If confusion over buying a TV resembled purchasing an electric vehicle (EV), we’d all be reading books. The amount of EV misinformation circulating rivals politics. This reader email exposes this issue:
“Seems like all the EV manufacturers are in a horsepower race. How many people really want to go 0-60 mph in under 5 seconds? Seems to me EV range could be increased simply by using smaller efficient electric motor(s) that do not draw so much current. This could reduce the battery capacity requirement and hence overall vehicle cost. I have been very satisfied with ICE cars with on the order of 200 hp. I definitely do not need a 400+ HP EV.”
Agreed that accelerating from 0-60 in under five seconds accomplishes little more than bragging rights. Then again, when merging onto the interstate in heavy traffic, shaving a few seconds comes in handy. The speed of acceleration and vehicle range do not directly correlate with horsepower. Efficiency makes a greater difference.
For example, the Lucid Air delivers anywhere from 430-850 horsepower in its standard models. Yet they also deliver the longest EPA range of any EVs on the road from about 410-516 miles. This translates to 280-400 miles in real-world range, depending on speed, wind direction and velocity, ambient temperature, tire size and design and number of passengers and/or cargo weight. The Nissan Leaf with 147 horsepower covers a mere 149 miles on a charge.
EVs and internal combustion engine (ICE) cars share factors determining efficiency, such as vehicle weight, co-efficient of drag (how smoothly the car slips through the air) and tire size and design. For example, installing “safer” tires on my Honda Accord hybrid reduced its mileage by 2 miles per gallon. Carrying a bicycle on the back, increasing drag, knocks off another 5 mpg.
I’m an environmentalist and EV proponent, yet at the same time, I wonder if EVs really are appropriate for everyone. In the long run, even considering the pollution and environmental degradation caused by lithium, nickel and cobalt mining, EVs are more environmentally benign than ICE cars. A lot depends on the source of electrical power for charging EVs. In Illinois, where most power now comes from renewables and nuclear, EVs come out ahead.
After owning an EV for over a year, I find it ideal for trips of fewer than 150 miles between charges. When every truck stop includes chargers, I’ll reconsider.
Rarely publicized is that most charging companies, such as Electrify America, require a monthly fee to receive preferential rates at chargers. If you simply pull up to a charger without a membership, you’re paying almost the equivalent of $4 per gallon. Even with a membership, the cost is over twice as much as home charging of about $1.25-$1.50 a gallon (after you amortize your charger and necessary wiring).
At this point in time, well-designed hybrids with EPA 42-57 mpg from Toyota, Hyundai/Kia and Honda offer the best compromise in protecting the environment while still offering the range, flexibility and utility of a conventional ICE car. Hybrids may not be as quiet and as much fun to drive or offer the bells and whistles of an EV, but you’ll never be marooned on the side of the road with dead batteries.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about TV antennas. Here’s useful information from a reader:
“I gave up my roof antenna when hit by hail in 2018, and Clark Roberts helped me put in an ‘Amplified Ultra-Thin HDTV Antenna’ (Insignia brand) for ballpark $50 from Best Buy. The 9”x11” thin antenna is inside my west window. I am happier with it than with my roof antenna. I get Ch. 3, 12, 15, 17, 18, 27 clearly more days than with the antenna. Heavy wind and atmospheric disturbances will interfere with both; however, moving the 9”x11” thin antenna around on those days usually gives me better — sometimes perfect — viewing depending on the channel.”
Rich Warren, who lives in the Champaign area, is a longtime reviewer of consumer electronics. Email him at hifiguy@volo.net.
