When do you plan to switch to an EV?

[Max Rockatansky]

This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

I feel I'm missing some context or a reference I'm not getting?

[michravera]

This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

I feel I'm missing some context or a reference I'm not getting?

See my comments on "The Ravera Criteria". Most recently at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28939.msg2591333#msg2591333

Of course, you could go back to m.t.r and my earlier comments when I lived in Sacramento.

[CoreySamson]

As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

I'm very curious about this as well. Sure, an EV instead of a ICE does take emissions off the road, but that doesn't mean that the power station that effectively powers the EV removes emissions from the whole picture. As Scott5114 said, emissions' impacts are dispersed globally, so even if the car isn't making the emissions, the world is still affected by what emissions power plants produce.

I have an issue of Motor Trend with an interesting article (specifically August 2011, "Future Shock") that has an interesting graph that compared on a state-by-state level how much CO2 a Toyota Prius made versus how much a Nissan Leaf made. In states such as California and Vermont that use wind and nuclear power, the Leaf made less CO2 overall, as you would expect, but in states like West Virginia that rely on coal and oil, the Prius actually made less net CO2 than the Leaf did because the plants in those states were more polluting than the Prius was per capita. Of course this was 10 years ago, so I would like to see a similar comparison made today.

[Scott5114]

As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

I'm very curious about this as well. Sure, an EV instead of a ICE does take emissions off the road, but that doesn't mean that the power station that effectively powers the EV removes emissions from the whole picture. As Scott5114 said, emissions' impacts are dispersed globally, so even if the car isn't making the emissions, the world is still affected by what emissions power plants produce.

I have an issue of Motor Trend with an interesting article (specifically August 2011, "Future Shock") that has an interesting graph that compared on a state-by-state level how much CO2 a Toyota Prius made versus how much a Nissan Leaf made. In states such as California and Vermont that use wind and nuclear power, the Leaf made less CO2 overall, as you would expect, but in states like West Virginia that rely on coal and oil, the Prius actually made less net CO2 than the Leaf did because the plants in those states were more polluting than the Prius was per capita. Of course this was 10 years ago, so I would like to see a similar comparison made today.

Of course, if reducing one's personal emissions responsibility is the primary concern, a property owner can reduce their reliance on the local coal-fired power plant by installing solar panels on the roof before switching to an EV. Of course, the real change that needs to happen long-term is for power plants running on non-renewables to be replaced by cleaner alternatives.

[michravera]

As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

I'm very curious about this as well. Sure, an EV instead of a ICE does take emissions off the road, but that doesn't mean that the power station that effectively powers the EV removes emissions from the whole picture. As Scott5114 said, emissions' impacts are dispersed globally, so even if the car isn't making the emissions, the world is still affected by what emissions power plants produce.

I have an issue of Motor Trend with an interesting article (specifically August 2011, "Future Shock") that has an interesting graph that compared on a state-by-state level how much CO2 a Toyota Prius made versus how much a Nissan Leaf made. In states such as California and Vermont that use wind and nuclear power, the Leaf made less CO2 overall, as you would expect, but in states like West Virginia that rely on coal and oil, the Prius actually made less net CO2 than the Leaf did because the plants in those states were more polluting than the Prius was per capita. Of course this was 10 years ago, so I would like to see a similar comparison made today.

Of course, if reducing one's personal emissions responsibility is the primary concern, a property owner can reduce their reliance on the local coal-fired power plant by installing solar panels on the roof before switching to an EV. Of course, the real change that needs to happen long-term is for power plants running on non-renewables to be replaced by cleaner alternatives.

Noting it perfect. Solar panels use toxic chemicals and disrupt air traffic as well as creating a heat source (and the sun goes away at least half of the time). Hydro disrupts the flow of rivers. Nuclear transfers heat and we have to deal with the waste. Coal puts more radioactive elements into the environment than nuclear. Natural gas has to be transported somehow. Wind power kills birds and disrupts the skyline (and the wind doesn't always blow when we want it to). Burning petroleum products has its problems. We certainly aren't going back to pre-electricity times. Can some alternatives help? Sure!

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

[Brandon]

Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

Thing is, coal will still have to be mined even if we stop using it completely in the US for energy production.  It is highly critical to the production of coke for the steel industry, and therefore, for making steel.

[Road Hog]

Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

If you're an undertaker in WV, you're probably doing land office business right now.

[Takumi]

I'll switch to an EV when it makes financial sense to do so. I won't be in the market for a new daily driver until at least 2025 or so. With my Aristo, there's enough aftermarket support for it that I can easily (well, as easily as possible for a 30 year old foreign market car) switch it to run E85, and I'm sure whatever synthetic fuels come out in the near future will be able to be adapted to its platform.

[kalvado]

And be prepared!

[Max Rockatansky]

This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

I feel I'm missing some context or a reference I'm not getting?

See my comments on "The Ravera Criteria". Most recently at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28939.msg2591333#msg2591333

Of course, you could go back to m.t.r and my earlier comments when I lived in Sacramento.

Ah, I get it now. 

I'm trying to find the video but there was a EV kit car that you could buy in the 1970s/1980s era.  It was intended to be something cheap that someone could build and bypass Federal crash standards.  I want to say the battery was lead-acid and only had a max speed of about 40 MPH.  I want to say Regular Car Reviews did a video on it but I can't find it for some reason.

[Takumi]

And be prepared!

Oh no, watch out for that windshield wiper!

[Max Rockatansky]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

[oscar]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

[Max Rockatansky]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

Assuming the vehicle is a Tesla it wouldn't be out of line for a luxury car owner (of any brand) to do something like that.  I recall one of my worker's Audi A3 had something in the manual saying "take me to the dealership"  pertaining changing the headlight bulb.  Considering we had to remove the air intake to replace said bulb odd/unfriendly packaging in a luxury brand wouldn't surprise me.

[Scott5114]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

Damn, and just when I was thinking of getting in the habit of chewing on the power steering hose so I wouldn't have to stop for snacks or drinks.

[Max Rockatansky]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

Damn, and just when I was thinking of getting in the habit of chewing on the power steering hose so I wouldn't have to stop for snacks or drinks.

I'm still surprised that I was able to get the Subaru dealer to take said label off when I bought my Impreza.  They gave me some fight until told them that I wasn't going to take delivery with it on my window.  I was totally bluffing but it saved me the effort of doing it myself and buying adhesive remover.

[kalvado]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

It's Mercedes EQS.

The EQS' hood is not designed to be opened by the customer, so the filler for the wiper fluid is below the rear-view mirror in the driver's-side door.

It makes some sense as electric system has different set of hazards, and supposingly requires less service - and what is required cannot be done without special tools to control power distribution components

[kalvado]

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

Assuming the vehicle is a Tesla it wouldn't be out of line for a luxury car owner (of any brand) to do something like that.  I recall one of my worker's Audi A3 had something in the manual saying "take me to the dealership"  pertaining changing the headlight bulb.  Considering we had to remove the air intake to replace said bulb odd/unfriendly packaging in a luxury brand wouldn't surprise me.

Definitely not unique to luxury ones. I had a certain bulb on my baseline Civic, where replacement procedure started with "lift the car on a jack and remove the wheel".

[hbelkins]

When do I plan to switch? Never. Of course, I'm 60 years old now and don't expect to live more than a decade longer, if that.

I'm having serious regrets about buying my Saturn Vue hybrid. I still haven't diagnosed the problem with the hybrid system that keeps the alternator from charging the 12-volt system as well as the 36-volt "mild hybrid" system. If it's the battery energy control module, that costs around $800. If it's the hybrid battery, the cost jumps into four figures. And I cannot afford those repairs. I've learned that it is possible to disconnect the hybrid system and run the vehicle on the gasoline engine alone, but I still can't figure out how to do it, nor can i find anyone who knows how to do it.

Other than the hybrid system, that Vue is in good mechanical shape, although it does consume a little oil.

[oscar]

I'm having serious regrets about buying my Saturn Vue hybrid. I still haven't diagnosed the problem with the hybrid system that keeps the alternator from charging the 12-volt system as well as the 36-volt "mild hybrid" system. If it's the battery energy control module, that costs around $800. If it's the hybrid battery, the cost jumps into four figures. And I cannot afford those repairs. I've learned that it is possible to disconnect the hybrid system and run the vehicle on the gasoline engine alone, but I still can't figure out how to do it, nor can i find anyone who knows how to do it.

Other than the hybrid system, that Vue is in good mechanical shape, although it does consume a little oil.

I had some unusual problems with the hybrid system in my Toyota Prius, which perplexed the mechanics at my dealership for several months. It turned out that the hybrid drive has its own cooling system I didn't know about, and its separate water pump was failing. Replacing that pump solved my problem, and I'm still driving it (but just for local travel, now that it's over 315K miles).

But when it came time to replace my full-size pickup truck after three breakdowns one summer, I replaced it with a non-hybrid compact SUV, in part because there's less to go wrong without a hybrid drive.

A pure EV is probably mechanically simpler than a gas-electric hybrid, so problems with the latter might not apply to EVs. 

[bugo]

Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

[hbelkins]

Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge at highway speeds or in mountainous terrain, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

I bolded the part of this that I have always added when pondering the pros and cons.

[Henry]

Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge at highway speeds or in mountainous terrain, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

I bolded the part of this that I have always added when pondering the pros and cons.

Put me in as part of the "never" crowd. I'm 51 now, which means that by your logic, I will also be dead when the improvements come.

[formulanone]

I question the use of an electric vehicle for off-road / off-grid purposes...unless you live very close to the places you're camping or exploring, the ability to plug in and charge your vehicle away from the crowds is presently very limited.