Is an EV Gladiator Better Off-Road Than a Traditional Gas Jeep - Let's Find Out! [TFL]

[Tim. Y.]

When people have already decided their views, whether right or wrong, they stick to them. They won't change their mind, won't consider other points of view, and ridicule those who provide other views, so attempts become pointless and people quit trying.

Sometimes it's not based on right or wrong, but opinion. But the point remains the same.

Sponsored

 

[Badunit]

I don't believe in the EV hype and don't want an EV but I'd still like to hear what the other side has to say. All the name calling doesn't help bring about useful discussion.

What disappoints me is that scientists ought to be able to definitively figure out the cradle-to-grave ecological differences between EVs, gas ICE, and diesel but, if any have, I've not seen it or it has been so highly biased (either way) that it is useless. Same thing about when, how, or if our electrical grid can take it. I'm perfectly okay with assumptions, as long as they are reasonable not the pie in the sky "we assume 100% renewable energy will be used to charge all EVs". I'd like to hear more about the mining required for the batteries. How much energy does it take to make the batteries for a typical EV? How much ecological damage does it do (strip mine, water pollution, etc). I'd like to know the actual lifespan of a battery pack and the actual cost to replace it. There are so many unknowns and so much biased information that it is impossible to make any informed decision. However, it is being pushed very hard anyway and free money is being handed out by our government to convince people to go along with the plan. Given that and all the smoke and mirrors, I am 100% against EVs. Not only do I not want one I think no one should be buying them until we find out if they are better or worse. If EVs were so great, those pushing them on us would have all these answers (with reasonable or conservative assumptions) and be proud to present them.

 

[west_bymidwest]

It’s really interesting that this forum has a seemingly no politics rule, but whenever power plant discussions come up—whether it’s EVs, the new Hurricane, or diesels—those who very clearly lean to the right dogpile on everyone that doesn’t have Punisher and Molon Abe stickers on their Jeep (aka those who don’t have a problem with EVs or 4 cylinders)

As an example, I rarely see those left of center coming out of the woodwork to bash on the countless of posts showcasing all the creative ways you can store firearms in your Jeep. Often because pointing it out would just lead to insults from those who carry against those who don’t.

Blaming globalism and politics you don’t agree with isn’t conductive to a discussion between a EV Jeep vs. a gas Jeep on trails. Neither is inserting talking points taken from news outlets with very clear biases against any and all change to our current means of personal transportation.

I’m finding it much harder to find level headed conversations about the future of Jeep models—particularly the Wrangler and Gladiator—without the thread being commandeered to puppet select users worldviews and political beliefs.

Believe it, or not, a conversation about EVs doesn’t have to devolve into bragging about discouraging those with differing views from posting. Nor does it have to be a thread about complaining about the current administration or the infamous “they” (scientists, engineers, and all other experts that dedicate their life to EV research and development).

Please don’t take this, or a thread about Jeep engine options, as a personal attack. Because you are not your truck

 

[bleda2002]

I don't believe in the EV hype and don't want an EV but I'd still like to hear what the other side has to say. All the name calling doesn't help bring about useful discussion.

What disappoints me is that scientists ought to be able to definitively figure out the cradle-to-grave ecological differences between EVs, gas ICE, and diesel but, if any have, I've not seen it or it has been so highly biased (either way) that it is useless. Same thing about when, how, or if our electrical grid can take it. I'm perfectly okay with assumptions, as long as they are reasonable not the pie in the sky "we assume 100% renewable energy will be used to charge all EVs". I'd like to hear more about the mining required for the batteries. How much energy does it take to make the batteries for a typical EV? How much ecological damage does it do (strip mine, water pollution, etc). I'd like to know the actual lifespan of a battery pack and the actual cost to replace it. There are so many unknowns and so much biased information that it is impossible to make any informed decision. However, it is being pushed very hard anyway and free money is being handed out by our government to convince people to go along with the plan. Given that and all the smoke and mirrors, I am 100% against EVs. Not only do I not want one I think no one should be buying them until we find out if they are better or worse. If EVs were so great, those pushing them on us would have all these answers (with reasonable or conservative assumptions) and be proud to present them.

There are plenty of studies that have been done, the issue is because it's so multi-faceted it's easy to say this study is biased, or this pollution is more important to me now than this other type. If you want EVs to be bad, you'll find reasons to say they're bad. If you want EVs to be good, you'll find reasons for them to be good.

These threads always turn in to the same shit of the anti-ev crowd coming in, saying they're shit for whatever reason they can think of and then tell everyone else that they must be idiots (or the always popular sheep) for thinking that EVs are any good. They then spend the rest of the time with tired old arguments that they heard from somewhere else but didn't bother to research and any attempt at discussion is shut down because they don't want to hear it.

 

[Badunit]

It is difficult to discuss EVs or diesels and their emissions systems or the hoops the manufacturers go through to eke out another 1/10 of a mpg, without mentioning the outside forces that are pushing the manufacturers to do what they are doing. It isn't left vs right or liberal vs conservative or democrat vs republican, it is science and facts vs smoke and mirrors and willfully ignoring the potential problems being created. Does that make it politics?

The technical issues of EVs vs ICE are the same as always with comparisons of "MPG", torque, fill up vs charge time, range, and all the other usual stuff. EVs work for some people, not for others. We've not been able to estimate the lifetime cost of one vs the other. We've yet to answer whether the grid can handle it or what it might do to electricity rates (and, thus, the true cost of EVs). And we don't know which is actually better for the environment. Those are open questions that may have to wait a few years until real world experience answers them.

 

[Mr._Bill]

It is difficult to discuss EVs or diesels and their emissions systems or the hoops the manufacturers go through to eke out another 1/10 of a mpg, without mentioning the outside forces that are pushing the manufacturers to do what they are doing. It isn't left vs right or liberal vs conservative or democrat vs republican, it is science and facts vs smoke and mirrors and willfully ignoring the potential problems being created. Does that make it politics?

A big problem is emissions are controlled by the EPA. The direction the EPA leans is strongly affected by the current administration, whoever they are, and not necessarily by science and facts. A lot of what the EPA is trying to accomplish is based on old information from the past and lofty ideals and dreams for the future, creating a lot of conflicts and illogical behavior.

 

[Mister Lamb]

When people have already decided their views, whether right or wrong, they stick to them. They won't change their mind, won't consider other points of view, and ridicule those who provide other views, so attempts become pointless and people quit trying.

Reminds me of this:

 

[bleda2002]

It is difficult to discuss EVs or diesels and their emissions systems or the hoops the manufacturers go through to eke out another 1/10 of a mpg, without mentioning the outside forces that are pushing the manufacturers to do what they are doing. It isn't left vs right or liberal vs conservative or democrat vs republican, it is science and facts vs smoke and mirrors and willfully ignoring the potential problems being created. Does that make it politics?

The technical issues of EVs vs ICE are the same as always with comparisons of "MPG", torque, fill up vs charge time, range, and all the other usual stuff. EVs work for some people, not for others. We've not been able to estimate the lifetime cost of one vs the other. We've yet to answer whether the grid can handle it or what it might do to electricity rates (and, thus, the true cost of EVs). And we don't know which is actually better for the environment. Those are open questions that may have to wait a few years until real world experience answers them.

All that information is out there, you just have to dig and decide for yourself. Can the grid handle it? Sure it can, because it will probably be 2+ decades before we are even majority EV on the road much less all EV. The transition isn't over night so the idea the grid is going to crash is preposterous because the demand isn't a sudden spike.

Lifetime cost is the easiest one out there. It's a question you have to answer personally because it's based on your definition of lifetime, the driving you plan to do, the cost of electricity in your area, the cost of gas in your area, and what 2 vehicles you are comparing. The wife's 4xe for example in 5 years will have saved us 9k dollars compared to a 2.0 wrangler. By the time we need a new battery (most likely 15 years and well beyond any chance we still have it) we will be in the 12-15k dollar range of savings so even if I drop 8k for a battery (unlikely to be that high) it will still be cheaper to own.

 

[Dickster]

It’s really interesting that this forum has a seemingly no politics rule, but whenever power plant discussions come up—whether it’s EVs, the new Hurricane, or diesels—those who very clearly lean to the right dogpile on everyone that doesn’t have Punisher and Molon Abe stickers on their Jeep (aka those who don’t have a problem with EVs or 4 cylinders)

As an example, I rarely see those left of center coming out of the woodwork to bash on the countless of posts showcasing all the creative ways you can store firearms in your Jeep. Often because pointing it out would just lead to insults from those who carry against those who don’t.

Blaming globalism and politics you don’t agree with isn’t conductive to a discussion between a EV Jeep vs. a gas Jeep on trails. Neither is inserting talking points taken from news outlets with very clear biases against any and all change to our current means of personal transportation.

I’m finding it much harder to find level headed conversations about the future of Jeep models—particularly the Wrangler and Gladiator—without the thread being commandeered to puppet select users worldviews and political beliefs.

Believe it, or not, a conversation about EVs doesn’t have to devolve into bragging about discouraging those with differing views from posting. Nor does it have to be a thread about complaining about the current administration or the infamous “they” (scientists, engineers, and all other experts that dedicate their life to EV research and development).

Please don’t take this, or a thread about Jeep engine options, as a personal attack. Because you are not your truck

Did you read the first part of the thread? The EV crowd tried to roast me.... so yeah idk what your talking about lol.

 

[Badunit]

Will you please show how the $9K savings in 5 years was calculated. Here is my calculation. Please correct me where I am wrong.

• 49 MPGe (68kwh/100mi) for 4xe vs 21 MPG for 3.6l as per the stickers
• 4xe gets 20 mpg on gas only but let's say you never use any gas, it is all electric
• $4/gal for gas
• $0.12 per kWh
• Wife's car so you have multiple vehicles therefore less miles/year than a single vehicle family.
• Assuming all short trips so it is all electric (no gas).
• EV-only range is 22 miles as per the sticker. Actually, it says "EV+Gas" but I will interpret it to be all EV, no gas.
• Assume 10K miles/year. That is about 476 trips of 21 miles each within the year with a full charge between every trip. I realize that is more than a trip a day but I'm trying to sway it your way with short trips trying to keep it all electric.
• 10K miles/yr = 50K miles/5 yrs
• If you go over 22 miles/trip, the two vehicles have similar gas-only MPG so that part will be a wash and the saving will go down.

3.6L
50,000 miles/21 mpg = 2,381 gallons
2,381 @ $4/gal = $9,523

4xe on electric only
(68 kwh/100mi) * 50,000 mi = 34,000 kwh
34,000 * $0.12 = $4,080

Difference = $5,443 over 5 years if the 4xe never runs its gas engine. That does not sound like a valid assumption so the savings will be less than this. It will be considerably less on long trips where 348 of each 370 miles is (according to the sticker) gas-only operation.

None of this takes into account any price differences in the two vehicles. For that, the only fair comparison is if subsidies/credits are not included. While that money does not come from the buyer's pocket, it is coming from everyone else's.

 

[bleda2002]

Will you please show how the $9K savings in 5 years was calculated. Here is my calculation. Please correct me where I am wrong.

• 49 MPGe (68kwh/100mi) for 4xe vs 21 MPG for 3.6l as per the stickers
• 4xe gets 20 mpg on gas only but let's say you never use any gas, it is all electric
• $4/gal for gas
• $0.12 per kWh
• Wife's car so you have multiple vehicles therefore less miles/year than a single vehicle family.
• Assuming all short trips so it is all electric (no gas).
• EV-only range is 22 miles as per the sticker. Actually, it says "EV+Gas" but I will interpret it to be all EV, no gas.
• Assume 10K miles/year. That is about 476 trips of 21 miles each within the year with a full charge between every trip. I realize that is more than a trip a day but I'm trying to sway it your way trying to keep it all electric.
• 10K miles/yr = 50K miles/5 yrs
• If you go over 22 miles/trip, the two vehicles have similar gas-only MPG so that part will be a wash and the saving will go down.

3.6L
50,000 miles/21 mpg = 2,381 gallons
2,381 @ $4/gal = $9,523

4xe on electric only
(68 kwh/100mi) * 50,000 mi = 34,000 kwh
34,000 * $0.12 = $4,080

Difference = $5,443 over 5 years if the 4xe never runs its gas engine. That does not appear to be a valid assumption so the savings will be less than this. It will be considerably less on long trips where 348 of each 370 miles is (according to the sticker) gas-only operation.

None of this takes into account any price differences in the two vehicles. For that, the only fair comparison is if subsidies/credits are not included. While that money does not come from the buyer's pocket, it is coming from everyone else's.

I sure as hell will count the subsidy. I'm not naive enough to think that the trillion dollars or so petroleum is subsidized for a year world wide doesn't come from my pocket book either. On top of that, the 7500 we got was non-refundable and I pay enough taxes yearly that it's about damn time I got something for my money considering that I've paid over 1.2 million in taxes in the last 20 years.

I posted this else where but basically we get 21 miles daily for 1.40 as it's 14kw at .10 a kwh where we live on 37s. On 37s gas engine we get about 13.5 around town so it's 6 bucks give or take to drive 21 miles. Wife drives her car a ton actually and charges daily but usually 2 some times 3 times a day. Even then for simple math we use the battery fully at least once a work day so minimum daily savings is 4.60 or about 1150 (4.60 * 252) in fuel per year minimum.

The initial cost was 3.5k more than a comparable gas only wrangler so the cost was 7500 - 3500 +(1150*5) or about 9750. Actual saved is higher as this is very conservative for our use case and our situation.

These are not EPA numbers but actual numbers average the last 2 years and nearly 30k miles.

 

[SpeedNeed]

Note that we lost around $14bn in Federal money - that’s around $20bn in today’s dollars - as part of a $400bn package to bail out GM and Chrysler in 2008. (Mostly GM). Our subsidies to the auto industry come in different forms at different times.

 

[Mike-len]

Just saw this video from TFL. With almost twice the HP of our gas version and it is literally a direct drop in I think this has a lot of promise…

TrailRecon made a video of his 4xe Wrangler off road. After the battery dies in 19 miles, all you’re running on is the baby 4 cylinder engine. He didn’t have his 4xe very long before getting rid of it. No thanks. I’ll take my diesel any day.

 

[Hootbro]

Reminds me of this:

I wont change my mind, cause I do not have too, I am an American.

 

[sharpsicle]

Did you read the first part of the thread? The EV crowd tried to roast me.... so yeah idk what your talking about lol.

Well no, you were pointed out for spreading bad information and making things up to push your agenda. Even by those who are not in the "EV crowd" (like myself). It was brought up rather constructively with encouragement to learn. But you clearly wanted to turn this thread into an echo chamber for yourself and those like you, so the rest of us saw no reason to participate anymore as clearly no real conversation was going to happen. Meanwhile, the whole reason this thread was started got completely lost and overlooked, and all that was left were those who were yelling the loudest of "grr EV bad". Why would anyone want to even try to talk in that environment? It's not productive, and it's a bad look for the community.

I'm sorry if that offended you. But it's the truth. Don't worry, no need to reply to me on this one as you won't hear from me again in this thread. You can keep your echo chamber.

Sponsored