Volvo XC40 Forum banner

Problems with other companies EVs

43K views 328 replies 48 participants last post by  SeattleCat 
#1 ·
Thought about this for a while. I would like this to be a repository of stories/links about other companies ev failures.

The goal is not to put them down but to bring clarity on the actual state of evs that are available today.

In general we only get info on our Volvo’s problems creating a perception that the grass is greener on the other side.

Starting with an article I saw today.

 
#206 ·
Have had iPhones for many generations. iPads from iPad 1 I love my apple world (though of for computers) but I do not see the advantage of carplay over the built in google environment.

I never use car play in Margo. Have yet to see a reason to. That said if there is something amazing I am missing that is defines the experience of using carplay over the built in google please let me know so I can enjoy it and change my mind.

Cheers
 
#209 ·
Sure there may be GM customers who are happy using AAOS and never using CarPlay, but why remove the option for people who do want to use CarPlay? Just seems like a really dumb choice on the part of GM. Everyone cross-shopping another brand vs. these future GMs who cares about CarPlay will have a reason not to buy the GM.

I don't use CarPlay a lot on my XC40 but I am glad I have the option when I want to. If i had to pick only one, I would take CarPlay over AAOS in a heartbeat.

@Yale Linguist -- I have the Ottocast wireless CarPlay adapter in my XC40 and it works fine. There is a thread about this somewhere in the XC40 forum.
 
#210 ·
@Yale Linguist -- I have the Ottocast wireless CarPlay adapter in my XC40 and it works fine. There is a thread about this somewhere in the XC40 forum.
I bought this and also the CarLinKit one. Both work, sort of, but neither is consistent, and I find myself spending more time than it's worth fiddling with the connection. If Volvo were to implement wireless CarPlay for my 2022 XC40, I'd be delighted, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
#213 ·
Heheh, it's easy to find disgruntled Tesla folks. So many of those cars have been sold across many factory changes and labor issues. And those (perhaps entitled) Tesla folks with those $100-200K units tend to be vocal.

My friend the doctor has a beautiful Tesla that he leases and renews every three years. He's had one since the very beginning. It's a love/hate thing. Loves the drive and the software and all the cameras; hates the fit and finish. I've ridden in his bigass TEsla. It's noisy and just feels downscale. He's not ridden in my C40 (which cost about half as much) but he sat in it. Noticed immediately how nicely all the bits fit together and he cooed about the wool fabric.

I have zero experience with other EVs except test drives. Only a few, including two Tesla models, Kia, and VW. When I bought the C40, I could not get a delivery date for ANY EV except Volvo and Tesla. I wanted the Volvo. End of story.
 
#222 ·
#223 · (Edited)
Car and Driver magazine doesn't have a web version but you can find it on your local newsstand, if you have one of those, that is. Current issue, July/August 2023, has a cover story about their third EV of the year, the Hyundai Ioniq6, of course. The interesting stuff, though, is in the accompanying article describing the runners up. Our Volvos are not even mentioned, sigh. The article also includes sidebars on current and future battery tech and an evaluation of how far the contenders can actually drive in ten hours at 75mph. That test started in Denver CO with 100% charge, depleted the batteries to 10%, and recharged at DC fast charging poles as many times as practical in ten hours, compensating for the fact that charging slows dramatically after 50-70%.

"For those reasons, the Hyundai Ioniq 6 narrowly emerged as the distance champ, requiring 58 minutes of charging over three stops to go 678 miles, with the BMW i7 and Lucid Air Pure a mere five miles behind. On the other end of the spectrum, the Lexus RZ450e has the least highway range (120 miles) and isn’t particularly quick to recharge, so it’s plugged in for just over three hours in five stops and makes it only 515 miles in 10 hours. While the Ioniq 6’s result is certainly impressive, a BMW M340i xDrive sipping dino juice at a rate of 33 mpg could go 747 miles in 10 hours with a single fuel stop of just over a minute." —Dave VanderWerp

I wonder how far my C40 could gets in 10 hours? Mental exercise: Assumptions: a conservative baseline of 210 miles at 100% (running air conditioning, flat roads, no wind), access to 150kW DC poles conveniently placed every 156 miles along the test route, and 40 minutes to charge from 10% to 80%. Again, being conservative, that's roughly 175 miles at 80% SOC and leaving 15-20 miles (10% SOC) in the tank. So, 200 miles on the first leg but only 160 on each of the rest. (These figures could be manipulated in numerous ways to stretch the total miles and reduce the charging times but real world driving and charge station conditions would chew up any theoretical gains.)
Leg 1: 100% down to 10%, 200 miles in 2.6 hrs, 10%/20 miles in the tank, charge 40 mins to 80% or 176 miles (3.2 hrs consumed of 10 hrs)
Leg 2: 80% down to 10%, 156 miles in 2.0 hrs, 10%/18 miles in the tank, charge 40 mins to 80% or 176 miles (5.8 hrs of 10)
Leg 3: 80% down to 10%, 156 miles in 2.0 hrs, 10%/18 miles in the tank, charge 30 mins to 70% or 150 miles (8.3 hrs of 10)
Leg 4: 70% down to 10%, 130 miles in 1.7 hrs, 10%/16-20 miles in the tank (10 of 10 hours)

Totals: 600-630 miles in 8.3 hours on the road, requiring 1.8 hours charging time in three stops. Not all that bad compared to the best EVs on the list. I am left with the conclusion that bigger batteries and faster input do not make all that much difference on road trips that are mostly highway driving. The Hyundai only got 60-80 more miles (10-12% more) but enjoys a huge 40 minutes savings in charging time (45% less but still needs three stops). So these small differences, while tedious, are probably going to be mostly psychological (until my quaintly now-vintage Volvo is replaced in ten years). And consider that in many parts of the USA, like the Wild West, finding a fast DC station that has a fully operational pole when you need one is quite unlikely.
 
#224 · (Edited)
Car and Driver magazine doesn't have a web version but you can find it on your local newsstand, if you have one of those, that is. Current issue, July/August 2023, has a cover story about their third EV of the year, the Hyundai Ioniq6, of course. The interesting stuff, though, is in the accompanying article describing the runners up. Our Volvos are not even mentioned, sigh. The article also includes sidebars on current and future battery tech and an evaluation of how far the contenders can actually drive in ten hours at 75mph. That test started in Denver CO with 100% charge, depleted the batteries to 10%, and recharged at DC fast charging poles as many times as practical in ten hours, compensating for the fact that charging slows dramatically after 50-70%.

"For those reasons, the Hyundai Ioniq 6 narrowly emerged as the distance champ, requiring 58 minutes of charging over three stops to go 678 miles, with the BMW i7 and Lucid Air Pure a mere five miles behind. On the other end of the spectrum, the Lexus RZ450e has the least highway range (120 miles) and isn’t particularly quick to recharge, so it’s plugged in for just over three hours in five stops and makes it only 515 miles in 10 hours. While the Ioniq 6’s result is certainly impressive, a BMW M340i xDrive sipping dino juice at a rate of 33 mpg could go 747 miles in 10 hours with a single fuel stop of just over a minute." —Dave VanderWerp

I wonder how far my C40 could gets in 10 hours? Assuming a conservative baseline of 210 miles at 100% (running air conditioning, flat roads, no wind) and access to 150kW DC poles conveniently placed every 156 miles along the test route, and 40 minutes to charge from 10% to 80%. Again, being conservative, that's roughly 175 miles at 80% SOC and leaving 15-20 miles (at 10% SOC). So 200 miles on the first leg but only 160 on each of the rest. (These figures could be manipulated to stretch the total miles and reduce the charging times but real world driving and charge station conditions would chew up any theortetical gains.)
Leg 1: 100% down to 10%, 200 miles in 2.6 hrs, 10%/20 miles in the tank, charge 40 mins to 80% or 176 miles (3.2 hrs consumed of 10 hrs)
Leg 2: 80% down to 10%, 156 miles in 2.0 hrs, 10%/18 miles in the tank, charge 40 mins to 80% or 176 miles (5.8 hrs of 10)
Leg 3: 80% down to 10%, 156 miles in 2.0 hrs, 10%/18 miles in the tank, charge 30 mins to 70% or 150 miles (8.3 hrs of 10)
Leg 4: 70% down to 10%, 130 miles in 1.7 hrs, 10%/16-20 miles in the tank (10 of 10 hours)

Totals: 600-630 miles in 8.4 hours on the road, requiring roughly 1.6 hours of charging time in three stops. Not all that bad compared to the best EVs on the list. I am left with the conclusion that bigger batteries and faster input do not make all that much difference on road trips that are mostly highway driving. The Hyundai only got 60-80 more miles (10-12% more) but enjoys a huge 40 minutes savings in charging time (45% less but still needs three stops). So these small differences, while tedious, are probably going to be mostly psychological (until my quaintly now-vintage Volvo is replaced in ten years). And consider that in many parts of the USA, like the Wild West, finding a fast DC station that has a fully operational pole when you need one is quite unlikely.
I agree, that range is not that critical, except in the winter. With a range decreasing by 25%-40%, the differences becomes a lot more significant. In the winter I cannot go to my sister's cottage without stopping to recharge. I knew that when I got the XC40 and I'm totaly fine with it, but a 20 mile of extra range would have save me two stops.

40 + 40 + 30 = 110 minutes. That's not 1.6 hours, more like 1.8 hours.
 
#227 ·
You know, I remember when the national speed limit down south was 55mph, back in the days of Smoky and the Bandit. Car and Driver would regularly put a car in the Cannonball Run. And every year, a bunch of cars would be corralled for speeding, and bandits would complain they were being victimized. The reason the legislation came in had to do with fuel shortages and trying to improve good old V8 mpg. Fast forward 40+ years, and we’re scratching our heads about why EVs can’t go very far at 75mph. Top Gear in the UK is even rationalizing that there’s no point slowing down to improve range as it still takes longer. Yet it always comes down to the simple fact that if you drive 75mph you have to recharge more frequently than you’d like, and if you can go flat out on the Autobahn, you’re going to be charging even more than you’re driving! If I cruise at a steady 55mph, I can get about 390km/245 miles (using 90%) out of my my little green car. Why am I bothering to say this? Given the lamentable state of charging still, it’s a tall order to find working stations every 156 miles. More likely, we stop when we know we can get a charge, rather than stressing about where to stop when turtle mode comes on. Maybe in 10 years time, when good battery range and a reliable charging infrastructure are the norm, we can all play Smoky and the Bandit again. But in the meantime, I’ll just chill in the slow lane, and not worry about getting to my destination a half hour sooner. It sure beats running out of juice!
 
#228 ·
Sanely for environmental reasons in the future nobody would own a car we would just share for the rare times we did not use public transport.

Speed limit would be 50 and this would lower the direct car deaths from crashes as well as indirect deaths from pollution.

Cars would have less range not more so they could have smaller batteries for less weight so less tire pollution and cars would max out at 100 as we don’t need more. . . My best friend growing up had the following


Pretty sure he had the 12hp model ….


That said I love my car as is and am reluctant for a sensible future.
 
#235 ·

Excerpt:

In March, Alexandre Ponsin set out on a family road trip from Colorado to California in his newly purchased Tesla, a used 2021 Model 3. He expected to get something close to the electric sport sedan’s advertised driving range: 353 miles on a fully charged battery.

He soon realized he was sometimes getting less than half that much range, particularly in cold weather – such severe underperformance that he was convinced the car had a serious defect.
“We’re looking at the range, and you literally see the number decrease in front of your eyes,” he said of his dashboard range meter.
Ponsin contacted Tesla and booked a service appointment in California. He later received two text messages, telling him that “remote diagnostics” had determined his battery was fine, and then: “We would like to cancel your visit.”

What Ponsin didn’t know was that Tesla employees had been instructed to thwart any customers complaining about poor driving range from bringing their vehicles in for service. Last summer, the company quietly created a “Diversion Team” in Las Vegas to cancel as many range-related appointments as possible.

Inside the Nevada team’s office, some employees celebrated canceling service appointments by putting their phones on mute and striking a metal xylophone, triggering applause from coworkers who sometimes stood on desks. The team often closed hundreds of cases a week and staffers were tracked on their average number of diverted appointments per day.
Managers told the employees that they were saving Tesla about $1,000 for every canceled appointment, the people said. Another goal was to ease the pressure on service centers, some of which had long waits for appointments.

In most cases, the complaining customers’ cars likely did not need repair, according to the people familiar with the matter. Rather, Tesla created the groundswell of complaints another way – by hyping the range of its futuristic electric vehicles, or EVs, raising consumer expectations beyond what the cars can deliver. Teslas often fail to achieve their advertised range estimates and the projections provided by the cars’ own equipment, according to Reuters interviews with three automotive experts who have tested or studied the company’s vehicles.

Neither Tesla nor Chief Executive Elon Musk responded to detailed questions from Reuters for this story.
 
#241 ·
This would be a deal breaker for me. Both because I don’t want to be locked into a car that requires another data plan to use built-in features that I’ve already got on my phone and because I’d rather detach as much of my info from Google as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeattleCat
#243 ·
Hard to trust anything that comes from FOX as true when it involves EV's. The other day Fox had a story about how refueling an EV is just about always more expensive than refueling a gas car, and the story didn't provide any facts, mostly ancedotes. I think they didn't even include home charging in their "facts", just compared the cost of gas to the cost of public chargers like EA, Chargepoint, etc. They also didn't discuss the EV driving experience (most EV drivers I know wouldn't go back to ICE cars regardless of the cost of refueling), or the positive long term environmental impact of moving from ICE to EV's. The report was more like "Libs are bad, Libs buy EV's, so EV's are bad", and they did it with that certain "smugness" that they had made their point.
 
#247 ·
Why buy a Ford F150 lightning anyways? 😀.

115K are you serious? Not sure what the price point is compared to a Rivian R1T? The charging infrastructure will only get better as time goes by over the next 18-24 months. The rate of expansion has been super slow and beyond frustrating at the moment. But there is huge hope next year with the Tesla superchargers and NACS momentum.
$115K CDN ~= $85K USD at current exchange. That's about right for a Lariat trim with extended battery and some options (my local Ford dealer has one for around $80K USD.)

I see they found the dumbest guy in Canada and put him on tv. Seems about par for the course for most partisan cable channels, which are all about ginning people up and not about real information.
Yes, the F150 Lightning forum pretty much trashed it in a similar fashion.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BigVikC40Dadda
#249 ·
Sounds like he has not gotten the ev charging mentality.

Especially evident when he was complaining about spending 40 mins to get 40% as the fast chargers were full. Got to learn (for now) to enjoy the journey.

Is he using the wrong verbiage? 40 in 40 though not super fast still sounds like a level 3. But he also did not mention what soc he was at.

I do hope that he understands soc and charge rate relationship.

F150/ have a 98 or 131 re


So charging 40% in 40 is 58 kW/h or 78 kW/h depending on which battery.

Or did he mean to get to 40% if so from what soc?

They also stated it could go from 15 to 80 in 36 mins.

Which would be (if consistent charge rate which we all know it would not be) would be

106 kW/h for the smaller batter and
141 kW/h for the larger batter.

Both the above numbers would be average …

Maybe the 106 as an average in ideal conditions and charge station.

Would love to know the extra details. Maybe I missed them :)
 
#251 ·
Is he using the wrong verbiage? 40 in 40 though not super fast still sounds like a level 3.
Yeah, the article and the CEO both seem confused on this point. The PlugShare entry for this location shows all 150 or 350 kW Electrify America chargers, and the article says 150 kW is the max charging rate of the Lightning, so I don't know why they're calling any of them "low-speed". Later he says it's "exciting" to plug into a 350 kW charger, but it shouldn't be any different than plugging into a (properly functioning) 150 kW. Maybe the actual issue was that the charger he used was malfunctioning?
 
Top