Would you have an electric car if you had the money for a new car and were in the market for one?

[KungFooBob]

No, but I've seen two Lotus Eletres!

MG4...



Lotus Eletres...

[Count Steer]

Vauxhall/Opel are reviving the Frontera name as an all-electric SUV and it looks like.....


...all the others.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Light up door handles are a bit much.

[Horse]

I hate SUV's, it seems I'm the only one.

These were the relevant bits for the thread.

a 600bhp electric four-seat GT car in the vein of the Porsche Taycan, which is thought to be followed a year later by a Bentley Bentayga-style luxury SUV and then a large luxury saloon. All will share the firm's new – and bespoke – JEA platform, and are entirely unrelated to its current models.

So it looks like they're building a saloon just for you

[Supermofo]

Jaguar's new era begins in 2025 with the introduction of a 600bhp electric four-seat GT car in the vein of the Porsche Taycan, which is thought to be followed a year later by a Bentley Bentayga-style luxury SUV and then a large luxury saloon. All will share the firm's new – and bespoke – JEA platform, and are entirely unrelated to its current models.

This is part of the problem too. Euro manufacturers have jumped on the Tesla bandwagon and made a string of high end, high bhp luxo cars with huge price tags. Initially that worked due to incentives and company cars, now that's drying up the second hand market has fallen on it's arse. Taycans being available at a fraction of the new price.

China meanwhile have subsidised and produced a series of much more reasonably priced cars for normal people and are smashing it.

I think Harry's garage hit the nail on the head too when he said the average person would rather a 400 mile real world range and a 150 bhp over 600 bhp and a 250 mile real world range.

[Supermofo]

I hate SUV's, it seems I'm the only one.

Nope me too. Hate them with a passion. Especially as most of them are no bigger than a hatchback inside, just taller.

[Taipan]

I hate SUV's, it seems I'm the only one.

Nope me too. Hate them with a passion. Especially as most of them are no bigger than a hatchback inside, just taller.

Don't forget the super hi tech 4x4 drive systems that 95% of owners will never need or use!

[Mussels]

Jaguar's new era begins in 2025 with the introduction of a 600bhp electric four-seat GT car in the vein of the Porsche Taycan, which is thought to be followed a year later by a Bentley Bentayga-style luxury SUV and then a large luxury saloon. All will share the firm's new – and bespoke – JEA platform, and are entirely unrelated to its current models.

This is part of the problem too. Euro manufacturers have jumped on the Tesla bandwagon and made a string of high end, high bhp luxo cars with huge price tags. Initially that worked due to incentives and company cars, now that's drying up the second hand market has fallen on it's arse. Taycans being available at a fraction of the new price.

China meanwhile have subsidised and produced a series of much more reasonably priced cars for normal people and are smashing it.

I think Harry's garage hit the nail on the head too when he said the average person would rather a 400 mile real world range and a 150 bhp over 600 bhp and a 250 mile real world range.

If they put 150bhp in a battery car would the range be any better? Or do they use powerful motors because it makes little difference in the real world but will sell a few more.

[Mr. Dazzle]

That ^.

Long range batteries are big batteries, which can do big power.

It only takes ~25bhp to actually drive along at 70mph. A 150bhp motor making 25bhp is about as efficient as a 600bhp making 25bhp, there really is very little in it.

Whereas a 150bhp ICE making 25bhp is way more efficient than a 600bhp one doing it.

There would be some advantage to making a physically smaller 150bhp car, but so far that concept is not popular with buyers.

[Couchy]

BP winding down on EV infrastructure, article says concentrating on British market but as of beginning of this month they’ve canned their commercial installation department so that’s a bit of bollox. It’s no surprise as they make money from fossil fuels no matter how much they pretend otherwise.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- ... ces%20said.

Mercedes also stopping their EV only plans along with others. Personally I think a plug in hybrid works, all short journeys on electric with a petrol engine for longer stuff.

Dealers we talk too aren’t selling many EV and won’t take them in part ex.

Interesting times for the EV but doesn’t look good

[wheelnut]

BP winding down on EV infrastructure, article says concentrating on British market but as of beginning of this month they’ve canned their commercial installation department so that’s a bit of bollox. It’s no surprise as they make money from fossil fuels no matter how much they pretend otherwise.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- ... ces%20said.

Mercedes also stopping their EV only plans along with others. Personally I think a plug in hybrid works, all short journeys on electric with a petrol engine for longer stuff.

Dealers we talk too aren’t selling many EV and won’t take them in part ex.

Interesting times for the EV but doesn’t look good

I’ve felt that they’re the emperor’s new clothes for quite a while now. We’re going to pillage the earth a lot more to produce and transport millions of gigantic batteries than we would concentrating on making cars more fuel efficient.

Yes we need an alternative to ICE, but full electric, with current technology, isn’t a long term answer.

[Mr. Dazzle]

We’re going to pillage the earth a lot more to produce and transport millions of gigantic batteries than we would concentrating on making cars more fuel efficient.

Yes we need an alternative to ICE, but full electric, with current technology, isn’t a long term answer.

This seems like a weird argument when you consider that the biggest vehicles in the world were built with the express purpose of transporting fossil fuels. Indeed I've just done some fag packet sums, I used to burn 1.5 tonnes of diesel a year commuting to work...and that's just my car, that doesn't consider the fuel used to get that 1.5 tonnes of diesel to me in the first place.

"EV cars require us to dig things out of the ground to build them. Let's keep using the cars which run on stuff dug out of the ground"

Full electeic is also basically the only option on the table if we're to replace ICE. Barring some entirely new form of yet-to-be-invented tech, what else is there?

Don't say Hydrogen Any practical Hydrogen car is still going to be electric, Hydrogen ICE is a bone thrown to the people who want to keep the brum brums, mostly so manufacturers can charge more for the same performance.

[Count Steer]

Some of the (political) slow down seems to be strategic. There's a concern that the mad dash for EV was basically handing your balls to China and saying 'squeeze please Louise'.

Lithium isn't the biggest problem with Chile and Australia producing most but stuff like cobalt is. Although DR Congo has the stuff, the Chinese control the mines (they've quietly taken economic control of big chunks of Africa).

Manganese is another example.

So, sure, things will slow down until the big non-Chinese manufacturers get more security of the supply chain. It's just taken politicians a while to wake up to the consequences. The general trend still seems to lead to the inevitable triumphant re-rise of the milk float.

[Mussels]

We’re going to pillage the earth a lot more to produce and transport millions of gigantic batteries than we would concentrating on making cars more fuel efficient.

Yes we need an alternative to ICE, but full electric, with current technology, isn’t a long term answer.

This seems like a weird argument when you consider that the biggest vehicles in the world were built with the express purpose of transporting fossil fuels. Indeed I've just done some fag packet sums, I used to burn 1.5 tonnes of diesel a year commuting to work...and that's just my car, that doesn't consider the fuel used to get that 1.5 tonnes of diesel to me in the first place.

"EV cars require us to dig things out of the ground to build them. Let's keep using the cars which run on stuff dug out of the ground"

Full electeic is also basically the only option on the table if we're to replace ICE. Barring some entirely new form of yet-to-be-invented tech, what else is there?

Don't say Hydrogen Any practical Hydrogen car is still going to be electric, Hydrogen ICE is a bone thrown to the people who want to keep the brum brums, mostly so manufacturers can charge more for the same performance.

I don't think anyone is realy against electric, I'd be fine with one if they could sort out the fuel issue which hydrogen could do.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Well...

If you think EV infrastructure is bad

[Yambo]

Indeed I've just done some fag packet sums, I used to burn 1.5 tonnes of diesel a year commuting to work...and that's just my car, that doesn't consider the fuel used to get that 1.5 tonnes of diesel to me in the first place.

It would have been better for everyone if you and others got on a bus.

It's your (and most people's) selfishness that is the big problem with ICE engines - there are simply too many of them around.

[Saga Lout]

I think Harry's garage hit the nail on the head too when he said the average person would rather a 400 mile real world range and a 150 bhp over 600 bhp and a 250 mile real world range.

That's pretty much what I've got: 450 miles range and 165 bhp. Added advantages: I can "recharge" in 5 minutes and the range doesn't drop to 250 miles when the temperature drops below 0°C.

[Slenver]

That's pretty much what I've got: 450 miles range and 165 bhp. Added advantages: I can "recharge" in 5 minutes and the range doesn't drop to 250 miles when the temperature drops below 0°C.

Pros and cons though. Added advantages of our EV is 300bhp, endless torque, whisper quiet, can always leave the house on a full tank, and compared to a petrol car averaging 45mpg, we've spent exactly 1/6th the amount on 'fuel' so far.

Neither is 'best', they both excel at different things.

[Rockburner]

Indeed I've just done some fag packet sums, I used to burn 1.5 tonnes of diesel a year commuting to work...and that's just my car, that doesn't consider the fuel used to get that 1.5 tonnes of diesel to me in the first place.

It would have been better for everyone if you and others got on a bus.

It's your (and most people's) selfishness that is the big problem with ICE engines - there are simply too many of them around.

The problem with public transport is that it has completely failed to keep up with the demands for travel that modern life has created.

People like their freedom of choice, and public transport doesn't provide fully free-to-choose options for a lot of people: ie bus routes and timetables that don't support certain times and locations, or prices for unreliable services that score negatively when the "user" is looking at options.

It's "usable" for people who happen to live in large towns and work in the same town, or major city commuters who have compromised on their home-buying decision in order to live near a public transport route, which probably does accommodate the majority of users (if not the majority of the general public), but thanks to profiteering by privately owned companies: the "outlier" users have been almost completely ignored.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It seems nuts to me that public transport is so expensive.

How can it possibly be cheaper for me to buy a car, insure that car, maintain that car, fuel that car and then make my journey as a single occupant? But it is. It still never adds up for me.

Even more so with trains! I'm a big supporter of trains as a transport solution. But they're shit. I can't ever work out why they're unable to wipe their own face compared to personal cars and doubly so compared to air travel.