I would really like deeper information about where the reliability issues are.
Consumer reports did a report showing Tesla had so many more recalls, but most of the recalls were just software updates that fixed driving software.
I'm much more concerned with not having my car breakdown, than random issues like not getting the charging range I expected or needing a software update, etc.
I don't find the brand by brand reliability ranking very useful when comparing vehicles that have a very different profile from the other's. I need more meaningful data to make a judgment on buying vs not buying.
It gets worse, they appear to have included EV's going back 20 years. The sheer gulf in function and reliability between a 2003 EV and a 2023 EV strikes me as so immense that it must skew the chart to an extent.
> CR is known for buying cars for its own test fleet, but for its annual auto reliability survey, the organization cast a wider net. Specifically, it gathered data from 330,000 owners of vehicles from model year 2000 onwards, and it uses that survey data to generate reliability scores for each vehicle and model year.
Also, forgive my ignorance, it is my understanding that EVs have way less moving parts than gas, and that is the reason why there is less maintenance needed. How's the title true?
I'll scroll through my Google News app and it's riddled with articles describing the approval cost of charging vehicles, of they reliability and cost.
I've been driving a Nissan Leaf for almost 2 years now. Charging is annoying but still dirt cheap, both at home and in the road.
I know I've had this car for less than 2 years but it works fine. It's been great so far and it's probably the worst full EV you can buy in the US.
I find it strange that there are so many alarmist articles saying how EVs aren't the panacea they're cracked up to be. But that was never how they were advertised.
> It's been great so far and it's probably the worst full EV you can buy in the US.
You are right and so are the articles. Boring EVs like Nissan built are supremely reliable and cheap to run and inexpensive to repair when they do have issues, but unfortunately that's not the case for everyone else.
EV market is unfortunately dominated by "fancy EV" manufacturers who have loaded the cars with fancy structure and LCD screens everywhere. Teslas and Rivians cost upwards of 10K to repair (Rivian R1T requires 20K+ for repairs for low-speed rear-end) with months long parts backlog for things like rear quarter panels. Rivian recently accidentally bricked 10% of cars on road with a new OTA firmware update while Tesla is involved in several lawsuits over its Autopilot. The story is same with other manufacturers.
We don't yet have a "Toyota" of EV makers who would make a range (Sedan, SUV and a Truck) of great, reliable cars that look nice, are nearly boring to drive and inexpensive to repair.
I guess I didn't think about it like that. That my bottom of the line car is more serviceable because it doesn't have all the bells and whistles.
Personally I think it still has very good cruise control (adjusts speed based on traffic and can come to a complete stop, makes an attempt to stay in the lane, maintains a safe following distance) and errors on the more conservative side (will turn off the lane maintenance feature if the lines become too difficult to see). None of that is "self driving" I guess but I find it impressive and useful still.
I’ve been inundated with different sources all blogspamming that article. It definitely strikes me as some sort of smear campaign. I certainly wouldn’t put it past Opec and the special interests to be behind something like this.
> EVs are still in their relative infancy as mainstream vehicles, so it’s really not surprising that manufacturers, by and large, are still working out the kinks. That said, we are seeing signs of movement in the right direction.
The teething problems we are seeing with EVs are because they are new, not because they are EVs
There are some manufacturers that have historically always had lousy electrical systems in their cars. Making an entire car out of electrical systems is inviting trouble. Looking specifically at you, VAG.
I gave up a long time ago on anything coming from Consumer Reports because by and large, as the name truly indicates, the data comes from .. consumer reports. Not actual data, but surveys of people's thoughts.
If, for instance, I wanted to judge how reliable a brand of car is, I would want the data: how often they have major failures, how many miles they can go between major service issues, how many are still on the road etc., the actual data about reliability. However, the only data that consumer reports usually uses is what random polled people THINK about the reliability of the brand.
Even worse, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. They publish reports saying, for example, brand X is the most reliable brand of truck. People read those articles, and it influences their belief of which brand of truck is most reliable. Then Consumer Reports ask them next year what brand of truck they think is most reliable, and now they're more likely to say brand X, and so it's published that brand X is still the most reliable. Its an ouroboros with no actual data underneath it all.
Your thinking here seems to be a bit confused. You said, "the data comes from .. consumer reports. Not actual data, but surveys of people's thoughts."
But that is incorrect. It's not a survey of people's "thoughts." Survey participants:
"are asked to identify problems that they considered serious (because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime). We ask them to include problems covered by warranty, but not the ones resulting from accident damage or due solely to recall. Respondents check off problems from a list of trouble areas, ranging from the engine and transmission to climate system, brakes, electrical system, and electrical accessories..."[0]
Can you explain how this is "not actual data"? If it isn't, what would you expect instead -- that Consumer Reports buy a statistically significant number of all cars by all manufacturers every year and drive every single one thousands of miles and then calculate the reliability of each one?
I have long since stopped relying on consumer reports - they seem to take quixotic positions on specific vendors to try to editorialize their findings for "balance" (audience capture?) when in some years, there are clear best options.
As an EV owner (and someone who owned a Prius when hybrids were new), I find a lot of the supposed issues they raised seemed trumped up and not at all something I found anecdotally as well as from friends/family or forum users online.
I used to really like them but even outside of automotive, a lot of their recommendations simply didn't pan out well.
Unsurprising - ICE car makers have learned hard lessons over the past 100 years. Many of those lessons translate, but not all. Add to that fact that software and electronics for the physical world are super hard to get right, so we've got alot of problems to deal with. Hybrid is weird - you need the complexities of both ICE and electric, so more complexity leads to more potential areas to fail. By the time the majority of people are driving electric, there will have been lots more iteration and the reliability will hopefully be much better.
Not really all that surprising, its a new design with a lot of changes. My real problem with EV's lies in the fact that they only address a small portion of cars environmental impact. Tire bits remain dreadful. Bikes and public transport remain the better options.
Looks like they're mixing the definition of EV and hybrid. I feel like those are two separate things, particularly when we're comparing the reliability of a gas-powered vehicle versus an electric vehicle. Who's to say that the unreliability isn't coming from the gas-powered component?
The average American drives 37 miles per day. EVs can travel 4 miles per kWH. That's 9.25 kWH required for the average American, every day. The average American household consume 30 kWH of power every day.
You may think we need we therefore need a 33% increase in power generation just for every household to have a single EV, but that's not quite true. We need to factor in that residential electrical usage only comprises 40% of total electrical usage. That 33% increase suddenly becomes a 13.2% increase.
Even that's not the whole picture because refining oil to make gasoline requires 5 kWH of power per gallon. Most of that power comes from burning oil, but 40% of it is coming off the grid. That's 2 kWH of power coming off the grid to refine that 1 gallon of gas. Since the average American drives 37 miles per day, we'll say they're consuming roughly 1.5 gallons of gas per day, which used 3 kWH of power from the grid to refine.
If you work it all through you end up needing an 8% increase in generation to support every single US household having an EV (and it's an additional 8% for every additional EV). Sounds like a lot, right? No. There are vast differences in the demand for power from on-peak (during the day) and off-peak (during the evening) power. Vast enough that households can charge two EVs at night during the off-peak period and still not constrain the grid.
Getting back to your question - what kind of power grid can supply electricity to a country full of EVs? The grid we already have.
This is a real eye opener, thank you for your comment. I always thought that grid upgrades for EVs were squarely in the "feasible" category so I always dismissed the "but what about the grid?" anti EV arguments. But I did not realize we were almost there already!
Yes, the carbon footprint of building an EV exceeds that of an ICE. Nobody at all disputes this.
But over the life of the car, because they're not burning gasoline, the overall carbon footprint of an EV is lower. Even if your electricity comes from 100% coal, eventually the carbon footprint of the ICE will exceed the EV because burning coal at a massive scale to create electricity is more efficient than a small combustion engine, where well over half the energy is just waste heat.
And if your electricity comes from 100% renewables, then the carbon footprint is merely the manufacturing and will be significantly lower over the life of the car.
Now ask yourself, how much of the pollution comes from cars? and does all the pollution comes from tailpipe emissions?
There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. And EVs still use those.
Then, if gas lawn equipment like a mower or leaf blower pollutes more than several cars, then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute?
More than 90% of the pollution comes from that equipment. None of those use a catalytic converter.
So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal.
> There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes.
Absolute hogwash. Where could you even get that idea?
How much material is there in a set of tires that you will lose over the life of the tire? How many miles will it take to lose that material? Now consider how many hundreds of gallons of gas you will burn before those tires wear out.
> So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal.
[0] According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gases emitted in the USA come from Transportation. Of that, only 58% of that comes from "Light-Duty Vehicles", ie, cars. That means if we replaced all cars with EVs, it would be ~17% reduction in GHG.
Whether or not 17% is "marginal" is somewhat subjective on your definition of the word.
> There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes
This is false. There is some pollution from brakes and tires but nowhere close to the pollution from tailpipes. Also regen braking reduces almost all the pollution from brakes.
> then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute?
Who cares?
Are there millions of pieces of this equipment in our cities? No? EVs cut down on smog in cities. They also cut down on CO2 output. These are substantial wins.
Even if that’s not the exaggeration it appears to be, fossil fuel production alone is subsidized to the tune of trillions of dollars per year. If you’re saying we can stop that going forward and use less than a year’s savings to make one-time improvements which will prevent disasters and improve health for millions of people, that sounds like a great deal even if we had a choice (which we don’t).
Wait until all vehicles can charge at the working Tesla network which includes a fee for charging past 90% charge on a $1 per minute basis. Then another charge of a full charging station per minute fee.
Are you suggesting these fees are bad or predatory? Because those fees only accumulate if you basically waste your time at a full charging station hogging a spot, while others could actually use it at its full capacity while you’re only sipping 20-30kW (or, zero, in the case of idle fees).
Hardly. Perhaps you're confusing with the costs of a transition to a carbon-free grid. That will cost trillions up front but save even more trillions over time.
Electric vehicles will add 20% to our electric energy requirements, but a lot less than 20% to our power requirements. Peak power is ~6PM during times of extreme weather. Some cars are being charged at that time, but most are charged overnight.
The US went from something like 10% of buildings with air conditioning to 90% in two decades. That was a harder problem than switching all gasoline cars to EV.
This question gets asked so often despite being answered that I refuse to believe that anybody asking it is actually interested in learning the answer and thinks they just have a clever anti-EV "gotcha!" question.
Most of the grid will handle it fine. People in very rural areas where it's common to only get 60 amp service might have a problem. But they probably weren't going to get an EV anyways.
Related and interesting: my local monopoly utility company RG&E is pushing for EVs hard. They stand to make a fortune if everyone all of a sudden needs to plug a car or truck into their grid.
Hey there, fellow Rochesterian. Too bad the county declined to do that feasibility study on replacing RG&E with a public utility... That said, yeah, personally I would like an EV, but RG&E's push is somewhat off-putting, especially with the insane billing issues I, and many others [1], have had recently.
Norways. With no upgrades. The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate has a study showing the details. That’s assuming that most people charge at night. But that’s already happening. Setting up a modern EV to charge based on electricity prices is dead simple. And since electricity is more expensive when the load on the grid is highest, people wanting to charge their cars in the cheapest way will necessarily charge in a way that doesn’t overload the grid.
Norway does have a pretty strong grid. It has primarily used electricity for heating, with some wood but not much gas. People are transitioning to heat pumps and improving insulation as well so the load on the grid from heating is actually going down too.
Other countries may eventually need some grid upgrades. But how is that an insurmountable issue? The grid has been upgraded in response to increased demands many times before.
The same battery tech going into EVs is helping improve and stabilise the grid, and helping some people reduce their energy consumption from the grid to near zero with solar+battery storage. So seems like EVs help contribute to the exact kind of R&D needed to take some of the added load off the grid.
Keyword - averages. 50km a day is about 7kwh which is about 500w on average.
That said my basic calculation for New Zealand is additional 50% is needed. Probably easy peasy if we get over lobby given how much existing hydro we have and capacity for sun and wind.
Using Chinese offshore wind turbine costs my estimate was 1/3rd of some major railway project cost we are considering…
Consumer reports did a report showing Tesla had so many more recalls, but most of the recalls were just software updates that fixed driving software.
I'm much more concerned with not having my car breakdown, than random issues like not getting the charging range I expected or needing a software update, etc.
I don't find the brand by brand reliability ranking very useful when comparing vehicles that have a very different profile from the other's. I need more meaningful data to make a judgment on buying vs not buying.