Want to charge an EV? How much will it cost?

[Jimmy N.]

Great. Another 700lbs of fuel would be grand to cart around on a road course.

AND, Not stopping for 4-6 hours? BULLSHIT, unless you are monitoring your fluid intake & release scientifically, can empty that bladder 100% every time and have a on/off switch on those kidneys. Some of us know a lot about that.

Luckily the fuel I use is nowhere near that heavy. Besides, there's no law against not filling the tank to capacity.

Before leaving and while on a trip I don't eat or drink anything, so driving for 12 to 14 hours without stopping is no big deal. It's having to stop for fuel before I need to stop that sucks.

That's why I like vehicles with large capacity fuel tanks...and could never have an EV.

 

[Bobo]

50? The expected (per the marketing people, so take with a grain of salt) is 10 years. We've all heard of EVs that have already needed battery slab replacement so 50 years? No way. Not to mention, is your charger inside your attached garage? The manufacturers are telling you not to park an EV in an enclosed garage, so now it's outside and you know what effect cold has on batteries. And if it's outside, is your charging station on a post in your driveway? Or do you have an extension cord running out to it.

View attachment 174422

Exactly my point, 10 years would be a good life out of one. I just look at how fast the batteries on all my 20V tools start to deteriorate and know that there are plenty of ICE powered lawnmowers and other equipment as well as cars that lasts many decades with normal care. Hell, a lot of cars are over 75 years old and many into the 100s

 

[1971demon]

About finding a station with e85.

Ohhhh...well I guess it's gotta be hard seein anything with that melon on yer head....(ok ok...I promise no more melon head jokes)

 

[Bowtie Guy]

@ my age...I make it a point to stay hydrated...(something I failed to do in my earlier years)..and I piss before dinner...(never during)

Me too !!!

 

[BigSwede]

-It's the 170kwh ...range when fully charged,,, 400 miles....11 kwh...those are the facts,,,now move on

So you’re changing the bar now. You initially said 440 miles and now you’ve dropped down to 400 and you’re saying “facts” at the end of each post. Your facts are changing to support your initial incorrect statement. I’ll leave it here but it’s not even debatable that you’re wrong even by using your own new figures.

Silverado EV...440 mile range...17 bucks and change...

So let’s go with the unlikely charge rate you claim at 11 kWh and the new 400 miles range. That is $36 or slightly over double what you initially claimed.

The Silverado EV with a 170 kWh battery has an EPA-estimated range of up to 408 miles max in its base work truck form, but this can drop to 390 miles if equipped with the options.

Real-world tests show an even lower range, with one test projecting about 340 miles in cold weather conditions, and another testing a similar truck achieving 310 miles on the highway.

 

[Jimmy N.]

Real-world tests show an even lower range, with one test projecting about 340 miles in cold weather conditions, and another testing a similar truck achieving 310 miles on the highway.

I'd love to perform a controlled test of one in my environment.

Let's say its an ideal (for the car) 70 degrees. I don't use A/C and certainly wouldn't need the heater so that's not a factor. All we have here is 2-lane highways so that puts it at 310 miles, supposedly. Let's also say that I would keep it under 70 mph, and not pass anybody, unrealistic as it may be.

Now, to be nice to the car, I'll go south from here since it involves the least change in elevation, only about 2,500 feet in about 100 miles, and since it's downhill it'll be happy. But then I want to get back home again.

That should leave me with some 210 miles to go, which isn't an issue in a best case scenario on paper, but if we take cumulative elevation changes into account it would be. And since there are no charging stations along the way...

Having tested vehicles for a living (no EVs, thank God) I have a fair idea of how the manufacturer's claims compare to real life usage.

 

[BigSwede]

I'd love to perform a controlled test of one in my environment.

Let's say its an ideal (for the car) 70 degrees. I don't use A/C and certainly wouldn't need the heater so that's not a factor. All we have here is 2-lane highways so that puts it at 310 miles, supposedly. Let's also say that I would keep it under 70 mph, and not pass anybody, unrealistic as it may be.

Now, to be nice to the car, I'll go south from here since it involves the least change in elevation, only about 2,500 feet in about 100 miles, and since it's downhill it'll be happy. But then I want to get back home again.

That should leave me with some 210 miles to go, which isn't an issue in a best case scenario on paper, but if we take cumulative elevation changes into account it would be. And since there are no charging stations along the way...

Having tested vehicles for a living (no EVs, thank God) I have a fair idea of how the manufacturer's claims compare to real life usage.

I remember reading an article years ago about how the EPA tests the cars and the cars are put on a dyno and you watch a screen and you have to keep a red ball in between the two lines on the screen. Too much throttle and you go above the top line. Not enough and you go below the bottom line and if either happens the test needs to be rerun.

The journalists that tried it couldn’t even keep the ball between the two lines because it required that gentle of pedal control. That told me that the numbers are pretty unrealistic to maintain.

What people don’t realize is the EPA tests less than 15% of all cars and relies on the manufacturers numbers. They just make the penalties really severe so the manufacturers won’t lie. Certainly a few have been caught though.

 

[Jimmy N.]

Yep. And why take such obscure factors such as wind resistance into account?

Makes believing in what our Lie-O-Meters claim for mpg seem quite reasonable in comparison.

 

[1971demon]

So you’re changing the bar now. You initially said 440 miles and now you’ve dropped down to 400 and you’re saying “facts” at the end of each post. Your facts are changing to support your initial incorrect statement. I’ll leave it here but it’s not even debatable that you’re wrong even by using your own new figures.


So let’s go with the unlikely charge rate you claim at 11 kWh and the new 400 miles range. That is $36 or slightly over double what you initially claimed.

The Silverado EV with a 170 kWh battery has an EPA-estimated range of up to 408 miles max in its base work truck form, but this can drop to 390 miles if equipped with the options.

Real-world tests show an even lower range, with one test projecting about 340 miles in cold weather conditions, and another testing a similar truck achieving 310 miles on the highway.

440 408 400.who cares...what's the difference..now yer splittin hairs...an unlikely alleged charge rate you say...I'm really not concerned with any of this nonsense....his new EV Silverado costs less than half what his Ice ram did for a 400 mile range.now if you wanna waste yer time reducing everything to fractions...have at it..end of discussion

 

[1971demon]

Yep. And why take such obscure factors such as wind resistance into account?

Makes believing in what our Lie-O-Meters claim for mpg seem quite reasonable in comparison.

On scale of 1 to 500 things I'm concerned with on a daily basis none of this shit is on the list...guys like Big Sweede really need a hobby,,

 

[1971demon]

Me too !!!

BEER DONT COUNT..