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.