Anyone have an electric car?

plexi59 said:
Not “some”. You hardly use those brake pads or rotors at all in an electric. It just applies more regen as you press the brake pedal.
Click to expand...
That depends on how heavy footed you are. If you hit the brakes firmly, the regular friction brakes take over. For gentle braking, yes regen does a lot of the stopping. For 2WD models, regen braking only works on the drive wheels, so friction brakes are still used on the the other two for traction control.
 
Last edited:
The intermenet tells me it'll cost around $18k USD to replace a tesla model S battery.
so... there's $1600 per year (if you assume the battery will need replacing in 10 years).
Here in Australia, they are putting a new tax on recharging electric vehicles to replace the tax they rip out of petrol and supposedly spend on the roads.
Given a 'pov pack' Tesla Model S price is around $85,300 to $192,390 AUD for a nicer model, it's not a question I'll be contemplating!

I do sort of wonder if EVs are worth it for anyone but the rich?

Thanks
Pauly
mr_fender said:
Electrics still need maintenance. Sure you won't be changing engine and transmission fluids and filters, but the braking system (pads, rotors, fluid,etc. - though regenerative braking can extend the life some), tires, wipers, steering system, drivetrain joints, suspension, AC system, etc. will still see plenty of wear and tear just like any other car or truck. Everything mechanical wears out and breaks eventually. Anyone that owns a phone, tablet, or laptop also knows that lithium batteries don't last forever either. Their capacity will drop over time and will eventually need replacing too. Looks like Tesla warranties their batteries for 8 years. That's not too bad and it will continue to get better as battery tech improves.
Click to expand...
 
Why do you “assume” that though? Batteries have no moving parts. Why would they need to be replaced after 10 years of intermittent use? I mean sure, capacity will drop a bit, but I’ve seen estimates that these advanced batteries last considerably longer, provided you’re ok with marginally lower driving range.
 
Not to mention that the top end Model S is the fastest production car in a straight line, bar none.
 
My assumption was based on the warranty period, and experience with various lithium cells. I hope it's wrong and people get 16 years out of them, however that would surprise me.

Thanks
Pauly

plexi59 said:
Why do you “assume” that though? Batteries have no moving parts. Why would they need to be replaced after 10 years of intermittent use? I mean sure, capacity will drop a bit, but I’ve seen estimates that these advanced batteries last considerably longer, provided you’re ok with marginally lower driving range.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I drove one of those early Teslas a while back. Back then a comparably priced BMW or Merc was considerably better in all regards other than emissions and cost of ownership. In fact that's when I bought my 535, so I know this for a fact. I wouldn't necessarily judge what they make today by what they made even 5 years ago.
 
Their labor rate at the dealership is $170/hr, though. Something for the potential buyer to be aware of.
 
Gas will be six+ dollars a gallon soon enough. That was sort of the stated goal of the new administration.
 
iaresee said:
I wouldn’t do electric where you live.
Click to expand...
I live in Michigan, my Tesla Model S is great here.
But cold weather is why Range is important. Mine being a 2018 P100D gets 315 miles.
GM, Ford, Porsche, VW have not figured this out yet, typically delivering 250 or less.
New Model S in 2021 starts @412 miles with a 500+ Plaid version
When its cold you want 300+ so you can go to the Airport & back

BTW batteries are NOT the $$$ you are linking, "The Internet is not always Truth"
But you seem to have an obvious Bias against, did you work on the Chevy Bolt with its Laughable 235 mile range & feel the need to discredit Tesla or something?
MotorAuthority is clickbait just like Jalopnik
 
Gary_B said:
FYI, not everyone buys one to "save the planet". I bought one because I like the look, I can charge at work for free, and in the end it saves me money. Also, because it's fast as hell and fun to drive for the price.
Click to expand...

Yes, I bought for he 2.3 0-60 & AutoPilot / Full Sel Driving & also like the looks & it's an American Car Company to boot. I have 3 cars that get 12 MPG, 1 that gets 9 MPG & the New Vette as well @ 15MPG So not saving the environment here...
 
Kruegmeister said:
I live in Michigan, my Tesla Model S is great here.
But cold weather is why Range is important. Mine being a 2018 P100D gets 315 miles.
GM, Ford, Porsche, VW have not figured this out yet, typically delivering 250 or less.
New Model S in 2021 starts @412 miles with a 500+ Plaid version
When its cold you want 300+ so you can go to the Airport & back

BTW batteries are NOT the $$$ you are linking, "The Internet is not always Truth"
But you seem to have an obvious Bias against, did you work on the Chevy Bolt with its Laughable 235 mile range & feel the need to discredit Tesla or something?
MotorAuthority is clickbait just like Jalopnik
Click to expand...
Strike a nerve, did I? :D

There's more reasons than just cold to not do electric in New Hampshire. High electricity costs and low sun exposure making solar panels not terrible effective at offsetting them being just two of the other big reasons.

You can, of course, make it work. But it's not a cost effective choice. Not nearly the slam dunk it would be in a sunny state like AZ or CA.

The go/no-go on electric is a more complex decision than just range.
 
iaresee said:
Strike a nerve, did I? :D

There's more reasons than just cold to not do electric in New Hampshire. High electricity costs and low sun exposure making solar panels not terrible effective at offsetting them being just two of the other big reasons.

You can, of course, make it work. But it's not a cost effective choice. Not nearly the slam dunk it would be in a sunny state like AZ or CA.

The go/no-go on electric is a more complex decision than just range.
Click to expand...
Solar panels don’t really make economic sense even in states where electricity is cheap. If they did you’d see poor people buy them, and not just in Hawaii. Most people buy them to virtue signal to their upper middle class friends, saving money is not the goal at all.

But even if electricity was three times what it is in my state, it’d still be much cheaper than gas per mile, even at today’s low gas prices. Currently 320 miles’ worth is about $8. Not that it matters - you also won’t save enough money on gas to offset the price differential.
 
plexi59 said:
Solar panels don’t really make economic sense even in states where electricity is cheap. If they did you’d see poor people buy them, and not just in Hawaii. Most people buy them to virtue signal to their upper middle class friends, saving money is not the goal at all.
Click to expand...
CA is high electricity and high sun, so they're not a terrible investment there.
 
iaresee said:
CA is high electricity and high sun, so they're not a terrible investment there.
Click to expand...
Run the realistic numbers with someone who owns them (not with a solar installer, 😂) and you might find that’s only true in SoCal and only with government subsidies.
 
plexi59 said:
Run the realistic numbers with someone who owns them (not with a solar installer, 😂) and you might find that’s only true in SoCal and only with government subsidies.
Click to expand...
Our neighbours did well on their install -- 7 years until they were paid for. Unless you're right around SF the sun exposure in The Bay is incredible. Doubly so once you go East of the Oakland Hills.
 
iaresee said:
Our neighbours did well on their install -- 7 years until they were paid for. Unless you're right around SF the sun exposure in The Bay is incredible. Doubly so once you go East of the Oakland Hills.
Click to expand...
Did they actually run the numbers or do they just think they’re paid for? I spend something like $1.2k on electricity per year. A system that comes anywhere near sufficient to cut the cord would be like $35k (panels and batteries). And that’s ignoring the fact that I’ll have to hire a dude to clean the panels every year, and ignoring the future value of this money if invested instead.
 
plexi59 said:
Did they actually run the numbers or do they just think they’re paid for? I spend something like $1.2k on electricity per year. A system that comes anywhere near sufficient to cut the cord would be like $35k (panels and batteries). And that’s ignoring the fact that I’ll have to hire a dude to clean the panels every year, and ignoring the future value of this money if invested instead.
Click to expand...
You don't need batteries... And in California you're required to stay connected to electrical utility when you have solar.

Before we got our system installed (we're using "metered" solar - no out of pocket cost to us, we basically just locked in a fixed electric cost for 25 years) we were spending significantly more than $1.2k a year. Probably close to that just for the 3 hottest summer months.

You don't have to buy solar panels to benefit.

But I agree the cost to purchase takes a long time to return on the investment.

I think we were looking at about 15 years if we purchased and since we weren't sure we'd still be in the house that long it made more sense to go metered.

At this point we are essentially paying the same amount (maybe a little less) than the "pro-rated" annual cost we were paying 3 years ago and that will remain the same going forward except for any overages (which so far we haven't had at the true-up times).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom