Hacker News Reader

Comment by voakbasda | Hacker News Reader

I will continue to repair my ‘70s and ‘80s era vehicles, because newer models that incorporate electronics are all total garbage. Reason: embedded engineer for 30 years who has worked on automotive software.

View on HN

old vehicles are very inefficient in terms of safety, fuel consumption, and exhaust gases, for this reason alone one should prefer electric or modern era ICE

Fuel consumption and carbon emissions - that very much depends. Small cars of 30-40 year ago are often very good, even better than today's models in some cases.

https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/04/toyota-corolla-gas-mile...

Reasons for this are probably creeping sizes and weights and larger engines, larger tires and softer rides.

Though none of those cars track my personal data in the extreme or in fact at all. Remember the point of the GP thread...

In case of a crash, I rather have my butt position being tracked and in palantir's databases or equivalent than having the engine block crushing my body.

I have no idea why these are mutually exclusive and no I'd rather die in a flaming car accident than have myself tracked in Palentir's databases. Fortunately, I don't have a car-- nor need one -- so this is a pleasant day.

And those extra costs are worth paying to avoid businesses that abuse their customers by making parts and service inaccessible or unaffordable, tracking their customer, and otherwise making cars more expensive and less enjoyable to own and use. And all carmakers are abusive these days, because the market has selected for that new status quo.

The emissions cost of building a new car and shipping it halfway across the world will significantly affect this calculation. You can drive a less efficient car for many years on the carbon cost of building a new one, as long as you're not driving some huge pick up or other obscene gas guzzler.

The second part of what you said is a widespread myth.

There is a crossover point after you drive a certain number of miles in an EV, after which the lifetime carbon cost is lower than that of an equivalent ICE car.

For Model 3 the crossover point is estimated at around 5,000 miles. Not "many years."

The sources and methodology for this estimate are discussed in detail in Tesla's 2020 Impact Report.

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf

Excerpt:

—

Variables often overlooked by other lifecycle studies:

* Using Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel/energy consumption data (both of which overestimate fuel-economy and underestimate emissions) rather than real-world data;

* Not considering the higher energy efficiency of Tesla’s powertrains;

* Assuming the average EV needs a battery replacement at some point in its life;

* Not considering emissions generated through the oil refining and the transportation process; and

* Using outdated data for the carbon impact of cell manufacturing.

I like this youtube video that goes over various crossover points. The tesla beats the RAV4 prime at ~45k miles and a rav4 ICE at ~28k miles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs

I think 5k miles is a bit low, and using tesla as your only source biased.

I wouldn't count out the possibility that this YouTube channel is receiving affiliate commissions and is not as reliable a source as you think.

Putting that up against Tesla, which would have a lot to lose by putting the wrong analysis into their Impact Report, I would give Tesla more credibility despite the fact that they have a vested interest here.

Their vested interest is out in the open, not a secret… it's the mission of the company even.

That report compares the total lifetime emissions of a Tesla with an ICE, as far as I can tell. Also, I don't see any discussion of the cost of mining, smelting, etc the chassis and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired and not included in the production costs. Furthermore, it assumes that the car is locally built, it doesn't seem to include the cost of transporting the car and/or parts long distance. Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large consumption compared to the usual fuel economy of cars I've seen around me at least: it's basically 10 l/100 km, where the cars people around me own are at ~4-6 l / 100 km in real driving (maybe a difference between EU and US?).

Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric, it was about replacing an old ICE car with a newer ICE one.

I will also note that personally I have a a very low level of trust for any statements put out by Musk's companies - they have a clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news.

>mining, smelting, etc the chassis

Perhaps chassis costs (meaning carbon costs of making the chassis) are roughly comparable between ICE and EVs, so I suppose there was no need to focus on this in the report.

>and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired

Tesla motors are wound and made from scratch from raw materials on site. This data point would not be in favor of ICE cars, for the reasons you mention. Batteries on the other hand do increase the carbon cost and that's why EVs start off behind ICE cars at the start of their lifetime, catching up in terms of lower carbon used only after some period of use.

>Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large

They go by real world consumption, not manufacturer claims. Remember VW Dieselgate? Credibility is not a given in ICE circles. But you have a good point it's probably more about the EU/US difference here with US cars being gas hogs, due to size and possibly the impact of different emissions equipment in some states.

>Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric

OK. It was one line, not so much a discussion, but it did come from you to be fair, so although I didn't read it that way, you get to decide. Still, I believe the comparison makes most sense against an EV, although it may not have been what you had in mind. If one cares enough about carbon to even make the comparison, and to try to defend the position that driving an older car is better for the environment, it doesn't make much sense to ignore the cars that are indeed better.

>clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news.

SpaceX and Tesla are legitimately doing great as far as I can see. Which good news were you talking about?

I fully agree that, IF you buy a new car, you should buy an EV, at least in most places (in my country, EV infrastructure is really behind, so EVs are almost entirely relegated to city cars). My point was more about whether you should change your current ICE with a new car, and even more so, I was defending someone who was caring for their old ICE instead of buying a new ICE for 20 years (if you look further up the comment thread, this was the discussion I was chiming in on).

In the EU at least, there has been constant pressure not to do this on environmental grounds, and I believe this has been misguided (perhaps EVs will indeed change that).

> SpaceX and Tesla are legitimately doing great as far as I can see. Which good news were you talking about?

They are doing good, but they constantly promise far more - Tesla Cybertruck, Tesla Semi, "FSD" (Elon promised in ~2018 that "very soon" you would be able to let your Tesla work as a robotaxi when you don't need it and recoup its cost within a year from all the money it would make!), solar tiles.

SpaceX has similarly claimed fantastic schedules that they are far from, fantastic price cuts for orbital flight (they claim Spaceship will be at least 50x times cheaper than the cheapest option so far), that they will offer commercial earth-to-earth space flights in the near future, and that they will maintain a fleet of 40k satellites, larger than all the current number of satellites combined.

SpaceX also has a history of lying to the FAA and EPA about their launch schedules and environmental risks (not talking about CO2 here, but rocket debris in protected swamp lands).

Some people care more about other things when choosing a vehicle. I suspect motorcyclists are far less worried about safety, for example. Performance enthusiasts too, although not to the same extent; and some just want a comfortable roomy ride with plenty of power as well as ease of repair and parts availability.

As the saying goes: "It's not about the miles per gallon, it's about the smiles per gallon."

In my experience fuel injection is much more reliable than carburetors. Fuel injection requires zero adjustment. Many mid-90s cars have electronic fuel injection and ABS controllers and that’s it.

you can repair only as long as parts are avilable.

Parts are available because I am far from alone in this sentiment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com