-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
So… Highland is out…
- Thread starter boombap
- Start date
Zilla91
Active Member
It's a trim option. If you don't like it you don't have to have it.
Amazing, isn't it? Giving the customer the choice to spec their car as they please?
We call that rip off…
I suppose my use of the word "efficiency" has a different meaning from yours....
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
If you are a "bit" player like BMW in the EV space, you can do this. Having all these options for people to pick from slows down production line speed (well documented by all the major manufs, this isn't supposition). Tesla is out to produce as many cars as they can, therefore options that have to be assembled on the line are reduced to a minimum.
Is that for everyone? Nope. But it makes sense from a manufacturing efficiency standpoint.
Oh, and to your jibe about Tesla being sued about overstating range - that is in the USA, and the lawsuit will fail miserably. Why? Because the EPA gives two options for range calculations (a 2 cycle test and a 5 cycle test). Tesla uses the 5 cycle test, which is more thorough, but generally gives longer numbers. The issue is that the EPA should have ONE test, but they don't.
Zilla91
Active Member
Pretty sure BMW has a bigger range of EVs than Tesla
Better value for money than FSD. Now that is a rip off.
page3
Member
What a ridiculous statement. Efficiency is pretty much top of everyone’s list, even if they only know it as “what’s the cheapest to run for the biggest range”.
Currently, legacy manufacturers are simply bunging in a huge battery to compensate for the inadequacies of their drivetrain. As the market matures, those like Tesla (along with the Koreans and Chinese) will ultimately win out.
I actually only care about efficiency because it affects range and I think all EV’s could do with more of that. And before someone comes along and says I cannot drive for 600 - 700 miles I can do in my Disco on a run, I don’t care. I can stop and eat where I want without it having to be tied to a charging location, I can tow for a good distance, etc.
If they could put in a big enough battery to offset worse efficiency I wouldn’t be all that bothered, I’ve driven a V12 in the past so I’m used a lack of efficiency. At the moment though mass market battery chemistry isn’t quite there so the only way to get good range is strong efficiency.
Not sure comparing a BMW iX to the Model 3 is quite accurate. It’s an SUV, it’s never going to match a saloon. More what does a Model Y / X do is a better comparison. BMW i4 is more a natural comparison to a Model 3.
I still think in theory the Fisker Ocean is interesting. It’s on the smaller size but has a rather large battery. Been bugger all reviews of it for the most part but even if that one does sucks, it shows you can put a large battery in a Model Y kind of priced car.
If they could put in a big enough battery to offset worse efficiency I wouldn’t be all that bothered, I’ve driven a V12 in the past so I’m used a lack of efficiency. At the moment though mass market battery chemistry isn’t quite there so the only way to get good range is strong efficiency.
Not sure comparing a BMW iX to the Model 3 is quite accurate. It’s an SUV, it’s never going to match a saloon. More what does a Model Y / X do is a better comparison. BMW i4 is more a natural comparison to a Model 3.
I still think in theory the Fisker Ocean is interesting. It’s on the smaller size but has a rather large battery. Been bugger all reviews of it for the most part but even if that one does sucks, it shows you can put a large battery in a Model Y kind of priced car.
How much more are you willing to pay? Or do you expect a bigger battery and 600-700 miles of range for the same price? Batteries are the most expensive component in an EV. Bigger batteries add weight and reduce efficiency. It seems Tesla has found that most mass market/production buyers want at least 280 miles of range but anything over 400 miles is more than people want to pay more for, it’s not rocket science.
Last edited:
I get it, not all can afford or want to pay for a car with a higher range. Not all can afford a car with more performance either but there are people that can, it’s called the premium end of the market.
They offered a Model S Plaid+ for order that had a wee bit more power but a good amount more range. They cancelled it but it had plenty of orders. It’s not as big a market but to deny it exists or that some won’t pay for it is completely wrong.
I dont know exactly how much more I’d pay but more for sure. Though Fisker I think proves it’s possible without having a massive price.
Battery efficiency will improve and pricing continues to drop. This might be a non-issue by 2030 - 2035 odd but for now it is.
pdk42
Active Member
When there are decent after market stalks available that are reasonably easy to fit then I’ll change my position.If I found I couldn't get on without them (and otherwise liked the car) I'd just fit 3rd party stalks
The list of alterations people make to their car is long! I don't consider myself into tinting windows, improvements to audio / cupholders etc, or adding go faster stripes (I am too old ... last time I di that was in the 70s) but I have after market mats in my boot, and PPF 'coz I reckon that's going to do a good job of looking after the paint
For me fitting stalks to cure an annoyance would be a simple choice.
12Pack
Member
The only ones who don’t give a toss about Whr/mi are the idiots who also don’t care about making massive SUVs to carry massive batteries in the name of saving the planet. Where’s that ignore button….No one gives a toss about wh/mi, they care about range and how quick they can charge up. Anything else is a figment of your imagination.
Edit: Also aren't Tesla being investigated for overrating their range?
Efficiency is not top of my list - comfort and refinement are more important to me. I’d sacrifice a fair bit of efficiency for more soundproofing and whatever else it takes to improve refinement. My M3P is horribly noisy at motorway speeds.
That's your preference and some people share it, but others don't. The problem with Zilla91's statement (and this follows others they've made previously) is they conflate their own subjective opinion with that of "everybody else". "No one gives a toss about wh/mi" was what caused a disagree by me and some others, because that's factually incorrect.
Efficiency is on top of my list. If I had wanted a comfortable car, I would have gone for a different one.
A hallmark of all forums. Lots of people think their views must be "right" and apply to most everyone, me, me, me. I don't know how many threads I've starting asking what others think the consensus answer is to a question, only to get what an individual thinks...
This is very true, though in my case I am always right apart from when my wife is involved
Obviously to say no one cares about efficiency is plain wrong. If you had two absolutely identical cars in all ways other than one was 25% per efficient, we’d all buy the more efficient one.
I care about it but I care about range more. They kind of go hand in hand when batteries are expensive and they don’t put out larger batteries cars but I don’t believe it’ll always be this way. If it costs £2,000 more for another 10kWh say then that might put people off. What if it was £200 or £100 to add it though?
I plan or at least hope to build a house in a few years. When I think about this, I could go for a passive house design which is expensive but very energy efficient. On the other hand I wonder if you go for a more regular build but just slap way more solar on the house + battery backup. Does it matter if the second house uses more energy if it’s all mostly coming from the sun? I feel this is the American muscle car approach to house building
For people that charge their cars from solar. Does it matter so much if it needs a few more sun rays than another car to go the same distance if you ultimarely have them available?
Similar threads
- Article
