My daughter's car - burned to a crisp

[Ronins2ndCuzzin]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

They will suggest that every single study that doesn't represent their view is not trustworthy and biased, yet don't have any study from any source they like that shows otherwise..

Why would anyone conduct a study on something nobody outside of the EV nutswinging community gives a shit about?

Furthermore, studies wouldn't be conducted if a)nobody was willing to financially back it, b) no scientist identifies a need to study such information c) that the math of the topic doesn't support such ridiculous studies.

Ask yourself how many more HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of gas/diesel cars are there in existence compared to EVs, and then ask yourself how the numbers your so called "studies" use are in any way representative of actual data...and them get back to me.

[BADRACR1]

It's still an oversized Power Wheels.

(Google "ev sale's decline 2024")

[GTOguy]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

https://www.motortrend.com/features/...bout-ev-fires/

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-...-powered-cars/

I like how the author's main point is "EV's are new and different". EV's are, in fact, as old as ICE cars. In fact, there were more of them 125 years ago on the roads than gas or steam cars. Also, as stated, there are 'more' ICE fires because there are many, many, many more ICE cars. But if you did the real math, by proportion, the story changes. I gave up reading car articles by leftists who aren't even as old as most of the shirts in my closet and were 'educated' at a university. Morons.

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by Ronins2ndCuzzin

Why would anyone conduct a study on something nobody outside of the EV nutswinging community gives a shit about?

To have a shred of credibility maybe?

Pretty much every EV thread is full of bullshit statements from EV Haters without any evidence to back them up, and when anyone asks for a citation they say lame shit like "I don't provide links" or "do your own research."

[Aerovette]

There is an aspect of this that is possibly not being considered.

How about the fact that the gasoline cars that are catching on fire are still ELECTRICAL fires?

It is being assumed that the gas itself is why the numbers are higher.

[Black94lt1]

Glad you are ok and that the grandkids weren’t in the car

[Frankie the Fink]

Originally Posted by GTOguy

I like how the author's main point is "EV's are new and different". EV's are, in fact, as old as ICE cars. In fact, there were more of them 125 years ago on the roads than gas or steam cars. Also, as stated, there are 'more' ICE fires because there are many, many, many more ICE cars. But if you did the real math, by proportion, the story changes. I gave up reading car articles by leftists who aren't even as old as most of the shirts in my closet and were 'educated' at a university. Morons.

Correct, there were a bunch of early EVs from decades past, there is a museum off Route 66 that has a buttload on display.

[Red Baron]

Originally Posted by Frankie the Fink

Correct, there were a bunch of early EVs from decades past, there is a museum off Route 66 that has a buttload on display.

Did you ever watch the TV show, Route 66?

[Bruze]

Originally Posted by Red Baron

Did you ever watch the TV show, Route 66?

I did, and they weren't re-runs.

[Red Baron]

Originally Posted by Bruze

I did, and they weren't re-runs.

Right on, Old Timer. 1960 Vettes.

[jw38]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

@jw38 most of my problems with My grand cherokee L was the telemetics module within the uconnect system. I was constantly fighting that system. My Jeep was in shop 10 timesin first 6 months. You certainly have a case against Jeep if you want to pursue. The Facebook group for Jeeps Grand cherokee Ls also provides lots of evidence for how shitty the new ones are.

Thanks! I do have a Facebook account, but I've only use it to look at Marketplace...until today. There are several Grand Cherokee L groups, so I connected with the two largest groups. Once they reply, I'll start looking!

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

You can post pics of burning Teslas all you want but it won't change the fact that a Tesla has 1/10 of the chance of catching fire than a gas car.
Yes, Teslas can burn as well but the fire risk is 90% lower.

I will continue to drive ICE as incase of a fire, WATER can be used to extinguish the flames. EV's such as the Tesla can not have the fire put out with water ( unless you use some ridiculous amount / thousands of gallons ) or a speciality blanket to smother it.

PLUS, once my ICE gets low on fuel, I can replenish the tank in mere minutes instead of hours.

Your "math" does not work for me.

[DDSLT5]

Originally Posted by GTOguy

I like how the author's main point is "EV's are new and different". EV's are, in fact, as old as ICE cars. In fact, there were more of them 125 years ago on the roads than gas or steam cars. Also, as stated, there are 'more' ICE fires because there are many, many, many more ICE cars. But if you did the real math, by proportion, the story changes. I gave up reading car articles by leftists who aren't even as old as most of the shirts in my closet and were 'educated' at a university. Morons.

As old as ICE? Nope. Quite a bit older actually. You're right about more EVs on the road than Steam, and eventually ICE. Of course ICE was way more convenient and it beat both EV and Steam to hell and back again.

Laptop EVs are a nice first attempt at a modern reinterpretation, but ultimately, real people (not religious assholes) want to fill er up in 5 minutes, not 5 hours. Thus, GM just joined Honda for their hydrogen powered EV car, the Clarity. Top Gear's hosts announced that it is the real solution about 15 years ago, and they were correct. Hybrids are the best compromise for now, while countries decide if they wish to install hydrogen filling stations like Honda has done in California. Bottom line, if we can fill er up in 5 minutes.......it'll likely gain acceptance with the masses. If not.......**** off.

[DDSLT5]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

Not at all, backed up by studies..
One study is by miles driven and the other one is by vehicles sold. In BOTH studies, EV's showed a significantly lower fire risk. Both studies were in scale using different scales (fires by vehicles sold and the other one by miles driven).

https://www.torquenews.com/14335/tes...often-gas-cars

https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto...163361677.html

https://www.drive.com.au/news/tesla-...atives-report/

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/enviro...0%2C000%20sold.

https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-...ric-car-fires/


Now please, post up any studies that show otherwise..

You've missed the point.

An ICE car fire is easily extinguished. An EV fire is NOT easily extinguished. In fact, even after it seems to be extinguished, it can relight itself again and again and again for days upon days.

And that's not the biggest issue - an ICE fire burns at around 1000F or so. HOT, right? Sure! However, that pales in comparison to the average heat of an EV fire - at 5000F is exponentially more dangerous, especially if near any structures.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - laptop battery EVs are ****ing garbage. Inside of 10 years, you won't see but a few on the roads.

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by jw38

Thanks! I do have a Facebook account, but I've only use it to look at Marketplace...until today. There are several Grand Cherokee L groups, so I connected with the two largest groups. Once they reply, I'll start looking!

Let me know your name, pm if you need to. I'm in the first group that is private with 11k members I can pull you in if need be.

Happy to help in anyway. As I went through all the customer service reps and their crap from 2021 to 2023. Took me 2 years to get out of my Jeep. And I had issues day 2 of ownership. But my dealings is a story for another day.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by Ronins2ndCuzzin

Why would anyone conduct a study on something nobody outside of the EV nutswinging community gives a shit about?

Furthermore, studies wouldn't be conducted if a)nobody was willing to financially back it, b) no scientist identifies a need to study such information c) that the math of the topic doesn't support such ridiculous studies.

Ask yourself how many more HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of gas/diesel cars are there in existence compared to EVs, and then ask yourself how the numbers your so called "studies" use are in any way representative of actual data...and them get back to me.

The fire data is readily accessable on government websites and not just data from the time Democrats were in the white house. Numbers don't lie. There is no study showing otherwise as there is no data that would show any different.
Facts are not on the side of EV bashers when it comes to fires. A gas car is many times more likely to catch fire. This is a fact. You can deny that fact just like you can deny that Jews were killed in the holocoust. That won't make it true.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by DDSLT5

You've missed the point.

An ICE car fire is easily extinguished. An EV fire is NOT easily extinguished. In fact, even after it seems to be extinguished, it can relight itself again and again and again for days upon days.

And that's not the biggest issue - an ICE fire burns at around 1000F or so. HOT, right? Sure! However, that pales in comparison to the average heat of an EV fire - at 5000F is exponentially more dangerous, especially if near any structures.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - laptop battery EVs are ****ing garbage. Inside of 10 years, you won't see but a few on the roads.

Different issue. Nobody denies that EV fires are more complex and are hard to put out.
From a fire risk perspective, the chance to die in an EV fire is significantly lower than to die in a gas car fire. In most cases, there is plenty of chance to get away from the car in case of EV fires compared to gas car fire because once fuel ignites, it's hard to get away. Could the collateral property damage be higher with an EV fire? Sure, not denying that. However, risk of losing your life in an EV fire are much lower than in a gas car fire.
There are cases where people died in their car just because they didn't read the manual on how to manually open the door. They had more than enough time to get out had they known that there is a manual door release.

[ricks327]

Originally Posted by DDSLT5

As old as ICE? Nope. Quite a bit older actually. You're right about more EVs on the road than Steam, and eventually ICE. Of course ICE was way more convenient and it beat both EV and Steam to hell and back again.

Laptop EVs are a nice first attempt at a modern reinterpretation, but ultimately, real people (not religious assholes) want to fill er up in 5 minutes, not 5 hours. Thus, GM just joined Honda for their hydrogen powered EV car, the Clarity. Top Gear's hosts announced that it is the real solution about 15 years ago, and they were correct. Hybrids are the best compromise for now, while countries decide if they wish to install hydrogen filling stations like Honda has done in California. Bottom line, if we can fill er up in 5 minutes.......it'll likely gain acceptance with the masses. If not.......**** off.

In my way of thinking this is the biggest drawback to an EV, time to refuel/recharge. Over time, this will change, but how long for general acceptance?

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by DDSLT5

As old as ICE? Nope. Quite a bit older actually. You're right about more EVs on the road than Steam, and eventually ICE. Of course ICE was way more convenient and it beat both EV and Steam to hell and back again.

Laptop EVs are a nice first attempt at a modern reinterpretation, but ultimately, real people (not religious assholes) want to fill er up in 5 minutes, not 5 hours. Thus, GM just joined Honda for their hydrogen powered EV car, the Clarity. Top Gear's hosts announced that it is the real solution about 15 years ago, and they were correct. Hybrids are the best compromise for now, while countries decide if they wish to install hydrogen filling stations like Honda has done in California. Bottom line, if we can fill er up in 5 minutes.......it'll likely gain acceptance with the masses. If not.......**** off.

I can't see hydrogen being the future. The main argument for EV over ICE is that it is 70+% more energy efficient than a gas car. The problem with Hydrogen is that it takes significant energy to make Hydrogen. It requires expensive storage tanks and a whole new infrastructure has to be created. There is no way that hydrogen will be any cheaper than gasoline. You also can't make sufficient of your own hydrogen. You would just go from one government regulated commodity to another. If you have solar, you can charge your car without using any government regulated commodity. You could have just a carport with a solar powered charger that is not tied to the grid.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by ricks327

In my way of thinking this is the biggest drawback to an EV, time to refuel/recharge. Over time, this will change, but how long for general acceptance?

Technology already exists to charge over 500 miles in 10 minutes. It just takes time to mass produce it. Storedot, a Israeli company which may be the first company with their extreme fast charging long range batteries to hit the market. Polestar has a contract with Storedot to use their batteries by I believe 2027.