Do Not Sell My Personal Information Jump to content


Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Linas.P

  1. As expected we have review from press, before it becomes available for test drives for everyone. Is it the same car with German number plates which was making rounds in dealerships?
  2. Saab and Volvo convertibles was were I started looking (even thought they are FWD), I thought it would be cool to have one and they are not very expensive, but they are prohibitively slow and expensive to tax. So let's say I would pick one of the better Volvos 840 T5 (2.3L L5 Turbo) - it is £585 road tax for a year and 10s to 60! Whereas SL500 V8, 6s to 60 and £340 road tax. Just doesn't make sense to pay super car tax on old Volvo, so it becomes eliminated by comparison. I would love to get something from 80s, but problem is - either you find cars which are absolutely perfect for £20k+ or you find completely rotten through examples in need of full restoration or even beyond it. There is nothing to choose from decent, used and honest cars. Do I really need 1984 Saab 99 with 12k miles? Sure enough - that would be great for museum or something. Overall, anything what used to be unusual and somewhat rare or cool are now selling for astronomical prices. Funny enough you mention Lada, I had one for short time when I was like 17... got engine blown on it after a month, stripped it it and scrapped it for metal. Now there is one for sale for in UK for £15k... but I used to live in the east so for me it brings wrong kind of memories. And there is the thing with something which is simply old and classic. So if I would go for old car it has to be before 1981 (because in UK it is 40 years before car is considered classic). I means as I said there is possibility of R107 SL on the cards, but for less money I would not mind newer R230 - we will see.
  3. Difficult to say, I sold the car because I drive very little nowadays - I don't need one to honest. I was thinking to get some older cheaper car for which I don't want to care so much and which could not depreciate anymore... so you know if I buy it for £2000 and it blows-up I can still sell-it for scrap for £1200 and cut my loses. Not something I could have done with RC, where cost of negligence could have been approaching 5 digit mark. However it is harder done than I say... I still have some criteria even for cheaper car and I don't want complete bucket. I could go for old BMW or MB, but it has to be before 2006 (because after that VED is double)... yet ULEZ now threw spanner in my plans (since 2 days ago), because all car with cheaper VED generally are not ULEZ compliant. I mean sure - going to office twice a month I probably could live with £12.5 a day ULEZ charge. But then as soon as I find something interesting it is again £7... 9 or 10k... not exactly cheap... Recently, I was looking at following - BMW E92s, E64s, E31s, E24s... which are mostly trashed or way over my budget. Then I looked at Renault Laguna Coupe - which is unusual and in some ways interesting car, but I just can't justify road tax for what is very slow car and as well it isn't even ULEZ compliant i.e. £340/year could pay for BMW 645i or SL500, which are actually fast and well equipped. Then I looked at Audi A2 of all cars, not sure what it is but I always been fancy of having one - they are sort of "prototype" which went into production. Then there is a case of Audi A5, but seems all of them have done at least 200k miles and people still expect money for them. Finally, recently I started considering MB SL's R129s, R230s and maybe even odd R107... especially R230s are now come down in price a lot (which is quite unusual in the market). The problem is that as usual with more expensive MBs is that they all "basket cases"... probably toxic combination of brand, unreliable cars and people who are attracted to them. I mean sure it would be ideal to have 300ST W198 (the actual "gullwing") - MOT, TAX and ULEZ exempt and cool and appreciating car. But hey... I don't have spare £1,000,000 in the pocket 😁 maybe one day. That said R107 is as well MOT, TAX and ULEZ exempt, the only problem it looks like grandpa car and there is nothing cool about it.
  4. It may be that we only have couple of cars making rounds in UK dealerships, rather than dealerships having their own demos. Previously when this happened with RC and LC, the demos (for test drive) became available couple of month later after unveiling the car, when dealerships got their dedicated cars. Lexus Reading says they will have new NX available for viewing on 19th of November (so before Woodford). As well they state it is pre-production model.
  5. So just to conclude this thread and my ownership experience... The car was gone for some time now, so I can reflect on it little bit better. As I mentioned before this purchase made financial sense - I got it cheap, it had all options and now used cars prices went up. So I sold it with fair bit of profit, which is frankly unheard of on used cars and in private sales. To summarise the positives - Lexus RC as a model is amazing car which had a lot of potential (if Lexus would have played it right), the cars which gets folding rear seats are surprisingly practical for coupe, built quality and materials are class above competition, it is rare, unique and as such could easily be parked next to £100k 911 or BMW 8-Series and not look out of place. In terms of negatives is nothing new - great car ruined by terrible engine options, both RC300h and 200t are just not acceptable, if anything latter being even worse. 300h is at least fuel efficient and cheaper on road tax, so for somebody commuting in the car who does not care how car drives and just wants nice car, it is okey option. RC200t on other hand is just unacceptable. Neither fast nor efficient - I do understand why they are not popular, because they don't shine in any area. On some small niggly bits, Lexus seems to have lifted all interior from IS, that is nothing new... I just expected it to be slightly updated and adapted for coupe. Sadly it seems Lexus didn't bother inventing anything and it is a bit dated for 2016 MY and to my surprise for more expensive car it is actually even more cut down compared to IS. I feel Lexus probably should have used equipment options from NX, because both RC and NX are sort of step above IS in model range. Then we have usual pointless Lexus limitations which I never understood but they are common - F-Sport can't have DCC, Premier can't have F-Sport dials, nor rose leather seats, car comes with LKA, but only warning without steering assist, it has RTCA, but not old and simple BSM, which is only option in Premier despite being technology from like 2003. Seems to me like Lexus could have added option of "safety systems" for £1500 and added all the bits as a package. Added "convenience pack" with electric closing boot and passenger memory seat (to be fair memory seat should have been standard, considering it was standard on IS). Seems like options list is just not well thought through and doesn't make sense. But overall this last section is minor and not something that adds or removes from ownership experience. I still think that Lexus should have offered RC350 instead or at least together with RC200t, I can live with all the small issues, but not with that engine. Overall, I didn't even sold the car because I hated the engine, I sold it 1# because I didn't drive it anymore and 2# because it made amazing financial sense. With money in the bank and more of it I now have freedom to choose again. It was just convenient time to exit from my mistake with no loses and actual profit, so I didn't want to miss the opportunity. I must admit it was little bit sad to see it go as it was in perfect condition and there are not many cars in the market which can offer so much for under £20k. My recommendation - if you want RC which actually drives, then go for RC-F, if you want RC just for looks go for RC300h, avoid RC200t. As well consider cars before 2018 because of the tax (if you reading it in 2025, then go for RC-F once added tax expires after 5 years). Avoid cars with standard audio at any cost unless you are deaf. Sunroof is great, but robs amazing amount of headroom. It is car for 2 people, so don't expect to use rear seats.
  6. I think there was only one sold in UK in this colour and it had black interior. I found this to be fitting colour for RC-F which has that V8 to come together with aggressive colour on outside.
  7. I got message inviting to view it on 27th of November in Lexus Woodford, it notes that "no test drives will be available". But considering that cars will be in UK dealerships I think it is not too long after that they will be available to test drive, maybe even by the end of this year or early next year (actually much sooner than I thought)... and I doubt Woodford is very big dealership in terms of sales, so if they have it then more prominent dealerships will surely have it as well.
  8. Lexus cars in UK were not very configurable for many years now (probably from the beginning). As I got into Lexus ownership just around 2010 I only know that ~IS mk2 was already locked down on options in UK compared to US. In US up until this day, you can have different wheels and different packages in most cars, it seems that because in UK base price is higher Lexus simply includes more base equipment, but then takes away all the choice. For example RC (not only had 350 option and AWD), but as well adaptive suspension was option on most of the cars (called dynamic handling package), likewise all the cars had option to have sunroof (in UK Premier came with sunroof standard, F-Sport had option and you could not spec. it on Luxury), same with DCC - in UK only Premier could have DCC, whereas in US it was optional on all models... and so on. @Ken R - yes, forgotten to note panoramic sunroof as exclusively not available on NX450h+... again bizarre. Seems like NX450h+ is the coolest and most expensive version of the SUV you could get, so it seems it would make sense to allow most options on, because presumably people buying it would be the people who would be willing to pay price of those options. But Lexus clearly has different ideas here. Probably they figured out that pan-roof and ML would not be deal breaker for most of buyers, so they can get away by not offering it. @Lexi450 - not sure it adds value on used car, but it definitely makes it easier to find the car in right spec. This is main reason why I could never buy used BMW, it always has one option, but not the other... and if options are right, then the colour is wrong etc. This is not an issue with used Lexus - find right colour and then just check if 3 options are there, the list of options is so small that it is generally possible to find car with all of them and in the right colour. Sometimes the price may be an issue, but I reckon that is more to do with Lexus generally being rare car in UK and limited choice on used market. Does easier to find = higher sale price? Maybe... It seems it will be late 2022 for test drives for buyers, I have no definitive answer, but that is what Lexus comms suggests. I guess car reviewers will get their hands bit earlier, so maybe some reviews will be available earlier in a year 2022.
  9. Just received comms from Lexus and it seems like it is finally something reasonable. Now obviously I will start bi**** about things, but it is still beyond me why Lexus couldn't do this like 5 years ago. Yes sure it is still 2.5L 4cylinder hybrid, but finally it has some decent performance. NX350h not amazing but acceptable (7.7s) and it somehow manages with very similar power output on paper. NX450h+ is actually decent - sure it isn't 4.5L comparable or supercar fast, but even I can't complain about 6.3s to 60 in SUV. Obviously, not a race car, but nobody could argue that such acceleration is not enough to safely join the road or to overtake. One thing I found bizarre and borderline unacceptable (and Lexus for some reason keeps doing it - IS220d no auto option, RC Fsport no dynamic cruise option), but you can't have NX450h+ with Mark and Levinson. It comes standard in 350h takumi, could be optional in F-Sport, but in 450h+ you just can't have it?! Just doesn't make sense - so you have flagship mid-size SUV which can be equipped with decent audio system... and the cheaper model gets it as standard!!! Now to be fair at least standard 10-speaker system is not terrible, not like 6 speaker horror show in IS/RCs. I can only assume this is linked somehow maybe with charging equipment, maybe they have charger in place where ML amp should, but in that case it is just lazy... surely they can find some other way to fit ML? As well it included wireless craple car play, but for some reason android auto is just wire (despite being first system to offer wireless, thus been longer on the market and cheaper to integrate)... That I guess makes sense considering Lexus major market is US where everyone only uses iphones. Finally, if only we had such engine options in RC... world would be better place!
  10. Well, ok... maybe that was one of the points which got Tesla of the ground, but I am sure that few years ago that was big advantage compared to other BEVs. And even today 40% of owners having basically free electricity is still big thing.
  11. For many people every day will be emergency then... If I reply like for like - for BEV you simply need to be able to charge at home. I agree that in emergency you don't need fast charging, but generally you do... Charging BEV with standard socket takes like 72hours. Sure if you just need to move 3 miles to the next station, you may be able to do that in 20-30 minutes, but that is still significant inconvenience. Zap Map shows a lot of stations, problem is there are a lot of different schemes and you can't just use any of them. They all have different membership and different fee structures, so you must stick with the membership of couple schemes you use most often. First of all it is not "negativity" it is reality, practicality (or lack of it), but that is true - In UK it is nothing like in Netherlands if what you saying is true. There are no charging point anywhere, definitely not at homes and in the cities most homes don't have parking spaces... forget about chargers. Offices most definitely don't have chargers and most officers likewise don't have parking spaces. Public parkings sometimes have few charging points, but again they not always work and I cannot overstate this enough - you can't just use any charging point in UK. There are membership schemes. It has been few years since I have to use them and I hope goverment will get on top of that (it would make sense), but you have to stick to certain network. It is like gym membership - if you are member of Fitness First, then you can't just pop into Virgin Health and expect them to let you use facilities. The only exception to this rules is Tesla Superchargers network, which has universal standards - so if you know there is supercharger you know it will work and it will be fast and it will charge your car... and most importantly most of Tesla owners still gets free supercharging. But that is tesla exclusive and not a wider market.
  12. I would see equation rather like "no charging = no fuel", because I think you will find that not being able to there to charge at home is more common than hydrogen pump running out of hydrogen (on the premise that unlike hydrogen you must be able to charge at home to own BEV). Now sure - it would be major inconvenience for me if Rainham hydrogen station is out of hydrogen (it is ~5miles drive from me) and that would certainly ruin my day. But this isn't issue with the technology. As well, my comparison was regarding the charging itself, not how to get to the station, so I sense strawman fallacy here. Besides it would not do much better with BEV in this case - not only you need to get to the right charger for your car, but as well you need to make sure it is part of scheme you already subscribed (there are few dozen different schemes) and even then it is not guaranteed the charger will work when you arrive. Charging point are very often out of order as well (but I don't blame BEV technology for that). What I want to make absolutely clear is that momentary issues with particular supplier, brand or cannot be generalised into issue with technology. For example Tesla are terribly unreliable and has horrible build quality, but that does not mean BEVs are all like that. Likewise issues with one particular hydrogen station running out of hydrogen does not mean that hydrogen cell vehicle technology is flawed. Besides electricity is not "everywhere"... there are no electricity next most parkings, that I have electricity at home it does not mean I can charge my car which is in underground garage maybe 20-30 metres from my flat, likewise despite national grid being far more developed than hydrogen logistics, that does not mean that it can cope with charging BEVs in it's current state, especially if we want to replace majority of the cars with BEVs. Finally, let's not forget you don't need just "any electricity", you specifically need high-voltage fast charging electricity if you in BEV... and that isn't as common as your post may suggest.
  13. Ok I see... I was looking more from perspective of "inherent flaw with technology"... I generally agree with you, but when you say it Tesla immanently springs to mind. Other car nearly 2tons - Nissan GTR, New Bentley Continental. I guess my point - it is possible to make heavy car to handle reasonably well, although you are most likely correct Mirai won't be "best handling car ever", but I still think it would handle reasonably well for what it is.
  14. Absolutely, driving something that is reliable and isn't absolutely terrible polluter is probably better than buying brand new Tesla. Besides you are right - people are involved in a lot of activity which pollutes, but frankly isn't necessary at all and does not benefit the society. You take example of space programmes, I often use cryptocurrencies. All crypto currencies nowadays uses so much electricity, that combined they are probably not far from passenger cars in terms of pollution. I personally have nothing against crypto currency, but if we thing about what purpose they have and why they matter for society, then I would argue personal passengers cars are far more beneficial than some digital coin which exists in the internet with token value. Besides there are nowadays new coins which don't use computing power/electricity (proof of stake model). I always just find hard to justify society crusade against passenger cars and consider it to be scapegoat subject. For politicians it is just easy to explain, relatable and most importantly profitable. I probably should use sources rather than talking from memory, but "industry sector" pollution it was something like 40% manufacturing, 24% energy, 14% farming, 12% households and 10% transportation... The figures I often quote as 2.4% for passenger cars are part of transportation. Now granted, this data changes every year and percentages move around, there are clear issues in dividing sectors e.g. I often see Energy and Manufacturing change places, there is argument as well that all transport runs on fossil fuel which is made in manufacturing, so actually transportation contributes more. Other factor - it is very important to find global data, because national data frankly does not matter when global warming is concerned and the stats can be easily manipulated e.g. UK virtually has no manufacturing sector left, so we import many goods... that may led to believe transportation is far higher share in UK, then it actually is, because we still consume all those manufactured goods from China and elsewhere. Then we have terminology issues - sometimes it is CO2, sometimes it is greenhouse gasses, sometimes both means the same, sometimes transportation is called "transportation and storage", which clearly has little to do with passenger cars. And finally, I would take all these stats with the pinch of salt - they are estimates at best, but they are closest to the factual information we have. What is annoying that as far as I can see there is no such thing as "pollution" summary. It is always just CO2 or NOx, but those are just 2 out of dozen major pollutants, there are sulphur, particulate matter, heavy metals, various types of chemical waste etc. And it seems we only ever worrying about CO2. With such flawed data I can't even see how actually smart person could make right decision, never mind politician.
  15. Well, that is kind of the key thing - with hydrogen you can simply refuel same as you refuel petrol, takes 2-3 minutes, so hydrogen at home is not an issue. Likewise hydrogen station has much larger capacity than even supercharger. Single "pump" can serve 60-120 times more vehicles, than single charger. For example Tesla has 624 superchargers in UK. Spread across 63 locations. At the same time there are 20 hydrogen pumps across 14 locations - but in terms of fuelling capacity even the existing hydrogen pumps can fuel more cars in the same time than Tesla Superchargers. Now obviously, 63 locations means better spread then 14, and to be fair most of hydrogen pumps are in London... and there are a lot more non-tesla chargers (but number is kind of hard to estimate), so obviously hydrogen is currently harder to access unless you live in London, Swindon, Aberdeen or Sheffield. However, even ~10-15 more hydrogen stations would enable 80% of population to own the hydrogen car, simply because hydrogen station does not have same time limitations as electric charger. Assuming they will have 2 nozzles per pump (which is most common) 50 hydrogen pumps is equivalent to 6000 Superchargers. It is kind of sad that Toyota does not invest in infrastructure like Tesla, somehow I can't see it being big issue for Toyota to build 15 fuel stations.. even if estimated cost of Hydrogen station is £2million, £30 million is just change for Toyota, besides I am sure they don't even need to pay entire cost... I am sure something like BP or Shell would be happy to add hydrogen pump to their existing station (so the cost would actually drop, because rest of infrastructure is already there) and I am sure there must be some sort of goverment incentive as well. And all this debate about "where to fuel hydrogen car" would be forgotten. Obviously, I can't blame Toyota - after all they are car company and it is goverment job to ensure infrastructure is there, but that doesn't mean they can't diversify in other industries. Can't see it hurting them certainly.
  16. They are relatively slow indeed and I am not going to mention what is slow as well, but I am not sure why do you think they are handling poorly. Would you say that New Mirai handles significantly worse than ES? To be fair I have tried ES, but not tried Mirai yet. ES handling is OK, but that is about it just OK. Do you have reason to believe it wouldn't be the same for Mirai? As well HCV are electrical cars, so there is nothing inherently preventing them from having larger electric motor and maybe slightly larger or simply higher voltage traction battery and have same acceleration as any electric car. Sure, range will suffer if you want to hit 60MPH in 3s, but that is exactly the same with BEV. The benefit of HCV is that you won't see battery degradation like BEV. Sure - BEVs you are be able to launch more often and drive them harder for longer as HCV will inevitably going to have smaller battery and hydrogen cell won't be able to recharge it as quickly as you can use the energy, but only if you launching it continuously, but again BEVs have similar issue - you can't have Tesla continuously in "Ludicrous mode" as the battery will overheat. Finally, I don't think anything more than 4s 0-60s is required in normal car. Stupid fast Teslas are nothing more than marketing trick... yes indeed it is cool when you can have "family" car which launches faster than most super cars, but it isn't necessary, nor practical. I mean even if they make HCV with 6s 0-60 that is plenty enough, for any situation on the road, especially together with instant response and torque from electric motor, just without any shortcomings of BEV. So on one hand you right - currently there are not cars which would be as fast as BEVs or to be fair exciting at all, but that is not an issue with HCV technology, is just manufacturers not making such model yet. I could argue there are no interesting BEV cars as well, because I specifically want coupe and as far as I know there is no single mainstream BEV Coupe... closest we have at the moment are BMW i8, RC300h and LC500h, but not a single BEV. So from this perspective I see no different in choice between BEV and HCV - neither is satisfactory for me. Sure I understand that this is not true for larger market, but there are HCV hatchback, SUV and saloon on sale... seems to cover all the needs from wider market?
  17. Can you please stop staying exactly what is on my mind ?! People may start suspecting this is just my second account 😅 I would just add that cars worldwide only responsible for 2.4% of greenhouse gases (2.1% diesel 0.3% petrol). This is different from what we usually see quoted - where cars contributes 10-50% of pollution, that is completely different metric and it is tailpipe emissions measured at kerbside, which are done in order to test air quality in the cities. Other thing many articles likes to do is to use only partial stats (cherry picking) e.g. worldwide emissions from transportation are 10% of total, but they often only take transportation pie chart which shows that private vehicles contributes 24% (which is just 2.4% really, but they conveniently forget to state it is 24% of 10%). I have seen other stats where they as well remove planes, trains and ships, so suddenly cars share jumps to 30-40% despite it still being same stat. As you can imagine, the first metric is important for climate change, second metric does not matter for climate change and it is more to do with people health in the city... yet it is still kind of misleading due to methodology they use. What I mean is that - testing at the kerbside obviously going to give only emissions from vehicles... I have no idea how they calculate that considering that testing equipment can't determine whenever they came from public transport, commercial delivery vehicles of private cars. Maybe they just count the numbers (in which case it would be wrong as car does not pollute as much as bus, despite there being far more cars on the roads numerically). Testing at kerbside is as well quite flawed, because obviously it is going to show disproportionally higher pollution from cars... if we put same probe next to gas heater tailpipe, then suddenly it will be 100% gas heater pollution. I think DW did documentary and they compared kerbside emissions and emissions inside the flat just on the side of the street and inside the flat emissions were half of what was measured on the street. To be fair I still had an issue with their methodology, as they fitted probe just before the traffic lights i.e. where all the cars brake, accelerate and stay idling, which is not really a fair measure. Clearly it would not be the same on side free flowing traffic. Anyway - what I am saying BEVs as a solution to reduce global green house gases pollution and to combat climate change are not even effective. They have ~30% reduction compared to average ICE car and that means replacing all ICEs with all BEVs will only save ~0.7% of pollution, which is tiny change. I would even argue that they may have net negative effect short term as manufacturing sector is largest polluter and contributes nearly 40% of pollution. As we know BEVs production are far more polluting so in short term this change may actually increase the pollution. For the second part where the city air quality is concerned - yes BEVs are great solution, that is where it works and will arguably have reduction of ~10-50% of pollution. Finally, I have highlighted key point - as for global warming and climate change mild hybrids already achieve same level of green house gasses emissions reduction without having massive batteries. Sadly, as always political decision are made by ill informed people who have no expertise in the field and could not even bother researching the topic. If they would understand the differences in the statistics, then maybe we would have different decisions and different solutions.
  18. I guess HUD mode mirrors the screen left-to-right, so when you get reflection off the windscreen it looks right way around?
  19. I have always argued 300h should have been PHEV (RC/NX/IS), Toyota had that technology in house but decided not to use it in Lexus for some reason. The argument there is obviously that PHEVs like BMW 330e works slightly differently and they need to be charged via socket for most effective use i.e. charge it at home, drive first 20-30miles on BEV power and then switch to simple petrol power. They don't recharge like Toyota "self-charging hybrid" or they not as effectively and use quite a bit more petrol to recharge. This means one need to have a way to charge if they have PHEV, myself I was considering BMW i8 for some time, but I just can't get it charged where I live and that was non-starter. Somehow I feel if Toyota really wanted they could have made their 300h model to take advantage of both technologies. Apparently that is what they will be doing with their new NX (400 or 450h) - basically give slightly bigger battery which owners will be able to charge from the socket if they wanted and at the same time cars will be quite a bit faster. The only issue - I feel it is like 10 years later than it would have an impact. By now all the models which would interest me are already discontinued - RC, GS and IS.
  20. Except it takes 2 minutes to refuel and that fuel as well last longer, whereas BEV you may have to charge overnight. Who is there to monitor that every person won't charge at the same time, who is to say who has priority to charge... Where most of important details are lost are in generalisations - assumption is made that everything will happen on "average", people will charge their cars on "average" etc. So yes based on average power production and transmission capacity and assuming people on average charge their cars every 3 days just for the mileage they do it may work. But in reality there will be no average, instead many peaks and quiet times. As well don't forget this is not necessary an issue on the national level, but it may be an issue on town by town, or estate by estate basis. The number of people nationally is high enough for likelihood that they will charge every day and all at the same time to be low, so nationally we may have enough capacity... however if you have transmission line for particular town with 2000 homes, the likelihood that 800 of those homes will start charging 6PM on Friday night is high, on top of overall higher demand for electricity, because of heaters, washers, cookers, dryers and everyone being at home with all the lights on, TVs, PCs and so on. Obviously, solution would be to have smart meters for car charging, so that national grid can tell the meter when capacity is available. But this another cliché - "we just have smart metres - simple". First of all many people don't have parking spaces at all, never mind smart meters for each space... and in the end... even if they have it, how good is smart meter for you if you just came back from work at 6PM with nearly flat battery and you have agreed to come and pick-up say your parents from airport at 4AM in the morning next day, but "smart" meter decides that one of your neighbour car will be charged from 8PM to midnight, another neighbour from midnight to 4AM and you car will be charged from 4AM to 8AM. Doesn't sound like great solution anymore... does it?
  21. It will be interesting to see how long you going to be able to ignore the point... I am sure you understand it, but instead you create your own narrative which you then pretend to defeat, without ever addressing the actual topic (strawman). Almost every point and sentence you make are archetypical logical fallacies... to the point that if we look at the list of recognised fallacies your comment would match description of every second of them if not more. At which point I am certain you are trolling...
  22. Yes, I agree with that - my comment was rather following-up of idea of big and powerful V8, but where the owner is not sure if he could afford to use that power. You right - there is benefit of EV which I have not mentioned, in that it scales better than ICE and it could be 90%+ efficient at low load of 200hp, at medium load of 500hp or at maximum load of 1000hp, whereas ICE has some inherent losses and it is only efficient in certain load scenario. Going back to the original post I responded to however, I was making comparison how BEVs owners "cannot afford to drive them hard", because inherently that crazy power doesn't come out of nowhere (say 2.5s to 0-60 acceleration), it still comes from very powerfully and power hungry motor, resulting in same overall feeling - "I have a power, but I can't afford to use it".
  23. Sorry, wasn't aware of that... somehow missed the memo.
  24. Electric does not mean efficient... Tesla has nearly 1000hp motors so it's energy consumption is as well like you would expect from equivalent car, sure it is fast, but it as well consumes a lot of energy. People have this misconception that BEVs are very efficient, but not emitting tail-pipe emissions does not mean they are not consuming mind boggling amount of energy. Make no mistake - Teslas are not green, they are super cars. This is why - if you drive them fast you won't get far. Same is true for pollution. The statistics that BEV produces 30% less Co2 than ICE car is when comparing similar cars, not when comparing 2l 200hp ICE car with 1000hp Tesla. What is true is that Electric motors are 90%+ efficient, whereas ICE motors are 30-50% efficient. So 400hp BEV will be not only faster, but as well 30% "greener" over it's lifetime compared against 200hp ICE as far as CO2 is concerned, yet 1000hp Tesla or 784hp Model X will be more polluting... Meaning one may as well be driving Lexus IS220d and they will generate less pollution than our dear friend in his Model X.
  • Create New...