Looking to buy a new SUV - any recommendations?

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

What's going to happen to the price of ICEV when most turn to BEV for the savings, and or gov't restriction of sales ?   

 

Just the lower cost of BEV production, being passed onto the consumer, is killing the ICEV market.  You really have to think long and hard (if doing research) before buying an over priced, under performing, more expensive to operate & maintain ICEV vs BEV.

 

I'm being very kind (no name calling), as I have different adjective for those, instead of 'needing to think hard'... 

 

I would never consider another ICEV ... I've seen the light, straight from a higher power 

 

 

The initial outlay for an Electric vehicle is currently still much higher than for a petrol car, since EV's are more expensive to produce.

 

"Even if electric cars are posed as being better, it is unlikely for petrol cars to be eradicated overnight, simply because many people will not trade in their current motor. This simple detail alone means fuel cars will remain in use for at least a few more generations. With 1.2 billion cars on the planet - even if manufacturers all stopped producing fuel-using cars tomorrow, the resale market would stay alive and the demand worldwide to keep these cars going would mean fuel would still dominate as the main source of car energy!

 

Despite the hype around electric cars, they have a lot of flaws that stop them dominating the market. For example, there is still no feasible electric alternative to the good old tractor, with all proposed alternatives lacking necessary power. 

 

The electric alternative to the classic petrol fuelled car can take an average of about 8 hours to charge. 

 

https://fuelcards.co.uk/news/this-is-why-traditional-petrol-cars-do-still-have-a-future/

[motdaeng]

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You simply don't know what the science in 10 years, 20 years or 30 years will look like. 

 

but the company you love, toyota, seems to be convincing everyone that they know the future... 

 

toyota have been working on hydrogen-powered engines since 1992, and they've been very successful, as we can all see ... 

 

[vinny41]

36 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

So you do understand the difference between price reduction and depreciation.

 

If we pose the question "Do BEV's depreciate faster than ICE in Thailand?" the answer to that is a qualified NO.  I say qualified because unless the new price has been discounted subsequently, the depreciation is the same.

problem is you can count the number of ev brands that haven't reduce their prices or offered a form of discount sometimes officially through their websites more often now through their dealer network I see on the Deepal S07 facebook group B100,000 cashback is available nothing on theChangan website

according to this chart only Ora 07 and Deepal L07 are selling at original prices

BMW and Volvo are bucking the price reduction trend and have increased their prices

Price reductions on ICE as far as I knowonly  Mercedes,Suzuki  and maybe Subaru

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=485876037294148&set=a.176402778241477

[Cameroni]

32 minutes ago, motdaeng said:

 

but the company you love, toyota, seems to be convincing everyone that they know the future... 

 

toyota have been working on hydrogen-powered engines since 1992, and they've been very successful, as we can all see ... 

 

 

Indeed Toyota have been extremely successful. The latest Toyota-Yamaha hydrogen V8 engine has received unanimous praise in the vehicle industry.

 

Toyota don't just think about the future, they in fact contribute substantially to shaping it.

[JBChiangRai]

45 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, you are guessing. About the future. There is a well known book published in 1910, where they lament how harnessing solar energy is sadly economically unviable. Today whole governments bet on solar energy.

 

You simply don't know what the science in 10 years, 20 years or 30 years will look like. 

 

Unless the laws of the universe change, in 10, 20 or 30 years, it will still take the same amount of energy to break the bond in H₂O to Produce Hydrogen & Oxygen.

 

Some things never change.

 

39 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The initial outlay for an Electric vehicle is currently still much higher than for a petrol car, since EV's are more expensive to produce.

 

 

Despite the hype around electric cars, they have a lot of flaws that stop them dominating the market. 

 

The electric alternative to the classic petrol fuelled car can take an average of about 8 hours to charge. 

 

https://fuelcards.co.uk/news/this-is-why-traditional-petrol-cars-do-still-have-a-future/

 

I have left the parts of you post I want to address and deleted the stuff about tractors et al.

 

In Thailand the initial outlay for an EV is no different to the initial outlay for a Japanese ICE, some Chinese EV's are cheaper, they are all superior IMHO.

 

EV owners would probably disagree with you about the flaws stopping them from dominating the market.  The market share of EV's amongst new car sales has increased every month for the last 6 months and the ICE share has decreased correspondingly.

 

The time taken to charge an EV at home is typically overnight whilst the owner is sleeping.  Out on the road it can be between 10 & 40 minutes.

 

You posted a link from a fuel card company? They might have a horse in this race!

[JBChiangRai]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Indeed Toyota have been extremely successful. The latest Toyota-Yamaha hydrogen V8 engine has received unanimous praise in the vehicle industry.

 

Toyota don't just think about the future, they in fact contribute substantially to shaping it.

 

Total BS on both points.  Provide a link saying that engine has received unanimous praise in the auto industry, most people laughed at the absurdity.

 

An ICE engine burning Hydrogen? Forget my quote of it costing 4 times more per kilometer to fuel and double it.  ICE engines are only 25% efficient.

[Cameroni]

14 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Total BS on both points.  Provide a link saying that engine has received unanimous praise in the auto industry, most people laughed at the absurdity.

 

An ICE engine burning Hydrogen? Forget my quote of it costing 4 times more per kilometer to fuel and double it.  ICE engines are only 25% efficient.

 

I've not seen a single serious review of the engine "laughing" and calling it an "absurdity", outside of Youtube crackpots. Looks like your'e talking total BS, JBChiangRai.

 

Quite the contrary, the engine was received with awe, wonder and positive applause.:

 

"Yamaha has once again raised the bar for internal combustion. Yes, their focus is on musical instruments, but they have also built amazing engines along the way. Their latest creation was captured by LOVECARS!TV, and you do not need subtitles to see how much potential it has.

 

Dyno readings show a flat torque plateau made possible by the slow burning fuel. Properly tuned, you will have 500 Nm (368 lb-ft) at almost any rpm with 442 peak horsepower (330 kW) made possible by H2. The simplest molecule in the universe consists of an electron orbiting a proton. Therefore, the only downside to this is explaining the trail of water coming from the exhaust.

 

Back in October, the Toyota Mirai went 845 miles on one tank of H2 while driving very slowly. The EPA rates it at 402 miles per tank, which is better than any BEV on the market."

 

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yamaha-unveils-hydrogen-powered-toyota-v8-174970.html

 

 

[Cameroni]

Toyota’s Hydrogen Combustion Engine Has The Potential To Make EVs Obsolete

 

All-electrics amount to only a fraction of the total new car market, which leaves the market open for another kind of vehicle, which is the direction Toyota has chosen. Let's take a closer look at this type of engine, the hydrogen combustion engine, and see why Toyota executives think it can potentially make EVs obsolete.

 

https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-hydrogen-combustion-engine-has-the-potential-to-make-evs-obsolete/

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

I've not seen a single serious review of the engine "laughing" and calling it an "absurdity", outside of Youtube crackpots. Looks like your'e talking total BS, JBChiangRai.

 

Quite the contrary, the engine was received with awe, wonder and positive applause.:

 

"Yamaha has once again raised the bar for internal combustion. Yes, their focus is on musical instruments, but they have also built amazing engines along the way. Their latest creation was captured by LOVECARS!TV, and you do not need subtitles to see how much potential it has.

 

Dyno readings show a flat torque plateau made possible by the slow burning fuel. Properly tuned, you will have 500 Nm (368 lb-ft) at almost any rpm with 442 peak horsepower (330 kW) made possible by H2. The simplest molecule in the universe consists of an electron orbiting a proton. Therefore, the only downside to this is explaining the trail of water coming from the exhaust.

 

Back in October, the Toyota Mirai went 845 miles on one tank of H2 while driving very slowly. The EPA rates it at 402 miles per tank, which is better than any BEV on the market."

 

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yamaha-unveils-hydrogen-powered-toyota-v8-174970.html

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Toyota’s Hydrogen Combustion Engine Has The Potential To Make EVs Obsolete

 

All-electrics amount to only a fraction of the total new car market, which leaves the market open for another kind of vehicle, which is the direction Toyota has chosen. Let's take a closer look at this type of engine, the hydrogen combustion engine, and see why Toyota executives think it can potentially make EVs obsolete.

 

https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-hydrogen-combustion-engine-has-the-potential-to-make-evs-obsolete/

 

I can tell you Toyota's V8 Hydrogen Engine was laughed at here by EV users.

 

You do know it's a modified Lexus RC engine?  it us less powerful than the gasoline equivalent?

 

Sorry but your post is nonsense, nobody will choose a car that is much more expensive to run and has 100 times more moving parts than a BEV.

 

 

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The initial outlay for an Electric vehicle is currently still much higher than for a petrol car, since EV's are more expensive to produce.

 

"Even if electric cars are posed as being better, it is unlikely for petrol cars to be eradicated overnight, simply because many people will not trade in their current motor. This simple detail alone means fuel cars will remain in use for at least a few more generations. With 1.2 billion cars on the planet - even if manufacturers all stopped producing fuel-using cars tomorrow, the resale market would stay alive and the demand worldwide to keep these cars going would mean fuel would still dominate as the main source of car energy!

 

Despite the hype around electric cars, they have a lot of flaws that stop them dominating the market. For example, there is still no feasible electric alternative to the good old tractor, with all proposed alternatives lacking necessary power. 

 

The electric alternative to the classic petrol fuelled car can take an average of about 8 hours to charge. 

 

https://fuelcards.co.uk/news/this-is-why-traditional-petrol-cars-do-still-have-a-future/

That's not entirely true,  in TH anyway, probably elsewhere, so, no need for me to read the rest.  Gov'ts make them more expensive elsewhere.  So much for providing the public for best product, at best price for best value.

 

edit:  same make & model, yes true, but, get better specs, components, and huge savings, ROI in usually a short time.

 

If picking entry level JP badged ICEV 'made in TH', then BEVs are a better spec'd and better performing, overall value, for about the same price.  IMHO

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's false,  in TH anyway, probably elsewhere, so, no need for me to read the rest.  Gov'ts make them more expensive elsewhere.  So much for providing the public for best product, at best price for best value.

No it's not. In Thailand, the ICEV version of the same EV version is cheaper. 

 

You know this. 

[KhunLA]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No it's not. In Thailand, the ICEV version of the same EV version is cheaper. 

 

You know this. 

OK, that's true, as I was thinking generalization, such as a top end Toyota Yaris vs MG4..  MG4 about same price, or cheaper, but way better specs.

 

Yea, if going MG ZS ICE vs EV, then yes, a tad more expensive, but again, better specs.  More expensive components, which should, would, will, last longer, with huge savings along the way.

 

The ZS as a comparison, the BEV is worth every 100-150k baht more in components & performance.  Loved the ICEV version, but it pales in performance & savings for the BEV version.

[Cameroni]

59 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

OK, that's true, as I was thinking generalization, such as a top end Toyota Yaris vs MG4..  MG4 about same price, or cheaper, but way better specs.

 

Yea, if going MG ZS ICE vs EV, then yes, a tad more expensive, but again, better specs.  More expensive components, which should, would, will, last longer, with huge savings along the way.

 

The ZS as a comparison, the BEV is worth every 100-150k baht more in components & performance.  Loved the ICEV version, but it pales in performance & savings for the BEV version.

 

The thing is those arguments could become secondary concerns if a hydrogen car sees production which:

 

1) Like the new Toyota Yaris GRH2 only takes a minute and a half to fill completely full of Hydrogen, is even faster to fill up than a petrol car, let alone 8 hours overnight like for a BEV.

 

2)  Is far more resiliient to hot and cold climates. Lithium batteries can withstand up to -140 degrees Fahrenheit before they start to freeze up, which can still occur occasionally. Hydrogen can withstand -435 degrees Fahrenheit, which shows it is the best choice in cold temperatures worldwide. The same holds true when comparing the hot end of the spectrum: Hydrogen has a much broader climate adaptability than the other two options currently available.

 

3) Which will not run out of material to build batteries, like BEVs soon will. Lithium batteries are not made out of materials that can easily be produced. In fact, many people, such as the CEO of Toyota (former CEO Akio Toyoda), see a shortage of lithium and battery-grade nickel, which means that there will be a lack of materials needed to produce the lithium batteries used in EVs. That could create a major setback in the move towards electric vehicles, which could be avoided by using hydrogen-powered engines if they are engineered to maximize their full potential.

 

4) Sounds like a real car, not like a dead remote.

 

5) Is not as prone to exploding as lithium battery BEVs

 

6) Is much longer lasting than lithium battery BEVs.

 

Given all the above advantages most consumers would then choose a hydrogen car rather than a BEV.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

 

I can tell you Toyota's V8 Hydrogen Engine was laughed at here by EV users.

 

You do know it's a modified Lexus RC engine?  it us less powerful than the gasoline equivalent?

 

Sorry but your post is nonsense, nobody will choose a car that is much more expensive to run and has 100 times more moving parts than a BEV.

 

 

 

You'd have to be a complete fool to laugh at that Toyota Yamaha V8 Hydrogen IC engine.

 

The fact that it's basically an ICE is of course part of the genius of this engine. It means the usual garages can repair it, unlike with a  BEV.

 

Less powerful? It has 455 BP horse power, you need more than that for your shopping in Chiang Rai? I doubt it.

 

 

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

The thing is those arguments could become secondary concerns if a hydrogen car sees production which:

 

1) Like the new Toyota Yaris GRH2 only takes a minute and a half to fill completely full of Hydrogen, is even faster to fill up than a petrol car, let alone 8 hours overnight like for a BEV.

 

2)  Is far more resiliient to hot and cold climates. Lithium batteries can withstand up to -140 degrees Fahrenheit before they start to freeze up, which can still occur occasionally. Hydrogen can withstand -435 degrees Fahrenheit, which shows it is the best choice in cold temperatures worldwide. The same holds true when comparing the hot end of the spectrum: Hydrogen has a much broader climate adaptability than the other two options currently available.

 

3) Which will not run out of material to build batteries, like BEVs soon will. Lithium batteries are not made out of materials that can easily be produced. In fact, many people, such as the CEO of Toyota (former CEO Akio Toyoda), see a shortage of lithium and battery-grade nickel, which means that there will be a lack of materials needed to produce the lithium batteries used in EVs. That could create a major setback in the move towards electric vehicles, which could be avoided by using hydrogen-powered engines if they are engineered to maximize their full potential.

 

4) Sounds like a real car, not like a dead remote.

 

5) Is not as prone to exploding as lithium battery BEVs

 

6) Is much longer lasting than lithium battery BEVs.

 

Given all the above advantages most consumers would then choose a hydrogen car rather than a BEV.

you can take any ICE, and modify the engine for LPG or CNG or hydrogen, it’s a similar process.

 

In the case of the Lexus V8, five liter engine, they just modified it to run on hydrogen, there is nothing special or new here, it’s just a bog standard engine with harden valves, and a few other modifications to make it run on hydrogen.

 

if you think this engine is something new and special, then I would like to have some of what you are smoking, the average Joe Public consumer is not so stupid as to see through what this is, it’s just a marketing exercise, to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt and prevent customers from buying BEV solutions until Toyota is ready.

 

in Thailand, it might take a minute and a half to fill up, however, even in warm countries, for example California it takes a lot longer than that, because you have to wait for the nozzle of the pump to defrost, in somewhere like Norway, customers were complaining it took upwards of 30 minutes to an hour to get the nozzle off the car because of the Frost situation.  Refueling freezes the nozzle.
 

as for Akio Toyoda he has lost what little credibility he ever had, he stated that people would never buy EV, guess what, they loved them in Thailand and Norway, he stated that they would never be more than a 30% adoption rate, it’s a 75% adoption rate in Norway already, Toyota cannot be trusted. They’ve just been investigated and apologized for faking safety tests.

 

Toyotas V-8 hydrogen engine is nothing more than a minor conversion on an existing engine, just like a CNG Toyota Altis for example.

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

You'd have to be a complete fool to laugh at that Toyota Yamaha V8 Hydrogen IC engine.

 

The fact that it's basically an ICE is of course part of the genius of this engine. It means the usual garages can repair it, unlike with a  BEV.

 

Less powerful? It has 455 BP horse power, you need more than that for your shopping in Chiang Rai? I doubt it.

 

 

I am no fool, and I can tell you that I do laugh at Toyota, taking an existing engine and making a few modifications for it to run on hydrogen, just like they made a few modifications to launch an altis on CNG, or Mitsubishi made a few modifications to launch a triton on CNG, or the modifications I paid for to Modify a few cars to run on LPG in the past 

 

The world is going BEV, it’s already too late to stop it.

 

It is possible that there could be a shortage or lithium, and that’s one of the few things that I agree with Akio Toyoda, that could lead to a two tier system of BEV and hydrogen cars being available, the consumer will always choose BEV if they can afford it because it’s gonna be so much cheaper to run, so therefore the hydrogen cars would have to be an awful lot cheaper to buy to make up for that.

 

The fact is that this converted engine is less powerful than it was in the gasoline car.

 

And as for 455 hp being enough, I’m sure it’s OK for some, I struggle with 530 hp in my EV and my previous EV was 680 hp, almost enough for Chiang Rai.

 

I love driving around in silence, with instant torque , and power available under my right foot, I do not miss the noise, vibration and harness of an ICE, and neither does everybody else I know who drives an EV.

 

Hydrogen will go the way of the dinosaur for passenger cars, nobody wants it, it’s far too expensive. It takes up far too much room in the car and an EV makes so much more sense.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

OK, that's true, as I was thinking generalization, such as a top end Toyota Yaris vs MG4..  MG4 about same price, or cheaper, but way better specs.

 

Yea, if going MG ZS ICE vs EV, then yes, a tad more expensive, but again, better specs.  More expensive components, which should, would, will, last longer, with huge savings along the way.

 

The ZS as a comparison, the BEV is worth every 100-150k baht more in components & performance.  Loved the ICEV version, but it pales in performance & savings for the BEV version.

A six year pay-back being a tad more. Using your numbers: 

 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

 

In the case of the Lexus V8, five liter engine, they just modified it to run on hydrogen, there is nothing special or new here, it’s just a bog standard engine with harden valves, and a few other modifications to make it run on hydrogen.

 

That is part of the genius. You will be able to bring your hydrogen car to any mechanic or garage and they'll be able to fix it. Unlike the BEV, which almost no mechanic will be able to fix, unless they have had extensive training in electric vehicles, because BEVs are unlike normal engines.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

if you think this engine is something new and special, then I would like to have some of what you are smoking, the average Joe Public consumer is not so stupid as to see through what this is, it’s just a marketing exercise, to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt and prevent customers from buying BEV solutions until Toyota is ready.

 

Total BS, it is a new and special engine, the entire motor industry reviews confirm this. And it will be a real engine used in real life, it's not by any stretch of the imagination a "marketing exercise". Total BS.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

in Thailand, it might take a minute and a half to fill up, however, even in warm countries, for example California it takes a lot longer than that, because you have to wait for the nozzle of the pump to defrost, in somewhere like Norway, customers were complaining it took upwards of 30 minutes to an hour to get the nozzle off the car because of the Frost situation.  Refueling freezes the nozzle.

 

Even that would be 700 to 800 per cent faster than charging a BEV.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

The fact is that this converted engine is less powerful than it was in the gasoline car.

 

By a miniscule amount, which does not matter at all. In fact if Toyota wanted to build an even more powerful hydrogen engine they could do so.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

I am no fool, and I can tell you that I do laugh at Toyota, taking an existing engine and making a few modifications for it to run on hydrogen,

Very foolish, because it is the smartest thing to do to use existing IC engines, for various reasons which you don't seem to get.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

The world is going BEV, it’s already too late to stop it.

 

And what if nickel reserves run out and there's no more batteries that can be built?

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

the consumer will always choose BEV if they can afford it because it’s gonna be so much cheaper to run, so therefore the hydrogen cars would have to be an awful lot cheaper to buy to make up for that.

 

Total nonsense, the hydrogen engine would have a massive list of advantages that would make it preferable to a BEV.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

I love driving around in silence, with instant torque , and power available under my right foot, I do not miss the noise, vibration and harness of an ICE, and neither does everybody else I know who drives an EV.

 

 

That's you, but a lot of drivers like the feel of a real engine, and especially the sound.

 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

Hydrogen will go the way of the dinosaur for passenger cars, nobody wants it, it’s far too expensive. It takes up far too much room in the car and an EV makes so much more sense.

 

The tank does take too much room at the moment, but this issue will be solved, and when it is, the many advantages the hydrogen engine will have over the BEV will most likely make the BEV the dinosaur. Actually the hydrogen car makes a lot more sense.

[JBChiangRai]

8 hours ago, Cameroni said:

That is part of the genius. You will be able to bring your hydrogen car to any mechanic or garage and they'll be able to fix it. Unlike the BEV, which almost no mechanic will be able to fix, unless they have had extensive training in electric vehicles, because BEVs are unlike normal engines.

 

 

Total BS, it is a new and special engine, the entire motor industry reviews confirm this. And it will be a real engine used in real life, it's not by any stretch of the imagination a "marketing exercise". Total BS.

 

 

Even that would be 700 to 800 per cent faster than charging a BEV.

 

 

By a miniscule amount, which does not matter at all. In fact if Toyota wanted to build an even more powerful hydrogen engine they could do so.

 

Very foolish, because it is the smartest thing to do to use existing IC engines, for various reasons which you don't seem to get.

 

 

And what if nickel reserves run out and there's no more batteries that can be built?

 

 

Total nonsense, the hydrogen engine would have a massive list of advantages that would make it preferable to a BEV.

 

 

That's you, but a lot of drivers like the feel of a real engine, and especially the sound.

 

 

The tank does take too much room at the moment, but this issue will be solved, and when it is, the many advantages the hydrogen engine will have over the BEV will most likely make the BEV the dinosaur. Actually the hydrogen car makes a lot more sense.

 

What you are talking about is a retrograde step, ask any BEV driver here if they want an ICE running on Hydrogen and you will get the same answer. Moving back to 2,000 moving parts and all that complexity is nonsense.

 

No matter how you look at it, a Hydrogen ICE is going to cost at least 6 times more to run per kilometer than a BEV and that kills it stone dead.  Let's assume after you have produced the Hydrogen you can get it transported and into the car zero losses, you are still stuck with the electrolysis process 67% efficient (It's a scientific impossibility to improve on that) and the ICE efficiency of 25% (120 years of development have got us to that pinnacle).  0.67 x 0.25 = 0.165

 

People will not pay 6 times more, then there is another factor, it's easy for governments to tax it, do you think they won't?  They can't tax electricity just for cars, it would be too unpopular, you wouldn't accept your electricity being taxed whilst you run your Hydrogen car.

 

You say the Toyota V8 is a new and special engine and you all say the genius is you can convert an old engine design easily, it can't be both.  

 

Nickel?  My BEV, my daughter's BEV, most of the guys on here with BEV's don't have Nickel in their batteries.

 

The new Geely charges on the road in 10 minutes.

 

You have your view aligned with Toyota and their nefarious marketing, I have my view aligned with McKinsey & their analysis.

 

[Gweiloman]

18 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, you are guessing. About the future. There is a well known book published in 1910, where they lament how harnessing solar energy is sadly economically unviable. Today whole governments bet on solar energy.

 

You simply don't know what the science in 10 years, 20 years or 30 years will look like. 

Hydrogen cars may be the best choice in 10, 20 or 30 years time. Sadly though, I can’t wait that long so the best choice for me (and many others, but not all) at the present moment is electric. 
 

Non EV owners are concerned about the time it takes to charge the car fully, up to 8 hours as you mentioned. What you don’t realise is that EV owners almost never charge their cars from empty to full. Unlike ICEVs, EV owners just “top up” rather than fill up. This would present some difficulties for those that can’t charge at home but still very workable as evidenced by many users in countries like Singapore and China and even Malaysia (sorry, I know we are in Thailand but the same principles apply).

 

To me, the main advantage of EVs at the present time is the cost savings. Charging at TOU rates, not needing to go to a petrol station, always having a full charge every morning, practically zero maintenance costs, fantastic driving experience etc coupled with a now low entry cost makes this a no brainer for many. There are of course some scenarios where an ICEV is preferable; like wanting to drive 1,000 kms with just a 5 minute stop but these are few and far in between and not my cup of tea.

 

This topic is about SUVs. I have a PHEV SUV with an electric range of about 160-180 km which I top up as and when I need. I haven’t seen the inside of a petrol station in months.

[KhunLA]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

A six year pay-back being a tad more. Using your numbers: 

 

If new prices hold, I guess anyone budget challenged still have choices, BEV still a better choice, as would think they keep their vehicles for long time.  Others, such as myself, don't care about ROI, but realize it's there, and happy to pass the info along.

 

IF, they could find one of these, then no wait for ROI.  Though still don't know the details of this pricing.   Might ask today, as popping into the MB dealer.

 

 

Off subject ... I placed an order for the Wuling Air yesterday, 459, but cancelled this AM, as decided I have enough toys. 

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

What you are talking about is a retrograde step, ask any BEV driver here if they want an ICE running on Hydrogen and you will get the same answer. Moving back to 2,000 moving parts and all that complexity is nonsense

 

Electric cars are mechanically less complex, but electronically they are massively MORE complex, which is why you cannot bring your BEV to any normal garage or mechanic and ask them to fix it. You would be able to do so with a hydrogen car, because mechanics would be familiar with the ICE basics the hydrogen car would use.

 

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

No matter how you look at it, a Hydrogen ICE is going to cost at least 6 times more to run per kilometer than a BEV and that kills it stone dead.  Let's assume after you have produced the Hydrogen you can get it transported and into the car zero losses, you are still stuck with the electrolysis process 67% efficient (It's a scientific impossibility to improve on that) and the ICE efficiency of 25% (120 years of development have got us to that pinnacle).  0.67 x 0.25 = 0.165

 

Your "6 times more" is just nonsense, you can have no idea what a hydrogen car will cost to fuel or run once it is in mass production and universities and car developers have spent years to solve the cost issue. People said the same about electric cars btw.

 

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

People will not pay 6 times more, then there is another factor, it's easy for governments to tax it, do you think they won't?  They can't tax electricity just for cars, it would be too unpopular, you wouldn't accept your electricity being taxed whilst you run your Hydrogen car.

 

Let us say hydrogen cars would cost a premium initially, many consumers would still opt to buy them rather than an electric vehicle, if you can fuel a hydrogen car in 1 and a half minute, if you get massively greater range, if you can take it to any mechanic, if you are doing something better for the environment by not forcing Indonesian kids to mine nickel for your BEV, all these things mean that the hydrogen car is simply a much better proposition than  a BEV. So even with a greater price tag many consumers would opt for the hydrogen car. Even now some buyers buy a hydrogen car rather than a BEV.

 

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

You say the Toyota V8 is a new and special engine and you all say the genius is you can convert an old engine design easily, it can't be both. 

 

It can be both, it is a new engine, very obviously, but it also uses the ICE basics. It is not hard to understand.

 

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Nickel?  My BEV, my daughter's BEV, most of the guys on here with BEV's don't have Nickel in their batteries.

 

Most BEVs have nickel in their batteries.

 

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

The new Geely charges on the road in 10 minutes.

 

Not fully though. Geely's new short blade battery is still no match for the 1 minute fuelling time of hydrogen cars. And you'd still be charging for a far shorter range than you would get with a hydrogen car.

 

"Among the blade batteries with the same capacity, the average charging time for a long blade battery 10-80 percent is 26 minutes, and the average charging rate is 1.61 C, while the average time for the Aegis Short Blade Battery is 17 minutes and 4 seconds, and the average charging rate is 2.45 C, Geely Auto said, citing test data."

 

https://cnevpost.com/2024/06/27/geely-releases-aegis-short-blade-battery/
 

Quote

 

You have your view aligned with Toyota and their nefarious marketing, I have my view aligned with McKinsey & their analysis.

 

 

If I'd have to look at the automotive future I'd certainly know who I'd rather look at, Toyota or McKinsey, Toyota every day of the week. You seem to mistake Toyota's drive for hydrogen cars for "marketing" but that's a mistake, Toyota are investing billions in the hydrogen cars over years, together with BMW, Kawaski, Yamaha, Honda and Hyundai. It's not just Toyota. And their hydrogen production facilities are already being subsidised by the UK and other governments. So it's not "marketing". It's progress. And the Hydrogen car will come, whether BEV acolytes like it or not. And it  will be far better than any BEV.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Hydrogen cars may be the best choice in 10, 20 or 30 years time. Sadly though, I can’t wait that long so the best choice for me (and many others, but not all) at the present moment is electric. 
 

Non EV owners are concerned about the time it takes to charge the car fully, up to 8 hours as you mentioned. What you don’t realise is that EV owners almost never charge their cars from empty to full. Unlike ICEVs, EV owners just “top up” rather than fill up. This would present some difficulties for those that can’t charge at home but still very workable as evidenced by many users in countries like Singapore and China and even Malaysia (sorry, I know we are in Thailand but the same principles apply).

 

To me, the main advantage of EVs at the present time is the cost savings. Charging at TOU rates, not needing to go to a petrol station, always having a full charge every morning, practically zero maintenance costs, fantastic driving experience etc coupled with a now low entry cost makes this a no brainer for many. There are of course some scenarios where an ICEV is preferable; like wanting to drive 1,000 kms with just a 5 minute stop but these are few and far in between and not my cup of tea.

 

This topic is about SUVs. I have a PHEV SUV with an electric range of about 160-180 km which I top up as and when I need. I haven’t seen the inside of a petrol station in months.

 

That's a fair point, truly mass produced hydrogen cars are still some time off, even if great progress has been made and some hydrogen cars are in production. There are issues to be addressed, no doubt about it. I would agree that at the present the BEV is a better choice than the hydrogen car. However, this will change.

 

If the long charging time for BEVs and the shorter range don't bother you, that's great, then it works for you. But other consumers won't see it that way. And if they can get a car that fuels in 1 minute and has double the range, they will most likely opt for the hydrogen car.

 

Particularly for SUVs, where range and power can be issues, the lack of power of BEVs and their lack of range can put off many buyers.

[CHdiver]

20 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I've seen the light, straight from a higher power 

Did you got struck by lightning?

[JBChiangRai]

57 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's a fair point, truly mass produced hydrogen cars are still some time off, even if great progress has been made and some hydrogen cars are in production. There are issues to be addressed, no doubt about it. I would agree that at the present the BEV is a better choice than the hydrogen car. However, this will change.

 

If the long charging time for BEVs and the shorter range don't bother you, that's great, then it works for you. But other consumers won't see it that way. And if they can get a car that fuels in 1 minute and has double the range, they will most likely opt for the hydrogen car.

 

Particularly for SUVs, where range and power can be issues, the lack of power of BEVs and their lack of range can put off many buyers.

 

What do you mean by "lack of power of BEV's"?  I'm guessing you mean fueling them as they are already inordinately powerful?  The average BEV uses 4KwHrs of energy per day, that's not a big deal for the network to plan to absorb.

 

If you have a ToU (Time of Use) electric meter, fueling your EV will be 9 times cheaper than hydrogen in an ICE.

 

I am failing to see any (even exploratory) path in 10, 20 or 30- years, to get Hydrogen cheaper and in the scenarios I described, the producer of hydrogen was philanthropic, the reality is everyone involved in the chain will want a profit, I'm guessing that will lead to running a Hydrogen car maybe as much as 12 times more expensive than a BEV on a ToU meter.

 

This increased cost is why consumers will always choose a BEV if they can afford the outlay.  Hydrogen cars are going to have to be cheaper to buy to make them attractive.

 

If you can see a way to cheap, abundant Hydrogen, then please share it, I don't and McKinsey doesn't.  The only people who do are Japanese.

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

If you can see a way to cheap, abundant Hydrogen, then please share it, I don't and McKinsey doesn't.  The only people who do are Japanese.

 

I can not only see it, it is happening right now:

 

Green hydrogen: cheaper than fossil fuel hydrogen by 2030

 

Renewable green hydrogen is on track to be less expensive than fossil fuel generated hydrogen by 2030, according to a new Bloomberg report.

 

There are two main reasons for the falling cost of renewable green hydrogen: economies of scale and electrolyser improvements.

 

‘Economies of scale’ is the term used to describe the savings that come from producing something in large quantities, with lots of competitors in the market. That is exactly what’s happening with green hydrogen, with the global market forecast to be worth US$280 million by 2050. Current production is around 2GW, with that predicted to grow to over 100GW by 2030.

 

The second major factor helping drive down costs is electrolyser innovation, including new lower-cost Chinese electrolysers that have achieved world-beating rates of efficiency. The price of all electrolysers is falling, as capacity, competition, and efficiency increase. This will allow for larger facilities to be built, producing more green hydrogen and bringing the cost into line with fossil fuel hydrogens. Then as we keep investing in green hydrogen, it is on track to become even cheaper than the other types. At that point, other types of hydrogen are likely to be slowly phased out as we detransition away from fossil fuels altogether.

 

https://clarus.co.nz/content-hub/green-hydrogen-cheaper-than-fossil-fuel-hydrogen-by-2030

 

Looks like McKinsey didn't do their homework. This report is by Americans and New Zealanders, looks like they also see hydrogen prices falling substantially. Guess the Japanese at Toyota knew something the McKinsey guys didn't.

[Cameroni]

23 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

What do you mean by "lack of power of BEV's"? 

 

The simplified motor of electric cars also has a drawback. As most EVs operate on a single-speed gear, car producers must compromise between acceleration and top speed. You can compare this dilemma to having to choose only one gear level for your bicycle: the highest one would make it difficult to get started, the lowest one would make it inefficient to go faster. As a result, many EV models opt for a balanced approach, which often means lower top speeds compared to their multi-gear, gas-powered counterparts.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Particularly for SUVs, where range and power can be issues, the lack of power of BEVs and their lack of range can put off many buyers.

You really have no clue about BEVs.  A little research and or a test drive would change your mind.

 

Even my 2 yr old BEV has more power than I'll ever need.   Topping up takes less than 1 minute.   Pull into carport, plug in,  Unplug when done, at a fraction of the cost of petrol.

 

Fast topping up is only an issue when O&A, only when 100s of kms away from the house.   In TH, most don't do that too often.  But happy to Q up every week or so for 10 mins with their ICEV.   Oops, did you not add all the time topping up, to the equation.

 

Faster charging & range improves almost monthly as new models released.   Range is definitely not an issue any more, as 500+ kms is real now.

[KhunLA]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The simplified motor of electric cars also has a drawback. As most EVs operate on a single-speed gear, car producers must compromise between acceleration and top speed. You can compare this dilemma to having to choose only one gear level for your bicycle: the highest one would make it difficult to get started, the lowest one would make it inefficient to go faster. As a result, many EV models opt for a balanced approach, which often means lower top speeds compared to their multi-gear, gas-powered counterparts.

Now you're just getting ridiculous.  Again, our 2 yr old BEV has top speed of 170+kph, and gets there faster than most ICEVs.

 

Speed limits in TH, are 90 & 120 kph and good luck with that.

 

 

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

You really have no clue about BEVs.  A little research and or a test drive would change your mind.

 

Even my 2 yr old BEV has more power than I'll ever need.   Topping up takes less than 1 minute.   Pull into carport, plug in,  Unplug when done, at a fraction of the cost of petrol.

 

Fast topping up is only an issue when O&A, only when 100s of kms away from the house.   In TH, most don't do that too often.  But happy to Q up every week or so for 10 mins with their ICEV.   Oops, did you not add all the time topping up, to the equation.

 

Faster charging & range improves almost monthly as new models released.   Range is definitely not an issue any more, as 500+ kms is real now.

 

First of all manufacturers are lying about range in the case of BEV. Consumer organizations have shown that the actual range is often way less than the manufacturers advertise.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-vehicles-consumer-reports-driving-range-study/

 

As you say yourself, when you're away from the house in areas with no charging infrastructure you quickly get charging anxiety with an electric car.

 

The average range of an electric car this year, 2024, is 320 kilometres on a single charge. Not 500+.

 

https://www.peterhanleymotors.ie/article/electric-cars---is-range-still-an-important-issue-when-buying-a-car

 

 

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Now you're just getting ridiculous.  Again, our 2 yr old BEV has top speed of 170+kph, and gets there faster than most ICEVs.

 

Speed limits in TH, are 90 & 120 kph and good luck with that.

 

 

A top speed of 170 kph is actually quite low compared to most petrol cars.