Electric vs Gas Cost

You’re not wrong but the straight line acceleration is ridiculous and comparable. My teenage years dream Ferraris (F40 and F50) were amazing speed machines in their time but are now slower than my pickup truck.

 

Kinda ya I updated my post an 812 is significantly faster 0-60 by racing standards. And 0-200kmh it’s a joke.Tesla is twice as slow and has an abysmal top speed. Not even bothering to look at the faster SF90

I have a soft spot for the 308 and it’s hella slow haha

 

In terms of driving experience they can. If you are buying the car for some other reason... they may not.

$360k 812 Ferrari does 0-60 in 2.8s
$54k M3P Tesla does 0-60 in 3.1s
$114k MS Plaid Tesla does 0-60 in 1.99s

Seems pretty easy to see where bang for the buck is. And yes you can argue about 150mph+ speeds, even the M3P will do 160mph+ but those are go-to-jail speeds. Most drivers are going to be in the 0-100 range at most, and 0-highway speeds is what is typically used on a daily driver. And in that bracket, performance EVs dominate.

 

I bought my truck cause I use a truck. I was replying back to OP as he quoted whatever study saying gas vehicles getting 100 miles for less cost than electric. Seems very far skewed for the data. Prius is a nice concept just doesn’t work for my life. I have no problem paying for the gas my truck uses because I reap the benefit of having a truck. But I’m not going to spend another $40k+ just to have an electric equivalent so I can still have a truck.

 

So you bought a performance Tesla to drive on the highway lol. Every example you give is more ridiculous than the last. I mean if 30-65mph wets your whistle then you do you. I can get a shitty k12 to do that for a grand.

If you like your Tesla then more power to you but when someone fires up a Ferrari and that V12 roars, it’s not the driving experience that puts the first smile on their face.



I need to show the FerrariChat boys this.

 

Sweet sweet music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUXRbHpOM7k

 

I bought a high performance car to daily drive it yes. It's cool if you're happy settling for something less as a daily driver, but I like cars that perform.

Ferrari V12s do sound sweet. But not as sweet as an extra $300k+ in savings, plus not being killed by maintenance costs.

 

I get it but you can't compare a Tesla to a supercar and then exclude all the stats and specs that dont fit your narrative. Tesla has decent 0-60 acceleration but still doesnt pace with supercars, yet sucks at everything above it (60), sucks at braking, cornering etc.

So for bang for your buck, you basically bought a car that kinda does ok at a limited acceleration window...and thats it. So is it not fair that a Tesla is only $55k, you basically paid for one thing (a niche), it doesnt come with carbon ceramic brakes, F1 derived components etc. You bought and paid 20% of a 300k Ferrari and you got exactly 20% of the performance. Just because that 20% fits 100% of what you want it to do, does not mean it compares apples to apples.

EV vs ICE arguments always suck because EV guys like to pick and choose what fits.

 

That’s just a thing people do who can’t agree that there are different opinions and circumstances that may or may not work for others. Proponents of ICE vehicles can be just as bad with it.

 

I am all for technology and progress but the consumers should make their own decision based on their budget and the economy. Not because ICE are banned. I hope in 10 - 15 years we still can choose what we want to drive. But with only 1-2 % of cars are ecars now I don't see how we can charge all of them when 95% of cars are ecars.

 

This discussion does not really boil down to cost to own / cost per mile in 2023 dollars with 2023 infrastructure unless you completely ignore the issues associated with continuing to burn fossil fuels and resulting greenhouse gas emissions

Carry on

 

TLDR Tesla driven with a lead foot cost $4/hundred miles. Tesla supercharging on roadtrips cost $10/hundred miles. For comparison Tacoma costs $21/hundred miles

When I installed my level 2 charger in my garage I also put in one of these:

I can tell you to the 10th of a KWh how much juice has gone into my Tesla. So in 2022 charging at home I used 2708.1 KWh. At .11 KWh that's just shy of $300. Take that $300/7,440 miles driven = 4 cents/mile or $4.00 to drive 100 miles. I could get that down to 3 cents per mile if I stopped driving with a lead foot . . . . and there is no way in hell that's going to happen. The car is just too engaging and fun to drive to save a freaking penny. Also, I have solar so calculating the exact spend for charging is pretty close to impossible, but it is less than 4 cents/mile.

Also in 2022 we drove 15K miles on road trips. We went to Canada, drove from Vancouver to San Diego following the coast line as much as possible. Saw the redwoods, Death Valley, Yosemite, Sequoia National Park, Carlsbad Caverns, SpaceX Boca Chica launch facility, New Orleans, Lincoln's library and Kansas (not as bad as I was expecting). I look at supercharging like buying gas on the interstate, more expensive than buying from Costco at home, but you do what you need to do. 15K miles of supercharging cost $1,500 or about 10 cents/mile. Most of that driving was done in the first half of the year when gas was $5.00+ / gallon. To drive my Tacoma that far assuming $4/gallon gas would have $4,800 or 21 cents/mile or $21/hundred miles.

In all those miles of driving charging has never been the issue the boomers want to make it. At home I plug the car in when I return. I could guess at how long it takes to recharge, but frankly it never enters my mind to even think about it. I limit home charging to 20 amps and 60% battery. I have no need for more range and it recharges over night. Charging the car is more like charging a toothbrush. I use them, plug them in, next time I need the them they're read to go.

Another boomer issue is road tripping and the time it takes. I haven't found it to be an issue. I have a two hour butt and my wife has a 90 minute bladder. We always need to stop regardless of the car/truck that is being driven. It's slower than ICE, but not that much slower.

Bottom line it's just a car. I like it more than any ICE I've owned. I can't see ever buying another ICE, but my needs might change so I don't say never.



(full disclosure, I'm a boomer. As a group more twats that all the others combined.)

 

This has been repeatedly debunked by EPA studies. There isnt any conclusive data that shows that EV production reduces fossil fuel emissions and in their own report the most efficient and cleanest means of power between Petrol, EV, and Diesel was actually DIESEL. Most studies around EV resulted in "unable to conclude." Moreover, most studies exclude the the environmental impacts of mining, manufacturing and disposing of batteries.

there currently isnt enough data and by the time we do, I'm sure EV technology will advance enough to be resonable.

 

I think we all agree EV's are more energy efficient, I think what annoys people is the BS arguments as to why people want them. It's like the Ford vs Chevrolet debates. If you like one then get one but your (not literally you) reasoning will not necessarily make the most sense as it's mostly backed by opinion. Once the argument becomes truly objective I'll probably the first in line to get one.

I like the idea of EVs but I dont think they are there yet, I think we should be pushing mor Turbo Hybrid options, best of both worlds.

I also love the idea of Solar, we get a solar quote every year for like the past 5 years, problem is, it's just not there yet.

 

are you referring to this or do you have another link ?

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

 

Nope I've read that and find it hilarious because it contradicts their own report. someone posted the actual PDF somewhere on the forums. They used it to justify their EV debate and I was like wait did you actually read the conclusion. They basically say they cant make a conclusion at this time BUT it certainly leaves a door open to fit a political narrative.

 

I'd be interested to read this report you are referring to .

 

I'm actually trying to find it. It mentions things like it cant conclude on things like mining, etc which makes sense, how can they truly understand environmental impacts of strips mines in Africa or China and then quantify that in a meaningful way .

 

Yes and no. The 3 Performance does pretty well up to 100mph, after that supercars start to perform better. So you are correct in saying that it isn't fair to call it strictly supercar comparable. That "limited acceleration window" makes up for 99% of the usual daily driving experience, most people are not pulling 100mph+ regularly that it is a significant decision making factor. It costs a small fraction of any ICE car capable of anything remotely similar. The Plaid though is a whole different story with 1000+hp and a 216mph top speed.

On the performance models, cornering is near 1G and brakes are quoted as being on par with BMW M3 Ceramics. Where the Teslas get in trouble for brakes is being so explosively fast they can eventually overheat their brakes with repeated abuse, which isn't an issue on most ICE cars because they cannot re-accelerate after braking to brake again so quickly. Oddly Telsa went with lame straight vein rotors on their Brembo BBK performance brakes, which is the most basic style cooling characteristics. It will work great initially, but will not shed heat as quickly and be more prone to brake fade in repeated high speed brake use, which is what you see when people talk about Tesla brake fade. Aftermarket companies make directional brake rotors that offer 30% better cooling to eliminate the brake fade issue. Tesla should have included these on Performance cars from the factory instead of the basic straight vein units. I've swapped mine to the high performance directional units.

You do realize that report mirrors most other reports in the industry? I'd be curious if you found one that said something significantly different that wasn't funded by the fossil fuel industry.

 

No it doesn't, I don't even know why you are trying to argue. The M3P falls off exponentially. As an example the SF90 0- 200kph (125mph) is 6.7 seconds....the older 812 8.3 seconds... by comparison a Tesla M3P is 13.6 seconds..

As far as the report, most reports I find still to this day come down to statements like "unable to conclude" the "models are not directly comparable," "There are dependencies (e.g. Nuclear vs Coal)," as well as the good ol buzzwords like "should" "can" "may." Many EV reports call out that quantifying PHEV are "challenging".

EVs will get there, but I dont see empirical comprehensive data to support it yet.