Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

[wyx087]

1 Imperial gallon = 1.2 US gallons, or 1 US gallon = 0.833 Imperial gallons so a car which achieves 30mpg (US) would achieve 36mpg (Imperial)

Also, in the UK the 330i is rated at 40.4-41.5 mpg (Imperial). Using US vehicle data is misleading........

EPA rating is standard for all cars. It would be misleading if we quoted EPA rated MPGe for EV and then turned to more relaxed WLTP rating for ICE cars.

Let's look at real world user submitted average for 330i: 36mpg https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/bmw/3-series-g20-2019/330i-automatic

I personally put more trust in the EPA rating.......

Absolutely. Furthermore those figures are probably combined all type driving, and if EV are allowed to quote best condition range i.e. a nice warm, not hot or the AC would be draining power, summer's day shouldnt ICE cars be allowed to quote best conditions i.e. cruising down a motorway. In addition why use a BM 330 which is more performance focused than a 320d for comparison, thereby twisting the figures clearly in favour of the EV. Smoke and mirrors again.

No, EV did not quote ideal range. All those tests were done by EPA to their testing standards.

330i was used because that's what came up. It's actually the most efficient 3 series on their website. I highly doubt 320d will give you anywhere near performance of Model 3, so it's hardly a fair comparison. Are you trying to twist the figures in favour of ICE cars?

 

[wyx087]

This is the reply i got when i questioned regen braking being like dropping a couple of gears.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...g-hard-think-about-diesel.648283/post-8490602
Notice the bit where he said regenerative feels like moderate braking in an ICE car. Dropping 2-3 gears a lot closer to heavy braking in an ICE car, it is a lot more severe than moderate braking. You liked that comment meaning you agreed with it, you made no attempt to disagree with his correction of your statement.

I can't be bothered to trawl through all your posts to find the one where you changed your mind yet again and said that regenerative braking was more pronounced than dropping 2 or 3 gears but it is amongst all your s*** somewhere over the past week or so.

And to top it all today you go back to it being akin to dropping 2 or 3 gears.

Let me help you out a bit if you can stop your head from spinning.
^ is Up, the opposite direction is down.
< is left
> is right.
You can try and work out forward and back for yourself.

EDIT
More help for you, I have found your post where you wrote that regen braking feels more pronounced than dropping gears in an ICE vehicle.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...g-hard-think-about-diesel.648283/post-8498918
I will also repeat the definition of "more pronounced" for you as you claimed I didn't know the meaning, when in fact it is you that is obviously struggling with it.
More pronounced - more noticeable.

The only way something can feel more noticeable (pronounced) is if it is actually more pronounced or noticeable.

You can thank me for my kind help later.

So, your whole argument against me is based on the rate of deceleration when regen is applied. Not on regen braking ability to capture normally wasted energy, and anything relating to the actual discussion at hand.

You have basically ignored the fact different cars have different characteristics. As I've previously pointed out, Leaf regen up to 40kW, i3 is more, e-tron can do up to 150kW. In my Leaf, it feels like dropping 2 gears in Merc C220 and 2-3 gears (depending on whether DSG computer allow 3 gears) in Skoda 2.0 TDI.
How else would you describe the vast range of EV's regen braking to anyone who haven't driven EV?

Sorry to point this out, unless you can quote your previously provided proof of my inconsistent statements, you were outright lying here:

I have already provided proof of your inconsistent statements.

So, in summary: You have zero credibility. Everything you say are attempts to put bad words on EV's. You are aggressive to anyone who question the spins you've written and you have zero respect to other members of the forum for their knowledge.

 

[broc]

EPA is more representative of US driving styles & lower speed limits, WTLP is intended to represent european driving styles and speed limits.

I am more interested in what happens in Europe.

 

[MatBin]

You know as well as I do that real world driving of an EV in mid winter will not give anything like the range you would get in summer, for an ICE car it makes little or no difference what the weather is like. Whilst a 330 may be similar in potential performance to an EV again I would suggest a heavy foot in EV will crucify it's range. Hence so many creeping along the motorway, if they ever go on motorways, I have seen very few and given I commute almost entirely on motorways I find that odd, that combined with a generally slow top speed. So whilst acceleration could be similar to a 330 real world cruising speed would not be, even with our over use of speed cameras, I believe a 320 would be Tesla's market.
Did you even read the EPA website and the fudge factors they openly admitted to?
Hot or cold weather affects range, Lead footed driver affects range, conducted indoors at room temperature, so drag isn't included. Now whilst I understand a standard test should be expected I believe it only relevant for vehicles of the same type as a basis for comparison, you really shouldn't take the figures as definitive.
For instance what speed do the tests use on the freeway? 55 mph perhaps? How about they do a comparison of UK/European speeds, say 70mph, I would suggest the EV will drop considerably from the figures the EPA have quoted.

 

[Nod]

real world driving of an EV in mid winter will not give anything like the range you would get in summer

5-10% fewer miles per charge, depending on time of day journeys are made. About the same difference it makes to my ICE car.

 

[nilagin]

Sorry to point this out, unless you can quote your previously provided proof of my inconsistent statements, you were outright lying here:


So, in summary: You have zero credibility. Everything you say are attempts to put bad words on EV's. You are aggressive to anyone who question the spins you've written and you have zero respect to other members of the forum for their knowledge.

I can't work out if you are playing dumb or it just comes naturally,:The proof is in the links in my post that you quoted.

 

[viv1969]

If any other thread had such a long winded bout of people bitching at each other, it would have been jumped on long ago.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Aye, this thread is definitely past it's sell buy date!

 

[nilagin]

If any other thread had such a long winded bout of people bitching at each other, it would have been jumped on long ago.

Aye, this thread is definitely past it sell buy date!

It's no good, i can't resist, I have to say it.
It's had some mileage, more than you'll get out of a single charge from an EV battery anyway.

 

[broc]

5-10% fewer miles per charge, depending on time of day journeys are made. About the same difference it makes to my ICE car.

Doesn't low ambient temperature extend EV charging times too?

 

[Nod]

Dunno - we charge overnight so there's no difference between 5 and 7 hours to us. Nice to have a preheated, defrosted car for early starts on cold mornings (so I'm told - I use my ICE car while Mrs Nod takes the Leaf!)

 

[wyx087]

Doesn't low ambient temperature extend EV charging times too?

Only if you are trying to rapid charge a stone cold battery. eg. coming out of long stay airport parking to a quick charger a few miles away.

Normally, charging at home, it doesn't affect charging speed. Normally, when going for a en-route quick charge after driving majority of your range, the battery would have warmed up, then cold temperature doesn't affect charging speed.

Tesla, E-tron and perhaps EQC will pre-heat the battery as you drive up to quick charging stations (if you set the sat-nav).

EPA is more representative of US driving styles & lower speed limits, WTLP is intended to represent european driving styles and speed limits.

I am more interested in what happens in Europe.

You know as well as I do that real world driving of an EV in mid winter will not give anything like the range you would get in summer, for an ICE car it makes little or no difference what the weather is like. Whilst a 330 may be similar in potential performance to an EV again I would suggest a heavy foot in EV will crucify it's range. Hence so many creeping along the motorway, if they ever go on motorways, I have seen very few and given I commute almost entirely on motorways I find that odd, that combined with a generally slow top speed. So whilst acceleration could be similar to a 330 real world cruising speed would not be, even with our over use of speed cameras, I believe a 320 would be Tesla's market.
Did you even read the EPA website and the fudge factors they openly admitted to?
Hot or cold weather affects range, Lead footed driver affects range, conducted indoors at room temperature, so drag isn't included. Now whilst I understand a standard test should be expected I believe it only relevant for vehicles of the same type as a basis for comparison, you really shouldn't take the figures as definitive.
For instance what speed do the tests use on the freeway? 55 mph perhaps? How about they do a comparison of UK/European speeds, say 70mph, I would suggest the EV will drop considerably from the figures the EPA have quoted.

All I know is that EPA reported range or MPG tend to be achievable with normal driving. WLTP still require very careful driving to achieve reported range or MPG. So I take EPA rating more seriously than WLTP.

I don't believe you are right in saying for ICE car, weather makes little or no difference. Driving the same route, I usually get around 60mpg in summer, but 50-55mpg in winter. ~10% MPG decrease during winter with every ICE car I've ever owned. This loss in efficiency (and thus range) is similar to the amount of range EV looses.

Just because you've not seen much EV driving high speed on the motorway. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Efficient EV like Tesla and Ioniq are very aerodynamic, speed does not have as much impact as Leaf, the most popular EV in UK.

 

[wyx087]

I can't work out if you are playing dumb or it just comes naturally,:The proof is in the links in my post that you quoted.

Just like any good spin doctor, you've ignored my logical reply and decided to quote the accusation. But you did not deny you were lying, that you finally posted "proof" AFTER your "I've already provided proof" post.

If any other thread had such a long winded bout of people bitching at each other, it would have been jumped on long ago.

Unfortunately, the bitching had to be done when someone cannot read, cannot understand logic, or desperately snipes with old misconceptions.

 

[nilagin]

I don't believe you are right in saying for ICE car, weather makes little or no difference. Driving the same route, I usually get around 60mpg in summer, but 50-55mpg in winter. ~10% MPG decrease during winter with every ICE car I've ever owned. This loss in efficiency (and thus range) is similar to the amount of range EV looses.

That is quite an excessive drop in mpg. The only time I have ever had a big drop like that, was on a car with a manual choke carburettor or an auto choke carburettor that got stuck.
All the cars I have had since have only amounted to about 1mpg drop on average, 2mpg at the most.

 

[nilagin]

Just like any good spin doctor, you've ignored my logical reply and decided to quote the accusation. But you did not deny you were lying, that you finally posted "proof" AFTER your "I've already provided proof" post.


Unfortunately, the bitching had to be done when someone cannot read, cannot understand logic, or desperately snipes with old misconceptions.

Oh sorry I didn't realise I had to reply to all your s***.
No I wasn't lying.
Happy now? Or are you going to continue crying?

 

[wyx087]

Oh sorry I didn't realise I had to reply to all your s***.
No I wasn't lying.
Happy now? Or are you going to continue crying?

Sorry, just pointing out your lack of credibility:

I have already provided proof of your inconsistent statements.

No, you have not, you were lying. You only posted your "proof" after the above post.

Your whole "proof" post were you bitching about the amount of regen braking force I've stated does not line up with other people's regen braking. I was actually expecting something more technical, an error I've made for which I would genuinely apologise. I then put forward a simple straight forward reply in #4,162, asking how else can huge variations between EV be described in one sentence. You've ignored the reply and now you are acting like a child, throwing a tantrum ignoring the original reason for your tantrum.

That is quite an excessive drop in mpg. The only time I have ever had a big drop like that, was on a car with a manual choke carburettor or an auto choke carburettor that got stuck.
All the cars I have had since have only amounted to about 1mpg drop on average, 2mpg at the most.

I have fill up data from early 2016 to now, spanning across 2 diesels to say there is consistently a noticeable MPG drop in winter compared to summer. I also remember previous petrol I've had also not doing as well in winter. The drop is definitely more than 2mpg.

 

[broc]

I wonder how much difference winter/summer 'fuel' economy is down to the efficiency of the powertrain & how much is down to traffic conditions, destinations & weather?

Diesel engines generally take longer to reach optimum operating temperature when it is cold. Also in the winter headlights & heating (including climate control) are on more often.

I certainly do fewer miles in the winter vs summer, with a greater percentage of 'urban' driving & fewer long distance trips .

 

[nilagin]

Sorry, just pointing out your lack of credibility:

No, you have not, you were lying. You only posted your "proof" after the above post.

Your whole "proof" post were you bitching about the amount of regen braking force I've stated does not line up with other people's regen braking. I was actually expecting something more technical, an error I've made for which I would genuinely apologise. I then put forward a simple straight forward reply in #4,162, asking how else can huge variations between EV be described in one sentence.

It's not the huge variations between EV that is the concern. It is the huge variation in your description of regen braking force.
You say it is like dropping 2-3 gears, that is at least a 20-30 mph quick drop in speed maybe more,.
Then when someone says it isn't that much and it is more like moderate braking, you agree by liking the post.
Then later you change your mind again and state it is more than dropping 2-3 gears.
I can see why you have to record your fuel usage data, as you have shown here, You obviously have a poor memory. How hard can it be to remember how many miles you get to each tank of fuel?

 

[nilagin]

I wonder how much difference winter/summer 'fuel' economy is down to the efficiency of the powertrain & how much is down to traffic conditions, destinations & weather?

Diesel engines generally take longer to reach optimum operating temperature when it is cold. Also in the winter headlights & heating (including climate control) are on more often.

I certainly do fewer miles in the winter vs summer, with a greater percentage of 'urban' driving & fewer long distance trips .

Most of my journeys are my commute to and from work, there is no noticeable difference in traffic dependant on time of year.
6yrs ago I had a diesel and the length of my commute meant I would almost be at work before the temperature gauge reached its normal midway point during the winter months, but I still never experienced a huge drop in mpg.
Because of the slow winter warm up with the diesel and concern for what it was going to do to the oil and subsequently the engine, I went back to petrol cars, which are at normal temp after about 1 mile in winter.

 

[DK602]

No you just think I don't.
You do realise when a number has a - (minus) in front of it, it actually means negative.
Also all the data is recorded elsewhere and published in the testing reports by engineers so I know it's real.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh dear, Oh dear - you really don't understand do you?

Atmospheric pressure is around 101 kpa, therefore the minus in front of the figure means below atmospheric NOT negative air pressure which is impossible. The gauge you are looking at is 'zeroed' at atmospheric pressure.

.........Your refusal and/or ignorance in respect to this makes all your other posts doubtful and meaningless; sorry!

 

[nilagin]

Oh dear, Oh dear - you really don't understand do you?

Atmospheric pressure is around 101 kpa, therefore the minus in front of the figure means below atmospheric NOT negative air pressure which is impossible. The gauge you are looking at is 'zeroed' at atmospheric pressure.

.........Your refusal and/or ignorance in respect to this makes all your other posts doubtful and meaningless; sorry!

Gauges? What century are you living in?
Air pressure above atmospheric is called positive air pressure.
Would you like to hazard a guess at what the term is for air pressure below atmospheric?

 

[DK602]

Gauges? What century are you living in?
Air pressure above atmospheric is called positive air pressure.
Would you like to hazard a guess at what the term is for air pressure below atmospheric?

Gauges? What century are you living in?
Air pressure above atmospheric is called positive air pressure.
Would you like to hazard a guess at what the term is for air pressure below atmospheric?

ROTFL!

positive numbers are above atmospheric pressure and negative numbers are below atmospheric pressure; not what you are trying to state! (the kpa is just a scale of reading pressure)- as stated previously; you should only discuss topics you know something about!

A pressure reading below atmospheric is what I stated earlier and you disagreed with; it's classed as being 'in vacuum'!
A pressure reading above atmospheric is classed as being 'under pressure'.

IT IS NOT NEGATIVE AIR PRESSURE!

How many air molecules are in a pure vacuum?

 

[wyx087]

It's not the huge variations between EV that is the concern. It is the huge variation in your description of regen braking force.
You say it is like dropping 2-3 gears, that is at least a 20-30 mph quick drop in speed maybe more,.
Then when someone says it isn't that much and it is more like moderate braking, you agree by liking the post.
Then later you change your mind again and state it is more than dropping 2-3 gears.
I can see why you have to record your fuel usage data, as you have shown here, You obviously have a poor memory. How hard can it be to remember how many miles you get to each tank of fuel?

You still insist on your story, not taking the time to read other people's post......
I'm out on trying to get you to understand regen braking. Have a nice day.

 

[nilagin]

I'm out on trying to get you to understand regen braking. Have a nice day.

Well it is hard when you have trouble determining what the force is and have to keep changing your mind.

 

[nilagin]

ROTFL!

positive numbers are above atmospheric pressure and negative numbers are below atmospheric pressure; not what you are trying to state! (the kpa is just a scale of reading pressure)- as stated previously; you should only discuss topics you know something about!

A pressure reading below atmospheric is what I stated earlier and you disagreed with; it's classed as being 'in vacuum'!
A pressure reading above atmospheric is classed as being 'under pressure'.

IT IS NOT NEGATIVE AIR PRESSURE!

How many air molecules are in a pure vacuum?

It is still called negative air pressure, how hard is that to understand? And going back to the link I provided with barometers placed at various places on the car, the barometer placed on the back of the car recorded atmospheric pressure. Not below.

In a pure vacuum there would be zero air molecules, but as there is no such thing as a pure vacuum there will always be some molecules.

 

[DK602]

It is still called negative air pressure, how hard is that to understand? And going back to the link I provided with barometers placed at various places on the car, the barometer placed on the back of the car recorded atmospheric pressure. Not below.

In a pure vacuum there would be zero air molecules, but as there is no such thing as a pure vacuum there will always be some molecules.

It is very, very difficult to understand - because it is NOT TRUE!
It is called below atmospheric or 'in vacuum.' - NOT NEGATIVE AIR PRESSURE!

You are clearly not an engineer who understands pressures.

You are also contradicting what you said earlier.

If there are no air molecules present how can they exert a negative pressure?

Try this:
The pressure in the wake is less than it would have been had the boundary layer remained attached, and like a great suction pad, tends to slow the vehicle down. It turns out that the ‘base pressure’ within the wake is roughly uniform across the whole of its cross-section. Hence the pressure drag is roughly proportional to the cross-sectional area of vehicle at the point of separation of the wake. It accounts for a substantial part of the overall air resistance. The larger the cross-sectional area of the wake, the greater the drag. Conversely, if the boundary layer remains attached throughout, the pressure drag is theoretically zero.

This is why the fuselage of an aircraft, like many racing cars built during the early part of the 20th century, has a long pointed tail. The gradual taper discourages the boundary layer from breaking away until the last possible moment, and by reducing the cross-section of any wake, minimises drag. For an aircraft, there is little or no separation, so friction drag is important, while pressure drag is not. On a modern passenger car, the opposite is true. Pressure drag dominates because a long ‘aerodynamic’ tail is not practicable, and the largest single component of aerodynamic drag comes from the tubulent wake.

Figure 14
Separation of the boundary layer towards the rear

(Taken from here: https://the-contact-patch.com/book/road/c1416-aerodynamic-forces )

 

[nilagin]

It is very, very difficult to understand - because it is NOT TRUE!
It is called below atmospheric or 'in vacuum.' - NOT NEGATIVE AIR PRESSURE!

You are clearly not an engineer who understands pressures.

You are also contradicting what you said earlier.

If there are no air molecules present how can they exert a negative pressure?

Try this:
The pressure in the wake is less than it would have been had the boundary layer remained attached, and like a great suction pad, tends to slow the vehicle down. It turns out that the ‘base pressure’ within the wake is roughly uniform across the whole of its cross-section. Hence the pressure drag is roughly proportional to the cross-sectional area of vehicle at the point of separation of the wake. It accounts for a substantial part of the overall air resistance. The larger the cross-sectional area of the wake, the greater the drag. Conversely, if the boundary layer remains attached throughout, the pressure drag is theoretically zero.

This is why the fuselage of an aircraft, like many racing cars built during the early part of the 20th century, has a long pointed tail. The gradual taper discourages the boundary layer from breaking away until the last possible moment, and by reducing the cross-section of any wake, minimises drag. For an aircraft, there is little or no separation, so friction drag is important, while pressure drag is not. On a modern passenger car, the opposite is true. Pressure drag dominates because a long ‘aerodynamic’ tail is not practicable, and the largest single component of aerodynamic drag comes from the tubulent wake.

Figure 14
Separation of the boundary layer towards the rear

(Taken from here: https://the-contact-patch.com/book/road/c1416-aerodynamic-forces )

You do realise that picture supports what I have been saying. The air is rolling back in the direction of the car. It will put light pressure against the rear surface of the car, creating a very light push.


Atmospheric pressure is just the datum. Call it ground zero if you like. Everything above it is positive, everything below is negative. You need to stop looking at it in terms of 101kPa /1.01 Bar / 14.7psi.

 

[DK602]

You do realise that picture supports what I have been saying. The air is rolling back in the direction of the car. It will put light pressure against the rear surface of the car, creating a very light push.


Atmospheric pressure is just the datum. Call it ground zero if you like. Everything above it is positive, everything below is negative. You need to stop looking at it in terms of 101kPa /1.01 Bar / 14.7psi.

Your response is purely comical!

Typical of someone who doesn't understand - they look at a picture rather than the text associated with it and come to a very wrong conclusion - READ THE TEXT; I have even highlighted the important bits for you!

Tell me where is says 'push' in this these two sentences from my post:
(1) The pressure in the wake is less than it would have been had the boundary layer remained attached, and like a great suction pad, tends to slow the vehicle down
(2) Pressure drag dominates because a long ‘aerodynamic’ tail is not practicable, and the largest single component of aerodynamic drag comes from the tubulent wake.

So if the largest component of drag is the turbulent wake how the hell is that pushing a vehicle along!

Above 50mph Drag increases roughly at the square of speed yet your theory would indicate it reduces as there would be more turbulent air assisting in pushing the vehicle along - what a foolish idea!


Every link I post states it is the turbulent air separating from the back of the car body that causes a vacuum effect pulling the car backwards that is the biggest contributor to drag yet you are still talking about it being 'pushed along'.

Again 'and like a great suction pad, tends to slow the vehicle down'

You must be p***ed and is pointless discussing matters with you; like others here they find your refusal to accept you are completely wrong and your twisting of your own responses when you realise that you are very frustrating!

Negative air pressure - YOU ARE A JOKE!

Stick to stamping panels

 

[Cobra]

You must be p***ed and is pointless discussing matters with you; like others here they find your refusal to accept you are completely wrong and your twisting of your own responses when you realise that you are very frustrating!

Negative air pressure - YOU ARE A JOKE!

That's quite enough ( from everyone! )
Back on topic thanks

 

[MatBin]

That's quite enough ( from everyone! )
Back on topic thanks

Which was?

I saw a Toyota Mirai today, interesting tail pipe emissions.

 

[nilagin]

........

 

[stupar]

Which was?

I saw a Toyota Mirai today, interesting tail pipe emissions.

Nothing worse than when you have a leaky pipe

 

[nilagin]

Part of the Tesla Mobile Service fleet.
Now I wonder who manufactures those.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/17/the-future-of-teslas-mobile-service-fleet/

 

[wyx087]

Part of the Tesla Mobile Service fleet.
Now I wonder who manufactures those.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/17/the-future-of-teslas-mobile-service-fleet/

Nice of you to do another post to show current lack of diversity in EV market. If only more car manufacturers have stepped up and building EV vans today.

Quote directly from the article:

The Model S sedans are not as effective as service vehicles, according to one of Tesla’s service technicians, as the sedan layout is simply not ideal for the job. This results in technicians playing a game of virtual Tetris to get parts and tools in and out of the vehicles. Vans, on the other hand, are well suited to the task and have been designed and built as effective tools in the field.

Being a photography forum, can I just say, that photo looks underexposed...... should have dialled in a bit more exposure to account for the white car.

 

[nilagin]

Nice of you to do another post to show current lack of diversity in EV market. If only more car manufacturers have stepped up and building EV vans today.

But there are EV vans. Yet Tesla chose to arm their service fleet with internal combustion powered vans. Perhaps they will trade them in on plug in hybrid Transit Customs when they go on sale in the next few months.

 

[dod]

Part of the Tesla Mobile Service fleet.
Now I wonder who manufactures those.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/17/the-future-of-teslas-mobile-service-fleet/

#1 Off topic, just another swipe at Tesla/promoting Ford.
#2. Surprise surprise, van is better at being a van than a saloon car Somehow I don't think that situation will continue long term though.

"Looking to the future, it is easy to see a fleet of Tesla’s soon-to-be-announced electric pickup trucks roaming around cities to service customer vehicles. Indeed, the high mileage Tesla puts on its service vehicles each year would make using its own trucks a great option to break in the first thousand Tesla Model P trucks (P for pickup) that come off the production line. "

 

[dod]

But there are EV vans. Yet Tesla chose to arm their service fleet with internal combustion powered vans. Perhaps they will trade them in on plug in hybrid Transit Customs when they go on sale in the next few months.

What were the decision making criteria from Tesla? If you can come back and show that the current EV vans matched what Tesla were looking for, and still went for ICE, then your comment might have some validity.

 

[dod]

on the subject of electric vans, Royal Mail are investing

https://www.electrive.com/2019/07/2...c23Xu0a9c5FcK86c_PVe2TGJ8YYA4y8C2U6Wm2IB8mfH4

 

[nilagin]

#1 Off topic, just another swipe at Tesla/promoting Ford.
#2. Surprise surprise, van is better at being a van than a saloon car Somehow I don't think that situation will continue long term though.

"Looking to the future, it is easy to see a fleet of Tesla’s soon-to-be-announced electric pickup trucks roaming around cities to service customer vehicles. Indeed, the high mileage Tesla puts on its service vehicles each year would make using its own trucks a great option to break in the first thousand Tesla Model P trucks (P for pickup) that come off the production line. "

How the he'll is that a swipe at Tesla?
A pick up truck still isn't a van though and as such not as versatile for storing parts and tools etc.
At the rate Tesla build vehicles every time they put a new model into production, don't expect to see 100 pick ups for quite a while, let alone 1000. (That is a swipe and it is based on their production woes, it took them 12 months to finally ramp up production of the Model 3 and they had similar production difficulties on the previous models too).
I had mentioned the use of the model S as a service vehicle in an earlier post and my surprise that Tesla hadn't modified them for better suitability. I have seen photos of a Model S hearse so there is no reason Tesla could not have turned a few cars into more van like vehicles.

 

[nilagin]

What were the decision making criteria from Tesla? If you can come back and show that the current EV vans matched what Tesla were looking for, and still went for ICE, then your comment might have some validity.

Well seeing as how they have also been using Model S cars and Model X SUV's which aren't vans it would be logical the criteria would be they wanted vans.
That wasn't hard to work out now was it?