Which electric car to buy?

[Ch1pbutty]

So what was the answer to the thread title, Which electric car to buy ?

Tesla 3 LR for us (but leased, then can give it back at any time if it’s rubbish)…but original question is a bit like asking someone which make, model of ICE car is best! The answer is whichever one works out best for you.

If question was “which electric camper van to buy”…answer is easy as they aren’t any.

 

[soulstyledevon]

So what was the answer to the thread title, Which electric car to buy ?

BMW 335d xDrive touring, used, one owner, 10k miles, and cost half the price of a brand new basic ID Buzz.

Maybe the next vehicle will be EV, but the prices need to get realistic…

 

[WelshGas]

Due to clever PR and misinformation many people are confused as are some on this Forum.
We have 2 problems, Climate Change due to the build up of Green House Gases, and the main culprit in this is CO2.
Enviromental Pollution which is multifaceted but in relation to road vehicles is Nitric Oxide, NO, and PM 2.5 particles.
Changing to a EV reduces CO2 at the exhaust and transfers it to power generation..
Changing to an EV reduces NO output to zero but does nothing for the PM 2.5 particles produced by tyres or brakes, which is common to all vehicles.
EV, Solar Panels and even Wind Turbines, collectively have a significant Enviromental Impact even if they have a reduced Climate Change impact at user level.
Not so long ago Diesels were touted by the establishment, both technological and political as the way forward to tackle climate change and then the effects of NO and PM 2.5 on the enviroment and health came into mainstream.

Which is the best EV to buy?
If you want to pat yourself on the back for doing your bit for Climate Change then any will do. You won't be producing CO2 your power generator will be.
If you want to protect the enviroment then probably a 2nd hand petrol vehicle is the least environmentally damaging for you.

Don't confuse Climate Change and Enviromental Damage, they are 2 separate entities.

 

[Cali Phillip]

Tesla 3 LR for us (but leased, then can give it back at any time if it’s rubbish)…but original question is a bit like asking someone which make, model of ICE car is best! The answer is whichever one works out best for you.

If question was “which electric camper van to buy”…answer is easy as they aren’t any.

I agree, we have the old VW van that now does local trips, 2 travel seats so limited, it now does 4k a year, mostly local up to 40miles trips.
An EV is tempting, however trending towards a Honda Jazz type car, much space and petrol. Overall better value and less impact, more opportunity for car sharing and being a Honda should get 10years use by which time the whole picture will be clearer plus hopefully close to end of working. The ocean is pleasure and work for me, the use balances the cost and impact me.

 

[Cali Phillip]

BMW 335d xDrive touring, used, one owner, 10k miles, and cost half the price of a brand new basic ID Buzz.

Maybe the next vehicle will be EV, but the prices need to get realistic…

Love one of those, always fancied one but sadly not with an ocean as well the wallets not elastic.

 

[OooOooTheMonkey]

Due to clever PR and misinformation many people are confused as are some on this Forum.
We have 2 problems, Climate Change due to the build up of Green House Gases, and the main culprit in this is CO2.
Enviromental Pollution which is multifaceted but in relation to road vehicles is Nitric Oxide, NO, and PM 2.5 particles.
Changing to a EV reduces CO2 at the exhaust and transfers it to power generation..
Changing to an EV reduces NO output to zero but does nothing for the PM 2.5 particles produced by tyres or brakes, which is common to all vehicles.
EV, Solar Panels and even Wind Turbines, collectively have a significant Enviromental Impact even if they have a reduced Climate Change impact at user level.
Not so long ago Diesels were touted by the establishment, both technological and political as the way forward to tackle climate change and then the effects of NO and PM 2.5 on the enviroment and health came into mainstream.

Which is the best EV to buy?
If you want to pat yourself on the back for doing your bit for Climate Change then any will do. You won't be producing CO2 your power generator will be.
If you want to protect the enviroment then probably a 2nd hand petrol vehicle is the least environmentally damaging for you.

Don't confuse Climate Change and Enviromental Damage, they are 2 separate entities.

EVs are far more efficient when braking with regenerative braking so they rely far less on discs and pads. Both of our EVs will slow down quickly enough so often you don’t need to use the brakes at all.

 

[Cali Phillip]

Due to clever PR and misinformation many people are confused as are some on this Forum.
We have 2 problems, Climate Change due to the build up of Green House Gases, and the main culprit in this is CO2.
Enviromental Pollution which is multifaceted but in relation to road vehicles is Nitric Oxide, NO, and PM 2.5 particles.
Changing to a EV reduces CO2 at the exhaust and transfers it to power generation..
Changing to an EV reduces NO output to zero but does nothing for the PM 2.5 particles produced by tyres or brakes, which is common to all vehicles.
EV, Solar Panels and even Wind Turbines, collectively have a significant Enviromental Impact even if they have a reduced Climate Change impact at user level.
Not so long ago Diesels were touted by the establishment, both technological and political as the way forward to tackle climate change and then the effects of NO and PM 2.5 on the enviroment and health came into mainstream.

Which is the best EV to buy?
If you want to pat yourself on the back for doing your bit for Climate Change then any will do. You won't be producing CO2 your power generator will be.
If you want to protect the enviroment then probably a 2nd hand petrol vehicle is the least environmentally damaging for you.

Don't confuse Climate Change and Enviromental Damage, they are 2 separate entities.

I largely agree, impact on the environment, avoiding consuming more than we “need” while still living and try to reduce the impact if we can, reducing flying for example.
Governments have a huge role in steering this process, diesel cars are an example which was well intended but turned out to have negatives nothing is prefect.

 

[WelshGas]

EVs are far more efficient when braking with regenerative braking so they rely far less on discs and pads. Both of our EVs will slow down quickly enough so often you don’t need to use the brakes at all.

Doesn't make any difference. If everyone changed to EVs tomorrow we would still have the same , if not greater enviromental problems. As they say, One swallow does not make a Summer.

 

[soulstyledevon]

Love one of those, always fancied one but sadly not with an ocean as well the wallets not elastic.

I must’ve tested the Tesla’s 4 times.
They’re really impressive, but just didn’t excite me enough.

Once I’d driven the 335d, the old petrolhead in me reappeared. It’s absolutely stonking, rips through motorway miles with ease, would embarrass a lot of cars at the traffic light GP, great on fuel considering the performance, but most importantly looks quite plain and understated.

 

[WelshGas]

I largely agree, impact on the environment, avoiding consuming more than we “need” while still living and try to reduce the impact if we can, reducing flying for example.
Governments have a huge role in steering this process, diesel cars are an example which was well intended but turned out to have negatives nothing is prefect.

Exactly, and I fear we are about to make the same mistake again.

 

[Cali Phillip]

I must’ve tested the Tesla’s 4 times.
They’re really impressive, but just didn’t excite me enough.

Once I’d driven the 335d, the old petrolhead in me reappeared. It’s absolutely stonking, rips through motorway miles with ease, would embarrass a lot of cars at the traffic light GP, great on fuel considering the performance, but most importantly looks quite plain and understated.

You are making me want one !
Golf R or Audi for me but sadly round here especially in the season now it would be a lovely blast to join the next 40mph queue. Unless top tip is to travel early and late, theres a 90’s level of traffic policing round here but the wildlife and unpredictable tourists make it interesting/ risky. I play the Mpg game now !

 

[OooOooTheMonkey]

Doesn't make any difference. If everyone changed to EVs tomorrow we would still have the same , if not greater enviromental problems. As they say, One swallow does not make a Summer.

Just correcting your post. EVs don’t create anywhere near as much brake dust as ICE cars so in that regard alone they’re less bad.

 

[WelshGas]

Just correcting your post. EVs don’t create anywhere near as much brake dust as ICE cars so in that regard alone they’re less bad.

That is not the point. They still create PM 2.5 particles so are contributing to the pollution of the enviroment, so still a health hazard. Maybe less but still present.

 

[OooOooTheMonkey]

That is not the point. They still create PM 2.5 particles so are contributing to the pollution of the enviroment, so still a health hazard. Maybe less but still present.

Yes it is. You said that changing to EVs does nothing for the PM 2.5 particles, but you’re wrong. Due to regenerative braking EVs actually produce fewer PM 2.5 particles than ICE cars do, so switching to EVs is better for the environment in this particular aspect.

 

[WelshGas]

Yes it is. You said that changing to EVs does nothing for the PM 2.5 particles, but you’re wrong. Due to regenerative braking EVs actually produce fewer PM 2.5 particles than ICE cars do, so switching to EVs is better for the environment in this particular aspect.

Correct. EVs still produce PM 2.5. It doesn’t matter if they produce the same or less. no one knows what the safe level of such particles is, or even if there is a safe level. So the fact that EVs produce such particles means they are just as dangerous to the environment as the vehicles they replace.

 

[OooOooTheMonkey]

According to this site EVs produce around three times less CO2 than petrol cars.

How much CO2 can electric cars really save?

To answer this question we have developed a tool that compiles all the most up-to-date data on CO2 emissions.

www.transportenvironment.org

 

[WelshGas]

According to this site EVs produce around three times less CO2 than petrol cars.

How much CO2 can electric cars really save?

To answer this question we have developed a tool that compiles all the most up-to-date data on CO2 emissions.

www.transportenvironment.org

That’s Climate Change sorted.

What about the Environmental Pollution?

 

[OooOooTheMonkey]

That’s Climate Change sorted.

What about the Environmental Pollution?

Well we already know EVs are a massive improvement over ICE cars for environmental pollution as no tailpipe emissions. We may have to live with tyres for a while longer though until flying cars are invented.

 

[WelshGas]

Well we already know EVs are a massive improvement over ICE cars for environmental pollution as no tailpipe emissions. We may have to live with tyres for a while longer though until flying cars are invented.

As I said, many people get confused between Climate Change and Environmental Pollution.

Tailpipe emissions = Climate Change.

 

[Amarillo]

Correct. EVs still produce PM 2.5. It doesn’t matter if they produce the same or less. no one knows what the safe level of such particles is, or even if there is a safe level. So the fact that EVs produce such particles means they are just as dangerous to the environment as the vehicles they replace.

Dodgy logic here.

If we accept that PM 2.5 is bad for the environment, if Vehicle A produces less PM 2.5 than Vehicle B, Vehicle A is not as bad as Vehicle B for the environment with respect to PM 2.5.

Your logic seems to be saying that one turd discharged by a water company into a river is every bit as harmful as two turds because the target is zero turds.

 

[WelshGas]

Dodgy logic here.

If we accept that PM 2.5 is bad for the environment, if Vehicle A produces less PM 2.5 than Vehicle B, Vehicle A is not as bad as Vehicle B for the environment with respect to PM 2.5.

Your logic seems to be saying that one turd discharged by a water company into a river is every bit as harmful as two turds because the target is zero turds.

If 1 turd carries E coli and gives you Septicaemia and total organ failure, then it doesn't matter how many turds are discharged.
Likewise with PM 2.5 , Nobody, not even the all knowing Amarillo knows how many such particles breathed in may cause respiratory failure or, as has been recently reported, trigger lung cancer and possibly other cancers.

 

[Amarillo]

If 1 turd carries E coli and gives you Septicaemia and total organ failure, then it doesn't matter how many turds are discharged.
Likewise with PM 2.5 , Nobody, not even the all knowing Amarillo knows how many such particles breathed in may cause respiratory failure or, as has been recently reported, trigger lung cancer and possibly other cancers.

So the campaign to reduce the volume of leaded petrol used by cars, which started in the 1970s was a complete waste of time until 2021 when its sale was completely eliminated worldwide because just one molecule of lead in the air could cause someone brain damage?

Your logic is flawed, and your beginning your response with “if” telling.

 

[clarinetbcn]

So the campaign to reduce the volume of leaded petrol used by cars, which started in the 1970s was a complete waste of time until 2021 when its sale was completely eliminated worldwide because just one molecule of lead in the air could cause someone brain damage?

Your logic is flawed, and your beginning your response with “if” telling.

You only have to look at WG's hypothesis that one turd is the same as millions. "If" however one turd doesn't happen to find you but a million turds do, and in addition wipe out all the wildlife in and around the discharge area, then we can conclude that WG has been up until recently advising the privatized water companies.

Then there's his claim, as a retired medical professional, that smoking doesn't cause cancer...

Losing oil somewhere?

If it was the EGR solely at fault would you please, please explain why only SOME 180 engines are affected? I look forward to your expert opinion. NB CFCA engines from MY 2010 to 2012 are accepted as having a fault, admitted as such by VW. Not the case in this instance. I await your response...

vwcaliforniaclub.com

 

[WelshGas]

So the campaign to reduce the volume of leaded petrol used by cars, which started in the 1970s was a complete waste of time until 2021 when its sale was completely eliminated worldwide because just one molecule of lead in the air could cause someone brain damage?

Your logic is flawed, and your beginning your response with “if” telling.

Incorrect. Lead poisoning acts by accumulating lead molecules in the body slowly poisoning various metabolic pathways.
The present theory regarding PM 2.5 particles is that 1 particle, in the wrong place at the wrong time, can trigger a genetic cascade that leads to a cell going cancerous. So 1 particle has the same risk as any other particle. A different sequence of events to the slow accumulation of lead molecules over time.

You only have to look at WG's hypothesis that one turd is the same as millions. "If" however one turd doesn't happen to find you but a million turds do, and in addition wipe out all the wildlife in and around the discharge area, then we can conclude that WG has been up until recently advising the privatized water companies.

Then there's his claim, as a retired medical professional, that smoking doesn't cause cancer...

Losing oil somewhere?

If it was the EGR solely at fault would you please, please explain why only SOME 180 engines are affected? I look forward to your expert opinion. NB CFCA engines from MY 2010 to 2012 are accepted as having a fault, admitted as such by VW. Not the case in this instance. I await your response...

vwcaliforniaclub.com

An anticipated comment from a scientific illiterate.

 

[Amarillo]

Incorrect. Lead poisoning acts by accumulating lead molecules in the body slowly poisoning various metabolic pathways.
The present theory regarding PM 2.5 particles is that 1 particle, in the wrong place at the wrong time, can trigger a genetic cascade that leads to a cell going cancerous. So 1 particle has the same risk as any other particle. A different sequence of events to the slow accumulation of lead molecules over time.

You appear to be missing the obvious.

1,000,000 particles in the air increases the chance a million fold of one being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Consider it this way. The average ejaculate contains ~150 million sperm. Just one of those 150,000,000 squigglers needs to find its target.

Then consider a ejaculate containing just one single sperm. Its chance of hitting the bullseye is remote.

An anticipated comment from a scientific illiterate.

Even if true, which I don’t suppose it is, better a scientific illiterate than a scientific charlatan.