You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[PigsDad]

Here is one of the big reasons (fire hazard) why many people will not own an ev, imo. It would be disingenuous to think this isn't an issue.

[video removed]

In the video you posted (@6:50 into the video), it stated the probability of an ICE vehicle catching fire was over 3X of an EV catching fire). Others have posted anywhere from 25-50X difference.

So I'll turn this around:

Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that has been proven to be much more likely to catch on fire?

Kurt

 

[davidvel]

In the video you posted (@6:50 into the video), it stated the probability of an ICE vehicle catching fire was over 3X of an EV catching fire). Others have posted anywhere from 25-50X difference.

So I'll turn this around:

Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that has been proven to be much more likely to catch on fire?

Kurt

Probably because neither is actually very prone to catch fire. But I digress . . .

 

[dagger1]

In the video you posted (@6:50 into the video), it stated the probability of an ICE vehicle catching fire was over 3X of an EV catching fire). Others have posted anywhere from 25-50X difference.

So I'll turn this around:

Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that has been proven to be much more likely to catch on fire?

Kurt

Because I like Honda Minivans and GMC Pickups. I have known for over 60 years that vehicles can catch fire. I’ve seen movies made in the forties showing huge car fires.
I also don’t hate EV’s, I owned one. I don’t want one. I love my electric golf cart. I also don’t hate ICEV’s either. I would like to be allowed to buy both. My concern is that my ability to choose which vehicle I want to buy is going to go away.

 

[easyrider]

In the video you posted (@6:50 into the video), it stated the probability of an ICE vehicle catching fire was over 3X of an EV catching fire). Others have posted anywhere from 25-50X difference.

So I'll turn this around:

Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that has been proven to be much more likely to catch on fire?

Kurt

Probably because of what is seen on the regular network news. They always show ev fires but I have never seen a newscast of a regular car catching fire. I know regular cars catch on fire because my company worked on that type of damage.

Bill

 

[PigsDad]

Because I like Honda Minivans and GMC Pickups. I have known for over 60 years that vehicles can catch fire. I’ve seen movies made in the forties showing huge car fires.
I also don’t hate EV’s, I owned one. I don’t want one. I love my electric golf cart. I also don’t hate ICEV’s either. I would like to be allowed to buy both. My concern is that my ability to choose which vehicle I want to buy is going to go away.

My post and question was in response to @easyrider's post where he stated that one of the big reasons many people will not own an EV is because of the fire hazard, but simple facts prove that is not a valid reason -- in fact, if one is worried about their vehicle catching fire, they should be more worried about owning an ICE vehicle.

I never have claimed that there are not other reasons to prefer other vehicles, as you have listed some that are pertinent to you. I think that is perfectly fine. I just wanted to clarify that the fear of it being a fire hazard is not valid.

Kurt

 

[Passepartout]

When comparing the price per unit of gasoline, you have to look at how much of the price is embedded taxes EU tends to have very large taxes per unit compared to the US.

Here is a link to information on such taxes.

Gas Taxes in Europe

The Netherlands has the highest gas tax in the European Union, at €0.82 per liter ($3.69 per gallon). See fuel tax rates and compare gas taxes in Europe.

taxfoundation.org

All EU countries add a VAT on top of the excise tax, so the tax amount at the pump is even higher.

We are in Iceland right now. Gasoline (petrol) is the equivalent of $8.35 per gallon. Teslas are very popular. Distances are short and chargers are plentiful. That said, I've seen LOTS of full size American pickups pulling RVs! Seems kinda nutty to me.

Jim

 

[PigsDad]

I would like to be allowed to buy both. My concern is that my ability to choose which vehicle I want to buy is going to go away.

My grandfather really liked using DDT around the yard, because it was great at controlling mosquitos. His ability to choose which insecticide he wanted to buy went away. Are you opposed to the decision that the government made to ban DDT in 1972?

ICE vehicles pollute our air more than EVs, and yes, despite what the anti-EV people and sites claim, they are overall more environmentally-friendly including the manufacture and use over their lifetime.

There are parallels that can be drawn here. Sometimes choices get taken away because society decides it is better in the long run, and we just have to deal with it.

Kurt

 

[dagger1]

My post and question was in response to @easyrider's post where he stated that one of the big reasons many people will not own an EV is because of the fire hazard, but simple facts prove that is not a valid reason -- in fact, if one is worried about their vehicle catching fire, the should be more worried about owning an ICE vehicle.

I never have claimed that there are not other reasons to prefer other vehicles, as you have listed some that are pertinent to you. I think that is perfectly fine. I just wanted to clarify that the fear of it being a fire hazard is not valid.

Kurt

Gotcha. I was responding to this: “Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that has been proven to be much more likely to catch on fire?”

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

My grandfather really liked using DDT around the yard, because it was great at controlling mosquitos. His ability to choose which insecticide he wanted to buy went away. Are you opposed to the decision that the government made to ban DDT in 1972?

ICE vehicles pollute our air more than EVs, and yes, despite what the anti-EV people and sites claim, they are overall more environmentally-friendly including the manufacture and use over their lifetime.

There are parallels that can be drawn here. Sometimes choices get taken away because society decides it is better in the long run, and we just have to deal with it.

Kurt

Yes. Look at what happened to malaria from the time when DDT was being curtailed and present times.

 

[dagger1]

My grandfather really liked using DDT around the yard, because it was great at controlling mosquitos. His ability to choose which insecticide he wanted to buy went away. Are you opposed to the decision that the government made to ban DDT in 1972?

ICE vehicles pollute our air more than EVs, and yes, despite what the anti-EV people and sites claim, they are overall more environmentally-friendly including the manufacture and use over their lifetime.

There are parallels that can be drawn here. Sometimes choices get taken away because society decides it is better in the long run, and we just have to deal with it.

Kurt

Once again, I owned one. I know the reasons why they are being mandated. Or “society decides” as you put it. It is what it is. But, as I have said, I prefer an Odyssey which can carry 8 passengers (5 of whom are grandchildren), a double stroller and a wheelchair (utilizing a Yakima storage bin on top) 400 plus miles without stopping for a recharge. Out golf cart is great for neighborhood runs, and an EV is fine as a daily driver. Going to Glacier with 8 people, not so good…

 

[davidvel]

My grandfather really liked using DDT around the yard, because it was great at controlling mosquitos. His ability to choose which insecticide he wanted to buy went away. Are you opposed to the decision that the government made to ban DDT in 1972?

ICE vehicles pollute our air more than EVs, and yes, despite what the anti-EV people and sites claim, they are overall more environmentally-friendly including the manufacture and use over their lifetime.

There are parallels that can be drawn here. Sometimes choices get taken away because society decides it is better in the long run, and we just have to deal with it.

Kurt

Not really the best analogy. I would bet most people have no problem that DDT was outlawed. I would also bet that most people want the option to buy an ICE vehicle.

 

[LannyPC]

I haven't seen it through these 25 pages of posts but, has anyone mentioned this downside of vehicles with batteries whether they be hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or fully electric and that is the weight of the battery.

The downside to this is that it wears out the tires and suspension system (shocks and struts) faster. I know it's not a deal killer for most car shoppers. It's just one of many factors to consider when choosing an ICE vehicle or one with a battery.

Has anyone here, or heard of anyone, say that he or she doesn't like the idea of owning a car with that extra weight? Just curious, not trying to stir the pot.

 

[davidvel]

I haven't seen it through these 25 pages of posts but, has anyone mentioned this downside of vehicles with batteries whether they be hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or fully electric and that is the weight of the battery.

The downside to this is that it wears out the tires and suspension system (shocks and struts) faster. I know it's not a deal killer for most car shoppers. It's just one of many factors to consider when choosing an ICE vehicle or one with a battery.

Has anyone here, or heard of anyone, say that he or she doesn't like the idea of owning a car with that extra weight? Just curious, not trying to stir the pot.

Is this even true, or is this just your belief? What is the difference in curb weight between the two? Do they have the same tires and suspension? An ICE vehicle has a very heavy engine and related parts vs. an EV's motor.

The curb weight of a BMW X3 is just over 4,000 lbs. The curb weight of a Tesla Model 3 is about the same. Did you just make this up to support an anti-EV belief as others in this thread have done?

 

[HitchHiker71]

I haven't seen it through these 25 pages of posts but, has anyone mentioned this downside of vehicles with batteries whether they be hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or fully electric and that is the weight of the battery.

The downside to this is that it wears out the tires and suspension system (shocks and struts) faster. I know it's not a deal killer for most car shoppers. It's just one of many factors to consider when choosing an ICE vehicle or one with a battery.

Has anyone here, or heard of anyone, say that he or she doesn't like the idea of owning a car with that extra weight? Just curious, not trying to stir the pot.

This was true early on and is still true with the non-Tesla legacy manufacturers because they build inefficient BEVs that use larger battery packs to overcome the lack of efficiency. For example, the ICE BMW M4 and Tesla M3P basically weigh the same today. Same with the BMW X5 and Tesla MX, or the smaller BMW CUVs vs the Tesla MY. It’s all about efficiency of design and motor efficiency when it comes to BEV weight. Generally though, your statement is accurate. Until the legacy auto manufacturers embrace gigacasting and create more efficient BEVs, they will make up for the efficiency deficits by using larger battery packs, which increase the weight of the vehicles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LannyPC]

Did you just make this up to support an anti-EV belief as others in this thread have done?

Wow! Where in my posts did I say that I was anti-EV? I was watching a You Tube post that was discussing the pros and cons of each. One that was mentioned was that many cars with BEVs are heavier because of the battery.

All I was doing was trying to look at the pros and cons of each so I could, at least for myself, make an informed decision when it's time to buy another vehicle. Nowhere did I say that I am avoiding EVs because of the extra weight. Nowhere did I tell others not to buy one because they would wear out their brakes, tires, and suspension faster. I'm just trying to figure out all the costs, both long-term and short-term, so I can make a wise decision. The weight of the BEV is just one of many factors I am going to consider when it's time to buy a new vehicle, which still could very well be one with a BEV whether hybrid, PHEV, or fully electric.

 

[Brett]

This was true early on and is still true with the non-Tesla legacy manufacturers because they build inefficient BEVs that use larger battery packs to overcome the lack of efficiency. For example, the ICE BMW M4 and Tesla M3P basically weigh the same today. Same with the BMW X5 and Tesla MX, or the smaller BMW CUVs vs the Tesla MY. It’s all about efficiency of design and motor efficiency when it comes to BEV weight. Generally though, your statement is accurate. Until the legacy auto manufacturers embrace gigacasting and create more efficient BEVs, they will make up for the efficiency by using larger battery packs, which increase the weight of the vehicles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.
For sure, and I wouldn't mind a 1,000 mile range for a little extra weight

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lectric-vehicle-promises-700-miles-per-charge

 

[davidvel]

Wow! Where in my posts did I say that I was anti-EV? I was watching a You Tube post that was discussing the pros and cons of each. One that was mentioned was that many cars with BEVs are heavier because of the battery.

All I was doing was trying to look at the pros and cons of each so I could, at least for myself, make an informed decision when it's time to buy another vehicle. Nowhere did I say that I am avoiding EVs because of the extra weight. Nowhere did I tell others not to buy one because they would wear out their brakes, tires, and suspension faster. I'm just trying to figure out all the costs, both long-term and short-term, so I can make a wise decision. The weight of the BEV is just one of many factors I am going to consider when it's time to buy a new vehicle, which still could very well be one with a BEV whether hybrid, PHEV, or fully electric.

It seemed like a reasonable question given you made up (or republished the made up story you watched) that EVs are heavier than ICE vehicles leading to "it wear[ing] out the tires and suspension system (shocks and struts) faster. " All the specifications I have looked up say a similar sized EV will weigh about the same as an ICE vehicle.

If you are not anti-EV that is great.

 

[easyrider]

Correct. Now you are catching on. Unless they intentionally park their recalled vehicle in their garage with the belief it will catch fire and do so with intent that the car will catch fire and burn the house down, the exclusion will not apply. You are "practically" an insurance coverage lawyer now. (not.) And "disqualify" is not a insurance coverage term, which sort of outs you.

Note: the purpose of my comments is to inform people other than you, who may care about the topics at hand. EVs fires are not excluded from auto or home coverage despite what Bill may post.

I have dealt with home owners claims for decades and the one thing that is common is insurance adjusters go though a process of qualifying your claim before the claim is approved or denied. An example would be water damage from a pipe. If the pipe was considered a slow leak instead of a sudden burst, the claim could be disqualified because this leak was considered an unresolved maintenance issue which was preventable. The disqualification leads to the final action of denial of claim.

With a vehicle fire , ice or EV, many claims are disqualified because the fire was preventable rather than accidental. In the case of a Chevy Bolt where the owner was given notice of a potential battery fire and to park 50ft away from any building, and the owner is known to received the notice, the disqualification of this claim could be deemed a preventable act which would end in a denial of the claim.

A person would need to discuss this type of coverage with their insurance provider. The exclusions of the policy will determine what is paid and the limits will determine how much is paid. Even then, the insurance adjuster, who works for the insurance company to reduce claims, can subjectively decide the insurance will pay for this, but not that, even when to achieve this, requires that.

So yes, some vehicle fires will not be covered under a home owners or comprehensive auto policy.

Bill

 

[easyrider]

In the video you posted (@6:50 into the video), it stated the probability of an ICE vehicle catching fire was over 3X of an EV catching fire). Others have posted anywhere from 25-50X difference.

So I'll turn this around:

Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that has been proven to be much more likely to catch on fire?

Kurt

Most ice fires are due to modifications to the vehicle or worn out parts and it's extremely rare for a newer car to spontaneously combust. It's mostly older vehicles with bad gaskets, frayed wires and modifications.

If you compare newer ice vehicles to newer ev's you might see that ev's have a higher rate of problems with fires.

Bill

 

[easyrider]

It seemed like a reasonable question given you made up (or republished the made up story you watched) that EVs are heavier than ICE vehicles leading to "it wear[ing] out the tires and suspension system (shocks and struts) faster. " All the specifications I have looked up say a similar sized EV will weigh about the same as an ICE vehicle.

If you are not anti-EV that is great.

I'm not sure any one is anti-ev. I'm certain most drivers in the USA don't want to be bothered with all of the actions required to own one. Not liking something isn't the same as being anti something, imo.

Bill

 

[HitchHiker71]

I'm not sure any one is anti-ev. I'm certain most drivers in the USA don't want to be bothered with all of the actions required to own one. Not liking something isn't the same as being anti something, imo.

Bill

Honestly, unless the consumer fits into a narrower category of a constant roadtripper, or needs a vehicle that seats 7+ people comfortably (even the Rivian R1S meets this need handily) and/or uses their vehicle for towing heavy loads or a heavy trailer for example, your statements make little to no sense to me as an actual real world BEV owner. I am more bothered by the actions and maintenance required to own my ICE vehicle than I am my BEV - and yes I own both so I can speak from real world life experience. Exactly what "actions" are you referring to? We literally never have to visit a gas station for daily driving with our BEV -ever - it charges automatically overnight every night and is ready to go every morning like clockwork - and at 20% of the cost of gas. No having to waste 5-10 minutes at a gas station every week for example - while paying considerably less for fuel. No having to bother with changing oil every 5-10k miles, no bothering with having to rotate tires even. Our BEV has 25k miles on it and literally, has experienced equal tire wear across all four tires with narry a single rotation (perfect 50/50 weight distribution with a very low center of gravity has its benefits). How can you not like something having never experienced nor lived with that something? I could see the logic in @dagger1 stating what he stated, given he has actually owned a BEV and speaks from real world experience in comparison.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Most ice fires are due to modifications to the vehicle or worn out parts and it's extremely rare for a newer car to spontaneously combust. It's mostly older vehicles with bad gaskets, frayed wires and modifications.

If you compare newer ice vehicles to newer ev's you might see that ev's have a higher rate of problems with fires.

Bill

The same is generally true of fires with most BEVs - they occur on older models using older/original battery packs that degrade over time. At least with the market leader - Tesla - in mind. The legacy automakers are somewhat of a different story since they are inexperienced with BMS tuning over the long term especially.

 

[tombanjo]

So ALL 462,869 Kia owners somehow modify there cars to make them flammable ? Or is it a manufacturing defect ?

In June 2024, Kia recalled 462,869 Telluride SUVs from the 2020–2024 model years due to a potential fire risk. The recall was issued because the front power seat motor could overheat and catch fire if the power seat slide knob gets stuck. This could happen while the vehicle is parked or in motion. Kia advised owners to park their vehicles outside and away from other vehicles and structures until the recall repair was complete

I would agree that car fires can certainly result from poor maintenance, and damage. Which is true for both gas and electric.

So, are there a half million electric cars under recall for fire hazards ? The Chevy battery issue was 142.000. Not insignificant, but a drop in the bucket compared to a singe vehicle recall for a gas vehicle

 

[HitchHiker71]

So ALL 462,869 Kia owners somehow modify there cars to make them flammable ? Or is it a manufacturing defect ?

In June 2024, Kia recalled 462,869 Telluride SUVs from the 2020–2024 model years due to a potential fire risk. The recall was issued because the front power seat motor could overheat and catch fire if the power seat slide knob gets stuck. This could happen while the vehicle is parked or in motion. Kia advised owners to park their vehicles outside and away from other vehicles and structures until the recall repair was complete

I would agree that car fires can certainly result from poor maintenance, and damage. Which is true for both gas and electric.

So, are there a half million electric cars under recall for fire hazards ? The Chevy battery issue was 142.000. Not insignificant, but a drop in the bucket compared to a singe vehicle recall for a gas vehicle

It's a manufacturing defect - hence the recall - which by definition means there's a defect - otherwise there wouldn't be a recall - which is always safety related. While this is a ICE vehicle recall, specific to your mention about BEV recalls - The Bolt and and many other examples are why I would not buy a non-Tesla BEV at this time. Maybe eventually, but building a BEV is altogether different than building any ICE vehicle by orders of magnitude. A BEV is a SDV (Software Defined Vehicle), and legacy manufacturers are struggling to make this transition as they are not software companies by any stretch. A few years ago VW hired thousands of software developers to attempt to build a SDV - and announced the entirety of their product line would transition to BEV by 2030. Fast forward three years, and VW just signed a five year agreement with Rivian to use Rivian's SDV tech instead - and VW is laying off most of their software developers in the process - essentially VW is giving up on building SDVs themselves - and outsourcing/buying the tech instead - because they cannot figure out how to do it internally. I'd expect similar moves from other legacy manufacturers moving forward, it's not nearly as easy as most people think to build a SDV BEV. Tesla has been at it in earnest since 2008 - and it shows why they have a measured advantage some 16 years later. The market doesn't want a BEV that behaves like a ICE vehicle - they want a nextgen vehicle that is altogether different than a traditional ICE vehicle. Ford, perhaps the first of the big three to jump into BEVs, is now backing away as well, for much the same reasons as VW. Will GM be next? Stellantis? BMW seems to be making an honest effort to transition, and just this month, BMW sold more BEVs in the EU than Tesla for the first time. The Korean manufacturers have jumped in with both feet - but as you pointed out - it's not without struggle. Doing this too quickly isn't a good idea. It has to be done right. Tesla did it right. Rivian is doing it right. Lucid is trying to do it right but cannot scale - at least not yet.

All this is why, even today, Tesla still owns 55% BEV market share - or a greater market share than all other legacy manufacturers combined. This won't always be the case - but when we look at how quickly most of the legacy manufacturers are pulling away from building BEVs, contrary to popular opinion it's not because consumers don't want BEVs, it's because they cannot build them profitably and cannot figure out how to do what Tesla has already done - build SDV BEVs profitably. So they are backing away and embracing hybrids instead (which ironically have, by far, the highest fire risks), which are still profitable for them, but this approach just gives companies like Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, etc., more runway to take over the BEV marketplace. Long term, I think the legacies are making a big mistake, and they will become a husked out shell of what they are today 10-15 years from now.

 

[DrQ]

So ALL 462,869 Kia owners somehow modify there cars to make them flammable ? Or is it a manufacturing defect ?

In June 2024, Kia recalled 462,869 Telluride SUVs from the 2020–2024 model years due to a potential fire risk. The recall was issued because the front power seat motor could overheat and catch fire if the power seat slide knob gets stuck. This could happen while the vehicle is parked or in motion. Kia advised owners to park their vehicles outside and away from other vehicles and structures until the recall repair was complete

I would agree that car fires can certainly result from poor maintenance, and damage. Which is true for both gas and electric.

So, are there a half million electric cars under recall for fire hazards ? The Chevy battery issue was 142.000. Not insignificant, but a drop in the bucket compared to a singe vehicle recall for a gas vehicle

Yep, how about this recall from Ford:

Recall: Ford Cruise Control Switch Fires​

Ford Motor Vehicles has issued recalls for millions of their vehicles over a potential fire risk. A fire can be caused by a defective speed control deactivation switch. A speed control switch is commonly referred to as a cruise control switch. This switch is located in the engine compartment of the vehicle. Once a fire starts, it can quickly spread putting nearby property and ordinary citizens at grave risk. Unfortunately a fire can start from the defective speed control deactivation switch even when the car is off or has been turned off for several days.​

...​

1992-1998 Ford Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Car & Mercury Grand Marquis​

...​

Hmmmm

Huge Recall, but Many Cars Unfixed (Published 2008)

Some 10 million Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles from 1992 to 2004 have been recalled because of faulty cruise-control switches.

www.nytimes.com