Electric car thinking

[brightncheerful]

Mrs Bnc and I are considering selling our petrol-fuelled cars (for which we'd get just under half what we paid 6 years ago) and buying a larger car, to also accommodate puppy to become, in due course, full-grown dog. With petrol engines i new cars to be phased out by 2030 and diesel impractical for short journeys (my previous car was diesel and ok for a mile of driving but the current version would I was advised require at least 3 miles of driving to avoid ruining the engine) we are thinking maybe we should think electric car and join the revolution.

Having totalled the number of miles that between us Mrs Bnc and I have driven in a year, I calculate, assuming a range of 250 miles on one charge of an electric car battery, we would need to charge the battery once a month. Which is not dissimilar to how often I fill up the tank in my current car with petrol, Mrs Bnc more likely fills up the tank in her car every couple of months.

Has any bright spark (excuse the pun) come up with a way to remove the petrol engine in an existing car and replace it with a battery-powered engine?

[JohnB]

There have been enthusiasts taking classic cars and putting in electric systems for years as a gimmick, but its all bespoke, for the novelty of having a BEV Morris Minor.

[bungeejumper]

Too many practical difficulties, I should think.

Your engine bay is laid out to cradle an ICE and a gearbox, and you'll have to find somewhere clever to put the batteries. Your dashboard controls will need to be junked and replaced with, errrm, whatever EVs have. Your heater won't work, so you'll need something else.

Perhaps most of all, you'll notice that the car doesn't handle properly. Even if you remove the heavy engine and replace it with equally heavy batteries, there will be different stresses on the suspension and steering. And you'll have paid - what? - fifteen grand for the privilege?

On a less ambitious level, people have always toyed with the idea of converting a petrol car to a diesel, and even there the technical challenge has generally proved too much to be worth the hassle.

It all adds up to another reason why I'm planning to keep my six year old petrol Toyota for as long as it lasts. In 2030 it'll be 16 years old, and probably still going strong, and the available electric vehicles will be cheap(er) and bug-free, and there'll be enough charging stations to go round, and life will be sweet.

BJ

[PhaseThree]

Mrs Bnc and I are considering selling our petrol-fuelled cars (for which we'd get just under half what we paid 6 years ago) and buying a larger car, to also accommodate puppy to become, in due course, full-grown dog. With petrol engines i new cars to be phased out by 2030 and diesel impractical for short journeys (my previous car was diesel and ok for a mile of driving but the current version would I was advised require at least 3 miles of driving to avoid ruining the engine) we are thinking maybe we should think electric car and join the revolution.

Having totalled the number of miles that between us Mrs Bnc and I have driven in a year, I calculate, assuming a range of 250 miles on one charge of an electric car battery, we would need to charge the battery once a month. Which is not dissimilar to how often I fill up the tank in my current car with petrol, Mrs Bnc more likely fills up the tank in her car every couple of months.

Has any bright spark (excuse the pun) come up with a way to remove the petrol engine in an existing car and replace it with a battery-powered engine?

There are a few companies around doing this in the UK - There was an interesting TV series on the subject that could be worth a look if you can find it on the catch up services.
https://www.mphfilm.com/vintage-voltage-tv/

The general problem is that batteries are expensive, heavy and large and the car really need to be built for them. Personally I'm holding onto to my combustion engined vehicles until battery technology has matured a bit more. There are a bunch of changes coming in the not too distant future that could change the market significantly. (Solid state batteries, Lithium metal batteries etc,etc)

[Watis]

Mrs Bnc and I are considering selling our petrol-fuelled cars (for which we'd get just under half what we paid 6 years ago) and buying a larger car, to also accommodate puppy to become, in due course, full-grown dog. With petrol engines i new cars to be phased out by 2030 and diesel impractical for short journeys (my previous car was diesel and ok for a mile of driving but the current version would I was advised require at least 3 miles of driving to avoid ruining the engine) we are thinking maybe we should think electric car and join the revolution.

Having totalled the number of miles that between us Mrs Bnc and I have driven in a year, I calculate, assuming a range of 250 miles on one charge of an electric car battery, we would need to charge the battery once a month. Which is not dissimilar to how often I fill up the tank in my current car with petrol, Mrs Bnc more likely fills up the tank in her car every couple of months.

Has any bright spark (excuse the pun) come up with a way to remove the petrol engine in an existing car and replace it with a battery-powered engine?

Hey BnC, is this what you have in mind?

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/pebble ... t-ps300000

HTH,

Watis

[bungeejumper]

Tesla's promised Model 2 will shake up the $25,000 four-seater bracket if it ever sees the light of day. And all the while, in China...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56178802

BJ

[AF62]

Has any bright spark (excuse the pun) come up with a way to remove the petrol engine in an existing car and replace it with a battery-powered engine?

There are a few companies around doing this in the UK - There was an interesting TV series on the subject that could be worth a look if you can find it on the catch up services.
https://www.mphfilm.com/vintage-voltage-tv/

I watched a few of the episodes and their general customer base seemed to be people with more money than sense, as the conversion costs were astronomical (£30-40k or more) and the resulting end product less practical than the starting point (usually very limited range because of the difficulty in fitting batteries in).

The general problem is that batteries are expensive, heavy and large and the car really need to be built for them.

Nissan did that with the Leaf and Renault with the Zoe, plus obviously Tesla, however many manufacturers just took an existing car and replaced the engine and fuel tank with a motor and batteries - VW with the e-Golf for example, and the result wasn't very good.

But now the manufacturers have realised that ICE is ending they are moving to dedicated platforms, VW for example with the ID.3 and ID.4.

assuming a range of 250 miles on one charge of an electric car battery, we would need to charge the battery once a month

With that little mileage surely almost in the region of using a taxi than owning a car. Mind you more than my next door neighbour who got his car out of the garage for its MOT last week and told me he had done 600 miles since the previous MOT.

[Watis]

assuming a range of 250 miles on one charge of an electric car battery, we would need to charge the battery once a month

With that little mileage surely almost in the region of using a taxi than owning a car. Mind you more than my next door neighbour who got his car out of the garage for its MOT last week and told me he had done 600 miles since the previous MOT.

I know of a car that, one year, did just six miles between MOTs. Around half of that was the return trip to the test centre!

Watis

[PhaseThree]

But now the manufacturers have realised that ICE is ending they are moving to dedicated platforms, VW for example with the ID.3 and ID.4.

Which to me clearly exposes the battery cost and weight problem. The ID.3 is supposed to be the Golf redesigned from the ground up to be an electric car. The base model ID.3 weighs 600kg more than the equivalent golf and costs £10k more to buy, all due the batteries.

[dspp]

But now the manufacturers have realised that ICE is ending they are moving to dedicated platforms, VW for example with the ID.3 and ID.4.

Which to me clearly exposes the battery cost and weight problem. The ID.3 is supposed to be the Golf redesigned from the ground up to be an electric car. The base model ID.3 weighs 600kg more than the equivalent golf and costs £10k more to buy, all due the batteries.

That's why VAG don't disclose the financials for their BEV efforts !

Mrs Bnc and I are considering selling our petrol-fuelled cars (for which we'd get just under half what we paid 6 years ago) and buying a larger car, to also accommodate puppy to become, in due course, full-grown dog.

Forget the re-engine approach.

Either buy a second-hand Nissan Leaf (good luck !) or keep what you've got and run it into the ground. As the dog gets bigger just fold the seats down.

regards, dspp

[AF62]

But now the manufacturers have realised that ICE is ending they are moving to dedicated platforms, VW for example with the ID.3 and ID.4.

Which to me clearly exposes the battery cost and weight problem. The ID.3 is supposed to be the Golf redesigned from the ground up to be an electric car. The base model ID.3 weighs 600kg more than the equivalent golf and costs £10k more to buy, all due the batteries.

The actual purchase price is irrelevant for lots of people wanting a new car; the monthly cost is what they look at.

For example a 3 year lease (which is effectively valuing the depreciation plus the cost of money tied up) on a petrol Golf is around £10k, a 3 year lease on an electric ID.3 is more expensive at around £11,500, so more expensive but not the same ratio as the £10k new price difference.

Then there is the issue the Golf will cost £3,500 in petrol over those 3 years at an average mileage of 8k and £450 road tax, whereas the ID.3 could cost as little as £250 if you actually pay to fuel it and zero road tax.

Thus over that three year period the '£10k more expensive' ID.3 save the owner over £2k over the 'cheaper' Golf. Yes of course that is all down to tax, but money is money.

And that saving is picking the ID.3 which is relatively highly priced on monthly payments because it is pretty new and also suffers from the VAG price bump, rather than some of the other EVs where the pricing is far lower and the savings even greater.

Then if you are company car driver even more tax savings - they could get a brand new Seat Mii with 8k miles with virtually zero fuel cost for just over £100 a month - the same as they would pay just for petrol!

As for the weight, not something an awful lot of people are interested in - just look at all the 'chunky' SUVs on the road.

[PhaseThree]

But now the manufacturers have realised that ICE is ending they are moving to dedicated platforms, VW for example with the ID.3 and ID.4.

Which to me clearly exposes the battery cost and weight problem. The ID.3 is supposed to be the Golf redesigned from the ground up to be an electric car. The base model ID.3 weighs 600kg more than the equivalent golf and costs £10k more to buy, all due the batteries.

The actual purchase price is irrelevant for lots of people wanting a new car; the monthly cost is what they look at.

For example a 3 year lease (which is effectively valuing the depreciation plus the cost of money tied up) on a petrol Golf is around £10k, a 3 year lease on an electric ID.3 is more expensive at around £11,500, so more expensive but not the same ratio as the £10k new price difference.

Then there is the issue the Golf will cost £3,500 in petrol over those 3 years at an average mileage of 8k and £450 road tax, whereas the ID.3 could cost as little as £250 if you actually pay to fuel it and zero road tax.

Thus over that three year period the '£10k more expensive' ID.3 save the owner over £2k over the 'cheaper' Golf. Yes of course that is all down to tax, but money is money.

And that saving is picking the ID.3 which is relatively highly priced on monthly payments because it is pretty new and also suffers from the VAG price bump, rather than some of the other EVs where the pricing is far lower and the savings even greater.

Then if you are company car driver even more tax savings - they could get a brand new Seat Mii with 8k miles with virtually zero fuel cost for just over £100 a month - the same as they would pay just for petrol!

As for the weight, not something an awful lot of people are interested in - just look at all the 'chunky' SUVs on the road.

All correct and entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

[AF62]

Which to me clearly exposes the battery cost and weight problem. The ID.3 is supposed to be the Golf redesigned from the ground up to be an electric car. The base model ID.3 weighs 600kg more than the equivalent golf and costs £10k more to buy, all due the batteries.

The actual purchase price is irrelevant for lots of people wanting a new car; the monthly cost is what they look at.

For example a 3 year lease (which is effectively valuing the depreciation plus the cost of money tied up) on a petrol Golf is around £10k, a 3 year lease on an electric ID.3 is more expensive at around £11,500, so more expensive but not the same ratio as the £10k new price difference.

Then there is the issue the Golf will cost £3,500 in petrol over those 3 years at an average mileage of 8k and £450 road tax, whereas the ID.3 could cost as little as £250 if you actually pay to fuel it and zero road tax.

Thus over that three year period the '£10k more expensive' ID.3 save the owner over £2k over the 'cheaper' Golf. Yes of course that is all down to tax, but money is money.

And that saving is picking the ID.3 which is relatively highly priced on monthly payments because it is pretty new and also suffers from the VAG price bump, rather than some of the other EVs where the pricing is far lower and the savings even greater.

Then if you are company car driver even more tax savings - they could get a brand new Seat Mii with 8k miles with virtually zero fuel cost for just over £100 a month - the same as they would pay just for petrol!

As for the weight, not something an awful lot of people are interested in - just look at all the 'chunky' SUVs on the road.

All correct and entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

You suggested the battery cost and the weight were problems. My point was those problems are irrelevant.

The weight is not a problem because buyers don't cares about the vehicle weight and purpose built EVs are now designed around the weight requirements.

The headline cost price is not a problem because nobody slaps down a handful of cash to buy a new car any more.

[marronier]

I'm thinking that electric cars sales won't take off until EVs are embraced by the commercial operators who will require greater range than presently available and a maximum speed of say 85 mph.

EV car manufacturers seem to be concentrating on high speeds and rapid acceleration at the expense of range , catering for a small market.

[JohnB]

You get rapid acceleration in an EV due to the torque profile of an electric motor, they don't particularly design for it. Most manufacturers have 3 or so modes from eco to sport, and I suspect most drivers stay in sport unless they are getting range anxiety.

The extra expense of early cars led them to be targeted at the luxury end, like Tesla, but the company is planning ever more affordable models. Small is hard though with the battery pack sizes though. The Up/Mii electric conversions really struggle to find space for it. You can get a 100 mile range electric car in China for $4000. Butt-ugly, but an ideal second city car.

I wonder if the leasing prices reflect the companies expectations of residual values in 3-4 years time. Perhaps by then few people will want a used petrol car, as the eco-net closes around them.

[AF62]

I'm thinking that electric cars sales won't take off until EVs are embraced by the commercial operators who will require greater range than presently available and a maximum speed of say 85 mph.

EV car manufacturers seem to be concentrating on high speeds and rapid acceleration at the expense of range , catering for a small market.

Not sure what you mean by "commercial operators", but turning to the two points -

- Lots of the newer EV cars have a range of 200 to 250 miles - what range do you think is needed for them to be acceptable?
- You seem to indicate that there is a demand for cars limited to 85mpg - really? What petrol cars are limited to that speed - I have done a 100mph in a Mk1 Ford Ka, although doing so was ...interesting. The fact you could exceed 85mph didn't stop Ford selling lots of them.

There are obviously the high profile EV producers like Tesla and Polestar who are selling their cars on speed and acceleration, although not at the expense of range, but I don't see Nissan (Leaf), Renault (Zoe), Hyundai (Ioniq & Kona), Kia (e-Nero), Honda (e), MG (ZS), VW (ID.3), BMW (i3), etc. selling their product on speed and acceleration.

I wonder if the leasing prices reflect the companies expectations of residual values in 3-4 years time. Perhaps by then few people will want a used petrol car, as the eco-net closes around them.

I think the leasing prices reflect there will be significantly more demand for used EVs in two or three years time as people take advantage of the running cost benefits, although obviously a significant increase in demand in EVs is not a significant decrease in demand for ICE due to the significant imbalance in the numbers of each on the road. i.e. ICE residuals won't change in the immediate future but EVs will be better than ICE.

I am just about to take delivery of an EV and have chosen to lease it because we seem to be at the start of a significant number of new and improved EVs coming to the market, and I am concerned that what might be 'cutting edge' now will look distinctly blunt to what will be available in two or three years time.

[Mike4]

The headline cost price is not a problem because nobody slaps down a handful of cash to buy a new car any more.

I wholly disagree. For anybody Foolish here (and there are still plenty), the headline price is a massive problem if not the main with electric cars.

However you dress it up, the person paying the headline price is the consumer.

[AF62]

The headline cost price is not a problem because nobody slaps down a handful of cash to buy a new car any more.

I wholly disagree. For anybody Foolish here (and there are still plenty), the headline price is a massive problem if not the main with electric cars.

However you dress it up, the person paying the headline price is the consumer.

But who is actually paying that headline price?

A deal I was looking at this evening was advertising a brand new electric car for £190 a month (with no deposit). Was anyone interested that the headline price of the car was £33k before the £3k grant. No. All they were interested in was the £190 a month and it would cost virtually nothing to run.

Is anyone going to be foolish and pay the headline price in cash to actually buy one. I seriously doubt it.

So where is the consumer paying that headline price?

[Mike4]

The headline cost price is not a problem because nobody slaps down a handful of cash to buy a new car any more.

I wholly disagree. For anybody Foolish here (and there are still plenty), the headline price is a massive problem if not the main with electric cars.

However you dress it up, the person paying the headline price is the consumer.

But who is actually paying that headline price?

A deal I was looking at this evening was advertising a brand new electric car for £190 a month (with no deposit). Was anyone interested that the headline price of the car was £33k before the £3k grant. No. All they were interested in was the £190 a month and it would cost virtually nothing to run.

Is anyone going to be foolish and pay the headline price in cash to actually buy one. I seriously doubt it.

So where is the consumer paying that headline price?

Honestly, can you not see that £190 a month is to rent it, not buy it?

If you disagree, can you confirm after three years of paying £190 a month, you own the car outright?

[AF62]

I wholly disagree. For anybody Foolish here (and there are still plenty), the headline price is a massive problem if not the main with electric cars.

However you dress it up, the person paying the headline price is the consumer.

But who is actually paying that headline price?

A deal I was looking at this evening was advertising a brand new electric car for £190 a month (with no deposit). Was anyone interested that the headline price of the car was £33k before the £3k grant. No. All they were interested in was the £190 a month and it would cost virtually nothing to run.

Is anyone going to be foolish and pay the headline price in cash to actually buy one. I seriously doubt it.

So where is the consumer paying that headline price?

Honestly, can you not see that £190 a month is to rent it, not buy it?

If you disagree, can you confirm after three years of paying £190 a month, you own the car outright?

Of course I can see that £190 is to use it.

The same as the difference in buying something for £x and selling it after 3 years for £y is the cost to use it.

People these days are not bothered about *owning* something but are concerned about *using* something.

People looking for a new car don’t want a car to keep forever but want another new one in 18 months, two years, three years at most. If “renting” provides a cheaper route to being able to use that new car then why not take it.