this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
340 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
58142 readers
3989 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m not sure whether to vehemently agree or strongly disagree - this is all over the place
But
— yes, PHEVs were a fantastic step to reduce global warming … decades ago. The biggest issue with PHEVs was they were never widely produced and sold. Now that technology has caught up with a better choice, it’s too late to turn around and say “we’ll do what we should have 15 years ago”.
— my ICE car can go 340 miles on a tank of gas, supposedly, however I typically get 280. Have I sued? No, I understand it’s affected by weather, by the impossibility of creating a perfect standard behavior, and my lead foot. The manufacturer of course wants their product to look its best, so has an incentive to stretch that as far as they legally can
Wait what? The fuel efficiency is based on the 5 cycle fuel economy test, which includes a mix of highway and city driving. IIRC the figures from EPA/CARB are less rosy than EU/WLTP.
Tesla is definitely the odd one out here. Most manufacturers you can meet or exceed if you try hard enough. When you look at legislation, they say to use good engineering practice. Tesla arguably is not in this case.
I’m not sure if the the BEV/PEV regulations were solidified when Teslas first came to market, but they sure as hell are now.
As much as I like car and driver, that article is absolute dog shit. The edmunds article is interesting though.
I bet your gripe isn't with the EPA, but with SAE. I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly SAE uses EPA tests to define J1634 and allows manufacturers to either run an SCT or an MCT. EPA then adopts that into legislation. I believe EU/WLTP also uses J1634 but substitutes the EPA test cycles with the appropriate WLTC cycle (usually 3b for vehicles you would find in the US).