https://news.yahoo.com/1-5-electric-vehicle-owners-164149467.html

The core issue here is lack of available access to level 2 or better charging stations. Level 1 charging is useless for EVs.. as it takes days to fully recharge a drive battery pack with level 1.

Honestly, I find this indicative of owners who would gladly fork out 60-100K for a new Tesla, but were too cheap to spend a couple grand to upgrade their garage with level 2 charging stations... even though some EV sales came with a package do do exactly that.

So.. California being the actual "canary" for EV proliferation for the US market ... the core adoption issue remains charging access and convenience. But it looks like this is a short term problem as the firm commitments to not just level 2 charging stations but the actual HV DC fast charge stations is ramping up quickly and these new DC stations can refill a sitting Mustang-E in just an hour.

That's why I like my hybrid CR-V. All the advantages of electric traction, with none of the range or charging issues.
Anyone with an electric dryer or stove in their home should have no problem getting a 220 volt outlet to charge from, though of course a garage would be nice.
Fast DC charging is harder on batteries than level 2 charging. For the best battery life a level 2 charger in your garage and charging overnight is best.
BTW - The level 1 or level 2 "charger" is actually in the car itself, you just need to give it 120 or 220 volts AC and it makes the DC to charge the battery. A fast DC charger charges the battery directly.
But anyone who thinks a BEV is "emission free" is wrong. Even if you charge only from renewable sources (and good luck with that) a LOT of emissions were created in the process of making the car.
It's like the Greenies who use cloth grocery bags. If the bag is cotton, it would have to used three times a week for 42 years to actually "save" anything, considering the water and power used to grow and process the cotton, and that's not even counting the fuel to get the product to the consumer. There's a video somewhere on YT that does the math on this.

 

And meanwhile, I recently received a letter from So Cal Edison offering me a $230 rebate for the summer if I would agree to install a remote shut off for my A/C (which would shut off my A/C during peak demand times)… SMFH!

 

I get those all the time from my provider as well. What a great deal, they will give you a discount if you let them throttle your service when you need it! 😂

 

So Cal can't even provide enough power to prevent intentional rolling brown outs and they're trying to entice people Not to use electricity/AC when it's hot (and it sure seems like it's getting hotter every year) - and they want to ban ICEs and make everyone go full EV... SMFH!!! Idiots in charge...

 

So much personal misunderstanding on your part.

I actually watch the power grid reports each day from ISO during summer months, and other than for a short interval last summer, the state has not reached peak cap power use since 2006. The only reason I watch it is to know in advance if there is some sort of irregular and unusual loss in grid capacity, such as a whole power plant being down during peak demand (which happily rarely ever happens).

If you spend some time on the ISO website (which is the controlling authority for all electric power distribution and supply/demand balancing.... California has been in brown out conditions due to insufficient power ONE TIME in the last 20 years. Granted the state gets up in the 95% of capacity in use some days, but that is by design because unused capacity is unused infrastructure that is very expensive to add and maintain. Total power consumption in California has been roughly flat for more than 15 years by the way... and currently almost a 1/3 of total daytime power supplied to consumers is from renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc). The state imports power during nighttime hours to adjust for loss of renewables after dark, and they do this on a planned and precise cycle every day.

Generally speaking, ISO has their power management so well tuned that they can predict power demand to within 2-3% of actual each day, in 15 minute intervals. Most days.. the state only approaches ~ 80% of available capacity actually used. During high power use months (summer) ISO puts heavier restrictions on power providers with respect to maintenance and other down time that is flexible in being pushed out past peak demand days. Yes, part of the suite of levers and knobs available to ISO is to encourage reduction in power use during peak demand hours of the day. But.. most such incentives and encouragements are directed at companies.. who are huge users of power during peak daytime demand. Consumers may be asked to chip in with conservation as well.. but it does not add big margins to the grid, because frankly prior to the pandemic.. most people were not home during the day, but rather at school or work (where power conservation will be in coordinated play).

The media attention about rolling blackouts in California are due to seasonal wildfire conditions in foothill and mountain community zones, And/OR high wind conditions that can bring down power lines. Only those particular community zones are impacted... NOT the entire state, nor even one power provider region. They also are generally short term in duration. It sucks if you live in one of these sensitive regions, but frankly only a few percent of State residents actually do.

EVs will have some impact on California power demand, but not like you are portraying. 1) most EVs will be plugged in and charging overnight, at home, when demand for power from the grid is well below capacity limits. 2) many owners of EVs are going to take advantage of incentive and rebates in California to install solar panels and storage batteries in their garages when they aquire an EV. With proper incentives, the actual impact on the California power grid due to EV charging demand will be essentially ZERO with respect to power grid management.

 

I can only imagine (and laugh) at the folks buying EVs, realising they are rubbish and then trading them back for ICE cars while losing thousands in the process.

You couldnt make it up! 😂

 

I do like the idea of hybrid vehicles.
All the instant power on demand without the range and charging issues.
It makes the ICE engine run at peak efficiency. Getting the most out of the gasoline.
And gives you the instant torque of an electric motor.

 

I do like the idea of hybrid vehicles.
All the instant power on demand without the range and charging issues.
It makes the ICE engine run at peak efficiency. Getting the most out of the gasoline.
And gives you the instant torque of an electric motor.

Hybrids, plug in or non-plug-in will fill a very needed niche in the motor vehicle ecosystem as ICE continues to decline. There are some requirements for EV charging and management that simply won't work well for everyone (like renters for example with no home charging ability) and for this.. the hybrid lines will fill the void nicely.

 

I like the idea of 30 mile range PHEVs. Even tho these are the most wasteful carbon emission wise.

 

I thought the PHEVs were a good idea as well.
Unfortunately it was not possible to buy one, not anywhere in Wyoming or even Colorado. They were being advertised, but not sold.
I could have bought one in Salt Lake City, but I would have had to return there for service, which was not acceptable.
Someone has probably figured out that if half a million Coloradoans start charging their cars at night the power grid might struggle.

 

I guess we'll see if your assumptions play out. And as far as power outages and the status quo of the existing infrastructure goes, well, I should know better than to trust the media but then again, I know for sure that my power has gone out more than once in the last 20 years...

 

For me until NA has charging station nationwide and Great Plains forget about a EV vehicle. This is what the EV Lobbyists forgot they wanted EV but forgot the EV charging station. It's like the "Leave no Child behind" but forgot the funding to get it going or keep going. This is why EV are still bottom choices for most Auto owners. I can drive my Saturn and CRV for 400miles and be able to find a Service station fuel up. Try that with just a EV charged up do 400+ miles - I doubt you get any EV takers.

 

If you are a student of history, you would find that when ICE took over powering of motor vehicles in the early 20th century, they had exactly the same issue.... sporadic places to purchase fuel. The EV market is going to follow the same dynamics for the exact same reason.... People and human nature. No company or government is going to pre-deploy thousands or tens of thousands of EV charging stations. Instead, the expansion of sourcing for EV charging will follow the same principles as gas stations did... they will move in parallel and in the early years that will mean some uneven distribution initially, until you are past the early adoption phase and have moved into proliferation of a new technology in the consumer market.

And in point of fact, in the US... more attention is now being placed on incentives to proliferate EV charging stations. And this is the right timing given EVs are now moving off of the low volume uncertain sales of an early adopter market.

The real challenge with EV proliferation and charging infrastructure to support it continues to be state governments. Some states actually encourage and incentivize both purchase and use of EVs as well as infrastructure for EVs. Some states appear to do everything in their power to undermine moving off of oil as a source of fuel for vehicles. THIS is where the regional challenges will be most challenging. Some states will put surcharges on EVs just to inhibit their adoption. Some states will see EVs as a cash cow to be strangled by taxation and fees. Some states will see the long picture and will be working for a stable and well established non-ICE vehicle marketplace persistently year over year. And some of the more regressive states where EVs are concerned, will thumb their noses at the federal government and will sue to delay EV proliferation in their states.

 

Tesla started out selling to the high-end "Status" market, because those people can be counted on to make decisions based on emotion and status-seeking, not practical economics.
It was only after the fact that they discovered it wasn't such a hot idea.
They often live in neighborhoods whose HOA fines you if you have LAST year's BMW in your driveway.
It would have made more sense to start with in-town delivery or local transit vehicles, but the people who buy those would probably insist on actual numbers showing it would be a wise purchase.

 

My objection to EV is simply the lack of infrastructure in the right places eg interstate rest areas to recharge your car on long trips.

 

That will come in time.
My main objection is how they are touted as "emission free" and the "solution to climate change", when they are neither.

 

Until 2 thing happen - EV will cause major problems.
1. Rolling blackouts to provide electricity to charge the EV's. We need a nuclear power plant for every 100,000 EV's or a wind turbine for every 1000..
2. Until the government mandates a universal format removable battery that can be swapped at a service station for a charged one that can tell how much charge is in it and how much is left so that billing for use can happen. ICE engine will be used for long hauls. My laptop can tell me how much charge I have left.

 

Nuclear power sources IS NOT the answer... unless the industry proceeds with the smaller reactors of the SMR variety that include fail safes to prevent any chance of a meltdown, and can be deployed at the neighborhood level in the power grid.

EVs in and of themselves will not present the nation with rolling blackout syndrome.... that will come about due to bad grid power management (see Texas). Resilient power grid management, with control of the power system in depth, and the ability to load shift when needed using a combination of green power in peak daytime + purchased power in the lower demand nighttime hours will have little issue with EVs (see California, which has not seen any persistent rolling blackouts since Enron tried to kill California utility companies more than 20 years ago).

Note that California has 20% more population compared to 20 years ago, yet it's total power demand is roughly the same between 2000 and 2020. This is because even with seasonal fire issues, high winds, etc.... California is able to properly manage and balance their power grid demands state wide.. with only localized rolling blackouts to prevent fires in outlying foothills and mountains during high wind advisories.

 

I read an article in Car and Driver recently that mentioned that it costs a Tesla owner (other than initial owners who have free charging) $9 for the amount of electricity it takes to go the same distance that 1 gallon of gas would take an ICE owner.

I am looking for the article for reference. If and when I find it, I will add it to this post.

 

I read an article in Car and Driver recently that mentioned that it costs a Tesla owner (other than initial owners who have free charging) $9 for the amount of electricity it takes to go the same distance that 1 gallon of gas would take an ICE owner.

I am looking for the article for reference. If and when I find it, I will add it to this post.

Is this it?

Our Tesla Model 3 Proves EVs Are Cheaper When Charged at Home

We have spent approximately $1200 less on fuel compared to our long-term BMW M340i.

www.caranddriver.com

 

Yeah, it makes sense that the hybrid would be better around town; however...

Tested: 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid Can't Match the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid's Fuel Economy

Honda's hybrid system makes for a more fuel-efficient CR-V, but its real-world efficiency isn't best in class.

www.caranddriver.com

By the end of the quarter-mile, however, the heavier hybrid's 16.2-second pass at 85 mph is 0.3 second behind the standard model's. Passing maneuvers at highway speeds, where the electric motor returns smaller dividends, can make the hybrid feel wheezy in its power delivery. Note that the hybrid's 4.1-second acceleration time from 30 to 50 mph is 0.2 second quicker than the non-hybrid's, yet its 50-to-70-mph pull (6.2 seconds) is more than a half-second slower.

... but Honda does have the technology (see Acura NSX) to make the hybrid faster -- all the way around

 

Yeah, it makes sense that the hybrid would be better around town; however...

Tested: 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid Can't Match the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid's Fuel Economy

Honda's hybrid system makes for a more fuel-efficient CR-V, but its real-world efficiency isn't best in class.

www.caranddriver.com

... but Honda does have the technology (see Acura NSX) to make the hybrid faster -- all the way around

Heh... I very much doubt anything exotic or compelling from an Acura NSX is ever going to see daylight in a Honda or a non-NSX Acura ... not in any time frame that brings relevant "cool factor" and performance. The fact that Acura only produces a few hundred NSXs per year, means they can make them as exotic as they like. Those are "hand made" levels of production run rates. In fact, not even the consumer Acura lineup is going to gain much if anything from the NSX. The NSX is a statement vehicle for Honda... meant to be sold and compete in the rarified high performance motor vehicle market niche.

As for the RAV4 hybrid.... meh... it is going to be quickly overshadowed by Toyotas new EV/Hybrid lineup coming... which includes a CUV variant of the Corolla platform (Corolla Cross) which directly overlaps the RAV4. Not to mention the production outcome from the BZ4 concept EV from Toyota which looks pretty close to heading for production and no longer a concept. It too will directly eat into the RAV4 market space. Honestly, Toyota seems a bit confusing in there upcoming moves out of ICE, which is surprising for the company that was doing hybrids before Tesla was even a brand.

 

From an ecological point of view I think improving gas mileage across the board is the best mid term answer --

22 city / 25 highway was what the 2001 CRV was rated.

28 city / 35 highway is what the (much larger) 2021 CRV is rated -- 25-40% improvement in fuel economy

That's a substantial gain, but even better are the gains being made on large trucks --

16/21 for the 2001 F150 and 25/26 for the 2021 model... nearly a 50% increase in miles per gallon in the city.

The 2021 models of both are far superior to the 2001 model, and it's no coincidence that they're both using turbochargers to reduce the displacement needed to produce power, and seeing big improvements in the transmissions' ability to keep the engine in its ideal power and emissions bands.

I'm glad that automakers haven't "given up" on making substantial improvements to ICE versions of their cars.

That said, if I were buying my CRV today I would go with the Hybrid, and when I buy my next minivan in 3-5 years it'll likely be a Sienna because they're all Hybrids this year while Honda is still futzing with their 3.5L with a poorly implemented VSA system.

 

From an ecological point of view I think improving gas mileage across the board is the best mid term answer --

22 city / 25 highway was what the 2001 CRV was rated.

28 city / 35 highway is what the (much larger) 2021 CRV is rated -- 25-40% improvement in fuel economy

That's a substantial gain, but even better are the gains being made on large trucks --

16/21 for the 2001 F150 and 25/26 for the 2021 model... nearly a 50% increase in miles per gallon in the city.

The 2021 models of both are far superior to the 2001 model, and it's no coincidence that they're both using turbochargers to reduce the displacement needed to produce power, and seeing big improvements in the transmissions' ability to keep the engine in its ideal power and emissions bands.

I'm glad that automakers haven't "given up" on making substantial improvements to ICE versions of their cars.

That said, if I were buying my CRV today I would go with the Hybrid, and when I buy my next minivan in 3-5 years it'll likely be a Sienna because they're all Hybrids this year while Honda is still futzing with their 3.5L with a poorly implemented VSA system.

I agree 120% with this. From the point of view of their impact on the owner's experience, turbocharging and hybrid tech are not all that different from each other. They are both clever technologies that allow the ICE to operate with higher efficiency and economy and lower emissions. And while doing all these good things they do not impose any limitations or inconveniences on the owner. Way to go, IMO.

I would say that the new Sienna would be a great choice for anyone who is looking to get car-like mpg's from a large behemoth with AWD. The best thing is that, unlike some other hybrids, the Sienna doesn't feel underpowered when going uphill or traveling at intestate speeds, even though its 2.5L pushes out only 186HP on its own.

Household 120V or enhanced 240V outputs take too long to charge.

Those are for overnight charging, when the priorities are the convenience and (presumably) cheapness of home charging, and charging speed is not important. This works out just fine on 99 days out of 100, but on day 100 you find yourself in an undesirable situation when you need to make an unscheduled trip on a short notice, and the darn car needs a couple of hours of J1772 time to give you enough range.

 

EVs don't have a future until the infrastructure is widely expanded. Currently the cost to add one charge station is $125K - $150K, while a double sided gas pump is $20K. To be practical all charge stations need to be 480 V or greater like the Tesla ones. Household 120V or enhanced 240V outputs take too long to charge. California was supposed to be constructing high speed rail between cities to lessen the need for individual cars/trucks.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/1-5-electric-vehicle-owners-164149467.html

The core issue here is lack of available access to level 2 or better charging stations. Level 1 charging is useless for EVs.. as it takes days to fully recharge a drive battery pack with level 1.

Honestly, I find this indicative of owners who would gladly fork out 60-100K for a new Tesla, but were too cheap to spend a couple grand to upgrade their garage with level 2 charging stations... even though some EV sales came with a package do do exactly that.

So.. California being the actual "canary" for EV proliferation for the US market ... the core adoption issue remains charging access and convenience. But it looks like this is a short term problem as the firm commitments to not just level 2 charging stations but the actual HV DC fast charge stations is ramping up quickly and these new DC stations can refill a sitting Mustang-E in just an hour.

When it can be done in 10 minutes or less like filling a gas tank, then they'll have a product worthy of consideration by lots more folks.

 

^^ this is one dimensional thinking though... that assumes the industry will innovate at a snails pace. Besides... most EV owners will not be road tripping across the US in an EV any time soon (which is where your concern applies). For that requirement.. you go plug-in hybrid OR you stay home. Or, you adapt... by learning to recharge while stopping for a meal... which will generally take about 45 minutes and charging technology will get down to 20 minutes for an 85% charge within the next couple years.

But battery and charging technology are moving at a much more rapid pace than anyone in the industry expected. Eventually... charging while driving will probably become the norm on long freeway trips.. courtesy of Q charging rails installed under the roadway (which is under development and will be in pilot testing in the next year or so. Your vehicle will literally charge while you drive in such an environment.

 

Impossible to jump in the EV in SF and drive straight through to LA on 10 minutes notice when you get the message that your daughter is in the hospital. Happened to me last year... I'm sticking with ICE.

 

I have already thought this one through, a couple years ago.

The day may come when I move to an EV. When that day comes, and something like you describe above happens... I will simply either rent a vehcile, or.. more likely... fly to LA and then rent a vehicle. It's not like driving 8 hours from SF to LA on a weekday is in any way a fast, efficient trip.

My point is.... you used an extreme corner case to convince yourself an EV would let you down, when in reality... you have many options in one of those extreme corner cases to be where you need to be when you need to be there. Nothing prevents you from going the plug-in hybrid route and getting essentially the best of both worlds.

Keep in mind.. the ICE vehicle you trust and rely one... in it's very own corner case extreme... could breakdown on your trip to LA and leave you stranded somewhere. My point here.. you can always worry yourself into not adapting to change.

 

... but it's still going to be a hard sell to some people -- namely rural dwellers and others who would never fully accept an EV. For this demographic, something else would have to be offered.

 

I can see it now. The three-masted fully rigged CR-V.

 

My unasked for opinion?

IMHO, there is no free lunch. (Not an original quote!)

It takes energy to propel a motor vehicle, That energy has to come from somewhere. ICE vehicles use fuel that needs to be refined from crude oil, which needs to be piped or brought to refineries, and then distributed to filling stations. BEV need batteries that need to be manufactured from rare materials and then need to be recharged...at currently limited locations. Additionally, there is no standard for these charging stations. Hydrogen has been tried, so far not catching on, for a number of reasons.

Each of these methods of supplying energy to propel a motor vehicle has its advantages, and disadvantages. I suspect that in the long run, they each end up being somewhat equal in regards to their impact on the environment and the economy of "refueling/charging" stations, cost of acquisition and ownership/operation.

FWIW, ICE vehicles have come a very long way in regards to emissions and efficiency.

I am of the belief that the best answer for the foreseeable future: plug in Hybrids.

These are my opinions, which I mentioned at the top were unasked for! LOL

 

I am of the belief that the best answer for the foreseeable

I view the issue being solely down to ill informed tree-huggers who want to dictate how we live our lives. The quicker such folk are silenced and refused a platform to speak on, industry can innovate for whatever the future is without the need to be "green" or any other colour.

Whether that be sustainable fuels, hydrogen, methane, battery, cow urine or my next door neighbours trapped wind - innovation without the diktat from the pseudo green brigade is whats needed.

 

As both a CR-V owner and an EV owner, this has been an interesting thread to read. Once again, filled with lots of misinformation and opinions from members who don't own an EV and I'm sure never will. That's fine, nobody is going to change someone else's opinion on a car forum and nobody is saying you can't own a gas powered vehicle.

However, if you have any questions to ask from an actual EV owner, please post them, I will be happy to answer.

BTW, thank you williamsji for keeping the conversation rational and on track.

 

Sent you a message, probably should have posted it here. LOL
I will Copy and paste:
So You have a 2020 Tesla model 3.

I love new technology. At the same rime, I often get overwhelmed with the details. Example, wi-fi routers and the constantly changing specs! LOL

The charging time and range issues aside, there seem to be numerous different plugs and charging times, dictated by the actual hardware/software in the vehicle, as well as the charging stations.

ANY ICE vehicle can go to ANY gas station and charge up (hehe fuel up), Shouldn't this be the same for EVs, if the government and industry expect there to be a big move to EVs? Why should Tesla charging stations be limited to Teslas, etc. Forgive me if I have some of this wrong. I am in the VERY early stages of trying to understand if and how an EV would fit into my automotive needs. I am retired, my wife currently works 5 days a week, 9 miles from home, We love to travel, and since we will not likely be cruising again anytime soon, we will be taking road trips. AWAY from big metro areas.

 

This early stage of EV development reminds me of the early stages of mobile electronic devices.

Remember when you needed a specific charging cable / plug for each device you owned? Pretty sure if everyone here dug through all their cabinet drawers & gadget drawers today, they could still find chargers for devices they no longer have.

Not sure of the date, but it now seems that most manufacturers have settled on one of two types of charging device / plug - what Apple calls its lightning plug and or USB-C plugs. That will probably happen to EV charging plugs / stations when the demand for such overcomes the economics of creating one.

 

Hi JB, you bring up a good question and one that I've discussed before with friends of mine after I purchased my car. The long answer is, starting about 9 years ago in 2012, Tesla funded the Supercharger network out of their own pocket. They did this knowing full well people are much less likely to purchase an EV if it needs to remain within 50% of the total range from home. Charging at home might work well for commuting to work, but Tesla knew people would be less likely to purchase an EV unless there is also charging infrastructure to allow their car to drive long distances.

Since Tesla built the SuperCharger network, they have every right in saying who can use it. Unlike Electrify America, the SuperCharger network is 100% a private venture, no government involvement, so Tesla gets to control that network including how much they charge to use it. Elon Musk stated that if other manufacturers want to use the SuperCharger network, he's open to a partnership, but any manufacturer would need to adopt the Tesla charging plug as well as the electronics to talk to the network (at least in North America, I will get to Europe in a minute). To date, there is only one company that may take Tesla up on their offer, that is Aptera. However, Aptera is a niche market 3-wheeled vehicle, which probably won't sell many cars.

Europe is a slightly different story. Instead of Tesla's proprietary plug, a Tesla sold in Europe uses the CCS charging standard because a few years back the EU dictated that any new cars sold in Europe needs to use the CCS standard. However, in that case, all Tesla did was retrofit the existing SuperCharger stations and a few hundred or a few thousand cars that were on European roads at the time. So, if you are in Europe you still use a Tesla SuperCharger if you want, but you can also use any charging station that has a CCS DC fast charge plug. The difference being, other brands that also have a CCS plug, cannot use the Tesla charging stations for the same reason as in the US, Tesla built the SuperCharger network in Europe using private funds, so they get to say who can use the chargers. Side note, there have been reports of VW looking at using the European Tesla network but nothing has been made public. Asia is another story I won't get into, but you can always look that up.

Having autonomous control of the SuperCharger network allows Tesla to better serve their customer by locating charging stations in areas where there is demand, and when demand increases, as they sell more cars, Tesla increases or builds more SuperCharging stations in those high demand areas. However, Tesla also built out their SuperCharger network for owners to drive coast-to-coast in the US & Canada, as well as country to country in Europe. I believe there are very few places in the US that a Tesla owner could not drive, given the range of their car and how widespread the SuperCharger network has become.

Also, since Tesla does not look at the SuperCharger network as a main source of revenue, they only charge enough to cover the operating costs of the SuperCharger network. Away from home, it costs me 1/3rd as much to charge my Tesla than it would on say an owner of a Mustang Mach E charging at an Electrify America network.

I can go into more details but I will stop here and wait for more questions.

 

Hi JB,...
Since Tesla built the SuperCharger network, they have every right in saying who can use it. ...

Thanks for your detailed response.

My initial comment? The way Tesla is dealing with providing charging stations is like Honda saying they have built gas stations with nozzles that will only fit in Hondas, and Honda owners can ONLY fill up at Honda owned gas stations. And Ford the same, only Fords can fill up at their stations. ETC. To the folks who are promoting a wholesale move to EVs, I don't think that this blueprint will work.

I stand by my opinion, that there needs to be a standard plug/technology. etc for charging EVs. Tesla would have the right to charge what ever they want, just like individual gas stations do. Additionally, the time required to "fillup" with electrons needs to come way down.

Another real issue, state taxing for road maintenance. From personal experience (have not recently verified this), AZ has among the lowest per gallon taxes. Yet a recent short visit to Calif, showed that Calif. has much higher taxes. Again, IF EVs are to become "the Norm" then there needs to be some fair method for states to get revenue to pay for roads, bridges etc.

If I find myself with a low fuel light in the middle of, oh, let's say, west Texas, and there is only one gas station, I will be able to fill up, regardless of price. I contend that the same should be available to EV drivers. If I am driving a Mustang Mach E and need a fill-up/top off, and there is only a Tesla station, I should be able to use it at what ever price cost Tesla has posted.

I doubt there will be an EV in my garage in the near future...which brings up the other BIG issue. Not everyone has a garage where they an "top off" at night.

Added thoughts:
A friend has a Model S, (I don't remember what year) and has free charging. (I guess some early year Teslas have this) He has made the analogy that Musk is like a drug dealer. He builds and sells you a vehicle that has addictive acceleration, and gives you free electricity. Later, when it is time to replace the Model S, you will have to pay for the "fuel" that fulfills that addiction, and can ONLY get it from Tesla. AND I understand that a Tesla owner cannot buy or install any aftermarket replacement parts in their Teslas.

 

Lots of information here. Good discussion @S2k_Dude ...

I am glad that you enjoy your Tesla.

Three points, then I will likely be done with my part of this discussion. I have absolutely no intentions of buying an EV in the next few (3-5) years (I might consider buying a PHEV sooner), and ZERO intention of buying a Tesla...anytime in the foreseeable future.

1) The ability to "plug in at home" is a huge advantage toward EVs, for those who can.

2) Regarding your statement:
"...the Tesla is a dream to drive, it's quieter and more comfortable than our CR-V. It's actually the car we prefer to drive long distances, even with the slightly longer trip time. "

There is NO WAY you can compare driving a Tesla with a CR-V! EVEN if the fueling/charge times were the same, I would agree 200% that I would rather drive a Tesla on long distances than the CR-V. (Assuming those were the only two choices) NO question. They serve two very different purposes, and sell for much different prices.

3) By the same token as my last point, we can't compare insurance costs between the two, but I have not heard anything about the cost to insure a Tesla. I would assume that it is pricey, but you know what happens when one assumes!

 

3) By the same token as my last point, we can't compare insurance costs between the two, but I have not heard anything about the cost to insure a Tesla. I would assume that it is pricey, but you know what happens when one assumes!

You are likely to get a fairly accurate assessment (better than assumption) of the Tesla insurance cost if you ask an insurance agent. I did, back in 2019 and 2020, and my impression was that it was like 3 times higher than a regular vehicle, with other things being equal.

From what I remember, insurance companies had found out that it could cost like 5 times more and take a lot longer to have body work done on the TM3 vs. a comparable regular car. As Tesla's sales number show, this does not deter the buyers.

Charging at a SuperCharger changes my cost per mile from $0.028/mile (when I charge at home) to around $0.10/mile at a SuperCharger, which is closer to the cost of gas. With my commute, I save $1,500/year (charging at home) compared to buying gas (when gas cost $2.50/gal in my state, the savings is more now that gas has risen to $3/gal). So over 10 years I will potentially save at least $15,000, probably more, not to mention no oil changes or other maintenance you would have in an ICE car. With regen braking, I should not need to replace brake pads for at least 150,000 miles. Tires are a bit pricey because the car came with 20" wheels, but that would be true of any car with 20" wheels. I can rotate so I expect to get around 35k-40k out of this set since I drive mostly highway miles. I've had a few minor warranty items replaced at no cost, so other than washer fluid, the first 2 years of ownership, like any new vehicle, TCO has been low. Many fleet managers, and government municipalities are purchasing Tesla vehicles solely due to the low cost of operation. BTW, my warranty experience has been better than most anyone could have with a gas car, the Tesla Ranger came to my house and performed the warranty service.

If I had a shorter commute, and if we used my wife's CR-V on long trips, I would say the EV ownership experience wouldn't be that much different in a Leaf, MachE, Polestar or VW ID4. The driving experience on the other hand is much different. Never owned a car that could do 0-60 as fast as most any supercar.

And that's one of the reasons of Tesla being a Tesla and not an "EV" . Teslas are designed to sell at a profit. A lot of EV's, at least pre-2021, are designed to comply with regulations.

 

Gosh, I sure hope Tesla doesn't make those "improvements" that the Chinese government wants. Maybe you don't know that China has it's own manufacturers of BEV's and they aren't happy that they need to compete with Tesla. Having owned my car for almost two year now, and using AutoPilot from day 1, I've logged probably 30,000 miles on AutoPilot without any issues. I trust AutoPilot more then I do the driver assist features in our CR-V, but then again, there are many CR-V owners that have posted on CRVOC that out right say they disable all those safety features because to them it's just going to cause them to crash. Given the history of driver-assist, I believe these systems are safe enough to use every day.

Ford is claiming they will be releasing the same features as Tesla for the Mustang Mach E within the next few months, GM has "SuperCruise" which they will be rolling out to other GM brands besides Cadillac. If the technology weren't better, I suppose I wouldn't use it either.

 

Gosh, I sure hope Tesla doesn't make those "improvements" that the Chinese government wants. Maybe you don't know that China has it's own manufacturers of BEV's and they aren't happy that they need to compete with Tesla.

The reasons for requiring the recall are sound. It has nothing to do with other EV firms in China. It has everything to do with real safety issues with AutoPilot in China.

Note: China consumers dictate market share, not corporations or even the government... not for more than 20 years now. Don't believe me, ask Apple about how that goes and what a challenge it is to stay on top. Chinese consumers are very savvy and will drop your product if you pose a risk to them, or there is a better product available for the price.

Owners of Teslas in China have reported both accidents and near accidents due to AutoPilot engaging without the consent of the driver. The results were sudden unexpected acceleration, braking, or both.... when it engages while the driver is engaged. It is a real safety risk.

I suppose you could delude yourself into thinking.. hey.. it's only in Tesla's produced in the Tesla factories in China, so it can't possibly affect me in the America. I personally would not, given Musk constantly brags about how his technologies scale across the world markets. Tesla has 1, count them.. ONE design team.. and all Tesla designs go through them, and even worse... Musk has to approve every single design choice down to things as simple as switches. Heck.. nobody can be hired at Tesla at senior manager or above without passing an interview with Musk. YES.. he is literally that much of a control freak and micro manager ... which explains the revolving door of talent over at Tesla, a popular joke in the valley here.

 

There is no doubt in MY mind that Musk, and his Tesla brand have made a HUGE change in the automotive industry, and the way people think about automobiles. He is undoubtedly a very intelligent and talented man.

I personally do not like the way he acts, speaks and manipulates the financial world, and perhaps all his business relationships. From what I hear, Tesla owners are not able to buy or install any parts from any source other than Tesla, or to modify their own vehicles. I may not have the whole story here.,.

IF and when I decide it is the right time for me to buy an EV (BEV?), it will NOT be a Tesla.

I suppose EV is different the BEV. What are fuel cell vehicles called. FCEV?

 

There is no doubt in MY mind that Musk, and his Tesla brand have made a HUGE change in the automotive industry, and the way people think about automobiles. He is undoubtedly a very intelligent and talented man.

I personally do not like the way he acts, speaks and manipulates the financial world, and perhaps all his business relationships. From what I hear, Tesla owners are not able to buy or install any parts from any source other than Tesla, or to modify their own vehicles. I may bot have the whole story here.,.

IF and when I decide it is the right time for me to buy an EV (BEV?), it will NOT be a Tesla.

I suppose EV is different the BEV. What are fuel cell vehicles called. FCEV?

Saying you can't modify your Tesla is a bit of a blanket statement, you can modify it all you want. There are many aftermarket performance parts available that you can install yourself. You won't believe how "riced out" I've seen some Teslas, they look just like a Honda Civic from Fast and Furious.

I think what you might be referring to is if the car is totaled, and someone repairs it themselves and puts it back on the road, Tesla doesn't want the liability of a car that has been in a substantial crash using the SuperCharger network. They've done this to a few Model S cars, but as yet, not to any Model 3's with a salvage title. Again, it's their network, they are just choosing to limit liability. Or, maybe if someone wants to hack into the onboard systems and install their own software, Tesla will not provide updates and will probably void your warranty or not let you Supercharge, but that's no different from what other car manufacturers do these days.

I can in fact purchase parts from Tesla, last year they put their entire parts catalog online. So, while it was true in the past, pretty much anyone can purchase parts through Tesla just like you can purchase parts from Honda. You many not be able to purchase a complete Electric Motor assembly or Battery Pack, those items Tesla wants purchased and installed through the Service Center. Probably not different than Honda not wanting to sell you a new engine for your CR-V unless it's installed by the dealer. It's just that there are far fewer Tesla service centers than Honda dealers but if you ever watch Rich Rebuilds on Youtube, he's purchase many Tesla parts as an owner, as well as Electrified Garage who services Teslas as an independent repair shop.