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

[Driven5]

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")...

...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.

1,040 of every 100k registered ICE required roadside assistance, and of those 104 were powertrain related.

417 of every 100k registered EV required roadside assistance, and of those 76 were powertrain related.

104 may be a lower percentage of 1,040 than 76 is of 417, but 104 is (37%) more than 76.

 

[Daemoch]

Oh, FFS folks, get off the ICE/EV argument already!
Here, since you all clearly need a room to get this worked out:
https://www.slateforums.com/forum/threads/evs-are-more-reliable-than-icevs-go.13571/

 

[Daemoch]

Back to OP -
I'm buying it for the DIY. If they offered an ICE option too, I might get both and play with swapping them. Since they don't, I expect I'll make my own ICE swap just to do it (and incase Slate isnt so cold weather friendly).

 

[AZFox]

104 may be a lower percentage of 1,040 than 76 is of 417, but 104 is (37%) more than 76.

And that percentage is misleading on the low side.

Some ICEV moving parts (starter, alternator) are counted in a separate category. Unfortunately they're bundled in with electrical system and lighting.

What happens if we include the other category and compare?

ICEV breakdowns: 10+23=33 ; .33x10.4x1000=3,432
EV breakdowns: 18+10=28 ; .28x4.2x1000=1,176

Ouch. That's roughly triple.

That's also misleading, also on the low side, because it includes parts the two have in common.

It's patently obvious that ICEVs' vastly higher number of moving parts contribute to ICEVs' higher requirement for roadside assistance.

 

[E90400K]

1,040 of every 100k registered ICE required roadside assistance, and of those 104 were powertrain related.

417 of every 100k registered EV required roadside assistance, and of those 76 were powertrain related.

104 may be a lower percentage of 1,040 than 76 is of 417, but 104 is (37%) more than 76.

In post #108 Garailroader said, pointinting out:

"Actually the article indicated that tires were the only category that ICEV surpassed EV in reliability.
- Tires are the only category where electric car face more breakdowns than combustion vehicles."

AZfox's data show EV tire failures at:
13% (.55) 55 [*when you multiply by 100]

And ICEV tire failures at:
8% (.83) 83*

Clearly the article was referring to the percentages of failures rather than the count (i.e. the number in parentheses).

Yet...

AZfox's data show EV drivetrain (i.e. parts that rotate to apply power to the drive wheels) failure rate at:
18% (.76) 76*

And ICEV failures at:
10% (1.04) 104*

Where he concludes ICEV drivetrains are less reliable; 76 vs. 104 (due to their higher complexity and higher part quantity).

His logic is called "trying to have it both ways".

 

[GaRailroader]

The thread that wouldn’t die. Is this the longest thread we have had thus far?

 

[AZFox]

In post #108 Garailroader said, pointinting out:

"Actually the article indicated that tires were the only category that ICEV surpassed EV in reliability.
- Tires are the only category where electric car face more breakdowns than combustion vehicles."

@GaRailroader merely quoted one of the three main bullet points from the top of the article.

AZfox's data show EV drivetrain (i.e. parts that rotate to apply power to the drive wheels) failure rate at:
18% (.76) 76*

And ICEV failures at:
10% (1.04) 104*

Where he concludes ICEV drivetrains are less reliable; 76 vs. 104 (due to their higher complexity and higher part quantity).

His logic is called "trying to have it both ways".

The article says EVs break down and need roadside assistance less than half as frequently (4.2 vs 10.4). That's the main point.

My logic is rock-solid. My calculator skills?... not so much. 🙂

If it somehow looks like I'm "trying to have something both ways", I'm willing to stand corrected.

It's blatantly obvious that ICEVs' vastly higher number of moving parts cause ICEVs to require more frequent roadside assistance.

All of this begs a question for you, @E90400K (aside from the increasingly obvious "Are you trolling?" question):

If it's not ICEVs' vastly higher number of rotating/moving parts causing more ICEV breakdowns, how do you account for ICEVs breaking down six times more frequently compared to EVs when you disregard the 12v battery and tire issues ICEVs and EVs have in common?