Thread: EV general discussion

Originally Posted by Xtreme

But I'd get more pleasure out of the Defender than a Tesla!

BTW, at present diesel prices ($2.20/l) it appears that you're only getting 13.6 l/100km from your Defender. Should be closer to 10 or 11 l/100 for a Td5.

Diesel this morning is 232.9 in Brisbane.

I worked on that price and 12 l/100.

Long term around town when light it will sometimes go below 12. I've seen 10.5 in the recent past but never less than that. Typically 11-12 which I think is pretty acceptable. It seems to use a little less when run on BP ultimate. Things that knock it around are headwinds, being covered in stuff for overlanding, air filters getting blocked.

On the highway coming back from the Simpson earlier in the week and it was averaging 13.7 due to winds. Crossing the simpson (twice) it averaged 14.5 which is very good IMHO.

I reckon 12 is a pretty reasonable average. I'm not at home today so can't look at the book, but we've logged the fuel usage for every tank since we got it. I looked the other day.. was $1 a litre in 2005.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

The Tesla passed 5000k while we were away from home. At current electricity prices (big price rise) we've spent $250 to charge it at home over that time. It's not been charged out of the home other than a couple of test charges.

The 98 we used to put in the Golf is currently sitting at $2.60 (gasp). So about $910 in fuel. So I reckon the tesla energy costs are between 1/4 and 1/3 of the Golf. At todays prices, the Defender would have used around $1500 for the same mileage.

One thing I can never seem to get my head around is people who say they buy an EV to save money or try and justify their purchase by saying such things - it just doesn't make any sense to me. Just running some quick numbers and say your in the market for a mid sized car - Model 3 Tesla fits the bill for an EV - Mid spec $72K and lets say a Mazda 6 for an ICE version - Mid spec $42K - I'll use these as I've driven both and for room etc and overall size they are similar - Mazda is slightly larger but close. Mazda is also better finshed and better appointed IMO. Let's say overall fuel use around 8L per 100KM - factory claims less than this but we know this is BS anyway.

For 5000KM of driving that's 400 litres or $900 at $2.25 a litre for 91.
$250 for the Tesla for the same KM.

So at that rate, you'll need to put 230,000KM on the Tesla to be ahead. Not sure on your yearly KM but at an average of 13,000 for Australians that's 17 years of driving. Take a bit off for servicing of the ICE etc but it's not way out by any stretch. Now I know a Mazda won't need a new engine or gearbox in 230,000KM or 17 years as we've had plenty of these in the family and at those KM they still drive perfectly. Jury is still out (and will be for years yet) on battery and EV longevity so who knows if the Tesla will still be on the road then.

Now, I'll make an assumption here - correct me if I'm wrong. You like driving fast and accelerating hard? Username of Captain Rightfoot, a Golf that takes 98 - so a TSI or similar? Owns a Tesla? If the answer is yes and you love driving it, then that is absolutely fine and personally what I'd lead with. 'I bought and drive a Tesla because I love driving it and it blows ICE vehicles into the weeds!' - No one could or would argue with that statement but please don't tell me how much you're saving by owning one - the numbers just don't add up and which way you try and spin them. As cheaper EV's hit the market - the MG4 is the closest yet I think to being a contender, then this may change and be a legitimate reason but a Tesla doesn't fall into that category. Drive it, love it, smirk every time you pass an ICE car, you don't need to justify you're choice.

Originally Posted by Homestar

One thing I can never seem to get my head around is people who say they buy an EV to save money or try and justify their purchase by saying such things - it just doesn't make any sense to me. Just running some quick numbers and say your in the market for a mid sized car - Model 3 Tesla fits the bill for an EV - Mid spec $72K and lets say a Mazda 6 for an ICE version - Mid spec $42K - I'll use these as I've driven both and for room etc and overall size they are similar - Mazda is slightly larger but close. Mazda is also better finshed and better appointed IMO. Let's say overall fuel use around 8L per 100KM - factory claims less than this but we know this is BS anyway.

For 5000KM of driving that's 400 litres or $900 at $2.25 a litre for 91.
$250 for the Tesla for the same KM.

So at that rate, you'll need to put 230,000KM on the Tesla to be ahead. Not sure on your yearly KM but at an average of 13,000 for Australians that's 17 years of driving. Take a bit off for servicing of the ICE etc but it's not way out by any stretch. Now I know a Mazda won't need a new engine or gearbox in 230,000KM or 17 years as we've had plenty of these in the family and at those KM they still drive perfectly. Jury is still out (and will be for years yet) on battery and EV longevity so who knows if the Tesla will still be on the road then.

Now, I'll make an assumption here - correct me if I'm wrong. You like driving fast and accelerating hard? Username of Captain Rightfoot, a Golf that takes 98 - so a TSI or similar? Owns a Tesla? If the answer is yes and you love driving it, then that is absolutely fine and personally what I'd lead with. 'I bought and drive a Tesla because I love driving it and it blows ICE vehicles into the weeds!' - No one could or would argue with that statement but please don't tell me how much you're saving by owning one - the numbers just don't add up and which way you try and spin them. As cheaper EV's hit the market - the MG4 is the closest yet I think to being a contender, then this may change and be a legitimate reason but a Tesla doesn't fall into that category. Drive it, love it, smirk every time you pass an ICE car, you don't need to justify you're choice.

The cost of cars can be a labor of SHHH? My 2005 Disco was. The 2010 with the replacement engine was as well.

I just read a sporty golf might cost more than a sporty version of MG4? Not suggesting quality is the same.

Servicing is not a bit of a cost or was not for my Disco(s)? The Landy Smile might be a bit like a EV smug mug grin

The Golf Golf GTI 6.4 seconds to 100KPH
The mg 4 performance ( not the one I am getting) "MG Confirms $59,990 Price for MG4 XPOWER Performance Flagship EV

" The MG 4 XPower electric hot hatch from China promises Holden Commodore or Ford Falcon V8-like power – and Tesla-like acceleration – for less than $60,000 before on-road costs.

Apples to apples the VW is slower and 20K more! "It is capable of a claimed 0-100km/h acceleration time of 3.8 seconds – faster than a $280,000 Porsche 911 Carrera, and a match for Australia's quickest hot hatch to date, the turbo-petrol $90,000 Audi RS3."

Audi Porche and VW cost more and slower? Running costs clearly lower or the MG4 as well. I think 5000km is cost me a lot less than the $250. I am sure it would be possible to pay more IF I could pay for Eletric Jesus super dupe not so fast chargers and only used them

None of above helps me tow my boat

Originally Posted by Homestar

One thing I can never seem to get my head around is people who say they buy an EV to save money or try and justify their purchase by saying such things - it just doesn't make any sense to me. Just running some quick numbers and say your in the market for a mid sized car - Model 3 Tesla fits the bill for an EV - Mid spec $72K and lets say a Mazda 6 for an ICE version - Mid spec $42K - I'll use these as I've driven both and for room etc and overall size they are similar - Mazda is slightly larger but close. Mazda is also better finshed and better appointed IMO. Let's say overall fuel use around 8L per 100KM - factory claims less than this but we know this is BS anyway.

For 5000KM of driving that's 400 litres or $900 at $2.25 a litre for 91.
$250 for the Tesla for the same KM.

So at that rate, you'll need to put 230,000KM on the Tesla to be ahead. Not sure on your yearly KM but at an average of 13,000 for Australians that's 17 years of driving. Take a bit off for servicing of the ICE etc but it's not way out by any stretch. Now I know a Mazda won't need a new engine or gearbox in 230,000KM or 17 years as we've had plenty of these in the family and at those KM they still drive perfectly. Jury is still out (and will be for years yet) on battery and EV longevity so who knows if the Tesla will still be on the road then.

Now, I'll make an assumption here - correct me if I'm wrong. You like driving fast and accelerating hard? Username of Captain Rightfoot, a Golf that takes 98 - so a TSI or similar? Owns a Tesla? If the answer is yes and you love driving it, then that is absolutely fine and personally what I'd lead with. 'I bought and drive a Tesla because I love driving it and it blows ICE vehicles into the weeds!' - No one could or would argue with that statement but please don't tell me how much you're saving by owning one - the numbers just don't add up and which way you try and spin them. As cheaper EV's hit the market - the MG4 is the closest yet I think to being a contender, then this may change and be a legitimate reason but a Tesla doesn't fall into that category. Drive it, love it, smirk every time you pass an ICE car, you don't need to justify you're choice.

I was mostly only offering it for interest for the people in the thread. I was surprised at the difference.

I actually bought it because it's a really nice car, and with the fbt concessions available it actually cost me about the same as a nice golf. Really good value. A lot of car (space) for the money. When we bought our golf it was 34 in 2016.. leather highline. Apparently the rough equivalent is now closer to 50. Cars are expensive.

Plus thank your deity of choice, not only is the energy significantly cheaper, but I'm not compelled to make a servicing donation to the dealer every year as well. Plus frankly the golf had such great repair costs in what was a new car that it actually wasn't really viable to run. Way to go VW.

Originally Posted by Homestar

One thing I can never seem to get my head around is people who say they buy an EV to save money or try and justify their purchase by saying such things - it just doesn't make any sense to me. Just running some quick numbers and say your in the market for a mid sized car - Model 3 Tesla fits the bill for an EV - Mid spec $72K and lets say a Mazda 6 for an ICE version - Mid spec $42K - I'll use these as I've driven both and for room etc and overall size they are similar - Mazda is slightly larger but close. Mazda is also better finshed and better appointed IMO. Let's say overall fuel use around 8L per 100KM - factory claims less than this but we know this is BS anyway.

For 5000KM of driving that's 400 litres or $900 at $2.25 a litre for 91.
$250 for the Tesla for the same KM.

So at that rate, you'll need to put 230,000KM on the Tesla to be ahead. Not sure on your yearly KM but at an average of 13,000 for Australians that's 17 years of driving. Take a bit off for servicing of the ICE etc but it's not way out by any stretch. Now I know a Mazda won't need a new engine or gearbox in 230,000KM or 17 years as we've had plenty of these in the family and at those KM they still drive perfectly. Jury is still out (and will be for years yet) on battery and EV longevity so who knows if the Tesla will still be on the road then.

I've read similar analyses purporting to prove that you can't amortise the additional cost of a diesel, where with a particular vehicle there's the choice of a diesel or a petrol. Or these days, a
pHEV vs a petrol. The argument is a complete furphy. You need to look at how much of the acquisition difference is there when you sell it - as an example, with the LC200s the diesels held their value so when you sold them you got back the initial price difference. And in the interim you got better economy and range. Ditto for, for example, the Sorento PHEV. And the indications are that BEVs, particularly Teslas, actually hold their value better than ICE vehicles:

Teslas Are Retaining Their Resale Value Despite Price-Cut Frenzy

There is a large volume of marketing speel from interested parties presented as facts about electric vehicles. Despite what you might read there is not even a global agreement that electric is the way to go. They will work for some and not for others

One problem with all these calculations about cost comparison is they have a habit of being produced for the interested parties and the base numbers tend to be selected to show a desired outcome. Nothing new there has been done by politicians and marketing people since the first day they emerged from the oceans and started to move on land

From my recent experience in a project I have been working on future values of electric vehicles are not known with any certainty. I have seen Tesla values for same vehicle miles and condition fluctuate by £10k in a week. The rest of them are the same so not just Tesla. One of the manufacturers was actually buying them up pre auction in an attempt to take supply out of the market to shore up values

Problem is that tax incentives makes them attractive for a new purchase. This drives new demand but the second hand market does not receive the same benefits and so a petrol or diesel makes far better economic sense to them

There is also the question of who will be the winners on the electric car market and who will pull out? No one wants a vehicle that the manufacturer no longer exists to support. I would not want to bet on who will still be here in 10 years. While perhaps not such a factor in new vehicle sales it is showing real evidence of impacting the used market. This then further impacts values

Tesla recent price reduction has really hits used values hard across the market. This is then impacting the leasing companies who booked a value based on what was already a difficult market. Their risk committees were already nervous. There are some big losses based on predicted values and new real market values when these vehicles come back from the user and have to be sold

Originally Posted by Arapiles

I've read similar analyses purporting to prove that you can't amortise the additional cost of a diesel, where with a particular vehicle there's the choice of a diesel or a petrol. Or these days, a
pHEV vs a petrol. The argument is a complete furphy. You need to look at how much of the acquisition difference is there when you sell it - as an example, with the LC200s the diesels held their value so when you sold them you got back the initial price difference. And in the interim you got better economy and range. Ditto for, for example, the Sorento PHEV. And the indications are that BEVs, particularly Teslas, actually hold their value better than ICE vehicles:

Teslas Are Retaining Their Resale Value Despite Price-Cut Frenzy

The Boss has an LC200 which is around 3 years old - top spec and immaculate. He was just offered $10K more than he paid for it - as a trade in for a 300. He declined. It was in for a scheduled service and the Sales Manager came out to see him when he picked it up.

Originally Posted by Homestar

The Boss has an LC200 which is around 3 years old - top spec and immaculate. He was just offered $10K more than he paid for it - as a trade in for a 300. He declined. It was in for a scheduled service and the Sales Manager came out to see him when he picked it up.

These are crazy times. Unprecedented. I wouldn't read too much into used values for the last few years.

When supply normalises resale will too.