If the Slate PU came only as an ICE, I would buy one.

[E90400K]

Providing a link doesn't obligate someone to deep-dive into the primary source of the data in an article.

Nevertheless, here you go:

Main breakdown causes for EVs in Germany in 2024:

• 12-volt battery: 50% (2.1)
• Motor, Motor management, high-voltage system: 18% (0.76)
• Tires: 13% (0.55)
• Generator, Starter, Electrical System, Lighting: 10% (0.42)
• Keys, Immobilizer: 3% (0.13)
• Other: 5% (0.21)

Main breakdown causes for combustion cars in Germany in 2024:

• 12-volt battery: 45% (2.57)
• Generator, Starter, Electrical System, Lighting: 23% (1.32)
• Motor, Motor management, high-voltage system: 10% (0.57)
• Tires: 8% (0.46)
• Keys, Immobilizer: 7% (0.4)
• Other: 7% (0.4)

Source:
InsideEVs: EVs Are Far Less Likely To Break Down Than ICE Vehicles: Study

The categories don't make sense. ICEVs don't have high-voltage systems and EVs don't have generators (presumably actually alternators).

There's a lot of make-and-model variation in both categories.

For ICE vehicles, the model with the highest breakdown rate is the Toyota C-HR, with 63.1 breakdowns per 1,000 vehicles. The best performing ICE vehicles are the MINI (0.3) and Audi A4 (0.4), ranked highest among the two-year-old vehicles.​

​

The best electric car was the Tesla Model 3 (0.5). The statistics also highlighted the breakdown susceptibility of the Hyundai IONIQ 5 (22.4) is due to problems with the integrated charging control unit (ICCU) and has already resulted in a recall by the Federal Motor Transport Authority.​

Source:
Energy Source & Distribution (Austrailia): Study shows EVs suffer fewer breakdowns than ICE vehicles

Interesting that the Big Stinker is a Toyota. 😮

Fortunately the Slate Truck is being made deliberately simple. That's reason for optimism.

So the simplistic EV electric drivetrain fails more often than complex ICE drivetrain; 18% to 10%.

 

[KevinRS]

Modern ICEV have even more going on electrically than EVs, they have multiple computers that control most of the mechanical bits, including fuel, transmission, emissions, etc. So the electronics of an EV aren't going to make it more vulnerable to failure than the ICEV. The ICEV has all that electronics on top of the thousands of parts that make up the engines and transmissions. Oil pumps, coolant pumps, transmission pumps, many valves, etc. gaskets, hoses, and on and on. Many points of failure.
Even for the more excessively built of the EVs, the parts that are critical to keep it running are relatively a handful of parts.

 

[KevinRS]

High voltage in combustion might be the ignition system?

So the simplistic EV electric drivetrain fails more often than complex ICE drivetrain; 18% to 10%.

No, that's not what it is saying.
Of all EV breakdowns drivetrain is 18%
Of all ICEV drivetrain is 10%

Overall out of 1000 EVs there were 4.2 breakdowns
Out of 1000 ICEV there were 10.4

You have to multiply those to get the number of drivetrain breakdowns.
18% of 4.2 is 0.756 drivetrain breakdowns per thousand EV
10% of 10.4 is 1.04 drivetrain breakdowns per thousand ICEV

 

[AZFox]

You have to multiply those to get the number of drivetrain breakdowns.
18% of 4.2 is 0.756 drivetrain breakdowns per thousand EV
10% of 10.4 is 1.04 drivetrain breakdowns per thousand ICEV

And EVs don't have generators or starters, so there's that.

Here's the important take-away:

The articles say that, for whatever reasons, the ICEVs need roadside breakdown assistance more than twice as frequently as the EVs by about the same proportions in both Germany and Britain.​

Advantage: EV

And it isn't close.

 

[E90400K]

High voltage in combustion might be the ignition system?



No, that's not what it is saying.
Of all EV breakdowns drivetrain is 18%
Of all ICEV drivetrain is 10%

Overall out of 1000 EVs there were 4.2 breakdowns
Out of 1000 ICEV there were 10.4

You have to multiply those to get the number of drivetrain breakdowns.
18% of 4.2 is 0.756 drivetrain breakdowns per thousand EV
10% of 10.4 is 1.04 drivetrain breakdowns per thousand ICEV

Well, then the data is presented nonsensically. Add the numbers in parentheses for EV and they equal 4.17 (I guess that number is rounded to 4.2?). Add the ICEV numbers and it equals 5.72. All of the ICEV numbers in parentheses reverse calculate to 5.7 not 10.4. Thinking there is a math error, double 5.7 and that equals 11.4, so that's not it. So, all I can conclude is either the percentages are "instances" (i.e. "percent of the time") or the data is FUBAR'd beyond all recognition.

Lol.

 

[E90400K]

Or is the missing 4.7 count hybrids, included as ICEV? Then how does that category break down between EV an ICEV systems/related components?

Like I said, FUBAR'd.

 

[GaRailroader]

Or is the missing 4.7 count hybrids, included as ICEV? Then how does that category break down between EV an ICEV systems/related components?

Like I said, FUBAR'd.

Dude. It is not our job to convince you that EVs are more reliable than ICEV. The data presented by multiple entities tells us that. Additionally, I have over 100k driving miles in EV’s that tells me that. There are many others on this forum who also report they have way better experience with EVs than they ever did with ICEV. Let’s just agree to disagree on this point of ICEV vs EV reliability. I promise you I will never buy another ICEV. Please promise me that you will never buy an EV.

 

[E90400K]

Dude. It is not our job to convince you that EVs are more reliable than ICEV. The data presented by multiple entities tells us that. Additionally, I have over 100k driving miles in EV’s that tells me that. There are many others on this forum who also report they have way better experience with EVs than they ever did with ICEV. Let’s just agree to disagree on this point of ICEV vs EV reliability. I promise you I will never buy another ICEV. Please promise me that you will never buy an EV.

So, let's start here. In 1973, my father bought a GE Electrak E-15 electric garden tractor (introduced to the market in 1969). I used that machine for 15 years maintaining our 2.5-acre property. It was a fantastic piece of equipment and so far advanced from ICE-powered lawn tractors offered at the time. It had a 36 DCV PTO that ran all sorts of GE Electrak ancillary equipment, even a small welder. The problem with the GE Electrak was it was double the price of ICE-powered equivalents, which is why it did not sell well, and GE got out of the market in 2024. So, I'd bet my experience with "EV" predates nearly everyone on this forum.

I currently own a 2006 ClubCar Precedent electric golfcart with a lift kit for my current 40-acre property. My use case for it fits better as an electric vs. the ICE version. So, I'm no stranger to electric vehicles, yeah, both are not road cars, I get that. But there is no need for you to try and convince me about anything EV.

Conversely, I delved into some electric yard equipment and the experience has been a joke. I bought a bundle from Snapper, an electric push mower, chainsaw, and handheld leaf blower. The bundle came with a battery charger and two Briggs and Stratton 82V 2.0AH batteries. Both batteries died within two years of use. Replacements are $180 each. I've search the internet on how to revive the two batteries, but none of the techniques have worked. I bought a single 4.0AH replacement, which is so heavy it unbalanced the leaf blower and makes the saw heavier than my 26-year old Jonsered chainsaw. Being I have a lot of property to maintain, I have a lot of ICE-powered small equipment. Electric powered equipment can't hold a candle to the performance and longevity of my ICE-powered tools. Some of my ICE-powered equipment dates back nearly 30 years and I've been running the piss out and beating the shit out of the equipment with zero engine failures.

On the other hand, my M12 Milwaukee hand powertools have been great and convenient, but some of my air-powered tools and corded electric tools are better depending on the use case.

So, when someone posts information in defense of his position that ICEV are more complex because they have more moving parts and thus less reliable than EV, I'll pull the thread on the data. So far, the data hasn't given a clear reason as to why more rotating parts means less reliability. I'm open minded to accept that EV may be more reliable than ICEV and perhaps in the long term they may be. Yet, I've driven over 1.6M miles in ICEV with most of my cars reaching 200,000 miles or more, one went 426,000 miles, still running perfectly when a recent flood totaled it. In 1.6M miles I've never had a failure of a rotating part ever. Twice I needed a tow home, both due to cooling system failures at very high mileages.

If my inquiry pisses you off, then that's your problem.

 

[Sparkie]

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point of ICEV vs EV reliability.

I'm like with your statement here.

I promise you I will never buy another ICEV. Please promise me that you will never buy an EV.

But not really liking your statement here.

 

[Sparkie]

Providing a link doesn't obligate someone to deep-dive into the primary source of the data in an article.

Nevertheless, here you go:

Main breakdown causes for EVs in Germany in 2024:

• 12-volt battery: 50% (2.1)
• Motor, Motor management, high-voltage system: 18% (0.76)
• Tires: 13% (0.55)
• Generator, Starter, Electrical System, Lighting: 10% (0.42)

.... </clipped>

@AZFox Thank you for your time researching this article and for analysis on this and many other postings.
This statement of yours in the middle is so very true.

The categories don't make sense. ICEVs don't have high-voltage systems and EVs don't have generators (presumably actually alternators).

There's a lot of make-and-model variation in both categories.

I think this statement is where the thread should end.
I simply don't believe it is logical to make tight comparisons between EVs and ICEVs -- especially for the next decade or so, or maybe forever.
Just as apples and oranges are fruit but not the same, these are personal transportation vehicles, but not really the same.

To all Slate Forum members following this thread:

When I started this thread, my intent was NOT a "zealous war" between ICEV and EV owners.

Today's cars (both EV and ICEV) are so overloaded and so expensive that buyers need a mortgage to get a new car. I am so excited by Slate's approach of selling us just a vehicle and nothing else we don't want that even if Slate decided to build their truck as an ICE (their own engine or from another maker), I would still buy a Slate.

This thread has lost sight of the most disruptive element Slate brings to the auto industry.
Just a truck -- nothing else.

 

[AZFox]

"The EV [powertrain] is the least interesting thing about it"
--Chris Barman

 

[KevinRS]

Well, then the data is presented nonsensically. Add the numbers in parentheses for EV and they equal 4.17 (I guess that number is rounded to 4.2?). Add the ICEV numbers and it equals 5.72. All of the ICEV numbers in parentheses reverse calculate to 5.7 not 10.4. Thinking there is a math error, double 5.7 and that equals 11.4, so that's not it. So, all I can conclude is either the percentages are "instances" (i.e. "percent of the time") or the data is FUBAR'd beyond all recognition.

Lol.

Not to try keeping this alive past when it should die, but the numbers in parentheses weren't in the article, so they might have been a math error in the reply.

 

[E90400K]

Not to try keeping this alive past when it should die, but the numbers in parentheses weren't in the article, so they might have been a math error in the reply.

Data integrity is necessary for good analysis.

 

[AZFox]

Not to try keeping this alive past when it should die, but the numbers in parentheses weren't in the article, so they might have been a math error in the reply.

Well, that's embarrassing. 🤦‍♂️
Somehow bork'd the ICEV calculations.
Ran the numbers twice before posting to be sure that wouldn't happen.
Ugh.
Anyhow, now corrected.

Main breakdown causes for EVs in Germany in 2024:

• 12-volt battery: 50% (2.1)
• Motor, Motor management, high-voltage system: 18% (0.76)
• Tires: 13% (0.55)
• Generator, Starter, Electrical System, Lighting: 10% (0.42)
• Keys, Immobilizer: 3% (0.13)
• Other: 5% (0.21)

Main breakdown causes for combustion cars in Germany in 2024:

• 12-volt battery: 45% (2.57) (4.68)
• Generator, Starter, Electrical System, Lighting: 23% (1.32) (2.39)
• Motor, Motor management, high-voltage system: 10% (0.57) (1.04)
• Tires: 8% (0.46) (0.83)
• Keys, Immobilizer: 7% (0.4) (0.73)
• Other: 7% (0.4) (0.73)

 

[E90400K]

Well, that's embarrassing. 🤦‍♂️
Somehow bork'd the ICEV calculations.
Ran the numbers twice before posting to be sure that wouldn't happen.
Ugh.
Anyhow, now corrected.

But you do realize 18% (EV "Motor, Motor Management, High Voltage System") is a larger number than 10% (ICEV "Engine/Transmission, Engine/Transmission Management, Fuel System").

Your premise has been in discussion with me, ICEV are more complex because they have more (rotating/moving) parts in the drivetrain, which makes ICEV less reliable. And you state EV are more reliable than ICEV because EV are simpler due to their lower number of (rotating/moving) parts.

Being 18% is larger than 10% the data from the study does not support your premise regarding simplicity of the EV drivetrain. The data do support my premise that although ICEV have more (rotating/moving) parts than EV, those parts don't fail (more often) and are not the source of a perceived greater rate failure of ICEV.