Full Plug-in Electric Wrangler in 2020!

TIDALWAVE

Well-Known Member
First Name
CHUCK
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
799
Reaction score
427
Location
MINNESOTA
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT Convertible, 2013 CHEVY SILVERADO, 2018 JLUR
The MN DOT has purchased quite a few electric vehicles in the last couple of years. They found that the average lithium-powered car had a 41% drop in range during the winter.
Advertisement

 

xjgary

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
75
Reaction score
70
Location
Carpinteria, Ca. USA
Vehicle(s)
1993 Cherokee XJ
FCA just had to pay a big fine to the US for not meeting their MPG goals. I believe it was about $77 million. And that is on top of what they pay to Tesla for credits. Those goals get tougher each year, so they either have to play or pay. But the real driver is China, a huge market where FCA wants to be a big player. They need a 33 mile (50 kilometers) plug-in hybrid range to get the two alternate energy credits credits needed to sell vehicles in that huge market. And gas may be cheap where you live, but not so in states like Hawaii, California and others. FCA will have to improve the MPG on their high profit vehicles is this is how they will do it. Diesel may be another if they can fix the bugs in that engine. But they can't make it much more aerodynamic and still call it Wrangler.
 

scramboleer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
63
Location
San Francisco
'82 Scrambler and '64 Willys Wagon owner here. Jeep has announced 4 BEVs and 8 PHEVs by 2022, releasing two per year. One thing is unclear about of those 12, which are destined for the US versus China (or both).

screen-shot-2018-06-01-at-11-10-37-am.jpg


https://electrek.co/2018/06/01/fca-new-all-electric-vehicles-jeep-maserati-models/

All fuel types - gas, diesel, and electricity (battery) - are impacted by cold weather. With the wave of longer range EVs hitting the market (240-250 mile range at $35k), the impact of cold weather is not as great on the EVs from 5-8 years ago with 80-100 mile range. One of the advantages of EVs is that you can use grid power to pre-heat (in the winter) or pre-cool (in the summer) the cabin and the battery. EVs were 52.5% of new car sales in Norway in January 2019; it's cold there too.
 

nerubi

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,001
Reaction score
5,277
Location
Nebraska
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLR, 2020 VW Tiguan
Occupation
Retired
Vehicle Showcase
1
Also, your second question is common, but EVs are also cleaner, even if your grid is 100% coal. There are numerous studies that look at this, done by a variety of non-profits. EVs are not zero emission,but are far better for human health (air quality) as well as the planet (greenhouse gases).
Forbes published a study a few years ago that showed only place full electric vehicles have overall payback cost/pollution was the northwest with a lot of hydropower. Coal and natural gas generation were still negatives. Additional wind power will help some. Electric power transmission is very efficient. You can't just look at the amount of electricity used at your home to recharge because it starts out at the power plant higher.
Also Carbuzz looked at most recent 5 year depreciation of vehicles across KBB, NADA, etc. Best retained value, drum roll, Wrangler. Worst (projected) Nissan Leaf. They listed people don't want to buy them used because the technology and capacity is changing quickly. Next worse plug-in electric vehicles, followed by German luxury cars.
 

scramboleer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
63
Location
San Francisco
Forbes published a study a few years ago that showed only place full electric vehicles have overall payback cost/pollution was the northwest with a lot of hydropower. Coal and natural gas generation were still negatives. Additional wind power will help some. Electric power transmission is very efficient. You can't just look at the amount of electricity used at your home to recharge because it starts out at the power plant higher.
Not quite. Here's the Forbes article. Note the title "Charging An Electric Vehicle Is Far Cleaner Than Driving On Gasoline, Everywhere In America": https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#5d42434571f8

Here's a similar article from Wired that puts it clearly: "To put everything on the same scale, the researchers turned their calculations into a familiar format: miles per gallon. An electric car driver in renewable-happy California is doing as much damage to the environment as a gas car that gets 109 miles per gallon. In Texas, that number drops to 60 mpg. In the center of the country, around Illinois and Missouri, it’s just 39 mpg."
https://www.wired.com/story/even-more-evidence-that-electric-cars-could-save-the-planet/

Pollution is actually two things: greenhouse gases that lead to climate change, and air quality (NOx, SOx, etc.) that hurts us far more quickly, especially the very old and the very young. For air quality, the impact on human health is proportional to how close you are to the exhaust pipe of the car or smokestack of the power plant.

Don't get me wrong - my '64 Willys Wagon has a carb atop its stock 230 OHC Tornado, but electric vehicles simply are cleaner than gas, now matter how one looks at it. Lastly the grid is getting cleaner every year, largely due to natural gas being so cheap and replacing coal, so an EV actually gets cleaner over time. My Willys Wagon does not.
 

nbvolks

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicle(s)
No Jeep yet
Here's a similar article from Wired that puts it clearly: "To put everything on the same scale, the researchers turned their calculations into a familiar format: miles per gallon. An electric car driver in renewable-happy California is doing as much damage to the environment as a gas car that gets 109 miles per gallon. In Texas, that number drops to 60 mpg. In the center of the country, around Illinois and Missouri, it’s just 39 mpg."
https://www.wired.com/story/even-more-evidence-that-electric-cars-could-save-the-planet/
That is probably the best way to explain it.

Another way is to think that virtually every power plant is going to be more efficient than individual power production. No one would argue that every house using their own individual gas generator is more efficient than centralized power production, yet that's effectively what everyone is doing with an IC vehicle.
 

xjgary

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
75
Reaction score
70
Location
Carpinteria, Ca. USA
Vehicle(s)
1993 Cherokee XJ
Not quite. Here's the Forbes article. Note the title "Charging An Electric Vehicle Is Far Cleaner Than Driving On Gasoline, Everywhere In America": https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#5d42434571f8

Here's a similar article from Wired that puts it clearly: "To put everything on the same scale, the researchers turned their calculations into a familiar format: miles per gallon. An electric car driver in renewable-happy California is doing as much damage to the environment as a gas car that gets 109 miles per gallon. In Texas, that number drops to 60 mpg. In the center of the country, around Illinois and Missouri, it’s just 39 mpg."
https://www.wired.com/story/even-more-evidence-that-electric-cars-could-save-the-planet/

Pollution is actually two things: greenhouse gases that lead to climate change, and air quality (NOx, SOx, etc.) that hurts us far more quickly, especially the very old and the very young. For air quality, the impact on human health is proportional to how close you are to the exhaust pipe of the car or smokestack of the power plant.

Don't get me wrong - my '64 Willys Wagon has a carb atop its stock 230 OHC Tornado, but electric vehicles simply are cleaner than gas, now matter how one looks at it. Lastly the grid is getting cleaner every year, largely due to natural gas being so cheap and replacing coal, so an EV actually gets cleaner over time. My Willys Wagon does not.
I agree with what you said. As states move further toward renewable power sorces and upgrade transmission effeciency electric cars impact will keep dropping. I had a 1957 Willys 4WD pickup with the L head 226 and 4.88 axle gears. Even with the Warn OD I got about 15 MPG, 12 without it.. The 230 was designed to be much more efficient, so I wondered what sort of MPG you get?
 

scramboleer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
63
Location
San Francisco
I agree with what you said. As states move further toward renewable power sorces and upgrade transmission effeciency electric cars impact will keep dropping. I had a 1957 Willys 4WD pickup with the L head 226 and 4.88 axle gears. Even with the Warn OD I got about 15 MPG, 12 without it.. The 230 was designed to be much more efficient, so I wondered what sort of MPG you get?
I have the Warn OD as well. Haven't put many miles on it since getting the Wagon running after buying it, but getting about 17-18 mpg... It will go 65 mph, but the engine out-performs the brakes and steering.

 

xjgary

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
75
Reaction score
70
Location
Carpinteria, Ca. USA
Vehicle(s)
1993 Cherokee XJ
I have the Warn OD as well. Haven't put many miles on it since getting the Wagon running after buying it, but getting about 17-18 mpg... It will go 65 mph, but the engine out-performs the brakes and steering.

Thanks! Mine would cruise easily at 70 with the OD, but you'd have to leave lots of room for stopping and winding roads had to be taken very slowly due to the slow sloppy steering!
 

xjgary

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
75
Reaction score
70
Location
Carpinteria, Ca. USA
Vehicle(s)
1993 Cherokee XJ
Let's think about this slowly now. Would it make any sense at all to create 2 new drivetrains like the 2.0L Turbo, and the EcoDiesel, that would only be available for 2 and 1 years respectively, before canceling them all in favour of the hybrid, which also runs on gasoline by the way, and is not "completely electric"?



Your thinking was so off the wall on the first point. Might you possibly consider that you're not seeing reality clearly on these other points?
Actually Billy he is correct. The whole world is changing. Once batteries give the same range as a tank of gasoline and the recharge time is the same, then the infrastructure will quickly grow and this is going to happen. Battery prices will come down. It is currently chaper per mile to use electricity from the grid than gasoline in most areas of the US. If you have solar panels on the roof or a wind generator it is no contest.
 

BillyHW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
1,776
Location
CAN
Vehicle(s)
-
Actually Billy he is correct. The whole world is changing. Once batteries give the same range as a tank of gasoline and the recharge time is the same, then the infrastructure will quickly grow and this is going to happen. Battery prices will come down. It is currently chaper per mile to use electricity from the grid than gasoline in most areas of the US. If you have solar panels on the roof or a wind generator it is no contest.
And nuclear fusion is only 10 years away...
 

xjgary

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
75
Reaction score
70
Location
Carpinteria, Ca. USA
Vehicle(s)
1993 Cherokee XJ
And nuclear fusion is only 10 years away...
Actually Nuclear Fusion happened alread in the 1940's, and large scale in 1951, but I get that it is not for everyone. In my small city, population 14,000, the downtown station (Union 76) charges $3.59 for regular. We have 5 others, but they are not that much cheaper. The next closest town has only one station and it costs even more (no data from Gas Buddy). Gas Buddy shows the single station in the town after that at $3.79 for Regular (Chevron). My fuel cost per mile would be far cheaper for electricity than for gasoline, and being somewhat remote, I drive a lot. But I live in a condo and each unit has a garage in central garage units that are centrally wired. I have 115V service, probably at only 15 Amps. So it would be a big deal to upgrade my indivual garage for charging on 220V service. But eventually it will happen. But when it does I am going full electric so I can charge at home except on long trips.
 

nerubi

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,001
Reaction score
5,277
Location
Nebraska
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLR, 2020 VW Tiguan
Occupation
Retired
Vehicle Showcase
1
Actually Nuclear Fusion happened alread in the 1940's, and large scale in 1951, but I get that it is not for everyone. In my small city, population 14,000, the downtown station (Union 76) charges $3.59 for regular. We have 5 others, but they are not that much cheaper. The next closest town has only one station and it costs even more (no data from Gas Buddy). Gas Buddy shows the single station in the town after that at $3.79 for Regular (Chevron). My fuel cost per mile would be far cheaper for electricity than for gasoline, and being somewhat remote, I drive a lot. But I live in a condo and each unit has a garage in central garage units that are centrally wired. I have 115V service, probably at only 15 Amps. So it would be a big deal to upgrade my indivual garage for charging on 220V service. But eventually it will happen. But when it does I am going full electric so I can charge at home except on long trips.
They just had a report on the news that if you live in a cold climate that the cold is cutting battery mileage in half including using the heater. And if you lived in a state that didn't kill you with taxes and high prices you'd be paying $2.29.
 

TexasNate

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nathan
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
115
Reaction score
258
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JL Sahara, Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk
Actually Billy he is correct. The whole world is changing. Once batteries give the same range as a tank of gasoline and the recharge time is the same, then the infrastructure will quickly grow and this is going to happen. Battery prices will come down. It is currently chaper per mile to use electricity from the grid than gasoline in most areas of the US. If you have solar panels on the roof or a wind generator it is no contest.
Your statement is only true because of the excessive taxes on fossil fuels and subsidies proping up solar and wind. It's trading on false economies.
 

homerun

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
139
Reaction score
119
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1996 XJ, 2004 Ford Ranger, 2013 Subaru Impreza, 1996 HD Springer Softtail, past jeep 1995 YJ
Your statement is only true because of the excessive taxes on fossil fuels and subsidies proping up solar and wind. It's trading on false economies.
You are correct about trading on false economies, however the amount of subsidies that fossil fuels receive dwarf the subsidies received by renewable. So while I agree that we should be concerned about subsidies you conclusion that subsidies "prop up solar and wind" could not be more incorrect.

Globally, the International Energy Agency said that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies — those directed at consumers and electricity providers to dampen prices — dropped to $260 billion in 2016. The number does not include supports for production. The IMF estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDPWorldwide subsidies for renewable energy in power generation amounted to $140 billion in 2016, the agency said.

Taking out subsidies, solar and wind power are now cheaper than electricity generated by coal, nuclear power and even natural gas over the lifetime of a power facility, according to a 2016 analysis by Lazard Ltd., a financial advisory and asset management firm. Between 2009 and 2016, Lazard said, the cost of solar power in the United States dropped 85 percent, and wind power dropped by 66 percent.
 
Advertisement

Diode Dynamics
 
Advertisement
Top