current political environment. As you know Site C almost got killed. Thankfully, construction was far enough along and common sense prevailed.

We can't always have our cake and eat it, too. We love electrical power and EVs, but producing it with 100% renewables for most of the continent is still a long ways off. I would like to see more solar roof installations. That is still expensive (mostly the installation costs, not materials), but the govts could help with some subsidies and tax incentives for that.
Click to expand...
I agree and would include wind with that. There are many times when the solar production is dismal at best in these parts, so small turbines would be a welcome addition. Conversely in Alberta solar would definitely be in line, given the amount of sunshine throughout the province. The best wind generation of course produced by the "chinook winds" in the foothills area and has come a long way since its inception, but needs to grow as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top