The Slow Death of the Internal Combustion Engine

[Taylor95]

Originally Posted by JSH

Tesloop’s Model S had the front drive unit replaced at 17,441 miles, the 1st battery at 194,237 miles, and the 2nd battery at 324,044 miles. Would you find that acceptable if you were a normal customer and you had to pay out-of-pocket for both packs? Would you even pay to replace a battery pack on a vehicle with 200K miles?

What if this was a BMW E-Class. Would it be acceptable to replace a transmission at 17,441, the engine at 194,237 miles, and another engine at 324,004 miles?


Yes, the cost to Tesloop was $0. That is because their business model was to take advantage of Tesla’s 8-year warranty and free supercharging to run an unlicensed shuttle service. Tesloop is not the typical EV customer.

Battery pack replacement is comparable to engine replacement in terms of cost.

When it comes to battery life, I think that 10 years or 150,000 miles is an optimistic lifespan. Remember that these will be used on cars, and subjected to all kinds of conditions. They will be operating in temperatures ranging from 0F to 100+F.

The new 35k Tesla announced has a range of 220 miles. Once the battery capacity is at 80% (the recommended time to get new batteries) the range would only be 176 miles. Who would want to drive a car that could only go 150 miles or so before it has to be charged again? With batteries that old, you also put yourself at risk of being stranded. My wife's phone battery (it is a few years old) spontaneously decided that it won't hold a charge anymore this morning. If that happened to a 10 year old Tesla, the cost would probably be like 6-8k. To put that in perspective, it would cost me about 1000 to fix my car engine (if I did it myself). 2500 if I had the shop do it. What I have a problem with is that batteries can't be fixed. They have to be replaced after a certain amount of time.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

Tesloop’s Model S had the front drive unit replaced at 17,441 miles, the 1st battery at 194,237 miles, and the 2nd battery at 324,044 miles. Would you find that acceptable if you were a normal customer and you had to pay out-of-pocket for both packs? Would you even pay to replace a battery pack on a vehicle with 200K miles?

I've said it elsewhere, but I don't care what the reliability is for a vehicle under warranty. I assume no financial responsibility.

What really matters is long-term reliability, which remains to be seen. Perhaps some improvements to pack design, OTA updates, or to the motor were made to make them more reliable. Perhaps not.

Besides all that, problems are part of any new model development cycle. The early Chevy Bolts had bad batteries, and an ECU update was made to proactively identify these bad packs.

Originally Posted by Taylor95

When it comes to battery life, I think that 10 years or 150,000 miles is an optimistic lifespan. Remember that these will be used on cars, and subjected to all kinds of conditions. They will be operating in temperatures ranging from 0F to 100+F.

These batteries are under warranty for exactly that many years and miles in CA. You think manufacturers designed batteries to probably not last the warranty period?

Even if they did, most people would be getting new batteries and going another 10 years and 150,000 miles, "optimistically" as you say.

Also, with the exception of Nissan, EV manufacturers are using active thermal management. The Bolt for example won't go below freezing because it has a battery heater, and won't go above some upper temperature because it has air conditioning for the battery.

You've already had it explained that batteries are now designed to last longer and degrade less, but you don't seem to be listening, or else your estimates are coming from alternative sources that you have selfishly kept to yourself.

The new 35k Tesla announced has a range of 220 miles. Once the battery capacity is at 80% (the recommended time to get new batteries) the range would only be 176 miles. Who would want to drive a car that could only go 150 miles or so before it has to be charged again?

You're talking a 15 year timeframe to get to that point, and I'd happily drive an EV with only 150 miles of range. In fact, I have no need for an EV to go more than about 100 miles because I don't intend to use it for long trips.

With batteries that old, you also put yourself at risk of being stranded. My wife's phone battery (it is a few years old) spontaneously decided that it won't hold a charge anymore this morning... What I have a problem with is that batteries can't be fixed. They have to be replaced after a certain amount of time.

You really think EVs will be stranding people at a higher rate than ICE? EV batteries show plenty of signs of degradation before dying completely. It's very rare. Phones are designed to last the typical 2 year contract anyhow, so manufacturers don't protect the battery like they do with EVs, and use different chemistries and depths of charge/discharge.

Some batteries are fixable. People replace bad cells in the Prius all the time. That said, who cares if the battery is dead in 20 years anyhow? As EVs become cheaper than ICE, their life cycles will also reduce as people will want to upgrade to current tech at an accelerated rate.

[oil pan 4]

The 40kwh leaf of 2018 and 2019 should do 150 miles.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

I was only thinking in the context of the United States.

Even in the United States, I'm sure the ICE won't be phased out so soon. No matter if it will remain driving the wheels or simply as a range-extender for an EV, the ability of resorting to an ICE to drive a generator and some random comfort features during a power shortage might remain appealing to many folks.

[Taylor95]

I suppose that 150 miles is sufficient for normal city driving. I will truly be impressed when they can equal the range of some trucks I know of (like 700+ miles on a 35 gallon tank). What will keep ICE appealing is the short fueling times and they are still better for long distance travel.

I did not know that you can repair batteries. I wonder if that is feasible to do yourself.

[oil pan 4]

The the cheap tesla is supposed to be able to do 220 miles.
The top level battery is supposed to do some where around 270 to 350 miles depending which car. A tesla fan boy can fill you in better than I can.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

What will keep ICE appealing is the short fueling times and they are still better for long distance travel.

.

Sounds like a great reason to develop hot-swappable batteries. Stations could have different models of batteries with a charging station for them. the station would check the condition of the battery on it, then you take that one off, put the one from your car in, it checks that one, and then you get a ticket to go pay for your the power available on that battery, plus or surcharge or credit for the difference in battery condition.

It still might be slower than filling a gas tank, but a lot less than waiting for a battery to charge.

[Piotrsko]

Im only qualified on volt pack. They are repairable to the module level, and with airtools and tranny jack can be swapped in about a 1/2 hour. Gm went crazy on the attachment fasteners.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

I suppose that 150 miles is sufficient for normal city driving. I will truly be impressed when they can equal the range of some trucks I know of (like 700+ miles on a 35 gallon tank). What will keep ICE appealing is the short fueling times and they are still better for long distance travel.

ICE may always (next 50 years anyhow) be better for long distance travel.

There's no reason to build an EV with a 700 mile range because it's dumb to pay for more battery than you need. It's the single largest expense, and one of the heaviest items on the car. You want to carry the smallest battery that gets 95% of the job done. Nobody drives for 700 miles straight anyhow.

The real money is in faster charging speed. If an EV can be charged relatively quickly, then it doesn't really matter what range it has. I mean, given equal charging capabilities, a car with shorter range will add miles of range at the same rate as a car with a higher range. However, larger batteries do tend to allow higher rates of charging, as the charge limit is based on a % of battery capacity.

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

Sounds like a great reason to develop hot-swappable batteries.

This will never be a thing. I certainly wouldn't be ok with a rando battery in my car with an unknown history. What if the pack degrades or fails at a faster rate than if you had kept the original battery?

Besides all that, the battery will be or is a stressed member of the chassis, and has cooling loops to connect. Every time you disconnect a battery, some of that coolant would leak out, potentially introduce air into the system, and increase the probability of future leaks.

Swapping batteries is not cheaper or more convenient than borrowing someone's ICE car. It solves no problems better than alternatives.

[JSH]

1. Who would want an EV with "only" 150 miles range?

I would. That is double the range of my current EV that works fine for 95% of my needs. (My Spark is good for 60 miles in the winter / 90 miles in the Summer and the range is down about 10% in 3 years) My question would be "Why should I pay more for range I will hardly every use?"

2. EV batteries are warrantied for 10 year / 150K miles:

No they aren't. Hybrid batteries in CARB states have a 10 year / 150K warranty because they are considered part of the emission system. There is no standard warranty for EV batteries.

GM is 8 years / 100K miles / 60% capacity.
Nissan is 8 years / 100K miles / 75% capacity
Tesla is 8 years / unlimited miles / no capacity guarantee

3. Battery Swapping:

No thanks. I charge at home or work. This takes no extra time out of my life. One of the great things about driving an EV is not having go someplace to "refill" the car.

Also if I owned my EV there is no way I would swap my battery for one with unknown history.