VW ID.4 Revealed - Reservations Open

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

It would be fast enough for me, and limiting power draw to 1/2 or 1/3 the other versions you would ultimately get more range as well.

Electric motors have a fairly flat efficiency curve unlike ICE. There's practically no difference in efficiency with regards to how powerful it is. It's not like in an ICE where having an extra 2L and 4 cylinders of displacement causes the car to become very inefficient.

[Hersbird]

But drawing 100hp takes half the amperage of 200hp. You will save battery the same way as if you were forced to only use 1/2 the accelerator.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

But drawing 100hp takes half the amperage of 200hp. You will save battery the same way as if you were forced to only use 1/2 the accelerator.

The amount of energy required to accelerate to a given speed is the same regardless of how quickly you get there. There's practically no difference in efficiency (especially in an EV) getting up to 60 MPH in 3s vs 10s.

There's a reason why EVs are tilted towards being quick; and that's because the only downside is a marginal increase in cost, size, and weight for a more powerful motor. It hardly affects range at all.

In fact, Tesla's first performance version of the Model S was more efficient than the slower single motor version because it utilized a highly efficient "cruise" motor, and only used the inefficient "acceleration" motor when the extra power was needed.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

But drawing 100hp takes half the amperage of 200hp. You will save battery the same way as if you were forced to only use 1/2 the accelerator.

It is nice to have the option for faster acceleration even if it is rarely used. As Redpoint says there is very little extra cost and no efficiency lost by installing a larger motor. The lesson automakers have learned from looking at US EV sales is that low power EVs don’t sell

If you want a FWD EV CUV the Nissan Ariya is the vehicle for you.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by JSH

It is nice to have the option for faster acceleration even if it is rarely used. As Redpoint says there is very little extra cost and no efficiency lost by installing a larger motor. The lesson automakers have learned from looking at US EV sales is that low power EVs don’t sell

If you want a FWD EV CUV the Nissan Ariya is the vehicle for you.

Why would I want a $40,000 Nissan FWD EV when I could have a $40,000 VW AWD EV? The problem is $40,000 is just too much IMO for any car, truck, SUV, crossover, whatever.

[freebeard]

That's like two Arcimoto Evergreens.

[redpoint5]

Yep, agreed. Most I've spent on a vehicle is $17k despite my above average means to "afford" more. I'd consider spending $20k on a nice used EV, or a basic new one.

I have to admit though that the ugly CyberTruck look has grown on me, and I've got wild fantasies of crawling up overgrown logging roads and not caring about scratching the paint as I find the prime camping spots for my hopefully expanding family to enjoy. $40k though, ouch! I'd spend the $10k more to get AWD, more range, and more towing capacity though.

[freebeard]

I want a CyberFUV. With lasers!

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The amount of energy required to accelerate to a given speed is the same regardless of how quickly you get there. There's practically no difference in efficiency (especially in an EV) getting up to 60 MPH in 3s vs 10s.

There's a reason why EVs are tilted towards being quick; and that's because the only downside is a marginal increase in cost, size, and weight for a more powerful motor. It hardly affects range at all.

In fact, Tesla's first performance version of the Model S was more efficient than the slower single motor version because it utilized a highly efficient "cruise" motor, and only used the inefficient "acceleration" motor when the extra power was needed.

I agree it takes a specific amount of energy to accelerate a specific mass to a specific speed, but wouldn't doing it slowly be covering a greater distance using the same amount of energy? Also the longer you are at the higher speed the longer you have greater aero drag?

Lets say I have to go 3000 feet in between starts and stops and get up to 40 MPH. I could get up to 40 MPH in a couple seconds and in 100 feet, then travel 2900 feet at 40 mph, or take 5 times the distance to accelerate, 500 feet, and then go 2500 feet at 40 mph. Actually you should start coasting for that stop probably a good 500 feet before the stop but that is the same for either car. Also the lights in our town seem timed better for the slower acceleration. Going like a bat outta hell just buys you a complete stop at the next light, where the Geo metro pace lets you roll 3-4 in a row. The problem is everyone finds the acceleration of an EV fun, so they blow a bunch of energy and wear their tires out very quickly.

Low power EVs don't sell because they are still expensive. If you are spending $40,000 you want to accelerate like a $40,000 455 hp Camaro. If they were $15,000 you wouldn't care if they accelerated like a $15,000 Versa.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Why would I want a $40,000 Nissan FWD EV when I could have a $40,000 VW AWD EV? The problem is $40,000 is just too much IMO for any car, truck, SUV, crossover, whatever.

A $40,000 EV is really a $30,000 in Oregon. To me that compares favorably when gas CUVs start at $25,000. The EV will be cheaper long term.