Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#21

Post by cucumber3732842 »

gibspaulding wrote: post #15
FabCH wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

> Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. While this seems intuitively true, I have some pushback, and I think that the reliability record of e.g older generations of Prius backs me up. While you do have effectively two cars (an EV and an ICE) crammed into one, you’re not actually using both at full capacity all the time, which cuts down a lot on wear and tear. Your ICE is almost never run…

>you’re not actually using both at full capacity all the time, which cuts down a lot on wear and tear.

In theory this should be true. In reality hybrids eat motors compared to the same engine in an ICE. That's just what happens you have two ways of making the vehicle go to potentially mask "something's funny" type issues and your customer base is people who are buying an appliance based on an MPG number and some math.

With competent ownership (fleet vehicles provide a lot of examples, lots of hyrbrid Fords from the 00s and early examples still around) they come out about the same as an ICE car so you essentially get the hybrid system "for free" from a maintenance perspective. But that's not the median consumer.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#22

Post by esikich »

gibspaulding wrote: post #15
FabCH wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

> Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. While this seems intuitively true, I have some pushback, and I think that the reliability record of e.g older generations of Prius backs me up. While you do have effectively two cars (an EV and an ICE) crammed into one, you’re not actually using both at full capacity all the time, which cuts down a lot on wear and tear. Your ICE is almost never run…

Unless it's -40F, modern cars don't need to "warm up".

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#23

Post by [deleted] »

FabCH wrote: post #12
twobitshifter wrote: post #3

It looks like they have the BEV lasting just as long as ICE car without any battery replacement. Has it turned out that way? Seems like owning an electric car for 18 years really hasn’t been a thing since the model s was released in 2012, but is it projected to last that long.

As a data point: I’m at year 8 of Model X 100kWh with basically 0% capacity loss. If it exists at all, it’s less than 1-2%, so less than what I can reasonably measure with just the odometer and battery indicator. Nissan Leaf gave BEV a bad name because it had much worse battery tech. Battery longevity is not a problem for modern, or even decade old cars.

[deleted]

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#24

Post by bryanlarsen »

twobitshifter wrote: post #3

It looks like they have the BEV lasting just as long as ICE car without any battery replacement. Has it turned out that way? Seems like owning an electric car for 18 years really hasn’t been a thing since the model s was released in 2012, but is it projected to last that long.

4% of Toyota engines need to be replaced before 250,000 miles; 3% of Tesla batteries need to be replaced before 250,000 miles. "More reliable than a Toyota engine" is pretty high praise.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#25

Post by cgyvbunji »

FabCH wrote: post #13
trollbridge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not the case for hybrids like Priuses. The battery system lasts 10-15 years and 150k-200k miles. Any ICE car on the market now should be expected to last a lot longer than that; I drive cars that are 25+ years old and really don't need much significant in the way of repairs.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

> mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides

Not really. The transmission is an e-CVT in hybrids which has no torque converter, the main part that breaks first in an automatic transmission. Unlike a regular CVT, the e-CVT has no belt, either. The e-CVT basically never breaks, so you basically never have a transmission go bad in a hybrid. On top of that, because the traction battery is so small, it's replaceable for $1-2k instead of $10k+ for a BEV. If anything, hybrids are the best of both worlds. Had you specified plugin hybrids you would have been correct.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#26

Post by SoftTalker »

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. As for me, no way am I trading my 20 year old, fully paid for, cheap to insure, cheap to register ICE vehicle for a new EV with payments, higher insurance, and higher registration fees.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#27

Post by bryanlarsen »

FabCH wrote: post #13
trollbridge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not the case for hybrids like Priuses. The battery system lasts 10-15 years and 150k-200k miles. Any ICE car on the market now should be expected to last a lot longer than that; I drive cars that are 25+ years old and really don't need much significant in the way of repairs.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

A modern Toyota hybrid doesn't have a transmission -- it's "eCVT" is basically a differential with a couple of embedded motors. It doesn't have a serpentine belt. It runs its engine in a highly efficient, highly reliable Atkinson cycle.

A modern Toyota hybrid is far more complex than an electric car, but the fact they are more reliable than a gasoline car is by design, not just good manufacturing.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#28

Post by margalabargala »

FabCH wrote: post #13
trollbridge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not the case for hybrids like Priuses. The battery system lasts 10-15 years and 150k-200k miles. Any ICE car on the market now should be expected to last a lot longer than that; I drive cars that are 25+ years old and really don't need much significant in the way of repairs.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

> Compared to a BEV, where you literally only need to change the break pads

If you are not replacing your tires after decades, you and those around you should be fearing for their lives.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#29

Post by userbinator »

bitwize wrote: post #8

Propaganda for "Scrap your old car now and buy new—now with AI driver spying features as mandated by Congress, and personal data sales to insurance companies!"

Exactly.

My daily driver turns 54 this year.

Never cared much about the climate scam, never will.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#30

Post by cucumber3732842 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #20
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, everything you post is borderline propaganda. There's probably a few people who'll keep their 2017 Mazda an little longer because of who the message is coming from. >Peak combustion vehicle sales was 2017. Peak oil was every year starting decades before I was born.

If you don’t like data and facts, I’m not for you. If you believe it’s propaganda, that’s firmly a you problem. My condolences. The data and facts stand regardless of your belief in them, like gravity. Comment as long as mods let you, doesn’t bother me in the sleightest. With all due respect, your thoughts and belief system are irrelevant to me. They are not data and facts, nor peer reviewed. Facts: Climate change is…

Being partially (direction of trend vs magnitude) right doesn't make you not a flagrant propagandist. This sort of cherry picking links to support any position, no matter how obviously asinine (though this one doesn't really move the needle), has been your MO a loooooong time. It's a classic rhetorical trick of trolls. Gets people distracted arguing about sources (Louis Rossman has a good quote about this).

Thankfully AI renders it fairly obsolete. I'd be happy to come up with some competing facts if you'd like. Then I can look down my nose and say vaguely insulting things too.

Post reply on HN