“By the time a petrol car reaches 120,000 miles, it’s 47% more likely to have failed than an EV (16% failure rate vs. 23.5% failure rate)”
“By the time a petrol car reaches 120,000 miles, it’s 47% more likely to have failed than an EV (16% failure rate vs. 23.5% failure rate)”
I’m sorry, I’m not exactly sure what your point is? Higher acceleration vehicles putting more wear on tires than the difference in weight alone would suggest isn’t a definite relation, but as a rule of thumb it’s pretty solid.
I rambled more than make a point, actually! I just wanted to point out that comparing spec sheet torque numbers is very misleading but also that torque in itself doesn’t mean directly higher wear if is electronically controlled as in EVs.
I’m not sure I get what you mean in your latest comment, but I think weight is a bigger factor than torque on component lifespan.
Oh, yeah - I totally agree about torque being a poor comparison across drive systems. That was sorta what I initially was calling out. Although that comparison was more about max absolute torque than torque available while driving. People tend to take the ridiculous torque availabe from standstill in an EV and assume that means the cars are overall superior by that metric, when any ICE torque chart will show you it’s a much more conplex comparison than “one peak larger than another”
And all I was saying there is that the tires on a sporty car tend to wear faster than the tires on a similar car but with less power, and that has an impact on component wear times that’s not insignificant. But yeah, unless you have traction control disabled and drive like a total ass, weight is for sure the largest factor there (just not the sole factor).