The german TUV report https://www.tuvsud.com/de-de/publikationen/tuev-report
states that the best cars are:
Mercedes benz GLC
Porsche 911
...as they have the least defects.
Volvo are the best if you’re looking for reliability and something brand new tbh
Amazon Pantry?I find UPS trucks very sexy.
Nothing beats the excitement of driving a Trabant. Never know what is going to happen next.
That was when it was a Swedish own company. Volvo ranks near the bottom in reliability now in the crossovers like the XC90s and XC60s. Maybe in sedan they are still good?Volvo are the best if you’re looking for reliability and something brand new tbh
Yugo buy oneYugo
Have had Acura RDX (2014 model bought new) for six years, still low mileage, so far not expensive to run, will keep going, hopefully for over ten years.I am a DIY auto mechanic and take any car that is 10 years or older, low mileage and good shape that is not luxury brand. Parts are dirt cheap and plentiful aftermarket manufacturer. Do not even think of buying German luxury or Jaguar Land Rover cars used! They are money pits! I have 2 cars and total service and repair total around $500 a year! Japanese are the easiest to repair follow by Ford, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep and GM. Not own any Korean or Fiat/Alfa cars. Own a Mercedes GLE and sold it 6 month later!
For me it’s Lexus and Acura !!!!
Chrysler has cool looking cars but they don’t last .
GM should be out of business !!
Audi and BMW break down a ton
I would take an Acura
Cost? Convenience? Does anywhere let you accelerate at that rate? Carbon footprint? I hear that some people call the electric cars "coal cars".not even close. TESLA wins by landslide. you will go out and buy one tomorrow. you will do this. acutually you can just buy one right now in 5 minutes.... EASY
Model 3 | Tesla
Model 3 is designed for electric-powered performance, with quick acceleration, long range and fast charging.www.tesla.com
They still produce greenhouse gases but it's still significantly better than a traditional car. Depends how your area generates electricity as well. If your area is powered by a coal plant then its carbon footprint is going to be larger than ideal, although still smaller than that of a normal car.Cost? Convenience? Does anywhere let you accelerate at that rate? Carbon footprint? I hear that some people call the electric cars "coal cars".
Tires are made from.....rubber + carbon.
Most electricity production in the electric car main markets (China, Asia) is heavily coal intensive, with China ratcheting up coal production enormously this year.They still produce greenhouse gases but it's still significantly better than a traditional car. Depends how your area generates electricity as well. If your area is powered by a coal plant then its carbon footprint is going to be larger than ideal, although still smaller than that of a normal car.
People who call electric cars "coal cars" are being disingenuous. That the Model S fails to achieve a carbon footprint of zero doesn't mean it's fine to drive a Hummer.
They're very popular in the developed countries in Asia, which I suppose is smaller in population size compared to China and India. But more people have cars in places like Korea, Japan, and China, and even in cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Nuclear power is also available in many of these countries, which helps heaps compared to coal.Most electricity production in the electric car main markets (China, Asia) is heavily coal intensive, with China ratcheting up coal production enormously this year.
U.S. is not a major electric car market.
IC (internal combustion) cars are not heavy emitters now, only the old ones....easy to get them off the road, if we want to. IC cars not significant contributors to
climate problems any more, but coal-heavy electric production is the main problem going forward, as China is showing.
I think that electric transport is a greater problem for the climate worriers, and China is now dropping their support for electric cars, sales of electric going down there.
EV's have been growing in sales in Asia due to subsidies, but now China is dropping it's EV subsidies and sales of EV's have already declined.....nuclear power?They're very popular in the developed countries in Asia, which I suppose is smaller in population size compared to China and India. But more people have cars in places like Korea, Japan, and China, and even in cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Nuclear power is also available in many of these countries, which helps heaps compared to coal.
In rich countries it doesn't take much effort if at all to get the heavy emitters off the road, but that's not the case in developing countries. It does seem like companies like Tesla are trying to build cheaper EVs to try get more 20 year old smoke generator rust buckets off the roads. Model 3 was a start; hoping to see where they go from there. If parking weren't such a pain in the backside where I live, I'd consider getting a Model 3.
They still produce greenhouse gases but it's still significantly better than a traditional car. Depends how your area generates electricity as well. If your area is powered by a coal plant then its carbon footprint is going to be larger than ideal, although still smaller than that of a normal car.
People who call electric cars "coal cars" are being disingenuous. That the Model S fails to achieve a carbon footprint of zero doesn't mean it's fine to drive a Hummer.
There are quite a few different places to get stats, and you can always google them yourself if you want to collate all thatDo you have a thorough comparison between an electric vehicle like Tesla and a conventional car, and by thourough I don't mean the cartoon footprint from driving on electricity vs gas? For that matter, do you have a chart about the efficiency of using electricity vs ICE. How much are losses in each case from the source to the end user? What happens with the used batteries from an EV?
The company put a total on its worldwide carbon dioxide output in a single year: 282,000 metric tons of CO2 released, directly and indirectly, across its facilities, energy operations, network of car chargers, and sales and delivery services in 2017. This data establishes a baseline, allowing investors and other observers to detect a trend in future reports.
...
Tesla said it has sold more than 550,000 electric vehicles, for example, with more than 10 billion miles driven. That works out to saving over 4 million metric tons of CO2 compared to conventional driving. Tesla explained this math as follows: “This is the equivalent of saving emissions from being released into the environment from over 500K ICE vehicles with a fuel economy of 22 miles per gallon.”
The report had hard numbers on energy—Tesla said its solar generation of 13.25 terrawatt hours far exceeds the energy consumption of its fleet of cars on the road, at 5.26 terrawatt hours—but provided fewer specifics about worker safety at its auto factory in Fremont, California or the efficiency of its battery gigafactory in Nevada.
The point of EVs is that they have a smaller but not insignificant impact on the environment, not that they next to no carbon footprint.Also, it is funny to me that people talk about EV and specifically Tesla as though Physics doesn't apply to them. Pray tell, what is the rate of exhausting the life of a car tire, if you apply the so much advertised accelerations from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds. Normal? Faster than a car that achieves it in, say 6.5 sec? Lower? What are tires made of?
Interesting point, also I don't see why a passenger automobile needs to be advertised such. That's super fast. For example the city limits for car speed here is 40 kmph within urban limits. At a traffic signal I would be very worried if I am a pedestrian just finishing my walk across the street, the street lights changing colour, and a giant trash can on wheels is accelerating to 60 mph in 3 secs from 0.Do you have a thorough comparison between an electric vehicle like Tesla and a conventional car, and by thourough I don't mean the cartoon footprint from driving on electricity vs gas? For that matter, do you have a chart about the efficiency of using electricity vs ICE. How much are losses in each case from the source to the end user? What happens with the used batteries from an EV?
Also, it is funny to me that people talk about EV and specifically Tesla as though Physics doesn't apply to them. Pray tell, what is the rate of exhausting the life of a car tire, if you apply the so much advertised accelerations from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds. Normal? Faster than a car that achieves it in, say 6.5 sec? Lower? What are tires made of?
The point of the Model S when it was first announced was to win over those people who thought EVs would never be viable because they performed poorly, hence the aggressive styling and 0-60 times.Interesting point, also I don't see why a passenger automobile needs to be advertised such. That's super fast. For example the city limits for car speed here is 40 kmph within urban limits. At a traffic signal I would be very worried if I am a pedestrian just finishing my walk across the street, the street lights changing colour, and a giant trash can on wheels is accelerating to 60 mph in 3 secs from 0.
There are quite a few different places to get stats, and you can always google them yourself if you want to collate all that
But interestingly Tesla finally released some stats on its footprint recently:
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...pact-report-puts-hard-number-on-co2-emissions
In the absence of new battery technology, it's unlikely that their battery tech is green (to put it mildly), but if the rest of Tesla's numbers can be believed it's a step in the right direction. The Model S was initially designed to make EVs palatable for the general public who associate them with poor performance and ugly designs (although the latter is very much a matter of taste). But given that EVs are still a developing tech, there's still room for improvement, whereas traditional cars have had over 100 years to get to where they are now.
The point of EVs is that they have a smaller but not insignificant impact on the environment, not that they next to no carbon footprint.
When did I suggest that the laws of physics does not apply to Tesla? Stop putting words in my mouth.
Interesting point, also I don't see why a passenger automobile needs to be advertised such. That's super fast. For example the city limits for car speed here is 40 kmph within urban limits. At a traffic signal I would be very worried if I am a pedestrian just finishing my walk across the street, the street lights changing colour, and a giant trash can on wheels is accelerating to 60 mph in 3 secs from 0.
The point of the Model S when it was first announced was to win over those people who thought EVs would never be viable because they performed poorly, hence the aggressive styling and 0-60 times.
Also, people usually aren't jerky enough to put the pedal to the metal at a traffic light in the CBD, and those who do don't tend to be Tesla / EV drivers.
Quite a few BMW drivers though, which is a shame because I love BMWs.
Understand and I agree with the part below from @Tennis_Hands as well which is my biggest fear.The point of the Model S when it was first announced was to win over those people who thought EVs would never be viable because they performed poorly, hence the aggressive styling and 0-60 times.
Also, people usually aren't jerky enough to put the pedal to the metal at a traffic light in the CBD, and those who do don't tend to be Tesla / EV drivers.
Quite a few BMW drivers though, which is a shame because I love BMWs.
we know that once people are hooked with that sort of ads they will want to use them,
This doesn't make sense unless you're assuming that the data they have not released is damaging to the point that it cancels out or even exceeds the data they have released."Smaller" is not a satisfactory answer. Until someone is able to make a thourough head to head comparison from the carbon footprint of the produced electricity to the environmental effects of disposing of the technology for a similar class vehicles that sort of talk is advertising to me. Has Tesla released their answer for the used batteries?
And traditional automakers haven't done the same for the last 50-100 years?Understand and I agree with the part below from @Tennis_Hands as well which is my biggest fear.
They have and they continue to make the same mistakes in cities, the advantage of having a car (in places where public transportation is bad) is to take people from point A to point B. Modern motorbikes and cars are coming up with greater and greater pick up speeds akin to sports vehicles. Let me give you a background. A colleague's brother was waiting at a traffic junction last Friday on a low powered motorbike. When the signal turned from red to green, a car driver hit his motor bike. The guy fell off his bike and hurt his head. He died on Saturday. The culprit is clearly the car driver who revved up his engine by stepping on the accelerator pedal with a vengeance. The motor bike was not capable of such speeds. Pick up speeds are to be regulated IMO.And traditional automakers haven't done the same for the last 50-100 years?
This doesn't make sense unless you're assuming that the data they have not released is damaging to the point that it cancels out or even exceeds the data they have released.
We can only draw conclusions based on the information that we have at hand, and reserve the right to revise our views on the matter if new information arises. The information Tesla have currently released is favourable, but they haven't released data on their battery production / disposal yet. So we asterisk that and give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.
That you'd discount everything because they haven't released stats that is unlikely to be favourable seems extreme. Not saying you should fall for Tesla's statements hook, line, and sinker either.
And traditional automakers haven't done the same for the last 50-100 years?
"We" don't give them the benefit of the doubt, as that is a known and huge problem, or do you suggest that until they release their answers that concern doesn't apply to them?
Concern is fine. Dismissing the whole thing is not, unless you have the stats to prove that their supposed carbon savings is entirely cancelled out or exceeded by the environmental impact of their batteries.
You’re saying that there’s not enough data that shows (conclusively) EVs are better for the environment; that much I can agree with, fair enough.
But to say that it’s all marketing requires you to provide evidence, because now you’re making an assertion that the negative impact of their battery tech (and other unreleased data) ⩾ their environmentally-friendly “savings”, and you’ve not provided any.
So in the absence of that I can only conclude for the time being that EVs are looking pretty good right now, and reserve my right to change my mind if and only if the information you’re looking for is released and it shows that it eclipses the favourable stats that we do have at hand.
I am not buying an EV just because some snowflake wants to feel better about himself. Recently we were at a BMW social event where the new E-mini was presented. It looks good, and my wife is interested, and at some point we might even buy one, but we won't be doing so out fo environmental concerns
Why worry about the environment? It's not as if our water and food depend on it. Or that a degraded environment makes our lives less enjoyable. Just buy a few plastic flowers and let your imagnination run wild!