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?

 

[Daemoch]

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

Darn close I'm thinking. The only other ones I can think of are on the subjects of range or maybe towing.....or both.

 

[E90400K]

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



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?

When you have to resort to calling me a troll, I know I've won the discussion.

Your problem is you are trying to apply data analytics (and incorrecty for that matter) to data that has already been analyzed and summarized.

 

[Driven5]

"Are you trolling?"

One should always look for the best in people.

Just because somebody denies the validity of any articles or studies that contradict their beliefs without first being provided (rather than finding for themselves) the supporting data while offering zero equivalent data to support their own arguments, distracts from the (provided) data supported study assertions by focusing on minor inconsistencies in the articles, and deflects the blame to other people when caught not comprehending the articles and study data for themselves, does not necessarily make them a troll... They might just be a fanatic*.


"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." -Winston Churchill

 

[Dorbiman]

When you have to resort to calling me a troll, I know I've won the discussion.

The funny part is thinking that there is a "win" condition for a discussion.

The extra funny part is knowing that others like me love ICE vehicles too, lol. Otherwise I wouldn't have a modded GTO

I just realize that there are inherent benefits unique to an EV. It's rare to find someone who argues in favor of added mechanical complexity in critical systems, especially in something that is intended to be a low cost, barebones daily driver vehicle.
__________

IF the Truck was offered with a similar hybrid drivetrain as the Maverick offers, at the price point they're alluding to currently, I could see it being popular. Or an EREV. I personally wouldn't be interested in it, but I definitely understand that others would be.

 

[E90400K]

The funny part is thinking that there is a "win" condition for a discussion.

The extra funny part is knowing that others like me love ICE vehicles too, lol. Otherwise I wouldn't have a modded GTO

I just realize that there are inherent benefits unique to an EV. It's rare to find someone who argues in favor of added mechanical complexity in critical systems, especially in something that is intended to be a low cost, barebones daily driver vehicle.
__________

IF the Truck was offered with a similar hybrid drivetrain as the Maverick offers, at the price point they're alluding to currently, I could see it being popular. Or an EREV. I personally wouldn't be interested in it, but I definitely understand that others would be.

When did I say there are not benefits unique to EV? I think I stated earlier in this thread that my first EV experience was in 1973 with a GE Electrak. All I have been discussing is the idea that EV are more reliable than ICEV because EV have "less moving parts" and therefore are a simpler machine. That is AZ's belief and opinion he has stated several times in various threads he and I have discussed that specific topic. My analysis of the ADAC report data presented herein this thread indicates the study does not validate AZ's claim that EV are more reliable than EV due to part quantity. I've never refuted the reports summary of 4.2 vs. 10.4 (I'm not sure what the unit of measure is however - it's not very clear).

The article that reports on the ADAC study and the data summary states that EV are less reliable tan ICEV related to the 12V battery 50% EV vs. 45% ICEV. Yet when I point out the data show ICEV drivetrain failure rate is 10% and EV are 18%, somehow EV are more reliable. AZ then tries to modify the data by some imaginative add-on of a second category for the "Generator, Starter, Electrical system, in an attempt to reinforce his contention that ICEV drivetrain complexity is less reliable than EV based on the data of the ADAC report. RE: "Some ICEV moving parts (starter, alternator) are counted in a separate category. Unfortunately they're bundled in with electrical system and lighting."

I found that amusing since AZ commented earlier that oil pumps take a smaller amount (or no amount) of drivetrain loading, maybe it is lost on him that starters take zero share of load from the drivetrain. Many brands of EV have difficulty maintaining the proper health of the 12V (low voltage) battery; Ford has a recall on this very problem with its Mach E. While EV have no turning alternator, it seems the industry's engineering practice is to design a 12V system that can't keep the low voltage battery properly charged, so the low voltage battery batteries fail, and in the case of the Mach E (and early Teslas) lock the driver out of the vehicle because the car has no manual cable-actuated door handle/locking mechanism.

Again, with tires, the article states EV are less reliable regarding tires, 13% EV vs 8% ICEV, yet EV drivetrain reliability is better than ICEV when ICEV breakdowns are just 10% vs. EV at 18%.

When I went to school, I learned 8% is less than 13%, 45% is less than 50%. I did not learn that 18% is less than 10%. Maybe you guys did.

 

[KevinRS]

When did I say there are not benefits unique to EV? I think I stated earlier in this thread that my first EV experience was in 1973 with a GE Electrak. All I have been discussing is the idea that EV are more reliable than ICEV because EV have "less moving parts" and therefore are a simpler machine. That is AZ's belief and opinion he has stated several times in various threads he and I have discussed that specific topic. My analysis of the ADAC report data presented herein this thread indicates the study does not validate AZ's claim that EV are more reliable than EV due to part quantity. I've never refuted the reports summary of 4.2 vs. 10.4 (I'm not sure what the unit of measure is however - it's not very clear).

The article that reports on the ADAC study and the data summary states that EV are less reliable tan ICEV related to the 12V battery 50% EV vs. 45% ICEV. Yet when I point out the data show ICEV drivetrain reliability is 10% and EV are 18%, somehow EV are more reliable. AZ then tries to modify the data by some imaginative add-on of a second category for the "Generator, Starter, Electrical system, in an attempt to reinforce his contention that ICEV drivetrain complexity is less reliable than EV based on the data of the ADAC report. RE: "Some ICEV moving parts (starter, alternator) are counted in a separate category. Unfortunately they're bundled in with electrical system and lighting."

I found that amusing since AZ commented earlier that oil pumps take a smaller amount (or no amount) of drivetrain loading, maybe it is lost on him that starters take zero share of load from the drivetrain. Many brands of EV have difficulty maintaining the proper health of the 12V (low voltage) battery; Ford has a recall on this very problem with its Mach E. While EV have no turning alternator, it seems the industry's engineering practice is to design a 12V system that can't keep the low voltage battery properly charged, so the low voltage battery batteries fail, and in the case of the Mach E (and early Teslas) lock the driver out of the vehicle because the car has no manual cable-actuated door handle/locking mechanism.

Again, with tires, the article states EV are less reliable regarding tires, 13% EV vs 8% ICEV, yet EV drivetrain reliability is better than ICEV when ICEV breakdowns are just 10% vs. EV at 18%.

When I went to school, I learned 8% is less than 13%, 45% is less than 50%. I did not learn that 18% is less than 10%. Maybe you guys did.

The issue here is those percentages are not reliability ratings. The percentages are a breakdown of calls that were taken.
Of EV calls, 18% were drivetrain related.
Of ICEV calls 10% were taken.
This does not indicate that EVs have more drivetrain calls than ICEV, because it does not take into account the total number of calls for each.
When ICEV have over twice the number of total calls per thousand vehicles, you have to do some calculations.

The 4.2 and 10.4 are the rate of calls per 1000 vehicles of each type, both looking only at 2020-2022 vehicles. So an EV was less than half as likely to have a call at all.

So, the EVs had 4.2 calls per thousand EV. Of those 4.2 calls, 18% were drivetrain related.
ICEV had 10.4 calls per thousand ICEV, and of those, 10% were drivetrain.
18% of 4.2 is 0.756 EV drivetrain breakdowns.
10% of 10.4 is 1.04 ICEV drivetrain breakdowns.

 

[AZFox]

18% of 4.2 is 0.756 EV drivetrain breakdowns.
10% of 10.4 is 1.04 ICEV drivetrain breakdowns.

And the 1.04 figure excludes starter and alternator breakdowns that are ICEV-only moving parts.