EV 914 Options

[Big Len]

Agree w Superhawk996 and would add this about the overall premise - Don't EV a classic car, any classic car. If you feel compelled to save the planet or hate the oil companies or whatever reason, there are thousands of other cars that are usable for your purpose. The 914 thrill is about light weight, balanced handling,and blipping the throttle to rev match a gear change, all with having that sound behind you. Play car Dr. Frankenstein with an old Accord. Leave the 914s alone.

[Valy]

I have 2 EVs (Ford an Nissan) and they are very practical and fun. The only car I fuel is the teener.
Range is not an issue, I commute 70 miles per day and recharge at night. Never got stuck empty.

[IronHillRestorations]

I don't have a problem with EV's, and I think the idea is great, but practical application in some areas (rolling blackouts) might not work out so well.

I recently had the opportunity to drive a Tesla, and loved it. Fast as my 964 and nearly silent. I thought it was the coolest car I've drove in a long time, but that's just me.

I seem to remember reading that a 914 held the EV land speed record for several years.

I've said for 20 years now, if we were really serious about EV's; just take away gasoline engines from NASCAR and make them run on electric motors. They'll figure it out in 5 years or less. Most technological advances come through transportation (going faster or farther) or trying to kill people (war (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) )

[mepstein]

Good point. Change happens when there a compelling reason.

[bbrock]

I love the spirited debate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Like most reports, the Union of Concerned Scientists report has a definite bias toward EV's. Better than most for sure, but, the bias is there none the less with some carefully chosen assumptions at best or deceitful assumptions at worst.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) Okay, let's dig in. Starting off by claiming bias is a classic tactic for casting doubt. Sure, all science is biased. It's conducted by people and we can't deny we have biases. Good science and the reports produced from it tries to be as objective as possible so as not to allow the bias to dictate conclusions. You provide a couple examples of bias but I'm not sold. Let's look at those.

Let's start with the assumption that a Nissan Leaf will only require or use 1 battery in it's lifetime - this clearly isn't the case based on field performance. See the previous eBay ad I posted for the Leaf, the owner admits the battery is shot and range has been negatively impacted. Vehicle had 50K miles and range had been reduced to 40 miles. Using the study life cycle of 179,200 miles, Nissan Leaf's will definately need more than one battery in their lifetime. Maybe 3 or 4! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

You are cherry picking here. You can't extrapolate an ad from someone selling their lemon or abused car to represent the average for the entire technology. As you know, there are many factors that influence the lifespan of a lithium battery. Who knows the story on that particular car or how representative it is of ALL EV vehicles?

What we need are data on actual observed battery longevity. Unfortunately, these are a bit elusive. Without spending too much time on it, the best I found was this article that cites an independent study that found the Tesla Model S lost about 5% capacity after 50,000 miles on the road; Tesla's own data indicating the Model S batteries retained 80% capacity after over 500,000 miles, and a statement from Nissan that they " having to swap out only a small number of batteries in its Leaf EV, despite selling many thousands of units during its last eight years in production." The Leaf battery warranty was 10 years or 100,000 miles.

https://www.carfax.com/blog/how-long-does-t...an-electric-car

Also, you misread the report. The study life cycle was 179,000 for combustion vehicles, but only 135,000 miles for the EV cars - acknowledging the limited (but at the time of the report, uknown) lifespan of the batteries. None of the above supports the idea that an EV would require 2-3 batteries during the report life cycle.

Let's take a look at how fuel economy was compared for Gas vs. EV's.

These are suspiciously low and are from MY15 vehicles Why not include any Hybrids that offer excellent Fuel Economy and aren't tethered to EV chargers for long trips? Hybrids are a wonderful middle ground between Gas and EV and a far better choice for the average consumer.

I'm totally confused by this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) These numbers look pretty typical for 2015 to me (which was the year of the report). Our last new car purchase was in 2007 for a mid-sized car in this class. We really wanted something that would get north of 30 mpg highway but the only models that got that mileage at the time were so poorly built, we probably would have replaced it already. The best we could do was 29 mpg. I really don't understand why you think those fuel economies are low.

They didn't include hybrids because they are not in the scope of the study which was to compare cradle to grave carbon footprints of EV vs. ICE cars. I think it would be interesting to see the same analysis on hybrids, but without also including manufacturing and end of life numbers, it would not be appropriate to toss them into the comparison of operating emissions.

They also used a strange assumption on the large car side. Is anyone is really considering a Hyundai Equus or a Chrysler 300 vs. Telsa? Seems to me that the Hyundai was thrown in there to drag down the average MPG. Over a 179,200 mile vehicle life assumption, the fact that they put the Hyundai Equus in there will add up to an disadvantage to the gas vehicles. In all fairness, if they really wanted to push down the numbers for the large gas cars, they could have chosen the Chrysler 300 with the V8 Hemi or a Hellcat and they didn't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

Again, I don't understand the criticism here. They were standardizing as best they could on curb weight and vehicle footprint to get as close to an apples to apples comparison as they could. I'm sure there are other ways to make the comparison, but this seems like a reasonable approach to me.

But allow me to push back on your statement:
Why do we make perfect the enemy of the good? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

I honestly don't think we are. EV's will continue to propagate if for no reason other than forced Government mandates that you will have no choice on. People are not yet choosing them in mass for a lot of different reasons. Even you mentioned that an EV will not be your next car. Why wait? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

You are conflating a couple things here. The perfect being the enemy of the good statement was intended as a broader statement of the tendency to attack new technologies intended to address a societal problem by focusing on the flaws rather than judging overall whether it moves us closer to the desired outcome. IMO, EV technology looks very promising considering the short time development has been seriously focused on building them into a viable alternative to ICE vehicles. I don't get the naysayers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

As to why I don't buy an EV on the next purchase, it's because I agree with you about consumer choice. If I could afford a Tesla, I would own one because it checks all of the technical boxes for us. I just don't make a Tesla salary. I'm guessing by the time we replace our next vehicle, the price point for that level of technology will be in our grasp. There is a high chance our next car will be a hybrid though. We really wanted one the last time, but they just weren't making small SUV hybrids at the time and we probably couldn't have afforded one if we did. I'm hoping this time will be different.

There are lots of good reasons to wait, particularly in your neck of the woods. As far as I could tell, the study referenced makes no accounting for diminished battery range in cold weather, the need for more EV charges per mile, and the increased contribution to overall EV emissions in cold climates.

I do a lot of winter testing of vehicles and I assure you that every time I've gone out to an EV on a cold morning 0F or below, the battery is not fully charged (EV's have to use battery power to warm the pack just to get it to charge) and once under way, the range diminishes much faster than the optimistic projection of the instruments due to need to heat the cabin, defrost the window, and the increased parasitic drag of driving though snow.

I agree that an adjustment for climate would improve the report. Given that at the time, they had to extrapolate just to estimate longevity, it was probably beyond their capacity. In our case, the majority of our electricity is hydro so I doubt it would change the conclusion for us. It might in heavy coal areas though where the EV benefit is marginal.

As far as general driveability, I doubt even our frigid climate would be much of an issue. It's not like ICEs are 100% reliable or operate optimally when our temps dip below -20. That's why we have heated garages, and we wouldn't need a full charge to get home after work. Tesla installed charging infrastructure in this region well ahead of the demand and we have charging stations less than 100 miles apart along Interstate routes even through the backwater places. They've already shown that building the charging infrastructure is doable.

Overall a great study and well footnoted. Much better than most where they seem to carefully omit their methodology. I would like to look into the footnotes a bit more and encourage others to really dig into any study or report and understand what is being reported Good or Bad.

No report like this is perfect (I know because I've written a few myself), but this is the best I've come across to answer the question of life cycle emissions/carbon footprint. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Rand]

It uses petrol. It just does.

[Superhawk996]

I’m neither buying nor selling. My broader point is let the consumer choose and to present them with both the Pros and the Cons based on factual data.

I really do like EVs in a lot of ways. They are just being sold as the right solution for everyone everywhere and that clearly isn’t the case.

The fact that that report referenced the Nissan LEAF was a gift. I didn’t cherry pick the eBay example. It is widely known within the industry that Leaf batteries are failing at a rate far above their competitors. Your Tesla data is pretty sound but may be a touch ambitious. Time will tell.

We’ll split the difference on life cycle. The smaller life cycle was indeed for the short range EVs of which the Leaf applies. However there are an abundance of leafs that will never make it past the 10 year 100,000 miles without replacement. The full life cycle did apply to the high range EV's like Tesla. It really was a gift horse I didn’t expect to find in the report.

With respect to the hybrids not being in scope, that may be a fair point but their exclusion ignores the immediately viable solution and analysis in favor of bias toward EVs. Hybrids are the exclusion of good in pursuit of perfect.

I agree that all science is biased by human nature. We just owe it to ourselves to look at both the Pro and the Cons and to let the consumer choose. At the turn of the 20th century no one had to incentivize the switch from EVs to ICE. When EVs are truly ready and better they will not have to be incentivized to move people from ICE to EVs. Especially when we are subsidizing $100k Tesla’s at the expense of the middle class.

[mepstein]

ICE's have such a head start in the automotive world. It will be interesting to see how EV's and hybrids evolve.

[flipb]

Disclaimer up front: My daily driver is a Tesla Model S. Bought it used with 41K miles, now at 72K.


I find it laughable that everyone expects EV buyers to justify their purchase on energy efficiency and environmental impact alone. It's a factor to be sure, but nobody I know purchases a car based on a single criteria. Style, performance, comfort, practicality, economy... all of these things play a role in virtually every car buying decision.

In my opinion, EVs excel in several areas: Incredibly low maintenance, high convenience (literally eliminates one 10-minute chore per week), many highly practical -- e.g. my Model S seats 5+2 and has two sizeable trunks, torquey acceleration.

Tesla employed some brilliant electrical engineers, as well as some brilliant automotive engineers. There aren't a lot of compromises to it.

As far as battery longevity: My S 60 was rated to 208 miles when new. At about 72K miles now, it'll charge to somewhere between 190 and 198, so I've lost a little bit of range. But most Tesla drivers have documented about 5%+ degradation within the first couple years which then levels off and remains flat for a long time. The battery conditioning & thermal management system is pretty impressive.

Most EV buyers don't go back to ICE; I count myself among that majority... at least for DD.

OTOH, I still have a carbureted 2056cc 914 in the garage for when I need to scratch that itch... there's room for both!

[Superhawk996]

Disclaimer up front: My daily driver is a Tesla Model S. Bought it used with 41K miles, now at 72K.


I find it laughable that everyone expects EV buyers to justify their purchase on energy efficiency and environmental impact alone. It's a factor to be sure, but nobody I know purchases a car based on a single criteria. Style, performance, comfort, practicality, economy... all of these things play a role in virtually every car buying decision.

In my opinion, EVs excel in several areas: Incredibly low maintenance, high convenience (literally eliminates one 10-minute chore per week), many highly practical -- e.g. my Model S seats 5+2 and has two sizeable trunks, torquey acceleration.

Tesla employed some brilliant electrical engineers, as well as some brilliant automotive engineers. There aren't a lot of compromises to it.

As far as battery longevity: My S 60 was rated to 208 miles when new. At about 72K miles now, it'll charge to somewhere between 190 and 198, so I've lost a little bit of range. But most Tesla drivers have documented about 5%+ degradation within the first couple years which then levels off and remains flat for a long time. The battery conditioning & thermal management system is pretty impressive.

Most EV buyers don't go back to ICE; I count myself among that majority... at least for DD.

OTOH, I still have a carbureted 2056cc 914 in the garage for when I need to scratch that itch... there's room for both!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/first.gif)

At our finest we are a collection of individuals working to a common goal of consumer satisfaction and environmental sustainability. At our worst are a centrally planned bureaucratic government trying to force a one size fits all approach on the consumer regardless of their wants and needs and geographic location.