Originally posted by Serkevan
That's a... what, 80 kWh battery? That would translate roughly to 120 kW for a single charger, which is about as much as 30 typical apartments in Spain.
The logistics are fine while barely no one uses EVs. There's gonna be a strong need for grid improvements.
Just give me a Mirai already, Toyota

eh... overnight charging load is pretty similar to running your A/C unit for an hour or two. I'm sure we'll have apps to schedule the daily recharge for 3 AM or whatever when the load is low. A large supercharger station might need some extra juice, but most people won't be using them every day. The average person drives about 30 miles a day, so that's the typical recharge.
Fuel cells, meanwhile, have their own problems. Not the least is that the hydrogen comes from natural gas. It's far cheaper (and uses proven technology) to just use the natural gas directly. Natural gas vehicles are less polluting than gasoline or diesel, and take just a minor change from the standard ICE.
---------- Post added 06-23-22 at 09:54 PM ----------
Originally posted by wadge22
...Then there's the matter of the number and ratios of the gearing, for whichever trans type, with more gears meaning more ability to keep the engine at an efficient rpm (or at an rpm with the best torque, if that's what you're trying to optimize).
Comparisons like the EPA fuel mileage estimates make assumptions about how a manual trans driver will shift to come to their estimate, but a manual trans offers the driver more leeway to choose whether they want to optimize shifts for acceleration or efficiency, assuming the driver knows how to do so effectively. ...
I agree with that. I drive for fuel efficiency, and easily beat the EPA estimates. Published EPA estimates show about a 1 mpg improvement for automatic over manual for my particular car, but that's really down in the noise margin when you consider different driving patterns and different commutes.
---------- Post added 06-23-22 at 10:06 PM ----------
Originally posted by Lord Lucan
...
I'm more concerned about engine life. Car makers are hell-bent on reducing their published mpg figures (however unrealistic they may be), so auto transmissions are programmed to use lower ratios than are good for engine wear. The cost of having to replace an engine would wipe out any slight savings from forcing the engine to labour up gradients without changing down. I'm not talking about motorway cruising, but about the short sharp rises around where I live. Lady L's car is manual but recommends gear changes on the dashboard display, and its choices are astonishing. I'm an engineer and hearing the labouring makes me feel stressed, let alone the engine.
Most automatics and EVs now have several modes: economy, normal and sport is pretty common. Published MPG figures come from economy mode I'm sure, but most people won't choose that except maybe on long trips. Normal and sport modes will run higher RPMs for more torque.
My manual also recommends gear changes, but it depends on how you're driving. If I'm just tooling along casually, the shift points are pretty low, but the engine never sounds like it's lugging. If I'm pushing it harder, it won't recommend a gear change until I'm at higher RPMs.