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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nod said:
The slots are also policed so ICE cars get ticketed.
Click to expand...
Nice one, should be like this everywhere!

The Morrisons we frequent also has free charge points, allowed to park for 3 hours. No policing though, but there's like 20 charging points, so no big problem.

The Morrisons car park is linked to a far east food-hall (many sellers, a shared dining area, choose and pick what you want, everyone can find what they like) and there's a Oriental supermarket nearby. If you haven't guessed from my name, I'm of Chinese ethnicity. My family could easily spend 2-3 hours in those three locations. We usually visit on a weekend morning and have lunch there. If we visit on Saturday morning, I can gain enough free electricity for the whole weekend.


All my cost of ownership calculations are based on the car's telemetric. Which means free electricity counted as paid electricity. So fuel cost is actually less than accounted for. Totally opposite of ICE cars, where fluctuating fuel price means fuel prices often exceeded my expected spending.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
Came across this news article, an oil field in the sea are installing wind farm to reduce CO2 emission:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/10/equinor-exploring-floating-wind-to-power-offshore-oil-fields/

Interesting how a 88MW wind farm is only able to cover 35% annual power demand of a few oil rigs.
To put the 88MW wind farm into perspective, at half production for 2 hours is 88MWh, which is able to power an electric car for 352,000 miles, or 35 electric cars for 1 year of average motoring.

Electric car CO2 emission is measured from energy production to transmission to charging losses to use. But ICE car emission are only measured from fuel tank to tailpipe (what about transportation emissions? refinery emission? oil field emission?).
Click to expand...

In other news, Valero is going to build a huge 45Mw power and steam generation unit using a new natural gas-fired combustion turbine generator system.
http://www.pembroke-refinery-cogen.co.uk/

Good for the local jobs
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/jobs-f...e-refinery-chp-cogen-unit-tickets-52669801795
 
wuyanxu said:
But his conclusion was: EV are brilliant, fast and cheap to run, do buy one if your situation suits one, for example as second car for local trips. (what I've been saying all along)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone disagrees if the EV fits your transport story, certainly good for town cars to keep down the pollution, but for many they don't fit.
They are getting there though, certainly much better than the 100 mile limited range cars of old, more choice etc
 
Byker28i said:
In other news, Valero is going to build a huge 45Mw power and steam generation unit using a new natural gas-fired combustion turbine generator system.
http://www.pembroke-refinery-cogen.co.uk/
Click to expand...
"The refinery currently imports approximately 41 megawatts of electricity from the National Grid to power various on-site process facilities."
Has that 41 MW ever been counted in any ICE car CO2 emissions? No. ICE car emissions is always measured at the tailpipe, irrespective of fuel source.
41MW for one hour is 41,000kWh, enough to power over 150,000 miles in EV's.

Byker28i said:
I don't think anyone disagrees if the EV fits your transport story, certainly good for town cars to keep down the pollution, but for many they don't fit.
They are getting there though, certainly much better than the 100 mile limited range cars of old, more choice etc
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Autoexpress article shows the Kona is a viable choice, certainly not much more expensive as many people seems to think.
 
wuyanxu said:
"The refinery currently imports approximately 41 megawatts of electricity from the National Grid to power various on-site process facilities."
Has that 41 MW ever been counted in any ICE car CO2 emissions? No. ICE car emissions is always measured at the tailpipe, irrespective of fuel source.
41MW for one hour is 41,000kWh, enough to power over 150,000 miles in EV's.
Click to expand...

That 41Mw has to be generated somewhere - the majority of generation comes from fossil fuel currently. I thought we were discussing reducing CO2 emissions...
The refinery is the delivery point for imported gas coming onto the country. It makes sense for them to use that, even though they have a huge solar farm on the other side of the estuary. This is around a £130m investment into a power station using fossil fuels.

To put that into perspective, theres a 39 acre site of solar panels at Golden hill producing 7Mw, Liddeston Ridge Solar Array produces 5Mw, for 35 acres of land,
 
I've posted this before - it's always interesting
http://gridwatch.co.uk/

Current demand is around 41.5Gw for the UK - renewables are doing around 23% at the moment, not bad. CCGT, which Valera system would come under, is generating 47.5% at the moment
 
Byker28i said:
That 41Mw has to be generated somewhere - the majority of generation comes from fossil fuel currently. I thought we were discussing reducing CO2 emissions...
The refinery is the delivery point for imported gas coming onto the country. It makes sense for them to use that, even though they have a huge solar farm on the other side of the estuary. This is around a £130m investment into a power station using fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
It has to be generated in the first place because crude oil need to be refined. If we move away from plastic, rubber and fossil fuel, we no longer have to generate electricity for refineries. My point is the freed up electricity can power EV a lot further.

How much petrol/diesel and other products does the refinery generate in 1 hour of operation whilst using 41MW of electricity? How many miles can those refined petrol/diesel power an ICE car?
That 41MWh can power EV's for 150,000 miles. To power 50mpg ICE cars for the same distance, you'd need over 13,000 litres (if my maths is correct?) of fossil fuel. That 41MW is a drop in the ocean for fossil fuel infrastructure, there is also electricity need for drilling, environmental damage from oil spill accidents, warfare for control of oil fields, emissions from transportation (both to and from refinery) and petrol station operating costs.

None of those environmental damages are considered when ICE cars are quoted for emission, only the tailpipe emission is measured.
On the other hand, EV "emissions" are always quoted from power generation to the wheels. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
 
Byker28i said:
I don't think anyone disagrees if the EV fits your transport story, certainly good for town cars to keep down the pollution, but for many they don't fit.
They are getting there though, certainly much better than the 100 mile limited range cars of old, more choice etc
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Phevs are pretty damn pokey off the line. But they suck if you can't charge them, and the eco/regen functions turn it into a bit of a potato.
 
nilagin said:
Kia and Hyundai EV ranges reduced due to external testing error.
https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiXWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmF1dG9jYXIuY28udWsvY2FyLW5ld3MvaW5kdXN0cnkvaHl1bmRhaS1rb25hLWV2LXJhbmdlLWRvd25ncmFkZWQtYWZ0ZXItdGVzdC1lcnJvctIBAA?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB:en
Click to expand...
Good news is that there's absolutely zero damage to the environment as result of "erroneous test data". If the same thing happened on ICE car..... well, there's dieselgate ;)

Let's face it, if you read beyond the *shocking* headline, actually it is 292 miles to 279 miles, 13 miles is hardly going to make any difference to anyone. Just by being lighter on the accelerator pedal and don't brake hard will save more range over a long 250 miles drive.
 
wuyanxu said:
If we move away from plastic, rubber and fossil fuel,
Click to expand...

This is never going to happen. Even if you stop using plastic bags and bottles (the bad and the toxic) you will still need plastics in almost everything in use around you today from your phone to fabrics and aircraft parts. Rubber is not as straightforward, but a lot of it is natural. Oil is also required for lubricants and pretty much ALL fine chemicals. You'd be going straight back to the medieval ages without this.
 
wuyanxu said:
13 miles is hardly going to make any difference to anyone. Just by being lighter on the accelerator pedal and don't brake hard will save more range over a long 250 miles drive.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I am pretty sure I am going to Glencoe and prob. Elgol next week for Worcestershire. Let's imagine I drive your 250mile car. How much of that would remain at -2C temperature going through the mountains? Half or less? And where would I charge? That's maybe after another 2 full charges and a wasted whole day along the M6.
 
Cars and coal help drive 'strong' CO2 rise in 2018


A booming global market for cars has helped drive CO2 emissions to an all-time high in 2018, say researchers.

The main factor in the near 3% rise has been coal use in China, driven by government efforts to boost a flagging economy.

But emissions from cars, truck and planes using fossil fuels continue to rise in all parts of the world


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46447459
 
Mr Bump said:
Cars and coal help drive 'strong' CO2 rise in 2018


A booming global market for cars has helped drive CO2 emissions to an all-time high in 2018, say researchers.

The main factor in the near 3% rise has been coal use in China, driven by government efforts to boost a flagging economy.

But emissions from cars, truck and planes using fossil fuels continue to rise in all parts of the world


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46447459
Click to expand...
The reason for the rise in CO2 emissions from cars rising is because of the fall in sales of diesel cars. All down to scaremongering by the ill informed after VW dieselgate.
 
wuyanxu said:
Good news is that there's absolutely zero damage to the environment as result of "erroneous test data".
Click to expand...

That's just so untrue, if the battery needs charging more frequently then the electricty has to be generated in some way, which will be damaging to the environment, either because more "free" energy is required so more wind farms etc are required (and they have a cost to the environment in how they are producing the hardware) or I suppose in your Eutopian world there's already enough supply from these, or more electricity is generated from goal/gas/nuclear so again a cost to the environment.
If for instance all EVs required charging at 30 mile intervals or 300 mile intervals are you trying to tell me there's no environmental difference? Really?
As humans we consume energy and there's a cost regardless of how we generate it.
 
MatBin said:
If for instance all EVs required charging at 30 mile intervals or 300 mile intervals are you trying to tell me there's no environmental difference? Really?
As humans we consume energy and there's a cost regardless of how we generate it.
Click to expand...
Re-read your question, are you sure you have defined all variables? Is a 30 miles EV going to have the same battery pack as 300 miles EV?

Let's be realistic, we are talking about less than 5% drop in quoted range. The Kona's battery size never changed between testing and customer vehicles in the same way petrol tank size never changes. In another words, this is a <5% drop in driving efficiency. What is the percentage of ICE cars that can achieve the quoted MPG figure in everyday driving?

Your last sentence I fully agree with, this is why I rate Hyundai EV so highly, they are the most efficient out there! (and still is, after this adjustment)
bDUamFl.png
 
What I am saying is that all energy generation has an environmental impact, it may be more or less depending on how it's generated or what "fuel" is used and certain "tools" are less damaging than others but until we reduce our consumption of energy (all energy) we will continue to damage the environment and putting a sticking plaster over driving ICE by using EV is so minor it's laughable
 
EV can go much further using the same amount of energy compared to ICE car. Though small in the grand scheme of things, it is the right step no matter how you look at it.

5% difference in efficiency in EV is about 1kWh more for 100 miles. Just by refusing to use (future) wireless charging, or driving a few mph slower, or even driving smoother, that loss can be recovered. I can't see why anyone would think it's a big deal.

If that amount of energy wastage is so important, educate drivers to drive at constant speed should be number one priority. Amazing how many drivers likes to drive at 70mph+-10mph for no reason what so ever, while hogging the middle lane. :mad:
 
Its quite ironic isn't it that as per usual Jaguar think they are better than everyone else and there so called I-Pace uses almost twice as much juice as the Kona because it will be a heavy hungry piece of crap for rich people.
No real change for JLR then.
 
I'm willing to bet that the I Pace is a damn sight nicer and better to drive than the Kona.
 
Mr Bump said:
Its quite ironic isn't it that as per usual Jaguar think they are better than everyone else and there so called I-Pace uses almost twice as much juice as the Kona because it will be a heavy hungry piece of crap for rich people.
No real change for JLR then.
Click to expand...
It's quite ironic that you have failed once again to gain the relevant information before you hit the keyboard.
The Kona motor produces the equivalent of 136 PS, whilst the Jaguar has the equivalence of 400PS. The only crap seems to be from you hitting the keys on your keyboard.
Sold your second home in Greece yet, so you can buy an EV and save the planet?
 
Nod said:
I'm willing to bet that the I Pace is a damn sight nicer and better to drive than the Kona.
Click to expand...

That sentence should read.

I'm willing to bet whoever forks out the huge cost of an I-Pace couldn't give a monkeys chuff about how much power it uses as long as it looks nice down the golf club.
 
Mr Bump said:
That sentence should read.

I'm willing to bet whoever forks out the huge cost of an I-Pace couldn't give a monkeys chuff about how much power it uses as long as it looks nice down the golf club.
Click to expand...
Actually they'd be the ones buying the petrol/diesel cars.
The i-pace came out of jaguars involvement in Formula E, offers an alternative drivetrain for those looking to purchase one.with a good performance and range. This is realistically where the market is currently on range.
 
Mr Bump said:
Its quite ironic isn't it that as per usual Jaguar think they are better than everyone else and there so called I-Pace uses almost twice as much juice as the Kona because it will be a heavy hungry piece of crap for rich people.
No real change for JLR then.
Click to expand...

You have childish rants about people with expensive phones, and childish rants about “rich people” with Jaguars.
You really do have a chip on your shoulder.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
You have childish rants about people with expensive phones, and childish rants about “rich people” with Jaguars.
You really do have a chip on your shoulder.
Click to expand...
He's jealous because he can't spend his money as he is piling a lot of it into a pension to keep himself below the 40% tax threshold.
He's not even aware the i Pace is about £15k cheaper than the equivalent Tesla.
 
Mr Bump said:
That sentence should read.

I'm willing to bet whoever forks out the huge cost of an I-Pace couldn't give a monkeys chuff about how much power it uses as long as it looks nice down the golf club.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to bet that they care enough to spend their money on a relatively environmentally friendly vehicle rather than any ICE car. Not seen one in the golf club car park, although there are a couple of Leafs and a Kona fairly regularly.
 
Well, just replaced my Audi A4 2.0 TDi with another Diesel, although I’ve gone back to BMW, purchasing an Audi was the worst decision of my life.

Dismissed EV straight away to be honest, when I feel it’s more affordable and mature I’ll look again
 
nilagin said:
He's not even aware the i Pace is about £15k cheaper than the equivalent Tesla.
Click to expand...
You are aware that the IPace is a mid-sized SUV, only slightly bigger than a Kona, about similar size to a Kia e-Niro (a £33k 65kWh EV offering similar real world range as 90kWh IPace). Can't be compared to Tesla Model X

But it hadn't stopped Jaguar spend good PR money to get journalists to do the pointless comparison.

I personally feel Jag have gone about it the wrong way, the money should have been spent on charging infrastructure. Jaguar had not made the same commitment as Nissan, there won't be a rapid charger at every Jaguar dealership. Like traditional car manufacturer, push the car out of the door and job done. No firmware updates, no charging network, same age old dealership distribution.
 
wuyanxu said:
You are aware that the IPace is a mid-sized SUV, only slightly bigger than a Kona, about similar size to a Kia e-Niro (a £33k 65kWh EV offering similar real world range as 90kWh IPace). Can't be compared to Tesla Model X

But it hadn't stopped Jaguar spend good PR money to get journalists to do the pointless comparison.

I personally feel Jag have gone about it the wrong way, the money should have been spent on charging infrastructure. Jaguar had not made the same commitment as Nissan, there won't be a rapid charger at every Jaguar dealership. Like traditional car manufacturer, push the car out of the door and job done. No firmware updates, no charging network, same age old dealership distribution.
Click to expand...
Tesla Model X isn't much bigger than an i Pace so why shouldn't they be comparable?
Nissan only have 197 dealerships in the UK, hardly a recharging infrastructure.
 
nilagin said:
Tesla Model X isn't much bigger than an i Pace so why shouldn't they be comparable?
Nissan only have 197 dealerships in the UK, hardly a recharging infrastructure.
Click to expand...
This will give you some idea for space differences: (all are seats folded)
IPace: 1,453 L
Niro: 1,425 L
Model X: 2,487 L
Q7: 1,955 L
Q5: 1,550 L
Octavia hatchback: 1,580 L (for giggles)

Would you compare Q5 with Q7 because they are both SUV? As I said, IPace is similar size to Niro (or Q5), not Model X (or Q7).

Nissan/Renault also paid for first wave of Ecotricity's Electric Highway rapid chargers at motorway service stations. Where is Jaguar's infrastructure investment? They aren't even involved with Ionity, Europe's biggest manufacturer supported rapid charging network. (yet to build anything in UK :( )
 
wuyanxu said:
This will give you some idea for space differences: (all are seats folded)
IPace: 1,453 L
Niro: 1,425 L
Model X: 2,487 L
Q7: 1,955 L
Q5: 1,550 L
Octavia hatchback: 1,580 L (for giggles)

Would you compare Q5 with Q7 because they are both SUV? As I said, IPace is similar size to Niro (or Q5), not Model X (or Q7).

Nissan/Renault also paid for first wave of Ecotricity's Electric Highway rapid chargers at motorway service stations. Where is Jaguar's infrastructure investment? They aren't even involved with Ionity, Europe's biggest manufacturer supported rapid charging network. (yet to build anything in UK :( )
Click to expand...
I am sorry I don't buy cars based on load space. If I wanted load space I'd buy a van.
As far as Jaguar's charging infrastructure, I have found a couple for you.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2M-tP4McbFhwJeWWUGXxZk

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAGegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3UnIRsscsCgOHCbuN4PdRb
 
nilagin said:
I am sorry I don't buy cars based on load space. If I wanted load space I'd buy a van.
As far as Jaguar's charging infrastructure, I have found a couple for you.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2M-tP4McbFhwJeWWUGXxZk

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAGegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3UnIRsscsCgOHCbuN4PdRb
Click to expand...
You were comparing IPace to Model X, that is akin to compare a Fiasta against a Focus, a Q5 against Q7. You don't compare load spaces but like it or not, cars are classed by their sizes. IPace is a class below Model X in the same sense a Fiasta is a class below Focus.

4,682 mm L x 1,895 mm W x 1,565 mm H I-Pace
5,052 mm L x 1,999 mm W x 1,684 mm H Model X
4,694 mm L x 1,850 mm W x 1,443 mm H Model 3
For external dimensions, apart from height, IPace is actually more similar to Model 3 than Model X. The size difference is more than BMW 3 series to 5 series, far from "not much bigger"

I thought you are the one working in the car industry? Is this how most people think in the car industry? Both are EV SUV so IPace is comparable to Model X? In that case, why doesn't 1.4l Polo get compared against same engine 1.4l Skoda Superb? The Skoda will seem very poor value in that comparison.

First article talks about JLR striking a deal with Plugshare, a charge point finding app, to provide JLR branded apps. Not investing in actual charging infrastructure.
The second article is not in Europe at all. How is that helping potential EV drivers here?
 
wuyanxu said:
You were comparing IPace to Model X, that is akin to compare a Fiasta against a Focus, a Q5 against Q7. You don't compare load spaces but like it or not, cars are classed by their sizes. IPace is a class below Model X in the same sense a Fiasta is a class below Focus.

4,682 mm L x 1,895 mm W x 1,565 mm H I-Pace
5,052 mm L x 1,999 mm W x 1,684 mm H Model X
4,694 mm L x 1,850 mm W x 1,443 mm H Model 3
For external dimensions, apart from height, IPace is actually more similar to Model 3 than Model X. The size difference is more than BMW 3 series to 5 series, far from "not much bigger"

I thought you are the one working in the car industry? Is this how most people think in the car industry? Both are EV SUV so IPace is comparable to Model X? In that case, why doesn't 1.4l Polo get compared against same engine 1.4l Skoda Superb? The Skoda will seem very poor value in that comparison.

First article talks about JLR striking a deal with Plugshare, a charge point finding app, to provide JLR branded apps. Not investing in actual charging infrastructure.
The second article is not in Europe at all. How is that helping potential EV drivers here?
Click to expand...
Overall size isn't an exact indication of the group a vehicle falls into. The Mondeo and BMW 3 Series both fall into the same group yet the Mondeo is almost 250mm longer and 100mm wider.

The new Audi e Tron falls between the i Pace and Model X in size but because they are all premium brand EV SUV's they all fall into the same group category and are compared as such.
The Audi is around £10k cheaper than the Tesla.
 
Last edited:
nilagin said:
The new Audi e Tron falls between the i Pace and Model X in size but because they are all premium brand EV SUV's they all fall into the same group category and are compared as such.
The Audi is around £10k cheaper than the Tesla.
Click to expand...
Again, if that is the case, why doesn't the I-Pace get compared to F-Pace or Q7? They are all premium SUV's.
None of them have fancy doors, none of them have OTA update software. Neither I-Pace or E-Tron have a good supercharging network. 15% increase for price of admission to those unique Tesla features is well worth it.

EV is just the powertrain, in the same sense a petrol or a diesel engine in the car. You don't see articles compare the Skoda Superb against the VW Polo even though they use the exact same engine and gearbox. But journalists compare I-Pace against Model X even though they are not even using the same motor technology (I-Pace is similar as Leaf permanent magnet motors, Model X uses AC induction motor)

Edit: Permanent magnet motors are not efficient at high speed. This would explain why I-Pace get disappointing consumption numbers. I had been reading up on different types of motor, it seems most efficient and most suitable to EV's is SR motor used in Model 3 and Dyson vacuum cleaners. Which may be why Dyson is entering EV market, they have the motor tech, they have experiences in battery packaging.

nilagin said:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...ic-car-charging-points-public-motorway-UK/amp

How about just wait your turn. If a phev got there first, so be it.
Click to expand...
Usual traditional car journalists (and you) not understanding EV.

This one is better worded:
https://www.nextgreencar.com/news/8...ould-be-reserved-for-pureevs-says-rac-report/

The report recommends that because PHEVs have a far greater range, and the capability to run on petrol or diesel power, those models where [rapid] charging is the only 'refuelling' option should have sole access to these rapid units.
Click to expand...

And this is the key point of the report: driver education.
One of the issues outlined in the report is the lack of understanding in drivers as to the charging capabilities for plug-in models. Many think that the electric vehicle can accept the rate of charge available from the charge point, no matter which model or charger speed.
Click to expand...

Key is in charging speed (the express article did mention that). But it didn't mention an i3 REx is able to charge at BEV charging speed so there's no reason why it should be banned. Similarly, Outlander PHEV can charge at almost Leaf 24 speed using the Chademo socket, so no reason why they should be banned.

It is the likes of 330e/GTE/C350e that has a tiny <10kWh battery and can only recharge at 3kW, the cars are not designed to be rapid charged. Rapid charger is designed to rapid charge at 50kW.

The future is bright though, most new chargers installed now only have 2 plugs (Chademo and CCS, Type 2 on rapid charger will disappear, it is slower overnight charging option), both of which can't be used by slow charging PHEV. When Nissan gives up Chademo, the CCS will be the standard across Europe.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
Again, if that is the case, why doesn't the I-Pace get compared to F-Pace or Q7? They are all premium SUV's.
None of them have fancy doors, none of them have OTA update software. Neither I-Pace or E-Tron have a good supercharging network. 15% increase for price of admission to those unique Tesla features is well worth it.

EV is just the powertrain, in the same sense a petrol or a diesel engine in the car. You don't see articles compare the Skoda Superb against the VW Polo even though they use the exact same engine and gearbox. But journalists compare I-Pace against Model X even though they are not even using the same motor technology (I-Pace is similar as Leaf permanent magnet motors, Model X uses AC induction motor)

Edit: Permanent magnet motors are not efficient at high speed. This would explain why I-Pace get disappointing consumption numbers. I had been reading up on different types of motor, it seems most efficient and most suitable to EV's is SR motor used in Model 3 and Dyson vacuum cleaners. Which may be why Dyson is entering EV market, they have the motor tech, they have experiences in battery packaging.


Usual traditional car journalists (and you) not understanding EV.

This one is better worded:
https://www.nextgreencar.com/news/8...ould-be-reserved-for-pureevs-says-rac-report/



And this is the key point of the report: driver education.


Key is in charging speed (the express article did mention that). But it didn't mention an i3 REx is able to charge at BEV charging speed so there's no reason why it should be banned. Similarly, Outlander PHEV can charge at almost Leaf 24 speed using the Chademo socket, so no reason why they should be banned.

It is the likes of 330e/GTE/C350e that has a tiny <10kWh battery and can only recharge at 3kW, the cars are not designed to be rapid charged. Rapid charger is designed to rapid charge at 50kW.

The future is bright though, most new chargers installed now only have 2 plugs (Chademo and CCS, Type 2 on rapid charger will disappear, it is slower overnight charging option), both of which can't be used by slow charging PHEV. When Nissan gives up Chademo, the CCS will be the standard across Europe.
Click to expand...
I am beginning to think you know less and less about cars, just like Mr Bump.
The comparison is between premium brand EV SUV'S not premium brand SUV's of any powertrain available. As more come to market, they will then be separated by size, but at the moment they are few, so they are lumped together regardless of size.
It isn't me, nor the press saying Phev vehicles should be banned from motorway service station charge points.

Tesla only have 290 supercharging points in the UK, hardly what could be called a great network and doesn't warrant a £10k price tag.
 
nilagin said:
so they are lumped together regardless of size.
It isn't me, nor the press saying Phev vehicles should be banned from motorway service station charge points.
Click to expand...
So you agree the cars are of different size and different class. Size and capability plays a big part in vehicle pricing, comparing them as EV SUV is fine if you don't take price into consideration, but you and many articles did.

I didn't say motorway service charging points, nor did you. The press did say just exactly that, not fully understanding the reason behind it. This my issue, the articles (for example I-pace comparisons and this rapid charger article) spreading borderline false information without really understanding what's going on.

The key with Tesla charging point is that they are clustered together, so like petrol station pumps, when you turn up, it is more likely to have free locations for you to start charging. South mimms have 12 stalls, middle of M4 between London and Bristol have 8 stalls. Thus Tesla supercharger are reliable as public resource. Most other chargers around UK only have single or two charging stalls at each location, if you turn up and there's people already charging, you'd be stuck waiting for them to complete their charging. Prolonging travel time and make them unreliable in case of charger failure.

These are sort of experiences you only know if you live with EV. Most traditional car journalists just review EV as though they are a traditional car, not really understanding the disparity between Tesla and other EV long distance driving experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top