Tacoma Vs. Rivian

Dude - I'm a pretty polite guy normally but I'm starting to think you are struggling with a few extra chromosomes.

A Tacoma only gets 300 miles per tank of gas. A Rivian only gets 300 miles per charge of electricity. After that tank or charge is exhausted both must be refueled before traveling further. Neither vehicle has limitless range. Range is a function of the fuel stored onboard and has nothing to do with how many years a vehicle may have been in service.

 

You can't carry an unlimited supply of fuel either.

MPG and tank size are specs on every vehicle. I don't know about your truck but mine shows the range I have until empty. I don't know where this limitless range is. Is it a setting?

This is one of the strangest arguments I've seen so far. Ha.

 

Dude, it’s been around since 1956!

 

Dang. My Tacoma is a '55

 

ICE vehicle's range isn't limited by it's fuel capacity, because the tank can always be refueled.

EV range is governed by it's battery capacity.


This has been the language direct from the manufacturer of both ICE and BEV.


Find me an EV badged as a Limited, and I'll buy two of them tomorrow.

Fact. No manufacturer is going to put a Limited badge on a BEV.

 

U.S. Interstate system has been concept since 1956.

 

Honest question: what's the time for refuel ICE vehicle versus recharge for EV?

 

WTF does a Limited badge have to do with anything? Absolutely fucking nothing, it's just a badge. Does a Limited badge on a Tacoma make it any different than other Tacomas? No. Limited, S, SR, SR5, GL, GLX, any combination you want are simply badges about trim levels.

I'll rephrase exactly what you typed and maybe you can figure why what you wrote is just stupid.

"ICE vehicle's range isn't limited by it's fuel capacity, because the tank can always be refueled. EV range is governed by it's battery capacity."

"EV vehicles range isn't limited by it's battery capacity, because the battery can always be recharged. ICE range is governed by it's fuel tank capacity"

 

When you compare an EV to a similar size ICE vehicle the EV is much more expensive. Typically more expensive than all the gas savings you would acquire over the life of the vehicle. Prove me wrong.

 

Much slower for an EV. For the Rivian in thread title it's about 45 minutes from 20-80% charge on a fast DC charger.

 

Thanks, that confirms what I suspected, but did not wish to assume

 

I'll engage one more time even though I'm honestly not sure if you're just trolling or not.

Wouldn't a "Limited" badge make sense for an EV in your argument since it's apparently "limited" unlike an ICE?

Find me an "Unlimited" badged ICE and I'll buy two of them tomorrow.

 

I timed myself refueling my truck the other day, it took 2 minutes. Charging an EV could be 20 minutes or 2.5 days depending on the charger.

 

How long to charge here?

 

You're not wrong in many cases. There are a number of five seat sedans and SUVs on that list that are comparable in price to similar size ICE vehicles. For an SUV the Audi Q4 e-tron would be about $2000 more expensive than a gas Audi Q5. The Q4 uses about .34KWh/mile ($0.04 per mile at my electric rate) and the Q5 gets 25mpg on premium ($0.16 per mile). At about 15,000 miles the Q4 is at the break even point when including the extra $2000 purchase price increase.

 

Marketing

Imagine the range anxiety people would face if there was a Limited badge on the fender next to the charge port?

OEMs will slap limited badges all over ICE vehicles. Ford has a Limited trim for the standard F-150, there is no F-150 Lightning Limited.

Jeep Wrangler Unlimited

Jeep Wrangler 4xe top trim has been replaced with terms like High Altitude.

 

This from the guy that thinks “ICV” will be a big hit. “So the explosions are inside the vehicle?”

 

If I'm buying two Jeeps you get two Hyundais



Still the dumbest argument I've heard yet. You are making zero sense.

 

$42,000 for a FWD Hyundai Kona?

I'm not your ordinary everyday fool.


Nobody ever mentioned the word range before EVs came along. The only thing you heard of was extended range fuel tanks, which only translates into a larger capacity tank. The Ford Ranger, and the Land Rover Range Rover.

That's it, nobody associated range with mpg or fuel efficiency. Which has nothing to do with the range of an internal combustion engine propelled motor vehicle.

It's like saying a 50,000 mile waranty and an unlimited lifetime warranty are both unlimited. When the 50k mile warranty clearly runs out at 50k.

 

You must seriously be an idiot. Range has ALWAYS been a thing. It’s less of a concern for most people since the ability to refuel is easy but fuel economy and tank size have always existed. I have always known how far I can go on a tank of fuel in every vehicle I have ever owned.