$26,000 just for the battery.....plus labor and taxes

[Onyrlef]

Originally Posted by craigav

I am not arguing with anyone and certainly I can read. My question was "Does your 59-62% number include the energy losses that occur when generating and distributing electricity that the EV will use to charge its batteries? ? " and if you can't answer the question then why not just say so instead of being insulting? There is no need for you to insult me or anyone else here in the forums. Thanks ~CA

Please with the pretentious pearl clutching, which other than being funny reminds me of a barrister's saying, "if you have the law pound the law, if you have the facts pound the facts, if you've neither pound the table". Meantime, if you were paying attention instead of trying to manufacture a gotcha moment you'd notice I said "59-62% from the grid" . What I didn't however say was that the inefficiency of an internal combustion engine's transfer of energy does not include the energy required to extract, refine and deliver so now that you bring it up in an applles to apples comparison the i.c.e. fares even worse. Otherwise, as this has as usual degenerated into more of who's right than what's right, we're done. Have a great day.

[Onyrlef]

Originally Posted by Bill Johnson

I looked up the vin and it shows this car was in for service in 2019 with 96,000 miles. 29/10/19 FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM 96000,
Not sure if that recipe wasn't photoshoped

I read a statement that was allegedly from the dealer which said batteries from that generation of ev were exponentially more expensive than those being manufactured today, which is actually the case, especially if it was a new as opposed to remanufactured battery. Why someone with a vehicle that age would invest that much in a battery is confounding though.

[Midnightmoon]

Thread Closed